Dualing Peace Prizes? by Google Images w/caption by Rev Dan
Even when two valuable statesman are at odds, it doesn't seem fair for one to attack the other on human rights issues, but that is exactly what Democrat Jimmy Carter did in his recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, entitled A Cruel And Unusual Record :
After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don't know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.
For years, President Obama has been compared in many ways with former President Jimmy Carter: his attempts at diplomacy garnered the same Nobel Peace Prize. Right wing pundits have given the mantle of "worst president ever" to Obama from Carter. Carter recently divorced himself completely from his religious denomination - Southern Baptist - because of what he called " an increasingly rigid creed " while Obama recently angered "social conservatives" around the country by voicing support of gay marriage. Social issues such as abortion and women's rights have always been linked to both presidencies. So it is totally surprising that Jimmy Carter - on the brink of a major presidential election - would slam the Obama administration in any way.
But Obama's war policies and failure to close Guantanamo along with lack of transparency on these issues have tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize winner's image as a follower of Carter's principles.To be perfectly clear, Carter's piece focused on the last ten years of human rights abuses and counter-terrorism attacks and practices including Bush's post-9-11 anti-terrorist measures and he never mentioned Obama by name, but the message was perfectly clear: stop the drone attacks now, stop the detainee/terrorist tactics now. It is an indictment that strives to be bi-partisan,
Forget what Obama says - What will Hillary say?
Republicans are already parsing the piece's
words against Obama, claiming that Carter has finally relinquished his
Right-Wing sobriquet of "Worst President" to Obama:
On Eagle One Network :
After having recently lost his title of "Worst President in American History", Jimmy Carter has continued his efforts to maintain the title of worst former president. A title he will hold, I'm sure, only until such time that we are finally able to rid ourselves of Barack Hussein Obama.
So how will Obama and Hillary
respond? The results are not in so only conjecture is possible at this point:
Obama might say nothing while Hillary might cling to her idol's quest for human
rights: the charter signed by the U.S. and the United Nations was drafted and
promoted by Eleanor Roosevelt. An overt approval of Carter's piece might
further cause a rift in the Democratic party, but Clinton has clung staunchly
to the issue of human rights - befitting a true statesman.
Obama's golden Peace Prize
might turn into tarnished brass.