Sorry, that should be “could be argued,” not good be argued.
Also, you have to love a guy who shows up to get his Nobel Prize with Willie Nelson!
Did anyone expect Carter to advocate War after recieving the Nobel PEACE Prize? As stated many times on the past three pages, Carter has continued to be involved with foreign issues as well as domestic since leaving the White House over twenty years ago. Wether you agree with what he has done is beside the point. Carter could have taken the easy way out and slipped into oblivion instead of continuing to act on his beliefs.
Given the fact he has decided to act on his beliefs, I feel Carter should not have to worry about the “Former President’s Protocol” (not that he is worried) because he is still actively involved in trying to resolve world issues. If he was not involved then perhaps his comments could have been seen as an attack on the current administation instead of a stance on his well documented beliefs and actions.
Had Carter simply said “No comment” would anyone think he thought we should attack Iraq regardless of what the UN says?
December, I’ve reread this morning, and I’m no more enlightened than last night. My folluwup got lost in the noise, so I’ll repost.
You said:
When did Carter say this? And what, precisely, did he say? 'Cos I sure don’t see anything like that quoted in the CNN article.
From the CNN article:
OTOH it’s Bush’s stated position that the US reserves the right to go to war with Iraq regardless of the judgment made by the UNSC.
IMHO Bush’s position rightly pressures the UN to fairly evaluate all the evidence of Iraqi WMDs. I think there are UNSC members who are apt to use the slightest possible ambiguity or uncertainty to judge any Iraqi non-compliance inadequate reason to go to war. I am thinking of countries like France, who, I believe, would rather let Saddam develop nukes than have a war.
If the U.N. finds no evidence of WMD in Iraq, then if and when Bush manages to unearth contrary evidence, he might be able to cobble together some kind of justification for war.
I think the above scenario is highly unlikely, though.
But why should Carter be barred, formally or informally, from giving his opinion on the matter, especially given that he is one of the better situated people in the world to understand all factors in operation? I think we need all the informed opinions we can get in this circumstance. And if you think the U.N. is turning a blind eye to violations of S.C. resolutions, then that’s a matter to take up with the U.N., not something to be resolved by a war (one which will create at least as many probelms as it has any chance of resolving, IMO).
Because his public comment tends to undermine the country’s position. If he has advice, he ought to give it to the President privately.
As to Carter being well-situated to give advice, I disagree. He has no more access to confidential intelligence reports than you or I. He’s been out of office for 22 years. Furthermore, Carter’s record of failures on foreign affairs doesn’t inspire confidence in his foreign policy judgment. I like him a lot better when he sticks to moral issues (although IIRC he was AWOL on the Lewinsky scandal.)
You have a consistent position, Eva, since you think war will do more harm than good. However, I think it could be a disaster for the world if Saddam got a nuclear arsenal. IMHO war is unfortunately necessary. I would prefer to go to war as a part of the UN, but IMHO the worst of all worlds is to let Saddam develop nukes.
december, do you consider the Israel-Egypt peace treaty a failure? If not, why do refuse to give Carter any credit for it?
Take those foolish-looking blinkers off. You’re being laughed at again.
Yes, I do consider it a success, and I give Carter credit for facilitating it. Note that this treaty did a lot more good for Israel and for Egypt than for us. The US is bearing an ongoing cost of billions of dollars a year in aid to these two countries. In effect, we more-or-less bribed them to make peace. However, peace at the cost of bribery is better than war, so I count this as a Carter success.
However, this one success doesn’t outweigh a string of foreign affairs failure IMHO. YMMV.
I wanted to hear your entire beef with Jimmy. But if you aren’t exercised enough by the subject to be able to snap off a list of his outrages when someone asks, then you must not really care that much, and the OP becomes even lamer in retrospect.
Well, their proper employment by certain people several decades ago might have forestalled this exchange! 
Yes, and I agree with it.
However, there is a very clear distinction between the right and duty of every American citizen, including in particular ex-Presidents who must be presumed to be aware of the problems and concerns confronting the incumbent, to speak out on issues affecting the national security and the national interest – and in particular the complexus of ideas that goes to make up the concept “America” to which one’s patriotism is directed, on the one hand, and petty partisan sniping on the other. And if, as Ender points out, the ex-President in question is working for international peace as a volunteer, it becomes an important part of what he does to speak out on subjects directly affecting the above.
As for respect for the office, Miller makes an excellent point – what LBJ and Nixon did made the traditional respect for the office of the Presidency tawdry in the eyes of most people thereafter – and the blatant partisan actions of the Congressional leaders against the Presidency (because they disliked the incumbent and his policies) in the later Nineties served to further erode away any respect still accruing. In short, Republicans who complain about disrespect for the office of the President strongly resemble the man who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he was an orphan. :mad:
And you compound the error by once again giving someone else’s opinion instead of your own. :rolleyes:
And you don’t remember who the columnist was, I suppose? You just absorbed his opinion as your own without really thinking about it, “Carter is a pushy interfering dumbass who is responsible for North Korea’s getting nukes…”
Why do I bother?
You never did give me that list of UN Palestinian resolutions, either.
Making ex-Presidential remarks about the current Administration’s foreign policy is by no means unique to Carter; in fact, the Carter comment that the OP is so annoyed about looks like a model of restraint compared to what some other ex-Presidents have said. Consider, for example, ex-President Richard Nixon’s criticism of Bush I’s stance on Russia:
From The New Republic :
http://www.tnr.com/express/wilentz080201.html
The article makes reference to a Washington Post piece criticizing Carter’s ‘breach of tradition’ that I was unable to locate.
From Hannity & Colmes :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65968,00.html
From the National Jewish Democratic Council
http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=153&subcat=3
I also came across numerous posts by individuals making reference to the tradition. Of the above cites, the most informed (in terms of historical references) is the The New Republic piece, but I personally doubt, that given the widespread perception that there is such a tradition, that it is just a “phony custom” invented by Carter’s critics. Perhaps it was just inspired by Bush I’s obvious belief that that was the way ex-Presidents should act?
So your OP complains that Carter is not heeding the time-honored tradition of ex-presidents abstaining from criticizing sitting ones, and now you’re chiding him for not speaking out against Clinton. Brilliant as always, my good man.
By the way december, I’m selling terrorist insurance if you’re interested. Buy now and you’ll get Frank Sinatra’s Greatest Hits and a family pack of tinfoil hats in fall fashion colors.
Are you John Ashecroft?
Carter said he “sees no reason for armed conflict” if Saddam is found in compliance. And that’s all he said.
I’m sorry, but I cannot see any criticism, explicit or implicit, of the Bush administration’s policies there. There’s not even a disagreement.
I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here, december, and I think you’re doing it simply because you dislike Mr. Carter.
:rolleyes:
Carter’s remarks have as much weight as the remarks given to Saddam by April Glaspie who spoke for the President? Please!
I’m reminded of the common refrain from the smugger conservatives that liberals’ (or Democrats’, not a synonym but they mean it as one) hearts are in the right places but they’re hopelessly impractical (a statement that rationalizes not even trying to make the world a better place). It must follow that a policy or initiative by a liberal must be a failure. Carter was a Democrat, therefore he must have failed. Isn’t that really it, december?
Now then - you’ve admitted, under some duress and only partially but you did it, that his efforts in bringing peace and stability to part of the Middle East were, in fact, a substantial success. Now the the subject is bringing peace and stability in another part of the Middle East, aren’t Carter’s views on the subject more weighty than almost anyone else’s, even your revered partisan RW commentators’? Isn’t Carter about the last person in the world who ought to be asked to keep quiet about it?
So “politics stops at the water’s edge”, does it? Is that what is now being said by the Republican pols and commentators who said Clinton was “wagging the dog” in Afghanistan and Sudan, or should have pulled out of Somalia? Y’all can go screw now, ya heah?
Can we all close our eyes and try to imagine this scenario:
The incumbent president is pursuing a soft line of appeasement of muslim terrorists and violent arab regimes, and has pulled the aid rug from under Israel. Carter comes out and says that he thinks this is a bad idea.
December starts a thread saying that it is inappropriate for ex-presidents to criticise the incumbent president’s foreign policy.
Pffffff.
I’d like to see that thread, Princhester, but I’m afraid that if I tried, I’d be struck and killed on the way here by one of the tractor-trailers laden with ice skates heading down the Road Paved with Good Intentions.