The Battle of Jarnac from Carter to Obama
By accusing the host of the White House of human rights violations, the former president is jeopardizing the Obama campaign.
Former presidents sometimes have a sharp tongue when it comes to their successors (former President of France Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has given us some examples of that). But what is considered typical in France is out of the ordinary in the United States. Jimmy Carter’s comments against President Obama did not go unnoticed. Carter was a bad president who did not see the first oil crisis coming, couldn’t avoid the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and let the Shah of Iran fall. This led to the hostage crisis of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran which lasted 444 days. This incidentally brought the country into the arms of Islamist Mullahs – a slide toward the most warlike religious fanaticism at the Head of State, which without a doubt we have not finished paying the consequences for.
A Nobel Prize War
Since he left the White House in 1981, pitifully beaten after a single term of office, his candid and humanist ideology (which had brought disaster since he became president) allowed Cater to forge himself a stature as “wise old man” by intervening in favor of human rights everywhere they were threatened, and by giving himself to conflict resolution in collaboration with dry, traditional diplomats. Carter’s talent for mediation has been implemented in South Africa, Panama, Haiti, Rhodesia, Bosnia and Palestine. It has sometimes given positive results. His actions have even earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, which recognized his efforts in the Camp David Accords.
The accusation he has made against Obama (that Obama is violating the rights of man by endorsing and developing drone attacks against allegedly dangerous targets, but not always sufficiently identified targets, often with collateral damage) is obviously not unfounded. But it still seems incongruous in more ways than one.
A Comment that Could do Some Damage
With four months away from election, for Carter to attack the candidate of his camp based on some of his own strengths (e.g. fairness, altruism and generosity), is like shooting himself in the foot. In the delicate phase of the progressive retreat of American troops from Afghanistan, the drones seem particularly effective at beating the chief terrorists to Pakistan and preventing dozens of GI casualties.
However, the former president has managed to point the finger where it hurts as just recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concluded seven months of tension with Pakistan by saying that the American government was sorry for a drone attack in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers because of a targeting error. Better late than never.
Former presidents sometimes have a sharp tongue when it comes to their successors (former President of France Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has given us some examples of that). But what is considered typical in France is out of the ordinary in the United States. Jimmy Carter’s comments against President Obama did not go unnoticed. Carter was a bad president who did not see the first oil crisis coming, couldn’t avoid the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and let the Shah of Iran fall. This led to the hostage crisis of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran which lasted 444 days. This incidentally brought the country into the arms of Islamist Mullahs – a slide toward the most warlike religious fanaticism at the Head of State, which without a doubt we have not finished paying the consequences for.
A Nobel Prize War
Since he left the White House in 1981, pitifully beaten after a single term of office, his candid and humanist ideology (which had brought disaster since he became president) allowed Cater to forge himself a stature as “wise old man” by intervening in favor of human rights everywhere they were threatened, and by giving himself to conflict resolution in collaboration with dry, traditional diplomats. Carter’s talent for mediation has been implemented in South Africa, Panama, Haiti, Rhodesia, Bosnia and Palestine. It has sometimes given positive results. His actions have even earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, which recognized his efforts in the Camp David Accords.
The accusation he has made against Obama (that Obama is violating the rights of man by endorsing and developing drone attacks against allegedly dangerous targets, but not always sufficiently identified targets, often with collateral damage) is obviously not unfounded. But it still seems incongruous in more ways than one.
A Comment that Could do Some Damage
With four months away from election, for Carter to attack the candidate of his camp based on some of his own strengths (e.g. fairness, altruism and generosity), is like shooting himself in the foot. In the delicate phase of the progressive retreat of American troops from Afghanistan, the drones seem particularly effective at beating the chief terrorists to Pakistan and preventing dozens of GI casualties.
However, the former president has managed to point the finger where it hurts as just recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concluded seven months of tension with Pakistan by saying that the American government was sorry for a drone attack in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers because of a targeting error. Better late than never.