Monday, April 21, 2008 8:47 AM






As former President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas leaders and laid a wreath at the tomb of terrorist Yasser Arafat, Americans were wondering who Carter really is.

Carter came into office portraying himself as a man of the people, a peanut farmer who cares about the problems of working class Americans. But Secret Service agents, Air Force One stewards, and White House residence staff saw an entirely different picture.

While Richard Nixon was known to the Secret Service as the strangest modern president, Carter was known as the least likeable. If the true measure of a man is how he treats the little people, Carter flunked the test. Inside the White House, Carter treated those who helped and protected him with contempt.

“When Carter first came there, he didn’t want the police officers and agents looking at him or speaking to him when he went to the office,” Nelson Pierce, an assistant White House usher, told me for my book "Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World's Most Powerful Institutions." “He didn’t want them to pay attention to him going by. I never could understand why. He was not going to the Oval Office without shoes or a robe.”

“We never spoke unless spoken to,” said Fred Walzel, who was chief of the White House branch of the Secret Service Uniformed Division. “Carter complained that he didn’t want them [the officers] to say hello.”

“Carter came into the cockpit once in the two years I was on with him,” James A. Buzzelli, an Air Force One flight engineer, told me. “But [Ronald] Reagan never got on or off without sticking his head in the cockpit and saying, ‘Thanks, fellas,’ or ‘Have a nice day.’ He [Reagan] was just as personable in person as he came across to the public.”

Meanwhile, Carter refused to carry out the most important responsibility a president has — to be available to take action in case of nuclear attack. When he went on vacation, “Carter did not want the 'nuclear football' at Plains,” a Secret Service agent said (the "nuclear football" is a briefcase used by the president to authorize the use of nuclear weapons when away from fixed command centers). “There was no place to stay in Plains. The military wanted a trailer there. He didn’t want that. So the military aide who carries the football had to stay in Americus,” 10 miles away from Carter’s home in Georgia.

Because of the agreed-upon protocols, in the event of a nuclear attack, Carter could not have launched a counterattack by calling the aide in Americus.

“He would have had to drive 10 miles,” the agent said. “Carter didn't want anyone bothering him on his property. He wanted his privacy. He was really different.”

Through his lawyer, Terrence B. Adamson, Carter denied that he refused to keep the nuclear football near him in Plains and that he instructed uniformed officers not to say hello to him in the White House.

But Bill Gulley, who, as director of the White House military office, was in charge of the operation, confirmed that Carter refused to let the military aide stay near his residence.

“We tried to put a trailer in Plains near the residence for the doctor [who travels with the president] and the aide with the football,” Gulley said. “But Carter wouldn’t permit that. Carter didn’t care at all.”

Carter — codenamed Deacon by the Secret Service — was moody and mistrustful.

“When he was in a bad mood, you didn’t want to bring him anything,” a former Secret Service agent said. “It was this hunkered down attitude: ‘I’m running the show.’ It was as if he didn’t trust anyone around him. He had that big smile, but when he was in the White House, it was a different story.”

“Carter said, ‘I’m in charge,’” a former Secret Service agent said. “‘Everything is my way.’ He tried to micromanage everything. You had to go to him about playing on the tennis court. It was ridiculous.”

One day, Carter noticed water gushing out of a grate outside the White House.

“It was the emergency generating system,” said William Cuff, an assistant chief of the White House military office. “Carter got interested in that and micromanaged it. He would zoom in on an area and manage the hell out of it. He asked questions of the chief usher every day. ‘How much does this cost?’ ‘Which part is needed?’ ‘When is it coming?’ ‘Which bolt ties to which flange?’”

At a press conference, Carter denied reports that White House aides had to ask him for permission to use the tennis courts. But that was more dissembling. In fact, even when he was traveling on Air Force One, Carter insisted that aides ask him for permission to play on the courts.

“It is a true story about the tennis courts,” said Charles Palmer, who was chief of the Air Force One stewards. Because other aides were afraid to give Carter the messages asking for permission, Palmer often wound up doing it.

“He [Carter] approved who played from on the plane,” Palmer said. “Mostly people used them when he was out of town. If the president was in a bad mood, the aides said, ‘You carry the message in.’ On the bad days when we were having problems, no one wanted to talk to the president. It was always, ‘I have a note to deliver to the president. I don’t want him hollering at me.’”

Palmer said Carter seemed to relish the power. At times, Carter would delay his response, smugly saying, “I’ll let them know,” Palmer said. “Other times, he would look at me and smile and say, ‘Tell them yes.’ I felt he felt it was a big deal. I didn’t understand why that had to happen.”

Early in his presidency, Carter proclaimed that the White House would be “dry.” Each time a state dinner was held, the White House made a point of telling reporters that no liquor — only wine — would be served.

“The Carters were the biggest liars in the world,” Gulley said. “The word was passed to get rid of all the booze. There can’t be any on Air Force One, in Camp David, or in the White House. This was coming from close associates of the Carter family. I said to our White House military people, ‘Hide the booze, and let’s find out what happens.’ The first Sunday they are in the White House, I get a call from the mess saying, ‘They want bloody marys before going to church. What should I do?’ I said, ‘Find some booze and take it up to them.’”

“We never cut out liquor under Carter,” said Palmer, the chief of the Air Force One stewards. “Occasionally, Carter had a martini,” Palmer said. He also had a Michelob lite. “Rosalynn may have had a drink . . . She had a screwdriver.”

Towards the end of his term, Carter became suspicious that people were stealing things and listening to his conversations in the Oval Office.

“They were becoming very paranoid,” said a General Services Administration (GSA) building manager in charge of maintenance of the west wing. “They thought GSA or the Secret Service were listening in.”

One afternoon, Susan Clough, Carter’s secretary, insisted that some of the crude oil in a vial had been stolen from the Oval Office. The vial was a gift to Carter from an Arab leader.

“Susan Clough swore up and down that someone poured some of it out,” a GSA manager said. Even though the vial was sealed, “There was a big fuss over it. The Secret Service photographs everything in the president’s suite. They photographed it [again], and it hadn’t been touched. It shows the paranoia.”

After Reagan was inaugurated, GSA discovered that the Carter staff had left garbage in the White House and had trashed furniture in the old Executive Office Building, much as Bill Clinton’s staff trashed the White House before President Bush moved in.

GSA saw “furniture, desks, and file cabinets turned over,” a GSA building manager said. “They shoved over desks. We had to straighten it out. It was 15 or 20 desks in one area. It was enough to look like a cyclone had hit.”

After he was voted out of office, Carter occasionally stayed in the townhouse GSA maintains for former presidents at 1716 Jackson Place. On the walls of the townhouse are photos of former presidents. GSA managers had to check on the premises and found that while Carter was there, Carter would remove the photos of Republican presidents Ford and Nixon and decorate the townhouse with another half-dozen 16-inch by 24-inch photos of himself.

Each time, Charles B. (Buddy) Respass, then the GSA manager over the White House, became irate because GSA had to find the old photos and hang them up again.

Carter, through Adamson, denied this. He also denied that he thought people were listening to his conversations in the Oval Office. But Lucille Price, the GSA manager who then reported to Respass, said, “Carter changed the photos . . . He didn’t like them [Ford and Nixon] looking down at him. We would find out he would put photos of himself up,” Price said. “Then he would take the photos of himself back with him,” she said. “He was a wimp.”

In telling Iran-supported Hamas that it should stop its rocket attacks on Israel, Carter no doubt thought he was still sitting on Air Force One, savoring the power of letting aides know when they could use the tennis courts.


By: Ronald Kessler

he spent his White House years liquored up? that explains a lot.

I dont know if this piece is just playing to a lot of preconcieved notions about Carter or not. It sure seems that way though. If this stuff is true, it's hardly suprising to me.

I can't believe people would trash the buildings as they weere leaving, if that is true that is juvenile white trash chickenshit behavior. It just doesn't seem possible.

Didn't care for Carter while he was in office. He's become a meddling old fool who should have kept building houses (http://www.habitat.org/), rather than trying to mend political fences.

Didn't care for Carter while he was in office. He's become a meddling old fool who should have kept building houses (http://www.habitat.org/), rather than trying to mend political fences.

My family always claimed he was the worst president we ever had, bar none.
Just too dang NICE to be Prez. .......THAT job is for the mean.

Don't criticize Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions.

A great success like that could only be orchestrated by a... oh wait.

Lmao

Excellent, Brooks.

Ya, him and al gore, Noble Prize winners for doing absolutly jack shit.

Sisko posts a hit piece from NewsMax and you guys just soak it up like a paper towel soaks up kool-aid.

Good job.

Don't criticize Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions.Source?

Source?
the bomb they tested last year?

I'm thinking that Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: ""for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/

Of course, I could be wrong. :)

Of course, I could be wrong. :)

Which would be the same as in so many of your posts.:lolhit:

I'm thinking that Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: ""for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/

Of course, I could be wrong. :)

Carter has done Eminent goodwill work in the name of Humanitarian
causes.Like when he personally found a way to provide
a system for cleansing water supply's in a part of the world,
where people { tribes } were literally drinking very unsafe water.
That in and of itself was worth his entire being.
But he just hasn't the mindset for accomplishing Peace as an
overall goal.he may be TOO trusting.Ya can't traipse around the
World,and tink eveyone is willin to be a Do Gooder.
A Mother Teresa he ain't.

Brooks: He won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions.
Sedan: Source?
Vile: I'm thinking that Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: ""for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
Of course, I could be wrong. :)
From the official Nobel Prize biography:
"President Carter and The Carter Center have engaged in conflict mediation in Ethiopia and Eritrea (1989), North Korea (1994)...."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/carter-bio.html

And here's an article in which President Carter says:
"I went to Pyongyang [in 1994!] and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency ....."
and then goes on to blame President Bush for it's failure in 2006.


But in reality, Carter won the prize for one very simple reason. Does anyone remember this: "The chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee caused an uproar in October when he said granting the award to Mr Carter should be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Bush's Iraq policy. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2561767.stm


As Captain Renault may have said: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!"

As Captain Renault may have said: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!"

Politics by whom? Is it political to be recognized "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts", or even to point out to a sitting government that this solution is preferable to waging war?

Politics by whom? Is it political to ....point out to a sitting government that this solution is preferable to waging war?
Umm, yeah.

Actually, the way you worded it, no.

But that's not the way Carter was presenting it at the time.

I think the President of the Nobel Committee had an overly candid moment when he acknowledged the real reason Carter got the prize.

The first thing you quoted from the committee, the for-his-decades-of-untiring-effort business, was a bunch of bunk. It was a much bigger story at the time.

Politics by whom? Is it political to be recognized "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts", or even to point out to a sitting government that this solution is preferable to waging war?

The BIGGEST Problem with former President Carter is his seeming continual
Undercutting of current Presidents efforts.It was virtually unheard of
for former Presidents to make comments { particularly snide,unflattering}
diplomatic comments about the Presidency.There used to be a Code of
Conduct { Decorum } that particularly applied to Former Presidents.
They were't supposed to make comments {particularly negative ones}
On Policy.It is rude,makes the way far more difficult and actually
emboldens Our enemies.To hear Carter's version,Our Enemies are just
the figment of a current Pres' imagination.
That's downright silly.

From the official Nobel Prize biography:
"President Carter and The Carter Center have engaged in conflict mediation in Ethiopia and Eritrea (1989), North Korea (1994)...."You forgot to add:

Liberia (1994), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Sudan (1995), the Great Lakes region of Africa (1995-96), Sudan and Uganda (1999), and Venezuela (2002-2003). Under his leadership The Carter Center has sent forty-five international election monitoring delegations to elections in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. These include Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1990), Guyana (1992), Venezuela (1998), Nigeria (1999), Indonesia (1999), East Timor (1999), Mexico (2000), China (2001), and Jamaica (2002).

There was also:

Jimmy Carter served as president from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981. Significant foreign policy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. He championed human rights throughout the world.

Your contention that "he won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions" is highly misleading.

But in reality, Carter won the prize for one very simple reason. Does anyone remember this: "The chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee caused an uproar in October when he said granting the award to Mr Carter should be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Bush's Iraq policy. "Imagine that.

The chairman of a Peace Prize committee doing what little he can to prevent an impending war.

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked. :eek:

(And it isn't as though Carter didn't already have the credentials to win -- the lasting peace between Egypt and Israel would be sufficient for the award).

You forgot to add:

Liberia (1994), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Sudan (1995), the Great Lakes region of Africa (1995-96), Sudan and Uganda (1999), and Venezuela (2002-2003). Under his leadership The Carter Center has sent forty-five international election monitoring delegations to elections in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. These include Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1990), Guyana (1992), Venezuela (1998), Nigeria (1999), Indonesia (1999), East Timor (1999), Mexico (2000), China (2001), and Jamaica (2002).

There was also:

Jimmy Carter served as president from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981. Significant foreign policy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. He championed human rights throughout the world.

Your contention that "he won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions" is highly misleading.

Just a bunch of feelgood worthless little Diplomatic tings to make
appear like the World stage,really matters.It's like the United Nations
and their continued assertions that they make a difference.
The simple fact remains,that all that Diplomatic crap,don't add
up to squat when the Shit hits the fan.
What the hell good has Talky Talky bullcrapola done to feed the world
stave off civil war and even make the world More peacefull.
I just proved how The United Nations is a worthless,token group
that runs around the world,pattin themself on tha back,NOT for a job
well done,but merely for Talkin like they do.
Same with Carter.
Bush ain't interested in Talkin the Talk.
He Walks the Walk.
A lesson Saddam and Sadist Sons had ta learn't the hard way.
If the - Iran Hostage Crisis - happened on Bush's watch,
I GuaRon Fuchin T-bill dat things woulda played out different.
Americans want results.Even on American Idol.

Imagine that.
The chairman of a Peace Prize committee doing what little he can to prevent an impending war.

How did the chairman do that exactly?

Obviously no one remembered what a hack Carter had become with his nasty criticism of this administration. What the chairman of the committee admitted was that they actually chose him for it.
I'm glad you think his statement is reasonable, but the rest of the committee fled from his comments as quickly as they could and denied that they were true.
So apparently the rest of the committee takes my side on this one. Namely that this was not an appropriate reason to give the award.

All of his other accomplishments were ages old and could have earned him the award years earlier if they were considered all that significant.
But what set Carter apart when he actually did win? Hmmmm....

And to even mention N. Korea in his qualifications when he is one of the main architects of the failure is beyond absurd.

Okay Sedan,

Pick it appart and tell us what is not true. (If you can)

By the way, I did not get it from News Max.

Sisko posts a hit piece from NewsMax and you guys just soak it up like a paper towel soaks up kool-aid.

Good job.

How did the chairman do that exactly?
My question exactly.

How did the chairman do that exactly?It was a futile attempt at using world opinion to dissuade President Bush from his determination to wage war on Iraq. Perhaps I should have qualified "what little he can" with an "infinitesimally", as no voice of reason on earth was going to reach Bush by then. He was hell-bent for war and destruction and that was that.Obviously no one remembered what a hack Carter had become with his nasty criticism of this administration. What the chairman of the committee admitted was that they actually chose him for it.I don't remember Carter's 'nasty criticisms', but if they were along the lines of "this war is stupid" I say amen to that.I'm glad you think his statement is reasonable, but the rest of the committee fled from his comments as quickly as they could and denied that they were true.
So apparently the rest of the committee takes my side on this one. Namely that this was not an appropriate reason to give the award.Well, you can't have it both ways. If the majority of the committee says they didn't give him the award because of Bush/Iraq then you can't simultaneously claim he was given the award because of Bush/Iraq. Unless, of course, you want to argue the majority was being less than truthful, in which case they can hardly be said to be 'taking your side'.All of his other accomplishments were ages old and could have earned him the award years earlier if they were considered all that significant.
But what set Carter apart when he actually did win? Hmmmm....A good chunk of his life devoted to world peace -- these efforts can accumulate over time. I'm sure that's what the majority of the committee would posit. But on the whole I'm inclined to agree with you. He was given the award (perhaps as a bonus argument or even a tie-breaker) as a way to send a message to Bush, wasted though it was.And to even mention N. Korea in his qualifications when he is one of the main architects of the failure is beyond absurd.You want to take issue with one small part of an extensive biography? Huh, I wonder what Kissinger's says about the success of Vietnam. Regardless, Carter negotiated a framework in 1994, one that successfully froze North Korea's enrichment of plutonium. As far as I know, his involvement ends there. But if you want to blame him, is it his fault the light-water reactors we were supposed to provide as part of the agreement were never built? Is it his fault the deranged Kim Il Sung died leaving power to the even more deranged Kim Jong Il? Is it his fault George Bush decided to rattle sabres upon taking office and quash the budding North/South reconciliation efforts? Is it his fault that George Bush decided to name North Korea as a full participant in the "axis of evil"?

I'm getting really tired of this constant "blame Carter for everything when you're not blaming Clinton for everything" that is wrong in this world. But I suppose I'll have to get used to it -- it's the default position of nearly every every Bush apologist because it is so damn useful. It spares the user any need for rational analysis or critical thought.

Okay Sedan,

Pick it appart and tell us what is not true. (If you can)I'll pick apart what I feel like picking apart.

I'm not playing your stupid and simplistic "I posted something someone else wrote (because I'm incapable of making my own argument) and it's true unless sedan spends his whole day off refuting it piece by piece" game.

In other words, get bent.By the way, I did not get it from News Max.Whatever.

"Ronald Borek Kessler (born December 31, 1943) is an American journalist and author. He is chief Washington correspondent of the conservative news and commentary website Newsmax.com."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler

Ah yes, Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who is actually trying to broker peace from new and different angles, I know, lets blacken his character,
he's a democrat anyway, we're good at blackening them :rolleyes:

1. Well, you can't have it both ways. If the majority of the committee says they didn't give him the award because of Bush/Iraq then you can't simultaneously claim he was given the award because of Bush/Iraq.

2. Unless, of course, you want to argue the majority was being less than truthful, in which case they can hardly be said to be 'taking your side'.

3. A good chunk of his life devoted to world peace -- these efforts can accumulate over time.

4. Regardless, Carter negotiated a framework in 1994, one that successfully froze North Korea's enrichment of plutonium..... Is it his fault the deranged Kim Il Sung died leaving power to the even more deranged Kim Jong Il?

5. Is it his fault George Bush decided to rattle sabres upon taking office and quash the budding North/South reconciliation efforts?

6. Is it his fault that George Bush decided to name North Korea as a full participant in the "axis of evil"?

7. I'm getting really tired of this constant "blame Carter for everything

8. But I suppose I'll have to get used to it -- it's the default position of nearly every every Bush apologist because it is so damn useful.

9. It spares the user any need for rational analysis or critical thought.
1. I think it's clear that the committee gave him the award for his going after the Bush presidency. When one admitted it the others had to deny it because they knew their true motivations were inappropriate.

2. They "took my side" in that they knew it was inappropriate.

3. And they did. But the tipping point was no coincidence.

4. No but his fault lies in the fact that the success of the framework naively relied on the trustworthiness of the N. Koreans.

5. If he could derail the deal eight or nine years later, it wasn't very well put together.

6. And this affected the nuclear program how?

7, 8 & 9. This from the person who just blamed President Bush for the failure of Jimmy Carter's N. Korea deal.

Ah yes, Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who is actually trying to broker peace from new and different angles, I know, lets blacken his character,
he's a democrat anyway, we're good at blackening them :rolleyes:
Paul, do you have any factual refutation?

Paul, do you have any factual refutation?

To what ?

I stated what is obviously another 'character assassination' of someone by the right wing posters on this forum.

First we had the Hilary Clinton show.

Followed by the Barak Obama series.

Now, because Carter is attempting to contribute to a peace settlement in the ME, he is blackened.

Some people arent interested in peace, they're only interested in a certain type of peace that keeps the status que untouched.

But thats ok Brooks, keep running back to telling us what a bad person Carter was when in office.

1. I think it's clear that the committee gave him the award for his going after the Bush presidency. When one admitted it the others had to deny it because they knew their true motivations were inappropriate.

2. They "took my side" in that they knew it was inappropriate.

3. And they did. But the tipping point was no coincidence.

4. No but his fault lies in the fact that the success of the framework naively relied on the trustworthiness of the N. Koreans.

5. If he could derail the deal eight or nine years later, it wasn't very well put together.

6. And this affected the nuclear program how?

7, 8 & 9. This from the person who just blamed President Bush for the failure of Jimmy Carter's N. Korea deal.
Brilliant response.

But thats ok Brooks, keep running back to telling us what a bad person Carter was when in office.
No one's saying he's a bad person; just an ineffective president, whose foreign policy left a lot to be desired. Nobody's blackening his character, at all; just QUESTIONING why he was awarded with the "qualifier" he was.

I think it's clear that the committee gave him the award for his going after the Bush presidency. When one admitted it the others had to deny it because they knew their true motivations were inappropriate.I agree, but they shouldn't have denied it.They "took my side" in that they knew it was inappropriate.I don't find any effort, however feeble, to avert a catastrophic war to be 'inappropriate', especially for a group that calls itself a Peace Prize committee.And they did. But the tipping point was no coincidence.Like I said, on the whole I agree. No but his fault lies in the fact that the success of the framework naively relied on the trustworthiness of the N. Koreans.Right. That's why there were IAEA (IAEIO in Bush-ese) inspectors on the ground, to look the other way. These same inspectors were ejected when North Korea publicly abrogated the NPT and resumed plutonium production in 2003.If he could derail the deal eight or nine years later, it wasn't very well put together.Are you serious? And this affected the nuclear program how?Again, are you serious? You tell someone (who is unbalanced to begin with) that he is the "axis of evil" on the planet and you don't think he's going to arm himself to the teeth? Kim Jong Il took the speech as a personal declaration of war.This from the person who just blamed President Bush for the failure of Jimmy Carter's N. Korea deal.You're the one who wanted to play the blame game.

I agree, but they shouldn't have denied it.
That comment seems to be at odds with itself.

That comment seems to be at odds with itself.How so?

If they were trying to make a statement to Bush they should have just come out and said so, as the chairman did.

How so?

If they were trying to make a statement to Bush they should have just come out and said so, as the chairman did.
Well, if you said you agree with what Brooks was saying, then you understand the fact that the peace prize committee was offering that award for "going after the Bush administration", not for "decades of promoting social and economic justice". The whole thing was a ruse, and according to your response, you acknowledged that (considering the circumstances under which the award was granted) it was highly inappropriate. You can't "agree" with that, and in the same breath, say the committee "should've come out and said so" unless, of course, you're for so-called "honorable" organizations operating like sham institutions with a political agenda. Is that really what peace prize recipients have been reduced to; a fucking political tool???

Well, if you said you agree with what Brooks was saying, then you understand the fact that the peace prize committee was offering that award for "going after the Bush administration", not for "decades of promoting social and economic justice".They can do both at the same time -- and I wouldn't say "going after the Bush administration". Rather, I would say taking the opportunity to send a message. Not that it mattered.The whole thing was a ruse, and according to your response, you acknowledged that (considering the circumstances under which the award was granted) it was highly inappropriate.I don't think sending a message that pursuing an idiotic war will be seen negatively by the rest of the world to be 'inappropriate' in the least. Quite the contrary.You can't "agree" with that, and in the same breath, say the committee "should've come out and said so" unless, of course, you're for so-called "honorable" organizations operating like sham institutions with a political agenda.If you think opposing the war is a 'political agenda' then I suppose so. But I think of it more as a moral issue, certainly one a Peace Prize committee is right to address. Is that really what peace prize recipients have been reduced to; a fucking political tool???Recipients? No, of course not. The committee, however, has always been influenced by 'political' considerations and it was dishonest of the 'majority' to pretend otherwise.

Incidentally, I think we can do away with Brooks' original contention that Carter was awarded the prize for "brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions". :)

Now lets see here, I probably wouldn't post somehing unless I agreed with most of it. (Just a thought)

People with superior intelect such as Sedan, FT and Dharm should be able to pick somthing apart if it were not true. (they are having a hard time here)

Oh, and I really don't feel like bending myself, but if you want to you are free to do so.


I'll pick apart what I feel like picking apart.

I'm not playing your stupid and simplistic "I posted something someone else wrote (because I'm incapable of making my own argument) and it's true unless sedan spends his whole day off refuting it piece by piece" game.

In other words, get bent.Whatever.

"Ronald Borek Kessler (born December 31, 1943) is an American journalist and author. He is chief Washington correspondent of the conservative news and commentary website Newsmax.com."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler

Oh, and I really don't feel like bending myself, but if you want to you are free to do so.No thanks.

If you're looking for someone to bend you, you're asking the wrong guy. :eek:

No thanks. I don't want to get bent by you or anyone else.

If you would like to get bent, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find someone to help you with that.


No thanks.

If you're looking for someone to bend you, you're asking the wrong guy. :eek:

No thanks. I don't want to get bent by you or anyone else.Not even by Neal Boortz? Or Herman Cain? Or Ronald Kessler, the chief Washington correspondent of the conservative news and commentary website Newsmax.com?

Hate to break it to you, Sisko, but they've already bent you plenty.

The real truth about Jimmy Carter is that he was absolutely right about energy policy.
If Reagan had stuck with Carter's energy policies we would not still be dependant on foreign oil and 9-11 would not have happened.

No dude,

I haven't been bent by anyone. Not in any way shape or form.

I have a mind of my own.

Maybe you have been bent by people like M. Moore, or maybe you have been bent by Obama. I have not been bent by anyone. No way no how.


Now if you can tell me what is false about what Kessler said in this thread, you might have a leg to stand on.

Until then I suggest that you not hate but congragulate.


Not even by Neal Boortz? Or Herman Cain? Or Ronald Kessler, the chief Washington correspondent of the conservative news and commentary website Newsmax.com?

Hate to break it to you, Sisko, but they've already bent you plenty.

Until then I suggest that you not hate but congragulate.Is that what a sportsmanlike blood cell does?

1. I don't find any effort, however feeble, to avert a catastrophic war to be 'inappropriate', especially for a group that calls itself a Peace Prize committee.

2. Incidentally, I think we can do away with Brooks' original contention that Carter was awarded the prize for "brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions".
1. We actually seem to be in agreement on a lot of this but not for this part.
I don't think even the committee feels that the act of choosing a recipient will have any effect on world peace.
If they felt that way they won't pick questionable recipients such as Mandela and Arafat. They must realize at this point that they have politically watered down the credibility of this award.

2. To show that N Korea was one of the reasons for his award, I pasted a snippet that also included other "accomplishments". If I gave the impression it was solely for N Korea that was unintentional.
"President Carter and The Carter Center have engaged in conflict mediation in Ethiopia and Eritrea (1989), North Korea (1994)...."

Not even by Neal Boortz? Or Herman Cain? Or Ronald Kessler, the chief Washington correspondent of the conservative news and commentary website Newsmax.com?
LOL, dick. :D

I don't think even the committee feels that the act of choosing a recipient will have any effect on world peace.
If they felt that way they won't pick questionable recipients such as Mandela and Arafat. They must realize at this point that they have politically watered down the credibility of this award.
How can you argue with that, Sedan? It's unequivocal, IMO.

We actually seem to be in agreement on a lot of this but not for this part.Okay.I don't think even the committee feels that the act of choosing a recipient will have any effect on world peace.Maybe not, but the Chairman at least hoped that it would:

In the last paragraph of the reasons it gave for awarding this year's Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter, the Norwegian Nobel Committee mentioned "a situation marked by threats of the use of power", and emphasised that "conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through negotiation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development." These are principles which Carter has stood for, ever more firmly. These are the principles which the Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes that the international community will take as its guidelines in the difficult conflicts the world is facing today and will face in the years to come.

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1234.html
If they felt that way they won't pick questionable recipients such as Mandela and Arafat.Why not?

(And I don't think Mandela was a 'questionable' recipient.) They must realize at this point that they have politically watered down the credibility of this award.There has always been a political aspect to the award. How could it be otherwise?

I came across something interesting while researching this and thought I would share it here. It's from an article written by historian Thomas Weber entitled Gandhi and the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.mkgandhi.org/nobel/index.htm):

The announcement of the 1935 award, which was delayed for almost a year, shows that the Nobel Committee was also sensitive to international pressure. The leading candidate for the Prize, passionate German journalist, pacifist and opponent of German rearmament, Carl von Ossietzky, was at the time being held in a Nazi concentration camp. Whether this should influence the awarding of the Prize to Ossietzky, according to Lipsky, resulted in a serious wrangle within the Committee:

Certain members of the committee led by Halvdan Koht, the Norwegian foreign minister, were reluctant to do anything that might place Norway in an awkward position in relation to Germany and they were sincerely apprehensive of the consequences that might follow if the Nazi regime were offended.30

Not only the Committee but also Norway itself split on the issue. Twenty-one nations and hundreds of eminent people petitioned for the designation of von Ossietzky and a world wide movement was organized under the slogan "Send the Peace Prize into the Concentration Camp."31

The German government warned the Committee not to provoke the German people by rewarding this traitor to our nation. We hope that the Norwegian government is sufficiently familiar with the ways of the world to prevent what would be a slap in the face of the German people.32

The stalemate led to the resignation of opposition members, the former premier and the former foreign minister. An amendment of the rules of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to exclude persons who held Cabinet positions in the Norwegian government was introduced in 1937.33 A week after the resignations, towards the end of November 1936, the awarding of the Prize to von Ossietzky was announced. An official German government communique declared that the award to a "notorious traitor" was a "brazen challenge and insult to the new Germany", and shortly thereafter Hitler, in order to avert repetition of such "shameful occurrences", forbade the acceptance of the Nobel Prize "to all Germans for all future time."34 To show that N Korea was one of the reasons for his award, I pasted a snippet that also included other "accomplishments". If I gave the impression it was solely for N Korea that was unintentional.I wasn't referring to the snippet, but rather your first post in this thread:

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the deal that made N Korea give up it's nuclear ambitions.

Looks fairly deliberate to me. :)

How can you argue with that, Sedan?We're arguing?

1. And I don't think Mandela was a 'questionable' recipient.)
2. There has always been a political aspect to the award. How could it be otherwise?

1. Probably a subject for another thread.

2. Obviously politics will alway be there on some level, but the more political the decision is the more subjective it is and therefore the less credible it is.
When the committee narrows it down to many choices, there are some people who are far less partisan than others.

We're arguing?
Never

There has always been a political aspect to the award. How could it be otherwise?

I came across something interesting while researching this and thought I would share it here. It's from an article written by historian Thomas Weber entitled Gandhi and the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.mkgandhi.org/nobel/index.htm)
Is this an attempt to liken our being "offended" to Nazi Germany being "offended" over the von Ossietzky situation (like, in some way, the "message" they sent in '02 was analogous to that)? The guise under which the award was offered is the issue I have with it (i.e. the venue); not the utopian Chairman's so-called message. If they want to be a bunch of hacks, that's their business. Be that as it may, I always thought the committee gathered to award people, not to send "messages" (other than the one that gets sent incidentally, of course). I guess after Al Gore became a laureate in the pursuit of "science", I should've abandoned that notion, eh?

Is this an attempt to liken our being "offended" to Nazi Germany being "offended" over the von Ossietzky situation (like, in some way, the "message" they sent in '02 was analogous to that)?No.

Oh, okay then. Sorry. :)

Oh, okay then. Sorry. :)No need, I can see why you might have thought so.

I just thought it was interesting, that's all.