If you're gonna excoriate Ford for E. Timor, don't forget to savage Carter

[cali]

That's right, Carter supported Indonesia through the worst of the abuses it perpetrated in E. Timor, and supported the Indonesian takeover of E. Timor with both arms and money. Carter also supported the vile El Salvadoran government.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn1018.html

Here are some painful facts:

"President Carter, who came to office in early 1977, not long after Indonesia invaded and annexed the tiny island nation of East Timor, increased military aid to the Indonesian dictatorship by 80%. This equipment including OV-10 Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft that was crucial in the rounding up of much of the country’s civilian population into concentration camps. Most of the 200,000 East Timorese deaths as a result of Indonesia’s occupation took place during the Carter Administration, in large part as a result of this military aid."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm

Here's more from the above article

"President Carter ignored pleas from Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero to not send arms and advisors to the junta whose forces were massacring many hundreds of peasant leaders, trade unionists, priests, human rights workers and other dissidents. Carter continued his military support of the junta even after Romero himself was assassinated while saying Mass, a shooting carried out under the orders of a top Salvadoran general. One of Carter’s last acts as president was to approve a record level of arms transfers to the junta just weeks after Salvadoran troops – under orders from high-ranking officers – raped and murdered four American churchwomen."

And yes, there's much more. Afghanistan. Nicaragua.

My point is simple: There is no 20th century President without blood on his hands, and if you're going to rant and rave about Ford, accusing him of genocide and being a butcher, then you ought to do the same for Carter.

[Lasher]

1. Well, nobody's trying to nominate Carter for sainthood right now

Ford is perhaps receiving more praise than he deserves right now. That sort of thing inspires some people to remind us of his flaws. Just sayin'.

[cali]

2. You're kidding right?

People are constantly nominating Carter for sainthood around these environs, particularly in the light of his new book. Look, I greatly admire Carter and I sort of like Ford. I'm simply pointing out that Ford certainly had his flaws and an imperfect record, but his support for nasty regimes was actually not as great as Carter's. I have a problem with the hypocricy that's rampant in all these get Ford posts- and it's not as if we're talking about reasoned and balanced criticism of his record, it's simply been a pile on.

[Captain Hilts]

3. He MUST be kidding. nt

[sweetheart]

4. yea that's true

Carter has pretty much been canonized and gifted a halo since his term,
allowing persons to forget that the war machine is bipartisan.

Clinton and Carter should both be tried for war crimes as well.

[Lasher]

7. Fair enough. Please direct me to a recent thread here at DU where I can see an example.

My argument is simply one of cause and effect.

[cwydro]

17. good post

eom

[papau]

19. I agree - but DU Sainthood for Carter is just hate of Israel in most DU threads n/t

n/t

[H2O Man]

20. "...particularly in light

of his new book..." I doubt that many -- if any -- people who didn't like Carter before, like him because of his newest book. But it might be that this book would cause some folks -- even democrats -- to say that he was no better than Gerald Ford.

[cali]

23. Let me repeat what

I've written in many, many threads, including this one: I greatly admire President Carter, particularly his post-Presidential activities. I'm in the process of reading his book, which I find both reasonable and courageous. If you're insinuating that I'm somehow equating him with Ford because of his book, you couldn't be more wrong. I thought the main point of the OP was fairly clear. Guess not.

[H2O Man]

24. Actually,

I quoted you. If you read post #2, you'll find the quote.

[cali]

29. Yes, I realize that. So what?

What exactly is your point? Mine, in that post, should be clear even to the most casual reader: I was responding to a post saying that no one on DU was casting sainthood on by pointing out that that isn't accurate, and much of the heaping on of praise on Carter over recent weeks has been the publication of his book.

[H2O Man]

33. Your point was clear.

I was merely highlighting it.

[sandnsea]

5. Kind of ignores the era too

As if the US was going to support another military action to end a civil war in another country. Indonesia was the 5th largest country, an oil producer, and a Muslim country. Not sure how we could have explained supporting the more Christian East Timor over the vast Muslim majority.

It was in the US interest to have a peacful Indonesia, and that's the realpolitik of what Ford & Carter did. Just like those who helped Lincoln during our civil war.

[Selatius]

6. One point of dispute: East Timor was invaded. They did not attempt to break away from Indonesia

Prior to the invasion, it was a Portuguese colonial possession, and when they left, then Indonesia invaded and annexed the land.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes I know

East Timor was claiming its independence, Indonesia invaded to claim it as a part of their country. Perhaps civil war wasn't quite the exact term. Still, this country was never going to support propping up another leader in a newly formed country just because the leader of the main country had different beliefs. That would have sounded way way too much like Vietnam. So we supported a lot of corrupt dictators, but we've also seen the chaos from not supporting them too. Such as the current chaos in Indonesia, and now Iraq, and Afghanistan, and on and on. People want us to stop the genocide in Darfur, but if we'd backed a regime that fought those involved in the violence, the left would have called the US wrong too. That's a fact. There are a lot of situations where the US cannot win, Indonesia was definitely one of them.

[fujiyama]

9. That's the same excuse

people have for Kissinger's "realpolitik" policies which left millions dead.

Excusing genocide is easy when it's done for "stability".

[sandnsea]

10. Vietnam is the other option

I mean seriously, people get mad when we intervene and they get mad when we don't. The country would not have supported another military intervention at that time. If Ford had done absolutely nothing, there would have been criticism for that as the bloodshed would have gone on longer.

I'm not supporting what he did. I just think the very far left doesn't consider the entire picture most of the time. Saddam ought to prove that getting rid of one dictator doesn't mean you get anything better in its place. So if we'd fought Suharto, then what? Foreign policy isn't easy. That's why some people say the US should stick to what's in its own interest and stay out of everything else. A stable Indonesia is in our interest, other considerations aren't our business. That's what a lot of people said should have guided our thought on Iraq and if it had, we'd have left Saddam in charge. I don't know. It's just not easy.

[fujiyama]

11. "It's not easy"

This is a cop out. It's pretty damn easy to condemn complicity in genocide.

The US did not have to fight Suharto. I agree that such an entanglement would have made little sense especially after Vietnam. However, instead the US ACTIVELY SUPPORTED HIM. I think it's pretty easy to say that that was morally wrong.

Ah, I love your last paragraph regarding "stability". Human rights violations and genocide are not of our interest? Only "stability" is. Hell, that same reasoning also caused the US to support Saddam in the first place.

I seriously hope your not defending Kissingerian "realpolitik". It has been a disaster for millions worldwide.

[sandnsea]

14. Was Iraq's human rights violations our interest?

Funny how 'our interests' change to the far left, depending on whether or not we 'started' a war. Yep, stability is why we supported Saddam and it's also why the left said we shouldn't invade, it would disrupt the stability in Iraq. I don't like that we supported any of these people, but I also know alternatives aren't always easy to find.

The purpose of the US government is to take care of US citizens, first, last and always. It really is not in US interest to engage militarily because of human rights violations and genocides, that is how we let ourselves get talked into Iraqs. Kissinger didn't invent reapolitik either, and no I'm not defending it. But the choice you're giving these leaders is to support total chaos or hopefully a limited chaos and opportunity to make change diplomatically at a later time.

The neocons would say we should have done it your way, went to war all over the globe every time one of these regimes reared its head. They'd say if we'd done that, terrorist groups never would have developed. They'd say that's why we have to do it now, starting in Iraq. Wars all over the world to squash anybody we deem to be a dictator. Fight for the human rights and democratic desires of people, even at the point of a gun. You think that's right?

It's not easy. And that's not a cop-out.

[fujiyama]

16. The far left?

Quit with the fuckin labels alright? It's condescending.

And your own statement paints it as an either or situation.

One doesn't have to be a neocon to support intervention to stop genocide. But if you prefer to look the other way or better yet facilitate it, then that's your wish.

Yes, I will condemn this government when it SUPPORTS regimes that commit human rights violations. I don't view that as a "far left" thing to do. I view it as basic morality.

[sandnsea]

25. Then you support overthrowing Saddam?

Or are you saying we should tsk tsk and pay lip service, like we're doing with Darfur?

Sorry, but rants aren't solutions.

And this IS a problem with the far left, like it or not. You can't criticize the govt for doing nothing, and then turn around and criticize for intervention too. People want Bush to do something about Darfur, but I guarantee if he had, somebody from the far left would have found a way to twist it around to be a warmongering act.

[fujiyama]

32. Overthrowing Saddam really wasn't necessary

Saddam was certainly responsible for reprehensible atrocities against Shiites and Kurds. Perhaps a case could have been made to remove him after earlier massacres, but such interventions require broad international support and it was never there. However, after the Gulf War, Saddam was isolated anyways and controlled by the "no fly zones", which effectively stopped him from committing any sort of genocide.

As for Darfur, I think the international community should certainly intervene to stop the Janjawed militia from killing hundreds of thousands.

However, there is a key difference between Darfur and Indonesia. In Darfur, the US is not supporting the Janjawed in its killings. In the case of both Suharto and Saddam, the US actively supplied both nations with weapons. When you give weapons to a nation that is actively committing genocide, then you become complicit in it.

The key point should be that the US should not be supporting such regimes with weapons in the first place.

[sandnsea]

40. We sold weapons to Sudan

That was another Soviet/US proxy war, just like so many of these others around the globe. The conflict in Darfur is mixed up in the use of that region in wars from that time.

You're still suggesting that we leave a dictator in place in Iraq, but intervene to stop dictators in Sudan and Indonesia. We weren't supporting such regimes with weapons, we were giving regimes weapons to defend themselves from Soviet-backed guerilla fighters. Which obviously back-fired.

[fujiyama]

48. We weren't "supporting them with weapons"

just giving them weapons to "defend themselves"?

What sort of doublespeak is that?

The US gave those regimes weapons to "defend themselves" when the US clearly knew it was using those weapons to commit atrocities...

[sandnsea]

50. That's just not true at all

I think the proxy wars were a huge mistake - but nobody gave these regimes weapons knowing that they were going to commit atrocities. That's just ludicrous.

[fujiyama]

53. The US was well aware

of the atrocities being committed by these regimes as it was giving them military aid.

You can deny that all you want but that's just the fact.

[sandnsea]

54. The intention and purpose

was not to support regimes for the mere purpose of committing atrocities. Governments have a right to defend themselves against uprisings, or to control riots as we have done on so many occasions in this country.

The US is routinely criticized for supporting the Shah, yet what has taken his place is so much worse. Do you think these atrocities ONLY take place in regimes that have US backing?

Chavez began military attacks in 1992, not becoming President until 1998. Now, he is the one who puts down riots and puts people in prison who challenge him. That's the way it goes.

Sudan, a north/south muslim/christian fight that we poured weapons into, are now being used against the people of Darfur. Was that Bill Clinton's intention?

Indonesia convinced the US they were fighting communist freedom fighters. We supported their fight against supposed communists. Just like we supported the freedom fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan, many of whom transformed into terrorists.

I just posted an article that claims the only reason the west cares about Darfur is because it's interfering with the ability to get the oil out of Sudan. If we don't go in, the left will claim it's because we don't care because there's no oil. If we do, it's because we want to grab the oil.

Kneejerk reaction to anything done by the US government isn't a foreign policy. We are not always wrong. Even when we are, every person doesn't make errors based on pure greed.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. What riots and who did he put in jail for merely opposing him?

Now that I think of it, what the hell does Mr Chavez have to do with any of this? Shit, I don't even know where to start on the supposed freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

[fujiyama]

56. Yeah I'm sure "intention and purpose"

mean a whole hell of a lot to the victims of genocide.

I guess you like being an apologist for US support of nasty regimes.

Who the fuck said anything about atrocities being committed only under those regimes with US support?

My point was simply that the US shouldn't be backing such regimes that do commit human rights violations and genocide. You apparently believe such support is justifiable, as long as it furthers "our interests" (more likely corporate interests).

We were the good guys fighting the "evil commies" so any regime that was fighting the commies was OK, even if they were comprised of religious fanatics, or ruthless fascist dictators. Ah, and the Mujahadeen were freedom fighters...even better.

[H2O Man]

26. That's right.

Attempting to promote human rights, and intervening to stop genocide, are not uniquely "far left" values. However, it is apparent that the failure to consider these as options are the "far right's" lack of values.

Further, no one can seriously claim that the only options the US had in regard to Iraq in 2003 were to invade for humanitarian purposes, or to do nothing. These are, of course, the options that people such as Paul Wolfowitz pretended were the only ones on the table. Yet the rest of the world knows that the US sanctions were causing much of the suffering and death in Iraq in between the Bush wars.

[sandnsea]

28. Sanctions criticized too

No matter what the US does, the far left criticizes. That's exactly what I said and you show right up to prove the point by criticizing the sanctions too. Intervening to stop human rights violations or genocides is criticized as war mongering, not intervening is criticized as passive support, verbal statements and resolutions are criticized as phony lip service.

Foreign policy is not easy, no matter how many people ranting on a discussion board pretend it is.

[leesa]

30. The "far left" is the rest of the world apparently who ALL voted to end

sanctions against Iraq, all except the US and Israel. Had we done this simple act, we could probably have avoided this tragedy that is unfolding now. But we needed to follow our usual "far right" warmongering track and invade a defenseless country and ignite a powderkeg.

Your "far right" wisdom is so very glorious.

[H2O Man]

31. Fascinating.

Perhaps you have missed some recent history: the USA invaded Iraq to stop the threat posed by Saddam's WMD programs, because we couldn't afford the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. The country was told, over and over, that we were at risk of another 9/11. Attempts were made to convince the public that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda.

And while I am okay with your silly "far left" business, you simply can not make a rational case that a significant portion of people recognize the US sanctions resulted in the deaths of many, many innocent children in Iraq. Anyone who would pretend that was "humanitarian" is ill. If you think that this is an opinion held only by the "far left," you might read either of Michael Scheuer's books.

More, there were numerous other options that the US could have taken to deal with Saddam. They are not the exclusive property of the "far left" that seems to unsettle you so. A few of them are listed in "Fiasco," by Thomas Ricks, who is hardly "far left." He lists options recommended by a variety of people in the military, and in the republican party.

[sandnsea]

35. What other options?

Sanctions were harming children, so they needed to be stopped. I remember the protests and the change of policy, I suspct a lot of people do. Saddam was no threat, so no invasion was necessary, no sanctions either really.

So what other options and why? If Saddam was no threat to us, why'd we need to do anything at all? We aren't in the business of freeing people around the globe, right? There's lots of evil dictators, right?

Except when it's some other scenario the far left decides to make a case out of, even if they have to argue the exact opposite of what they're arguing on Iraq.

[H2O Man]

41. Read the books.

That way you can drop the silly "far left" nonsense.

It's curious that the position you are taking on this issue is very similar to that of Wolfowitz and Perle. They are trying to define the Iraq invasion in humanitarian terms, rather than the WMD lies. Would you say that you are closer in thinking to them, or the "far left" on this issue? What, if anything, separates what you are saying from what they are now saying about Iraq?

[sandnsea]

42. This is about East Timor

And those who take a neocon view of that situation and criticize US non-action - but turn around and claim the exact opposite for Iraq.

If it's wrong to intervene in the Iraq dictatorship on a humanitarian basis, it's wrong to intervene in Darfur or East Timor.

Or perhaps it's wrong to take such a simplistic approach to foreign policy and realize that every situation doesn't have an easy answer.

[H2O Man]

44. Then you are

saying the US went to war in Iraq on a humanitarian effort, and that the administration didn't pretend that Iraq posed a threat to the US with its WMD programs, and that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda? Are you sure about that?

[sandnsea]

46. No I didn't say that

But I'm sure no matter what I say, you'll find a way to twist it into what you want. Ranting and twisting peoples' words is easier than actually having to come up with real solutions to real problems - which is what I said about the far left right in the beginning.

[fujiyama]

47. The initial reason

I criticized your post was your seeming ability to excuse Ford and Carter's support for Suharto.

I found that unacceptable.

You're the one that spun that as "intervening" in Indonesia.

And simply saying "things don't have an easy answer" is a cop out. It's fairly obvious that these aren't issues that have simple solutions, but at the same time I find it pretty easy to condemn the action of handing over billions of dollars in military aid to a dictator responsible for killing over 200,000 people.

Or do you not see anything wrong with the US giving Suharto military aid when he was killing the people of East Timor?

[sandnsea]

49. That wasn't the purpose

We did not sell Indonesia weapons in order to invade East Timor. It was the classic support of any anti-communist regime at the time. Right or wrong, that's all it was. It is the same as having to attempt to deal with countries like Iran and Syria, in order to deal with the direct US threat of terrorists now. Some people don't think we're supposed to do anything in Afghanistan either, and I suppose there will be those who talk about the US support of the murderous Karzai regime in the future too. Or Pakistan and Musharraf.

I don't think any of this arms sales stuff is particularly bright, considering the results. But look at Darfur. If arming those people is the best we can do to help the live, should we do it?

I'll say it again. I just don't think foreign policy is easy.

[personman]

12. Screw Ford AND Carter, presidents suck.

Why would a bunch of people talk about Carter when it's Ford who died? but anyway...

"My point is simple: There is no 20th century President without blood on his hands, and if you're going to rant and rave about Ford, accusing him of genocide and being a butcher, then you ought to do the same for Carter."

Done. In fact I believe I was one of the first (or earlier atleast) people to mention Carter's hand in it (and a few other things as well). If I felt like grabbing my copy of A People's History, I could probably find a lot more less then flattering things about him.

The "best" president we've probably had in recent history supported genocide. What does that say about presidents? Government lies and doesn't represent you, robs you and kills you, and presidents are the public face of the government that smile and shake your hands and talk up how much they love the working man while they do it. They give the people the illusion that by picking which rich white conservative christian elite that will represent them, they have choice.

From A People's History:

"Under Carter, the United States continued to support, all over the world, regimes that engaged in imprisonment of dissenters, torture, and mass murder: in the Philippines, in Iran, in Nicaragua, and in Indonesia, where the inhabitants of East Timor were being annihilated in a campaign bordering on genocide."

[EFerrari]

13. No problem. Why is it so difficult to hold these men accountable

for what they actually did? That's just baffling.

[cali]

15. There's a difference

between holding people accountable and the mindless Ford trashing that's been taking place. Assessing a Presidency- even one as brief as Ford's involves more than calling him a butcher for supporting Indonesia. That's just simplistic bullshit, not thoughtful assessment.

[EFerrari]

18. Your simplistic bullshit is another DUer's considered opinion.

That's how public boards work.

[cali]

21. Indeed , that's how it works

People can post simplistic bullshit, and I'm free to point it out.

[EFerrari]

27. "What color is the sky in your world, Norm?" was my favorite line in all of Cheers.

A comment on how painful it must be to have to notice the flaws of your fellows so assiduously.

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

39. thanks for the chuckle

:thumbsup:

[fujiyama]

22. Well

Maybe it's damn time for all Americans - Democrats, repukes, alike to admit that US presidents of both parties have been complicit in genocide over the years.

It's time for DUers to also admit the truth about certain idolized politicians as well. Jimmy Carter can be considered a decent person overall, but he made some bad choices during his administration and supported some real nasty people, and is no saint.

I understand why people are angry about the media's heaping of praise of the pardon being an "act of courage", but I don't get the "fuck him" posts. That sort of bitterness seems unwarranted conidering his limited tenure and limited effectiveness.

[personman]

34. I don't think it's just presidents

I think it's a leadership thing. The presidents being the most powerful leaders generally have the most glaring examples of disturbing shit. We give our politicians more power then people should have. If you are a factory worker and you fuck up and press a part wrong, you toss it and start over. If you are a leader and you make a mistake, lives can be destroyed. Maybe it's a result of putting that sort of power in the hands of flawed people (as we all are).

The great philosopher Ben Parker, (Spider-Man/Peter Parker's uncle) said "With great power comes great responsibility." I think if it's true of a dude with super powers, it's probably true of a nation with an unrivaled capacity for destruction as well. Too much power, not enough responsibility. One could almost get the impression the whole political/media system was designed to protect the rulers and owners from accountability (Katrina?) or something...

[Dogmudgeon]

36. More Counterpunch rhetoric

'Nuf said.

--p!
"There is a position in the SDS for women -- prone"
(some ol' radical dude)

[rman]

37. But you don't deny that it's true,

interestingly enough.

[cali]

38. How about Common Dreams?

Look, Counterpunch and Cockburn are pretty sterling examples of hysterical, nasty and often inaccurate screeds, but Common Dreams ain't. This information is not false.

[rman]

43. Even a truly saintly President could only pursue his agenda

in so far that the 'circumstances' (the political machine that's already in place when a president takes office) allow for. Otherwise he won't be president for long.
If nothing else, a president gets his information about what's going on in the world from advisers and intel agencies that have long been there and that will still be there when the president leaves office. And it's typically that information that presidents act on. What power the intel agencies have - though more so when the president likes what they are doing.

Formally a president is responsible for anything that 'the government' does during his/her presidency. But if you want to find out just who had which influence on actual policies (as opposed to what we're being told about the policies) - then you'd have to investigate.

Then you might find that for instance "Bush tortures people" and "Ford supported the invasion of East Timor" is more true than "JFK invaded Cuba". Even though Kennedy did take responsibility while Bush doesn't take responsibility.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Carter was not a great president.

On the other hand Carter is a great ex-president. Yes, the US has had an almost consistently awful role in the world in its post-WWII era of Top Dog and Chief Idiot. Time and again we have backed brutal tyrants, typically in the past under the guise of cold war anti-communism, and now in this odd new post soviet world, under a candy-box assortment of rationales, many made up out of whole cloth.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. What, DUers, criticizing a Republican more harshly than a Democrat? This is HUGH!!1!

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Carter didn't pardon Nixon n/t