Or, maybe because he acknowledged that the US actually didn't have a right to that territory. If I recall my history of that era correctly, the proposed canal area was in Colombia. When Colombia didn't give us the terms we wanted, we sponsored the Panama independence movement. After they were independent, we negotiated with a representative of the government of Panama who was an American citizen. He gave the US extremely good terms, and when the government balked, we told them that they either accepted the terms, or that there would be a new government.
Are you suggesting that it was best for the United States to hold onto this vestige of colonialism forever? Its not as though we were to make Panama the 51st state, we just owned part of Panama. Dan M. Actually, Dan, you vastly underrate the illegality of what the US did in Panama. Without going through the details, two comments made by the Attorney General at the time suffice to explain it. When TR began to defend the legality of his actions, the AG commented, "Please, Mr. President, let us not diminish such extraordinary actions with any hint of legality." When he continued with an extended justification, the AG told him "Congratulations, Mr. President, you have successfully defended yourself against the charge of seduction by proving yourself guilty of rape." About the only standard by which you can even begin to defend what happened is that we behaved vastly better in such a situation than even the British would have, much less the French or Germans. Note that in the equivalent situation - the Suez canal - the British ended up ruling Egypt for, I believe, almost a century. I'm _suggesting_ that Jimmy Carter should never have been allowed anywhere near any place where he could make decisions. The entire country of Panama was a vestige of colonialism. On the other hand, the elimination of malaria in Panama, and the _entire canal_ are _also_ vestiges of American colonialism. Jimmy gave away the store. While I don't object to giving the Panamanians the middle of their country back, he absolutely should have ensured that we had a veto over who got to run the Canal. It was our engineers, our money, our equipment, and our efforts that built that thing. We certainly should have a say in what happens to it. As it is the Canal is now managed by a company controlled by an enemy of the United States. Carter probably doesn't think of that as a problem, but I do. Of course, this is the same Jimmy Carter who: Described Kim il Sung as "vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about his country." Given that Kim shot everyone else who wanted to be in charge of the decisions about his country, this is perhaps not terribly surprising. Of course, Jimmy also said that in North Korea the people were "friendly and open" and that Pyonyang is a "bustling city" where customers "pack the department stores" that were like "the Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia." This in a country whose economy is so disfunctional people are eating grass to survive. This is the Jimmy Carter who said that Marshall Tito was "a man who believes in human rights" and a "great and courageous leader who has led his people and protected their freedom for 40 years." He told Nicolae Ceaucescu "Our goals are the same . . . We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people." He told the Stalinist Edward Gierek during the Cold War "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland." All of this from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20020515.shtml. I know that since Goldberg is a conservative everything he says will automatically be dismissed, but you should know that he cribbed all of this from a 1994 article in The New Republic which I, unfortunately, can't find online. Worse than any of this, actually, is the fact that in 1990, when Bush was trying to get a UN Resolution supporting American action in the Gulf War, Carter wrote a letter to all of the Security Council powers asking them to _vote against the resolution sponsored by the United States._ I pretty much lost all respect for the man as soon as I heard about that. You have occasionally condemned Reagan for praising various dictators, Dan. With justice, in my opinion, btw. Not in his wildest dreams did Reagan say anything as bad as the pathetic praise that Carter has continually ladled out to almost every bloody-handed dictator on the planet as part of his continuing and pathetic quest for the Nobel Peace Prize. As Buckley is fond of saying, "Where's the outrage?" Gautam
