[Mb-civic] FW: A Canadian Criticizes OUR President Carter: OUR Nobel Prize Winner. Right On.

[villasudjuan]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Hassan Palizi" <hassan.palizi at btinternet.com>
Reply-To: "Hassan Palizi" <hassan at palizi.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:31:48 +0100
To: "villasudjuan" <villasudjuan at wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Fw: A Canadian Criticizes OUR  President Carter: OUR Nobel Prize
Winner. Right On.

 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Fw: A Canadian Criticizes OUR President Carter: OUR Nobel Prize
Winner. Right On.

 
Subject: A Canadian Criticizes OUR President Carter: OUR Nobel Prize Winner.
Right On.




The trouble with Carter


by Klaus Rohrich
Friday, August 5, 2005

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. Bush¹s 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 Laden¹s 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 Carter¹s history of
extreme failure as America¹s 39th president. For those too young to
remember, under Carter¹s 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 Carter¹s 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 Khomeini¹s takeover of Iran. Carter had decided that Mohammed Reza
Palavi, the Shah of Iran and a committed friend of the United States, wasn¹t
democratic enough for Carter¹s 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 country¹s 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 Carter¹s reign the "misery index", which was Carter¹s 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.

It¹s 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.


Klaus Rohrich is columnist with Canada Free Press. He can be reached at:
letters at canadafreepress.com.




------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050807/bb887800/attachment-0001.htm