http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/phillips/20030310.htm

The above article points out a lot of the failures resulting from the Jimmy Carter Era. A man very much misguided and taken advantage of over the years.

Yet in spite of his failures, he is reguarded as an "expert" in foreign affairs, even having won the Nobel Peace Prize.

When are people going to wake up and see this dangerous ex-President for what he really is??? A misguided failure in the past and the present as well.

His ONLY strong point was diplomacy.

His presidency failed because he had no idea of any basic economic principles.

Jimmy Carter.... Caught up in America's Sleazy Foreign Policy, just like all the rest...

Foreign Policy guided by Big Business(Big Oil)

I think that Jimmy Carter was the most decent and honest man that we ever had as president. He wasn't however a politician and didn't know how to play the game. He had the forsight to know that our country needed to develop alternate fuel sources. He was also a true believer in civil rights. He was a deeply religiously man and lived his life accordingly. He has participated in many great causes since then: Habitat for Humanity, aiding in peace negotations, and overseeing elections around the world to make sure that they are run fairly. I think that he was the perfect candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I totally agree Kelleygirl.

You certainly got that right, Kelleygirl. Jimmy Carter was the most ethical and decent president we have ever had - too bad he had to deal with the sleaze of Washington politics. Some men are too gentle to associate with wolves.

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/ellis/20030311.htm

Jimmy Carter had a tendency to be too trusting. Leaders of other countries had a tendency to take full advantage of him. And he allowed them to do it.

He may be good at building houses and getting people to volunteer their time. But the man doesn't have a clue how to conduct foreign policy. He didn't while he was President. He still doesn't now.

Perhaps I can take comfort in the fact that since he is so critical of President Bush, then President Bush is on the right track. A reverse endorsement, so to speak. The day Jimmy Carter starts talking good about President Bush's policies, then I'll start to worry.

Now is the time to worry.

I only wish I had the time to formulate a complete reply to Bob Ellis. Instead, I'd like to address a couple of points only.

"Carter made goodwill trips to Nicaragua at the height of the Sandinista era as an act of defiance to Reagan administration policies and to assure the Marxist regime that Americans didn't "hate" them."

Nicaragua was not Marxist. I know because I lived there at the time. In fact, I debated Sandinista officials on many occasions about their promises of socialism to their people during their guerrilla years, only to backtrack the moment they took power. For a country to be socialist the economy must be planned, that is, it must be in control of the government. In Nicaragua it was not. Barely 25 to 30 percent of the economy was in the hands of the government, and though they did institute many reforms that would be most in line with a welfare state, they were certainly not socialist/marxist/communist, or whatever you want to call them.

"When war was looming before Desert Storm he appealed to the communist Chinese government to block military action, while they were fresh from of their brutal suppression at Tiananmen Square."

Carter, as did all U.S. leaders current and former, also sided with the Tienanmen Square protesters (remember they had the statue of liberty as their beacon?). However, what most of you don't remember or don't know, and Carter ignored, I'm sure, is that the demands of the youth who led the protests at the square were protesting for worker's democracy, a basic tenet of socialism, and against the bureaucrat's abuse of power and excessive privileges, i.e., their un-communism. As new groups of protesters marched singing in to the square, they weren't singing a MacDonalds jingle, they were singing the Internationale (anthem of communism, for those of you that don't know). As in the U.S., the Chinese government didn't pay much importance to the student protests. It wasn't until they were joined by the workers that all hell broke loose. Ohmygod, they must have thought, imagine that, the workers singing the communist anthem and chanting for worker's democracy! That's what triggered the tanks rolling in.

As for the idea that many liberals like to believe, that Carter (and democrats in general) are for peace and for turning missiles into ploughs, sorry to burst your bubble but that couldn't be further from the truth. The current war couldn't have happened without the Gulf War, which couldn't have happened without the massive deployment of forces to the region, that is without Carter's Rapid Deployment Forces, which by the way was the brainchild of J.F. Kennedy through his "Flexible Response Strategy" or "Strike Command" as was baptized by then Secretary of Defense McNamara.

-QwertyMac

Like Kissinger, Carter's skill at diplomacy seems to rest with large sums of cash. Amazingly he is given credit after the money runs out and the parties involved return to their previous ways.
A Nobel prize for negotiating with North Korea to end their nuclear arms research? Anyone read the news lately?

I would like to agree that he is a decent man ~ there is enough evidence that he is that, even if being President put him in over his head.

But I believe the honors for most decent President would have to go to one of these ~ Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, either Roosevelt or, most likely of all, Truman, who by today's standards, is unbelievable.
I would add Grant, but his is clouded by what other men around him did while he served.

quote:

---

...But I believe the honors for most decent President would have to go to one of these ~ Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, either Roosevelt or, most likely of all, Truman, who by today's standards, is unbelievable.
I would add Grant, but his is clouded by what other men around him did while he served.

---

I was with you all the way on this post, until you included Grant. What aspects of his presidency do you believe make him worthy of inclusion with the likes of Lincoln?

quote:

---

I was with you all the way on this post, until you included Grant. What aspects of his presidency do you believe make him worthy of inclusion with the likes of Lincoln?

---

Whoops! I overlooked your use of the word "decent." I withdraw the question.