All Comments (381)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPu5P138xtI

The answer was silence. He touched his right ear and smile. "I can't hear you" :-)

Sure, educated as a nuclear physicist, he could do the math himself.

May I ask one question to Jimmy Carter concerning the truth and a former president, worked as Italian prime minister while you were president of the USA:

What is your reaction to former Italian president Francesco Cossiga comment on the most prestigious Italian newspaper in Nov'07. Is he speaking the truth or he is just another anti-semite like you :-) ?

Could the speculation here http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/3903975
is well founded ?

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nsa/foreign_leaders.phtml

Amen, brother. I would also recommend Peter Charleton's book -- LIES IN A MIRROR -- for insight into additional consequences of lies, especially self-deception.

Unfortunately, while President Carter made honesty a priority, his behavior has not always reflected that ideal. Here's an example abstracted from my email records:

The Marston Affair (1978)

At 01:27 PM 4/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dear William Safire:

I am continuing to work on my book chapter involving the crooked exploits of the once - Honorable Joshua Eilberg. Joshua was lobbied
by the Association of American Universities in 1975 and in 1976, for undisclosed considerations, pushed through the "Eilberg Amendment" granting American universities "Special Handling" with regards to hiring foreign national professors and researchers. (The universities did not have to attest that they were usurping the employment rights of American citizens. Only one other class of employees, "Basque Sheepherders," had such treatment.) This change destroyed the employment prospects of American citizen scientist Ph.D.s in large part, since they tend to demand higher salaries than "third world" Ph.D.s. The National Science Foundation enshrined this as a desirable outcome in 1987. The Immigration Act of 1990,
which created the controversial H-1B visa, cited the "Eilberg Amendment" as precedent.

My research encountered some interesting information in President Carter's archives,
including mention of a telephone call from Rep. Joshua Eilberg on Friday, November 4, 1977
but no calls from Rep. Eilberg shown on Monday, November 7, as cited in your article
below. It could be a cover - up. It is interesting even today, as both Rep. Eilberg and
President Carter are still alive. I last talked with Rep. Eilberg in Philadelphia about three
years ago.

Joshua Eilberg
Contact Information Redacted
___________

www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/ diary/1977/d110477t.pdf for Friday, November 4, 1977

THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. November 4, 1977

2:57 PM

The President was telephoned by Representative Joshua Eilberg (D-Pennsylvania). The call was not completed.

5:13 PM
The President telephoned Representative Eilberg. The call was not completed.

5:58 - 6:00 PM

The President talked with Representative Eilberg. (Call placed by Representative Eilberg)
________

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/diary/1977/d110777t.pdf
for Monday, November 7, 1977

shows no entries for a conversation with Rep. Joshua Eilberg.

Instead, we see:

3:27 3:29 The President talked with Governor Brendan T. Byrne (D-New Jersey). (Call placed by President Carter)

3:43 - 3:46 The President talked with Attorney General Bell. (Call received by President Carter)

Note that approximately 14 minutes are unaccounted for in the official record between these two events.
________

ESSAY Excerpt
Big-Shot Crook Goes Free
By William Safire
New York Times, March 1, 1979 Page A19

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - Fourteen months ago - on Nov. 7, 1977 - President Carter took a call in the Oval Office from Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg. The Congressman, who was under investigation by the Republican U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, was agitated: He wanted that prosecutor, David Marston, fired.

Instead of refusing to engage in any obstruction of Justice. Jimmy Carter did a curious thing: He called Attorney General Griffin Bell, reached him in his automobile, and told him to call back lest they be overheard on the open radio line.

The Attorney General ducked into clothing store - the Brooks Brothers above Duke Zeibert's restaurant and called in. He later recalled the conversation:

"What's the status of the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia?" the President asked.

"I expect I'll be replacing him about the first of the year," Mr. Bell replied.

"Well, I wish you'd hurry up. I'm getting a lot of complaints about you from Eilberg . . . . He claims that this man In Philadelphia doesn't do anything but prosecute Democrats."

"They seem to tell me that, too," said Mr. Bell.

"I wish you'd hurry," Bell says the President urged again. Mr. Bell hurried; he fired the prosecutor who had dared to investigate Mr. Eilberg, the word leaked about the potential obstruction of justice, "the Marston affair" made headlines, the fired prosecutor ran for political office and lost.....

Response from Safire - Dear Reader:

As you can imagine, I've been swamped with e-mails responding to my column I recent months. I read them all, most assuredly including yours. But I cannot begin to answer individually or I would have no time left to write a column that delights, illuminates, stimulates or infuriates.
Ergo this automated response. (Curious, how "automated" has replaced "automatic". And why do I use "ergo" when "therefore" will do? ) Don't take offense and don't stop writing. I'll keep reading what you send me.

Sincerely,

William Safire

I also contacted President Carter and did not receive a reply.

http://www.mininova.org/get/558734

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for continuing to speak the truth.

You have been an exemplary statesman and ambassador for our nation since you left office. Your actions have supported your words.

As I read your most recently published books, I am reminded of this: if the American people cannot trust the words (and deeds) of their leaders, then we are a lost nation.

Please continue helping us find our way again.

May God bless you and your family in everything you do.

Dear President Carter

Please have the US Congress commission a full investigative report on Scientology. Scientology was born in USA.

Concerned World Citizen

The most glaring, destructive, and disgusting lie invented and maintained by the handlers of George W. Bush is their manifestly false insistance that the attack on, and occupation of Iraq is of material importance to the security of the United States.

As in every other insistence with this administration, the prime consideration...or the ONLY consideration with respect to policy has been the calculation of the political potential in any situation.

Why this is not written or spoken about more in the press and on radio and television is an enduring mystery and a monumental failure of "commentators".

Mark me well....Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.

They DID think it would be easy and that it would be over in 3 weeks, and they DID think that all the American soldiers would be home by Christmas 2003.

None other than Sean Hannity said this to me in a phone conversation in February 2003. In answer to my skepticism about the impending attack, he said that he was regularly in touch with people "at the top" (likely Rove, since Hannity's program is a reliable transcript of Rove "information") and that they assured him that it was a done deal that the main fighting would be all over before three weeks, and that the troops would be back by Christmas that year.

This is a fact, though Hannity will deny it and denounce me as a liar. It is, however, the blunt truth.

But even if this corroboration had not taken place, it is clear to me that Bush's political wing, which had sway over everything he did, also was pre-eminent in the planning of the attack and occupation of Iraq.

The point was to bulldoze low-information voters into seeing Bush as having avenged 9/11, and thereby to bring about an historic landslide in 2004 which would have given Bush the "political capital" to truly advance his domestic agenda of rolling back the New Deal.

Bear in mind, his first intiative after "re-election" was to vainly attempt to privatize, ie, END, Social Security. Well, if he had actually had the "political capital" he bragged about after barely squeaking by on election day 2004 by less than 2% ( the lowest re-election percentage by any president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916)he probably would have succeeded in castrating Social Security, and would have gone inot Republican history (as opposed to actual history) as the man who redressed the "evil socialist" New Deal, and thereby restored "freedom" to America.

Bottom line: Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the United States. And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would trick huge numbers of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved them and saved the USA.

EVERY single US soldier, AND every single Iraqi civilian who has been killed since March 20, 2003, died because they were sacrificed to Karl Rove's "re-election" strategy for Bush in 2004.

Nothing else.

So God Bless Jimmy Carter for agian telling the truth.

And for that matter, I leave Bush to heaven and the merciful providence he purports to believe in.

The most glaring, destructive, and disgusting lie invented and maintained by the handlers of George W. Bush is their manifestly false insistance that the attack on, and occupation of Iraq is of material importance to the security of the United States.

As in every other insistence with this administration, the prime consideration...or the ONLY consideration with respect to policy has been the calculation of the political potential in any situation.

Why this is not written or spoken about more in the press and on radio and television is an enduring mystery and a monumental failure of "commentators".

Mark me well....Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.

They DID think it would be easy and that it would be over in 3 weeks, and they DID think that all the American soldiers would be home by Christmas 2003.

None other than Sean Hannity said this to me in a phone conversation in February 2003. In answer to my skepticism about the impending attack, he said that he was regularly in touch with people "at the top" (likely Rove, since Hannity's program is a reliable transcript of Rove "information") and that they assured him that it was a done deal that the main fighting would be all over before three weeks, and that the troops would be back by Christmas that year.

This is a fact, though Hannity will deny it and denounce me as a liar. It is, however, the blunt truth.

But even if this corroboration had not taken place, it is clear to me that Bush's political wing, which had sway over everything he did, also was pre-eminent in the planning of the attack and occupation of Iraq.

The point was to bulldoze low-information voters into seeing Bush as having avenged 9/11, and thereby to bring about an historic landslide in 2004 which would have given Bush the "political capital" to truly advance his domestic agenda of rolling back the New Deal.

Bear in mind, his first intiative after "re-election" was to vainly attempt to privatize, ie, END, Social Security. Well, if he had actually had the "political capital" he bragged about after barely squeaking by on election day 2004 by less than 2% ( the lowest re-election percentage by any president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916)he probably would have succeeded in castrating Social Security, and would have gone inot Republican history (as opposed to actual history) as the man who redressed the "evil socialist" New Deal, and thereby restored "freedom" to America.

Bottom line: Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the United States. And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would trick huge numbers of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved them and saved the USA.

EVERY single US soldier, AND every single Iraqi civilian who has been killed since March 20, 2003, died because they were sacrificed to Karl Rove's "re-election" strategy for Bush in 2004.

Nothing else.

So God Bless Jimmy Carter for agian telling the truth.

And for that matter, I leave Bush to heaven and the merciful providence he purports to believe in.

The most glaring, destructive, and disgusting lie invented and maintained by the handlers of George W. Bush is their manifestly false insistance that the attack on, and occupation of Iraq is of material importance to the security of the United States.

As in every other insistence with this administration, the prime consideration...or the ONLY consideration with respect to policy has been the calculation of the political potential in any situation.

Why this is not written or spoken about more in the press and on radio and television is an enduring mystery and a monumental failure of "commentators".

Mark me well....Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.

They DID think it would be easy and that it would be over in 3 weeks, and they DID think that all the American soldiers would be home by Christmas 2003.

None other than Sean Hannity said this to me in a phone conversation in February 2003. In answer to my skepticism about the impending attack, he said that he was regularly in touch with people "at the top" (likely Rove, since Hannity's program is a reliable transcript of Rove "information") and that they assured him that it was a done deal that the main fighting would be all over before three weeks, and that the troops would be back by Christmas that year.

This is a fact, though Hannity will deny it and denounce me as a liar. It is, however, the blunt truth.

But even if this corroboration had not taken place, it is clear to me that Bush's political wing, which had sway over everything he did, also was pre-eminent in the planning of the attack and occupation of Iraq.

The point was to bulldoze low-information voters into seeing Bush as having avenged 9/11, and thereby to bring about an historic landslide in 2004 which would have given Bush the "political capital" to truly advance his domestic agenda of rolling back the New Deal.

Bear in mind, his first intiative after "re-election" was to vainly attempt to privatize, ie, END, Social Security. Well, if he had actually had the "political capital" he bragged about after barely squeaking by on election day 2004 by less than 2% ( the lowest re-election percentage by any president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916)he probably would have succeeded in castrating Social Security, and would have gone inot Republican history (as opposed to actual history) as the man who redressed the "evil socialist" New Deal, and thereby restored "freedom" to America.

Bottom line: Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the United States. And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would trick huge numbers of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved them and saved the USA.

EVERY single US soldier, AND every single Iraqi civilian who has been killed since March 20, 2003, died because they were sacrificed to Karl Rove's "re-election" strategy for Bush in 2004.

Nothing else.

So God Bless Jimmy Carter for agian telling the truth.

And for that matter, I leave Bush to heaven and the merciful providence he purports to believe in.

Independent11,

A review of readily available information on the Internet on Obama can lead to the conclusion that someone or some organization has been looking out for him since he was born. The feeling would seem to be an organization rather than an individual. There is nothing to support his earning the priviledge of being President of the United States of America. So the conclusion has to be by management. Things like this don't just happen; they have to be orchestrated.

Michael,

It's hard to tell sarcasm many times without hearing the inflection of someones voice and mannerisms. Hence why I don't post much or do messenger services. It's hard to tell when someone is joking, being sarcastic or a smart***.

Believe it or not, they don't come much more sarcastic than I am capable of being face to face.

One last point. I don't think having served in the military is anymore important to being president than having served office before is important.

If a candidate has a history of being a good leader, good manager of people and understands what it takes to run a business or company, organization, government, and so much more than that and, has the necessary intangibles for the job that is fine with me. Finding that needle in a haystack of self interest, dishonest, and I would sell my child for a vote politicians of today is impossible to find. AS far as I am concerned, Carter was about as honest as it gets whether or not anyone thinks he was a good president or not.

I agree with you, I don't think I will ever see a candidate I truly want in office. I also feel both parties are equally corrupt and right now the Republicans are more so than the Democrats.

Much of the media , pundits and a lot of people took joy and still take joy in trashing Jimmy Crater , but there was not and there is not a better man , a better human being or a more honest man out there . What Jimmy Carter has done since leaving office ,tirelessly serving the people shows the kind of man he is , a very rare breed these days sorry to say . The country and the world needs more like him .

Mike:

“So, in fact you did say you knew who I was going to vote for.”

I take it you don’t do sarcasm. That’s quite all right, not everybody does. No, I did not really think you were going to vote McCain.

“As for thinking I mean that a persons leadership in the military is not a criteria to consider you need to, once again, read my entire post.”

I have. I was referring specifically to your theory of the alleged correlation between a president’s combat background, or lack thereof, and the likelihood of that president’s getting the country into war or keeping it at war. A theory which I’ve shown to be all fluff.

“As I said, I understand that Carter didn't serve in "direct" combat, but neither did Lincoln and that didn't prevent him from being a good leader and earning the moniker "Honest Abe".

Exactly. Glad to see you don’t think a military background is a prerequisite to being a good wartime president.

“For once in my life I would love to vote for someone I want as President not against someone I don't want.”

Forget it. It’s always, and I mean always, a choice of the lesser evil.

Michael,

If I read correctly your said in your initial post in response to my initial post you said:

"Well at least we know who is Mike going to vote for in November: Naturally, for the candidate who served in the military, and against the one who did not. That's one more vote for McCain."

So, in fact you did say you knew who I was going to vote for. I have not made up my mind at this juncture who I would prefer but if "YOU" may know, I don't like any of the present candidates and I certainly don't wish to vote for McCain because he has vowed to continue the course set by Bush.

As for thinking I mean that a persons leadership in the military is not a criteria to consider you need to, once again, read my entire post.

Example #1 I said "Second, I do not vote for someone based solely on the fact they served in the military"

Example #2 I said "Furthermore, I would never use a persons former military status (or current status) as a means of judging their leadership ability or credibility and neither should anyone else."

Perhaps I should have been redundant and said "Solely" again in example #2 as I did the first time.

As I said, I understand that Carter didn't serve in "direct" combat, but neither did Lincoln and that didn't prevent him from being a good leader and earning the moniker "Honest Abe".

As I also said, I am not saying Carter was a great leader while in office, but he wasn't anywhere near the disaster that G.W. Bush is and will be remembered for.

Once again, I would never vote for anyone just based solely on one aspect of their being. Be it former military background, Harvard, Yale or Wee Willie Winkie University education, and most importantly, based on how they supported one issue over another. That is unless that issue is some incredibly stupid issue; like extermination of the first born child on the second Tuesday of each February or, going to war when the hard evidence isn't there to justify a preemptive strike.

I think we have to look at the whole spectrum of a candidates personality and record. Unfortunately, most people don't.

For once in my life I would love to vote for someone I want as President not against someone I don't want.

I can rest easy knowing that none of them are G.W. !

John from Alexandria is over the edge. John should stand back, take a deep breath, and look into the mirror. Perhaps his wish is misdirected. I cannot imagine that Carter has hurt him in any way. To have this reaction may require a shrink.

President Carter suffers ill treatment from the same hands that worship Ronald Reagan and now Bush. Reagan was a b-grade movie actor and proved to be no better as President. However, his one liners, which were usually written by someone else, seemed to go over well with the ADD crowd. You know this group -- they cannot listen to a complete speech. They can form a solid, nonchanging opinion based on a headline. So when Fox noise shows a picture of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in which they used a picture of the freed slave Frederick Douglas instead of the white guy Stephen Douglas, a lot of Fox followers now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Douglas was the first Black man to run for President of the United States. Oh, well, America is great. And we worry about a few immigrants because they may not learn to speak the English language soon enough. It is really sad.

Yes, I admit, Carter was at the Naval Academy from 1943-1946, which if I am not mistaken is the time frame "during" which World War II occurred?

In looking at that time period, Carter was supposed to graduate in 1947 but earned an accelerated degree with honors. Something Bush wouldn't understand how to accomplish nor is capable of doing.

If you think Carter was averting service, he was not. Carter was serving during WWII whether one likes it or not because once you are at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, or the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs (which didn't exist during WWII) you are on active duty unless you resign, which we know Carter did not.

In 1943 when Carter was accepted into the Naval Academy nobody knew if WWII would be over by 1945, 1946 or beyond. Many thought the invasion of Japan would extend the Pacific theater of the war for years beyond 1945 and cost millions more lives.

I would also venture to guess during the summers while at the Naval Academy Carter had to serve time aboard a Naval vessel like most midshipmen?

Could any former midshipman correct me if I am wrong on that.

When Bush received his line number of acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard he did so by skipping to the front of the line and over many many others who were waiting much longer than he. Also, when Bush was accepted into the guard he scored last on the flight test and passed with the minimum score. Former Texas Speaker of the House admitted under oath to putting Bush at the front of the line after getting a call from Bush's father. Then he deserted his unit and wasn't punished which is supported by Lawrence Korb (former Asst. Sec. of Def. under Reagan) who did a review of Bush's service record and concluded he didn't fulfill his service obligation. These facts have been covered up, disregarded or ignored very well by those who support him to this day.

I was never implying that Carter was perfect, he was and still is far from it, just like you and me. However, at least Carter's not a pathological liar like Bush. Carter has the guts to go to the Middle East like he recently did and show some diplomatic skills, something Bush lacks.

If we dealt with Terrorists the way Bush has dealt with and many of our allies we will continue to lack the respect this country lacks right now. Sadly, if we continue to espouse the policies that Bush supports and puts forth then then I suppose we will see more body bags of our loved ones? I for one hope we don't see an endless parade of body bags of Bush's failed policies, something McCain supports because I don't want to see a body containing my niece and nephew who are now serving in Iraq and are the 3rd and 4th members of my family to go there.

I am tired of hearing from people that only the Republicans have answers to terrorists.

What's the answer?

Attack everyone that you don't like?

The answer in my mind is through education. If people receive the proper education then they may not be influenced to believe the radicals and extremists who say that American is the "Great Satan".

The lack of education and understanding is the root of the problem in the Middle East, in Africa, and in the U.S..

Tell me how the U.S. helping that situation?

I can tell what is not working, the policies of G.W. Bush. If the policies are working then how come when Bush declared the War to be over in Iraq back in 2003 yet we are still there and we are still losing our troops?

It appears to me that G.W. Bush didn't learn much from his father, President G.H.W. Bush who did serve admirably in WWII and had the smarts to know when to stop a war. G.H.W. was roundly criticized for stopping the Gulf War and leaving Saddam in Power but it turns out if was the right move at the time because the U.S. was not prepared to "occupy and rebuild" a country. Do you think G.W. took that into account? I'm not saying Saddam didn't need to go but G.H.W. Bush had an understanding of international affairs and surrounded himself with people who did as well. G.W. lacks all of that and more.

Thank god he only has less than a year to further screw up the country and the world.

Please die soon Jimmah.

While we are on the subject of WHAT Presidents say, can we also consider HOW Presidents speak. As important as speaking the truth is, thinking the truth first is even more daunting. Then one has to be understood.

President Carter has never sounded other than as someone with a mouthful of wool. Part of his lack of success, it seemed to me, was his "novacained" delivery of every word he uttered. Even poetry he wrote to his dear wife, Rosalyn, sounded alien when he recited it on NPR.

Mike:

Before you say “Read my previous post thoroughly next time before making any assumptions about my political persuasions”, why don’t you read my previous post thoroughly and show me where did I make such an assumption?

As to your statement “I would never use a persons former military status (or current status) as a means of judging their leadership ability or credibility”:

Perhaps not but you would use that to judge whether or not a president would get us into war. As you said before:

“As the old saying goes, the last ones to want to go to war are those in the military because they know what it's like. Perhaps that is why Kerry, Gore and Carter are so opposed to war, because they have been there.”

Carter, to my knowledge, has not actually seen combat, but that’s beside the point. The point is that you are are trying to put forward a theory that has no basis in reality, as I have shown in all the examples to the contrary. There are plenty more of those examples in history and I am sure you would have come up with them yourself, had your judgment not been clouded by that tired old cliché.

And as to your complaint “it's not wise to make an assumption on who I would be voting for this November”, why not? You obviously don’t think we should be in this war, and your theory is that people who have a combat background detest war more than anyone else. Ergo your preferred candidate to get us out of this war should be the one who fought in Vietnam, not the one who spent the Gulf War at Harvard, right?

Yes, I admit, Carter was at the Naval Academy from 1943-1946, which if I am not mistaken is the time frame "during" which World War II occurred?

In looking at that time period, Carter was supposed to graduate in 1947 but earned an accelerated degree with honors. Something Bush wouldn't understand how to accomplish nor is capable of doing.

If you think Carter was averting service, he was not. Carter was serving during WWII whether one likes it or not because once you are at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, or the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs (which didn't exist during WWII) you are on active duty unless you resign, which we know Carter did not.

In 1943 when Carter was accepted into the Naval Academy nobody knew if WWII would be over by 1945, 1946 or beyond. Many thought the invasion of Japan would extend the Pacific theater of the war for years beyond 1945 and cost millions more lives.

I would also venture to guess during the summers while at the Naval Academy Carter had to serve time aboard a Naval vessel like most midshipmen?

Could any former midshipman correct me if I am wrong on that.

When Bush received his line number of acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard he did so by skipping to the front of the line and over many many others who were waiting much longer than he. Also, when Bush was accepted into the guard he scored last on the flight test and passed with the minimum score. Former Texas Speaker of the House admitted under oath to putting Bush at the front of the line after getting a call from Bush's father. Then he deserted his unit and wasn't punished which is supported by Lawrence Korb (former Asst. Sec. of Def. under Reagan) who did a review of Bush's service record and concluded he didn't fulfill his service obligation. These facts have been covered up, disregarded or ignored very well by those who support him to this day.

I was never implying that Carter was perfect, he was and still is far from it, just like you and me. However, at least Carter's not a pathological liar like Bush. Carter has the guts to go to the Middle East like he recently did and show some diplomatic skills, something Bush lacks.

If we dealt with Terrorists the way Bush has dealt with and many of our allies we will continue to lack the respect this country lacks right now. Sadly, if we continue to espouse the policies that Bush supports and puts forth then then I suppose we will see more body bags of our loved ones? I for one hope we don't see an endless parade of body bags of Bush's failed policies, something McCain supports because I don't want to see a body containing my niece and nephew who are now serving in Iraq and are the 3rd and 4th members of my family to go there.

I am tired of hearing from people that only the Republicans have answers to terrorists.

What's the answer?

Attack everyone that you don't like?

The answer in my mind is through education. If people receive the proper education then they may not be influenced to believe the radicals and extremists who say that American is the "Great Satan".

The lack of education and understanding is the root of the problem in the Middle East, in Africa, and in the U.S..

Tell me how the U.S. helping that situation?

I can tell what is not working, the policies of G.W. Bush. If the policies are working then how come when Bush declared the War to be over in Iraq back in 2003 yet we are still there and we are still losing our troops?

It appears to me that G.W. Bush didn't learn much from his father, President G.H.W. Bush who did serve admirably in WWII and had the smarts to know when to stop a war. G.H.W. was roundly criticized for stopping the Gulf War and leaving Saddam in Power but it turns out if was the right move at the time because the U.S. was not prepared to "occupy and rebuild" a country. Do you think G.W. took that into account? I'm not saying Saddam didn't need to go but G.H.W. Bush had an understanding of international affairs and surrounded himself with people who did as well. G.W. lacks all of that and more.

Thank god he only has less than a year to further screw up the country and the world.

Carter weakened our military so badly that he couldn't find 6 helicopters that could complete a rescue mission for his hostages. We were a laughing stock while he was President. Thank goodness he only served one term before losing to Reagan in a landslide.

Mike, you wrote:
At least President Carter served our country in WWII and has done more than any other President ever to help his fellow man after leaving office

Don't be in such a hurry to make your points that you make up stuff. Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946.

And, to this day he still doesn't know how to deal with terrorists.

First, it's not wise to make an assumption on who I would be voting for this November and for whom I have voted in the past. Unless you are me you have no idea who I will vote for and, I wouldn't tell you anyway.

Believing I am either a Republican or a Democrat would be wrong, too.

I am neither.

Read my previous post thoroughly next time before making any assumptions about my political persuasions.

As I implied, I dislike Left-wing Liberals and Right Wing Conservatives. The extremists on both sides are what's hurting this country more than anything.

Second, I do not vote for someone based solely on the fact they served in the military.

If I were "dumb" enough to use that as a sole criteria I need to have my voter card taken just as much as those who vote solely on the fact they think the 2nd Amendment will be repealed and they might lose their right to bear arms. It takes a 2/3rds majority to change an amendment and when is the last time we had a 2/3rds of either party? Probably in the 1930's when FDR was President I am sure.

Furthermore, I would never use a persons former military status (or current status) as a means of judging their leadership ability or credibility and neither should anyone else.

Honesty and a candidates past history count more in my book, not to mention not being a hypocrite like the leader of our current administration and the many who support it.

Again, and if I voted solely for someone because they are a veteran than I would have voted for Oliver North during his run for the Senate in Virginia about a decade ago.

If you recall one of North's campaign slogans was "Veterans For North".

Well, this veteran didn't vote for a convicted liar who was pardoned by a President who committed illegal acts (Iran/Contra ring a bell?). I did not vote for Oliver North based on his lying to cover up laws he broke. I know as a veteran you do not have to follow illegal orders. Saying you did it because you were commanded to due it BS if that were his reasoning.

As for McCain. I am very disappointed in him not coming out and crucifying Bush for the way he was treated by the Bush campaign in 2000 and for maintaining the "Due Course" attitude in the Republican party.

There is a thing called honesty, integrity and respect, something lacking in politics, politicians and their handlers.

of coarse the president of the united states should speak honestly and truthfully and it is completely possible if they used the simple words. i do not know.. of coarse if they use this frequently the american people wold rightfully know the the president does not know enough to actually be in his job. people like donald rumsfeld who i guess thought himself clever by stringnging enough conditionals and prerequetes or modifier to every statement he made under oath in hearings as to make his words gibberish and nonspeak or nonsense or possibly senile, he may have thought himself cleaver for not actually telling a lie.... well that may well be true but the purpose of elected and high appointed people is not to ... not lie but to be accountable for thier decisiions..to make thoughtful and well researched decisions and to be able to explain what they were thinking about and the steps they tried to fix thier failed policies and every one ..will have failures... that is not the question it is how you deal with them and correct them that define a human being. to answer the questions and if they cant accomplish even simple things with thier insane obsevive compulsive mentall illnes way of trying to protech oneself in every nuance of an argument or the more likely the clear eyed obstruction of information due to the people they serve...in either case the person who cannot do thier job should not have it. there is also the true statement a leader can use that this is an area where i cannot at this time discuss but it in a free society should come with a projected timetable of when the public can come back to the video tape and continue the comversation. the problem with liars is they lie... the more they lie the more they rely on lies... and when the rest of the human race sees there are obvious lies with no accounting the obvious question is ..where does the lie end ..how do people who honestly want to help help when they dont know the basic things that need to be done.. or even where does the lie start... it is elementary logic 101 PEOPLOE WHO LIE SHOULD NEVER BE PUT IN POSITIONS OF RESPOSIBILITY OR POWER....how in the world could anyone expect acocountability resposibility or even good judgement from someone who cannot face reality as it is....which is a simple way of sayint the truth.. logic and leadership and spiritual growth folow the same fundamental path... to grow and solve problems the problems must be seen so they can be corrected anyone who trys to impede this simple truth becomes the first matter to be dealt with in the process of progress whetther that be spiritually , business, social, or societal....butt please check 4 truth i am after all just a dyslexic artist not a genius like donald rimsfeld and karl marx rove or dick cheny.

Oh yes, Mike, I almost forgot about Lt. Cmdr. Richard M. Nixon who had served in the South Pacific during WWII. Must have been one of our best presidents ever.

Three cheers to Mike who judges presidents by whether or not they served in the military.

Yes, presidents who have sent people to fight even though they had never served themselves, for instance Lincoln and Roosevelt, are despicable human beings, and the best ones we've had are those who did serve, like Eisenhower. And, of course, you can always count on a democratic president who had been a soldier not to get us into a pointless war. Like Kennedy, for instance. Because they know that war is bad and peace is good.

Well at least we know who is Mike going to vote for in November: Naturally, for the candidate who served in the military, and against the one who did not. That's one more vote for McCain.

Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein is the commercial spokesman for G_d and Clear Eyes. Ben Stein: Nixon's pervy product pitchman. BOHICA

I admire Jimmy Carter for the humanitarian that he is. He put his actions where his words are as to his participation in humanitarian projects. His sense of integrity should be admired.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have watched his reaction to our Church. He seems fair to us although we do appear to differ on some aspects related to the primordial importance of traditional marriage and the need to redirect human sexuality activities toward a greater adherence to God's enlightened and inspired law of chastity.

I hope that calm, thoughtful conversations can be carried out with respectful people on which moral stances will most likely benefit the United States in the future.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

Mike,

Great post. Finally, an intelligent, fact-based, coherent analysis of this topic and people's reaction to it. Wish we had more posters like you. Thanks. - B-man

Mr.Carter is recognized all over the world as an extraordinary good man. Unfortunately, the American society were not prepared to have such a man as president. He is a man in one million!

thank you Mr President

thank you Mr President

Mike,

You stated, "As the old saying goes, the last ones to want to go to war are those in the military because they know what it's like. Perhaps that is why Kerry, Gore and Carter are so opposed to war, because they have been there."

From my experience in the military and never having served in a war zone, yet it was the time of the Vietnam War, you are speaking correctly. I heard it over and over again from senior officers. The one prayer is that we do not have to go to war. Our force is specifically designed to be a mighty deterent to anyone attacking us and is used in defense only. War is a terrible thing. We know that there will be times when there are no reasonable options, similar to those that we were presented with that got us involved in WW II (the attack on Pearl harbor really started the ball rolling). However, this pre-emptive war stuff is a slippery slop to disaster. I could point to the end-times prophesies in the Bible and mention that nothing like the U.S.A. is mentioned as a global power. Bush is making sure that the prophesies come true during his presidency. Our military might is dying in the hot deserts of Iraq. The strategy for winning in Afghanistan is nonexistent. (We have not benefitted from the experiences of the Soviet Union in their fight with Afghanistan.) What is happening to us is that we are beginning to believe that human life is expendible. Remember the nation morning fewer than 10 deaths on the space shuttle? Now, death is nothing, unless you are an antiabortionist. Then you get all lathered up about killing the unborn while you do not mind the slaughter of innocent thousands in a mindless war.
Mike, I commend you on your post.

Jimmy Carter in no way shape or form started the U.S. troubles with IRAN or in the middle east. That goes back to support the U.S. had of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi starting in the 1950's and, especially when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. Also, to think our economic issues under Carter were solely his fault is naive at best. The U.S. economy was already faltering long before he took office as was already pointed out.

Was Carter our greatest President?

Hardly.

Was Carter the most honest?

Probably, but we can only measure him against those Presidents who have told many obvious lies about U.S. Policy and U.S. Intentions and that list is filled with more than we would like to accept as Americans. Clinton's lies were about his personal life and did not result in anyone's death. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and countless 10's of thousands of Iraqis if not hundreds of thousands.

I've only been voting since 1981 but in my lifetime and with a strong understanding of U.S. history G.W. Bush is the most dishonest President we have ever had and to think how many of our soldiers he has killed or maimed for life. Not to mention fighting a war based on lie after lie.

I'm not a liberal dingbat who thinks we can negotiate with madmen, but I'm also not a conservative hate monger with my head in the sand stuck in 1845.

I've served my country in the military and in law enforcement. So have well over 20 members of my family and in all U.S. wars over the last 60+ years.

Can you say the same about our current President and his staff and supporters?

At least President Carter served our country in WWII and has done more than any other President ever to help his fellow man after leaving office.

We can't say the same for G.W. Bush who deserted his unit and got a "Daddy is a Powerful Bigwig" pass when he left to work on a senatorial campaign. We don't even want to hear about those lying "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" who told tons of lies about Senator Kerry who also served his country and went to Vietnam. Furthermore, Kerry never deserted his unit because he comes from a wealthy family.

Did Al Gore desert his unit in Vietnam or ask for special treatment even though his Dad was a serving Senator at the time?

No!

It's ironic how many democrats have served honorably in the military and in war and are always branded as soft on defending our country or supporting the military.

What's even funnier is how easy it is for conservatives like Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and countless others who have either gotten draft deferments or found other excuses to not serve, yet are quickly given a pass by those who have served. Those same deserted and dodgers are also and always eager to send our boys (and now girls) to war quickly.

As the old saying goes, the last ones to want to go to war are those in the military because they know what it's like. Perhaps that is why Kerry, Gore and Carter are so opposed to war, because they have been there.

Unlike Bush.

Would you get a pass if you deserted your unit? I know none of my family would.

So Carter's economic record isn't so great from when he was President. How did you spend your "second" Tax rebate from Bush in 2008?

Paying bills? I spent mine the same way I spent the one back in 2001, on bills.

Has been that long that our economy has struggled under Bush.

Wow..eight years.

Perhaps you spent yours filling your gas tank and making G.W. Bush's rich oil contributors wealthier? Perhaps you spent your rebate by sending it to the mortgage bankers to help keep them at bay under one of the worst mortgage collapses in U.S. history which is occurring under Bush. I don't think that kind of collapse happened in the high interest rate period under Carter did it?

Perhaps it was Clinton's fault?

Clinton, after all, did have sex with that intern while our economy had a balanced budget for nearly eight years which happened at the same time we had some of the biggest growth spurts in U.S. history.

Oh wait..the sex part is more important than the fact that Clinton has an education based on merit and didn't get into Georgetown or earn his Rhodes Scholarship because he is a legacy. Whereas Bush, he got into Yale on an automatic ticket because Daddy went to Yale and that gave his son an automatic bid. How nice for Bush to have that Silver Spoon in his mouth when he said during his campaign he's like the ordinary man. Yeah he is..like the ordinary idiots who voted for him who are dumb enough to not do their home work because it isn't cool. Once again, under Clinton, sex with the intern was more important than how he managed the country into one of the strongest periods of economic growth, or how well Clinton understood international policy and diplomacy. However, Clinton got that draft deferment (just like Cheney and Limbaugh) so he's a bad bad boy isn't he?

Oh darn, I almost forgot..Clinton also didn't inhale that marywanna "in college" when most you also probably tried all kinds of stupid and sometimes illegal substances and activities.

How could I forget that?

That inhaling fact is far more important than the fact that Bush go arrested from drunk driving in the mid 1970's...after he deserted his National Guard unit, after college when he should have been a responsible adult and husband.

I used to get emails from G.W. Bush defenders all the time and now they are all silent because they know he is a morally corrupt liar who ran our country into the ground. Very much like he did with the state of Texas' economy when he was Governor, and much like he did the company he founded and ran into bankruptcy before he became Governor of Texas. With his company, Bush showed his lack of managerial skills, however; he did show his ability to survive when he sold his shares and made several hundred thousand dollars on a company that was bankrupt. You say it was only several hundred thousand dollars? Well, Hillary made an even smaller amount on one of her investments before Clinton was in office and it was a big deal when Bubba was in office. The difference being is that Bush committed fraud and got away with because he got another "Daddy Pass" because Daddy was President at the time and Daddy fired those who could investigate him at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I look forward to reading the smarmy comments from the anonymous posters in this forum who will say that the above facts are lies. Well, go do your home work and prove me wrong before you spout off and say they are lies. The Bush defenders who ignore his long and continuous history of dishonesty, ignorance, and inability to manage our country and economy will be the ones who have to live with themselves knowing they twice voted him into office. I can rest easily knowing I didn't vote him into office. I was disgusted by the way he treated a former prisoner of war veteran, Sen. McCain in Presidental race in 2000. It was completely disgusting how Karl Rove made up lies about McCain and his wife and Bush perpetuated them.

Instead of being known for the no child left behind act (which is also failing), Bush will be remembered for no lie left untold and no citizen left bankrupt and no soldier left killed or maimed.

Well..we can rest assured at least the CEO's of the oil companies got wealthier over the last eight years. So, not all Americans are bankrupt, only the economy, middle class and below.

Aw, c'mon! Lawyers make fine Presidents. Personally, I like having a POTUS who understands the nuances of the Constitution and has intimate knowledge of the law. What?

Oh, nevermind...

B-MAN You can stay here as long as you wish.

Carter's book entitled "Israel: Peace, not Apartheid" presented a lot of factual information about that region. Neither I nor, I am reasonably sure, the one complaining about the lies in this book have independently researched the details contained within the book. However, Carter has lived a lot of the information in this book. He has traveled extensively in that region as well. So, much of his writing is based on first-hand knowledge. Unfortunately, to maintain certain talking points, our politicians give us only bits and pieces of the information that an informed citizenry need to make informed decisions. President Carter has acquited himself very well when questioned about some of the strongest statements that he made in his book. However, people today prefer to pick on single words or phrases, rather than to read the entire manuscript. I read the book from cover to cover. With my own previous knowledge about the events in his book, I did not find much to criticize him for. Afterall, he is entitled to his own opinions and his own interpretations of the facts.

As an aside, the right-wing religious nuts want me to believe that their interpretation of the Bible is equal to God's word as recorded in the Bible. There is a reason that I have my own copy of the Bible. With the advent of the printing press, a growing body of literate people could read for themselves. Many discovered that the Bible did not say many of the things that they were told. I feel sorry for those of you who depend on Rish Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others for your facts and interpretation of the facts. Personally, I prefer to just listen to the speech, read the book, and so forth without the inane commentary that follows where some people try to convince me that I did not hear what I just heard. Also, body language, tonal inflections, and the like are missing from a transcript. Some commentators put their own emphasis on certain words that were never intended by the author or speaker at the time.

You always have been my example as to what character a president should have,May God Bless you with long life so you could always speak up for truth around the world.News media sure don't give us a true picture,Thanks to you kind sir, May God Bless you always.

You always have been my example as to what character a president should have,May God Bless you with long life so you could always speak up for truth around the world.News media sure don't give us a true picture,Thanks to you kind sir, May God Bless you always.

You always have been my example as to what character a president should have,May God Bless you with long life so you could always speak up for truth around the world.News media sure don't give us a true picture,Thanks to you kind sir, May God Bless you always.

There is a difference between lying and giving a truthful statement when it can be damaging. Nobody argues that what President Carter says, he believes to be true. However, he does great damage to US positions on world issues when he involves himself in issues that he shouldn't. A recent example is his meetings with Hamas. Most of the world condemns Hamas as a terrorist organization that should be delat with in a hands off manner. Whether of not president Carter expressed truthful beliefs with Hams leaders in his meetings with them is besides the point: he shouldn't have met with them at all.

The beauty of democracy lies within the poeple's sense of reason, but when one man gets up and spews forth lies concerning a whole people, he forfeits the right to call out anyone on falsehoods. People's reason can be tainted, and especially someone of Former President Carter's stature should realize that personal biases cannot be broadcasted to the public. A famous philosopher once stated that the masses are stupid, and blunt as it may seem, it holds truth.
When Former President Carter decided to publicize his anti-semitic views by way of full-blown lies, he did it knowing that the "masses" would soak it up. He undercut the democratic system to sway the minds of innocent citizens.

I almost feel humiliated writing this post since one of our astute bloggers has stated that there is nothing of value on this ledger. For those who now have context and fail to use it to revise their ill-informed remarks about Carter's responsibilities for some of the problems in the late 1970's, let me give a few examples.

The high interest rates -
We now know, if we never really knew before, that the Federal Reserve Board controls these. We also know that this control has remained with Republican sympathizers for a long time. Look at the prime rate of 2 percent now. Based on the economics theory that was in play when Carter was President, when government and citizens are trying to borrow vast amounts of money from the same funds, the interest rates go up. Today, we must have found the money tree because huge amounts of money are being borrowed each week by the government and citizens and the interest rates seem to go lower. At least during the Carter years, I was encouraged to save some money because it paid to save. Look at what your savings are earning you today.

The hostages -
As a few who remember have pointed out, President Carter was not responsible for the hostage taking in Iran. However, not one hostage was killed. A few years later in Reagan's time, there was a big terrorist bombing of the infamous marine barracks in Beirut with over 200 American military men killed and no response from us other than to start building barracades around the White House, embassies, and so forth. Those Jersey barriers that you see now were a direct result of the bombing in Beirut (in Lebanon, for those who have never heard of Beirut).

The gas lines actually started with the 1973 oil crisis. Carter entered the White House in January 1977 and inherited a lot of problems. Before you start blaming everything on Carter, start doing a little research and dig up a few facts. The big problem with the gas lines was the oil embargo and other problems caused by OPEC. Obviously, we still have not learned much about being dependent on foreign oil. I remember well the gas lines and the prices, which seem very tame when compared to today's gas prices. However, those of us who were able to make adjustments, did. Those like some in this blogospere prefer to compain and do nothing.

Under Nixon, the wage freezes.
Yes, something very un-American happened under Nixon. We had periods of wage freezes.

Yes, I have cherry-picked some incidents throughout recent history to make my case. I do believe that those who do not dig a little and find substantive context for their narrow arguments are living in their very narrowly defined worlds and are slaves to a political party line. Yes, a number of slaves have blogged on this site. You can recognize them. They are generally not very happy. Maybe one day these slaves (usually captives of the nonthinking ultra right wing)will be able to free themselves from their own myopias and see what democracy is all about.

Whether or not Mr Carter was one of our greatest presidents, he strikes me as one of our most admirable human beings. His life since leaving the presidency has shone with humaneness and wisdom.

I full-heartedly agree that presidents should not lie. It seems almost needless for such a statement to be agreed upon by hundreds of US citizens, but what I am confused about is who the author was.
I recall a book by former President Carter entitled "Israel: Peace, not Apartheid" calling for Israel to halt its regime of tyranny over the impo