Who the FU*K does Carter think he is?

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.nysun.com/article/28484

 

Carter Seeks Vote in U.N. Against U.S.

 

By BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun

March 3, 2006

 

 

President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.

 

Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."

 

While other former presidents have tried to refrain from attacking the sitting chief executive, Mr. Carter's attacks on President Bush have increased. The episode he recounted yesterday showed how he tried to undermine officials at lower levels in an effort to influence policy.

 

The story, as Mr. Carter recalled, began with a recent dinner for 17 he attended in New York, where the guests included the president of the U.N. General Assembly, Jan Eliasson; an unidentified American representative, and other U.N. ambassadors from "powerful" countries at Turtle Bay, of which he mentioned only three: Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan. The topic was the ongoing negotiations on an attempt to replace the widely discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission with a more accountable Human Rights Council.

 

"One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Mr. Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Mr. Carter said.

 

"So I called Condoleezza Rice and told her about the problem, and she said that that statement by our representative was not going to be honored," he said. But despite Mr. Carter's assessment that there are "a lot of people" in Washington who oppose Mr. Bolton on the Human Rights Council, Mr. Bolton's opposition to the proposed new structure became American policy.

 

Publications not known for their support of the Bush administration or Mr. Bolton, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, recently backed the ambassador's policy on the Human Rights Council, saying in editorials that the compromise hashed out by Mr. Eliasson is an inadequate fix for the existing structure.

 

Mr. Bolton's spokesman, Richard Grenell, told The New York Sun yesterday that it is "naive" to think that Mr. Bolton has "a different position than the rest of the United States government on this issue."

 

Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.

 

He also reiterated his known view that most of the problems in the Israeli-Arab front derive from Israel's settlement policies and its building of a defensive barrier in what he insisted on calling "Palestine."

 

"From Dwight Eisenhower to the road map of George W. Bush, our policy has been that Israel's borders coincide with those of 1949," Mr. Carter said, adding, "All my predecessors have categorized each settlement as both illegal and an obstacle to peace."

 

On April 14, 2004,President Bush said in a speech, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." He later cemented that statement in a letter to Prime Minister Sharon, which became the stated American policy on Israeli settlements.

 

The host of yesterday's event, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, who has served several presidents in key Middle East roles, including most recently Mr. Bush, told the Sun yesterday that while American officials frequently defined settlements as an "obstacle to peace" they refrained from calling them "illegal."

 

 

Why is Carter promising ANYBODY ANYTHING? He 'promised' Cuba that the US wouldn't do something, when he knew damn well that the US was going to push for permanant seats for Security Council members? Boo f***ing ho, Mr. loser-ex-President. This man is pathetic in his attempts to leave a 'legacy' that is more favorable than his Presidential stint.

[samclemens]

carter = worst prez in american history. he has no credibility. apparently he'll say and do anything to stay in the spotlight.

[kapkomet]

carter = worst prez in american history. he has no credibility. apparently he'll say and do anything to stay in the spotlight.

:rolly

[Gregory Pratt]

http://www.nysun.com/article/28484

Why is Carter promising ANYBODY ANYTHING?  He 'promised' Cuba that the US wouldn't do something, when he knew damn well that the US was going to push for permanant seats for Security Council members?  Boo f***ing ho, Mr. loser-ex-President. This man is pathetic in his attempts to leave a 'legacy' that is more favorable than his Presidential stint.

 

It isn't just George W. Bush's Presidency that James Earl Carter sees fit to interfere with. For one thing, he's a very strange character. He went into hiding and moped and wrote silly books for years during the Reagan Presidency instead of attacking him, because -- well, I'm not sure, but he was inactive then and once Bush I came into office, he became an attack dog on behalf of the Third World. Maybe Reagan had successfully established his dominance over Jimmy Carter, and Carter acknowledged the better man?

 

I too think Carter is the worst President in American History aside from Warren Harding. I've more affection for Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan than I do for Carter. Part of that is the fact that he was a weasel all his life, and no less dishonest than Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush. Part of it might be the fact that he thought invading Iran with nine helicopters would be a good idea. And part of it is the fact that he's never met a Dictator whose stance on American foreign policy he didn't prefer to ours.

 

Occasionally, of course, he's right about something -- but, hell, we all know that a broken clock's right two times a day.

 

George H.W. Bush considered having Carter prosecuted under the Logan Act because Carter was lobbying the UN Security Council on behalf of Iraq before the Persian Gulf War. Bill Clinton was furious with Carter for flying to North Korea to negotiate on behalf of the United States with Kim Jung Il. (He just flew there and called Clinton on the way saying, "By the way, I might be in Pyongyang....") And now Jimmy Carter continues his vendetta against sitting Presidents and continues being an attack dog for dictators everywhere.

 

I resent him, also, for setting the Democratic Party back twelve years with his incompetence and bumbling. Since I am a Democrat. But I think he's easily the worst President in modern times, and certainly the worst living ex-President.

[WCSox]

carter = worst prez in american history.

 

Not sure about that, but he certainly wasn't a very effective president. And since Reagan's tenure ended, he's gone out of his way to undermine the authority of other sitting presidents. So, he's certianly the worst ex-president in American history.

[Rex Kickass]

Jimmy Carter writes with other Nobel Peace Prize Laureates about the proposed compromise.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/05/opinion/edjimmy.php

[samclemens]

Jimmy Carter writes with other Nobel Peace Prize Laureates about the proposed compromise.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/05/opinion/edjimmy.php

 

oh yeah, carters nobel peace prize for his work in the middle east. he really saved that area of the world. as a result of carters work, there is now peace in the middle east.

[EvilMonkey]

Jimmy Carter writes with other Nobel Peace Prize Laureates about the proposed compromise.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/05/opinion/edjimmy.php

Rex, it doesn't matter if he is 100% right, he himself has no business making promises for the United States. ..."which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Mr. Carter said. HE has ZERO power to promise anyone there anything on behalf of the United States. He needs to go back to the peanut farm, or build some more houses. Hope he hangs drywall better than he did the Presidential-thing.

[Rex Kickass]

The only place I saw this is in the New York Sun. I don't know how much I can buy it. I went and searched Google News for something similar. CNS News picked it up and a s*** ton of Republican blogs picked it up.

 

But the Washington Times doesn't even have a mention of this. And they would have if it actually had happened. I'm not saying that Carter didn't say what he was quoted as saying, but I'm not sure that I buy that he actually did at the moment.

[whitesoxfan101]

I think it's a broad statement based on the long history and many presidents we've had to say Carter was THE worst, but I really think it would be difficult to argue that Carter and Grant would be right there in the top 5.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, so here's the full quote. Context included, from the CFR transcript.

 

The questioner has been a sweetheart of mine for many years.  (Laughter.)  She and her husband used to take me in when nobody else would do so, and I couldn't afford a hotel room.  And I want to thank you.  (Laughter.)  I've almost forgot the question.  What -- (laughter) -- the Carter Center has been deeply involved in the reorganization of the United Nations for the last six months.  I've worked very closely with President Eliasson.  He's president of the General Assembly, as all of you know.

 

And in December he called me and said that he was having a very great problem in getting the key players to come together and agree to a reasonable compromise.  So I devoted one evening in New York, and I think 17 of the most recalcitrant and powerful members came and had supper with me.  These were -- the United States was represented there, plus Cuba and Egypt and Pakistan -- the whole group of them who have -- (laughter) -- who were somewhat troublesome.  (Laughter.)  I felt at the end of that evening and President Eliasson did too that we made great progress, and one of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to try to dominate all the other nations in the world in the Human Rights Council.

 

Well, the next day, our ambassador to the United States came out and demanded that in the new council, that all the permanent members of the Security Council would be permanent members, which subverted exactly what I had promised them.  So I called Condoleezza Rice and told her about the problem, and she said that that statement by our representative was not going to be honored.

 

Well, we reached a good compromise, in my opinion, not what I wanted and not what Kofi Annan wanted, not what the United States wanted, not what Egypt wanted, not what Europe wanted, but it was a very good compromise and a great improvement over the existing debacle of the present Human Rights Commission.

 

This will be a much more effective organization.  It will meet at least 10 times as many days per year.  It will not be bogged down constantly in just arguments between the United States and Cuba, going all over the world trying to get enough votes to condemn each other.  (Laughter.)  It will be a good screening process to make sure that despicable members cannot be on the council.  It will be reduced in size.  A lot of improvements.  I don't want to take up any more time with it.

 

But unfortunately, despite my entreaties to the secretary of State, the United States did come out against it.  And I understand that within the administration there's a lot of argument; it's not a clear decision.  There are a lot of people in Washington who think that we should have endorsed this compromise.

 

This morning, by the way, the European Union came out in favor of it, which is a major step forward.  So my hope is that when the vote is taken in the General Assembly, soon, with President Eliasson supervising, that the other countries would out-vote the United States and it will be adopted.

 

What the United States -- some United States representatives really want is two things.  They want a few countries always to be a member of the council.  They want a few countries never to be members of the council.  And they don't want a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly because they are very sure that the United States cannot get two-thirds of the vote.

 

So, it's a major step in the right direction.  Not nearly what we wanted.  But I hope that it will pass.

 

So what I'm gathering from this full quote is that Carter was asked to be a part of the group to develop a reorganization of the UNHCR. I'm also gathering that he was told what the US position was and our ambassador said something different. When he mentioned it to Rice, Rice said that Bolton spoke out of turn. Then went and supported her ambassador leaving Carter out to dry. That's Carter's story.

 

So Carter was asked to help reorganize the UNHCR and found a compromise that the US originally agreed with and decided not to like later. Carter said, I hope the compromise passes and the US is outvoted in its proposal. Because he has a vested interest in the compromise that he was asked to draft. Because he has an honest disagreement with US policy.

 

But I forgot, once you leave office, you aren't allowed to comment on US policy anymore.

[bmags]

oh yeah, carters nobel peace prize for his work in the middle east. he really saved that area of the world. as a result of carters work, there is now peace in the middle east.

 

paint chips

[EvilMonkey]

So what I'm gathering from this full quote is that Carter was asked to be a part of the group to develop a reorganization of the UNHCR.

Asked by who? If by the UN, then certainly he should be there, but unless he was asked by the US, he should not be promising things for the US.

I'm also gathering that he was told what the US position was and our ambassador said something different

This is, of course, what Carter is implying, by saying he thought they had a compromise. BUt you know as well as I do that people often hear what they want to hear, and just maybe he WAS told the US position, and it included the security council members on board, and Carter just decided to negotiate that away. We don't know what he was told.

[GoodAsGould]

I too think Carter is the worst President in American History aside from Warren Harding. I've more affection for Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan than I do for Carter.

 

I have no clue how you could have more affection for a guy like Buchanon or Pierce or Hoover than Carter.....

[Heads22]

Warren G. Harding was a son of a b****.

[Rex Kickass]

Heads, that's seriously the best post ever.

[Gregory Pratt]

I have no clue how you could have more affection for a guy like Buchanon or Pierce or Hoover than Carter.....

 

Herbert Hoover's post-Presidency was the greatest of any other President. He accomplished a lot and did much. He was wrong about the Economics of the Great Depression -- as was FDR -- but he gets blasted for not doing anything. It's not as bad as Carter trying to invade Iran with eight helicopters and, besides, Hoover didn't spend his post-Presidency at War with other Presidents even of his own party. Truman came to greatly admire him, and Kennedy called on him and all the others during the Missile Crisis. There are a ton of things to redeem poor Herbert Hoover.

 

What's Jimmy Carter but a liar? When he ran for Governor of Georgia, he did it using racist tools and supporting Segregation, then, as soon as he was sworn in, said there was no room for racism in his state. Not only is his character seriously objectionable -- his character, of course, being what he and his supporters say "redeems him" from the miserable failure that was his Presidency -- but he's been sniping at other Presidents for decades, and not just in the public square but by trying to undermine their talks. His penchant for negotiating with other countries is Nixonian, and Kissingeresque, to say the least except that, unlike them, Jimmy Carter doesn't have the skills to sabotage a Clinton or a Bush proposal -- but it isn't for a lack of trying!

 

Indeed, James Earl Carter is the Inspecter Clouseau of the Presidents.

 

Warren G. Harding was a son of a b****.

 

Mmm hmm.

[samclemens]

ok, since i started all this s*** by saying carter was the worst in the history of the country, let me be more specific: easily the worst of the 20th century, worst five of all time.

 

its a huge stretch to compare a modern president to someone like buchanan or franklin pierce, since the key issue then was slavery and state's rights. in fact, i find it impossible to compare a slavery-era president to any modern president.

[WCSox]

ok, since i started all this s*** by saying carter was the worst in the history of the country, let me be more specific: easily the worst of the 20th century, worst five of all time.

 

I'm not sure about that. Gerald Ford was worthless (although not in office long enough to do much damage). Nixon was an authoritarian scumbag, yet an effective foreign policy president.

 

Carter was an ineffective president, but I think that he did more damage to the country after he served.

[mr_genius]

c'mon guys, cut Carter some slack (he has a drinking problem).

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not sure about that.  Gerald Ford was worthless (although not in office long enough to do much damage).  Nixon was an authoritarian scumbag, yet an effective foreign policy president.

 

Carter was an ineffective president, but I think that he did more damage to the country after he served.

Actually, Nixon was not an effective foreign policy president. It was Nixon who helped create a detente with the Soviet Union that basically gave it another 15 years of life before coming crashing down around its economic weight. He also had a hand in more meddling in Latin America and his administration saw to make the deportation of John Lennon a priority.

[WCSox]

Actually, Nixon was not an effective foreign policy president. It was Nixon who helped create a detente with the Soviet Union that basically gave it another 15 years of life before coming crashing down around its economic weight.

 

Funny, liberals bashed Reagan relentlessly for starting an arms race with the Soviets to more rapidly erode their enemy. :rolly You can't have it both ways.

 

Nixon made great strides in improving our relationship with China, which marginalized Soviet power.

 

his administration saw to make the deportation of John Lennon a priority.

 

Like I said, he was an authoritarian scumbag.

[Rex Kickass]

Funny, liberals bashed Reagan relentlessly for starting an arms race with the Soviets to more rapidly erode their enemy.  :rolly  You can't have it both ways.

 

Nixon made great strides in improving our relationship with China, which marginalized Soviet power.

Like I said, he was an authoritarian scumbag.

 

The arms race had less to do with the Soviet Union falling apart than having the rest of the developed world developing as quickly as possible and the Soviet Union unable to do the same.

 

The politburo, in my opinon, had penis envy and sought to have the same status, the same toys, as the West and bankrupted themselves doing it.

 

Look for example at East Germany, it wasn't the arms buildup that brought down Honnecker. It was the banana.

[WCSox]

The arms race had less to do with the Soviet Union falling apart than having the rest of the developed world developing as quickly as possible and the Soviet Union unable to do the same.

 

I agree. Reagan's two-tiered economic and military approach arguably had minimal effect. I just found irony of liberal criticism of Reagan's methods back in the '80s and your criticism of Nixon's detente.

 

Nixon was a scumbag, but he was instrumental in erroding up the Soviet/China alliance and improved our relations with China at the same time. Therefore, I still say that he was strong in the field of foreign relations.

[Balta1701]

Nixon was a scumbag, but he was instrumental in erroding up the Soviet/China alliance and improved our relations with China at the same time.  Therefore, I still say that he was strong in the field of foreign relations.

I'm going to open up a can of worms here, so I'm just going to say this and shut my mouth...Nixon also extended the Vietnam War for the U.S. by 7 years, and basically his policies wound up in the Fall of Saigon in 1975 as well. Johnson struck an "October Surprise" by getting a peace deal set up with the North in Oct 1968, but Nixon for obvious reasons didn't want the Democrats getting that big of a score, so Kissinger casually sabotaged South Vietnamese support for Johnson's compromise.