DEFINITIVE PROOF

[Guest MikeSC]

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticised George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgement to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

 

In an interview with The Independent on the first anniversary of the American and British invasion of Iraq, Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, said the two leaders probably knew that many of the claims being made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were based on imperfect intelligence.

 

He said: "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

 

Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "Pax Americana". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.

 

His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Centre in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

 

Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signalled their desire to remove Saddam by force. Once a decision had been taken to go to war, every effort was made to find a reason for doing do, he said.

 

"I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington. I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq. I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgement of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy".

 

Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qai'da before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

 

With an eye to November's presidential elections, Mr Bush sought on Friday to use the anniversary of the Iraq invasion to say that differences between the US and opponents of the war belonged "to the past".

 

Speaking at the White House, he told about 80 foreign ambassadors: "There is no neutral ground in the fight between civilisation and terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."

 

But in the US and Britain, and elsewhere, there is growing anger among people who believe the war in Iraq was at best a deadly distraction and at worst an impediment to the war against al-Qa'ida - diverting resources and energy from countering those groups responsible for attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid.

 

Over the weekend millions of anti-war protesters poured on to the streets of cities around the world to call for the withdrawal of US-led troops from Iraq. It was estimated that in Rome - which saw the biggest crowds - up to one million turned out.

 

Mr Carter, 79, has recently published a novel. The Hornet's Nest is centred on America's revolutionary war against the British. That period had many lessons for the present day, Mr Carter said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/stor...&host=3&dir=508

Yup. Jimmy Carter opposes it.

 

Is there a more clear-cut example of proof that the war was right now? Anything that that blithering sycophant for thugs (Daniel Ortega) and terrorists (Arafat) opposes can't be that bad.

 

Should we mention to him that the official US policy towards Iraq WAS for regime change --- and it was initiated by Bill Clinton?

 

Nah, he hasn't been right on much of anything in his life --- would hate to see him try and start now.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

That's a perfectly logical reason!

 

"It was right! because people I don't like don't like it!"

 

[Guest MikeSC]

That's a perfectly logical reason!

 

"It was right! because people I don't like don't like it!"

 

Not just people I don't like.

 

Jimmy Carter!

 

The very ESSENCE on ineptitude in office. The PERSONIFICATION of "Who the hell did we vote for?".

 

Anything he likes can't be good.

 

Remember, he thinks Israel is a bigger problem in the world than Arafat. And he (like so many Dems) were less than happy when Nicaragua voted Ortega out of office in support of the Contras.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Anything he likes can't be good.

 

Being a bit simplistic there, aren't we?

 

Unless you wanna expand on "Habitat for Humanity is bad".

 

he thinks Israel is a bigger problem in the world than Arafat.

 

Cite please??

 

And he (like so many Dems) were less than happy when Nicaragua voted Ortega out of office in support of the Contras.

 

Cite?

[NoCalMike 0]

fluff, anyone?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He's being smarmy, let him be.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I never did trust Habitat for Humanity.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hey guys, George H.W. Bush left Saddam in power, what a horrible President.

 

Oh wait...

[Guest hunger4unger]

Mike isn't being serious..is he?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

TYLER: Nice Avatar, Mr. Bandwagon jumper. When you support someone via Avatar they're bound to lose *coughNoonrecallyesonBustawhateverhisnameiscough*.

 

Oh, and when I did my community service for Habitat for Humanity and the only people there were stupid college chicks patting each other on the back saying how wonderful they are for doing this. Four of them couldn't get a plank of wood out of the storage unit. I was the only one that did any work...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Why did you have to do community service?

[Guest MikeSC]

he thinks Israel is a bigger problem in the world than Arafat.

 

Cite please??

Sure.

New York, NY, December 2, 2003 …The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today criticized former United States President Jimmy Carter for distorting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by placing excessive blame on Israel, at the signing of the so-called Geneva Accord.  President Carter blamed President Bush for favoring Israel and allowing "Palestinians to suffer," saying "this is a source of anti-American sentiment in the world and encourages terror." 

 

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

 

Too often, President Carter focuses on Israel in pressing for concessions or assigning blame.  Jimmy Carter, who brought the first spark of peace to the Middle East, should know better than most the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and negotiations.  His comments in Geneva, including his seeming to equate Israeli settlements with Palestinian terrorism, are troubling and not helpful to the effort to advance real peace with security and a better quality of life for both Israelis and Palestinians.

 

President Carter's comments accusing President Bush of "bias" in Israel's favor further politicize events surrounding the so-called Geneva Accord.  Is it "bias" that President Bush insists that in order to attain a state, the Palestinians must reform and democratize their government, must dismantle terrorist group, and put an end to hatred in schools and media? 

 

President Carter's comments also serve to underscore our concerns about the highly political nature of the Geneva Accord, whose authors are avidly seeking the involvement and encouragement of international figures, circumventing and undermining the democratically elected government of Israel. 

 

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4418_62.htm

AND:

Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster

Christopher Ruddy

Monday, May 13, 2002

Jimmy Carter is off this week to save Cuba.

 

With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out.

 

It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.

 

Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

 

Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.

 

The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.

 

North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense?

 

Of course not.

 

But that's Jimmy Carter for you.

 

It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide.

 

Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet.

 

The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time.

 

Does Carter have much to say about this?

 

Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him – he kissed him!

 

But there is nothing new here.

 

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record.

 

But I won't.

 

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

 

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

 

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

 

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

 

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

 

I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

 

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

 

And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the "axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.

 

We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this.

 

Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S.

 

Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings.

 

Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq?

 

Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax's Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money. (See: Carter's Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance.)

 

So I give Carter his due. At least he is not a hypocrite in one sense. He is good to the dictators and butchers who give him money.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...12/164726.shtml

And he (like so many Dems) were less than happy when Nicaragua voted Ortega out of office in support of the Contras.

 

Cite?

Well...

His record as President illustrates the folly of pursuing a policy of understanding in a world replete with dictators and despots. He lectured Americans on the foolishness of their "fear of communism"............ and the Soviets responded by invading Afghanistan. He tried to appease the mullahs in Iran, and they responded by holding dozens of Americans hostage, releasing them the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

 

In his book, Carter proudly recalls how he formulated policy by sitting in the Oval Office studying "a big globe," endeavoring to see the world "through Soviet eyes". There, across the ocean, was the "beleaguered" Leonid Brezhnev, trapped "in a closed society, surrounded by frozen seas, powerfully armed enemies, and doubtful allies." A primary Carter consideration when negotiating with the Soviet dictator was trying (as he puts it) "to alleviate (Brezhnev's) concerns." Saddam Hussein and every other tyrant of the 20th century would have been thrilled had a U.S. President shown such an "understanding."

 

In one session, where Carter questioned the Soviets' record on human rights, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko turned the tables and delivered a lecture on the Soviet Union's free medical care, zero unemployment and absence of homelessness. "I couldn't argue," Mr. Carter admits. "We each had a definition of human rights and differences like this must be recognized and understood." Really? Ever read The Gulag Archipelago?

 

Carter was fully aware that human-rights abuses were more prevalent in the Soviet bloc than in authoritarian third-world countries. But he avoided criticism of Communist abuses because he was afraid of offending the Kremlin. As he wrote in his personal diary: "It's important that he [brezhnev] understand the commitment I have is to human rights.......and that it is not an antagonistic attitude of mine toward the Soviet Union." What Carter failed to see - and perhaps still has not recognized - is that it was the very nature of the Soviet dictatorship that was the problem. If America is committed to human rights, then its policies should reflect antagonism towards those dictatorships that abuse them to remain in power.

 

Carter's reputation was that of melting in the presence of Communist dictators. As the "human rights president," Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was "a man who believed in human rights." Carter saluted the dictator as "a great and courageous leader" who had led his people and protected their freedom." He reserved similar remarks for Romania's (now deposed Communist) dictator Nicholai Ceaucescu.

 

In December 1977, Polish Communist boss Edward Giereck was ushered into the Oval Office. According to the White House transcript of the meeting, he told Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved (ie: safe) in Poland. Carter actually "expressed appreciation for Poland's support for the Helsinki Agreement and its commitment to human rights." He offered no criticism of the Polish Communist government's human-rights record - despite the fact that, one month earlier, the Polish secret police had attacked thousands of workers protesting food price increases. Four people were killed in the melee; hundreds of others were arrested and savagely beaten in prison.

 

It gets worse. As Jay Nordlinger notes in the National Review Online (October, 2002), "Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the original Camp David accords. That reputation, however, rests on shaky grounds." Nordlinger points out that Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Washington. Why did they contact the White House? Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton University put it succinctly: “Well, obviously, they needed someone to pay the bill, and who but the United States could fulfill that function?”

 

No one quite realizes just how passionately anti-Israel Carter was. William Safire has reported that Cyrus Vance acknowledged that, if Carter had had a second term, he would have "sold Israel down the river." In fact, in The Unfinished Presidency, Douglas Brinkley, Carter's biographer and analyst writes, “There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yassir 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.” The brutality, the corruption and the human rights abuses to which Arafat and his PLO subjected the Palestinian people were, at best peripheral, and at worst, the fault of the Israelis.

 

At their first meeting - in 1990 - Carter boasted of his toughness toward Israel, assuring Arafat at one point, “. . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis.” Arafat, for his part, railed against the Reagan administration. Rosalynn Carter, taking notes for her husband, interjected, “You don’t have to convince us!” Brinkley records that this “elicited gales of laughter all round.” Carter himself, according to Brinkley, “agreed that the Reagan administration was not renowned as promise keepers." Interesting comment, especially to Yassir Arafat.

 

According to Peter Schweizer in the October issue of the National Review, there is also irony in the Nobel Committee's championing Carter for his commitment to democratic principles. While the ex-president has laudably worked for free and open elections in the developing world, he has also sought foreign influence in American elections to defeat his political enemies.

 

On repeated occasions during his Presidency, according to numerous Soviet accounts, Carter encouraged Moscow to influence American politics for his benefit or for the detriment of his enemies. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs how, in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet embassy. Explaining to the Soviet Ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan, Hammer asked for help: Could the Kremlin expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls? "Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.

 

According to Georgii Kornienko, first deputy foreign minister at the time, something similar took place in 1976, when Carter sent Averell Harriman to Moscow. Harriman sought to assure the Soviets that Carter would be "easier to deal with" than Ford, clearly inviting Moscow to do what it could through public diplomacy to help his campaign.

 

Even when he was out of office, Carter still tried bitterly to encourage Moscow to do damage to his enemies during an election. As Dobrynin recounts, in January 1984, the former president dropped by his residence for a private meeting. Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and went on to explain that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

 

Is it any wonder that this man's presidency ended in a spectacular foreign policy fiasco?

 

Which brings us to Carter's life after his Presidency.

 

Jonah Goldberg, in his May, 2002 article in the National Review, notes that while the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council - including Mitterrand’s France and Communist China - asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.

 

He told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras, he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country." Carter himself has conducted talks with men like Syria's Hafez al-Assad, and North Korea's Kim II Sung both of whom, he writes, "have at times been misunderstood, ridiculed, and totally condemned by the American public." Part of the reason is "their names are foreign, not Anglo-Saxon," he observes.

 

He endorsed Yasser Arafat's sham election and grumbled about the legitimate vote that ousted Sandinista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Unbelievably, Carter even volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer, crafting palatable messages for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the United States.

 

Bet you haven't read that anywhere.

 

As we see from Living Faith, Carter has consistently conducted a sustained public-relations campaign to repair his tattered reputation. One component has entailed the public performance of true charitable works through Habitat for Humanity - reporters and TV cameras in tow - building homes for the poor and the oppressed, in the American barrios and also in communist Nicaragua, with Sandinista leaders by his side.

 

A more significant part of his PR campaign has revolved around the Carter Center, set up to promote international understanding. Arabs are heavy-duty funders of the Carter Center, and they get a lot for their money. The philosophy of the Center, according to Carter himself is to "encourage the use of dialogue to resolve disputes - which runs against the American grain......We tend to see conflicts in terms of friend-enemy, angel-devil, and this is one of the major impediments to world peace."

 

So what conclusions are we to draw?

 

Sometimes it is necessary to fight a war in order to win peace. But this was never part of the Carter Plan. "Build bridges of understanding" with the communist dictators of yesterday or the Saddam Husseins of today only makes a mockery of the American democratic system and threatens the civilized world. Evil exists. Reagan recognized it; and now Bush II recognizes it. To negotiate with Evil is a mistake under any circumstances.

 

How a great country came to be led by someone like Jimmy Carter is a historical puzzle that is likely to remain unsolved. One thing is certain - the Nobel Peace Prize Committee disgraced itself when it rewarded Jimmy Carter for his misplaced moral righteousness while its chairman denounced the President of the United States for taking a stand that will actually promote a more peaceful world.

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/jimmycarter.html

There's this...

Jimmy Carter's reputation has soared lately.

 

Typical of the media spin was a Sept. 20 report on CBS Evening News, lauding Carter's "remarkable resurgence" as a freelance diplomat. The network reported that "nobody doubts his credibility, or his contacts."

 

For Jimmy Carter, the pact he negotiated in Haiti is the latest achievement of his long career on the global stage.

 

During his presidency, Carter proclaimed human rights to be "the soul of our foreign policy." Although many journalists promoted that image, the reality was quite different.

 

Inaugurated 13 months after Indonesia's December 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter stepped up U.S. military aid to the Jakarta regime as it continued to murder Timorese civilians. By the time Carter left office, about 200,000 people had been slaughtered.

 

Elsewhere, despotic allies -- from Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines to the Shah of Iran -- received support from President Carter.

 

In El Salvador, the Carter administration provided key military aid to a brutal regime. In Nicaragua, contrary to myth, Carter backed dictator Anastasio Somoza almost until the end of his reign. In Guatemala -- again contrary to enduring myth -- major U.S. military shipments to bloody tyrants never ended.

 

After moving out of the White House in early 1981, Carter developed a reputation as an ex-president with a conscience. He set about building homes for the poor. And when he traveled to hot spots abroad, news media often depicted Carter as a skillful negotiator on behalf of human rights.

 

But a decade after Carter left the Oval Office, scholar James Petras assessed the ex-president's actions overseas -- and found that Carter's image as "a peace mediator, impartial electoral observer and promoter of democratic values...clashes with the experiences of several democratic Third World leaders struggling against dictatorships and pro-U.S. clients."

 

From Latin America to East Africa, Petras wrote, Carter functioned as "a hard-nosed defender of repressive state apparatuses, a willing consort to electoral frauds, an accomplice to U.S. Embassy efforts to abort popular democratic outcomes and a one-sided mediator."

 

Observing the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic, Carter ignored fraud that resulted in the paper-thin victory margin of incumbent president Joaquin Balaguer. Announcing that Balaguer's bogus win was valid, Carter used his prestige to give international legitimacy to the stolen election -- and set the stage for a rerun this past spring, when Balaguer again used fraud to win re-election.

 

In December 1990, Carter traveled to Haiti, where he labored to undercut Jean-Bertrand Aristide during the final days of the presidential race. According to a top Aristide aide, Carter predicted that Aristide would lose, and urged him to concede defeat. (He ended up winning 67 percent of the vote.)

 

Since then, Carter has developed a warm regard for Haiti's bloodthirsty armed forces. Returning from his recent mission to Port-au-Prince, Carter actually expressed doubt that the Haitian military was guilty of human rights violations.

 

Significantly, Carter's involvement in the mid-September negotiations came at the urging of Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras -- who phoned Carter only days before the expected U.S. invasion and asked him to play a mediator role. (Cedras had floated the idea in an Aug. 6 appearance on CNN.)

 

Carter needed no encouragement. All summer he had been urging the White House to let him be a mediator in dealings with Haiti.

 

Carter's regard for Cedras matches his evident affection for Cedras' wife. On Sept. 20, Carter told a New York Times interviewer: "Mrs. Cedras was impressive, powerful and forceful. And attractive. She was slim and very attractive."

 

By then, Carter was back home in Georgia. And U.S. troops in Haiti were standing by -- under the terms of the Carter-negotiated agreement -- as Haiti's police viciously attacked Haitians in the streets.

 

The day after American forces arrived in Haiti, President Clinton was upbeat, saying that "our troops are working with full cooperation with the Haitian military" -- the same military he had described five days earlier as "armed thugs" who have "conducted a reign of terror, executing children, raping women, killing priests."

 

The latest developments in Haiti haven't surprised Petras, an author and sociology professor at Binghamton University in New York. "Every time Carter intervenes, the outcomes are always heavily skewed against political forces that want change," Petras said when we reached him on Sept. 20. "In each case, he had a political agenda -- to support very conservative solutions that were compatible with elite interests."

 

Petras described Carter as routinely engaging in "a double discourse. One discourse is for the public, which is his moral politics, and the other is the second track that he operates on, which is a very cynical realpolitik that plays ball with very right-wing politicians and economic forces."

 

And now, Petras concludes, "In Haiti, Carter has used that moral image again to impose one of the worst settlements imaginable."

 

With much of Haiti's murderous power structure remaining in place, the results are likely to be grim.

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940921.html

And...

Although Roh Moo-hyun was only sworn in as South Korean president in late February, the Korean media has already begun favorably comparing him to Abraham Lincoln, one of America’s greatest presidents. Much has been made of Roh’s alleged Lincolnesque humility, sense of humor, and forthrightness. Roh himself has professed his admiration for Lincoln and spoken of parallels between the 19th century politician’s life and his own.

 

A more realistic comparison, however, might be to Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia who stunned the world by becoming America’s 39th president in 1976. Both Carter and Roh grew up in rural poverty and fashioned themselves into self-made men by dint of hard work. Both political figures also rose to prominence as “outsiders” pledging to clean up politics and make government more accountable to the people.

 

Carter began his tenure with high moral aspirations and a pledge to regard other nations’ human rights records as an integral factor in America’s international dealings. On the domestic front, he hoped to tear down racial, regional and religious barriers. Roh, a former human rights lawyer and pro-democracy activist, similarly began his presidency vowing to champion the causes of the poor, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised.

 

Unfortunately while Carter was immensely popular when he was elected, his approval rating when he left office was one of the lowest recorded among U.S. presidents. As a man, Carter was highly moral and well-intentioned, but at the helm of the White House he was a dismal failure. When Americans think of the Carter years, images of skyrocketing inflation and rampant unemployment come to mind. Americans recall as well how Carter sapped the public’s will to go on with his infamous “malaise speech” in 1979.

 

Carter’s foreign policy was another disaster of epic proportions. Carter may have given lip service to high sounding principles, but he proved woefully ineffectual in office. In his memoirs, for example, he agonized over “antagonizing” the former U.S.S.R. and putting the Kremlin “in an awkward position.” Carter’s feebleness only emboldened the Soviets, encouraging them to invade Afghanistan, the long-term result of which was an Islamic fundamentalist government hostile to U.S. interests.

 

Meanwhile, Carter coddled a Marxist government in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega, switched loyalties from Taiwan to Red China, and allowed the Shah of Iran to fall to Ayatollah Khemeni and his Islamic fundamentalist supporters. Carter thought he was making sound ethical choices with such initiatives, but he only succeeded in making the world a more dangerous, oppressive and unstable place.

 

Roh Moo-hyun’s presidency is still in its infancy, but certain patterns are emerging that are strikingly reminiscent of the Carter administration. On the question of human rights, Roh recently promised to loosen restrictions on the radical organization Hanchongryun, known for its pro-North Korea sympathies and fierce anti-American rhetoric. Interestingly, however, Roh has had precious little to say about Kim Jong Il’s oppression of his people and the severe human rights violations in North Korea. Roh has instead stressed how important it is not to antagonize or provoke Pyongyang.

 

While pandering to North Korea and radical NGOs in South Korea, Roh in Carter-like fashion has chosen to demonize or at least offer lukewarm support to his country’s most steadfast ally, the U.S. Most observers agree that the Korean President rode a wave of anti-Americanism to office. When protesters by the thousands tore giant American flags and some Koreans even attacked American soldiers, Roh was conspicuously silent. When Washington recently requested assistance in the war in Iraq, Roh admitted to suffering “great anguish” in reaching his decision to send 700 Korean troops because the war was “unjustified.”

 

Roh currently faces a major economic crisis on the scale of his political twin Carter. Business performance is declining, consumer prices are soaring, and consumer confidence is down. In the wake of massive anti-American street demonstrations in Seoul and North Korea’s continued saber rattling, foreign direct investment in the past three months has plummeted 50 percent, while U.S. investment has plunged a staggering 70 percent. Conditions appear worse than the economic crisis of 1997, with economists forecasting stagflation, low economic growth and high inflation over the next few months.

 

The lesson the world learned from Jimmy Carter is that no matter how morally upright a president may be, the world is a complex place that cannot be controlled by good intentions alone. Moreover, a president who aims to please everyone will end up pleasing no one and can set an entire nation dangerously adrift. The most effective leaders, we can conclude, are pragmatic realists, not moral idealists. It is to be hoped that Roh changes his ways early. If he does not, he may very well go down in history as the Jimmy Carter of Asia.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/109

 

Do you want me to continue? This isn't terribly difficult.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why did you have to do community service?

Uh, because I'm a nice person. Is that so freaking hard to believe?

 

Actually, I had to perform community service in high school as a bullshit graduation requirement. My HFH excursion wasn't for that though -- I pulled weeds for some church for six hours in order to graduate Hampton High School.

 

I did HFH because some chick running some outreach program at my college told me it would be fun -- lying bitch...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

TYLER: Nice Avatar, Mr. Bandwagon jumper. When you support someone via Avatar they're bound to lose *coughNoonrecallyesonBustawhateverhisnameiscough*.

 

I GO TO THE FREAKING SCHOOL!

 

I'm allowed to flaunt it!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

TYLER: Nice Avatar, Mr. Bandwagon jumper. When you support someone via Avatar they're bound to lose *coughNoonrecallyesonBustawhateverhisnameiscough*.

 

I GO TO THE FREAKING SCHOOL!

 

I'm allowed to flaunt it!

Interesting how you weren't pimping them until they made it to the third round.

 

That's all...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Generally, I would move this but since this has turned into a debate on Jimmy Carter rather than the original topic, I'll let it slide for now.

[Guest MikeSC]

Generally, I would move this but since this has turned into a debate on Jimmy Carter rather than the original topic, I'll let it slide for now.

It was always a debate on how much of a tool Carter is and how soemthing he opposes probably is a good thing.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

Carter>Bush...

 

hell.

 

Shit>Bush.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Read those reports on Carter above. There's no way any rational human being can have a positive opinion on the man once you see the damage he's done around the world.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Why did you have to do community service?

Uh, because I'm a nice person. Is that so freaking hard to believe?

 

Actually, I had to perform community service in high school as a bullshit graduation requirement. My HFH excursion wasn't for that though -- I pulled weeds for some church for six hours in order to graduate Hampton High School.

 

I did HFH because some chick running some outreach program at my college told me it would be fun -- lying bitch...

How many hours did you have to do?

 

Ours is making us do 50

[snuffbox 0]

A man tried to rise above hate as a view of the world....he was a horrible president and an evil evil man...

[Styles 0]

A man tried to rise above hate as a view of the world....he was a horrible president and an evil evil man...

And incredibly incompetent. And the country agreed too. Regan crushed him in the 80 election despite Carter being an incumbent. I guess insane inflation, gas shortages and American hostages were too much to take.

But, yeah he's a nice guy who builds houses for poor people, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he's possibly the most incompetent and ineffective president of all time.

[Guest Anglesault]

Shit>Bush.

Now now, there's no need to bring Howard Dean into this.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Come on Jimmy showed the Soviets who was boss after the Afghanistan invasion by boycotting the Olympics.

[snuffbox 0]

A man tried to rise above hate as a view of the world....he was a horrible president and an evil evil man...

And incredibly incompetent. And the country agreed too. Regan crushed him in the 80 election despite Carter being an incumbent. I guess insane inflation, gas shortages and American hostages were too much to take.

But, yeah he's a nice guy who builds houses for poor people, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he's possibly the most incompetent and ineffective president of all time.

he's got some serious competition right now

[Guest MikeSC]

A man tried to rise above hate as a view of the world....he was a horrible president and an evil evil man...

And incredibly incompetent. And the country agreed too. Regan crushed him in the 80 election despite Carter being an incumbent. I guess insane inflation, gas shortages and American hostages were too much to take.

But, yeah he's a nice guy who builds houses for poor people, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he's possibly the most incompetent and ineffective president of all time.

he's got some serious competition right now

No, he REALLY doesn't.

 

Carter --- the biggest blight on the Nobel Peace Prize this side of Arafat.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

MikeSC, you've brought forth documents that show Jimmy Carter as an individual who some could argue was a detrimental President.

 

But....how is this definitive proof that the Iraq invasion was justified? This is essentially false advertising.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Hey guys, George H.W. Bush left Saddam in power, what a horrible President.

 

Oh wait...

Who said George H. Bush was a great President? Liberating Iraq was a great thing he did, but not finishing the job and instead listening to the UN was wrong.

[Guest MikeSC]

MikeSC, you've brought forth documents that show Jimmy Carter as an individual who some could argue was a detrimental President.

 

But....how is this definitive proof that the Iraq invasion was justified? This is essentially false advertising.

Because anything Carter opposed in foreign policy is, by definition, good.

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

Geez, Carter really is a horrible person, isn't he?