April 18, 2008...12:00 am
Revoking Carter’s passport? What’s next?
Some people really have sad ideas. Sad, because they really seem to go against what we stand for (among those, freedom of expression).
Rep. Sue Myrick: Revoke Carter’s passport
It’s never going to happen, although I do like her line at the end about pulling federal funding from his think tank.
Michelle Malkin suggests another solution if that idea doesn’t work:
If not that, how about a one-way ticket to Syria? That would do just fine, wouldn’t it?
Hum… No! I guess Guantanamo wasn’t enough for the right. Now, we need to revoke Carter’s passport, or send him on a one way ticket to Syria.
I find it really sad that we would treat other Americans like that. Particularly an ex-president. And particularly one that on this topic, seems to be one of the few that was able to negociate a mid east peace deal that is still standing.
Really, when it comes to Obama, the right comes and tell us he has no experience. And when it comes to Carter dealing with the middle east, his achievements don’t seem to count or be mentioned. And they want to ship a fellow citizen to Syria. Terrific.
6 Comments
April 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm
And the fact that the Camp David Accords were signed had nothing to do with Isreal’s ability to whomp the armies of 5 Arab nations?
Peanut Carter is searching for relevancy, and that search has driven him, literally, into the arms of terrorists. Sad. Very sad.
April 18, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I am sure it does. But so does Carter’s contribution. I am not sure if Carter is searching for relevancy, but I am glad he really wants to find real solutions to this crisis, instead of simply paying lip service to Mideast peace.
April 18, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Carter’s problem isn’t that he wants peace. Who, besides those he’s now talking to, doesn’t?
April 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm
For one, I don’t think the Bush administration is willing to do what it can to achieve peace in the Mideast. I also think Israel is in no hurry, so is Iran, Syria, and a bunch of others.
April 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm
You think Isreal likes having rockets lobbed onto their territory? Are having their religous schools shot-up? Or their busses exploded?
That area of the world has a long history, but after Isreal was created it has, in every instance, been the attacked in its conflicts with its Arab neighbors. You think the Bush admin. is bad about creating an “other” that we have to fight, you should see some of the shamless fearmongering that goes on in Arab countries to protect the currrent regimes and direct the malice of the people towards the Jews instead of their oppressors.
I don’t really have a stake in the conflict, but I can spot an aggressor and a victim. Look back on the various failed “roadmaps to peace” in the past and you’ll find who has the real vested interest in continuing a conflict. (P.S. having the Palestinians as a whipping boy has been very advantageous to some of the most repressive and authoritarian regimes in the modern world, and no, I’m not talking about Isreal).
April 18, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I think time is on Israel’s side. The longer they wait, the more land they get, the more they are able to grow (and use ressources like water they might not have access to, etc.).
It’s a bit like us here. We did deals with the Indians, but over time, we broke those deals and got more. And eventually we got the bulk of it. And in a hundread years, no one will care how we go the land we are on. Plus, the suicide bombers they seem to have under control. The rockets typically don’t kill anyone. I don’t see many reasons to justify why time is not on the Israel’s side.
And I absolutely 100% agree the Palestinians are used by the other regimes to shift blame or anger of their own population somewhere else. It’s one of the best tools they have. It’s a terrific diversion. Don’t look here, look over there. I might even be guilty of that myself.
Leave a Reply