Benedict Arnold, Meet Jimmy Carter
Pam Meister
Have you heard? Jimmy Carter is planning a trip to
Hamas, as you may recall, has the distinct honor of being considered one of the foremost terrorist organizations in the world by the
Carter’s press secretary, Deanna Congileo, did not provide confirmation of such a visit, but she did not deny it either:
President Carter is planning a trip to the
Maybe they’re just waiting to find out about the quality of the refreshments Meshal will serve before making the final decision. Meeting a formal enemy of the
It’s at times like this I wish we didn’t allow our former presidents to retain the title “President.” And even though he’s traveling as the head of the
John Bolton, former
It’s about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does. To go to
And Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism points out that Carter “has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years.” He also believes the visit “undermines the
In other news, rain is wet. Film at 11.
If anyone doubts Carter’s support for Palestinian extremism toward
It’s bad enough that Carter could, conceivably, be considered the worst president of the 20th Century. Does he have to be the worst ex-president as well? Richard Nixon earned the grudging respect of his critics in his post-presidential years. Carter would have done well to take a page out of his book.
But the die has been cast. Not only could Carter be considered an anti-Semite and coddler of terrorists, but his post-presidential years are chock full of slaps in the face to American foreign policy and
- Last year he declared that the current Bush administration would go down as the “worst in history,” but tried to backtrack when called on it. (He insulted former British prime minister Tony Blair at the same time by calling him “abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient” for Blair’s support of Bush’s
- In 2004, when exit polls clearly showed that Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez should have lost – but didn’t – Carter said that Chávez won “fair and square.” (When even the Europeans won’t participate in observations because of too many restrictions, that might be a clue as to how those elections will turn out.)
- Speaking of elections, Carter also observed the 1990 elections in
- In 1994, Carter was Bill Clinton’s principal negotiator with
And to think: this is only a partial listing of Carter’s dubious activities. I wish he’d stick to building houses for Habitat for Humanity. The only damage he could do would be to smash his own thumb with a hammer.
Why is it that Carter seems determined to undermine
After a dismal four years, Carter lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan with 91% of the electoral vote, a difficult pill for anyone to swallow. As blogger ThirdWaveDave says, "Carter's a bitter ex-president who has never gotten over the boot print Reagan left on his ***." While this may be true, it does not excuse these and other of Carter’s petty, vindictive comments over the years. His bid to stay relevant at the expense of our national reputation and yes, national security, is reprehensible.
During the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold, a highly decorated general and war hero, ended up betraying his fledgling country with his
Carter has no such excuse, however lame. His wretched presidential record is his own fault. But his motivation is less important than the outcome of his actions. Carter’s bumbling has done more damage to
People wonder why presidential candidate Barack Obama would consider meeting with tyrants like
FamilySecurityMatters.org Editorial Director Pamela Meister is a former radio broadcaster, a recovering liberal, a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and a formidable blogger at blogmeisterusa.mu.nu.
read full author bio here
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to mailto:pr@familysecuritymatters.org
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Other Articles by Pamela Meister...
Benedict Arnold, Meet Jimmy CarterNewsflash: Hanoi Jane’s Voting for ObamaBook Review – ‘Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing and Suspect Musing of Billary’What I Did on My Vacation: Nothing – by Nancy PelosiBombing of Times Square: Military Target an AfterthoughtBarack Obama: Looking Beyond Hope and ChangeReview – ‘Project President: Bad Hair & Botox on the Road to the White House’Liberal Senators Give Tacit Approval as Berkeley Bashes MarinesJohn McCain at CPAC: National Defense and Security a Top PrioritySay What? Military Near Top of the ‘Prestigious’ Career Heap
As we all now know, Jimmy Carter, America's freelance ambassador is now about to go to Syria to meet with the leader of the terrorist group Hamas. The Administration and State Department have asked him not to go. Israel is upset-with good reason. However, Mr Carter is a stubborn man who always knows best-never mind the mess he made of things when he was president. Since leaving office, Carter hasn't cared much if a sitting president wanted him to go somewhere and conduct diplomacy. Whether it was Haiti, North Korea or now Syria, Mr Carter knows best. He doesn't like George Bush's foreign policy, so he just decides he will conduct his own.
ReplyDeleteBut here is something that Carter perhaps has not considered. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is actively engaged in terrorist acts against Israel. Not only that, the organization has no interest in a peaceful solution. They have no interest in negotiation with Israel. They are not interested in a two-state solution. What they want is the total destruction of Israel.
So what is there to discuss?
Mr Carter, like most Democrats, does not understand that you cannot negotiate with evil, nor can you negotiate with fanatics. That was proven conclusively in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler-selling out Czechoslovakia in the process. The lesson still applies.
Did we negotiate with the former Soviet Union? Yes, we did, but there was a difference. The Soviet Union, whatever its faults, was not run by fanatics, at least after Stalin died. They knew that if they went to war with the US, everybody would be destroyed, so they remained rational. We can, in fact, meet and negotiate with adversaries, but not if they are fanatics like Hamas who have no interest in negotiation or compromise. Rationality is not a quality that applies to people like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaida. They don't care if they die.
For a known fool like Jimmy Carter to go to Syria and meet with Hamas only gives legitimacy to a terrorist organization. It goes against the wishes of the State Department, which is the agency responsible for our foreign relations. Carter of course, is no supporter of Israel. He is a foolish renegade who can only exacerbate an already bad situation. Beware of any "breakthrough" that he may announce. Of course, he has no authority to act in Bush's name, but he could come back and apply public pressure on the administration.
It would be nice if leading Democrats would intervene and tell Carter to stay at home. Barack Obama, when asked what he thought of Carter's trip, refused to criticize the former president-possibly since he was on the verge of getting Carter's endorsement. For Democrats to back the administration's prerogatives would be the responsible thing to do. That's why they won't rein Mr Carter in.
To sum up this fiasco in progress, the policy of not negotiating with terrorists is the proper one, and not just on moral grounds. In the end, it is a fool's errand.
gary fouse
fousesquawk