United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Former President Jimmy Carter has been diagnosed with liver cancer that has spread to 'other parts of his body'
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... y-Carter-diagnosed-cancer.html
Published: Aug 12, 2015
Author: Associated Press and Ashley Collman and
Post Date: 2015-08-12 18:51:02 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3788
Comments: 51
Former President Jimmy Carter has been diagnosed with cancer. The 90-year-old politician announced made the heartbreaking announcement on Wednesday, just weeks after having a small mass removed from his liver. He said: 'Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body. I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare.' The statement released Wednesday makes clear that Carter's cancer is widely spread, but not where it originated. Since leaving office in 1981, he as remained active in both American and international politics, but recent health issues has forced his overseas trips to be cut short. In May he left Guyana early and flew home to Atlanta after feeling unwell. Scroll down for video Former President Jimmy Carter, 90, announced on Wednesday that he is battling cancer. Pictured above attending an event in Philadelphia last month Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, says 'Our thoughts and prayers go out to President Carter.' Lichtenfeld says, 'There's a lot we don't know,' but the first task likely will be determining where the cancer originated, as that can help determine what treatment he may be eligible for. 'Sometimes the primary site can't be determined, so genetic analysis of the tumor might be done to see what mutations are driving it and what drugs might target those mutations. He adds, 'Given the president's age, any treatments, their potential and their impacts, will undoubtedly be discussed carefully with him and his family.' President Obama released a statement supporting Carter, adding that America is 'rooting' for him. He said: 'Michelle and I send our best wishes to President Carter for a fast and full recovery. Our thoughts and prayers are with Rosalynn and the entire Carter family as they face this challenge with the same grace and determination they have shown so many times before. 'Jimmy, you're as resilient as they come, and along with the rest of America, we are rooting for you.' The liver is often a place where cancer spreads and less commonly is the primary source of it. It said further information will be provided when more facts are known, 'possibly next week.' Carter announced on August 3 that he had surgery to remove a small mass from his liver. He was the nation's 39th president, after beating incumbent Gerald Ford, and served for just one term between 1977 and 1981. He was succeeded by Ronald Reagan. The son of a peanut farmer, he grew up in a house with no electricity of plumbing in Plains, Georgia. He began the tradition of presidents walking down Pennsylvania Avenue when he jumped out of his car during his inauguration parade. After leaving the White House, he founded the center in Atlanta in 1982 to promote health care, democracy and other issues globally. Carter, a Democrat, was the nation's 39th president and only served one term before losing his office. He was succeded by Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Pictured above in 1976 He has remained active for the center in recent years, making public appearances at its headquarters in Atlanta and traveling overseas. Pictured above in 1978 Carter (right) is the second-oldest living president behind 91-year-old George H.W. Bush (left), who was recently hospitalized himself after breaking a bone in his neck during a fall. George W. Bush, 69 (center) and Bill Clinton, 68 (second from left), are the other two living former presidents. They are pictured with current President Obama (second from right) in 2009 Carter signs his book A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety' at Barnes & Noble on 5th avenue in New York in July He has remained active for the center in recent years, making public appearances at its headquarters in Atlanta and traveling overseas including a May election observation visit to Guyana cut short when Carter developed a bad cold. In 2002, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work 'to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development' through The Carter Center. Carter Center spokeswoman Deanna Congileo called the surgery earlier this month 'elective' and said Carter's 'prognosis is excellent' for a full recovery. She declined to answer further questions at the time. Meanwhile, Carter's grandson Jason Carter, a former member of the Georgia senate, issued a statement on Twitter thanking everyone for their support. Carter is the second-oldest living president behind 91-year-old George H.W. Bush, who was recently hospitalized himself after breaking a bone in his neck during a fall. George W. Bush, 69 and Bill Clinton, 68, are the other two living former presidents. Carter and his wife Rosalynn have four children together: John William, James Earl, Donnel Jeffery and Amy. Carter's grandson, former Georgia Senator Jason Carter, issued a statement on Twitter, saying he was thankful for all the support 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#14. To: cranky (#0)
Bernice King. Big whoop. She characterized peanut as a "Servant-Leader"? Jimmah Carter?? OF WHAT?? WHO?? Allah? The Devil?? The highlight of his career was bringing Begin and Sadat together...PERIOD. And the wheels fell off afterward. He became a HUGE shill for militant, radical Islam; A best pal of the murderous Arafat. Carter conspired with radical Islam to destroy Israel. These points aren't even debatable. The lowlights were many. He nearly cratered the US military prestige, and American power, the US economy. He gave away the Panama Canal -- a potential tactical disaster during what was still the Cold War. Carter was a flaming Commie.
Besides the crap he dumped in the middle east, that was always a biggie with me!! And the sad part is the Repukes could have stopped it. But did they? Nope,nada, didn't even raise an objection. That clearly showed both sides are controlled by the corporatist, globalist, NWO, CFR crowd. They should all be hanging from light posts
At the time I got out of the Navy in 1978, I took a job in Oklahoma to be near my parents. I got a very early lesson in political realities (those same political realities are on display daily here on LF here 37 years later). The specific reality I am referring to is the assertion that there is but one party - the ruling party - and it has two branches. In the 60s and the 70s, some states like Oklahoma were in transition from being reliably D to reliably R. (they had been reliably yellow dog D, but as the social issues came to the forefront, people started falling away from democrat party hedonism) Henry Bellmon had been elected senator from OK in the 60s as an R. His term was up in 1978 and he had declared he was not running for another 6 years - he was retiring. Here's where my "lesson" comes in: The ruling party decided the Panama Canal Treaty was going to be a reality. They needed votes in the Senate. And even though Bellmon represented a conservative state for whom the Treaty was anathema, his vote was needed to pass the Treaty. (just as an aside, the difficulty the Ruling Class had in passing this is why they just bypass the treaty process now and go directly to decrees from the Emperor). So Bellmon voted yes (against the wishes of his constituents, but knowing he'd never have to face them again). The lesson? Be it unpopular treaties, NAFTA, GATT, or Zero-Care - what the Ruling Class wants, the Ruling Class gets.
Wow, an old timer debate about the Panama Canal. The canal was a liability for the USA of that era both in diplomacy and in actual dollar amounts. The fears of what would happen if the USA gave Panama control of the canal never materialized.
My parents went through The Great Depression. When they talked about it, they accused me of not understanding. They were right. I did not go through it, so I could not understand it in the same way they did. Those of us who came of age during the "Cold War" era have an understanding of it that is different from those who did not. At the time the PCT was proposed, we were in the midst of the cold war. Given that, the treaty was viewed as a concession and a giveaway. Perhaps you see it differently because you did not go through it, plus you have the benefit of history? For instance, no one could have foreseen at the time the fall of the Berlin wall in '89 or the USSR collapse a couple years later. In other words, the world's political dynamic changed drastically in ways that were not predicted. We're still sorting it out today. Now - regarding "old timers." How you choose to present yourself on this anonymous discussion board is completely up to you. You can choose to be funny; irrelevent; cynical; serious; or whatever. Or you can simply be an ass. Your choice.
It is true a large segment of the American population had become deranged with paranoia over the Cold War and made them fight stupid wars like in Vietnam for some imagined Domino effect. As for many people not foreseeing the fall of communism - that is a lie. Anyone who was not paranoid or not making money from the Cold War govt programs knew it would happen soon. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a series of articles and interviews argued in January 1975 that the Soviet Union was so weak economically, and so divided ethnically, that it could not long survive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union In the mid 1960s Panama was gripped with violence over the Canal - this was making America unpopular in Latin America but especially in Panama. The fear that the Panamanians would close the canal to the American military was the biggest fear mentioned if I recall my readings. The USA negotiated the right to intervene and other national security concerns were incorporated into the treaty. In fact, the biggest threat to the Panama Canal came not from the left wing but from a right wing dictator the CIA had installed. In any case, the canal is now expanding to allow even larger ships to pass through and is in better shape than when America ran it as a colony.
Moynihan was wrong. The Soviet Union had many positive aspects - no starvation, universal housing, universal medical care, universal education of a high quality, universal employment, and on the leisure side, a level of personal sexual freedom (particularly regarding abortion)(I write from the viewpoint of a nonbeliever, as most Russians were and are), leisure time and available sporting and outdoors activities, and a buttonhole lower, really cheap tobacco and alcohol and working class attitudes about them, that were all at levels exceeding America. I do not speak of the QUALITY of housing or the DELECTABILITY of the food, or the meaningfulness of the jobs, merely their universality. The people of the Soviet Union were not itching to throw all of that away. It was a successful, sustainable socio-economic structure, on its own theological terms, and it could have survived and flourished, slowly and steadily, over time. But for it to survive, the Soviet leaders - specifically Leonid Breshnev - had to become a realist about military force. The Soviets were first in space, but they never grasped the complete futility of amassing an overwhelming conventional army, air force and a massive navy they could never use other than in defense because of nuclear weapons. The Soviets had a massive nuclear arsenal. They were secure from invasion, and any reasonable Soviet strategist knew that. It was precisely BECAUSE the Soviets knew that the USA and NATO would never attack them that they felt emboldened to waste blood and treasure on imperial meddling. Economic analysis shows that the Soviet Economy grew at an average pace of 4.9% annually in the 1960s, dropping to 3% in the first half of the '70's, to 1.9% in the second half. It was down to 1.8% in the first term of Reagan, and rose back to 2.7% in Reagan's second term. Until the 1980s, Soviet capital productivity was always positive: the USSR was a growing economy until Reagan. Then in the 1980s, until the Reykjavic Pact and its aftermath, the Soviet capital productivity severely contracted: the Soviets were eating their capital seed-corn, burning it up in an arms race with the USA. After Reykjavic, this began to recover. Gorbachev's glasnost aimed at political openness, but what the Soviet Union always needed is what China has done far more successfully to date - to NOT focus the economy on a conventional arms buildup. Reagan's calculation was correct: the mindset of the Soviet leaders - old, stubborn - was endlessly focused on preparing for perpetual war. By engaging in a US buildup, and operating all around the USSR, and pressing on their external imperial efforts, Reagan played Soviet paranoia like a Stradivarius. However, the Soviet error: to spend themselves to collapse in an arms race, was an unforced error. An intelligent strategist would have looked at 10,000 nuclear weapons and said "The world combined could never attack us. If the Americans want to bankrupt themselves, we will respond by CUTTING forces." Glasnost should not have been directed at freeing up political speech. It should have been aimed at transitioning the Soviet economy away from massive military building into improving Soviet standards of living, universally, across the board, in that egalitarian way that First Century Christians would love and moderns hate and fear. And it needed to start earlier. Once the Vietnam War was over and America was exhausted and unwilling to participate in global adventures, the Soviets had their opportunity to also draw back, draw down, and free up their economy for domestic improvement. By this I do not mean a bunch of frivolous consumer spending. I mean the basics: agriculture: Soviets were importing wheat - they have more land than anybody else. Infrastructure: to get goods and people around. Housing - everybody has shelter, now let's improve it generally so that it is more modern, more comfortable. The Soviets had the kind of political control, and acquiescence of their population, to be able to do that. If they wanted to "prove their model" overseas, they could extend the same program to the rest of the Warsaw Pact, and had they done that, there would have been far less eagerness for rebellion. The Americans were not, in fact, ever pressing on the USSR in a way they truly threatened their national integrity after 1956. Had the Soviet leader - he did not need a coalition, he could have decided to move in this way, just as Gorbachev DID move, when he decided to - been sensible and practical, the USSR would have become a comfortable place. It still would not have been politically free, but people would have had comfortable lives and interesting sex lives and sports, and would have remained as patriotic as Russians always have been. Gorbachev came too late, probably, but perhaps even he could have turned it around. However, he turned to political issues, such as free speech (with many limits) and political idealism, instead of practical bread and butter issues. At any point until the late 80's, had the Soviets slashed their military, pulled out of their overseas adventures, and put that money into agriculture, housing, and converting industry from defense to consumer basics back home, they would have survived and prospered and been a competitive model - a sort of gigantic Finland. But that's not what they did. Instead, they behaved just like their American rivals, but on an economic base on a third of the size. So they exhausted themselves and failed. We didn't learn from their failure. We are making exactly the same unforced error as the Soviet Union, because we too are fixated on inappropriate baubles abroad and have not shored up our economy at home. Our economy being three times larger, it is taking us much longer to fail, but failing we are, just as the USSR did, for just the same reasons. Why don't we see it? Because most of each are little Brezhnevs: we see US aircraft carriers and battle tanks and warplanes and we do not think "these things are addictive drugs that are killing us slowly". We think "Cool!", and "How mighty we are!" But these displays of power dilute our power, and wear us out. Ours, as the USSR's before, as the English and French before them, as the Spanish before them, as the Romans before them. We have the capacity to learn, but we are remarkably resilient oo learning. Brezhnev likes his toys, and most of us have a little Brezhnev in us.
Very astute
Cpacibo.
There are no replies to Comment # 41. End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#17. To: Liberator (#14)
" He gave away the Panama Canal "
#19. To: Stoner, Liberator (#17)
" He gave away the Panama Canal "
#23. To: Rufus T Firefly, Stoner, Liberator (#19)
The ruling party decided the Panama Canal Treaty was going to be a reality. They needed votes in the Senate.
#25. To: Pericles (#23)
(Edited)
Wow, an old timer debate about the Panama Canal.
#26. To: Rufus T Firefly (#25)
(Edited)
At the time the PCT was proposed, we were in the midst of the cold war. Given that, the treaty was viewed as a concession and a giveaway.
#32. To: Pericles (#26)
U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a series of articles and interviews argued in January 1975 that the Soviet Union was so weak economically, and so divided ethnically, that it could not long survive.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
#41. To: A Pole (#40)
Replies to Comment # 41.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]