Charlie Rose

39Carter  05/23/2011 01:05 PM Report

Great book from a great President and finer human being.

doodah  10/16/2010 07:28 AM Report

Jimmy Carter was a very UNinspiring and depressing President. He can't help it, it's his personality. He meant well, but would have been a better Pope than a President.

He should just accept it, and stop his immature passive-aggressive attitude toward Americans. And just grow-up, for God's sakes. He ain't foolin nobody.

At least Nixon (before he died) could admit he would have been a better CIA Director than a President.

I would like Jimmy Carter to be man enough to do the same; for his own well-being. He'll be happier in his final days; but first he must admit, he was a lousy President.

robdverity  10/02/2010 04:32 PM Report

". . . there are people and nations who are the enemies of human freedom and dignity.", a la Israel's brutalization of the Pals.

ShalomFreedman  10/01/2010 07:14 AM Report

President Carter does not seem to understand that there are people and nations who are the enemies of human freedom and dignity. His belief that the North Koreans are amenable to some kind of agreement with the United States shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of totalitarian regimes. In the Middle East President Carter for many years has been biased against democratic Israel, and favored the Palestinian Arabs even when Terror has been the main element of their policy. Carter has been wrong about many things including Iran. Here he calls for an action the imposition of a Palestinian state on the world which would be an existensial threat to Israel.

Charlie Rose makes a major unfair move in this interview. He makes it seem as if there is no peace in the Middle East because Israel refuses to agree with Carter's ideas. Instead he promotes a genodice preaching terrorist Khaled Mashaal. 'Hamas Charter' is a vicious anti- Semitic document who has repeatedly claimed he will never recognize Israel. Carter totally misrepresents his position here and Charlie goes along with him.

REMant  09/30/2010 11:15 AM Report

Come, come, surely he wasn't re-elected because of the inflation as much as the hostage situation, and not only did the US look weak with the failed attempt to rescue them, but it was, in the wake of the Vietnam War, in fact, lacking equipment, soldiers and confidence. The failure was inevitably compared with the success of Entebbe, but it was too ambitious given the situation, and as I recall, came down to one crewmember's misplaced jacket. What Reagan did to get himself elected was as shabby as FDR's treatment of Hoover. I am not sure deregulating those industries deserves praise. But I'll grant he handled foreign policy well.

As I suggested a while ago, take the vote on possible peace plans now, not later, and in Israel too. If you remove the uncertainty about what ppl think, you remove the possibility of their manipulation, and presumably galvanize opinion. We will at least no where we stand, and no leader is going to buck that. I think however the world is afraid of what it might find, so prefers to wander around in the wilderness.

Democrats can in hindsight fault the admin for trying to tackle health care, but they all wanted him to do it, as Barnes said Monday, and they all thought it would help the economy and be popular with small business. Assuming the tea party will be absorbed, suggests that it does not have a distinct political philosophy, but they didn't believe that in Britain either, and now we have the new Labour leader talking like one. While third parties don't stand much chance of success in our electoral system, that hasn't kept the two parties from changing greatly over the years, and every now and then going entirely out of business. What the tea party needs is to get better organized and throw in with the Libertarians and some of the environmental groups.

NeilMacCallister  09/30/2010 09:45 AM Report

I agree with anne4444's and DavLev's blendings of both support and criticism for Mr. Carter.

I loved him when he ran for President, ..with his "Eat a Peach" tee-shirt (now a "tea-shirt"???) and his "peanut-farmer from Plains, Georgia" small-business-savvy persona.

He used to wear a smile! ..now he so often chooses a scowl. But what has changed?? People are still fighting over land (Palestine, Kashmir, "Ground-Zero"), ..and water-rights (Gaza, California farmers).

Someone once said: "Peace comes when people quit fighting".

***

Mr. Carter claims President Bush "threw away" a workable Middle-East peace plan, ..but did not explain exactly what that plan contained, why it did not live, nor why anybody, such as President Bush, would have opposed its "peace solution". And why wouldn't the "Arabs-and-Israelis" just have gone ahead and accepted it anyway, regardless of how some foreign head-of-state felt about it? We're all adults aren't we?

I also question his thoughts on Iran's nuclear development. He says, "Don't destroy their nuclear weapons production facilities, or you will encourage them towards nuclear weapons". Why doesn't he just say to Mr. Rose that it is better bet to watch Iran produce nuclear weapons, and then later trust them not to use them, if that is what he actually feels?

The world needs your vote on that vital issue. Please cast your ballot without a 'hanging chad', Mr. President.

DavLev  09/30/2010 01:27 AM Report

The peace treaty which President Carter has received so much applause for, was, in effect, a done deal prior to the signing, both sides have agreeing to its terms. Israel gave away a major asset, the Sinai, with its "small oil wells" and a major airbase, plus its strategic position, for

what subsequently amounted to a ice cold peace.

The Arabs started every war with Israel, beginnning in 1948, when they boasted the would never accept a Jewish state in their midst ( Palestine had been a small part of the Turkish empire for 400 years, becoming a mandate under the British, when WW1 was lost). Jews always had been in the area going back to biblical days.

Carter has since then repeatedly shown the Palestine side of the conflict..paying little attention to the whys.

There are always two sides to a story Mr. Carter.

For a person with his credentials..he failed the Presidency miserably, and continus to this day to simply not get it.

That is why he is the favorite politician preferred by

our worst enemies..Cuba, Iran and No. Korea, Without which

a troubled world would be far less dangerous.

No matter how you slice it, we (the USA), have tried diplomacy and engagement, to no avail.

If you want to know the truth of those countries, ask

John Bolton.

I find it amusing that Carter blames US for provoking the

Iranians, threatening that country with war. If only we would engage with them. Well, we have again and again. It is they who last stopped the talks. It is they who clandestinely worked on enriching nuclear fuel. It is they

who have violated 4 UNSC resolutions.

He is concerned that they remain a potential target for our military. Perhaps he should say why the are a target. Its obvious to everyone but him it seems..just repeat what Ahmad said at the UN two weeks ago.

Isn't that enough Mr. Carter.

Your gullability and naivety, are making the world a far more

dangerous place to be. If you dont believe me, ask the residents of Sderot Israel, a country which has been seen over 4,200 rockets slam into its territory since Hamas took over, AFTER Israel withdrew from the area totally, that is except a soldier, Shalit, who remains in captivity after 4 years, denied the minimal under international law.

anne4444  09/29/2010 03:15 PM Report

Politics is just too confusing for my small brain, but one thing … I do know:

The winner: achieve the goals with limited or less resources.

The loser: achieve the goals with all resources including himself.

The difference between these two… is… the “Brain”. The loser is not someone who can’t achieve the goals, but its cost of attaining these goals didn’t justify its value in gain.