Jimmy Carter, former US president, has been on a book tour recently. He just published his 22nd book: "Palestine Peace not Apartheid", and has been on a virtually every talk show promoting his book, pretending he cares about the condition of the Palestinians.
I tried many times to get through on the phone lines to ask him some direct questions about his administration's policies towards Iran. Not one of the shows would allow questions related to Iran. The closest anyone got to asking him a question related to Iran, was directly from one of his hosts. The host asked: what he knew about the Republican Party's schemes to undermine his presidential campaign in 1980 with a secret deal with Iran's Mullahs to delay the release of the hostages (October Surprise).
His answer: "Well, I know several books have been written about the subject, but I have not seen any direct evidence to prove this actually happened."
As if the murder of 19 people directly involved in the scheme was not evidence enough... many died mysteriously during critical moments (like the just before providing evidence to congressional committees or speaking to journalists). How about the indirect evidence from his National Security staff team member (Gary Sick), or Reagan's own political campaign staff (Barbara Hoeneger), or reports detailing these events from foreign intelligence services providing surveillance data for important meetings and events.
With his response, Jimmy Carter actually confirmed what has been suspected all along that the Republicans and Democrats have come to some sort of accommodation on all this and agreed to "move on" and run the country. Incidentally, Lee Hamilton who chaired the House Select Committee to investigate this probably helped negotiate a ceasefire, which is why he keeps getting asked to chair 'bi-partisan' commissions like the 9/11 or Iraq Study Group...as a professional whitewasher.
Carter would also not answer direct questions on the Camp David accord which he claims is his single foreign policy achievement! Now, in retrospect, it is clear that it was an incomplete document, leaving many critical elements for long-term peace unresolved without any commitments or deadlines on Israel to resolve them.
It is clear now, that the Camp David accord, only really served Israel's interests by splitting the Arabs apart and neutralizing Israel's most potent opponent (Egypt). Without Camp David, Israel would probably have reconsidered its excursions into Lebanon or Gaza or even more settlements on the West Bank. No one, it seems, can stand up to Israel today. Wittingly or unwittingly, Carter carried out Israel's strategic objectives, and banished the Palestinians to hell.
Carter now has the audacity to blame Israel for Palestinian woes, when in fact it was his accord that created the conditions for the current situation. Israel will never commit to a comprehensive peace without some arm-twisting or fear. Right now, with Saddam gone, there is no one that can exert any pressure on them. It's all Carter's fault! And when it comes to Iran, there is a long laundry list of Jimmy Carter mishaps. Everything from engineering the downfall of the Shah, to supporting the rise of the Mullahs (and Islamic Fundamentalism) in Iran and Afghanistan , and then 'regretting' it (after the hostage crisis) resulting in the 180 Degree turn by the Mullahs against Carter, to attempting a failed coup in Iran, and then failing in the hostage rescue attempt, to then asking Saddam Hussein to invade Iran (when all else failed).
There is a memo from Al Haig, Reagan's Secretary of State, upon his visit to Saudi Arabia with extensive details of his conversations with the Saudi Royals confirming that they had conveyed messages from Carter to Saddam Hussein encouraging Saddam to invade Iran.
With over 1 Million people dead in the Iran-Iraq war, countless thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese etc killed during Israel's several incursions into Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank, over 1 million Iranians fleeing overseas ...and not to forget over 2 million Afghan refugees during Soviet Union's incursion into Afghanistan...not to mention the two US led Gulf wars which were directly precipitated by "Carter's push" (... if Iraq had not invaded Iran, he would not have amassed the arms and the debt obligations that led him to invade Kuwait)... all as direct result of Carter's actions! I wonder how Jimmy Carter sleeps at night.
He is guilty of significant policy failures with horrendous consequences on millions of human beings.
Perhaps these books are designed to help him somehow shed his guilty! Some form of Haiku!?
He comes off as a Saint in these talk shows. He looks and sounds like the best ex-president ever. But, in truth, he is one of the most evil, most dangerous and most irresponsible leaders the United States has ever had. He should be hiding at home in Plains, Georgia and keeping a very low profile. The more he appears in large public forums, the greater chance he is taking that all this will eventually be revealed publicly and really humiliate him publicly and expose his false faηade. He is an imposter, and he will not be able to hide the truth forever.
www.faceofiran.com
Former Iranian Diplomat, now retired real estate investor in Delaware
Anger consumes Jalil and partially clouds his vision. He is so consumed with righteous anger over the injustices perpetrated by Israeli policies, Republican misdeeds, and diplomatic concessions that he fails to see any good in any peace agreement between the Israelis and the Egyptians.
Admittedly very few if any American actions in the Arab world have been motivated by altruism without expectation of some return. But how does Jimmy Carter's diplomatic acceptance of a historical reality make him somehow complicit in the slimy evil cover-up of the original October surprise that effectively handed the election to Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. As a credit to Mr. Carter, he shows no residual bitterness to the dirty tricks that kept Americans hostage in Iran until after the election.
At some point after injustices it is helpful to forgive transgressions to move on with other projects regardless of how much one might like to extract or impose retribution. Jimmy Carter is one of America's true Christian Presidents. Many offer lip service to the teachings of Christ, but the honorable Mr. Carter lives the Gospel and continues to take on very difficult work and actions showing God's love for all humanity.
I don't believe that Jimmy Carter or any President, except George HW Bush - who was stained to his core with black operations since before 1963, has been able to effectively control and restrain a functionally independent CIA. US covert operators were meddling in Iran way before Jimmy Carter ever came to the scene. The CIA continued their operations throughout the 70's and their activities surely continue to this day. I have read that unaccountable CIA forces provided material assistance backing the Shah of Iran and that the resulting backlash ultimately screwed up Carter's re-election and later endangered the durability of Carter's peace initiatives in the region, but I admit that I am mostly ignorant of many details and what actually happened as I wasn't even twelve years old by the time Carter's presidency ended. I do believe that Jimmy Carter's Camp David successes may have failed to bring long-term peace or any kind of material gain to the Palestinians, but the man was genuinely interested in peace and justice obtained through mediation for all people in that region. His Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts was well-deserved.
I don't believe that he purposefully or unwittingly divided Arab forces allied against Israeli hegemony. It is reckless and inflammatory to blame Jimmy Carter for "banishing the Palestinians to hell" when legitimate peaceful and conciliatory political forces within Israel existed at the time of the Camp David Accords. Both Israelis and Palestinians share blame for the climate of fear and the existence of appalling apartheid conditions in the occupied territories of Palestine. While blame and finger pointing may be a popular pass time for some, it is not constructive to look back 26 years and blame a great man of peace, civility, and diplomatic virtue for the lack of vision and circumstances of the current stake holders in the region.
Jalil Bahar writes: "Carter now has the audacity to blame Israel for Palestinian woes, when in fact it was his accord that created the conditions for the current situation." Jalil's statements may be partially true as Egypt will probably not break truce with Israel without provocation. But the Camp David Accords and Jimmy Carter shouldn't be blamed for the human rights abuses, theft of land, and daily indignities forced upon the Palestinians in the occupied territories. I believe that it is true that both the Israeli occupation and injustices perpetrated on the Palestinian people are a few of many contributing factors to the continuing instability and enmity between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, but that the tangible Palestinian threats to Israeli security also perpetuate an atmosphere of fear that enables the militaristic and defensive elements of Israel to dominate their political agenda.
Jalil continues: "Right now, with Saddam gone, there is no one that can exert any pressure on them. It's all Carter's fault!" That is an unfounded, outrageous statement without merit or logic! Everyone can see that Jimmy Carter was an honest broker who intensely desires peace and justice for all peoples. Furthermore, pressure takes many different forms and the desire for mutual respect and peace between reasonable people can overcome the impulse to destroy an enemy.
We must learn to understand each other, build trust, and establish motivating incentives to foster an environment for compromise. Nobody says that is easy, but only a few exceptional leaders have taken that difficult road to peace without being forced to the table and the very honorable Jimmy Carter is among them. In my humble opinion he should be considered a living national treasure.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 4 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 125 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 5:40:32 AM
There is a difference between sainthood & the presidency
My friend either Carter is a very good impostor or he genuinely tried! The problem in life is, that it is only results that matter not intentions. The presidency is not a platform for idealism ...there are afterall injustices perpetrated every second of the day all over the world...its a platform for realists able to select a few (maybe one or maximum two) important strategic goals that can significantly improve the condition of the American Nation...and accomplish those over the 4 year timeframe. No one should sugar coat Carter's failure with his Christian intentions. No one can deny, in retrospect, the abject failure to establish a comprehensive peace that would have impeded (as you put it) current Israeli and Palestinian actions. If Egypt was not neutralized Israelis would think twice before doing anything.No one can also deny the strategic failure of supplanting the Shah with a band of Mullahs (also Carter's doing). The results a are shit .. with these two foreign policy failures he did NOT serve the longterm interests of America. He failed as a president. Now please do not sugar coat it with intentions. And by the way, Carter, does not have the courage or decency to admit it or have a real dialogue about it...he won't take calls on the subjects. Now that, my friend, is cowardice. Cowards do not deserve Nobel Peace Prizes.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 6:04:26 AM
Jalil writes that "in life, ... only results ... matter" but life can teach us so much more. If "results" were all that mattered in life then laws, rights, procedures, and protocols would mean nothing. Fighting and dying honorably would mean very little or nothing. When anyone thinks that results are the only meaningful measure of success, then cheating, stealing, lying, and breaking the law can be easily justified to get results. Bush uses this logic to justify torture, detention without trial or charge, and unannounced search and seizure without probable cause. Obviously the results oriented presidential agenda sacrifices our Constitutional Democratic Republic so that enemies of the State may be identified, tortured, and detained without any of the guarantees to rights won by our founding fathers. The nation needs neither a Saint nor a rogue President who "get's 'er done" at any cost, but an inspired leader who respects the law and genuinely tries.
Jimmy Carter is not a coward, nor a failure and your efforts to paint him as undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize shows that you fail to respect and recognize the HUGE efforts and political cost associated with bringing sworn enemies to the negotiating table to exact major compromises that would never have occurred without him. For this kind of work Jimmy Carter became very unpopular in the 70's, and for this kind of work criticizing the current Israeli militaristic apartheid state he is again taking political blows for stating the truth as he sees it. Jimmy Carter isn't a saint and he was politically compromised in his time, but now he is taking a public stand for the Truth as he sees it without any apparent underlying reason except for the INTENTION and the desire for a real dialog and peace in the region. For that, Jimmy Carter is a courageous man!
---
Write your own damn book about the Israeli-Palestinian situation as you see it, and then see how many people really desire an honest dialog about it with you. The issue is so polarized with propagandists and lobbyist spending millions of dollars to send the spin a certain way, that real honest dialog is near impossible.
---
In essence, you state that without the Camp David Accords restraining Egypt that a tangible threat of more bloodshed would drive change into the hearts of Israelis, but that kind of thinking drives militarism and continued build-ups. Rethink that desire for a violent counterweight and approach the problem from an understanding that most everyone really wants security and peace obtained from re-assurances that they can trust. These kinds of assurances arise from proper intentions and a strong desire for peace.
Intentions drive real and lasting change. Proper intentions must accompany action and sometimes inaction for the best possible outcomes. In my humble opinion, we should all try to "do no harm" as a first reaction to most situations. Obviously first responders continuously practice and train themselves to react quickly according to written procedures to dangerous situations, but even they sometimes respond too quickly and with deadly force.
The INTENTION to protect, serve, and uphold the law maintains order effectively because the populace respects officers for doing the right thing. Those that use questionable tactics may get some results, but the cost for all of society may be unbearably high.
---
That said, in my opinion, the United States has very little right to stick our nose into other countries internal disputes. Americans would be better off redirecting our hundreds of Billions of tax dollars and our armed forces being used to subsidize historic profits by energy companies. We should invest the money in a myriad of worthy projects being starved by our voracious military industrial media complex and retrain our forces to perform as a our national guard once did and not as Imperial shock troops serving in harm's way in a foreign land far from family and home.
The CIA and any other black operations "Democracy Initiatives" supposedly securing us from enemies should stop meddling in other governments like Venezuela and Haiti to name only two. The world would be a better place if we just tried to be better neighbors instead of World Bank loan sharks, mob enforcers, torture-trainers and hit-men. If you were questioning my bravery earlier, Jalil, you can stop that now.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 4 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 125 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 4:00:15 PM
but something a bit more sinister. Tell me, Jalil, do you work directly out of CIA headquarters , are you a paid contractor for them or do you just willingly do their bidding? Is your name actually Fred?
This campaign of disinformation is simply an attempt to deflect the culpability of Bush and company, nothing to see here folks, move along, it isnt Georgie whose to blame, its all Jimmy's fault after all.
James Earl Carter is our best and brightest elder statesman, he has done more for the citizens of this planet than both the other living ex Presidents combined.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 9:43:18 AM
Unlike yourself, I provided my full name. Unlike yourself, I have a clear and traceable family history - which by the way includes my Father (Haj Sheikh Mohamad Kazem Bahar) who was chief of staff for Mossadegh's Prime Ministerial Office and His Cousin Malek Ol Shoara Bahar (Iran's most prominent modern poet - and concurently Minister for Culture and Education for Mossadegh). Since, obviously you have a limited historical perspective - Mossadegh's government was deposed by the CIA and the Shah was reinstated in 1953. Both my father and his cousin spent considerable time in jail...and Malek died from "cell" a desease he caught in jail. Wth this background, I simply could not have been either a CIA agent or a Shah puppet.
Unlike yourself, I believe in public service and faithfully served Iranians throughout the world with postings in Brazil, Poland, Turkey ... as a civil servant. That was an honorable service, of which I am extremely proud.
Be careful who you disparage and protect. Carter, despite his intentions, caused tremendous harm. Its undeniable...and in truth was much more than the Current Bush administration (3000 deaths in Iraq hardly equates to 1 Millon deaths in the Iran-Iraq war that Carter precipitated). Both Carter and Bush suffer from innate idealism - and poor execution of their policies. Two wrongs do not make a right. Be honest, be decent, but above all base your comments on facts.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 12:54:21 PM
I found your piece to be an historical anomaly at best, and , as I hinted, perhaps worse. You speak at length about a one term President, derailed by Reagan's machinations with those hostages (remember), a President who actually had a detailed and potentially great plan for ending our dependancy on oil, yours and anyones.
He is our greatest elder statesman, has done wonders here and abroad, Habitat for Humanity, the Carter Commission. Perhaps you are accurate in your tale of Carter and Khomeini, perhaps. The Shah was an unspeakable despot, that is a fact, and maybe Khomeini looked better by comparison back then, perhaps Carter was a foreign policy naieve,perhaps.
Still the facts are clear that those who followed Carter to the White House did and are doing far more harm to your region than ever Jimmy committed. I fail to see the purpose here, especially when the current lunatic in the Oval Office seems to relish wrecking great harm upon your nation.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 5:23:24 PM
One has to be fair - two wrongs do not make a right. No one is saying that any other president was the best. The issue is that both Democrats and Republicans have had basically the wrong policies on Iran and Iranians.
By the way, be careful accusing someone of being a CIA agent - every single day of my life is clearly established and I find the suggestion offensive.
I also need to correct a mistake my secretary made in my earlier response to you - I was describing my background and she got it wrong. Haj Sheikh Mohamad Kazem Tehranian was my grandfather and he was the Head of the Chamber of Commerce of Khorasan, my father was Sheikh Ahmad Bahar who was the editor of the Bahar Newspaper (that was very influential in its time, was imprisoned by Reza Shah for 3 years) and after Reza Shah's departure was Private Secretary for Ghavam Saltaneh and 16 Prime Ministers and became Chief of Staff for Mossadegh. Malek ol Shoara Bahar was my father's cousin, and was minister for education during Ghavam Saltaneh's premiership. Just so we have it on the web correctly.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:54:47 PM
Jalil Bahar, a real estate investor in Sussex County, lives in Chester, Md. He retired from the Iranian Foreign Service in 1980 after more than 20 years of service under both the shah and post-revolution government.
-------------------------------
and a further quote from the above link:
"With Iran especially, the United States has a debt of decency. Consider President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA-backed coup to eliminate democracy in Iran in 1952; Jimmy Carter's role in deposing the shah and promotion of Islamic militants in 1979; and Ronald Reagan's backroom deals with the militants that delayed the release of hostages to win the 1980 presidential election. Arms sales to both sides extending the Iran-Iraq war, resulting in one million dead and injured."
------------------------------------
Jalil, is it really your contention that Carter had a "role in deposing the shah and promotion of Islamic militants in 1979" ????
I am curious as to your position in the Iranian government under the Shah and, as Ardee suggested, your connection to the US during this period. Did you support the Shah and his policies? Arguably, the Shah committed crimes against humanity. What were you doing during all of that?
Jalil, are you sure you have the moral authority to attack Carter? Perhaps if you had used whatever position you had in the government to convince the Shah not to torture or kill his own people, there would have not been any reason for or support of an Islamic revolution in your former country. Or, don't you ever think of things in those terms?
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 11:10:46 AM
Unlike yourself, I provided my full name. Unlike yourself, I have a clear and traceable family history - which by the way includes my Father (Haj Sheikh Mohamad Kazem Bahar) who was chief of staff for Mossadegh's Prime Ministerial Office and His Cousin Malek Ol Shoara Bahar (Iran's most prominent modern poet - and concurently Minister for Culture and Education for Mossadegh). Since, obviously you have a limited historical perspective - Mossadegh's government was deposed by the CIA and the Shah was reinstated in 1953. Both my father and his cousin spent considerable time in jail...and Malek died from "cell" a desease he caught in jail. Wth this background, I simply could not have been either a CIA agent or a Shah puppet.
Unlike yourself, I believe in public service and faithfully served Iranians throughout the world with postings in Brazil, Poland, Turkey ... as a civil servant. That was an honorable service, of which I am extremely proud.
Be careful who you disparage and protect. Carter, despite his intentions, caused tremendous harm. Its undeniable...and in truth was much more than the Current Bush administration (3000 deaths in Iraq hardly equates to 1 Millon deaths in the Iran-Iraq war that Carter precipitated). Both Carter and Bush suffer from innate idealism - and poor execution of their policies. Two wrongs do not make a right. Be honest, be decent, but above all base your comments on facts.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 12:50:01 PM
Sorry, I copied and pasted my last reply to you - which largely applied to your comments too... but you did provide your last name - that's fine. I need to reply to one other thing, there is no question that Carter undermined the Shah and put Khomeini in charge. First of all his administration staff have admited it, General Haig recently confirmed it at a forum in Denver that was held in Denver, and there is clear evidence of continuing contact between Carter's administration and Khomeini (with for example confirmations of General Haiser's visit to Paris at Khomeini's residence there prior to the revolution). The issue, is that the Mullahs turned on Carter about a year or so after the revolution (for a number of reasons ...including Carter letting the Shah into the US, and failed Air Force Coup apparently supported by the US) and colluded with the Republicans.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 1:00:06 PM
I don't understand what is is you are getting at, except that you don't like Carter. The discrepancies of your "history" and your last statement that Carter "colluded" with the republicans is an attempt to deflect the truth.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 3:11:20 PM
I said the mullahs switched allegiance from Carter to the republicans once they realized that Carter was 'not being faithfull to them' - i.e. when Carter let the Shah into the US for medical treatment and when there was an attempted Coup by Iranian air force officers that were trained/educated in the US. No one is switching the truth - its simply what happened...and they kept the hostages, humiliated Carter during the reelection campaign and let the hostages out the second Reagan was innaugurated.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 5:46:50 PM
Continued odd statements compounded by odd protagonists...
You> Sleser or Sleaze ... you are very wrong
me>Do you really intend to be taken seriously after you engage in the kindergarten tactic of making fun of someone's name?
You> Unlike yourself, I provided my full name.
me>Jalil, try clicking on my screen name. There is my full name, a bio and links to my previous articles and comments. A plethora of information about me.
You> Unlike yourself, I have a clear and traceable family history - which by the way includes my Father (Haj Sheikh Mohamad Kazem Bahar) who was chief of staff for Mossadegh's Prime Ministerial Office and His Cousin Malek Ol Shoara Bahar (Iran's most prominent modern poet - and concurently Minister for Culture and Education for Mossadegh).
me>Unlike me you have a traceable family history? You just got finished saying you didnt even know my last name. with todays internet and all, everyone's family history is traceable.
You> Since, obviously you have a limited historical perspective - Mossadegh's government was deposed by the CIA and the Shah was reinstated in 1953. Both my father and his cousin spent considerable time in jail...and Malek died from "cell" a desease he caught in jail. Wth this background, I simply could not have been either a CIA agent or a Shah puppet.
me>I am sure you have a better command of Iranian history than I do. I have also heard of people who collaborate with the governments of countries who have abused their family or friends. I am sure you realize this is not definitive proof of anything.
You> Unlike yourself, I believe in public service and faithfully served Iranians throughout the world with postings in Brazil, Poland, Turkey ... as a civil servant. That was an honorable service, of which I am extremely proud.
me>Again, you have as much said that you know nothing about me. I served this country faithfully in the Air Force. I am similarly proud of this service and you have nothing over me in this regard.
You> Be careful who you disparage and protect. Carter, despite his intentions, caused tremendous harm. Its undeniable...and in truth was much more than the Current Bush administration (3000 deaths in Iraq hardly equates to 1 Millon deaths in the Iran-Iraq war that Carter precipitated). Both Carter and Bush suffer from innate idealism - and poor execution of their policies. Two wrongs do not make a right. Be honest, be decent, but above all base your comments on facts.
me>It is ever my intention to base my comments on facts. Yours seem to be more than a little hazy. According to this site and all other references I could find, Iraq invaded Iran in September of 1980, click here , when Carter was occupied by his re-election campaign. He was out of office within a few short months and didnt have the opportunity to do much of anything in what would turn out to be an eight year war. Iraq's army and Air Force were supplied by the former Soviet Union. Exactly where do you find Carter responsible for this?
You> there is no question that Carter undermined the Shah and put Khomeini in charge. First of all his administration staff have admited it, General Haig recently confirmed it at a forum in Denver that was held in Denver,
me>General Haig was not a member of the Carter administration. He was Supreme Commander of American Forces in Europe during the Carter administration and Supreme NATO commander. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig He is also a Republican and natural enemy of Carter. He is not an appropriate reference for this subject.
You> and there is clear evidence of continuing contact between Carter's administration and Khomeini (with for example confirmations of General Haiser's visit to Paris at Khomeini's residence there prior to the revolution). The issue, is that the Mullahs turned on Carter about a year or so after the revolution (for a number of reasons ...including Carter letting the Shah into the US, and failed Air Force Coup apparently supported by the US) and colluded with the Republicans.
me>Clear evidence of Continued contact? That is your criteria for determining Carter's wrongdoing? Heck, I am proud the Carter administration tried to reach out to Khomeini. You will always find me on the side of negotiation and dialogue. I would have done the same thing. I dont know for sure what was said and neither do you, but I would have tried to negotiate any possible way where Khomeini would not have returned to Iran to do what he did.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 8:16:37 PM
I checked this morning and my reply had not posted for some reason. Any way consider the following:
1) Carter does not take or address any issues related to Iran. Even his recent "Forum" on this presidency hosted at a University in Georgia, avoided the subject (totally). Now what is he hiding?
2) I have corresponded with Zbig, and reviewed Gary Sick's (who was on Carter National Security Staff)writings (who is now a professor at Columbia; my son went to Columbia)- there is no question that Carter had employed a strategy of using religion as a force against communism, they executed in Poland, and were basically trying to do the same in Iran (they thought the Shah was vulnerable to a communist coup, so they pushed Khomeini to the fore and undermined the shah...as what they thought would be a preemptive move). The problem is Khomeini and his cohorts turned on Carter (when Carter let the Shah into the US, and when there was an attempted coup by Iranian Airforce officers that were trained in the US)...hence the hostage ordeal and the october surprise etc.
Please do not put Carter on a Pedestal - he made mistakes, he should have the courage to face up to them. Millions of people have suffered for his failures.
As for your name and your public service, I admire that. Note that you were very shall we say direct (perhaps even offensive) in your initial comment. Do not accuse me of being a Shah puppet ...there is in fact a legitimate "third" path for Iran (without the Mullahs and without the dictatorship of the past).
Finally, as far as negotiation and dialogue goes, you can not negotiate with murderers or criminals...Be real... There is nothing the US can give the Mullahs right now, in fact its the other way arround. Iraq needs Kerosene for the winter - Iran has it, Iraq needs electricity from nearby power lines that Iran Has, Iraq needs cement, construction materials, trucks, tires ...Iran produces all that within a very close range of Major Iraqi cities. The Mullahs are very shrewd...they have all the cards in their hands.
Carter's back room 'negotiation' with Khatami; and Kerry's back room 'negotiation' with Iran's Mullahs (in Switzerland) will not help Hilary clean up! The Mullahs can not be trusted, and they have betrayed their partners before. Again, they are basically a band of mafia criminals...see them for what they are.
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 8:13:16 AM
jalil, sir, indeed to aspire enlightenment and enlighten is life. If one is fortunate to have heritage entwined with honor gravitas is added to words and actions. You sir seem to have such.
One of your points, which is well taken, is Carter's refusal to answer certain questions. This is indeed suspect.
I am of the opinion that it's extremely rare for those to achieve great power to not be compromised to some extent. One must haul pebbles before stones when looking to move mountains. That leaders are corrupt to a degree is an understanding of politics verses the best and worst instincts humane nature.
To this extent Carter, the Bush family, nor many of the political leaders over the span of my life deserve the recognition they've been given. Gandhi, Mandela, maybe Kennedy if given the chance, come close to achieving such greatness as to lift all to a greater life. I'm sure there are others that I'm simply not aware of or you may give your reference to.
Carter to this extent is a paradox. Indeed he achieved both some degree of success and failure. To what degree in the Middle-East any Western leaders have had in this area I would be interested to gain your opinion.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1174 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 9:11:29 PM
I am not a person with the grand family history that you are so proud of telling us about. I am a simple American who worked hard, got a university education and has lived my simple life trying to be a good human being in relationship to all other human beings.
I read and re-read your article and your assertions as regard your responses to other commenters. I find you to be a person who bends the facts to his advantage.
When a person like yourself emigrates from a homeland that they so loudly proclaim undying loyalty to and love of to the United States I am unconvinced of their sincerity in the matter.
Your assertion that it would be impossible for you to work with or for the intelligence community of this country because of your enmity toward that community for what they did to your beloved Iran rings hollow. Why then did you not return to your beloved Iran after your years of service to Iran to live?
You, just like most professional 'public servants' everywhere, seem to have served themselves more than anyone else in the final analysis. You live here in this 'demonic' land among these 'infidels' do you not? I would not buy $20 bills from you $5 dollars each Sir.
Several of those who responded to you did a commendable job of pointing out that your recounting of history is conveniently inaccurate or made up out of whole cloth.
Perhaps you are indeed in the service of some nefarious organization after all.
You state that Mr. Carter is an impostor. If he is an impostor what does that make you? Methinks you protest too much Sir!
by
Michael Weaver-Robbins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments)
on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 3:09:12 AM
The simple point I am making is the Carter unleashed these fanatics - the same ones that are ruling Iran and the same ones that caused 9/11 ...whether you accept that or not is upto you. Making the attacks personal or accusing me of association with some nefarious organization does not change the simple facts. I would be in Iran if it was not for these fanatics...you either understand that or you don't. May the day never come when you or others in this country are ruled by Swaggart, Robinson,Fallwell ...and maybe you will have some empathy for us. Take it or leave it...I am entitled to share my views and you are entitled to accept or not accept them. Facts are facts. I wish Carter would own up to it, have an open dialogue about it ...then he would really serve the role of an elder statesman and teach current and prospective US foreign policy developers with the truth!
by
Jalil Bahar (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 2:58:00 PM
