Egypt protests: Did Jimmy Carter just throw Obama under the bus?
| Washington
Middle East peacemaker Jimmy Carter came out and said Sunday what many experts in the region believe is now inevitable: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will have to go.
Commenting on the week鈥檚 tumultuous events in Egypt from the Maranatha Baptist Church near his home in Plains, Ga., the former president who brokered the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel gave a candid personal assessment of Egypt鈥檚 embattled leader and said his 鈥済uess is Mubarak will have to go.鈥�
President Mubarak has 鈥渂ecome more politically corrupt鈥� in recent years and has 鈥減erpetuated himself in office,鈥� he told a Sunday school class of 300, according to the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Assessing the popular uprisings sweeping across the region, he said: 鈥淭his is the most profound situation in the Middle East since I left office鈥� more than 30 years ago.
Mr. Carter鈥檚 remarks put him out ahead of the Obama administration, which has inched carefully forward as it has responded to the massive demonstrations engulfing the regime of a longtime US ally.
On Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took the step of calling for an 鈥渙rderly transition鈥� in Egypt. That seemed to be a few degrees closer to abandoning Mubarak than President Obama鈥檚 comments of Friday, which had focused on the urgency of meaningful reforms and the need for the regime to avoid repressive violence.
None of that had apparently impressed Carter, who endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008 but has not shied away from openly criticizing US foreign policy when the spirit has moved him. 鈥淭he United States wants Mubarak to stay in power,鈥� Carter told his Sunday school class, 鈥渂ut the people have decided.鈥�
Carter鈥檚 comments were seized upon by conservative critics of Obama鈥檚 foreign policy, though hardly in a uniform manner. Indeed, reactions reflected a split in Republican and right-wing foreign-policy visions between a neoconservative pro-freedom camp, and advocates first and foremost of a firm, even hawkish foreign policy based more on military might than on diplomatic engagement.
Some conservative commentators said that even Carter was shaming Obama by sounding more supportive of Egyptians鈥� freedoms than his fellow Democratic president.
But more common was an equating of Obama鈥檚 foreign policy with that of Carter 鈥� who, after all, is generally considered in Republican circles to be the country鈥檚 weakest recent president, and the man who lost Iran. A sampling of editorial and commentary headlines: Obama Channeling Jimmy Carter (Washington Times); Carter Redux? (American Thinker), and More Carter Redux in the Middle East (the Heritage Foundation).
A common theme in these writings: Carter favored 鈥渟oft power鈥� and talking with enemies over confronting them, and so does Obama. Less universal but still a strong vein of opinion: Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini, Obama is pulling the plug on Mubarak and could be ushering in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Despite the cacophony of reactions to the man from Plains, one conclusion seemed to apply across the board: Jimmy Carter can still cause an uproar, even from a Sunday school in Georgia.
