What do you think of Jimmy Carter criticizing the Clinton people who claim there is genocide in Darfur?

Question

He said their real agenda for 8 years was toppling the Sudanese government, and they were and still are an obstacle to peace.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/14/le.01.html

You are right, tribeca, he didn't say that. However, he did criticize 8 years of Clinton foreign policy on Sudan, and praised the Bush administration for getting a peace agreement.

And, of course, he is no fan of the Bush administration, but he gave them that.

lonewoff, it's halfway down or so. Search on "Darfur"

Answer 1

Jimmy Carter is proof yet again of the old cliche, "A prophet is never understood in his own country." Of course, the corporate Clintons know what is actually going on in Sudan: it's called regime change in order to acquire the same material resource that we seek in Iraq, oil. Obviously, the U.S. government has adopted a covert strategy to destabilize Sudan rather than actively overthrow it as it did in Iraq.

Answer 2

Carter? Where in the link? Oh well. Yes there is Genocide in Darfur. Yes, Carter had his day. What the hell he is doing is anybody's guess. While on the Clinton retirement plan of speaking & books, planned with associations that go back to the 70's?? He's a few peanuts short of a barrel full of Monkey's. Thanks. Sure would love to see this information, I have read nothing and checked it out . Like above? Not too sure you are correct. But appreciate the fyi.

OK. Don't get me wrong I am not a Carter fan and have been annoyed at his roaming the globe and bashing Bush. He said that Dr. Rice and Clinton contributed to the lack of a peace effort. He also feels Darfur is not a case of Genocide and calls out names of people who agree.
Stupid political games. He has another book out? Like Hillary Clinton he just can not seem to make up his mind. SAME, same, same. Don't vote or support either. NO matter what day it is or how the wind blows.

Answer 3

Uh, i do not comprehend why it would want to be helpful for the U.S. to be the in basic terms usa to call Darfur 'genocide.' Calling something 'genocide' obliges the U.S. and different international locations, less than the Geneva convention, to intrude. how that is, neither the U.S. nor the different usa is obliged to help out with something, noticeably very reminiscent of Rwanda. So allowing 1000's of 1000's of human beings to be murdered is a *strong* element? Turkey's having a s.hit-in good structure on the on the spot, at the same time as being considered for club contained in the ecu Union, that the U.S. and different eu international locations have finally keen to call the international warfare I Armenian genocide 'genocide.' obviously no individual needs to call something genocide; then no individual else is obligated to do something about it. So i'm no longer following your good judgment the following except that the U.S. is being supremely hypocritical by technique of elevating an outcry over genocide at the same time as nonchalantly sending all of its troops to Iraq as a replace of the position they are mandatory to help avert genocide.

Answer 4

I respect Carter’s opinion. He apparently feels that Susan Rice’s aim was to overthrow the government in Sudan and that his efforts to negotiate a peace settlement were being undermined. He didn’t say anything about the Clintons being a continuing obstacle to peace, contrary to your assertions.

Answer 5

Jimmy Carter needs attention

Answer 6

Well now. If anything this is a pathetic example of the US meddling in the affairs of other countries. This meddling has spiraled out of control, to the point now where US policymakers think it is a US obligation to meddle in the affairs of other countries. It's really a sad commentary on how far off-base the US has gone in its foreign policy decisions.

Answer 7

I think it's hilarous that when Carter was criticizing Bush all the democrats thought he had grown wings and become their guardian angel...he could do no wrong.

All of a sudden when he cricizes Clinton they get their panties in a wad and can't believe the nerve of Carter.

Answer 8

Jimmy Carter is exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech while he still can.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind, but it seems the right wingers around here have their panties cinched up a tad.

Answer 9

We should remain neutral in the political affairs of other nations. We are not the "nice police" we are not the enforcers of morality we are the bastion of freedom.

Answer 10

I think Carter is as irrelevant now as he was during his Presidency.

He was a better past President when all he did was build houses. I respected him for that one brief shining moment until he had to go and open his mouth again.