The Saga of Jimmy Carter

[Spoonman]

I recommend The Bully Pulpit written by a real historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin. She began the book seven years ago. A huge difference in time and research from the 'authors' which guide the propaganda posted too often by PC.

pffft, a biased hack who has worked for the kennedy and johnson administrations. not like she wouldn't be left leaning

Have your read it? One hundred and sixteen pages of notes on President's Taft and T. Roosevelt (RINO's by today's standard). Not for you and the rest of the willfully ignorant, for sure. Keep on drinking the sour grape Kool-Ade offered by PC, and keep on making a fool of yourself with stupid comments based on nothing but your biases.

yes, all partisan hackery.

 

[Wry Catcher]

An excellent and well documented (15 pages of notes) book on the 39th president is one by Stephen F. Hayward, titled, appropriately, "The Real Jimmy Carter". ISBN 0-89526-090-5.

Read it and learn.

Just ordered it.

Thank you.

Fifteen (15!) pages of notes! Wow, that much research is impressive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

pffft, a biased hack who has worked for the kennedy and johnson administrations. not like she wouldn't be left leaning

Have your read it? One hundred and sixteen pages of notes on President's Taft and T. Roosevelt (RINO's by today's standard). Not for you and the rest of the willfully ignorant, for sure. Keep on drinking the sour grape Kool-Ade offered by PC, and keep on making a fool of yourself with stupid comments based on nothing but your biases.

yes, all partisan hackery.

Did you read it? If not, STFU. If you did, review it.

 

[Shaarona]

Some years ago I befriended a university president because I needed his help in Tri-county development. He had been a US advisor to the Shah for a little more than a decade. .. He told me that they were so ensconced in the Shah's elite inner circle that they were completely blindsided by the 1979 revolution.

Jimmy Carter had VERY poor intelligence on what was happening in Iran.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I recommend The Bully Pulpit written by a real historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin. She began the book seven years ago. A huge difference in time and research from the 'authors' which guide the propaganda posted too often by PC.

pffft, a biased hack who has worked for the kennedy and johnson administrations. not like she wouldn't be left leaning

Have your read it? One hundred and sixteen pages of notes on President's Taft and T. Roosevelt (RINO's by today's standard). Not for you and the rest of the willfully ignorant, for sure. Keep on drinking the sour grape Kool-Ade offered by PC, and keep on making a fool of yourself with stupid comments based on nothing but your biases.

You fight tooth and nail to remain a member of the ignoranti, the dupes....

....but here is more anodyne, more truth:


10. During the Great Purge of the 1930’s Stalin rounded up and executed millions of Russians- including nearly all of the original Bolsheviks.

Of course, leftists like Upton Sinclair believed the full confessions of ‘sabotage,’ ‘conspiracy,’ ‘treason,’ etc. signed by the condemned: “…my belief is that the Bolsheviks would have let the GPU agents tear them to pieces shred by shred before they would have confessed to actions which they had not committed.”
Paul Hollander, “Political Pilgrims,” p. 161,162.


A few more of the members of your 'group:'

a. American Communists like Pete Seeger, whose popular image suggested irreverence and independence, was in fact a lockstep Stalinist. He crooned for peace from ’39 to ’41, when Soviets and Nazis were allies. But when the Nazis invaded Russia, Seeger began to let his voice ring out for war- and for the ‘second front’ Stalin was demanding. He sang odes to Stalin, and later to Ho Chi Minh. Ron Radosh » 2009 » April


b. Paul Robeson, famed black singer and actor, was an eloquent spokesman for Negro rights, and also a dedicated Communist- which means that if his wishes had prevailed, no Americans, black or white, would have had civil rights. In 1948, Robeson left for the USSR, after having said that if war broke out between US and the USSR, American Negroes would not fight for the US. (Upon which, Sugar Ray Robinson said he would punch him in the nose.)
Charen, "Useful Idiots" p. 94


And, while it didn't begin with Roosevelt, he made it his business to stifle any criticism of 'Uncle Joe,' and Jimmy Carter was just fine with communists until they threatened oil in the Middle East.

No principles, no moral compass in that guy.

As contrasted with you....no brains.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some years ago I befriended a university president because I needed his help in Tri-county development. He had been a US advisor to the Shah for a little more than a decade. .. He told me that they were so ensconced in the Shah's elite inner circle that they were completely blindsided by the 1979 revolution.

Jimmy Carter had VERY poor intelligence on what was happening in Iran.

The university president was ill-informed:

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.

Carter was simply simple-minded and naive. Khomeini was brought to power through the efforts of Jimmy Carter.

To put it another way, Islamofasist terrorism is the gift that Carter gave the world.



1. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78. How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are less than 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined. The Shah had mistakenly believed that giving his people this economic prosperity would give them reason to forego political freedom.




2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

 

[BlindBoo]

Some years ago I befriended a university president because I needed his help in Tri-county development. He had been a US advisor to the Shah for a little more than a decade. .. He told me that they were so ensconced in the Shah's elite inner circle that they were completely blindsided by the 1979 revolution.

Jimmy Carter had VERY poor intelligence on what was happening in Iran.

The university president was ill-informed:

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.

Carter was simply simple-minded and naive. Khomeini was brought to power through the efforts of Jimmy Carter.

To put it another way, Islamofasist terrorism is the gift that Carter gave the world.

1. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78. How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are less than 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined. The Shah had mistakenly believed that giving his people this economic prosperity would give them reason to forego political freedom.

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

One of the results of the feud between Carter and Bush was that the CIA simple didn't inform Carter that the Shah was dying of cancer. Khomeini was the CIA's man not Carter's.

 

[candycorn]

The Gish Gallop Queen strikes again. And please save your, "Well you did not respond or refute any points." It would take far too much of my time to refute this BS. BTW, It says alot about you that Ann Coulter is your hero.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

What she ignores of course is that after WWI, America wanted no part of the affairs in Europe much less the Soviet Union. And rightly so; globalization was not a factor in the 1920's and 1930's. I'm sure the President could have sent in troops to stop the genocide in the USSR but for what "prize"?

The stuff about Carter is somewhat correct if you look at it from the convenience of 30 years hence. Should we have sent troops into Afghanistan? Uh no.

Basic PC diatribe...old, played, useless.

if globalization was not a factor, why were we having world wars?

World War, not wars at that point.

One major cause was alliances with other nations.

Why was there massive expansionism and empire building?

Because we're humans and that's what we do for some reason.

 

[salem.hills]

Excellent post OP as always bookmarked until later. And y'all thought Carter helped the mullahs lol Obama's going to be the biggest sociopath in western history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some years ago I befriended a university president because I needed his help in Tri-county development. He had been a US advisor to the Shah for a little more than a decade. .. He told me that they were so ensconced in the Shah's elite inner circle that they were completely blindsided by the 1979 revolution.

Jimmy Carter had VERY poor intelligence on what was happening in Iran.

The university president was ill-informed:

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.

Carter was simply simple-minded and naive. Khomeini was brought to power through the efforts of Jimmy Carter.

To put it another way, Islamofasist terrorism is the gift that Carter gave the world.

1. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78. How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are less than 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined. The Shah had mistakenly believed that giving his people this economic prosperity would give them reason to forego political freedom.

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

One of the results of the feud between Carter and Bush was that the CIA simple didn't inform Carter that the Shah was dying of cancer. Khomeini was the CIA's man not Carter's.

"Khomeini was the CIA's man not Carter's"


Spoken like a true Democrat apologist......always hiding the iniquities of the Leftist Democrats.


Wouldn't it be nice if you could blame all of the problems Jimmy Carter created on Bush, on Republicans?

Can't.



1. On January 21, 1979, the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, arrived in Paris from Tehran. He held some talks with the opposition leader Khomeini and told him Carter's opinions of the recent events. As the news agencies reported, when Clark left Khomeini, he said, "I have a great hope that this revolution will bring social justice to Iranian people."
Al-Hawadess, No. 1161, London, Feb. 3, 1979, p. 26.


2. The Ayatollah came to power as part of US President Jimmy Carter's "Human Rights" policy. William Miller, chief of staff on the US Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi.”
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini - Conservapedia



3. "After Carter’s election, Ebrahim Yazdi, one of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters urged him to “begin to think of the ‘new possibilities’ that the expected rift between Tehran and Washington might offer.” Yazdi, an Iranian-born American citizen, wrote to him in Iraq that “the shah’s friends in Washington are out. … It is time to act.” Circumstances dictated that “having picked Khomeini to overthrow the shah, Carter and the French had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris,” wrote Amir Taheri in “Nest of Spies.”
Welcome back Carter?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. After 9/11 the same Left switched its affection from the red flag of proletarian revolution, to the black flag of Islamic jihad. The names include Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Tom Hayden.
Dr. J. Glasov, "United in Hate."


While naivete and gross ignorance might explain Carter's attitude that the communists were simply benign....



Embracing the single greatest threat to world peace today is more difficult to explain.

Explain the 2008 pilgrimage of President Jimmy Carter to Cairo and Damascus to meet with, and embrace, the leaders of the terrorist organization Hamas.

Explain why Jimmy Carter wrote the speeches of Yasir Arafat.

Explain his antipathy to the only democracy in the Middle East.




12. The American Left has a tacit alliance with the radical Islamists, those remorseless modern-day barbarians, responsive to the Wahhabi doctrine, who cannot allow to live even co-religionists who toe only 90% of the ‘party line,’ murderous with regard to Shiites, Jews, homosexuals, and apostates and unremittingly repressive to women.

The latest iteration of Leftist Democrats carries forward the same policies, supplanting Western leaning Middle East leaders, or stable ones, with radical Islamofascists.

 

[Agit8r]

The revisionist is aware of the horrors of Pincohet; the tortures, disappearances, the use of rape as a weapon.....

...and yet....over and over.... she clings to the same anti-American values and regimes.

 

[Spoonman]

Have your read it? One hundred and sixteen pages of notes on President's Taft and T. Roosevelt (RINO's by today's standard). Not for you and the rest of the willfully ignorant, for sure. Keep on drinking the sour grape Kool-Ade offered by PC, and keep on making a fool of yourself with stupid comments based on nothing but your biases.

yes, all partisan hackery.

Did you read it? If not, STFU. If you did, review it.

it was partisan hackery, like all of your posts. Dude, you need to chill out. Why such anger?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The revisionist is aware of the horrors of Pincohet; the tortures, disappearances, the use of rape as a weapon.....

...and yet....over and over.... she clings to the same anti-American values and regimes.

"... she clings to the same anti-American values ..."

Well....I do cling to my guns and religious texts.....


Now let's talk about what you cling to:

Liberals have been wrong about everything!
a. They were wrong about Stalin, “Uncle Joe” to FDR.
b. They were wrong about Reagan and the Cold War
c. They were wrong about the Soviet Union.
d. They were wrong about their precious “Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” in the Spanish Civil War, which the Soviet archives proves was a “rigidly controlled Soviet operation.”
e. They were wrong about Nicaragua, as Communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be ‘inevitable revolutions’ after all.
f. They were wrong about welfare.
g. They were wrong about crime, as Giuliani’s success proved.
h. They were wrong about Social Security, which is now heading toward bankruptcy.
i. They were wrong about ditching our ally, the Shah of Iran, allowing him to be replaced by crazy ayatollahs.
j. And today, the Left’s single biggest cause is ‘global warming.’
Coulter




And how about your heroes?

FDR- partner of Joseph Stalin
Jimmy Carter- supporter of Khomeini
Barack Obama- never saw an Islamic radical he didn't like.




When, oh when, do we get a pro-American President?

 

[Agit8r]

2. The Ayatollah came to power as part of US President Jimmy Carter's "Human Rights" policy. William Miller, chief of staff on the US Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi.”
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini - Conservapedia

WOW! Citing Conservapedia... the people who support bringing honor killing back to Christianity!

that's amazing....

Essay:Adulteress Story - Conservapedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. The Ayatollah came to power as part of US President Jimmy Carter's "Human Rights" policy. William Miller, chief of staff on the US Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi.”
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini - Conservapedia

WOW! Citing Conservapedia... the people who support bringing honor killing back to Christianity!

that's amazing....

Essay:Adulteress Story - Conservapedia

I always find it amusing when an opponent can't deny a fact, and tries to pretend that it is the source that invalidates it.


Get it: you serve as a source of amusement.



"This only is denied to God: the power to undo the past."
Agathon, from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

1. True at one time...but the Left has found that with control of the media and the schools, they can, if not alter the past....at least cover it up.

Jimmy Carter's giving birth to Islamofascist terrorism is a perfect example.




a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


c. " Moreover, Carter refused to halt the sale of military supplies to Iran, whose government violently repressed its opponents, even though some of his advisers urged him to do so."
American President: Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs




2. " Founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Hezbollah has always had an intimate relationship with Iran based on a shared ideological foundation. Today, Hezbollah is no longer just a proxy of Iran; it is in a “strategic partnership” with Iran, as National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen put it. Or, in the words of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Hezbollah and Iran are in “a partnership arrangement . . . with the Iranians as the senior partner.”


For the past 30 years, this has proven to be a mutually beneficial relationship. From Iran, Hezbollah gets tens of thousands of rockets, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, training and operational logistical support from Iran. From Hezbollah, Iran gets an extended reach — to the Mediterranean and beyond — and a means of targeting its enemies from afar with reasonable deniability.
30 years of terror*sponsored by Iran* - NY Daily News



All thanks to Democrat Liberal Jimmy Carter.

 

[Agit8r]

2. The Ayatollah came to power as part of US President Jimmy Carter's "Human Rights" policy. William Miller, chief of staff on the US Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi.”
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini - Conservapedia

WOW! Citing Conservapedia... the people who support bringing honor killing back to Christianity!

that's amazing....

Essay:Adulteress Story - Conservapedia

I always find it amusing when an opponent can't deny a fact, and tries to pretend that it is the source that invalidates it.


Get it: you serve as a source of amusement.



"This only is denied to God: the power to undo the past."
Agathon, from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

1. True at one time...but the Left has found that with control of the media and the schools, they can, if not alter the past....at least cover it up.

Jimmy Carter's giving birth to Islamofascist terrorism is a perfect example.




a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


c. " Moreover, Carter refused to halt the sale of military supplies to Iran, whose government violently repressed its opponents, even though some of his advisers urged him to do so."
American President: Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs




2. " Founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Hezbollah has always had an intimate relationship with Iran based on a shared ideological foundation. Today, Hezbollah is no longer just a proxy of Iran; it is in a “strategic partnership” with Iran, as National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen put it. Or, in the words of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Hezbollah and Iran are in “a partnership arrangement . . . with the Iranians as the senior partner.”


For the past 30 years, this has proven to be a mutually beneficial relationship. From Iran, Hezbollah gets tens of thousands of rockets, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, training and operational logistical support from Iran. From Hezbollah, Iran gets an extended reach — to the Mediterranean and beyond — and a means of targeting its enemies from afar with reasonable deniability.
30 years of terror*sponsored by Iran* - NY Daily News



All thanks to Democrat Liberal Jimmy Carter.

Let's face it, you can't find any reputable source that claims that Carter sold weapons to the revolutionary government in Iran. The Miller Center article seems to be referring to his choice to keep selling arms to the shah:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=forum

The fact is that ONLY ONE president sold arms to Iran AFTER the revolution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

yes, all partisan hackery.

Did you read it? If not, STFU. If you did, review it.

it was partisan hackery, like all of your posts. Dude, you need to chill out. Why such anger?

Telling you to STFU was not an expression of anger. It was a plea for you stop embarrassing yourself. Believe me, when I call you dumb it has nothing to do with your politics and everything to do with your lack of intelligence. You are dumb, the evidence is in all of your posts. Sorry, the truth hurts, but maybe you'll find a new hobby, one when your mental impairment will not be so apparent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This tale is important because it represents one more example of the behavior of a political Leftist....whether called Liberals, or Progressives, or Democrats...





1. Under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States drew closer, and embraced, the Communist regime of Joseph Stalin. FDR Democrats covered for, ignored, and excused massacres, genocide, government instituted famines and lies of every variety.
Somehow, it was simply communists being communists....no biggie....
The same view of communism has persisted 'til this very day.




2. Jimmy Carter, midway between Roosevelt and Obama, continues that thinking. Unlike the hard Left, proclaiming themselves communists, Liberals usually did not come out and actually support or defend the Soviet Union, rather they soft-pedaled communism by showing contempt and scorn for anticommunists as “primitive” or “knee-jerk” or just plain “nuts” and “warmongers.”

a. The problem, as the Carter left saw it, was the right’s paranoia, its ‘inordinate’ fear of communism, as the Soviet Union and other communist states were neither particularly threatening nor particularly evil.

b. These Leftists found understandable the Soviet Union’s fear of ‘encirclement’....they sympathized with the sociopaths.

3. As is true of most Leftists, Carter didn't notice this because he began his presidency at Notre Dame with a speech that included:
“…We are now free of that inordinate fear of Communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in our fear.”

Franklin Roosevelt would have been proud!

a. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda had people thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter





4. Poor Soviet Union..... fear of ‘encirclement’???...
“Between 1974 and 1980, while the United States wallowed in post-Vietnam angst, 10 countries had fallen into the Soviet orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada and Afghanistan. Never had the Soviets lost an inch of real estate to the West. The Brezhnev Doctrine stated simply that once a country went Communist, it would stay Communist. In other words, the Soviet empire would continue to advance and gain territory…”
"How the East Was Won"







5. Not everyone missed the obvious.

" … several common assumptions each of which played a major role in hastening the victory of even more repressive dictatorships than had been in place before. These were, first, the belief that there existed at the moment of crisis a democratic alternative to the incumbent government: second, the belief that the continuation of the status quo was not possible; third, the belief that any change, including the establishment of a government headed by self-styled Marxist revolutionaries, was preferable to the present government. Each of these beliefs was (and is) widely shared in the liberal community generally. Not one of them can withstand close scrutiny.”
Jeane Kirkpatrick, ‘Dictators and Double Standards,” « Dictatorships & Double Standards Commentary Magazine





6. There was a stark contrast between the imagined glories of the New Soviet Man and the realities for ordinary people under the tyranny of the Soviet Union. Along with political repression, the Communists practiced an economic theory based on a false ideology that left people perpetually undernourished, ill-clothed and poorly housed. The opening of sections of the Soviet archives provides documentation.
Typical is this letter sent to Pravda in 1932, and, of course, never published:

'Comrade Editor,
Please give me an answer. Do the local authorities have the right to take away the only cow of industrial and office workers? What is more, they demand a receipt showing that the cow was handed over voluntarily and they threaten you by saying that if you don't do this, they will put you in prison for failure to fulfill the meat procurement. How can you live when the cooperative distributes only black bread, and at the market goods have the prices of 1919 and 1920? Lice have eaten us to death, and soap is given only to railroad workers. From hunger and filth we have a massive outbreak of spotted fever.' Richard Pipes on Siegelbaum





Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs.

In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals. The revisionist is aware of the horrors of Communism; the tortures, the Gulags, the over 100 million persons done to death.....

...and yet....over and over....they cling to the same anti-American values and regimes.

True to this very day.

This tale is important because it represents one graphic example of the behavior of the Messiah known as St. Ronald:

Ronald Reagan?an American Myth | Dirt & Seeds

 

[Spoonman]

What she ignores of course is that after WWI, America wanted no part of the affairs in Europe much less the Soviet Union. And rightly so; globalization was not a factor in the 1920's and 1930's. I'm sure the President could have sent in troops to stop the genocide in the USSR but for what "prize"?

The stuff about Carter is somewhat correct if you look at it from the convenience of 30 years hence. Should we have sent troops into Afghanistan? Uh no.

Basic PC diatribe...old, played, useless.

if globalization was not a factor, why were we having world wars?

World War, not wars at that point.

One major cause was alliances with other nations.

Why was there massive expansionism and empire building?

Because we're humans and that's what we do for some reason.

really? what makes a world war? because we give it the label world war? napoleons conquest wasn't a world war? didn't we have an alliance with france against great Britain? nations have always had alliances. Candy. I'm seriously beginning to think you skipped history in school