Chris At Home

Between bouts of nonsense, that is.

Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.

Intentionally muddying the waters, he is. Preemptive attacks still require an imminent fear of attack, but allows us to attack first. Jimmy would like to wait for the dead Americans to arrive before stopping our opponents.

Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

That is why the rich now pay a higher percentage of government taxes receipts than they did under the Carter administration, even at lower marginal tax rates. Again, Jimmy misleads.

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Who is using whose talking point? Were Jimmy and the Left first, or did Hezbullah say it first? It doesn't matter that those 10,000 prisoners people who tried to kill innocent Israeli civilians or that Hezbullah has been firing rockets into Israel for years. It is not justified for Israel to protect itself because, you know, they are Joooooos.

The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality.

See? He understands the issues we face in dealing with the Islamists. They don't negotiate because they represent the Word of God himself. They believe everyone else is subhuman. What? Jimmy was talking about Christians in the Bush administration? He wasn't talking about Islamists?

My mistake. There is no sense in the entire article.