Winning The Jimmy Carter Sweepstakes
The Barack Obama campaign won an endorsement that sounds more like a kiss of death to anyone who survived the Jimmy Carter era. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who oversaw the disastrous foreign policy of the Carter administration, picked Obama to be the next Carter:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''
``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand,'' Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.''
Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.
Zbig wants to make this too easy. If serving as a former First Lady doesn't prepare one for the Presidency, how does seven years in a state legislature and barely two in the Senate do it? At least Clinton has four times as much experience in national office than Obama, and she's had to win two somewhat competitive elections, rather than walkovers like the one Obama had against Alan Keyes. If Zbig wanted preparation, wouldn't he endorse Bill Richardson?
This kind of silliness shouldn't surprise anyone who recalls the fecklessness of Carter's foreign policy. Brzezinski's advice led in part to one of the worst periods of retreat of American influence in the last century. The refusal to support the Shah led to the coup in Iran that gave the radical-Islamist movement its first big victory and validation -- and allowed state-supported terrorism to flourish. Brzezinski gets credit for pushing for a military operation to free the embassy hostages after Carter let them sit in Teheran for five months, but the operation was an unmitigated disaster -- poorly planned and resourced.
Carter also managed to help create our other major foreign-policy headache, too. He famously bussed Soviet premiere Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek and assured the Soviets that we would not act confrontationally, pretending that the Cold War didn't exist. The Soviets responded by invading Afghanistan, secure in the knowledge that Carter would not take action to stop them -- especially given his flabby response to the Iranian embassy sacking. That led to the creation of the mujaheddin, which the West supported against the Soviet occupation, and that led to the Taliban takeover after the Soviet withdrawal.
How much did Zbig have to do with our feckless foreign policy regarding the Soviets? He was more of a hawk than Cyrus Vance, but then again, almost everyone was more of a hawk than Vance, except Jimmy Carter. He never bothered to resign in the face of disaster after disaster, and he was the man who created the mujaheddin counterstrategy in Afghanistan, and Zbig drafted Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support them.
Maybe Barack Obama can get Carter's economic adviser, Charles Schultze, to endorse him as well. That way he can campaign clearly on a return to Carter's policies.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 25, 2007 8:12 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (19)
Posted by Sharpshooter | August 25, 2007 8:46 AM
Birds of a feather.
Posted by Otter | August 25, 2007 9:04 AM
Oh God. The person who wants to negotiate with the terrorist state of Iran, has been given the nod by the person who helped carter Create the terrorist nation of Iran.
As I mentioned before, the Only thing carter ever did for me was cause interest rates to run so high, I was able to lock in ten grand at 14% for ten years.
Beyond that, thanks for nothing, peanut farmer!
Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 9:05 AM
Janine Zacharia, AP: Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.
Let's assume that Brzezinski actually said this (it IS al-AP, after all). He's got a point: hanging around the White House, abusing the staff and injecting herself into national policy without bothering to run for office doesn't qualify the Hilldabeast to be president.
However, does ANYTHING "qualify" a person to be President of the United States? President Lincoln had virtually no experience in elected office, but he did fairly well. President Lyndon Johnson was a very experienced hand in politics... and he was a friggin' disaster. How can you measure how well a person will respond to the awesome and often unexpected pressures of the Oval Office? I really don't believe that you can, so saying that So-and-so isn't as "qualified" to be president is a little pointless. Please note that I'm not defending either The Hilldabeast OR The Dope; I wouldn't vote for either one of them under any circumstances. But I'd say that they are equally "qualified" to be president.
As to which one of them would be a BETTER president... How do you decide which train wreck is better than another???
On a related topic, Brzezinski touches on something that I think deserves a lot of debate and discussion:
Janine Zacharia, AP: ... Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.''
What IS needed from the United States relative to the rest of the world? What SHOULD be the guiding principles of our foreign policy? Should our policy be pragmatic? Selfish? Idealistic? Should we be aggressive and confrontational, or should we be withdrawn and isolationist? Should we attempt to lead, should we simply follow, or stick to ourselves? It's one thing to discuss specific issues (Iraq, North Korea, Red China, etc), but I think that knowing a candidate's general view is more helpful because it sheds some light (hopefully!) on how he will deal with the unexpected challenges that will face our country in the future.
Posted by reliapundit | August 25, 2007 9:41 AM
it's insane when you think about it: do the dems really want to run a redux of carter v reagan?
the only sensible thing zbig has ever said was that hillary is NOT qualified or more qualified than obama.
which really means that the dems do NOT have a frontrunner who is even qualified to be potus.
REPEAT: there is NOTHING about hillary's career in politics or elsewhere which makes her REMOTELY qualified to be potus.
nothing.
in my mind, this is the real story here.
and - if the read this story about zbig - it means gore is going to get in this race.
YUP: al gore - the meteorological moshiach - will get in.
Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 10:14 AM
Sometimes I think you could take any reasonably smart person, teach him some basic principles about our government and who all the major players are in the world, put him in the Oval Office and he would end up doing as good a job as anyone who's spent 30 years in government. At least he would if he had the right kind of character and personality, courage coupled with humility, ambition together with grace and most of all, he must be a patriot and love the United States and its people as he would his own family.
So I agree that Obama is callow and unseasoned and not qualified to be President. And I agree that being married to a President isn't the same thing as being President. Neither Obama or Hillary is qualified and nobody else is either. No one ever is. The bad part is we don't know if they've got what it takes until they're in the job and we're stuck with them.
Posted by kingronjo | August 25, 2007 10:38 AM
hey Cap, if you think Hillary had any competition running for Senator from NY after Rudy pulled out, I want what you're smoking. Rep. Ric Lazio was a late replacement and really couldnt make up any ground and who remembers who she eventually wound up beating (I think it was John Spencer, former Mayor of Yonkers but I am not sure).
Posted by kingronjo | August 25, 2007 10:40 AM
Ooops, forgot to mention Spencer was the sacrificial lamb in her second go round in 2006.
Posted by Larry J | August 25, 2007 11:27 AM
No one has been elected to the presidency from the Senate since JFK in 1960. His VP was LBJ who also came from the Senate. Most of the time, Americans prefer presidents to have executive experience. To me, being first lady of Arkansas and of the US hardly counts as executive experience. If the trend follows, there are only a few of the existing candidates that could get elected.
Posted by Larry J | August 25, 2007 11:30 AM
No one has been elected to the presidency from the Senate since JFK in 1960. His VP was LBJ who also came from the Senate. Most of the time, Americans prefer presidents to have executive experience. To me, being first lady of Arkansas and of the US hardly counts as executive experience. If the trend follows, there are only a few of the existing candidates that could get elected.
Posted by viking01 | August 25, 2007 3:02 PM
Zbigniew is in good company with Stansfield Turner when both pulled the carpet out from under the Shah and enabled Khomeini while Peanut Carter was cuddling up to Arafat.
Such a level of foreign policy incompetence was unchallenged until Mad Halfbright's negotiations (using envoy Peanut Carter in 1994) with North Korea about nuclear technology development. This while Slick Clinton was busy cuddling up to Arafat and angry Hillary was smooching Suha. Slick's other foreign policy flunky named William Christopher didn't help matters either.
Brzezinski, Halfbright and William Christopher along with Carter are the nation's Jocelyn Elderses of foreign policy. This may explain why a lightweight such as Obama impresses Zbig so much. That, or he's finally realizing what a Stalinist, psychotic, megalomaniac prone to episodic rages Hillary embodies and doesn't wish to be Vince Foster-ized for saying so directly.
Posted by Rose | August 25, 2007 3:38 PM
So funny the other night, Alan Colmes tried to defend Carter as being responsible for the current M.E. mess, due to his being single-handledly responsible for raising up the Ayatollah Khomeni, when a young East Indian was on the show regarding his recent debate with a Boston College professor over the E. Indian's book detailing the Liberal foundation for 9/11 - the professor called the India the largest MUSLIM population in the world, among other things - and Boston College locked up the tapes ofhte debate and refused to release them as they had promised they would do ----
--- So Alan said because Boston College locked up the tapes and refused to let anyone else hear the debate, or to come on Hannity and Colmes to discuss the issue with the young East Indian author, that Alan says it wasn't fair to say that the East Indian author's one-sided view of the debate and who won it was a FAIR ASSESSMENT.
"WE DO NOT KNOW WHO WON THE DEBATE BECAUSE WE CANNOT LISTEN TO THE DEBATE OURSELVES", Alan Colmes intoned authoritatively!
Posted by Micah | August 25, 2007 3:49 PM
Slightly off topic, but this looks very late in the comment cycle anyway...
Everytime I see zBig's name, I also think of David Rockefeller.
I've read somewhere they were the founders of the CFR, in '73. Carter was an early friend of CFR, and president three years later.
Please, I know its conspiracy, and it kinda bothers me when I get these thoughts. But those thoughts I do get.
I was in late grade school and "junior high" when zBig walked the White House halls. I could never figure why a Rooskie was so involved with national security. I never did find out if he was Russian. anyone know his bio?
Posted by eaglewings | August 25, 2007 3:59 PM
Let's not forget another ZB and JCarter triumph, turning prosperous Rhodesia into destitute gulag called Zimbabwe (or is that pronounced Zbigbabwe in his honor/dishonor?) Let's not forget the two million Cambodians who died on ZBig's watch as recounted last week by President Bush. Neither should we forget JC's pardon/amnesty for Jean Fraude Kerry that made it possible for that traitor to hold high office.
Posted by fouse, gary c | August 25, 2007 4:57 PM
Anyone who was part of Jimmy Carter's administration should be ashamed to pontificate on anything. But these boobs have no shame-chiefly Carter himself.
Posted by fouse, gary c | August 25, 2007 4:57 PM
Anyone who was part of Jimmy Carter's administration should be ashamed to pontificate on anything. But these boobs have no shame-chiefly Carter himself.
Posted by pservelle | August 25, 2007 5:02 PM
I think that you confuse support and endorsement; the former you receive, the latter you seek. While Obama is pleased to have ones support, he, unlike Ms Hillary, is not all that interested in anyone's endorsement. By drawing this distinction you can avoid making an incorrect inference.
Posted by John F. MacMichael | August 25, 2007 5:35 PM
Micah (above at 3:49 PM) Brzezinski is Polish not Russian. He was born in Warsaw before WWII. His father was a Polish diplomat station in stationed in Canada when the war started.
I have read that when Brzezinski was selected as National Security Advisor the Soviets were unhappy, expecting him, as a Pole, to push a hard line on their occupation of eastern Europe.
His record in office gives me zero confidence in his judgement.
Posted by Micah | August 26, 2007 6:58 AM
John F.,
Thank you very much.
I shant forget it.
Posted by Rich Casebolt | August 26, 2007 7:59 AM
On the issue of experience, Hillary is caught in a dilemma:
If she tries to use her experience as First Lady as qualifications -- as "co-president" for eight years -- then her opponents can hold her accountable for all the errors made by that Administration.
If she reduces her First Lady experience to baking cookies and hosting receptions, then she looks just like Obama in terms of experience ... except she still has the travel office firings/800 missing FBI files and Hillary!care still hanging over her head.
IMO, I -- and most of you -- are just as qualified as Hillary!, Obama, and Edwards. Richardson and Biden are more qualified than they, but they lack the photogenic charisma, potential for relief of voter societal guilt, and moonbat-appeal of the front-runners.
OTOH, at least Rudy, Mitt, and Huckabee have managed large governmental entities successfully.
But you know what I would REALLY like to see?
I'd like to see 470 normal schmucks ... the best managers and wisest statesmen we can find, with no political ties whatsoever ... take over Washington.
435 in the House
33 in the Senate (followed by 33 more in 2010, and 2014)
The VP, and Prez
I mean ... what has political "experience" provided for "We the People"? A lot of it is not positive.
We get all agitated about special interests running amok in DC ... while we do NOTHING about the two most influential special-interest groups of all: the institutions we call the Democratic and Republican Parties.
They are like two big, dead, rotting trees that have fallen together between the homes of you and your neighbor ... their rot and shadow is ruining the lawn on both sides of the fence, but both you and your neighbor are afraid to cut down yours, for fear the other will crash into your roof.
Replacing them with the Libertarian, Green or any other parties would only lead to a repeat of the same problem, once those "trees" grew big enough.
We need to stop electing PARTY MEMBERS ... we need to stop electing candidates based only on charisma, guilt, greed, class envy, or slick mass-media advertising.
Wisdom, competence and integrity ... not contributions or feeling good ... need to be the political currency of our day.
People, we need to start electing just AMERICANS.
(Yes it's a dream ... but I sure wish it would come true ...)