Attacks on Carter wrong

Former President Jimmy Carter got ambushed last week. Carter has done nothing but good for the disadvantaged peoples of the world since leaving the presidency in 1981. But he was treated like a political chew toy by those who wished to discredit his trip to Cuba, which advocated freedom for the Cuban people and a lifting of the United States' embargo. \nMr. Carter designed his historical trip to Cuba as one of good will. He went with two straightforward messages. First, Fidel Castro must embrace human rights and democracy. Second, the United States' embargo on Cuba is counterproductive and should be lifted. It sounds simple enough. In fact, it sounds strikingly like the policy of the U.S. government towards China. A policy that recognizes the best way to change an oppressive country is to open it up to outside influences -- showing the people the light, if you will. \nSadly, some commentators on the political right did not like Mr. Carter's message that the embargo on Cuba should be halted (they were curiously silent when Carter said in an address to the Cuban people that Cuba must embrace democracy). Political commentators and politicians attacked him viciously for "undermining" President Bush and his Cuban policy. Even more vicious, and irresponsible, were allegations that Carter had somehow divulged national security secrets which he had received in an intelligence briefing.\nThese attacks are wrong. Carter did not reveal the details of any intelligence he had received -- he stated that, according to the information he had, he did not believe Cuba was helping terrorists. If that is a crime, then it must be a crime, too, for Vice President Cheney to say that, according to his information, Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.\nWhile it is troubling that a man as honorable as Jimmy Carter would be slandered as "undermining" national security, it is also disturbing that people were disappointed that Carter spoke out against the administration's pro-embargo policy. Apparently, the Bush administration is above the criticism of the American people. By merely advocating a policy change, it seemed as if Carter offended many conservatives in favor of the embargo.\nAre we not allowed to criticize the policies of our leaders? Can President Carter not advocate a policy change? Certainly, not everyone in the Bush administration or in the Republican Party advocates this censorship, but there are a very few demagogues with loud voices who attack criticism of the President as "unpatriotic."\nBut, amidst all the criticism of Carter, there is a very valid criticism of the Cuban embargo that has been largely ignored: the hypocrisy of the embargo. The U.S. has advocated a policy of openness with China, another oppressive dictatorship, in order to encourage free enterprise and democracy. This policy has worked. China is certainly not perfect, but capitalism is making some encouraging gains in the country. Unfortunately, we refuse to do the same thing with Cuba. It is an obvious double standard (and a double standard that embargo proponents love to ignore). \nBut, when all the political dust settles, the embargo is probably going to be around for a while. It is an embargo that has proved painfully ineffective in its stated goal -- bringing democracy and human rights to Cuba, and as long as it exists, we must have the right to criticize it. The case of President Carter, a man of the highest character, being attacked personally for criticizing the administration is uncalled for. Maybe there is a (not so vast) right wing conspiracy out there after all.