Jimmy, the Abominable
Posted on April 16, 2008
Filed Under Arabs, Ayatollahs, Fatah, Hamas, Human Rights, International, Iran, Israel, Jimmy Carter, Liberalism, Middle East, Mugabe, Mujahedeen, Palestine, Robert Mugabe, Sudan, Terrorism, United States, Yasser Arafat, Zimbabwe | 2 Comments
I just saw this in The Wall Street Journal (H/T: Dean’s World):
Jimmy’s World
April 15, 2008; Page A18
Former President Jimmy Carter has an interesting way of saying more than he intends. He lusts in his heart. He turns to his 13-year-old daughter for foreign policy wisdom. He titles a book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” What Mr. Carter means to say is that he is a flesh-and-blood human being, a caring father, a missionary for peace. What he actually communicates is that he is weirdly libidinal, scarily naive and obsessively hostile to Israel.
Now the 2002 Nobel laureate is in reprise mode. “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels,” he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel’s top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. “When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.”
I can understand Jimmy Carter’s feelings about Israel, former Israeli Premier Menachem Begin, refused to have Israel commit suicide or at least roll over and play dead to please him. Jimmy, therefore, has never forgiven dem Jooz. I do admire his candor, however, now we finally know the reason for his predilection for every single dictator in our days
In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels… When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people, Carter said… Can one infer from that statrement that a dictatorship is, in Jimmy’s convoluted mind, superior to a democracy. Should therefore the whole world not be under the rule of dictators, for its own good?
Jimmy put the Ayatollahs’ regime in power in Iran by refusing to lift a finger to help our ally the Shah. It was the same Jimmy who put Robert Mugabe in power in what became Zimbabwe and then that country went from from one of Africa’s richest to one one of the world’s poorest. Arafat was directly involved, at least once, in a direct attack on US diplomats (Khartoum, Sudan, March 1 1973 – a full tree years before Jimmy became the 39th US President) and yet unlike other visitors to the area, our man Jimmy laid a wreath on the tomb of this multiple murderer of Americans and Jooz. Arafat was his honored friend, we saw him hobnob with likes of that Venezuelan piece of Devil’s excreta – Hugo Chavez and the list of his friends goes on…
There is so much more I could say in this post, but nothing I can add would be as good, as concise, as Martin Podhoretz’ words (H/T: Commonsense & Wonder):
Saint Jimmy, Virulent Realist
John Podhoretz – 04.15.2008 – 10:01 PM
Jimmy Carter’s disastrous trip to the Middle East — which was really just what the Democrats needed right now — is an object lesson in American foreign-policy myopia. When Carter, shockingly, said that in speaking to dictators, he was speaking “to all the people” under the dictator’s thumb, he revealed something important about himself. Far from being the idealist of legend, he is actually nothing more than an old-style, unreconstructed “realist.”
Carter is forever attempting to cut deals with dictators — as he did in 1994 when he claimed to have solved the North Korean nuclear problem in a one-on-one with Kim Il Sung. He has no choice, really. If you’re an American eminence who wants to make headlines by cutting deals on a foreign trip, you can only do so with a tyranny, because representative governments don’t move quickly enough.
Here’s the thing about dictators: They are very easy to deal with. If you ask them to do something for you, and they agree, it gets done. They don’t have bothersome parliaments or independent courts or restive populaces to hinder their actions. And it is in part for this reason that realists have long looked suspiciously on democratizing as foreign policy. It isn’t just that they are dubious about the capacity of such societies to liberalize; it is also that for the United States, a tyranny may simply be a more practical partner.
I have no doubt that the reason American presidents have spent decades speaking very softly and in kindly terms about Saudi Arabia is that all they have to do is place a phone call to the right person (who was, for decades, Prince Bandar) and they can get something out of the call — something important and useful and entirely clandestine that they believe is in the American national interest. America’s delicacy in dealing with Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf over the past six or seven years is doubtless due to the same sort of thing — Condi or Colin calls, Pervez responds.
Those who believe this kind of relationship is the most and the best Americans can expect from a difficult world usually think of themselves as hardened by experience — serious, appropriately cynical, tough, and without illusion.
We don’t usually think of Carter as a “realist,” in part because he is given to preening moralizing and in part because he is falsely given credit for putting human rights at the center of his foreign policy during his presidency. (I say “falsely” because his administration’s efforts in this regard with the Soviet Union were intended entirely as window-dressing for some very questionable bilateral negotiations; it was Soviet and Eastern European dissidents themselves who figured out how to use the human-rights language in some of these negotiations as a weapon against those awful regimes, a brilliant twist that neither the Soviets nor the Carterites ever anticipated.)
But a realist he is, of a particularly disagreeable sort. A cynic doesn’t usually expect, demand, and need the world to think of him as a saint.
Before I forget, please check out this post on Arafat’s terror machine targeting Americans… but Jimmy, the Abominable, says that Arafat fought for Just causes…. Were the TWA plane hijacking (June 14, 1985), the attack on the Achile Lauro (October 7, 1985) no more than “fighting for just causes” as Carter said? Is murdering Americans, whose president you once were, merely “fighting for just causes?” Jimmy?!?!? Jimmy… not only do you owe huge apologies to every American murdered (some of whom were Jooz) by your dear friend Arafat, but YOU HAVE UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVEN THAT THE SAINT YOU PRETEND TO BE IS NO MORE THAN A DESPICABLE, ABOMINABLE, EVIL CREATURE!!!
Chaim
RELATED POSTS
The Mujahedeen and Jimmy Carter
Comments
2 Responses to “Jimmy, the Abominable”
Support our site, vote for us!
Follow Us
Give us some kudos!
Jrants
Feedburner
Track who’s online
Technorati
-
The American Conservative
Webrings
Jimmy is a horse’s derriere… everything else I want to say is impolite and not ladylike.
Hello, Chaim:
I have answered you on facebook and changed your blog’s address in mine and in the RSS reader.
And err, yeah, Jimmy Carter is a shame: I can’t even think he has good intentions…