Posted on 03/09/2003 9:19:37 AM PST by 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:
Something tells me that Jimmy Carter's vast experience in dealing with tyrants wasn't the kind of experience anyone needed in planning what is about to happen. My guess is Carter was never consulted.
THIS JUST MAKES ME WANT TO BOYCOTT PEANUTS
I think Carter has stepped up his treason several notches since ex-Clinton came online.
So why exactly do the lefty wackos oppose the war? If this war will supposedly jeopardize America's security, they should be 100% in favor of it.
So why exactly do the lefty wackos oppose the war? If this war will supposedly jeopardize America's security, they should be 100% in favor of it.
As opposed to the policies of the Carter adminstration that really made that region so stable.
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.