I sent the recent NYT Carter editorial to a friend. He responded with a WSJ critique of Carter's editorial written by James Taranto. The first paragraph of my reply is a quote from that.
>>What people often forget--or at least try to forget--is that Carter actually served a term as president of the United States, and during that time such fatuity was official American policy. The results included the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of power in Iran by Islamic lunatics, who invaded the U.S. Embassy and took dozens of Americans hostage, releasing them only after Ronald Reagan had been inaugurated.<<
Ah, the Daily Tattler writers are no match for the fictions employed by the apologists of the Right. To blame Carter for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and remain evenhanded, they'd have to blame Eisenhower for the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, as well as Castro's revolution in Cuba. They'd have to blame Nixon and Ford for the communist victories in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and their ascension to power in Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique. Warren G Harding would be responsible for losing Mongolia to the communists back in 1921.
But no, somehow it'll be twisted so the Left was responsible for it all. A buncha pothead hippies gave away SE Asia. Probably the loss of the African nations were the fault of Jesse Jackson. Cuba musta been the fault of Janet Reno's kin. Hungary? Had to be Little Richard's & Fats Domino's early work. The Roaring 20s bohemians of Greenwich Village obviously handed over Mongolia.
As for the Iranian hostage crisis, let's forget that the Shah- installed by Eisenhower and in power for 15 years of Republican POTUS's and 8 of Democratic POTUS's before Carter took office - had anything to do with it. Carter's mistake? He let the Shah come to the US to seek medical treatment, and the Ayatollahs moved in.
thirdworldtraveler.com
Carter mounted a rescue mission, but 3 of 8 helicopter motors were overcome by sand. Musta been Georgia sand. Eventually, his patience was rewarded as all 52 hostages came home alive after spending nearly 15 months in captivity. They were released as Reagan was at his swearing in, but of course, the credit goes to him.
The Left must also be held accountable for the arms to Iran by Reagan, Bush, the Atty Gen'l and that real man's patriot, Ollie North: webcom.com The sale of Israeli Hawk missiles to Iran was this administration's approach to getting 7 US hostages freed in Lebanon. This was really successful: 2 were released in 16 months, 3 were held from 5 to 7 years and two were killed. The Archbishop of Canterbury's hostage negotiator, Terry Waite, was also taken captive for almost 5 years; little known was his previous contacts with Ollie North.
And the Left made up all the subsequent stuff about drug running: webcom.com
cia.gov
cia.gov
The CIA clearly made an effort to end associations with suspected drugrunners, but it seems to have become more of a priority after Congress had begun its investigation.
Conclusive proof that Reagan knew all the fine details of Iran/Contra does not exist, though evidence emerged that he and Bush knew of some of the 'extralegal' patriot games. (Must be the prosecutor and judge were softheaded pinko Lefties too.)
And of course, the backdrop to all these goings-ons was the Iraq-Iran War which raged through the 1980s. These two Axis of Evil countries were trying to outdo each other in pure horror, as Iran sent waves of children - sometimes tethered together so the weakwilled could not opt out - to the front lines, and Iraq responded with mustard gas and VX nerve gas.
As Iran was our enemy at the time, providing those Israeli Hawk missiles would be treason if a mere US citizen supplied them. Not to mention the drugrunning into Central America. A partial list of the funders for all of this includes the tens of millions provided by Saudi Arabia, and more millions from other Middle East governments, Brunei, Panama's Noriega and a few
wealthy US donors.
And while they supplied missiles to Iran, and the Soviets supplied Iraq, things changed in the late 80s because of the increasing tanker war that was threatening oil supplies and the fear that Iran was winning, which meant that Shia dominated southern Iraq might go the way of the Ayatollahs. With the increased pressure from the US and USSR, plus Iraq's use of chemical weapons, Iran finally agreed to a peace treaty in 1988. (Details of this war are at: fas.org )
Oh, but there's more to the intrigues and illegalities the Left was responsible for in this time. From 1985-89 it seems the hippies on the Left were forcing Republican folks to supply arms to Iraq via an Italian Bank, and then forced Presidents Reagan and Bush - and the government of Israel - to provide aid to Iraq up to a few weeks before Desert Storm! So we were supplying weapons to both sides...
cjr.org
The affidavit of a member of the National Security Counsel guy lays it out: realhistoryarchives.com
And it's merely coincidental that guys like Kissinger, Eagleburger and Scowcroft had a solid relationship with that Italian bank. Kissinger denies all knowledge of the bank's activities, and the appearance of conflicts of interests for the other two is obviously the mere delusion of another Lefty, Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas, though he "said he wished to make clear that he was not accusing anyone of any illegalities." webcom.com
The judge had some reservations about the government's actions in the case too: webcom.com
webcom.com
and the BNL guy: webcom.com
But back to my original point.
President Carter made some mistakes. But he came into office on the heels of Watergate, a dysfunctional economy torn by a combination of Vietnam War debts, Great Society expenses and the rising power of OPEC. The American public was gunshy about using our military and viewed the Federal government with deep suspicion after all the Watergate and Cointelpro revelations.
So Carter was elected because he appeared to be an ethical guy. His post-Presidential works overseeing elections in fledgling democracies, in the promotion of human rights, in diplomatic peace-seeking missions and in Habitat for Humanity, confirm this. Some of his presidential initiatives met with success, but they ultimately were overshadowed by a second oil embargo, an economy he failed to tame and the hostage crisis.
In his NYT editorial, he counselled that this administration should consult with Congress and the international community. His was not particularly critical of Bush, directing more heat to Bush's most hawkish advisers.
Carter is no idiot and is quite aware of Hussein's potential. His editorial did not express it directly, but he knows the real threat is to Israel. Even if Hussein could get his hands on plutonium and build a nuke or two, it's unlikely he'd use them on Israel for two reasons: the Israelis have about 400 nukes to respond with and a nuclear attack on the tiny state of Israel would have a radioactive impact on millions of Arab neighbors.
The real threat are the biochemical weapons. And Carter would know that. But he also understands that if we turn it into a High Noon display of raw US power, while sacrificing Constitutional balances and diplomatic processes, we'd put forth the face of arrogance, not civilization. In trying to introduce democratic freedoms and processes of civilization to a region long ruled by brutality, simply demonstrating that we can outkill our enemies is not enough.
And I continue to think it oddest of all that if Hussein is this great big threat, why is there not more criticism of the guys who helped arm Hussein and, with Desert Storm, left the job of finishing him off incomplete?
I know the answers. Carter's an easy target for those who equate Southerners with simpleton attributes. And it's just too inconvenient to use objectivity when partisan perceptions say Right=good and Left=bad. (Or vice-versa).
So let's suspend international diplomacy, defendant rights, Constitutional mandates and hey, while we're at it, let's torture anyone who dares to be our opponent and castigate those who dare to speak up to slow the lynch mob. We could use a good gulag.
I'm too damn old to buy into that crap from either side. Both sides have plenty of warts with a few virtues. I'll take the pragmatist from any source who not only increases our safety, but seeks to maintain the honor that comes from living in a society of ethics that are still worth dying for. |
