Why is Jimmy Carter so Determined to Ruin His Legacy?
The latest in Carter's absurd ideas, at the obvious and legitimate protests of the State Department, has been to meet with terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal, one of the exiled heads of Hamas. His rationale for legitimizing the faction is the ever present Soccer mom approach that everyone needs talking to, and only through dialog can we get them to hope for a cease fire. Perhaps still remembering the Camp David Accords where Egypt became the only Arab nation to make peace with and ultimately recognize Israel's right to exist, he is now salivating with the idea of hopefully adding another recognition to his belt of cease fires.
The only problem?
A cease fire runs counter to the appropriate course of action taken against Hamas. The faction, which was founded on the idea of destroying the state of Israel, has proven time and again that it amounts to little more than hooded thugs who continuously destroy everything around them out of their petty attempts to claim a grievance that has never been dealt against them.
That being said, the world must now begin a collective effort to destroy Hamas. Anything less than this amounts to a complete failure on the global community's part to take the threat of terrorism seriously, and indicates the impotent foreign policy that has been wielded since World War II, and to a lesser extent, since the end of the Cold War.
It's difficult to nail down where exactly Carter's lunacy comes from in the notion of trying to represent the United States in a summit with terrorism, but perhaps the most likely idea is that he is simply glory mongering in all the wrong places. For the sake of his pride, the author of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, who shot the Apartheid terminology back into the main stream and perhaps forever ruining what the word actually meant, appears to be looking at one last shot before he kicks the bucket to add another notch under his belt to show that he can still negotiate peace between Arabs and Israelis, and amazingly, it doesn't matter how many people he spits on, how many terrorists he legitimizes, or how many deaths he causes by representing the folly of Western thought.
It is troubling to imagine that Carter's spear thrusts of "peace for Hamas" could represent an epidemic of Western thought, whereby it is considered somehow "okay" to contribute to anything short of a terrorist faction's complete and total annihilation. Perhaps more than ever, we are starting to learn that there is no rhyme or reason to many people's, especially those who support failed one term ex-President Carter's, opinions on the Middle East.
But then, perhaps most frighteningly of all, we are expected to believe that, above all else, Jimmy Carter is in any way a source or authority on dealing with terrorism in the Middle East. After all, there can be no other president in the history of the United States with more culpability on his hands for allowing militant Islam to export itself from the region than the gentleman who allowed American hostages to sit in Iranian hands for 444 days relatively uncontested. On that note, however, Khaled is very likely to be interested in hearing everything the original "take my people hostage if it helps establish your grievance" President of the West.
Published by Chadd De Las Casas
I was born in Valencia, California in 1987. It's ironic that I turned out to be a writer, since my first exposure to it was an essay about why I hate writing. I am also the owner of the Content Producers Wiki. View profile
- The Legacy of George W. Bush
- 10 Things that Paris Hilton and Jimmy Carter Have in Common
- Restaurant Review: Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville in Orlando, Florida
- Six Ways to Ruin Your Retirement
- 10 Tips on What to Write in an Ethical Wills
- Jimmy Carter Witnesses a UFO in October of 1969
- Re-Elect Jimmy Carter Movement Announces Its Vice-Presidential Candidate
12 Comments
Post a CommentThat someone so blinded by George Bush calls anyone a "colossaul failure" (your spelling) would be a joke, if it weren't so terrifying.
Sorry, can't keep my communists straight.. it's Musall who's bordering evil, Deez is only enabling it.
The initial wave of terror against the U.S. was in 1977, when the President under discussion was in power, his complete ineffectiveness in securing the lives of Americans against terrorists was one of the main pillars bringing his disastrous regime to an end. Hardly a "reaction to neo-conservatism". There were three major terror attacks in the Reagan administration specifically targeting US interests (Beirut, the German disco, and Pan Am 103), none during Bush's first administration when he went to war to save one Arab nation from the aggression of another. The first WTC bombing happenned during the Clinton Administration, as well as the rise of Al-Qaeda. On the global theater, terrorism skyrocketed during the Clinton administration, the Chechens in Russia, the meteoric rise of terrorism in Indonesia, Afghanistan, even in Bosnia, not to mention Europe and Africa. None of these had anything whatever to do with being a "reaction to neo-conservatism". You are USING the death
To call terror a reaction to neo-conservatism is far worse than being simply naive and completely without backing or merit of any kind, I would say it borders on evil itself. Deez, you are so close to the line it's getting hard to tell if you've crossed it. It is the using of a very real philosophy and tactic, where peoples' lives are completely disposable, where random people are kidnapped and REALLY beheaded after pleading for their lives, where airplanes full of innocents are taken and run into buildings ALSO full of innocents for their symbolic value, to strike fear into peoples' hearts... then using that as a springboard to try to score political points against (insert pet peeve here), when not only is there no connection of any kind, but when the opposite is so self-evident.
Sure Jeff, if we want to turn Jimmy Carter into anything but the colossaul failure he was while ascribing to conspiracy theories, I could see all that coming about. But then, you believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, so I take your opinion with about fifty kilos of salt.
Ask yourself, what if Carter had defeated Reagan in 1980? Where would we be now? Independent of imported oil, perhaps? (Reagan reversed all of Carter's alternative energy initiatives) Less foriegn debt? (Reagan was the biggest debt spender in history, until Mr. Bush) And, dare to dream.....a more peaceful Middle East? As for the terror problem, it is mostly a construct in response to neo-conservatism. And remember the Iran hostages? Do you also remember Iran was ready to release them much sooner, but Reagan and Bush Sr. bribed Iran with weapons to hold them longer, to help Reagan get elected (remember Iran-Contra?) Keep your head in the sand if you wish, but the facts point to the polices began by Reagan and continued to this day to be across the board failures.
Chadd - this is a home run. I see you have a few detractors who want to twist all of your words into "politically incorrect" ranting and accuse you of wanting to "kill" rather than realizing that their own side's PC ranting is creating its own brand of hate and intolerance. I think you were right on target, as usual. I agree with PenPress and Marquis.
I'm not interested in "bombing our way to peace" - peace takes a back seat to security. As long as Hamas is interested in genocide and the destruction of the state of Israel, the reaction needs to be the attempt to annihilate them. Their own war of annihilation is met in kind, though, considering neither the West nor Israel have genocidal goals in mind, it's impossible to imagine that it's in any way "in kind", but alas No, diplomacy is not the answer, diplomacy is not an impotent excuse to avoid fighting. You do not talk to terrorists - period. You can quote as many people as you like who think that we should - every one of them, no matter their credentials, are wrong. You do not validate terrorists with dialog.
Yeah, it's ABSURD! That's why George H.W. Bush's advisers suggest it. That's why former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft thinks it's the right thing to do. That's why Lee Hamilton, one of the two key members of the Iraq Study, believes it is in the best interest of our country. ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
No, what is absurd is how many people are played like cheap musical instruments by the unelected political commentators who do not mention these things to you.
Diplomacy is the only answer to the chaos in the Middle East. Bush's strategy of war is a dismal failure and has earned the US world wide scorn.
We will never be able to bomb our way to peace in the Middle East. Carter is a courageous man for attempting diplomacy.