Vodkapundit - Shame

Shame

Posted by Stephen Green · 31 July 2005

Jimmy Carter knows all about disgrace:

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

You know what else is disgraceful?

When a former US President gives him stamp of approval to a fraudulent election:

"After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the [Venezuelan] election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition. At the time, this appeared to be an insignificant detail. Now it looks much more meaningful."

Carter has "given impetus and excuses" to potential dictators around the world. How's that for disgrace?

Oh, you want more?

Then how about a former US President who refuses to give his stamp of approval to two free and fair elections in the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy:

It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.

Carter there gave "impetus and excuses" to those who would claim this country is no better than the brutal dictatorships it opposes.

You want even more?

Then let's hear it for a former US President who tried to conduct his own, private foreign policy while his nation prepared to oppose a conquering madman:

During the buildup to the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, Carter unsuccessfully worked to undermine the foreign policy of America's democratically elected president, George Bush. Carter behaved as the Imperial Ex-President, conducting a guerrilla foreign policy operation that competed with the actual president's. What's disturbing about this behavior is not that Carter opposed war with Iraq. Many Democrats opposed going to war, and they worked within the American system to try to prevent a war that many predicted would be bloody (which it was, for Iraq). But Carter went further than merely lobbying Congress to oppose military action or speaking out in an effort to tilt popular opinion against the coming war. He used his status as a former president to engage in foreign policy, a deliberate effort to subvert the democratic process.

That time, Carter gave "impetus and excuses" to none other than Saddam Hussein.

"But wait," as Ron Popeil says, "there's more!"

How about a former US President who has been linked with Oil-for-Food scandal figure Samir Vincent:

In 2000, Vincent led Iraqi religious leaders on a tour of the United States to push for an end to sanctions against Saddam. Among the people who the group met with was former President Jimmy Carter.

Did Carter give "impetus and excuses" to the people profiting from starving Iraqi children? You make the call!

Of course, Carter also had a softer side. So soft, he had nothing but praise for Yassar Arafat:

He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland. While he provided indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement and was instrumental in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from the negotiating role in more recent years.

That's right: Carter gave "impetus and excuses" to the followers of the man who almost single handedly invented modern terrorism.

You want even more? Look. I've got a computer. I have an internet connection. I know how to use Google – we could go on like this all day and all night. And even then, we'd only cover Carter's career as an ex-President.

Even so, if our actions at Gitmo truly are shameful, Carter would know. After all - if there's just one great expert on shameful American activities, it's got to be Jimmy Carter.

Comments

Hostages. Rose Garden. Desert One. 444 days. Double-digit inflation. Double-digit interest rates.

Malaise.

I know all about shame and disgrace. I learned about them during the Carter administration.

Is it too late to impeach him? Couldn't we do it, and make it retroactive?

Posted by: Ardsgaine at August 1, 2005 05:46 AM

Every once in a great while, during a boring moment gathered with family, I like to remind my NOW Republican Inner Circle member parents that they voted for this moron. It reminds all of us why we haven't been back since.

And I second the retroactive impeachment. If that happens, then he can't use his status as a former president to go mucking around in stuff better left to people who know what is going on.

Posted by: Becky in Ohio at August 1, 2005 08:26 AM

Yep. That about covers it.

Posted by: erp at August 1, 2005 08:30 AM

I'm confused. Isn't Switzerland the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy?

Posted by: Andrew Koenig at August 1, 2005 09:04 AM

He should just have called Guantanamo a "malaise" and got done with it.

Posted by: Crank at August 1, 2005 10:37 AM

I started to list some of the baleful consequences of the Carter Administration, and realized this really could go on all day. The guy had to be the worst president of the twentieth century. The worst since Andrew Johnson, or maybe even William Buchanan.

Speaking of events from the previous century, how long can Carter's ex-presidency continue? I don't mean to wish the man ill, but isn't he about 117 years old? We don't listen to the Bee Gees any more, or watch "Happy Days," and either one of those would annoy me less than this particular Seventies hangover.

Posted by: utron at August 1, 2005 10:56 AM

Can't we pull his exit visas or cancel his passport? Maybe not let him back into the country?

Somehow we need to keep this man from making claims as to speaking for the United States government or more than a smattering of its people.

Posted by: Whitehall at August 1, 2005 11:31 AM

I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything more sophisticated to say than, "God I loathe Jimmy Carter!" Is that ok?

doug

Posted by: doug quarnstrom at August 1, 2005 12:27 PM

If only he'd just kept on building houses for the indigent and shut the hell up about everything else.

BTW, what the heck happened to the unwritten rule about ex - Presidents not butting in or making their opinions known regarding current policyholders? This guy set another bad precedent with this behaviour, willingly followed by Bill Clinton and his cabinet of trolls (my apologies to the trolls out there).

Posted by: Dmac at August 1, 2005 01:17 PM

I love the smell of angry, Carter-fisking VodkaPundit in the morning !

Posted by: Charlie at August 1, 2005 01:25 PM

Don't forget his meddling in North Korea in the 90's Or did he go at the behest of Clinton? Either way, he botched the job and now there's a madman with nukes there.
Good going Jimmy!
Oh, I'll second Doug's comment.

Posted by: Tim P at August 1, 2005 02:29 PM

Andrew - Not really, they changed their form of government in 1848. They then did another, totally revised, constitution in 1874, and yet another in 1999.

Posted by: Kathy K at August 1, 2005 03:52 PM

HOW LONG, OH LORD!, how long will we have to suffer the blatherations of this chipmunk?!

Posted by: vanderleun at August 1, 2005 05:12 PM

Maybe he's still getting his high priority advice from Amy. These ghouls are going on and on. Night of the living dead.

Posted by: Oh nooooh! at August 1, 2005 05:27 PM

Well, I suppose he'd know disgraceful conduct by public officials when he sees it... he pretty much redefined it.

On the bright side, at least he didn't make Billy the Attorney General, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.

Posted by: Al Maviva at August 1, 2005 06:20 PM

Carter is great as long as we do the opposite of what he suggests. He could be our George Costanza (sp?)!

Posted by: Mike at August 1, 2005 08:20 PM

Dmac,

To understand how I feel about Habitat for Humanity, imagine that the government was regulating the hell out of your industry, and driving up your cost of doing business. Then imagine that a group of left-wing hippies decided that you were charging too damn much money for your services, and formed an organization that would provide the same service at a deep discount. Then imagine that they came to you and asked you to volunteer to help them in your off hours free of charge, with the implication that if you don't, you're immoral; and the further implication that if you weren't such a selfish, money-grubbing bastard in the first place, their charitable organization wouldn't be necessary.

As I said when asked to do construction work for free in my spare time, Habitat for Humanity can kiss my money-making ass.

Posted by: Ardsgaine at August 1, 2005 10:23 PM

Carter not only encouraged the fall of the Shah, creating a hyperwealthy terrorist state, but he basically ignored Soviet intentions in Afghanistan, leading to the invasion, civil war and rise of the Taliban. To a greater extent than any living American, he empowered bin Laden and his ilk.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at August 1, 2005 11:23 PM

BTW, what the heck happened to the unwritten rule about ex - Presidents not butting in or making their opinions known regarding current policyholders?

I suspect Jimmy thinks former Presidents refrained from criticizing him because he did such a great job.

Posted by: rosignol at August 2, 2005 01:33 AM

"I suspect Jimmy thinks former Presidents refrained from criticizing him because he did such a great job."

Oh, stop! You're making my head hurt.

Posted by: Oh nooooh! at August 2, 2005 10:12 AM

Ooh, ooh! What about the Killer Bunny in the pond? Remember?

Nobody here mentioned that sublime and subliminal nail in the coffin of Jimmy's re-election hopes.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at August 2, 2005 01:32 PM

Switzerland celebrated its 700th year as a Democracy...a couple years back...IT IS THE WORLDS LONGEST RUNNING DEMOCRACY...even if they changed their constitution around a time or two...or only got around to giving women the vote in the 1970s

Posted by: Andrew Kane at August 2, 2005 01:59 PM

Andrew,

Considering that Napoleon invaded and occupied Switzerland in 1798 and prior to that it was essentially run by guilds and merchant families, I don't think you can call it a democracy prior to the the 1848 constitution. Also, women didn't achieve the franchise in one canton until 1990.

Now, the Swiss Confederacy was supposedly established in 1291 (per Wikipedia and other sources)and maybe that's what you are remembering the celebration of. But, the establishment of the confereracy hardly made it a democracy.

Posted by: Pat in Colorado at August 2, 2005 03:20 PM

How about Switzerland's borders? I thought this confederacy...has had pretty much the same borders all this time...and has been consistently voting for 700 years...maybe I'm wrong...but then...what was all the hubhub about...in Switzerland...a few years back?

Posted by: Andrew Kane at August 2, 2005 03:34 PM

Roderick Reilly - Oh, please! I'd forgotten about the killer bunnee! Jimmuh with an oar valiantly bashing the little rabbit. And Rosalyn "sitting in" on cabinet meetings? Remember?

Oh, god! I've just had another horrible flashback: Miz Lillian!

Posted by: Oh noooh! at August 2, 2005 04:10 PM

Oh noooh! _ Didn't I see Miz Lillian on the porch in The Outlaw Josey Wales?

And this is why I will never refer to Jimmy Carter as anything other than Day Laborer in Chief. Aside from stealing a job from some hardworking illegal immigrant, hammering nails into two by fours is about all he's good for...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 2, 2005 07:57 PM