Today is a grave day, but we do have an interesting convergence of developments. On the same day that our bellicose, unelected President gets the authority to invade a country, the last honorable man to occupy the White House wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Jimmy Carter may not have been a great President, but he is a great person, who has done much to make the world a more peaceful place to live. The Camp David Accords have endured, his dedication to freedom and to the poor are testaments to his unique place in history.

Hear, hear! Jimmy Carter deserves the award for his humanitarian efforts, though I wish the folks overseeing the war had not politicized it so. It detracts from Carter's legitimate honors on behalf of peace, democracy and justice around the world.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Can anyone explain why Bush was nominated for this? I'm stymied.

I heard that the Chairman of the Nobel committee proceeded to Chastise Bush for his recent actions, after awarding Carter with the award.

Here's what he actually said:

"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

Obviously referring to Dubya, but I'd say it was pretty mild. Of course, anything more probably would've been inappropriate.

Text: Announcement of 2002 Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations are in order for Jimmy Carter. As said above, I don't think he was a particularly effective President, he was strong in one area, foreign policy, in my opinion, and especially as it relates to the middle east. If Shrub were smart he would name former President Carter as a Special Envoy to the middle east, and send him over on shuttle missions or something.

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
...If Shrub were smart...

---

Ooooh...tall order there, puckman.

(Ba-DUM-bum!)

I do not know anyone who deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more.

Former President Carter is, simply, an extraordinary man whose life is an example of what an American presidency can become.

Sorry to sound a note of discord here, but . . .

Today's award only serves to underscore the moral bankruptcy of European society. Jimmy Carter is the poster child for the simple minded and ultimately cowardly view that all war is bad, and that no price is too dear to pay to avoid hostilities.

If this mindset were not so pernicious, so dangerous to the lives of innocent men, women and children around the globe, then I might be charitable and simply dismiss Carter and his ilk as sweetly naive. In fact, however, his ostrich-like view of the world -- if allowed to dominate policy in this country -- would result in untold death and destruction as tyrants in lands that do not share our view of the inherent worth of every single human being, would be free to trample on human rights, and human life, to the fullest extent of their military and political capability.

It is poignant but fundamental that force is necessary to protect the human rights Cater so cherishes. His failure to grasp this paradox renders him, sadly, laughable.

I say sadly because I think Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man, and I shre his vision of a world redeemed -- just not his hopelessly naive view of how to attain it.

At the level of policy, his greatest achievment, the Camp David Treaty, is something of a farce. Israel has reaped no benefit from the Treaty, as Egypt refuses to have anything to do with Israel. While this is preferable to war, Egypt in 1979 was incapable of fighting a war against Israel. It was an economic mess, a client state of a dying empire, and signing the Camp David accords was merely a rat abandoning a sinking ship. In return, Sadat/Mubarak got lots of $$$ from the US, which has kept their country afloat lo these 23 years. Nothing but enlightened self-interest.

On the plus side for Jimmy, building all those houses for Habitat for Humanity actually did some concrete good for the people who get to live in them.

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
Sorry to sound a note of discord here, but . . .

---

Where else can a guy get his daily dose of discord amongst his sexual peers?

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
Today's award only serves to underscore the moral bankruptcy of European society. Jimmy Carter is the poster child for the simple minded and ultimately cowardly view that all war is bad, and that no price is too dear to pay to avoid hostilities.

If this mindset were not so pernicious, so dangerous to the lives of innocent men, women and children around the globe, then I might be charitable and simply dismiss Carter and his ilk as sweetly naive. In fact, however, his ostrich-like view of the world -- if allowed to dominate policy in this country -- would result in untold death and destruction as tyrants in lands that do not share our view of the inherent worth of every single human being, would be free to trample on human rights, and human life, to the fullest extent of their military and political capability.

It is poignant but fundamental that force is necessary to protect the human rights Cater so cherishes. His failure to grasp this paradox renders him, sadly, laughable.

I say sadly because I think Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man, and I shre his vision of a world redeemed -- just not his hopelessly naive view of how to attain it.

At the level of policy, his greatest achievment, the Camp David Treaty, is something of a farce. Israel has reaped no benefit from the Treaty, as Egypt refuses to have anything to do with Israel. While this is preferable to war, Egypt in 1979 was incapable of fighting a war against Israel. It was an economic mess, a client state of a dying empire, and signing the Camp David accords was merely a rat abandoning a sinking ship. In return, Sadat/Mubarak got lots of $$$ from the US, which has kept their country afloat lo these 23 years. Nothing but enlightened self-interest.

On the plus side for Jimmy, building all those houses for Habitat for Humanity actually did some concrete good for the people who get to live in them.

---

I think your take on Carter is a bit simplistic in that Carter is a well-educated, thoughtful, and careful intellect; but, I am willing to with what you're saying if only to run through the files during future research, and search for a new synthesis that incorporates your lack of enthusiasm for his hopefulness.

Jimmy Carter is "simple minded...cowardly...and laughable...with his mindset resulting in untold death and destruction"?? Sometimes I think pictures are mismatched with stories, resulting in a stunning transformation of the facts.

So--if serving honorable in the Navy, negotiating SALT II with the Soviets, along with the Camp David accord, traveling tirelessly to PREVENT human suffering by negotiation instead of war...is cowardly activity--bring on the cowards!

It reminds me of those who so disparage femmes/drag queens etc. in the gay movement, not remembering that they were the ones who rose up at Stonewall.

As for cowardly, Carter authorized the attack to get the hostages back--I hardly think it's his fault that the military botched the job, sending in helicopters that were incapable of flying in sandy environments. On Reagan's watch Marines were blown up in Beruit before we ran with our tail between our legs--yet no one is inclined to call him cowardly.

There are many tyrants in the world today--some more pernicious and dangerous than others. 2.5 MILLION were killed in the Congo in the last 3 years, and we didn't do a thing about that. Clearly, we time the selection of our Tyrant du jour very carefully, depending on our thinly-veiled self-interest.

North Korea possesses as many, if not more threats today than Iraq. Many others have gone beyond threats and have actually killed countless people, and we do nothing.

What's more pernicious and dangerous--the idea of working passionately for peace, or pragmatically renaming enemies as "friends"??

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
Today's award only serves to underscore the moral bankruptcy of European society. Jimmy Carter is the poster child for the simple minded and ultimately cowardly view that all war is bad, and that no price is too dear to pay to avoid hostilities.

---

I agree with EVERYTHING you've written except this passage.

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
I say sadly because I think Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man, and I share his vision of a world redeemed -- just not his hopelessly naive view of how to attain it.

---

I used to think this about Carter, too, but his recent suck-up to the murderous Fidel Castro, the worst human rights abuser in this hemisphere, left me doubtful about his basic decency.

You are right that he does build good houses, though.

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
tyrants in lands that do not share our view of the inherent worth of every single human being

---

Wait, who's the naive one here?

I will take Carter's idealism and decency over others any day. Perhaps he has not always been correct in his judgments, but he has been a far better example than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Condi Rice, Al Haig, and the rest of the hegemony-minded foreign policy nitwits that came after him.

The U.S. is becoming the bully of the world, not the protector.

Carter, acknowledged to be one of the most intelligent men to occupy the White House, made the mistake of not "playing the game", i.e. lying to the American people. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 are masters of it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brent:

So--if serving honorable in the Navy, negotiating SALT II with the Soviets, along with the Camp David accord, traveling tirelessly to PREVENT human suffering by negotiation instead of war...is cowardly activity--bring on the cowards!

But it is exactly my point that negotiation -- when it takes the form of Chamberlain-esque capitulation to the insatiable -- prevents no suffering at all. At best, it defers suffering, but at the inevitable expense of greater suffering to come.


As for cowardly, Carter authorized the attack to get the hostages back--I hardly think it's his fault that the military botched the job, sending in helicopters that were incapable of flying in sandy environments. On Reagan's watch Marines were blown up in Beruit before we ran with our tail between our legs--yet no one is inclined to call him cowardly.

Far be it from me to defend Reagan, but Marines were blown up in Beirut again because of faulty military intelligence, not through any fault of Reagan's, so the sam excuse you offer up for Jimmy works even better for Ronnie. Nor was our subsequent withdrawal from Beirut "running with our tail between our legs." Check your facts.

There are many tyrants in the world today--some more pernicious and dangerous than others. 2.5 MILLION were killed in the Congo in the last 3 years, and we didn't do a thing about that. Clearly, we time the selection of our Tyrant du jour very carefully, depending on our thinly-veiled self-interest.

Quite true -- but hardly a feather in Jimmy's cap. We are tolerant of tyrants who do not directly threaten -- and indeed sometimes promote -- our self-interest, and this is as it should be. Sometimes we gravely miscalculate. The Shah had become so unpopular in Iran that our coniuned support for his regime imperiled our interests there, and our subsequent support for Iraq in its war against Iran has much to with the present predicament. Its the law of unintended consequnces. But our responsibility for putting Saddam where he is today only magnifies, not eviscerates our responsibility to deal with him completely now.

North Korea possesses as many, if not more threats today than Iraq.

All in good time, my pretty, all in good time. But serioulsy, North Korea's economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, and its people are starving. We've little to fear from them.


What's more pernicious and dangerous--the idea of working passionately for peace, or pragmatically renaming enemies as "friends"??

Peace, like the coming of the Messiah, is something passionately to be hoped for, conscientiously to be worked toward, but always with the realization that that it's not here yet, and that pretending it is only delays its arrival. Until the ideal of peace is universally shared (and it's not), it is absurd to negotiate it with those who do not value it.

[quote]Originally posted by bridgeportjake:


Wait, who's the naive one here?

---

Not me. Just because we fail to achieve an ideal doesn't mean we don't hold to it.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I will take Carter's idealism and decency over others any day. Perhaps he has not always been correct in his judgments, but he has been a far better example than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Condi Rice, Al Haig, and the rest of the hegemony-minded foreign policy nitwits that came after him.

The U.S. is becoming the bully of the world, not the protector.

Carter, acknowledged to be one of the most intelligent men to occupy the White House, made the mistake of not "playing the game", i.e. lying to the American people. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 are masters of it.

---

Chacun a son gout. I'm a yellow dog Democrat myself, whose political mother's milk was the impeachment of the criminal Nixon. I'm proud of my votes for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton twice, and Gore. I wouldn't vote for GHWB or GWB for dog catcher. But I have learned that policy disagreements with Republicans are not a reason to impugn their character (something the Republicans who tried to detroy Clinton don't get).

But every President lies to the American people. Every leader lies. They should at times. It's elementary statecraft. Read Machiavelli. Carter lied. Had he lied more, he might perhaps have been more effective. As intelligent as he is (a point made by several of his admiriers here, and which I don't dispute) the fact remains that he was a piss poor leader. Clinton is (at least) Cater's intellectual equal, but he is a far better leader. Reagan, as an intellect -- even before he was tragically struck with Alzheimers' -- couldn't compete with my mailman. But he was a stunningly effective leader.

I'm something of a nerd myself, and I value intellect (and intellectual curiosity) very highly indeed. But it's of relatively slight importance in choosing a leader.

A: I don't think Carter got the prize for his work as president but rather through his frankly prophetic work since then.

B: Stalin was an effective leader. What's your point?

Excellent original post, Skiguy. I'm in agreement with everything you posted. I do think Carter is a well-intentioned person, and that his perspective and presence is sometimes valuable. But ultimately his views are often as simplistic, unrealistic and irrelevant as they were during the four years of the profound failure known as the Carter Administration. He does get points in my book for having much more class than the Nobel committee, and refusing to tarnish their award with craven political opportunism.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brent:
[qb]
North Korea possesses as many, if not more threats today than Iraq.

All in good time, my pretty, all in good time. But serioulsy, North Korea's economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, and its people are starving. We've little to fear from them.[/QB]

---

And Iraq's economy is in great shape and its people are living in luxury???

[quote]What's more pernicious and dangerous--the idea of working passionately for peace, or pragmatically renaming enemies as "friends"??

Peace, like the coming of the Messiah, is [/QB]

---

Peace is definitely a worthwhile goal. The "Messiah" is, to many people, a complete fantasy.

Skiguy and MMan, good posts both. I wouldn't call Carter a coward, though, having lived thru his administration. He simply made several wrong choices following WWilson's failed "too proud to fight" mantra. In a world of madmen like Sadaam Hussein, that just won't work. Anyone who believes otherwise is avoiding reality. To me, that's the worst form of cowardice. But he will always be a gentleman in my mind and I respect him, even though I fear he will be remembered as a failed President.