Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (From Man Who Gave Us Hostage Crisis & Korean Nukes)

The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, February 1, 2003 | Dan Balz

[publius1]

Former president Jimmy Carter declared yesterday that President Bush has "not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq" and urged, instead, permanent inspections and monitoring to disarm the Iraqi government.

In a toughly worded statement issued as Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Carter said that even if Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presents compelling evidence at the United Nations next week that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, "this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies."

[publius1]

Here's the whole statement (should have posted this first):

A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War

By
Jimmy Carter
31 Jan 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACT: Deanna Congileo
404-420-5108


Atlanta…..Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.

Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carré, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.

The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.

With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.

In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.

In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.

Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that advances peace and health worldwide.

[Miss Marple]

Heck. For a second I thought your editorial comment in the first paragraph appeared in the Washington Post.

Then I clicked on the link. I should have known that the post wouldn't have printed something so commonsensical!

Carter has joined the Axis of Evil.

[piasa]

I find it interesting that the same people who think that shooting Randy Weaver's family and incinerating men, women and children at WACO with military weapons was OK since it "helped get guns away from people" who hadn't done anyhting serious and hadn't been proven guilty of anything ... are the same people who are willing to entrust a proven scumbag like Saddam Hussein with any weapon, including biologival, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Does anyone here think that the BATF and MMM marcher types would be satisfied to try to play cat and mouse with a common gun owner in perpetuity?

And I find it amazing that the same people who cried "the sanctions are killing the children" are now pleading with Bush to keep up the inspections and sanctions thing forever, if need be, rather than eliminate Saddam Hussein, the very guy who is killing men, women and children just to stay in power, and sometimes, just for revenge against people who simply spoke the truth!

The same people who brokered a deal with North Korea which has been proven to have failed at great expense to us, where inspections didn't work, where appeasement did nothing but give Kim Il plenty of money to import pizza chefs while his people continue to starve, are trying to get us to enter yet another unholy treaty with yet another murderer where we are going to get bilked again, and where we won't be able to do anything so long as these countries continue to use terrorists as their private mercenaries.

[noutopia]

Carter,Clinton,Cloney,Sheridan,Babs,Glover,Pitt,All can kiss my a$$. Sorry cant say a$$ it would be you know.

[11B3]

Note to Former Presidents Clinton and Carter: STFU and GO AWAY!!!

[knarf]

" ... and urged, instead, permanent inspections and monitoring to disarm the Iraqi government."

What a friggin' maroon.
Isn't that the Korean occupation that's being used as an argument against going to war?

[FreedomPoster]

I predict that within the lifetime of most reading this, that due to Carter's biggest screwup, the Panama Canal give-away, that we'll shed American blood regaining control of the canal.

[Tripleplay]

An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosion would be inconceivable."

This leftist argument is totally insane.

Sure, 100 inspectors (with the Iraqi's in their shorts at all times) are going to completly halt all WMD distribution and production, both above and below the ground in an area the size of California.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Washington Post???!!! THEY wrote this? Looks like truth is coming into fashion.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Washingon Post didn't write this? Now the world is right-side-up again.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Good writing. Why give Balz credit for it? He's just a liberal hack.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"...Carter's biggest screwup, the Panama Canal give-away..."

Nah. NK nukes is his biggest screw-up, IMHO.

[happygrl]

Carter, you Saudi Sandal Licker.

You're just a Bought Man, a prostitute for the Arabs.

You're a disgrace as a former President.

[zebra 2]

Jimmy: Please Hush! You keep embarrassin me. Me being a Georgian, n all.

[Admin Moderator]

Let's stick to original headers. Thank you.

[dalebert]

Just what is a enough to please Mr. Carter?

[JoJo Gunn]

Like it or not Jimmy Carter was once the President, our Commander In Chief. In my eyes he's not a "private citizen". He's the ultimate U.S. Ambassador. For him to have accepted such a tainted piece of tin from the Nobel commitee, which made no bones about it being a political statement, I consider him to be a Collaborator.

His words mean nothing....

[Jimmy Valentine]

No bet, even if you gave odds of 50 - 1.

The Chinese control both ends of the canal and could close it for good with a couple of cases of explosives in the Gatun locks.

Regards,