Opinion of Jimmy Carter

[Beet]

Generally positive, not spectacular. However, I do think he is unappreciated in popular political mythology.

[Beet]

He's gotten progressively worse since his campaign of 1976 (when I would have most certainly supported him) to the point now where he's just a rambling, anti-American idiot.

I really don't know where to put him honestly.

It's clear he's a horrible person, as any anti-American idiot, as you accurately describe him, would be.

In my case, I hope being anti-Bush is not synonymous with being anti-American

Dave

Republicans probably wish it was.

[Beet]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

That stance assumes the US ought never to support international human rights bodies, while historically the US has been a champion of human rights. As recently as the 1990s we intervened to prevent human rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and when our political leaders went to China they spoke about human rights on national TV over there and made it an important issue (nowadays they go only to talk about trade and North Korea). Just because the current Bush government has lost all credibility on human rights it doesn't mean support for universal human rights = anti-American.

I find that assumption quite offensive, though it would perhaps be a fair assumption if applied to the former Soviet Union.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support the UN Human Rights Commission specifically, for like all bodies it is probably imperfect and politically corrupted. If the Bush administration was moving to eliminate the influence of Sudan etc from the Commission and replace it with countries that traditionally have more credibility and Carter was opposing that, I can see why that is wrong. However just because Carter opposes the Bush administration's attempt to have it quashed altogether that doesn't prove by itself that he's anti-American.

EDIT: Looking on wikipedia, it is clear the Commision is composed of 53 members, of which Sudan and Cuba are just 2. Nowhere does it suggest that these countries "head" the commission as you suggested. Furthermore, it states clearly that there are no permanent seats. While there are seven or eight members on the member list who I would vehemently oppose being on the commission, I fail to see in this a justification for permanently quashing any institutionalized Human Rights work by the UN. The article notes that "Supporters in most democratic countries consider the work of the UNCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom the Commission advises, as helpful for the worldwide human rights situation," that by itself suggests it is essential to keep the commission while working vigorously to prevent unsavory members from ever being elected (and if elected, limiting their influence).

[Beet]

I only say he is anti-American because he specifically uses his power as an ex-President to try fight US interests in international situations.  Has really nothing to do with being anti-Bush or pro-Bush to me.

Take, for example, this recent attempt by the US in the UN to get the Human Rights Commission (headed by Sudan, Cuba, etc.) pushed to a lesser level of importance.  He came out publicly and said he would work with Cuba and these other countries to make sure this doesn't happen.

Simply ridiculous, imo.

That stance assumes the US ought never to support international human rights bodies, while historically the US has been a champion of human rights. As recently as the 1990s we intervened to prevent human rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and when our political leaders went to China they spoke about human rights on national TV over there and made it an important issue (nowadays they go only to talk about trade and North Korea). Just because the current Bush government has lost all credibility on human rights it doesn't mean support for universal human rights = anti-American.

I find that assumption quite offensive, though it would perhaps be a fair assumption if applied to the former Soviet Union.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support the UN Human Rights Commission specifically, for like all bodies it is probably imperfect and politically corrupted. If the Bush administration was moving to eliminate the influence of Sudan etc from the Commission and replace it with countries that traditionally have more credibility and Carter was opposing that, I can see why that is wrong. However just because Carter opposes the Bush administration's attempt to have it quashed altogether that doesn't prove by itself that he's anti-American.

EDIT: Looking on wikipedia, it is clear the Commision is composed of 53 members, of which Sudan and Cuba are just 2. Nowhere does it suggest that these countries "head" the commission as you suggested. Furthermore, it states clearly that there are no permanent seats. While there are seven or eight members on the member list who I would vehemently oppose being on the commission, I fail to see in this a justification for permanently quashing any institutionalized Human Rights work by the UN. The article notes that "Supporters in most democratic countries consider the work of the UNCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom the Commission advises, as helpful for the worldwide human rights situation," that by itself suggests it is essential to keep the commission while working vigorously to prevent unsavory members from ever being elected (and if elected, limiting their influence).

If Carter really cares so much about human rights, why does he always cozy up to brutal dictators like Kim Jong Il?

Even as president, his double standard was evident.  He is generally not critical of deficient human rights in countries hostile to the US.  That was true during his presidency, and is true today.

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

[Beet]

Um, I hope you realize how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the Carter trip. Because they were going to process plutonium, Clinton was seriously on the verge of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities... the retaliatory artillery barrage on Seoul would have killed tens of thousands of people immediately.

I realize that.  But Carter's agreement gave away the store, and simply delayed the problem.  Also, the way in which Carter handled the whole thing -- announcing the agreement publicly before reporting it to Clinton, in order to force Clinton's hand -- was a disgrace.  Only an egomaniac would behave in such a way.

Clinton accepted the agreement not because it was a good agreement, but because (1) Carter's unprofessional conduct put him in a position in which it would have been very difficult to reject it without major damage; and (2) he gambled that North Korea would collapse on its own before we had to deliver on our side of the agreement's obligations.

Unfortunately, we lost that bet, though I can see logically why Clinton would have taken that gamble.  Where I have a problem with Clinton is that he knew as early as 1997 that the North Koreans were cheating on the agreement, and he swept it under the rug, and passed the problem on to his successor.

But I don't think that Carter's role in the whole thing was one to be proud of.  For a man who claims to care so much about human rights, he cozies up to an awful lot of brutal dictators.  I guess their anti-Americanism trumps their human rights violations in his eyes.

I don't defend (or know of) everything Carter does, but in this instance my value judgment was that the Agreed Framework was infinitely preferable to either of the two alternatives, which were (1) going to war with North Korea, and (2) a nuclear North Korea. The Bush administration inherited a relatively good situation, infinitely better than 1994, even though the regime did not collapse. For one thing, although North Korea was enriching uranium (as opposed to plutonium rods), this would have taken years if not decades to develop into viable weapons. Second, relations between the North and South were rapidly improving (decades-deferred family reunifications), between the North and Japan were improving (return of 1970s-era kidnap victims), the North's economic policy reform (opening of a China-style SEZ). Everything suggested that the North had decided to take the path of reform and renounce its aggressive international practices of the 1980s (despite a still brutal domestic regime).

Bush took this situation--the best it had been in decades by far-- and turned it to sh**t. Today, the North has had free reign of plutonium rods from Yongbyon which used to be under UN guard; it probably has nuclear weapons; the regime is as strong as ever; US policy is flailing in all directions and in stalemate. Furthermore, the North's moves toward reform have been reversed. On every front, Bush's policies have rapidly deteriorated the situation.

[Beet]

The bottom line is that the Bush policy has accomplished nothing and if anything made the situation far worse.