Former President Jimmy Carter speaks during a town hall meeting with wife Roslyn Carter (L) at the Carter Center in Atlanta, September 25, 2002. Carter said it would be a tragic and costly error for the U.S. to attack Iraq without the support of the U.N. Carter, a Democrat who served as president from 1977 to 1981, said removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power would require a far more intensive effort than the 1991 Gulf War or the recent U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. Photo by Tami Chappell/Reuters
Former President Carter says little George is simply wrong
Nobody really fears Saddam. Everybody knows that for him to use his alleged weapons of mass destruction would be suicidal. Everyone knows he cannot deliver an atomic bomb to the United States. And everybody knows that if you poke at a rattlesnake, then it is your own doings if you get bit. In other words, Saddam starting a war with chemical and biological weapons gets one response from the world community and Saddam using chemical and biological weapons to defend Iraq is something else.
The question here is whether Americans are going to let little George launch an unnecessary war against Iraq. In the end, it is not going to be the world community that controls little George, it is going to be Americans.
Carter fears 'tragic mistake' War in Iraq may have 'enormous' costs, he says
By Mark Bixler, staff
September 26, 2002 The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
President Jimmy Carter
warned Wednesday that the United States would make a
"tragic mistake" if it attacks Iraq without the
support of its allies.
The Troubling New Face of America:
An Op-Ed by President Carter
Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process -- largely without definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration). Some new approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.
Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants," incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This policy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt.
Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the defense secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they were someday tried and found to be innocent. These actions are similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American presidents.
While the president has reserved judgment, the American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support from any allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad.
In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear test (necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used against Israel or our forces in response to an American attack.
We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable option.
We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords.
Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism.
Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied territories and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink.
There still seems to be a struggle within the administration over defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. The president's clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and to support the establishment of a Palestinian state have been substantially negated by statements of the defense secretary that in his lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity that will be established" and his reference to the "so-called occupation." This indicates a radical departure from policies of every administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their neighbors.
Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in
Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the
president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the
historical and well-founded American commitments prevail: to
peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international
How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Banner
To the WorldPeace Peace Page