« A German Comedian on the Abu Ghraib Pics / Harald Schmidt über die Abu Ghraib-Bilder | Main | The German Media Will Not Forget »

Comments

Jimmy Carter! Still hope for Ray! (though it was a nifty quote - found it yourself or c&p from somewhere?)

Outside force meant back then of course the Soviet-Union, the everything overshadowing conflict of that time. It was also the time when it was mostly socialist Helmut Schmidt who pushed for the NATO Doppelbeschluss.

Would there be today a similar competing outside force in the region? Let's hear what former US-President Jimmy Carter has to say on today's changed situation:

Carter savages Blair and Bush: 'Their war was based on lies'
By Andrew Buncombe in Atlanta

22 March 2004

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticised George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgement to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

@ Klink, it is indeed interesting that you mentioned Helmut Schmidt, here is what Carter had to say about him in his memoirs:

"In Europe and elsewhere there were sharp debates about how much the United States should be supported on the crises in Iran and Afghanistan. Germany was being difficult. An election was approaching, and the leftists were opposed to any further criticism of the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. When Helmut Schmidt came to Washington for a visit, I was sharply critical because he had yielded to this pressure." (Page 500, "Keeping Faith")

Here is another quote on Helmut Schmidt:

"Helmut Schmidt seemed to be torn between the conflicting political forces in his country. In private conversations he was very tough in dealing with the Soviet threat, often the leader among Europeans in proposing strong action. But in German political debates, he emphasized the opposite facet of the same question and seemed reluctant to do anything which might be interpreted as anti-Soviet. At times this conflict made it difficult for Americans to understand him and was the reason for some of our problems. There were many reports from news reporters and others in Europe and in the United States concerning his critical comments about me, Secretaries Vance and Muskie, Dr. Brzezinski, and other officials in our government. These persistent criticisms, often highly publicized, helped to legitimize anti-American sentiments in Germany. Perhaps to compensate for these reports, Schmidt would publicly deplore any negative comments from others in Germany about the United States or its leaders." (Pages 537-538, "Keeping Faith")

It seems that Carter viewed Schmidt as somewhat two-faced; saying one thing in private and something completely else in public as was politically expedient. Oh yes, caving-in to anti-American sentiments pre-election...sound familiar Gerd fans?

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticized George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations".

As for Carter's recent comments, I doubt he would have made the same remarks were he still in office today in a post 9-11 USA. No longer being in office, he can effectively be as partisan as he likes. That is why the comments he made as President are so interesting and so different in tone from his recent comments, they reflect the geopolitical reality (for Republicans and Democrats alike, then and now) at the top of American politics when it comes to the Middle East.

I must also add that it is a bit ironic that you mention Carter's criticism of Blair, in effect, Carter was astonishingly similar to Blair in a polticial sense while in office. In fact, Carter also had a top cabinet member (Secretary of State Cy Vance) resign over his decision to go ahead with a military attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. It will be interesting to see how and if Blair changes when no longer in office.

Outside force meant back then of course the Soviet-Union, the everything overshadowing conflict of that time.

No one is debating that the geopolitical situation has changed since 1980. You would just think that German leftists would also take that point into account when criticizing earlier US support of Afghan resistance fighters (including some elements that would later become Taliban) during the long Soviet occupation of Afghanistan or Western support of Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Ayatollahs in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

I find it particularly interesting that the leftists, who back in the 1980s opposed criticizing the horrific Soviet invasion and aggression against Afghanistan, are now the first to scream "PEACE!" when the US seeks to liberate countries like Afghanistan from the darkest, most primitive governments imaginable.

As far as the quotes go, yes, believe it or not, I sat down and read all 596 pages of Jimmy Carter's memoirs.

Comrade Klink,

Carter was an embrassment when he was President just as he is now. He did not have a clue then and he does not have a clue now. Interesting how the American people do not even rank him in the top 50% of our Presidents.

I have to assume you will start quoting Teddy.

We are all waiting for you to find some great socialist learderyou admire to quote. I am sure you could find something from Castro.

He probably more of a socalist like yourself than a communist.

BTW any luck on finding your link?

@Ray
It seems that Carter viewed Schmidt as somewhat two-faced; saying one thing in private and something completely else in public as was politically expedient.

A bit unfair - Schmidt was IMO quite open about being multi-facetted.

He continued Brandt's previous "open arms" politics towards the East, but also stood firm when it came to West-Germany's defense-interests and never minded on this issue any criticism from the Russians or from his own population: Larger US-bases, re-armament with Pershing-missiles, etc.

Schmidt had to face angry and very large demonstrations at the time over the Pershing-missiles, often violent, yet he pulled through with his view (IMO the largest demonstrations since WWII AFAIK). And he also stood tall previously against the leftist terrorists and their sympathizer)

But tx for that Schmidt-quote, was interesting indeed.

BTW: I had looked for that book now on Amazon and as first hit for "Carter" came up a hilariously biased title: "The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry"

ROFL - if those US-liberal-haters wouldn't be already around, someone should invent them just for entertainment!

As far as the quotes go, yes, believe it or not, I sat down and read all 596 pages of Jimmy Carter's memoirs.

Okay, almost had forgotten that you are the true bibliophile around here. ;-)

Look - his "mediation" with North Korea gave them enough time to build their nuclear weapons. When we project our hopes for the peace of the world through these moronic pacifistic actions, we end up with a world that is less safe. The most malicious take their opportunity.

Same horrible track record for all the "election observation" as well - the world ends up with winners like Mugabe.

Yeah, or you even end up with winners like Bush. Where are the election observers when you need them?

@Ray

Let me summarize your contribution: When Carter criticized Europe (20 years ago), he was right. When Carter criticized Bush (a few weeks ago), he was wrong. Is it that what you are trying to say? Couldn't it be the other way round? Anyhow, don't people sometimes change their minds?

Joe3: That is the most tired lefty myth under the sun. After the election it was independantly counted three ways. Look it up. It isn't concocted, unless you think that the Miami Herald, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and the NYT are organs of the vast right-wing-conspiracy.

Bush won. The rage was run on page 1. The fact that the ragers lied was run on page 14.

Oh, and Unwigtig - (and you really don't sound terribly unwigtig) - caricatures and that sort of foolishness is an obvious refuge for people who can't support their own foolish assertions. Why would you attack the only world leader who is actually defending liberalism? A failiure of the left to do this themselves has obviously his a sore spot.

Carter STILL hasn't gotten over being tossed out of office most decisively.

Never in my life have I heard ex-pres' shoot their mouths off like he has.

He went so far to write a letter to the UN to avoid GWI.

He was going to sell the JOOOSSSS down the river back then.

If he would have told the marines to stand their ground in 1979, we might not be where we are today.

Check out his "malaise" speech, he helped put it in the country. Rent "Miracle on Ice" he's saying it in the opening sequence.

The highlight of his administration was being attacked by a rabbit.

DISASTER DISASTER DISASTER!

He has been wrong so many times it's disgusting. NK is squarely his responsibility.

What is it with you people who think jawjawing works and commies are ok? Your EUtopia is going to drag the rest of US off the cliff, you're heading into communist territory even if you don't think so.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ...Ben Franklin

Sandy,

I was going to say the same thing about 1979 but felt none in Europe would understand it. Fortunately, a lot of Americans do.

He has managed to be one of the worse Presidents we have had this century but also one of the worse former Presidents we have ever have. That has to be some type of accomplishment.

Joe2

Note with interest as I am sure you and the rest of the Americans do, how your question from the other day about suggestions have remainded unanswered. Have you thought about why that might be. It seems to the problem of the Left both in Europe and in the US. Once you get past the phrase UN and multilaterlism, they are silent. It just shows how bankrupt they are for solutions.

SleepyInSeattle

Again another interesting question that has been met with no answer. These people act as if they are tired 3 year olds. They rant and rave and that is the extent of their contribution. It makes me wonder why they are as sucessful as they are as a people and a nation. It also explains why they are in decline.

Klink

My little leftish socalist "ally" I am still waiting for your liberation link. I am beginning to think, it is like most things you say a bit of lie. I believe you spun that comment a little too much.

But please prove me wrong. Or is this veiw of the Germans and of the left? To take credit for things that you did not do and not to take responsiblity for the things you do, do.

Oh, and just to add one more comment about Carter's piece in the AJC.

The letters to the editor ran 10 to 1 against him on his comments about President Bush. Even those who did not support President Bush found his remarks to be unappropriate.

When he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the comments were about 5 to 2 that he should not accept it. Of course, he did and that disappointed the majority of the people in his home state. He had wanted this for a very long time.

Today he is all but ignored in his home state. Even his own political party has little use for him.

@ For the American Posters.

I am sure this weekend you have either heard or read how Kerry may delay accepting the democratic nomination so he can raise more money. This has caused a bit of an uproar in Boston, his home town. It seems the people in Boston are just waking up to the fact that the convention is not going to be an economic boom of 154M but a bust of upwards of 54M. BTW the Mayor of Boston is also a democrat and he was the one who predicted the 154M. All the region's economic think tanks are predicting a loss up to 54M for the city alone. This is like the Germans listening to the SPD about projected GDP growth or to the dribble of CK on most subjects.

The link to the article in the BG is below. But here is the best line of the article...

"Only John Kerry [related, bio] could be for a nominating convention, but be against the nomination."

http://news.bostonherald.com/election2004/view.bg?articleid=28913

@ Unwichtig

The primary purpose of my article was not to declare Carter's comments "right" or "wrong". The primary purpose of the article was to point out how similar Carter's position as an outgoing President in 1980 was to the positions of so-called "neo-con" Presidents like George W. Bush. If anything, the "neo-con" label is a fabrication of the media used to demonize Republicans and paint them into a political corner.

If you look at the historic record carefully it is amazing what you might learn. Just look at the quotes from Carter in my comment above. Even Carter was peeved at the German media and the German left putting pressure on former Chancellor Schmidt pre-election and Schmidt caving to it. He also pointed out the legitimization of anti-American sentiment in Germany by media publicity and the country's trend towards neutrality, something he saw as threatening. So are we here at Medienkritik really going so far out on a "neo-con" limb to point out those trends now? Such trends have existed for decades. All I can say is time to wake up and stop the denial!

And now we find out the Norks supplied the Libyans w/nuke material???

And they signed an agreement, too!

Guess we should take it to the ICC, eh?

Oh, wait, can't, can't prosecute for things done before a certain date.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28