Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster
Christopher Ruddy
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.
2006-08-30 05:29:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by RAR24 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carter was not all that good. GW Bush is by far the worst in history.
Facts must escape your grasp. They may be too complex for you. No President has run up a $932 billion national debt. It was $257 billion in 1950. No President in History has taken more vacation time. No President has allowed terrorist to attack the USA on Sept 11th. after the President and the military were both told they would use hi-jacked comm. planes to do it and that they were already in the USA. this is by far the greatest failure in our History of our government to protect Americans. No President in History takes 7 full days to get federal troops into New Orleans.
More jobs have been lost in America under Republicans the past 6 years than at any time in our country's history. No President has caused the death of 2650 of our service men in Iraq and also caused over 19,000 wounded, Bin Laden is in Afghanistan not Iraq, we have seven times more troops in Iraq then in the country that harbors "the terrorist". Facts are facts. Bush was also not elected, he was appointed by the bias high court, Kerry won Ohio and that is fact. BTW, Carter was also a truthful and Godly man. Unlike Bush who lies with every word from his mouth, also a first in history. Bush has not attended Church while in office but for Photo ops. twice.
Republican attack DOG, Please learn to use spell checker, your post reveals your level of intelligence well.
2006-08-30 04:30:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by jl_jack09 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Carter was more unlucky than bad. He inherited a bad economy from the Nixon/Ford Administration. But on the positive side, he had one of the cleanest Administrations ever. Only Bert Lance put a blot on it, whereas the Reagan Administration has numerous ethical scandals. And don't forget Nixon! Carter reduced the Deficit and started to squeeze out the inflation of the Nixon/Ford years, but was not around enough to reap the benefits. He kept the peace. He advanced human rights, while Republicans scoffed at the idea.
2006-08-30 04:14:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by kreevich 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
To Mr. Dumbass Jackson Above me: Middle easterns have only ever lived under a dictatorship, they dont know any better. If america allowed revolutionary extremist groups to assemble, we would have revolutions, however minute, which would cost americn lives. Im sorry if i didnt clarify freedom of assembly by saying allowing Islamic Fundamentalists to gather and store munitions and openly talk of overthrowing the government, even in America you cant do that.
Jimmy Carter let the iran hstage crisis happen in the first place. Jimmy Carter ordered the Shah to allow freedom of speech and assembly in iran. The Shah (america's only ally besides isreal) capitulated to carters order because he couldn't stand to lose american backing. The Revolutionaries could then meet in public without consequences and the ayatollah's revolution began. Jimmy Carter would not send any troops or military support of any kind to help the shah. The shah waited for us support but it never came. Jimmy Carter caused the rise of the ayatollah, who subseuently took the American embassy hostage. Then he halfassed a rescue attempt. Then when the Iran-Iraq war began we couldnt side with the Iranians, so we had to support saddam. Which then caused Desert Storm beause we gave him weapons that he then used against hi own people and against the Kuwaiti's. After that we had a UN trade embargo which france breached and gave saddam billions of dollars in weapons. They also gave him money for his WMD projects with the outrageously naive Oil for Food program. So we had to hve Operation: Iraqi Freedom to put an end to the violence and munitions build up in iraq. Now Iran is defiying the UN, which will most likely start a war. This would not have happened if the Shah would have stayed in power. So all this can be directly related to Jimmy Carter. These are Facts, but there is no evidence to support the Iran-Contra scandal. Congres and every liberal in America has "researched" it, yet thre has never been any conclusive evidence, which means it didnt happen. You would think just a smidge of evidence would pop up, yet none has. it is a made up story designed to deface President Reagan. Jimmy Carter also told americans that her best days were behind her and she was a dying country. He just gave up on america, thats not what a leader would do, he was afraid of taking risks. Also how come people say he inherited to Nixon/Ford economy, but President Bush ruined ours. The reason that clinton looked like a great economist is because he inheritied his economy from reagan and Bush Sr. and now President Bush has inherited Clintons economy, yet liberals say Bush ruined the economy. You cant have it both ways, thats the typical liberal "Its always our fault"
And lets talk about his "great strides for peace" as i recall he just wanted isreal to capitulate, i guess no one saw the thousands of deaths in isreal as a direct result of terrorist attacks. Just because one signs a treaty doesnt mean they live by it. Why would Arafat give up his terrorist activities which made him millions. The truth is there has never been peace in the middle east, and there never will be. Jimmy carter wasted his presidency toiling over a treaty that would never work out anyway, and the people noticed his lack of caring when it came to domestic issues, thats why he wasnt reelected. Jimmy Carter was the Weakest President of the 20th Century, if not in all of American History. The reason his term was "spotless" is because he had no backbone to do anything.
Lets also talk about vacation time, Do you think the president takes vacations like me and you do. No, they are vacations by name alone. He still runs the country and does everything he would do if he were in office. A vacation for a president is just doing your job somewhere else besides the White House, except if your name is Bill Clinton then it can also be a BJ in the oval office while your on the phone with a foreign diplomat.
2006-08-30 04:11:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I came over because although I am definitely NOT a liberal I think Carter had more moral honesty and integrity than any president in a very long time.
2006-08-30 04:13:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by tecvba 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Liberals can't and won't give you a straight answer. They ramble on using big words, insults, double speak. Never actually giving an answer. Its to bad, because I think there are some that have some pretty good things to say...
2006-08-30 04:12:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Whiskeytangofoxtrot 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I consider myself a moderate, and I think that's just plain wrong.
In fact, to people who are Christian like myself but feel themselves less than entranced by some elements of the Republican party, he is a great example of how to live faithfully but with a bent toward positive social reform. Even if it wasn't as well-executed as he wanted.
2006-08-30 04:13:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by spacejohn77 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Apparently you're not much of a political observer. Jimmy Carter was instrumental in waging PEACE in the Middle East, unlike the Bush administration who believes waging WAR is a better idea. Going to war for peace is like screwing to save one's virginity.
Carter virtually gave up his run for re-election as he toiled tirelessly to free our hostages in Iran. Ronald Reagan made a secret deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages until Reagan's inauguration. During his inauguration speech, he boastfully announced the hostages were flying over free air space. Would it have been so bad to invite Carter to join him at the podium where the two men could raise their arms together in a mutual victory? No, Reagan selfishly took all the credit for himself, and the American public only found out years later about the nefarious deal he made to win the hostages' release.
Carter was perhaps the BEST president in modern American history, making great strides toward peace and civility in the world.
George W. Bush will definitely go down as America's WORST president (to date), having lied to Congress and the American public, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens for no justifiable reason, allowed 3,000 U.S. soldiers to die for an illegal and unconstitutional "war" just because he had a personal vendetta against Hussein and Cheney wants all of Iraq's OIL.
Funny, isn't it? Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about his personal sex life. Bush has lied to Congress about things far more serious, and should be tried for high treason and crimes against humanity. If convicted, Bush should face a public firing squad.
I'm expressing my feelings, as are you. That's an important part of our American freedoms. Bush, however, would censure us from expressing ourselves, censor the press when it prints something he wants to keep secret, and presume we're all guilty until proven innocent. His propagandists, Ann Coulture, Shawn Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are very good at shouting their opinions while not allowing any opposition to be heard. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinions even though they weren't harmonious with yours. -RKO-
2006-08-30 04:24:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
What's your point? That it's your opinion that Carter was not one of our best presidents? I've shared that opinion since he was the president.
I was curious to see what facts you would present. I wanted to see if they were real facts and not opinion and conjecture presented as if they were facts. Turns out they were none of the above, just your "feeling".
2006-08-30 04:19:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
How do you you know he was the worst ? Because he wasn't re-elected.? Well that was true for Bush Senior also?
2006-08-30 04:16:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dr.Dividend 1
·
0⤊
0⤋