Perhaps the most interesting tidbit from Jimmy Carter’s state funeral last week came somewhat counter-intuitively from Gerald Ford. Ford had agreed to produce a preemptive eulogy for Carter around 20 years ago, just as Carter had delivered a eulogy for Ford when he died in 2006. Ford’s son delivered the eulogy on his father’s behalf. It was a bit like a public opening of a time capsule, and therefore inherently intriguing to any student of presidential history. Ford and Carter became close friends after they rode together on Air Force One to the funeral of Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president with whom Carter had brokered the Camp David Accords in 1978, only for Sadat to be assassinated a few years later, probably by Islamist malcontents who reviled Sadat’s accommodation with the US and Israel. In the eulogy, Ford wrote of he and Carter resolving to jointly “confront the Palestinian issue directly.” According to Ford’s son, his father had continuously updated the eulogy over the years, and it’s plausible that the final updates came around the time that Carter’s book,
People younger than Boomers like me have never experienced an administration that had a relatively even-handed foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine. The US has always favored Israel, but the slavish devotion to the Jewish ethnostate by bipartisan US polity has gotten completely out of hand. That and hatred of Russia and defense of the unipolar empire are the keystones to the uniparty world view.
Nobody understands history. Some are better than others at making some sense of it, but all have their own particular biases and are propagandized by empire managers. Don’t tell me you are the only genius that has all the answers.
They’ve had to pander to the Palestinian viewpoint for votes though. But I do believe the USG largely supports Israel whether right or wrong. Israel has made sure of it. I can only hope the new administration steps back, because (I believe) Israel will eventually ask for American support for its war. The US will have to choose independence again. (but by no means only from Israel)
Carter tried to tell us we were living beyond our means, using too much energy and going in the wrong direction as a nation. He was mercilessly ridiculed by the MSM, treated like a fool and now proved to be correct. I admired him for using diplomacy to free the hostages in Iran with no war to prove how tough the US was. But, once again, this was presented as a weakness, not a strength. Like many leaders he took bad advice that led to unforeseen consequences. He was a good human being who didn’t try to enrich himself while in office or out — more than can be said of the “leaders” who followed.
I did not know this: “Carter issued Presidential Decision Directive 59, which proclaimed Carter’s updated policy conviction that for the US to emerge victorious in nuclear war, “flexible sub-options” must be added to the potential target list, to include a “broader set of urban and industrial targets,” namely “political control targets.” Which is to say that Carter’s contribution to US nuclear doctrine was to ratify the permissibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities.”
I wonder whether Carter was really in charge of the candy store or whether his management decided policy. I’ve always believed he was sincere about human rights but got some talkings-to about realpolitik, and caved to show he was tough enough to play empire games.
The last US president who seriously tried to set his own foreign policy was Richard Nixon, he was deposed by our intelligence community leaking various things his minions had done + the Mighty Wurlitzer broadcasting those things in retaliation for those sins (particularly the business of recognizing mainland China but also ending the MIC gravy train in SE Asia).
Well he had to kowtow to Zbiggy, the Democratic version of Kissinger. Or at least defer to him. So many presidents of recent vintage have not been executives, merely figureheads playing a part. Carter may be the finest ex-president in history, but a very bad president.
My hypothesis is that Carter was also a figurehead. He did try but in the end, I believe, the machinery in place was too much for him. Reagan was a semi- outsider to Washington and I believe he faced a similar fate. Some of the shenanigans of his tenure came from being the plaything of real Washington players
They did try to kill Reagan; I think that suggests that he meant well. We were a few centimeters short of President George H. W. Bush (Mr. CIA) a few years early.
"Carter’s contribution to US nuclear doctrine was to ratify the permissibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities." I'm not sure the declassified documents support this conclusion. Please see https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb390/ The 'permissibility' of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities does not seem to be something added by Presidential Decision Directive 59.
Its really amazing how bad all of you people are at playing games. Times of Israel explained the importance of Carter's legacy. And when the Persian carpet is pulled form the controlled opposition, you'll all act like Trump's kayfabe wrassling is genius.
Who do you think you are, Elon Musk? Very few people can win fake games.
People younger than Boomers like me have never experienced an administration that had a relatively even-handed foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine. The US has always favored Israel, but the slavish devotion to the Jewish ethnostate by bipartisan US polity has gotten completely out of hand. That and hatred of Russia and defense of the unipolar empire are the keystones to the uniparty world view.
Unfortunately you don’t understand history.
Nobody understands history. Some are better than others at making some sense of it, but all have their own particular biases and are propagandized by empire managers. Don’t tell me you are the only genius that has all the answers.
They’ve had to pander to the Palestinian viewpoint for votes though. But I do believe the USG largely supports Israel whether right or wrong. Israel has made sure of it. I can only hope the new administration steps back, because (I believe) Israel will eventually ask for American support for its war. The US will have to choose independence again. (but by no means only from Israel)
Carter tried to tell us we were living beyond our means, using too much energy and going in the wrong direction as a nation. He was mercilessly ridiculed by the MSM, treated like a fool and now proved to be correct. I admired him for using diplomacy to free the hostages in Iran with no war to prove how tough the US was. But, once again, this was presented as a weakness, not a strength. Like many leaders he took bad advice that led to unforeseen consequences. He was a good human being who didn’t try to enrich himself while in office or out — more than can be said of the “leaders” who followed.
I did not know this: “Carter issued Presidential Decision Directive 59, which proclaimed Carter’s updated policy conviction that for the US to emerge victorious in nuclear war, “flexible sub-options” must be added to the potential target list, to include a “broader set of urban and industrial targets,” namely “political control targets.” Which is to say that Carter’s contribution to US nuclear doctrine was to ratify the permissibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities.”
I wonder whether Carter was really in charge of the candy store or whether his management decided policy. I’ve always believed he was sincere about human rights but got some talkings-to about realpolitik, and caved to show he was tough enough to play empire games.
The last US president who seriously tried to set his own foreign policy was Richard Nixon, he was deposed by our intelligence community leaking various things his minions had done + the Mighty Wurlitzer broadcasting those things in retaliation for those sins (particularly the business of recognizing mainland China but also ending the MIC gravy train in SE Asia).
Well he had to kowtow to Zbiggy, the Democratic version of Kissinger. Or at least defer to him. So many presidents of recent vintage have not been executives, merely figureheads playing a part. Carter may be the finest ex-president in history, but a very bad president.
My hypothesis is that Carter was also a figurehead. He did try but in the end, I believe, the machinery in place was too much for him. Reagan was a semi- outsider to Washington and I believe he faced a similar fate. Some of the shenanigans of his tenure came from being the plaything of real Washington players
They did try to kill Reagan; I think that suggests that he meant well. We were a few centimeters short of President George H. W. Bush (Mr. CIA) a few years early.
@Grape Soda
Reagan was an actor playing a part, then an unacknowledged Alzheimer's sufferer. George Bush the Elder was in effect a 3 term president.
"Carter’s contribution to US nuclear doctrine was to ratify the permissibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities." I'm not sure the declassified documents support this conclusion. Please see https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb390/ The 'permissibility' of dropping nuclear bombs on Soviet cities does not seem to be something added by Presidential Decision Directive 59.
Carter reminds me of Marcus Aurelius. Humble, soft, quiet, quaint, hard-working, honest, and totally powerless to stop the progress of history.
If "Israel" is understood as a US-British imperial project, then it follows that the US will always support its own undertaking.
That's been true since "Israel" proclaimed itself a nation in 1948.
Averell Harriman
Its really amazing how bad all of you people are at playing games. Times of Israel explained the importance of Carter's legacy. And when the Persian carpet is pulled form the controlled opposition, you'll all act like Trump's kayfabe wrassling is genius.
Who do you think you are, Elon Musk? Very few people can win fake games.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/carterthe-president-who-betrayed-shah-to-khomeini/