If Jimmy Carter didn’t exist, our enemies would have to invent him.
How the world avoided unmitigated catastrophe on this man’s watch is one of the great mysteries of the universe, on a par with finding proof that dark matter exists and how in God’s name Britney and Kevin are still married. His stewardship of our government in the late 1970’s will go down as one of the more curious episodes in the history of the American experiment, made all the more surreal today by his status as global nag and international defender of thuggish brutes.
How this man found himself on January 20, 1977 sitting in the oval office rather than the back porch of his peanut farm has to be considered one of the biggest accidents of history of all time.
It was Watergate, of course. And Gerald Ford’s perceived clumsiness. And the sour end to Viet Nam. And a turning inward by the “Me” Generation – all of which created a perfect storm of stupidity and a feel-good self righteousness that allowed a one term governor of Georgia (whose style over substance campaign entranced a media ready to be entranced by an “outsider”) to ascend to the highest rung of power in our democracy.
It wasn’t just incompetence, although he and his befuddled advisors never could get a handle on inflation, the economy, and most especially, the dirty necked galoots who ousted the Shah of Iran. And thankfully, the Soviet Union at the time had their own leadership problems with an old, infirm, and nearly senile Brezhnev, thus moving cautiously until they were absolutely sure they could get away with murder in Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and other points on the globe that were subsumed by the March of History.
In fact, it wasn’t until the last two years of this mountebank’s presidency that the Russians got rolling. If they had begun their assault on western interests a year or two earlier, God knows what the result would have been.
In this, we can look at Jimmy Carter whose very existence is the answer to the age old riddle “Is there a God?” This atheist is almost convinced that the only reason the United States and indeed the world survived the Carter presidency was because of the intercession of a Supreme Being who took pity on the American people and directed events in such a way as to mitigate this living representation of the Peter Principle’s ignorance and incompetence.
Since his ignominious landslide defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (that Carter never acknowledged as a rejection of his policies or personae), this strange and curiously myopic man, who flits and scurries around the world like a fruit fly in search of a rotting banana, has turned down the covers of his bed for some of the most unattractive and tyrannical despots on the planet. Arafat, Mugabe, the mullahs in Iran, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il – the list includes dictators with the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands. It is almost as if, unable to purge the demons of his past in America, he is attracted to and defends those who have proven perfectly capable of some real life purges – men who are leaving a bloody trail in history and who owe much of whatever legitimacy they have to the need for this fakir to dance in the international limelight.
The most recent evidence showing how lucky the world was that this man was not vouchsafed 4 more years by the voters, thus saving the denizens of planet earth the nightmare of having to deal with a potential Superpower confrontation thanks to an emboldened Soviet Union challenging a hesitant and weak United States comes to us via an interview Carter gave to the Daily Telegraph.
His words drip with self righteousness when he talks about Britain’s Tony Blair:
Tony Blair’s lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.“I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair’s behaviour,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.
“I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington – and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush’s policies towards Iraq.”
Projecting Carter’s own weaknesses onto Blair by accusing him of not “moderating” American policies is the heighth of hubris. Could it be that Blair was not interested in “moderating” Bush’s policies and, in fact, agreed wholeheartedly with them? This thought evidently never crossed Carter’s mind. This could be why most of his contemporaries in Europe held him in such complete and utter contempt.
And that contempt felt by European leaders was the result of Carter’s failure to understand the nature of a threatening world – especially when it came to countering Soviet moves all over the globe. The Europeans saw Carter’s hesitancy, his inconstancy and made their own decisions about American power. Their was a general softening of support for the US as European leaders like Helmudt Schmidt of Germany moved perceptively away from America and Mitterand of France openly courted the Russian bear by making favorable trade deals with the Soviets. Carter’s paralysis in the face of Soviet aggression was altering the balance of power in favor of Russia.
Has he learned anything since then?
But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003.“No,” he said, “I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn’t have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership. But then, to a major degree, we abandoned the anti-terrorist effort and went almost unilaterally with Great Britain into Iraq.”
This, Mr Carter believes, subverted the effectiveness of anti-terrorist efforts. Far from achieving peace and stability, the result has been a disaster on all fronts. “My own personal opinion is that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion and people in America and Great Britain are not safer.”
It is very generous of Mr. Carter to inform us had he been President on 9/11 that he “wouldn’t have excluded going into Afghanistan” to go after al-Qaeda. The problem is in what he isn’t saying. Please note he does not mention regime change nor does he mention rousting the Taliban so that they would be unable to grant sanctuary to the remnants of al-Qaeda or any other terror group. Presumably, the terrorist training sites would still have been in operation as would the Taliban’s Sharia law which would have continued to treat women as dirt and the modern world generally as a plague. One might ask what the point would have been to attack al-Qaeda without attacking the Taliban but why make the poor fellow tie himself in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable?
And while it may be his opinion that the Iraqi people aren’t better off with Saddam gone, 80% of the Iraqi people themselves disagree which goes to prove that Carter has lost none of the minuscule amount of political acumen he was born with.
As for whether Britain and America are safer as a result of the Iraq liberation, it is impossible to answer that question. It is fashionable to say we are in greater danger but I would posit the notion that thanks to Iraq, we have greater awareness of the dangers we face hence are better prepared to meet them. In a world where Islamists are trying to kill as many of us as possible, there is no such thing as “safe” with or without the Iraq invasion. In the end, the question is irrelevant except as a political construct by the President and his opponents. And how you measure “safety” is completely subjective and hence irrelevant except in this political context.
Finally, we get this outrageous bias from the Telegraph along with some more Carter lunacy:
Asked why he thinks Mr Blair has behaved in the way that he has with President Bush’s belligerent regime, Mr Carter said he could only put it down to timidity. Yet he confessed that he remains baffled by the apparent contrast between Mr Blair’s private remarks and his public utterances.“I really believe the reports of former leaders who were present in conversations between Blair and Bush that Blair has expressed private opinions contrary to some of the public policies that he has adopted in subservience.”
Bush’s “belligerent regime?” Freeing 50 million people from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly the actions of a “belligerent” administration. The term was deliberately used by the reporters and the depiction of the Bush administration as a “regime” which is more descriptive of a dictatorship than a democracy is outrageous. Only lefty loons believe the US has descended into dictatorship and to have it appear on the pages of a supposedly respected newspaper is despicable.
And so are Carter’s remarks about Blair. The British Prime Minister timid? In what universe? And Blair has disagreed with the Administration privately but not gone public with those disagreements which is the sign of a loyal ally, something Carter would know nothing about since his betrayal of the Shah of Iran (and others) which threatens to haunt is all for a long while and is indicative of the messianic streak in his personality. The man’s self righteousness knows no bounds which is why his lecturing of foreign leaders became so tiresome.
I just wish the world itself would tire of this jackanape. His performances have become parodies of themselves because with each appearance, he must become ever more strident and hateful to the President and to American policies. And as a genuine danger to human liberty, he should be denied a platform from which to spout his inanities.
Don’t hold your breath, though. He is a godsend to the anti-American European press and will always find a ready audience here as well for his rants. In that, as with other indignities we are forced to suffer with – like hang nails and crotch rot – we will not easily find a cure.
10:43 am
[...] is from Rick Moran: [...]
11:04 am
When you’re a useless idiot, the only seemingly better alternative you have, since you’re always going to be an idiot, is to be a useful idiot. You can bet you’re Nobel Prize on that. What a f**cking joke.
11:12 am
Another great essay. Unfortunately it is a waste of time. When the history of the 20th Century is written the left leaning historians will simply omit his existence. Gee, I can’t even mention his name…and this is the moderate side of the direction that our “mainstream” left wants to establish.
11:56 am
My favorite quote: “However, I wouldn’t have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership.”
What nonsense. In response to the terrorist attacks, Carter would likely have started a ‘national conversation’ and held summits to figure out ‘why they hate us.’
12:31 pm
Carter’s decline is rather sad. I don’t think he was as awful of a President as some say – in many ways he was hindered by OPEC’s production decreases and the Iranian hostage crisis – two things that were largely beyond his control (especially after Desert One). He was important in bringing peace to one of Israel’s borders through the peace agreement with Egypt. This peace was particularly important to the US since it secured the Suez Canal, which was, and remains, a vitally strategic choke point for America.
There was a time since he left the Presidency that I really respected him. Unlike most other former Presidents, he lived a relatively modest life and put his money where his mouth was in terms of supporting causes he believed in – namely Habitat for Humanity (of which I’m a big supporter).
In the last 8-10 years, however, I think he’s really gone off the deep end. I think his comments and criticisms against the Bush administration in particular have been a black mark on his character and broke with the tradition of not harshly criticizing sitting Presidents. He has left all judgment behind and now seems to be a blind supporter of the far-left moonbat wing of American society. It’s just sad to see him destroy the credibility he had with center and center-left people.
1:19 pm
Jimmy Carter was as close to an example of the American public just picking any randon name out of the phone booth and making him Preisdent.
1:20 pm
What is up with The Daily Telegraph? One of the more reliable pro American, pro Israel, British newspapers is going over to the dark side.
2:54 pm
Rick,
I don’t know if Carter is proof of a merciful God, but I do know he’s proof that God has a sense of humor.
Regards,
-the Canine Pundit
http://caninepundit.blogspot.com/
4:43 pm
CARTER PROVES EXISTENCE OF A MERCIFUL GOD
Does our National embarrassment have a vendetta against this country for deeming him the worst President ever? Have the pea-“Nuts†got to his brain?
...
7:38 pm
Carter was horrible! I was only 6 when he was elected, but everyone in my class four years later were celebrating his leaving office. Elementary school kids knew that Reagan would take care of the Iranians. We were parroting our parents, but we knew how crappy Jimmy really was back then.
He is still just as crappy.
7:43 pm
jimmah carter, what a national disgrace.
!!
Everytime this peanut farmer opens his pie hole more slop comes out and I for one, am so sick of him and the moonbats who kneel down at his throne of idiocity.
9:34 pm
JIMMY CARTER STILL THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER
Jimmy Carter, in my mind ranks as the worst president ever. For a while I thought he fell back to second worst next to Clinton. Now, because he’s lost his ever loving mind, he ranks tops once again. The folks
10:31 pm
Who You Callin’ Timid?
A little over a week ago, when Judge Anna Taylor Diggs ruled against the NSA terrorist surveillance program, I made a reasonable case that part of the problem was President Carter and the FISA law of 1978. Although he reserved
12:27 am
Jimmy Carter sitting next to Michael Moore at the the Democrat Convention with his obnoxious grin “Like he just finished eating a crap sandwich” is really all any one needs to know about this man.
12:37 am
I love the comment from #10 above, that Reagan would TAKE CARE of the Iranians. Just how did he do that? By buying more of their oil?
Also, please spare me the Repubican’t Sensitivity Syndrome. If you disagree with bush, maybe you just disagree. All these comments that “you just hate bush”, sounds like a 13 year old girl who didn’t get her way.
7:48 am
Over the course of the last year I have developed an affliction. It only gets worse with time. It flares up with agonizing effect every time – EVERY TIME - Dhimmi Carter opens his mouth. My vision fades, my stomach boils, my neurons fire with nearly-insane rage.
I have CDS - Carter Derangement Syndrome. There is no cure.
Harlan Ellison: “I have no mouth, but I must scream.”
Dhimmi Carter: “I have no brain, but I must speak.”
8:29 am
Joel #6 asks: “What is up with the Daily Telegraph…”
My answer (as a pro-US English lefty) would be that a uncomfortable proportion of British Conservatives are tempted to pick up any issue which may serve as a stick with which to bash Blair.
And sometimes this includes bashing Bush/USA/Israel in order to bash Blair.
Whereas the far left would be bashing Bush anyway, even if it didn’t serve their desire to bash Blair.
Partisan tomfoolery, in short.
10:53 am
In spite of all Carter’s faults, the Camp David Treaty was a great achievement, and the Panama Canal Treaty was also a fine accomplishment which was in the national interest.
12:17 pm
Nearly 30 years of peace between Israel, Egypt and Jordan, negotiated by President Carter, is nothing to scoff at – something that Israel appreciated as it fought Hezbollah in Lebanon in the north, knowing that its southern and eastern flank was secure.
3:45 pm
In the race for worst President of all-time, W whizzed by Clinton, Carter and Reagan like they were all speeding in reverse.
3:53 pm
Please…
If you’re going to comment on this blog, I would appreciate it very much if you try to hide your ignorance as much as possible.
Millard Fillmore ring a bell? Buchanan? Grant?
The fact is, your knowledge of American history is pitiful. Any one of them and a dozen others were empty suits. Bush would be far down the list of “worst” Presidents.
Something you would know if you read something besides TV Guide.
4:28 pm
Robert,
Give President Bush some credit. He’s way above Reagan, who “cut and run” from Lebanon, after 241 American Marines were killed by the Hezbollah bomb. Bush would have stayed the course.
Unlike Reagan, who in a 1985 effort to free a few American hostages being held in Lebanon, authorized the sale of 107 tons of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran – President Bush stands up to the Iranians, and would never consider appeasement or negotiations, let alone selling them weapons!
President Bush is in a league all his own, high above Reagan.
3:00 am
adult chat network…
CARTER PROVES EXISTENCE OF A MERCIFUL GOD…
1:13 am
[...] I wonder if Willy Boy’s outrage extends to calling to account ex-presidents or ex-vice presidents who regularly go on foreign soil and all but call the president of the United [...]