[Darkwolf377]

I'm glad you brough that cretin up. Just today I asked a friend "How come Jimmy Carter has never been mentioned in discussing the current Middle East situation Bush has had to deal with?" We hear about Clinton and Bush 41 and even Reagan, but never Jimmuh.

Jimmuh praised the shah when he was in power but did nothing to keep him there--he was a creep, sure, but how come Saddam is "bad, but no threat" and he got involved in a war that killed one million...and he fought it against a regime that slithered into power after the downfall of the shah. (The mullahs and the ayatollah were NOT the ones who were intended to be put in power after the shah's fall, they crawled back into the country and basically took control of a rudderless opposition.)

If Jimmuh had helped keep the shah in power, Khomeni might never have been in charge, and gone to war with Saddam, and killed a million people.

All of that is fine with the left...but someone liberating the area, admittedly with some civilian casualties, but helping to start the process of democratization--he's a Nazi? And the vile Carter is "our greatest ex-president"?

[LasVegasMac]

"How come Jimmy Carter has never been mentioned in discussing the current Middle East situation Bush has had to deal with?" We hear about Clinton and Bush 41 and even Reagan, but never Jimmuh.

History is repleat with "footnote's".

Jimmuh was a most forgetable "footnote".

You are correct though, this thread to the past needs more attention.

A caller on Rush's show today made a good case about this very matter.

LVM