Sunday, August 27, 2006
Carter calls Blair "Compliant and Subservient"
Former President James Carter has launched a scathing attack on one of the pillars of the free world, calling UK Prime Minister Tony Blair "compliant and subservient."
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Carter's personal integrity and no doubt about his good intentions.
But he's an atrocious judge of character, and the most politically naive man to attain the office of President since Ulysses Grant. His foreign policy, particularly, was a disaster area, and the oft-quoted Zbignew Brzinsky, or however you spell his name, is probably the least effective - nay - DISASTROUS National Security Advisor in the history of the Republic.
This is the man who trusted Kim Jong Il at his word, for example - and the sum total of his muscular response to Iran's act of war was to leave our special ops soldiers' corpses smoldering in the Iranian deserts.
This is a man whose idea of bold action consisted of boycotting the Olympics and initiating a grain embargo against a country with a gajillion square miles of farmland.
The difference between Carter and Blair is that Blair routinely stands up against terror and tyranny, while Carter routinely acted to appease and mollify them. If anyone was compliant and subservient, it was Jimmy Carter - compliant and subservient to Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Kremlin.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone locked in a death struggle with tyrrany in the late 1970s whom Carter didn't sell out, either directly or indirectly.
Which is one of the reasons, of course, he was a one-term President.
Carter's a nice man, and a decent man, and fundamentally an honest man. But when it comes to political and strategic judgement, I would consider it a badge of honor to be criticized by the likes of Jimmy Carter.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Carter's personal integrity and no doubt about his good intentions.
But he's an atrocious judge of character, and the most politically naive man to attain the office of President since Ulysses Grant. His foreign policy, particularly, was a disaster area, and the oft-quoted Zbignew Brzinsky, or however you spell his name, is probably the least effective - nay - DISASTROUS National Security Advisor in the history of the Republic.
This is the man who trusted Kim Jong Il at his word, for example - and the sum total of his muscular response to Iran's act of war was to leave our special ops soldiers' corpses smoldering in the Iranian deserts.
This is a man whose idea of bold action consisted of boycotting the Olympics and initiating a grain embargo against a country with a gajillion square miles of farmland.
The difference between Carter and Blair is that Blair routinely stands up against terror and tyranny, while Carter routinely acted to appease and mollify them. If anyone was compliant and subservient, it was Jimmy Carter - compliant and subservient to Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Kremlin.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone locked in a death struggle with tyrrany in the late 1970s whom Carter didn't sell out, either directly or indirectly.
Which is one of the reasons, of course, he was a one-term President.
Carter's a nice man, and a decent man, and fundamentally an honest man. But when it comes to political and strategic judgement, I would consider it a badge of honor to be criticized by the likes of Jimmy Carter.
Comments:
It is simply not plausible that Carter is both "a nice man, and a decent man, and a fundamentally honest man" and that he says and does what he does.
With numbing regularity, he advocates the worst policies and embraces the most monstrously evil leaders in the world (Arafat, Chavez, etc ad nauseum).
Perhaps you know things I do not about him, but I cannot imagine what causes you to respect him. There are few men I respect less. He makes Michael Moore seem seem like a patriot and moral beacon.
James
With numbing regularity, he advocates the worst policies and embraces the most monstrously evil leaders in the world (Arafat, Chavez, etc ad nauseum).
Perhaps you know things I do not about him, but I cannot imagine what causes you to respect him. There are few men I respect less. He makes Michael Moore seem seem like a patriot and moral beacon.
James
# posted by 
: 1:16 AM
: 1:16 AM
Carter Preidential Directive - NSC-63
Take a look at Carters final presidential directive related to the Middle East in specifics, and DOD broadly. It was issued in the final week of Jimmy Carters presidency.
Then take a look at what Rumsfeld has been spending the last 6 years doing.
The too faced Dhimmicrats aren't upset with Rumsfeld's plan, because it is actually their plan.
Post a Comment
Take a look at Carters final presidential directive related to the Middle East in specifics, and DOD broadly. It was issued in the final week of Jimmy Carters presidency.
Then take a look at what Rumsfeld has been spending the last 6 years doing.
The too faced Dhimmicrats aren't upset with Rumsfeld's plan, because it is actually their plan.
