When Jimmy Carter Lied to Me (Twice) and the Weaponization of Most Everything
The policies of his presidency, from Iran, Camp David, "Carter Doctrine" to Afghanistan highlight the trajectory of US Empire, capable of instrumentalizing "human rights" and even "peacemaking".
Jimmy Carter just died at 100. His meeting with Hamas in 2008 was something no member of the establishment has done, showing how deranged it is. As I argue in my piece below from last year, the Camp David “peace” deal actually propelled war by creating a vacuum, the wars on Iraq to arguably the current Gaza genocide. When I questioned him about Israel's nukes, he lied to me twice, saying he didn't think it was his role as US president to out a country as having nukes (he actually outed Pakistan) and he pretended to be quite unfamiliar with Mordechai Vanunu when he met with him the prior year.
See the full piece with video, I’ve removed paywall —
When Jimmy Carter Lied to Me (Twice) and the Weaponization of Most Everything
[I wrote this piece a while ago and was looking to hold off on publishing it until Jimmy Carter was back in the news. But, upon reflection, with the presidential election obsession already upon us, I think it’s important to put it out as soon as possible. It shows how the establishment instrumentalizes every president. The minimal good that presidents do is largely symbolic or temporary, from Carter’s solar panels on the White House to Obama’s pause on funding the creation of potential pandemic pathogens lab work or the Iran deal. The big things they do, such as invasions, military programs, Wall Street giveaways, have a permanent effect. Whatever their “brand” or stated goal is, it’s used by the establishment for ultimately Machiavellian purposes. “America First” could have been a good thing. Feminism, nonproliferation, human rights, gay rights have all been weaponized. And, as part of this piece shows, even “peacemaking” has been weaponized. Each president therefore becomes an opportunity for the establishment, and a facilitation of its hypocrisies. Thus, anyone who is looking for positive change must in my view instrumentalize a candidate. Don’t be for or against anyone. Don’t personalize. What specifically do you want out of them? I addressed this regarding the current election in my
Good points about use of presidents. btw I met Vanunu's brother on my way to Gaza in 1997. There was a conference that Ellsberg attended there before that on Voices for Vanunu. I interviewed some of the people from the and have the book.