WHY DID WE ELECT JIMMY CARTER ANYWAY?

That’s the question I’m asking after reading this article:

The former U.S. president said the late North Korean leader, Kim Il Sun, had agreed to every stipulation that Carter proposed, including a freeze of the weapons program, a halt to processing of nuclear fuel, a return of U.N. inspectors and bilateral talks with South Korea. Within weeks, Kim died, but his son and successor, Kim Jong Il, soon notified the Clinton administration that he would abide by the agreements, Carter said. In exchange, he said, there were no sanctions, and the U.S., Japan and other countries agreed to supply North Korea with enough oil to produce electricity to replace that generated by a nuclear plant shut down under the agreement. “All of that has been thrown in the wastebasket,” Carter said. He said that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea.” “Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil,” he said.

It’s scary thinking that this man once had his proverbial finger on the nuclear trigger. Then again, Carter’s such a pacifist that he didn’t even sufficiently fund the military with adequate supplies of spare parts. Carter’s belief that “Kim Jong Il…would abide by the agreements” is scary. It’s obvious that Carter thinks that anyone who gives their word is honest. Carter should know that certain people are dishonest to their core.

As for Carter saying that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea. Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil.” That’s true Mr. Carter. That “rapid change” is often refered to as 9/11, which might not have happened had President Carter (a) kept a real military together; (b) confronted Ayatollah Khomeini rather than welcoming him as a religious man and (c) taken Islamic extremism seriously after they took the US Embassy staff as hostage for 444 days.

Between October 1994 and December 2002, no plutonium was produced in North Korea, said Marion Creekmore, author of the new book “A Moment of Crisis,” about his 1994 trip with Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, to Pyongyang. “Most people believe that since 2002, North Korea has produced enough plutonium for six to 10 nuclear weapons,” said Creekmore.

Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea didn’t produce uranium between 1994 and 2002. Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea’s ‘nuclear history’ started in 2002. In fact, the North Koreans don’t even attempt to deny the steps they took in their march to acquiring nuclear weapons. That Mr. Creekmore would make such a statement is both insulting and delusional.

Laney said it appeared that war was certain before Carter’s trip, which demonstrated to him that every opportunity for peaceful resolution of a crisis must be used. “That is not appeasement. It’s not being a wimp,” Laney said.

Mr. Laney can say whatever he likes but it doesn’t mean that Carter’s advocacy isn’t appeasement or that his actions weren’t the actions of a wimp. One of the definitions of appeasement given at Dictionary.com is this:

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

If Mr. Carter’s actions weren’t conceding to Kim Jong Il’s demands, if Carter’s action weren’t a conciliatory effort that came at the expense of important principles, then I’d like to know what they were.

Thankfully, we don’t have a pack of appeasers in office now. Thankfully, we survived the Carter years. Unfortunately, we paid a price for Carter’s ‘dovishness at all cost’ policies.