Aziz
Considering all the things that "St. Jimmy" doesn't get credit for (gutting the US military, fanning the flames of Islamic fascism, encouraging dictatorships around the world to name a few) I'm a little surprised that you are so quick to give him credit when it's not due.
Besides, is he truly the first to link human rights to foreign policy? I doubt it.
He also does not get enough blame. I truly believe he was the worst president of the last century. In many ways, his mishandling of the hostage crisis has led us to where we are today.
Carter does deserve some credit for linking human rights to foreign policy.
However, his moral cowardice (he did not seem to apply this "human rights first" ideology when dealing with the repressive Soviets) and general propensity to be duped (certifying the stolen Chavez election, the Agreed Framework with N Korea, etc.) tends to overshadow that.
"First to link human rights to foreign policy"? What about the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1975, and the Helsinki Accords of later that year, both of which were done during Ford's presidency?
I think that President Carter does not get enough credit for being the first to tie human rights to foreign policy. Sometimes, it seems like he was also the last.
Were you alive in the 70's? Carter had noble intentions, true. But his actions were clueless. Yes, the Shah of Iran oppressed large segments of his people. So, Carter destabilized him,......and we got the Ayatollah!
Classic example of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Carter was a total naif in foreign policy. Total opposite of Kennedy, who understood the distinction between foreign friends and foreign foes. (Note to Arnold Harris --"Don't hammer me on this! Everytime you rail on JFK, it forces me to rethink my views:)
Islamophobia is a detriment to the war on terror. Nowhere is that more evident than in the difference between muslims in America and muslims in the UK and Europe.
According to that poll, the general populaton of Great Britain is about the least 'Islamophobic' of any western country - including the US. Yet, according to the Guardian, Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe.
The Carter Doctrine wasn't a shining example of human rights:
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
..and neither was the Carter/Brzezinski plan to win Islamist hearts and minds in an effort to incite war against the commies. The purpose of this hearts and minds effort was to strengthen Islamist organizations.
Organizations like Peace in Chechnya are still working with Islamists in Chechnya, even after the Beslan massacre.
The International Relations Center, a somewhat leftist site, says of "Peace in Chechnya" (or the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, ACPC) :
What’s striking about ACPC is that U.S. militarists and neocon strategists are supporting an insurgent movement that is not only nationalist but also largely Islamist. Although ACPC notes its concern about human rights violations by Russia, the committee appears to be more concerned with advancing U.S. geopolitics in this region with respect to Russia and secondarily with China.
However, Brzezinski, a member of Carter's 'human rights' team, is on the board of directors of ACPC. He's not a neo-con. Neither are other members like Richard Gere and Geraldine Ferraro.
Worse, the man just won't shut up. He has interefered in nearly every major foreign policy crisis faced by every administration since Reagan patted him on the butt and said "Don't let the door hit this on your way out." In every case, he has made things worse.
Should Kim Jong-il decide to nuke someone, you'll be able to thank Carter.
Having suffered personally by living in the USA under his administration, you're either drinking koolaid, Aziz, or yanking my chain.
Aziz,
I like you buddy, I like your writing, I appreciate your intellect, and even though we don't see eye-to-eye politically I think you often raise valid, and even provocative points. That said, dude, lay of the kool-aide. I had the misfortune of being awake during the Ford/Carter years.
After Gerry I thought it would be hard to find a more feckless individual to serve as President, boy was I wrong. If St. Jimmy ever had an ounce of feck in 'em he left it in Plains. Jimmy was a horrendous President, no, scratch that, worse than horrendous, he was the WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.
Here's what we got from St. Jimmy: double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates (which would eventually precipitate the S&L crisis), stagflation, the misery index, a negative income growth rate (when adjusted for taxes and inflation), and let's not forget the "malaise" speech (even thought that word was never used) where Jimmy basically said the problem with America is American's.
True, he managed to get Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, but let's not forget the Iranian Revolution, the Hostage Crisis, Operation Eagle's Claw to rescue the hostages (8 dead, 4 injured, all of our Iranian CIA agents lost, and 0 hostages rescued), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Billy's Libya connection, the Olympic Boycott, or the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua.
And what of St. Jimmy since then? He's been buddy-buddy with Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Yasir Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez - not exactly a group of people persons. Then there's his working to undermine U.S. foreign policy with the Soviets (during the Reagan Administration), disrupt our efforts during GWI (Bush I), undermine our efforts to contain North Korea (Clinton), and undercut our efforts to remove Saddam (Bush II). Hell, if he wasn't an ex-President he'd have been charged with treason by now.
I voted for Carter, and soon regretted it. I worked on Ted Kennedy's Primary Campaign the second time around... Jimmy Carter has VERY VERY little to be proud of as a National leader. Being the first to tie Human Rights to National Policy is not something he can brag about. Had he meant what he said, and actually had the courage of his stated convictions, it may have been... but he failed, and failed miserably. From the Soviets to Iran to Korea, his influence harmed US interests. His weakness gave us the current war that Islamists are waging against us, and is the direct cause of many of the diplomatic problems of today.
Some, and I am NOT among them, would argue that Carter ought to be lauded simply for giving us Ronald Reagan...
James Earl Carter deserves credit for making sure the bathrooms of the White House were cleaned before he turned it over to president Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981.
I would have voted for Carter, if I had been about 8 months older. ;) I'm glad I didn't, now.
For all his self-important grovelings, Carter never really accomplished much, and he never met a socialist or a communist he wouldn't get in bed with.
What was the record? Meetings with Arafat, about two dozen, compared to meetings with the Israeli head of state, about zero?...
Let's not pile too much on Jimmeh; a lot of the problems he faced came from earlier issues, including "stagflation." Alas, Jimmy "Killer Rabbit" Carter never came close to getting a grip on the economy, or the energy crisis. Well, aside from turning off the lights in the White House.
And he did start increasing the defense budget. Some. He also initiated the F-117, and the B-2, and by the way thanks a LOT for the last one! Flipping gold-plated hangar-queen, that is.
Finally, let's all remember that Jimmeh remembered to consult with his daughter, Amy, about how to deal with nuclear war... {pious look}
I can balance off having voted for Clinton twice by remembering that I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I wasn't yet smart enough to vote for Reagan (and wouldn't be for another 20 or so years), but I did my bit to get rid of Jimmuh.
Carter should be given credit for ramping up our defense spending and managing the transition to the volunteer military. Camp David did happen on his watch. He said the right things about human rights. He did not run the country into the ground, and avoided the really spectacular mistakes that truly stupid leaders, like Argentinian generals, elevated German corporals, paper-waving British prime ministers and recently deposed Iraqi Presidents made.
That last bit should not be discounted. We will have a President who does something truly stupid, if we haven't already. Nominations?
Carter did run the country in to the ground, just read through previous comments for voluminous evidence on that score. It's also pathetic to see people laud the Camp David accords while the Palestinian government is run by Hamas and Israel is having to once again invade Gaza. What was good about those accords again?
Aziz;
It's sad to see you saying anything nice about Carter on the same page with this and this. Those are Carter's friends, the kind of people he likes and supports. If Carter is against "Islamophobia", I can only presume it is because "Islamophobia" inconveniences dictators and oppressors, or is beneficial to the USA. You've given me reason to think much more positively of "Islamophobia".
P.S.Note that Carter's big Middle East "accomplishment", the Camp David Accords, basically sold the Palestinian people out to mass murdering kleptocrat Arafat, leading directly to the current mess. What has the man touched that didn't turn out to make a bad situation worse?
P.P.S. Not only was Carter the worst President in American history, but he is the worst ex-President as well.
Actually, I did agree with Carter's efforts to get us to use the Metric system. He was right about that.
You scientist, you.
Actually, I much prefer the metric system, but I've decided this is a losing fight. It ain't gonna happen by fiat.
At the same time, I think it will happen naturally, over time. And might've happened naturally faster if it weren't for legislative attempts to force it to happen.
Also, I think a lot of the benefits of the metric system have lessened with the arrival of ubiquitous computers. I can still do metric conversions in my head faster than I can type the answer; but English conversion is now a lot easier and less error prone.
It's also pathetic to see people laud the Camp David accords while the Palestinian government is run by Hamas and Israel is having to once again invade Gaza. What was good about those accords again?
Just exactly this much, no more, no less: when Israel made retaliatory strikes into the Gaza this week, Egypt massed troops on the border to keep refugees out, not to attack Israel. It gave Israel one more-or-less neutral neighbor. So I see it as a good step 1, in a process with a huge number of steps. I'm a very harsh critic of the first President I ever voted for (forgive me, I was young, and raised in a UAW/Kennedy shrine); but I feel that honest criticism requires honest acknowledgement of good accomplishments as well. I'll give President Carter this one point; but on the whole, it can't possibly redeem his legacy.
Hmmmm. I look at Great Britain before Thatcher, for example, and I say we had a long way to go. And Argentina was pretty nice before Peron ruined it. Or France now. Or Russia now. Hoo boy. No, considering the counter examples, President Carter did not run this country into the ground. I know of countries which were run into the ground, and they did not generally bounce back like this one did under Reagan. You run a country into the ground, it generally stays there.
I like Herbert Hoover, but he did take a nasty recession and turn it into the Great Depression. How does this compare with Carter's supposed "runnning the country into the ground"?
For goodness sake, think of the wide range of actual historical outliers before proclaiming anything the worst.
Considering all the things that "St. Jimmy" doesn't get credit for (gutting the US military, fanning the flames of Islamic fascism, encouraging dictatorships around the world to name a few) I'm a little surprised that you are so quick to give him credit when it's not due.
Besides, is he truly the first to link human rights to foreign policy? I doubt it.
He also does not get enough blame. I truly believe he was the worst president of the last century. In many ways, his mishandling of the hostage crisis has led us to where we are today.
However, his moral cowardice (he did not seem to apply this "human rights first" ideology when dealing with the repressive Soviets) and general propensity to be duped (certifying the stolen Chavez election, the Agreed Framework with N Korea, etc.) tends to overshadow that.
Karl? Is that you?
Were you alive in the 70's? Carter had noble intentions, true. But his actions were clueless. Yes, the Shah of Iran oppressed large segments of his people. So, Carter destabilized him,......and we got the Ayatollah!
Classic example of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Carter was a total naif in foreign policy. Total opposite of Kennedy, who understood the distinction between foreign friends and foreign foes. (Note to Arnold Harris --"Don't hammer me on this! Everytime you rail on JFK, it forces me to rethink my views:)
HankBarnes
And not any better on the domestic side. Inflation, recession, unemployment….
I remember 20 percent inflation and 8 percent unemployment towards the end of his term.
According to that poll, the general populaton of Great Britain is about the least 'Islamophobic' of any western country - including the US. Yet, according to the Guardian, Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe.
The Carter Doctrine wasn't a shining example of human rights:
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
..and neither was the Carter/Brzezinski plan to win Islamist hearts and minds in an effort to incite war against the commies. The purpose of this hearts and minds effort was to strengthen Islamist organizations.
Organizations like Peace in Chechnya are still working with Islamists in Chechnya, even after the Beslan massacre.
The International Relations Center, a somewhat leftist site, says of "Peace in Chechnya" (or the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, ACPC) :
What’s striking about ACPC is that U.S. militarists and neocon strategists are supporting an insurgent movement that is not only nationalist but also largely Islamist. Although ACPC notes its concern about human rights violations by Russia, the committee appears to be more concerned with advancing U.S. geopolitics in this region with respect to Russia and secondarily with China.
However, Brzezinski, a member of Carter's 'human rights' team, is on the board of directors of ACPC. He's not a neo-con. Neither are other members like Richard Gere and Geraldine Ferraro.
Worse, the man just won't shut up. He has interefered in nearly every major foreign policy crisis faced by every administration since Reagan patted him on the butt and said "Don't let the door hit this on your way out." In every case, he has made things worse.
Should Kim Jong-il decide to nuke someone, you'll be able to thank Carter.
Having suffered personally by living in the USA under his administration, you're either drinking koolaid, Aziz, or yanking my chain.
G-d protect us from Jimmy Carter!
Yeah.
I like you buddy, I like your writing, I appreciate your intellect, and even though we don't see eye-to-eye politically I think you often raise valid, and even provocative points. That said, dude, lay of the kool-aide. I had the misfortune of being awake during the Ford/Carter years.
After Gerry I thought it would be hard to find a more feckless individual to serve as President, boy was I wrong. If St. Jimmy ever had an ounce of feck in 'em he left it in Plains. Jimmy was a horrendous President, no, scratch that, worse than horrendous, he was the WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.
Here's what we got from St. Jimmy: double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates (which would eventually precipitate the S&L crisis), stagflation, the misery index, a negative income growth rate (when adjusted for taxes and inflation), and let's not forget the "malaise" speech (even thought that word was never used) where Jimmy basically said the problem with America is American's.
True, he managed to get Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, but let's not forget the Iranian Revolution, the Hostage Crisis, Operation Eagle's Claw to rescue the hostages (8 dead, 4 injured, all of our Iranian CIA agents lost, and 0 hostages rescued), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Billy's Libya connection, the Olympic Boycott, or the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua.
And what of St. Jimmy since then? He's been buddy-buddy with Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Yasir Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez - not exactly a group of people persons. Then there's his working to undermine U.S. foreign policy with the Soviets (during the Reagan Administration), disrupt our efforts during GWI (Bush I), undermine our efforts to contain North Korea (Clinton), and undercut our efforts to remove Saddam (Bush II). Hell, if he wasn't an ex-President he'd have been charged with treason by now.
Some, and I am NOT among them, would argue that Carter ought to be lauded simply for giving us Ronald Reagan...
Yours,
Wince
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
For all his self-important grovelings, Carter never really accomplished much, and he never met a socialist or a communist he wouldn't get in bed with.
What was the record? Meetings with Arafat, about two dozen, compared to meetings with the Israeli head of state, about zero?...
Let's not pile too much on Jimmeh; a lot of the problems he faced came from earlier issues, including "stagflation." Alas, Jimmy "Killer Rabbit" Carter never came close to getting a grip on the economy, or the energy crisis. Well, aside from turning off the lights in the White House.
And he did start increasing the defense budget. Some. He also initiated the F-117, and the B-2, and by the way thanks a LOT for the last one! Flipping gold-plated hangar-queen, that is.
Finally, let's all remember that Jimmeh remembered to consult with his daughter, Amy, about how to deal with nuclear war... {pious look}
That last bit should not be discounted. We will have a President who does something truly stupid, if we haven't already. Nominations?
Yours,
Wince
Carter did run the country in to the ground, just read through previous comments for voluminous evidence on that score. It's also pathetic to see people laud the Camp David accords while the Palestinian government is run by Hamas and Israel is having to once again invade Gaza. What was good about those accords again?
Aziz;
It's sad to see you saying anything nice about Carter on the same page with this and this. Those are Carter's friends, the kind of people he likes and supports. If Carter is against "Islamophobia", I can only presume it is because "Islamophobia" inconveniences dictators and oppressors, or is beneficial to the USA. You've given me reason to think much more positively of "Islamophobia".
P.S.Note that Carter's big Middle East "accomplishment", the Camp David Accords, basically sold the Palestinian people out to mass murdering kleptocrat Arafat, leading directly to the current mess. What has the man touched that didn't turn out to make a bad situation worse?
P.P.S. Not only was Carter the worst President in American history, but he is the worst ex-President as well.
You scientist, you.
Actually, I much prefer the metric system, but I've decided this is a losing fight. It ain't gonna happen by fiat.
At the same time, I think it will happen naturally, over time. And might've happened naturally faster if it weren't for legislative attempts to force it to happen.
Also, I think a lot of the benefits of the metric system have lessened with the arrival of ubiquitous computers. I can still do metric conversions in my head faster than I can type the answer; but English conversion is now a lot easier and less error prone.
Just exactly this much, no more, no less: when Israel made retaliatory strikes into the Gaza this week, Egypt massed troops on the border to keep refugees out, not to attack Israel. It gave Israel one more-or-less neutral neighbor. So I see it as a good step 1, in a process with a huge number of steps. I'm a very harsh critic of the first President I ever voted for (forgive me, I was young, and raised in a UAW/Kennedy shrine); but I feel that honest criticism requires honest acknowledgement of good accomplishments as well. I'll give President Carter this one point; but on the whole, it can't possibly redeem his legacy.
Hmmmm. I look at Great Britain before Thatcher, for example, and I say we had a long way to go. And Argentina was pretty nice before Peron ruined it. Or France now. Or Russia now. Hoo boy. No, considering the counter examples, President Carter did not run this country into the ground. I know of countries which were run into the ground, and they did not generally bounce back like this one did under Reagan. You run a country into the ground, it generally stays there.
Yours,
Wince
I like Herbert Hoover, but he did take a nasty recession and turn it into the Great Depression. How does this compare with Carter's supposed "runnning the country into the ground"?
For goodness sake, think of the wide range of actual historical outliers before proclaiming anything the worst.
Yours,
Wince