Former President Carter reveals Israel has Nukes

[Ldlane]

It may have been one of the worst kept secrets of all time that Israel had nukes. It certainly wasn’t Carter’s job to reveal it though. And did Israel’s enemies know that they had precisely 150 of them? I don’t know. They definitely do now.

Oh and it wasn’t Israel that flew those planes into the World Trade Center. The responsibility lies 100% with the 19 hijackers, militant Islam, and the rouge governments and people that support it. To put the blame on Israel is to let the terrorists control our foreign policy. Israel is maybe the only country in the world that was doing everything that they could to eliminate the militant Islam threat long before 9/11 was even an idea in Osama bin Laden’s twisted little brain. That is but one of the many reasons why Israel deserves our support.

Or maybe GW was behind on payments to the Saudis.

 

[jthomas666]

The world has presumed that Israel had nukes, but now, thanks to a senile former president, they know.

1. EVERYONE knew that Israel had nukes. Everyone's planning was based on the assumption that Israel had nukes. Having confirmation that Israel has nukes doesn't change much.

2. What does change things--and where Carter showed a spectacular lack of judgment, IMO--is knowing how many nukes Israel has. Revealing that bit of intel was just stupid.

This just throws a wet blanket on the prospects for peace in that region.

Y'know, it's not like we were a handshake away from having a tri-faith bake sale next to the wailing wall...

 

[IH8Orange]

Jimmy Carter has the best of intentions, but the worst of results.

He is a very naive, overly-trusting person. That's the whole of his appeal: he can be used by any tin-can despot to legitimize themselves.

He's like the ugly girl that that the mean girls patronize for fun. They tell him that he's a player on the world scene because they know that they can use him however they want and he will fall for it. He's a free-roaming cancer to our country and he's too much of a simpleton to understand the damage that he leaves in the wake of all his "humanitarian" missions.

He won the Nobel prize because those that present the Nobel prize know that legitimizing him motivates him and enables him to further weaken our position with terrorist and tyrannical regimes. You will see that most of his "awards" come from left-wing organizations that are aggressively opposed to capitalism and our foreign policy.

 

[Bamaro]

He won the Nobel prize because those that present the Nobel prize know that legitimizing him motivates him and enables him to further weaken our position with terrorist and tyrannical regimes. You will see that most of his "awards" come from left-wing organizations that are aggressively opposed to capitalism and our foreign policy.

No, he won the Nobel prize for his efforts in bringing peace between Israel & Egypt.

 

[jthomas666]

He won the Nobel prize because those that present the Nobel prize know that legitimizing him motivates him and enables him to further weaken our position with terrorist and tyrannical regimes. You will see that most of his "awards" come from left-wing organizations that are aggressively opposed to capitalism and our foreign policy.

 

[dayhiker]

Y'know, it's not like we were a handshake away from having a tri-faith bake sale next to the wailing wall...

Now that's hilarious.

 

[IH8Orange]

No, he won the Nobel prize for his efforts in bringing peace between Israel & Egypt.

No. Menachim Begin and Anwar Sadat were given the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for the Camp David Accord. Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002 and nowhere in the text of the award does it mention the Camp David Accord. It is likely the main impetus for his being awarded the prize, but it isn't the reason. If it were, why would the prize commission wait 23 years after the event to award him the prize?

The fact is that, while Carter initiated the talks, Sadat began a sidebar negotiation with Menachim Begin unbeknownst to the U.S. State Department and that resulted in his visit, in November, 1977 to Israel (the first by any Arab head-of-state). Sadat felt that Carter couldn't pressure Israel to make concessions, so he bypassed him and dealt directly with Begin. The two of them made plans for the Cairo Conference in December, 1977 and Carter had nothing to do with that. The visit of Sadat to Israel and the Cairo Conference set the tone for the Camp David Accord.

Carter is given credit for holding the talks together through several virulent disagreements, but if not for the personal efforts of Sadat and Begin, the talks would never have happened. These efforts occurred in spite of Carter's perceived weaknesses.

The truth is that Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel prize in 2002 because he was an unending embarrassment to U.S. foreign policy and an unabashed critic of every move that the current administration made. From a CNN story dated October 11, 2002:

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."


The committee made reference in its citation to current world events that may see the United States take military action against Iraq.


"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development," the Nobel Committee said.

I just wonder when a Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded, posthumously, to Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War? Mikhail Gorbachev got his in 1990, but then again, he did come from a leftist regime.


The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. It's the Heisman trophy of world peace.

 

[IH8Orange]

Look above. I back up my posts with facts. Why don't you try it sometime?

 

[It's On A Slab]

Jimmy Carter has the best of intentions, but the worst of results.

He is a very naive, overly-trusting person. That's the whole of his appeal: he can be used by any tin-can despot to legitimize themselves.

He's like the ugly girl that that the mean girls patronize for fun. They tell him that he's a player on the world scene because they know that they can use him however they want and he will fall for it. He's a free-roaming cancer to our country and he's too much of a simpleton to understand the damage that he leaves in the wake of all his "humanitarian" missions.

He won the Nobel prize because those that present the Nobel prize know that legitimizing him motivates him and enables him to further weaken our position with terrorist and tyrannical regimes. You will see that most of his "awards" come from left-wing organizations that are aggressively opposed to capitalism and our foreign policy.

I always silently hoped the Nobel folks would snub Jimmy. His decades of shameless lobbying for that award. His propensity to back the wrong side of conflicts.

Remember how clueless he looked after Violeta Chamorro's party won the first free elections in Nicaragua after the Sandinista takeover? He spent the entire week before the elections predicting Daniel Ortega's folks would win handily.

I've read accounts of how he and Rosalyn treated the Reagan transition team very shabbily.

 

[It's On A Slab]

The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. It's the Heisman trophy of world peace.

I wouldn't go that far.

It's like the BCS Trophy of world peace.

Or the Rose Bowl trophy - back when only the Big 10 and Pac 10 could play in it.

 

[pcolatide]

Let's see, how would Jimmy Carter know whether or not Israel had nuclear weapons and how many? Could it be through his duties as an officer on a U.S. nuclear submarine? Or could it be through his briefings as the Commander-in-Chief? When military people and civilian employees have access to classified information and depart the service they received a debriefing regarding the disclosure of classified information. Upon doing so they sign documents acknowledging they are subject to prosecution for disclosing classified information. It does not matter that you may see the exact secret that you hold on the front page of the NY Times, you are not released from keeping your secret. That takes care of his responsibility as a naval officer. His presidency is a special case as he had power to classify or declassify information under certain conditions. However that authority ended at the end of his presidency. Consequently since he did not declassify that information while he was the President. He was morally and honor bound if not legally to keep his big mouth shut.
He knows better. It's just one of those inconvenient truths, that is getting in the way of him building a legacy as the great peace maker by applying pressure on Israel to negotiate a peace that he can claim credit for on behalf of the "Cartuh Center for Peace".

 

[IH8Orange]

I wouldn't go that far.

It's like the BCS Trophy of world peace.

Or the Rose Bowl trophy - back when only the Big 10 and Pac 10 could play in it.

The latter is pretty close. I'd liken it to the AP trophy... it's awarded according to pop-cultural appeal instead of true achievements.

 

[It's On A Slab]

The latter is pretty close. I'd liken it to the AP trophy... it's awarded according to pop-cultural appeal instead of true achievements.

I've always thought Ara Parseghian and Notre Dame deserved the Nobel.

Nothing says world peace like running the clock out to preserve a tie, and a Nobel Prize.

 

[Bamaro]

I just wonder when a Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded, posthumously, to Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War? Mikhail Gorbachev got his in 1990, but then again, he did come from a leftist regime.

Why does the right perpetuate this idea that Reagan ended the cold war. He was simply a placeholder, the president at the time. He did no more or no less than any president before him to end the cold war. He was a mediocre president just like the rest of them during my lifetime (with the exception of Bush).

 

[jthomas666]

Look above. I back up my posts with facts. Why don't you try it sometime?

I've got yer facts right here, buddy!

 

[jthomas666]

Why does the right perpetuate this idea that Reagan ended the cold war. He was simply a placeholder, the president at the time. He did no more or no less than any president before him to end the cold war. He was a mediocre president just like the rest of them during my lifetime (with the exception of Bush).

That's going a bit far. Reagan's ramped up arms race hastened the collapse of the soviet economy--though one could argue that what he really did was challenge the USSR to a game of thermonuclear chicken.

 

[gmart74]

Why does the right perpetuate this idea that Reagan ended the cold war. He was simply a placeholder, the president at the time. He did no more or no less than any president before him to end the cold war. He was a mediocre president just like the rest of them during my lifetime (with the exception of Bush).

Why does the left perpetuate the myth that Clinton was the reason for a strong economy. He was simply a placeholder while the internet created an economic powerhouse. He was a mediocre president just like the rest.

Each side always claims their president was the reason for what happened.
Repubs win wars and demos stimulate the economy. Neither are true but you can't convince the 80% of the bovine electorate any differently.

 

[92tide]

He was simply a placeholder while the internet created an economic powerhouse.

you obviously don't remember his VP choice do you

 

[IH8Orange]

Why does the right perpetuate this idea that Reagan ended the cold war. He was simply a placeholder, the president at the time. He did no more or no less than any president before him to end the cold war. He was a mediocre president just like the rest of them during my lifetime (with the exception of Bush).

Same argument could be said about Carter and the Camp David Accord.

Reagan and Carter both took advantage of advantageous opportunities: Carter happened to have two leaders at the same time that were willing to negotiate and Reagan had the ascension of a leader over the Soviet Union that was not as hardline as those preceding him.

I believe that it is quite evident if you examine Reagan's record that he did do more to end the cold war than did others... even if it was simply due to having the opportunity handed to him. Regardless, the change began during his term, so he gets the credit just as Carter gets the credit for Camp David.

 

[IH8Orange]

I've got yer facts right here, buddy!

So... Chuck Norris ended the Cold War? That's certainly plausible. A KGB spy stole a copy of "Invasion U.S.A." and the Soviets had no answer for him, so they capitulated.