Assuming that Carter even knew what the official US stance was — and there is a significant indication that he did not — obviously, any negotiated settlement between these recalcitrant UN members and the US (for it was clearly mentioned that a US representative was present as well…) would likely differ from Bolton’s preferred stance, put forward after this proposed settlement had been hammered out.

“That’s not his job…no one elected or appointed him as a US representative…”

Which perhaps explains why Carter wasn’t there as a US representative, but as a mediator, at the request of the UN. That *WAS* his job, after all.

I absolutely think Bush would over-ride Rice — I think that Rumsfeld and Cheney have much greater sway than Rice does, and my guess is that a strong voice from any of the three would trump Rice –

But Peter, not to flog a dead horse–but if Carter wanted to say that the Commission had become a charade he could have simply said so and not cracked a joke in which he blames Cuba and the US equally for the failure. Do you think those were random choices? I give Carter more credit than that.

Rice has expressed nothing but respect for Bolton and admiration for his job performance–she did so publicly in an interview in the middle of December, for example, right when she was supposed to be rejecting his position on this. And do you really think Bush would over-ride his prime favorite Rice in favor of Bolton? I just don’t see it.

My guess is that what happened was option 4: Bush overrode Rice. I doubt that she lied.

Incidentally, I’m not predisposed to think the worst of Rice — I happen to like her (and Powell) quite a lot. I think she is one of the best people in the Bush administration. (That may sound like being the third tallest person in Japan, but that’s not how I mean it).

After Reagan retired, he went to his ranch and wasn’t heard from often. Aside from doing the tsunami thing with Clinton, George Bush has more or less kept to himself. Clinton did Habitat for Humanity, started the Carter Center, supervised 62 elections, and teaches Sunday School. I give him a lot of credit for that.

I also give him credit for accepting the UN invitation to mediate. He can’t do that job without independence from US foreign policy. Apparently your belief is that an ex-President ought not to get involved in current affairs, or if he (or in 2017, she) does, he/she ought to be a de facto spokesman for current US policy. I disagree.

2) I assume that the attack on conservative Christians is this:

“there’s a fairly substantial and very influential group of Christians who believe that the final coming of Jesus Christ can only occur after the entire Holy Land is taken over by Israel. And that includes the destruction, for instance, of the Dome of the Rock and other Arab or non-Christian groups.”

I’m not Christian so maybe I lack a sensitivity to these things, but where’s the attack? Sounds like a statement of fact to me.

3) “Give me one instance of a passage in the article that turned out to be incorrect:” the article talks about a meeting Carter had with seventeen diplomats, but neglects to point out that it was a UN-sponsored meeting that he was invited to attend to resolve a dispute. As a result, the article makes Carter look like a loose cannon trying to conduct a shadow foreign policy, when in reality he was responding to the request of the President of the UN General Assembly. It is as bad as if a newspaper ran a story with the headline “Cheney Shoots Whittington in Cold Blood.” Things look very different when placed in context.

“It will not be bogged down constantly in just arguments between the United States and Cuba, going all over the world trying to get enough votes to condemn each other.”

In other words, the actions of the US on the old Human Rights Commission to curb Cuban human rights abuses were a bureaucratic trick, just like the Cuban efforts to humiliate and discredit the US by exploiting the Commission.

And that was a laugh line.

At this point, it doesn’t surprise me all that much that Carter would try to make an end run around the administration on an issue like this, but I do think his references to the Secretary of State deserve a closer look. Carter claims that Rice told him she was not going to support Bolton’s statement, but then says she did just that. That means that 1) Bolton spoke out of turn and Rice disavowed his statement, 2) Rice lied to Carter when she talked to him on the phone or 3) Rice said no such thing. Option one seems somewhat unlikely to me given that what the US has done was consistent with Bolton’s statement(s) on the proposal for the Council–and quite frankly, had he done something like that without consulting with his boss he would not have his job for very long. 2) I suppose you could argue this, but why would she lie? 3) Would this be the first time Carter heard what he wanted to hear rather than what the person he was talking to was actually saying? I know I am predisposed to think the worst of him as you are of Rice, but I wonder if Carter claimed in the additional negotiations when he reached that “good compramise” that he had the assurances of the Secretary of State that Bolton’s statement would not be supported to give himself greater weight and legitimacy on the international stage?

Seems to me it’s a question worth asking, because as far as I can tell, all the public statements of the State Department and the US Ambassador to the UN on this topic have been perfectly consistent. Now we have Mr. Carter claiming, with absolutely no proof, that there is dissention in the ranks–most dramatically a rift between Secretary Rice and Ambassador Bolton–which is a claim that benefits no one but himself if he’s trying to establish himself as the “true” voice of the US on this issue.

Carter does attack conservative Chrisitians, to the accompanying laughter in the transcript – I needn’t point it out, I assume you can read well enough. Give me one instance of a passage in the article that turned out to be incorrect – and prove it by pointing to both the passage and the transcript.

If you think Jimmy Carter is a great man – and clearly you do – and if you think that Israel should withdraw to the 1949 borders, despite 3 seperate Arab-initiated wars to destroy it, you are welcome to advocate it. Just don’t expect me to go along for your fantasy where Carter isn’t a partisan and the rest of the world is…