Opinion of Jimmy Carter

[Gabu]

I wouldn't particularly call him a freedom fighter, but he definitely is not a horrible person.

[RJ]

It's clear he's a horrible person, as any anti-American idiot, as you accurately describe him, would be.

Oh, how I just love this expression:Anti-American. You know what makes him an Anti-American? The fact that doesn't whole heartedly agree with the Republican party.

In my case, I hope being anti-Bush is not synonymous with being anti-American

Dave

Aww, come on Dave. Of course it does.

[??????????]

And giving away the Panama Canal was a good thing, huh?

Sure.  It's just an early example of outsourcing.  It's not as if we've been denied its use have we?  The only other equitable alternative would have been to have offered Panama the opportunity to become the 51st state, but somehow I doubt that the either they or we would have been ready for that then.

Nope, we haven't been denied its use....yet. But let the right company take it over (like the Chinese) and that's very likely to happen, especially if we were to ever go to war with them. The Canal was the last thing the US should have ever given away.

[Sam Spade]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

[Inmate Trump]

HP.

#1 biggest mistake the American people have ever made when voting for president: Jimmy Carter

#2 biggest mistake: George W. Bush

[Bacon King]

I'll admit, he was quite a bad president, but on the personal level, I like him- even if his ego does get the best of him at times.

[MasterJedi]

Horrible Person

And he got attacked by the "killer rabbit".

[Beet]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

That stance assumes the US ought never to support international human rights bodies, while historically the US has been a champion of human rights. As recently as the 1990s we intervened to prevent human rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and when our political leaders went to China they spoke about human rights on national TV over there and made it an important issue (nowadays they go only to talk about trade and North Korea). Just because the current Bush government has lost all credibility on human rights it doesn't mean support for universal human rights = anti-American.

I find that assumption quite offensive, though it would perhaps be a fair assumption if applied to the former Soviet Union.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support the UN Human Rights Commission specifically, for like all bodies it is probably imperfect and politically corrupted. If the Bush administration was moving to eliminate the influence of Sudan etc from the Commission and replace it with countries that traditionally have more credibility and Carter was opposing that, I can see why that is wrong. However just because Carter opposes the Bush administration's attempt to have it quashed altogether that doesn't prove by itself that he's anti-American.

EDIT: Looking on wikipedia, it is clear the Commision is composed of 53 members, of which Sudan and Cuba are just 2. Nowhere does it suggest that these countries "head" the commission as you suggested. Furthermore, it states clearly that there are no permanent seats. While there are seven or eight members on the member list who I would vehemently oppose being on the commission, I fail to see in this a justification for permanently quashing any institutionalized Human Rights work by the UN. The article notes that "Supporters in most democratic countries consider the work of the UNCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom the Commission advises, as helpful for the worldwide human rights situation," that by itself suggests it is essential to keep the commission while working vigorously to prevent unsavory members from ever being elected (and if elected, limiting their influence).

[MODU]

Perhaps one of the best examples of being neither.

He certainly was a horrible President and set the country back.

However, at the same time, I couldn't call him a horrible person.  He was incompetent at his Presidency (not that his term was going to end up being fantastic no matter who won it) but as a man, he seems like a caring person.

Kinda hard to go against a Navy guy, but he sure makes Bush look great.  I agree with Alcon, and call him neither (or both).

[dazzleman]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

That stance assumes the US ought never to support international human rights bodies, while historically the US has been a champion of human rights. As recently as the 1990s we intervened to prevent human rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and when our political leaders went to China they spoke about human rights on national TV over there and made it an important issue (nowadays they go only to talk about trade and North Korea). Just because the current Bush government has lost all credibility on human rights it doesn't mean support for universal human rights = anti-American.

I find that assumption quite offensive, though it would perhaps be a fair assumption if applied to the former Soviet Union.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support the UN Human Rights Commission specifically, for like all bodies it is probably imperfect and politically corrupted. If the Bush administration was moving to eliminate the influence of Sudan etc from the Commission and replace it with countries that traditionally have more credibility and Carter was opposing that, I can see why that is wrong. However just because Carter opposes the Bush administration's attempt to have it quashed altogether that doesn't prove by itself that he's anti-American.

EDIT: Looking on wikipedia, it is clear the Commision is composed of 53 members, of which Sudan and Cuba are just 2. Nowhere does it suggest that these countries "head" the commission as you suggested. Furthermore, it states clearly that there are no permanent seats. While there are seven or eight members on the member list who I would vehemently oppose being on the commission, I fail to see in this a justification for permanently quashing any institutionalized Human Rights work by the UN. The article notes that "Supporters in most democratic countries consider the work of the UNCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom the Commission advises, as helpful for the worldwide human rights situation," that by itself suggests it is essential to keep the commission while working vigorously to prevent unsavory members from ever being elected (and if elected, limiting their influence).

If Carter really cares so much about human rights, why does he always cozy up to brutal dictators like Kim Jong Il?

Even as president, his double standard was evident.  He is generally not critical of deficient human rights in countries hostile to the US.  That was true during his presidency, and is true today.

[Beet]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

That stance assumes the US ought never to support international human rights bodies, while historically the US has been a champion of human rights. As recently as the 1990s we intervened to prevent human rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and when our political leaders went to China they spoke about human rights on national TV over there and made it an important issue (nowadays they go only to talk about trade and North Korea). Just because the current Bush government has lost all credibility on human rights it doesn't mean support for universal human rights = anti-American.

I find that assumption quite offensive, though it would perhaps be a fair assumption if applied to the former Soviet Union.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support the UN Human Rights Commission specifically, for like all bodies it is probably imperfect and politically corrupted. If the Bush administration was moving to eliminate the influence of Sudan etc from the Commission and replace it with countries that traditionally have more credibility and Carter was opposing that, I can see why that is wrong. However just because Carter opposes the Bush administration's attempt to have it quashed altogether that doesn't prove by itself that he's anti-American.

EDIT: Looking on wikipedia, it is clear the Commision is composed of 53 members, of which Sudan and Cuba are just 2. Nowhere does it suggest that these countries "head" the commission as you suggested. Furthermore, it states clearly that there are no permanent seats. While there are seven or eight members on the member list who I would vehemently oppose being on the commission, I fail to see in this a justification for permanently quashing any institutionalized Human Rights work by the UN. The article notes that "Supporters in most democratic countries consider the work of the UNCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom the Commission advises, as helpful for the worldwide human rights situation," that by itself suggests it is essential to keep the commission while working vigorously to prevent unsavory members from ever being elected (and if elected, limiting their influence).

If Carter really cares so much about human rights, why does he always cozy up to brutal dictators like Kim Jong Il?

Even as president, his double standard was evident.  He is generally not critical of deficient human rights in countries hostile to the US.  That was true during his presidency, and is true today.

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

Clinton's fault! Carter's fault!
Sorry, I'm just simulating the Republican response.

[dazzleman]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

I realize that.  But Carter's agreement gave away the store, and simply delayed the problem.  Also, the way in which Carter handled the whole thing -- announcing the agreement publicly before reporting it to Clinton, in order to force Clinton's hand -- was a disgrace.  Only an egomaniac would behave in such a way.

Clinton accepted the agreement not because it was a good agreement, but because (1) Carter's unprofessional conduct put him in a position in which it would have been very difficult to reject it without major damage; and (2) he gambled that North Korea would collapse on its own before we had to deliver on our side of the agreement's obligations.

Unfortunately, we lost that bet, though I can see logically why Clinton would have taken that gamble.  Where I have a problem with Clinton is that he knew as early as 1997 that the North Koreans were cheating on the agreement, and he swept it under the rug, and passed the problem on to his successor.

But I don't think that Carter's role in the whole thing was one to be proud of.  For a man who claims to care so much about human rights, he cozies up to an awful lot of brutal dictators.  I guess their anti-Americanism trumps their human rights violations in his eyes.

[Beet]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

I realize that.  But Carter's agreement gave away the store, and simply delayed the problem.  Also, the way in which Carter handled the whole thing -- announcing the agreement publicly before reporting it to Clinton, in order to force Clinton's hand -- was a disgrace.  Only an egomaniac would behave in such a way.

Clinton accepted the agreement not because it was a good agreement, but because (1) Carter's unprofessional conduct put him in a position in which it would have been very difficult to reject it without major damage; and (2) he gambled that North Korea would collapse on its own before we had to deliver on our side of the agreement's obligations.

Unfortunately, we lost that bet, though I can see logically why Clinton would have taken that gamble.  Where I have a problem with Clinton is that he knew as early as 1997 that the North Koreans were cheating on the agreement, and he swept it under the rug, and passed the problem on to his successor.

But I don't think that Carter's role in the whole thing was one to be proud of.  For a man who claims to care so much about human rights, he cozies up to an awful lot of brutal dictators.  I guess their anti-Americanism trumps their human rights violations in his eyes.

I don't defend (or know of) everything Carter does, but in this instance my value judgment was that the Agreed Framework was infinitely preferable to either of the two alternatives, which were (1) going to war with North Korea, and (2) a nuclear North Korea. The Bush administration inherited a relatively good situation, infinitely better than 1994, even though the regime did not collapse. For one thing, although North Korea was enriching uranium (as opposed to plutonium rods), this would have taken years if not decades to develop into viable weapons. Second, relations between the North and South were rapidly improving (decades-deferred family reunifications), between the North and Japan were improving (return of 1970s-era kidnap victims), the North's economic policy reform (opening of a China-style SEZ). Everything suggested that the North had decided to take the path of reform and renounce its aggressive international practices of the 1980s (despite a still brutal domestic regime).

Bush took this situation--the best it had been in decades by far-- and turned it to sh**t. Today, the North has had free reign of plutonium rods from Yongbyon which used to be under UN guard; it probably has nuclear weapons; the regime is as strong as ever; US policy is flailing in all directions and in stalemate. Furthermore, the North's moves toward reform have been reversed. On every front, Bush's policies have rapidly deteriorated the situation.

[dazzleman]

I don't defend (or know of) everything Carter does, but in this instance my value judgment was that the Agreed Framework was infinitely preferable to either of the two alternatives, which were (1) going to war with North Korea, and (2) a nuclear North Korea. The Bush administration inherited a relatively good situation, infinitely better than 1994, even though the regime did not collapse. For one thing, although North Korea was enriching uranium (as opposed to plutonium rods), this would have taken years if not decades to develop into viable weapons. Second, relations between the North and South were rapidly improving (decades-deferred family reunifications), between the North and Japan were improving (return of 1970s-era kidnap victims), the North's economic policy reform (opening of a China-style SEZ). Everything suggested that the North had decided to take the path of reform and renounce its aggressive international practices of the 1980s (despite a still brutal domestic regime).

Bush took this situation--the best it had been in decades by far-- and turned it to sh**t. Today, the North has had free reign of plutonium rods from Yongbyon which used to be under UN guard; it probably has nuclear weapons; the regime is as strong as ever; US policy is flailing in all directions and in stalemate. Furthermore, the North's moves toward reform have been reversed. On every front, Bush's policies have rapidly deteriorated the situation.

I'm not sure I can agree with you here Beet.  I don't think the situation Bush inherited is as rosy as you paint it, though I can't really defend the results of Bush's policies thus far.  I think you're being overly kind to Clinton, though.

[??????????]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

Clinton's fault! Carter's fault!
Sorry, I'm just simulating the Republican response.

Your party gave away the Panama canal. Good job.

[Michael Z]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

I realize that.  But Carter's agreement gave away the store, and simply delayed the problem.  Also, the way in which Carter handled the whole thing -- announcing the agreement publicly before reporting it to Clinton, in order to force Clinton's hand -- was a disgrace.  Only an egomaniac would behave in such a way.

Clinton accepted the agreement not because it was a good agreement, but because (1) Carter's unprofessional conduct put him in a position in which it would have been very difficult to reject it without major damage; and (2) he gambled that North Korea would collapse on its own before we had to deliver on our side of the agreement's obligations.

Unfortunately, we lost that bet, though I can see logically why Clinton would have taken that gamble.  Where I have a problem with Clinton is that he knew as early as 1997 that the North Koreans were cheating on the agreement, and he swept it under the rug, and passed the problem on to his successor.

North Korea was willing to play ball until Bush's Axis Of Evil speech. I wouldn't say Clinton was blameless, but Bush really caused some problems with his hostile rhetoric.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

Clinton's fault! Carter's fault!
Sorry, I'm just simulating the Republican response.

Your party gave away the Panama canal. Good job.

A small price to pay for a non-Republican President.

[dazzleman]

North Korea was willing to play ball until Bush's Axis Of Evil speech. I wouldn't say Clinton was blameless, but Bush really caused some problems with his hostile rhetoric.

Bush's error, IMO, was not in switching to hostile rhetoric against a regime that was cheating on its previous agreements and using that cheating to accomplish an end exactly the opposite of what those agreements were supposed to produce.

The error was in turning confrontational without, apparently, any plan to back it up.  That produces the worst of both worlds.

I simply don't believe that North Korea was cooperating and behaving until big bad Bushie provoked them, and now they're not.  They were cheating on their agreements at least since 1997, and Bush's confrontational attitude, without apparently anything to back it up, was simply a convenient excuse for them to do what they were going to do anyway.

[Beet]

The bottom line is that the Bush policy has accomplished nothing and if anything made the situation far worse.

[dazzleman]

The bottom line is that the Bush policy has accomplished nothing and if anything made the situation far worse.

You may be right, but it's misleading to claim that he was not handed an already bad situation.  Some claims have been made that the situation was great when he took office and he made it bad.  Whatever has happened since, the situation was already bad when Bush took office, IMO.

[The Dowager Mod]

Carter was a good person stuck doing a job better suited for jerks like Clinton or Bush, Along with Ford he may be about the only president of the 20th century who always tried to do the right thing.

[dazzleman]

Carter was a good person stuck doing a job better suited for jerks like Clinton or Bush, Along with Ford he may be about the only president of the 20th century who always tried to do the right thing.

I think he did try to do the right thing.  And you're right about Ford too.  But the problem with Carter was that he had/has a very distorted view of what the right thing was and is.

It's funny that the two presidents you identify, accurately IMO, as trying hardest to do the right thing were both defeated for re-election.

WRT Ford, aside from the Nixon pardon, the best example I can think of of his trying to do the right thing was sending Henry Kissinger to Africa to push for majority rule in Rhodesia on the eve of the Texas primary, where he faced a strong challenge from Ronald Reagan.  Many were furious when Kissinger declared unrelenting opposition to white minority rule, and Reagan creamed Ford in that primary.

But getting the US behind majority rule helped forestall further Soviet/Cuban advances in Africa at a time of American psychological weakness.  Sadly, the situation in Rhodesia didn't turn out so well under majority rule.  I hate to say it, but they'd probably be better off with their previous rulers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Carter was a good person stuck doing a job better suited for jerks like Clinton or Bush, Along with Ford he may be about the only president of the 20th century who always tried to do the right thing.

Yes, Carter had the most integrity of possibly any President. That doesn't play well in DC.

[dazzleman]

Carter was a good person stuck doing a job better suited for jerks like Clinton or Bush, Along with Ford he may be about the only president of the 20th century who always tried to do the right thing.

Yes, Carter had the most integrity of possibly any President. That doesn't play well in DC.

Particulary when you're completely incompetent...