Friday, September 18, 2009

Jimmy Carter: One Term Wasn't Enough?

One Disastrous Term Wasn't Enough For Jimmy Carter To Establish His Legacy? It was For Me And I would Venture To Say Most Everyone Else As Well.



No, this former peanut farmer from Georgia wants to make sure that his name goes down in history as a destructive career diplomat as well, both foreign and domestic. His current diatribe concerns the fact that any criticism of the new administration must have its foundation in racism. While blatantly untrue, why is this ex-President playing the race card, particularly when it is so far off base? Why is he making statements at all?

Knowing the record of this man, why is his voice one that is getting, or deserving of, any attention.

His Presidency Was Marked By Economic Woe And A Degradation Of United States Standing In The World. His Post Presidency Record, Save Participation In Habitat For Humanity, Has Not Been Much Better

Here are some snippets of the lowlights (the right to list highlights are reserved for the time they are discovered)

Presidency Lowlights
  • U.S. and Panama sign treaties to end American control of Panama Canal by year 2000 (1977).
  • Iranian militants seize more than 50 hostages at U.S. embassy in Tehran (not freed until Ronald Reagan took office) (1979).
  • Russian invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
  • U.S. military rescue of hostages in Iran aborted (1980).
  • U.S. boycotts Summer Olympics in Moscow (1980).
  • Economic malaise
  • Stagflation (inflation and recession occurring simultaneously)

Post-Presidency Lowlights
  • 1994 negotiations with Kim Jong-il, an agreement soon broken
  • Visited Cuba in 2002 and had a grand old time with Castro.
  • As an election observer, he certified the results of the questionable election in Venezuela in 2004, keeping Hugo Chavez in control of the country.
  • He ridiculed Tony Blair for his alliance with the us in the war on terror (or whatever acronym given to it now by the current administration). Incredibly, he said this about then President Bush: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” I actually usually vote for Carter when that question comes up.
  • His book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" made the Osama Bin Laden best seller list with the comment by Bin Laden “After you read the suggested books, you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you.”
So what is his agenda invoking the race card? Stupidity or wanting to deal a blow to the Obama administration? Most likely the former as his goal was in no way to hurt the President, particularly at this critical time in his healthcare bill negotiations. But as this former peanut farmer showed while in office and after, conflict resolution may not be his strong suit.

Sometimes former Presidents should be seen and not heard!

10 comments :

  1. Here's a highlight: brokered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

    Boycotts Olympics a Presidential lowlight? Can't you find anything more important? Not that the other things on the list are much better. Maybe you should start over and make a new list.

    For the Crisis of Confidence speech, I invite you to read my post on it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Not that the other things on the list are much better."

    Obviously a partisan,but beyond double digit inflation (bad), horrific economy (bad), diminished US standing in the world through weak leadership (bad), Carter is anti-Israel and bordering (if not over the border) on being an anti-semite.

    Where were you during the Iranian hostage crisis? Obama, I mean Carter, was weak, and the entire world knew it.

    As far as the Crisi of Confidence speech what is your point. Was that the stuff of strong leadership? By the way, proof read before you post:

    Certainly Jimmy Carter make mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martha Brock, Cary, NCSeptember 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM

    Jimmy Carter was not a great President, but neither was he the "loser" that his critics would like you to believe. I supported his candidacy because his predessor, the sleeziest of our Presidents, Richard Nixon disgraced the office.

    Carter's main liability was the OPEC oil crisis, which he did not have any control over. The resulting long lines for gasoline in the US were the result of too many years of dependency on foreign oil by all Americans, and not by the Carter Administration.

    I am really tired of the attacks on President Carter, who has become one of our country's greatest "Elder Statesman" and who has given of his time and effort for many years. His Carter Center is a valuable asset for Atlanta, Georgia, and the US.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate your thoughts, but much of what he says and does is not a positive for the US domestically and overseas or for some of our allies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the typo. Certainly I make mistakes.

    No one is putting Carter on any list of top 10 presidents, but he shouldn't be in the bottom half either. But regardless of our opinion about him, we should agree that he got dealt a terrible hand: post-Nixon*, OPEC, hostages, et al. I agree with Martha and point out that the weakness of your list was that most were things he had zero - zero - control over. Russians invade Afghanistan, that's Jimmy Carter's fault?

    *And I'm not just talking soft "confidence in governments" stuff. Inflation was a huge problem before Jimmy Carter took office.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To your point, President Bush was also dealt a bad hand due to the non-existent national security policies of the Clinton administration.

    The attacks against the US by terrorists during Clintons terms were for the most part ignored, leading to the climax of 9/11.

    Unfortunately Carter did not work the hand that he was dealt well. Bush as well made mistakes, but a large part of the presidents job is to set the tone for the way in which the country is perceived and dealt with.

    The Russians invading Afghanistan may or may not have happened anyway, but the United States under Carter certainly carried no sway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ask Richard Clarke what he thinks about your tired blame-9/11-on-Clinton canard. Have anything not straight from conservative talking points?

    "a large part of the presidents job is to set the tone for the way in which the country is perceived and dealt with."

    Are you saying that Bush 43 did better than Carter in this regard?

    I thought a large part of the president's job is to protect and defend the Constitution, faithfully execute the laws, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually the presidents job is also to protect our country and its people. This president is not handling that part of the job very well.

    Now he wants to ignore the needs in Afghanistan as stated by the General in charge, so as to not interfere with the healthcare debate.

    As the arrest over the weekend show, the policies of this administration are misguided. Investigate the CIA? How about giving them a medal instead!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here are the two criteria you've listed here:

    "a large part of the presidents job is to set the tone for the way in which the country is perceived and dealt with."

    "the presidents job is also to protect our country and its people."

    Who did a better job with these: Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Certainly not Jimmy Carter. George W was handed 9/11 and we did not have another attack since. Hopefully Obama can do as well.

    ReplyDelete

;