Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize

[mraynrand]

Ronald Reagan: Really a Big Douche Bag
by Ace Weebalo, Knightrider News Service

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb,

This is much more in tune with your level of thinking HH. I understand why you posted it.

[MJZiggy]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

He did in a way - he was swayed by the State department, which had argued that 'allowing' Iran to form a 'democratically elected' government was more in keeping with Carter's view's on freedom. What Carter didn' realize, being the naive guy he was (note I say naive, not stupid) was that there was to be no 'freely elected government' The military, which te Shah had allowed to take control was infiltrated with those mostly sympathetic to a more traditional hard line stance and were affiliated with the exitled khomeni. So in interests of 'free elections,' Carter was duped - or delusional, depending on how much he actually knew.

By that logic, you'd also have to look at the idea that Bush was warned about 9-11 and ignored the warning...

[mraynrand]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

About 9/11. Both Clinton and Bush misunderestimated the al quaeda threat. It's that simple. They both bear some responsibility, along with the CIA for letting the terrorists get by them. The events in Iran were far more transparent, and there were plenty of people who were writing at the time (and warning) about the nature of Khomeni and the fundamentalists who were trying to seize power in Iran.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, , seriously, what are you defending? You want to take the time to explain some of the recent selections? Get real.

You know all about the warts on the recent Nobel prize winners, but my initial statement is true: you don't know the reasons why they were chosen to be honored.

I've explained Arafat & Kissinger & Carter because I knew off top of my head. Too lazy to research and justify the others. But you might want to look into it before you making glib statements suggesting they are frauds.

[the_idle_threat]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.

This makes it look like you don't even understand what's being discussed here, HH, and normally you do better than that.

[the_idle_threat]

I think the reason some here are dismissing the value of the Nobel Peace Prize is because it's such a slushy topic with undefined standards, and it seems to go to the person who does a lot of what seems to be good, even if it's ultimately unsuccessful or even futile. In other words, it's a stupid award.

I, for one, am surprised that Neville Chamberlain didn't win the award in 1938. Maybe he would have won it in 1939, if an award would have been given that year.

[Freak Out]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.

US foreign policy and what's best for America is always debatable. I believe most of Dubya's policies are not whats best for America.

[Freak Out]

Does anyone mind if we turn this thread into another energy/foreign policy thread?

[MJZiggy]

Yes, I mind.


**Remember, you asked!

[the_idle_threat]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.

US foreign policy and what's best for America is always debatable. I believe most of Dubya's policies are not whats best for America.

Debating is one thing; acting is another. Debating=free speech. Acting =treason. That's the way it is when you have representative government.

[Joemailman]

Seems treason is a term thrown around rather loosely by some these days. Seems to me Carter has engaged in a public debate about foreign policy, which a lot of people don't approve of, which is fine. However, it hardly constitutes treason, IMHO.

[Joemailman]

Does anyone mind if we turn this thread into another energy/foreign policy thread?

Most of these political threads morph into something else at some point. Go for it!

[RashanGary]

We only get one earth. It's unfortunate that the rest of the world won't play fair. Greed and competitiveness is not always what is best for the world. It makes people work harder and be more efficient, but it doesn't make the world a better place in all instances. I'm a conservative, mostly because of economic issues and overall efficiency in our country, but I'm very much against the republican party when it comes to the enviornment. They want to make it possible for companies to compete. Mabe they should start devising ways to make other countries compete on a level playing field instead of making it possible for our companies to polute as much as their companies.

[RashanGary]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

[the_idle_threat]

Seems treason is a term thrown around rather loosely by some these days. Seems to me Carter has engaged in a public debate about foreign policy, which a lot of people don't approve of, which is fine. However, it hardly constitutes treason, IMHO.

I agree that the term is thrown around loosely by some, but not by me. I mean it here.

I have no problem with Carter or anyone else "engaging in public debate." I have a problem with Carter actually meeting with foreign leaders such as Chavez and Castro in a quasi-representative capacity as an ex-President, and undermining the foreign policy decisions of those who are actually in charge to make foreign policy decisions.

Such behavior calls into question whether or not we're serious as a country about actually having a representative government. Heck, if you don't like what the elected bosses are doing, just declare yourself morally and intellectually superior (whether or not either is actually true) and make your own separate foreign policy. It's ludicrous.