Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You are aware that had Nixon not been crippled by Watergate (and, not coincidentally, blind, stinking drunk) during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 that the C-130s filled with TOW missles and F-4 parts never would have been sent to Israel, right? And that Sadat would be remembered today as the man who defeated Israel militarily instead of as the matyred peacemaker?

Granted, Haig and Kissinger almost started WWIII as a result, but still. Nixon was more than a mere private anti-Semite.

so you think that if he wasn't getting impeached he would have done something that would have gotten him impeached? what "woulda happened" is not even on par with what did happen. What I would have done, if only I had the chance is really easy to talk about, not so easy to do sometimes.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
According to the reporter who quoted Carter as saying that during a press conference held by Tony Snow, it was "during Carter's presidency." Snow said he didn't know whether Carter still held that "old opinion" and sort of told the guy to fuck off.

Oh, that makes sense then -- even aside from the traditional buddying up to dictators all U.S. Presidents did during the Cold War -- that was an infinitely more credible view of Mugabe 30 years ago (back when he was still a "revolutionary leader" and Zimbabwe was mostly democratic and had hope) than it would be today.

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, please. Carter can be an idiot (which is why he was an awful president), but he is not the only one who has said stupid things...

Who cares if he isn't the only one who says stupid things. I call it when I see it. WTF?

I am sure that Nixon and Kissinger slobbered all over the bloody hands of Mao and Chou* during the toasts while visiting China. Ronald Reagan praised all sorts of thugs

Here we go again - why can't you just admit Carter made an idiotic comment today, just like he did in his book. So what if non-Democrats have also done stoopid stuff? That doesn't take away the assininess of Carter's statement.

And as for the Jewish problem, every new release from the tapes shows Richard Nixon wins the prize.

Jimmy Carter can't have a Jewish problem because another former President had a Jewish problem? Your reasoning is a problem. (But if you're not an anti-semite, then it's probably not a Jewish problem).

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Who cares if he isn't the only one who says stupid things. . . .

No, you don't get it. Carter may have put it too bluntly for you, but he was right. We are "punishing" the Palis for their choice of Hamas. As we should. Carter, in his dotage, can spaek the truth, which is - you choose, you lose. We do "punish" and we should. He may think it wrong, but I say call a Hamas rose the stinkbomb that it is, _and_ a populace of Hamas supporters the car bomb that they are.

That said, the fact that our politicians have glad-handed these fucks is irrelevant. We have engaged in 50 years of failed support of our authoritarians, and, as a result, lost any credibility in world opinion when we try to support or dis-support any regime.

Our actions re Fatah are more of the same. Despite 50 years of contrary experience, we thought that we could sanction or embargo the people in the Gaza to popular revolt, and it worked as well as it did in Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, South Korea, etc. - i.e we created martyrs against the might of the U.S. in favor of our opponent. In contrast, with whom (of note) have we succeeded?

(Pre-emptively, Russia and its satelites do not count because: (1) we actually supported Russia to prevent revolt; (2) the people didn't revolt (other than wanting food), powerful internal sects of the government did; (3) said internal clamor for change was not due to a lack of goods or services brought on by U.S. policy; and (4) it wasn't due to our "spy" agents. Rather, our economic system simply beat theirs down. But it was not due to any machinations dreamed up in State or the Agency- they failed for 46 years. Markets and $$ defeated the Sovs. )

In sum, we ( the U.S., the Israelis, and the world) should "punish" the Palis as we "punished" the Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, etc. because they elected these fucks. Carter may dislike it because he is anti-semitic, but (whether he is or is not), he is right that we are doing so, and we should.

The Pali problem was fomented by the Arab world, and I think the only solution for Israel is to seal its borders, and/or push all of them out of the West Bank and Gaza into Saudi Arabia and Syria. "You made them, you've inculcated them, shrug, you deal with them." I think that is the only way Israel exists in 50 years. If instead, they continue to want Palis to do their scut work, one of them will infiltrate a dirty bomb into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, and that's it -because Israel is not the U.S. in that it could survive losing ine city.

But back to you, you need to get beyond the messenger and examine the message - President Carter is the only one telling the truth - for the wrong reasons, maybe, but still ...

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you think that if he wasn't getting impeached he would have done something that would have gotten him impeached? what "woulda happened" is not even on par with what did happen. What I would have done, if only I had the chance is really easy to talk about, not so easy to do sometimes.

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that because Noxon was pre-occupied with Watergate issues, Kissinger and Haig handled the U.S. response to the attack by Egypt and Syria, and that they provided the immediate material support that Nixon was not inclined to give.

Before Watergate, Nixon wouldn't let Kissinger be involved in any significant way with Mideast issues -- one can debate why, but the fact is that it was the only area of foreign policy that he kept K out of. Instead, he worked with the Secretary of State, William Rogers. They formulated the Rogers Plan to try to end the so-called War of Attrition in 1970, and didn't object when Egypt moved SAM batteries into a demilitarized zone close to the Suez Canal. The Israelis did not consider Rogers or Nixon to be friendly.

Assuming that you are actually interested in this rather than merely trying be argumentative, take a look at Kissinger's memoirs, histories of the Nixon Administration, and of the Yom Kippur War.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Here we go again - why can't you just admit Carter made an idiotic comment today, just like he did in his book. So what if non-Democrats have also done stoopid stuff? That doesn't take away the assininess of Carter's statement.

Uh, I did. And you actually quoted me doing so. Was I not clear enough for you when I said that he can be an idiot and says stupid things?

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Jimmy Carter can't have a Jewish problem because another former President had a Jewish problem? Your reasoning is a problem. (But if you're not an anti-semite, then it's probably not a Jewish problem).

No. I never said that he can't have a Jewish problem because Nixon had a Jewish problem. My point was that Nixon was not only arguably unfriendly to Israel, he was anti-Semitic -- as revealed in the tape recordings that still continue to dribble out of the archives.

I think that you and slave are trying to score partisan points by posting Carter's idiotic (there again -- happy?) comments, and so I think that pointing out the comments that recent Republican presidents have made about dictators, thugs, and despots is appropriate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Uh, I did. And you actually quoted me doing so. Was I not clear enough for you when I said that he can be an idiot and says stupid things?



No. I never said that he can't have a Jewish problem because Nixon had a Jewish problem. My point was that Nixon was not only arguably unfriendly to Israel, he was anti-Semitic -- as revealed in the tape recordings that still continue to dribble out of the archives.

I think that you and slave are trying to score partisan points by posting Carter's idiotic (there again -- happy?) comments, and so I think that pointing out the comments that recent Republican presidents have made about dictators, thugs, and despots is appropriate.

if he was anti-semetic why would he help the Arabs?

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
I think the only solution for Israel is to seal its borders, and/or push all of them out of the West Bank and Gaza into Saudi Arabia and Syria.

.... President Carter is the only one telling the truth - for the wrong reasons, maybe, but still ...

Uh, Less, Carter might be advocating a "push", but unlike you, he's thinking westward.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if he was anti-semetic why would he help the Arabs?

Well, duh. The Egyptians aren't Arabs. That also explains why he liked the Shah.

[Gattigap]

We interrupt this argument on Carter to bring you Maxim's feature of Women of the IDF. Shalom!

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No. I never said that he can't have a Jewish problem because Nixon had a Jewish problem. My point was that Nixon was not only arguably unfriendly to Israel, he was anti-Semitic -- as revealed in the tape recordings that still continue to dribble out of the archives.

Good, so Nixon was an anti-semite. As if that helps Carter out.

I think that you and slave are trying to score partisan points by posting Carter's idiotic (there again -- happy?) comments, and that's why...

Exactly why discussions are going down hill on here. Anytime someone points out a blunder, they get jumped on if the blunderer is a dem. I have made fun of both parties here, including the link to video of W's gaffes. I voted for Gore first go round, voted for Dukakis way back, and my ticket is usually split. I am pro-choice, and basically far left on every social issue. I pretty much only post on here about national security issues and middle eastern foreign policy. So if Carter says something I think is fucked up (which he's done before, like in his book, causing the majority of his own advisory board members to resign) I'm calling a spade a spade and I don't give a flying fuck what tricky Dick said or did during Watergate. I didn't vote for him and if you say he's an anti-semite -- you aint gonna get any argument from me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Exactly why discussions are going down hill on here. Anytime someone points out a blunder, they get jumped on if the blunderer is a dem. I have made fun of both parties here, including the link to video of W's gaffes. I voted for Gore first go round, voted for Dukakis way back, and my ticket is usually split. I am pro-choice, and basically far left on every social issue. I pretty much only post on here about national security issues and middle eastern foreign policy. So if Carter says something I think is fucked up (which he's done before, like in his book, causing the majority of his own advisory board members to resign) I'm calling a spade a spade and I don't give a flying fuck what tricky Dick said or did during Watergate. I didn't vote for him and if you say he's an anti-semite -- you aint gonna get any argument from me.

Like Less, I think what Carter said wasn't a gaffe or a blunder. But I am far more interested in talking about the policy questions involved than I am in talking about whatever anti-Semitism lies in Carter's heart, let alone whether other Presidents were anti-Semitic. Which is why my response to your post about Carter was to post something from someone else referring the "punishment" of the Palestinians.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Like Less, I think what Carter said wasn't a gaffe or a blunder. But I am far more interested in talking about ........

An ex-President should generally not say our country has done something horrible to some group of people- that would be my point. since, in the entire history of this country, there is only one ex-President who would do something like this, Diane approaches is limited to this old fuckhead.

that you all want to talk about something else is understandable, but if you actually engage on what the Reps want to talk about, instead of deflecting, maybe more would come back.

I don't dodge your issues, and when other Reps used to come here they always debated your points directly and fairly+.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
An ex-President should generally not say our country has done something horrible to some group of people- that would be my point. since, in the entire history of this country, there is only one ex-President who would do something like this, Diane approaches is limited to this old fuckhead.

that you all want to talk about something else is understandable, but if you actually engage on what the Reps want to talk about, instead of deflecting, maybe more would come back.

I don't dodge your issues, and when other Reps used to come here they always debated your points directly and fairly+.

Are you saying that Carter accurately described our policy in a way that was nevertheless unhelpful, that he mischaracterized our policy, or that he accurately described our policy in a way that was not unhelpful but the nevertheless violated standards of decorum applicable to ex-Presidents?

I don't think Diane cares so much about these standards of decorum. I think she objects to what Carter said for other reasons. But she can speak for herself.

And I didn't see anyone dodging issues. Some people like to talk about anti-Semitism more than I do.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you saying that Carter accurately described our policy in a way that was nevertheless unhelpful, that he mischaracterized our policy, or that he accurately described our policy in a way that was not unhelpful but the nevertheless violated standards of decorum applicable to ex-Presidents?

well, you and your blogs and me and Di and most everyone else has voiced subjective opinions about what our policy is/was/did. It's okay when it's you or me or less, hell, even the blogs everyone but you understands are just guys talking, but an ex-President should shut the fuck up if he can't say something neutral or positive on an issue of this import.

do you know 80% of the saudi public think Bush did 9-11? now you got Carter saying then he decided to fuck the Palis? ultimately what possible good comes to our country from his crap? what possible bad?