Robert Novak: "Carter's Clarity, Bush's Befuddlement"

[madinmaryland]

It is very rare that I even come close to agreeing with him, but he makes some interesting points:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500204.html

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, November 5, 2007; 8:16 AM

The timing of the release of the new documentary "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains" was not intentional. The movie is arriving in theaters just before the Bush administration's proposed Middle East conference in Annapolis, scheduled for the end of this month. But the former president's clarity on the Palestinian question contrasts sharply with George W. Bush's refusal to face reality, casting a pall over hopes to conclude his presidency with a diplomatic triumph.

In the film, Carter repeatedly and unequivocally states what Palestinian and Israeli peace advocates view as undeniable: to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, with all its benefits for the world, Israel must end its illegal and oppressive occupation of the West Bank. That is a prerequisite that neither President Bush nor congressional leaders of both parties can approach for fear of being labeled anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic (as Carter has been).

With the end to the occupation not on any participant's agenda, hopes for substantive accomplishment at Annapolis are dim. Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 24, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned of "further radicalization of Palestinian politics, of politics in the region" if "we lose the window for a two-state solution." But she did not mention the forbidden words of Israeli removal from the West Bank.

These words are not forbidden in "Man From Plains." I was surprised when a publicist for the movie invited me to a private screening in advance of its Washington debut Saturday. For the past 32 years, I had been a critic of Carter -- but not of his most recent and most attacked book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

..snip

[rateyes]

1. That is the only issue about which I have consistently agreed

with Bob Novak. He's been consistent on this position for years. It's the one issue he gets, IMO, correct.

[madinmaryland]

2. I wasn't aware of his position on this before this piece.

Typically, I avoid his drivel, as most of his stuff seems to be written on cocktail napkins while sucking up to the repub of the day.

[movonne]

3. How can this man be so correct on this and a asshole on the

majority of his views....

[rateyes]

4. IDK. Hell, Pat Buchanan was

opposed to the war in Iraq. Go figure.

[Captain Hilts]

5. William F. Buckley also was against the Iraq War. Novak has been consistent on this...

interesting how he dislikes Pres Bush and is very critical of him in his columns, yet got involved in the Plame bit. Weird.

[onelittleindian]

6. Plame

He was brought into the Plame issue. Just like everything else about bush. People get sucked in and spit out.