Hillary Clinton --- Is this true?

[peachgirl]

The only outstanding work Carter has done was his Habitat for Humanity work

Obviously, you're the one who doesn't know anything about President Carter...


Habitat for Humanity is just the tip of the iceberg..

He didn't win the Nobel Peace prize for hammering a few nails...


2002 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To President Carter

Following is the complete text of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's announcement of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize as distributed by the committee:


"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, 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.

During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.

Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.

In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

It would take pages to detail all the good works he has done in his lifetime.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Wow...taking shots at Carter....a man respected both at home and around the world. Sounds like someone has been visiting the freeper site too often.

Jimmy Carter was given the Prize as a slam against Bush. . .this has been proven, as was admitted:

But the chairman of the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee said bluntly that the award was meant to slam Bush's policy on Iraq.

"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters.

Asked by a reporter if it was a "kick in the leg" at Washington, Berge said: "Yes, the answer is an unconditional 'yes."' On Friday, Carter declined to comment on Iraq

from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-07.htm

Are you telling me that anyone can sit next to a former President? That if one goes to the convention, it's first come first serve seating? Logic would say otherwise. . .and, I did read that somewhere, by the way, I'll give a short look for that "back up".

 

[Kendra17]

As usual, you're all words and no substance, Peachgirl.

Giving him the Peace Prize was a political move. They SAID so--link above.

Furthermore, he undermined the first Bush, he even undermined Clinton. . .Clinton HATES him. . .do you know this? Do you even know what I'm referring to?

He is gentle in appearance and demeanor, but he's a feisty old fellow.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by cheyita
Sorry, Kendra - while in general I am on your side politically (compared to peachgirl and wvrevy), your posts are not doing your arguments much justice.

One quick look on the web will find many outstanding things Mr. Carter has been involved in since leaving office, including this:

Carter

And your recent post about vitriolic words was another attempt to throw in a personal slam - not a good way to win a debate!

please, I appreciate your attempt at guidance and am glad to hear that you are are of sound political opinion.

One of peachgirl's last comments to me was that I had my panties up in a wad. . . uhhh. . .is that not a personal slam??

Furthermore, after we prove that Peachgirl doesn't know what she's talking about, I'll fill you in on Carter.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Ah....isn't creative editing, fun, Kendra? I'm glad you're having a good time!

For those not inclined to read the entire article, here's the very next paragraph (which Kendra opted to omit in her post):

"But Berge's remarks were disputed in Norway. Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, another committee member and former parliamentarian of a far-right party, said the prize was not meant to fault Washington. "There is nothing about that in the citation...and that text expresses the committee's view," she said. "

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Ah....isn't creative editing, fun, Kendra? I'm glad you're having a good time!

For those not inclined to read the entire article, here's the very next paragraph (which Kendra opted to omit in her post):

"But Berge's remarks were disputed in Norway. Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, another committee member and former parliamentarian of a far-right party, said the prize was not meant to fault Washington. "There is nothing about that in the citation...and that text expresses the committee's view," she said. "

...Maybe speaking of Michael Moore was what brought it on, since he's a past master at creative editing Too funny...

 

[bsears]

Furthermore, he undermined the first Bush, he even undermined Clinton. . .Clinton HATES him. . .do you know this? Do you even know what I'm referring to?

And you know this how?????? You keep throwing around accusations.

As BK2 just pointed out you only give the parts of sites that support your assertions, and conveniently leave out anything that you disagree with.


"panties in a wad" is a slam?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Ah....isn't creative editing, fun, Kendra? I'm glad you're having a good time!

For those not inclined to read the entire article, here's the very next paragraph (which Kendra opted to omit in her post):

"But Berge's remarks were disputed in Norway. Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, another committee member and former parliamentarian of a far-right party, said the prize was not meant to fault Washington. "There is nothing about that in the citation...and that text expresses the committee's view," she said. "

That was absolutely not creative editing. . .i included the pertinent part and included the link for a complete read.

So, you are dismissing Gunnar Berge's comments then? Obviously, it was in Ytterhorn's interest and the Prize's interest itself to dispute Berge's claim.

I am thinking that nobody here really knows what Carter does behind the scened. . .do you know why Clinton hates him? Do you know what Carter has done to undermine them both?

 

[cheyita]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I am thinking that nobody here really knows what Carter does behind the scened. . .do you know why Clinton hates him? Do you know what Carter has done to undermine them both?

OK - you keep alluding to something. Fill us in.

 

[peachgirl]

One of peachgirl's last comments to me was that I had my panties up in a wad. . . uhhh. . .is that not a personal slam??

Apparently you still do. The hypocrisy in your posts is just amazing. You're as guilty of insulting me as I am of you. In fact, I let you insult me 3 posts in a row without responding in kind. I told you that I was attempting to refrain from tossing barbs, but you insisted on continuing it. Don't expect me to sit back and take the crap you dish out and not hand it right back to you.

Furthermore, after we prove that Peachgirl doesn't know what she's talking about, I'll fill you in on Carter.

You should really concentrate on proving that you know what you're talking about...and ditch the creative editing. People on this site are smart enough to double check sources.

Nice try, though.

Oh please, share your vast, personal knowledge of President Carter with the masses...we're all dying to know your inside information.

 

[bsears]

So, you are dismissing Gunnar Berge's comments then? Obviously, it was in Ytterhorn's interest and the Prize's interest itself to dispute Berge's claim.

I don't believe anyone discounted them, just accused you, quite rightly, of editing out parts of the story that did not agree with your particular view.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
And you know this how?????? You keep throwing around accusations.

As BK2 just pointed out you only give the parts of sites that support your assertions, and conveniently leave out anything that you disagree with.


"panties in a wad" is a slam?

yes, saying "you have your panties in a wad" is at least as bad as pointing out that someone uses vitriolic words. . .which they do.

Anyways, I absolutely know what he did. . .but I'm waiting to see if any of you do, since you seem to be in the know regarding how wonderful Carter is.

I'm telling you he undermined both Presidents prior to George W. And, I'm telling you that it wasn't only party related--he did this to Clinton, as well.

Do any of you know what I'm talking about? Whenever anyone with differing views speaks up, you guys slam the sites that report the news, dismiss evidence, dismiss anything that goes against your firmly held beliefs (yes, I know you'd say the same thing for me--but you'd be wrong). You dismiss source material. You dismiss 250 veterans with signed affidavits and accuse them of being liars. You dismiss the people themselves--not just their arguments. You dismiss it all and keep following the party line.

But, thinking Carter is a kind and gentle fellow proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17
That was absolutely not creative editing. . .i included the pertinent part and included the link for a complete read.

So, you are dismissing Gunnar Berge's comments then? Obviously, it was in Ytterhorn's interest and the Prize's interest itself to dispute Berge's claim.

I am thinking that nobody here really knows what Carter does behind the scened. . .do you know why Clinton hates him? Do you know what Carter has done to undermine them both?

Okie dokie! Just for clarification's sake, let's define "pertinent" as "the part that appears to make my point when taken completely out of context in relation to the rest of the article".

Am I dismissing his words? No, of course not. Are you dismissing the entire text of the citation awarding the prize, and instead assuming one man's opinion speaks for the entire committee?

And I realize you're desperately scouring your freeper sources right now to back up all these mysterious comments about how hateful and terrible the entire world (save for thousands of world leaders, the Nobel Peace Prize committee, and a handful of misguided folks here on the DIS) knows Jimmy Carter to be, but I really want to ask again--since you apparently have an inside track to Mr. Carter, could you try to get me an autograph? Thanks again!

 

[bsears]

How silly of us. Of course we should take the word of someone who thinks it is not creative editing to only post the paragraph that supports her contention and leaves out and dissenting part.

I'm telling you he undermined both Presidents prior to George W. And, I'm telling you that it wasn't only party related--he did this to Clinton, as well.

There you go guys, game over. She has told us, therefore we should stop disbelieving.

However, I clearly differentiate from my opinion and from a fact i'm reporting. And, if I state my opinon, I have some type of fact to back it up.

Anyways, I absolutely know what he did. . .but I'm waiting to see if any of you do, since you seem to be in the know regarding how wonderful Carter is.

So which is it? Do you provide facts to back up your opinion, or do you simply claim to be waiting to see if others know?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Oh please, share your vast, personal knowledge of President Carter with the masses...we're all dying to know your inside information.

That's my point--this isn't inside information. It's there if you care to read reports that are negative to your political view.

I'm not claiming to have inside information. All this stuff is in the public domain. It's not classified information.

Clinton (in a nutshell): Carter disagreed with Clinton's policy in Haiti in 1994. Cedras, the former dictator, called Carter and asked him to intervene in his behalf--to stave off military action. Carter had told the NYT he "was ashamed of" Clinton's intended military policy. Cedras had met Carter as Carter was monitoring the 1990 elections.

Carter called Clinton and asked to get involved. Although the state dept. was against it, Clinton gave Carter the go-ahead. But, the ONLY thing Carter was authorized to discuss with Cedras was "the modalities of departure" --that is, how Cedras would actually leave office. However, when Carter went to Port -au-Prince, Carter started negotiating with Cedras. He wrote an agreement that didn't address a date Cedras would depart, he PROMISED to lift the US trade embargo, and ignored Clinton's plan to restore Aristide.

Cedras rejected this anyways--don't know why--but Carter got Haiti's provisional president, Emile Jonassaint (who the United States didn't even recognize as a legitimate political authority) to sign his agreement and got Cedras to agree to this despite his initial refusal.

Then, Carter flew back to the United States and IMMEDIATELY called a press conference on CNN--BEFORE TELLING CLINTON WHAT HAPPENED AND WITHOUT CLINTON"S APPROVAL) to give details. . .this was prior to an official White House briefing. Durint the press conference, Clinton stated, "The problem last night and in a number of places around the wrld causes it to be necessary for the Carter Center to act".

Another proof: In Bosnia, Carter sympathized with the chief planner of ethnic cleansing, Radovan Karadzik, saying, "I cannot dispute your statement tat the American public has had primarily one side of the story"

Even the liberal New Republic stated "carter is a menace" and stated his deeds were an "indecent farce". They also stated that "a statue of the vain, meddling, amoral American fool (Carter) should stand in every ethnically cleansed square"

North KoreA, 1994:
Carter had had good relations with Kim il Sung. and, even after he left the White House, Sung continued to invited Carter to visit. Finally, when the it was found that N. Korea's nuclear plans were reaching an alarming level, Carter offered to help. Clinton sent Assst. Sec of State Galluci to brief Carter. Carter, as quoted in Douglas Brinkley's book, stated that his "patience is wearing thin". . .as if he's still the President! Anyways, he also told Brinkley, "Kim Sung's invitation to talk was something I couldn't turn down; it was perhaps the only hope left before war commenced."

The State Dept. advised against it, but Clinton agreed to carter's involvement. Clinton's condition, though, was that Carter make clear that he would be traveling as a private citizen, and not as an official representative of the U.S. governemtn.

Carter, of course, immediately abandoned Clinton's instruction, and the current American policy (which was demanding that N. Korea halt its nuclear program, surrender its spent fuel rods, and allow inspections to resume) . Carter offered Kim this: that N,. Korea freeze its nuclear program in return for the US agreeing to further talks. Carter dropped U.S. demands that UN inspections resume, and that N. Korea surrender its fuel rods. Kim agreed.

So, Carter had brought CNN cameras with him, which the White House didn't know about and announced AGAIN on CNN --without informing the White House-- that the crisis was over. Carter even said that the U.S. was dropping its support for sanctions at the UN, which wsn't true.

Clinton HATES him. And, he did then, but if he would have disagreed with Carter publicly, he would have looked like a fool for having allowed Carter to go in the first place. Carter's terms were adopted and look what's going on now.

Carter didn't even mention anything about Human Rights violations to Kim Il Sung, and they ended their session with an embrace--not a handshake.

 

[Kendra17]

regarding the first bush:
Prior to the first Gulf War, Carter SECRETLY wrote to members of the U.N. Security council, in an effort to block American intervention regarding Iraq and Kuwait. He failed, thankfully. Lance Morrow, of Time Magazine actually refers to Carter as the "anti- President.

There's more, but that's enough. . .this stuff is common knowledge to many people.

 

[peachgirl]

Not that I see anything of substance there, but do you happen to have a link to all this garbage?

It looks like all of that is in your words, no quotes, no sources.

Where's the PROOF???

If that's the bombshell...it fizzled.

 

[bsears]

Kendra, I'm sorry, you simply cannot state that something is common knowledge and expect to be believed because you believe it. Would you be willing to take anyone else's belief as your own simply because they think it is a common belief? If you want to persuade people you have to provide links with proof.

You have every right to believe whatever you believe. But to want other people to adhere to your point of view simply because you tell them it is so, just is not going to work.

You make a long list of events to support your ideas. But you offer no link so that people can read the entire text and judge for themselves. You give no clue to where you got your facts.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Kendra, I'm sorry, you simply cannot state that something is common knowledge and expect to be believed because you believe it. Would you be willing to take anyone else's belief as your own simply because they think it is a common belief? If you want to persuade people you have to provide links with proof.

You have every right to believe whatever you believe. But to want other people to adhere to your point of view simply because you tell them it is so, just is not going to work.

You make a long list of events to support your ideas. But you offer no link so that people can read the entire text and judge for themselves. You give no clue to where you got your facts.

Thank you for being polite!

Well, if you read Douglas Brinkley's book (to wruvy: it's Viking Press, since you dismiss Regnery!) "An Unfinished Presidency" you will find the North Korea and Haiti stories. And, Brinkley ADMIRES Carter. Since it's book form, I can't link it. But, I will do my best to find some online sources.

However, the New Republic's article that relates the story regarding Bosnia is called "Merry Christmas Mr. Karadzic" and it was printed january 5, 1995.

However, so much of this has been in the public domain. I don't read freepers. . .I've never even heard of it until today. Do some searches, go to the library. . .this is HISTORIcALLY accurate--do you really think I'd make this up, that I COULD make this up???

I base my opinions on facts. . .not try to find facts to fit my opinions. . . why, on earth, would I be anti-Kerry, anti=Carter for no reason??? If I respected them and admired their policies, I'd admit that. . .there's no good reason for me to argue with you and make stuff up.

But, I'll look a bit, anyways.

 

[bsears]

I base my opinions on facts. . .not try to find facts to fit my opinions. . . why, on earth, would I be anti-Kerry, anti=Carter for no reason??? If I respected them and admired their policies, I'd admit that. . .there's no good reason for me to argue with you and make stuff up.

Respectfully Kendra, that statement comes awfully close to saying that the people who support Kerry ( and take a look at the polls, you are talking about half the country ) do so because they are not as well informed as you. Surely you can admit that your beliefs are based on your interpretations of what you read, and what you select to read, and that others might not have the same interpretation?

No one is arguing your absolute right to believe what you believe. Nor should you look down on people who disagree, and dismiss their beliefs just because they are not in sync with yours. ( and I would interject that I truly believe you are not aware that this is the impession your posts are giving out, and that is why you have people's backs up ) And if you are trying to persuade others to your way of thinking, you have to back up what you say.