Does Jimmy Deserve the Nobel Prize?

News at Home

Mr. Frum is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously he served as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Could there be a less deserved Nobel Prize than the one just awarded to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter?

In his four years as President, Carter managed through weakness and ineptitude to create crisis after crisis.

During the 1976 presidential campaign, he pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea--a pledge that emboldened the North Koreans to position eight additional infantry divisions and 35% more tanks against the South. North Korean bellicosity forced Carter to break his pledge, but he had left behind a deadly permanent legacy: It was during the Carter years that the North Koreans started their nuclear weapons program. As president, Carter startled the world with his credulity and naivete.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he said he had learned more about the Soviets that one week than in all his previous life. But he never learned that weakness in an American president means danger for the whole world. His indecision helped to bring the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran--and to put a terrorist regime in control of the most powerful state in the Middle East. Khomeini's chosen heir, who presently holds supreme executive power in Iran, is now sheltering perhaps as many as two dozen al-Qaeda leaders.

Carter is often credited with the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. The credit is undeserved. Carter's eagerness to propitiate the Soviets--and his unconcealed hostility to the Israelis--inspired him to endorse the old Soviet idea of resolving the Middle East conflict in a gigantic multiparty peace conference co-chaired by the United States and the USSR. This idea terrified Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who had expelled Soviet military advisers from his country when he caught the Soviets plotting against him in 1972. Rather than resubmit to the Russians, Sadat opened secret bilateral negotiations with the Israelis in 1977. Camp David was the result.

One would have supposed that Carter touched bottom in 1980, when he lost the presidency by the largest margin of any incumbent since Herbert Hoover. But after his catastrophic presidency, Carter launched a new and unprecedented second career--he made himself America's first catastrophic ex-president.

Since 1980, Carter has made himself the supporter and apologist of anti-American dictators.

He met with Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega in 1989 and lent his prestige to Sandinista-written election rules that disfavored the democratic opposition. Jeane Kirkpatrick noted at the time how bitter Carter was when the Sandinistas nevertheless lost. "You'd have thought," she said, "that a democrat would have been happy."

In 1994, Carter was off to North Korea, where he met Kim Il Sung and pronounced the vicious old mass murderer "vigorous and intelligent."

Earlier this year, Carter visited Cuba and delivered a jaw-dropping speech at the University of Havana. He credulously praised Cuba's "superb systems of health care and universal education" and accused the U.S. of imposing the death penalty in a discriminatory manner. He offered perfunctory criticism of Castro's dictatorship--and then hastily undercut his few decent words by shaking Castro's hand and grinning at him as soon as he finished his speech.

Carter's record on the Middle East is especially contemptible. Jay Nordlinger of National Review describes the first of Carter's many meetings with Yasser Arafat: He said, "When I bring up the [PLO] charter, you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis." Arafat, for his part, complained about the Reagan administration's alleged "betrayals." Rosalynn Carter, who was taking notes for her husband, interjected, "You don't have to convince us!" which . . . "elicited gales of laughter all round."

What is worst about the Arafat story is not Carter's toadying to a tyrant and a murderer, but his willingness to undercut his own country in order to ingratiate himself. Carter took this disloyal behavior to an unprecedented extreme the following year, 1991, when the UN Security Council was debating a resolution to authorize the United States to use force to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Carter wrote a letter to the Security Council asking them to vote the resolution down.

The Nobel Committee audaciously cited Carter's eagerness to sabotage the foreign policy of his successors as a reason for his prize: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

Lest that be misunderstood, Gunnar Berge, the committee's chairman, commented at a press conference that Carter's prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. . . . It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

A patriotic American would indignantly refuse any foreign prize that came accompanied by insults to his country. But in Carter's character, patriotism has always taken a very distant back seat to vanity and malice. No prize can redeem his reputation--but this choice certainly mars the reputation of this prize.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Steve Robert Manquardt - 12/2/2005

Is George W. Bush the Republican Carter? Like Jimmy, Dubya is good-hearted, well-intentioned, and just as devout (faith-based). Carter said after the invasion of Afghanistan that he had learned more about the Soviets in one week than in all of his life up to them. Bush's learning curve in Iraq has been just as steep, moving from a credulity and naivete about the Middle East that was a match for Carter's in re the USSR. Unfortunately, Bush's lessons have been learned over many months and will contnue for perhaps years yet to come.

Flint Davis - 8/11/2005

You're joking right?

Does Fidel Castro support human rights? What about any of the other dictators that Carter cozied up to?

And his role in negotiations with North Korea in 1994 was hardly an achievement.

We gave the North Koreans everything they wanted - and they broke their promises to us before the ink was even dry on the agreement.

Obviously the North Korean's saw Carter and Clinton for the stupid schmucks they clearly are.

Flint Davis - 8/11/2005


As was mentioned in an earlier thread - if you have a specific criticism of Frum's piece - mention it.

Is it factually wrong or inaccurate? If not - then it does not qualify as slander.

Flint Davis - 8/11/2005

I don't believe that Frum has any hatred towards Carter - he just thinks that Carter is undeserving of a Nobel Peace prize.

Also - remember the saying 'Descretion is the better part of valor'?

How many other ex-presidents have you seen out criticizing the United States? Up until Bill Clinton - and later on Jimmy Carter - past presidents did not criticize the current administration.

Do you remember hearing George Bush (senior) criticizing Clinton anytime Clinton was in office? What about Nixon or Ford speaking ill of Carter?

You said - "What Carter said and did in several of Frum's examples may be unwise and even absurd, but they are hardly the actions of a traitor."

Frum's point was never that Carter was a traitor. Frum's point was the Carter got the Nobel PEACE prize - when he spent so much time supporting dictator's and world leaders who were anything but peaceful.

Flint Davis - 8/11/2005

"Stupid Americans do not deserve Carter"

Well - neither do smart Americans.

Maybe he can immigrate to Australia!

I think you make a good point though. From the comments made be individuals from the Nobel Foundation - I'm wondering if the only reason why Carter got the Peace Prize was because he was criticizing the current administration.

Flint Davis - 8/11/2005

Why would you be bombing Oslo?


The Nobel Foundation is headquartered in Stockholm...

Which would be in Sweden.

Michael - 7/12/2003

Hej, Shellie!

I happen to live in Scandinavia, so I am perhaps geographically "closer" to the Nobel process, although you can find out anything you are looking for in English at the Swedish website, http://www.nobel.se.

For your purposes, however, the will of Alfred Nobel lays down the conditions and categories for awarding a Nobel prize. I'm afraid fitness as such would not, on its own, qualify - in three categories (Physics, Chemistry, and Literature), it would be virtually ruled out, and in the categories "Medicine" and "Peace", it would be hard to see how sports could become eligible, as only advanced research and internationally relevant political events have, respectively, been awarded.

You asked about peace: the conditions laid down are that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Nominations can be made by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

You see, it would be hard to accomodate fitness in these categories; unless a sports movement of some sort, with a strong spiritual doctrine, were to sweep the planet and bring people all over the world together - not just a few hundred or thousand! - in friendship could the person responsible be a potential candidate, I guess.

I assume you might be hoping your father and his commitment to fitness could find some reward of this sort. Unfortunately, the Nobel prize categories do not really fit what he has done - but then, the many sports awards the two of you have obtained, including your olympic medal, certainly do, and that is more of a reward than most athletes ever get.

Take care,

SeaBeau - 5/3/2003

Folks, let's not forget how Carter praised Nicolai Ceaucescu as a great leader and humanitarian. What a kick in the teeth at the time for every Romanian who sincerely wanted a free society and representative government!

A good barometer to determine the effectiveness of a foreign policy is to first find out what Jimmy Carter's position is and then to do the exact opposite.

Shellie Blanks Cimarosti - 3/5/2003

Is there such a thing as The Nobel Peace Prize for fitness? What would be the closest thing to that subject? I'd appreciate any help.

Jeane Candido - 11/4/2002


Thank you for the essay on Jimmy Carter's Prize. Like Jessie Jackson,Jimmy carter interjects himself into America's negotiations and diplomatic relations without portfolio, their unsuitability already proven. Jimmy Carter deems himself and unsanctified saint. His visits to Cuba and his liaisons with those unfriendly to his own country deem him a man who can only find fellowship in companionship with enemies and scoundrals. He accepts honors for peace among those who take little responsibility in assuring a world peace and alievating the words' dangers and struggles. Who will come to their aid if attacked as it did in the past not Jimmy Carter.
Is there not a law prohibiting private citizens (which is what he is) making overtures to foreign powers?
And how much is all this Secret Service Protection in hostile countries costing the tax payers (wayward though we are?) Signed: Jeane Heimberger Candido

Orson Olson - 10/26/2002

Against Frum's tirade, there is a nuanced case to be made FOR Carter's Nobel Peace Prize. I think University of Chicago Poli Sci Professor Daniel W. Drezner gets the balace about right (***emphasis mine***):

"OK, smart guy, who do you think merits the award?***Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar***, for coming up with the idea of using U.S. assistance to control loose nukes. Sit back and think about what the world would look like right now if that program never came to fruition.

"Put aside the idiotic reasoning of the Nobel committee [SNIP!] Put aside the fact that others have equal standing to merit the prize. [SNIP!] The question is, does Carter merit the prize for his accomplishments? Damn straight. Consider the accomplishments:

"1) Camp David. Sadat and Begin deserve the bulk of the credit, but saying that Carter didn't have an important role to play is like saying that because the acting in a movie is terrific, the director doesn't deserve an Oscar.

"2) Human rights. ***Carter was the first president to make it a high-profile issue in U.S. foreign policy.*** There were short-term costs, but the goodwill that initiative bought the U.S. in the rest of the world cannot be underestimated. ***It's not a coincidence that the third wave of democratization started to take off during his administration.***

"3) Election monitoring. Carter was at the forefront of this vital tool of consolidating democracy.

"4) Being an adult during the first two years of the Clinton administration. Remember those years? Recovered from the nausea? Clinton's foreign policy team was not ready for prime time. Carter helped to bail them out of invasions of Haiti and North Korea. He did it in a sanctimonious, undemocratic, and at times unauthorized way, yes, but he still did it.

"5) Development in Africa. In a largely critical essay of Carter's post-presidential legacy, Chris Sullentrop of Slate acknowledges: ***"Carter has done admirable work since he left office, particularly in Africa, where he has helped nearly to eradicate some deadly diseases. ***And when he's brokering a cease-fire during a civil war in Ethiopia, or promoting new agricultural techniques in sub-Saharan Africa, he's actively making the world a better place."

"6) Without him, Reagan never gets elected. For other reasons like this, check out this P.J. O'Rourke comparison of Carter to Clinton. [See original for link.]

"Carter is far from perfect, and ***his vision of how to conduct foreign affairs will always be handicapped by his failure to understand the role that force plays in world politics.*** But ***his accomplishments are also tangible,*** and should not be spat upon just because of the Nobel committee's flawed worldview. Some will point to Carter's ass-kissing of brutal despots as proof that his commitment to human rights is not genuine (see also here). [See original for link.] Please. ***You could find similar quotations from every cold war president about some despicable dictator. ***

"I'm sure in the next few days there will be endless posts on endless blogs about the various flaws of Jimmy Carter. I'm sure Carter will deserve some of those posts. But based on his record, he also deserves the award."
--Friday, October 11, 2002

mitchell freedman - 10/21/2002

Alex Cockburn, at his web site, Counterpunch, hits Carter from the left side of the political ledger. This is far more interesting as it shows continuity in American foriegn policy at least since Truman and right up through Bush II.

Philip Engle - 10/21/2002

I do agree that Carter should have turned down the Nobel Prize for Peace, but not for the reasons listed here. The attacks in this article are typical of those Right-wing fools who cannot give ANY credit to someone from the opposite side of the aisle.
Carter has done more than any EX-PRESIDENT when you factor into his building homes for the homeless, monitoring international elections, and being sent to deal with issues in Haiti by Clinton and Cuba by Bush. If Carter is so "un-American" why did presidents (both Democrat and Republican) contact him for his aid? If Carter is so bad, perhpas we should question George W's judgement in sending him to Cuba.
Carter should have turned down the prize because it is so overdue. The man was integral to the Camp David Accords, to the point where he stood in the doorway and refused to let Sadat and Begin leave when they were frustrated with eachother. For his efforts, Begin and Sadat were given the prize. Years later, a terrorist (Arafat) was given the award for "seeing the light" but he still endorses terrorist activities.
Carter's actions merited the award nearly 2 decades ago and still do today. The fact that the Noble Prize used Carter as a tool to insult the current President is not only an insult to President Bush, but it also demeans the award and insults President Carter. If the Nobel committee wishes to use its award as an instrument to insult those not in agreement with the committee's beliefs, the committee is insulting the recipient, basically stating President Carter didn't do enough to merit such an award. Carter deserved it in 1977 and deserves it today. Perhaps the Nobel committee owes President Carter an apology for taking so long to do the right thing and an apology for not giving it to him for the right reasons.

John K - 10/21/2002

So your defense of Carter is that he's no worse than the worst the other party has to offer? And he should get a Nobel prize for that accomplisment?

John K - 10/21/2002

Frum may not have an academic post, but he's written a book on the 1970s, so he's written more history than most "historians" out there.

John K - 10/21/2002

I'm amazed that an Australian - whose country suffered a shocking loss from attacks in Indonesia - would be so quick to defend the American president who went out of his way to increase military aid to Indonesia as the death toll in East Timor climbed over 100,000 in 1977.

Bob Greene - 10/20/2002

Jimmy Carter was without a doubt the worst President of the second half of the 2oth century. He help to devistate the economy gut the military did great dammage to our foreign relations,at least we could vote the bozo out of office. Then he went on to be an activist exprez. As long as he was builing houses for the poor he actions were harmless even beneficial. But when he meddles in foreign policy Carter has done great harm to this country. His efforts to undermine Bush's diplomatic efforts prior to the Gulf War bordered on treason. And we can not even vote the SOB out of office. Is there no end the dammage Carter does to this country.

Bob Greene - 10/20/2002

Thank you for proving my point that your side has no argument to make therefore you must resort to ad homminim.
The worst part is it was not even very good ad homminim.
By the way your side is already doing a good job of shredding the constitution by redefining it out of existance.
One last point if we ever have need to take out Oslo we will not endager pilots, cruise missiles will work quite well

howard n meyer - 10/20/2002

He does not have to be a "historian"
He (and network) do have an obligation of disclosure:
This is a publicist with an axe to grind
and subvention by right wing interests.
That may be known to many readers here;but that should not be take for granted.

Bill Heuisler - 10/20/2002

While wishing joy to President Carter and Roslyn, we all must question whether the Nobel award is appropriate for a man known for well-meaning, but disastrous foreign policies.
Good intentions replaced "US friendly" (but human-rights-deficient governments) in Iran, Nicaragua, Angola, etc. with governments whose first preferences became repression and hatred of America. Human rights suffered in every case. Internecine warfare followed in each country and secondary repercussions of Carter policy decisions haunt the world to this day.
Good intentions are legion. Should Neville Chamberlain be awarded the prize for good intentions? Or Hillary Clinton for her Health Care intentions? Or Mrs. O'Leary who wanted to milk her cow and feed her baby?
Bill Heuisler

Square 1 - 10/19/2002

Which website may require renaming soon (see my earlier posting below)

And, for the umpteenth time, hacks from "the left" plus hacks from "the right" equals hacked nonsense, not historical understanding.

A. Partisan - 10/19/2002

He's just a partisan hack. Why isn't this over a t freerepublic instead? This guy makes you all look bad.

George - 10/17/2002

The only way Frum could say less would be to write more!! What a jerk-off!!

B.F. Sumners - 10/17/2002

Apparently, Mr. Frum's comments about President Carter were influenced by his political
ties, rather than historical facts. It is my impressions that the former president won the Nobel
Peace Prize for a life long commitment to peace, justice and human rights. This is illustrated
by his championing human rights more than any other American president, past and present.
Other events during his presidency such as the SALT II negociations and the Camp David agreement
speak to his commitment to peace. His involvement in the dispute with North Korean in
1994 illustrates his continuing role as mediator.

The development of the Carter Center, which is devoted to democracy and human rights also
demonstrates reasons for this award going to him. President Carter does not need me or anyone else to defend
his life and work which has been based on his Christian faith. My only complaint, is that this award was
long overdue.

Jeremy Ambrose - 10/17/2002

The name of the prize is the Peace Prize (as in international peace). It is not called the Peace and Domestic Tranquility Prize.
Can we please try, for once, to stick to the issue raised by the initial posting ?


ProfPaul - 10/17/2002

Interesting to see the right so exercised about Carter's peace prize. Every other ex-president sepnds all of his time protecting and celebrating his legacy and cahsing in on it. Apparently Carter by attempting to do something constructive with his position offends all those who feel an ex-president's time is best spent making speeches for his own and his party's profit. Oh, Jimmy Carter, you awful man, shame on you for setting the bar higher than a Ford or a Regan or a Bush can jump.

Stephen Rifkin - 10/17/2002

Except that Wilson ushered in the most oppressive, illegal and unconstitutional erasure of civil rights in this country. During WW1 Wilson pandered to the extreme xenophobic anti German fringe element and systematically eliminated protections in the Bill of Rights we take for granted. He went so far as to have one of his main political opponents, Eugene V. Debs locked up for sedition for over 10 years for the crime of speaking out against the administration.

george beres - 10/17/2002

One need only consider his relationship to the AEI and to Bush as a speechwriter to realize that the author of the slander on Jimmy Carter operates strictly "frum" hunger. In our system, no one should be denied the opportunity for free expression. The beauty of the system is that it allows us to recognize the bigots from their words. - George Beres

Shay MacKenzie - 10/17/2002

Frum has thoroughly explained his hatred of Carter - using several decent examples of modern diplomacy with tyrannical figures - yet has failed entirely to make even a modest argument about why the prize is undeserved.

Clearly Carter is not a right-wing American political figure. Why should he be expected to agree with the decisions of Reagan and Bush following the end of his own term of office? Is he not afforded the right to make political statements out of line with the concensus in Washington? Aren't all Americans rightfully able to take positions antithetical to those prevailing in the White House? What Carter said and did in several of Frum's examples may be unwise and even absurd, but they are hardly the actions of a traitor. If anything, Carter should be praised for his strength of mind in pursuing what he sees as a viable political career in offering counter-opinions or positions. There are millions of Americans who likely agree with many of his statements and actions. America is richer, safer, and freer for the tolerance afforded all its citizens, even those who shake hands with tyrants.

Chris Murphy - 10/17/2002

According to your correspondent, Mr Frum, criticising American foreign policy is "insulting" the country, and by accepting his nomination, Jimmy Carter is "unpatriotic".

Just goes to show us, really, what a distorted soul the author is.

I suspect the former President's greatest mistake was to adopt an open mind to world affairs. Instead of beating the drums, waving the flags, and threatening and bombing the life out of small, defenceless Third World countries, Carter attempted to include all the people's of the world as one human race.

Such thinking was clearly out of step with the United States' long history of violence and confrontation, and as President he was consistently undermined by the usual powerful suspects. It certainly was no accident that ultra-conservatism grew rapidly during the Carter presidency.

Today America has a simple man filled with hatred occupying the Oval Office. Not content to kill poor wretches in Texas jails, Bush has expanded his hatred and violence to encompass all of the world's wretches. Only a violent simpleton like Bush could mouth the words "either you are with us or against us".

How sad for America, then, that such a fine man as Jimmy Carter, who has worked so hard for peace and human dignity, who presents such a stark contrast to the present incumbent of his former office, and who has now finally been recognised as a great peace worker ... how sad that he can be, at that same moment, insulted and shunned by his fellow Americans.

America does not deserve Jimmy Carter.

Chris Murphy
17 Oct 2002

J. Merrett - 10/16/2002

Your protracted "neener, neener" is noted. Nice dodge. It is certain that hypocrisy is a big part of international relations. Thus, our presidents pretend that Mexico is both democratic and in some sense other than a source of low-wage workers a "partner" of the US. Our presidents smile and send congratulations when some expedient dictator-for-life is confirmed in his office by his imperial council. No news there.

But, if you can set aside your smugness for a moment, tell me: what possible excuse has private citizen Carter for his nonstop grip, grin and ingratiate tour through the world's political cesspools?

I don't blame him for being a pal to such characters as the Iranian Shah while he was president. But how can you explain his continued fawning over Noriega, Castro, the Kims, et al. after being liberated from the constraints of national interest? It seems to me that, absent considerations of national welfare, the only explanation is that he actually thinks that these despots represent a reasonable alternative to representative government which respects individual rights.

Take it as conceded that Ken Starr (and the rest of the monsters in your closet) are whatever bad things you say they are. The question is, why is private citizen Carter both an apologist for latter-day fascists and a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Frank Lee - 10/16/2002

If only I could join you in the cockpit when we bomb Oslo.
Obviously those devious Vikings aren't with "us" so they must be with The Terrorists. The fact that they once gave a peace prize to Henry Kissinger just shows how sneaky the Axis of Evil can be.

But maybe I could join in the levelling of the Red Cross headquarters in Switzerland, with a stop to hit the Olympics office in Lausanne, or sign up for the strafing of the port of Glasgow - which harbored that mendacious LIBERAL Adam Smith !
Or maybe I could just help out on the home front, shredding the Constitution perhaps ?

Can't let tradition or morality stand in our way. Gotta keep going while we're on a roll. Today the peace prizes, tommorrow the Greeks (those damn olive trees).

F. Lee

Mined Lass - 10/16/2002

Shame on Jimmy for flattering dictators (something no other American President has ever done) when he could have been bravely
dealing with Israeli arms brokers, Iranian terrorists, Central America thugs and international drug lords in order to help liberate the African nation of Nicaragua from Sandanistaism - that grave threat to the future of civilization. Why if only a farsighted and broad-minded American like Ken Starr had been special prosecutor in the '80s, instead of that ultra left wing liberal Democrat Walsh mucking things up, imagine what we could have done to rescue El Salvador, win one for the gipper and stop Bin Laden, Ben Hur, and the Cookie Monster dead in their tracks.

Bob Greene - 10/16/2002

Like all tried and true left wing loosers,Frum's critics could not respond to his arguments. His facts are unimpeachable and his logic irrefutable therefore the opponenets must resort to ad hominem attacks. Point out a factual error or a flaw in logic or just admit you can not stand it when a conservative shows one of your heroes to be mendacious and ineffective

Square 1 - 10/16/2002

Fortunately most Americans admire Jimmy Carter and are delighted that he won the Nobel Peace Prize and are not well-represented by the inane pot shots and back-and-forth raving all too common at HNN (which is coming to stand for Hopelessly Non-historical Nonsense).


W.Glowacki - 10/16/2002

Would you be kindly able to translate your text into English?

Then, maybe I'll get your point( I have already doubts that I will. anyway. )


J. Merrett - 10/16/2002

I have to ask what you make of Carter's infatuation with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua and his persistent habit of flattering revolting criminal dictators - even when, as a private citizen, he was not required by interests of state to do so.

A. R. Santoro - 10/16/2002

Yes, he sure does. As academics we ought to applaud a former President of the Republic who might have had an even higher "board score" than Woodrow Wilson!.

A. R. Santoro
Distinguished Professor

michael wreszin - 10/16/2002

I once wrote a five part review for the Washington Post - five diferent books. One was a vol by Frum with "Right" in the title. It was a book written in the language of William Grahm Sumner and about that dated. This column is a classic example of his extreme reactionary views. He only believes in warrior belicosity. By the way what died he think of Hoover"s loss. I suspect he reqretted it. Except he is just a child and writes mostly about things he has obviously little knowledge about. AFortunately most Americans adzmire Jimmy Carter and are delighted he won athe Nobel - buty then Farum liked the awards to Kissinger andz TR.....Why Frum has the rep he currently has is only another example of the dumbing down of the country.

Karen Waddell - 10/16/2002

Thank you Sam Adams for your well spoken comment on the Peace Prize article. When Jimmy Carter ran for president I was pregnant with my first and only child. Many of my friends chided me for bringing a child into this crazy world. I was fortunate enough to met the Carter's and felt instantly that he was not a normal politico - that he was a real statesman who might be able to save this crazy world that was teetering on the brink of disaster. Talking and diplomacy, mild manners and listening skills don't always get high scores with the press or people who are looking for high drama action films with lots of big bucks for the military industrial complex and their lobbyists. But for a new mom with a new baby I felt safe for the first time in as long as I could remember. I thank Jimmy Carter and his wife for all their years of dedication to this country and its place in the world.

Mark Healey - 10/16/2002

While open debate on this website is all to the good, tendentious war-mongering idiocy of this sort hardly seems likely to promote serious debate about the cause of peace in times of terror.

If we have learned anything from the rush-course in the recent history of Afghanistan over the past year, it is that the conventional notion of US inaction prior to the Soviet invasion is dead wrong. So Frum may mock Carter's protestations of innocence after the invasion, but he ignores all the evidence that he was far from caught unaware.

Of course, the notion that Jeanne Kirkpatrick could provide Carter with a lesson in democracy suggests the ideologically driven nature of this piece. Following Frum's logic, why not award Nobel Peace Prize honors to the directors of the School of the Americas, who have certainly done far more to ensure "peace" -- the peace of the cemetery-- across Latin America than any leading statesman.

Sam Adams - 10/16/2002

This pitiful and historically-warped pile of sour grapes is an insult to any truly patriotic American. Those of us who are not stooges for Ariel Sharon or apologists for Hamas can be proud of our country's past efforts at promoting peace between the hot-headed fanatics in the Mideast who would blow up the rest of the world just to satisfy their own inflated egos, and proud that the Nobel Peace Prize committee still recognizes those past efforts despite the foolish and short-sighted antics of the U.S. federal government in recent months.