Posted on 03/21/2006 12:07:11 PM PST by auzerais
The past few weeks the news media has been fixated on discussions of efforts by Democrats to either impeach or censure President Bush.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has made the push to censure President Bush for the administration's wiretapping of suspected terrorists. Meanwhile a group of activist liberals has launched ImpeachPAC, which is raising money to support congressional candidates who favor impeachment proceedings against Bush for taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq.
I have a better idea, how about censuring a president who has increasingly led an effort to undermine American foreign policy and who has embraced terrorist organizations and urged international funding for them. How about censuring former president Jimmy Carter?
While the mainstream news media has portrayed Carter in a saintly light, preoccupied with building homes for the underprivileged, Carter has devoted most of his time to condemning the United States to any audience who will have him.
The man who sat impotent while Iranian radicals stormed the American Embassy in Tehran has been busy appeasing America's enemies since he left the White House.
As WorldNetDaily reported last January, Carter hob-knobbed with an unregistered Iraqi agent, Samir Vincent, inviting him into his home, and giving him a guided tour of the Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga. Samir Vincent was an agent of Saddam Hussein who helped Iraq evade compliance with the U.N.-approved "Oil for Food" program. Billions of dollars were funneled from the "Oil for Food" program into Saddam's military.
While wining and dining the Iraqi agent, Carter blasted U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and the economic sanctions that had been imposed against Saddam Hussein because of his repeated refusals to comply with U.N. sanctions. Not surprisingly, Carter later emerged as one of the leading figures to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Ironically, one of the reasons Carter cited for his opposition to military action was that it might prompt Saddam Hussein to use chemical or biological weapons, which Carter said he believed Hussein had.
Apparently Carter favors appeasement of those who would seek to bring devastation to American cities, a position not altogether different from the position Carter took in the face of threats of Soviet aggression during his presidency.
There doesn't seem to be a white flag of surrender that Jimmy Carter doesn't enjoy waving.
Besides playing soft with Iranian radicals and working with Iraqi agents and berating President Bush for being mean to Saddam Hussein, Carter recently expressed support for the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas.
Hamas is recognized as the largest and most powerful Palestinian terrorist organization, advocating for the destruction of Israel and responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks, which have maimed or killed thousands of innocent civilians.
A day after the terrorist group emerged victorious in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, Carter urged the international community to support Hamas and provide financial assistance to the new government. But the peanut farmer from Georgia wasn't done meddling with American foreign policy.
This month, Carter announced he had made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba that he would fight to undermine U.S. opposition to the new U.N. Human Rights Commission. The United States opposed the new panel because it would continue to allow known human-rights abusers to serve on the commission.
It's understandable why the United States, led by the fabulously stalwart and principled Ambassador John Bolton, would oppose such a commission. In May 2001, a bloc of nations led by despots and tyrants voted the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Nations with known human-rights violations, such as the Sudan, were instead placed on the panel.
So here was Jimmy Carter urging the nations of the world to rebuke the United States once more. "My hope is that when the vote is taken ... the other members will outvote the United States," Carter recently told the Council on Foreign Relations.
And they did.
In a recent editorial, "Colonization of Palestine Proceeds Peace," Jimmy Carter laments that, "For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community."
No, Mr. President, for more than a quarter century your politics have been in conflict the interests of the United States.
A growing number of Democrats in Congress believe that President Bush should be censured for wiretapping suspected terrorists and waging a war against terrorism.
The act of censure is an official statement of condemnation or denouncement by Congress. Congress has the authority to censure its own members – or anyone else, for that matter – in the form of a resolution.
If the members of Congress are feeling the itch to issue a resolution of censure, they should start first with a man who has repeatedly sought to undermine this nation's foreign policy – a man who has repeatedly sided with America's enemies and promoted known terrorist groups.
All patriotic Americans should join with me in demanding our elected leaders censure the man from Plains, Ga., for repeatedly working to undermine the interests of the United States of America and its citizens.
It's time for the Congress of the United States to censure Jimmy Carter.
Melanie Morgan is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the "Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show" on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco.
"It's a man, man"--Austin Powers.
When Jimmuh was President, he was merely incompetent. Now he is positively cuckoo.
As they say on the basketball court, "Don't even bring that weak excrement in here!"
Thanks for the ping; great post, thanks.
I tried to sign but an error message keeps popping up. I will try again another time.
I wish that rabbit had been successful.
5.56mm
*sigh*
Hello SkyDancer. You typed "censor" but I presume you mean "censure."
Actually, the Congress censures a political figure by form of non-binding resolution. They can just as much censure a former President as a sitting one.
Really? Well huh ....
I guess since the president is the supreme commander that once in always in he could be under the UCMJ???? and yes, I meant censure - there's no grammatical check here and the spell check passed it ....
Thanks for the input ....
LOL
You may be the only who "got it!"
LOL
I cannot think of a weaker POTUS than failed and former president James Earl Carter. And, it's not a benign weakness, it's a hands-on, stubborn and malignant weakness.
The kind of weakness that invites bad people to take hostage our embassy personnel .
The kind of weakness that causes one to give up the Panama Canal rather than to risk confrontation.
And the kind of weakness that causes one to personally certify a dirty election in Venezuela in order to feel wanted and important.
.
|
What is Censure?
A Case for Censuring Jimmy Carter – by Melanie Morgan
"Censure Carter" In the News
Contact Us To contact the "Censure Carter" effort, send an email to: Info@CensureCarter.Com
|
||||
|
The Jimmy Carter Hall of Shame |
||||
|
Jimmy Carter has made friends with many terrorists
|
Carter would have to be relevant to be considered for censure. I don't think he's even relevant in the peanut business anymore.
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.
