Former President Carter in Showdown With Officials in Darfur
KABKABIYA, Sudan (Fox News) — Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter got in a shouting match with Sudanese security officials Wednesday, accusing them of preventing him from meeting with representatives of ethnic African refugees in Darfur.
The 83-year-old Carter yelled at the head of the local security services as he tried to walk into this highly volatile pro-Sudanese government town to meet with refugees, who were too frightened to attend a previously scheduled meeting at a nearby compound.
The 83-year-old Carter yelled at the head of the local security services as he tried to walk into this highly volatile pro-Sudanese government town to meet with refugees, who were too frightened to attend a previously scheduled meeting at a nearby compound.
posted by BP News Bureau | 7:22 AM
15 Comments:
Carter is one of the greatest diplomats the world has ever known. If he can't be of diplomatic help over there, no one can. Let his challenges there be a wake up call to all the people around the world who know nothing of the Sudan/Darfur situation.
WHERE THE HELL WAS HE WHEN HE HAD OUR GUYS IN IRAN. HE HAD BULLY PULPIT THEN. WHERE THE HELL WAS HE WHEN DEALING WITH NORTH KOREA. SCREWING UP THE JOBS HE HAD AT THE TIME.
HE HAD BULLY PULPIT WHEN IRAN AND HE HID UNDER THE BED WITH HIS SWEATER ON...TALK ABOUT MALAYZE..
SO DONT START WITH THIS GREAT LEADER BULL..HE WAS LESS THEN ADEQUATE AS PRESIDENT AND HES IN AFRICA NOW GONNA MESS THAT UP.
Carter is one of the greatest diplomats the world has ever known.
Hey Joel. We're talking about Jimmy Carter here, right? Put down the joint and step away from the bong, Joel. Your brain is fried. The world's greatest diplomat couldn't even negotiate his way out of losing his peanut farm. Spare us the drug-induced fantasies, OK?
I believe calling Carter one of the world's greatest diplomats is quite a stretch, don't you think? Sucking up to dictators is a quality that I don't really admire.
I will respond to Nature Boy only, as he had the decency to not deride my character in order to make his point. Calling Carter one of the world's greatest diplomats is not a stretch when one considers the definition of diplomacy, which is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups, states, nations. He tries to get to the bottom of things and find common ties and bonds - to build trust - while others are only planning more military action. He is the polar opposite of the Bush Administration, whose policy is obviously "war and more war". I am not a pacifist at all costs. However, I do believe current and future U.S. representatives need to concentrate more on diplomacy and less on force as a way to solve problems. Besides, Carter would not even be there unless his trip had White House approval. Why would they grant a bad diplomat access to discuss things with leaders and the opposition in a volatile region? Do you think he's just gathering intelligence?
From reading the comments in response to my post, this site seems to be more about character assassination and foul language than 'reasoned discourse', as the title suggests. It reminds me of several neo-conservative talk radio shows where all the host does is berate the callers. I refuse to engage in debate with such people or address their comments. Since Nature Boy was civil in his comments, I shall respond to his. Carter is not 'sucking up to dictators'. He is trying to get to the bottom of things and create even the smallest amount of trust. Have you not heard the phrase 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'? The fact that Carter has not been successful in all of his diplomatic efforts with some of the most unreasonable leaders known to man during and after his presidency does not make him a bad diplomat, but exactly the opposite. If anyone can name one President who has put forth more diplomatic EFFORT than Jimmy Carter in the last 50 years, I'd like to read your reasoning. You may convince me otherwise, as I'm not close-minded.
I do want to concede this much, however: 'greatest diplomats the world has ever known". I would not write that again. I should have written 'one of the greatest diplomats who has been a U.S. President".
I'm not going to deride your character, Joel. I have good friends who believe the same as you do with regard to Carter. Even though I disagree with them, it's nothing personal.
The problem I have with Carter and other liberals is that they believe in peace through appeasement, whereas conservatives like myself believe in peace through strength. It seems when Carter enters the diplomatic arena, he always sides with the dictators. It's been a long time running joke that Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like.
I get you, Nature Boy. I feel there should be somewhat more of a balance between these different ways of achieving peace. I agree; the more liberal administrations try to achieve peace mostly through bargaining while the more conservative ones try to do it mostly through force. That begs the question: Which is more effective? Do we really know? What does world history show? We learned of all the great wars in school, but what about the clashes or near-wars throughout history that were settled through negotiation and bargaining? Just some ideas.
So Joel, get out much? Character assassination and foul language? Please, get over yourself. There's an old saying that goes: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You came in here spouting hyperbole that makes you sound like you are either a crackhead or suffering from dementia. Now you've spent the entire thread talking to yourself. Out of nine comments, five are from you. You have no room to whine if that gets noticed.
Carter isn't anything like a diplomat at all, let alone a great or even good one. He is a media attention whore. You said, "The fact that Carter has not been successful in all of his diplomatic efforts with some of the most unreasonable leaders known to man during and after his presidency does not make him a bad diplomat..." First, your predicate is wrong. Change "all" to "any," and you will be closer to the truth. And yes, that does make him a bad diplomat. Your logic is like saying that the fact that someone can't run, jump, or sink a basket doesn't make them a bad basketball player. Hello?
Disagree with Joel, but there's no need to slander the guy. We're grown-ups here... We can debate without the defamation.
Steve, I can see you want no one to post here except those who agree with you. Those who don't get berated and ridiculed. I'll be leaving now so as not to further disturb your hostile personality. Good luck with your 'reasoned discourse' blog.
Try to be courteous. I do not have an issue with people challenging mine or other people's opinion, but we need to stop using ad hominem in arguments. For those of you who don't know what ad hominem means, it is personal attacks, name-calling, etc.
Please use facts to back up your arguments. People who don’t give facts won’t sound very credible. And who knows, if you’re wrong, you might become right by following facts. :-)
Steve, I can see you want no one to post here except those who agree with you.
That's straight from your little fantasy world, Joel. It is neither implicit nor explicit in anything I post.
Those who don't get berated and ridiculed.
Cry me a river, Joel. Once again, if you say something stupid, expect to be called on it. If you can't withstand being called on it, don't say it in the first place.
I'll be leaving now so as not to further disturb your hostile personality.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out, Joel. If you don't have the courage of your convictions to stand up for what you say online, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. If you don't value your own opinion enough to defend, then it obviously had no value to begin with.
Good luck with your 'reasoned discourse' blog.
Whatever.
P.S. Andy, ad hominem does not mean personal attacks. It refers to a tactic that makes the argument about one's opponent instead of about the issue. It is neither always uncivil nor always invalid.
P.P.S. And who knows, if you’re wrong, you might become right by following facts. What???!!!
Steve, you slandered Joel. I disagreed with Joel too, but I didn't accuse him of being on drugs like you did. There's no need to take it to the personal level when someone disagrees with you. Let's have reasoned discourse...
Post a Comment
<< Home