Former President James Earl Carter attacked President Bush on Wednesday during a campaign speech on behalf of his son, Jack, who is seeking the Nevada senate seat of Republican John Ensign.   His speech eerily echoed remarks made in the latest al Quida leadership video, and his opinions, as customary, lacked support in fact.  More on that below, but first, a little history. 

Carter was an utter failure as president.  He bears much of the blame for the rise of Islamic fascism, due to his weak-kneed response to the illegal seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran by "students."   His naivete of the threat of Soviet communism was staggering; his response to the Soviet invasion of Afganistan was to cancel American participation in the Summer Olympics held in Moscow in 1980.   Under the guise of "human rights," Carter actively undercut American allies around the world, apparently never considering that successor regimes might prove even more oppresive of the nature populations, with the added detriment of ideological opposition to American interests.  (For examples, see Iran and El Salvador.)  

As an ex-president Carter has sought to subvert his country's interests.   He has actively worked to undermine the foreign policy positions of every succeeding president, including Clinton, and has consistently denounced his own country overseas.   Carter actually lobbied members of the UN Security Council to reject the first President Bush's request for a resolution to authorize the United States and allies to eject Iraq from occupied Kuwait, an action which seems to have violated Federal law.  His meddling in Clinton's negotiations with North Korea on that country's nuclear weapons program  contributed to the appeasement policy Clinton employed in an attempt to persuade North Korea to drop the program, a complete and utter failure which we continue to grapple with today.   In 2002 Carter accepted the Nobel Peace Prize awarded principally as a slap against President Bush.   Any other American president would have declined the award under the circumstances, but as Carter shared the prize committee's feelings regarding American policy, he didn't hestitate to accept.

Carter embraced the PLO terrorist leader Yassar Arafat and the Arabist view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.   Indeed as time  passed it became hard to distinguish any difference Carter and Arafat's views toward Israel: both were invariably hostile.  When Israel was attacked by Hezbollah terrorists operating from southern Lebanon,  Carter predictably attacked the Israeli defensive response as disproportionate and essentially blamed Isreal for the whole mess, as if the Isrealis had fired rockets on their own cities.    He has been a reliable apologist for Jihadists, understandably since his presidential library and Peace Center depend on Saudi money to survive.

Carter has been referred to as one of the most intelligent men to have been president.   Perhaps he scores well on I.Q. tests, but his conduct in and out of office reflects a narrow, small mind and a meanness of spirit.   He submerged himself in minutiae, scheduling times for use of the White House tennis courts, while never articulating any governing philosphy (assuming he had one) or figuring out how to run the executive branch of the Federal government.  Carter has never seemed to have recovered from the fact that the American people judged him a miserable failure as president and replaced him with Ronald Reagan, a man whom Carter obviously held in contempt.   One senses in Carter a profound arrogance, coupled with an authoritarian strain, and it frustrates him mightily that those who succeeded him in office and the American people have not accorded him or his opinions the respect he believes his due.   In this respect he is a perfect specimen of today's Democrat party, which holds in contempt the traditions, faith and patriotism of the American people, and would like nothing better than to force on the American people by ukase the Democrats' concepts for government and a just society.

The above merely illustrates who the man is:  an egoist, a small minded control freak, clueless on the big issues, possesed of a mean streak, intolerant of contrary views, convinced of his mental superiority, carrying around a perpetual chip on his shoulder. 

Now, back to his remarks on Wednesday.

The former president stated that the Iraq war has divided the nation "almost as much as Vietnam."  Wrong, Mr. President.   The bitter divisions in American society existed long before the Iraq war, which is now another issue added to the list of issues (religion, culture, ideology) dividing the same people.   On virtually any other divisive issue, the people who oppose the Iraq war will be in opposition on all other issues dividing our society to the people who support the war.   If the Iraq war went away tomorrow the nation would continue to experience hyper-partisanship and division
over fundamental issues engendering bad feelings.      

Carter remarked that the "invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake" and that "no doubt our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afganistan."   Oh really?  Perhaps President Carter could cite some evidence to support this charge.   Iraq a terrible mistake?   Certainly the 4000 foreign insurgents killed in Iraq probably would agree, if they could be pulled away from their virgins to comment.   As for Saddam's political prisoners and millions of Iraqis terrorized by his despotic regime the president might experience dispute.  Does the liberation of millions fail to impress the president famous for his emphasis on "human rights," the most fundamental of which would seem to be the right to life?   Exactly what about the Iraq war is a mistake?   Disposing a murderous dictator?   Freeing over 25 million people?   Fighting the jihadists over there rather than over here?   Iraq under Hussein subsized terrorist operations and provided safe haven for their organizations.   Despite the commonly accepted myth Hussein continued to have at the ready, in violation of the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War and UN resolutions, programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, standing by for an order to kick into high gear processes which in short order would have yielded these weapons.   The invasion of Iraq was not a mistake.

Carter's contention that the United States is more at risk from terrorism because of the Iraq war is a non sequitur.    Absent surrender and the installation of a caliph in America,  the risk to our nation will increase porportionally to the pressure we bring to bear on the enemy.   A cornered, wounded animal is usually at its most dangerous and carrying the fight to the enemy's sanctuaries and bases of operation increases his desperation.  The concentration of jihadists in Iraq to fight our troops has diverted the terrorists from efforts to penetrate our country to perpetrate attacks.   It has allowed us to test and develop under battle conditions new techniques necessary to combat this enemy.   Far better to fight the terrorists overseas than in the streets of our cities.

The argument that the Iraq war has damaged our efforts in Afganistan, besides being false, also illustrates Liberal confusion about the nature of the war against Islamic fascism.   No signficant American forces were diverted from Afganistan to Iraq.   Therefore, our efforts in Afganistan were not affected by the Iraq war.   Liberals seem to believe that the September 11th attack is no reason for a systematic campaign to destroy the terrorist threat.   In their minds the murder of 3000 Americans justified a single attack against one strand of the enemy found in Afganistan, and was primarily justified because the Taliban were uncivilized enough not to respect an arrest warrant for Bin Laden issued by the US District Court.   The idea that we should engage these murderous barbarians and kill them whenever and wherever found is alien to Mr. Carter and to Liberal thought.   They do not understand that this is an enemy eager to repeat on an even larger scale the horrors of 9/11, and that a preemption strategy to find and destroy them in their havens is essential to protection of the American homeland.    Iraq is a compliment to the Afganistan operation, not a distraction.

Finally, Carter called Donald Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had."    This is rich indeed from a president whose first secretary of state,  Cyrus Vance, was a confirmed pacifist who resigned over the single military effort to rescue the American embassy hostages in Iran.    Carter's secretary of defense, Harold Brown, presided over the delay or cancellation of weapon systems such as the B-1 bomber and the neutron bomb.   Clinton's secretaries of defense went along with defense cuts which hollowed out the superb military force handled over
to Clinton by the first President Bush.    Donald Rumsfeld has been unafraid to challenge entrenched interests inside the military establishment in order to modernize and streamline the American military to better prepare it to meet the challenges of the 21st century.  Naturally, he has encountered resistance and created enemies; no one who seeks to overturn an existing order is welcomed.    Much of the criticism of Rumsfeld is generated within the Pentagon bureaucracy  and given voice by retired generals disgruntled with the reforms he has advanced; hence, a great deal of "office politics" is involved.   Imagine the same bunch weighing in on Eisenhower's tepid advance across North Africa or Bradley's troop dispositions in the Ardennes before the Battle of the Bulge in World War Two.   On second thought, don't imagine it because it would have never happened.    Only people who really don't believe we're in a war for survival have the mindset needed to nitpick and blather about this or that secretary of defense being the worst we've ever had.   Bashing Rumsfeld is simply one avenue liberals, whether an ex-president or retired general, use to undermine support for a war on terrorists which they don't support and don't believe is necessary. 

Of course, to be fair, there is one positive thing to be said about Carter:  there is no record he molested an intern in the Oval Office. 

Jimmy Carter was elected president because of the Watergate scandal and the desire of the American people for a fresh face.   He was unqualified for the office when elected and his experience in office demonstrated his unsuitability.   At the first opportunity the American people fired him.   The experience embittered him and ever since his bitterness has found expression in speech and acts which in an earlier, less forgiving time, may have landed him in the dock charged with sedition.   He has become a common scold, full of vinegar and speaking as if his talking points are written by al Quida.  

He's a complete disgrace.