Compare and contrast

Jimmy Carter, yesterday:

Carter told Reuters he was hopeful about the elections to replace the late President Yasser Arafat. "You have to be optimistic. I have the hope and expectation that the elections will be honest, fair, free and safe," he said in an interview.

He hoped a Palestinian leader would emerge who had the confidence of his people, who would not be seen as a puppet of the Israelis or the Americans and who would speak out strongly against violence as a way to achieve Palestinian goals.

"I think we have increasingly a good chance to see that occur," Carter said in an interview.

Jimmy Carter, today:

"I think the whole Iraqi situation has been a debacle, a very costly one. I don't see how all the rudimentary requirements for a free and safe election can be achieved in another month. How can anyone campaign? How can anyone go and vote without fear?," he said in an interview.

"They might contrive some substitute for an orthodox election by having the vote take place over several weeks or in certain little spots scattered about Iraq and not in the troubled areas.

"But there is not enough security there in my opinion to have a legitimate election."

I don't see how anyone can take this guy seriously. And yet he's treated with great reverence by 'progressives'. After legitimizing the sham election that made Arafat dictator for life, and endorsing Hugo Chávez's corrupt vote, he prepares to crown the next West Bank gangster while laying the groundwork for disputing the tremendously important election in Iraq. Words fail me.

Posted by Bruce Gottfred at December 16, 2004 01:31 PM | TrackBack