Jimmy Carter is still not a traitor, or, a case study in wingnuttery, or, someone on the right really needs to learn how to read

Do you know what the difference between wingnuts and lefties is?  When lefties are wrong, they admit it, and when wingnuts are wrong and they keep digging the hole they're in. 

So it is with the continuing saga of Powerline blog and Jimmy Carter. 

Readers will remember that two days ago many of us noted that Power line blog accused Jimmy Carter of being "on the other side," which they distinguish from "treason" (I'm not sure how).  Given that Jimmy Carter admitted the mistake that they were annoyed by (Carter had originally said the Iraq elections wouldn't take place; they did; he later said that they were a "surprisingly good step") I said they them retract their ridiculous charge.  Various other people called for an apology.  Rather than do that, here's what they say yesterday:

We've been pretty tough on Jimmy Carter, but with hindsight, probably not tough enough.

They then go on to recount a two-year old story, which accuses Carter of sending someone to the Soviet Ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, to try to get him to influence the 1980 election; and of personally visiting Dobrynin to influence the 1984 elections. 

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.

Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

Which ends with their generous statement

We could have called that treason, but we didn't. You can form your own opinion.

They cite a FrontPageMag piece, which in turn cites a Peter Schweizer's book, Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism, which apparently cites the vague "Soviet diplomatic accounts and material."  Further looking reveals that Peter Schweizer is relying on Ambassador Dobrynin's memoir, In Confidence: Moscow's Ambassador to America's Six Cold War Presidents ("Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs" and then later again "As Dobrynin recounts...")

Power line didn't mention that Ambassador Dobrynin wrote a memoir in which he made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, and this story is one of them.  Why?  Probably because they don't know.  Why don't they know?  They probably didn't bother to find out.

Now, since Power line is not interested in verifying the things that they assert, I figured I would.  I did some LexisNexis searching, and I found several reviews of Dobrynin's 1995 memoir.  A Washington Post review from 10/27/95 tells us

"I think he screwed up," says former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, when asked about Dobrynin's recounting of American actions at the time of the Yom Kippur War. "I can't imagine that," says Brent Scowcroft, when asked about Dobrynin's memory of a meeting with the presidential adviser just prior to the 1980 election. "I think he was a charming bull[expletive] artist," says Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom Dobrynin refers to as "a rather vigorous and pushy academic."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the former Soviet ambassador's credibility.  And indeed, according to the Post, the ambassador does have some unkind things to say about Carter:

Although Dobrynin denies it, it is possible to entertain the suspicion that he is avenging himself in small, satisfying ways on any number of people. Carter "didn't have any clear priority in handling foreign policy," he says, and in the book he portrays the former president as a borderline hysteric at the time of the Afghanistan invasion, which Carter called "the greatest threat to peace since World War II." Writes Dobrynin: Was this "the emotional outburst of a scorned and weak leader" or a "strong, considered decision of the president in the best interests of the country"?

And it has some bad words for some people on the other side:

Scowcroft, in Dobrynin's book, appears as someone with an appetite for behind-the-scenes intrigue and public play-acting. Dobrynin writes that prior to the 1976 election, when Jewish leaders asked President Ford to announce support for Jewish emigration, "Scowcroft was calling to tell me, apologetically, that Ford had yielded to their demands. He asked us for 'patience and understanding for another 48 hours, until this madhouse was over.' " Says Scowcroft, "I can't put that in context at all."

Dobrynin seems to imply that Scowcroft, in 1980, hinted that the Soviet Union could help defeat Carter, who at that time was becoming stridently anti-Soviet.  He writes that Scowcroft told him that if Moscow gave Carter an opportunity to help resolve the Afghanistan issue, he'd be reelected. "But if the Soviet Union sat on the fence till the end of the election campaign and gave no trumps to Carter, Reagan had a good chance of winning." Says Scowcroft, "I can't imagine that. That seems far-fetched to me. At that point in Afghanistan, they weren't about to change anything. They had just gone in in December 1979."

In fact, a review in the September/October 1995 Foreign Affairs, the reviewer indicates that Dobrynin was an equal-opportunity exposer

It is less pleasant to read how during election years presidential candidates and their minions from both parties routinely courted Moscow's favor, often assuring Dobrynin, as Lyndon B. Johnson did in 1964, that anti-Soviet campaign rhetoric "would in no way signify any change in Johnson's position toward the Soviet Union."

The book has some other nice tidbits, and if you're looking for treachery, this piece includes:

While all Washington luminaries confided in Dobrynin, Henry Kissinger more than any other succumbed to his charisma and on countless occasions met privately for hours with the Soviet ambassador. Dobrynin covers Kissinger's revelations in detail in his book, but doesn't report the unpleasantness that Kissinger must have experienced when the National Security Agency intercepted a Dobrynin secret cable to Moscow. The message contained Kissinger's advice on how the Kremlin should deal with President Carter during SALT II talks.

But nevermind that.  The point is that here we have the former Soviet Ambassador writing a memoir in which he claims that all sides in elections were trying to win the favor of the Soviet government, even while the Soviets were our biggest enemies.  Personally, but I'm more inclined to believe that Dobrynin is exaggerating for the sake of telling a juicy story than believe that all the presidents since Kennedy and their advisors are traitors.  And given that

Brzezinski wonders if the Russian is being completely honest with his readers. "We have copies of some of his telegrams," he says. "They don't quite jibe with what he said in the book."

you'd have to be somewhat misguided to believe that the former Soviet ambassador isn't engaging in some capitalistic excesses to sell his book. 

Which is all fine.  But it turns out that my skepticism isn't even necessary, because, and here's the important part, the right-wing is lying about what Dobrynin said in the first place. I went to the library and checked out his memoir.  Remember what the FrontPageMag article said?

Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

Well, here's the actual passage from the book (p. 547):

Jimmy Carter paid me an unexpected visit on January 30 to voice concern at the extent of Reagan's arms buildup. He described Reagan's peace rhetoric as a pure campaign maneuver. The former president was "utterly convinced" that there would not be a single agreement on arms control especially, on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power. (He proved to be a poor prophet.)

As you can see, Carter didn't tell Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House.  And that long quote that FrontPageMag has?  Well, that's Dobrynin's summary of what Carter said, not what Carter actually said, which is how it's presented by FrontPageMag.

And when you consider the context, it seems even less remarkable.  Out of a 600+ page book, this encounter receives four sentences, and Dobrynin clearly doesn't think that Carter is trying to influence the outcome of the election; he would have said if he did.  The wingnuts are hearing what they want to hear.

It's a section on the beginning of Reagan's re-election campaign, and Dobrynin is recounting what various people thought.  In the very next paragraph, we find republicans saying the same thing:

I had a similar conversation with [Reagan Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence] Eagleburger, an old colleague of mine. When asked if we should expect any initiatives from the Reagan administration to improve our relations, Eagleburger voiced frank doubt, saying Reagan believed his conciliatory tone was enough to placate the voters.  Senator Charles Percy, a liberal Illinois Republican, told me that Reagan and his aides had met to discuss the "Soviet theme" of the campaign. They decided that the voters were well aware of the essence of Reagan's anti-Soviet position, so he would do nothing to make voters feel he was a warmonger but also would not raise their hopes of major agreements with the Soviet Union.

On the next page, we have Henry Kissinger saying some not very nice things about Reagan:

Henry Kissinger of course had his opinion, too. He said Reagan and his entourage did not want to exacerbate Soviet-American relations during the election campaign. He reported that the White House and the State Department were discussing various actions to send signals to the Soviet Union, but the whole business was haphazard because there was no one to organize it properly. He stressed that the Reagan administration had no coherent program to deal with the Soviet Union because Reagan had never thought about it seriously, and the State Department was characteristically lacking in initiative and courage to suggest new ideas.

Then more Eagleburger on the next page:

Eagleburger also shared with me his impressions of Reagan as a person and as an administrator. The president was still guided by his "inborn instinct" of which he was very proud, although it had not generated a great variery of ideas, and those few it did produce were strongly colored with ideological cliches or plain propaganda. His command of foreign policy was still mediocre after more than three years in office, especially complex nuclear policy problems, and he was just unwilling to go into details. So his aides spared him the trouble of examining lengthy papers, which he simply would not read.

It's also worth noting that it's possible that Dobrynin has the date of the Carter visit wrong.  Dobrynin attended an "arms control consultation" in April 1985 at the Carter Center, along with seven other high-ranking Soviet ministers, and in fact, as recounted in Douglas Brinkley's "The Unfinished Presidency," Carter had to visit Dobrynin to get him to come to the conference (p. 138):

Finally Carter was able to secure the USSR's worldly ambasssador to the United States, Anatoly Dobrynin.  Carter arranged to meet him for two private session, in Washington and Toronto, before the session in Atlanta.  As it turned out, the two men shared an utter disdain for Star Wars; furthermore, Dobrynin said he fully supported Carter's track-two diplomatic efforts and commended his pursuit of disamament accords.

He doesn't mention this at all in his memoir, and the subject of the conversation appears to be similar, so it may be that Dobrynin, writing at the end of his life, misremembered the year of the meeting.  Just a possibility.

Before we go on, let's stop to contemplate this whole thing.  The right-wing has been using the Carter's alleged attempt to influence the 1984 election to call him a traitor since at least 2002.  Like this Newsmax article.  Or this one.  Free Republic.  Free Republic again.  Rightwingnews.com (this is actually an interview with Schweizer, in which Schweizer actually exaggerates the charge even more).  A wingnut blog.  Another wingnut blog. Here's Powerline repeating the same lie in 2002.  And it turns out that they were all mistaken; that they were using a single, apparently untrustworthy, source, and that they were misrepresenting what he said. 

The person who comes in for the biggest raspberry is the source of the confusion, Peter Schweizer, the author of Reagan's War, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institute, who clearly the read the passage and willfully misconstrued it ("Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and went on to explain that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House.")  Truly fucking pathetic. 

Of course, what republicans genuinely object to about President Carter is that he's not afraid to speak his mind.  He opposed the Iraq war, and he said so.  He opposed many of President Reagan's policies and he said so. 

As Yglesias hinted at the other day, there is something deeply and irrationally paranoid about a group of people who are so invested in what they think that they'll go to any lengths to avoid having to deal with something that contradicts it.  Two days ago, the Powerline guys were widely criticized for implying a former president is a traitor.  Yesterday, apparently one of them did a google search for "'Jimmy Carter' Democrats Soviet"  and found the FrontPageMag article.  They obviously didn't bother to go any further, or they would have realized that the only source of their anecdote is an untrustworthy Soviet ambassador writing at the end of his life, and saying bad things about everyone.   

But the apparently insubstantial evidence doesn't stop them from making bizarre generalizations:

In my view, Carter owes the American people an apology for the actions cited above, and others. Carter, it seems to me, subscribes to the view that America is, and generally has been, more a force for evil in the world than a force for good. Accordingly, he believes, I think, that the world would be a better place if the U.S. were weaker militarily and less influential. Carter also holds our enemies in higher regard than he holds our friends, particularly in the Middle East. And, as Rocket Man notes above, he is particularly fond of anti-American dictators and, at times, has actively assisted such dictators to our detriment.

Well, buddy, it's great that you have a view and all, but your ESP-based insights into Carter's opinion of the US military doesn't mean you get to imply that he's a traitor. 

They end the post with

Kos and Atrios readers are welcome. However, please spare us your emails unless you actually know how to make an argument. That would exclude all those we've heard from so far.

Guys, I'm sorry, it's not us that doesn't know how to make an argument. 

The right-wing has become so blinded by their hate that they'll do anything to keep from admitting that they're wrong. 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes: this kind of partisanship frightens me.  You take a born-again Christian, who still teaches Sunday school, who served in the Navy for 7 years, and who, in his post-presidential career started a human rights organization, and you imply that he's a traitor based on your willful misreading of a Soviet ambassador's informal recollections.  So really, guys, let's calm down.  You don't even have to apologize, because I know you won't.  But even though you don't agree with him, let's not slander a decent human being, OK?

-- Michael

Comments

[Cheryl]

Slander is fun. George W. Bush rapes baby boys. I saw it. Swear to God. Michael you are right, this is truly pathetic, but what is even more pathetic is that the redneck trailer trash eats it up like ambrosia.

[DavidByron]

Bush has had male children analy raped in Abu Ghraib and other torture centers in Iraq. Multiple eye witness accounts. I dare say Carter had the same sort of things happening on his watch too.

[DavidByron]

Anyway, good piece of work there Michael. Not much to say about it though. I know that can be annoying when you've put a lot of work into something and then no one says much about it, but the fact is you pretty much said it all.

If this accusation is common then maybe this piece of yours needs more coverage.

[h.]

daaaamn. nice work.

[Incertus]

That's a lot more time and effort than I'd have given those fuckwads. Glad you felt up to it.

[Diane]

Attempts to slander Jimmy Carter, of all people, disgust me. However, I see no truth in the "lefties admit when they're wrong" theory. I see as many irrational, fact-hating, context-ignoring nuts on the left as I do on the right. I should add, though, that I don't see the kind of organized character assassination on the left that I see on the right.

[Incertus]

You're far more likely to see "lefties" admit when they're wrong than you'll see that fromt he right--it's because one of the major facets of progressive thought is the willingness to see perspectives other than your own. Sure, there are plenty of radicals on the left who are as closed-minded as any fundie, but they're certainly not the folks in charge, as is the case on the political right of today.

[edwin putnam]

all you need to know about jimmy carter is; HE GAVE THE PANAMA CANAL TO PANAMA, HE DID AWAY WITH THE SEQUIOA(PRESIDENTIAL YACHT), CERTAINLY VERY, VERY FAR FROM LEAST, HE FAILED TO SHORE UP THE SHAH OF IRAN, THE MOST IDIOTIC DEED EVER PERPETRATED BY A U.S. PRESIDENT. and if you think he would have pushed the nuke button while he was commander of a submarine, you are really dreamin----------

[bruce]

the saudis have bought off jimmy carter with millions of dollars, so when you hear carter mouth off about israel, just remember he is a paid shill for arab hate propaganda.carter is a stinking rat who would sell out america for a few pieces of silver.