How does the President have the authority to have our nation boycott the Olympics anyway? He doesn't pass laws, Congress does.
He's not a dictator, he can't tell every person or organization in the country what to do. How exactly did this work?
How does the President have the authority to have our nation boycott the Olympics anyway? He doesn't pass laws, Congress does.
He's not a dictator, he can't tell every person or organization in the country what to do. How exactly did this work?
Has anybody yet observed the grotesque anomaly that Carter boycotted the Olympics because the Russians ‘invaded’ Afghanistan - and the USA did exactly the same 32 years later!
Well, not exactly the same.
The Russians invaded to support a government that tried to bring some 20th century civilisation to the country - they allowed men to shave! banned the burqa, banned forced marriages and child brides. Widespread literacy programmes were set up and, for instance, women made up 40% of the doctors and 60% of the teachers at the University of Kabul. Western dress was common in the cities, and women enjoyed freedom from having to cover their faces with veils. It also carried out an ambitious land reform waiving farmers' debts countrywide and abolishing usury.
Of course this freedom went against all the hide bound, traditions of militant jihadists and the powerful landowners - and with American support, they fought back.
The government in power now, that the US support, is little different in religious doctrine to the Taliban one the US displaced - as far as corruption is concerned, they’re streets ahead.
Not for nothing is the president’s brother known as the ‘Al Capone’ of Kandahar.
Lucky for the USA these days, with her recent record of invading all over the place - Olympic boycotts became seen as an unacceptable method of making political capital.
very good post.
The boycott was a failure. Carter didn't get enough countries to particpate to make a real impact.
And didn't Carter promise an alternate competition that he never delievered?
And athletes felt like they were shat upon when they thought they would be able to discuss the boycott with the adminstration and then told to sit down and shut up and take it up the ass. I don't blame Scott and other athletes for being upset.
Politicians (and terrorists like the Palestinians who murdered Israeli athletes) should avoid using the Olympics as an instrument at the detriment of the athletes who trained their entire lives for the Olympics. The Olympics are supposed to be about bringing the people from around the world together for a short period and honor excellence.
Well, he did prevent everyone from going. You maybe half right. He's no dictator, just a dic(k).
The first post on this thread is either a troll or a complete idiot.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Anyway onto more important mattters - any more pb's?
No - training has been a nightmare for six weeks now. Foot injuries and so forth! I'm not going to see a PB for a couple of months now. I'd like to get 10km and HM PBs in the Autumn and be tearing it up from October in XC, thanks!
Rest a bit and stay off the roads!
The analogy of Moscow in '80 to Berlin in '36 doesn't hold. Germans hadn't invaded anyone by '36.
It was classless to ever say anything good about Bush or to vote for him. Telling the truth about what that worthless piece of humanity did to this country was a real service. All you Bush lovers meanwhile condemn Obama and Clinton, who did nothing but good for this country and leave it in far better condition than the Bushies.
oh, and here's for the censorship on this board. I put up an anti-Bush thread at 6:22 (in Paris). It's gone already.
Prozac Nation wrote:
Why was Carter such a bad president?
I wonder how many of the people offering quick&easy dismissals of Carter's Presidency here were alive and of voting age during that time? If you're in your teens, 20s, 30s, or 40s, and haven't spent some time reading up--enough to offer an informed opinion, rather than a recycled rant from Sean Hannity--then, with all due respect, shut up.
Carter's Presidency ended badly, with Time and Newsweek coverphotos of the bodies of charred US special ops in a downed helicopter: an Iran hostage rescue mission gone terribly wrong. That sunk him.
But that needs to be counterbalanced by an accurate appraisal of what he brought INTO his Presidency, which helps explain why he was elected.
Please remember that the two Republican Presidents who preceded him included: 1) Nixon, whose lawbreaking while in office shamed the Presidency and precipitated a Constitutional crisis; and 2) Gerald Ford, a third-rate talent who pardoned Nixon and was the laughingstock of America for his dim wits and inability to, as the saying went, walk and chew gum at the same time.
Before you mock Carter, please remember Watergate and Ford. Ford's brief Presidency was not exactly epochal; Nixon's was, but that is not a good thing.
Carter was elected because he had integrity (in respect to Nixon) and brains (in respect to Ford). He was a white Southern governor, an avowed anti-racist during a moment when the country was just beginning to get over the exhaustion bred by the public wrangling and violence of the Civil Rights years. He enjoyed black as well as white support.
The Allman Brothers Band played his inauguration. If for no other reason, Carter should get your respect for that.
Carter was a nuclear engineer, and my memory is that his experience in that field helped him parry the Soviets to a draw.
Carter was a uniter and healer, not a polarizer. He wasn't a particularly agile politician; he wasn't a natural politician, really. I view him as the right guy for 1976--the Bicentennial Year--but undone to some extent by the movement of history.
Not a great President, but by no means the worst President. It might be argued that the two Republican Presidents who directly preceded him were far worse.
And yes: I know that Nixon achieved many things. But he had a fatal flaw and he shamed himself and the nation. He broke laws and violated his oath of office. He goes down as one of the worst.
whoa whoa whoa wrote:
Ask anyone who qualified for the 1980 Olympics. They ALL say the same thing - Carter's decision was idiotic. It has nothing to do with politics -- Carter's decision is universally laughed at.
Jimmy Carter's decision to boycott Moscow cost many dedicated, devoted, and talented athletes the opportunity to participate in the most important competition in the world. Winning a gold, IN MOSCOW, IN 1980, would have been incredible. That Carter destroyed the hopes and dreams of so many athletes in the name of stupid symbolic protest is just one of the many reasons Jimmy Carter is viewed as a joke of a president.
Steve Scott has every right to be pissed.
True dat. Let's see if the OP can name *any* 1980 US Olympic athlete who rejoiced at Carter's decision. Anyone? Anyone?
Osama BIN & Hillary 2012! Thats should do it for all you
Wack Job liberals! 1860 is coming our way all over again.
Scott Reid wrote:
I would like to make a couple points about Steve Scott. I have no idea what his politics are but I feel fairly confident that "Wack Job OC Conservative" would not be accurate. For starters he lives in San Diego County. I don't want to speak for Steve but in my interview with him the feelings he has for Carter are pretty clearly based on how the administration really didn't know what they were doing with the boycott and then used the athletes during Washington trip as political pawns.
The second point which I think is clear in the story Steve readily admits he had to other chances at the Olympics and was unable to make the most of them. In interviewing him what seemed to upset him the most was how people like Don Paige and Virgin and others, either never got another chance (Paige) or went to later Games past their prime (Virgin). He also recalled all the threats and abuse people who spoke out about the boycott like Francie Larrieu and Dwight Stones had to deal with.
To call Steve a whiner is way off base. He is very candid about the politics of the boycott, his own Olympic disappointments and his feelings about what people like Don Paige were denied
Scott Reid, didn't the USA AAU add to Steve Scott's pain by even staging the infamous "trials to nowhere"?
Clearly by June 1980 the US was not going to Moscow, so why even stage a trials? That is what made the USA laughable in the eyes of the world - that they would hold a trials and name a team to an event they were not going to participate in.
Ridiculous anyone????????
I'm not sure that the OP claimed any US athletes supported the boycott. I, however, did say that I remember some athletes saying they supported Carter's move and I'm working on coming up with some names. Note, however, that nobody but you said "rejoiced." Also note that I thought the boycott was a really, really stupid idea.
true dat wrote:
True dat. Let's see if the OP can name *any* 1980 US Olympic athlete who rejoiced at Carter's decision. Anyone? Anyone?
“There are so many things that go on behind the scenes and so many conversations that we as citizens are not aware of. The trust we place in our president, we have to honor and follow his judgment. Whatever decision he made I still support to this day.” —Isiah Thomas, Basketball. Quoted in 2010
carter brings the pain wrote:
How does the President have the authority to have our nation boycott the Olympics anyway? He doesn't pass laws, Congress does.
He's not a dictator, he can't tell every person or organization in the country what to do. How exactly did this work?
He doesn't. Margaret Thatcher tried the same thing in the UK and their Olympic Comittee sent their team anyway. The USOC caved in in 1980.
I don't think that's accurate. Thatcher knew the British population was desperately eager to see Coe vs. Ovett and to try to force a boycott would be hugely unpopular. She said that she "officially" supported the boycott and wanted the athletes to follow suit but given the personal sacrifice involved she would understand if they decided to go.
HRE wrote:
carter brings the pain wrote:How does the President have the authority to have our nation boycott the Olympics anyway? He doesn't pass laws, Congress does.
He's not a dictator, he can't tell every person or organization in the country what to do. How exactly did this work?
He doesn't. Margaret Thatcher tried the same thing in the UK and their Olympic Comittee sent their team anyway. The USOC caved in in 1980.
...I will totally agree with this post.
Carter screwed numerous lives and for what?
How ironic then, years later this very country invades Afghanistan to no doubt suffer the very same loss the USSR did.
Remember, this is America and last time I checked Steve Scott still has the freedom of speech...just like the rest of us!
Help keep politics out of sports, Please!!!
The Olympics have always been political. Anybody working on the notion that they aren't, never were, etc. and are nothing but a celebration of individual athletic achievement is kidding themselves. The IOC has made its own statements by banning countries from participating in the Olympics (South Africa and Afghanistan), mainly for discriminatory policies (USA could have been banned in the past for the same reasons). While the IOC's reasons may have been good ones, one could argue that those countries' athletes have nothing to do with setting policy, so why punish them individually. Not political? Why do 'countries' send teams... why not allow athletes with proper qualifying marks in all sports to attend and enter as individuals. Don't forget to consider all the questionable judging and officiating in the history of the Olympics (USA v. USSR basketball; 1980 triple jump competition; gymnastics, ice skating, etc.). The games have always been political, so Carter's decision to boycott them, bad or good, was not out of sorts with the history of the Games.
As far as whether the decision was a good one or a bad one, that's up for debate. But if Scott thinks Carter's decision to boycott the 1980 Olympics trumps all the other good Carter has done in the world, then his priorities are screwed up. He can be mad at him all he wants, but to get sick when he hears about his Nobel Peace Prize, is flat ridiculous. The one has nothing to do with the other. One thing I believe.... the outcomes of the 1980, 1984 and 1988 1500 Olympic finals would have been the same if Scott had run in 1980. It's awfully presumptuous on Scott's part to even imply that they wouldn't have been.