I called it Legacy of the Dhimmi when I asked the rhetorical question, “Who ‘lost’ Iran?”
The answer, of course, is Dhimmi Carter. The Jerusalem Post makes the same point by noting that the Dhimmer is Father of the Iranian revolution:
…Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
…Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.
Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.”
Investor’s Business Daily has some thoughts on Dhimmi’s most recent perfidy, Carter’s Nutzpah. They begin with another rhetorical question:
Has Jimmy Carter gone off the deep end? He’s now scolding the West for refusing to bankroll Hamas terrorists who’ve just seized power at gunpoint in Gaza. It’s a new low in coddling terrorism.
As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter — cozy in distant Ireland accepting another “human rights” award — found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.
Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America’s worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d’etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a “criminal” act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.
“The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,” he said.
The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn’t honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had. Instead, he tut-tutted the West for being insufficiently sensitive to the fact that Hamas thugs were democratically elected in 2006 in an “orderly and fair” vote.
With his persistent delusional relativism, Jimmy Carter has done far more to promote amorality than anyone since Lenin. People will say, “His intent is good.” So what? We see that all the difference that makes is to compound the power of evil in the supposed service of moral principle. A congenital inability to comprehend the nature and existence of evil may get you a Nobel Prize, but it does not make you a Saint. Rather, you become evil yourself by giving to it aid and comfort when you could have opposed it. There’s a special place in Hell.
If you doubt Carter is unhinged, please explain how he can commend murderers, without recognizing the elephant-in-the-room irony.
…Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Hitler was also far “more organized,” politically, and more efficient, militarily, than his opposition. He became Führer in a democratic process, after eventually receiving about 40% of the popular vote – like Hamas. Upon assuming the Presidency, he immediately abolished the office along with the democracy. Sort of what Hamas just did – only they did it with more up-front general violence.
Paul von Hindenburg, the Presidential incumbent and winner of the 1932 Weimar Republic election (its last), helped make Hitler’s reign of terror possible. Hindenburg agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and Hitler assumed the Presidency upon Hindenburg’s death in 1934.
Hitler’s first act was to eliminate the office of the President, replacing it with the Führer und Reichskanzler. AKA, Nazi totalitarianism. What followed was a larger, even “more organized” version of Hamas’ recent successes in Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas is still in the planning stages for Israel’s destruction, but to cement the German parallel, Hamas has sworn to exterminate the Jews. Neither Hitler, nor Hamas, ever showed any sign they could be dissuaded from such genocidal intent. Dhimmi Carter is not interested in the attempt.
We can see a parallel to Hitler’s ascension to power, but completing the analogy is more difficult, because it is not clear whether Carter should be assigned the role of Paul von Hindenberg, Vidkun Quisling, Lord Haw Haw, or Jane Fonda. Perhaps a combination.
Neville Chamberlain is excluded from such consideration because he was a far better man than Jimmy Carter will ever be.