I've noticed something around here... an undercurrent of anti-American sentiment.

Clinton should not be speaking out against the current administration on foriegn policy issues in a different country.

Are you surprised at this?

Or at the "Baghdad 4" group of Democrats who called the President a liar right in the enemy's capitol?

The left in this country today is the young people who pulled all that crap in the 60's, so what did you think these guys would do when they reached positions of power? They sound just like they did during the Vietnam era.

It is perfecly OK to criticize policy while INSIDE the US and on our soil, but to undermine us on foreign soil is akin to aiding the enemy and treasonous, IMHO. It is one thing to state your mind while you are here; it is another thing altogether to do this on foreign land.

 

It is perfecly OK to criticize policy while INSIDE the US and on our soil, but to undermine us on foreign soil is akin to aiding the enemy and treasonous, IMHO. It is one thing to state your mind while you are here; it is another thing altogether to do this on foreign land.

I agree, it's like a relationship, talking bad behind someone's back instead of telling that person his/her mistakes. In my book i would call it TREASON, and here in Mexico it is the ONLY thing that is punisheable by death actually.

 

That professor should be required to travel to ground zero and meet with the families that have lost relatives.

Idiotic academia elitism at its finest (or worst might be more appropriate).

--Joey

 

Academics cop crap for their 9/11 analysis all the time. As the New Statesman noted, it does not dishonour their memories to also note twice as many kids die every day from poor health than died in the 9/11 incident. Is that treasonous? They say not at all.

E_S

 

found on Euronews.net

Carter wins the Nobel peace prize

Jimmy Carter has been named as the winner of this year's nobel peace prize. The former U.S. president was given the top honour for working for peace and human rights across the world. Carter won from a record field of 156 candidates. He has won praise for tireless work as an ex-president in trying to bring peace to everywhere from Haiti to North Korea. He has been repeatedly nominated for the prize, worth $1.0 million.

During his presidency, which ran from 1977-1981, Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.

The academy 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.

---> ALL RIGHT! There you go. Well done kids. Too bad Bush thinks just the opposite (I'm referring to the last paragraph here).

 

And you see how everything between Egypt and Israel is now perfect...</sarcasm>

During the cold war we could rely on the soviets to use restraint, they were not suicidal maniacs. The muslim extremists are...

War is the only option. Inspectors only work if you are dealing with a gentlemen not a thug. Seriously, if he kills his own people and tests WOMD what makes you think he will cooperate? Lying would be a far lesser dishonest action that murder.

--Joey

 

The academy 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.

Damn shame Carter wouldn't know a human-rights-trampling despot if he shook his hand.

Which he's done.

Repeatedly.

Whenever I open the newspaper to find an article about Jimmy Carter (or see him on TV) I scream, "Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!" Alas, it's not my joke; it comes from an episode of "The Simpsons." Marge fails to make marshmallow treats for the town bake sale, which results in Springfield being unable to afford a statue of Abraham Lincoln. They settle for a bronze President Carter instead. When it's unveiled, someone shouts, "Jimmy Carter!? He's history's greatest monster!" and the town riots.

My wife thought the line was funny too - the first 500 times I said it. But, in the last few days, I've blown out my quota because the 39th president is a 24-hour news fixture.

Jimmy Carter, who, truth be told, isn't a monster, is in Cuba this week visiting Fidel Castro, the world's most notorious cigar wholesaler and a bona fide monster, in order to improve relations between our two countries...

...Carter has developed an uncanny gift for sucking up to the most appalling dictators on the planet and undermining U.S. policy.

As Joshua Muravchik wrote in the New Republic in 1994 - when Carter was bollixing up then-President Clinton's efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea - "Jimmy Carter, for all his heroic advocacy of human rights, has a long history of melting in the presence of tyrants."

At the time, Carter said of Kim Il Sung, a brutal Stalinist dictator, "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Muravchik wrote, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia." North Korea, it should be noted, has suffered from such government-imposed mass-starvation that millions have been forced to live off grass.

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 asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.

As the "human rights president," Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was also "a man who believes in human rights." Carter saluted the dictator as "a great and courageous leader" who "has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years." He publicly told Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, "Our goals are the same. ... We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people." He told the Stalinist first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland."

Since Carter has left office, he's been even more of a voluptuary of despots and dictators. He told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country." He's praised the mass-murdering leaders of Syria and Ethiopia. He endorsed Yasser Arafat's sham election and grumbled about the legitimate vote that ousted Sandanista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

And, I learned from a devastating critique by my National Review colleague Jay Nordlinger, 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. So, yes, it's unfair to say that Jimmy Carter was hist

 

So, I'm wondering (to try to get back on topic), does anyone consider the above column on Carter to be anti-American? (I don't.) Would it make a difference if it had referred to US policy during the Carter administration, for example supporting murderous dictators in Indonesia & Nicaragua?
Or would it have been anti-American in 1980 (while Carter was president), but isn't any longer? Just honestly wondering about people's opinions.

 

The fact is, he was a horrible president. What he has done after his presidency has been MORE dignifide, if that is possible, that what he had done as president. That prize was given to him not because of what he had done, but because the people who chose him do not like the current administration. It was a purely political move.

He did not have the guts to stand up to Iran, nor to anyone else for that matter. There is a reason he was only a 1 term president.

 

The "undercurrent of sentiment" that I most intensely perceive in these threads is not so much "anti-American" as it is anti-pseudo-American government. Indeed, there are some political pundits that make a plausible case for the notion that we enjoyed more "freedom" under British Crown rule in 1776 than that which we enjoy now. We've completeley undermined our own Constitution by adopting an Amendment that instituted the most militant and oppressive revenue collection regime-the likes of which the world has never seen before!

 

He did not have the guts to stand up to Iran, nor to anyone else for that matter. There is a reason he was only a 1 term president.

I actually agree (gasp) with Coolguy on that! IMO, Carter was a good domestic president who's foreign policy (at times) was very shaky. I remember the marines fiasco in Iran, right before election time. That and his "weak looking" stand on the hostage crisis lost him a second term. I respect him for some of the things he's done since LEAVING office, but I think he was a rather poor president.

The same could be said about Bush Sr. While (most) American's agreed with his "strong" handling of foreign policy and the gulf "war", his DOMESTIC problems dragged him down and prevented HIM from getting a 2nd term also. Those 3 little words were political suicide. Different presidents, different parties, different weaknesses, BOTH not great leaders IMO.

 

During the cold war we could rely on the soviets to use restraint, they were not suicidal maniacs. The muslim extremists are...

And obviously Saddam is a Muslim Extremist...oh he's not you say? What a suprise!

Stalin also killed millions of people to stay in power but he never used an atomic bomb on American soil. Neither did Mao. Just because they're tyrants doesn't mean they're stupid. On the contrary, to stay in power that long you have to be clever.

 

The "undercurrent of sentiment" that I most intensely perceive in these threads is not so much "anti-American" as it is anti-pseudo-American government.

Way to undermine our position, dude! Are you saying our sentiment is based off a fake notion of the American government?

Cause if so, you're wrong. It's a legitmate objection to Washington's foreign policy, and an objection to the kind of haughty comments you made above.

Need I start quoting essays people?!?

E_S

 

I agree that Bush 41's domestic policy cost him the election, but I don't think any president really has that much influence on what the stock market is doing or the economy as a whole, but I do think the president has a tremendous influence on foriegn policy, so that is what I consider more important.

Stalin also killed millions of people to stay in power but he never used an atomic bomb on American soil. Neither did Mao. Just because they're tyrants doesn't mean they're stupid. On the contrary, to stay in power that long you have to be clever.

I would say Mao was incredibly stupid, as his domestic policy was just nuts. And he did have a say in domestic policy because at his word he screwed up the whole system with the Cultural Revolution and all the other stupid radical policies he initiated.

I don't see how this relates to Saddam, because although he wants to stay in power, he also wants to have more power, in the form of terrible weapons of mass distruction. He has used them before against his own people so it seems he has little qualms over using them.

 

I agree that Bush 41's domestic policy cost him the election, but I don't think any president really has that much influence on what the stock market is doing or the economy as a whole, but I do think the president has a tremendous influence on foriegn policy, so that is what I consider more important.

Stalin also killed millions of people to stay in power but he never used an atomic bomb on American soil. Neither did Mao. Just because they're tyrants doesn't mean they're stupid. On the contrary, to stay in power that long you have to be clever.

I would say Mao was incredibly stupid, as his domestic policy was just nuts. And he did have a say in domestic policy because at his word he screwed up the whole system with the Cultural Revolution and all the other stupid radical policies he initiated.

I don't see how this relates to Saddam, because although he wants to stay in power, he also wants to have more power, in the form of terrible weapons of mass distruction. He has used them before against his own people so it seems he has little qualms over using them.

 

Ender, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that The America that boasts about being "American" today is a shadow of the form it once was... back before The 16th Amendment that enslaved us all... and back when we adhered to The Monroe Doctrine that kept us out of everybody else's business! And I refer more the war waging against our own citizens everyday- the The promise of freedom becoming more sterile conjecture. Lady Liberty comes with a blindfold and whip these days! The current American Government is a pseudo-version of its original vision...that's all. As far as foreign policy evolves here.....
With every change of Executive Administration comes with it change in particular foreign policy (and Secretary of State!)...Hence, you end up making and breaking deals every 4 years, thereby ticking people off all over the globe. Bin Ladden was a protected ally during the Carter administration for Heaven's sake!(Didn't Carter just get The Nobel Peace Prize?)
Doesn't anyone find it a tad ironic that the guy who originally sent the "Welcome Wagon" to Bin Ladden just received one of the World's highest honors?!!!

 

What always makes me laugh is that people really believe that one man (i.e., the President of the US) is responsible for the entire economy.

 

Yes, but that never stops an incumbent administration from taking credit when times are good!

 

The Cultural Revolution really wasn't Mao's idea...

 

The fact is, he was a horrible president. What he has done after his presidency has been MORE dignifide, if that is possible, that what he had done as president. That prize was given to him not because of what he had done, but because the people who chose him do not like the current administration. It was a purely political move.


I am utterly amazed by you, Coolguy. Carter has done tremendous work since leaving the White House. He was fortunate to still be relatively young in 1981, and has been able to do great things in his time as a former president. He deserved the Peace Prize this time, and should have at least been nominated in 1978, when Sadat and Begin won directly because of his efforts.

 

I did not say that everything he has done has been bad, but when he runs around to all the tyrants of the world trying to solve problems by undermining whatever the current administration of the time is doing it is just not helpfull. I think that whole build-houses-for-poor-people thing he has done is great.

And I can't believe I made a double post and did not catch it. How silly of me.

All you have to do is listen to the head of the peace prize committee that told the press they did it because they don't like what Bush is doing now. To me, the prize has become nothing more than another political action committee.

 

?I did not say that everything he has done has been bad, but when he runs around to all the tyrants of the world trying to solve problems by undermining whatever the current administration of the time is doing it is just not helpfull.?

Although I was personally pulling for Hamid Karzai, I do concur with KW on this issue. And I would like to add that besides Carter?s pivotal role in brokering the Camp David Accords, he has also been rightly praised for his integral role in: persuading the former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung to open discussions with South Korea, mediating in Haiti in 1994, and helping broker ceasefire in Bosnia.

?All you have to do is listen to the head of the peace prize committee that told the press they did it because they don't like what Bush is doing now.?

You are quite correct to note this, Coolguy4522. However, some of the other members (of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee) have stated that Berge was expressing a personal opinion and that such criticism was not part of the discussions leading to the prize. IMHO, this controversy should be cleared up within the next few days.

 

I also remember Carter saying how great North Korea was when the people were eating grass.

 

"I also remember Carter saying how great North Korea was when the people were eating grass."

Sources would sure be nice. Also, a response to my posts on the first page of this thread (which were in reply to your post) would be quite nice too, Coolguy.

---

"[i]He [b]sucked[/b] as a president. He went down in history as being one of the worst. [b]Right behind Ulysses S. Grant[/b].[/i]"

I have to admit that your political analysis of his career sounds quite intellectual in nature; especially your exquisite choice of verbs and your failure insert one in the final sentence. [face_plain]

 

When did this turn into a carter debate? He sucked as a president. He went down in history as being one of the worst. Right behind Ulysses S. Grant.