The answer to that, of course, is neither: The President is a servant of the people, not the other way around, and Hamas is – well, Hamas. And the only people who want to be subservient to them are people who elect them into office. And those who support them. People like Jimmy Carter, who had the audacity to suggest in an ‘explosive’ critique of Prime Minister Tony Blair this weekend that the PM was “compliant” and “subservient” to President Bush:
Tony Blair’s lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.
“I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair’s behaviour,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.
“I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington – and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush’s policies towards Iraq.”
Though I personally am not surprised I am extremely disappointed by Jimmy Carter’s behavior. With each day, each editorial piece, he comes closer to securing his place as one of the most embarassing presidents in US history and not just because he tries to undermine the US via the United Nations and not because he supports Hamas over Israel, but because he is now denigrating the one ally who has been with us through thick and thin in Iraq. What purpose does this serve, exactly? Sure, it’s a free country and he has a right to say these things, but is it right to say? Apparently to Jimmy Carter is because Jimmy Carter has forgotten that there are definitely right things to do and wrong things to do. Siding with Hamas is reprehensible. Undermining the US at the United Nations is out of line. Strongly implying that our strongest ally in the war on terror is a virtual lapdog to the President is undiplomatic and stupid. Sadly, Carter knows none of that and continues on his campaign to denigrate US foreign policy under Bush, and now he’s trying to do so by attacking our allies.
Carter, like so many other far left defeatist Democrats against the Iraq war, knows that the most surefire way to influence public opinion against a war they don’t like is to undermine it via negative interviews, blistering speeches and/or opinion pieces, and underhanded tactics at world bodies the US has to work with like the UN. There’s a reason that Carter was a one term President and you’re seeing it here.
The best thing Jimmy Carter has ever done for this country was Habitat for Humanity. Just about everything else he’s done, though, has been a failure. He was a failure as president. The North Korea nuke “deal” (the one he got a Nobel for) back in the early 1990s he brokered with Clinton was a disaster, as we found out early on in Bush’s first term, and he has added absolutely nothing to the public debate regarding how to handle the many crisis’ going on in the Middle East. He was absolutely worthless on Middle East issues as president, so why do so many take him seriously now? Because he’s a pacifist do-gooder who hates George W. Bush and does not support Israel, and who uses whatever pulpit he can get, along with the prestige of being a former President, to make that well known to anyone who will listen.
If he considers Blair “subservient” to President Bush, I think it’s fair to say that former Prez. Jimmy Carter is subservient to Hamas. With that in mind, when all the chips were on the table, who would you pick to be on your side? The guy who is ‘subservient’ to President Bush, or the guy who is subservient (really subservient) to Hamas?
Now would be a good time for another Reagan video, with this one being where he used the famous line to Carter, “There you go again.” Very fitting now, I think:
Hat tip: Allah
More: Blue Crab Boulevard doesn’t mince words on Carter, either.