<p>I am curious to see if the State Dept will contact him and lower his clearance. I cannot see Israel just sitting there and saying don’t mind him he’s senile! I am shocked that it was all over CNN and Fox this morning and now it has disappeared. My guess is the govt is hard at work cleaning up after him</p>
<p>This comes from the Jerusalem Post
</p>
<p>“its bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities”
I’m not sure about your other claims, but Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facilities, not Iran’s. This would have made Iran happy.</p>
<p>“And I wouldn’t be too thrilled about al-Qaeda”</p>
<p>Iran actually provides sanctuary and support for al Qaeda. While they may not be best buddies, they have proven to cooperate when dealing against a common enemy - the US. This of course is quite humorous when the Dems yuk it up about McCain’s supposed gaff when he said that Iran was providing support for al Qaeda in Iraq. They don’t realize that they are just exposing their own ignorance of how these countries/sects interact.
[Iran</a> Is Found To Be a Lair of Al Qaeda - July 17, 2007 - The New York Sun](<a href=“http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iran-is-found-to-be-a-lair-of-al-qaeda/58507/]Iran”>http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iran-is-found-to-be-a-lair-of-al-qaeda/58507/)</p>
<p>Here is another 527 ad for everyone…HAMAS endorses Obama. And then they will somehow get Carter wrapped into it…most likely his last junket, and the next thing we will see are the hostages that were held with the question do you want to see this again?</p>
<p>Now let me state Obama has denounced the endorsement RIGHTLY SO, but the reality is Obama has stated he will be like Carter and speak to these people. I am not in advertising, but it would be a powerful ad to show Obama speaking from the podium saying no pre-conditions speaking with Iran <a href=“yes,%20he%20has%20clarified%20his%20position,%20but%20he%20did%20state%20it”>B</a>** and then showing an ad of Reagan at his inauguration announcing the hostages were just released after 444 days. Is it fear mongering? You betcha, but remember politics are dirty!</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t have Carter revealed the information? We all knew they had it anyways. Carter is just speaking about an issue no one else has the guts to talk about, because the others are being paid by israeli lobbyists. Seriously the only way peace is possible is if both sides are given a chance to speak, at least Carter spoke to both sides. And has anyone heard about the Gaza blockade???!!! Why does the US constantly support Israel. They don’t even need our help anymore. </p>
<p>btw, im palestinian so this is very very biased, but when there’s a huge wall in the middle of Jerusalem seperating israeli jews and arab muslims and christians then u know something is wrong. go see it for yourself. i did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you and many others are missing the point. The guy told the world how many nukes Israel (a country which has never formaly said they have nukes) has…it has nothing to do with American foreign policy and everything to do with the fact that this man told the world of highly classified information without permission…it’s something you just don’t do.</p>
<p>The problem with what Carter did in revealing the information is not really about Israeli-Palestinian politics; it is about the revelation of classified information by a person who has a legal obligation not to do so. If a former State Department analyst were running around revealing classified, sensitive information about NATO’s hardware, it would raise similar legal and ethical issues. </p>
<p>Given Carter’s attitudes and biases, it is not surprising that the classfied information he chose to reveal is calculated to hurt Israel and make it more difficult and complicated for the U.S. to be involved in the Middle East peace process. But however one feels about the result he achieved, the critical issue here is that his revealing this sort of information, and the notion that he could haul off at any moment and reveal who-knows-what hurting America’s relationship with who-knows-who, is a bit scarey. </p>
<p>If I were an ally of the U.S. at this moment, particularly if I were a nation that Carter doesn’t like, I would be frantically trying to pin down exactly what sensitive information I’d shared with U.S. during his presidency. And if I were a negotiator involved in proceedings with the U.S., I would be somewhat less forthcoming. It is not for Carter to put the U.S., its allies, or its potential allies, in this position.</p>
<p>Since they banished Bill Clinton from the party for alleged racism, the New Democratic Party only have one living former President to trot out: Jimmy Carter. I’m assuming he’ll have a featured spot at the convention and on the campaign trail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though in this case I think Jimmy was just going a bit nutty and mentioned this without really thinking it through beforehand, I disagree with the principle that one should not reveal confidential information given in confidence publicly. If that information revealed immoral or illegal activities (and I’d personally classify developing a secret nuclear arsenal in that, though you may not), then I’d personally say someone would be justified in revealing the information.</p>
<p>"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council) .</p>
<p>Only four nations are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew."</p>
<p>Israel is not in very good company when it comes to not being a signatory to the non proliferation agreement. Carter is trying to solve a problem that is intractable. Normally the truth is a good thing to tell. If Israel can decimate the entire Middle East at any time and the policy of never again would lead one to believe they would do it as a last resort then I guess the other nations there have a right to adopt a MAD defense. That’s what the rest of the world has done for the past 70 years and it seems to work.</p>
<p>“As for Alan Dershowitz, he is a great lawyer, but on anything remotely concerned with Israel he has credibility only as, in effect, an official Israeli spokesperson. (OK, he’s not “official”, but he’s very plugged-in.) He is always first in line to attack anyone who questions whatever Israeli government policy is at the moment.”</p>
<p>He was in town slogging a book the other night. The problem was at one moment he was an author trying to make money but anytime someone disagreed with him he was an offical spokesperson. It was not a pretty sight to cheapen a nation to hawk a book.</p>
<p>Interesteddad makes an interesting point. </p>
<p>Bill Clinton, the party’s great modern success story, has been put out of service…indefinitely. </p>
<p>It was only a year ago that, it seemed, he was the greatest celebrity the party had. Even here on cc he was defended tooth and nail against local Repubs efforts to bring him down. Defended and embraced top to bottom. The biggest fund raiser, good guy and winner. </p>
<p>The party now seems to be moving on to their next mega-watt celebrity, Barack Obama. Given some disinterestedness and distance, it appears politically unstable…if not fickle --and perhaps premature.</p>
<p>Like hating the Beatles (who you otherwise like) because you love Dylan and he can have no equals. I am not sure the Republicans could have done to the Clintons what the Democrats themselves have done to Clinton. The bitterness will endure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to forget one inconvenient fact. Isreal has faced the scenario where it has had to fight for its very survival (several times in fact) and against enemies that attacked from every side. (June 1967, and the Yom Kippur War come easily to mind). It WAS faced with a “last resort” decision, and decided to not go nuclear, because it knew that this was a no-win decision that could potentially lead the rest of the world to nuclear armegeddon. Nation states like Iran have explicitly stated it has the goal to “wipe Isreal off the map”. We know Isreal has shown restraint; we have no evidence that Iran or another like-minded country would do the same. </p>
<p>The worst part of Carter’s foolish statements is that it gives Iran international credibility when they try to justify their own nuclear ambitions. They can claim the right to keep up with Israel. And do we really want to start a nuclear arms race in that neck of the woods? </p>
<p>Here, Jimmy. Have a hammer and go back to doing something useful…</p>
<p>I’ll bet Israel has way more than 150 nuclear weapons, including some the U.S. government doesn’t know about.</p>
<p>“You seem to forget one inconvenient fact. Isreal has faced the scenario where it has had to fight for its very survival (several times in fact) and against enemies that attacked from every side. (June 1967, and the Yom Kippur War come easily to mind). It WAS faced with a “last resort” decision, and decided to not go nuclear”</p>
<p>Lots written about this and many seem to feel they were within a hairs breadth. They were loaded any ready and had the US not launched an airlift and restocked weapons and provided new anti tank systems it might well have happened. Since Hillary has pledged that the US will obiterate any nation that threatens Israel they don’t need them. We will do what ever is necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, “Nation states like Iran” have said nothing of the sort - a blowhard Iranian president who has little to no actual power with regards to foreign policy said something like that. We have no evidence as to how Iran would treat nuclear capabilities. As somebody who opposes proliferation, I don’t want to see any more nuclear weapons, but there is deep hypocrisy in America getting all huffy over Iran developing nuclear capabilities while ignoring Israel doing the same.</p>
<p>Yes, a “blowhard” with little actual power in the Iranian government, but the ruling council is more than happy to trot him out as the representative of the Iranian people on the world stage. Funny, I don’t see them rushing out to the world media condemming his statements. I’m sure the council of fundamentalist Mullahs must have missed the news that day.</p>
<p>No, the fundamentalist mullahs just don’t care because the don’t see what he said as threatening their position. The reality is that lack of condemnation does not in any way imply agreement, and to assume it does is to invite some very dangerous international relations based on an egomaniac’s demented ravings. Ahmadinejad has been losing power and popularity for some time now as domestic issues have become problematic for him, and the comments you mentioned and others are one way of trying to distract attention. It wasn’t a statement of intent from Iran, it was politics and ego.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure Chamberlian thought the same thing in 1939. I mean, the German people really didn’t want their lunatic leader to lead them into global war; how could they?</p>
<p>I’m not condemming the Iranian people. I’m sure there a quite a few who are uncomfortable with the direction their front-man on the world stage is taking. And yes, lack of condemnation is not explicitly proof that there is agreement, but don’t you think a country that had to fight for it’s survival several times over the past 6 decades might just get a little skiddish from these types of remarks, and would want to err on the side of caution in regards to being prepared to take matters in their own hands if they see no one else trying to stop it?</p>
<p>I’m still confused by the issue of Carter and security. Does he really still have a high security clearance? What for? Obviously, at one point he did, but those things aren’t permanent. He stopped being a federal employee almost 28 years ago. Do we think he was repeating 28-year-old information? Do we think anyone in the Bush administration gave him a briefing with this level of sensitive information (that, by the way, the U.S. does not officially know)?</p>
<p>A more reasonable hypothesis: Carter was repeating credible estimates passed on to him by Israeli or European peace activists, Palestinian sources, or other Arab intelligence sources. He didn’t treat the information as secret, because he didn’t get it as secret. Of course, I am just guessing here, but my guess doesn’t embody the presumption that various parts of the world have gone off-kilter at once.</p>
<p>I apologize for forgetting that it was Iraq’s nuclear facility Israel bombed, not Iran’s. Like many in the U.S., I obviously have trouble telling them A-rabs apart. [smiley]</p>
<p>Bullet: Do we think Israel had a functional nuclear weapons capability in 1967 or 1973? (I don’t have a high security clearance, so I’m not sure, but I have trouble believing it.) In any event, I think it’s an awfully far-fetched to suggest that Israel faced an actual nuclear retaliation decision in either war, both of which pretty convincingly demonstrated Israel’s overwhelming conventional military superiority at the time.</p>
<p>I agree, by the way, that there is a huge difference between Israel’s presumed use for nuclear weapons (desperate MAD response to imminent national destruction) and Iran’s. Traditionally, it has been difficult to imagine that there could be a scenario in which, if Israel used nuclear weapons against Iran, there would be anything left in Israel for Iran to retaliate against. </p>
<p>That was certainly true a generation ago, when something like 90% of Israel’s population was within 60 miles of a hostile border. Things are muddier now with the de facto colonization of large parts of the West Bank, and the utter unlikelihood that an actual war would involve Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian tanks on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway without a lot of advance notice. Forty-one years ago, it was supremely possible that Israel could be effectively destroyed in a matter of hours by conventional forces. The feeling that could happen is still absolutely central to Israeli thought and policy. But it’s probably not true any more, which makes the whole Israeli nuclear deterrant issue more squirelly and scary. I grew up with the belief that Israel was either winning or losing, and if it was losing for more than a few minutes it had lost for good. Using nukes could only be an act of desperation, because everything was binary: either they were victorious, or they were desperate. Now, however, there’s the whole awful spectrum of maybes in between the two, and a thousand different scenarios in which one might or might not make a choice to go nuclear, depending.</p>
<p>Carter may have just been repeating what he read on Wikipedia:</p>
<p>[Israel</a> and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction]Israel”>Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>If this, and other net sources are to believed, Israel may well have had some nuclear weapons in 1972, or even 1967.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Carter obviously held a security clearance at the highest level. Does he still have it now? Probably not. But for security levels that high, you MUST sign a letter of agreement not to reveal any of the information you were priveleged to for the rest of your life when you leave the position. Has he committed a federal crime? Yes. Will he proscuted for it? Not likely, too messy for us to bother. He probably be “politely” reminded not to let classified information he was privileged to slip out in public again. There has been specualtion on Israel’s nuclear capability. But Carter had actual access to information as to proof.</p>
<p>As to whether Israel actually had this capability in 67 and 73. It would be specualtion on our part to assume either way. But if they did, they at least decided to keep it out of play then, something I’m not too sure some of their neighbors would have done, or will do if threatened today.</p>
<p>I’m not here trying to defend Israel. I just want everyone to seethe motives for both sides (something a few have forgotten when they only condemm one side). What worries me is the scenario I stated above. What if Israel, listening the the rhetoric coming out of Iran and watching Iran thumb its nose at the rest of the world as it pursues nuclear capability without allowing for inspections to ensure it is only for peaceful means, decides it needs to act on its own and attack? Do you think the rest of th eworld will stand back and watch the Middle East go kablooie? No, we would all be involved, the area is too important strategically because of its oil supplies. THATS what scares the begeeses out of me…</p>