Talk about a dilemma. When Jimmy Carter attacks Barack Obama, how in the world do I choose sides?
Former president Jimmy Carter has blasted the United States for anti-terror strategies such as targeting individuals for assassination and using unmanned drones to bomb suspected targets, saying they directly flout the basic tenets of universal human rights and foment anti-US sentiment.
In an article written for the New York Times headlined "A Cruel and Unusual Record", Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.
Pretty easy call, actually. Obama is wrong about most things, but he is doing a lot better on anti-terrorism than a lot of us thought he would. And Carter is just an absolute nutball. Has there ever been a dispute involving the U.S. on the world stage in which he didn't take the other side? Countries that do not want drone attacks should not harbor terrorists. How hard is that call when George W. Bush and Obama both see it?
