T Nation

Free Pass for Jimmy Carter


With all the mess in Iran now, why does JC get no criticism from the press? Instead, he's looked upon as an icon, a true man of peace...as if appeasing evil ever led to peace.

Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran in the late '70s. The Shah was no prince of peace, but he didn't export terror and threanten to obliterate his neighbor. The Shah was rapidly modernizing Iran and it probably would have evolved into a constitutional monarchy.

If you want to see a very pale version of the world w/o American leadership, what the world would devolve into, just read some of the history of that era. And this yo-yo got a Nobel Peace Prize!! Unbelievable!


To be fair, since N. Korea was really arming themselves all along, he should've given the peace prize back. Hamid Karzai deserved it much more.


Don't forget his sucking up to Castro and other leftist dictators.

He was easily the worst president in my lifetime.

He should stick to Habitat for Humanity.


Were you alive when LBJ was President?

How about Carter as the second worst President in modern times?

LBJ being the absolute worst President.


I suppose I was for about 2 years. I don't remember much. All my LBJ memories come from the history books. You are right. He was the worst.

I think my first political memories are of Watergate hearings that seemed to pre-emt Mr Rogers everytime I wanted to watch TV.


i'm not a carter fan either. i knew nothing about him until my cousin (who's in the secret service) took a job to guard him. a lot of people think he's a good christian man who teaches sunday school and what-not but he's in fact a big abortion advocate and has leftist views. but, our nation has a history of abandoning our allies and even supporting crappy dictatorships, so this doesn't come as much of a surprise.


You just brought back some memories I had long forgotten. I was a litle too old for Mr. Rogers, but not by much.

I agree with ZEB, LBJ was the worst president of my lifetime. They busted Nixon for spying and breaking in the DNC, then trying to cover it up. Had we the voracious press, and the never ending newscycle in the 60's, LBJ would have died in jail for murder. He was a truly evil man.


The assumption is Iran would have followed a different path with a Republican in office.

Not buying.

Carter was and still is a weak-stick-twig but Iran was destined for their current predicament.

The Shah needed to be more like Hussein if he wanted to stay in power.

Anything short of Saddam's full blown ruthlessness would have been a losing proposition.


Now THAT truly is an intelligent proposition (I'm not being sarcastic.) Does someone have to be as evil as Saddam to be a leader in that part of the world? Very good point, MD.

If that's the case, then the whole Iraq ordeal is a waste. Is the culture in that part of the world incapable of having a peaceful democracy? Food for thought! Thanks, MD!


The answer to that question is a resounding YES!

Democracy has take decades more than 100 years to stablilize in every instance it has been implemented.

Maybe democracy will stabilize in 120+ years from now in Iraq but I do not think it is worth the lives of our fine young Americans to kick start this long and arduous process.

I personally have friends that are Muslim from this region and they think that Saddam and dictators like him are the only answer short of dividing Iraq up into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan.

Three separate countries may not make much of a difference as none will agree to give up oil revenues.

The Kurds would have oil fields and the Shia would have oil field but the Sunni area does not currently have any viable oil fields.

There really is no good solution.

The Neo-Cons have run for the exits and Bush is left holding the bag.

The buck stops at the Oval Office!


I just want to say, damn you bastards are old.


Naah, that would be Bush.

Also, I notice you don't blame Reagan for arming these lunatics.



The Shah of Iran was a lost case. He was a brutal dictator with absolutely NO popular support what-so-ever.

He relied solely on his secret police and military, torturing people and letting them disappear.
Much like Saddam actually.

The chances of his regime turning into a constitutional monarchy were very slim.


Go away troll. The adults are trying to have a discussion.


Watch your mouth you young whipper-snapper! I was around then too! Have some respect for your elders!


Why is it trolling to mention that Reagan did arm many of these people? Iran-Contra, Afganistan rebels? Oh, I forgot, that part of history has been deleted and no longer officially exists. It's funny that no one wants to remember these things.


Ronald Reagan never ever did anything wrong. He was a sweet, old man who loved jellybeans and was so classy and kind, he got out of the shower to pee.

Let's name everything in the world after him!


It is trolling because Wreckless does not contribute anything intelligent to these discussions.

He comes in posts a lame insult to get a reaction and leaves.

He has a pattern of doing it and he is a troll.

There are many people that post the "left's" viewpoint much more intelligently and actually engage in discussion.

It is quite enjoyable to debate and discuss with them. Wreckless is not one of them.


If we blame Carter for screwing up Iran (and I'm not debating this point) it seems fair to blame Reagan for arming Saddam Hussein.

The singling out Carter for cozying up to dictators seems duplicitous. Every post-WW2 President before the 1st Bush (as far as I can tell) had their favorite dictatorial regime to prop up.


Carter turned his back on the Shah, assuming that the Ayatollah would be grateful for this betrayal.

Arming Saddam was a mistake, but he was fighting the Iranian nutjobs. Too bad he was as evil a prick as they are.