| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dhimmi and Rosalynn Carter with Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer in happier days
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Dhimmi Carter's atrocious Camp David Accords, which Egypt has violated once again today, and their lingering negative effects:
Many Americans and Europeans still believe what was recently articulated by a poster at this website, who wrote: "I don't fault Jimmy Carter for attempting to get Israel and Egypt to talk. At that time, it made a lot of sense to broker a peace deal, bring stability to the region and look like a good guy in the process. And for a second or two, it appeared as if he had succeeded."Jimmy Carter, the man who addressed Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith," and whose every statement since has further revealed him to be an unctuous, holier-than-thou fool and a menace to this country (and certainly the worst president in our history) did not "attempt to get Israel and Egypt to talk." Anwar Sadat decided he wanted to get Israel to give up, for the second time, the entire Sinai. And so, having first assured himself discreetly that the Israelis would indeed not only give it to him (something that was not required of them under any known theory of international law, or any of the precedents long observed, most recently after World War II), but that the entire country of Israel would give him a hero's welcome as a Prince of Peace, he initiated the process. And that hero’s welcome was exactly what those endlessly sentimental, desperate and foolish Israelis, forgetting entirely their own self-respect and their own rights, proceeded to give him.
What most analysts continue to refer to as his "brokering" of a "peace deal" was an atrocious several months of constant wearing-down of Menachem Begin. Begin, so eager to be liked ("Sadat and Carter like me, they really like me"), paid for his new friendships in the coin of Israel's rights and Israel's security. For a handful of promises about ending hostile propaganda and similar attitudinal changes from Egypt, Israel handed over tangible assets in three tranches, all within a few years. What they gave Egypt represented a gigantic buffer against possible Egyptian invasion (which today could happen at a moment's notice), together with oilfields discovered and exploited by the Israelis, three major airfields, roads, and much else.Carter showed at every opportunity that he understood nothing of Israel's plight. He was, and remains, sickeningly unsympathetic to the Jewish state. Do not forget those remarks he made to the effect that "I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust." That was his response to the admittedly not-very-photogenic, or very soothing, or very crowd-pleasing Begin (a man from a different time and space altogether). Carter pushed Israel again and again for concessions while worshipping Saint Sadat, the man who had been pro-Nazi during World War II, and had been a loyal aide to the megalomaniac Nasser and the whole Nasserite enterprise, and who launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur against Israel, and who, internally, treated the Copts terribly (leading Pope Shenouda II to go into internal exile) and who even resurrected the fortunes of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, the members of the Ikhwan were far from grateful. They later assassinated Sadat at one of those grandiose Aida-like military parades designed to celebrate the "victory" of what the Egyptians call "the October War" -- a "victory" which led to a severe Egyptian defeat, once the Israelis recovered from being initially caught by surprise, and would have led to a crushing loss for Egypt had Kissinger and Nixon not insisted on preventing Ariel Sharon from destroying Egypt's Third Army.
There is no such thing as a "successful" peace deal to be brokered between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is true whether those non-Muslims are in Israel, or India, or the southern Sudan, or anywhere else. There can be no permanent peace between Believers and Infidels. The model for all Muslim treaties is the agreement made by Muhammad with the Meccans, the so-called Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, which, as Majid Khadduri notes in "War and Peace in Islam," was broken by Muhammad just as soon as he felt his forces had become strong enough to allow him to do so. To suggest that there could ever be a permanent peace so that Infidel sovereign states could exist permanently, when it is the duty of Muslims to spread Islam until there are no barriers to its rule, its dominance, all over the globe, is simply to misunderstand Islam.
Carter knew nothing about Islam. Brzezinski knew nothing about Islam. In their cases, so hostile were they, in so many ways, to Israel and its rights that one suspects had they understood the meaninglessness of any Muslim promises under such treaties, they would not have cared.
But what is the excuse for those who, today, have still not bothered to study the Islamic jurisprudence on treaties between Believers and Infidels, when the answers may be unpleasant to realize, but are absolutely clear?
Posted by Robert at April 18, 2006 7:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Most Americans knew next to nothing about Islam is those days, a lapse that should be credited to the school systems that did not push the study of culture or history. This ideal was a left over of the belief that new Americans should leave behind cultural baggage and old memories, such as feuds and disagreements from the old country were best left forgotten: Americans were to start over in the land of opportunity, protected from the contagion of the Old World by vast oceans.
That ideal not ideal no longer serves America. Ignorance of competing ideologies puts us at a disadvantage for the camel's nose is under the tent and the wolves and the con artists are coming in through the front flap.
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 18, 2006 8:09 AM
Robert,
Excellent story. Great that you have a picture of you standing with the Carters. Thanks for the article.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 18, 2006 8:17 AM
l cringe everytime l see Carter on the news, speaking the way he does, he does a great disservice to the U.S. and rest of the Free World. l see a whole political party going down the drain with the likes of CLinton,Gore,Kennedy and Kerry. they bring down the goodness of the U.S. and try to cast doubts of the goodness of Western values such as found in the very small country of Israel. This only emboldens the virulent islamatic dangerous cult like states such as Iran. if only the AMericans would unite and sbow more leadership. We are depending too much on the US and most likely it will be Israel to take down Iran as their very survival depends on this action. Again thankyou Robert for this great website and education of so many have shown me.
Posted by: Lulu at April 18, 2006 8:24 AM
Strange indeed that Hugh would claim (and i am sure quite rightly) that Carter knew nothing of Islam, yet gere we have a picture of Robert Spencer with the Carters. A picture that looks as if it was taken in the late 70s.
Would Carter have listened to Spencer at that time? probably not as he is not even listening today .
at April 18, 2006 8:29 AM
Of course it isn't just Carter and Brzezinski who think they are under no obligation to learn about Islam -- really learn, not repeat pieties that they think simply must be true. It's that "Brave Critic of Rumsfeld," whose "realism" is of the we-must-preserve-the-stability-of-Arab-regimes-at-all-costs, General Zinni, whose policies would mean the sending of even more troops to Iraq, instead of getting us out of there so as to exploit the sectarian and ethnic fissures. It is all those Democrats, and Republicans, who have time to play golf, time to see their constituents, time to watch "American Idol" or "24" or "Desperate Housewives," time to attend embassy receptions, time to meet-and-greet constituents and ribbon-cut or be photographed smilingly handing out, or receiving, a check for something, but no time, not a day, not an hour, to start studying the guides to Islam that, for example, can be found in books by Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, and Andrew Bostom.
A colossal failure. But Carter, in his smarmy and self-satisfied way, has been the worst. On everything No one should forget his pronouncements on "democratic" elections here and there -- was it Egypt last time, or Haiti, or Iraq, or Ruritania? I forget. And don't forget Carter's Mission to North Korea. It had all the benefit of the Runciman Mission to Czechoslovakia in 1938. Come to think of it, the smiling Carter reminds one a good deal of the smiling Basil Runciman, the one who said, long before Carter started parroting the phrase, that "what we seek is a comprehensive and lasting peace." Right.
Posted by: Hugh at April 18, 2006 8:41 AM
"picture of Robert Spencer with the Carters...Would Carter have listened to Spencer at that time?
--- from a posting above
The picture taken 30 years ago shows Carter et ux. standing with Robert outside a church. Mere photo opp. The President of the United States would be unlikely to be asking advice on Islam --which back then did not, of course, exist -- from someone scarcely out of short pants.
Note Carter's eyes. He looks just as quintessentially naive, even dumb, in that holier-than-thou, silly-sinister way of his, the way that leads to those "Christian peace activists" kidnapped in Baghdad, with their dangerous sentimentality that ill-conceals a political ill-will toward the their own societies, as he does now. On the other hand, Robert looks just as mischievously intelligent, a friendly but unfoolable sort, as he does in pictures taken today. (What he looks like in real life I cannot say -- he always seems to be behind a curtain, with his voice amplified by a sound system).
In this Patriot's-Day period, one may recycle, in a slightly altered state, that celebrated line uttered by Colonel William Prescott at the Battle of Bunker Hill:
"you can always tell by the lights in their eyes."
Posted by: Hugh at April 18, 2006 9:12 AM
That I cast my first ever vote for President for Jimmy Carter in 1976 still turns my stomach to this day. Not only one of the worst if not the worst President in US history, he remains a dangerous influence in American and World politics. A fool on the loose.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at April 18, 2006 9:33 AM
Haha,
I'm sorry to say this, Mr. Spencer but you uncannily resemble the Iranian madman (Ahmedinejad) in this picture of yours.
Posted by: Tushar Saxena at April 18, 2006 9:35 AM
Mr. Fitzgerald:
Jimmy Carter's failed leadership was recognized as such. He was a one term president. The present administration not only has failed to learn the lessons that should have been learned since Carter's time, they have squandered resources fighting a Cold War scenario in Iraq. "Pride" of place, in terms of worst leadership in the US ever, goes to the present administration, in my view.
Carter's attempt to bring peace, or be seen to bring peace, to the Middle East was a natural gambit, at once aiming to cut the Soviets out of the Arab world and at the same time attempting to put the US in everyone's good graces. He failed. Neither he nor his advisors knew anything about Islam. Apparently he didn't know much about being president at all.
I am glad that you were able to put my words to good use. I would be happier still if they were used more ingenuously: I am not an admirer of either Jimmy Carter or Anwar Sadat. But nobody goes into negotiations without taking risks in order to further their agenda. Sadat's risk and his fate are known. Carter wanted to get Soviet influence out of the Middle East and keep US influence in. The risk was that the parties would not deal in good faith. He did not foresee the outcome. The "peace" is not worth the name. It is warfare in different guise. But who at that time knew or cared to know? Do you fault the world, for Begin and Israel itself, for so desperately wanting to believe that peace was possible? Sadly, we know better now, so let's act accordingly.
Finally, Carter's description of Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith" is all too similar to another president's description of Islam as a "religion of peace," but withal less damnable because Communism, not Islam, was still on the radar screen at that time as the number one threat to peace.
Your taking pot shots at the wrong lame duck.
Posted by: Chatillon at April 18, 2006 9:39 AM
Nyarrr! That should read
"You're taking pot shots at the wrong lame duck."
Posted by: Chatillon at April 18, 2006 9:44 AM
Jimmy Carter's wife looks a bit like Bree from "Desperate Housewives". Not the hair, of course.
Posted by: Interested at April 18, 2006 9:49 AM
"But what is the excuse for those who, today, have still not bothered to study the Islamic jurisprudence on treaties between Believers and Infidels, when the answers may be unpleasant to realize, but are absolutely clear?"
What is the excuse of the Israeli leaders? Why have they not led the rest of us in education about Islam? (I can't stand Carter either, but, save one paragraph, I thought you were a little light on Begin.)
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 18, 2006 10:13 AM
I'm sorry to say this, Mr. Spencer but you uncannily resemble the Iranian madman (Ahmedinejad) in this picture of yours. - Tushar Saxena
The Thug-in-Chief never had hair that hip.
But, Robert: Recalling that other moment of mistaken identity you mentioned earlier this year where the cab driver thought you were Pakistani...
... Did Carter try to negotiate anything with you? Did he offer you UNC at Chapel Hill in exchange for peace?
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 18, 2006 10:14 AM
Carter would have been good for a small congregation in an obscure town, where his fantasy of faith would have had no particular ill-effects.
Promoted beyond his pay grade, we still pay for his wishful thinking.
The invasion of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, if it had been answered with strength, might have given the enemy some sense of our resolve.
Instead, they saw that there are many useful idiots in the West. In the vein of Jimbo al-Peanut
Who can be played like kazoos.
For "peace".
The peace that allows the Islamic Imperialist army lining up against our civilization to arm. With our "aid" and "investment" money.
And our [stolen, or sold to them by traitorous money-grubbing suicidalists] technology.
Excused by our suckers.
In the name of "brotherly love".
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 18, 2006 11:19 AM
My father, eventually a commander of ships in the U.S. Navy, said Jimmy Carter had XO (Executive Officer, 2nd in command) skills. That was his highest posting in the USN. But America made him the Chief Executive for four miserable years. We're still paying Carter's foreign policy tab.
Posted by: Beagle at April 18, 2006 11:37 AM
Israel is supposed to give away everything to everybody in exchange for hearing their enemies say that 'they exist'. This insanity started with Carter and Sadat.
Its very simple now. Israel can prove it exists by killing every terrorist leader and hate filled Imam that says it doesn't.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 18, 2006 12:12 PM
Robert;
I can't fathom the thought of you being in a picture with the former "Milksop in Chief" Jimmy Carter.
Unbelievable!!!
at April 18, 2006 12:27 PM
Has Jimmy Carter ever met a dictator he did not love? Unfortunately, this darling of worldwide leftists cannot seem to disappear from the world stage. The consistent theme is his unwavering support for socialist dictators.
"Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? "No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
"The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
"By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever."
, Carter still receives a great deal of money from the Arab world for his Carter Center in Atlanta.
These days, Jimmy Carter has selective blindness toward the Middle East and Israel. He emphasizes the evils of Israel when it takes self-protective actions against Palestinians, while turning a blind eye to what the Palestinians and PLO, and Hamas are doing. Even while Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad target any and every Israeli who lives in the Middle East, Carter remains the typical one-world-fits-all leftist – in extreme denial. No one wants to admit that their good intentions and efforts created hell on earth for millions of people. No one wants to admit that the fruit of their utopian dreams for a peaceful world will NOT be accomplished through accommodations with terrorists, utopian leftists, madmen with nukes, or those who are fanatically anti-U.S.
It is not a stretch to insist that if Jimmy Carter and the policy wonks in his administration had formulated foreign policy according to American self-interest, the world would be a better place. When the ayatollahs came to power in Iran, that circumstance gave immense encouragement to the Islamist fundamentalist madmen in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and everywhere else.
These same Islamist militarists eventually murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, another Nobel Peace Prize recipient, because he signed Carter's first Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel. Carter does not have the ability to connect the dots, and that makes him a dangerous man rather than a peacemaker.
Carter's vision remains myopic, to say the least. These days he blames Israel for the failure of peace in the Middle East. He continues to refuse to take responsibility for his part in promoting the rise of militant Islam.
Carter fails to recognize that the greater evil was the Shah's replacement. For that reason, Islamist militancy received a colossal push up the geopolitical ladder. ,
Evil is evil, and George Bush was correct when he called Iran and North Korea and Iraq the "axis of evil."
Sadly, Carter promoted foreign policy with a ferocious mindlessness that seeks the praise and empty glory of the world. They excused cruelty and allowed truly murderous regimes to have a pass. The despotic and murderous rulers in Iran, as well as the rise of Islamic terrorists, are among the fruits of the good intentions of people like Jimmy Carter.
It is a safe bet that had Jimmy Carter won a second term, the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union would have been delayed by decades.
Jimmy Carter has done good things in his life. None of them, however, have to do with foreign policy. His efforts in that regard have merely led to more chaos in just about every place he has offered his help.
Carter is the quintessential kindergarten teacher who wants the kiddies to make nice. He is not a discerning realistic maker of peace, but rather a guy who wanted to be a "peacemaker" no matter how empty that peace was.
Carter never figured out that sometimes being a maker of peace means smacking the schoolyard bully till he quits beating up on everyone. He still thinks you can talk people to death with accords and compromises. For some reason he never realized that evil people exist and their hearts are far from peace. They lie, cheat, steal and murder to accomplish their ends.
I .He helped bring us Khomeini,Noreiga, Ortega,propped up Arafat,helped get Hugo Chavez and Mugabe get elected, Marxists, Mullahs, leftists and assorted dictators don't seem to concern Carter for some strange reason.
He brought us the giving away of the Panama canal,the highest interest rates ever, and the highest unemployment since the early thirties, he brought even and odd gas days even though it was a total farce.
Thank God Reagan beat him in 80'
Posted by: Mackie at April 18, 2006 12:29 PM
What is the excuse of the Israeli leaders? Why have they not led the rest of us in education about Islam?
No excuse really, except that being Israeli and Jewish who would believe them?
The world has always sought to diminish Israeli opnion.
at April 18, 2006 1:31 PM
For all his growing list of faults, thank God Bush beat carter's dhimmi successors in '00 and '04.
Posted by: Gary at April 18, 2006 1:54 PM
Since we're strolling down memory lane, may we see a 70's picture of Hugh too?
I have one of me in a floppy hat and paisley skirt in front of my old reliable, if a bit rusty, VW van. Does that count?
Posted by: Rebecca JW at April 18, 2006 2:10 PM
"For all his growing list of faults, thank God Bush beat carter's dhimmi successors in '00 and '04."
You praise him with faint damnation.
Posted by: Chatillon at April 18, 2006 3:12 PM
You praise him with faint damnation.
Posted by: Chatillon
My vote for him was more of a vote against the "other guy".
Can't say I am "thrilled" about it, but there wasn't a (C) - None of the Above
Another Jimmy Carter accomplishment: He did more to strengthen the Republican Party than Ronald Reagan. Without Carter, Watergate would have killed the GOP off completely. I guess Carter ain't all bad afterall.
at April 18, 2006 3:29 PM
"Another Jimmy Carter accomplishment: He did more to strengthen the Republican Party than Ronald Reagan"
-- from a posting above
Errata Sheet:
For "Jimmy Carter" read "George Bush"
For "Republican" read "Democratic"
For "Ronald Reagan" read "Al Gore and John Kerry put together"
at April 18, 2006 3:44 PM
Hugh,
When you're right you're right.
at April 18, 2006 3:53 PM
Robert, you were HOT then!!.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at April 18, 2006 4:08 PM
Jimmy Carter is a decent man whom anyone would love to have as a next door neighbor. Perhaps it was because of his inherent decency that he was an absolute failure as a president.
Saintly characters rarely make good leaders and Carter is the best example of this. In fact, I can think of only two completely decent human beings who also were great presidents, George Washington and Ronald Reagan, and they were the very rare exceptions.
Mother Teresa was offered the Presidency of India and rightly refused, declaring that she would be the worst choice possible. Would that all aspiring leaders had her wisdom.
Posted by: Provoslavni at April 18, 2006 5:00 PM
On the other hand, Robert looks just as mischievously intelligent, a friendly but unfoolable sort, as he does in pictures taken today. (What he looks like in real life I cannot say -- he always seems to be behind a curtain, with his voice amplified by a sound system). Posted by: Hugh
As opposed to the instantly recognizable, omnipresent Hugh ;->
Robert, I got to agree with the above posters - you look like someone straight out of the PFLP. Do you get stopped at airports?
Rebecca JW
Why 70's? - even a 00's photo of Hugh would be welcome.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 18, 2006 5:12 PM
Seymour
Coming from you, I'm not sure Robert would appreciate it.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 18, 2006 5:13 PM
Rebecca - considering how attractive you look in recent photos, madam, I am EAGER to see you in those days.
As for Hugh, I will be extremely disappointed if he does not turn out to be tall, thin, with an intellectual's quiff, glasses, tweeds, and a pipe. And a glass of something red and vintage by his elbow.
Posted by: Paolo at April 18, 2006 5:32 PM
What's an intellectual's quiff? Is it an occupational hazard, like an athlete's foot, parson's nose, curate's egg, bishop's stortford, bus man's holiday, tinker's cuss, writer's block or brewer's droop?
Posted by: Interested at April 18, 2006 5:57 PM
A quiff is a tuft of hair, a forelock, or a promiscuous woman. :)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quiff
at April 18, 2006 6:29 PM
So intellectual men get one of those on their head?
Posted by: Interested at April 18, 2006 6:42 PM
I met Begin. He was a very formal guy, always wearing a suit. In contrast to other Israelis with their lack of ties ect. He appeared very stiff when I met him in 1982(at first). He walked back into the passenger section of the El Al flight that he was on(In those days, the PM would fly on a commercial jet, since El Al was considered so safe). Anyway, he greated a group of 15 year-old teenagers from the US on the way for a Summer Trip to Israel. He was straight backed, erect, appearing to be a gentleman of old Europe--pre WWII formal Poland. At first, he appeared somewhat ill at ease, maybe he was tired. But a pretty El Al Stewardess walked by, he waited a few seconds, smiled and said, "Israel has much to offer, boys," This broke the ice.
In someways, Begin was very much like Nixon. From a personal standpoint(ie typical pol on the take), they would never take a dime for personal gain. Begin was stiff like Nixon. Nixon was probably smarter, but I don't know that for a fact. Begin's formality probably had a psychological dimension. He was looked down upon by the Israeli establishment since his Irgun roots were more hard core(realistic). His mentor Jabotinsky's slogan in pre-war Poland was "Eliminate the Diaspora, before it eliminates you." Good advice in the 1930's Poland to a Jew.
I think he wanted to be a statesman. He trusted Sadat(more than Carter from what I've read). Whether Sadat has 'a road to Damascus' is another issue. But more than that, Begin looked to historical figures such as Garibaldi for inspiration. His best personal relationship was with Reagan. Can someone actually dislike the Gipper? For Reagan was also an old-world, well-mannered, suit-and-tie guy.
The final 'downfall' of Begin was the War in Lebanon in 1982-3. He was haunted by the death of his wife and the protestors outside his home concerning war deaths. Although, unlike Nixon, Begin was not involved in a coverup. In fact, even his detractors and foes felt he was incapable of telling a lie.
Of relevance to this board, Begin probably had no real understanding of Islam. Strange, but Israeli politicians seem to lack of fundamental understanding of Islam. Here, Begin was no different than those that followed him.
Posted by: biorabbi at April 18, 2006 7:43 PM
"Jimmy Carter is a decent man whom anyone would love to have as a next door neighbor."
-- from a posting above
No he isn't and no I wouldn't.
Posted by: Hugh at April 18, 2006 8:31 PM
No, Tushar, Mr. Spencer played Mottel in _Fiddler on the Roof_. Mr. Spencer, how was it like to work with Chaim Topol?
Seriously, I'm 100% on board with the negative reactions to Dhimmi Khadr posted here. He made a career of undercutting US allies: Israel, the Shah of Iran, and Taiwan. As for liking every dictator he ever met, the exception was Chiang Ching-kuo, who, it turns out, was gingerly trying to remake the rump Republic of China on Taiwan a more democratic state (in accordance with Sun Zhong-shan's original vision, while maintaining a proper vigilence against the sort of self-dectructive leftism to which Dhimmi Khadr was overly deferential.
However, I should note that the career of the once pro-Nazi student leader Anwar al-Sadat shows that politics can and does make people change from time to time.
Posted by: Kepha at April 18, 2006 8:32 PM
Mr. Fitzgerald,
I am afraid you keep misspelling poor Dhimmi's surname-
It's spelled "Khadr".
Thank you,
A loyal reader.
Posted by: LC TripleNeckSteel at April 18, 2006 9:10 PM
Well at least dhimmi khadr is consistent. He supported militant Islam, but everyone forgets before that he supported the Khmer rouge one of histories most genocidal regimes. He supports anyone who is truly evil.
Looking at who some of the past nominees and winners of the nobel peace prize are I think the nobel committe is consistent in picking who made the world a worse place. They nominated Hitler. Gave an award to Arafat. And with dhimmi Khadr they picked the worst president in History. Or maybe second, I think Clinton might be worse.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at April 18, 2006 10:27 PM
Robert - it looks like you're superimposed next to the Carter's? And your beard was so knappy back then. No worries - you're much foxier now. Wink!
Posted by: champ at April 18, 2006 10:41 PM
What amazes me is that after ohh
25 years of warnings ...
The left and the peanut farmer still believe
Iran is a better democracy than the usa
Iran is a better supporter of inspections than the usa (and should be trusted to check up on rogue nations)...
Iraq and sadamn were better "presidents" than both bush's together.. and i use that term president loosly..
That if we would just
lay down our arms
Surrender to the islamic clerics
Allow the genocide of the jews..
then there would be peace in the earth..
Probably right as every NON muslim and Jew would be DEAD...
Posted by: jingoist at April 18, 2006 11:59 PM
Does anyone else think Robert looks like Ahmadinejad in that photo? Sorry about that chief. You're a little heavier but the beard and everything and the hair looks very similar. I thought it was him when I first glanced at the picture. Does this mean I'm banned? ,>
Posted by: foreign devil at April 19, 2006 12:02 AM
No... Clinton was not worse than Carter.
America was lucky that the Russians did not know how wimpish carter was or we all might be speaking with a Slavic Slang today.
Jimmy Carter is an intellecuatal (spelled wrong for effect)!
He was Pres when Iran took american hostages as pons and he completely mis-managed the affair.
He more than any current or past President gave in to the idea of appeasement towards the followers of the Islamic faith.
I knowing more than most on this Carter subject (very modest person i am) ...
would say that Jimbo was the worst thing that ever happened to America... The best country of the world...
Jimbo should have collected peanuts from 1975 to 1999 and that would have at least allowed him to contribute to human society in a usefull form, as an American President and now intellectual, he betrays the very fundamentals of America. though he is of immense intelligence he misses the point!!!
Readers here do not miss it Sir Jimmy... Alien thinking may be of detriment to average Joe ... and bye the way Jane...
God bless America, Canada, Britain, Austraila, New Zealand, and the rest of the (still) free west!
Do not let them change your thinking, (the Left Press) ie. every media outlet save Fox in America.
Posted by: winston at April 19, 2006 12:05 AM
We haven't stayed little, but the Carters are worn out.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at April 19, 2006 12:16 AM
"As for Hugh, I will be extremely disappointed if he does not turn out to be tall, thin, with an intellectual's quiff, glasses, tweeds, and a pipe. And a glass of something red and vintage by his elbow."
Naaah. Short, fat, bald and talks with a lisp.
(Just kidding Hugh)
Posted by: Cornelius at April 19, 2006 1:28 AM
foreign devil -
I see a resemblance to Ahmadinejad, and so does Tushar Saxena (from an above post). Sorry Robert!!
Posted by: champ at April 19, 2006 1:37 AM
Cornelius - I think you got the wrong guy. Except for the lisp, that is a description of me. As for Robert looking like Ahmedimaniac, what makes me sick is how like decent people I have known the Iranian bastard looks.
Posted by: Paolo at April 19, 2006 2:51 AM
The picture: I recognise Jimmy and Robert, but who is the guy in the middle?
The Trilateralist Carter...Has seen, and believes in, UFO's and space aliens. Someone suggested that 'Trilateral' was called that in recognition of a triangle insignia on the uniforms of space aliens. You know, the little grey guys with big black eyes. Yes they wear uniforms and sometimes capes. But I suppose the readers here know all about Carters abduction by aliens. They took him up in a craft...examined him with strange instruments, and gave him several implants. He has been controlled by aliens ever since. The only US president with more implants than Carter, is Bill Clinton. Bush only has one, but it is large. You can tell when its activated because Geo starts saying stupid things, and looks confused.
According to the experts, millions of people have been kidnapped by aliens, examined, sometimes impregnated, and returned. What I want to know is how many of those millions are muslims? Has there been even one muslim abducted?
Did he have his Quran with him? Did the Aliens read the Quran? Did they convert, or laugh? Inquiring minds want to know...Intergalactic Islamic aliens...oh no, not that! I hope they laughed...
at April 19, 2006 4:47 AM
I don't have any comment on any of this except one thing:
I am not superimposed next to the Carters. The picture is 100% authentic. It was taken in Plains, Georgia in the summer of 1984.
I would tell you the content of my brief conversation with the ex-President, but I am too embarrassed.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 19, 2006 6:55 AM
"And that hero’s welcome was exactly what those endlessly sentimental, desperate and foolish Israelis, forgetting entirely their own self-respect and their own rights, proceeded to give him" [i.e. to Anwar Sadat].
The whole Carter induced peace was a scam. And how could it be else. Sadat was merely following the standard muslim deception in offering a peace treaty, exemplified by the islamic procedure laid down for the first time by Mohammed in the treaty of Hudayba. This treaty is to be broken immediately when circumstances permit.
In order to signal to his muslim fellows that this was so, Sadat wore a tie to his trip in Jerusalem with a meander pattern. The pattern was essentially made up of Swastikas. A picture of this can be seen on the enclosed link.
http://www.norskisraelsenter.no/nor/fred/sadat.php
Sadat can be seen sporting his Nazi-swastika tie, with Moshe Dayan enthralled in a conversation, in Jerusalem. Good Soldier Dayan may be blamed for many foolish mistakes and misconceptions. I guess that is something he shares with Sharon. People in Israel used to say Dayan 'understands' the Arabs, as he liked to be photographed drinking coffee with them in Bedouin tents and just because he spoke Arabic. Dayan didn't get the essence of the problems Israel was facing, and he was certainly fooled by Sadat. Dayan had been given a lucky hand being nominated to head the Defence ministry on the eve of the six day war. As a result he enjoyed great respect as a hero, but strategically, the victory had been laid in years of work thanks to the foresight of his predecessory, people such as Eshkol who were in those times considered as wimps. The glory Dayan reaped was not helpful, because it allowed him to entrench Israel into harmful policies for years to come.
When Arafat launched into his land-for-nothing sham peace treaties a few years later, he employed similar tactic as Sadat. In a speech in Johannesberg in 1994, Arafat compared the peace process to the treaty of Hudayba with the Qureish. That treaty was later broken by Mohammed, the Qureish murdered, their women violated, and this serves for muslims as a model for all treaties. Thus Arafat said: "We chose the 'Peace of the Brave' out of faith in [the conduct of] the Prophet in the 'Hudaybiyeh Agreement. We adopted this agreement, the 'Agreement of the Brave.' Whoever thinks he can 'play' with us regarding the 'Agreement of the Brave,' should know that we are a people of giants... A people of giants." http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP1398 (out of a speech to Fatah in 1998
Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at April 19, 2006 8:12 AM
Sadly the leaders of the 'free world' have not been up to the mark when dealing with Islam
Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at April 19, 2006 9:24 AM
Tushar Saxena and Champ,
Having had the honour of meeting Robert several times, I assure you there is no resemblance between him and Ahmadinejad. Robert's hygiene is excellent and I've never seen him rant or rave.
Posted by: Provoslavni at April 19, 2006 10:14 AM
Hi Pro -
Please don't take me seriously. I'm a terrible tease with everyone I know, and I like to have a 'little fun' especially with those I respect and admire - just ask my poor husband!
Blessed day to all!
Posted by: champ at April 19, 2006 12:43 PM
champ,
I knew, I was just teasing back :)
at April 19, 2006 1:50 PM
Should one really care whom Robert has been photographed with, especially when, as here, that person turns out to be someone of no intrinsic worth?
Posted by: Hugh at April 19, 2006 2:34 PM
"bishop's stortford..."
-- from a posting above
A bishop's stortford, many will remember, was misplaced in the sitting-room, and then later turned up in the larder, right next to the curate's egg, and turns out to play an important role in finding the guilty party in the mysterious affair that takes place at the country house of Henry Chenevix-ffffrench, in "Cloud of Unknowing," the first mystery ever published, way back in 1923, by the noblewoman who wrote under the nom de plume of Aurora Lee, in order not to bring any scandal to her family (she was the sister-in-law of Anthony Ashley Cooper, which explains a good deal).
Even connoisseurs of the genre found the denouement of that book fantastical and at the same time utterly believable, with that series of one strange plot twist after another as now this, and now that, candidate for the real killer is either disqualified, or cheerfully dispatched by that same real killer who has remained on the loose, until the only suspect left is the detective himself, who just happened to be visiting the country house of Chenevix-ffffrench for that weekend of huntin' and shootin'. A real classic of its type, most famous -- and deservedly -- for its astonishing audley end.
Posted by: Hugh at April 19, 2006 2:50 PM
Here's a quote from the family matriarch, Lillian Carter, that hits the spot. And I ain't pulling anyone's leg.
"Sometimes when I look at all my children, I say to myself, 'Lillian, you should have stayed a virgin.'"
Posted by: Shy Guy at April 19, 2006 3:35 PM
"Should one really care whom Robert has been photographed with"
Hugh, we assume you put the photo up?
--------------------------------------
Robert, you shook hands with Jimmy Carter. Carter shook hands with mass-murderer John Wayne Gacy. Therefore...?
Oops, I shook hands with Robert, who shook hands with...
Aaaargh! We're all DOOMED!
Posted by: Provoslavni at April 19, 2006 5:26 PM
I didn't know Hugh had a serious side! :D
Posted by: champ at April 19, 2006 5:30 PM
I thought that was Yusuf Islam in that picture!
Anyhow, I think that's a great picture of Robert. If I were a woman or a gay man, I would be extremely attracted to him; as it is I am only slightly attracted to him.
Posted by: hasan salami at April 19, 2006 6:10 PM
I thought that was Yusuf Islam in that picture!
Anyhow, I think that's a great picture of Robert. If I were a woman or a gay man, I would be extremely attracted to him; as it is now, I am only slightly attracted to him.
Posted by: hasan salami at April 19, 2006 6:15 PM
Salami STOP - you are killing me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: champ at April 19, 2006 6:58 PM
Robert...My guess about your conversation with peanuthead was to gain access to the American and National Baseball Leagues peanut sales for a hefty 10% cut...But then again a general legume chat?
My mind will never forget the pictures of those hero Marines that perished in the desert and the decimated helicopters when Carter botched the rescue of the Iran captives. But the bright side was the second Reagan took the oath of office the hostages were in International Airspace and the American people went crazy with the announcement. The Ayatollah would have been reduced to dust if they weren't released.
Posted by: Siciliano at April 19, 2006 7:05 PM
I would also agree that Carter was the absolute worst president this country has ever seen. He was the demise of our intelligence system, economic system and military. Certainly won't be sorry when he finally kicks the farm.
Posted by: Siciliano at April 19, 2006 7:20 PM
So the bishop's stortford came to an audley end? Well stranger things have happened. Rosy fingered dawn in shepherd's bush. Allegedly.
Nymphs and shepherds, come away...
Posted by: Interested at April 19, 2006 7:31 PM
when he finally kicks the farm..."
-- from a posting above
Kicks the bucket or buys the farm or cashes in his chips -- i.e., dies.
As in:
He kicked the bucket, or cashed in his chips, or bought the farm that Jack built.
Posted by: Hugh at April 19, 2006 11:48 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)