"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," Carter told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."Carter calling anything a “disgrace” is like Charles Manson calling someone a lunatic. Also, note the use of the liberal “BUT”: There is no justification for terrorism BUT Guantanamo Bay justifies terrorism. I am patriotic, BUT I think America brought 9/11 on itself. I like Jimmy Carter, BUT he is a spineless ass clown trying to make a legacy for himself. Get the idea?
Ok, so if Carter, Democrats, and other persons who hate the United States believe Guantanamo Bay “excuses” and “justifies” terrorism (You know, just like Attica justifies rape and murder), then what was the justification for this?
And oh by the way, this…
If liberals had their way, this is how the U.S. would interrogate terrorists.
1. Ask “please”
2. If that doesn’t work, ask “pretty please”
3. Ask “pretty please with sugar on top”
4. Promise to be their best friend
5. When all else fails… boycott the Olympics
Carter uses liberal speak in order to make it appear that he does not believe there is a justification for terrorism, even though he just said there was:
Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."The irony of all this is that it was during Carter’s administration that terrorists realized the soft underbelly of the US is the feebleness of a liberal administration. Al-Jazeera, of course, was quick to take yet another sound bite from a liberal; except they left out that useless part where Carter says “terrorist acts could not be justified”. Which he doesn’t believe anyway.
"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."
I think NYT writer Thomas Friedman has a better idea:
We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow “understandable” is outrageous. “It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism,” Rubin said, “and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them.”So how do you identify the “excuse makers”? Oh, that’s easy:
1. Liberal use (literally) of the word “but”
2. They claim to just be “expressing their First Amendment rights”
3. They have to remind you they are patriotic and against terrorism
4. They are quoted in Al-Jazeera
5. Their biggest response to international aggression involved boycotting a sporting event