Home | Forums | Bible | +Width | Subscribe | Member Login






Tuesday, September 26, 2017   5:05:45 AM  
  
 Welcome to The Omega Letter   Daily Briefings Commentary News Room   Contact OL Site Map How Do I?
Testimonials Prophecy Israel Globalism Terror In Defense Around the World War News Witnessing Perspective Commentary

Omega Letter Member Log In
 
Genesis  3 : 15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Read Today's Proverb - Chapter 26
 
Why Subscribe?
Subscribe Online   Online
Subscribe By Mail   By mail
Contribute
Public Registration

Forum

 

Zeteo 3:16 with Alf and Alesia Cengia

 

 

THE END THE BOOK THE SERIES: J.L. Robb

Ready Reasons - Wendy Wippel

The End The Book Part 6

Faith Soaps and Love

 

 

 
 
 

Bible Prophecy News Christian Current Events


The Omega Letter Commentary Archives ...

Open Text: Exact Phrase:





What Was Balaam Riding?
'And Jimmy Carter Spoke'
Commentary on the News
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Former President Jimmy Carter has continued his criticism of the Bush administration this week, complaining that while the administration is busy making war plans with Iraq, the war with al-Qaeda has 'slipped right off the radar.'

The former president is still smarting over -- and blaming George Bush for, his being the recipient of the Nobel Booby Prize.

Carter was selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize not so much because he deserved it, but as an anti-Bush political statement.

Carter's selection, "can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," said Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member Norwegian selection committee.

Mr. Berge said it was a deliberate "kick in the leg" for Mr. Bush, a rare commentary. Other members distanced themselves from that statement, calling it the chairman's 'personal' view. In any case, Berge's comments tainted Carter's star, and he blames, not the Nobel committee, but George Bush.

Carter wrote in one of his anti-Bush screeds recently, "In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public."

Kind of clarifies why Iran was able to hold our hostages for almost his entire presidential term without fear of US military retaliation, doesn't it?

The war preparations with Iraq are SUPPOSED to be prominent and open. We WANT him to know that we are ready, have troops in the area and are moving heavy weapons into place. We are trying to rattle Saddam's cage.

In a perfect world, Saddam will look at the firepower assembled against him and run like a rabbit.

But the war against al-Qaeda is SUPPOSED to be clandestine. We don't want THEM to run. They are terrorists -- they operate in the dark. Individually, and exposed to the light, they are no more dangerous than a common criminal.

That appears to escape former President Carter, who has made a post presidential career out of pretending he is still president, with the notable difference that ex-presidents can say whatever they want to without being held accountable. (Can't kick him out of office twice, unfortunately.)

Carter wrote that the global war on terror needs to be 're-invigorated', claiming that war is being 'held in abeyance' while Bush obsesses about Saddam Hussein, who Carter argues is no threat to the region or to world peace.

Carter would prefer that Bush focus on 'the road map to peace' in the Middle East. (Memo to former President Carter: Yasser Arafat BURNED the 'road map' two and a half years ago and launched a war against Israel that is still raging. Maybe you ought to take time out from writing op-ed pieces in the New York Times long enough to read the headlines, first).

According to Mr. Carter, it is US support for Israel that is the "festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world."

Carter cites recent "vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carre" to support his argument that Bush is out of control.

Nelson Mandela recently called President Bush 'a man without understanding' and blamed the division between Washington and the United Nations on the fact that Kofi Annan is black.

"We never had these kinds of problems when there was a white Secretary General," the alleged anti-racist thundered during a recent period of public dementia.

And John LeCarre is famous for writing spy novels -- no wonder Carter sees him as a foreign policy authority. (That's fiction, Mr. former President. In fiction, the author is ALWAYS right).

Instead of removing the harmless Saddam Hussein from power, argues Carter, America should focus its attention on going to war with North Korea.

(Did anybody mention to Carter that North Korea is already nuclear? That cat's ALREADY out of the bag).

To make his case, the former president thought a little historical revisionism might help. He writes, "For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran."

UNSCOM was NOT effective, or we wouldn't have required 1441. And, it was NOT "withdrawn" in 1998, it was KICKED OUT by Saddam Hussein.

Maybe this would be an appropriate time to point out that this is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

Carter knows the difference between being 'expelled' from within and being 'withdrawn' from without, but stating the case accurately weakens his argument. So when the facts become inconvenient, he makes stuff up.

To say differently than that is to argue that; 1) Carter isn't smart enough to know the difference; or 2) We didn't bomb the horsefeathers out of Iraq in 1998 in retaliation for the 'explusion'. Take your pick.

The war on terror that Carter says has 'slipped off the radar' has so far resulted in the death or capture of more than one-third of the 9/11 planners.

Recent successes against al Qaeda leaders included the missile attack in Yemen that killed Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, who was linked to the October 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole that killed 17 sailors.

Other successes were the arrest in September of Ramzi Binalshib, believed to be the organizer of the September 11 attacks, and the arrests of numerous al Qaeda operations officers and facilitators.

Last week, authorities in Italy arrested 28 Pakistanis suspected of being part of an al Qaeda cell in Naples.

CIA Director George Tenet told Congress last month, "more terrorist attacks are being planned by al Qaeda and that every captured al Qaeda member has confirmed that more strikes are planned.

He noted that recent al Qaeda recordings threatening attacks on economic targets and U.S. allies were 'unprecedented in their bluntness and urgency'."

This week, it was revealed that the US disrupted plans for an attack on an ever greater order of magnitude than 9/11.

But what does George Tenet know? He's only the head of the CIA. Carter is an ex-president that, if he did get hold of any classified information, would publish it in a NYTimes op-ed piece the next day. (Which is why nobody will tell him anything).

It is inconceivable to me that a former president could actually believe the propaganda that emanates from Carter's pen. It is equally inconceivable that Carter could believe that siding with America's enemies is good for America.

Jimmy Carter never met a dictator he didn't like, from Saddam Hussein to Fidel Castro. With the notable exception of Ayatollah Khomeini, who seized the embassy shortly after Carter took office and released them the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

Reagan promised during his campaign that, if elected, he would either TAKE the hostages, or to take retribution, which ever would be appropriate. Khomeini was lots of things, but he wasn't stupid. The hostages were on a jet bound for Ramstein before Reagan took his hand off the Bible.

Carter didn't have much to say during the Clinton administration. When pressed, Carter pointed out that it was 'inappropriate' for a former president to criticize a sitting president.

Carter is another champion of the 'alternate Union' concept. The one where there are TWO Americas.

One is a Republican America -- arrogant, unfeeling, uncompassionate, overbearing, run by and for Corporate America. An America that is a warmongering bully that deserves to be castigated and hated the world over.

And a Democratic America --- kind, compassionate, for "the people" (wealthy Americans are NOT "the people", but bloodsuckers), an America that supports abortion as 'a right to choose', sees presidential perjury as boyish pecadillos, views sexual harrassment as a situation in which a six-dollar-an-hour state employee can harrass the most powerful man in the world (as long as he is a Democrat) and finds no inconsistency in globally condemning American policy while cloaking themselves in patriotism by citing their Constitutional right to free speech when invariably compared to Toyko Rose or Hanoi Hanna.

There will be those who will criticize me for my view of the Jimmy Carters of America. To them, I have this to say.

When I enlisted in the Marine Corps, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps more years ago than I care to remember.

But I don't remember being discharged from that oath. To me, it is as deadly serious and inviolate today as it was in 1969. So I make no apology for my assessment.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. But I support the Commander-in-Chief in time of war. I would, even if he were Jimmy Carter.

But I am more grateful than I can express that he is not.

This column was republished from the Omega Letter Intelligence Digest, Vol.6, Issue 4



Current Article Ranking: Not Yet Ranked

Rank This Article: Rank this Article 1 star It's an article.
Rank this Article 2 stars It's informative.
Rank this Article 3 stars I liked it.
Rank this Article 4 stars Inspiring!
Rank this Article 5 stars It's a home run!

If you have already Registered, then Login and start a discussion.
Share on Facebook
OmegaLetter Exclusive Commentary
SIGNS Remembering Nabeel Qureshi Where Have All the Palm Leaves Gone? Fighting with Physics The World That Was
    Rss Feeds

Member Contributed Articles
Faith, Soap & Love Just Thinking Stage Setting On Steroids--2017 Prophetic Year in Review Professor Grant Horner's Bible Reading Plan Modified A Life (and Death) Worthy of the Gospel




Omega Letter Links
Fight For JoyGot Christianity?Hal LindseyJack KelleyJewish VoiceLion & Lamb MinistriesNow The End BeginsOilprice.comOlive Tree MinistriesOmegaletter MediaOther SitesProphecy TrackerProphecy UpdateProphezineRapture ForumsRapture ReadyReasonWorld Prophecy NetworkWorld Watch Daily

The Omega Letter Bible Prophecy Christian Intelligence