Posted on 03/10/2003 8:21:06 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
So what does it take to be America's "Greatest Ex-President"? Does one need success, wisdom, influence, an undying loyalty to his country, or perhaps an unimpeachable code of ethics? None of the above. Considering he created the job, we should look to Jimmy "Evil, What's That?" Carter as a model for all future candidates. We can then see that all that are necessary are a STAGGERING disconnection from reality and the breathless desire to be made a fool of.
No analysis of Mr. Carter's time in the White House is required. Suffice it to say, it was a disaster, economically, militarily, and diplomatically. The United States and the world are still reeling from his incompetence. And Carter's part in the one shinning jewel from his tenure, The Camp David Accords, was little more than that of a master of ceremonies. The deal was done before he became involved.
His behavior since he left office doesn't simply show that he's learned nothing from his failures, but also that he is incapable of learning from them. Indeed, as time passes, and he basks in the adulation of the minions that either share his failings or value him as a patsy, Carter descends deeper into delusion.
He fancies himself a bearer of wisdom and moral clarity, paving the way to a more just world. But that's impossible. During a recent conversation, a friend suggested to me that Carter's fatal flaw is that he's a "true believer", with faith in the inherent goodness of human beings. This also is impossible. Based on whom he embraces and condemns, demonstrably so.
Carter made goodwill trips to Nicaragua at the height of the Sandinista era as an act of defiance to Reagan administration policies and to assure the Marxist regime that Americans didn't "hate" them. Had his Cold War views prevailed, the Soviet Union would still exist and communist revolution would likely have consumed all of Latin America. When war was looming before Desert Storm he appealed to the communist Chinese government to block military action, while they were fresh from of their brutal suppression at Tiananmen Square.
He considers career terrorist Yasser Arafat a friend but derides Israel, even as they repeatedly suffer civilian deaths in a futile quest to make peace with the mafia-like Palestinian Authority. When Arafat lost funding for his terrorist activities from the Saudis, because of his support for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, it was Carter who facilitated the renewed cash flow. It was Carter who cuddled up with Kim Jong Il, and negotiated the ridiculous "Framework Agreement" for the Clinton administration, placing faith in the Stalinist North Korean Government and contributing considerably to the current nuclear standoff. And recently he compared Fidel Castro's Cuba favorably to the United States.
If our "Greatest Ex-President" were truly a bearer of wisdom and moral clarity he would be able to distinguish peace from oppression, and aggression from liberation. A belief in the inherent goodness of people may explain Jimmy Carter's predisposition to trust butchers, but it doesn't explain his consistent defense of them to the peril of civilians and liberal democracies.
Carter's recent Op-Ed in The New York Times is another example of his dementia, as if another is necessary. The piece is entitled "Just War - or a Just War?", but the content, along with his life in the public arena, demonstrates that it is he who is incapable of distinguishing between the two. And it further demonstrates a profound ignorance of history, of the role of the President, of the Constitution, of the worth of the United Nations, of the realities of war and the nature of evil.
Oddly the opening of the piece is heavy with references to his version of Christianity, but it is the faith of President Bush that is mocked by his political adversaries and said to be the cause of his "zealous" pursuit of Saddam. It is based on his creative interpretation of Christianity, that he has decided that a U.S. led attack on Iraq would be wrong. Like all opponents to war, he interprets nearly 30 countries supporting United States to be "unilateral". I am by no means a theologian, but I can safely say the bible does not suggest that right and wrong be measured according to consensus.
Carter claims, "In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist." There are indeed alternatives, but none of them acceptable. Diplomacy has failed. A limited war has failed. Economic sanctions, which the former president has condemned, have failed. And over a decade of empty threats have failed. An alternative remaining, short of all out war is to continue the charade of inspections, thus allowing Saddam to expand his arsenal of mass destruction, until his deterrent capability gives him the confidence to eject the inspectors once and for all. This would enable him to continue his support of terrorists, leave the Iraqi people to suffer indefinitely, and allow the inevitable revival of Saddam's effort to dominate the Middle East. We might also give up and let him do as he chooses. This would expedite the process, but the results would be the same.
In defiance of what he characterizes "overwhelming opposition of most people and governments", Mr. Carter accuses President Bush of embarking on "military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations". Beyond the implication that our national security concerns are only legitimate so long as the United Nations and global opinion polls agree, the statement ignores more than a decade of restraint, pointless diplomacy, and over a year of debate. Moreover, it ignores the whole of recorded history when even "civilized nations" would have, after far less, lost patience and had Saddam's head on a pike.
He claims that in order to have a just war, "the war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants". Granted we call them "smart bombs" but they don't actually think, and it is doubtful that there will ever be weapons that can tell the good guys from the bad guys with certainty. Carter then accused the administration of planning to "launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population", and condemned the "inevitable" collateral damage from attacks on targets near civilian areas.
What is "unprecedented" in this countdown to war is the effort the United States is engaged in to safeguard noncombatants. The charge by the former president is hollow and revolting. Requiring a guarantee against civilian casualties before war is acceptable validates Saddam's use of innocent Iraqis as "human shields" and seals the fate of all free nations.
He believes that "violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered" and remains "unconvinced" by "American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks". Proportional to the injury suffered by whom? Americans? The Kuwaitis? The Saudis? The Israelis? The Kurds? Should our government first be removed via a nuclear blast or biological attack before we remove Saddam Hussein?
Few have specifically charged Iraq with involvement in 9/11. As for Iraqi involvement with al-Qaida, no amount of evidence is likely to convince Mr. Carter and his cohorts. Allowing it to be convincing would trump all other arguments in the minds of the American people, and that must not happen.
According to Jimmy Carter, a war is not just unless the "attackers" have "legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent." He went on to state that the Security Council, the Russians, the French, the Chinese and the Turks had given no sanction.
One hopes that a former president would know that George W. Bush possesses the authority to act in defense of U.S. interests based on his position as commander-in-chief. Sanction was given by the American people when they elected him. It was reinforced by the midterm elections, by successive Congressional resolutions, and spelled out in his oath of office. As someone who once took that oath, Carter should know that it speaks of the Constitution of the United States, and not the U.N. Charter. One would also expect him to grasp the meaning of the words "protect and defend". But he clearly doesn't get it now, nor did he when he was in the White House.
As a final criterion he writes, "The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists". War is always fraught with unknowns and guarantees are impossible. But trusting the stability of the Middle East and the rest of the world to despots with a hunger for weapons of mass destruction and their terrorist associates is beyond foolish. It's suicidal.
Although heralded as such, Jimmy Carter is not wise, moral, or loyal. A wise man would see the obvious dangers of appeasement. A moral man would not enable murderers in the name of peace. A loyal man would not befriend dictators and obstruct the justifiable actions of his own country. He was the president long ago, but he was far from a "great" one. What he may be is the greatest fool since Neville Chamberlain. And whether he sees it or not, there is blood on his hands.
Actually, Jimmuh is by far the greater fool. Neville Chamberlain at least acknowledged the error of his ways.
Thanks ever so much for providing those links..appreciate it.
Which kind of reminds me, naming the last three democrat presidents: LBJ, Carter, and Clinton gives you a list of immorality, amorality, lying, bumbling, and incompetence that has seldom been seen since the days of the emperors Caligula through Nero.
All I can say is thank God for small favors.
Mama always said, "If you can't say something nice about someone, then . . . " well, you know the rest.
So, here goes. Jimmy Carter. Let's see . . .
Thinking . . .
Thinking . . .
Thinking . . .
Still thinking . . .
I've got it! Jimmy Carter. Excellent nail pounder.
Those houses are worth every penny the occupants paid for them!
He did make some lovely chairs, IIRC
That F'ing loser has lots of blood on his hands: he gave us the Ayatollahs of Iran. Instead of helping the Shah, or even staying neutral, he sent over the Deputy Commander of NATO to inform the Iranian General Staff that we would not support any action against Khomeini & co. I always wondered why that old nut's plane wasn't shot out of the sky as soon as it entered Iranian airspace - until that juicy tidbit came out. Thus, all of the blood spilled by the Iranian trained, equipped and financed Hezbollah (including lots of US marines and diplomats) is on Jimmee's hands, not to mention the thousands of executions of pro-Shah Iranians and their families beginning in 1979.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: the weakness of Iran invited Madass Hussein to invade in search of a cheap conquest; this cost over 1 million their lives, including many killed with mustard and nerve gas. Thanks, Jimmee.
How about the millions of dead in Afghanistan? Carter's obvious weakness, combined with the lack of a strong pro-Western Iran (see above), led the Soviets to believe that they could invade with impunity, which was correct. Our reaction: withdrawing from the Olympics! Wow, what a deathblow to the Soviets that was! Probably the greatest threat to them from that action was the possibility that a coughing spasm following hysterical laughing would kill a member of the Politburo. All of the deaths in Afghanistan are Carter's fault. Oh, BTW, guess where our "friend" Usama learned the art of war: in Afghanistan, fighting the Russkies. No Afghan war (courtesy of Jimmee's appeasement), no Usama, no 9/11.
I have to duct tape my head every time I even hear this loser's name, let alone read the leftist drivel that comes out of his peanut brain.
Too bad that killer swimming rabbit didn't take him out.
About a week ago, EJ Dionne had the temerity to say something like "it was the human rights efforts of Jimmy Carter that provided the foundation for Reagan's successful cold war strategy against the Soviets." Unbelievable!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.