President Carter's Comments

Remove all ads!

No legacy? Have you actually followed anything Carter has been doing over the last 20 years? Your characterization of Carter is laughable.

 

Tal,
bless you. These crooked links were a blight on my eyes. It is truly amazing what marvels hide behind the 'full reply form' button.

 

I suppose I should have said he has no legacy from his Presidency, and no positive legacy since he left office...unless you are into ex-Presidents who like to prop up and support vile dictatorships.

Carter was a pathetic President, and he has been a pathetic ex-President as well. At least Nixon actually accomplished more good than ill after his abbreviated Presidency.

Please don't go trumping up the Nobel Partisanship Prize...I mean Peace Prize

Sorry, but nothing that Carter has done has proven meaningful, lasting and positive. He got 2 out of 3 right a few times...but never all three at the same time.

 

I'm sorry, but this was one of the most partisan (and utterly non-factual) things I've ever read. You've actually managed to make Anne Coulter look moderate and Newt Gingrich look bi-partisan.

 

Evidently you're new to Darkwolf's posts.

 

As opposed to serving presidents who do so?

i.e., McKinley, Roosevelt (both of 'em), Taft, Wilson, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (both of 'em), Clinton. I'm missing a few, I know.

I presume, since you condemn Carter for supporting dictatorships, you likewise condemn these presidents?

 

DW: I consider myself somewhat conservative and can still find some good things Carter has done. You should actually look at Carter's accomplishments while in office. The Camp David Accords alone put him several rungs above the bottom. He actually had quite a few great accomplishment, but is only remembered for the Iran hostage crisis.

Something that many people do not realize is Carter has gone into those 'vile dictatorships' with the full support of the current administration. A former president can get into places official diplomate cannot (for various reason). He can deliver messages unofficially to both sides without either side looking as if they are compromising. It is a very powerful diplomatic ploy that has been used for a very long time. I keep hearing these really hardcore right reporters attacking Carter over this -- either those reporters are intentionally misleading their listeners/readers or they really are as clueless as they sound.

 

Drew, very nice of you to throw insults around while not even providing a single bit of evidence to the contrary of what I am saying. Very Jesse Jackson and Jenine Garofalo of you.

Instead of throwing petty little insults around why don't you list all of President Carter's accomplishments that meet the criteria that I stated?

Here, let me help you out by eliminating a few of the highlights (or low points as the case may be) of his illustrious political career):

During his Presidency:

Energy Policy - Failed, but nice try with the useless feel good attempts with locking the thermostats in federal buildings, turning of Christmas lights, and putting a wood burning stove in the White House. Great way to make people who already have poor morale feel even worse about their situation.

Growth of Government - Yep, they cure for rampant inflation and incredible inflation it to create a whole bunch of new gov't bureaucracy...NOT.

Carter protested the exclusion of Mugabe from elections in Zimbabwe. Then he arranged another election to get him in office.

Panama Canal Treaty - Yep, give an asset that is earning money for us to a despot...brilliant economic and foreign policy.

Embargo the Soviets (the famed canceled wheat sales) in a time whey the economy sucked and farmers were going bankrupt.

Starting the policy that Bush and Reagan get blamed for...training and equipping terrorist...err...freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

The hostages in Iran.

The bungled rescue of the hostages.

The lack of support for the Shah of Iran on the grounds of human rights (yeah, the fundamentalist regime that replaced him is so much more humane...of course you never hear Carter condemning them)

One of the worst defeats in a Presidential election ever.

After his Presidency:

Accepting funding from terrorist tied organizations for his "charitable work".

Carter Centers publication of anti-semitic literature.

Certifying the election of Chavez as fair and democratic.

Personal relationships with those involved in the oil for food scandal.

Good luck finding enough deeds to offset that partial list.

Carter was a good man who has become bitter over his failings.

DR, I mean this in the nicest way possible...bite me. I have given credit to Clinton for those things he is due, and I have criticized Bush for what he deserves. Just because I won't drink the "I hate Bush kool-aid" doesn't make me Anne Coulter.

AM, why don't you read what you quoted again...specifically the parts that said "after he left office" and "'ex-Presidents". There is no modern leader of an industrialized nation that has universally condemned every despot in the world. Some times you have to go along to get along, and there is no way any nation could remove every despot without creating upheaval of biblical proportions. There are also times when you have to ally yourself with those you neither like nor agree with to counter those you consider enemies and that can pose a threat to your nations well being. In those cases sometimes distasteful decisions have to be made.

HOWEVER...I was speaking of EX-PRESIDENTS, and I am not aware of Presidents, Reagan, Bush (41),or Clinton traveling to nations like Venezuela, Palestine, Haiti (against the wishes of President Clinton...resulting in a coup I might add), and certifying their elections, or making statements such as the following:

About Josef Tito: "a man who believes in human rights"
Regarding North Korea: "I don't see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation."
His friend Nicolai Ceaucescu: "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights."

I won't put Carter down as the worst President ever, or even in my lifetime. Lyndon Johnson (I know, another Democrat...maybe I am Anne Coulter ) was far worse. I would also have to put Nixon down as a worse President than Carter...though he was a far better ex-President that Carter.

 

My, my, you sound so proud of all the great accomplishments that you have NEVER been able to list regarding the "illustrious" second term (what is that incredible, shrinking approval rating worth anyway?). And of course Gore won (with or without the Koolaide). Gore even had the not so "kool" Supreme Court of Fools running acared in that one. Nevertheless, the country would have been far better off if Gore had been prez the last 6 years. Sorry your guy has fallen so flat on his face, DW. And too bad he's taking the rest of us down with him. BTW, Carter was right about everything he has said about Bush.

 

@DW: The reason I haven't bothered to defend Carter is because your accusations are so absurd that most of your fellow conservatives don't even agree with them. I'm not going to waste my time taking partisan hackery without a shred of real factual support seriously. Sue me. If you want me to take any of your accusations about Carter seriously, the onus is on you to actually prove them (which you haven't even bothered to do, yet). If you won't bother to support your positions with actual facts, I'm not going to waste my time debating them.

 

I think Abe Simpson (grampa) can answer the implied question there:
"A little from column A, and a little from column B!"

 

So you do apply a different standard to serving presidents than you do to ex-presidents. I thought so, but appreciate the clarification.

 

I am beginning to sound like a broken record here...please provide one link that shows in the last year (I would go back further...but you won't find any posts from me for a couple of year in there) where I state that Bush is a successful or good President.

Please stop putting me in positions I don't hold and realize that a condescending tone such as you use here does nothing to add credibility to such claims.

I can show you where I slam him and state that he is a poor President. This discussion was about Carter...and I apologize for pointing out the fact that Gore lost (which he did by the rule of law and by actual count of the ballots). As far as the nation being better off under Gore, this pure speculation as we have no way of ever knowing this. Finally, no Carter has not been absolutely correct about everything he has said, just as he has not been absolutely wrong about everything he has said... such beliefs say quite a bit about the position and view of the person stating them. Absolutes are for zealots.

If you believe that Bush is the worst President ever that is your belief, and you are entitled to it. However your vehement defence of the opinion and rigid refusal to even discuss the validity of such a claim, or claim that another President might be as bad or worse is very interesting though.

As far as accomplishment, Bush actually did a good job of leading us out of 9/11. Currently, the economy is good, jobs are growing, and the stock market is at all time highs. Yep, it is a short list, and he hasn't been a good President, but he isn't an unmitigated disaster either. Sorry, I am not going to waste time listing all his failures...a quick browse through the AoLS will provide you this if you need it, but I will state and agree the list of failures is quite long.

Drew, for the record I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal (in which Bush has been a disappointment on both account). As far as proving my "accusations", they aren't accusations. I am not accusing him of murder or a crime where I have to prove something, I am simply pointing out facts of history . I am not sure what proof you want me to provide, but I am not going waste my time providing you a bunch of links so that you can read about recent history. You can do your own googling and find documentation about these events for yourself if you have any interest in taking your blindfold off and seeing the real Jimmy Carter.

AM, absolutely. Elected officials have to make policy, and if we don't like their policy we can elect new ones to replace them. However, having an ex-President running around representing the US (to foreign nations ex-Presidents still represent the US) and undermining a current President's policies shows a lack of decorum, decency, respect, and an overblown ego that is simply unacceptable. Ex-Presidents are welcome to campaign for anyone they want to, and I don't have a problem with them expressing what they think the direction of the nation should be, but extreme behaviour such as Carter's is detrimental to the nation as a whole, and in my opinion those that support him in this do so only out of an irrational emotional upheaval, having built Bush into an enormous boogie man.

 

@Darkwolf

This is a lost cause. Even though you are correct and Bush won the election by the rule of law and the actual count of ballots, you will never be able to convince the more passionate Gore supporters. They will spend all of eternity arguing that somehow the "evil" republicans/corporations stole the election.

 

Back to the comments made by former President Jimmy Carter.

Did he have the right to make them? First I would like to point out that this is not the first time he has criticized a President; nor the first time he has criticized Bush.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states what the role of a former President should be. As far as I know he becomes a private citizen with the same rights, duties, privileges, responsibilities as any other private citizen. Tradition? I have no strong love for tradition. The world changes and 'tradition' needs to change with the needs of the times.

I have not had time to research what other former Presidents have done to see if they criticized a President.

We all have our own personal opinions of what should be done and shouldn't be done but that is all they are; personal opinions.

 

TGS, DW,
ever considered, just for the sake of argument because I do not have a stake in this, that you are wrong and they are right, for all of eternity?

You both do passionate believe to be right. They do passionately believe Bush Team cheated in 2000. You can't both be right. And I doubt that the Gore lovers are just delusional as my reading tells me you suggest.

In my understanding the GOP then didn't break the law, but rigged it in their favour through voter supression that didn't violate the letter of the law but certainly its spirit. A totally fictious example would be this:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.... that doesn't say US citizens (or anybody) possess that right.

Law, the Gonzales style. In DC they brought it to new heights. The GOP is certainly not above dirty tricks, and Gonzales and Roves conduct in the US Attorney scandal, or the GSA head using her office to support GOP races are all points in case - and we're only getting warmed up yet. It's a continuation of what they successfully did at state levels. Florida comes to mind. In face of this I find your certainty ludicrous to be mild.

That doesn't mean the Dems are saints, but currently the GOP holds the sleaze trophy, for the last decade I wager. To just dismiss the entire affair as sore-loserism of the Dems is in my view quite stupid a thing to do.

Let's leave it at that Bush was at least once elected validly. The case of the first election now legally rests, rightly or wrongly, I don't care. Bury it. The only problem with Bush at hand are in my view the things he did and does now. Pretty bad things. As I see the trend - when he is ready, you can use that constitution of yours on the loot.

According to John Yoo, former legal advisor of the administration iirc at the justice department and in his then position one of the superheated brains behind the unitary executive branch theory, the president has the right to, when he thinks you're a terrorist, grab you and your son, and crush your kids testicles in order to make you speak. Long live the rule of law.

When Carter speaks about a threat to the rule of law in the US under Bush, he is bloody damn right.

 

Ragusa, neither the Democrates nor the Republicans have had a shred of respect for the Constitution for at least 50 years. Bush is the ultimate Boogie man to the left, but he is no more guilty of abusing the Constitution than many other Presidents. Of course abusing the Constitution is dependent on what abuse is from your perspective. I do not believe that any President, including Bush, abused the Constitution with evil intent...but then the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you really want to trace back when the devolution of the Constitution started I would suggest starting with the monumental event that occurred on April 8th, 1913.

 

First I have no idea what this has to do with Carter's remarks but maybe I'm just slow.

Second what horrible thing happen on 4/8/13 to the Constitution?

The only thing I know about was a legal amendment to the Constitution actually giving more power to the citizens of these United States.

If something else happened I would like to know about it.

 

I don't know, Nakia. The 16th amendment was passed two months earlier, though. That one is truly odious and proves that the government that sat in 1913 was full of scoundrels.

I have to say that I agree with Darkwolf's assessment of Jimmy Carter.

Carter is an old fool with an inflated opinion of his own worth. Of course he is free to say what he wants. He is also free to exercicse poor judgement, something he has done time after time. I believe that he is indeed irrelevant.