Dean's World

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.

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.

Gore/Carter 2008!!

Karl? Is that you?

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:)

HankBarnes

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.

Thanks Scott - I had forgotten about that site. Kind of says it all.

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.

Islamophobia is not the problem. It is a BY PRODUCT of the problem of Islamic terrorism.

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.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

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?

Yours,
Wince

mary,

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.

Annoying Old Guy,

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