Thrash about, attack and rend. Show your teeth. The US public knows Jimmy Carter is a kind gentle man. Keep it up.

The USA needs another president like Carter, who cared more about the world and people than American power. Since he left there has been nothing but militarists and warmongers. Even Clinton sent the military to kill and maim in the name of "peace". Yet it brought no peace.

What do you care about who holds the office? At thirteen you can't vote.

How droll.

True we need people to care about fidel castro, the likes of yasser arafat, hugo chavez, ahminigumflab in Iran.

Pravda sincerely make jimmy carter the head of the UN. Caring about the world is secondary to caring for and protecting america. Thats what the UN can do sorry.

hAVE ISLAMOFASCIST MILITANTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH killing and maiming in the name of the religion of peace?

Only Americans are war mongers right?

Blame us first right?

You're wrong. You were wrong at cspan and you're wrong here.

Now you have to lie every day to cover your ass. How does that feel, liar?

No, you are just the most powerful warmongers.

When was the last time you were at a funeral or wake honoring someones life and a speaker took the opportunity to bash the President of the United States for the TV cameras and radio sound bites?



P

A

T

H

E

T

I

C



OPPORTUNISM DISGUISED AS CARING.



Getting a chance to vote is about as much power as I carry, just like everyone else. sorry again.
Its apparent pravda that the peace presidency of carter was a failure. Interest rates at 18% , double digit inflation, hostages taken holding america hostage, even carter called it malaise.

then libs piss and moan about the economy now and defend carters presidency out of the other side of their mouth, while we were all waiting in gas lines for 3 hours in 78 and 79

You are a nasty, vicious little man who will do or say ANYTHING to defend your party and George Bush.

Keep ratcheting up the anger and venom. Show your true colors. Spread lies and gossip to take down your percieved enemies.

Chec the thread davis, its all about Jimmy Carter..............Dont make it personal because we arent angry like the libs..........

Who is the one with anger and venom?

That's real good. I have got better things to do than argue anything with a lying weasel dick like you.




Same goes for you.

What a strange and vile little fark he has grown up to be.

When did he grow up?

I still haven't decided just who is more revealed here.... Jimmy Carter who ran for office as a "born-again Christian" and got elected because of Pat Robertson's support and help or davis who hates Christians and endorces Jimmy Carter because he is a "good" Christian.

It's an amazing disconnect.

Jimmy Carter's bitterness and anger at a failed presidency manifests itself in his sabotaging America's international affairs and criticism of following Presidents. Jimmy Carter is a friend of every God-less dictator on the planet. What is even more telling is the people who defend Jimmy Carter's actions. It is with that defense that we have confirmation that Jimmy Carter is the worst President in US History as this thread establishes.

Very well stated...perhaps Friend Judy should take lessons.

Tuesday, 10 December, 2002, 14:08 GMT


Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize speech


Jimmy Carter called for international peace

Former United States President Jimmy Carter accepted the Nobel peace prize at a ceremony in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, on Tuesday.
The following are excerpts from his acceptance speech:

"The world has changed greatly since I left the White House.

Now there is only one superpower, with unprecedented military and economic strength.

Instead of entering a millennium of peace, the world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place. There is a plethora of civil wars... and recent appalling acts of terrorism have reminded us that no nations, even superpowers, are invulnerable.

It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus.

Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations.

Middle East conflict

Today there are at least eight nuclear powers on earth, and three of them are threatening to their neighbours in areas of great international tension.

For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.

For more than half a century following the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the Middle East conflict has been a source of worldwide tension.

United Nations Resolution 242 calls for withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, and provides for Israelis to live securely and in harmony with their neighbours.

There is no other mandate whose implementation could more profoundly improve international relationships.

Iraqi threat

Perhaps of more immediate concern is the necessity for Iraq to comply fully with the unanimous decision of the Security Council that it eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and permit unimpeded access by inspectors to confirm that this commitment has been honoured.

The world insists that this be done.

I am not here as a public official, but as a citizen of a troubled world who finds hope in a growing consensus that the generally accepted goals of society are peace, freedom, human rights, environmental quality, the alleviation of suffering, and the rule of law.

During the past decades, the international community, usually under the auspices of the United Nations, has struggled to negotiate global standards that can help us achieve these essential goals.

I am convinced that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and others can embrace each other in a common effort to alleviate human suffering and to espouse peace.

Wealth gap

At the beginning of this new millennium I was asked to discuss, here in Oslo, the greatest challenge that the world faces.

I decided that the most serious and universal problem is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people on earth.

The results of this disparity are root causes of most of the world's unresolved problems, including starvation, illiteracy, environmental degradation, violent conflict and unnecessary illnesses that range from Guinea worm to HIV/Aids.

War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.

The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices.

God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must."

Move over, Jimmah!

The Nobel Committee audaciously cited Carter's eagerness to sabotage the foreign policy of his successors as a reason for his prize:

Does Jimmy Deserve the Nobel Prize?
By David Frum


Could there be a less deserved Nobel Prize than the one just awarded to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter?

In his four years as President, Carter managed through weakness and ineptitude to create crisis after crisis.

During the 1976 presidential campaign, he pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea--a pledge that emboldened the North Koreans to position eight additional infantry divisions and 35% more tanks against the South. North Korean bellicosity forced Carter to break his pledge, but he had left behind a deadly permanent legacy: It was during the Carter years that the North Koreans started their nuclear weapons program. As president, Carter startled the world with his credulity and naivete.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he said he had learned more about the Soviets that one week than in all his previous life. But he never learned that weakness in an American president means danger for the whole world. His indecision helped to bring the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran--and to put a terrorist regime in control of the most powerful state in the Middle East. Khomeini's chosen heir, who presently holds supreme executive power in Iran, is now sheltering perhaps as many as two dozen al-Qaeda leaders.

Carter is often credited with the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. The credit is undeserved. Carter's eagerness to propitiate the Soviets--and his unconcealed hostility to the Israelis--inspired him to endorse the old Soviet idea of resolving the Middle East conflict in a gigantic multiparty peace conference co-chaired by the United States and the USSR. This idea terrified Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who had expelled Soviet military advisers from his country when he caught the Soviets plotting against him in 1972. Rather than resubmit to the Russians, Sadat opened secret bilateral negotiations with the Israelis in 1977. Camp David was the result.

One would have supposed that Carter touched bottom in 1980, when he lost the presidency by the largest margin of any incumbent since Herbert Hoover. But after his catastrophic presidency, Carter launched a new and unprecedented second career--he made himself America's first catastrophic ex-president.

Since 1980, Carter has made himself the supporter and apologist of anti-American dictators.

He met with Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega in 1989 and lent his prestige to Sandinista-written election rules that disfavored the democratic opposition. Jeane Kirkpatrick noted at the time how bitter Carter was when the Sandinistas nevertheless lost. "You'd have thought," she said, "that a democrat would have been happy."

In 1994, Carter was off to North Korea, where he met Kim Il Sung and pronounced the vicious old mass murderer "vigorous and intelligent."

Earlier this year, Carter visited Cuba and delivered a jaw-dropping speech at the University of Havana. He credulously praised Cuba's "superb systems of health care and universal education" and accused the U.S. of imposing the death penalty in a discriminatory manner. He offered perfunctory criticism of Castro's dictatorship--and then hastily undercut his few decent words by shaking Castro's hand and grinning at him as soon as he finished his speech.

Carter's record on the Middle East is especially contemptible. Jay Nordlinger of National Review describes the first of Carter's many meetings with Yasser Arafat: He said, "When I bring up the [PLO] charter, you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis." Arafat, for his part, complained about the Reagan administration's alleged "betrayals." Rosalynn Carter, who was taking notes for her husband, interjected, "You don't have to convince us!" which . . . "elicited gales of laughter all round."

What is worst about the Arafat story is not Carter's toadying to a tyrant and a murderer, but his willingness to undercut his own country in order to ingratiate himself. Carter took this disloyal behavior to an unprecedented extreme the following year, 1991, when the UN Security Council was debating a resolution to authorize the United States to use force to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Carter wrote a letter to the Security Council asking them to vote the resolution down.

The Nobel Committee audaciously cited Carter's eagerness to sabotage the foreign policy of his successors as a reason for his prize: "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 co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

Lest that be misunderstood, Gunnar Berge, the committee's chairman, commented at a press conference that Carter's prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. . . . It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

A patriotic American would indignantly refuse any foreign prize that came accompanied by insults to his country. But in Carter's character, patriotism has always taken a very distant back seat to vanity and malice. No prize can redeem his reputation--but this choice certainly mars the reputation of this prize.

http://hnn.us/articles/1048.html

That's just un-American.

From the malignant narcissists that gave the Peace prize to Jimmah Carter and terrorist/embezzler Yasser Arafat, comes the 2005 absurdity: Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency win the 2005 prize.


Jimmy Carter does not stand alone with UNDESERVED Nobel Peace Prize



Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog agency he heads, won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Peace.

~~The Norwegian Nobel Committee

To illustrate the failure of ElBaradei Watchdog Agency

On their watch:

* India announced it officially possessed nuclear weapons.

* Pakistan announced it had nuclear weapons.

* Libya announced that it had a highly-developed nuclear weapons program, and turned it over -- lock, stock, and barrel -- to the United States.

* Iran has repeatedly violated the treaty and is unabashedly seeking and obtaining nuclear weapons.

* North Korea has continued violations of the treaty and is unabashedly seeking nuclear weapons.

* Pakistan has helped spread what it has learned about nuclear weapons throughout the Muslim world.

Nobel Peace Prize... a badge of honor? Hardly. Since Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat were selected: It has devolved into A new shield of incompetency and failure.

Which republican was it that one the Nobel Peace Prize?

4 by my count - who "won" (were awarded)

SecState Henry Kissinger (along with Le Duc Tho, RNVN) 1973

VP Charles G. Dawes 1925

SecState Elihu Root 1912

President Theodore Roosevelt 1906

Source: http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/

Just terrorists and terrorist appologist win nowdays so they are not eligible.

I think Kissinger has been indicted for war crimes, so his prize should be taken back. I never heard of the rest, except, of course, Roosevelt. It was a very loooong time ago, when republicans weren't neocon zealots, I guess.

I saw "Nowdays".

I think receiving a Nobel Peace Prize is an insult and a cruel joke!


BTW--NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams lashed out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.



If Kissinger had any decency.. he would return the Prize, not because Chistopher Hitchens 'indicted' him but because it puts him in such bad company.

Don't worry, "decency" was never one of Henry's big selling points. Realpolitics was his deal.

Actually all there is a lawsuit currently making its way through the courts files in September of 2001 by Rene Schneider the son of a Chilean General allegedly murdered by Kissinger and the CIA in 1970 according to Mr. Schneider.

What might have you thinking he has been indicted of war crimes is a book by Christopher Hitchens entitled The Trial of henry Kissinger. However, no such indictments or actual trial ever took place.

Thanks.... but my "indictment" by Christopher Hitchens was in "quotes"

Speaking of murders.... Doesn't Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat hold the murder record?



I never thought that "decency" was a criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize. "PEACE" sure isn't either!

I think Sharon takes that honor.

The Fugitive

by Christopher Hitchins

The Nation magazine, June 25, 2001



It was, take it for all in all, a near-faultless headline: HENRY KISSINGER RATTRAPE AU RITZ, A PARIS, PAR LES FANTOMES DU PLAN CONDOR. I especially liked the accidental synonymy of the verb rattraper. What a rat. And such a trap. It was in this fashion that the front page of the Paris daily Le Monde informed its readers that on Memorial Day the gendarmes had gone round to the Ritz Hotel-flagship of Mohamed Al Fayed's fleet of properties-with a summons from Judge Roger Le Loire inviting the famous rodent to attend at the Palace of Justice the following day. In what must have been one of the most unpleasant moments of his career, noted Le Monde, the hotel manager had to translate the summons to his distinguished guest. Kissinger left the hotel, surrounded by bodyguards, and later announced that he had no desire to answer questions about Operation Condor. He then left town.



Operation Condor [see Peter Kornbluh, "Kissinger and Pinochet," March 29,1999, and "Chile Declassified," August 9/16, 1999] was a coordinated effort in the 1970s by the secret police forces of seven South American dictatorships. The death squads of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador and Bolivia agreed to pool resources and to hunt down, torture, murder and otherwise "disappear" one another's dissidents. They did this not just on their own soil but as far away as Rome and Washington, where assassins and car-bombs were deployed to maim Christian Democratic Senator Bernardo Leighton in 1975 and to murder the Socialist Orlando Letelier in 1976. The Pinochet regime was to the fore in this internationalization of state terror tactics, and its secret police chief, Col. Manuel Contreras, was especially inventive and energetic.


Thanks to the efforts of Representative Maurice Hinchey, who attached an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act last year, we now know that this seven-nation alliance had a senior partner. At all material times, those directing the work of US intelligence knew of Operation Condor and assisted its activities. And at all material times, the chairman of the supervising "Forty Committee," and the key member of the Interagency Committee on Chile, was Henry Kissinger. It was on his watch that the FBI helped Pinochet to identify and arrest Jorge Isaac Fuentes de Alarcon, a Chilean oppositionist who was first detained and tortured in Paraguay and then turned over to Contreras and "disappeared." Contreras himself was paid a CIA stipend. Other Condor leaders were promised US cooperation in the surveillance of inconvenient exiles living in the United States.


Judge Roger Le Loire has had documents to this effect on his desk for some time and is investigating the fate of five missing French citizens in Chile during the relevant period. He has already issued an arrest warrant for General Pinochet. But he understands that the inquiry can go no further until US government figures agree to answer questions. In refusing to do this, Kissinger received the shameful support of the US Embassy in Paris and the State Department, which coldly advised the French to go through bureaucratic channels in seeking information. Judge Le Loire replied that he had already written to Washington in 1999, during the Clinton years, but had received no response.


On the Friday immediately preceding Memorial Day, another magistrate in a democratic country made an identical request. In order to discover what happened to so many people during the years of Condor terror, said Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, it would be necessary to secure a deposition from Kissinger. And on June 4 the Chilean judge Juan Guzman Tapia asked US authorities to question Kissinger about the disappearance of the American citizen Charles Horman, murdered by Pinochet's agents in 1973 and subject of the Costa-Gavras movie Missing (as well as an occasional Nation correspondent). So that, in effect, we have a situation in which the Bush regime is sheltering a man who is wanted for questioning on two continents.

Partly because I have written a short book pointing this out, I have recently been interviewed by French, British and Spanish radio and TV. Indeed, if it wasn't for that, I might not have learned of Kissinger's local and international difficulties for some days. The Financial Times carried a solid story on the Paris episode, with some background, the day after Le Monde. But in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post-not a line. And where were Messrs. Koppel and Lehrer? They usually find the views of "Henry" to be worthy of respectful attention. I admit my own interest, but I still feel able to ask: By whose definition is Kissinger's moment at the Ritz not news?


It is, meanwhile, practically impossible to open the New York Times without reading a solemn admonition, either from the Administration or from the paper itself. Colin Powell lectures Robert Mugabe. George Bush takes a high moral tone with Serbia. All are agreed that wanted men should be given up to international law. All are agreed that however painful the task, other societies must face their own past and shoulder their own grave responsibilities. For a long time I have found it somewhat surreal to read this righteous material, but the experience of ingesting it now becomes more emetic every day.


The seven Condor countries, groping their way back to democracy after decades of trauma, are making brave and honest attempts to find the truth and to punish the guilty. Time and again, commissions of inquiry have been frustrated because the evidence they need is in archives in Washington. And it is in those archives for the unspeakable reason that the United States was the patron and armorer of dictatorship. There is a heavy debt here. Is there not a single Congressional committee, a single principled district attorney, a single leader in our overfed and complacent "human rights community," who will try to help cancel it? Or are we going to watch while the relatives of the murdered and tortured seek justice by lawful means, and are waved away by armed bodyguards if they even try to serve a scrap of paper on the man whose immunity befouls us all?

Although he hasn't been indicted, he is a criminal and should be tried.

I believe that's the American way...

The Case Against Yasser Arafat
by Alan M. Dershowitz

Mass Murderer- Terrorist Extraordinaire

Mr. Dershowitz is an ass. He has no credibility for me and neither does the group "christian action for israel".

But Yasser Arafat is OK?

Arafat was fighting the occupation of his country. A freedom fighter for his people. He was corrupt, and in the end did more harm than help for his people. He was no worse than the Israelis who occupy Palestinian land and kill without provacation.

Not really, it just hasn't worked out very well for Mr Cahtah.

September 02, 2006
Khatami and Carter


There are some 'behind the scenes' efforts to get former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami hooked up with former President Jimmy Carter.

From Radio Free Europe:

There has been talk that Khatami's U.S. visit could eventually lead to a meeting with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was marred by the taking of U.S. hostages in Tehran following the Islamic revolution in 1979.

"The Washington Post" reported that Carter has agreed in principle to host Khatami. There has been no official reaction from Khatami, but the "Financial Times" quoted Iranian sources today as saying Khatami would be unlikely to accept such an invitation.

Even so, some people are hopeful. In particular, Professor Houshang Amirahmadi of Rutgers University and the Iranian-American Council believes Khatami's presence is positive and a meeting with Jimmy Carter could be a real icebreaker.

"Before traveling to the U.S., Mr. Khatami should discuss the issue with Iranian leaders, with Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei, and tell them that after meeting with Mr. Carter he would invite [Carter] to visit Iran," Amirahmadi says.

So, if birds of a feather flock together, I'd guess that Khatami and Carter would make the perfect anti-American pair of flocking caucusers.

Your cult is disgusting. Absolute loyalty to the party over everything.

Jimmy Carter is so far above those in your party when it comes to real, genuine morals and values it's ridiculous.

As long as Jimmy Carter misbehaves, some in the press will write about it. Deal with it.

lol. But if your lying pricks do anything illegal, unconstitutional or outside any rule of law it's ok. As long as they are with your party anything is ok. ANYTHING. Murder, torture, war, lies, treason, it doesn't matter. To you, if a Republican does it, it must be ok, because you trust them completely. They are patriots who should be given the widest lattitude poossible because Jesus said so.




You complain every day about how the press is unfair to the Republicans.



lol.

But if your lying pricks do anything illegal, unconstitutional or outside any rule of law it's ok. As long as they are with your party anything is ok. ANYTHING. Murder, torture, war, lies, treason, it doesn't matter. To you, if a Republican does it, it must be ok, because you trust them completely. They are patriots who should be given the widest lattitude poossible because Jesus said so.

It must be sunday Reverend Davis Preaching Jesus.

I like Jimmy Carter.

Me too.




You are a lame excuse for human.

Me too.


http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/

Medal
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

The rightwing's new portrayal of Jimmy Carter as an angry man with a problem controlling his temper just won't wash. Sad though.

Carter is a gentle soul actually looking for peace. The last American president to do so. His efforts to bring human rights and fair elections around the world are more constructive than any "nation building" Bush is attempting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You are very correct.

Where are you from Pravda?

Since a very young age Canada. A wonderful country when it isn't snowing.

Seems I just can't take the extremes either way. Don't want artie's 115 or your -50.



How'd you get here, to cspan sucks?