Has no one made a thread about the whole Dershowitz-Carter thing yet?
I find it laughable that Carter is all of a sudden an anti-semite because he went after Israel. I sort of feel sorry for him actually, because he seems to be such a kind old man who's accomplished so much post-presidency, and now people are attacking him and accusing him of being a bigot or something.
As for his notorious sentence, I think it was much like Sartre's comment on terrorism. They are all methods of warfare, war is and always has been evolving, and "terrorism" is nothing new. Maybe if some superpower funded Palestinian military efforts like the U.S. funds Israeli defense, then the Palestinians would be able to send tanks against Israeli tanks instead of just suicide bombers and pebbles.
Also, I think Dershowitz is a giant douche. For someone whose court record is so intensely unbiased on the matters of his race and faith, how can he be so intensely annoying on this matter and other matters concerning torture and terrorism? I mean, this is the man who has such a background in defending civil liberties.
Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he was ever given credit for. But his issue was always managing his image (a la the "Killer Bunny" incident, or even just being elected because he was an "aw shucks" regular fella' rather than a polished politician) and this is another example.
Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he was ever given credit for. But his issue was always managing his image (a la the "Killer Bunny" incident, or even just being elected because he was an "aw shucks" regular fella' rather than a polished politician) and this is another example.
Too true, too true, it's a very unfortunate incident. He's never managed his image that successfully, though I was under the impression it was rather positive with all his charitable and diplomatic work. Then all of a sudden this happens, I was laughing so hard when some student at the college he was asking questions in stood up and asked whiney questions about that notorious sentence in the book. It's so ridiculous.
In case anyone else didn't know what was going on: [1]
If you want to talk about a bigot, look at the comment below.
Quote from Dershowitz »
"There are two different Jimmy Carters,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you’ll hear a very different perspective."
I find it underhanded that Jews at Brandeis would try to lure Carter to their campus in an obvious and apparent trap to hurt his image based on his views. I guess all people are bad when they perceive a threat by opposing thoughts.
And really, what makes Jews think they have more of a right to Palestine than Muslims? Aren't both sides human beings that deserve some observance to their "holy lands"? I see the Jews as selfish in this situation, and would rather side with the Palestinians because they were kicked out of their lands all because of white imperialists who wanted to "give something back" to their fairer-skinned brothers in an attempt to repent for their own hatred against Jews.
You may choose to attack my comments here, but note that I am neither caucasian nor Middle-Eastern. I am actually a Vietnamese-American, with no religious ties to either side (that is, Christian, Judaism, or Islam).
I find it underhanded that Jews at Brandeis would try to lure Carter to their campus in an obvious and apparent trap to hurt his image based on his views.
I read the article in the Brandeis student paper regarding the Carter visit, and their spin on it was much more pro-Carter/anti-Dershowitz. I'm not sure if that is just the editor's take on it, or if that's the general concensus at the school...
Here's another article about the speech from Brandeis main student paper, The Justice. (Not to impugn the Hoot...it's just that it was formed after I left, which was only 3 years ago).
I find it underhanded that Jews at Brandeis would try to lure Carter to their campus in an obvious and apparent trap to hurt his image based on his views. I guess all people are bad when they perceive a threat by opposing thoughts.
I definitely wouldn't use the word "lured" in this case, as the Brandeis Administration was initially posed to not let him speak at all. After this became a fairly public issue, they were forced to soften their stance. Based on the general campus political bent when I was there, I would guess that the majority of people wanted him to come and believe his position on Israel is reasonable and defensible on political grounds (even if they might not agree with it).
However, I will say that, as a Brandeis alum and (nominal) Jew, there is major, undisguised bigotry against Muslims and racism against non-Israeli Middle Easterners at Brandeis. It's not official policy, but it's palpable nonetheless. Daniel Pipes, whose opinions on this subject seem to be much more clearly based on personal prejudice, had relatively little trouble booking a speaking gig at Brandeis while I was there, despite not being a former President of the United States. (His daughter was a student there at the time, so that may have greased the skids.)
But it's not as if this is so surprising...accusing someone of anti-semitism if they don't supoort Israeli's policies to the letter is the international version of accusing someone of anti-Americanism if they don't agree with every word the President says. Which is to say: a poor, unproductive argument at best and a prevarication at worst.
Jimmy Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever.
Let's look at his accomplishments - he boycotted the Olympics.
Let's look at his failures - he handed Nicuragua over to Daniel Ortega, he handed Panama over to Manuel Noreiga, and he handed Iran over to the Ayatollah Khomeni. His policy failures lead directly to the whole Iran-Contra affair. And before you go defending the regime changes - both Khomeni and Ortega killed more people in their time than the preceding people (Shah and Somosa). And, we all know how Panama ended up. Oh, and he failed to get our hostages out of Iran and his failed "rescue" attempted resulted in the unnecessary death of U.S. servicemen.
On the domestic front, Carter did just as bad - long lines at the gas pumps, an oil crisis, and double digit inflation.
Jimmy Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever.
(snip)
If there were positives, let's hear them.
** crickets **
Hmm, that's what I thought. For all those of you who tout Jimmy Carter and his accomplishments, where are you? You are being given a golden chance to stand up for him, but I don't see anyone jumping at the chance. This reinforces my belief that Jimmy Carter was a terrible President.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
Oh, and he failed to get our hostages out of Iran and his failed "rescue" attempted resulted in the unnecessary death of U.S. servicemen.
I can't personally defend the rest of your Carter accusations, but I was taught that Carter worked very hard to get the hostages out of there. My US History teacher said that Carter did the majority of the work. Reagan merely took office and then subsequently claimed all the credit.
And by the way, how does this have to do with the topic on hand...?
All this "Jimmy Carter sucks" business is totally irrelevent to the original topic.
The original topic and it's poster addresses a very vaid and annoying issue in today's political scene, and that is that it is taboo and nigh-political suicide to criticize Israel for ANYTHING. Even if Israel IS in the wrong, politicans and political commentators, even political-minded forumites get lambasted and sometimes flamed for voicing any kind of criticisim of Israel and it's actions.
Israel is touted as a "model nation" as a great upholder of truth, justice and equality. Now, whether or not they are is a matter of opinion that I don't really have, but for some reason because they're Jewish and people cry holocaust whenever they get criticized, there's an unwritten rule that any criticisim of Israel is completly off-limits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
Israel is touted as a "model nation" as a great upholder of truth, justice and equality. Now, whether or not they are is a matter of opinion that I don't really have, but for some reason because they're Jewish and people cry holocaust whenever they get criticized, there's an unwritten rule that any criticisim of Israel is completly off-limits.
While I agree with you in general (especially about the recent trolling for a debate on Jimmy Carter as President), I don't think that "crying holocaust" is an entirely accurate description of what is going on (unless the lack of capitalization in intentional and you are speaking generally).
A common thread I've seen among my friends and family that have lived in Israel is the idea that all threats against the country are existential, i.e. all Israel's enemies attack it simply to see it destroyed (with anti-semitism being the primary, if not only, motivation). This is not so dissimilar from the "they hate us for our freedom" and "you're with us or against us" rhetoric in the War on Terror, but considering the physical proximity of Israel to its enemies, the rhetoric there is much, much stronger. And because under this rhetoric the primary motivation behind attacking Israel is anti-semitism (and not economics, disenfranchisement or standard of living), anyone who is not "with" Israel is inherently anti-semitic.
I see that as being more at the root of the kind of response Carter's book received, rather than the history of Jewish persecution (i.e. the Holocaust, Spanish Inquisition, blood libel, etc.).
Interesting. I just might read JC's book. I agree that an honest dialouge needs to be opened about Israel and the Middle East. Am I the only person who thinks it was wrong to simply cut Palestine in half and hand half of it over to the Jews?
Am I the only person who thinks it was wrong to simply cut Palestine in half and hand half of it over to the Jews?
No.
Re: Carter. For reasons I don't completely understand, criticizing Israel in the public forum is sure to lead to horror and disaster, politically. Accusations of being an "antisemite" for criticizing the Israeli government is a foregone conclusion.
I do not understand why one who opposes the State of Israel must necessarily be an anti-semite. It is like calling someone anti-black for opposing the actions of that D.C. sniper guy.
Well, ljoss, I'd call it right-wing political correctness. In order to be PC, Palestinians have to be evil, because they are all terrorists or insufficiently opposed to their State or the terrorists among them, and therefore they can be slaughtered by the State of Israel, which is always justified. In PC land, there is no difference between the State and the population, so the population deserves to die if the State is unjust.
Oh, and didn't Carter sell a bunch of weapons to Indonesian henchmen who were busy slaughtering the East Timorese?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I do not understand why one who opposes the State of Israel must necessarily be an anti-semite. It is like calling someone anti-black for opposing the actions of that D.C. sniper guy.
Because as Goatchunx(which brings images of goat barf to mind) is getting at, there's no way to actually defend the many bad things that Israel has done, or even admit that they've done anything bad, without totally ignoring it and claming the person who dosent like whatever thing Israel just did(even if the person is Jewish or likes the rest of Israel), an anti-semite.
It was like Kerry and "flipflopper", it just got thrown around so much due to lack of a valid argument against his voting record, that it became the argument against him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
LGF is pretty much the worst thing one can cite for anything.
I do agree with his point though. Why are the IDF's missles not "terrorism," when the Palestinians are? In the old adage: "A terrorist is anyone with a bomb without an air force," which is pretty thin.
Because the State is the only entity which can act outside of the law. It is the paradox of sovereignty, that, paraphrasing Giorgio Agamben, the sovereign has the legal power to suspend the validity of the law and therefore stands outside of it at the same time as he proclaims that nothing is above the law.
The State is the indistinction of law and force. Therefore, the distinction of terrorism and war is an issue of mere legality. The former is defined by the US Department of Defense as the unlawful use or threat of force against governments, societies or groups to achieve ideological goals, and a war is roughly the same, except it is a legal state declared by the warring state itself. So the war is a form of legalized terrorism, legalized by the state that is at the same time waging it.
So, I'd say the reason that IDF missiles are "defense" and Palestinian rockets are "terrorist attacks" is a state of chaos such as guerrilla warfare removes the distinction between response to an initiation of force. So sometimes the IDF can truly be defending, and at other times, it could be practicing terrorism, but it is difficult, if not impossible to know. The same is true of Palestinian "terrorists" or "resistance leaders," depending on the semantic word-games one wishes to play.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Because the State is the only entity which can act outside of the law. It is the paradox of sovereignty, that, paraphrasing Giorgio Agamben, the sovereign has the legal power to suspend the validity of the law and therefore stands outside of it at the same time as he proclaims that nothing is above the law.
The State can step outside its real laws, but it's powerless before ideal law. And it's in ideal law, sometimes known as morality, that the line between terrorism and insurgency, defensive war and invasion are drawn.
Quote from Goatchunx »
The State is the indistinction of law and force.
You're going to have to clarify that one.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Therefore, the distinction of terrorism and war is an issue of mere legality. The former is defined by the US Department of Defense as the unlawful use or threat of force against governments, societies or groups to achieve ideological goals, and a war is roughly the same, except it is a legal state declared by the warring state itself. So the war is a form of legalized terrorism, legalized by the state that is at the same time waging it.
"War" and "terrorism" are defined not by governments, but by everyone who speaks the English language. "The government says x is terrorism, so it is" is bass-ackwards; you yourself acknowledge the absurdity of the idea, while failing to see the solution: that "war" and "terrorism" are what people think they are, and people think "war" is a potentially righteous or at least neutral use of force, while "terrorism" is inherently wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he was ever given credit for. But his issue was always managing his image (a la the "Killer Bunny" incident, or even just being elected because he was an "aw shucks" regular fella' rather than a polished politician) and this is another example.
He may not have been the among worst Presidents, as some historians have said, but he certainly wasn't among the best, either. Even a generous estimate, based on his accomplishments during office, would put him in the lower half.
And I say this as someone who likes Carter as a person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
He may not have been the among worst Presidents, as some historians have said, but he certainly wasn't among the best, either. Even a generous estimate, based on his accomplishments during office, would put him in the lower half.
And I say this as someone who likes Carter as a person.
Not starting what Bush has in Iraq 25 years earlier in Iran to deal with a hostage crisis peacefully after the immediate attempt at withdrawl failed? The Department of Energy? Camp David Accords? SALT II?
I'd say that makes him better than the post-Reconstruction "who?" not-great-but-not-bad presidents.
Not starting what Bush has in Iraq 25 years earlier in Iran to deal with a hostage crisis peacefully after the immediate attempt at withdrawl failed? The Department of Energy? Camp David Accords? SALT II?
I may be wrong, but I think you can also add the Department of Education to that list?
[quote=Stax;/comments/10951801]Not starting what Bush has in Iraq 25 years earlier in Iran to deal with a hostage crisis peacefully after the immediate attempt at withdrawl failed? The Department of Energy? Camp David Accords? SALT II?
[quote]
Carter's Iran policy turned out really well - mass executions of the Shah's supporters, suppression of women's rights, censorship, a nuclear weapons program, terrorist training camps, and widespread support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. As for the Camp David Accords, let's see - Carter agreed to pay billions to Egypt and Israel to maintain peace and set up the autonomous Palestinean area. We already know that the Camp David Accords didn't end the violence in Israel. As for the billions spent on Israel and Egypt, I'm not sure if you can call that a success. What did we get for almost 30 years of aid? Violence continues in the Middle East. It didn't solve the problems in Lebanon. It didn't promote much democracy in Egypt.
And for Salt II, the Soviets followed it up by invading Afghanistan. That too sounds a lot like failure. I think Reagan's ending the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union did more to reduce the number of nuclear arms in the world than Salt II.
The Department of Energy, well, Carter liked bureaucracy and the Department hasn't seem to do much except leak secrets to foreign governments at government labs, failed to prevent the spike in gas prices in the U.S. twice, and failed to help California during its energy crisis.
And, you forgot the Department of Education. Which as we all know has resulted in the stellar performance of U.S. public schools (sarcasm). Since its inception, I would say that the DOE has done little if anything to improve public schools and, instead, wastes billions upon billions of dollars on failed program after failed program. People complain about No Child Left Behind, but the DOE did nothing significant before that to try and improve education in America.
Back then people didn't like Carter (he lost after his first term), and I'm amazed that people like him now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I find it laughable that Carter is all of a sudden an anti-semite because he went after Israel. I sort of feel sorry for him actually, because he seems to be such a kind old man who's accomplished so much post-presidency, and now people are attacking him and accusing him of being a bigot or something.
As for his notorious sentence, I think it was much like Sartre's comment on terrorism. They are all methods of warfare, war is and always has been evolving, and "terrorism" is nothing new. Maybe if some superpower funded Palestinian military efforts like the U.S. funds Israeli defense, then the Palestinians would be able to send tanks against Israeli tanks instead of just suicide bombers and pebbles.
Also, I think Dershowitz is a giant douche. For someone whose court record is so intensely unbiased on the matters of his race and faith, how can he be so intensely annoying on this matter and other matters concerning torture and terrorism? I mean, this is the man who has such a background in defending civil liberties.
Too true, too true, it's a very unfortunate incident. He's never managed his image that successfully, though I was under the impression it was rather positive with all his charitable and diplomatic work. Then all of a sudden this happens, I was laughing so hard when some student at the college he was asking questions in stood up and asked whiney questions about that notorious sentence in the book. It's so ridiculous.
If you want to talk about a bigot, look at the comment below.
And really, what makes Jews think they have more of a right to Palestine than Muslims? Aren't both sides human beings that deserve some observance to their "holy lands"? I see the Jews as selfish in this situation, and would rather side with the Palestinians because they were kicked out of their lands all because of white imperialists who wanted to "give something back" to their fairer-skinned brothers in an attempt to repent for their own hatred against Jews.
You may choose to attack my comments here, but note that I am neither caucasian nor Middle-Eastern. I am actually a Vietnamese-American, with no religious ties to either side (that is, Christian, Judaism, or Islam).
I read the article in the Brandeis student paper regarding the Carter visit, and their spin on it was much more pro-Carter/anti-Dershowitz. I'm not sure if that is just the editor's take on it, or if that's the general concensus at the school...
http://www.thehoot.net/?module=displaystory&story_id=1761&format=html
I like Carter, and it's an interesting topic. I'll have to pick up a copy of the book.
I definitely wouldn't use the word "lured" in this case, as the Brandeis Administration was initially posed to not let him speak at all. After this became a fairly public issue, they were forced to soften their stance. Based on the general campus political bent when I was there, I would guess that the majority of people wanted him to come and believe his position on Israel is reasonable and defensible on political grounds (even if they might not agree with it).
However, I will say that, as a Brandeis alum and (nominal) Jew, there is major, undisguised bigotry against Muslims and racism against non-Israeli Middle Easterners at Brandeis. It's not official policy, but it's palpable nonetheless. Daniel Pipes, whose opinions on this subject seem to be much more clearly based on personal prejudice, had relatively little trouble booking a speaking gig at Brandeis while I was there, despite not being a former President of the United States. (His daughter was a student there at the time, so that may have greased the skids.)
But it's not as if this is so surprising...accusing someone of anti-semitism if they don't supoort Israeli's policies to the letter is the international version of accusing someone of anti-Americanism if they don't agree with every word the President says. Which is to say: a poor, unproductive argument at best and a prevarication at worst.
Let's look at his accomplishments - he boycotted the Olympics.
Let's look at his failures - he handed Nicuragua over to Daniel Ortega, he handed Panama over to Manuel Noreiga, and he handed Iran over to the Ayatollah Khomeni. His policy failures lead directly to the whole Iran-Contra affair. And before you go defending the regime changes - both Khomeni and Ortega killed more people in their time than the preceding people (Shah and Somosa). And, we all know how Panama ended up. Oh, and he failed to get our hostages out of Iran and his failed "rescue" attempted resulted in the unnecessary death of U.S. servicemen.
On the domestic front, Carter did just as bad - long lines at the gas pumps, an oil crisis, and double digit inflation.
If there were positives, let's hear them.
** crickets **
Hmm, that's what I thought. For all those of you who tout Jimmy Carter and his accomplishments, where are you? You are being given a golden chance to stand up for him, but I don't see anyone jumping at the chance. This reinforces my belief that Jimmy Carter was a terrible President.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
I can't personally defend the rest of your Carter accusations, but I was taught that Carter worked very hard to get the hostages out of there. My US History teacher said that Carter did the majority of the work. Reagan merely took office and then subsequently claimed all the credit.
And by the way, how does this have to do with the topic on hand...?
The original topic and it's poster addresses a very vaid and annoying issue in today's political scene, and that is that it is taboo and nigh-political suicide to criticize Israel for ANYTHING. Even if Israel IS in the wrong, politicans and political commentators, even political-minded forumites get lambasted and sometimes flamed for voicing any kind of criticisim of Israel and it's actions.
Israel is touted as a "model nation" as a great upholder of truth, justice and equality. Now, whether or not they are is a matter of opinion that I don't really have, but for some reason because they're Jewish and people cry holocaust whenever they get criticized, there's an unwritten rule that any criticisim of Israel is completly off-limits.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
While I agree with you in general (especially about the recent trolling for a debate on Jimmy Carter as President), I don't think that "crying holocaust" is an entirely accurate description of what is going on (unless the lack of capitalization in intentional and you are speaking generally).
A common thread I've seen among my friends and family that have lived in Israel is the idea that all threats against the country are existential, i.e. all Israel's enemies attack it simply to see it destroyed (with anti-semitism being the primary, if not only, motivation). This is not so dissimilar from the "they hate us for our freedom" and "you're with us or against us" rhetoric in the War on Terror, but considering the physical proximity of Israel to its enemies, the rhetoric there is much, much stronger. And because under this rhetoric the primary motivation behind attacking Israel is anti-semitism (and not economics, disenfranchisement or standard of living), anyone who is not "with" Israel is inherently anti-semitic.
I see that as being more at the root of the kind of response Carter's book received, rather than the history of Jewish persecution (i.e. the Holocaust, Spanish Inquisition, blood libel, etc.).
No.
Re: Carter. For reasons I don't completely understand, criticizing Israel in the public forum is sure to lead to horror and disaster, politically. Accusations of being an "antisemite" for criticizing the Israeli government is a foregone conclusion.
Oh, and didn't Carter sell a bunch of weapons to Indonesian henchmen who were busy slaughtering the East Timorese?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Because as Goatchunx(which brings images of goat barf to mind) is getting at, there's no way to actually defend the many bad things that Israel has done, or even admit that they've done anything bad, without totally ignoring it and claming the person who dosent like whatever thing Israel just did(even if the person is Jewish or likes the rest of Israel), an anti-semite.
It was like Kerry and "flipflopper", it just got thrown around so much due to lack of a valid argument against his voting record, that it became the argument against him.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
I do agree with his point though. Why are the IDF's missles not "terrorism," when the Palestinians are? In the old adage: "A terrorist is anyone with a bomb without an air force," which is pretty thin.
The State is the indistinction of law and force. Therefore, the distinction of terrorism and war is an issue of mere legality. The former is defined by the US Department of Defense as the unlawful use or threat of force against governments, societies or groups to achieve ideological goals, and a war is roughly the same, except it is a legal state declared by the warring state itself. So the war is a form of legalized terrorism, legalized by the state that is at the same time waging it.
So, I'd say the reason that IDF missiles are "defense" and Palestinian rockets are "terrorist attacks" is a state of chaos such as guerrilla warfare removes the distinction between response to an initiation of force. So sometimes the IDF can truly be defending, and at other times, it could be practicing terrorism, but it is difficult, if not impossible to know. The same is true of Palestinian "terrorists" or "resistance leaders," depending on the semantic word-games one wishes to play.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
The State can step outside its real laws, but it's powerless before ideal law. And it's in ideal law, sometimes known as morality, that the line between terrorism and insurgency, defensive war and invasion are drawn.
You're going to have to clarify that one.
"War" and "terrorism" are defined not by governments, but by everyone who speaks the English language. "The government says x is terrorism, so it is" is bass-ackwards; you yourself acknowledge the absurdity of the idea, while failing to see the solution: that "war" and "terrorism" are what people think they are, and people think "war" is a potentially righteous or at least neutral use of force, while "terrorism" is inherently wrong.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He may not have been the among worst Presidents, as some historians have said, but he certainly wasn't among the best, either. Even a generous estimate, based on his accomplishments during office, would put him in the lower half.
And I say this as someone who likes Carter as a person.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Not starting what Bush has in Iraq 25 years earlier in Iran to deal with a hostage crisis peacefully after the immediate attempt at withdrawl failed? The Department of Energy? Camp David Accords? SALT II?
I'd say that makes him better than the post-Reconstruction "who?" not-great-but-not-bad presidents.
I may be wrong, but I think you can also add the Department of Education to that list?
[quote]
Carter's Iran policy turned out really well - mass executions of the Shah's supporters, suppression of women's rights, censorship, a nuclear weapons program, terrorist training camps, and widespread support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. As for the Camp David Accords, let's see - Carter agreed to pay billions to Egypt and Israel to maintain peace and set up the autonomous Palestinean area. We already know that the Camp David Accords didn't end the violence in Israel. As for the billions spent on Israel and Egypt, I'm not sure if you can call that a success. What did we get for almost 30 years of aid? Violence continues in the Middle East. It didn't solve the problems in Lebanon. It didn't promote much democracy in Egypt.
And for Salt II, the Soviets followed it up by invading Afghanistan. That too sounds a lot like failure. I think Reagan's ending the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union did more to reduce the number of nuclear arms in the world than Salt II.
The Department of Energy, well, Carter liked bureaucracy and the Department hasn't seem to do much except leak secrets to foreign governments at government labs, failed to prevent the spike in gas prices in the U.S. twice, and failed to help California during its energy crisis.
And, you forgot the Department of Education. Which as we all know has resulted in the stellar performance of U.S. public schools (sarcasm). Since its inception, I would say that the DOE has done little if anything to improve public schools and, instead, wastes billions upon billions of dollars on failed program after failed program. People complain about No Child Left Behind, but the DOE did nothing significant before that to try and improve education in America.
Back then people didn't like Carter (he lost after his first term), and I'm amazed that people like him now.