John Fray – 9/3/06

This page was last updated on September 4, 2006.

No reason to smear Carter; John Fray; Beaver County Times; September 3, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“As I watched the Emmy telecast this past Sunday evening, I recalled viewing that annual event in September 1979 when the ceremony was interrupted to bring the breaking news that an agreement had been reached at the Camp David peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

“The Camp David accords, finalized in 1980, were brought about mainly due to the relentless perseverance of President Jimmy Carter, who drew upon his moral convictions, emotional stamina, and diplomatic savvy to forge an agreement between Israel and Egypt which had been bitter enemies for 32 years.”

[RWC] Regarding Jimmy Carter’s “moral convictions,” I may have agreed before he started bashing President Bush “early and often.” You did not hear former presidents Bush #1, Ford, Nixon, and Reagan bash sitting Democrat presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. During his presidency, I felt Jimmy Carter was an honorable man who meant well but simply wasn’t up to the job. Given his behavior in recent years, I now view Jimmy Carter as simply another bitter partisan without the class befitting a former president.

“In light of my deep respect for Carter’s work in bringing about the Camp David Accords, I was dismayed to read the Aug. 25 letter to the editor from Paul Dici (with whom I share a cordial acquaintance) smearing Carter.

“Contrary to his assertion, it was not Carter’s fault that gasoline shortages occurred in 1979. The filling station waiting lines, like those of 1973 during President Nixon’s administration, were caused by turmoil in the Middle East.”

[RWC] Though he had no trouble remembering “Carter’s work in bringing about the Camp David Accords,” Mr. Fray forgot about double-digit inflation, mortgage rates, and unemployment.

Let’s also remember Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal, enabled the takeover of Iran by Islamofascists when he coddled Ayatollah Khomeini, and was impotent when Iranians (with Khomeini’s approval) took and held 50+ Americans hostage for 444 days. Are these examples of “diplomatic savvy?” As a reminder, Iran released the hostages on the day President Reagan took office. The release was not the result of anything Jimmy Carter did. The release occurred because the Iranians recognized President Reagan was not another Jimmy Carter.

“Finally, it is disingenuous for him to suggest that Democrats are not patriotic in light of the recent federal court decision of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, an appointee of President Carter. Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency’s practice of monitoring - absent the authority of warrants - international telephone calls is a violation of our Fourth Amendment, which contains the word ‘warrant’ in its text.”

[RWC] Mr. Fray needs to reread the Fourth Amendment. While it protects “the people … against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant. On the subject of warrants, the Fourth Amendment only says “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause …”. If the Fourth Amendment required warrants for all searches, we could not be searched by U.S. Customs when returning to the U.S. or the TSA at airports without search warrants. Let’s not forget about roadside sobriety checkpoints.

“It is possible that Taylor’s decision will be reversed on appeal. However, I believe that, in rendering her decision, she put forth a good faith effort in interpreting our Constitution and laws.”

[RWC] Regarding a “good faith effort,” not exactly. Even the liberal Washington Post acknowledged Judge Taylor’s ruling was at least partly a political rant. Here’s an excerpt from a Post editorial concerning the ruling.

“Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA’s program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA’s program -- her opinion will not be helpful.”