Posted on 02/24/2003 5:27:47 AM PST by tornado100
With America on the verge of war, it's absolutely dreadful that former presidents Carter and Clinton, both Democrats, are out-and-about criticizing the national security policies of President George W. Bush, especially in overseas venues that are receptive to such talk. And make no mistake; their words represent irresponsible political pot-shots at President Bush, which are not in keeping with American tradition, decorum or values. No former presidents subjected either Carter or Clinton to this hideous type of treatment while they occupied the oval office. Moreover, the circumstances under discussion are not about "free speech" as some liberals are thoughtlessly apt to say -- but about honor, decency and integrity, and the lack thereof. Carter and Clinton are engaging in more than unseemly behaviors and pure partisan politics; they're aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States during times of crisis. By fostering anti-war sentiments, they're demoralizing our troops that are currently girding for combat. Shame on Carter and Clinton! Americans should deluge their presidential libraries and offices with letters that voice cogent disapproval of their improper conduct.
Remember, the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed upon Carter in 2002 for his "peaceful solutions" in the international arena, and should be interpreted as a "criticism" or rebuke of the current administration's Iraq policies, according to the Nobel Committee Chairman. This is all part and parcel of the anti-Americanism that prevails throughout Europe. Clearly, Carter should have eschewed acceptance of the award, given the message that it was specifically intended to convey by those silly European Leftists. However, it should come as no surprise that Carter is very much in sync with this "Blame America First" mentality. In a February 18 piece in the UK's "Mirror", Carter underscored foreign public opinion polling that suggests America poses the greatest danger to world peace. He goes on to say, "There is a growing consensus, among other countries at least, that we should let the UN inspectors do their thing first before we start a pre-emptive war against Iraq". And an Associated Press article dated February 21 notes, "Former President Jimmy Carter blamed U.S. policy in the Middle East for creating animosity abroad, but he stopped short of taking a stand on war with Iraq", in a private meeting held in Salt Lake City. All-in-all, Carter's attempts to disparage President Bush and his international policies are thoroughly contemptible, and even somewhat ironic, in light of Carter's failed efforts in Iran during the late 1970s.
Senator John McCain and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who are hardly fans of each other, are both urging Carter and Clinton to stop publicly bashing President Bush, especially to the European anti-American crowd. As McCain bluntly said, they (Carter and Clinton) should just "shut up", although he later had misgivings about using that exact colloquialism. In short, it would be fair to say that most thinking Americans are repelled by the Carter-Clinton spirit of malice that is an affront to our national sensibilities.
Sure, Clinton was superficially supportive of President Bush in a recent appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live", but that was due to the program's significant American audience. Clinton certainly didn't want the backlash from the American public. However, in responding to Larry King's questions, Clinton appeared to genuflect before the altar of globalism as he repeatedly referenced the pivotal role of the United Nations in the Iraqi situation, when, in fact, he should have been emphasizing America's duty as a sovereign power to protect its citizenry. Abroad, it's clearly a different story, with Clinton berating Bush in the most blatant and offensive fashion when the audience is amenable to such views - the European socialists are a case in point. In a trip to the United Kingdom this past autumn, the Left-leaning Clinton assailed President Bush during a speech to his liberal compadres of the UK's Labor Party. The UK's publication "The Guardian" stated, "They especially adored him (Clinton) when he warned about an unelected despot with access to weapons of mass destruction, who had already dragged his own country to the brink of ruin and was now threatening the whole world. He also had harsh words for Saddam Hussein. But there was no doubt that the real enemy -- the man in the electronic cross-hairs -- yesterday was George W. Bush".
If political buzz is to be believed, Bill Clinton has a personal agenda that is prompting him to assail Bush, and which is designed to catapult him to center stage as a global power-player. And what better way for Clinton to prove that he is the consummate alpha dog than to take on the leader of the world's only superpower! Apparently, Clinton is working behind the scenes to garner the international support that is necessary to ensure his selection as the next UN Chief. According to a February 19 Internet piece at World Net Daily, former President Bill Clinton is well poised to become the next Secretary-General of the UN: "That's the word according to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist who reports a 'major international move' is afoot to help install the ex-CEO of the most powerful nation as the CEO of the most powerful world body - the United Nations. Sunday's "Dateline D.C." column, which the paper says is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer, named no names but cited reports that Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt. The Tribune-Review also reports Russia has made it known it would not object and added that China is also a big fan of the former president". As even casual observers realize, Clinton can never get enough of the dazzling limelight and adulation from the liberal masses - which would be delivered to him in abundance if he led the UN.
Importantly, Clinton's plan to secure the UN's top-spot offers the best opportunity to reinvent himself and to enhance his flagging legacy. Subsequent to September 11th, it became undeniable that Clinton had failed to properly address the growing problems of terrorism and insidious regimes (such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq) that funneled vital assistance to radical Islamists bent on murder and mayhem. To make matters worse, America's premier intelligence agencies were systematically undermined and under-funded during the 1990s, which is largely attributed to the shenanigans of the Clinton administration. Moreover, Clinton continues to be engulfed by an ethics cloud for a number of reasons including his personal proclivities and his scandalous pardons while leaving office. That said, there is ample motivation for Bill Clinton to snag himself a mighty perch from which he could rescue his reputation and place in history.
Hopefully, political commentators and journalists can continue to disseminate the word that rank partisanship and selfish personal agendas are largely driving the Carter-Clinton attacks upon Bush.
As if we needed one more reason to deep-six the UN.
My understanding is that the UN charter forbids any member of the security council to have one of its citizens as Sec-Gen.
However, the UN will see Clinton as their savior and may pull strings for him. I don't see this as a bad thing, now that I think about it, the UN will become irrelevant and would have someone irrelevant at the helm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.