WSJ: “Is Obama Smart?”

[PoliticalChic]

also, you know what would have prevented the revolution? if carter had pressured the shah more not to oppress the iranian public back in '77 when carter took office. go ahead and blame carter for not doing that, i'll join right along with you.

With each post you reveal what an ignorant dolt you are.

I suggest you read the recent book of Dr. Abbas Milani, 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.

1. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

a. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.

b. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

c. Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

Carter abandoned the Shah, and supported Ayatollah Khomeini.


Don't you have a library card????

After you read this book, pick up Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" to
learn about:
Sayyid Qutb, the single most influential Islamist writer. His masterwork, “In the Shade of the Qur’an,” commentaries on the various suras: Most of the original 30 volumes (114 Surahs) were written (or re-written) while in prison following an attempted assassination of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. Fi Zilal al-Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Think about Islamofascism, Qutb, Khomeini and Carter...the nexus thereof.

Don't be lazy and you won't be stupid.

 

[Sarah G]

yeah, yeah, con good, lib bad, must fling poo. i get it.

See...that's the point: you don't get it.

Let me guess: government school education?

Here in the real world folks expect correct answers, not just answers.

When you make as dumb a statement as you have, re: Carter being better than Reagan,
well, then guess what you're in store for:

Welcome to the Theatre of Pain.
Just like snowflakes, no two destructions are alike.



In the future, no more posts where good judgment just gets in the way.

see, though, you keep saying reagan is better than carter, but you never explain why. you just assume anyone who doesn't see it the way you do is an idiot. it's real low-grade discourse you're engaged in here. thoughtless regurgitation of received wisdom.

She has to go find an article about it that she can copy/paste.

 

[mudwhistle]

What was wrong with Jimmy Carter?

carter is a deeply underrated president. he was handed a massive shit sandwich with the mideast conflict and the economic aftershocks of vietnam, and he did what he could, quite courageously in my opinion, to try and change the direction of the country toward frugality and energy independence. folks didn't cotton to that, mainly because most people seem to prefer happy talk, facile nationalism and chicken-in-every-pot talk, so they went with reagan. obviously the hostage crisis was a problem but i've never heard a con explain to me what THEY would have done to solve it, except they would talk tough. i'll give carter props over obama on that, at least he never negotiated with the hostage takers the way obama did during the debt ceiling debate.

carter isn't going to go down as a great president, but i think he'll be remembered as better than average, esp. given the hand he was dealt. reagan, on the other hand, was a joke. but he really tapped into a cheap, facile nationalist streak among the hyper-con flag fetishists that's really easy to exploit.

"...i think he'll be remembered as better than average,..."
The glaring error in your quote is the first two words.

Unless you can find one teensy-weensy error in the following, retreat back into the corner, and be satisfied that you will be watered twice a day with the other vegetables.

“1980…Carter was the bumbling, egotistical coward bent on surrendering to the Soviets, who claimed to have been attacked by a giant swimming rabbit. Carter’s economic policies had produced a 21% interest rate, a 17% mortgage rate, and a 15% inflation rate in a ‘hat trick’ of presidential incompetence. Not only that, but he had produced skyrocketing unemployment.

Carter’s brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the shah of Iran, an important American ally, soon led to soaring oil prices and, of course, Islamic lunatics holding fifty-two Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office by the American people. (Carter’s abandonment of the shah also gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today.)

Under Carter, Americans were permitted to put gas in their cars only on alternate days, based on whether the last number of their license plates wan an even or odd number. The price of oil had risen 154% since the beginning of Carter’s presidency.

With all that going for them- plus that old Mondale magic- Democrats were dumbstruck that they lost the 1980 election. (Nor could they understand why gas prices, inflation and interest rates shot down and the nation enjoyed peace and prosperity soon after Reagan became president.) Naturally liberals asked themselves” What other than a dirty trick could explain Carter’s loss?

The Left’s theory was that in October, one month before the 1980 presidential election, members of Reagan’s campaign clandestinely met with representatives of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and offered to sell him weapons in exchange for his promise not to release the hostages before the election. By delaying the release of the hostages, the theory went, Reagan would deprive Carter of a triumphant victory on the eve of the vote. In other words, liberals believed the Islamofascist cutthroats who had been toying with Carter like a cat with a ball of yarn for the past year wanted Carter replaced by someone stronger, like Reagan.
But it seemed like a perfectly plausible theory to the editorial board of the New York Times.”
Coulter, “Demonic,” p. 84-85

BTW...those were Carter's good points!

Add this:

"to Make a Just Peace." In it, he let it all hang out as an apologist for Arafat and a bulldog against Sharon. Before getting to that piece, however, we should be clear about just how attached to Arafat and his cause the ex-president is. As Brinkley writes in his book The Unfinished Presidency — about Carter's celebrated post-White House years — "there was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat." The former president "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition...."
Jay Nordlinger on Jimmy Carter on National Review Online


And, in his book, Brinkley pointed out that Carter wrote speeches for Arafat.

"...i think he'll be remembered as better than average,..."


Bonehead.

Before Carter gas was $.30/gal. Diesel was $.23/gal.
By 77' the price of gas had doubled and Diesel tripled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See...that's the point: you don't get it.

Let me guess: government school education?

Here in the real world folks expect correct answers, not just answers.

When you make as dumb a statement as you have, re: Carter being better than Reagan,
well, then guess what you're in store for:

Welcome to the Theatre of Pain.
Just like snowflakes, no two destructions are alike.



In the future, no more posts where good judgment just gets in the way.

see, though, you keep saying reagan is better than carter, but you never explain why. you just assume anyone who doesn't see it the way you do is an idiot. it's real low-grade discourse you're engaged in here. thoughtless regurgitation of received wisdom.

She has to go find an article about it that she can copy/paste.

Reading: give it a try.

 

[mudwhistle]

yeah, yeah, con good, lib bad, must fling poo. i get it.

See...that's the point: you don't get it.

Let me guess: government school education?

Here in the real world folks expect correct answers, not just answers.

When you make as dumb a statement as you have, re: Carter being better than Reagan,
well, then guess what you're in store for:

Welcome to the Theatre of Pain.
Just like snowflakes, no two destructions are alike.



In the future, no more posts where good judgment just gets in the way.

see, though, you keep saying reagan is better than carter, but you never explain why. you just assume anyone who doesn't see it the way you do is an idiot. it's real low-grade discourse you're engaged in here. thoughtless regurgitation of received wisdom.

Like any great leader Reagan instilled confidence.

In a nut-shell......Reagon made us feel number one.

Carter made us feel like number two.

 

[yidnar]

Thanks to the army of left wing researchers we know all there is to know about the former president. They even came out with a movie or two during his administration. We know almost nothing about Barry except what his ghost writer (Bill Ayers?) put down in a couple of books. Obama seems to want to emulate his father but was his father smart? He went to Harvard but he was a communist alcoholic bigimist. How smart is that?

he was a crack head also!!

 

[BDBoop]

The fatal flaw of reasoning many of you are making in this thread is equating education with intelligence.

Haven't any of you ever met someone with multiple degrees that didn't know shit from Shinola?

No, I never have. You may be referring to common sense, but I have never known anybody who had many degrees, and no brains.

On the other hand, I've known more than a few very intelligent people who never went to college (for whatever reason).

 

[highway234]

also, you know what would have prevented the revolution? if carter had pressured the shah more not to oppress the iranian public back in '77 when carter took office. go ahead and blame carter for not doing that, i'll join right along with you.

With each post you reveal what an ignorant dolt you are.

wow. you cons really are charmers, aren't you?

I suggest you read the recent book of Dr. Abbas Milani, 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.

1. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

a. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.

b. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

c. Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

amusingly, you present this cut-and-paste to justify your thesis that carter abandoned the shah, and i read it over, it doesn't appear to even mention carter. "modernization" isn't incompatible with fascism or dictatorship. for instance:

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

saddam hussein modernized iraq in the 60s and 70s. doesn't mean he wasn't an asshole. care to defend him the way you're defending the shah? hitler modernized the shit out of germany in the '30s, too. that's not always a good thing.

the problem is, the shah instituted one-party rule in 1975. after that it was only a matter of time before he was overthrown, and as you note, he'd rather foolishly created a middle class equipped to bring it about. people don't like one-party rule, generally.

i don't think i'll bother with your second cut-and-paste job. i have to do a lot more work than you by actually thinking about this stuff a bit.

 

[highway234]

[Like any great leader Reagan instilled confidence.

In a nut-shell......Reagon made us feel number one.

Carter made us feel like number two.

part of what makes me queasy about the right: lazy, "in-a-nutshell" thinking combined with an over-emphasis on how presidents make you "feel."

 

[PoliticalChic]

also, you know what would have prevented the revolution? if carter had pressured the shah more not to oppress the iranian public back in '77 when carter took office. go ahead and blame carter for not doing that, i'll join right along with you.

With each post you reveal what an ignorant dolt you are.

wow. you cons really are charmers, aren't you?

I suggest you read the recent book of Dr. Abbas Milani, 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.

1. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

a. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.

b. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

c. Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

amusingly, you present this cut-and-paste to justify your thesis that carter abandoned the shah, and i read it over, it doesn't appear to even mention carter. "modernization" isn't incompatible with fascism or dictatorship. for instance:

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

saddam hussein modernized iraq in the 60s and 70s. doesn't mean he wasn't an asshole. care to defend him the way you're defending the shah? hitler modernized the shit out of germany in the '30s, too. that's not always a good thing.

the problem is, the shah instituted one-party rule in 1975. after that it was only a matter of time before he was overthrown, and as you note, he'd rather foolishly created a middle class equipped to bring it about. people don't like one-party rule, generally.

i don't think i'll bother with your second cut-and-paste job. i have to do a lot more work than you by actually thinking about this stuff a bit.

"i have to do a lot more work than you by actually thinking about this stuff a bit."

That'll be a first.

 

[mudwhistle]

[Like any great leader Reagan instilled confidence.

In a nut-shell......Reagon made us feel number one.

Carter made us feel like number two.

part of what makes me queasy about the right: lazy, "in-a-nutshell" thinking combined with an over-emphasis on how presidents make you "feel."

Well, that's part of the job. Confidence in our leaders is greatly understated but extremely important.

If you're talking domestic policy how you feel about prospects for the future is kind of important.

No society lasts long if it's members are at best apathetic, at worst hostile to authority or society in general. Rome is a prime example.

 

[mudwhistle]

also, you know what would have prevented the revolution? if carter had pressured the shah more not to oppress the iranian public back in '77 when carter took office. go ahead and blame carter for not doing that, i'll join right along with you.

With each post you reveal what an ignorant dolt you are.

wow. you cons really are charmers, aren't you?

I suggest you read the recent book of Dr. Abbas Milani, 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.

1. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

a. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.

b. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

c. Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

amusingly, you present this cut-and-paste to justify your thesis that carter abandoned the shah, and i read it over, it doesn't appear to even mention carter. "modernization" isn't incompatible with fascism or dictatorship. for instance:

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

saddam hussein modernized iraq in the 60s and 70s. doesn't mean he wasn't an asshole. care to defend him the way you're defending the shah? hitler modernized the shit out of germany in the '30s, too. that's not always a good thing.

the problem is, the shah instituted one-party rule in 1975. after that it was only a matter of time before he was overthrown, and as you note, he'd rather foolishly created a middle class equipped to bring it about. people don't like one-party rule, generally.

i don't think i'll bother with your second cut-and-paste job. i have to do a lot more work than you by actually thinking about this stuff a bit.

I hope you're not supporting Carter's decision to betray the Shah. We've had over 30 years of terrorist attacks as a result and now religious zealots are months away from aquiring nukes.

I hope you're not supporting that.

 

[highway234]

That'll be a first.

gave up, did you?

mudwhistle: yes, instilling confidence is part of the job. another part of the job is being frank with the american people when there's a need for sacrifice or the nation needs to face a challenge. carter over-emphasized the second, reagan over-emphasized the first. i remember the reagan years, the happy talk got to be a bit much.

in any case, instilling confidence and talented oratory would have done virtually nothing to avert the iranian hostage crisis. in fact, it can compound the problem. one of the few things i think obama got right was to keep mum during the iranian demonstrations a couple years ago. the right howled and howled at him that he should express solidarity with the iranian demonstrators, but if he had done that, it actually would have undermined them. that's because they really have not gotten over the '53 coup -- we actually overthrew an elected leader there, and that has left a legacy of anti-americanism that has spanned generations. therefore, whoever we publicly support there, the iranian people almost automatically view them with suspicion. that's why dealing with iran is such a tricky issue.

 

[highway234]

I hope you're not supporting Carter's decision to betray the Shah. We've had over 30 years of terrorist attacks as a result and now religious zealots are months away from aquiring nukes.

I hope you're not supporting that.

i have yet to see any evidence that carter actually DID betray the shah, but if you have some i'll check it out.

 

[mudwhistle]

That'll be a first.

gave up, did you?

mudwhistle: yes, instilling confidence is part of the job. another part of the job is being frank with the american people when there's a need for sacrifice or the nation needs to face a challenge. carter over-emphasized the second, reagan over-emphasized the first. i remember the reagan years, the happy talk got to be a bit much.

in any case, instilling confidence and talented oratory would have done virtually nothing to avert the iranian hostage crisis. in fact, it can compound the problem. one of the few things i think obama got right was to keep mum during the iranian demonstrations a couple years ago. the right howled and howled at him that he should express solidarity with the iranian demonstrators, but if he had done that, it actually would have undermined them. that's because they really have not gotten over the '53 coup -- we actually overthrew an elected leader there, and that has left a legacy of anti-americanism that has spanned generations. therefore, whoever we publicly support there, the iranian people almost automatically view them with suspicion. that's why dealing with iran is such a tricky issue.

I don't think anything Obama says would change Iran's suspicion of the USA. However I personally don't care if they are. I don't think anyone living in America shouldn't be suspicious of Iran. They have way too much blood on their hands.

The Shah was a weak leader. He was also a much better alternative then what we have to deal with in Iran today. Democracy isn't always a good thing where Middle Eastern societies are concerned. They usually lead to Theocracies and eventually to Totalitarian rule.

 

[mudwhistle]

I hope you're not supporting Carter's decision to betray the Shah. We've had over 30 years of terrorist attacks as a result and now religious zealots are months away from aquiring nukes.

I hope you're not supporting that.

i have yet to see any evidence that carter actually DID betray the shah, but if you have some i'll check it out.

That's something you'll have to discover for yourself.

I read a history on Iran about a year ago. The name of the book and author escapes me.

Iran historically played us against the Soviets. It was always what can you do for me. Currently Russia is in the driverseat and may have something to do with WMDs, supplying IEDs to Iraqi insurgents and some in Afghanistan. They also supplied the first fuel-rods for Irans's reactor. This was done to spite us.

Obama trusts them. Heh heh.

 

[highway234]

I hope you're not supporting Carter's decision to betray the Shah. We've had over 30 years of terrorist attacks as a result and now religious zealots are months away from aquiring nukes.

I hope you're not supporting that.

i have yet to see any evidence that carter actually DID betray the shah, but if you have some i'll check it out.

That's something you'll have to discover for yourself.

why? try me. have a go at explaining to me how carter betrayed the shah. i'm all ears. it shouldn't take too long to explain, or link to someone, preferably somewhere closer to the center than ann coulter, who spells it out. the iranians were holding the hostages demanding the shah as the ransom, at least in the beginning. if carter were going to betray the shah, why not just give him to the terrorists? instead he refused and the hostage crisis made him a one-term president. kinda a weird way to betray someone, isn't it? to sacrifice your presidency for him?

 

[GWV5903]

That'll be a first.

gave up, did you?

mudwhistle: yes, instilling confidence is part of the job. another part of the job is being frank with the american people when there's a need for sacrifice or the nation needs to face a challenge. carter over-emphasized the second, reagan over-emphasized the first. i remember the reagan years, the happy talk got to be a bit much.

in any case, instilling confidence and talented oratory would have done virtually nothing to avert the iranian hostage crisis. in fact, it can compound the problem. one of the few things i think obama got right was to keep mum during the iranian demonstrations a couple years ago. the right howled and howled at him that he should express solidarity with the iranian demonstrators, but if he had done that, it actually would have undermined them. that's because they really have not gotten over the '53 coup -- we actually overthrew an elected leader there, and that has left a legacy of anti-americanism that has spanned generations. therefore, whoever we publicly support there, the iranian people almost automatically view them with suspicion. that's why dealing with iran is such a tricky issue.

Gave up? She kicked your ass, did someone dip your head in fresh concrete?!?!

It's called mercy....

 

[mudwhistle]

That'll be a first.

gave up, did you?

mudwhistle: yes, instilling confidence is part of the job. another part of the job is being frank with the american people when there's a need for sacrifice or the nation needs to face a challenge. carter over-emphasized the second, reagan over-emphasized the first. i remember the reagan years, the happy talk got to be a bit much.

in any case, instilling confidence and talented oratory would have done virtually nothing to avert the iranian hostage crisis. in fact, it can compound the problem. one of the few things i think obama got right was to keep mum during the iranian demonstrations a couple years ago. the right howled and howled at him that he should express solidarity with the iranian demonstrators, but if he had done that, it actually would have undermined them. that's because they really have not gotten over the '53 coup -- we actually overthrew an elected leader there, and that has left a legacy of anti-americanism that has spanned generations. therefore, whoever we publicly support there, the iranian people almost automatically view them with suspicion. that's why dealing with iran is such a tricky issue.

Gave up? She kicked your ass, did someone dip your head in fresh concrete?!?!

It's called mercy....

Oh really.

Some of us have jobs.

 

[mudwhistle]

i have yet to see any evidence that carter actually DID betray the shah, but if you have some i'll check it out.

That's something you'll have to discover for yourself.

why? try me. have a go at explaining to me how carter betrayed the shah. i'm all ears. it shouldn't take too long to explain, or link to someone, preferably somewhere closer to the center than ann coulter, who spells it out. the iranians were holding the hostages demanding the shah as the ransom, at least in the beginning. if carter were going to betray the shah, why not just give him to the terrorists? instead he refused and the hostage crisis made him a one-term president. kinda a weird way to betray someone, isn't it? to sacrifice your presidency for him?

That's an asinine suggestion. And I don't need to visit any conservative sites to give you an answer.

The way Carter betrayed the Shah was by going against U.S. policy by pulling the rug from under him like Obama is beginning to do with Israel. By not coming to the aid of an ally, turning a blind eye in favor of democracy, and instead allowing thugs to take over the country and take our diplomats hostage.

Instead of showing strength Carter allowed a group of rioters to literally take over the country. (Sounds familiar to the current Arab Spring, doesn't it??)

Thank you Jimmy Carter. Thank you for showing the world what a paper-tiger America is. This weakness led the way for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter's ineptness and lack of vision made him a one term President.....not just one incident. Sounds like our current POTUS, doesn't it???

Sometimes folks on the left nit-pick everything yet they don't look at the big picture. Sure the Shah was a less then desirable leader but the alternatives turned out to be much worse for us. Now you have a leadership there that is the geopolitical center of terrorism in the world. A leadership that is bordering on suicidal....an unacceptable threat in the region and a possible lynch-pin to instability. I wonder what would happen if Iran launches a nuke into Israel. I bet you love that prospect.

How many deaths of Americans in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and all over the world are the Ayatollahs guilty of? How many innocent Iraqis have died from Iran's support of insurgencies? The killing in Iraq wouldn't have gone on as long if not for the training and military aid Iran supplied them. You quickly find fault in our actions but not Iran. They're just fighting for their freedom. Only the United States can be deceitful and immoral, not somebody else.

I wonder how many of their own people have they murdered? The President of Iran said there are no Gays in his country. Homosexuality is punishable by death. Would it be if the Shah were still in power? Would Iran be a nuclear threat to Israel if the Shah or his family was still in power? Obviously you haven't considered this or if you did you don't really care about it because maybe you love situations that makes the U.S. look bad.


Any shit-for-brains can recognize flaws. Not everyone can fix them.