Well, gee, some of you guys are way upset about this. I don’t see any liklihood of Ronnie Retard winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but, hell, if Kissinger can get it, Hannibal Lecter can as well!
Is there a Miss Congeniality award? Does it come with a tiara?
Jimmy Carter did pretty good for a guy who gave away the Panama Canal, which the US taxpayer built and owned.
And which many Panamanians died to build, and which the US gained the property for practically nothing.
:rolleyes:
Give me a break. How can anyone take seriously the leader of a supposedly powerful nation named “Jimmy”?
I could see a President James, or maybe a common touch President Jim, but President “Jimmy”?
The Noble Prize commitee loves pathetic, weak Westerners who gush on about how much they love the masses in the Third World.
Wake up and smell the coffee! The third world will soon be dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, these people are far removed from touchy, feeling westerners like Jimmy Carter.
I wish Jimmy Carter and Bono would go on a tour of Somalia and get dragged through the streets of Mogadeeshu b Somali war lords.
Yeah, right, what we need is a real man, the kind of guy who calls his wife “Mommy”.
Perhaps I missed it, but I’m amazed that with all these posts explaining how bad a president Carter was, nobody seems to have mentionned his major diplomatic success at Camp-David.
And concerning the economy, I somewhat doubt, given the overall economical situation at this time, that anybody else could have done better…
I liked this quote, in light of current events:
“Isolation in the pursuit of security is no virtue.”
Preach it, Daddy Bush!
Well, no more far removed than they are from capitalist hegemons or nuke-wielding Cold Warriors, I guess. And I think there’s a far greater chance that the Third World, or the South, or the developing world or whatever you’d like to call it is/will be dominated by Christian fundamentalists than by Islamic fundamentalists. The Christians did a far better job with the colonizing and the missionary work.
Also, I was very happy to learn that Carter had won the peace prize.
I suppose the spookiest moment for me in his presidency was when he asked his daughter, Amy, what he should do about the threat of nookular wawar.
Which isn’t, of course, what really happened, but hey- it makes a good story- JDM
You’re right, that’s much different. From your link, he in fact asked his daughter, Amy, what the most important issue was. And she said the control of nookular ahms.
Thanks - is there anywhere where I can get the context in which he was speaking? Google only finds the same list of quotes over and over.
The reason I ask is the “Facts are stupid things” quote. Taken on its own, it seems pretty silly. The problem being that he was quoting Sherlock Holmes. The actual quote is “Facts are stupid things, unless fitted into some more general context.”
I have also heard it said that he was misquoted, or misspoke, and that the actual quote was “Facts are stubborn things.”
I am often suspicious of these kind of quotes, and have been ever since Dan Quayle was quoted as saying, “I love California. I grew up in Phoenix.” Also pretty silly.
The actual quote is “I love California. I grew up in Phoenix, and we used to visit here all the time.”
Rather different in context.
I don’t know that this is the case with the Reagan quote, but I suspect it is possible. There was an instance of this in his second debate with Mondale, in which Reagan said that planes and subs were better platforms for missile launches, because they could be recalled from their fail-safe points. The next day my local paper reported that Reagan had said that missiles could be recalled after launch.
Of course, all this would depend on what your definition of “is”, is.
Regards,
Shodan
jshore:
Sorry I’ve been away for awhile, but I don’t go online on weekends. I get enough computer time during the week.
Anyway, here’s a bunch of more specific quotes and anecdotes, outlining Carter’s cozying with assorted dictators, or just generally apologizing for their behavior:
Carter, in Cuba earlier this year:
“There are some in Cuba who think the simple answer is for the United States to lift the embargo, and there are some in my country who believe the answer is for your president to step down from power and allow free elections. There is no doubt that the question deserves a more comprehensive assessment.”
No, I’d say that allowing free elections would be a pretty good start.
Carter, same speech:
“I hope that Cuba and the United States can resolve the 40-year-old property disputes with some creativity. In many cases, we are debating ancient claims about decrepit sugar mills, an antique telephone company, and many other obsolete holdings. Most U.S. companies have already absorbed the losses, but some others want to be paid, and many Cubans who fled the revolution retain a sentimental attachment for their homes.”
Cubans have sentimental attachments to the homes that were stolen from them? Imagine that.
“My nation is hardly perfect in human rights. A very large number of our citizens are incarcerated in prison, and there is little doubt that the death penalty is imposed most harshly on those who are poor, black, or mentally ill. For more than a quarter century, we have struggled unsuccessfully to guarantee the basic right of universal health care for our people.”
This, speaking to the citizens of a brutal communist dictatorship. Our nation is imperfect because we put criminals in prison, and don’t give out free health care. Theirs simply puts people in prison (or tortures them) because of their political beliefs. Same difference, right? To me, this seems like telling a homeless person, “I, too, have experiences hardship. Just the other day I had to pass up a big-screen TV I really wanted…”
“Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education.”
…which is utter bull.
According to The Unfinished Presidency:
“There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat.” The former president “felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition with unremitting sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, decade after decade.”
“On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . .” Said Carter, “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies.”
Carter went on to suggest:
“A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples.”
Carter has described the “election” by which Arafat was “selected” as the leader of the PLO as “democratic,” “open,” “fair,” and “well organized”.
Regarding communist China, Carter has said:
"…ill-informed commentators in both countries have cast the other side as a villain and have even forecast inevitable confrontation between the two nations. Mutual criticisms are proper and necessary, but should not be offered in an arrogant or self-righteous way, and each of us should acknowledge improvements made by the other.”
Can we say “moral equivalence”, boys and girls? Communist China, where you can be imprisoned or executed for daring to commit such atrocities as being Christian, should criticize America’s human rights abuses, but should also recognize when we come around and fix our problems. Sorry, but the implications are sickening.
Regarding Kim Il Sung:
“I find him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country”
“I don’t see that [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”
Said of Nicaragua, when lobbying to have his Habitats for Humanity build there:
“We want the folks down there to know that some American Christians love them and that we don’t all hate them.”
I fully admit that Carter has done a lot of good. I don’t think he’s a bad person, and I believe his heart is usually in the right place (though he frequently comes across as self-righteous and arrogant, and is a bit too obviously in love with himself). Nevetheless, I think that some of the people and causes he chooses to support, and his selective identification of where evil lies (if you’re a communist dictator, you can probably rest assured that Jimmy will never level any serious criticism at you), makes me want to retch.
Jeff
Boy, Jeff, I am really, really confused. I mean, no offense, but I don’t think that you would make a very effective diplomat or peacemaker if you were unwilling to say anything but “our way of life is right and perfect and yours is wrong and that is just the way it is”!
You’re also very skilled at quoting out of context. Let’s take the Cuba speech since that was available to me online (and now to everyone else here, because informations is power: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/14/carter-text.htm )
Here are some bits that you chose not to quote, or expansions of bits that you chose to quote in order to give more context:
I’m sorry, Jeff, but all you are proving here is why Carter did win the peace prize. Here he is on Cuban state TV and radio, which I presume usually airs only pro-government propaganda, and he is telling Cubans exactly what we find so objectionable about their current government! (And, even mentioning the Varela Project, a dissident group…Boy,that must have made Castro really happy!)
Yes, he is also saying what they have done right and what we have done wrong…And, well he should. I doubt you would appreciate it…and be very receptive to their message… if someone came up to you and was all holier-than-thou, saying “I’m perfect and you are all wrong and have to change everything to be just like me.” Of course, this is particularly sensitive in the case of Cuba where the U.S. has a history of medaling in Cuban affairs in ways that were not beneficial to most of the Cuban people.
You might try reading up on some Cuban history…History going back to before Castro took power in Cuba. It might help to explain to you why many Cubans might believe that that property that was “stolen” from U.S. companies and some of the wealthiest (and best-connected) Cubans was “stolen” from the Cuban people in the first place. (And, if you don’t believe that Cuba has made real strides in literacy and health care, you might try looking at statistics of that over the past 50 or so years.)
What you seem annoyed about is that Carter is not a black-and-white absolutist. He can actually see weaknesses in our own selves and strengths in other people or philosophies or policies. That sort of less-than-total moral absolutism (it certainly is not moral relativism) seems to drive you crazy. IMHO, that reflects much worse on you than it does on him
It wouldn’t be saying that they’re all wrong. It’s not like they have much of a choice here - Castro is a dictator. And frankly, I don’t see how the US being not perfect (though honestly - and maybe you can help me out here - I can’t think of a single area in which Cuba is superior to the US, from a human rights point of view) has any relevance to the fact that Castro is an evil, vicious dictator who needs to be deposed and replaced by a democratic leadership.
But that’s fine, let’s pretend that I concede this point. How about the other examples I posted? Can you explain away every example of communist apologism and terrorist-ass-kissing that I listed?
Jeff
Incidentally, I know this will probably make you cringe, but I’m going to invoke Reagan here. He didn’t say, “You know, both the US and Russia have a long way to go in civil rights, and we should acknowledge each others’ achievments, even as we criticize our faults.” He said, unequivocably, “Hey, Russia, you’re evil!” As a result, he clarified the moral scene, and established that we were the good guys, and Russia was the bad. He created diplomatic pressure on them, he mustered support for our containment policies, he rallied the Russian people, and the Evil Empire fell. Sometimes it’s nice to be a mushy diplomat, but sometimes it’s necessary to call a spade a spade. The only time Carter is willing to tell someone that they’re utterly, undebateably wrong is when that person is a Republican president of the US. I guess it’s understandable, given that GWB and Reagan are clearly more evil than such teddy bears as Castro, Arafat, Ortega, and the like.
Jeff
Lastly, pointing out weakness in yourself or strength in others is not in and of itself a good thing. Do you really want to hear someone say, “Yeah, this guy murdered five people and made a pillow out of their spleens, but he’s a really good flutist”? Conversely, do you want a football coach to give a pep-talk that consists of, “Well, our running game is really weak, and frankly, a few of you just plain suck. But, even in spite of our blatant inequities, we’re gonna go out there and hopefully we won’t stink too badly! Whoooooo!” Acknowledging strengths and weaknesses is a good thing, but you need to recognize when is the appropriate time to go vocalize these things. Sometimes, you need to take a stand, and say, “This is bad, period, end of story.” Perpetual waffling, and an inability to be frank about what is acceptable and what is not, is not a sign of wisdom and maturity. It’s a sign of complacence and moral weakness. It’s not admirable, it’s pathetic.
A really, really weird thing about the Carter/Reagan debates in 1979 or so… The topic went on about National Security and Jimmy started talking about the CIA and NSA and the power went out for about 30 minutes. Anybody remember that? Weird that power would go out at that exact time.
Carter was a victim of the oil lobby because of his approach to the OPEC organization. He believed the ‘local’ countries should benefit from their oil and not be taken by the multinational oil companies. They did him in with artificial shortages. Kind of like the 2001 California energy rip-off. Plenty of books on the subject, Seven Sisters comes to mind.
-Everbody
El Jeffe:
Bullshit, with a capital B.
It takes courage and moral strength to stand up and admit that you (or, in this case, the system you represent) are not perfect.
It takes moral strength to see both sides of an issue.
To point your finger at another and claim that they are wrong, or bad, while at the same time blithely pursuing policies that are as bad, or worse, does not require courage: it is the act of a coward, and a hypocrite.
It is quite simple. One cannot take the “moral high ground” unless one acts in a morally defensible manner. Reagan and his cronies never managed to pull that off, and that’s why I dispise them, and have no respect for them. Nor for those who defend them.
And, as usual, your idiotic reduction of these issues to some kind of “everyday” analogy is totally fucking irrelevant, and merely serves as smokescreen. It is a truly pathetic exercise in rationalization.
I take back all the nice things I wrote about you in our previous thread. I’m sorry I wasted my time debating you.
Senor Svinlesha:
I prepared a nice, sarcasm-laden response to your unprokoked blast of ire, but I’m going to engage you on a more intellectual level, instead - take the moral high ground, so to speak.
Very true. But in the case of Carter, or Reagan for that matter, I don’t think that we’re pursuing policies that are even in the same league as those we condemn. Even the most liberal of people could say what about us? We don’t provide free health care to everyone? Minimum wage is too low? Rich people don’t pay enough taxes? We shouldn’t attack the violent and insane despot across the ocean without UN permission? Okay, pretend I agree with all those points. How does that even begin to compare with the atrocities commited by Castro? This is a man who kills those who displease him. Who runs his economy into the ground, guaranteeing poverty for the masses, in order to maintain his dictatorship. People are fleeing the country, for god’s sakes. What about China, where being a Christian without government authority can get you jailed or killed? Or Arafat, who organizes and encourages his people to kill innocent children? How can you possibly equate what our nation does to its people with what these thugs do to theirs?
Yeah, “remove the stick from thine eye” and all, but the second you start to talk about how “we’re not perfect, but…” in the context of the types of atrocities Castro, et al, commits, you establish an implication of moral equivalence. It’s one thing when we talk about isolationist trade policies, or something similar. Yeah, we have our share of issues there, and we’re not one to judge. High crime rates? Got us. But when it comes to low-grade genocide, there’s no “mutual criticism” necessary. What they’re doing is bad, period. Adding qualifiers diminishes the implications of the actions you’re trying to condemn. Trying to make the US sound anything other than an order of magnitude better than these places is absolutely, unequivocably repugnant.
Now I’m really sorry that you “take back all the nice things” you said about me, though I certainly won’t be losing sleep over it. Frankly, I still think that you’re capable of a good debate when you put your mind to it. If you want to engage me in further discussion, feel free, but please lose the invective.
Jeff