Submit your comments on this article |
Fifth Column |
Carter Seeks Vote in U.N. Against U.S. |
2006-03-03 |
![]() Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States." While other former presidents have tried to refrain from attacking the sitting chief executive, Mr. Carter's attacks on President Bush have increased. The episode he recounted yesterday showed how he tried to undermine officials at lower levels in an effort to influence policy. The story, as Mr. Carter recalled, began with a recent dinner for 17 he attended in New York, where the guests included the president of the U.N. General Assembly, Jan Eliasson; an unidentified American representative, and other U.N. ambassadors from "powerful" countries at Turtle Bay, of which he mentioned only three: Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan. The topic was the ongoing negotiations on an attempt to replace the widely discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission with a more accountable Human Rights Council. "One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Mr. Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Mr. Carter said. "So I called Condoleezza Rice and told her about the problem, and she said that that statement by our representative was not going to be honored," he said. But despite Mr. Carter's assessment that there are "a lot of people" in Washington who oppose Mr. Bolton on the Human Rights Council, Mr. Bolton's opposition to the proposed new structure became American policy. Publications not known for their support of the Bush administration or Mr. Bolton, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, recently backed the ambassador's policy on the Human Rights Council, saying in editorials that the compromise hashed out by Mr. Eliasson is an inadequate fix for the existing structure. Mr. Bolton's spokesman, Richard Grenell, told The New York Sun yesterday that it is "naive" to think that Mr. Bolton has "a different position than the rest of the United States government on this issue." Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel. He also reiterated his known view that most of the problems in the Israeli-Arab front derive from Israel's settlement policies and its building of a defensive barrier in what he insisted on calling "Palestine." "From Dwight Eisenhower to the road map of George W. Bush, our policy has been that Israel's borders coincide with those of 1949," Mr. Carter said, adding, "All my predecessors have categorized each settlement as both illegal and an obstacle to peace." On April 14, 2004,President Bush said in a speech, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." He later cemented that statement in a letter to Prime Minister Sharon, which became the stated American policy on Israeli settlements. The host of yesterday's event, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, who has served several presidents in key Middle East roles, including most recently Mr. Bush, told the Sun yesterday that while American officials frequently defined settlements as an "obstacle to peace" they refrained from calling them "illegal." |
Posted by:lotp |
#19 or publically disavowed - even better |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-03 23:04 |
#18 First of all, Mr. Carter is a U.S. citizen and as such is entitled to exercise his right of free speech. I disagree with virtualy everything he says, but I support his right to say it. Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to conduct your own foreign policy. Carter's passport should be revoked. Or, hell, he needs to be evaluated by a mental health professional. |
Posted by: Shease Grinese2156 2006-03-03 19:57 |
#17 Carter is a negative indicator. If he's for a position, any sane person will question it. BTW, he's for letting Dubai run our ports. |
Posted by: DMFD 2006-03-03 19:44 |
#16 DoDo - this bullshit is NOT free speech. Giving promises to foreign governments in the name of our government when he is not authorized by our government to do so is flat-out sedition. Especially when those promises are against the policy of our country. I'd say put him in jail, but the other prisoners would probably complain it was cruel and unusual punishment. For them. Since he thinks all these dictatorships are so wonderful, he needs to live in one of them. Permanently. I suggest Gaza. |
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-03 19:35 |
#15 At least ex-President John Tyler had the stones to join another government. He died in 1862 while a member of the Confederate House of Representatives. |
Posted by: Pappy 2006-03-03 19:29 |
#14 the peace of the dhimmi |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-03 19:24 |
#13 Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel. That epitomizes what I can't stand about "mainline" Protestant Churches: the pride of using the Church as a soapbox for one's political views and not knowing the difference between the political and theological. At least the Roman Catholic Church, for all its faults - agree with it or not, very clearly defines the core dogma of the Church and what is in the realm of personal conviction. |
Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-03-03 17:37 |
#12 First of all, Mr. Carter is a U.S. citizen and as such is entitled to exercise his right of free speech. I disagree with virtualy everything he says, but I support his right to say it. Second, it is important to understand that this is the core position of the Democratic party. It is what Kos believes. It is what Hollywood and the old media believes. It is what Gore believes (but didn't say until after his presidential run); it is what Kerry believes, and it is what Hillary believes but won't state publicly. |
Posted by: DoDo 2006-03-03 17:16 |
#11 He also reiterated his known view that most of the problems in the Israeli-Arab front derive from Israel's settlement policies and its building of a defensive barrier in what he insisted on calling "Palestine." Yeah, sure, you betcha. The endless white-hot genocidal Arab hatred for the Jews has nothing to do with it at all. If this @sshole isn't senile, he oughta be. Do the Democrats realize that they've gone past the point of being amusingly misguided and crossed over into the realm of being dangerously idiotic? |
Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-03 15:08 |
#10 How the hell was this drooling embarrassment elected president?!? 1 - President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon which pissed off enough people as not to show up at the polls. 2 - He refused to fire Kissinger who'd already decided the Soviets had won which pissed off enough people not to show up at the polls. Ford was the Washington establishment's choice for election. He beat out his Republican primary challenger, Ronald Reagan. Guess what happened four years later? |
Posted by: Snomoting Ebbomong1497 2006-03-03 13:56 |
#9 I'm training a ninja rabbit to take him out. |
Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-03 13:53 |
#8 Seems to me that if we can't terminate his pension, we should at least pay it in some foreign currency -- perhaps Iranian payable only at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran. |
Posted by: Darrell 2006-03-03 13:37 |
#7 ;-) |
Posted by: lotp 2006-03-03 13:10 |
#6 I will long remember a dear, sweet, little old lady being escorted by her family to a restaurant to celebrate her 92nd birthday. Some kook was literally soapboxing, standing on a box to rail at the crowd about some schizophrenic political conspiracy theory. Watching him for a few seconds, the little old lady suddenly boomed out, in an uncharacteristically deep voice for a little old lady: "JEEEEEZUS! WHAT AN ASSHOLE!" There was a pregnant pause, then somebody in the crowd snickered, and everybody there but the fanatic cracked up in loud laughter. That was pretty much the end of the political show. Whenever I read about someone like Jimmuh Carter, the voice of the dear, sweet, republican, little old lady comes through, loud as a bell. |
Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-03 13:08 |
#5 I'm embarrased every time I see that tired old hack. He should have left this country long ago if he doesn't uphold the values this country stands for. |
Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-03 13:01 |
#4 Wow, what a humongous ego. He still thinks he can make promises to foreign governments and expect them to be upheld? That ended 26 years ago Jimmy. Wake up and fuckin realize it, dipshit. |
Posted by: tu3031 2006-03-03 12:56 |
#3 Time was I used to think he was a good natured but honestly misguided person. Turns out I was misguided giving that old useless dick the benefit of the doubt. |
Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-03-03 12:38 |
#2 Man... If this isn't sedition, what is? Carter, you are NOT the fucking president anymore! Stop damaging US security and intrests by trying to (clumsily too) undermine Bush. Someone kill this asshole. PLEASE!!! |
Posted by: mmurray821 2006-03-03 12:28 |
#1 How the hell was this drooling embarrassment elected president?!? |
Posted by: BH 2006-03-03 12:27 |