“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Mr. Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. “The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”
As reported by the Globe and Mail, May 19, 2007
former US Grump-In-Chief
Our former President, the 39th president of the United States of America, has once again opened his spite-filled mouth to spew invective on the current President. He continues to plumb depths no other former President has ever explored. His venom knows no bounds, this supporter of the Pseudostinians. A one-term, failed president, whose incumbency was noted for sky-rocketing inflation, gas shortages, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and marauding bunny rabbits has seen fit to pass judgement, once again, on a successor who has never been less than polite to him.
What compels this Georgia peanut-farmer to act as if his thoughts come from "On High"? This man who made Human Rights a cornerstone of his administration, yet used that as a cudgel against our allies while ignoring the abuses of our enemies, sees the world as a "Me-against-Them" planet, where any who disagree with him must be 'bad', since he is, by his own self-view, 'good'. Many people, whose reminiscences I have read, have called Carter 'cold', 'selfish', 'self-righteous', mean, among many other adjectives. I have read few who have called him a warm person. His Carter Center, with many fine-sounding goals, seems, from what I have read, to be a place for him to bring in money for his travels around the world. Travels which always result in Carter mouthing-off about the evils of the USA, and the reasonableness of everybody else. Bush=bad, Castro=good; Reagan=bad; Arafat=good; Israelis=oppressors, pseudostinians=victims; Republicans=bad, Democrats=good; Bush=evil, Hussein=good ... well, you see the drift of his 'thinking' here.
When the Soviet Union (Reds=good, Republican anti-communists=evil) invaded Afghanistan, carter, rather than use the power of the USA to stifle the move with economic, trade, and even military action, instead showed his diplomatic skill by ... banning US athletes from going to the 1980 Moscow Olympics. That showed them, eh? The result? Well, you've seen it! Rather than explain to the Panamanian government that the Panama Canal was a US strategic necessity, carter signed a treaty which turned this vital waterway over to them! The Red Chinese now control at least one entrance to that Canal.
His sole claim to greatness during his presidency is not even his. The Camp David Accords, which saw the signing of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was brokered by the two parties, not by the US or by Carter. Sadat and Begin sought a place of importance to finalize the accord, and Carter wisely offered Camp David. For this, Carter expected a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead he was left grumbling in the dust as Sadat and Begin shared the prize.
Jimmy Carter is an angry old man, a grump, a curmudgeon. His inability to rescue the American diplomatic personnel taken hostage by the Iranians in 1979 was probably the final nail in the coffin of his presidency. After claiming that the Shah was a friend of the US Carter urged the Shah to leave Iran. The resulting chaos was predictable to most, although Carter seemed oblivious. This failure has followed him ever since, as it should. Ronald Reagan was sworn in as Carter's successor on January 20, 1981. Minutes later the hostages were released. Would Reagan have gone to war over this blatant act of war by the Iranians? We'll never know. But the Iranians apparently thought Reagan would do something that Carter would not. Reagan, after all, was the man who, when told we could never beat the Soviets, asked, "Why not?" Can anyone imagine the hysterical Carter uttering such a simple reply?
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Ronald Reagan ~ June 12, 1987
When asked how he would take on the Soviet Union, Reagan said, "We win; they lose." It was as simple as that. And with his positive outlook on the inevitability of US goodness and destiny, Reagan made the Soviets dry, "Uncle". Carter? His response to Soviet hegemony was to sign the SALT II treaty in 1979. Six months after the signing, the Soviet Union deployed troops in Afghanistan, and as such the treaty was never ratified by the United States Senate. A stark difference, wouldn't you say?
You all know that Carter writes many books. All of them extol his thoughts on Peace, the Middle-East, and how he would have done things better. He is a constant buzz of disagreement, to put it nicely, with his successors, and a constant nay-sayer. His pronouncements from foreign lands are absurd, embarrassing, and dead wrong. He is an embarrassment to his homeland, a foolish drone, a curmudgeon. His international impact was to show the USA as an impotent, wishy-washy, weak-willed, nation of pampered, lazy, children, prone to unreasoning violence. His party continues this view of the US. Jimmy Carter has been a cancer.
When will he retire his mouth and go back to the one positive achievement of his post-presidential career: Habitat for Humanity?
Postscript: The up-and-coming candidate for the next Curmudgeon-In-Chief? Al Gore. He is like a manic Carter. Self-righteous, unwilling to consider opposing views, fact-shy, arrogant. He bears watching. When Carter finally goes to his reward, I think you will see Gore take over his mantle.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Sister Toldjah has posted on the remarks of the former Curmudgeon-In-Chief, too.
Larson has his own take on the blitherings of the Plains Pontificator. See the Potbelly Stove!