Light Reading by Jimmy CarterPosted by marie on 3/13/03 at 17:52 (112823)
Just War -- Or A Just War?
By Jimmy Carter, published in the New York Times, March 9, 2003
Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in 'collateral damage.' Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
--Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 19:53 (112848)
With all due respect for a former president, Carter bases much of his argument on the need for the UN to somehow legitimize or sanction our actions. I have discussed this issue previously. We are a sovereign nation and do not need an international body to sanction our action, particularly, an international body which has a very poor track record.
Jimmy Carter and Human Rights: Behind the Media Myth
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Media Beat, September 21, 1994
Jimmy Carter's reputation has soared lately.
Typical of the media spin was a Sept. 20 report on CBS Evening News, lauding Carter's 'remarkable resurgence' as a freelance diplomat. The network reported that 'nobody doubts his credibility, or his contacts.'
For Jimmy Carter, the pact he negotiated in Haiti is the latest achievement of his long career on the global stage.
During his presidency, Carter proclaimed human rights to be 'the soul of our foreign policy.' Although many journalists promoted that image, the reality was quite different.
Inaugurated 13 months after Indonesia's December 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter stepped up U.S. military aid to the Jakarta regime as it continued to murder Timorese civilians. By the time Carter left office, about 200,000 people had been slaughtered.
Elsewhere, despotic allies -- from Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines to the Shah of Iran -- received support from President Carter.
In El Salvador, the Carter administration provided key military aid to a brutal regime. In Nicaragua, contrary to myth, Carter backed dictator Anastasio Somoza almost until the end of his reign. In Guatemala -- again contrary to enduring myth -- major U.S. military shipments to bloody tyrants never ended.
After moving out of the White House in early 1981, Carter developed a reputation as an ex-president with a conscience. He set about building homes for the poor. And when he traveled to hot spots abroad, news media often depicted Carter as a skillful negotiator on behalf of human rights.
But a decade after Carter left the Oval Office, scholar James Petras assessed the ex-president's actions overseas -- and found that Carter's image as 'a peace mediator, impartial electoral observer and promoter of democratic values...clashes with the experiences of several democratic Third World leaders struggling against dictatorships and pro-U.S. clients.'
From Latin America to East Africa, Petras wrote, Carter functioned as 'a hard-nosed defender of repressive state apparatuses, a willing consort to electoral frauds, an accomplice to U.S. Embassy efforts to abort popular democratic outcomes and a one-sided mediator.'
Observing the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic, Carter ignored fraud that resulted in the paper-thin victory margin of incumbent president Joaquin Balaguer. Announcing that Balaguer's bogus win was valid, Carter used his prestige to give international legitimacy to the stolen election -- and set the stage for a rerun this past spring, when Balaguer again used fraud to win re-election.
In December 1990, Carter traveled to Haiti, where he labored to undercut Jean-Bertrand Aristide during the final days of the presidential race. According to a top Aristide aide, Carter predicted that Aristide would lose, and urged him to concede defeat. (He ended up winning 67 percent of the vote.)
Since then, Carter has developed a warm regard for Haiti's bloodthirsty armed forces. Returning from his recent mission to Port-au-Prince, Carter actually expressed doubt that the Haitian military was guilty of human rights violations.
Significantly, Carter's involvement in the mid-September negotiations came at the urging of Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras -- who phoned Carter only days before the expected U.S. invasion and asked him to play a mediator role. (Cedras had floated the idea in an Aug. 6 appearance on CNN.)
Carter needed no encouragement. All summer he had been urging the White House to let him be a mediator in dealings with Haiti.
Carter's regard for Cedras matches his evident affection for Cedras' wife. On Sept. 20, Carter told a New York Times interviewer: 'Mrs. Cedras was impressive, powerful and forceful. And attractive. She was slim and very attractive.'
By then, Carter was back home in Georgia. And U.S. troops in Haiti were standing by -- under the terms of the Carter-negotiated agreement -- as Haiti's police viciously attacked Haitians in the streets.
The day after American forces arrived in Haiti, President Clinton was upbeat, saying that 'our troops are working with full cooperation with the Haitian military' -- the same military he had described five days earlier as 'armed thugs' who have 'conducted a reign of terror, executing children, raping women, killing priests.'
The latest developments in Haiti haven't surprised Petras, an author and sociology professor at Binghamton University in New York. 'Every time Carter intervenes, the outcomes are always heavily skewed against political forces that want change,' Petras said when we reached him on Sept. 20. 'In each case, he had a political agenda -- to support very conservative solutions that were compatible with elite interests.'
Petras described Carter as routinely engaging in 'a double discourse. One discourse is for the public, which is his moral politics, and the other is the second track that he operates on, which is a very cynical realpolitik that plays ball with very right-wing politicians and economic forces.'
And now, Petras concludes, 'In Haiti, Carter has used that moral image again to impose one of the worst settlements imaginable.'
With much of Haiti's murderous power structure remaining in place, the results are likely to be grim.
Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon are syndicated columnists and authors of 'Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the Pundits' (Common Courage Press).
Media Beat (PIPE) FAIR
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:07 (112851)
Jimmy Carter's Trail of Disaster
Monday, May 13, 2002
Jimmy Carter is off this week to save Cuba.
With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out.
It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.
Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.
The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.
North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense?
Of course not.
But that's Jimmy Carter for you.
It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide.
Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet.
The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time.
Does Carter have much to say about this?
Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him – he kissed him!
But there is nothing new here.
The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record.
But I won't.
Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?
No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.
Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.
I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]
With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.
And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the 'axis of evil.' Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.
We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this.
Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S.
Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings.
Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq?
Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax's Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money. (See: Carter's Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance.)
So I give Carter his due. At least he is not a hypocrite in one sense. He is good to the dictators and butchers who give him money.
A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy Cartermarie on 3/13/03 at 20:08 (112852)
I guess I must have missed your point. Again I am only reading an article intent on slander and way off the track of what Jimmy Carter wrote. Berating someone is a way to get off topic and upset people. I don't respond to those tactics. In fact that totally turns me off. It seems, well excuse me, but a little trite. I mean that in the nicest way. Stay on topic please. What is your opinion on what you read?
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:11 (112853)
Jimmy Carter's Outrage
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Jimmy Carter is the worst. The absolute worst.
He's more dangerous than most evil types because he runs around with a smile and looks like a well-intentioned peanut farmer.
The Good Book warns us that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
I won't question Jimmy Carter's motives.
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he believes he is actually doing good.
Nevertheless, the havoc he has wreaked with his good intentions is enormous. In my last column I discussed the long-term implications of Carter's decision to force the Shah of Iran to fall.
The events of 9-11 can be traced directly to that decision and to the Iranian revolution that created a haven for radical Islam.
Just after 9-11, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress that Iran was the starting point for the Islamic revolution and terrorism.
Even Yasser Arafat told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that 'another country' controlled the suicide bombers. Blitzer asked, 'Iran?'
We know that, thanks to Carter's 'good intention' to end the rule of the despotic Shah, he allowed a far greater evil to arise in Iran.
Now Carter has more 'good intentions' for Cuba.
Yesterday, in a televised address, Carter called on the U.S. to take the first step in lifting the U.S. embargo. He said, '... my hope is that the Congress will soon act to permit unrestricted travel between the United States and Cuba, establish open trading relationships, and repeal the embargo.'
Carter did note something that is well known to anyone who has studied the issue of the embargo.
He said, 'I should add that these restraints are not the source of Cuba's economic problems. Cuba can trade with more than 100 countries and buy medicines, for example, more cheaply in Mexico than in the United States.'
In other words, Cuba has had open trade with all of Western Europe and the rest of the world, and yet this trade has amounted to nothing. Why? Because Castro has shown little interest in opening Cuba up to capitalist investment.
Take, for example, in the late '90s when Castro began to allow foreigners to buy real estate in Cuba. Millions poured into Havana from Europeans hoping to get in on the ground floor of a Caribbean real estate boom.
Then the predictable happened. Two years ago, the madman Castro suddenly changed the rules for investors. They could keep and buy property, but they could not resell it. As anyone can figure out, real estate with no resale market is practically worthless.
Why, then, does Castro want the embargo lifted?
The real reason is the embargo has meant that the U.S. has vetoed Cuba from getting any lines of credit from organizations like the IMF and World Bank.
This is the real gold mine Castro wants access to.
And if history is any indication, the hard currency Cuba gets from such credit lines will go not to help the suffering Cuban people but to support Castro's police state, his military, his bioweapons program, and his efforts to help other rogue states and to subvert other Latin American democracies.
Still, Jimmy Carter says America needs to offer the first carrot.
I don't understand this. According to the left-leaning Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and our State Department, Castro still runs one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in the world.
The causes that anger the liberal establishment in the U.S. – persecution of minorities, union members, gays, dissidents and journalists, and religious persecution of Jews and others – seem to have no effect when Castro's mistreatment of these same groups is pointed out.
Yet Carter and many liberals here say we should bow to Castro's demands.
Interestingly, the same people were saying during the Elian affair that if we just sacrificed the boy and returned Elian to Castro, it would be a sign of good faith. They said our gesture would bring a new dawn for Cuban-American relations and for Castro's treatment of his own people.
Well, we know happened after Elian was returned to Castro in June of 2000.
Amnesty International reported last year that immediately following Elian's return, the second half of 2000 saw a dramatic increase of repression in Cuba.
A statement issued by the left-leaning human rights organization last year described the time period after Elian returned: 'The increasing number of people jailed for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression clearly demonstrates the level to which the government will go in order to weaken the political opposition and suppress dissidents.'
Still, Jimmy Carter insists we should trust Castro. Of course, Jimmy Carter is a well-intentioned man.
Editor's Note: Important articles from the NewsMax Archives you should read: Castro Destroyed Jewish Community, he Persecutes Blacks, and he Oppresses Journalists.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
A product that might interest you:
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:19 (112856)
I can only be repetitive to state my point again. It would be nice to have the international community behind us but the international community does not determine what is right or wrong, it does not add or detract from the legitimacy of our actions.
We do need to look at the track record of an individual in order to understand the bases of his or her opinions. The information presented about Carter's track record is negative but it is very significant, particularly when President Carter expresses himself as a champion of human rights but has a record that is not consistent with his expressed opinions.
Re: more light reading about Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:22 (112858)
Jimmy Carter Friend to America's Enemies, Enemy to America's Friends
By Chuck Morse
Jimmy Carter says he is 'disappointed' with President George W. Bush in an interview appearing in the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. He's annoyed that President Bush hasn't stabbed Israel in the back, at this most precarious time, by not insisting, as he did as President, upon the 'removal of Israeli settlements on the West Bank'. He is critical that Bush hasn't signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, which would devastate our industrial sector. And, most astonishingly, he's upset that Bush has been reluctant to ratify the UN rights of the child treaty, a treaty that would effectively transfer custody of every American child into the hands of the UN New World Order.
The Carter Administration, 1977-1980, as a matter of routine, sold out our allies and aided our enemies. His actions condemned nations to left-wing tyranny, Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship, and war. His policies hurt America's economy, weakened our military, and encouraged the 'malaise' that he famously referred to. With the election of Ronald Reagan, America rejected the malaise and began to pull itself out from the rubble. Following is a brief revisiting of the Carter foreign policy.
Carter was complicit in overthrowing the elected government of Anastasio Somosa in Nicaragua. Somosa had been elected President of Nicaragua in 1974 in an election overseen by the OAS, which reported no irregularities. Somosa would be demonized by the international left including their apparatchiks in the American media. On January 23, 1979, the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles reported the following comments by Mexican President Lopez Portillo:
'When President Carter visited me I told him: 'I do not particularly like Somosa or his regime, as you know. But if the Sandanistas unseat him and replace him with a Castro-picked Government it will have a profound effect on Nicaragua,s neighbors and certainly touch off a slide to the left in my country'. It was as though he did not hear a word of what I had said. He told me: 'Oh Mr. President, you must do something to help me get rid of this Somosa'.'
Carter would proceed to strangle our Nicaraguan ally by forcing the IMF and the World Bank to cut off credit, to embargo beef and coffee, and to prohibit weapons sales to the Nicaraguan military. He would force American allies to do the same, as he would pressure Israel to recall a ship with munitions bound for Nicaragua. Once Somosa was deposed, Carter would push through Congress a $75 million aid package for the new Marxist government of Daniel Ortega. Carter held as a crowning achievement of his administration, the selling out of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians who are proceeding to transfer functional authority to Communist China.
Carter sold out the Shah of Iran in a similar manner. Like Somosa, the international left sent down their marching orders to their apparatchiks in the press and the Shah, a rather liberal leader by Middle East standards, would be suddenly transformed into the Great Satan. The Shah was attempting to quell communist supported uprisings by Marxist and Islamic fundamentalist forces. He was stymied in his efforts by the direct intervention of the Carter administration, which forced him, by use of threats, to accommodate the insurrectionists. This led to the collapse of his pro western government in 1979 to be followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Tehran. Today, Iran is one of the world's most oppressive regimes and is a center of international terrorism.
On December 15, 1978, Carter terminated our relations with Taiwan and recognized Communist China, the most murderous regime in the history of the planet. He did this after Congress had adjourned for Christmas. The Senate, earlier that year, had voted 94-0 on a resolution that it should be consulted before any change in the treaty with Taiwan. Red China would proceed to benefit from a massive transfer of US credit and technology, a process that would reach an orgasmic climax during the Clinton Administration. Carter would remain silent in the face of the genocide performed by the Marxist Pol Pot. So much for Carter as the champion of 'human rights'.
In Africa, Carter would contribute to the selling out of Rhodesia to the Communist Robert Mugabe, and would maintain silence in the face of Soviet and Cuban military involvement in Africa. In short, Carter barely missed an opportunity to sell out an American ally to the Communists. Domestically, he presided over double-digit inflation and record deficits. Thank God President Bush has 'disappointed 'Jimmy Carter. He must be on the right track.
Page URL: http://www.chuckmorse.com/jimmy_carter.html
Host Web site: http://www.chuckmorse.com
Author hereby grants permission to e-mail this commentary, in its entirety and including the Web page URL, to those interested in receiving the information. Please e-mail for Chuck's PERMISSION in advance, to post, reprint, or reproduce this article for any other format of publication, electronic or otherwise.
Please share your comments Chuck Morse Forum - Speak Up, Speak Out!
Return to EDITORIAL PAGE
Return to CHUCKMORSE.COM
Copyright © 2000, 2001 - City Metro Enterprises
All Rights Reserved
City Metro Enterprises
458 Astor Station
Boston, MA 02123
E-mail: (email removed)
Web Design by DESIGN PLUS
Re: more light reading about Jimmy Cartermarie on 3/13/03 at 20:26 (112859)
I would like to send the following prayer of St.Francis of Assisi.
'Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is
injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope; where there is
darkness, light, and where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much
Seek to be consoled as to console; to be
Understood, as to understand: to be loved as to
Love; for it is in giving that we receive, it is in
Pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in
Dying that we are born to eternal life.'
Will the real Ed stand up.....Hello are you there? All I see is a bunch of copied and pasted stuff. Watch out or I'll start copying and pasting each poem from the Poets against war. There are over 13,000 of them. Ed you crack me up.
Re: a little more light reading about Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:29 (112860)
The Washington Times
May 15, 2002
Jimmy Carter: America basher
Tribune Media Services
Whenever I open the newspaper to find an article about Jimmy Carter (or see him on TV) I scream, 'Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!' Alas, it's
not my joke; it comes from an episode of 'The Simpsons.' Marge fails to make marshmallow treats for the town bake sale, which results in Springfield being unable
to afford a statue of Abraham Lincoln. They settle for a bronze President Carter instead. When it's unveiled, someone shouts, 'Jimmy Carter!? He's history's greatest
monster!' and the town riots.
My wife thought the line was funny too the first 500 times I said it. But, in the last few days, I've blown out my quota because the 39th president is a 24-hour
Jimmy Carter, who, truth be told, isn't a monster, is in Cuba this week visiting Fidel Castro, the world's most notorious cigar wholesaler and a bona fide monster,
in order to improve relations between our two countries.
Until Tuesday, the media hype over Carter's visit was a bit silly because Carter, while doing yeoman work as a homebuilder for the American poor, is something
of a joke as an international figure. So, what happened Tuesday? Oh, well, Carter called the United States a liar.
Last week, Undersecretary of State John Bolton announced that the U.S. government has reason to believe Castro's Cuba is developing and exporting 'dual use'
technology i.e. technology that can be used both for peaceful purposes as well as to develop weapons of mass-destruction.
So what did Carter do when he got to Cuba? He basically said that the United States was full of it. He explained that the U.S. government didn't tell him about
these concerns before he left. Moreover, Carter asked Cuban scientists in the presence of Castro and Fidel himself whether they had anything to do with
biological weapons or terrorism and they all said no. Heck, if Castro's word isn't good enough, whose is?
It's an unusual thing for a former president to more or less choose sides against the United States and with a hostile nation ruled by a ruthless dictator. Unusual,
that is, in the sense that most U.S. presidents current or former don't do this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, Carter is the exception that proves the rule. Like a (very) white, un-rhyming Jesse Jackson, Carter has developed an uncanny gift for sucking up to
the most appalling dictators on the planet and undermining U.S. policy.
As Joshua Muravchik wrote in the New Republic in 1994 when Carter was bollixing up then-President Clinton's efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North
Korea 'Jimmy Carter, for all his heroic advocacy of human rights, has a long history of melting in the presence of tyrants.'
At the time, Carter said of Kim Il Sung, a brutal Stalinist dictator, 'I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and
in charge of the decisions about this country.' As for the North Koreans, Muravchik wrote, Carter said the 'people were very friendly and open.' The capital,
Pyongyang, is a 'bustling city,' where customers 'pack the department stores,' which looked like 'Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia.' North Korea, it should be
noted, has suffered from such government-imposed mass-starvation that millions have been forced to live off grass.
While the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N.
Security Council asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.
As the 'human rights president,' Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was also 'a man who believes in human rights.' Carter saluted the dictator as 'a
great and courageous leader' who 'has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years.' He publicly told Romanian dictator Nicolae
Ceausescu, 'Our goals are the same. … We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own
people.' He told the Stalinist first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, 'Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland.'
Since Carter has left office, he's been even more of a voluptuary of despots and dictators. He told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was 'ashamed of
what my country has done to your country.' He's praised the mass-murdering leaders of Syria and Ethiopia. He endorsed Yasser Arafat's sham election and
grumbled about the legitimate vote that ousted Sandanista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
And, I learned from a devastating critique by my National Review colleague Jay Nordlinger, Carter even volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer,
crafting palatable messages for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the
So, yes, it's unfair to say that Jimmy Carter was history's greatest monster. But it's a safe bet that if Carter could shake the hand of history's greatest monster,
he'd leap at the opportunity.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Re: real Ed?Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:32 (112861)
You are welcome to copy and paste anything you feel is relevant. It is not hard to find the real Ed -- you know that I don't hide any of my opinions.
Re: Okay, this one was a bit nasty.Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:34 (112863)
The author could have said what he needed to say in a lot nicer way.
Re: this one is a bit betterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:36 (112864)
Humanitarian, or 'Agenda-Driven'?
By Allan Saxe, WBAP Political Analyst
Former President Jimmy Carter recently criticized President George W. Bush finding almost nothing he could agree with in the new administration. The former president has been characterized as perhaps the best, the most noble of past presidents. He is a man standing up for human rights the world over.
But there is another side to former President Carter. He has neither been as noble nor as high-minded as some would like to believe. His hammering with Habit for Humanity is not enough to erase his past record as a failed President of the United States.
During his administration the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. His response was to cancel United States participation in the Olympics. He was alleged to have said after the Soviet invasion, 'For the first time I really understand what the Soviet Union is all about.' What innocence coming from a president. After years of study he finally realizes the brutality of the Soviet Union!
During his administration the Iranian government under the Shah fell apart. There is speculation that President Carter helped to bring down the Shah and pave the way for the new revolutionary Iran, which has caused so much bloodshed and terrorism for the past two decades. His dislike of the Shah was not over human rights abuses, but something more practical-OIL!
President Carter was mad at the Shah for not helping us more with oil prices and OPEC. Iranian revolutionaries were in exile in France. The idea was to back a different Iranian regime under the new revolutionaries hoping this would be a barrier to Soviet expansionism in that part of the world. And a new Iranian regime would be more mindful of our oil needs. Further, fundamentalist religious leaders were thought to be a natural barrier to Communism and under our direction.
Does anybody need to remember the American Embassy being overtaken? The constant and incessant humiliation handed out by a regime that President Carter believed would be with us. President Carter should be deeply ashamed of allowing American humiliation to proceed for so long and contributing to a regime hostile to the very ideals he professes: human rights. Human rights have certainly not been furthered by this foreign policy debacle.
During Carter's administration interest rates soared along with inflation. There were double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation. This economic nightmare made many people suffer. Further, the gloom, which permeated American society, during his term as president was palpable. U.S. citizens were dispirited perhaps more than at any time since the Great Depression. President Carter's response was to put the blame on the American people in his infamous 'malaise speech.'
Among President Carter's many criticisms of President Bush is that President Bush has been too easy on Israel's West Bank settlements. If the former president can criticize a vibrant healthy democracy like Israel why does he refrain from criticisms of other Middle East or North African regimes that have no semblance whatsoever of freedom or democracy. Where is President Carter's critique of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Egypt? The former president is keen in criticizing democracies, but very lenient in tolerating authoritarian and autocratic regimes. It is not simply a double standard. It is human rights blindness!
President Carter has been trying since he left office to rehabilitate himself politically for history. His presidency was a failure in most areas, and human beings were hurt then, and now because of his policies or lack thereof. President Carter has been able to get the media and the public to believe in his human kindness, truthfulness, and human rights crusades.
He is by all accounts a very bright man. But he is no human rights crusader. He merely has an agenda, which he labels as human rights. He will have to construct many homes to make up for all the harm and grief he caused while in office. His criticism of President George W. Bush is one more attempt at trying to cast himself in a better light.
Allan Saxe serves as political analyst for WBAP News/Talk 820 and writes an opinion column for the Star-Telegram.
What a great asset Allan Saxe is to this community, and once again you have nailed it . Jimmy was a weak president , shut up an build houses Jimmy! Allan ... I just can't go veggie yet ... but it is a thought and you have some good ideas along that line. I am still upset that I could never get into you classes at UTA , you always filled up first .
Best regards - Barry E. DeWalt - Arlington
Bravo! Finally, someone has written a realistic appraisal of former President Carter. It is certainly nice that he is such a good man, but he was a very poor President. Your column summed up feelings that I have had for many years, and you put the facts in place to back up your statements. I do not dislike former President Carter, but I do not consider him a statesman, nor should he be considered an official spokesman for this country. He has become just another 'Bush basher', and has exhibited few of the common courtesies we have come to expect of former presidents.
Dana White - Keller
Here here! I was a police officer working the long gasoline lines in Ohio at the time. I am also a multi-tour Viet Nam Vet and cannot forgive him the amnesty for deserters and draft dodgers or the relinquishing of the Panama Canal. He was a disaster as president and laid the ground work for an even more disastrous president William Blythe Jefferson Clinton. The latter will go down in my ledgers as the most anti-American president in our country's history.
Gerald A. Leonard - Weatherford
Well put, Mr. Saxe!!
How did Carter manage to change his image so effectively? And, what about Ford? Why is it that suddenly these two have become so critical and their opinions so newsworthy when neither were good Presidents?
Pat Clark - Plano,
Allan, I could not agree with you more. Carter criticizing ANY president, especially on Human Rights or Foreign Policy issues is the height of hypocrisy! Clinton may have been a poor leader in the foreign policy arena, but he pales into insignificance when compared to the utter incompetence of Carter and his 'ostrich' policy.
Kenneth E Schaefer - Garland
Although I seldom agree with Allan Saxe, I found his article on Jimmy Carter right on the money. Now if he would only admit that Ronald Reagan was the best president we ever had - at least in my lifetime (I am 70 yrs old). Hopefully George W. will run a close second when all is said and done.
Richard D. Grieser - Arlington
Regarding your column on former Pres. Carter I believe he was also the idiot who bargained/gave away the Panama Canal. Now look at the mess in Panama and the Red Chinese who are making inroads commercially at both ends of the canal. And he has the gall to criticize Pres. Bush.
Rod McCoy - Wylie
I am Kent A. Campbell from Gatesville, Texas. I am 39 years old, so therefore I was kind of young to be paying attention to politics during Carter's presidency. Reagan was the first president that I was allowed to vote for which was a no-brainer. The main thing that I noticed was that the whole situation in Iran changed when Reagan was elected, even before he took office. That alone should change the doubts anyone may have that Carter was a weak president. Carter should be ashamed of the way he handled his job, and remains foolish to think that criticizing one of the most popular presidents of recent time would in any way make him look good.
Kent A. Campbell - Gatesville
You can express your opinions to this column by CLICKING HERE. Be sure to include your name and city of residence. This information may be included with any published opinions.
Return To The Allan Saxe Opinion Page
Return to WBAP Home Page
Re: real Ed?marie on 3/13/03 at 20:38 (112865)
Ah yes the king of copy and paste rises again. When are you signing up? or have you served our country? I can't think of a better person for the job.
Re: Do you read this stuff before you post it?marie on 3/13/03 at 20:44 (112869)
This article was a bit nicer. But you haven't convinced me yet. I didn't care for Carter as a president. He failed in many ways. But as I have said before people do change. I think he has. The articles you posted are mostly opinion and they are entitled to there opinion just as anyone is.
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 20:47 (112870)
Hey at least on the domestic front he soared. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment were at an all time low. His foriegn policy was beyond compare, look at the Iran hostage situation.
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 20:49 (112871)
Right again Dr Ed. It is the subterfuge and hipocrisy that really gets my goat. Unfortunatly when the ends justify the means anything is fair game and the premise can shift like the titanic
Re: dont pick on cubaBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 20:52 (112873)
Why bring Cuba into this? The people there are doing great. Fidel Castro has an net worth of 200 million. Not bad for a country where a 57 chevy means you are rich
Re: I support President Carter 100% on this one.....Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 20:58 (112874)
I am not sure he changed for the better. The human rights problems which he exaccerbated as president, I feel were not intentional on his part. He appeared inexperienced in foreign policy. That is not always a drawback if one has good advisors. His handling of Iran was a blunder and I don't think he could have envisioned what did ensue.
He has since been a little too close to anti-American interests for my comfort. Perhaps he is attempting to take the role of peacemaker and as such, feels he needs to present the opposite side of certain issues. I am concerned that that tactic risks being lost in moral relativism.
Here is something I support Carter 100% on:
Title: Jimmy Carter'S Super Southern Fried Chicken
Yield: 1 Servings
2 qt vegetable shortening
3 frying chicken (2 1/2 lb
2 c flour
2 tb white cornmeal
2 tb salt
2 ts fresh ground white pepper
In a large, well-seasoned cast-iron skillet, heat shortening to 375 .
Wash chickens and dry well, using a kitchen towel. Cut each into 8
serving pieces. In a large mixing bowl, combine flour with cornmeal,
salt, and pepper; dredge chicken and set on paper towels. Fry
chicken in hot oil, turning to brown evenly on all sides. (This will
take from 10-12 minutes; white meat will cook faster than dark meat.)
As each pieces becomes golden brown and tender, transfer to paper
towels to drain. Keep chicken hot until serving in a preheated 350
oven; set well drained pieces on an ovenproof serving platter on
middle shelf of oven with the door slight ajar. For cold fried
chicken allow to cool, then wrap tightly and refrigerate overnight.
Serve with mashed potatoes, brown gravy and corn on the cob.
About the Club
FREE Boot Camp for
Home Cooks & Chefs!
& Food Festivals
Rate this Recipe!
See how others rated it! Ask a Chef
Community Forum Calculators
6,000 Item Database Printer Friendly
More Recipes: Appetizers (PIPE) Soups (PIPE) Salads (PIPE) Fish-Seafood (PIPE) Beef (PIPE) Chicken (PIPE) Cookies (PIPE) Chocolate (PIPE) Italian
Re: Light Reading by Jimmy CarterEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:05 (112877)
Carter's single biggest foreign policy mistake was not supporting the Shah of Iran. The Shah was a good friend of the US. He was actively modernizing Iran, bringing it into the 20th century. Yes, the Shah could be repressive at times to his political opponents but one must also consider what he was up against.
Re: more light reading about Jimmy CarterBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 21:10 (112881)
I think Ed is doing a good thing here. Jimmy Carter is a socialist and did much worse than good for our country. Now he is going about and publicly undermining the President. That is a low class thing and has not been done before to this degree. He needs to stick to re-shingling houses in Atlants.
Re: I support President Carter 100% on this one.....marie on 3/13/03 at 21:11 (112883)
You still crack me up. Good one Ed
Re: I support President Carter 100% on this one.....Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:21 (112889)
Just taking you advice ... saying something outrageous.....
Re: Do you read this stuff before you post it?BGCPed on 3/13/03 at 21:23 (112891)
He may have changed but the people he still supports and the ideas he promotes are still deeply flawed. Why he supports, to this day socialist dictators is beyond me. If he is all about human rights and into 'humanity he should grow a pair and demand Castro let some of his 200 Million in asstes go to raise living standards for Cubans.
I know the Mariel boat lift was the last great thing he did for Cuba and the US. If Cuba was turned to a democracy the tourism and trade would raise their standard of living tenfold. Carter is ignorant of the monetary dynamics at play. He would say open up free trade. When the financial gatekeeper is a communist dictator that has gotten rich and let his citizens live well below standard Carter should not support that at all.
What? well trade with Cuba and all of a sudden Castro will say 'ok I know have 300 million I gues I will start giving to the people?
Re: I support President Carter 100% on this one.....BGCPed on 3/13/03 at 21:26 (112893)
Ed you forgot to add 32 0z of Billy Beer in the skillet
Re: Do you read this stuff before you post it?john h on 3/14/03 at 09:36 (112934)
Carter has good intentions and I think is a very good man. I think he just does not grasp that there is evil in the world and good intentions and reasonableness does not work with evil. I am thinking Carter was involved at one time with some of the diplomacy that has gone on with North Korea. Our leaders in the U.S. thought that a handshake and promises would work with a Communist leader in North Korea and we now face a nuclear power.
Does anyone remember who built the nuclear reactory in Iraq that Israel destroyed in the 80's? It was the French. The French also supplied Saddam with Mirage fighters and most of their weapons. Iraq's two largest trading partners has been France and Russia and most of this trade has been weapons including things that have been banned since the Gulf war ended. The current President of France was close friends with Saddam and Saddam visited him in Paris on various occasions..France at this point is not just opposing war but working to undermine the U.S. at every point. They envision themselves as the leader of a new European union. I think it was George Patton who said 'I had rather face the enemy in front of me than have the French behind me'. .