In company of Arafat and Mandela, oh the company he keeps. Truth to tell, I think he may be morally honest, but the worst president this country has ever had. (considering Grant, that's saying an awful lot.)

But at least we won't have to watch him sulk anymore.

I think the starting point for this analysis is somewhat wrong-headed. Are you saying that the President of the US is responsible for everything that goes on in the world? That seems to be the justification that our current Prez is using to justify doing whatever the hell he wants. We don't live in Imperial Rome, and I for one am just as glad.

And the committee happily admits that the award to Carter is a "kick in the legs" to GWB. Now if Jimbo is a patriot, he'll refuse the Prize. That would be fun.

As the story goes, the Sadat/Begin peace deal was a set up that Jimmuh didn't see coming. The deal was done before they approached Carter.

What Begin and Sadat needed was a host for their expensive party and so, Jimmuh was conned into spending U.S. taxpayers' money. He was an easy mark. For all his public cloying humility he has a Clintonesque ego.

Hey, this is probably Carter's best campaign strategy since the 1976 Democratic primary -- his rants against GWB were timed just right to influence the Nobel committee, who were looking for anyone to give the prize to who could best rebuke Bush's foreign policy.

The fact that Carter was an American attacking Bush probably was the deciding factor, since in the Neble committee's eyes that was better than someone like Schroeder saying it. Of course, the race for the Peace Prize probably would have been a lot closer if Jim McDermott had made his trip to Baghdad a few weeks sooner to influence the Peace Prize voters.

"Are you saying that the President of the US is responsible for everything that goes on in the world?"

No, I belive he's saying that because of Carter's inaction and foolishness, he did a lot of really stupid things and refused to use to America's influence properly. If someone other than a weakling like Carter would have been in charge, 3/4's of that list would have been reversed or would not have happened.

We can now add the "Nobel" to the "Dodo" List (as in, Dead as a) right under: "U.N.", "N.A.T.O.", and "German Allies".

Hmmm, so that means that the true "age of terrorism" (the occupation of the embassy in Tehran) started under Carter, while he paced the Rose Garden...Since then, we've lost about 3,000 americans to terrorism, NOT counting the WTC

yeah, it's not like the namesake of the nobel peace prize every invented any destructive explosive or anything. irony is dead, hasn't the prize committee heard?

Fred, the numbers I prefer to use is 800, from Daniel Pipes' accounting found at www.danielpipes.org/articles/460.

But, yes, Carter's inability to rescue the hostages was the beginning of the "Target America" movement from the Middle East.

Jimmy Carter's always been a great big joke. I kinda feel sorry for him though, knowing him, he'll think he's genuinely earned this 'award'.

Looks like Carter and Arafat are a part of the "Nobel Peace Prize" club now. Next in line are Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Mullah Mohammad Omar. I guess the deal is if America attacks you (politically or economically), you win a peace prize. In Carter's case, it must be all the bashing he got from the right. That poor poor man.

Funny thing about those Panamanians. I think it was the WSJ last week. They are setting up 3 lobbyists in DC. They want us back. Something about money, money, and the canal is too small for the new cargo ships. They want to expand the canal. And being the cynical person I am, probably want US to pay for it, too.

kathianne

Grant may have been a bad president, but he fought, dammit! I say this as a descendant of mostly confederate soldiers who is glad the north won

"The Panama Canal, built with American blood and money, was turned over to the thuggish rulers of Panama".

Conveniently left out of this statement is the fact that the land for the canal and facilities was LEASED and that the lease was up. About all you can blame Carter for is failure to try renewing the lease.

I don't like that turncoat any better than anyone else, but let's stick with some facts. Reagan, Bush, Nixon, or any other GOP-er would have been confronted with that same fact.

Nah Mugabe will get it next, after all he has done so much for Africa.

Buck, you have a point.

Peanut-Farmer's feckless presidency was characterized foremost by weak, pathetic ineffectual leadership which eventually led to economic/cultural "malaise"(15% annual inflation with 21% Prime Lending Rate) and decline of America's military.

But the one illustration that best characterizes 'Peanut-Farmer's' wholly naive world view perspective was his request to the commanders of the ill-fated military rescue of American hostages in Iran 'to accomplish the rescue by avoiding the deaths of as many Iranians as possible'.

Bear: I don't know where you get the idea the Panama Canal was leased. According to here, and here, and here, and especially
here, it was ceded to the United States "in perpetuity."

If you want to get a sense for some of the things Carter "confronted" during his Presidency, go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WolfFiles/wolffiles82.html

"The Soviets invaded Afghanistan."

Yes. yes they did. And if they had taken the country over and clenched on the people their steel fist of justice, there would have been no Taliban.

Soviet Union > Taliban.

And Soviet Diplomats march through Africa.

Who cares? What's all this playa' hatin' over the Soviet Union for?

And Iraq invaded Iran. This is true, but the war was funded (and Hussein was propped up) by Reagan and his administration (oh, and Cheney's Haliburton).

So, quit your damn belly aching.

Let's not forget Carter's pointless revival of draft registration.