OT: Jimmy Carter Speaks
Little Jimmy Olsen
By Jimmy Carter
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 14 November 2005
In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of
radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused
by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and
social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.
Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with
truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect,
state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.
At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from
the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed
long-standing global agreements - including agreements on nuclear arms,
control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority
unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of
"preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally
to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious
differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and
refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top US leaders
to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe
that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be
internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and
America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration
of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of
alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the
threat of terrorism.
Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of
national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on
the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire
of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice,
and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of
casualties.
Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we
now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some
extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.
Of even greater concern is that the US has repudiated the Geneva accords
and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and
secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary
rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice
president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in US custody.
Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their
further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to
retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost
all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We
have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America
also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against
nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment
of weapons in space.
Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of
government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and
other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued
lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of
our nation's global environmental policies.
Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented
favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of
Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the
minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).
I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of
worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly
intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.
As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving
champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal
point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to
international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment.
We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in
need.
It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our
country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common
commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values
that we have espoused during the last 230 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Jimmy Carter, The Los Angeles Times and Truth.org.
LJO
JC
there were 23% interest rates, no one could buy a home, people lined up
for gas, we were held hostage by a 4th rate dictator in a 3rd rate
country, we were losing the Cold War to the Communists, we coddled
left-wing dictators, property values plummeted for the first time since
the 1930s, and we were all said to be suffering from a "malaise." Yep,
that would be the good old days -- the Jimmy Carter presidency.
Little Jimmy Olsen
"JC" <goodby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132161261.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
He was certainly no Nixon, Ford or Bush. And he did not use the word
"malaise" in that famous speech. But he was correct in his description of
the mood of the country. Here is what he actually said:
Good evening.
This is a special night for me. Exactly 3 years ago, on July 15, 1976, I
accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United
States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who
feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and
his wisdom from you.
During the past 3 years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national
concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the Government, our Nation's
economy, and issues of war and especially peace. But over those years the
subjects of the speeches, the talks, and the press conferences have become
increasingly narrow, focused more and more on what the isolated world of
Washington thinks is important. Gradually, you've heard more and more about
what the Government thinks or what the Government should be doing and less
and less about our Nation's hopes, our dreams, and our vision of the future.
Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important
subject -- energy. For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of
the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the
Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same
question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not
been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?
It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper
than gasoline lines of energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or
recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help.
So, I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.
I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society
business and labor, teachers and preachers, Governors, mayors, and private
citizens. And then I left Camp David to listen to other Americans, men and
women like you. It has been an extraordinary 10 days, and I want to share
with you what I've heard. First of all, I got a lot of personal advice. Let
me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down.
This from a southern Governor: "Mr. President, you are not leading this
Nation -- you're just managing the Government."
"You don't see the people enough any more."
"Some of your Cabinet members don't seem loyal. There is not enough
discipline among your disciples."
"Don't talk to us about politics or the mechanics of government, but about
an understanding of our common good."
"Mr. President, we're in trouble. Talk to us about blood and sweat and
tears."
"If you lead, Mr. President, we will follow."
Many people talked about themselves and about the condition of our Nation.
This from a young woman in Pennsylvania: "I feel so far from government. I
feel like ordinary people are excluded from political power."
And this from a young Chicano: "Some of us have suffered from recession all
our lives."
"Some people have wasted energy, but others haven't had anything to waste."
And this from a religious leader: "No material shortage can touch the
important things like God's love for us or our love for one another."
And I like this one particularly from a black woman who happens to be the
mayor of a small Mississippi town: "The big-shots are not the only ones who
are important. Remember, you can't sell anything on Wall Street unless
someone digs it up somewhere else first."
This kind of summarized a lot of other statements: "Mr. President, we are
confronted with a moral and a spiritual crisis."
Several of our discussions were on energy, and I have a notebook full of
comments and advice. I'll read just a few.
"We can't go on consuming 40 percent more energy than we produce. When we
import oil we are also importing inflation plus unemployment."
"We've got to use what we have. The Middle East has only 5 percent of the
world's energy, but the United States has 24 percent."
And this is one of the most vivid statements: "Our neck is stretched over
the fence and OPEC has a knife."
"There will be other cartels and other shortages. American wisdom and
courage right now can set a path to follow in the future."
This was a good one: "Be bold, Mr. President. We may make mistakes, but we
are ready to experiment."
And this one from a labor leader got to the heart of it: "The real issue is
freedom. We must deal with the energy problem on a war footing."
And the last that I'll read: "When we enter the moral equivalent of war, Mr.
President, don't issue us BB guns."
These 10 days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the
wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding
concerns about our Nation's underlying problems.
I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation
can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign
promises into law -- and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after
listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the
legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to
speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or
inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to
American democracy.
I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do
not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace
tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military
might.
The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of
confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and
spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt
about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for
our Nation.
The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the
social and the political fabric of America.
The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some
romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth
of July. It is the idea which founded our Nation and has guided our
development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything
else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and
the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our
course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed
in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our
children would be better than our own.
Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the
ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our
democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress
has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always
believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called
democracy, involved in the search for freedom, and that belief has always
strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in
the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what
one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and
consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned
that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have
no confidence or purpose.
The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For
the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people
believe that the next 5 years will be worse than the past 5 years.
Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American
workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for
the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.
As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches
and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a
message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a
warning.
These changes did not happen overnight. They've come upon us gradually over
the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.
We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the
murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We
were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were
always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the
Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Water gate.
We remember when the phrase "sound as a dollar" was an expression of
absolute dependability, until 10 years of inflation began to shrink our
dollar and our savings. We believed that our Nation's re sources were
limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign
oil.
These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed.
Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal
Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life.
Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our
Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest
answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and
evasiveness and politics as usual.
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a
system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress
twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and
powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the
last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You
often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little
sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and
without friends.
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like, and
neither do I. What can we do?
First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We
simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern
ourselves, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and
that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a
true challenge of this generation of Americans.
One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: "We've got to
stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing
and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House,
but from every house in America."
We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We
can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived
threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now. Our
fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society
during the Great Depression, who fought world wars, and who carved out a new
charter of peace for the world.
We ourselves and the same Americans who just 10 years ago put a man on the
Moon. We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of
human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the war
on the energy problem and in that process rebuild the unity and confidence
of America.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One
is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation
and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right
to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of
constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.
It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the
promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and
the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our
Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin
to solve our energy problem.
Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this Nation, and
it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of
energy we can win for our Nation a new confidence, and we can seize control
again of our common destiny.
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy
independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign
countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive
dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous tool on our economy and
our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made
millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause
of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This
intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence
and the very security of our Nation.
The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger
to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the
United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more
foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to
our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own
conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil
will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move
through the 1980's, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our
dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a
saving of over 4 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my Presidential
authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and
1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil
more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports
even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive
peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our Nation's history to
develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil
shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the
Sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort
to replace 2 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The
corporation will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially
want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest
directly in America's energy security.
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II,
so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy
war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the
creation of this Nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the
crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year
2000.
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must
enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent.
Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for
foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds
will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.
Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law,
that our Nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50
percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal,
our most abundant energy source.
Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of
achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization
board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the
responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the
endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.
We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a
refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.
Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every State,
county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This
effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives
at a cost you can afford.
I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for
standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing
tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public
transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your
Nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public
transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to
obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of
energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you
it is an act of patriotism.
Our Nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to
needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of
conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless
and immediate way of rebuilding our Nation's strength. Every gallon of oil
each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom,
more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.
So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis
of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our
confidence in the future, and give our Nation and all of us individually a
new sense of purpose.
You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in
our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any
nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have
the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe
that we have the national will to win this war.
I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not
promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the
only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead
our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure
honesty. And above all, I will act.
We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but
there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is
simply no way to avoid sacrifice.
Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to
explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our
energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation's deeper
problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can
strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.
I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You
can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980's. I will listen and I
will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made 3 years ago,
and I intend to keep them.
Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend
until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science.
But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's
people, America's values, and America's confidence.
I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our
people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for
an energy-secure nation.
In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone.
Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good
about our country. With God's help and for the sake of our Nation, it is
time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a
rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we
cannot fail.
Thank you and good night.
and...@comcast.net
The 'enhanced' tapes will be reviewed by Scooter & Karl just as soon as
the two mousketeers are released on parole.
Heck of a job, JC.
St. André of the Barricades
"JC" <goodby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132161261.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
J S
<<I suppose the "real America" that Jimmy Carter prefers
I'd trade places with those days in a heartbeat.
~ Roger
REG
that one term was enough. He's an interesting man because he's not really
much on anyone's "side", I don't think, but notwithstanding this article, he
could never really lead or communicate what he was "for". He's fairly
complex (he's recently come out very strongly against abortion) and he is a
born again Christian. One has the feeling that whomever is in charge, he's
got lots of resentment - not quite a Nihilist, he's better at saying what's
wrong than how to make it right.
"Little Jimmy Olsen" <seniorcu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:73Jef.1114$N45...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
DLU
> Carter was never really cut out to be President, and the voters were clear
> that one term was enough. He's an interesting man because he's not really
> much on anyone's "side", I don't think, but notwithstanding this article, he
> could never really lead or communicate what he was "for". He's fairly
> complex (he's recently come out very strongly against abortion) and he is a
> born again Christian. One has the feeling that whomever is in charge, he's
> got lots of resentment - not quite a Nihilist, he's better at saying what's
> wrong than how to make it right.
>
president because he wanted power or to change the social order. He ran
because he thought he could make this a better country.
Although he is a born again christian, he did not try to make everyone
who is not feel inferior, or to push his religion on everyone else.
He tried to lead by example. His actions with habitat for Humanity
speak far more than simple words.
Unfortunately for him, he was caught up in two things. The first was a
high inflation rate. He did not have the expertise to prevent that.
The cause actually was a continuation of policies for the Nixon
administration. The second was the Iranian hostage and invasion of the
U.S. embassy. The public felt he did not respond in a proper manner.
At the time they would have supported an armed response. However the
prisoners probably would have died if that had been tried.
The crises however had its roots in the Eisenhower administration when
Kermit Roosevelt was sent by the CIA to destabilize the democratically
elected president, Mohammed Mossedah, at the request of the British
government, acting for the seven sisters.
Carter is a populist.
The problem with populists is that they are listening for the majority
to tell them what to do. Unfortunately the majority swings from one
position to another so one can not make a permanent decision.
******************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* http://bobcathoh.50megs.com/tinLC/ *
* david l kayp at earthlink dot net *
******************************************
REG
look over what he's done since leaving office, he seems more motivated by
ambition and some resentment towards his successors (both Democratic and
Republican) than other ex-Presidents have been. He certainly got along much
better with some of his Republican successors than with Clinton, but
generally ex-Presidents tend to take a back seat, and Carter has never
really stopped in trying to "upstage" whoever was President. I do think
there is a kind of hard-edged evangelicalism about him that is not as
appealing or decent as you make out, but I generally don't disagree with
what you say.
I think your observations about the perils of populism in this country in
particular are very good ones, by the way.
Best
"DLU" <da...@justthe.net> wrote in message
news:puTef.275$rM2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
J S
<<Carter has nnever really stopped trying to "upstage" whoever was
President.>>
"Trying?"
~ Roger
Mark D Lew
<goodby...@aol.com> wrote:
> I suppose the "real America" that Jimmy Carter prefers is the one where
> there were 23% interest rates [...]
Yeah, that's why I oppose the McCain amendment. Waterboarding is
necessary to keep interest rates down.
mdl
Mark D Lew
<da...@justthe.net> wrote:
> Carter for all his faults is a real decent man. [...]
>
> Unfortunately for him, he was caught up in two things. The first was a
> high inflation rate. He did not have the expertise to prevent that.
> The cause actually was a continuation of policies for the Nixon
> administration. The second was the Iranian hostage and invasion of the
> U.S. embassy. The public felt he did not respond in a proper manner.
> At the time they would have supported an armed response. However the
> prisoners probably would have died if that had been tried.
I have a relatively high opinion of Mr Carter, but I think it's wrong
to imply that it was just bad luck that the Iran crisis happened on his
watch. America's foreign relations with both pre- and
post-revolutionary Iran were embarrassingly inept. Most to blame are
some of the President's advisors (Brzezinski, in particular), but --
the current president's rhetoric notwithstanding -- the buck stops in
the White House.
mdl
DLU
The Iranian crisis had been building for some time. I am not sure
Carter could have prevented it. I think our government simply did not
understand the hatred engendered by the Shah. He was our SOB and we
gave him military aircraft, radar systems and what ever we thought would
provide up protection from the USSR.
But as I said, this started with the Eisenhower administration and was
part of the anti-Communist paranoia that also got us into Viet Nam.
Mossedagh was a socialist and had threatened to nationalize Iran's oil.
Big oil, (the seven sisters) went to the British government which in
turn asked the U.S. to prevent it.
By the time Carter was elected, we were in so deep that there was no way
out. What could we do? Tell the Shah to get out and help install a
fundamentalist Islamic radical?
Do you see a pattern here. Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Chile among others.
Now we have another ideologist in office who thinks he can remake the
world in his vision.
When history is written he will go down as one of the biggest failures
yet.
--
Mark D Lew
<da...@justthe.net> wrote:
> The Iranian crisis had been building for some time. I am not sure
> Carter could have prevented it. I think our government simply did not
> understand the hatred engendered by the Shah. He was our SOB and we
> gave him military aircraft, radar systems and what ever we thought would
> provide up protection from the USSR.
It was inevitable that some sort of crisis was going to happen in Iran.
I certainly don't mean to suggest that Carter could have prevented
that. I do think that inept American foreign policy before, during,
and after the crisis made it turn out far worse for America than it
might have.
For one thing, Carter could have declined to let the Shah into the
United States for surgery. He had, sensibly, denied the Shah entry
into the country for several months, but in the end the Shah's
lobbyists persuaded him to give in, and that's when all hell broke
loose. Now I don't mean to suggest anyone should have guessed it would
lead directly to the hostage-taking as it did, but I do mean to suggest
that the Carter administration should have guessed that it was a really
bad idea. Certainly plenty of people around them understood them,
including the members of the embassy themselves who were flabbergasted
at their president's stupidity. Most of the state department
understood the consequences, but Carter had surrounded himself with a
stable of Rockefeller cronies like Vance, Brzezinski, and even
Kissinger, and they gave him bad advice. So maybe you blame the
advisers, but who chose those advisers?
> But as I said, this started with the Eisenhower administration and was
> part of the anti-Communist paranoia that also got us into Viet Nam.
> Mossedagh was a socialist and had threatened to nationalize Iran's oil.
> Big oil, (the seven sisters) went to the British government which in
> turn asked the U.S. to prevent it.
I think both "socialist" and "nationalize" are overstatements.
Mossadegh may or may not have intended to nationalize the oil
ultimately, but all he was asking for when he was deposed was to
renegotiate the deal with the BP consortium on terms similar to what
Aramco had given to Saudi Arabia. I think the ease with which we
attach the socialist label to him is largely due to the marketing job
by the Sisters in order to appeal to the Dulles brothers' excitable
anti-communism and thus hook the Eisenhower administration into doing
their dirty work for them.
> By the time Carter was elected, we were in so deep that there was no way
> out. What could we do? Tell the Shah to get out and help install a
> fundamentalist Islamic radical?
As I said, I don't think the Revolution was preventable, but it's
important to remember that it was not anti-American revolution, nor was
it uniform in radicalism or religiosity. The single biggest force in
the February revolution was Tehran's middle class. The various Islamic
fundamentalist groups were important players as well, but they did not
become ascendant until much later in the year. Even Khomeini did not
openly back the IRP until 1981.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no way out". After the Shah was
deposed, we were "out" whether we liked it or not. Granted, figuring
out how to deal with all the relevant parties both in and out of
provisional government was not going to be an easy puzzle to solve, but
a competent administration could have done a lot better than Carter's
did. (Hell, even Bill Casey's team had a better grasp of the situation
in Iran than Carter did, and they weren't even elected yet.) For one
thing, he might have maintained a dialogue with a wide variety of
leaders (including Khomeini) instead of just Bani-Sadr. For another,
when things did go bad he might have withdrawn the embassy altogether
instead of leaving them in harm's way -- certainly he should have
pulled them out before letting the Shah into the country, which he
never should have done at all.
mdl
DLU
The DOD and the State Department were still supporting the Shah. We had
given him F18's and trained his pilots. Washington viewed him as
keeping the USSR from Iran and eventually the Arab world. Remember, the
Egyptians got the Russians to build the Aswan Dam for them.
The American public was fed a constant diet of propaganda telling us
what a real ally he was and how he kept the Russians from the Arabian
Gulf. I suspect public input had a lot to do with letting him into the
country.
>
>
>>But as I said, this started with the Eisenhower administration and was
>>part of the anti-Communist paranoia that also got us into Viet Nam.
>>Mossedagh was a socialist and had threatened to nationalize Iran's oil.
>>Big oil, (the seven sisters) went to the British government which in
>>turn asked the U.S. to prevent it.
>
>
> I think both "socialist" and "nationalize" are overstatements.
> Mossadegh may or may not have intended to nationalize the oil
> ultimately, but all he was asking for when he was deposed was to
> renegotiate the deal with the BP consortium on terms similar to what
> Aramco had given to Saudi Arabia.
Oh, I am pretty surer he was in the Socialist camp. That does not mean
he was going to nationalize everything but he sure had BP scared.
I think the ease with which we
> attach the socialist label to him is largely due to the marketing job
> by the Sisters in order to appeal to the Dulles brothers' excitable
> anti-communism and thus hook the Eisenhower administration into doing
> their dirty work for them.
I am sure you are correct in this. Interesting that you are familiar
with these events as even today very few people are.
The administration has created Iran as an enemy and that gives Iran
every excuse they want to develop nuclear weapons. Ironic is it not?
> As I said, I don't think the Revolution was preventable, but it's
> important to remember that it was not anti-American revolution, nor was
> it uniform in radicalism or religiosity. The single biggest force in
> the February revolution was Tehran's middle class. The various Islamic
> fundamentalist groups were important players as well, but they did not
> become ascendant until much later in the year. Even Khomeini did not
> openly back the IRP until 1981.
I have to agree here. The Iranian public still viewed us favorably for
awhile.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "no way out". After the Shah was
> deposed, we were "out" whether we liked it or not. Granted, figuring
> out how to deal with all the relevant parties both in and out of
> provisional government was not going to be an easy puzzle to solve, but
> a competent administration could have done a lot better than Carter's
> did. (Hell, even Bill Casey's team had a better grasp of the situation
> in Iran than Carter did, and they weren't even elected yet.) For one
> thing, he might have maintained a dialogue with a wide variety of
> leaders (including Khomeini) instead of just Bani-Sadr. For another,
> when things did go bad he might have withdrawn the embassy altogether
> instead of leaving them in harm's way -- certainly he should have
> pulled them out before letting the Shah into the country, which he
> never should have done at all.
I suppose some day we will find out why Carter did not do a better job.
He really was not an internationalist as a president.
I am not to sure they had any idea as to how to have this dialogue.
What they thought they saw was a radical Islamic takeover of the country
and since they never even understood Socialism or why people would
support it, they did not have a clue in how to deal with this new form
of governing.
Even so, we have let several chances to mend fences get by us. Now we
have this ideologue who learned his diplomacy at the John Wayne school
of public relations.
Mark D Lew
<da...@justthe.net> wrote:
> The DOD and the State Department were still supporting the Shah. We had
> given him F18's and trained his pilots. Washington viewed him as
> keeping the USSR from Iran and eventually the Arab world. [...]
I understand that in the Cold War climate the Shah was perceived as the
West's great ally in the area. And while we all see in retrospect how
that was perhaps not such a great idea, I understand that the
conventional wisdom on that was not so easy to defy.
My main point is that someone should have wised up AFTER the Shah was
deposed. The Shah fled Iran on Jan 16, 1979, the republic was declared
on April 1, and the U.S. Embassy was seized on Nov 4. That's 10 months
we had for fixing our relationship with Iran. It's during that
10-month period that I am particularly criticial of U.S. foreign
policy, not when the Shah was in power.
> I am sure you are correct in this. Interesting that you are familiar
> with these events as even today very few people are.
That's not saying much. There's a zillion things that most people
aren't interested in learning about. Even before Kinser's recent
best-seller (which I haven't gotten around to reading yet), the CIA's
involvement in deposing Mossadeq was known. It's hardly a secret.
> The administration has created Iran as an enemy and that gives Iran
> every excuse they want to develop nuclear weapons. Ironic is it not?
Well, now you're moving on to another topic. A whole lot has happened
between 1979 and today, not least of which was the Reagan
administration's under-the-table support of the IRP during the early
'80s when it was still establishing its dominance.
I actually think that recent (ie, Clinton/Bush II) policy with regard
to Iran has been pretty sound -- better than our policy with most other
countries of the world. Basically, we give our tacit moral support to
the dissidents but rather than butting in we just let them be, so that
a generation can grow up to figure out on its own that they really
don't like theocracy after all.
Every so often you hear some pundit argue that since the ruling regime
is so bad (which it surely is) and most Iranians dislike it (as they
surely do), we should therefore support a movement to depose the
regime. That would be a terrible idea. It's rare that I have anything
good to say about the Bush administration, but the fact that they've
kept quiet on Iran and not done anything asisine like support a coup is
to their credit.
mdl
DLU
I think the Bush administration does not know what to do.
The can not threaten military action as we are all tied up in Iraq, and
any action against Iran would cause even more opposition in the middle
east. I think China would get into the act as they are now on friendly
terms with Iran. Iranian oil is going to China.
International sanctions would not hurt Iran that much as as the majority
of trade with the west is in oil. Disrupt the oil to western Europe and
see how popular that makes us.
You can see just how ineffective this administration really is when you
look ar North Korea and Iran. Both part of Bush's axis of evil. North
Korea can kill hundreds of thousands of south Koreans before they could
even be slowed down so we really do not have the option of attacking
their nuclear facilities.
Bush as a big mouth and likes to tell other people what to do but these
countries just tweak him.
Clinton at least had the ability to get people to talk. Bush is a
bully. That is typical of cowards, and he is a certified coward.
When faced with someone who won't take his crap he does not know what to
do. Notice the Chinese this week just shined him on.
The best way to deal with Iran as far as I am concerned is to find a way
to work with them. There are things they want that we can help them
get. If we can help build up a merchant class a change in government
will take care of itself. People will get tired of the present system.
I think Bush would support a coup if he thought one could be put together.
As I said, he went out of his way to antagonize iran when he was
elected. Then he is surprised when they do not kow tow to him.
and...@comcast.net
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HJTef.10830$ek6....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> I do not disagree about some of what you say, but I would add that if you
> look over what he's done since leaving office, he seems more motivated by
> ambition and some resentment towards his successors (both Democratic and
> Republican) than other ex-Presidents have been. He certainly got along
much
> better with some of his Republican successors than with Clinton, but
> generally ex-Presidents tend to take a back seat, and Carter has never
> really stopped in trying to "upstage" whoever was President. I do think
> there is a kind of hard-edged evangelicalism about him that is not as
> appealing or decent as you make out, but I generally don't disagree with
> what you say.
>
>
To impugn Carter's reputation by implying that his appearences and
activities are motivated by some un-named agenda or psychological need to
remain in the visible forefront of american life belies the personna former
President Carter presents us, your half-hearted disclaimer notwithstanding.
Despite the incontrovertible fact that Jimmy Carter is not a
Republican,
I'd be fascinated to follow the reasoning supporting your statements.
St. André ~ Incredulous
REG
TIMES and his winning of the Nobel, for one thing. The speculation was
pretty clear, even in the liberal media.
If you don't see his ambition otherwise, I will respect that, but I do think
it's there on display. It has nothing to do with his political affiliation -
he 's more of an unguided missle, I think.
<and...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Pqudnc20X_Q_AB_e...@comcast.com...