Ohhhh the irony!! new Attack Submarine: USS Jimmy Carter

[bryanthompson]

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17111

President Carter is the only U.S. president to have qualified in submarines. He has distinguished himself by a lifetime of public service, and has long ties to the Navy and the submarine force. Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946, served as a commissioned officer aboard submarines, and served as commander-in-chief from 1977 to 1981. Carter's statesmanship, philanthropy and sense of humanity earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Correction: His opposition to President Bush and his history of coddling of cruel dictators around the world won him the prize.

[speeder]

Jimmy Carter's level of service to this country and the world is truly remarkable, nothing short of heroic. You would have to stand on a chair to kiss his ass, Bryan.

[fintstone]

Sounds like that chair is already occupied.......Old Jimmy kissed the rear of every communist leader or two-bit dictator/terrorist he ever met....from Cuba to Korea..Castro to Arafat...not one roid was left unkissed. Anything for a little press to redeem his failed administration. The only thing heroic about Carter is the nerve he has to show his face on the international scene after the many times he disgraced our country. Even the Iranians sent him running away like a whipped dog.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by speeder
Jimmy Carter's level of service to this country and the world is truly remarkable, nothing short of heroic. You would have to stand on a chair to kiss his ass, Bryan.

Well said, the truth is difficult for some to accept though.

I am not a big Carter fan, to understand his position in history you have to look at his highs, lows, good and bad points with fairness.

[Overpaid Slacker]

What that Carter touched didn't turn to Shyt? Keep the revisionism to a minimum; he was a catastrophe. And in his post-presidential period, has proven to be a crass opportunist, violating even the most basic standards of ex-President decorum: as an ex-President, you do not take shots at a sitting president. Yes, he built the poor some homes. He also gave us the North Korean appeasement for nuclear freeze deal that worked out so freaking well...

Is this attack submarine going to have a rabbit painted on the nose?

JP

[Tim Hancock]

Carter seems to be a caring, well meaning human being, he just did not have a clue when it came to being the POTUS. I still remember sweating my @ss off in Honduras while in the Army Reserves as we worked on building a road across the country because Carter gave away our rights to the Panama Canal. I would never claim he was stupid as some do with our current president, I just think he was not cut out to be President.

[turbo6bar]

Carter went to Georgia Tech. I wouldn't trust a Tech grad to be president of the US, and I say that with due respect to Carter and GT.

[Moneyguy1]

You either like him or you don't. The choice seems to follow ideological lines, doesn't it?

Carter could do no right, GWB can do no wrong....

Or is it the other way round?

All point of view.

History gives us the luxury of examining actions that have already taken place. Examining them as they are happening is a totally different thing. I prefer to wait a few years before comparing actions.

[turbo6bar]

moneyguy1, politics is objective, right?

In my book, they're all crooks. When money is to be made, the crooks shall follow.

[Moneyguy1]

I asked a question a few threads back:

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

No one came up with the answer

Their lips are moving......

[oldE]

AND its powered by peanut oil!
Les

[Overpaid Slacker]

Bob, I'm all for waiting some time for history to judge ... which is not to say that we can't/shouldn't judge contemporaneous actions by what we know.

However, I'm making no comparisons to W and would never ever say he can do no wrong. I think in the intervening quarter century since Carter left office, it's become clear that at BEST he was a caretaker, and on the balance his was a detrimental presidency. Not that any single person I can name could've made that term (some of the toughest years in recent memory) a raging success, but his butt was in the chair and he wrecked enough on his own initiative. I don't buy the "it all depends on your p/o/v" relativist crap. I didn't think you did either, but maybe I'd just misread earlier posts of yours.

JP

[Moneyguy1]

I would agree on the caretaker description. Unfortunately, some of the comments made re: The bionic peanut showed a bias that tended to magnify the faults of the individual and ignore has more positive contributions, and ignore the fact that, like so many other presidents, much of what "went wrong" was outside his perview. Sometimes we, as a country, must react to a situation rather than initiate the action. WWII is an excellent example, as, to a lesser degree was 9/11.

As for taking pot shots at a sitting president...How about Clinton? Seems there were quite a few of those by the "loyal opposition" (Hey, we're just doing our duty). Others have been criticized while in office. Truman, Nixon, to name a couple. In reality, objection to the actions of an administration is part of what our government is all about. When the right to object is finally removed, we are one step closer to a dictatorship.

There is, however, a big difference between disagreeing with the policies of a president (or candidate for the office) and personal attacks that cannot be proven, no matter what the party. If, for example, we are to hold one person in that office responsible for what happens on their watch, shouldn't that same degree of responsibility be applied to others, or do some get a free pass? Clinton has been accused of not getting OSB when he had the chance. So, where is OSB today and why is it not so important anymore according to the White House?

Actions must be looked at in the context of the times in which they occur, not in terms of the present. It is far to easy to second guess.

Finally, remember the phrase "History is fiction written by the winners". Then tell me it is not all, in the final analysis, a point of view.

Cheers!!

[johncj8989]

Will it be shaped like a giant peanut?

[Moneyguy1]

Actually, the peanut shape (or Coke bottle if you prefer) is quite aerodynamic and that would apply to other fluids such as water.

[johncj8989]

It seems to have worked with ICBMS.

[Superman]

Carter did not look upon public policy (foreign or domestic) as being similar to a WWF bout. That's why some of you have a deep, emotional problem with his approach. Those issues are far more simple to some of you than they were to President Carter. Indeed, all POTUS's have noticed the complexities and intricacies of those decision. Except one, of course. Carter's perspective was much longer than most, and much less us-against-them. Some folks thing everything is a zero-sum game. Others believe 2 + 2 can be more than four. Carter believed that. Superman believes that. Dubya doesn't understand the distinction between these views.

[johncj8989]

Deep thoughts there... I just think a peanut shaped sub would be bytchin

[cmccuist]

Carter was running when I was first old enough to vote and I actually voted for him!! Looking back, I realize now that 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote - because they're stupid!

I feel like such an idiot for ever having cast that vote. Carter was not a good president. Even historians (who are a left-leaning group) do not give him high marks.

And he is an even worse ex-president. His defining moment wasn't when he won the Nobel prize. Carter's defining moment came in 1990 when Violeta Barrios de Chamorro defeated Daniel Ortega with Carter, Bianca Jagger and all the Sandalistas crying like the little bit**es they are as the election went horribly, horrbily wrong.

Carter never met a dictator he didn't like.

[M.D. Holloway]

not even sure rabbits liked him!