# Jimmy Carter just won the Nobel Peace Prize **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2002, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815 "2002-10-11T13:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/61 "2002-10-12T04:24:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* He left the world a MUCH safer place after his two terms._\* Would that include the Iranian mullahs with their nice new American weapons? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/62 "2002-10-12T04:25:11Z")
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Ronald Reagan was a loveable, avuncular doofus who did an entirely professional job in his greatest role, that of playing President of the United States. His was a dim light, but constant. He had an astonishing gift for saying things with unimpeachable sincerity, even if he couldn’t remember what they were five minutes later. RR didn’t win the cold war, the Soviets lost it, which isn’t quite the same thing. The Soviets lost because, to paraphrase Mr. P.J. O’Rourke, “Nobody wants to wear, much less buy, Bulgarian shoes.” The Soviets lost because they were stupid, not because the host of _Death Valley Days_ was elected President. I hope the prize at least somewhat compensates good ol’ Jimmy for the ignominy of losing to such an apparent chucklewit. Poor guy must have puked his guts out half the night. I know I did. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/63 "2002-10-12T05:05:46Z")
The Iranian Mullahs came to power under Carter. Remember the hostage crisis? It ended the day Reagan was inaugurated. And you know why? Because Jimmy Carter wanted to talk about getting them back, and hold conferences, and try to ‘understand’ each other. Reagan would have kicked their ass, and they knew it. It was like, “Uh oh, there’s a new sheriff in town…” And what IS it with you liberals that you can’t disagree with someone without calling them a doofus? Reagan was anything but. He was a voracious reader, wrote many of his own speeches (some of which are considered classics of political speech), and he had a degree in economics. He was no genius, that’s for sure, but he was at least average as far as presidents go, and probably slightly above average. Certainly well above average for the population as a whole. > [@](#): > > The Soviets lost because they were stupid, not because the host of Death Valley Days was elected President. You SERIOUSLY underestimate the ability of a dictatorship to stay in power. Both Iraq and North Korea are in far worse shape than the Soviet Union ever got, and yet the goverments there are solidly in place (barring U.S. intervention). Had some milqtoast appeaser like Mondale been elected, the Soviet Union might have survived another twenty or thirty years. Maybe more. Reagan broke the back of the regime by outspending them militarily, outmanoevering them diplomatically, and most especially by forcefully occupying the moral high ground and calling them for what they were, evil. When the Soviets responded by trying to put a modern man in charge, Reagan leaned on them harder now that he had a leader who could respond to the pressure. Credit to Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher, and a whole bunch of other players on the scene. But the two who really deserved credit were Reagan and Gorbachev, and both of them recognized the other’s contributions in later writings. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/64 "2002-10-12T05:15:46Z")
> [@](#): > > And what IS it with you liberals that you can’t disagree with someone without calling them a doofus? Not so! Phil Gramm isn’t a doofus, he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of MammonCo. Jesse Helms isn’t a doofus, hes a reprehensible, homophobic, racist little scumbag. Trent Lott isn’t a doofus… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/65 "2002-10-12T10:07:26Z")
James Carville is, though. ---
**Author:** ![Rossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@Rossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rossarian)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/66 "2002-10-12T10:35:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > **…the disastrous attempted helicopter rescue of the hostages in Tehran…** I’ve never really thought it was fair that Carter gets so much flak for Desert One. It was an incredibly bold plan - the kind of action that people always accuse him of being unable to make. It was a complex operation with a good chance of success but with many avenues for things to go wrong. Things went wrong, then got even worse. The men regrouped and salvaged what they could of the situation. Carter accepted responsibility for the failure. You never see the same attitude towards Reagan in regards to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Presidents have to make tough decisions. If I ended up dead because of one of those decisions, I’d like to think whoever the president was would be man enough to accept responsibility as Carter did. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/67 "2002-10-12T11:06:54Z")
It’s just that he accepted responsibility for SO much. If you hire an inept poolboy who keeps screwing up until your pool is a disaster area, it is scant solace that he always accepts responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/68 "2002-10-12T11:09:59Z")
Jesus Fucking-H Christ on a pogo-stick! Bad **Sam** , bad! Back to your cage, beast! > [@](#): > > - The Iranian Mullahs came to power under Carter.\* And in what way was this Carter’s fault, pray tell? > [@](#): > > - Remember the hostage crisis? It ended the day Reagan was inaugurated. And you know why? \*Of course I do. Thus the vice-presidential candidate at the time, George Bush, used his international contacts, and his influence as former head of the CIA, to establish covert contact with the Iranian government; he brokered a deal whereby the US would ship a much-need supply of weapons, parts, and equipment to Iran, in exchange for their agreement to release the hostages after Reagan’s inauguration. It was the PR coup of the century because it led people to believe that the hostages were released as a direct result of Iran’s fear for Reagan. > [@](#): > > - Because Jimmy Carter wanted to talk about getting them back, and hold conferences, and try to ‘understand’ each other. Reagan would have kicked their ass, and they knew it. It was like, “Uh oh, there’s a new sheriff in town…” \*See what I mean? Many of the gullible unwashed actually bought it. > [@](#): > > - And what IS it with you liberals that you can’t disagree with someone without calling them a doofus? Reagan was anything but…. \*I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Look, Reagan had the IQ of a green pea. It was amazing that brain generated enough electricity to keep those lips moving. > [@](#): > > - He was a voracious reader… \*Yes, I believe his favorite reading material was _Reader’s Digest._ Followed by Archie comics. > [@](#): > > - You SERIOUSLY underestimate the ability of a dictatorship to stay in power. Both Iraq and North Korea are in far worse shape than the Soviet Union ever got, and yet the governments there are solidly in place (barring U.S. intervention). - Well, aside from the fact that the Soviet Union was a collection of separate states, and thus not really a good example for comparison, we have to consider that it was around a lot longer than the regimes currently ruling Iraq and North Korea. Come back in fifty years, and if they’re still around, then maybe I’ll give this claim a little credit. > [@](#): > > - Had some milqtoast appeaser like Mondale been elected, the Soviet Union might have survived another twenty or thirty years. Maybe more. Reagan broke the back of the regime by outspending them militarily, outmanoevering them diplomatically, and most especially by forcefully occupying the moral high ground and calling them for what they were, evil. \*Well, first, let’s just get this point out of the way: Regardless of the moral qualifications of the Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, or any other state, or leader of a state, during this period, the simple fact of the matter is that, judged by any commonly accepted moral standard, _Reagan was evil_. Quite possibly consciously evil, but if not, certainly evil by mere complacency – that is, evil because he chose to ignore the evil that he did, and that his politics promoted. Or that he tried to call it good when it was not. Or that he admitted that it was evil, but claimed that it was for a greater good. Etc. Next: provide evidence that Reagan’s policies directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union, without the help of factors external to that policy, and that other policies would have led to the continued existence of the Soviet Union even in those face of such external factors, or withdraw your claim, above. > [@](#): > > - He left the world a MUCH safer place after his two terms.\* War on terror, anyone? 9/11, anyone? Al-Queda, anyone? Reagan administration overt support for, and militarization of, fundamentalist Muslim movements in Afghanistan, anyone? No, wait. I’ve a better idea. Let’s just make up history as we go along, and reconstruct the facts to fit our world view. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/69 "2002-10-12T11:33:25Z")
Mr. Svinlesha whined: > [@](#): > > Jesus Fucking-H Christ on a pogo-stick! Hillary Whore Clinton on a cigar Indian. > [@](#): > > And in what way was this Carter’s fault, pray tell? At least it was contemporary. You’ve blamed Reagan for 9/11. > [@](#): > > Thus the vice-presidential candidate at the time, George Bush, used his international contacts, and his influence as former head of the CIA, to establish covert contact with the Iranian government; he brokered a deal whereby the US would ship a much-need [sic] supply of weapons, parts, and equipment to Iran, in exchange for their agreement to release the hostages after Reagan’s inauguration. You forgot to mention the help Bush received from the Illuminati. > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Look, Reagan had the IQ of a green pea. It was amazing that brain generated enough electricity to keep those lips moving. Did you get that from the [Lovenstein Institute](http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm)? > [@](#): > > Yes, I believe his favorite reading material was Reader’s Digest. Followed by Archie comics. Among his favorite books was Ludwig von Mises’ [Human Action](http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp) (full text online), which he called “the most important economics treatise of all time”. > [@](#): > > Regardless of the moral qualifications of the Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, or any other state, or leader of a state, during this period, the simple fact of the matter is that, judged by any commonly accepted moral standard, Reagan was evil. Random and meaningless. > [@](#): > > Next: provide evidence that Reagan’s policies directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union, without the help of factors external to that policy, and that other policies would have led to the continued existence of the Soviet Union even in those face of such external factors, or withdraw your claim, above. That’s a stupid request. Why don’t you provide evidence that Jimmy Carter builds Habitat houses without the help of factors external to his carpentry? > [@](#): > > No, wait. I’ve a better idea. Let’s just make up history as we go along, and reconstruct the facts to fit our world view. Clearly, you’re well on your way. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/70 "2002-10-12T14:32:02Z")
Congrats to Carter for the award. He has worked hard to address thorny problems in his ex-Presidency that other ex-Presidents would not even consider tackling. Having said that, however, I think that part of the reason Carter has worked so tirelessly in his post Presidency is to redeem his reputation as one of the least effective and least politically competent Presidents of the last 100 years. Each President faces unique challenges and Carter’s tendency to preach to the polity and his ham handed handling of Congress in trying to implement his policies were not necessarily the best way to handle his. As President, Carter was a well meaning, intelligent and hard working, but also (IMO) a somewhat arrogant man who refused to “play ball” even in getting his own agenda implemented. As one [History Professor noted](http://www.wooster.edu/News/Hodges_Carter.html) > [@](#): > > However, when it came time to play the Washington power games, it was another story. “He hadn’t the foggiest idea how to work with Congress in a traditional, powerful, presidential sort of way,” said Hodges. [Other historians have noted](http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/kaucar.html) > [@](#): > > Despite being considerate, compassionate, well informed, and one of the nation’s most intelligent presidents, Carter was at best a mediocre president and at worst the head of a failed administration, Kaufman contends. He came to the White House long on intentions but short on know-how, Kaufman maintains, and although he worked diligently to win support for his policies and programs, he failed to establish the base of public and political legitimacy he needed to be a successful trustee president. Some may consider this a personal virtue, but in terms of historical perception it doesn’t make him appear to be a particularly effective President. Even if his skills were lacking, however, it does have to be noted that he had a lot on his plate and his challenges would have given even the most able politican pause. Here is [a chronology of his Presidency](http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/chron.phtml). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/71 "2002-10-12T14:45:04Z")
How about a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier named after a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I give you, the USS Theodore Roosevelt. I’d like to note two things here, first of which is that U.S. presidents are well represented in the peace prize laureate list. Three of them, T. Roosevelt, Wilson and Carter. Second, the Nobel comittee has taken a huge leftward swing in recent years, which would put people of less fashionable political persuasions out of consideration. I believe Reagan did a great deal for world peace by winning the Cold War, but it’s a safe bet he’ll never be nominated. Neverless, a great honor to President Carter. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/72 "2002-10-12T17:29:40Z")
I was not a Carter fan when he was elected, but he won me over. He did great things as President. The United States gained a level or respect overseas during his brief administration that it had not seen for decades and has not seen since. That the people of Iran rose up and tossed out the Shah that previous administrations had been supporting could be pointed at as a flaw of the Carter administration because Carter felt that the U.S. should have a moral geopolitical philosophy is, I suppose, valid. I suppose that it is also valid that the Carter administration let the Soviet Union make its own errors in Afghanistan thus running itself into such a financial debt that it could only function as the U.S.S.R for a few more years (in addition that war created incredible internal rebellion internally for the Soviet Union). But to suggest that the man is not worthy of this or that Ronald Reagan might be worthy, is rediculous. To suggest the latter, is like suggesting that Hitler advanced the cause of peace because he attempted to make the world safer for Germans. To suggest the former would be not unlike when Lester Maddox said Martin Luther King got the award because the academy was a bunch of “nigger lovers” or when Desmond Tutu got it, Jerry Falwell said that Tutu was a fake, lier and a communist. No, Carter deserves this award for not only his post-Presidential activities, but also for his Presidential ones. And for proving that sometimes, although maybe far too rarely, nice guys don’t necessarily finish last. TV ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/73 "2002-10-12T18:04:16Z")
Wow, Mr. Svinlesha… That’s what passes for argument these days? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## The Iranian Mullahs came to power under Carter. > > And in what way was this Carter’s fault, pray tell? I was responding to this: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Originally posted by Sam Stone He left the world a MUCH safer place after his two terms. > > Would that include the Iranian mullahs with their nice new American weapons? > [@](#): > > Of course I do. Thus the vice-presidential candidate at the time, George Bush, used his international contacts, and his influence as former head of the CIA, to establish covert contact with the Iranian government; he brokered a deal whereby the US would ship a much-need supply of weapons, parts, and equipment to Iran, in exchange for their agreement to release the hostages after Reagan’s inauguration. It was the PR coup of the century because it led people to believe that the hostages were released as a direct result of Iran’s fear for Reagan. You’re mixing up your conspiracy theories. The ‘October Surprise’ was a dastardly trick to get Reagan elected and shame democrats. Iran-contra didn’t get under way for another three years. > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Look, Reagan had the IQ of a green pea. It was amazing that brain generated enough electricity to keep those lips moving. Yes, I know the ‘Reagan was a moron’ thing is part of the liberal canon, but it’s not true, and there’s not a shred of evidence to back it up and there never has been. Reagan was of above-average intelligence, extremely well read, degreed in economics, and he managed to be a wildly popular governor of a huge state, but also one of the most popular US presidents ever. Dumb people generally don’t manage that. One of the problems you liberals have is that you don’t respect your opponents. Republican presidents are always caricatured as stupid, evil, a pawn of business, or a combination of all three. If you listened to liberals, George W. Bush must be the dumbest human to get graduate from Harvard, wind up with a Harvard MBA, fly fighter jets, and become a governor and president. Yet, we all know what a moron he is, right? After all, he’s a Republican. > [@](#): > > Yes, I believe his favorite reading material was Reader’s Digest. Followed by Archie comics. Ah, no. His favorite books were classical economics and philosophy, along with a ton of history books. You want to hear Reagan, in his own words? Try this interview: [http://reason.com/7507/int\_reagan.shtml](http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml) Try to read that without the baggage of your opininons about Reagan. Read it, listen to the person being interviewed, then tell me whether you think this is a dumb person who reads nothing but comic books. That interview shows a Reagan as wonkish as Clinton ever was. For more of Reagan’s writings, head over to [The Reagan Library](http://www.reaganlibrary.net/) which has plenty more. If you don’t want to read it, fine. But then you have no right to speak on how smart or dumb Reagan was. We have plenty of hard evidence, and don’t have to resort to modern folklore or personal bias. As for credit for ending the cold war, let’s listen to this quote: > [@](#): > > Reagan was a really tough conservative, a person who put an end to the Vietnamese syndrome in American society and made America very powerful. He was a very mature person, a man connected with the military-industrial complex, and he believed he was doing it to increase the influence of the country. And he accomplished a lot. The Americans want to have that image: to be seen as a castle of light on top of a hill. > > But he was also a wise man with intuition, and he had those American and Irish values within him: devotion to the family, devotion to the land, to the normal course of life. It was ingrained in him, and he played such parts in films and he had it in him. > … > I think that Reagan turned out to be the partner with whom one could stop the arms race and start building new relations between the two countries and in Europe and in the world. - **Mikhail Gorbachev** , CNN Interview, 1997 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/74 "2002-10-12T18:16:34Z")
**Sam** : Well, perhaps we shouldn’t clutter a thread about Jimmy C. and the Nobel Prize with a hijack about Reagan’s brain. Just a couple of quick points. 1. You did that on purpose. 2. Let’s not make this into a conservative/liberal thang. I’m not a liberal. I call 'em like I see 'em. 3. Of course I’ll check out your cite. But Reagan’s gaffs are legendary. Come on, man – he claimed that trees pollute more than heavy industry, for God’s sake. 4. Perhaps we should continue this debate in another forum, or at another time? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/75 "2002-10-12T19:03:46Z")
1. I did what on purpose? I don’t know what you’re talking about. 2. I wasn’t responding only to you. 3. Reagan did NOT say that trees pollute more than heavy industry. He said that some trees cause pollution. And he was absolutely correct. Do you know why the ‘Smokey Mountains’ are smokey? That particular charge really annoys me, but it indicates ignorance on the part of the people who tried to pin the ‘ignorant’ label on Reagan. You might want to read this before pooh-poohing Reagan’s claim that trees can cause pollution: [http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/07/07242001/pollution\_44398.asp](http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/07/07242001/pollution_44398.asp) From the cite: > [@](#): > > The emissions of trees are classified as low, moderate, or high, based on the sum of the hourly emission rates of the chemicals isoprene and monoterpenes. > > These compounds are very reactive and play a role in tropospheric ozone formation and aerosol production according to the Washington State University Laboratory for Atmospheric Research. > > Large scale planting can affect air quality through regional concentrations of ozone and fine particles. To reduce ozone concentrations in urban areas, it is particularly important to use low emitting species. > > The emissions from deciduous trees such as oak, poplar, aspens and willows are mainly isoprene, whereas coniferous trees such as pines, cedars, redwood and firs emit mostly monoterpene. There are several species which emit both isoprene and monoterpenes such as spruce and eucalyptus. This is not a trivial factor. The Smokey mountains are covered by a constant haze of these types of pollutants. The pollutant emissions from certain species of trees can be a significant enough to be a health hazard. The same condition can be found in the ‘Blue Ridge Mountains’. The ‘Blue’ comes from the constant presence of ground-level ozone and hydrocarbons, emitted from the trees. Some estimates are as high as 80% of worldwide ground-level Turpene and Isoprene pollution comes from trees, not industry. Actually, Reagan’s comment about trees emitting pollution was interesting not only because he was right, but because it also shows that he was no ‘comic book reader’. When he made that comment he was derided by the left for being ‘ignorant’, even though HE was the one who read the then-obscure scientific papers that were showing the relationships, and his detractors who called HIM ‘ignorant’ never bothered to look up the facts themselves. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/76 "2002-10-12T20:27:44Z")
You know what? I’m TIRED of the whole, “you liberals” crap. I never say, “you conservatives”, and I’m sick of having it done to me. Some courtesy, please. Ronald Reagan will always be a villain for his Central American politics. Yes, the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.” But so was the Apartheid regime, Pinochet’s reign, and the military thugs in El Salvador. Reagan didn’t give a DAMN about those! No, maybe he’s not quite the villain some make him out to be. But don’t sit there and try to tell me he isn’t responsible for a lot of disgusting human rights abuses and downright criminal acts (Iran Contra-didn’t remember-SO FREAKING WHAT? HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/77 "2002-10-12T20:37:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*… > Actually, Reagan’s comment about trees emitting pollution was interesting … When he made that comment he was derided by the left for being ‘ignorant’, even though HE was the one who read the then-obscure scientific papers that were showing the relationships, … \*\* Or maybe a member of the White House Staff read it and briefed him on it. Ronald Reagan was a good actor who knew what the job of an actor is. That is to be a good “front man” for the producer, director and writers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/78 "2002-10-12T20:48:47Z")
No, **Guinn** , thats not quite fair. “Patsy”, “chump”, yes, in spades. Villain, no. The man _sincerely_ believed the lines he read, thats what an actor does. When he said that the Contras were the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers, he believed it. The Sandanistas were Commies, Commies were evil, case closed. There are many mysteries that would be resolved if Our Leader would release the documents from the Reagan era, as he is obliged by law to do. Apparently, he would rather nail his pecker to a tree than do so. It could be that the release of those papers would create such an avalanche of approval as to embarass the shy, self-deprecating Pubbies. I might also be Queen of Rumania. But, stall as he will, sooner or later, they will be released. And then, pals and gals, the trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan. Downtown, and Bigtime! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/79 "2002-10-12T21:11:10Z")
You know, if you want me to stop referring to you as ‘you liberals’, you might think of breaking out of the party line once in a while. Here we go again. I show how outrageous one of the charges against Reagan was, and the result of my effort is three people saying, “Okay, maybe they did get it right, but it couldn’t have been _Reagan_ - he was just an actor reading his lines.” There is NO proof of that. In fact, Reagan got in trouble from his staff for making the comment about trees, because HE read it and THEY didn’t. They thought he was crazy too. Did any of you spouting the ‘actor reading his lines’ nonsense actually read the interview I linked above? Did you read some of the material he wrote that’s in his library? Have you read his 1964 speech at the Republican National Convention, which launched him into the limelight with the power of its rhetoric - and of which he wrote every word himself? Do you remember the presidential debates he had against Carter and Mondale? He trounced both of them. Right from the day Reagan first started campaigning, the Democrats tried to stick the ‘doddering old actor’ label on him, and it never worked. Reagan defused it in the first debate by saying, “I refuse to make age a factor in this campaign by pointing out my opponent’s youth and inexperience”. My opinion is that Reagan got painted as ‘dumb’ partly because he’s Republican, but also for the same reason that GW Bush has been painted as ‘dumb’ - for plain speaking. Neither of them bought into the notion that politicians should speak in carefully measured phrases and sound bites. Reagan said what he thought, using plain language. That drives intellectuals nuts. Gore, on the other hand, is a master of political speak, and is therefore thought of as being really smart, despite the fact he’s at best a mediocre intellect. On about the same level as Bush. And Guin, you are hopelessly blindered when it comes to Central America. No, Reagan shouldn’t have traded arms for hostages. And he shouldn’t have tried an end-around the Congress by moving his funding for the Contras through the NSA, which wasn’t under Congressional control. But hell yes the U.S. should have funded the Contras. The Sandinistas were an evil bunch. They were involving themselves in left-wing guerrilla action throughout Central America, helping to destabilize the region. They were being propped up by the Soviets. They were a big problem to the security of the United States and other nations, much like the Cubans were at the time. The truth is, at the time there were no saints in Central America. The place was a hellhole of dictatorships and thugs (and still is, in many places). There were no honest-to-god good guys you could get behind and feel really comfortable with. The Contras were guilty of many of the same kinds of human rights abuses as were the Sandinistas. But hell, that was the nature of the cold war. When the Soviets started interfering in some area full of despots, the best you could do was try to align yourself behind another despot to try and stop them. It was an ugly, no-win situation. It annoys me no end that the struggle has been caricatured by people like you as being a struggle of poor, downtrodden, freeedom-loving people being smacked down by Ronnie Raygun. It just wasn’t so. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815/80 "2002-10-12T21:14:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Some courtesy, please. > > Ronald Reagan will always be a villain for his Central American politics. Yes, the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.” But so was the Apartheid regime, Pinochet’s reign, and the military thugs in El Salvador. OK - would you **please** provide a cite for your allegation that South Africa or Chile are in Central America? Then you can show how Apartheid or Pinochet were as great a threat to the US as the Soviet Union, and therefore worthy of equal attention by the President. Your mistake is to try to condemn Reagan for not being Carter. Jimmy was the one paralyzed by detail, and unable to find any US ally so simon-pure than he could stand to deal with it. Reagan is the one who knew what he wanted to achieve, and achieved it. Carter was weak. Thus Iran felt free to hold our citizens hostage for 444 days, and the USSR could invade Afghanistan and know that an Olympic boycott (one of the two highlights of an administration singularly free from them) was the worst they had to worry about from James Earl Carter. Reagan was the one who got the Afghanis the Stinger missiles that allowed them to shoot down the Soviet attack helicopters. By the bye, I imagine there was apartheid and human rights abuses during the Carter years as well. How come it isn’t his fault they weren’t stopped immediately? Why is only Reagan responsible? Perhaps it is because Reagan could get things done, and Carter couldn’t. And why is the Commander in Chief at fault for everything a subordinate does, except when a hostage rescue mission in Iran is botched? Carter was a ineffective bungler. Reagan was not. Carter has spent the years since the voters sent him packing doing charity work, and monitoring elections. Good for him. Whether he deserves a Peace Prize for it or not, his work still has value. But it certainly does nothing to change his reputation as a rather bad President. If that is the purpose of the Nobel committee, they should try something else. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-just-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/131815.md?page=5)