“Jimmy Carter will probably not go down in American history as the most effective president," said Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member Norwegian awards committee, in introducing the winner at this afternoon's solemn ceremony in Oslo's ornate city hall. "But he is certainly the best ex-president the country ever had."
Clearly, the Euros hold a special place in their surrendering hearts for ineffective American presidents. It is amusing, though. A critic of Carter would have been hard pressed to issue a better left-handed compliment.
Carter shined as usual with his failure to grasp history. In his rebuke of our determination to wage war against Iraq, Carter said, "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences." He ignores that Saddam himself launched wars against both Iran and Kuwait, who were not poised to attack Iraq, justifying his invasions as preventative in nature. Why didn’t Saddam follow our example then? The history of the world is filled with evil rulers striking other nations that were not a threat. It is an advance in history that we shall strike and destroy a monstrous regime that cannot be allowed to exist in a civilized world. Allowing Saddam to endure would be the course that would have catastrophic consequences.
And then, in possibly his most outrageous statement:
While declaring again his deep Christian faith, he denounced those who used religion as a cloak of justification for suicide bombings and other acts of terror. "In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents, which is in itself a violation of the beliefs of all religions," he said. "Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope of God's mercy and grace, their lives lose all value."
But Carter said this false justification applied not only to terrorists, but to combatants in high-tech modern warfare. "From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total impunity, and never look to know the number or identity of the victims," he told the audience, which included the king and queen of Norway and dozens of his own friends and relatives.
So, when “we”—and I assume he means America—launch weapons from a range that safeguards our pilots from death, he finds that equivalent to suicide bombers who deliberately target civilians.
He does more harm to America than Padilla or Lindh ever could have. Words truly escape me. What more can be said about such a man who would work for our enemies so diligently and yet retain a halo about him as if he defined morality?
Truly, he tests our belief in freedom of speech. No, he should not be restrained (except by himself should he have a sudden pang of conscience for his actions and words), but in my mind he will always be an enemy combatant.
