Opinions

The trouble with Carter

Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer and former U.S. President, has a huge problem: his mouth. The things emanating from that orifice are bizarre in the extreme, considering that Carter was arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. His most recent foot-in-mouth episode involves his running commentary on George W. Bush’s veracity and the "atrocities" committed by American soldiers in the war on terrorism. Carter maintains that had the U.S. not waged war against the Taliban who were sponsors of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, or deposed Saddam Hussein, then the Islamic terrorists would have no excuse for attacking the West.

To say this sentiment is naïve is charitable, given Carter’s history of extreme failure as America’s 39^th president. For those too young to remember, under Carter’s tenure in the White House inflation and interest rates rose to their highest levels since the Second World War. In 1978 interest rates of 20 percent were not unheard of, as Carter dithered with the U.S. economy. It was also under Carter’s watch that Iranian fundamentalist Muslims took 66 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days, while Carter was powerless to do anything but posture.

It is ironic that this happened, as Carter was directly responsible for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s takeover of Iran. Carter had decided that Mohammed Reza Palavi, the Shah of Iran and a committed friend of the United States, wasn’t democratic enough for Carter’s taste. As a result, Carter insisted the Shah democratize his regime, the result of which was the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah when the Shah left Iran for cancer treatment in the U.S.

More ironically still, the takeover of Iran by the Islamic fundamentalists emboldened Saddam Hussein, who had just begun his tenure as absolute dictator of Iraq. Believing that the departure of the Shah and the chilling of American/Iranian relations would render Iran ripe for an invasion, Saddam attacked Iran in hopes of securing that country’s oil fields and deposing the Shia Muslim theocracy there. The result was that over 1,000,000 men died during that conflict, which remained at a stalemate for years.

Had Carter not been instrumental in deposing the Shah, then Saddam would likely have remained a bit player in the region, which might have resulted in greater stability.

In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". This sounds to me like it may have been the booby prize, given that Carter actually never accomplished anything concrete that resulted in the resolution of international conflicts, the advancement of democracy or even the promotion of economic and social development. Quite the opposite, as under Carter’s reign the "misery index", which was Carter’s own invention (leave it to a Democrat to focus on misery), climbed by over 50 percent! But then, we have to remember that the Nobel Peace prize also went to Yassar Arafat, the notorious murderer who is responsible for thousands of deaths, both among Israelis as well as Palestinians.

It’s so characteristic of Democrats in the U.S. to take total failures, flunkies who accomplish less than nothing, and elevate them to some mythical pantheon of liberal heroes because they had good intentions. My grandmother used to tell me that the road to hell was paved with them.

Rather than trying to score political points with those who are trying to kill us, Jimmy Carter might be well advised to read some history. I strongly recommend European history between, say, 1930 and 1945. There are some wonderful lessons to be learned in the comparison between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. The former, Like Jimmy Carter, wanted to appease the enemy, while the latter, Like George Bush, took steps to defend his country.