I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think most of the problems currently plaguing us are all Jimmy Carter’s fault. I also think the man is a morally reprehensible kook. (You can find all my Carter posts here.) It therefore comes as no surprise to me to read that Rosie O’Donnell really likes the guy. Really, really: “He is to me a Christlike figure in this earth.”
Those two deserve each other but do we, the American people, deserve them?
Filed under: Jimmy Carter |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Anyone who thinks that Jimmy Carter “got us into this mess,” conveniently ignores a large chunk of history, dating back to 1947 and picking up considerble speed in 1953.
Luckily, for those who want to know, the information is readily available.
Is Jimmy Carter thus exonerated? TS, do you believe Carter is a Christ-like figure? Is he a pious man, a just man, who deserved the Nobel Prize, and was a competent President unfairly turned out of office after one term?
[…] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Jimmy Carter, Rosie O’Donnell Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
Zhombre,
I do not believe that Jimmy Carter is a Christ-like figure. But I think a few facts are conviently overlooked while searching for blame for the current crisis. Such as the fact that the CIA:
1) Overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected leader in 1953. -2) Installed the exiled Shah of Iran as U.S puppet.
3) Created the brutal secret police force, SAVAC.
4) Aided the rise of Khomeni as the result of “blowback” from said coup, intervention and secret police force.
The link I supplied does a good job outlining the history.
I’m never quite sure if such oversight is the product of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. But for those who think our current crisis is all Jimmy Carter’s fault, it might be a good idea to brush up on some history.
(I also find it interesting that people who say looking for root causes is a waste of time have no trouble looking for root causes in Jimmy Carter.)
(I also find it interesting that people who say looking for root causes is a waste of time have no trouble looking for root causes in Jimmy Carter.)
Some people don’t have problems blaming folks that deserve the blame. It’s not all about the CIA, an organization in which you name no names because it is another hologram.
People may be held accountable, organizations with no names cannot. Because you can’t find the people, now can you.
It’s easy to manufacture some propaganda line about the CIA and coups, with no bodies or people to contradict your storyline. The ultimate raw material. History is about the decisions of people, not your fabricated interconnectivity of distorted events and causality, TS.
What have you done lately ? Carter help negotiate a peace treaty between Isreal and Egypt(that place must ring a bell for some )and established full diplomatic relations with THE NEXT ONE China.
ps You’ve have to be deluded to think you accomplished more than Carter in your lifetime or maybe your on some kind of mission ? Hmmmmmm . . .
It’s easy to manufacture some propaganda line about the CIA and coups, with no bodies or people to contradict your storyline. The ultimate raw material. History is about the decisions of people, not your fabricated interconnectivity of distorted events and causality, TS.- Ymar
Um, Ymar. Declassified documents support this bit of history that you deem propoaganda.
Once again, in 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup and overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected leader, reinstalled the Shah of Iran, and created SAVAC.
People who choose to ignore this history are either ignorant of it — or intellectuallly dishonest.
In case ignorance is the problem, I supplied a link.
Um, Ymar. Declassified documents support this bit of history that you deem propoaganda.
Your interpretation of such documents, which are amongst many interpretations and re-inventions in human history. You interpret such things as meaning they caused this to occur at such a time slot, but that is not something that’s all that valid given that you don’t have any primary human sources. It’s like SigInt rather than HumInt, it’s spelling a few things, perhaps conveniently. Aside from that however, you’re not really concerned about solving problems in the now or in the future, rather you just like rehasing stuff that went back decades simply for your own personal ideological reasons. That in itself, regardless of the truth or veracity of your comments concerning history, is far more indicative of propaganda.
Once again, in 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup and overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected leader, reinstalled the Shah of Iran, and created SAVAC.
You act as if this actually means something concerning blowback later, assuming you’re right. You’re creating a narrative. A CIA in Iran narrative that seeks to interpret the historical events in such a way as to justify your conclusions and policy positions. This isn’t history people are ignoring, it’s your biased view, TS. You act as if it isn’t yours, which is a rather transparent ploy in selling your product.
You first have to get your premises right before you can talk about ignorance and knowledge. You shouldn’t just skip over these considerations concerning human resources and viewpoints. The context of history is more important than your justifications and constructions.
Like every person, TS, you have your own personal agenda. Spymasters have had to control and discover the personal agendas of their spies and informants for a long time. If you cannot even realize what your own personal agenda is, then how do you expect us to believe your judgments concerning historical spymasters?
Again the human factor, not the document factor, provides critical context that documents or data interceptions cannot provide.
For crying out loud, Ymar.. saying that the CIA led a coup to overthrow Mossadegh is like saying George Washington was America’s first president.
It happened. Anyone with a computer and half a brain can look it up.
In short, the problems bewteen the U.S. and Iran did not begin with Jimmy Carter. And Jimmy Carter was not responsible for the rise of Khomenei.
I’ve blogged plenty about both Rosie and President Peanut Farmer. I hold them in equal contempt, though certainly, given his stature, the worst President of my lifetime carries more weight (pardon the pun) with his comments.
BHG
For crying out loud, Ymar.. saying that the CIA led a coup to overthrow Mossadegh is like saying George Washington was America’s first president.
Right. And that’s why you and Bill Moyer in your youtube vid mentioned the CIA and its “Secret Government” operations. Like mentioning George Washington was America’s first President.
And Jimmy Carter was not responsible for the rise of Khomenei.
Now your line is that the CIA and the President can start Secret Wars in the midst of betrayals and what not, yet when Carter toppled the Shah, suddenly it wasn’t his fault anymore. But it was the fault of every other President if they actually tried to do something, as oppose to kill via neglect. This is a common pattern I see from you folks TS. You talk about intervention only in negative terms, but if say a US President or government ignored a situation and that situation lead to millions ontop of millions of deaths rather than your 10k to 100k deaths due to American military puppet governments, then suddenly it is okay. It isn’t Carter’s fault he ignored the Shah’s request for help. It is only people’s fault if they actually do something proactive concerning the situation, like Iraq, like Vietnam. But after Vietnam when the US was out, suddenly everything was clean slate to you folks, TS. Predictable but not admirable.
Ignoring your own human biases is not a good thing to do if accuracy is your chief goal.
Right. And that’s why you and Bill Moyer in your youtube vid mentioned the CIA and its “Secret Government” operations. Like mentioning George Washington was America’s first President.- Ymar
Yes. The CIA role in Mossadegh’s overthow is non-disputed, YMAR and has been since declassifed documents PROVED that to be the case.
Need more?
The Boston Globe:
http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/bostonglobe17.htm
More from Ymar: “Now your line is that the CIA and the President can start Secret Wars in the midst of betrayals and what not, yet when Carter toppled the Shah, suddenly it wasn’t his fault anymore.”
My line is that the unintended consqeunce of overthrowing Mossadegh and the unintended consequence of reinstating the Shah and the unintended consequence of creating SAVAC was the rise of Khomenei, which has a LOT more to do with the 1953 coup than anything Jimmy Carter did.
I suspect your line would be wrong, despite the authority (sic) of Bill Moyers and the Boston Globe.
It would be lovely if the CIA only had the power to actually accopmplish the overthrow of someone… anyone!
The way it works is, the CIA generally tries to recognize conditions, and either (a) hop on board in time to do us some good, or (b) influence the already-moving train of events in such a way as to produce what might be regarded as a desirable outcome. But note: the train is already moving in all cases – I can’t think of one where the CIA was able to start it into motion, (although I repeat: it would be lovely if they could). The reality is, that’s just too big an order.
And in Iran they did what they usually do: recognize a situation that was coming (and it was coming whether they helped it along or not), and try to turn it to what was then percieved of as our advantage. The law of unintended consequences is ALWAYS a player, but the perceived greater good of the time was in fact well served.
The Cold War had come to the Middle East, and the US and Britain had put together a “northern line” strategy to keep the Soviets out: Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan and their Arab neighbors would defend against the USSR.
As an example of what the CIA does in fact do, they had assisted Nasser to power in Egypt in 1952, getting rid of Faruq (or “Farouk” if you prefer) and so made Nasser something of a friend, temporarily. But the point is Faruq was going, all the CIA could do was help what was thought to be relatively stable guy to the top spot. In Iran, Mossadegh was going, all the CIA could do was try to engineer our guy into the chair. Husni Za’im of Syria and Abdallah of Jordan were both going, and went; whether the CIA cared or not.
In fact the whole place was so unsettled that the most interesting thing occurred in 1954, when the USSR, which had supported Israel (yes, that Israel) since the day of its creation, had recognized it, had armed it, and had supplied it – suddenly switched sides and decided to support the Arabs.
And of course in the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt (started by Israel, in response to a specific request), Israel’s main ally was… France! That bastion of anti-Semitism!
Let’s not get too far into unintended consequences. It’s way too easy to drown.
Oh, the unintended consequences, is it now. First it’s about undisputed interpretations of fact by yours truly, you. Then it’s about buying itno the unintended consequence function of those seemingly undisputed interpretations of fact and event arrived at previously. What a chain of production this is.
My line is that the unintended consqeunce of overthrowing Mossadegh and the unintended consequence of reinstating the Shah and the unintended consequence of creating SAVAC was the rise of Khomenei, which has a LOT more to do with the 1953 coup than anything Jimmy Carter did.
That’s cause you believe a US President is less powerful than CIA actions in Iran. Concerning causality states at least, which is termed by you as unintended consequences. The CIA is not the end all and beginning of all unintended consequences. For one thing, you don’t know what the unintended consequences are. As with your interpretations of the CIA’s role in certain factual events, eventual ramifications, and consequences, your interpretations of the unintended consequences are just as variable. There’s no particular reason why your stance should be true, compared to anything else floating around.
Here’s a piece to live by. Just because something happened, doesn’t mean it happened the way you said it did. This includes Bill Moyers and those he interviewed.
Rosie is going to come to a tragic end. She is a very unhappy lady.