The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 35 Issue: 26 - Thursday, August 26, 2004

The Worst Ex-President in History
by Jack Kinsella

During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst
economic downturn since World War II, allowed a bunch of thugs to seize
our embassy and our citizens, and supported Philippine dictator Fernando
Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other
dictators. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an
ex-president.

In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst
ex-president the United States has ever known.  His post-presidential
meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of
international credibility and international prestige.

He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and
handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in
Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup
followed.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as "a man who
believes in human rights." Regarding North Korea's dearly departed Kim
Il-Sung, Carter found him "vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly
well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions
about this country," adding "I don't see that [North Koreans] are an
outlaw nation."

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator
Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat.  He said of Ceausescu and
himself, "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and
politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights."

Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation
abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called
Bush's description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was
"overly simplistic and counterproductive."

Added the man who was once attacked by a rabbit, "I think it will take
years before we can repair the damage done by that statement."

His most recent adventure may be partly behind the predicted $3.00 per
gallon analysts say we'll be paying for gas by year's end. Jimmy Carter
went to Venezuela to 'monitor' that country's effort to recall President
Hugo Chavez.

In 1992, a band of army officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez Frías
attempted to overthrow President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Although
court-martialed and jailed, Chávez emerged a hero.

In 1998, he was elected president on promises to clean out corruption and
reduce poverty. Once in office, Chávez promoted a new consitution to
consolidate his powers and began to constrain the business community,
civil society, and rival politicians.

As a presidential candidate, Hugo Chávez campaigned against the "savage
capitalism" of the United States. On August 10, 2000, he became the first
foreign leader to visit Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, and he
allegedly aided Afghanistan's Taliban government following the September
11, 2001, attack on the United States.

At the same time, Chávez said that Cuba and Venezuela were "called upon to
be a spearhead and summon other nations and governments" to fight free
market capitalism.

Venezuela is also one of the countries upon which the United States is
dependent for oil, and has been since the US first began relying on
imported oil supplies back in 1948.

Besides supplying the United States with 1.5 million barrels of oil a day,
Venezuela provides most of the petroleum consumed by U.S. allies in the
Caribbean and Central America.

Regional leaders know that opposing Chávez in any significant fashion
could result in less favorable sales terms or cuts in deliveries.

In September 2003, President Chávez accused the Dominican Republic of
harboring Venezuelans--like former President Carlos Andrés Pérez--who
allegedly might conspire against his government. Chavez then stopped oil
deliveries, prompting a temporary energy crisis while Dominican officials
scrambled for new suppliers.

From the perspective of American economic interests, not to mention
homeland security issues, Hugo Chavez is a very bad man to have in the
neighborhood.  And, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Chavez isn't going away
anytime soon.

Venezuela's opposition party finally forced a recall election, with
opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more
than 2 to 1.

When there were questions about possible vote tampering by the Chavez
side, the opposition called for election monitors.  Chavez agreed to let
Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for
Caracas.
Assessment:

Under Jimmy Carter's watchful eye, Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt
by a wide margin -- reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.

While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez
out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an
almost exact opposite margin. "About 58 percent said 'no' to a recall,
while 42 percent said 'yes,'" wrote the Washington Post.

Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen &
Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for
Chavez." The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, "With
Venezuela's voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election
officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates,
an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the
'Yes' movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall
referendum."

One of the most effective ways to monitor the fairness of an election is
to employ the use of exit polls.  In a nutshell, here's how exit polls
work.  After somebody has finished voting, a pollster will ask them how
they voted.  In emerging democracies, about 90% of voters participate.

By contrast, in America, where exit polls are widely used to call
elections before the votes are all counted, less than 40% of voters
participate.

Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a
relatively thin margin of error.

The margin of error between Carter's certified fair-and-square ballots and
the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty
points -- a statistical impossibility.  Chavez counted on Carter leaning
his way -- Carter's history of promoting anti-American dictators is no
secret.

As Stephen Hayward noted in a column at Front Page, "among his complex
motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when
it suits him."

Indeed, Carter's penchant for interfering in US foreign policy is so well
known it won him a Nobel Prize.  Jimmy Carter will go down in history as
the first US ex-president ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize for the sole
purpose of conveying an insult to his country from the Nobel committee.

Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member committee, told reporters that
giving the Peace Prize to Carter "must also be seen as criticism of the
line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq ... It's a kick in
the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

("How can we REALLY show how much we hate the Americans?  I know!  Let's
give a Nobel Prize to Jimmy Carter!")

Once Chavez had stolen the election and Jimmy Carter certified the
results, certain American critics (pretty much anybody with a brain)
started questioning whether or not Jimmy Carter had just sold American
interests down the river -- again.

Carter hit back in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, writing;

"We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a
close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy."

Having established that Jimmy Carter is far too savvy to be conned by a
mere thug like Chavez, Carter then dismissed the results of the exit
polls, writing;

"During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data
showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous
information was distributed widely."

Well, that's that!  The New York pollsters 'widely distributed erroneous
information' -- Hugo Chavez won fair and square. Jimmy Carter says so.

Penn Schoen evidently must have cheated, although it is a reputable New
York polling firm with a 20 year track record, including working for Bill
Clinton in 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, Michael Bloomberg in 2001
and many other national political campaigns.

Why would it risk its hard-won professional reputation over an election in
Venezuela?  Carter doesn't explain.

Hugo Chavez is bad news from the perspective of US national security.  He
is bad news from the perspective of homeland security.  He is bad news
from the perspective of US dependence of foreign oil.  And he is bad news
for America's economic security.

Which makes Hugo Chavez good news for the worst ex-president in US
history.