There He Goes Again: Carter Calls War 'Unjust'

NewsMax.com ^ | 3/09/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Jimmy Carter, the man who gave the U.S. the Iran hostage crisis that held 52 Americans for 444 days in brutal captivity, now says that a war with Iraq is unjust and a violation of "basic religious principles..."

Claiming that "As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises," Carter says he became "thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war," and proclaims that a war on Iraq, which he described as a "substantially unilateral attack" fails to meet those standards.

His legendary confusion becomes evident by his failure to explain how anything can be "substantially unilateral" since something can be either unilateral or not unilateral - there's nothing in between, especially in this case where the U.S. has the backing of large numbers of UN member nations.

After taking a swipe at "a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention" for backing Israel out of a belief in eschatological, or final days, theology, the former president laid out his requirements for a war to be a just one.

Writing an op-ed column today in the notoriously anti-administration New York Times, Carter insists that war can be only a last resort, and an attack on Iraq is unjustified because clear alternatives - such as the interminable delays to act supported by the UN - exist.

Carter, who has exhibited an inexplicable fondness for enemies of the United States and a latent hostility to much of any U.S. foreign policies favoring America’s interests over the years, charged that America's national security is not threatened by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

And despite the fact that the administration has hotly denied the suggestion that it plans "to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population, within the first few hours of an invasion," explaining that the initial bombing targets will be military and that every effort will me made to protect civilians, Carter still charges that the bombing will be aimed at innocent civilians "for the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment."

The entire Carter screed echoes the most radical charges made by the leftist dominated anti-war movement - that the war will destabilize the entire region and "prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home" and the idea that war on Iraq is an attempt to establish a "pax Americana" on the region and an occupation of Iraq lasting for as long as ten years.

Carter is especially critical of the administration's failure to subject U.S. sovereignty to the authority of the spineless UN in this matter, arguing that we have no "international authority" whatever that is, to act in our own interests. By defying "overwhelming world opposition," he warns that the United States will undermine the UN "as a viable institution for world peace."

Mr. Carter seems unable to understand that it is the UN itself which by its 12 years of inaction in the face of Saddam's defiance has undermined its ability to be an instrument of peace.

But then, there are a lot of things Mr. Carter seems unable to understand, such as the need for an ex-president to support a sitting president in a time of crisis. It's called patriotism - a concept obviously foreign to a man deemed to have been an utter failure as America's chief executive in his years in the White House.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Saddam Hussein/Iraq
United Nations

[finnman69]

Leaving 52 Americans prisoners of Islamic Terrorists for 444 days was unjust.

[FRgal4u]

Jimmy Carter Calls for 'Massive Strike' on Iraq
(2003-03-09) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter this morning called for a massive unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with U.N. sanctions.

This remark came just as New York Times subscribers were reading an Op-Ed piece in which Mr. Carter attacks the Bush administration for it's "apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support."

Asked to explain the radical change of heart, Mr. Carter said, "As a Christian, I have learned the value of repentance. After I sent in the Op-Ed, I suddenly realized that President Bush doesn't want a war with Iraq anymore than I do. He wants to disarm Iraq and protect the world from a crazed dictator who has weapons of mass destruction and a track-record that would make Ted Bundy blush. So, I repented and I ask forgiveness from the readers of my Op-Ed and Mr. Bush."

Mr. Carter also noted that Mr. Bush has demonstrated Christian forbearance by allowing an obviously-useless inspections process to continue as he attempts to persuade world leaders of the need to protect their own citizens and the Iraqi people from the unpredictable acts of a tyrant who sees himself as the restorer of the Babylonian empire.

"I now understand," said Mr. Carter. "That each day that we have not attacked Iraq has been an act of Christian mercy on the part of the President. My next Op-Ed for the Times will be an analysis of the injustice perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in the name of Islam."

-------

source: scrappleface.com

scrappleface is the best satire site - has a conservative leaning to it...absolute must read for follow freerepers...

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...'The Clinton's'...

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309

[Registered]

[Defender2]

Mr. 444 Days, failed presidency, Jimmy Carter......TAKE A HIKE.
.....LOSER!!!!

[GeorgiaYankee]

I've been lurking for over a year, but Jimmah put me over the edge! I had to register and post this!

Here's my rebuttal to Jimmah, (My comments in parentheses).



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
NY Slimes
Just War — or a Just War?
(What a title! --- or What? A title?)


By JIMMY CARTER
March 9 2003



ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support

(aside from the over 30 nations offering support),
is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked

(make that thoroughly humiliated and discredited)

by international crises , I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
(this is the blame Israel and blame the US for being their ally gambit).

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

(He never cites his source for these, did he make them up, or adapt and collect them from various sources?)

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.

(What? Another 12 years of Iraqi stalling and non-compliance? Maybe we should just wait for Saddam to die, but then we'd have to deal with his psychopathic sons!)

These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened

(you may consider possible transfer of chem/bio weapons to terrorists indirect, but it doesn't make the results less threatening)

and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

(This is the most outrageous statement of the article. A former President of the US takes as gospel truth one of the many leaked "war plans", then twists it to say our target is the civilian population of Iraq. Is he that stupid, or is this deliberate and malicious deception? The "Shock and Awe" plan to which he refers, said that the target is Saddam's security and command forces, even his "cannon fodder" regular army will be allowed to surrender. They're trying to already!)

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.

(Sorry Jimmy, no one on earth has weapons that can discriminate between military and civilian targets, that takes people. Was this sloppy writing, sloppy logic, was he rushed or is this his natural state of mind?)

Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

( A US military analyst recently said that a military asset would have to be extremely important for us to target if it was right next to a hospital mosque or other civilian building. He also noted that for most military assets (tanks, planes missiles), hiding or parking them in such a way would render them unusable.)

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.

(Even if it is insufficient to achive our objective, i.e. Saddam disarmed? Using this logic, most wars would end in a long and bloody stalemate! This directly contradicts the Powell "overwhelming force" doctrine. Was our violence against Germany and Japan proportional to the injuries we suffered from them?)

Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

(Another perhaps deliberate misinterpretation of the administration's position. From the very beginning, President Bush has stated that this war on terrorism is not just against Al Qaeda, or even all global terrorist networks, but also against the nations that support and harbor them. Many people asked why our government didn't connect the dots before 9/11 and do something, who cares that we didn't have conclusive proof. Now the same people are saying we can't attack Iraq, we don't have conclusive proof, you're just connecting dots!)

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.

(He goes on to cite the UN Security Council, but is that the society that President Bush professes to represent? I believe President Bush professes to represent the United State of America!)

The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change (snip, for blah blah blah)

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.

(What currently exists is the threat of a dictator with WMD who has used terrorists to do his dirty work in the past.)

Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.

(And if we do nothing, Saddam will end his WMD programs and AL Qaeda and other terrorist groups will consider a truce with the US... NOT!!!)

Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

(FINE BY ME!!!! After years of anti-Americanism,the UN needs to be discredited!)

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.

(The sympathy and friendship after 9/11 was compassion for a victim. Once we stopped acting like a victim, the sympathy ended!)

American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

(What the...? So threat of force decried last year as sabre-rattling and bullying, is now a good thing!? Jimmah is just admitting the obvious: without the presence and threat of our military power, there would be no weapons inspectors in Iraq today. Jimmy says the threat of force is fine, as long as everyone knows that we don't really mean it! Can you say "paper tiger", how about "no credibility"?)

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.


GeorgiaYankee had the good sense to vote against Mr. Carter in 1980. He was joined by millions of Americans in a landslide that elected Ronald Reagan, who lifted the nation out of the Carter "malaise", restored America's ecomonic and military greatness and brought down the evil empire of the Soviet Union.

[LaGrone]

It looks like he would be so ashamed of his foreign policy failures that he would be silent; I guess he thinks all of us have a short memory.

[Travis McGee]

Click here to create two home-printable bumper stickers that say:

Only UN-Americans put the U.N. before the U.S.

Artwork and linkage by FReeper Howie. Stick them inside your car’s rear window with a few bits of 3M Magic Tape, the tape will peel off easily with no glue residue even after months in the sun.

[CyberAnt]

That's right - Carter has nothing to lose - that's why he's such a perfect mouthpiece for the DNC (x42,Hitlery,McAwful). I would just like to know what they are holding over Carter's head ...??

[mingwah]

This is a case of 'true colors". He was fronting during his presidency and I take personal offense at his arrogance concerning Israel. We are the only allies Israel has and Israel is the only place on the face of this earth that you can't be persecuted for being Jewish!!!

[americanbychoice]

Put a Peanut in it.

[mingwah]

I remember! The interest rates were horrific and it was so depressing watching his cabinet! It made me ashamed of being Southern. Wait, that happened with Clinton too....

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

What Jimmy said when Clinton chose to bomb Iraq in 1999, on the eve of the impeachment trial:

Former President Jimmy Carter (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."

[timestax]

bump to the top

[MEG33]

Jimmy Carter reminds me of certain movie stars and literary personalities.They are surrounded by people who fawn and cater to them and then they lose all ability to critically examine what harm they do. He is a disgrace to our country.

[Buck W.]

Really, President Carter? There are other ways of dealing with the Iraq situation? Surrender, perhaps?

I assume the rescue of the American hostages in Iran also qualified as an unjust use of the American military. That's why we botched the rescue and lost personnel in the desert!

This man is a parody of himself. He is a humiliation. No wonder he is generously referred to as the most ineffective president of the modern era.

His greatest contribution was to demonstrate that the country needed RWR.

[CaptRon]

How did he manage to get through the Naval Academy?

[petertare]

With Bubbaboy, you never agreed, but could understand his agenda--just a goodtimin hillbilly with a gift of gab. From Jimmy one always was willing to overlook the Presidential buffoonery as merely incompetence based--after all he is a well educated, Navy submariner, etc.

No more will I excuse Mr Carter to be simply incapable of making a principled stand because, well, everyone can make an occassional error, for he is well intentioned and must mean well.

He has just establshed he is neither well intentioned nor is he a man of character. No, none of that, HE IS JUST THE LEADER OF THAT SEGMENT OF THE ANTI-AMERICAN MOVEMENT THAT WILL ALWAYS PUT PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT/GAIN BEFORE COUNTRY.

You just forfeited what little respect you had once garnered from the few that still respected you--Bubbajimmy.

[scott7278]

"So, it's okay for Carter to mix his "faith" with politics, but W gets criticized."

Absolutely -- the cross has been robbed of it's offense and scorned of it's shame under the liberalism of Jimmy Carter and his comrades. Fellow liberals don't mind his social gospel, because it's not offensive and it furthers their cause(s).

But when a Christian is serious about his faith, practices what he preaches, and makes black-and-white decisions in a world of greys -- watch out! These are the evil ones according to the world's permissive values.