Posted on 01/27/2005 6:32:40 PM PST by hope
|
Omega Letter Christian Intelligence Digest |
Jimmy Carter -- Governor, President . . . Traitor?
Commentary on the News
Monday, January 24, 2005
- Omega Letter Editor
Although the United Nations have blocked most investigations that disclosed UN involvement in Oil-for-Food profits, the details are beginning to leak out, and so are some of the names of those who benefited from the world's largest con game.
The Oil-for-Food program allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil under U.N. supervision. All proceeds were to go to provide food, medicine and other humanitarian items for the Iraqi people.
While the program was in progress, Saddam - again, with the aid of many others in the international community - insisted that the United States was not allowing enough oil to be sold through the program.
This week Samir A. Vincent, a naturalized U.S. citizen who came here from Iraq, pleaded guilty in an American court to charges that he received as much as $5 million to help Saddam steer "oil-for-food" money into the dictator's pockets. And Vincent said he helped lobby for the program's limits to be eased so Saddam could make even more money.
Congressional investigators estimate that Saddam made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue - about $7 billion skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program and more than $13 billion from illegal oil smuggling.
The $60 billion program began in 1996 to permit Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil under U.N. supervision to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people, who were suffering under U.N. sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
In a statement to the court, Vincent said: "I hope my guilty plea and my agreement to assist the Department of Justice in investigating these matters will help not only the United States but also the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their nation."
Vincent pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan Tuesday to being an illegal agent of Saddam in violation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq and related U.S. tax laws. He faces up to 28 years in prison. However, he "flipped" in hopes of a lighter sentence and, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, is cooperating with investigators.
As part of his plea, Vincent testified that in 1996, during negotiations over the "oil-for-food" program, he channeled payoffs to a U.N. official in exchange for favorable influence in the international body. Some of those names are, to say the least, startling.
Among them are former president Jimmy Carter, who met with Vincent and three Iraqi clerics at his home in Plains, Georgia, in September 1999.
The purpose of the meeting, according to a Carter spokesperson, was "to hear their views on the plight of children in Iraq and the impact of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq."
Before the visit, Carter was already on record as opposing sanctions against Iraq. According to the New York Sun, Vincent also allegedly reported on his meetings to Iraqi intelligence officials.
A Saddam-era Iraqi weekly once praised Carter for being 'in sympathy with the suffering Iraqi people' for speaking out against the 'stringent' sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN at US insistence after the first Gulf War.
The paper claimed Carter had promised to send his wife Rosalynn and his son, Chip Carter, to Iraq to highlight the effect sanctions were having on Iraqi civilians, running the story alongside a photo of Carter and the three Iraqi clerics Carter met with at his home.
The Justice Department said that, as a lobbyist, Vincent met with a number of high-ranking US officials, but refused to identify most of them, citing a policy of withholding the names of people who are involved in a matter under investigation but not suspected of wrongdoing.
(Jimmy Carter's name was evidently NOT among those being withheld by the DoJ)
Jimmy Carter has used his status as a former president to interfere with US foreign policy regarding Iraq, going all the way back to the first Bush presidency.
In November 1990, two months after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Carter urged the countries to drop their support for Bush's proposed military solution, reversing his own 'Carter Doctrine' of the 1970's which stated;
"Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such force will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.")
Right up to Bush's Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
"I am distressed by the inability of either the international community or the Arab world to find a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis," he wrote. "I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. You may have to forego approval from the White House, but you will find the French, Soviets, and others fully supportive. Also, most Americans will welcome such a move."
(It is no small coincidence that the nations Carter cited just before the 2003 invasion as 'fully supportive' of efforts to drop sanctions and leave Saddam in office were the nations who were the beneficiaries of most of the stolen oil money.)
Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft later accused Carter of violating the Logan Act, the law that prohibits American citizens from conducting unofficial foreign policy.
In 1994, Carter travelled to North Korea to undermine negotiations with Kim Il Sung over his developing nuclear program. While there, Carter praised the 'Great Leader' as being intelligent, vigorous and well informed in the affairs of the world.
He declared Pyongyang to be a "....bustling city where shoppers pack the department stores" reminding him of the Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia. He acclaimed the peaceful intentions of Kim's regime and stated "I don't see that they are an outlaw nation."
Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN.
After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International, infuriating the Clinton administration.
His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration's efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out.
By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime (and collecting fat checks from Saddam Hussein in return).
Carter did the same thing during his trip to Haiti later that year. During his mission as envoy there, he also defied orders from Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
Carter is recognized internationally as being so profoundly anti-American that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, for no other reason than to give the Bush administration, 'a kick in the leg', admitted Nobel Chairman Gunnar Berge.
Deliberately undermining US foreign policy and giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime, was, at one time, considered treason.
Americans and Brits who worked as propagandists for the Axis, like Lord Haw Haw, Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose, were all convicted of treason following World War II.
But what was treason a generation ago is now sufficient cause to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and become the toast of the international community for opposing the national interests of the country he once led.
That, in and of itself, is enough reason to heed the call of a new organization, called 'Move Forward America' which is sponsoring an ad campaign aimed at kicking the UN out of the United States as a subversive organization.
Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume 40, Issue 22
© http://www.omegaletter.com
Let's see, gave away the Panama Canal, sold out the very pro-American Shah in Iran(who was liberalizing that country and moving it towards democracy 25 years ago) for a bunch of Mullahs who laid the groundwork for the Islamofascism we're faced with today, was Arafat's chief mouthpiece here against Israel, coddled the North Koreans, a tyrant in Haiti, tried to enlist the KGB to swing an American Presidential election, and never fails to blame America for everything that's wrong with the world. Them coinky-dinks keep piling up...
I dsiagree with your statement that he served this nation. Every move he made was bungled and every thing he didn't do was a crime by omission.
that's a good summary Bump!
Number two ... judging from your post to me and your other posts on this thread ... you may be on the wrong site
At best you're a rude newbie ... edging on troll
I think you are blinded by hatred.....we can not like the man but still not get carried away......clear thinking people on this post have said the same....I know it is fun to beat up Jimmy, I even like it, but go look up the word traitor and how it relates to the U.S. and you will see that the word does not extend to most people.....
Carter gave away the Panama Canal ! How so stupid !
traitor, tra'tor, n. One who betrays his trust and allegiance; one guilty of treason. ..by the courts.
I stand corrected, on the latter, but Jimmah convicted himself, (by his deeds) to the former. (He was Naval Officer for many years, prior to becoming gov. to GA./U.S. president. 8^)
How about treason?
...Treason, tre'zon,n. A betrayal; breach of allegiance; treachery; disloyalty, a violation of allegiance ...I think treason, fits rather 'snuggly' on Jimmah. I think a review of these posts/links, are in order. Don't cha think, have a happy day. :))
Rude for showing some backbone ? Read my quote from A. Lincoln on the topic......
What kind of Free Republic demands hewing to the party line on all subjects ? Im a gun owner, business owner, strong advocate of a strong defense, I think the UN can bite me, I think taxes are way to high etc. etc.
But since I trust science and think life begins when the brain becomes active, and that we should be careful who we call traitors, that I should be off the site ?
I dont think thats what the founders of this place had in mind, and by that, I mean FR.com
As regards the canal treaty, its been no problem for us. Everyone knows in a major war it would be nuked in a moment, and we have saved billions already by handing it over, and there aint no way we arent going to use it whenever we want as long as its there, so whats the big hubub ?
Rude ... and disrespectful
I stand by everything I wrote. If you find disagreement to be a breach of manners, there is not much I can do about it. I respect your service and perspective, but we are plainly not on the same page as to the purpose of this site.
I must have missed the part in the terms of use about seniority.
Apparently your parents never taught you manners
If officially, directly and actively opposing the position of the US government in foreign policy isn't traitorous, just what qualifies, in your view?
I'm afraid treason has been growing over the past 50 or so years to such a degree that our sensitivity to it has been numbed. We need to look more closely at such activities, not wink at them!
The US Government is a group of people, sometimes flying in formation and sometimes not. Sometimes one part of the government is not in agreement with another.
At other times, such as when we are at war, or the person involved (like OBL) is a sworn enemy of the US, there really is not much debate about what treason may be. In my view, helping them reach their goals is treason.
In a free society, if a person is acting in what they think are the best interests of the nation, there must be a wide measure of "treason"- certainly bad judgement, bad results, and bad ideas may still not measure up to that strong word.
The cost of freedom is factions with different agendas. If you think those agendas amount to treason, just what qualifies as freedom in your view ?
Who is winking at anything. My sole point, in all of this post, and to the evident disgust of some and perhaps against some FR unspoken rules, is that you cant run around calling ex presidents of the United States traitors and expect any good to come of it.
The great, great majority of Americans will never believe Carter was a traitor and that includes tens of millions of republicans- are they all traitors too, by extension ?
Like I said, save it for the Pollards, Hamdis, and others who earn the filthy word.
Christine Todd Whitman has a new website.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
So lets recap;
Activly encouraged our enemies... Sounds like treason to me.
Took money to influence US policy... Sounds like treason to me.
Undermined US policy and leaders...Sounds like treason to me.
Took positions that were very damging to the US...Sounds like treason to me.
But maybe he is right, and we are all just a bunch of right wing whackjobs. After all, who are we to say that Iran going to the Mullas was bad? Or that Saddam was in fact a nice guy after all. Or that the USSR had the right idea after all?
Oops, thats right, history and common sense.
*knews hound slaps his forehead*
Silly me.
Cheers,
knews hound
P.S. What say the Brethren ?
Satisfactory my friend. Isleton doins ... March 4-6
Hence, Jimmy Carter and his globe trotting to coddle, applaud and otherwise polish the image of assorted communists, terrorists, et al, certainly fits that definition. If that doesn't, then persuading nations to ignore a UN resolution punishing Saddam Hussein should fit that without question, IMO. (Aren't the Dems the ones crying that we didn't simply let the UN sanctions continue to work so wonderfully? ...yet they are the very ones who were actively undercutting those very sanctions!)
There's a huge difference between voicing your opposition to administration policies, even strenuously, and openly supporting and serving the enemy. In my view, Jimmy Carter is one among many Democrats who have engaged in such activity.
So does Ahslee Simpson....whats one bad performer have to do with the other ?
All I need is a date and exact location.
Please let me know, I will bring along some home brew for us!
Cheers,
knews hound
Hindsight is 20/20. Quality Americans built up Saddam before we had to take him down; it would have been hard to know the future. Good Americans supported Afgan rebel fighters; it would have been hard to know some of them would come back at us. Good Americans made decisions in Lebanon that did not work out so well....selling arms to Iran might not have been the best idea either, but nobody thinks there was treason involved..
This is my last post on this topic, its pointless to continue beyond one more summary:
Carter was a crappy president and has shown himself on the wrong side of history more than once. By no account does he not care about America and her well-being; his ideas about it are not great, but he is not a traitor, and all the ranting in the world won't convince a substantial number of people that he was. Every president makes mistakes- every single one- and treason is a filthy word that should be used carefully.
Im done with this thread--
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.