Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Jimmy Carter: Former Failed President and Still a Failure:

Jimmy Carter is still living in the dream world where the “good guys “ can sit down with the “bad guys” and have tea and crumpets while coming to a peaceful agreement on all things.

I believe that one Neville Chamberlin was of the same mold in his thinking as Carter when he thought that he could appease Hitler by allowing him just “one small piece of Czechoslovakia.” Evidently Carter was not a student of history or felt that he could change what many before him had failed in doing, and that was to appease tyrants. Today, we are still paying the price for his failure 32 years ago, and we now have another demagogue
running for President in Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., who feels he can accomplish the impossible simply by holding hands and talking with the “bad guys.”

On November 4, 1979, four hundred Khomeini followers, armed with sticks and chains, broke down the door of the American embassy in Tehran, stormed the compound, and took hostage all the Americans on the grounds.

These same hostage-takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Jimmy Carter, and the slogan read ”American cannot do a damn thing.” Khomeini did not release his prisoners until January 1981.

In Mark Bowden’s account of the hostage crisis, Guest of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in American’s war with Militant Islam, the “guests” in question were certainly no guests. The American hostages were robbed of their liberty, subjected to mock executions and beatings, and none of them believed that they would walk out of the compound alive. While this was described as the “first battle,” the battle was never actually joined. Bowden’s account reveals up close and ugly the helplessness of the Carter administration. Carter attempted to send appeasement messages to the Khomeni, and the more humiliating the appeasement offers were, the more he was mocked by Khomeni.

Had the Russians seized our embassy during this period, the US would have declared war, as well as the rest of the world, for they would have seen it as a crime against the whole of civilized nations. However, this was not the case with the Carter Administration, for they saw it as a “misunderstanding” and felt that more talks could solve the problem. However, this was not the case with the situation. Some saw this as an attempt by Khomeni and Iran to extradite the shah back to Iran but to Khomeni and his band of Islamic thugs, this was a declaration of war against the US. Khomeni expressed such in his radio address in November of 1979. He stated that this amounts to a “war between Muslims and pagans”: The Muslims must rise up in this struggle, which is more a struggle between unbelievers and Islam than one between Iran and America: between all unbelievers and the Muslims. The Muslims must rise up and triumph in this struggle.” It was this precise aim that resulted in the Islamic Republic's disregard for diplomatic custom.

Carter attempted appeasement by sending William Miller and Ramsey Clark, both of whom disliked the shah, to carry a letter in which Carter offered to: 1. Only allow the shah to remain in the US for medical treatment; 2. Explicitly recognize the independence and territorial integrity of Iran and guaranteed to resume arms exports. 3. He “politely” asked Khomeini to have the hostages released (“I ask that you release unharmed all Americans presently detained in Iran”) and pleaded for dialogue”: I have asked both men (referring to Clark and Miller) to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in Iran and the problems which have arisen between out two countries. The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based on equality, mutual respect and friendship.
After this failure, Carter sent the French to further beg and plead, but to no avail. He then, 154 days after the hostage seizure, finally took economic action and made noises that the US would not stand for such further action. The carrot and sticks did not phase the Khomeini for he knew he was up against a “paper tiger”. In almost a dare, shortly after the hostage-taking, he dismissed the possibility of any military response by the US and said: “We will destroy you all, even if we ourselves die in the process.” Later on he totally rejected the primacy of national interest.” We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah,” he declared in a speech in 1980. “For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

Carter evidently does not remember these words. Similar words have been spoken by the Hamas, the very terror group spawned out of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, as was the Khomeini and his followers, with which Carter wished to have “dialogue”. The man is evidently suffering from selective amnesia to even undertake such a foolish attempt to reason with terrorists.

Carter summed up his attempts in these words, words of one who has not learned from history: “When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people. But in a democracy like Israel, there is a wide range of opinions and that counterbalances the disappointment that I have in not meeting with the people shaping Israeli power now in the government.” He also said; “I can’t say that [Hamas] will be amenable to any suggestions, but at least after I meet with them I can go back and relay what they say, as just a communicator, to the leaders of the United States.” Carter’s words have not changed, nor has his failed thinking. It’s time for Jimmy Carter to come home, go back to building Habitat houses, and leave diplomacy to those who at least understand that tea and crumpets with terror groups does not work. Frank Gaffney, Jr. summed up Carter, shall we say in a nutshell, when he stated recently; “It seems there is scarcely a serious bad actor on the planet with whom Jimmy Carter has not met. He is a serial tyrant-enabler, the very personification of Rodney King’s risible appeal, ‘Can’t we all get along?’ Mr. Carter has come to epitomize the notion that ‘dialogue’ is always in order, no matter how odious or dangerous the interlocutor — or the extent to which they or their agendas will benefit from such interactions.”

"Suppose history repeats: Obama wins and has a failed one-term presidency. Will he be jetting around the world meeting with terrorists and despots and denouncing America in 2040? Maybe not, but the thought gives us a shudder” (James Taranto).


fredgregory said...

The worst President EVAR ! Remember that misery index ?

Ticker said...

Yep gas lines and the annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and 12% by 80. Carter pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. Unemployment was approximately 8 million , the unemployment rate leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% but was higher in some of the more industrial areas of the country and he had claimed that Ford was terrible even though Ford was moving the country out of recession.

jdenniso said...

Dialogue always has to be in the picture--dialogue is the medium that maintains the connection. i do agree that there are times and situations where/when dialogue is not sufficient in and of itself. Action is often times needed if not required. This action, however, does not always mean war. I think that in the popular mind, at least in this context, action equates to or with war. Action can mean or come in many non-war packages and our challenge is to find the most effective "action" short of war, if that is even remotely possible.
We, all nations, must, for this planet's survival find other ways to solve problems other than war.

Our weapons are becoming so lethal that we (all nations) can soon be able to blow up this planet many times over.

This may be a poor example and I don't know how this would play itself out today, but: Christ could have called down legions of angels to deliver himself from the Romans and all the people who wanted to kill Him. Jesus said: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". He did not fight back and yet look at the impact on civillization that his death had. Yes, we have a long way to go and we also have come a long way as well. That obviously was his plan for success (our redemption). I'm not saying that we should throw away our weapons as we need them for defense and as a leverage for "negotiation" but I don't think that we have to "blow people to hell" to accomplish a change in how we handle conflict
or negotiate for change.

Thanks for your blog. I enjoyed the opportunity to dialogue with you and your readers.


Ticker said...

Joe, dialogue is a two way situation. When one attempts to have a dialogue, conversation with one who is not listening then what is the purpose of dialogue. It has been proven over and over that dialogue with terrorist and tyrants is of no use. They have their agenda and no amount of talking will deter them from such. The Islamist have one agenda in mind and that is destruction of Israel, the US and any country that has any love for democratic ideas. They wish only to have a government ruled by Islamic law and those who resist will be eliminated. So I ask once again how can Obama, or Jimmy Carter hope to change the outcome with those who refuse to change.

As to Jesus. He came for a purpose and that purpose was to bear the sins of the world to the cross. Yes he could have called down ten thousand angles but that would have been in direct opposition to the plan for the sin sacrifice, once and for all. There would be no reason for further shedding of blood for sin after He completed his purpose.

As to blowing others to "hell" to accomplish a change: It is and has been an unfortunate situation that this has had to be done. The reason , I refer you back to my opening comments on dialogue. When those who wish to "blow us to hell" as they are doing on a daily basis along with innocent peoples in order to complete their agenda it often comes to no other choice if this is to be brought to an end.

I hate war probably more than others having endured the walk through the bowels of hell. How I wish there was some other way but I do not believe that we will ever see a time of no war. The scripture speaks of a time when many will say Peace , Peace but there will be no peace until the Son of Man returns. We are told that there will be wars, rumors of war, pestilence, earthquakes and other catastrophes in the days before the end of time. Look around us and in this century alone that is all that we have had and heard. We have heard the Peace in our times exclaimed by Chamberlin. We have heard the same from Carter when he was having his talks with Egypt and all this has yet to occur but the wars and other things have continued and at a much more rapid pace than before.
Dialogue? Our dialogue should be with the one who came to set us free from the bondage of sin, asking forgiveness and seeking refuge in his grace.