Sunday, January 28, 2007
This Day in the History of Democratic Treachery
UPDATE: As he is wont to do, Dinesh D'Souza makes the same argument, in a much better way, right here. Money quote:
When the Shah petitioned the Carter administration to purchase tear gas and riot control gear, the human rights office in the State Department held up the request. Some, like State Department official Henry Precht, urged the U.S. to prepare the way for the shah to make a “graceful exit” from power. William Miller, chief of staff on the Democrat-controlled 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 even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the ayatollah a “twentieth century saint.”
As the resistance gained momentum and the Shah’s position weakened, he looked to the United States government to help him. Carter aide Gary Sick reports that the Shah discovered many enemies, and few friends, in the Carter administration.
The Shah dug his own grave, and "Death to America" is the natural response to the country that helped the Shah ruin his own country.
Iran's Embassy in Washington D.C. was equally vulnerable: Jimmy chose
"Peace" and ineffective negotiation. This only emboldened
the Shia Kill-Culture Leadership. reb
I am discerning a new trend in your blog. Whereas eight months ago, the theme was: "Bill Clinton was responsible for___________" the rallying cry now seems to be: "Jimmy Carter made it snow."
Jimmy Carter was certainly not a very good president and if he would keep his opinions regarding Israel to himself, he could easily cede the title of Worst President in our Lifetime to George W. Bush although Mr. Bush does seem to have an insurmountable lead.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter seems to have been the modern bellwether of electing governors to the White House in reaction to the sins of the previous resident.
Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace so we elected the governor of Georgia whose ineptitude prompted us to elect the former governor of California, a real crowd pleaser, some of whose successes are somewhat exaggerated and whose shortcomings seem to have been largely forgotten mais je me souviens.
He was succeeded by Bush the Elder whose lackluster performance convinced the populace to elect the governor of Arkansas of all places.
Unlike you, I think that Bill Clinton was not so bad, accomplishing a few good things while largely failing to screw up royally. Say what you like about Bill Clinton but it is difficult to deny that he is a smart guy, book smart anyway.
Alas, Mr. Clinton's well publicized inability to control Little Willie then convinced the American voters to elect George Bush, if indeed he won the election. In any event he won the post election fight b/f being annointed by the Supreme Court.
Unfortuantely, we had arrived in the Age of Sound Bites and savvy political handlers. No one really explored the fact that George Bush had never been successful at anything. After a undistinguished academic careers at schools to which he would never been admitted on his own merits, he made money in the oil business, not through his own brilliance but b/c his father's rich friends gave him their money w/ which to play. When you put together oil deals, you get paid regardless of whether the well hits.
I think he hit his stride as the figurehead leader of a MLB franchise, but w/ Karl Rove leading the way, he became governor of Texas, itself a largely figurehead position (Hey, the governor of Texas can't even commute a death sentence if he or she were so inclined.) Don't look at what Texas was while he governed there b/c it may not even compare favorably to Arkansas.
Then on to Washington where the rest is, as they say, history or history in the making.
So we have experienced governors or former governors as presidents in 4 out the last 5 predencies and over 26 of the past 30 yeqars. Quo vadum? Mike Huckabee? Bill Richardson?
(Sorry if I blew the declension of vado, I'm a little rusty.)
Let's put something into perspective. Which of the two acts is more heinous....1)a political install to ward of a Soviet satellite state....or 2) nuclear warfare ?
Funny how the Japanese like us..... a lot.
Iran needs to get over it, and were it not for the inactions of the Carter admin, regarding the hostile takeover of sovereign US land...our embassy in Iran....the door to the USA being deemed a Paper Tiger by islamic radical, may never well have been opened at all.
Thus, we are now approaching the Dirty Harry moment with Iran, that I mentioned a few days ago.
Lastly, do they shout " death To Britain " as well ? they were equally as responsible for the Shah's placement. I don't think they do.
I refer mostly to the period that covers all of the 1970s plus. Specifically the mass quatities of helicopters and fruit that was ordered by the Shah, docked and unloaded, but of course there was no infrastructure to carry these important things (guns and butter in this case) to the population at large. To this day, archeoligists (or anyone else) can go to the areas just outside the ports and dig up the the helicopters and the rotten fruit that were covered by sand shortly after they arrived in the harbor. Many ships actully circled the harbors, looking in vain for a place to unload their pre-paid cargo. Those lucky enough to unload said cargo, can be proud of the fact that their payload remains buried under the sand waiting to be dug up by archeologists who give a s*** about the ineptitude of the Shah.
The infrastucture necessary to deliver these goods to the people did not exist at the time when the Shah ordered (and paid for these goods). Apparently, the Shah was not aware of this most basic of facts.
If you are not aware of these events that led to the downfall of the Shah, which would require anti-riot gear to suppress the natural revolt that any nation would experience as a result, I suggest you read "The Shah of Shah's" by Ryszard Kapuscinski. Available very cheap on Amazon, and one of the few "western" first hand (402) accounts of the events the percipitated the Islamic revolution.
Were there downfalls to the revolution (including a decline in steel producion)? Certainly. But if you ignore what led to it, you ignore the facts that you profess to know.
Don't discount how much hatred still lingers from '53. I think they hate the British just as much, but just like the Americans didn't reserve as much fear and hate for Yugoslavia and Bulgaria during the cold war, the Iranian ire for Britian pales in comparison to theirs for America simply because of economies of scale. The "great" Satan is aptly named. Britian remains the "little" Satan. Bad, but not nearly as dangerous and powerful as the foe that runs the show. Britian was, is, and continues to be a second rate Satan to the Iranians, and for good reason.
Whereas the Japanese brought on their own demise with their aggresive actions, the Iranians suffered at the hands of America and Britian simply because they didn't want to play ball. Just like Nicaragua, Guatemela, Chile, and a host of others.
The Japanese came to terms with their aggresive past (although the Chinese might have a thing or two to say to the contrary). The Iranians and the others are still wondering what they did that deserved the hard-line reaction that they received. Self determination is a crime in a free-world? Ok, that makes sense.
My guess is that many Iranians, particularly younger ones, don't resent us at all and would welcome open relationships between our countries.
Roger and I were born in 1953. Most Iranians were not alive when the Shah was installed.
Similarly, 1979 is a long way off. 28 years now. Most young Iranbians who can't find a decent job or who can't study what they want probably have a low opinion of the Mullahs and President Jackanapes.
The Islamic Republic of Iran may go the way of Communism w/o the benfit of any bombs. All we have to do is retrain it for another generation.