Arafat learned to manipulate the West, and Abbas is even more adept at telling us what we want to hear. But behind our backs the same old message is going out: 'Humour them. One day they'll drop their guard, they'll be weak and then we'll wipe them off the map.'
Disturbing in itself, of course; but, for me, much more disturbing is the constant need to debate and persuade those around us. They are no fools, to be sure. They are 'just' ignorant of the facts. The little bit they do pick up here and there is garnered from fleeting moments on CNN and daily newspapers, in short the MSM.
Conversations go like 'Oh, that is interesting, but I remember hearing/reading quite a different account ... are you sure you have got your facts straight?...' Then the really aggravating moment follows: Eyes glaze over before even the first sentence is out. Most people just don't care either way. The saying, 'Ignorance is bliss' describes the true nature of their carefree oblivion perfectly.
North Korea's nuclear blast, whether real or hyped up, and Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel of the map couldn't be more disconnected as far as they are concerned. 'What has this commie lunatic to do with the Middle East conflict'.
A lot. Apart from being a global add campaign -- don't bother building it yourself, we'd be happy to supply you with all the know-how or with as many nukes as you care to order -- it proves to the Mullahs and their jihadist armies the world over, once you've got it, nobody is going to touch you any longer.
Iran's Mullahcracy doesn't care about Chapter 7 resolutions and being on some kind of international black list. They care about supremacy and violent oppression, cowing everyone in their reach into total submission, whilst chanting 'Allahu Akbar'.
"Iran has already convinced itself that like other great civilizations, like India, they can get away with it," said Gary Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. If the United Nations Security Council "can actually mount an effective action against North Korea, [Iran] might be concerned," Samore added, but for now, the leadership in Tehran appears unworried.
A U.S. Defense Department analyst who closely follows Iran expressed a similar view. "I imagine the Iranians will be even more certain, more resolved that there really isn't anything that could be done to stop them if they choose to continue, so why not move ahead," the analyst said.
Western governments have cited several pieces of evidence suggesting that Iran wants more than just a civilian program: Until 2002, the country's nuclear program was clandestine for 18 years, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signatory.
After Iran was forced to disclose its program, officials continued to refuse to answer many of the questions raised by the IAEA. U.N. inspectors were denied access to some sites for nearly two years, and one of the sites was razed during that time, virtually eliminating the chances of inspectors being able to detect whether nuclear material had ever been there.At another military site, Parchin, U.S. intelligence agencies believed that Iran was testing explosives that could be part of a triggering system for a nuclear bomb. Although international inspectors found no trace of nuclear material at the site, they had limited access to the vast area. The IAEA has independently found documents explaining how to cast uranium into hemispheres, a step necessary only in making a bomb.
Diplomats from the United States, the European Union and other countries have been working for more than three years to persuade Iran to halt its efforts to enrich uranium.The effort fell apart in April when Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium to a low level at its pilot plant at Natanz.
How depraved, for those nihilist critics to earnestly accuse the Bush Administration of pursuing the same or similar strategies to achieve the same or similar objectives, just not with the same religious flavor.
Steven Sachs is a Yale Law Student with no training in that area of history. Hanging on every word would be silly. At least he understood Hoover, laissez-faire, and social darwinism.
You never actually addressed any of my points head on, if even tangentially. I had pointed out that Hoover failed, you simply added more historical (some possibly doubful) references to that point.
This is the problem with a googled cut-n-paste rendition of erudition.
Essentially, you changed the subject.
Posted by: Ariel | Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 01:49 PM
On Mossadegh:
..."Mohammad Musaddiq’s views on constitutionalism in Iran are worthy of consideration for several reasons: he was the leader of the secular liberal movement National Front, he was a participant-observer from the very first parliament, the Majles, and he was, arguably, Iran's foremost constitutional lawyer. As Iranian constitutionalism was a young and evolving experiment, Musaddiq’s conception of it could have been expected to change over time. This proved especially true when he assumed the responsibilities of governance as Prime minister during the critical years of the nationalization of Iran's oil. The challenge of dealing with the competing centers of power would shape Musaddiq’s notion of what was practical under the existing constitutional monarchy in Iran. He had a unique opportunity to articulate his thoughts on this subject when forced to prepare for his trial a month after his overthrow in August 1953. In Musaddiq’s arguments before the court, as this paper will attempt to show, he addressed the core issues of Iran's constitutionalism comprising the roles of the monarch, the executive branch, representative assemblies, and direct channels for the exercise of popular sovereignty. What emerged as his prescription was a constitutional monarchy where the Shah would be a symbolic and ceremonial figure, the powerful Prime Minister and his cabinet would be accountable to the Majles, the Majles would be the ultimate locus of power, and the electorate would be well informed through the free exchange of diverse opinions and actively vigilant to keep the legislators responsive."...
Read More
Posted by: Red Violin | Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 01:10 PM
The sad irony is that if it weren't for the technological and industrial advancement of Western cultures to extract and refine the ME oil and create and develop markets, industries and innovation for oil related services and products, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia will be dirt poor.
To this date, Iran has to import 40% of it's gas and refined crude oil (to the tune of $10 billion per year) products like jet fuel because they don't have the scientific know-how and the infrastructure in place to refine the oil. The refinaries in Iran can't operate in full capacity because the infrastructure is old and antiquated and was put in place by foriegners....
Posted by: Red Violin | Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 12:14 PM
GD: Mossadegh was a constitutional monarchists to the day he died. He never wanted to change the system as he stated in the court during his trial. The doucments are in Persian (farsi). If I ever get a chance to traslate them I will. My grand father knew Mossadegh and there are others who are still alive and can attest to that. If it weren't for the coup, Iran would have probably ended up being a client state of Russia and a communist country. The democratic institutions and democratic culture is not ripe even today in Iran let alone in 1953 where the country was in economic shambles and one of the most backward countries in the ME.
Posted by: Red Violin | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 09:14 PM
Ghost, changing the subject when you've been found out merely confirms that your desire was to deceive the rest of us. You've convicted yourself. No wonder you don't go by your right name.
Oh, by the way, my right name is Porretto. Not "Paretto." If you can't bring yourself to spell it correctly, feel free to call me "sir."
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 08:30 PM
For Red Vioin.
Mosaddeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was removed from power by a British and U.S. funded CIA coup in order to reinstate Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran.
Mossadegh got his start in Iranian politics with the Constitutional Revolution,when at the age of 24 ,he was elected from Isfahan to the newly inaugurated Persian Parliament,"Majles".In 1920,after being self-exiled to Switzerland in protest to the Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919,he was invited by the new Persian Prime Minister, Hassan Pirnia (Moshir-ed-Dowleh) to become his "Minister of Justice";but in his route to Tehran, he was asked by the people of Shiraz to become Governor of the "Fars" Province. He was later appointed Finance Minister, in the government of Ahmad Ghavam (Ghavam os-Saltaneh) in 1921, and then Foreign Minister, in the government of Moshir-ed-Dowleh in June 1923.He then became Governor of the "Azerbaijan" Province. Later in 1923, he was re-elected to the "Majlis"and voted against the selection of the Prime Minister Reza Khan as the new Shah of Persia.
By 1944, Reza Shah Pahlavi had abdicated, and Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he took the lead of Jebhe Melli(The National Front of Iran), an organization he had founded, aiming to establish Democracy and end the foreign presence in the Iranian politics, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources by the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company"(AIOC).
After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on 15 March 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and seize control of the British-owned and operated Oil Company.Prime minister General Haj-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam.
On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets.
Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. A blockade by British ships was established in the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship oil out of the country. Furthermore, the AIOC withdrew its British trained technicians when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. Thus, many of the refineries lacked properly trained technicians that were needed to continue production. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 05:38 PM
http://www.stevesachs.com/papers/paper_hoover.html
URL to the second part above on Hoover... more "traditional" take on history than the laissez faire apologists.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Sure Francis Paretto... You can do laissez faire economics, but the vicissitudes of the business cycle would be a rollercoaster ride with dramatic spikes, fluctuations and other "adjustments".
Laissez faire treats economics as a natural phenomenon... it is akin to saying that a wildfire burning through a forrest is just natures way of adjusting and preparing for the next growth... an element of truth to be sure, however not so pleasant for those living (or dieing) in the wildfire, and ignoring the possiblity that competent forrestry could diminish the number and intensity of wildfires and the negative consequences.
Guys who write like the following excerpt are the one's trying to salvage laissez faire and vindicate it as the "cure", not the "cause".
"Laissez-faire was, roughly, the traditional policy in American depressions before 1929. The laissez-faire precedent was set in America's first great depression, 1819, when the federal government's only act was to ease terms of payment for its own land debtors. President Van Buren also set a staunch laissez-faire course, in the Panic of 1837. Subsequent federal governments followed a similar path, the chief sinners being state governments which periodically permitted insolvent banks to continue in operation without paying their obligations. In the 1920-1921 depression, government intervened to a greater extent, but wage rates were permitted to fall, and government expenditures and taxes were reduced. And this depression was over in one year-in what Dr. Benjamin M. Anderson has called "our last natural recovery to full employment."
Laissez-faire, then, was the policy dictated both by sound theory and by historical precedent. But in 1929, the sound course was rudely brushed aside. Led by President Hoover, the government embarked on what Anderson has accurately called the "Hoover New Deal." For if we define "New Deal" as an antidepression program marked by extensive governmental economic planning and intervention-including bolstering of wage rates and prices, expansion of credit, propping up of weak firms, and increased government spending (e.g., subsidies to unemployment and public works)-Herbert Clark Hoover must be considered the founder of the New Deal in America. Hoover, from the very start of the depression, set his course unerringly toward the violation of all the laissez-faire canons. As a consequence, he left office with the economy at the depths of an unprecedented depression, with no recovery in sight after three and a half years, and with unemployment at the terrible and unprecedented rate of 25 percent of the labor force.
Hoover's role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor. To scoff at Hoover's tragic failure to cure the depression as a typical example of laissez-faire is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free market."
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter7.asp
This is "Austrian School" by the way.
There is a different take on Herbert Hoover that laissez faire afficianados want to rebut...you'll note philosophically Hoover was not "laissez faire...a social Darwinist"... but his fasination with "rugged individualism" and "voluntary cooperation" between producers and consumers results in the same effect:
"On the eleventh of August, 1928, sixty thousand people stood in the sun in the Stanford football stadium, waiting to hear a national hero accept his nomination for the Presidency. Herbert Hoover was a self-made man, the savior of Belgium, the Great Engineer; there was nothing that he could not do and nothing that America could not achieve under his leadership. “We in America today,” he declared to the crowd, “are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of this land” (New Day 16). Eighteen months after that speech was delivered, the country would be in the grip of the greatest economic collapse in its history. The prosperity of the 1920s had vanished; the American system, it appeared, was broken. Many called on the Great Engineer to work the magic that had fed the Belgians and saved a war-torn world from famine, but it was not to be. Hoover’s unquestioning faith in the “fundamental correctness” (New Day 30) of America’s existing economic, political, and social systems prevented him from taking the action necessary to solve the country’s problems. His philosophy of American individualism, though confirmed by his experiences in Belgium, failed him as President; his inflexible adherence to the beliefs of his triumphant days resulted in Hoover’s tragic downfall."
Hoover was not, however, a Social Darwinist; he detested laissez-faire doctrine, which he described as “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost” (35). Under laissez-faire, he wrote, an “autocracy of economic power” (53) would gain control through restraint of trade, stifling equality of opportunity and individual initiative. Yet socialistic or fascistic governments could also destroy the individual, making government “through its relations to economic life the most potent force for maintenance or destruction of our American individualism” (53). Hoover feared any “concentration of power, whether political or economic, for both are equally reversions to Old World autocracy in new garments” (59).
The saving grace of American individualism, felt Hoover, was that it tempered the desire to compete and control with an ideal of public service. “Overreckless competition” (50) could rend the social fabric that protected it; Hoover therefore urged businesses to engage in voluntary cooperation and government to assist them.[15] Cooperation in the public interest was required of individuals as well: Hoover praised “the vast multiplication of voluntary organizations for altruistic purposes” (42) which had developed during the war — not mentioning by name, but clearly including, the CRB.
His philosophy was as inflexible as it was optimistic. To Hoover, America faced a very real danger of being “infected” (1) by Old World philosophies and losing its individualist heritage: he felt that solutions to the “failures and unsolved problems of economic and social life” could be found only “within our social theme and under no other system” (61-2). As U.S. Food Administrator after America entered the war, Hoover had insisted on voluntary, cooperative measures, believing that “in this voluntary action lay our guard against Prussianizing the country” (Memoirs 241).
Hoover continued to expound his philosophy in his stump speeches as a Presidential candidate in 1928.[16] In a campaign speech in St. Louis, Hoover declared, “This is the American System. One part of it cannot be destroyed without undermining the whole” (New Day 181). In accepting the nomination, he had cited the “impressive proof on all sides of magnificent progress” and announced that “no one can rightly deny the fundamental correctness of the American system” (New Day 30). At the time, it seemed that Hoover was right — his system, he claimed, had produced eight years of Republican prosperity — and the nation rewarded him with a solid victory over Democrat Al Smith.[17] The new President-elect had no fears for America under his leadership; the future, he said in his inaugural address, was “bright with hope” (12).
The picture, however, was not as rosy as Hoover described it. The gains in productivity which Hoover lauded as “magnificent progress” had not been followed by proportionate gains in purchasing power; wages, though increasing, had not kept up with profits, and income inequality had grown.[18] As the rich got richer, more money was used for speculation and less was spent and returned to the economy; at the same time, installment buying hid the fact that many workers were unable to afford the goods they produced (Schlesinger 159). A downturn in industries which had saturated their markets, such as construction, durable goods, and automobiles, burst the economic bubble; after reaching its zenith in September of 1929, the great bull market retreated for a month before Black Thursday, October 24, when it began its great downward plunge.
The Crash shook the nation’s confidence in the economy. Immediately, Hoover sought to reassure the public, releasing a statement that “The fundamental business of the country . . . is on a sound and prosperous basis” (Times 10/26/29 1).[19] The Crash was due to frightened speculators, he said, and did not signify any structural fault in the economy. Most businessmen and economists at the time agreed: the president of the National Association of Manufacturers saw “little on the horizon to give us . . .great concern” (Sobel 55).
As the slump deepened, however, Hoover saw the need for more than reassurance. Contrary to his image, he did not remain inactive during the Depression; rather, his actions were constrained by his philosophy.[20] Hoover attempted to solve the Depression through “systematic, voluntary measures of cooperation” (Times 12/4/29 26). He regularly called hundreds of businessmen to the White House and implored them to maintain current employment and wage levels. The Depression could not be ended “by legislative action,” he said; instead, “Economic wounds must be healed by . . . the producers and consumers themselves” (Ibid). However, Hoover’s voluntary, cooperative measures could not address many of the problems that the Depression presented..."
"...Although the unemployment and suffering continued, Hoover vigorously opposed any direct relief to the unemployed. According to his philosophy, a socialistic dole would erode the nation’s individual initiative; such relief would not only reduce private giving but would also destroy the American “spirit of charity and mutual self-help” (State Papers, vol. 1, 496).[28] In 1914, private giving had raised millions for the Belgians, and Hoover was similarly confident in 1930 that private organizations could “relieve the cases of individual distress” (Times 12/3/30 18).[29] Private charities, however, lacked “the organization, manpower, and funds for the task” (Sobel 64), and as incomes fell, fewer donations were made. By 1932, private charity could provide only one-tenth of the funds spent on relief,[30] and only a quarter of those without income received any assistance at all (Schlesinger 249)."
"...Hoover’s reaction to the final challenge of his Administration, the banking crisis, was similarly constrained by his voluntarist philosophy. By 1930, over a thousand banks had failed, and millions in deposits had been lost.[31] Hoover exhorted stronger banks to extend credit to weaker banks through a cooperative banking pool; however, most banks were reluctant to take the risks involved, and so the pool did little.[32] Only at the end of 1931 did Hoover accede to demands that the government assist struggling banks; in January 1932, he created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to lend federal funds to banks, insurance companies, agricultural cooperatives, railroads, and state relief efforts.[33] However, Hoover preferred not to use the RFC’s powers, hoping that its mere presence would reassure investors.[34] Furthermore, the RFC “took only the soundest assets of a troubled institution as security” (Rosen 283), leaving banks less solvent and creating, rather than dispelling, public apprehension.[35] The banks continued to fail;[36] hoarding of money accelerated,[37] and prospects for recovery grew ever dimmer."
"...The tragedy of Herbert Hoover signaled more than the personal failure of an inflexible or uninspiring President: it signaled the inability of a formerly successful philosophy to solve the problems of new times. To the people of his day, “Hoover signified something that [had] at least momentarily evaporated, the bright illusion of American infallibility” (Times 3/17/31 1-2); the savior of Belgium had no magic left in 1932 with which to save his country. The 1932 election was indeed a referendum on philosophy, although not in the way that Hoover had intended: with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, the nation committed itself to a policy of active government intervention in the economy rather than the passive encouragement of private effort. Even sixty years later, as many of Roosevelt’s social programs are being challenged or dismantled, this commitment to government intervention is rarely questioned. The tragedy of Herbert Hoover was that he clung to the beliefs of his triumphant days even after those days had passed: as a result, the successes of the Great Engineer have been forgotten, and all that is remembered is a President’s failure."
Just to put laissez faire economics in perspective, with a laissez faire approach there would theoretically be no problem with the Middle Class of the United States to disappear...as the result of a global market correction to labor costs. The wealthy, specifically people who make money by having money and speculating are essentially engaged in a transnational, global economy...will continue to profit, and big service sector financials would continue to prosper... America may even look good on paper, at least to the "winners". The wildfire just rampages through the forrest to clear it for new growth... simple natural process..
But economics is a human process with human concerns and implications.
Ultimately, the American population would have to accept lower wages, benefits, environmental regulations and all that goes with making them "more competitive" with other nations competing in the "outsourced" labor market... it would all be just a "correction"...the rich are happy and all is well in mudville.
Social Darwinism is a morally bankrupt concept, and unworkable as laissez faire policy.
A hybrid capitalism, where a democratic government for and by ALL the people (not just the richest speculators) is a legitimate and necessary counterbalance to Corporate and other Business (Private Sector) power blocks.
The major fault in the thinking of the Libertarian, is that government is the only social power block that can deprive the individual of his Liberty... that's not the case.
A democratic government of the people that represents the common good of the people, and not simply someones profit margin, is not an option, but a necessity for a free society valuing individual freedom and liberty.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 05:29 PM
During and after World War II, Soviet troops had occupied portions of Iran and had sought to promote separatist movements among ethnic minorities...
Iran in World War II
Iran: Library of Congress
Posted by: Red Violin | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Interesting article regarding Shi'ism a la Khomeini and the real Shia doctrine:
In Iran: The Fight is Over the "Hidden Imam"
I hope I'm not annyoying anyone here by my over enthusiasm on presenting information that you might not find in the regular MSM regarding Iran. I'm also in search of truth regarding Iran and ME because I find it determintal to our future here in the US and in the greater Middle East. Let me know, if I'm overdoing it..LOL
Here is another good article regarding States Departmetns policy on Iran:
Responding to Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: Next Steps
Friday, 13 October 2006, 1:00 pm
Press Release: US State Department
Responding to Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: Next Steps
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
September 19, 2006
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00312.htm
Posted by: Red Violin | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 02:33 PM
To All: Great schematic (organizational chart) of the Islamic Republic's command sturcture.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8932
Posted by: Red Violin | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:59 PM
It's always pleasant to catch the infamous Ghost Dansing in an outright misstatement, such as this one:
Let's recur to the historians, shall we? Here's Paul Johnson, the most acclaimed historian of our time, from his book Modern Times:
How many of you learned that in your high school American History courses?
Dr. Benjamin M. Anderson, in his magnum opus Economics and The Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914 - 1946, confirms all of this with complete and elaborate citations of Hooverian interventions, always accompanied by figures. Dr. Anderson calls the Hoover Administration "the early New Deal:"
So, Is Ghost merely sadly ignorant of American history, or is he trying to deceive the rest of us?
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM
The entire Islamic Republic System of governance and how Khomeini structured his ideological and organizational (3-Layer security and paramilitary apparatus modeled after Stalin) command center is founded on an Islamic/marxist philosopher Ali Shariati. Also (Islamization of Lenin's organizational structure by Assad abukhalil).
I'm new at this because I've just recently researched all things regarding the Iranian revolution because I was very young when it was happening. For example, I recently found out that Ahmadinejad's Spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who might end up being the next Supreme Leader in the next election of guardian council is a desciple of the German philosopher Heideggar(sp?)
Regarding Mossadegh and the overthrow of supposedly democratically elected government. Mossadegh was a constitutional monarchist not a democrat who was appointed by the late Shah to be the Prime Mininster twice. And it was the late Shah who signed the Nationalization of the oil. At any rate, some of these documents are still in Farsi and being translated and many books are going to come out in the future which will clarify many manufactured propagandas by the left. I'm just amazed at the sheer amount of misinformation regarding Iran. I need an armada of writers and scholars to debunk these fabrications.
Posted by: Red Violin | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 11:59 AM
GD: Obviously, we'll beat each other to death on this one. I believe historians will be on my side, except those who think "change" for change's sake, good or not, effective or not, has meaning. I care about effectiveness. And the "55" was from an earlier administration, the ultimate environmentalist, Nixon.
Hoover, by the way, did implement programs similar to FDR's towards the end of
his term, too little too late. I noticed you ignored Hoover's humanitarian efforts, which also extended to feed Boshevik Russia in 1921, even though he despised them. "Simply the laissez faire advocate that got his comeuppance on behalf of all his ilk" is simply too pat to describe the man. But it does allow you to pigeonhole him.
While Reagan was not germane, to say the economic mess was not cleaned up until 6-7 years into Clinton is simply ahistorical (I know you mean the debt, but there was a bit of smoke-and-mirrors in that, counting your chickens as if they had hatched). As is your comment regarding Dubya and the economy, which he is not great at I agree, is also simply wrong. We went into a recession one year before Clinton left office, just as we had been out of the first Bush recession while Clinton was campaigning claiming we were still in a recession and calling it the worst economy in 50 years (guess he couldn't remember Carter). I looked up the indicators from a site that posts data as far back as the 20s, I believe, and Clinton was simply wrong. Which makes him ignorant or a lier. But then he was disbarred for perjury and suborning perjury. I can also inject that which is not germane.
While I consider economic cycles to be largely independent of any President's term, a President can have a positive or negative effect as to the severity. Reagan had the ability to give people hope, as did FDR, a necessary ability to lead people out of bad times. Carter did not, he lacked that leadership quality.
Carter was as much elected because of Ford's pardon of Nixon, and because of SNL parodies, than as an "agent of change". The Depression certainly left Hoover with a very slim chance of defeating FDR, however, one major event, for which I consider him to be completely to blame, made his loss a certainty: he chose that patrician martinet MacArthur to deal with the Bonus Marchers, not understanding that MacArthur did as he pleased (he was known for it even then). Had MacArthur followed Hoover's humane orders, instead of the vicious brutality MacArthur committed, Hoover might have had a slim chance of being elected to another term. Carter had his "death in the desert", ill-conceived and poorly executed, that made his defeat a certainty.
My last point(s), "the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", more a bromide than a platitude, reminds me of H.L. Mencken's definition of a platitude: "an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true."
I bristle when someone calls Tito, Castro, Ortega, al-Zarqawi, and yes the Contras (I give you an opportunity), freedom fighters. Freedom fighters fight for liberty, those who fight for the right to impose their own tyranny are not freedom fighters, no matter how much they delude their followers. That phrase is used in a mindless, morally equivalent way that I consider a repudiation of liberalism (classical, which this country was based on, you tend to equate various forms of liberalism as if the same, they are not).
Finally, I will let you have the last word. You've been beaten on enough, although not nearly as much as in other threads. We can both thank Alexandra for assiduously maintaining a high standard of civility.
Posted by: Ariel | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 11:52 AM
I understand your argument, however, Hoover and Carter represented totally different things. Hoover was the "result" end of continuing economic policies that he endorsed...he was a "stay the course" guy...let market forces correct the economic downturn...essentially laisse faire... brilliant or no he was not advocating change...he was the establishment.
Carter was at a similar endpoint in history where the effects of economic policies, Vietnam War, and Foreign Policy based on anti-Communist rhetoric and economic expediency imploded... Carter was elected as a change-agent...however the implosion killed him politically... there was no way ANY policy implemented in his first three years of office could have changed the shape of things to come by the time he left after four years... and his leaving represented a return to the old style, regardless of Reagan's rhetoric.
Reagan was a charismatic cheerleader; told the American People what they wanted to hear, as a politician who pursued deficit military spending to pump-up the economy while pursuing some "America gets Tough" military gestures that on the whole were pretty un-noteworthy in terms of effect... with the exception of "liberating" Grenada of course... actually got him into trouble in Nicaragua due to expedient dealings with none other than the Ayatollah... go figure. Oh... Mr. "I am a Contra" was also endorsing the use of "freedom fighters" in proxy wars just like... you guessed it... Iran does with hisballa... One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter"... not saying that's right or wrong, just "that's the fact, Jack".
The economic mess wasn't cleaned-up until about 6-7 years into Clinton, who was actually implementing the ballyhooed "conservative economic policies" the Republicans claimed as their own but never really do on their own.
Interestingly, 6 years into Dubya's administration, he's returned the economy into something similar to what it was after his Daddy left office... and worse... the illusion of prosperity based on credit-card barrowing from Communist China, no less.
I would say that you can't even judge Carter's policies, because they were never implemented long enough to see any results... we're still struggling with foreign oil dependency that brings us into uncomfortable relationships in the Middle East and elsewhere... and our Foreign Policy still hasn't consistently reflected Human Rights principles... and under this Republican administration has made a mockery of a "Human Rights" position.
Carter's policies, in effect, never happened. We're still facing the same issues that he pointed out in the 70's. Anybody driving 55 today to conserve energy and relieve our dependence on foreign oil... or did we listen to Dick Cheney and go buy a great big pickup-truck with an eight cylinder hemi to ride to work in?
Carter was a victim of very very bad timing... and it is nothing like the Hoover scenario who was simply the laissez faire advocate that got his comeuppance on behalf of all his ilk.
Carter was a clarion call for change, that never happened, and for which we are still suffering.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 09:07 AM
GD: You hit it on the head. Carter was very good at pointing out the problems, but incompetent at doing any thing about them. Yes the Shah wasn't the best, but Khomeini was worse, by far. And Carter couldn't see that, although Khomeini's writings, going back to the 1940's I believe, would have given him a clue.
"Carter's Presidency was an interesting time because many many problems of our own making came home to roost... but Carter was not the problem" is simply rephrasing "Jimmy Carter is a trully great man who had the unfortunate luck of being President of the United States at a very very bad time...". I'm sorry but, again, it is what a President does in that adversity that makes him great. No evidence you can bring to support his "greatness" will counter that simple test. No cut-n-paste parade will refute it. Nothing he has done or written after his failed Presidency negates that failure.
He demoralized this country with every speech. He paraded "Human Rights" but failed in any real implementation. He helped Khomeini to power, that was a his landmark in "human rights". The Iran we face today is part of his failure in Office.
As I wrote before, Hoover was not responsible for the Depression, but he failed in any meaningful response to it. He failed to rally the citizens. He failed in the policies he implemented. He failed. So did Carter.
By the way, read what Hoover did in terms of Humanitarian works, he beats Carter hands down. A quick quote from Wikipedia:
"Belgium faced a food crisis after being invaded by Germany in fall 1914. Hoover undertook an unprecedented relief effort as head of the Commission for the Relief of Belgium (CRB). The CRB became, in effect, an independent republic of relief, with its own flag, navy, factories, mills and railroads. Its $12-million-a-month budget was supplied by voluntary donations and government grants. In an early form of shuttle diplomacy, he crossed the North Sea forty times seeking to persuade the enemies in Berlin to allow food to reach the war's victims. Long before the Armistice of 1918, he was an international hero. The Belgian city of Leuven named a prominent square after him. In addition, the Finns added the word hoover, meaning "to help," to their language in honor of his two years of humitarian work." This was only part of his works. Still his Presidency was a failure. As was Carter's.
Posted by: Ariel | Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 02:18 AM
As I've said many times, GD, I don't give a damn about the moral high ground. I want to thrive and for my kids to have a future. If that has to be on mounds of dead Islamic fascists and their families, ....tough. I like living well, and I don't care if others want to wallow in squalour and depravity.
Just don't try to tell me that what some wingbat did to Iran in the 1950's is my G-d damned fault.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 09:33 PM
OK Red Violin... I think you are taking a few liberties with history there... not sure Khomeini was a Marxist...
The idea that the Muslims were a grass-roots insurgency against Soviet expansionism is not new... America really got behind them in the 80's when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan...
But the United States also tried to woo Saddam Hussein, a secular Baathist dictator "away" from being a Soviet client, and supported Saddam in his war with Khomeini's Iran.
Things are far more complicated, and America had many strange bedfellows through the years.
If I recall correctly, America's "pillars" against the Soviet's straddled the Persian Gulf... The Shah's Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
However, the implosion of the Soviet Union and the concomitant end of the Cold War, instead of bringing about the "end of history" that was wistfully and wrong-headedly proposed by Francis Fukuyama, initiated a new era when Islam - or its radical version - challenged the political status quo. The end of the Cold War also resulted in the emergence of a unipolar global order where the United States was the lone superpower. Thus, any challenge to the political status quo in any part of the world also meant challenging the hegemony of the United States.
There ensued a series of new regional games of tug-and-pull in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region. The post-Cold War era also created new "villains" for Washington. The "twin pillar" policy was replaced by the "dual containment" policy, whereby the United States was to contain Iran and Iraq, especially after the Gulf War of 1991, which was the direct outcome of Saddam Hussein's hegemonic designs. He had recently "won" the Iran-Iraq War (thanks to the United States' siding with Iraq), and wanted to cap his victory by absorbing the oilfields of Kuwait and the emirate itself into his empire. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the phrase "rogue states" was introduced to include Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. All these countries wanted to develop WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capabilities of their own, and they also rejected the dominance and primacy of the United States in their respective regions.
http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=140774
The irony with Iran, however, was that America assisted in overthrowing, in the 1950's, the type of fledgling democracy it supposedly wants to create in Iraq in recent times...
The SAVAK was the Shah's undoing...
Which brings us back to the Foreign Policy of Jimmy Carter that was revolutionary with "Human Rights" as a center piece.
All that went before was Foreign Policy based on economic expediencies and the "Cold War" dialectic for "moral" justification.
The reason the West cannot attain a "moral highground" vis-a-vis the Middle East or any other former colonial area is because of the historically undeniable hypocrisy.
Sure...they are all hypocrits... all the Arab states and Persia... but we are all bathing in a history of hypocrisy with colonial legacy stretched as far as the eye can see.
Carter's Presidency was an interesting time because many many problems of our own making came home to roost... but Carter was not the problem... and he accurately pointed to many of the underlying causes of the unfortunate circumstances then, that continue to haunt us today because we still fail to address them...
Human Rights, and dependency on foreign oil which drives our Foreign Policy to that of economic expediency.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
by Chuck Morse
http://www.warcryer.com/guadalupe.html
As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the world's most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.Read more...
Posted by: Red Violin | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 05:17 PM
I would like to begin with Jimmy Carter and his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski Justified his Islamic Belt Project (to defeat spread of communism in the region,specifically in Iran,"the Soviet-backed Todeh Party in Iran") in his book in this manner "In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
The end results were Khomeini, IRI, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war, Creation of Hizballah in Lebanon, several million deaths among Iranians Afghanis and Iraqis,militant Islam and so on. Al Qaeda, and September 11 are the byproduct of the Green belt (Islamic belt) project.
It should be never forgotten that Iran’s 1979 uprising against the Shah and his kingdom was driven by intellectuals, however, the religious mobs took control by help of Carter administration, British, and Europeans so that a green belt (Islamic countries) assembled in impeding the advancement of USSR (communists) in oil rich countries of Middle East. Khomeini was unknown character to 97% of Iranians before 1979. But, Europe flew him from Iraq to Paris and provided BBC's microphones to him for broadcasting his backward ideology. Amazingly, he became man of the year for time magazine!! I'm not sure but I think Carter OR One of his advisor called Khomeini a "Saint". The West imposed fanatic “leader” massacred all democratic and freedom seekers of Iran in a short period after usurping power and the killing of dissidents continues unabated to this day.
What Carter got for us was a Muslim fanatic seething with hatred for everything Western, who without blinking an eye spat on our national sovereignty when he took over the United States embassy in Tehran with the help of Arafat and his Palestinian mercenaries flown over to Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, Thanks to Carter, Iran today constitutes a grave threat to the United States, Israil and to world peace and to it's own people.
Given the magnitude of Jimmy Carter's lack of insight and past failures, his opining and recently visiting the Hizbollah backer, Khatami,in a secret meeting is truly the height of arrogance. Why would anyone give him any credence at all? His failure is paid in lives to this day
He will not be judged kindly by future Iranian generation.
Posted by: Red Violin | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 05:06 PM
Well, anybody that put Human Rights at the center of his Foreign Policy, and accurately stated America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil was a strategic weakness could not have been all bad. I think he was great. He inherited a horrible situation... and I can't imagine anybody who could have implemented policies within four years that would see any fruition. The confluence of events killed Carter politically...yet in 2006 we are still grappling with two of the major issues he identified: Human Rights and Economic Dependence on Foreign Oil.
Elevating Human Rights rather than economic expediency in all international relations was, and would continue to be, the moral high ground America as a people are always seeking... It was the lack of respect for Human Rights that created many of the international conditions that haunted Carter during his short Presidency.
Take Iran... The United States assisted in the overthrow of a democratically elected government in the 50's because Mossedegh nationalized the oil...ushered in the Shah who had some progressive ideas, but used his secret police in such a way that alienated the people, which led to the conditions fanning the flames of Shia Islamic extremism, and his overthrow... creating the conditions we still face today.
Carter was the recipient of the hostage crisis...not the creator. And due to Vietnam and post-war demobilization, massive military retaliation was out of the question, and even special operations were weakened resulting in failure... not a situation of Carter's making...he was a recipient to an impossible circumstance.
In the early 1950s, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence outfits. In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, voted unanimously to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran.
In response to nationalization, Britain placed a massive embargo on Iranian oil exports, which only worsened the already fragile economy. Neither the AIOC nor Mossadegh was open to compromise in this period, with Britain insisting on a restoration of the AIOC and Mossadegh only willing to negotiate on the terms of its compensation for lost assets. The U.S. president at the time, Harry S. Truman, was categorically unwilling to join Britain in planning a coup against Mossadegh, and Britain felt unable to act without American cooperation, particularly since Mossadegh had shut down their embassy in 1952. Truman's successor, Dwight Eisenhower, was finally persuaded by arguments that were anti-Communist rather than primarily economic, and focused on the potential for Iran's increasingly powerful Communist Tudeh Party to capitalize on political instability and assume power, aligning Iran and its immense oil resources with the Soviet Union . Though Mossadegh never had a close political alliance with Tudeh, he also failed to act decisively against them in any way, which hardened U.S. policy against him. Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were immediately revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (CIA director), after Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953.
As for the Shah, his policies led to strong economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s but at the same time, opposition to his autocratic pro-Western rule increased. His good relations with Israel and the United States and his active support for women's rights were moreover a reason for Islamic fundamentalist groups to attack his policies. On January 16, 1979 he and his wife left Iran at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar (a long time opposition leader himself), who sought to calm down the situation. Bakhtiar dissolved SAVAK and freed all political prisoners, and allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran after years in exile, asking him to create a Vatican-like state in Qom and called upon the opposition to help preserve the constitution, promising free elections. Khomeini rejected Dr. Bakhtiar's demands fiercely and appointed an interim government on his own. Shortly after, with the military announcing their neutrality in the conflict, the dissolution of the monarchy was completed at the hands of the revolutionaries led by Khomeini.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran
Carter was the inheritor of all this history...his policies could not change that tide, though his policies were correct. I don't know in what context he was "praising" Khomeini, however, diplomatic language is often far more flattering than operant opinions would provide. I doubt if Jimmy Carter was then, or is now an admirer of the Ayatollah or Islamic Extremists of either the Sunni or Shia variety. Terrorism itself is the most horrendous of Human Rights violations.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 04:32 PM
I have to chime in here, because Mac your right, and no matter how eloquent, GD is simply wrong because of the following specious statement: "Jimmy Carter is a trully great man who had the unfortunate luck of being President of the United States at a very very bad time..."
This is GDs pivitol, telling statement because a great man, a great President, is measured by what he does in adversity, not by what he does when the going is easy. If GD believes that Jimmy Carter was brilliant and with "more competence and intellectual capacity in one man", then why was his administration such a failure? Because he did not have the competence, the brilliance, to deal with the situation presented him. He wasn't up to it.
Lincoln was a great President because he effectively dealt with the greatest adversity in our history. If he had failed, would we say of him what GD says of Carter?
FDR was a great President because he effectively, if only by keeping hope at the door (remember Carter's dismal, depressive speeches?) dealt with what I believe were the two other greatest adversities, the Depression and WWII. Had he failed, would we be saying the same of him that GD says of Carter?
One of the most brilliant, talented, competent men, by GDs standard, to have ever been elected to Office was Herbert Hoover. He was much more intelligent than FDR and his business acumen was incredible, one historian wrote that his Presidency might have been one of the greatest in prosperity given all his talents. The Depression destroyed his chance at greatness because he was incompetent in dealing with the situation. He was lost, as was Carter. He failed, as did Carter.
I'm sorry, but Carter was the worst President in my lifetime. And for godsake (I hope that doesn't offend anyone) he was blind to who and what Khomeini was. Remember how he praised that blood-thirsty, medieval theocrat tyrant?
Carter belongs in the category you so insightfully placed him.
Posted by: Ariel | Friday, October 13, 2006 at 03:25 AM
GD: I respect your eloquence and your defense of Mr. Carter, even if I do not agree with it. I admit voting for him the first time I was old enough to be eligible to vote in a presidential election (1976) and repented of my error (I voted for John Anderson in 1980). I don't know if there is a Platonic ideal or absolute standard of "greatness" or what constitutes "true" greatness. I only know about my own opinions and instincts. My instinct tells me that in literature, writers who show rather than tell (Ian MacEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro) are far more convincing than those who tell and hammer home their points like a didactic lecture to a kindergarten class (Joyce Carol Oates, William Styron). Analogously, in the world of affairs of state, those who go about their jobs with humility and circumspection, rather than demonstrating ostentatiously how intelligent, brilliant, humane, or "brave" they are, earn my respect. I place Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter in the latter category. It may surprise you that I place GWB and much of his administration in the same category, but then I place much of the Congressional and intellectual opposition in the same category. That is why I have cautious hopes about the new UNGS, Mr. Ban, who prefers to do his job rather than serve as a continuous advertisement for himself. I feel Mr. Carter has been nothing but since the day he resentfully relinquished the White House to Reagan. Again, I respect you and your eloquence; I wish Mr. Carter was deserving of it. And I apologize if I was overly harsh on him in my previous post. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Oh... bood=book
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 09:34 PM
"So where's the disarming strike? Has the policy changed, or were we always this willing to be coerced and blackmailed by tinpot dictators and gangster states?"
I love the posters that sound all militaristic and such...
The core of the United States capability to implement the national policy of preemption against weapons of mass destruction is CONPLAN 8022 -- "Global Strike" -- a real war plan that is supposed to provide the president with options in the case of an imminent WMD threat.
CONPLAN 8022 choreographs a quick-reaction operation combining pinpoint bombing, commandos operating deep in enemy territory, electronic and cyber warfare and "clandestinely enabled effects" ("non-kinetic" means to disable the workings of modern society).
Work on CONPLAN 8022 began in late 2002. In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), said his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes. On June 4, 2003, the "strategic concept" for the CONPLAN was approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
CONPLAN 8022 was completed in November 2003, and in January 2004, Ellis certified to Rumsfeld and the president that his command was "ready." At Ellis's retirement ceremony a few months later, Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lauded Ellis' achievement: "The president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done," he said...
Read more:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/10/the_truth_behind_military_inac.html
The best point:
The United States, somehow, in a provocative way, trying to invade North Korea?" Rice scoffed. "It's just not the case."
Rice sounds downright diplomatic when she dismisses the possibility of an invasion. The truth? Regional powers, namely China, are really in the driver's seat -- not America. What is more, there is no telling how an unpredictable Pyongyang might respond to military moves.
"Rejection" of the invasion scenario also simply reflects the reality of U.S. overextension. Which National Guard unit would the U.S. mobilize to take on the People's Army?
So what is the use of having fabulous "options" if they are never used? Surely if ever there were a case for preemption, if there ever were a "need" for a quick strike to "stop" a country from doing something, it's in the case of North Korea.
And yet, the political implications, the realities of escalation, the limitations of military force all stood in the way of the Bush administration -- the Bush administration! -- protecting America from WMD. Some will take this as a sign of the weakness, of downright Clintonian behavior. Some critics of the Bush administration are already arguing, "they" wouldn't of let this happen.
The more interesting question is whether our view of the possibility of the use of military force, and particularly of "cost free" enterprises such as global strikes, aren't in need of wholesale revision.
Tomorrow: CONPLAN 8099, another "new" war plan and another invitation to inaction
America has got to be able to wield military force effectively...this Republican adminstration has demonstrated it is totally incompetent at military action...even on a grand scale with the finest Armed Forces in the world.
Israel, recently, has been taking too much from the bood of Dubya the Great.
As for Carter...more competence and intellectual capacity in one man than the Republican Party could muster in the combined majorities of Congress, and White House.
Jimmy Carter is a trully great man who had the unfortunate luck of being President of the United States at a very very bad time...
He probably would not have even been President had it not been for the American People soured on the Vietnam War, and the whole Nixon debacle... but he still would have been a great man, based on achievements...not accident of political heredity like Dubya... who would have otherwise been... well something...but whatever it would have been would have been exceptionally mediocre.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 09:31 PM
"How depraved, for those nihilist critics to earnestly accuse the Bush Administration of pursuing the same or similar strategies to achieve the same or similar objectives, just not with the same religious flavor."
Whew..!.. glad I'm not "depraved"... I just think this Republican administration is breathtakingly incompetent.
I hear tell we're building a moat around Baghdad though...we certainly got that goin' for us!
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 06:17 PM
Red Violin,
You do pretty well on your own, I'd say.
Posted by: Kenny | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 05:53 PM
Dear Alexander: You always say what I feel much better than I ever could. Thanks for being out front on many issues.
Brilliant essay by Newt Gingrich.
Posted by: Red Violin | Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM
To all: as I noted on the previous thread, Judicious Jimmy the Sage of Plains has published a new "book" with his guaranteed-or-your-money-back solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and an interview with Newsweek's Christopher Dickey on xtra.newsweek.com, excerpted in the print edition of the magazine, with the usual bromides: recognize the "suffering" of the "oppressed" Palestinians and blame Israel until the guilt-ridden world Jewish community pressures it into yet more unilateral concessions, even as Joltin' Jimmy is made to look (not for the first time) like the pompous, self-infatuated fool he is by Hamas spokespersons the very weekend all this balderdash is published.
Now comes Jimmy the Magnificent, fresh from his ME triumph, on the op-ed page of the newspaper of record today (Wed., 10/11) to scold all of us for not paying more attention to poor neglected little Kim Jong Il, so that we could have avoided the current crisis in NE Asia. Needless to say, our good Christian Jimmy, not much of a practioner of humility, reminds us of his triumphal negotiation with the North Koreans as Clinton's "special envoy" in 1994. A triumph that had great effect, obviously. Carter gets a number of facts wrong, e.g., having NK withdraw from the NPT in 2001 (nice try, Jimmy, but they actually did so in 1993, which triggered the very crisis that led to your great mission in '94). I've got to hand it to the ugly little troll (Carter, I mean, though Kim is one too), he's got chutzpah.
If I may free-associate, the English-speaking world saw, in the latter half of the 20th century, the rise to public prominence of three skinny, awkward, physically unattractive, angst-ridden white guys with cartoonishly buggy blue eyes, blubbery thick lips, and an anxious need for approval and recognition. The first, the late and lamented Donald Knotts, a.k.a. Don Knotts, became a comic legend by poking fun at himself, embodying for the world, in the person of Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife, the world's most lovable incompetent cop. He later went on to small but important roles in films like "Pleasantville" (with pre-stardom Reese Witherspoon and Tobey Maguire as feuding adolescent siblings who find themselves transported, Twilight Zone-style, to a black-and-white '50s sitcom). The second, Michael Philip Jagger, a.k.a. Mick Jagger, came out of a lower-middle class London background, son of physical education teacher, to earn a full scholarship at England's London School of Economics before giving up academia for a full-time career fronting the world's greatest rock and roll band, a career that has now lasted into its fifth decade. The third was James Earl Carter, Jr., a.k.a. Jimmy Carter, son of a small-town Georgia peanut plantation owner, who went on to be a mediocre one-term governor of his state and worse-than-average one-term president of the United States. But following the ignominy of his defeat for reelection at the hands of a second-list former Hollywood movie actor in 1980 (and the turning over of the U.S. Senate to Republican control for the first time since the early years of the Eisenhower administration), Number Three set about rehabilitating his image by learning the language of upper-middle-class salon intellectual left-wing political correctspeak. He then took himself off to the world's various capitals and trouble spots, penned a series of fatuous but well-received "serious policy" books, and got himself a Nobel Peace Prize. I leave it to the readers of this excellent blog which of these three insecure but later successful guys has caused the world the greatest harm. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 10:43 PM
What I find most revealing -- and most galling -- about the rogue-states-with-nukes debate is that the people who argue that we can't take action against a rogue state once it has nukes are the same people who argued that we can't take action against one until it has them. Jimmy Carter might seem like a solitary individual, but for practical purposes he's an army of millions, with annexes througout the Old Media.
Time was, it was American policy that to threaten to use a nuclear weapon would be treated as equivalent to its actual use, and would call down a counterforce strike at the very least. North Korea has openly threatened to launch a nuclear-tipped missile -- though it hasn't specified a target -- if economic sanctions are lodged against it. So where's the disarming strike? Has the policy changed, or were we always this willing to be coerced and blackmailed by tinpot dictators and gangster states?
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 07:43 PM