Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Ultimately "Beneficial"

eldavojohn writes "According to RT, the 39th president of the United States made several statements worth noting at a meeting in Atlanta. Carter said that 'America has no functioning democracy at this moment' and 'the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far.' The second comment sounded like Carter predicted the future would look favorably upon Snowden's leaks — at least those concerning domestic spying in the United States — as he said: 'I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.' It may be worth noting that, stemming from Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, Jimmy Carter signed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 into law and that Snowden has received at least one nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize."

Comments

+5 Insightful for

[NickDanger3rdEye]

Jimmy Carter.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[GeekWithAKnife]

Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoknrolZombie]

Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye, and I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant. HOPEFULLY his opinion means enough to other people to effect positive change...but I doubt it.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, it was Carter who put Bush in charge of the CIA.

And you're point is? Contrary to popular belief, President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President or political operator. He just wasn't all that popular. And he was actually a decent spookmaster.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[SirGarlon]

To be fair, I don't think anyone who was president from 1976-1980 could have been re-elected. Those were hard years for the US: high inflation, unemployment, the OPEC oil embargo, the bitter and recent memory of Vietnam, and the Iranian hostage crisis. That's just off the top of my head. No one could have solved all those problems at once, and it's easier to blame the President than to propose a solution.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[the eric conspiracy]

Carter had this little problem. He told the truth. He didn't secretly swap arms for hostages.

These sorts of things don't make you popular as President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

As other have said, Carter has a fictitious legacy as a complete disaster for the US. So since it takes one to know one, I trust his opinion on Snowden.

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad. The oil crisis did, in fact, make life really terrible, but that was long-coming foreign policy chickens coming home to roost. Every criticism of carter seems to end up centering around how bad those 4 years were economically, which is a really hard thing to control over that time span, especially with a maliciously induced energy shortage.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Because Ronald Reagan created that myth when he ran for office, and perpetuating myths is absolutely an expertise of the American people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Geste]

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fuzzybunny]

It should also be mentioned that most of those issues were caused by factors beyond the control of Carter and his administration (eg. the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis had their roots in the 1956 Iranian coup, stagflation was a global phenomenon which in the US was largely the result of the Nixon shock).

Then there's the whole October Surprise topic; even without going into wingnut conspiracy mode, there's some things in there to make anyone go "hmm".

Arguably, Carter ushered in a lot of improvements - Camp David, the departments of energy and education, a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets despite massive cold war tensions.

And last but not least, I can't see anyone arguing about the fact that the guy has (and had) integrity - which is saying a lot in a President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Clinton might not have been able to keep his trousers shut, but as a president he was intelligent and confident enough that he was not a marionette in the hand of his advisers. But that's about it post-Carter. Actually, more or less post-Nixon, though I don't remember anything particularly embarrassing about Ford's interlude. But then he was not elected in the first place.

In other words: the U.S. political system seems rather broken, judging from the quality of its results. Which brings us back to what Carter said.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area. He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games. His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power. Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Darth Snowshoe]

Can I just say, that RT article provided no context whatsoever to this quote? Does Mr. Carter believe "America has no functioning democracy at this moment" because
a.) intrusive, pervasive domestic spying supresses minority views
b.) gerrymandering, incessant filibusters, etc have thwarted the evident will of the majority
c.) astroturfing, the Citizens United decision, opacity in finance of politics have warped the nature of small-d democracy in America?
d.) limiting access to the ballot, mandating ID at polling stations, etc have eroded the enfranchisement of voters?
e.) both major political parties are beholden to corporate and private money such that the outcome, whoever wins, is largely the same?
f.) the press, beset by false equivalencies, threatened constantly by acquisitions and downsizing, discouraged from publishing radical stances or asking difficult questions of the politicians on whose access its livelihood rests, has broken its compact with the public?
g.) all of the above?

Surely Mr. Carter is an expressive and thoughtful speaker, whether you agree or disagree with his views. I'm certain if you found the full content of what he said around his "no functioning democracy" statement, it would be far more illuminating than what was included in RT.

 

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mrex]

The original FISA was quite different than the modern FISA, as a result of the PATRIOT and the FISA Amendments Act passed in 2008 and re-authorized in 2012, as well as the morphing of the FISA court (FISC) from a body that simply said "yes" or "no" to warrant requests against spies and foreign operatives, into a Star Chamber-esque court where secret legal precedents are set in ex parte hearings that lack any element of adversarialism such as the presentation of opposing arguments.

Blaming Carter for this is a bit like blaming Mendeleev for the existence of nuclear weapons because he created the periodic table of elements.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[MightyMartian]

The economic problems predated Carter, and while he certainly was unable to fix them, he was, after all ultimately stymied by the energy crisis of the late 1970s. As to the Afghan invasion, what exactly could he have done? At no point during the Cold War did the US contemplate direct intervention against the Soviets, save as a final nightmare scenario like an all-out invasion of Western Europe. Neither Carter, nor any other President, would have directly involved the US in Afghanistan. As to Iran, yes, he misjudged the unpopularity of the Shah, but then again, so had several administrations before him, so I fail to see how you can put your focus solely on the Carter Administration's actions surrounding Iran, seeing as he was perpetuating a policy that his predecessors had maintained for well over two decades.

Carter was hardly a perfect president, but he is a classic example of how sometimes leaders get the job at the worst of all possible moments, and ultimately no matter what they do or don't do, the situation is far larger and chaotic than any leader, particularly of a democratic state, can hope to overcome.

Carter is a damned bright guy, a helluva brighter than his immediate successor, but he was as screwed as Herbert Hoover (another very bright guy)/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Indeed, mod parent up. I can see only one really bad thing Carter did: loosing to Reagan. That started the fast decline of US democracy, along with turning the US into a banana republic (where the top 1% get everything, pay for nothing and get the lower 40% to fight wars and die in the interest of the top 1%).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area.

This is always everyone's top billing, and always the one with the least specificity. That's because it has absolutely nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with correcting runaway inflation caused by an oil embargo.

He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that.

I'm glad you're specific about this, and I'll address the specific things below, but using "weak" in an discussion of foreign policy makes you seem like a neanderthal, man. It's really emotional, and in no way reflects a sensible view of the world.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games.

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power.

Oh you mean how our direct support of the Shaw in his dictatorial games through the CIA prior to that in no way lead to the Islamic Republic Seizing power and creating the theocratic nightmare we face today, right?

Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Yeah, comparing Carter to the "let's invade a country for no reason" Bush is totally a false dilemma. For worse presidents than carter: Garfield(institutional corruption), Bush II(literally every criticism of Obama applies to him to a greater degree, and he killed hundreds of thousands for no reason), Reagan(you're going to disagree, but come on: savings and loan + Iran Contra + deficit explosion), Nixon(literally betrayed the country for first election, secretly spied on opponents with the CIA for re-election), Jackson(trail of tears), and Buchanan(essentially caused the civil war with all his moderately pro-slavery not-caring) all easily make the list.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Mabhatter]

He had to "restore faith" that the President was a good person after Nixon totally trashed the office. In THAT he succeeded. The situation with hostages was a sycophant military to Republicans that couldn't do their jobs. while at the same time Iranians were working with Reagan's people secretly and illegally to give him the election.

Knowing what we know now, both Nixon and Reagan committed Capital crimes before they were even sworn into office. Yet somehow Carter was a bad one?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Excepting his fawning over various dictators. There's an insightful saying about him: "Jimmy Carter never met a dictator that he didn't like."

You are saying complete BS. For example, Carter was one of the few US presidents who put pressure on latin America's dictatorships to try to alleviate the human rights abuses. He put an arms embargo on Argentina's dictatorship (later rescinded by Reagan, a factor that eventually lead to the Argentina-UK war in 1982).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RabidReindeer]

Mod parent up.
We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party (which at the time still contained a lot of southern social conservatives.)

He has worn the mantle of elder statesman and sage well since his time in office. Quite possibly one of the best educated and most greatly concerned for the american people of US presidents of the past century.

Carter always was concerned. Not only for the American people, but for people everywhere. His "Sunday School" image wasn't just a posture.

That, in a way was his downfall. Both Carter and Ford were pretty decent guys. About the only election where I thought it was a choice between who to vote for rather than whom to vote against. But they were both pretty ineffective overall. Carter did his part in reducing tensions between Israel and the Arabs (especially Egypt), and both Carter and Ford quietly kept the Evil Empire of the USSR at bay as it slowly ground itself to powder before finally collapsing at Reagan's feet.

But evidently nice guys finish last. Reagan didn't give a shit about other countries feelings, and, ironically, they respected him more for it. Bush I wasn't the disaster I'd feared, although he didn't actually do much better than Carter or Ford. Clinton was a sleazebag, but presided over one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras in US history. Then there was Dubya, who had been muttering about attacking Iraq almost from the moment he took office. Iraq was going to get slapped down anyway, since while they might have lacked usable WMDs, they had been getting more and more obnoxious in their probes against the no-fly zones even before Clinton departed. If we'd just waited another year or so, we could have gone in with the world at our backs instead of the world backing off. Which brings us to Obama, who was supposed to undo the excesses of Bush II, but has been looking more and more like Bush II revarnished.

In the mean time, while presidents came and went, the security paranoia infrastructure did not. J. Edgar Hoover was a nasty piece of work, although his spiritual predecessors were no angels. Who exactly inherited his excesses isn't totally clear to me, although the name "William Casey" seems to ring some bells. And the faceless beetle-like men developed Echelon, Prism and other programs of lesser fame. The lines between internal investigations (FBI) and external ones (CIA) blurred. They don't use the name "Total Information Awareness" any more, but that is the obvious goal.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price

So was Obama. And Kissinger. And Yasser Arafat.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

I'd say the greater problem with Reagan is how he courted religious extremists, that combined with the bigots brought in by Nixon's southern strategy, led to the devolution of the Republican party into the far-right-wing circus it is today. I'd like to get back to having 2 sane parties to choose from, but I don't think the Republicans can recover since they're unwilling to show the bigots and crazies the door, and modernize their views so they can appeal to reasonable people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama won the Nobel for getting elected president. Seems it really doesn't mean much.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[catmistake]

He screwed up the ability of the nuclear industry to move to safer, clean technologies, effectively trapping the US into 1950's light water reactors.

Your facts are in error. You are aware that President Carter is a nuclear engineer? He knew what he was doing. In actuality, whether by greed, negligence, or incompetence, it was the nuclear/energy industry itself that shit its own bed. President Carter merely delivered them the news of this.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Tharkkun]

The economic problems predated Carter, and while he certainly was unable to fix them, he was, after all ultimately stymied by the energy crisis of the late 1970s. As to the Afghan invasion, what exactly could he have done? At no point during the Cold War did the US contemplate direct intervention against the Soviets, save as a final nightmare scenario like an all-out invasion of Western Europe. Neither Carter, nor any other President, would have directly involved the US in Afghanistan. As to Iran, yes, he misjudged the unpopularity of the Shah, but then again, so had several administrations before him, so I fail to see how you can put your focus solely on the Carter Administration's actions surrounding Iran, seeing as he was perpetuating a policy that his predecessors had maintained for well over two decades.

Carter was hardly a perfect president, but he is a classic example of how sometimes leaders get the job at the worst of all possible moments, and ultimately no matter what they do or don't do, the situation is far larger and chaotic than any leader, particularly of a democratic state, can hope to overcome.

Carter is a damned bright guy, a helluva brighter than his immediate successor, but he was as screwed as Herbert Hoover (another very bright guy)/

So exactly like Obama.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

And what was wrong with the committee awarding Peace Prizes to Kissinger and Arafat? Kissinger negotiated the ceasefire in Vietnam, and pulled our troops out. Vietnam is a far more peaceful place now than it was before Kissinger signed the agreement. It maybe didn't work out so well for the "American interests" in the region, but when you look at those interests, we were only there because of the fear of the commies and the "domino effect". Those were really crappy reasons to enter someone else's civil war. Arafat had to do some serious wheeling and dealing within his own organizations and gave up a lot just to get permission to go to Oslo with Rabin, and the resultant accords were a huge step toward peace.

Maybe none of these efforts has ever created a permanent lasting land of happy peace-loving unicorns full of good will hugs, but the world isn't that kind of place. But we do know it was made better for many people due to their efforts.

However I completely agree with you that Obama was awarded it merely for being elected, kind of like a kid getting a trophy for attending baseball practice. I agree that giving it to him did nothing to hold up the reputation of the award. But it still shouldn't diminish Carter's accomplishments any.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Curunir_wolf]

"Even Nixon pails (sic) in comparison with Obama."

Rose colored glasses much? Or maybe too many martinis at lunch. While I'm less and less enthralled with Obama, nobody holds a candle to Nixon / Kissinger in terms of malfeasance and outright illegality.

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell? How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

Nixon never orchestrated a false flag kidnapping at a consulate, and then tried to cover it up when it went south. He never sold weapons to drug cartels. He didn't target children with drones, either. He ENDED the Vietnam war, and didn't start any others, or try to interfere with any other countries' civil unrest and internal politics.

As bad as Nixon may have been, when it comes to malfeasance and illegality, well, Obama refuses to resign, but 3 federal courts so far have already said Obama has broken the law.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[microbox]

In office, Nixon used the power of government to suppress his rivals. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy (Iran).

I remember the Reagan era quite well. He was very popular, and in many ways a great guy. But "mistakes were made" (to use his words), and they were not minor peccadilloes. Could you imagine that hard-on that Rush Limbaugh would get if Obama was caught selling arms to Iran in order to fund a war that congress told him he couldn't have? And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president. That would cause Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and everyone right-wingnut to blow their wad.

It amazes me that smart people sometimes choose the GOP, because they really live by the maximum "tell a lie enough and it become the truth". And they don't know how to keep the budget under control either.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Carter was a shining example of a genuinely decent person among a string of sociopaths continuing to this day. Both D and R are represented in that list.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Really?

Things Obama did::Similar thing Bush did

Bombed suspected foreign terrorists::Bombed an entire foreign country, twice
Used tax cuts as an ineffective stimulus::The same, but oriented entirely to the right, twice
Used FISA courts to provide warrants to spy on Americans in excess of reason:: Intentionally bypassed FISA courts to spy on Americans without warrants
Failed to shut down Guantanamo bay where prisoners were being kept illegally::Started Guantanamo with the intent of bypassing the right to a fair trial, while torturing innocent people

I don't exactly approve of Obama, he should have completely reversed a lot of the completely immoral Bush actions instead of taking them down a step, but "worse than Bush" can only come out of the mind of a crazy person.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[cold fjord]

I'm here to inform, not entertain. But I can see why people think your views are funny.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sjames]

Actually, he's probably been one of our best ex-presidents. Rather than making commercials or getting back into under the table business deals, he has worked with Habitat for Humanity and has overseen democratic elections around the world. When he says we have no functioning democracy, he says it from a professional viewpoint.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mwehle]

Reagan's team negotiating with Tehran to delay release of the hostages certainly contributed to Carter's loss also.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Uberbah]

Could we get some winger trolls that are a little less willfully ignorant please?

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

1. Someone walking by and recording a conversation with a handheld device isn't "bugging", it's "eavesdropping". No device left in the room? Then it's not bugged.

2. Obama is responsible for the actions of every democrat in the country now? In that case, which republican is responsible for James O'Keefe's actual attempt to bug a senator's office?

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA

You do know that democratic groups were not just given equal scrutiny by the IRS, but that the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a democratic group? And this all happened under a Bush appointee to the IRS?

As for the EPA, you mean the agency where the Obama Administration had to be taken to court to actual enforce EPA regulations rather than giving industry a free pass? That EPA?

He ENDED the Vietnam war

You mean Ford ended the war.

He didn't target children with drones, either.

Finally you get to something that isn't from 'bagger la la land. It's not like Obama hasn't pulled enough real right-wing power grabs without having to make up stupid bullshit about the IRS or the EPA. It's like you guys will lose your winger merit badges if your attacks aren't 90% bullshit.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Virtucon]

Oh please spare your bleeding heart bullshit. At a time when we needed a leader we got a dumbfuck who was inept at everything:

1) There was an Embargo in 1973 and in 1977. The difference between those two, we had better leadership in the WH in 1973 than in 1977. Great leaders work around problems, motivate their constituents and forge ahead. Carter layed there like a bowl of jello. He couldn't forge alliances and he didn't reach out to try and bridge the gaps. Yes there's hate in the Middle East, there was hate before so I can't blame him for that and instead of in 1977 he waited till 1979 to promote domestic production by deregulation of oil prices. Something the Industry had been clamoring for since 1973. At least he learned from his first mistake.

2) Interest rates were rampant, that's failed economic policies and the president sets the agenda. He had a willing congress who'd pass is legislative agenda, but he didn't lead. Inaction in this case led to the biggest drop in our standard of living

3) His foreign policy failings led to the invasion of Afghanistan because the Soviets saw an opportunity with the turmoil in Iran and the US helpless to stop them. The US couldn't build a coalition and the only response we had "boycott the olympics" Who didn't go? Oh yeah I think it was just us a handful of nations. Hell he even sent Mohammad Ali to convince African Nations to boycott the games. Even the British went to the games! That was his diplomacy; what a fucking joke.

4) The US had interests in Iran, we f*d up with the CIA and by helping the British but in for a penny in for a pound and we abandoned our allies at their time of need and got a radical regime instead. The Shaw was horrible and he did horrible things to his people but the way we just sat there and said "Meh" gave all of our other allies in the world a chance to think and say "They didn't step in to help? What happens if I'm in trouble?" Supporting Dictators and repressive regimes is bad but you also don't turn your back on friends. I can't blame him for what happened in Iran but I can blame every president since for not even trying to heal that wound.

5) Give him credit for the Camp David Accords, that was good work but he ignored everything else and tried to tell Americans out of work, with prices skyrocketing that he was good leader.

The country was poorer and still is because of his tenure in office. Even his "malaise" speech showed that he was a defeatist and not a leader.

He's done good work since then but you still can't paint over the fact that he was a bumbling idiot. History may paint a rosier picture of him but living with him as our president was a bad bad time. People were even longing for Gerald Ford, he was so bad. His end approval rating was in the low 34%. Put that into perspective: Even the people who voted for him thought he sucked, Democrats, Independents and Republicans after 4 years. He does share that with Dubya but more people in Dubya's case were against him vs. undecided. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/final_approval.php but it took 8 years to get that kind of coverage.. So, twice as bad as Dubya? Maybe...

Obama is on his way there now... just watch.

[quote]
The Presidential Leadership Index fell to 43.2 from 48.9 a month earlier. The 11.7% slide was the worst since Obama took office. For the fourth straight month, the reading stood below 50, signaling disapproval.
[/quote]

And he's not even done with his first year of his second term. Let's all give him a round of applause folks!

Unfortunately

[ArcadeMan]

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

Re:Unfortunately

[plover]

If you set your wayback machine to when he took office, keep in mind that the country was still reeling from the Watergate scandal, and we were all pretty damn sick and disgusted with all of the politicians in D.C. It would have been almost impossible for anyone to get anything major accomplished in that environment.

Yes, he is certainly more of a "doer" than a "leader", and I'm not sure he would ever make a great president. But he sure as hell would be better than Obama or Bush, both of whom seem cut from the same tarp used to cover up Washington's dirt.

Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[eldavojohn]

Mod parent up. We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush:

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney:

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[gl4ss]

cheny & gwb got nothing to lose from their legacies being labeled as illegal and as herding the country towards "non-functioning democracy". sure as fuck they got plenty of points to lose. if either of them said that what the programs are doing is wrong they would be saying that they were wrong and not just wrong but unconstitutional and as extension actual traitors to the country, so what are they gonna do? label snowden as traitor, of course... just like they didn't like a lot the leaks which effectively tell that they're war criminals.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ebno-10db]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[i kan reed]

To Cheney, "National Security Interests of the United States" means bandwidth of channels for money to Halliburton. I'm sure they provide some sort of "consulting" to the NSA.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ackthpt]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

One of the things I appreciate about Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, keep us laughing at our own foibles, don't ignore those foibles, but recognize the idiocy of how we behave as parties, people and country. Under the Bush administration I felt we were approaching something vaguely Stalinist, where laughing at our mistakes was felt to be unpatriotic - when France challenged our information and motives for going into Iraq we had people re-naming French Fries as Freedom Fries - I think that was a very worrying thing and showed an extreme depth of stupidity. Turned out France was right to do so. Questioning government is the most patriotic thing we can do, not call ourselves pretend PATRIOTS and wrap ourselves up in the flag.

I do agree with Carter, the exposure of this sort of thing is healthy. Perhaps the government needs to do some of these things, but not under a cloak of double secrecy.

He is not The One Who Is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said a few times by other people, but there goes: Jimmy Carter is pretty much the best former president the U.S.A. have ever had. Come to think of it, just like Obama might be remembered as the best future president the U.S.A. ever had.

Too bad we are living in the present.

Re:Damn it!

[Nadaka]

Why? He is a generally good guy.

Re:Why?

[Antipater]

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Re:Damn it!

[CanHasDIY]

Why?

Conditioning.

Same reason why so many people still think they only get to choose between Democrats and Republicans in elections.

Scapegoating

[sjbe]

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him.

It's mostly scapegoating from the right. Presidents who serve during tough economic times usually get a disproportionate amount of blame for problems that they weren't responsible for creating and often can't do much to fix. Since he wasn't exactly beloved by his own party, Carter is a fairly easy target by the conservatives. Their criticisms of him are rarely fair or accurate but the tactic has worked in the past.

Re:JC

[wcrowe]

I've always felt that he was too honest and intelligent to be president.
 

Yes.

[whitroth]

As a President, I really disliked him, as he ramped up the military, when it really wasn't necessary, and played into the hands of the Republicans....

On the other hand, he's the greatest ex-President this country has had in my lifetime, standing for, well, what the US is *supposed* to stand for, and *claims* to stand for.

                          mark

Solar Panels on the Whitehouse

[Sir_Eptishous]

Carter put solar panels on the Whitehouse.
Reagan took them down
Here we are 30-some years later still jacking off over renewable energy...
If anything, Carter was way ahead of his time.
Every president since has been under heel of the carbon extraction industrial complex.

Snowden is BOTH whistle blower and traitor

[WindBourne]

When he spoke about spying on Americans, he was a whistle blower. Had he been smart, he would have stopped right there.

Sadly, that idiot carried it into treason and has not only harmed America's interest, but his own: his life.

Snowden will never ever have a normal life. More importantly, no nation will trust a man that is such a traitor. Sure, they will USE him for a time, but he will not be allowed into any place in which he could damage that nation. And within 20 years, he will want to come back to the west, and will be willing to do his time.