For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12


"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Uncomfortable Questions Lead To Uncomfortable Conclusions


Years ago, before the 1980 election, former Presidents were usually referred to as "former President (Whomever)," be he Nixon, Ford, Johnson, or even Truman. When they died the "former" was dropped. So at President Truman's funeral in 1972 he was referred to then and thereafter as "President Truman" again.

But after Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 election, something changed. I recall he appeared on Donahue shortly after President Reagan was inaugurated, where everyone in the audience who Phil ran to with the microphone called him "President Carter" or "Mr. President," and he would smile and nod before answering their question. It was obvious the audience members were told to do this, quite probably as a stipulation for Carter's appearance on the show. And one had to wonder if Carter refused to accept the reality that he lost the election, for it was later discovered that Carter felt that the Republicans stole it.

Not long after, an Iranian official stated that George H. W. Bush visited with representatives of the Iranian government in the Summer of 1980 in Paris to convince the Iranians to hold onto the American hostages until after the next President is inaugurated. This was supposedly done to ensure the defeat of Jimmy Carter by making him look inept. Messrs Reagan and Bush categorically denied the entire affair occurred. But it cast some doubt on then Vice President Bush, and much suspicion about President Reagan was fomented by Jimmy Carter and many Democrats.

I've been very suspicious myself, not of Bush or Reagan, but of Democrats who seemed to put party ahead of national security ever since 9-11. The rhetoric spewed by Democrats like Senator Edward Kennedy and others seems to have energized the Iraqi insurgents and other terrorists, and prolonged what should have been a much shorter war by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The Democrats are clearly invested in defeat for our troops, and cannot hope to win if the Bush policy succeeds.

With all that in mind, I have some rather uncomfortable questions to ask.

Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pay a visit to Syria against the wishes of the Bush administration?

Why do Democrats not want the telecoms to have immunity from prosecution for allowing the government to eavesdrop on conversations between people in foreign nations and people here in the US? Are the Democrat leaders contacting terrorists abroad via phone to negotiate a separate peace?

Why is FORMER President Jimmy Carter planning a visit to Syria in the middle of this month to visit with Khaled Meshal, the leader of the terrorist group, Hamas? Is he hoping to set up some kind of overseas Habitat For Hamas? Can the fool still not accept that he is no longer President? Does he not see he will be an impediment to victory in the war on terror by legitimizing those who should not be?

Or is there another reason for his visit?

It would be ridiculous to assume that Jimmy Carter is no longer bitter over the "stolen" election of 1980. So is it payback time?

All are very fair questions for people behaving in such a way...


4 comments:

Frank said...

Do you realize what you are implying here? That a former President would sabotage a war out of revenge for losing an election?

I disagree.

Paul said...

Well, frank, that settles it, I guess. The fact that you disagree makes Matt's questions irrelevant. So let's pay no more attention to that man behind the curtain there. ("Wizard of Oz").

Fact is, virtually every Democrat politician is willing to sabotage the war effort for partisan political advantage. (I exempt Lieberman, who was expelled from the Dem party because of his determined patriotic stand.)

Carter, who was undoubtedly our worst president (at least in the last century), has an ego a mile wide and an inch deep, and seems to have forever lived in a miasmic delusion that "talking nice" with evil America haters will solve everything. {Barack Obama appears to be his current disciple.}

As for historical analogy, former President John Tyler supported the Confederate secession from the Union, a clear act of treason.

St. Blogustine said...

The bar was certainly lowered on implications of treason when Michael Moore made his own accusations about President Bush.

Or how about Charlie Sheen accusing Bush of orchestrating 9-11 with controlled demolitions?

My uncomfortable questioning is tame and even respectful by comparison.

Thanks for stopping by, all!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I agree it doesn't look good. But maybe they're just traveling over to meet the terrorists to solicit campaign contributions for the Dem party. Perfectly innocent, right?

HA!