portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war dnc & rnc actions

Jimmy Carter's Speach at DNC

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of "preemptive" war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.
CARTER'S REMARKS TO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, BOSTON
Mon Jul 26 2004 19:45:57 ET


My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm not running for president. But here's what I will be doing: everything I can to put John Kerry in the White House with John Edwards right there beside him.

Twenty-eight years ago I was running for president, and I said then, "I want a government as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people." I say this again tonight, and that is exactly what we will have next January with John Kerry as president of the United States.

As many of you know, my first chosen career was in the United States Navy, where I served as a submarine officer. At that time, my shipmates and I were ready for combat and prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles.

At the same time, we always prayed that our readiness would preserve the peace. I served under two presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, men who represented different political parties. Both of whom had faced their active military responsibilities with honor.

They knew the horrors of war, and later, as commanders-in-chief, they exercised restraint and judgment and had a clear sense of mission. We had confidence that our leaders, military and civilian, would not put our soldiers and sailors in harm's way by initiating "wars of choice" unless America's vital interests were endangered.

We also were sure that these presidents would not mislead us when it came to issues involving our nation's security. Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer -- one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.

He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership, and I am confident that next January he will restore the judgment and maturity to our government that is sorely lacking today. I am proud to call Lieutenant John Kerry my shipmate, and I am ready to follow him to victory in November.

As you know, our country faces many challenges at home involving energy, taxation, the environment, education, and health. To meet these challenges, we need new leaders in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super-rich and their armies of lobbyists. But the biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.

Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America -- based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world. Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world. Without truth -- without trust -- America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between the president and the people.

When that trust is violated, the bonds that hold our republic together begin to weaken. After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this goodwill has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations. Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.

Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support. We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights. Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made!

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of "preemptive" war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.

In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation. All former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians. The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril.

Instead, violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions. Elsewhere, North Korea's nuclear menace -- a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein -- has been allowed to advance unheeded, with potentially ominous consequences for peace and stability in Northeast Asia. These are some of the prices of our government's radical departure from the basic American principles and values espoused by John Kerry!

In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common- sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.

You can't be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next, depending on the latest political polls. When our national security requires military action, John Kerry has already proven in Vietnam that he will not hesitate to act. And as a proven defender of our national security, John Kerry will strengthen the global alliance against terrorism while avoiding unnecessary wars.

Ultimately, the issue is whether America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and integrity of the American people or whether extremist doctrines and the manipulation of truth will define America's role in the world.

At stake is nothing less than our nation's soul. In a few months, I will, God willing, enter my 81st year of my life, and in many ways the last few months have been some of the most disturbing of all. But I am not discouraged. I do not despair for our country. I believe tonight, as I always have, that the essential decency, compassion and common sense of the American people will prevail.

And so I say to you and to others around the world, whether they wish us well or ill: do not underestimate us Americans. We lack neither strength nor wisdom. There is a road that leads to a bright and hopeful future. What America needs is leadership. Our job, my fellow Americans, is to ensure that the leaders of this great country will be John Kerry and John Edwards. Thank you and God bless America!

homepage: homepage: http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

I hope 26.Jul.2004 23:54

Youngster

I am not this senile when I'm 81.

"Youngster" showing his/her age. 27.Jul.2004 00:41

Lawrence Maushard

"Youngster" is definitely showing his/her lack of brains, maturity, knowledge and understanding of the real world.

The true senility in this case rests with you, Youngster. Pity it has come so early in life.

Go play with your gameboy, tike.

Come again? 27.Jul.2004 00:52

Tony Blair's dog

"Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support."

Hahaha...

The leaders failed us 27.Jul.2004 08:21

running out of time

One of the reasons why we are in the shape we are in today is because we didn't make the correct choices when they could have made a difference.Opportunity was left at the White House door.

Lawrence ridicules the "youngster" (generalizing and stereotyping, and possible age discrimination (which seniors cry foul over) ) instead of admitting that Jimmy Carter and other good natured and well intentioned folks dropped the ball on America.
When they had the White House we had more of the same.When they were put in and/or elected as ambassadors, CEOs, President, Senators etc.etc. they let corporate control, greed, and lack of vision invade their honesty, their integrity, and lost what they believed in.When those who held the power failed to bring about sweeping change and a better world that is why the young grow cynical and sarcastic, hearing only false promises, outright lies, and half-truths.

Just what became of environmental clean up ? Where is the nuclear weapons reduction? Racism has ended? The people are fed in Africa and poverty in America is no more? We don't need the endangered species act any more?

It wasn't those in their twenties and early thirties who have failed us.

...vapid homilies from stale ex-presidents. 27.Jul.2004 09:06

...old timer

...Lawrence Maushard has learned well the guiding principle of amerikan life, 'lick the the ass of those above, kick the ass of those below'. if the entire contents of the dnc and rnc were vaporized, there would be an immediate improvement in the gene pool.

It's Amerika who usually fails the real leaders . . . . 27.Jul.2004 10:27

Lawrence Maushard

James Earl Carter needs no defense from me or anyone else. But just in case you need a partial list:

--Panama Canal treaty
--Camp David Accords/peace treaty between Egypt and Israel
--SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union
--establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with People's Republic of China
--champion of real human rights as formal part of US foreign policy
--comprehensive energy program
--major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act.
--personally inspected Three Mile Island site at the dangerous peak of the crisis
--founder and director of Carter Center in Atlanta
--international election observer/coordinator
--Habitat for Humanity activist
--Nobel Peace Prize recipient

Yeah, he's a stale ex-president and a well-intentioned leader who dropped the ball on Amerika, all right. Jeez.

Yeah, we should all really rag on and not defend Jimmy Carter.

"In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."

Great words by a great man.

The love of power is the root of all evil 27.Jul.2004 11:05

Tom

Jimmy Carter started adult life as a nuclear engineer.

Clearly he had a lot of brains, but early on was wedded to the international power elite. Beats me where anyone got the idea he was some sort of "humanitarian". Because he is peripherally involved with Habitat for Humanity?

Anyway, he's no disappointment to me-- my expectations were not high to start with.

Still, there does need to be some kind of power structure-- human beings are genetically coded that way. Maybe the DNC is the best hope for humanity. If they are vaporized, something will take their place, and it isn't likely to be more beautiful.

The leaders failed us 27.Jul.2004 11:14

running out of time

We have seven carriers battle groups sailing towards/near Taiwan to participate in "war games" as we speak, we still have nuclear weapons pointed at us and we point them still overseas,and we develop new "improved" ones, human rights are at all time low (Sudan,Guantanamo,Iraq, China,Korea,the Russian- "istan" states,Syria) The elections? c'mon...Alaska is in constant danger of drilling and the Tongass forest is still in danger,Egypt and Israel?... the Middle East is a gas can on a hot summer day just waiting to explode,and the energy program? is that the Enron-Cheney rolling Southwest blackouts as we entered a new century program ?

Like I said, well intentioned leaders who have dropped the ball.

response to responses to Carter's speech 27.Jul.2004 11:21

greg snyder

the only thing i can say about youngster's response to ex-president jimmy carter's speech is that he/she must not be able to comprehend and or analyze it in any way and is only able to come up with a conclusion that may make sense to him but doesn't have anything at all to do with what carter said. it's not good or bad. it just indicates that the respondent is unable to make an intelligent comment about the ex-president's statement. so why bother? to express ignorance? if he is going to say something, it should mean something and be something to which others may respond.

i can understand your response to youngster, mr. maushard. what he said wasn't senile but it was infantile. and when people say stupid, non-sensical things about things that are important it's hard to be anything other than derisive, isn't it? i understand.

tony blair's dog. there used to be such a thing as more of a bipartisan working on some issues in the legislature. but since bush usurped power and his administration has occupied its position, that has all but been replaced by very vicious partisanship with the replublicans controlling both houses and the white house. it has become really ugly and completely dysfunctional. but many of those republicans were voted into office by their constituents in their states which is a factor beyond anyone's control. it's been pretty much carte blanche for the republicans and we know what that means because we know what their values are. mr. carter was referring to his time in office when there was more bipartisanship at play, when things weren't nearly as non-functioning in government as they are today.

the leaders failed us. the fact is that we have a house of representatives, a senate, [and some would argue a federal judiciary (certainly a majority of the members of the supreme court)] and a white house that are controlled by republicans who were, with the exception of bush, elected by their constituents. and, think about what is important to republicans, especially the more radically conservative, bible-thumping, conservative businessman redneck version which is what is in control in washington dc today. who dropped what ball? there are politicians in washington dc who try to do the right thing. but these days more often than not they are outvoted by rednecks. if you are looking to place blame for why things are the way they are, blame should go to the people who voted these rednecks into office. that also means you need to look at who is NOT voting, which is a huge number of people in this country. the majority of people who vote are conservative in their politics. the rest, the majority, are unheard because they don't vote. if you are going to place blame for dropping the ball, i think it's only fair to place part of the blame on those who don't vote or engage in any way to help take back government which has pretty much been taken over by the most conservative redneck elements in this country. also, to blame, and this is extremely important because of the nature of this presidential administration, is what the bush administration has done while in office. this period of time will be noted historically as the gutting and rape and pillage of all that is good. the endangered species act is an example. the bush administration, because it is pro business would just as soon get rid of it because in considering the welfare of the environment, the ecology, and endangered animals, some restrictions must be placed on some business practices. because of the endangered species act, business can't just dump its toxic garbage anywhere, foul the air and water without restriction, etc., and that pisses bush and his friends off because it regulates what they do and they don't like that. it should be acknowledged that the endangered species act and many other programs that are important to the quality of life we enjoy are the result of legislation that took a long time to hammer out in the political atmosphere of washington dc. and, it was often as a result of bipartisan work that eventually this type of legislation was passed. what we need is to get back to some semblance of having a democracy that works for the people once again. government has been run for the benefit of big business especially while bush has been in office. it's time to balance that a little bit with what is good for people.

The point is... 27.Jul.2004 21:31

Tony Blair's dog

that the line;

"Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support."

is complete bogus.

The reason why Russia crashed and burned had nothing to do with
"sustained bipartisan support". Russia went down because their
ruble was compromized by billions in fake money. The worlds largest
economic fraud. The worth of the ruble was quickly watered down
and the rest is history.

As to the issue of who were behind it... ;-)

Compare with how the IMF work their mojo with the poor countries
around the world.

You forgot how Carter fucked Haiti up (amongst others), Lawrence 28.Jul.2004 01:46

GRINGO STARS

* Carter is currently working against Chavez in Venezuela.
* Carter rubberstamped the election theft of the Dominican Republic in 1990, for the brutal fascist pro-US ruler.
* Carter fucked democracy TWICE in Haiti, to violent results.
* Carter privately supported Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza as he bombed cities sympathetic to revolution, while Carter pithily (and 2-facedly) spoke of "human rights" publicly.
* Carter (not Reagan) financed the Afghani invasion of Islamic Jihadists in the 1970s.

Beware Jimmy Carter!
 http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html

Jimmy Carter (like every other US president) is an asshole, two-faced, Geneva Convention war criminal who should be publicly executed if there were any justice in this world.
birds of a feather...
birds of a feather...

Interesting Points on Carter by Gringo Stars 28.Jul.2004 08:57

Lawrence Maushard

After the 70's Nicaraguan revolution, Jimmy Carter very publicly welcomed Nicaraguan Sandinista President Daniel Ortega at the White House and extended foreign aid to his government. Yet you say "Carter privately supported Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza as he bombed cities sympathetic to revolution."

If "privately supported" means Carter did not cut off funding to the Samoza government during that civil conflict, that's one thing. Other than that, what's your proof Carter was a Samozista? Why would Carter have so publicly embraced Ortega and extended aid if Jimmy didn't think well of the Sandinista movement?

And you say Carter is working against Chavez? If by mediating between Chavez and his opponents, you take that to mean "working against Chavez" then say so. I don't believe Carter has ever said or shown himself to be an opponent of the elected leader of Venezuela. A man I firmly support. I believe that Carter doesn't want to see further outbreaks of extreme political violence in that nation, and is working on the current referendum -- which I am no fan of -- in order to facilitate a peaceful process.

Carter in Afghanistan is a complex situation. He supported the Jihadists in an effort to combat and oust the occupying Soviets. You forgot to mention that point. Most of the criticism against the US regarding this region and time concerns an abandonment of Afghanistan by the US after the Soviets left. That lack of support, however, lands firmly in the lap of Reagan.

I'll have to check into your claims regarding Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Nothing is ever just black and white, is it?

read the link Lawrence 28.Jul.2004 10:00

GRINGO STARS

I provided it for a reason.

Read it. Not convinced. 28.Jul.2004 13:25

Lawrence Maushard

Read your Conterpunch article by Petras. No big deal and not very convincing. Mostly seemed to be an opinionated rant against Carter. And it does nothing to answer my rebuttal points above.

Come on Gringo Stars. Try answering my responses, about Ortega welcomed by Cater in Washington and the real reason behind Carter's support of the Afghan jihadists, without your cute "links." Do some thinking and writing on your own.

You were provided with a brain for a reason.

It is not polite to say, he is a liar 28.Jul.2004 16:23

Youngster

This is the Jimmy Carter who was president, you know. Let us look at his second paragraph :

'' Twenty-eight years ago I was running for president, and I said then, "I want a government as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people." I say this again tonight, and that is exactly what we will have next January with John Kerry as president of the United States. ''

One of the reasons why he served only one term is that he failed utterly to "clean up Washington" as he promised. Another reason is that the employees of his administration sabotaged both his efforts to rescue the American hostages in Iran. He ought to know that "new leaders in Washington" will be merely a new set of clowns, like Ronnie Ray-Guns and Willy Clinton, circus of the day to divert us from wondering why policies are never "shaped by working American families", indeed, wondering why so many American families are not so much working as scrabbling for existence.

Many people around the world believe that his second sentence is literally true. Many believe that the Bush administration is "as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people."


'' In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation. '' Come on! This is the man who organized the 'Camp David Accord' -- because the so-called peace process was becoming, too obviously, a sham. And because people were beginning to ask about the Washington laundry project.

'' We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights. '' We sure do. We also understand the link between _claiming_ to promote human rights, and killing, raping and torturing anybody who naively asks for a bit of that freedom; between claiming to support democracy whilst propping up any tin despot nasty enough to win corporate approval.


Fuck the rest! You choose. Either the guy is a shameless liar or he is senile.


BTW, Lawrence Maushard, it was Tricky Dicky Nixon who said, "I will go to China", and did, and established diplomatic relations with the Commies, too.

Reconsider Afghanistan, Lawrence 28.Jul.2004 17:46

GRINGO STARS

Lawrence, the CIA has admitted to luring Jihadists into afghanistan for the sole purpose of baiting a trap for the USSR, a "quagmire" with which to ruin the Soviet empire. "The Afghan Trap" as the CIA called it, was an utter success. You should research that.

so the Petras article is all lies, Lawrence? My BS-detector did not go off on that article. It rings true to me. Presidents do not win elections without support of the ruling elite, and Carter wa an obedient servant of their interests. research what the Egypt-Israel treaty resulted in for better illustration of this.

Hero worship is not conducive, especially when it is the complusively-lying corporate press which sings a supposed "hero's" praises. carter failed to "clean up Washington" because that was never his intention. But it was a convincing line of populist BS with which to dupe large amounts of voters.

petras is obviously "opinioted" because he is not a robot. If you believe in the myth of a neutral press, you have much more research to do.

Clear mistakes and hackneyed lines . . . 28.Jul.2004 21:24

Lawrence Maushard

Youngster:

you're showing your mental age and lack of the most basic reading of history, dude. You don't have enough brains to do an easy check and find out that Carter did indeed extend US recognition to mainland China for the first time -- in 1979! Nixon, as everyone knows, was the first prez to visit Mao and open diplomatic channels. But formal recognition didn't come until Carter's term. Rookie mistake that any college freshman would be able to sidestep.

The rest of your rant is just that -- a rant by a woefully uninformed and ill-trained mind.

Gringo Stars:

You still didn't respond to my point about why Carter so publicly welcomed Ortega at the White House if he was such a Samoza supporter. No logic in that one, if your initial assertion is true. And you obviously have no answer to it. Just repeating shit you read.

As for Petra's artice, I never wrote that it was "all lies." Those are your words, important tools you use with far too little discipline.

Also, your line about "Presidents do not win elections without support of the ruling elite, and Carter wa (sic) an obedient servant of their interests" is nothing but a pantload. Sorry, but independents do happen to jump up through the US political cracks in the floor every once in a while. I mean, just ask yourself: "why was Carter able to beat Ford, the obvious choice of the power elite?, if that statement was true?" Because they thought Carter would seve their interests better? Please. Yes, Carter was an ingenious plant, wasn't he? Did you ever once think to really examine your overarching generalities with any sort of specific, focused methodology? I thought not.

Also, I cannot stand your kind of condescending bullshit attitude which attempts to belittle anyone who raises their voice in praise of a good and decent person/leader who also happens to be an American politico. And your absolute crap about how I might "believe in the myth of a neutral press" is also nothing but more condescending shit. You're obviously nothing but another low self-esteem pinhead who loves nothing more than than to see their name plastered next to tired worn-out cliches which are passed off, and not very convincingly, as their own. You're just rying to get in some gooey, cheap mental masturbation at my expense. Go fuck your "research" and more-informed-than-thou affectations, dick head.

Finally, Afghanistan was most certainly a quagmire for Soviet Russia, but the CIA taking the lead into luring Moscow there is so much wishful thinking and faux credit-taking by CIA hacks who wish they were so good. The vaunted CIA couldn't topple Castro, couldn't forsee the Iranian revolution or even prevent the hostage crisis, the CIA couldn't protect its own station chief in Beirut, couldn't predict the collapse of the Soviet system, and countless other disasters and embarrassments, and you're gonna try and tell me with a straight face that the CIA somehow suckered the Soviets into Afghanistan in a bold master stroke orchestrated by the evil genius, President James Earl Carter?

You and so many others simply go along spewing the all-or-nothing conspiracy lines so often floating around the desperate pseudo-academic floatsom and jetsom of the times without taking the least amount of time and effort to think through things on your own.

Better find some way of recalibrating that BS Meter of yours, Gringo Stars. In fact, I doubt it ever worked.

Freud calls it "projecting", Lawrence... 29.Jul.2004 00:33

GRINGO STARS

For example, when one calls someone "condescending" many times in a single comment, all the while being both very insulting and condescending himself, it might be that the commentor is projecting their problems with themself onto another, for psychological and emotional safety. Just a theory. But probably one of those egghead book-larnin theories from people who research things, eh?

Why invite someone to the White House? Because it is a meaningless political gesture, empty - yet impressive to those small minds hypnotized by the powerful (I am glad you can find so much to like about the ultra-powerful).

Inviting ones enemy, as well as inviting ones friend, to your seat of power is an ancient political technique. Apparently you've never heard of it, since you somehow take an invitation to the White House to be a stamp of approval. Your naivete is astonishing - there is no logic in yoru asumption. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer." Carter invited everyone to the White House. Being an inclusive peacemaker was his schtick, and allowed him to pretend to objectivity while striking down his enemies and supporting brutal pro-US dictators.

Name one "independant" US President who "jumped through the cracks" and stood up to the ruling elite. There has been none. Your statement to the contrary was either dishonest or ignorant.

Please explain how Ford was the "obvious" choice for the ruling elite not long after Nixon, when they needed the balm of false populism to pacify an angry nation.

Any media which pretends towards objectivity is dishonest. It is not mental masturbation, but a crucial recognition that the so-called professional "objective" press is anything but objective, and actually quite reactionary, fascist and capitalist in the case of thsi country. This is one of the tenets of Indymedia, that there is no such thing as an objective media.

True, the CIA has made many mistakes. But Afghanistan certainly wasn't one of them. Don't rail against the messenger. The truth shouldn't be so painful. Don't wed yourself to emperors like Carter (they are rarely honest or decent). He may be called "president" but he ran an empire, just like any empire would be run - brutally.

Since you have no real argument, you rely on ad hominem - personal attack. Typical of empire apologists. Do you have anything besides personal attacks?

Since you only dismiss Petras' article as a "rant", at least you do not deny its veracity. So how do you amend your apologist view of Carter with Petras' view, since you do not call into question his information?

Strange of you to speak positively of "thinking on your own" when you are parroting the CNN lies I hear so often - why is that, Lawrence? You seem to hate research, which would explain things.

Jimmy Carter, the "friendly" face of US imperialism:
 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/cart-o12.shtml

Jimmy Carter gave the go-ahead for the Kwangju massacre:
 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0242/mamatas.php

from an interesting article:

In an interview in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur several years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinksi, National Security Assistant to President Jimmy Carter, revealed that Carter first ordered US aid to the Mujahadeen in July 1979, six months before the Red Army invaded Afghanistan. He commented complacently, 'That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing Russia into the Afghan trap.' Brzezinski's cynicism should be kept in mind when American and British officials, and their tame intellectuals like James Rubin and Michael Ignatieff, sit in judgement on 'failed states' in conflict with western 'civilisation'. Afghanistan may have been a backward and oppressive society before 1979, but it functioned. It was American and Russian imperialism that destroyed it.

The point isn't just moral. Bin Laden and the Taliban have numerous connections to Washington's main clients in the Middle East and South Asia. The Taliban were, of course, the creation of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the CIA's main instrument during the Afghan war.
 http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/257/SR1.HTM

Clear mistakes and hackneyed lines . . . 29.Jul.2004 02:55

Youngster

First you said "diplomatic relations".

So did I.

Now you say "formal recognition".

Although, strictly speaking 29.Jul.2004 04:05

Youngster

One cannot really say either established diplomatic relations.

Both were mere messenger-boys, renting their lips to the corporate oligarchs. Messenger-boys don't write messages. They deliver the messages they are told; nothing more.

Gringo, gringo, little stars . . . . 29.Jul.2004 10:05

Lawrence Maushard

September 2, 1979: Carter welcomes Nicaraguan Daniel Ortega and other Sandinista leaders, who have just toppled dictator Anastasio Somoza, to the White House. He provides them with $118 million in aid.
___________________________________________________________________________

Yet you say, "Why invite someone to the White House? Because it is a meaningless political gesture, empty - yet impressive to those small minds hypnotized by the powerful." Yes, we're all so blinded by the White House light. Jeez.

$118 million in aid to poor revolutionaries was certainly no "meaningless political gesture, empty."

And your line "Carter invited everyone to the White House" is so much bunk. Please provide me a list of his supposed "enemies" publicly invited to the Big House.

Also, it is more than self-evident that Gerald Ford was most certainly the power elite's candidate of choice over Carter. You're trying to tell me the power elites were actually frightened "by an angry nation" in the wake of Nixon's resignation and so had to provide us poor folk with a "false populism"? Sorry, the power elites could not have been so very afraid of an "angry nation" in 1976 when the nation had been so much more volatile and truly angry during the Vietnam War years. Did the power elites try to pacify an angry nation then, when there was really something to fear? Don't think so. And you're telling me Carter was a sop to this frightening seething nation over the verge of revolution in 1976. No way. Ford was the power elite candidate in 1976, and he lost a close election to Carter, a nationally unknown independent out of no-where.

As for your psuedo-Freudian projection clap-trap, sometimes a cigar is just that. You are most certainly a condescending personality. Or you try to be. Just want to make sure and clearly point that out. Lord, deliver us from people like you, people who write things like "But probably one of those egghead book-larnin theories from people who research things, eh?"

Also, your claim that I somehow hate "research" and your endless prattling about the media -- yes, your cliches and well-worn bromides are so insightful, so brilliant -- shows how poor you are at any type of character analysis.

And those damned links. Please stop it with those damned links, your idea of "research."

Remember: try to think on your own, Gringo Stars. I still haven't seen one original sentence from you that coouldn't be lifted from someone else's work. Too worried you'll make a mistake, I'm sure. No intellectual courage whatsoever.

Hey, it's always fun going off on you. Thanks!

America is a decent country despite people like larry 07.Sep.2004 23:54

nmaggie

hmmmm, ok........

--Panama Canal treaty
lets see, isn't that the one where we lost control of the panama canal?

--Camp David Accords/peace treaty between Egypt and Israel
oh geeeezzz, tell me larry, what were egypts alternatives?

--SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union
oh yeah, this was the broken treaty that revealed to the soviet government how to make a treaty without any teeth. carter gave us broken salt II treaty and reagan freed us from not only the treaty but from the threat as well.

--establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with People's Republic of China
oh wow, i thought it was nixon that broke the ice with the chinese...how convenient your memory is larry

--champion of real human rights as formal part of US foreign policy
i guess liberation of afghanistan and iraq dont count then or maybe you dont count them as human larry. i would think that a real champion of human rights would appreciate these things.

--comprehensive energy program
ummmm, really? tell me larry, where did this program manifest itself because i havent seen any evidence of it?

--major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act
huh?......

--personally inspected Three Mile Island site at the dangerous peak of the crisis
so you mean to say that the peak of the crisis occured 4 days after the peak of the crisis? and besides, ummm.......so what?

--founder and director of Carter Center in Atlanta
uh, ok (incidently, this is where you got this stupid asinine list from)...geeez, you dont even know what he accomplished, you had to get it from one of his internet sites.

--international election observer/coordinator
uugggghhhhh, now you are reaching!

--Habitat for Humanity activist
one outta 12 aint bad i guess......for a liberal

--Nobel Peace Prize recipient
i might give ya this one... but then again, they gave the same award to kofi annan, so never mind

** and now the verdict
Take your soviet style spelling of America back to 1970s ussr where it will be more appreciated. Larry Boy, you are a liberal mental migdet and i am completely confident that Youngster could take you to school in any arena.............including gameboys.