“What Would Jimmy Do?”
It is probably too early to tell, but based on a WorldNetDaily article, Carter may have had a relationship that is beyond what we have come to expect even from him.
“Did President Carter know he was dealing with an agent of Saddam Hussein or was he just terribly gullible?” asked Morgan. “And if he truly was naïve as to Samir Vincent’s true agenda, then now is the time for him to come forward and repudiate Mr. Vincent and his actions.”
I won’t condemn Carter at this early stage, but his history is certainly one of relationships with despots around the world. That has always seemed odd to me because he is a decent man, and I can’t imagine he would ever want to be a dictator himself. But he really enjoys the company of dictators around the world.
If you’re going to slag Jimmy Carter for having relationships with someone “affiliated with Saddam then, uh, what do you have to say about Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam himself and that administration turning a blind eye to the man they supported while he gassed thousands of Iranians?
I’m not sure what Carters stance was, publicly, on Saddam and Iraq at the time.. but I have a feeling it was not as cozy as Reagans during the Iran/Iraq war.
Comment by Chris — January 20, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
“Rumsfeld”… Hmmm. You mean the United States. When Saddam was a despot, but he was OUR despot. Rumsfeld was a US representative. Carter has been acting as a private citizen. Rumsfeld carried out administration policy. Carter was involved in personal policy.
I’ve said many times how I feel about diplomacy, and that was the era of us versus the mullahs in Iran. I have never considered it right. But in world affairs of the day, you took what allies you could get, just as in WWII we allied with France and the Soviets. Today’s diplomatic world is much different. Before we had Democracies and Communists, then a lot of–then–insignificant others. Balance was the goal.
And you know what? This is what Dubya is fighting against–diplomacy of the Old World. We played that game (and it really is a game to many of the world’s elites), and learned something others refuse to learn. Balance is no longer needed in the same way was it was then. All can play on the same field, but international institutions see their own significance going away if that happens. They must create a need for balance if nothing else.
Are you saying Reagan should have intervened without a UN coalition back then? Were we wrong to ignore humanitarian necessity? The Europeans ignored the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, and the US went in. Should we have done so regardless of possible nuclear confrontation with the Soviets? The world has changed much since then, and Bush seems to be the only world leader who realizes it–along with Howard and Blair.
Besides, the issue with Carter is whether he gained from Oil-for-Food as did many others.
Comment by Bunker — January 20, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
I would take any opportunity to take a poke at Carter, and to blame him for just about anything. It was only as late as the 1983 bombings when I began my “it’s Carter’s fault” mantra. So many things bad in this world are Carter’s fault: what’s the big deal with adding one more.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — January 21, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
And I see Jack Kemp was also involved, but turned away by the guy working with Carter.
Carter isn’t a bad guy, just a terrible President and ex-President. He needs to retire and get out of the spotlight. It is too bright for his naivete.
Comment by Bunker — January 21, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
Wouldn’t surprise me.
As Boortz correctly points out on occasion, “Carter has never met a dictator he didn’t like.”
Carter is an idiot.
Comment by Army wife — January 21, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
What, Carter gullible? Who would think it?
Comment by Robert — January 21, 2005 @ 11:02 pm
The situation with Rummy and Saddam must be understood in the context of the time. We needed to stop the Iranians from spreading their revolution to the rest of the Gulf and beyond. If they had succeeded in spreading their radical Islamic revolution, we might be in worse shape today than we are.
As for Carter, well, he’s an embarrssment
Comment by The Redhunter — January 22, 2005 @ 4:48 pm