Thursday, April 10, 2008

Clinton Obama Carter Kennedy Schumer

I don't want to mention any names but their initials are Clinton Obama Carter Kennedy Schumer...and that just pretty much sums it up for what they really are...TRAITORS !
Published: April 10, 2008

Benedict Arnold, Meet Jimmy Carter

Pam Meister

Have you heard? Jimmy Carter is planning a trip to Syria next week, and his agenda may include a cozy tête-à-tête with Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas. In order to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, Meshal lives there as a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. From there, he continues to guide Hamas’ murderous activities in Palestine.

Hamas, as you may recall, has the distinct honor of being considered one of the foremost terrorist organizations in the world by the U.S. government. All the more reason for Carter to pay a formal afternoon call, leaving his card on the silver salver with the correct corner folded.

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 Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week. I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time

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 United States is difficult if one is forced to eat things you might find at a party given by junior high students: potato chips, pizza rolls and pigs in blankets, washed down with store brand cola.

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 Carter Center and not in his capacity as a former president of the United States, do you think that will matter to our myriad enemies in the Middle East? A former president is a former president no matter how you slice it.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, was forthright in his criticism of Carter:

It’s about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does. To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part.

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 U.S. policy of isolating Hamas” and that it will encourage Europeans “to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.”

In other news, rain is wet. Film at 11.

If anyone doubts Carter’s support for Palestinian extremism toward Israel, they have only to look at his book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Published in late 2006, it sparked the resignation of 14 members of the Carter Center’s advisory board because Carter “clearly abandoned [his] historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.” Add to that the factual errors, sketchy attributions and even sketchier memories of what really happened and you have, as Rick Richman calls it, “the product of someone who went to Israel in 1973 and didn't like it then, lectured and insulted its leaders, and who obviously doesn't like it now.”

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 America in general. Behold the wonder:

  • 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 Iraq policy.)
  • 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 Nicaragua. Steven F. Hayward reminds us that “Carter consistently downplayed or excused reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation.” Why? “Carter, along with most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Washington, openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras.
  • In 1994, Carter was Bill Clinton’s principal negotiator with North Korea about that country’s worrisome nuclear proliferation. North Korea received two light water nuclear reactors and a huge amount of oil in exchange for not continuing their quest to build nuclear weapons. What happened? In 1998, North Korea lobbed a missile over Japan and began refusing U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground reactor.

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 America? As I said last year,

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 West Point plot because he resented the fact that Congress wouldn’t pay his wartime expenses. His slide into debt and subsequent shady deals helped to put him up on corruption charges, and he was convicted of two misdemeanors during a court martial for malfeasance. He complained to General George Washington, “Having become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet [such] ungrateful returns.”

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 America’s credibility worldwide than anything Bush’s critics can pin on Bush. In fact, he’s done more damage than even certain Hollywood celebrities could ever dream of.

People wonder why presidential candidate Barack Obama would consider meeting with tyrants like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. Perhaps we have only to look at one of the most egregious examples of such foolishness, shortsightedness, naïveté and – anti-Americanism? – Jimmy Carter.


# #

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 Carter
Newsflash: Hanoi Jane’s Voting for Obama
Book Review – ‘Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing and Suspect Musing of Billary’
What I Did on My Vacation: Nothing – by Nancy Pelosi
Bombing of Times Square: Military Target an Afterthought
Barack Obama: Looking Beyond Hope and Change
Review – ‘Project President: Bad Hair & Botox on the Road to the White House’
Liberal Senators Give Tacit Approval as Berkeley Bashes Marines
John McCain at CPAC: National Defense and Security a Top Priority
Say What? Military Near Top of the ‘Prestigious’ Career Heap

1 comment:

  1. 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.

    But 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

    ReplyDelete