Jimmy Carter’s Amer­ica-bash­ing, Bush-bash­ing rant

The Washington Times Weekly - - COMMENTARY - David Lim­baugh

Want to know where the Demo­cratic Party stands and where Amer­ica would be un­der their lead­er­ship? Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Carter is cer­tainly not bash­ful about bash­ing the United States, even on for­eign soil or to the for­eign press. He sat for an in­ter­view with Der Spiegel re­cently and fired with both bar­rels at Pres­i­dent Bush, “fun­da­men­tal­ist” Chris­tians and Is­rael.

But do Mr. Carter’s views rep­re­sent those of the Demo­cratic Party? Well, he sure seems to think so. He told Der Spiegel, “I think I rep­re­sent the vast ma­jor­ity of Democrats in this coun­try.” If so, that’s scary.

Ex­pand­ing on the theme of his latest book, “Our En­dan­gered Val­ues,” Mr. Carter said the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion has aban­doned the na­tion’s “old” moral prin­ci­ples. That’s a curious con­cept: By up­hold­ing tra­di­tional moral val­ues Mr. Bush has di­verted the na­tion’s moral course?

Mr. Carter is par­tic­u­larly ex­er­cised about Mr. Bush’s for­eign pol­icy. He said, “Un­der all of its pre­de­ces­sors there was a com­mit­ment to peace in­stead of pre­emp­tive war. Our coun­try al­ways had a pol­icy of not go­ing to war un­less our own se­cu­rity was di­rectly threat­ened and now we have a new pol­icy of go­ing to war on a pre­emp­tive ba­sis.”

But no less an an­ti­war Demo­crat than Sen. John Kerry — af­ter sav­aging Mr. Bush for his “pre­emp­tive” at­tack of Iraq — ad­mit­ted in the first pres­i­den­tial de­bate that, “The pres­i­dent al­ways has the right, and al­ways has had the right, for pre­emp­tive strike. That was a great doc­trine through­out the Cold War.”

No mat­ter how per­sis­tently Mr. Carter’s Democrats at­tempt to re­write his­tory, Mr. Bush at­tacked Iraq be­cause he be­lieved it

a threat to

Amer­ica’s se­cu­rity — and it

was, just like

Iran is to­day. Mr.

Carter is delu­sional if he be­lieves Mr. Bush

was just recre­ation­ally flex­ing

Amer­ica’s “im­pe­ri­al­is­tic” mus­cles to spread

democ­racy.

The de­bate here be­tween Democrats and Repub­li­cans isn’t over the use of pre­emp­tive war — as Mr. Kerry re­luc­tantly con­fessed — but on the as­sess­ment of threats to our na­tional se­cu­rity. Specif­i­cally, the de­bate cen­ters on the par­ties’ re­spec­tive views of the na­ture and scope of the ter­ror­ist threat, whether Is­rael is seen as more of a vic­tim sur­rounded by hos­tile regimes bent on its de­struc­tion or a bul­ly­ing, ag­gres­sive na­tion, and whether we should de­fer on th­ese ques­tions to anti-Amer­i­can lead­ers in Europe and the United Na­tions.

Mr. Carter states the Democrats’ po­si­tion quite clearly. Is­lamo-fas­cist ter­ror­ists aren’t that bad. They are prob­a­bly peace-lov­ing peo­ple like the rest of us who just have their noses out of joint over Mr. Bush’s “uni­lat­eral” for­eign pol­icy and his “pre­emp­tive” at­tack on Iraq. In­deed, Mr. Carter said the Arab world hates us be­cause we in­vaded Iraq, and even more so for “sup­port­ing and en­cour­ag­ing Is­rael in its un­jus­ti­fied at­tack on Le­banon.”

So the at­tacks of Sept. 11, 2001, oc­curred be­cause we at­tacked Iraq in 2003? Is­rael was un­jus­ti­fied in re­tal­i­at­ing against Hezbol­lah, which is sup­ported by (and a part of) the Le­banese gov­ern­ment and its peo­ple? If we­would just talk to th­ese rea­son­able ter­ror­ists — such as Hezbol­lah and MikeWal­lace’s hero,

was

Ira­nian Pres­i­dent Mah­moud Ah­madine­jad, we could achieve peace?

In the in­ter­view, Mr. Carter point­edly blamed Mr. Bush’s for­eign pol­icy on his Chris­tian “fun­da­men­tal­ism.” He nicely ar­tic­u­lated the po­si­tion of to­day’s Demo­cratic lead­ers, which while scram­bling for “val­ues vot­ers,” con­sis­tently in­sult them, and while hold­ing them­selves out as su­pe­rior guardians of our na­tional se­cu­rity, see Amer­ica, not the ter­ror­ists, as the prob­lem.

Mr. Carter, af­ter un­mis­tak­ably im­ply­ing that Mr. Bush is a fun­da­men­tal­ist, said that fun­da­men­tal­ists be­lieve “they are speak­ing for God” and “any­one who dis­agrees with them is in­her­ently wrong” and “in­her­ently in­fe­rior.” “In ex­treme cases — as is the case with some fun­da­men­tal­ists around the world — it makes your op­po­nents sub-hu­mans, so that their lives are not sig­nif­i­cant.” Since “the ne­go­ti­at­ing process it­self is an in­di­ca­tion of im­plied equal­ity” the fun­da­men­tal­ist (read: Pres­i­dent Bush) “can’t bring him­self or her­self to ne­go­ti­ate with peo­ple who dis­agree with them.”

Mr. Carter also said that since the fun­da­men­tal­ists be­lieve they are speak­ing for God, they think they are above mak­ing, much less ad­mit­ting, mis­takes. “So when we per­mit the tor­ture of pris­on­ers in Guan­tanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just im­pos­si­ble for a fun­da­men­tal­ist (read: Mr. Bush — again) to ad­mit that a mis­take was made.”

Mr. Carter couldn’t be more wrong. Mr. Bush, though not even close to a fun­da­men­tal­ist, is a Bi­ble­be­liev­ing Chris­tian who by def­i­ni­tion be­lieves in the equal dig­nity of all peo­ple.

But leave it to Mr. Carter to say Mr. Bush “per­mit­ted” tor­ture, which is an out­right lie. Leave it to him to be­lieve the worst about “fun­da­men­tal­ist” Chris­tians and the best of Is­lamo-fas­cist ter­ror­ists.

Sadly, I be­lieve Mr. Carter does speak for the Demo­cratic lead­er­ship, and that speaks vol­umes about the Demo­crat lead­er­ship.

David Lim­baugh, the brother of talk ra­dio host Rush Lim­baugh, is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.