Here's some good reading for the Carter lovers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260905/103-8230913-2971845?v=glance The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry by Steven F. Hayward From the Inside Flap Jimmy Carter: America's best ex-president? Only if you're not bothered by the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (which started on his watch), the shamefaced foreign policy of Bill Clinton and John Kerry (ditto), and think that ex-presidents should travel the world coddling dictators and bad-mouthing America à la Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter has been given a free ride from the liberal media, liberal historians, and even the American people, who excuse his political delinquencies and disasters on the grounds that he is a "good" man. But as bank robber Willie Sutton said of Carter: "I've never seen a bigger confidence man in my life, and I've been around some of the best in the business." It's time to set the record straight. Finally, an honest historian-Steven F. Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan-demolishes the myth of "Saint" Jimmy and exposes how he created today's leftist Democratic party of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Jimmy Carter's laundry list of failures aren't just accidents of history: They're rooted in Carter's deeply flawed character and ideology-a smugly pious arrogance matched with a profound distrust of America. The Real Jimmy Carter reveals: • Carter as meddling ex-president: Why a Time magazine columnist wrote that some of Carter's "Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason" • How Carter befriended North Korea during the Clinton administration, appeasing the communist regime and giving it cover for its nuclear weapons program • How Carter made direct contacts with Soviet officials to try to subvert President Reagan's anti-communist policies • The shocking extent of Carter's clandestine efforts to sabotage the first Gulf War in 1990 and how he used Gulf War II to publicly question the Christian faith of America's commander in chief • How Carter befriended Yasir Arafat-making himself an enemy of Israel • Carter as politician: a vicious campaigner-and even race-baiter • The Carter White House during the disasters of the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua, the energy crisis and stagflation, the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and the invasion of Afghanistan • How Carter, the failed president, remade himself as Carter the humanitarian and freelance foreign policy critic of America • How a Nobel official inadvertently revealed that Carter's Nobel Prize was actually meant as a slap at America The Real Jimmy Carter is a shocker, showing why the peanut president should never have left his farm.
Wow Faos, that looks like an interesting bit of reading from the right wing hate press. "How Carter, the failed president, remade himself as Carter the humanitarian and freelance foreign policy critic of America " Let me guess, the houses he builds for poor people used substandard drywall!!! Wow, I thought that the standard right wing smearing & mythology of Carter as the presidency's greatest failure (not even close to being close to that; Buchanan, Grant, Harding, Johnson & others were far, far worse) was enough....but now they have to devalue his post presidency years as well? I am a bit hesitant to say it, but this could well be a new low for them. Wow.
Someone here has to post links from the "right wing hate press" from time to time to counter all the links you liberals post. I don't think anyone has come down on him for that. Maybe he should just stick to building houses.
Faos: That book looks to have very little, if any, credibility. Far too partisan. Are you sure it's not a parody? I would like to see a fair critique of Carter, because I do believe he was an ineffective president with regards to Central America and the Middle East. However, any genuine insight in that book would be cloaked in far too much bias. Could you take it seriously?
See...I couldn't. Too far over the top. I've read many books with a marked bias...and can interpret them accordingly...but this one's not worth my time.
All kidding aside I did hear the author on the radio the other night. He does bring up some good points. You are probably right in that it is slanted way over the edge. I do think it evens the talk that Carter is such a saint though.
I hate to go back to the old Bama, but that is a lie Sam and I'm calling you on it. Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber, tried to force the Navy to build puny aircraft carriers incapable of carrying modern aircraft and generally let our military rot. At the end of his term, he realized that kissing Brezhnev wasn't going to win peace with the Sovs, so he thought that rebuilding the very military he let collapse was a hot idea. Reagan cleaned up several of Carter's messes, that being one of them. From 2001, but one of the best pieces on why Jimmy Carter was our history's worst president. link
Wow that book is probably as inaccurate as some of the garbage written by Hannity, Rush, and Coulter. Just from the flap the inaccuracies and halftruths stand out. 1. Carter got the N. Koreans to agree to stop their nuclear weapons building program. It was a major break through. The N. Koreans did not honor their agreement and eventually went back to work on the program. The N. Koreans not living up to their end of the bargain is not a reflection in anyway on Carter. 2. To say that Carter is an enemy of Israel or even considered to be an enemy of Israel is laughable and shows ingorance on the part of the author. 3. The Sandinista takeover was hardly a disaster, and the Sandinista regime was infinitely better, less tyrannical, and even more democratic than the Samosa regime which it replaced. The Samosa regime leftovers were the one's illegally funded by Reagan's whitehouse. Just from reading that information we see the book is full of flaws inaccuracies, and slanted writing.
Failed middle east policy? Carter brought together Egypt and Israel for a peace accord that hasn't had one single word broken since the day it was signed. That was a feat considered impossible at the time. That's probably the singe greatest mideast policy success we've had in the second part of the 20th century.
bama, check this chart of millitary spending on page 43 of the following PDF: http://www.cdi.org/products/almanac0102.pdf As you can see, after declining in the immediate post vietnam era, defense spendiing began to increase again from 78 to 79, and 79-80, and again from 80 - 81 As Reagan was not inaugurated until 1981, I find it hard to belive that he was in any way resposible for the these increases. He certainly continued them and expanded on them to some extent, but he did not originate them. From CSPAN, a historical survey as to the best and worst presidents; you'll see that Carter ranks 22nd, squarely in the middle. He is nothing compared to the disastrous and embarrassing reigns of Buchanan, Tyler, Johnson, Fillmore, Harding & others. http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp
I agree with your 1 and 2. But I had family in Honduras and Nicaragua at the time. They'll disagree strongly about #3. They'll agree about Samosa's tyranny. But not that the Sandinistas were better. That's my interest in the region. And why i'd like to find a relatively unbiased book that addresses it. Visit Nicaragua. I did. They are not better off. (Just my 2 cents).
You are right. I overstated. Carter should have been a strong candidate for the Nobel Peace prize that year. The criticism i've heard of him was that he was too much of an idealist -- and facilitated the fundamentalist strongholds that developed.
Let me see if this is how it goes...... Carter & Co were involved with Afghanistan - Russia and Democrats (that post here) are hesitant to acknowledge that linkage and like to focus on the Reagan linkage. The arms buildup that you claim started under Carter gets assigned to Reagan and the Carter linkage is overlooked. So in one event (Afghanistan), the Democrats don't like to claim any credit. In the other event (Arms Buildup), the Democrats would like to get credit? <hr color=red> Considering the current state of the world, the <i>Mujahedeen</i> concept is more often in the news.
I don't mean to support the Sandinistas, but they did allow a press publication funded by the Americans that supported the rebels in their own country. Even though their government was being attacked by armed rebels, they still allowed opposition press to run. That goes beyond anything I've heard of in any country during war time. They also eventually lost power in an election. Such an election would not have taken place before. They had a speech area in towns that for 1 hour a day people could voice conerns and protests against the government unhindered. They did do a lot of ill as well, including indiscriminate seizing of the land in order to be redistributed, followed the communist model, were supporting rebels elsewhere in Central America and committed some warcrimes. I didn't want to say they were good guys, just that certain things(namely the examples above) were things that weren't allowed under the Samaso regime. I also had disagreements with Carter regarding his central American policy. He was too lenient on the El Salvadorean govt. and their death squad tactics. I believe that when there is a tyrant in danger of being overthrown back in the cold war setting, the best option would have been to fund and support the rebels. They want freedom from their tyrant, and it's possible that had we shown a willingness to help them the Sandinistas would have been more loyal to us than the Soviets, Cubans etc.
No, I was just making a point that Carter is going to be relentlessly beat up on by the right for malaise, Iran, etc. and that is what the debate is going to focus on regardless of what may have occurred in other areas. The right will not attack him for that, so his record isn't ever going to be evaluated in those terms. For example, it works both ways: Richard Clarke was highly critical in his book of Reagan for, in his opinion, essentially ignoring terrorism to fight the Cold War and letting the seed of terrorism germinate, particularly in failing to retaliate against Iran and Hezbollah for the Beirut embassy bombings in any meaningful way, and for essentially negotiating with terrorists by selling arms for hostages. Yet these chapters received little if any play in media coverage or popular discourse as compared to his comments on Bush & Clinton. Simply because Reagan isn't ever going to be considered in those terms on that issue.
Interesting link, Sam. But if you notice, during the years of the Carter admin, the defense budget increase only nudged up slightly, whereas during the Reagan years, spending skyrocketed. As for C-Span placing Jimmy at 22nd, consider the source. Other folks were talking about the book about Jimmy Carter as being "partisan," but yet, lets be honest here. I doubt there were very few right-leaning historians on that panel.
Carter finished in the middle of the pack with Ford, Bush 1, Clinton, and only a few slots ahead of Nixon. Furthermore, I don't think the issue of the horrendous nature of James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson or Warren Harding's administrations is a partisan issue at all. I note several right leaning historians on the panel, FWIW, including author Stephen Ambrose, and well known historian & archivist Richard Norton Smith, and those are just the right wing names I was familiar with. http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/participants.asp He finished 27th in the viewer survey as well; again, middle of the pack (note that Reagan finished 7th in the viewer survey, ahead of Truman, Monroe & Madison among others, while Clinton finished a dismal 36, below Hoover and Grant for god's sake.)
