Lets see what the history of Jimmy Carter Unveils.
http://www.politixgroup.com/comm112.htm :
"The thing about politics is that it is often very difficult to objectively decide who is right and who is wrong. Looking at the economic boom of the 1990s, for example, Republicans take credit for having control of the Congress which has the power of the purse, Democrats take credit for having he White House which usually takes credit or blame when the economy changes. But one thing I thought could be agreed upon was that Jimmy Carter’s presidency and his foreign policy was a failure. So why is he still being given a platform for his agenda after all these years of being wrong?
Most historians and political scientists agree that the Carter presidency was not a success. Whether it was his policies directly or the circumstances surrounding his tenure of office was a question at the time, but is now pretty much accepted that his policies were not very sound. Among these policies included humanitarianisman effort to improve human rights around the world no matter what the regime. While well-intentioned, this policy failed to recognize the primary threat to the United States at the timecommunism. After Carter left office, he developed an impressive reputation as a humanitarian and has done some good things as shown as his work in Habitat for Humanity. But as ex-president, Carter continued to advocate for his failed policies despite glaring evidence that he was just plain wrong. Reagan’s tough anti-communist policies helped to bring about the end of the Soviet Union. Carter’s Camp David deal between Egypt and Israel did not improve the Middle East situation as shown by the chaos in that region today.
During George W. Bush’s term, Cater has offered his criticism yet again. His first statement of Bush went something like I’m disappointed in almost everything has done, a rather harsh statement from a former president of the United States. During the War on Terrorism, Carter has been an outspoken critic of Bush’s unilateralism and does not seem to recognize that this policy is meant to improve human rights around the world. For his constant criticism of Bush’s policy to defeat terrorism, Carter was given the Nobel Peace Prize, the distinguished award once given to Yassir Arafat. Most recently, the world was given more evidence of Carter’s failed policiesthe boasting of North Korea that they are now in possession of a nuclear weapon.
In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Carter explains Responding to a standing invitation from North Korean President Kim Il Sung and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and helped to secure an agreement that North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit I.A.E.A. inspectors to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. While Carter is correct saying that we are not sure that they have a nuclear weapon or not, he admits that If true, this is a gross violation of previous agreements and a threat to peace in the region. Carter, as usual, urges diplomacy to solve this situation. The problem is not with his means of solving the problem, but with his lack of realization of his own failure. Diplomacy was obviously the incorrect avenue for resolving the North Korea situation shown by their continuing to develop a nuclear weapon. Nowhere in Carter’s piece does he recognize that his diplomatic effort failed. Instead, he urges for more of the same failed policies that lead to the current situation.
This is a problem common throughout America today. The caption under the article says reads, Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. A caption like this gives the impression that he is someone that should be listened to. But why is there not anything that says that all of his foreign policy ideas have been incorrect? This is the equivalent of asking Carter to weigh in on a U.S. energy crisis, another thing he failed miserably at while president. Too often, we are willing to accept the advice of unsuccessful people just because they tried. It is not enough to give these people a venue to spew their misinformation and propaganda. Jimmy Carter should continue to do what he does bestkeep quiet and build houses. "
And from
Beyond the Myth: Remembering Jimmy Carter, the President :
"Beyond the Myth: Remembering Jimmy Carter, the President By Joseph Nevins
Jimmy Carter's recent pronouncements on U.S. policy are befitting of the Nobel Peace Prize that he received on Tuesday in Oslo, Norway. He has called upon the United States to take the lead in global disarmament by eliminating its stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He has also publicly criticized the Bush White House for its unilateralist warmongering against Iraq, and its one-sided policy favoring Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.
Such words--combined with his work in resolving conflicts and overseeing elections around the world, and in supporting socio-economic development for the poor--have helped to earn Carter a reputation as a man of peace and human rights. But this, combined with a certain mythology surrounding his administration, has led many to mistakenly conflate Carter's post-White House life with his presidential years. It was during this time (1977-80) that he was best positioned to implement policies conforming to his present-day reputation. Here, Carter's record is far less flattering. If for no other reason than historical accuracy, it is time to take stock of that record.
Writing in the memoirs of his presidency, Carter stated that prior to taking office, he had been "deeply troubled by the lies our people had been told; our exclusion from the shaping of American political and military policy in Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile and other countries; and other embarrassing activities of our government." But despite such moving prose, Carter the president made no efforts to provide restitution to those victimized by these "embarrassing activities."
In the case of Vietnam, Carter was hardly a strong critic of the American war, one that killed 2-3 million Vietnamese. As governor of Georgia, he responded to the 1971 sentencing of Lt. William Calley of My Lai massacre infamy by calling upon his fellow Georgians to "honor the flag" as Calley had done, and to leave their headlights on to show their support. As president, he explained in 1977 that that there was no need to dispense monies to Vietnam to repair damage caused by Washington's war of aggression --as stipulated by a secret protocol to the Paris Peace Treaty--nor even to apologize to the Vietnamese people as "the destruction was mutual."
Carter's refusal to repent for past American wrongdoing was not limited to Vietnam. His administration also repudiated the "profoundest regrets" expressed by a U.S. official at the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the American role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 1973 and backing the Pinochet regime.
How one understands and accounts for the past informs how one behaves in the present. Thus, while Carter did use his presidential power in some instances to support human rights--such as cutting off military aid to a number of South American dictatorships--many of his policies followed a long-standing Washington practice of supporting authoritarian governments in the name of a narrowly defined set of global interests.
Carter lauded and supported the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran until the bitter end, for example. In Nicaragua, his administration provided significant support to the hated Somoza dictatorship. And in El Salvador, he extended large amounts of military and economic aid to a country whose army was engaging in widespread massacres, even after the slaying of its Catholic archbishop, and four Americans--three Maryknoll nuns and one lay churchworker.
In the case of Indonesia's illegal invasion and occupation of East Timor, Carter followed a similar path. In late 1977, when Indonesia was actually running out of military equipment, his administration authorized a dramatic increase in arms sales to Jakarta. And over the next several months, the Carter White House approved sales of fighter jets and ground-attack bombers to Indonesia's Suharto regime, whose military employed them in East Timor to bomb and napalm the population into submission. An Australian parliamentary commission would later characterize the period as one of "indiscriminate killing on a scale unprecedented in post-World War II history."
For such reasons, it is a mistake to present the human rights record of Carter's presidency as qualitatively different from those that came before and after. Indeed, Carter's support for brutal regimes, combined with the significant growth in military spending that he oversaw during his White House years, helped to lay the foundation for the even more odious policies of the Reagan years that followed.
Remembering the true Jimmy Carter allows us to draw lessons about the global role of the United States and to act accordingly and, hopefully, to help build a world more consistent with the principles of peace and human rights."
So before we go on patting ourselves on the back for realizing what a great man Jimmy Carter is lets be clear on his history, and on what he has actually DONE. Its easy to talk about peace, its a lot harder to actually bring it around. And for goodness sake, these are the same people who gave Arafat the peace prize. Now there is a real humanitarian.
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 12-17-2002]
™ Version 4.2