3 ms·

OTOH, Carter was not a party to formal diplomatic channels and did not represent himself as such. I doubt that he generated confusion WRT whatever official dipl

OTOH, Carter was not a party to formal diplomatic channels and did not represent himself as such. I doubt that he generated confusion WRT whatever official diplomacy may have been taking place. In fact, his point was that there was none to speak of; only a march to war. So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen who also happens to have a pretty big megaphone due to his former gig (and humanitarian work thereafter). He has a responsibility to speak out when he believes his country is running off the rails, as do all American citizens. His voice just happens to carry a bit further than most. So, in fact, one could argue that his is a greater responsibility to speak out.

mpyne 13y ago
> So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen He was President of the United States. He will have a State Funeral held upon his death (a date which will be too soon no matter when it happens). He is the farthest thing from "simply a private citizen", at least in the context of the foreign policy of the nation he led for four years. But either way, go check out the "Carter Doctrine", which he promulgated during his term in office if you think he was opposed to all force.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Michael Jackson also had a pretty massive funeral, but WRT to U.S. Foreign policy he was a private citizen. Yes, the country will "officially" honor President Carter upon his passing; and yes, we still call him President Carter, but there are no foreign leaders who believe that he is driving U.S. Foreign policy. As such, his statements were simply the opinions of a well-known private citizen who objected to the country's march to war (along with many others). >if you think he was opposed to all force. Well, I never said he was opposed to all force. EDIT: BTW, did you edit your comment to which I first responded on this thread? Seems that there was initially language in it suggesting that Carter's statements might have created confusion about official U.S. foreign policy. That's actually what I was addressing. Guess I should have quoted.

mpyne 13y ago

> So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen He was President of the United States. He will have a State Funeral held upon his death (a date which will be too soon no matter when it happens). He is the farthest thing from "simply a private citizen", at least in the context of the foreign policy of the nation he led for four years. But either way, go check out the "Carter Doctrine", which he promulgated during his term in office if you think he was opposed to all force.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Michael Jackson also had a pretty massive funeral, but WRT to U.S. Foreign policy he was a private citizen. Yes, the country will "officially" honor President Carter upon his passing; and yes, we still call him President Carter, but there are no foreign leaders who believe that he is driving U.S. Foreign policy. As such, his statements were simply the opinions of a well-known private citizen who objected to the country's march to war (along with many others). >if you think he was opposed to all force. Well, I never said he was opposed to all force. EDIT: BTW, did you edit your comment to which I first responded on this thread? Seems that there was initially language in it suggesting that Carter's statements might have created confusion about official U.S. foreign policy. That's actually what I was addressing. Guess I should have quoted.