Read The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps Online
Authors: Mike Evans
The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps (20 page)
The former president’s interference with foreign policy did not end there. He wrote a speech for Yasser Arafat and certified the “election” of Venezuela’s Castro-clone, Hugo Chavez.
34
In a trip to Cuba in 2002, the erudite Mr. Carter called UN Ambassador John Bolton a liar for daring to insinuate that Castro was developing biological weapons, reports of which, by the way, first surfaced during the Clinton administration.
35
In the ultimate kudos, the man from Plains, Georgia, James Earl Carter, was himself awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
In his most recent book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
, the former president equates Israel’s battle to combat terrorism within its borders to the hateful South African practice of apartheid. The reader would be hard put to uncover actual instances of the dreadful terrorism suffered by the Israelis mentioned in the book. It says little about the fact that Israel has already given away land in failed attempts to achieve peace with its neighbors, or the ensuing missile attacks and kidnappings initiated from the very land that was given away. Apparently, Mr. Carter has also forgotten Munich and the massacre of the Israeli Olympic team and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer aboard the
Achille Lauro
, among other such atrocities committed in the name of Palestinian liberation. In fact, throughout the book, he champions the PLO and denigrates Israel.
Among the inequities in Mr. Carter’s discourse is
- the deliberate misrepresentation that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war;
- a failure to reveal the threat against Israel that precipitated the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1980;
- the exoneration of Yasser Arafat for walking out of the peace talks with Ehud Barak.
He gives no credit to Israel for decades of attempts to establish a peaceful relationship with the Palestinian Authority, and in fact faults them for the ills of the region.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says of Carter’s book:
It’s obvious that Carter just doesn’t like Israel or Israelis…. He admits that he did not like Menachem Begin. He has little good to say about any Israelis—except those few who agree with him. But he apparently got along swimmingly with the very secular Syrian mass-murderer Hafez al-Assad. He and his wife Rosalynn also had a fine time with the equally secular Yasir Arafat—a man who has the blood of hundreds of Americans and Israelis on his hands.
36
The first executive director of the Carter Center—as well as its founder of a Middle East program—Kenneth Stein, was openly critical of Jimmy Carter’s latest book. In a letter to the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
, Mr. Stein wrote:
President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.
Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.
37
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
is an outrageous misrepresentation of events in the Middle East, but certainly no more outrageous than Carter’s leftist manipulation of events in Iran. Carter did everything in his power to weaken the shah and to prop up Khomeini. Mr. Carter has remained consistent since that time—consistently wrong. He articulates a worldview of the liberal Left.
I am reminded of the debate between vice presidential hopefuls Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen. After comparing his tenure as a U.S. senator with that of John F. Kennedy, Dan Quayle was met with this response from Senator Lloyd Bentsen: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”
Jimmy Carter has taken credit for being the architect of peace between Egypt and Israel. He can, indeed, take the credit, but he is not the one directly responsible; it was Menachem Begin. Begin and I had many discussions about the meetings at Camp David and matters relating to Anwar Sadat. Menachem Begin told me that the idea to pursue an accord with Egypt came to him while on a visit to Romania. Begin said he mentioned to Nicolae Ceausescu that he would like to have direct talks with Sadat. This was not an unusual move for Begin. In his first pronouncement as prime minister of Israel, he called on Arab leaders to meet him at their earliest opportunity.
Later, when Sadat visited Romania, Ceausescu told him of Begin’s wish to meet with him. According to the prime minister, an exchange of views took place there, and then later between the two men. Nicolae Ceausescu confirmed his role when he remarked in a speech in Bucharest that year that he had acted for the settlement of the Middle East peace issues through negotiations. Sadat used a public occasion to indicate that for the sake of peace, he would be ready even to travel to Israel to speak to the people of Israel from the rostrum of the Knesset.
Immediately, Menachem Begin countered by inviting the Egyptian leader to Jerusalem. He extended the invitation in a speech to a delegation of members of the American Congress Armed Forces Special Committee touring the Middle East, which was proceeding to Cairo the next day. When he heard that Sadat later told the same committee he had not received an official invitation, Begin immediately broadcast a special appeal in English directly to the Egyptian people; he followed that with a formal invitation transmitted through the American ambassador.
In his speech to the people of Egypt appealing to Anwar Sadat to meet with him, of which he gave me a copy, he said:
Citizens of Egypt, this is the first time that I address you directly, but it is not the first time I think and speak of you. You are our neighbors and will always be. For the last twenty-nine years, the tragic and completely unnecessary conflict continued between your country and ours. Since the time when the government of King Farouk ordered to invade our land, Eretz Yisrael, in order to strangle our newly restored freedom and democracy, four major wars have taken place between you and us. Much blood was shed on both sides, many families were orphaned and grieved in Egypt and in Israel…. You should know we have come back to the land of our forefathers. It is we who established independence in our land for all generations to come. We wish you well; in fact, there is no reason whatsoever for hostilities between our people…. Your president said two days ago that he was ready to come to Jerusalem to our Knesset in order to prevent one Egyptian soldier from being wounded. I have already welcomed this statement, and it will be a pleasure to welcome and receive your president with the traditional hospitality you and we have inherited from our common father, Abraham.
I, for my part, will be ready to come to your capital, Cairo, for the same purpose: No more war, but peace, real peace, forever.
38
I asked Prime Minister Begin if he was really that eager to go to Egypt. With a smile and a twinkle in his eye, he replied, “Yes, I would really like to see the pyramids. After all, our ancestors built them. But I will assure the Egyptians that we will not ask for compensation.”
For years, Mr. Carter has accepted the accolades of those who thought him to be directly responsible for the meetings between Sadat and Begin. Mr. Carter’s perception is his reality; he really believes he was the instigator of the Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel. That same perception permeates his new book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Jimmy Carter is, in truth, one of the few ex-presidents to openly and maliciously attack a sitting U.S. president, and his criticisms are not limited to Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—Carter is equally free with his criticism of President George W. Bush. His spiteful comments rival those of any of the self-appointed spokespersons for the liberal Left, all of whom are “world citizens” loyal to no particular nation. The former president cautions against a strong, unilateral policy in the Middle East. He seems to favor any world political group that is anti-United States and/or anti-Bush. It was this Carter ideology that so pleased the Nobel Peace Prize committee. However, it does absolutely nothing to strengthen U.S. ties worldwide.
On August 15, 2006, Carter was interviewed by
Der Spiegel
magazine. It was yet another opportunity for him to spew his hateful rhetoric against President Bush. But then, the American public is becoming accustomed to the liberal Left’s attacks from the likes of John Kerry, Al Gore, and, of course, Howard Dean. Carter not only attacked the president, but he also castigated Israel for their:
…massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that’s justified, no.
39
Mr. Carter seemed to have conveniently forgotten that Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) invaded Israel, killed eight Israeli soldiers, and
then
kidnapped two others. It seems also to have escaped his attention that the prisoners being held by Israel are
terrorists
with one agenda—to kill innocent Jewish civilians.
Apparently, as a card-carrying member of the liberal Left, Mr. Carter has sided with the enemy of the United States at every available opportunity. In her book
Treason,
Ann Coulter writes:
Liberals unreservedly call all conservatives fascists, racists, and enemies of civil liberties…malign the flag, ban the Pledge, and hold cocktail parties for America’s enemies…. Liberals attack their country and then go into a…panic if anyone criticizes them…. Every once in a while, their tempers get the best of them and…liberals say what they really mean…. Their own words damn them as hating America.
40
She further defines liberals by saying:
Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies. We must lift sanctions, cancel embargoes, pull out our troops, reason with our adversaries, and absolutely never wage war—unless the French say it’s okay…. Democratic senators, congressmen, and ex-presidents are always popping up in countries hostile to the United States—Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iraq—hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America.
41
It has been said repeatedly that Jimmy Carter’s term in office was America’s lowest possible point in history. Indeed, his foreign policy decisions continue to plague the United States today.
Publisher William Loeb said of the Carter presidency: “Reelecting President Carter would be the equivalent of giving the Captain of the Titanic an award as Sailor of the Year.”
42
There is a general consensus, especially among conservatives, that Jimmy Carter is the worst president in U.S. history. For the past twenty-five years, Carter has behaved badly toward his successors. Sadly, there has been no outcry regarding his boorishness. His acerbic tirades against Reagan and the two Presidents Bush—in front of foreign audiences, yet—have been insolent and discourteous, to say the least. Still there are those who overlook his behavior simply because he has worked with Habitat for Humanity.
Many of Carter’s pronouncements have been misleading and, in some instances, totally erroneous. He made the protection of “human rights” the basis of his entire presidency (and its afterlife). Carter saw change sweeping over the world. In
Our Endangered Virtues
, Carter wrote of his desire to see “democratization” spreading into areas worldwide. The only thing that spread during Carter’s administration was hatred for all things Western—
especially
all things Western. His domestic policy blunders were only equaled, and possibly surpassed, by his foreign policy blunders.
President Jimmy Carter left office scorned by political liberals and conservatives alike. Syndicated columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. summed up Jimmy Carter’s White House years this way:
In social policy he was strictly New Age liberal. He even expressed a belief in UFOs…. In foreign policy he was a pompous procrastinator, lecturing Americans on their “inordinate fear of Communism.”
…Carter began his political career welcoming the support of the Ku Klux Klan. He adjusted his appeal to the dominant forces in the Democratic Party of the 1970s…. He is another howler voice in the chorus of the Angry Left.
43
In his post–White House years, James Earl Carter is still a pompous howler bent on blackening the United States wherever he’s allowed to travel as an ambassador of “good will.”
E
XPORTING THE
I
SLAMIC
R
EVOLUTION
