October 11, 2002
Jimmy Carter has finally got himself a Nobel Peace Prize. His record includes involvement in the Egypt-Israel peace agreement (although Sadat may disagree about the peacefulness of the outcome), the outstanding Habitat for Humanity, and several health-related endeavors in the Third World. His record also includes averting U.S. action against North Korea in 1994 by getting them to accept money, food, and increased nuclear capacity in return for pretending not to develop nuclear and chemical weapons.
Appeasement of murderers in return for false promises has been his modus operandi for years in fact, culminating in a shameful -- if not treasonous -- effort to unmake the first President Bush's Gulf War Coalition even as American forces entered harm's way. This sort of behavior led some to speculate that his peace-at-all-costs approach had as its end a Nobel Prize rather than true peace, which is to say, peace that lasts longer than the echoes of his shoes linger in a tyrant's marble corridors.
This speculation is a bit mean-spirited; my own belief is that Carter really has possessed good intentions all along. He is a Christian, though one who seems to think the nature of men has changed since the Bible was compiled, and whose forgiveness never seemed to go beyond tyrants and Democrats (his long-standing grudge against members of the Reagan Administration for reversing his entire foreign and military policy regime is well-known).
But he means well. When combined with ignorance of economics and boundless optimism about the powers of bureaucracy, this makes for a sorry U.S. President -- as Carter well proved. But in ample supply, and when combined with tireless effort, it can earn one a Nobel Peace Prize. There have certainly been less deserving recipients.
Posted by Woodlief on October 11, 2002 at 07:09 AM
I think he's arrogant and deserves no recognition, and in this case has been used as a pawn by international leaders as a slap in the face to BushII.
As for his being a Christian, I've sure you have, as have I, known people who's self-righteousness about their Christianity bled it dry of any true value, in a very Pharisaical way. I'm sure he means to mean well, but some behaviors are beyond excuse even under the "means well" moniker. Just as high-flown political rhetoric must be backed by the action that confirms its truth, high-flown religious airs must be shown to be truth to rise above self-indulgent piety.
I don't think Jimmy Carter rises above anything. And he shouldn't be given credit for having good intentions when his personal failings prevent his being able to see the harm in his behavior.
(Not that I have strong feelings about it.)
Posted by: susanna at October 11, 2002 11:38 AM
Not to worry. Jimmy Carter is in good company. Former winners include Kofi Annan and Yasser Arafat.
Regardless of what one thinks of a any particular winner, this is a highly-politicized prize. In fact, the committee has already acknowledged that Carter's win intends to contrast the US position on Iraq.
Posted by: Naomi at October 11, 2002 12:03 PM
Do you think it says something about me that all of the woman I have any contact with are more conservative than I am?
Posted by: Tony at October 11, 2002 1:04 PM
You have good taste in women? (grins to Susanna and Naomi)
Posted by: timekeeper at October 12, 2002 4:56 AM
Well, this award to Jimmy carter just goes to show how worthless the peace prize really is. It is just a way for leftists to scam a large sum of money so that they can invest in their "NGOs", and go around to their leftist conferences and pat each other on their backs
The Nobel Peace prize and the prize for literature are so politicized, I wonder why leftists are surprised that most nobody gives a flying **** about these 2 prizes.
Posted by: sid at October 12, 2002 7:38 PM
I've found it illuminating to think of Jimmy Carter as Herbert Hoover in reverse. Hoover was a humanitarian _before_ he was a failed President.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at October 13, 2002 2:59 PM
Don't think this the wrong way, but I could not care less if "he means well". His record of appeasement and effronteries toward America over the past twenty years has been amazing--not in a good way.
That man is a menace to the world made all the worse because he delivers his brand of evil with a grandfatherly smile and a Southern twang.
Peace Prizes should be given to people who actually achieve peace. Carter created the fiasco between Iran and Iraq (ended US-Shah relations), appeased the Soviets (who marched into Afghanistan), stood crippled and helpless during the US embassy hostage incident, and other numerous intrusions into US foreign policy during his ex-presidency.
He is a grade A failure (both as a politician and as a human being) and nothing more. Anyone who shakes the hand of and makes apologies--seemingly with glee--for murderous tyrants is not a good human being.
Oh, almost forgot: remember that he was awarded the prize largely in part as a political statement against the Bush administration (for the stance of anti-appeasement and anti-detente). If for nothing else, this reason alone should have led him to say, "Thanks, but under these pretenses I cannot accept this award."
Posted by: addison at October 16, 2002 9:59 AM
Let's not forget the news today that North Korea has been working on a nuclear program all along. Makes Carter's "peace" work look pretty sick. And it's interesting that they would only admit to their nuclear program when it looks like Iraq may get invaded to stop them from achieving a nuclear deterrent. You don't think they want to avoid the righteous wrath of a REAL President, do you?
Posted by: Robert Speirs at October 17, 2002 1:49 PM
Neither do I think Jimmy Carter a good man; he is a man who wants to look good to the world so he looks good to himself.
I believe he is an appeaser -- and a hater of Jews.
Strong words, I know; nevertheless, his actions warrant them.
Posted by: Pandora at October 18, 2002 2:10 AM