Patterico's Pontifications

4/19/2008

Hamas Attacks Israel during Jimmy Carter Visit

Filed under: International,Terrorism — DRJ @ 2:10 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Jimmy Carter is meeting with representatives of the Hamas terrorist organization and, at the same time, Hamas is sending homicide bombers to attack Israeli troops:

“Hamas bombers attacked an Israeli-Gaza border crossing under the cover of fog Saturday, detonating two jeeps made to look like Israeli military vehicles and packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives.

The twin blasts, just hours before the Jewish Passover holiday, wounded 13 Israeli soldiers in what Hamas said was an attempt to break the nearly yearlong blockade of the territory. Four Hamas assailants died, Israeli officials said.

Meanwhile, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with senior Hamas leaders in Damascus, Syria, for a second day to hear their views, defying U.S. and Israeli warnings that doing so would grant the group legitimacy. The U.S. and Israel have labeled Hamas a terrorist organization.

An Israeli army commander said the Hamas operation was the most ambitious since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, even though another planned attempt at the border was averted Saturday. The attack was the fifth on a crossing by Gaza militants since last week, and Hamas threatened to target the passages again.”

I can’t believe I need to say this but some people have no common sense: President Carter – It’s hard to keep clean when you negotiate with people who spit at you.

— DRJ

72 Responses to “Hamas Attacks Israel during Jimmy Carter Visit”

  1. “homicide bombers ”

    Worse than non-homiciding bombers.

    stef (7eade3)

  2. Worse than non-homiciding bombers.

    Which are worse than law-abiding citizens… did you have a point?

    I guess Carter was too old to actually participate. Maybe they let him help do the planning or observe the attack. His “good friends” wouldn’t have done all this against his wishes, right? That’s why he’s there, to promote peace through diplomacy.

    (no, I don’t think Carter was involved… that’s hyperbole to meant to highlight how ineffective Carter really is. Any resemblance between this comment and reality is purely coincidental.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  3. Evidently stef lacks any point at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Thanks, Stashiu3, for the disclaimer; though stef is so reality-challenged, it probably went right over her head.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  5. “Political isolation by the American administration has begun to crumble,” Mohammed Nazzal, a top figure in Hamas’ political bureau, told The Associated Press after Friday’s meeting in Damascus. The U.S. government has had no contact with Hamas since designating it a terrorist organization in 1995.

    If he doesn’t get charged under the Logan Act they should repeal it because it won’t ever be used.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  6. #1:

    Worse than non-homiciding bombers.

    The correct response to that is: “Well, duh!”

    Although the non-homociding are culpable of grievous crime as well. But I suppose you think attempted genocide should be treated differently than attempted murder?

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  7. Jimmy Carter told reporters that,

    “One of the reasons I wanted to come and meet with the Syrians and Hamas was to set an example that might be emulated by others,” Mr Carter said.”

    This entire fiasco seems to be more about Carter’s ego and dreamy need for recogntion and adulation as a ‘peacemaker’ and concern for his legacy.

    No one would have nerve to charge him under the Logan Act because we are just too nice a country to do that to an old man. Nothing ever came of this re Jesse Jackson and George McGovern (I dont’ remember the details but I think McGovern was covered because he was a sitting senator at the time he went to Cuba or something like that). And who is going to accuse an ex-prez at the end days of his life?

    Even the leading Dem conteder for POTUS was against it:

    “Barak Obama…also criticised the move. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction”

    Dana (1b8fba)

  8. How will Mr. Carter be treated at the Dems convention in Denver this summer? Isn’t it something of a tradition for both parties to honor their ex-Presidents one night during the week? I am guessing that any “Tribute to President Carter” event will be scheduled for a time slot well in advance of the hour that the networks usually tune in.

    JVW (dc9c43)

  9. Bill Clinton hated Carter’s Middle East meddling also.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  10. Bill Clinton hated Carter’s Middle East meddling also.

    As well he should have. It is an Executive Branch function, not a former-member-of-the-Executive-Branch function. It doesn’t matter whose party does it (I know you didn’t imply that), once they’re out of office they need to stay out and not interfere with a current administration.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  11. It’s not just the Middle East. Carter is probably more responsible than any other person outside North Korea for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Crazy Kim and his merry band of cutthroats, drug dealers, and counterfeiters.

    Eric (884ea6)

  12. I just sent this email to the President of Emory University, my alma mater and the host of the Carter Center. They probably won’t pay much attention to someone who’s given diddlysquat over the last twenty five years, but hopefully others are doing the same.

    (BTW, if anyone has a substantial tie to Coca Cola or the Methodist Church, I urge them to make any objections known to the University, as well, even if they are not alumni.)

    I’ll let y’all know what, if any response, I receive.

    Dear President Wagner:

    When the Carter Center was first opened, I considered it something Emory University could consider a great honor and an opportunity to expand our leadership in the academic community. President Carter was a person whom I considered to have made many important mistakes while serving in the White House, but whom as a person I respected, even admired, greatly.

    As the saying goes, that was then, this is now.

    In the intervening years, Mr. Carter has proven that he is unworthy of respect, and has no consideration for the elected leaders of this country and its allies, and for the expressed wishes of a majority of the citizenry of the United States. He has in the last year reduced himself to the role of propagandist for an organization which admits to being a terrorist group and to have genocidal aims agains the people of Israel.

    Any association the University has with Mr. Carter can only tarnish our image throughout the world. I must ask you, as an alumnus, to take whatever steps are necessary to cut all ties with Mr. Carter and the Carter Center, before the University is made to seem a confederate in his malicious follies. Whatever benefits may be gained by our association with the Carter Center are dwarfed by the negatives which must inevitably accrue to any institution which associates itself with Mr. Carter.

    Thank you.

    Jeffrey Smith
    Emory College BA 1980

    kishnevi (2b3e28)

  13. ” If he doesn’t get charged under the Logan Act they should repeal it because it won’t ever be used.”

    Your link says there is no record of it ever being used.

    stef (394243)

  14. Your link says there is no record of it ever being used.

    Again, do you have a point? I never said it had been used, did I? Do you ever have a point?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  15. I’m not sure the Carter Center is aligned with his views. At least some working there weren’t when his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid was published.

    First came this:

    ATLANTA (AP) – A longtime aide to Jimmy Carter has resigned from the Carter Center think tank, calling the former president’s new book on Israel and the Arabs one-sided and filled with errors.

    Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center’s first executive director and founder of its Middle East program, sent a letter that bluntly criticized the book to Carter and others.

    Stein wrote that the book, “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid,” was replete with factual errors, material copied from other sources and “simply invented segments,” according to an excerpt of the letter published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    Deanna Congileo, Carter’s spokeswoman, said the former president stands by the book.

    No surprise there.

    Then came the mass resignation:

    ATLANTA — Fourteen members of an advisory board at the Carter Center resigned today, concluding they could “no longer in good conscience continue to serve” following publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s controversial book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

    “It seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy,” the board members wrote in a letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support.

    Then again, those who remained and whoever replaced those who resigned might fully agree with Carter.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  16. Your link says there is no record of it ever being used.

    No kidding.

    Which is why Stashiu3 said:

    If he doesn’t get charged under the Logan Act they should repeal it because it won’t ever be used.

    Reading comprehension, stef: look into it.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  17. We don’t need to squash a bug with a cannon. And if Hamas is stupid enough to think that meeting with Carter is any more worthwhile than surfing YouPorn all more to the good.

    nk (0e6820)

  18. ” Again, do you have a point? I never said it had been used, did I? Do you ever have a point?”

    The point is I think we passed the point of repeal long ago. Is it even constitutional to criminalize correspondence, as opposed to negotiation?

    stef (cffb87)

  19. To give stef her due, Hamas is not a government so the Logan Act does not apply. And, likewise, it’s likely unconstitutional (except maybe for the “defeat the measures of” clause).

    nk (0e6820)

  20. Paul–Professor Stein is a member of the University course. I took a course from him in my senior year on recent Mideast history. Perhaps his attitude has changed over the years, but he was, ironically, the only professor who ever made an issue about Jewish students missing class for the High Holy Days. (My solution: attend class and very obviously not take notes or participate in class discussion.) Hence I was pleasantly surprised by his resignation from the Carter Center.

    However, the Carter Center is still linked to the University, staffed by members/former members of the faculty, and listed on the University website as a research center along with the Yerkes Primate Center and several other programs actually devoted to higher learning. Hence the protest to the University.

    (BTW, the Carter Center has its own website, not part of the University website: http:www.cartercenter.org, if anyone wants to dig around there)

    kishnevi (2dbd61)

  21. Is it even constitutional to criminalize correspondence, as opposed to negotiation?

    Considering the Logan Act was originally passed in 1799, when the authors of the Constitution were still alive, speaks to its Constitutionality, despite the Wikipedia line “There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.”

    Paul (4ca58a)

  22. BTW, for a moderate hijacking of the thread, what is the “government” of the United States? In a Parliamentary system it’s pretty straightforward — the majority party appoints a Prime Minister who “forms a government”. But who is our government? The President is clearly the head of state but is he the head of the government?

    nk (0e6820)

  23. “To give stef her due, Hamas is not a government so the Logan Act does not apply.”

    They’re the ruling party in parts of Palestine. Close enough for me.

    “Considering the Logan Act was originally passed in 1799, when the authors of the Constitution were still alive, speaks to its Constitutionality”

    They also passed the alien and sedition acts. The first amendment has come a long way since then.

    stef (8fa2c6)

  24. However, the Carter Center is still linked to the University, staffed by members/former members of the faculty, and listed on the University website as a research center along with the Yerkes Primate Center and several other programs actually devoted to higher learning. Hence the protest to the University.

    kishnevi–I have no objection to your protest; your comment simply reminded me of those resignations, so I sought to advance the earlier point made that even those on same side of the political aisle has great disagreements with him.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  25. They’re the ruling party in parts of Palestine. Close enough for me.

    It’s a penal statute involving speech so “close enough for me” is “no cigar”. And nice having known you, stef.

    nk (0e6820)

  26. The point is I think we passed the point of repeal long ago.

    I don’t see how you expected someone to gather that point from your comment (unless that became your point later, which is your usual style)

    Is it even constitutional to criminalize correspondence, as opposed to negotiation?

    That’s a question, not a point… but yes, otherwise “conspiracy to commit” laws would be unconstitutional.

    To give stef her due, Hamas is not a government so the Logan Act does not apply. And, likewise, it’s likely unconstitutional (except maybe for the “defeat the measures of” clause).

    Hamas currently holds a majority of seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority. For all intents and purposes, a government. If the Logan Act is unconstitutional, let’s get it repealed and pass something that passes Constitutional muster. Finally, please don’t feed into stef’s typical behavior of saying things that mean nothing and letting others make arguments based on their own interpretations. She’ll just stab you in the back later for it (“I wasn’t the one who said that, nk was.” would be her typical defense and I, for one, am tired of it) She didn’t say anything about it not being applicable to Hamas, nor anything about the Logan Act being unconstitutional. Defending her based on your reasoned arguments instead of her worthless babble just encourages her.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  27. Duh, I totally forgot: The Logan was passed 10 years before the First Amendment was ratified, and 8 years before it even made it out of Philadelphia! The people who passed the Logan Act clearly could not have contemplated it being compatible with the First Amendment.

    stef (57aa5a)

  28. They’re the ruling party in parts of Palestine. Close enough for me.

    See nk? It never pays to defend her.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  29. Except there is no such thing as Palestine.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  30. OMG. I cant believe i misread 1799 for 1779. Oops. Disregard #27.

    stef (57aa5a)

  31. They also passed the alien and sedition acts. The first amendment has come a long way since then.

    And your point is?

    Paul (4ca58a)

  32. “Except there is no such thing as Palestine.”

    Hamas recently won some elections. Whatever they are in charge of, talking to them is probably talking to the government of that area. But I’m open to disagreement on this.

    stef (3cd17c)

  33. Duh, I totally forgot: The Logan was passed 10 years before the First Amendment was ratified, and 8 years before it even made it out of Philadelphia! The people who passed the Logan Act clearly could not have contemplated it being compatible with the First Amendment.

    So why wasn’t it repealed at the time? It’s not clearly incompatible with the First Amendment as the First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, you can’t make threats against the President, etc…

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  34. Duh, I totally forgot

    OMG. I cant believe i misread 1799 for 1779. Oops. Disregard #27.

    Did you “forget” or “misread”? Can’t be both, can it?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  35. Hamas recently won some elections. Whatever they are in charge of, talking to them is probably talking to the government of that area. But I’m open to disagreement on this.

    Good, because there is no Palestinian state.

    They might hold office in some areas, but those areas are still part of Israel.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  36. “And your point is?”

    That the argument that if congress in 1799 does something it means it is constitutional is kind of bunk. Unless you think its constitutional for congress to pass laws banning scandalous writings that bring the president into contempt or disrepute or excites against him. I mean, there goes talk radio and BDS!

    stef (3cd17c)

  37. “They might hold office in some areas, but those areas are still part of Israel.”

    Oh.

    “Did you “forget” or “misread”? Can’t be both, can it?”

    I misread that 1799 for 1779, and I forgot that the constitution was from 1789.

    stef (3cd17c)

  38. Stashiu–just be glad she admitted a mistake.

    NK–I remember it once being said that under our system, the President is both head of state and head of government; the contrast was the UK, where the Queen is head of state and the PM is head of government.

    kishnevi (4fe729)

  39. That the argument that if congress in 1799 does something it means it is constitutional is kind of bunk.

    Then why weren’t there massive objections from the Anti-Federalist faction over its Constitutionality, considering they were the ones who wrote the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment?

    Unless you think its constitutional for congress to pass laws banning scandalous writings that bring the president into contempt or disrepute or excites against him. I mean, there goes talk radio and BDS!

    What, exactly, is your point here?

    Paul (4ca58a)

  40. Jeez Louise…

    You guys are being jerks. stef’s trying to have a polite discussion on what constitutes a legitimate government and you guys are brushing her off like a bunch of clique-ish assholes (“What’s you point? What’s your point? Do you ever make a point?”)

    Show a little class.

    Leviticus (0493ac)

  41. We’ll show class when she shows any ability towards rational, logical thought…

    We might be waiting a while…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  42. Leviticus,

    When stef starts having a discussion instead of throwing up semantically null BS against the wall to see what sticks, I’ll stop telling her to make a point. Until then, mind your own knitting. You have a problem with that? Tough.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  43. I like your letter Kishnevi, and I have enough respect for Emory University that I think it and letters like it can make a difference.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  44. They should have asked Jimmuh Carter to play the role of George Logan in the HBO John Adams series. He would have been too pompous and clueless to have realized he had been set up.

    He is one of the most despicable repulsive characters in modern American politics, certainly the worst president. I struck “despicable” because I think he is probably truly demented, and I mean that clinically, not as an insult.

    driver (faae10)

  45. How about we get back to the original point of the thread: Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers while in “peace talks” demonstrating how ineffective Cater has been on foreign policy the last 30 years?

    Carter has never understood that Hamas uses the Gamal Abdel Nasser playbook, like every other subsequent Arab leader since 1956:

    1. Instigate a war.

    2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you… get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.

    3. Whatever you do, don’t surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population… and will force a truce.

    4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

    This tactic has never failed. Not once.

    In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War – a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel – as a military victory! No kidding… it’s a national holiday over there!

    Pretty clear that Hamas is at stage four.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  46. Thank God the murder bombers didn’t kill anyone.

    Chris (f2bd4b)

  47. Leviticus #40,

    I think stef prefers a fight to a discussion. Case in point, her response to my comments which supported her. Let the girls play rough with the boys if they want to. It can even be considered a courtship ritual. 😉

    nk (0e6820)

  48. nk, aren’t you married? 🙂

    Paul (4ca58a)

  49. #46 Chris:

    Thank God the murder bombers didn’t kill anyone.

    Indeed, something to be thankful for.

    Sadly, terrorist explosives are often laced with objects intended to cause immense trauma, so I await with trepidation reports on the extent of the injuries suffered, and my thankfulness is tinged with anxiety.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  50. Paul #48,

    Heck, I’d be way out of the play-yard even if
    I weren’t married. Courtship rituals are for young people. We old guys and girls know “where the noses go”. 😉

    nk (0e6820)

  51. Hamas Attacks Israel during Jimmy Carter Visit

    In response, has Jimmy issued his customary statement condemning Israel?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  52. To be fair, I’d want to blow stuff up too if someone inflicted Jimmuh on me.

    Eric (605286)

  53. Stef, “duh” is right. Aside from getting the timeline wrong (along with the fact that the drafters of the original Constitution knew a Bill of Rights containing some version of the First Amendment was on the way), the basic logic is breathtakingly stupid. Did it not occur to you that the Logan Act was ever amended since 1799, most recently in 1994?

    Too bad you caught the original mistake, though. I was looking forward to you using it when you defend Carter in his criminal trial.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  54. “What, exactly, is your point here?”

    That you think the alien and sedition acts are constitutional. They ban those things. You know?

    “I was looking forward to you using it when you defend Carter in his criminal trial.”

    He’s not going to be tried nder the Logan Act

    stef (6108f6)

  55. That you think the alien and sedition acts are constitutional. They ban those things. You know?

    Oh really?

    Show me where I posted any such comment–or any comment at all–about the alien and sedition acts.

    And I’m still waiting for you to answer my first question in #39.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  56. “Show me where I posted any such comment–or any comment at all–about the alien and sedition acts.”

    Your arguments about the constitutionality of hte logan act also apply to the alien and sedition acts. If they don’t, then there goes the theory that something is constitutional because the first few congresses passed it. Its kind of weird, to imagine that the first few congresses couldn’t violate the constitution.

    “And I’m still waiting for you to answer my first question in #39.”

    I don’t know. I’m not familiar with the debates at all.

    stef (2b5cca)

  57. nk @ 22…
    The President is both Head of State, and Chief Executive Officer of the Government of the United States, within the tri-partite division ensconced within the Constitution.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  58. Your arguments about the constitutionality of hte logan act also apply to the alien and sedition acts. If they don’t, then there goes the theory that something is constitutional because the first few congresses passed it. Its kind of weird, to imagine that the first few congresses couldn’t violate the constitution.

    Its also weird that if the Logan Act expressly violates the First Amendment, the Anti-Federalists, who demanded–demanded–the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, would quietly allow such to be passed. Remember, the Logan Act is what we are discussing. You are the one who brought up the alien and sedition acts, not me.

    I don’t know. I’m not familiar with the debates at all.

    stef, a piece of advice: if you are unfamiliar with what we are discussing, don’t comment as if you do.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  59. “Its also weird that if the Logan Act expressly violates the First Amendment, the Anti-Federalists, who demanded–demanded–the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, would quietly allow such to be passed.”

    Wikipedia said that the federalist majority simply pushed it through with little debate. I don’t know how much one can conclude from that.

    “Remember, the Logan Act is what we are discussing. You are the one who brought up the alien and sedition acts, not me.”

    I know. I brought it up because the same argument you advance for the Logan act works for the alien and sedition act. Or, rather, my point is that the argument fails on the alien and sedition act, and therefore fails on Logan too.

    Tell me, do you think the alien and sedition acts are constitutional?

    stef (5ef57e)

  60. Wikipedia said that the federalist majority simply pushed it through with little debate. I don’t know how much one can conclude from that.

    You can conclude the Anti-Federalists quietly allowed it to be passed. Why? Don’t you find it interesting that if the Logan Act violates the First Amendment, that the very authors of it didn’t vehemently oppose it?

    I know. I brought it up because the same argument you advance for the Logan act works for the alien and sedition act. Or, rather, my point is that the argument fails on the alien and sedition act, and therefore fails on Logan too.

    How I actually advanced it, or your twisted interpetation of it?

    I merely said “it speaks to its Constitutionality” because of the lack of Anti-Federalist opposition, not “they passed it in 1799, it must be Constitutional.”

    Are you are incapable of seeing the difference?

    Tell me, do you think the alien and sedition acts are constitutional?

    You are comparing apples and oranges. The Alien and Sedition acts were never actually declared unconstitutional in judicial proceedings. Their original form violated the Tenth Amendment as a exceeding Federal powers issue, not a First Amendment issue, no matter what Thomas Jefferson said. Susequent rulings have made it clear that they are unconstituional, and new laws passed since then addressing such issues pass Constutional muster.

    The Logan Act is still here, 210 years later, and has been amdended since then, last in 1994.

    Bottom line: the Alien and Sedition act was opposed by people involved in the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    The Logan Act wasn’t.

    That answer your question?

    Paul (4ca58a)

  61. Now stef…are you going to address the original point of this thread: the foreign policy ineffectiveness of Jimmy Carter?

    Paul (4ca58a)

  62. “You can conclude the Anti-Federalists quietly allowed it to be passed”

    True, this is wikipedia’s characterization, but they did used the word ‘pushed.’ Which doesn’t imply a lack of opposition. Whats your sources about the passage of the Logan Act? I’d like to read more about it, as I can imagine its going to keep coming up.

    “Their original form violated the Tenth Amendment as a exceeding Federal powers issue, not a First Amendment issue, no matter what Thomas Jefferson said.”

    oh.

    “Now stef…are you going to address the original point of this thread: the foreign policy ineffectiveness of Jimmy Carter?”

    I don’t expect him to be effective at much.

    stef (4daa88)

  63. What is very obvious to me is that Carter is trying his best to be America’s Ghandi. Since his presidential legacy is so abominable, he’s attempting to forge a different one that will have future generations talking about the “Great American Peace Maker.” Unfortunately for him I think he’ll be remembered as the “Great American Meddler and Mess Maker.”

    jwarner (0c2175)

  64. Someone (they won’t say who) in the Clinton administration called him a “traitorous prick” after North Korea.

    Eric (884ea6)

  65. Make that the Clinton cabinet.

    Eric (884ea6)

  66. Funny… My dad called Carter that While the guy was still in the Oval Office…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  67. #64. OT, but Nixon too spent many years attempting to alter his presidential legacy. It’s perhaps telling that those who blew it continue to try and erase that fact. Carter never had to resign in disgrace, but at least Nixon had a decent foreign policy.

    #67. Scott – When he was in office I simply thought of him as a loser. Apparently so did the rest of America in 1980.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  68. The difference was that Nixon spent his post-office years in rehabilitating himself by writing thoughtful tomes on foreign policy, America’ place in the world and such. Carter has spent his time by praising every cheap thug and dictator he can get in arms’ reach of.

    SPQR (6cd738)

  69. Apogee:

    I suspect it had to do with the pardoning of those piles-of-shit draft dodgers…

    Or something like that.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  70. And this jerk JIMMY CARTER won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE he is adisgrace in america and stupider then sticks

    krazy kagu (a2e13d)

  71. “The difference was that Nixon spent his post-office years in rehabilitating himself by writing thoughtful tomes on foreign policy, America’ place in the world and such.”

    He also said, in his post-office years, “when the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

    stef (b39392)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1054 secs.