Once again, our 39th President proves that he is a fool.

James Earl Carter has been saved from having the reputation as our worst President ever by the Administration of Barack Obama; you’d think that he’d be more grateful! :)

A Cruel and Unusual Record

By Jimmy Carter | Published: June 24, 2012

The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Our 39th President is just beside himself with grief over the fact that, in the war against the Islamists,1 the United States is exploiting its technical advantages wherever possible, including the use of unmanned drones to strike the Islamist leadership far behind anything resembling the “front.”

Somewhere between 2.8 and 5.5 million German soldiers were killed in World War II,2 before Der Führer finally decided to commit suicide. Somewhere between 1 and 2½ million more German civilians, men, women, boys, and girls, the elderly and infants, really just anyone who happened to be around when the bombs fell, were killed as well, because we were not able to send an unmanned drone or successful covert action squad to kill off the Nazi leadership. Your Editor wonders just how it was more moral to not target the Nazi leadership directly, but have to wade through millions of Germans with fire and steel, to finally end the menace posed by the Third Reich.

Of course, President Carter became former President Carter four years earlier than he planned precisely because he was so tremendously inept at foreign policy, at understanding our enemies. The Iranian government allowed a group of “students” to invade our embassy in Tehran,3 seize our diplomats, Marine guards and other Americans, and hold them hostage for over a year, and President Carter’s response was weak, vacillating and totally ineffective; he had the tools of force at his disposal as commander-in-chief, but was too weak-willed to use them, and allowed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumeini to utterly humiliate him. And now, 32 years after his landslide defeat by Ronald Reagan, Mr Carter has demonstrated that he still doesn’t understand that not everybody is a nice and reasonable guy.

In 1979 and 1980, the Ayatollah played our President for a fool; in 2012, our former President has proved, yet again, that he never learned from that lesson.
____________________________________________

  1. Your Editor does not use the mealy-mouthed term “war on terror.” Terrorism is simply a tactic, a particularly repugnant one, but one which is used because it has proved to be effective. The “terrorists” we are fighting are the people who wish to impose an Islam-based fascism, Islamism for short, and we ought to be honest enough to admit that.
  2. There are widely divergent numbers given, depending upon the source.
  3. An embassy is the legal territory of the nation whose embassy it is.

20 Comments

  1. Don’t get me started. So, Jimmy Carter’s a fool, water is wet, Democrats are liars, Barack Obama was born in two different hospitals and that’s why it’s perfectly normal for him to have a phony social security number.

    But, all this is nothing new, Bill Clinton didn’t inhale and he never had sexual relations with that women. Hillary doesn’t know how Vince Foster got seaman in his shorts and carpet fibers all over his clothing or how his body got taken out of the White House without someone signing out or being video taped. She also doesn’t have a clue how those Rose Law Firm billing documents, the ones under subpoena, suddenly appeared on her table in the WH residence. Nor does she know how all those FBI files were copied by her staff. And, of course, she has no idea how the 86 people murdered in Waco might be what Vince Foster was talking about in his so-called suicide note.

    So, when Barack Obama told us his Stimulus program would keep unemployment under 8%, and that ObamaCare would reduce health care costs he was just contributing to the Democrat Party’s ongoing agenda of lying to the people.

  2. Just remember that Carter lost his bid for re-election because of treasonous secret dealings with the Ayatollahs’ regime in Iran by Ronald Reagan to delay the release of the hostages. In case you’re too young to remember, the new Iranian leaders made it crystal-clear to anyone with eyes to see with by having the plane carrying the hostages from Tehran touch down at the exact moment when Reagan placed his hand on the Bible to swear to protect his country and its constitution. Of course, his collusion with a foreign power took place before he swore the oath. But then, didn’t he further give aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic by secretly selling them weapons? No?

    But Reagan wasn’t our worst president any more than Carter was.

  3. Sorry, Mr Arbusto, but that’s pure bovine feces. We all know that it’s a Democratic speculation, because y’all just couldn’t stand the fact that President Carter’s squishy policies didn’t impress the Iranians.

    Of course, the Iranians just might have taken note of Ronald Reagan’s election, and realized that if the hostages weren’t released, he might just turn Tehran and Qom into radioactive black holes in the ground.

    Had President Carter told the Iranians that they had 72 hours to release our people, safe and unharmed, or they would be regarded as the unfortunate American casualties in the nuclear strikes on Tehran and Qom, and meant it, our people would have been released, pronto, and Mr Carter would have been re-elected by a huge majority.

  4. SnakeArbusto is correct, and our Editor is not.

    Just the fact that our Editor would have preferred the threat of a nuclear attack shows how uninformed he is about the incendiary nature of such a threat, whether carried out or not. But we should not be surprised, because our Editor is a Machiavellian and an avid warhawk as well, in his badly mistaken belief that might makes right, automatically.

  5. SnakeArbusto is correct, and our Editor is not.

    Gee. Another radical conspiracy theory (“October Surprise”) that PAP has latched onto. Surprise, surprise. He probably thinks Reagan told the SCOTUS to rule as they did in election 2000, and manipulated the voting machines in Ohio in 2004 prior to his death!

  6. “Our 39th President is just beside himself with grief over the fact that, in the war against the Islamists,1 the United States is exploiting its technical advantages wherever possible, including the use of unmanned drones to strike the Islamist leadership far behind anything resembling the “front.””

    And with good reason. There is a reasonable debate about whether drone strikes might do more harm than good, as our deteriorating relationship with the Pakis and the Afghans indicates. These folks are not happy with the fact that drone strikes have made some serious blunders resulting in the murders of innocent civilians. We keep apologizing, but we keep doing it, thus fomenting and amplifying anti-American sentiments.

    Moreover, consider when our enemies will do the same to us, in our own country. The technology involved is not beyond a rogue state acquiring it. You can be sure that they are working on it, and we are probably working on defending against it.

    President Carter actually tried something similar to a drone attack by attempting a stealth attack on the Iranian hostage guards. However, the execution by our military failed. Carter also used negotiation, which finally succeeded with the freeing of the hostages on Reagan’s first day in office, yet somehow our Editor finds the words to credit Reagan with that, in his desperation to downgrade Jimmy Carter at every turn.

    Jimmy Carter had the misfortune to be President when the Arabs found their leverage in terms of suddenly jacking up crude oil prices, thus catching us unprepared and causing a huge inflation. To prevent this crisis from reoccurring, Carter laid out the basis for working toward energy independence, which Reagan and subsequent Presidents rejected, starting with Reagan, until now we have President Obama working on our energy independence again. Neither gets any recognition or support from our visionless Republican Party leaders.

    “In 1979 and 1980, the Ayatollah played our President for a fool; in 2012, our former President has proved, yet again, that he never learned from that lesson.”

    Thus, again, our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran. It seems that this is the only tactic he knows to solve international disputes.

  7. “Thus, again, our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran.”

    Please point out exactly where our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran, Wagonwheel. There is no such proposal on this thread. Stop putting words in the Editor’s mouth.

  8. OK Hoagie, maybe you can translate what our Editor meant by this remark:

    “In 1979 and 1980, the Ayatollah played our President for a fool; in 2012, our former President has proved, yet again, that he never learned from that lesson.”

  9. Well, Wagonwheel, perhaps you should ask the Editor what he meant in his remark. I took it to mean Carter was and still is a drooling fool. I did not see either the word “invasion” nor Iran in that remark, did you? Or do you somehow equate the Editor thinking Carter an idiot somehow translates into his desire to invade Iran?

    You have once again projected your tired old partisan views onto the Editor saying what you “think” he said, not what he actually said. Just as you reciently did on another thread where I believe you called the Editor “Machiavellian” and “an avid warhawk”. Seems that to you anyone who refuses to take war off the table is just a horrible warmonger.

  10. You know what’s wild, Hoagie? Those lily-livered Leftists thought threatening to draft women into the military would change our principles, as if our principles were as changeable and unimportant as Leftist “principles”! The Lily-Livered Leftists, REMFs all, think we’re REMFs full of bluster. But we keep proving them wrong. My daughter, two of the Editor’s daughters, Foxfier are all proof that the LLLs have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about nor what we believe, but the LLLs will always project their own nastiness onto us Conservatives. They don’t have a choice in their ideologue brain-dead state.

  11. Is that so, John?

    I’ll ask again, have you ever been on unemployment or food stamps? Have you ever gone to an emergency room for free health care? There must be a reason that you refuse to answer questions like these.

    I think you have probably taken advantage of government programs, but it would be counter-ideological for you to ever admit it. And for you it may be counter-intuitive for you to ever express gratitude for help you have received, instead, to attack the hand which has at times been extended to you. There is something wrong with this picture, isn’t there John? So you can correct me for my misunderstandings, if necessary.

    You seem to be a person who has struggled quite a bit, based on all you have told us over time. Why should it be so shameful and difficult to show some gratitude to your government and the tax payers for the help you have received, assuming you have had help? This behavior, assuming I am correct, does not make common sense. Instead it suggests a man filled with anger and hate, which does you no good as it plays out over time.

  12. Perry, quit playing psychoanalyst. You’re as bad at that as you are at predicting the outcome of the 2010 election. You’re also terrible at being a clairvoyant, so you need to quit doing that as well.

    “Better to keep your mouth shut and seem a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.” You really should quit removing all doubt, Perry.

  13. Why should it be so shameful and difficult to show some gratitude to your government and the tax payers for the help you have received, assuming you have had help?

    The old saying goes assuming makes an ass out of u and me, but in this case there’s only one person being the ass.

  14. “I think you have probably taken advantage of government programs, but it would be counter-ideological for you to ever admit it.”

    There’s the difference between your philosophy and ours: we don’t believe in “taking advantage” of government programs, we believe they should be used only in emergency situations. You seem to believe we don’t think any of those programs you mentioned should exist or do any good. You’d be wrong. We just don’t believe they should become a way of life instead of a temporary helping hand.

    And when it comes to gratitude as you said: ” And for you it may be counter-intuitive for you to ever express gratitude for help you have received, instead, to attack the hand which has at times been extended to you.” When was the last time welfare recipients held an occupy rally to thank us taxpayers for our largess?

  15. WW wrote:

    “In 1979 and 1980, the Ayatollah played our President for a fool; in 2012, our former President has proved, yet again, that he never learned from that lesson.”

    Thus, again, our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran. It seems that this is the only tactic he knows to solve international disputes.

    It would be difficult to find a more blatant misreading of my article than WW’s. I was mocking former President Carter’s bewailing the use of unmanned drones and other technical means to strike the Islamist leadership over the heads of their lines of defense, specifically to go around and over those defenses rather than having to invade and plow our way through those defenses.

  16. Hoagie wrote:

    “Thus, again, our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran.” (WW)

    Please point out exactly where our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran, Wagonwheel. There is no such proposal on this thread. Stop putting words in the Editor’s mouth.

    To which WW responded:

    OK Hoagie, maybe you can translate what our Editor meant by this remark:

    “In 1979 and 1980, the Ayatollah played our President for a fool; in 2012, our former President has proved, yet again, that he never learned from that lesson.”

    I’m still trying to figure out how you got “our Editor is calling for an invasion of Iran” out of what was written. [scratching head]

  17. WW wrote:

    You seem to be a person who has struggled quite a bit, based on all you have told us over time. Why should it be so shameful and difficult to show some gratitude to your government and the tax payers for the help you have received, assuming you have had help? This behavior, assuming I am correct, does not make common sense. Instead it suggests a man filled with anger and hate, which does you no good as it plays out over time.

    If Mr Hitchcock ever needed to seek assistance, it was a temporary measure, between jobs. No one here has any problem with helping people who are genuinely having a brief, rough spot, or who is genuinely disabled or otherwise unable to support himself.

    But I will guarantee you that your Editor, at the very least, has absolutely no patience or sympathy for the people who choose to abuse the system to enable them to not have to support themselves, the deliberate malingerers.

    And here, from Investors Business Daily, are the statistics concerning the huge increase in the ratio of people on disability to the size of the workforce. Since the end of the recession at the end of the second quarter of 2009, non-farm payrolls have increased by 2.3 million, but the disability rolls have jumped 4.7 million. Since the end of the Reagan Administration, where the size of the disability pool was a little over 2% of the workforce, it has jumped to over 6% under President Obama. Not all of that increase can be attributed to President Obama, because there has been a steady rise in disability grants, and that indicates, to me, not that the number of people who are generally disabled have increased, but that the number of people scamming the system have increased.

  18. Just remember that Carter lost his bid for re-election because of treasonous secret dealings with the Ayatollahs’ regime in Iran by Ronald Reagan to delay the release of the hostages.

    This is paranoid nonsense (and, Perry, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing it). Why would the Ayatollah bargain with Reagan, a mere presidential candidate, but not Carter, who actually was president and who had the power to turn Iran into a radioactive hole in the ground?

Comments are closed.