what is jimmy carter's problem?

Question

jimmy carter said friday that the bush admin screwed up with NK because he "isolated" them. jimmy thinks we should have 1 on 1 talks with NK, which actually lowers the US and gives NK a higher position. he wanted this AFTER kim jong il expressed regret for the testing. I bet the dems were screaming "appeasement! appeasement! give 'em what they want!". what jimmy carter's problem, is he just afraid to hurt anyone's feelings? he was actually promoting a policy that has failed many times, while bush's at least got him to express regret in front onf the world, if its worth anything. awww poor kim jong il! i bet carter would kiss his hand and "take one" for the dems!

Answer 1

what's his problem? He was born with no testicles. In other words - he is a lib. And what is worse is that he is a lib among libs.

Answer 2

Jimmy Carter those days met with HAMAS, a 17 november committed to destroying an finished united states of non-Muslims because they don't seem Muslims. they don't seem to be truly enormous followers of u . s . a . of america too. i imagine the reason Jimmy Carter doesn't have a topic with Reverend Wright is because they are both on a similar web page - they both hate the country and they both help terrorists like HAMAS.

Answer 3

Jimmy Carter is a great man. Who can argue his personal integrity or commitment to 'good.' Yet, the fact remains he was a poor president. He was elected on the heals of Watergate, when the voting public (as limited as it was) voted more against Ford (and the Republicans) than for Carter. he was a DC outsider that appealed to people because of his down to earth approach. He was saddled with the results of the oil embargo, and was indecisive even when choosing his own cabinet. His 'malaise' speech will go down as one of the most ineffective ever. His inability to successfully resolve the Iran Hostage Crisis doomed his administration.

Good guy? You bet, I'd buy him and his brother a Billy Beer anytime. How is Amy doing? She was pummeled by the press...

Someone we should listen to politically, nope.

Answer 4

Jimmy Carter is a fool who possesses a very high (and unwarranted) opinion of himself. He is the most misguided and naive President this country has seen in modern times.

In any case, his charitable work is laudible. I will give him that.

Answer 5

To answer your question, he is dumb. Just plain dumb. He (may?) have heart, but he has never had any common sense. He let a lot of people down when he was president. The only good or smart thing he has done, was build houses, I don't think he is doing that any longer.
His brother was the smart one in that family.

Answer 6

Bush will NEVER do anything against the North Koreans,

Answer 7

Clinton tried that. He sent Albright over there and Kim cried on her shoulder and she asked him what would make it all better and he asked for the equipment to make the nuclear bomb he just exploded and Clinton gave it to him. Aren't we lucky that Carter isn't in power anymore?

Answer 8

HERE IS WHAT JIMMY CARTER DID ABOUT NORTH KOREA::::::::::::With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them --
although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals.
The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer
to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes,
raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding
was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour,
bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea --
keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect --
who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud,
and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to
cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes --
more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return,
they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted
the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much
we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea.
Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape
weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next
U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page,
so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence,
North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence,
lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil.
He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy."
This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann,
not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel
"that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention."
If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan.
But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers
(and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes
like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea
cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in
1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented
the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day
The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce.
In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action.
Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
THIS ARTICLE BY ANN COULTER::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Answer 9

He is a failure that the media give too much credit to, because he is 'a nice guy'. Everything he touched was a disaster!

Answer 10

Jimbo's problem is that he is an all-knowing, all-seeing, just-better-than-you-and-me kinda guy.

Really, he had his 15 minutes (and then some!) and he ought to wise up and do what ex-presidents are SUPPOSED to do - dry up and GO AWAY (Little Billy Clinton, please take note!).