The “Cash for Clunkers” program may be the most creative policy initiative we have seen come from government in a long time. The effect is dynamic and the implementation is simple. For there to be opposition to this bill is mind boggling. In 2003 we saw Bush and his Republican allies pass a tax break (between $75,000 and $100,000) for businesses who purchased a vehicle that weighed 6000 pounds or more. I’m sure a lot of these vehicles are being traded in for the current “Cash for Clunkers” program. The two mindsets are diametrically in opposition and represent the backward thinking of conservatives and the forward imagination of liberals. This 2003 bill encouraged American automobile manufacturers (or at least reinforced their misguided production strategies) to crank out big gas guzzling vehicles. The collusion between the two ended up being a Faustian bargain that would ultimately cripple the American automobile sector.

America’s addiction to foreign oil is unpatriotic. Think of the nations in the world who have oil as the centerpiece of their economy. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran and Russia are just some of these petroleum dominated authoritarian states. As the price of oil has risen these nations have become less democratic. The money derived from the production of oil has made the governments of these states less dependent on taxation from its citizens. If a government does not have to rely on public excises to run its nation, it is less likely to grant its citizenry representation. This is happening across the board in these states. And these countries interests are becoming more in opposition to our own.

The United States makes up about 3% of the world’s population but we use 25% of the world’s energy. We are a bloated energy hog. The fact that we use such a significant amount of fuel creates a dilemma as South and East Asia emerge from their slumber. It makes it harder for the US to restrain the energy needs of India and China when all they are doing is attempting to become us.

Sending a signal to those outside our country is just a byproduct of this program. The car initiative does so many things at the same time. It brings gas guzzlers off the road and replaces them with energy efficient cars. This not only reduces the amount of gas we use but also reduces our carbon footprint. It also serves two purposes in regard to the automobile industry. It obviously boosts sales but it also helps validate the need of these companies to produce cars that get better gas mileage. But perhaps the greatest thing the “Cash for Clunkers” does that isn’t talked about is the psychological dimension. Everyone is aware of the rationale for the program and clear thinking Americans are seeing that the nation is moving away from large cars. It is rare when government positively alters the imagination of the nation and rarer still when government comes up with a program that does so much for a relatively small amount of money.

The great progressive writer Randolph Bourne once said, “Diplomacy is a disguised war, in which states seek to gain by barter and intrigue, by the cleverness of arts, the objectives which they would have to gain more clumsily by means of war.” The foundations for the Obama foreign policy are beginning to take shape. President Obama’s speech in Cairo last month had an amazing ripple effect. There is little doubt the internal strife in Iran that ensued was impacted by the speech indirectly. The conservative government in Iran could not successfully paint the uprising as the implicit work of the US following the sham election of Ahmedinejad. If you recall, the Iranian government tried to point the finger at Britain in a throwback move of a long dead age. With no true “Satan” nation to blame, the fire of the opposition continues to smolder.

Last week, George Mitchell visited Damascus in a bid to revive the Mideast peace process by greasing the wheels of the stubborn. Though no ground breaking discussions were involved, a new dialogue has begun with the Arab state. The US has imposed sanctions on Syria for their continued support of terrorists groups, primarily those residing in Lebanon. Syria has long been seen as a pariah in the region but will be a significant player if there is ever to be peace in the region. Mitchell’s visit is the Obama administration’s effort to reach out to nations that previously were seen as rogues in an effort to move them toward dialogue and moderation.

Israel is also being forced to react. The Obama position on stopping settlements in the occupied territories is causing tensions within the Jewish state. 1,500 right wing protestors marched in front of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office to show their opposition to any proposed halt to settlements. Contact and pressure from Washington, being applied at the same time, is starting to move the rusted gears of Mideast peace. The new game of diplomacy is being played out with tact and resolve. Don’t expect grandiose results, however. The region has never evolved that way.

In the meantime Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently finished her tour of South Asia. Though not covered in great detail by the US media, the Clinton visit was seen as extremely constructive. The US would very much like India to be a strong ally in combating terrorism and preventing nuclear proliferation. Throughout the post WW II period India had carried out a cautious relationship with the US. Only in the last two decades has the relationship between the US and India turned a corner. To cement the strong ties that now bind the two countries, Obama has invited Prime Minister Singh to be the first leader to be his state guest later in 2009. The US is also selling space technology and fighter jets to India as well as allowing US companies to assist in the construction of two nuclear power plants. There is a peace process that needs to be resolved in South Asia as well. India and Pakistan have drifted farther apart in recent months after the Mumbai terror attacks were proven to have their roots in Pakistan.

Though the US is currently engaged in two wars, on the periphery the American government is initiating a sweeping diplomatic blanket that is changing not only how the US operates but also the image that is projected in much of Asia.  These calculated maneuvers are allowing the momentum in the region to move away from extremism and calming the waters for the advances we all hope will blossom in the coming years.

CS Monitor

By Tim Sebastian

May 1, 2009

Washington – This story began – as so many do – with a lunch.

While attending a conference in 2004 in the tiny Gulf state of Qatar, I was invited to break bread with the ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and his wife, Sheikha Mozah. As a bewildering array of courses came and went, the royal couple talked of their vision for reform and openness and asked me if I had any suggestions.

It was the start of a journey, now entering its sixth year, that led to the formation of the first global free speech forum in the Middle East – The Doha Debates – and last month to a highly controversial session in Washington.

My suggestion to Qatar’s ruler was to stage a series of town hall debates in the country, get people arguing without fear of censorship or repercussions and tackle the hottest political topics in the Arab and Islamic worlds. The key condition was that my team would retain full editorial independence – with no interference of any kind from the state.

More

Under the Bush administration you could just feel the shifting of wealth into the pockets of the wealthy. It started from the very beginning with Bush’s tax cut in 2001. This tax measure lopped off taxes primarily on the very wealthy and the result was an exponential increase in the amount of wealth at the very top of the economic spectrum. The middle class was being squeezed. Despite the wealth being funneled upward, businesses were reducing pensions and raises. Workers’ wages were not running parallel with the increase in inflation. The costs of health care were skyrocketing. The recent economic downturn was simply the heaviest strike from a succession of blows exacerbated by a failed right wing economic policy. In so many ways the 2000s were the faux Gilded Age.

The original Gilded Age occurred in the last half of the 19th century and was fueled by the Second Industrial Revolution. The Gilded Age saw America surge past the great powers of Europe in industrial might. But there were many victims. Child labor, women workers, and new immigrants from Europe’s underbelly and East Asia offered a cheap workforce. Labor laws favored the employers. Sixty hour weeks were not uncommon in factories that held all the brutalities the late 1800s had to offer. This was the era of the Robber Barons of industry. Huge icons of American business ran monopolies in steel, railroads, coal, oil and finance. Wealth, then too, was top heavy. The rich lived in opulence and the poor masses lived in tenements in America’s urban centers or eked out a living on farms. The Gilded Age was known for its corruption, both governmental and private.

The ills of the Gilded Age brought about a period of progressivism. The most famous of the political progressives was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Known as the “trust buster” Roosevelt inaugurated a period of fairness to the industrial sector. TR was also famous for his stance on conservation at a time when America’s forests were disappearing at an alarming rate and animals such as the bison were being hunted to near extinction. These progressives that were changing their world during the infancy of the 20th century were considered the pioneers of modern liberalism.

The current age is seeing a similar shift to the left. Government is again taking on the ills of the private sector. Only this time the weight of the nation’s (some would say the world’s) economy is in the balance. You would think by listening to the chorus being trumpeted from the right that what ails America is socialism. What ails America is the overextension of the capitalist powers that be. From delving out loans to those who could not afford them to issuing credit cards to risky users (with every incentive by the companies to snare the consumers in debt). The trading in commodities which created artificial bubbles and subsequent bursts became the name of the game; the last and greatest bubble and burst being the housing market.

  For eight years the nation’s infrastructure was sacrificed by President Bush due to his attention to necessary (Afghanistan) and fallacious (Iraq) wars. The government, as a whole, allowed the private capitalist system and the public sector to go unchecked. (see AIG, Citi Group, Bernard Madoff, no bid contracts, Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, etc…) What is a president to do under such an environment? Barack Obama is a progressive. The right wing may not like his attempt to usher in a period of government intervention but this is what he ran on and this is what he is doing. Letting the banking system collapse or turning one’s back on the car companies would seem wise in the short run but disastrous to the economy in the long run. (Let’s not forget President Bush and the Republicans passed a bill that offered a sizable tax deduction to companies that bought the biggest SUVs and trucks on the market. Not exactly a strategy that helped the long term business plan of the auto makers.) President Obama’s budget contained measures intended to right the wrongs of eight years of neglect, from providing incentives for energy alternatives to giving the middle class a significant tax deduction for their kids’ college education. There is no doubt the cost of this is painful but we are simply paying for the neglect and errors of laissez faire economics. The lesson here is if you don’t want full scale progressivism, sprinkle in a little oversight on your free market capitalism.

I’m not a big fan of fringe blowhards on either side but I have to say it would be a “get your popcorn” moment to see a liberal torture Sean Hannity.

Conservatives sure lack originality. All the great artists and designers are all liberals and it really showed yesterday. Let us first address the milieu of the protest name: Tea Party. That is no conservative sounding event. Without the Boston in front of it, it sounds, well, kind of dainty. Don’t you think? And having the tea bag as the symbol not only opens you up to a wide swath of criticism, from both a locker room humor perspective and from a visual perspective. The real radical patriots of the 18th century were dressed up like savage Indians and tossed entire crates of bundled tea into Boston Harbor. But we must remember, these original protesters were radical liberals not goofy Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity wannabes with a poor attempt at shouting slogans in unison. Let’s face it, conservatives just don’t know how to protest.

And what were they protesting anyway? Their acronym T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already which seems a little out of place since they all got a tax break under Obama; unless of course they make over $250K. And most of the crowd didn’t look like they fit into that category. So they are blaming Obama. The guy that is trying desperately to right the ship that those before him have forced under water. It seems to me the protesters are just bitter from having lost the election. If they wanted to protest, why don’t they go down to Wall Street and go after the real perpetrators of this disaster. Let’s do this right. Get the left behind you. Let’s go dismantle the corporate offices of AIG, CITI Group, Bear-Sterns, and JPMorgan, et. al. They are the modern day equivalent to what the British Crown did to America. Let’s wheel in barrel fulls of tea and wash out their headquarters. Liberals know how to protest. In the tens of thousands we could surround the companies and demand the government find those responsible for bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse and try them in court.  But instead you have a bunch of  people who realize their party is a waste of space, no longer represents them and the only thing worse is the new guy in the White House who has them staring reality in the face that change has come to America. Well, over sixty percent of America is with the President. I think I will go have a cup of tea sans the bag.

President Obama’s speech content was interesting to watch this past week. Many have said it was simply a pleasure to watch a statesman who can effectively deliver a speech. But there was something much different than style between the former President and the present one. In fact there was an element to Obama’s speeches that was not only bold but if poorly executed could easily have been seen as patronizing. Fortunately for us Obama is a superb speaker with a knowledge of the world to go with it.  In France he told his audience:

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

In Ankara today Obama pointed out a festering wound that has been denied by the Turkish government:

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

In 1915 during the Great War the Ottoman Empire carried out the century’s first genocide against their Christian Armenian population. Though statistics are hard to come by, as many as one million people were systematically slaughtered. The event was simply an extension of a war that would not be resolved until 1945. When Adolf Hitler prepared to wreak vengeance on the Polish nation in 1939 he said:

My decision to attack Poland was arrived at last spring. Originally, I feared that the political constellation would compel me to strike simultaneously at England, Russia, France, and Poland. Even this risk would have had to be taken.

Ever since the autumn of 1938, and because I realized that Japan would not join us unconditionally and that Mussolini is threatened by that nit-wit of a king and the treasonable scoundrel of a crown prince, I decided to go with Stalin.

In the last analysis, there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I, and Mussolini. Mussolini is the weakest, for he has been unable to break the power of either the crown or the church. Stalin and I are the only ones who envisage the future and nothing but the future. Accordingly, I shall in a few weeks stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and undertake the redistribution of the world with him.

Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter — with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

I have issued the command — and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad — that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness — for the present only in the East — with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

The fact that President Obama brought up the genocide issue before the Turkish Parliament today showed political fortitude. But his style both in Ankara today and in the town hall he had in Strasbourg last week showed amazing skill. He at first made it known that we have had our historical flaws as well. In Strasbourg he spoke of American arrogance when dealing with international affairs. In Ankara he spoke of the flaws of the American journey after 1783, especially in relation to slavery and civil rights. Prior to speaking about Armenian genocide Obama noted:

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

There are many of those on the right who choose to denigrate Obama. They claim that he is all too eager to chastise America; some would say a subtle version of the Dixie Chicks incident a few years back. But those critical of Obama’s statements simply need to intellectually mature. As Obama begins to break down the multitude of barriers that had been erected these last eight years and as he begins to lay the groundwork for new foundations, a little humility seems to go a long way.

Poll: Obama Approval Hits New High – 66%

Obama, the pragmatist, wins NATO kudos but few troops for Afghan mission

Europeans are very subtle by nature. The farther north you go in Europe the more subtle they get. President Obama spoke in Strasbourg today. Though in France, it is as much German as it is French in temperament (if not in nationality). This was the second leg of Obama’s first overseas trip but you would never know he was a novice. With 19 other leaders, none garnered as much attention and admiration as the new US President has. What an amazing opportunity at an amazing time, and he has not disappointed. If you haven’t watched the full town hall speech President Obama gave in Strasbourg then you have missed one of those moments that don’t come around very often. It was a natural fit. Europe is a bastion of liberalism and Obama is a leftist. But no ordinary politician could have given the speech he did today. Within 20 minutes he was able to sweep away the transgressions of the eight year nightmare that was George Bush. Without giving up an inch of American principle, Obama was able to reach out to those in attendance and all those sitting in front of their television screens and embrace a bygone era when Europe and the US held the shield together in the shadow of a communist menace and at the same time forge an understanding of the present and future in a frank and direct fashion. Explaining to a liberal audience the importance of maintaining a presence in Afghanistan. For 20 minutes he spoke and there was not one audible jeer. It was as if you could see the sludge being washed away before your very eyes. It seems in this climate of rational thought all things are possible. Perhaps I’m wrong. After all, it is just President Obama’s first overseas trip.

Watch the full speech HERE

Germans look to Obama rather than Merkel in crisis

_____________________________________________

And what is left for the Conservatives to rally behind? Why, Glenn Beck of course. He made that ideological based leap from CNN to Fox and he has rocketed up to the second most watched pundit on cable news. I’m not sure if I should be amused or scared at this fact because Beck is a bit…how do you say it?…unbalanced (a true equalizer on the “Fair and Balanced” network). When the Conservatives receive their news from a steady diet of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck you can understand how their party, message and identity is deep in the weeds.

“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful  lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.”

Retired Ambassador Charles Freeman

With all the attention centered on the financial crisis these days, there is another issue brewing that taints our national security. Last week Retired Ambassador Charles Freeman withdrew from the National Intelligence Council after being torpedoed (sorry about the Naval pun) by the right wing of the Israel lobby. (Click here to read the entire e-mail. It is an interesting read.) The fact that this flew so low under the radar is saddening. With soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan our condemnation of Israeli policy should be front and center. The actions Israel takes are seen in the region as a shadow of America since we breath life into Israel with US aid and weaponry. The fact Israel is moving to the far right should concern us all. Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory last month and his imminent naming of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister has sent shock waves through the international community. Lieberman is seen by many to be racist. This far right coalition is sure to prevent any attempt to create a Palestinian state. Their stand on Iran could also draw the US into a no win situation. The world community sees Israel as the bully in the region with an unyielding government in Jerusalem. The Jewish lobby in the US is now marrying America to these guys? The decisions Netanyahu and Lieberman make will be carried out with US weapons and US money. If we are to ever gain any credibility in the region it is America that should be dictating the actions made by Israel not Israel dictating the policy of the US. The sad thing in the withdrawal of Freeman is he was right on the issues. This is not a conservative versus liberal issue. One of the key politicians that forced Freeman’s resignation was Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York. The White House was very silent on this issue, a fact that is very disheartening. This weekend on his enlightening show GPS, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Ambassador Freeman. It should provide a wake-up call for those unaware of the strength of the right wing Israeli lobby in the US.

After listening to the clear and concise argument made by Ambassador Freeman, one feels the US has lost a talented policy mind.

Recently I received a conservative article about the impact of Jimmy Carter on the events that have unfolded during the past thirty years or so. As we experience the return of liberalism from nearly a quarter century of dormancy, I felt it was time to set the record straight and re-examine the blame. The following is the article followed by my retort.

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM 
Jimmy Carter became our 39th president at the young age of 52. He was a one-term governor from Plains, GA, where he managed the family peanut farm and taught Sunday school. He was also a graduate of the Naval Academy and served seven years in the Navy, leaving as a lieutenant.
He came to power in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the resignation of President Nixon. The public wanted change and someone new, and Carter was an ambitious, hands-on politician who promised better days. As good as his intentions were, however, the things he tried were not successful. In fact, he created far more serious problems than he ever solved.
The centerpiece of Carter’s foreign policy was human rights, and he did achieve one noble success a peace treaty between Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin.
Unfortunately, that later led to Sadat’s assassination at the hands of Muslim radicals.
Many people felt Carter was a good man who worked hard and meant well.  But he was naive and incompetent in handling the enormous burdens and complex challenges of being president.
He wrongly believed Americans had an ‘inordinate fear of communism,’ so he lifted travel bans to Cuba, North Vietnam and Cambodia and pardoned draft evaders. He also stopped B-1 bomber production and gave away our strategically located Panama Canal.
His most damaging miscalculation was the withdrawal of U.S. Support for the Shah of Iran, a strong and longtime military ally. Carter objected to the Shah’s alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies who were working to overthrow Iran’s government. He thought the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, being a religious man, would make a fairer leader.
Having lost U.S. Support, the Shah was overthrown, the Ayatollah returned, Iran was declared an Islamic nation and Palestinian hit men were hired to eliminate opposition.
The Ayatollah then introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization, paying $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to kill as many Israelis as possible by blowing themselves up in crowded shopping areas.
Next, the Ayatollah used Iran’s oil wealth to create, train and finance a new terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which later would attack Israel in 2006.
In November 1979, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranians stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Not until six months into the ordeal did Carter attempt a rescue. But the mission, using just six Navy helicopters, was poorly executed. Three of20the copters were disabled or lost in sand storms. (Pilots weren’t allowed to meet with weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security..) Five airmen and three Marines lost their lives.
So, due to overconfidence, inexperience and poor judgment, Carter undermined and lost a strong ally, Iran, that today aggressively threatens the U.S., Israel and the rest of the world with nuclear weapons.
But that’s not all.. After Carter met for the first time with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, the USSR promptly invaded Afghanistan. Carter, ever the naive appeaser, was shocked. ‘I can’t believe the Russians lied to me,’ he said.
The invasion attracted a 23-year-old Saudi named Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan to recruit Muslim fighters and raise money for an anti-Soviet jihad. Part of that group eventually became al-Qaida, a terrorist organization that would declare war on America several times between 1996 and 1998 before attacking us on 9/11, killing more Americans than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
On Carter’s watch, the Soviet Union went on an unrestrained rampage in which it took over not only Afghanistan, but also Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua.
In spite of this, Carter’s last defense budget proposed spending 45% below pre-Vietnam levels for fighter aircraft, 75% for ships, 83% for attack submarines and 90% for helicopters.
Years later, as a civilian, Carter negotiated a peace agreement with North Korea to keep that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He also convinced President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to go along with it. But the signed piece of paper proved worthless. The North Koreans deceived Carter and instead used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear weapons and pose the threat we face today.
Thus did Carter unwittingly become our Neville Chamberlain, creating with his well-intended but inept, unrealistic and gullible actions the very conditions that led to the three most dangerous security threats we face today: Iran, al-Qaida and North Korea.
On the domestic side, Carter gave us inflation of 15%, the highest in 34 years; interest rates of 21%, the highest in 115 years; and a severe energy crisis with lines around the block at gas stations nationwide.
In 1977, Carter, along with a Democrat Congress, created a worthy project with noble intentions-the Community Reinvestment Act. Over strong industry objections, it mandated that all banks meet the credit needs of their entire communities.
In 1995, President Clinton imposed even stronger regulations and performance tests that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to low-income, poverty-area borrowers or face fines or possible restrictions on expansion. These revisions allowed for securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages.
By 1997, good loans were bundled wit h poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of these profitable subprime products.
Under two young, well-intended presidents, therefore, big-government plans and mandates played a significant role in the current subprime mortgage mess and its catastrophic consequences for the U.S. and international economies.
Hardest-hit by the mortgage foreclosures have been the citizens that Democrats always claim to help most-inner-city residents who fell victim to low or no down payment schemes, unexpected adjustable rates, deceptive loan applications and commission-hungry salespeople.
Now we’re having to bail out at huge cost Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the very agencies that were supposed to stabilize the system. In time, this should improve the situation. But the party of Carter and Clinton that midwifes our mortgage mess now wants to be trusted to take over and have the government run our entire system of health care!
And everyone is blaming Bush for our current problems.

RESPONSE:

There are so many inaccuracies in this article I don’t know where to begin. Let’s start first with the premise. To understand Carter’s Presidency one must first remember what the political and national climate was like in the mid-70s. Don’t forget that Jimmy Carter took office a short two years after the end of the Vietnam War. The nation was still in shock after the loss of the Vietnam War and Watergate. No one elected in 1976 could have maintained our military prowess. The military was worn out and suffering from moral decay (does anyone remember the drug abuse in the military in the waning years of the Vietnam War?). Carter inherited a post war military that required downsizing. He also inherited a post war economy. The war had fueled an economic boom in the 60s. The economic woes that shadowed Carter were a direct result of the ending of the war.  Many think Reagan saved the economy. In reality he did something that we are still feeling today, he simply lowered taxes and put the deficit on the nation’s credit card.

The author of this article implies that Carter should have continued to support the Shah of Iran. What he fails to point out is the Shah was a brutal king who waged a climate of fear within his country similar to what Hussein did in Iraq. The weapons he used to perpetrate his policies were US weapons. The author also failed to point out the US, in a CIA directed coup, overthrew the democratically elected Mossedeq in the 1950s in order to prop up the Shah because a king is much easier to control than a democratically elected leader who represents his people. Why did we do this?…oil. So when the Islamic revolution began in 1979, the militants went directly to the US Embassy to ensure another coup would not be forthcoming from the US. Why did they go to the US Embassy? Because in the 50s the CIA carried out their coup from the basement of that very embassy.

The author also points out the Ayatollah supported attacks by Hezbollah against the Israelis. The simple point is how do attacks on Israel affect American security? Our support of Israel has been a detriment to our foreign policy. The single most significant driving force behind the attacks on the World Trade Center was our continued unquestionable support of Israel and the resentment this causes in the region. Can anyone tell me what advantage we gain for supporting Israel? In fact our support of Israel has been a hindrance in solving serious issues in the region. For example, when we called on the Sunni states in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf to assist us in Iraq most didn’t come to our aid, claiming that our policy in Israel was preventing them from assisting us in dealing with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq in 2003-04.

The author speaks of the Soviets during the Carter Administration going on a “rampage” (whatever that means) by seizing the countries of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The author is not very astute if he thinks the Soviets seized Grenada and Nicaragua. And what strategic significance were the other nations to US national security? Don’t forget it was Nicaragua that got Reagan in a lot of hot water over weapons and money transfers between the dreaded Islamic state of Iran and the Contras in Nicaragua. The author insinuates that Carter could have prevented the Soviets from invading their neighbor Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded because they saw their southern neighbor was having a negative affect on the Soviet Muslim republics. Nothing Carter could have done would have prevented the Soviets from invading Afghanistan. Later, it was Reagan’s support of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan which led to the rise of a little known jihadist named Osama Bin Laden not Carter’s policies. There are about 3000 Americans not living who probably would have preferred the Soviets win that war.

I’m not a huge fan of Jimmy Carter but his most significant foreign policy achievement was the peace treaty that secured an enduring peace between Israel and Egypt and opened the door for a similar deal between the Jewish state and Jordan and let’s not forget that this accomplishment ended the vicious cycle of wars between Israel’s neighbors and Israel. It is almost laughable the author postscripts this achievement by saying Anwar Sadat was assassinated as a result of the deal as if it wasn’t worth the price paid by the heroic sacrifice made by Sadat. The real interesting point to be made about Sadat’s assassination is that it was carried out by a group who included Zayman Al-Zawahiri, the number two man in Al-Qaida.

The author also brings up North Korea. North Korea obtained their nuclear program from A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani scientist. When it was revealed in the early 2000s that Khan was the mastermind behind N. Korea gaining the bomb he was placed on house arrest. Bush would not pressure the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, to punish the scientist further because Bush needed Musharraf as an ally to fight Al-Qaeda. The question of dealing with the North Korean nuclear situation revolved around one fact, and one fact only. There is but one nation that has any leverage at all in North Korea and that is China. Was the US willing to go to war with China over North Korea’s nuclear program? This was the only way short of diplomacy that could have halted their program. To call Carter a Neville Chamberlain over North Korea is absolutely ridiculous. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler ended up giving Hitler leverage to seize Czechoslovakia and eventually the courage to invade Poland which resulted in the a war of immeasurable carnage. The North Korean nuclear program has had negligible impact.

Finally, the author states we should not blame Bush for the current situation. If an approval rating in the upper 20s (the lowest rating since the statistic has been measured) is not convincing enough then perhaps a few facts will convince you. Bush is the first President in history to wage a war and not tax the people to pay for it. In fact, his poor leadership skills failed to make the Americans sacrifice at all. After 9-11 he told Americans to just go out and shop. And spend we did. In 2006 the American savings rate was the lowest it had been since the Great Depression (and during the 1930s people distrusted the banks so much that even if they were the lucky ones to have any money in savings many simply stashed it in a coffee can). The national debt has doubled since Bush took office. Running as a conservative Bush grew the government to unprecedented levels. He created a whole new department (Homeland Security) and initiated the funding of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act which will have a price tag of over $500 billion in the next ten years.  Bush and his Republicans engaged in a war against the middle class. Through their economic policies the uneven distribution of wealth is at levels not seen since before the Great Depression. And then there is Bush’s baby: the Iraq War. A war waged on trumped up intelligence (do a google search on the Bush Administration’s signature source of Iraqi intelligence; Curveball) and against an enemy that had been contained. An enemy that held in check the very nation  the author of the article blamed Carter for empowering, Iran. Iran now is the unchallenged power in the region and has armed Shia insurgents in Iraq that have led to the deaths of US soldiers. Iraq has caused the US to take its eye off the ball in Afghanistan and our most important task, the capture or killing of Bin Laden and the destruction of Al-Qaida. The US military is now significantly worn down at a time when we need them most to renew the “real” war in Afghanistan which is rapidly deteriorating. Bush in eight years has turned the world from showing enthusiastic support and sympathy for us following 9-11 to believing America is no longer the bastion of the principles our founding fathers laid out in the 18th century. Bush, who when the nation is faced with a severe economic crisis, acts like a cuckoo clock and says a few words and retreats back into the White House. George Bush, in the current econoic crisis has become a latter day James Buchanan who did nothing as he watched the southern states succeed from the Union in the secession winter of 1860-61. Jimmy Carter’s mistakes seem minor in comparison. We can only hope that Barack Obama will be our Abraham Lincoln and erase the damage done these last eight years.