Jimmy Carter

[Dust Bunnies]

I need to do a report about why Jimmy Carter is my favorite US President. Seeing as I hate all of them and many leftists say that Jimmy was the best (or FDR) I guess I'll fake it to make it and love Jimmy. What did Jimmy do that was good and why I love him so much? (please note this is for a Conservative School)

[Rosa Provokateur]

You could write on his bringing attention to human rights issues.

[ZeroNowhere]

You could say that he was a complete dick.
Or, if you want to go parody, that the destruction WAS FUCKING MUTUAL OKAY! (And Carter's ignoring of the human rights which he promoted was due to the fact that human rights only apply to 'murkins and people who you can use as an excuse for invasion, and is thus actually consistent)

Anyways, what do you have to write about? Your favorite President, or...?

[ComradeOm]

Jimmy Carter: History's Greatest Monster

[Dust Bunnies]

You could say that he was a complete dick.
Or, if you want to go parody, that the destruction WAS FUCKING MUTUAL OKAY! (And Carter's ignoring of the human rights which he promoted was due to the fact that human rights only apply to 'murkins and people who you can use as an excuse for invasion, and is thus actually consistent)

Anyways, what do you have to write about? Your favorite President, or...?

Or the best invention but seeing how I am a political person I'd think that President would be better. I wish I knew if literature counted as an invention (Communist Manifesto).

[ZeroNowhere]

Or the best invention but seeing how I am a political person I'd think that President would be better. I wish I knew if literature counted as an invention (Communist Manifesto).Eh, I dunno, doing an invention could be pretty interesting. Moreso than pretending to like a capitalist politician, at least. Still, good luck either way.

[apathy maybe]

Eh, what? What grade is this for? You have to do a report on why Jimmy Carter is your favourite president? You can't pick any one?

If you could pick anyone, pick Bill Harrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison). Why? 'Cause he was in office for the shortest time, only 32 days. Or maybe James A. Garfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield) who was shot after only six months in office?

You could go on to say that you wish other presidents were more like these two... Achieving little, and dying quickly.

Edit: Heh, or you could discuss the gun as your favourite invention. It is used by anarchists every where to shoot presidents...
Or, the Internet would perhaps be a better one, 'cause it allows the free flow of ideas and information.

[ZeroNowhere]

Heh, or you could discuss the gun as your favourite invention. It is used by anarchists every where to shoot presidents...
Perhaps, but it works both ways, and probably works the other way more often. Still, it would be awesome to give that in as an essay, so...

Anyways, yeah, you could do the internet, microchips, and such. The flushing toilet's probably better, but anyways.

[Andy Bowden]

Mention how he dealt with the rabbit attack.

[Dimentio]

I know that he was quite popular in Panama, due to that he signed the Canal Treaty with Omar Torrijos.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You could talk about how his policies directly led to the Reagan (Counter)Revolution and gave the US a central-right bent until recently.

No, just kidding. He does a lot of human rights work.

[Jack]

McKinley...


BAM!

[Ismail]

Carter is obviously not a leftist (in fact mass privatizations began under him in 1979 and 1980), but he was actually one of the better US Presidents as far as administration goes, though reasons for that probably require more time then you'd be willing to invest in the report.

[Dust Bunnies]

Eh, what? What grade is this for? You have to do a report on why Jimmy Carter is your favourite president? You can't pick any one?

If you could pick anyone, pick Bill Harrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison). Why? 'Cause he was in office for the shortest time, only 32 days. Or maybe James A. Garfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield) who was shot after only six months in office?

You could go on to say that you wish other presidents were more like these two... Achieving little, and dying quickly.

Edit: Heh, or you could discuss the gun as your favourite invention. It is used by anarchists every where to shoot presidents...
Or, the Internet would perhaps be a better one, 'cause it allows the free flow of ideas and information.

Well, I have to choose one or do an invention, I guess I should do invention. I was going to do Jimmy because many people chosen him in the chit-chat thread.

[Revy]

The Truth About Jimmy Carter (http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html)

[Dimentio]

The Truth About Jimmy Carter (http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html)

Jimmy Carter actually said the referendum was "OK".

[Revy]

Nicaragua 1979: Part I--Carter and Somoza

In June 1978, President Jimmy Carter sent a private letter to the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza lauding Somoza for the "human rights initiatives" while he criticized Somoza publicly. Carter had made "human rights" a centerpiece of his interventionist propaganda ( Morris Morley, Washington, Somoza and the Sandinistas, 1994, pp 115-116). This two-faced policy occurred during one of the bloodiest periods of Somoza's rule when he was bombing cities sympathetic to the revolution. Carter's rhetorical declaration of concern for human rights was for public consumption, his private assurances to Somoza encouraged the dictator to continue his scorched earth policy.

Nicaragua May 1979 : Part II--Carter Proposes Intervention

In June 1993 the Foreign Minister under the late Panamanian President Torrejos told me of President Carter's briefest regional meeting. It took place less in May 1979 less than two months before Somoza was overthrown. Carter convened a meeting of foreign ministers of several Latin American countries who were opposed to Somoza's dictatorship. President Carter entered and immediately tabled a proposal to form an "Inter-American Peace Force", a military force of US and Latin American troops to invade Nicaragua to "end the conflict" and support a diverse coalition. The purpose, according to the former Panamanian minister present, was to prevent a Sandinista victory, preserving Somoza's National Guard and replace Somoza with a pro-US conservative civilian junta. Carter's proposal was rejected unanimously as unwarranted US intervention. Carter in a pique ended the meeting abruptly. Carter's attempt to throttle a popular revolution to preserve the Somocista state and US dominance clearly belied his pretensions of being a "human rights" President. His legacy of using "Human Rights" to project imperial military power became standard operating procedure for Reagon, Clinton and both Bush presidencies.

Afghanistan: Carter Finances the Invasion of Islamic Terrorists

In the late 1970's Afghanistan was ruled by a nationalist secular regime allied with the Soviet Union. The regime promoted gender equality, free universal education for women and men, agrarian reform including the redistribution of feudal estates to poor peasants, the separation of religion and the state and adopted an independent foreign policy with a Soviet tilt. Beginning at least as early as 1979, the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia orchestrated a massive international recruiting campaign of Islamic fundamentalist to engage in a "Jihad" against the "atheistic communist regime." Tens of thousands were recruited, armed by the US, financed by Saudis Arabia and trained by the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence. Pakistan opened its frontiers to the flood of armed invaders. Internally the displaced Mullahs, horrified by the equality and education of women, not to speak of the expropriation of their huge land holdings, joined the Jihad en masse.

The Carter Presidency (and not Reagan) was responsible for the organization, financing, training of the Islamic uprising and the terror campaign which followed. Zbig Brzesinski later wrote of the US--Afghanistan campaign as one of the high points in US Cold War diplomacy--it provoked Soviet intervention on behalf of the secular Afghan ally. Even when confronted with the consequences of the total devastation of Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban and Al Queda and 9/11, Carter's former National Security Adviser, Brzesinski replied that these were marginal costs in comparison with a war which successfully hastened the fall of the Soviet Union. President Carter's intervention in Afghanistan initiated the Second Cold War, which was pursued with even greater intensity by Reagan. Carter backed a series of surrogate wars in Angola, Mozambique, Central American, the Caribbean and elsewhere. Carter was clearly an advocate and practitioner of the worst kind of imperial intervention and a master of public relations: he was an early practitioner of "Humanitarian Imperialism"--humane in rhetoric and brutally imperialist in practice.

[Ismail]

When people mention the US funding and support of UNITA and the (more Islamic but conciliatory-towards-US typed) Mujahidin, it ignores the fact that the people of Angola and Afghanistan were genuinely struggling against pro-Soviet 'socialist' governments and paints everyone who struggled against them as either evil anti-communists who eat babies (UNITA) or evil Islamic fundamentalists who stomp on wombs and tear out the babies in the name of Allah and throw them into the Red Sea. (Mujahidin)

There was no way in hell Afghan foreign policy was "independent with a Soviet tilt" after 1978, and it actually was independent with a Soviet tilt before the pro-Soviet coup of 1978, back when the leader of the pro-Soviet coup of 1973 (Daoud) began moving away from the Soviets, so they went "oops" and did another pro-Soviet coup.

In Nicaragua the Soviets cared far more about the Sandinistas than when Chilean President Salvador Allende, by all accounts a much more genuine Marxist, got overthrown in the 70's. The Soviets didn't really care about Allende because they weren't funding him.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Jimmy Carter: History's Greatest Monster
Adolf Hitler: History's Greaterest Monster:tt2:

[BobKKKindle$]

Ismail is right there. There is a tendency for people on this site to assume that if a resistance force receives any kind of material or political support from an external actor, especially the United States, when it is fighting against a country that presents itself as "progressive" or "anti-imperialist" such as the USSR it can no longer be considered a legitimate anti-imperialist movement and does not deserve any support whatsoever from Marxists. This is wrong; although the Mujahideen did contain a small number of individual militants who traveled from Arab countries in order to become part of the struggle, it was overwhelmingly a movement that was rooted in the Afghan population, and its struggle against the Soviets reflected the genuine dissatisfaction of the Afghan peasantry with the failure of the puppet government to respect the autonomy of their communities.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to Learning.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Carter is my favorite post-war president, but alas, on RevLeft, being an "American leader" automatically imparts you with hatred.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Truth About Jimmy Carter (http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html)

In other words, Jimmy Carter is the only president who goes out of his way to give people like Chavez a fair shot, but he had to cope with opposition movements that were oftentimes just as despicable as the authorities; thus he should be character bombed.

Anyone with that much power is going to abuse it. The subject shouldn't turn to finding every flaw, but identifying their purposes. After basically resigning himself to a one-term presidency by not declaring war on Iran, and by putting himself under heavy scrutiny with unfavorable statements toward Israel, I have a hard time believing Carter just fakes his human rights concern.

[ZeroNowhere]

Carter is my favorite post-war president, but alas, on RevLeft, being an "American leader" automatically imparts you with hatred.

Nah, I just do not appreciate it when you pump money and arms into Salvadoran security defences responsible for a majority of bloodshed in the country, replenish the Indonesian military while it massacres the East Timorese population, back General Chun Doo Hwan's military regime, including after the Kwangju massacre, and recruit the most reactionary elements in the Muslim world through Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence to fight the Soviet-backed rulers of Afghanistan, including assaults on women wearing Western clothes, and attacks on co-ed schools. He also lent the US state the 'human rights' cover for killing and theft, regardless of the fact that he didn't exactly seem to respect anything like them at all, except with perhaps making some sounds about Israeli occupation. Then there's, "the destruction was mutual," which is just fucking horrible.

[STJ]

Just say Jimmy Carter is my favorite president and then leave the rest of the paper blank.

[manic expression]

When people mention the US funding and support of UNITA and the (more Islamic but conciliatory-towards-US typed) Mujahidin, it ignores the fact that the people of Angola and Afghanistan were genuinely struggling against pro-Soviet 'socialist' governments and paints everyone who struggled against them as either evil anti-communists who eat babies (UNITA) or evil Islamic fundamentalists who stomp on wombs and tear out the babies in the name of Allah and throw them into the Red Sea. (Mujahidin)

UNITA worked with the forces of South African apartheid. Savimbi was an open opponent of revolution and was eventually marginalized by his former supporters as he senselessly prolongued a civil war. They were "genuinely" the tools of imperialism. The civil war in Angola was central to apartheid's position in southern Africa, and the reversal of South African ambitions there contributed to the decline in apartheid power. Mandela's first foreign visit as president was to Havana where he reemphasized how important the anti-imperialist struggle in Angola was to the anti-apartheid movement.


There was no way in hell Afghan foreign policy was "independent with a Soviet tilt" after 1978, and it actually was independent with a Soviet tilt before the pro-Soviet coup of 1978, back when the leader of the pro-Soviet coup of 1973 (Daoud) began moving away from the Soviets, so they went "oops" and did another pro-Soviet coup.Daoud was thrown out of power by the PDPA in the spring of 1978; the PDPA struck because they were afraid Daoud was moving against them (communists had been arrested and the PDPA saw it as a sign of things to come). Daoud's government had just been weakened by a large demonstration in Kabul IIRC. Nevertheless, the PDPA wanted Soviet support (in the form of troops, if possible) by late 1978 IIRC because the right-wing rebellions were gaining ground. The USSR was initially hesitant, but later went in largely because of Carter's support for the Mujahideen (who were quite reactionary from all accounts).

And the PDPA was, after some struggles, decidedly pro-Soviet and wanted Soviet troops there. It's not like the USSR forced the Afghani government to accept the intervention, it was mostly the other way around.


In Nicaragua the Soviets cared far more about the Sandinistas than when Chilean President Salvador Allende, by all accounts a much more genuine Marxist, got overthrown in the 70's. The Soviets didn't really care about Allende because they weren't funding him.I think that's partially because they couldn't really do much about Chile, seeing as they didn't fund him or the organizations behind him.

And the Sandinistas were genuinely revolutionary, whether or not they were "my kind of Marxist" is beside the point in my view.

[manic expression]

Some stuff on UNITA's leader, Savimbi:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4362364,00.html

[Ismail]

UNITA worked with the forces of South African apartheid. Savimbi was an open opponent of revolution and was eventually marginalized by his former supporters as he senselessly prolongued a civil war. They were "genuinely" the tools of imperialism. The civil war in Angola was central to apartheid's position in southern Africa, and the reversal of South African ambitions there contributed to the decline in apartheid power. Mandela's first foreign visit as president was to Havana where he reemphasized how important the anti-imperialist struggle in Angola was to the anti-apartheid movement.Savimbi was an open opponent of communist (pro-Soviet) revolution. So? It isn't like the MPLA, which is to the right of UNITA today, was ever a genuine Marxist party. Also UNITA was opportunist and only sided with South Africa because the Chinese and others were not giving him enough aid. Savimbi was anti-colonialist, just not a communist.


Daoud was thrown out of power by the PDPA in the spring of 1978; the PDPA struck because they were afraid Daoud was moving against them (communists had been arrested and the PDPA saw it as a sign of things to come). Daoud's government had just been weakened by a large demonstration in Kabul IIRC. Nevertheless, the PDPA wanted Soviet support (in the form of troops, if possible) by late 1978 IIRC because the right-wing rebellions were gaining ground. The USSR was initially hesitant, but later went in largely because of Carter's support for the Mujahideen (who were quite reactionary from all accounts)."Right-wing" rebellions? What about Shola-y-Jaweid? The Afghanistan Liberation Organization? Fact is, the Soviets overthrew a pro-Soviet opportunist anti-communist in 1978 (Daoud was pro-Soviet as Prime Minister in the 50's which is why he was booted out in 1963 by the King) and a year later the entire country was full of rebellions in every single province. The Soviets shot Amin, the leader of Afghanistan, so it's pretty clear that the Soviets had their own intentions.


And the PDPA was, after some struggles, decidedly pro-Soviet and wanted Soviet troops there. It's not like the USSR forced the Afghani government to accept the intervention, it was mostly the other way around.Which is why Amin got a bullet in the head and the Soviets brought Babrak Karmal (a Parcham) to defeat the influence of the Khalq.


And the Sandinistas were genuinely revolutionary, whether or not they were "my kind of Marxist" is beside the point in my view.Their "genuinely revolutionary" leader today is the least revolutionary of all the leftist leaders in Latin America.