Friday, February 04, 2011

Soros Op-Ed for Washington Post – Egypt in Turmoil - Blames Israel and Religious Right – Counsels Obama – Offers Funds for Middle East “Democracy”

George Sorros, Professional Meddler in Word Affairs - image seeking

George Soros, a man whose background belies his rhetoric against Israel, is now taking aim at Israel and the “Religious Right” in an op-ed published by the Washington Post:

“The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality.”

In the piece he praises the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has a long history of imposing their brand of radical Muslim theology (Motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”)on nations where it has gained a foothold, including Iran in the 1970’s. .

Soros, a Hungarian Jew, was protected by his family during the 1930-1940’s Nazi Holocaust, he was given to a “Christian” who had adopted young Soros, in order to protect him from “deportation” by the Nazi’s – Soros was taken along on trips to deport Jews while taking their property and handing it over to the Nazi’s. This tragic childhood background may explain the multibillionaires obsession with meddling in governments (including the U.S. where he became a naturalized citizen in 1961). Perhaps as a catharsis for taking an active role in the destruction of his own people in Hungary, Soros uses his money to fund revolutions worldwide, while, for no clear reason, opposes Israel. Perhaps it is his claim to be an atheist, while attempting to “do good deeds”, which may make up for his past crimes against humanity. Then again, perhaps he’s just an egotistical nut. Either way, he plans to offer the Egyptians and any other governments that may arise out of turmoil - funds (Washington Post).

What is most interesting in the op-ed is that, as a Democrat Party member, he is already campaigning for Obama in this piece - demeaning the “Religious Right” in the US. Which in Soros’s mind has carried on a “vendetta” against Obama. Perhaps it is those bible clutching, gun owning individuals of Pennsylvania whom Obama spoke so fondly of, on his last campaign trip in 2008?

It appears that the Obama administration and George Soros are on the same page: While the Muslim Brotherhood, whose virtues, Soros extols, is calling for the end of peace between Egypt and Israel, as the White House discuses Mubarak’s exit from Egypt leaving the country open for free elections, with George Soros ready to lend a hand, and insure that the Muslim Brotherhood has a voice.

Mr. Soros should find a new hobby in his old age, perhaps skiing in the Swiss Alps, rather than meddling in world’s affairs with his conflicted Jewish Heritage-Anti-Semitic mindset. It is when, men of his ilk are given credibility by the likes of the American Press (note the platitudes at the end of the op-ed), one must take it with a grain of salt, perhaps they are being kind to the doddering old fool.

What one can expect is that those on the “religious right”, will have “foreseen the future” (or read about the Carter-Iran boondoggle, less than 40 years ago), and have put two plus two together. They see a nation in chaos, with no clear leadership fall into the hands of radical jihadists, who will turn Egypt, like Iran, into a Theocracy. This is where, Mr. Soros, “human rights king”, can imagine there are no rapes, murders, beheadings and other atrocities are committed.

Should this come to pass, and revolutions of this nature do move quickly (use Iran as the model), anti-American sentiment will rise above the already brewing attacks on U.S. Journalists (granted pro-Mubarak Egyptians are reportedly beating up the U.S. Journalists, as well as others who are still on the ground in that country), the government will be under Sharia Law, and American’s, including Obama will be considered “the Infidel”. This will place Obama in the same situation as was his doppelganger, one James Carter(1979), just in time for the 2012 general elections.

Govenor Mike Huckabee, image:

One has to ask: which Republican will George Soros (should he not keel over shortly) target? As of the moment, one Mike Huckabee, former Govenor of Arkansas, 2008 GOP Presidential candidate and avid fan of Israel, is polling, for the most part, ahead of other GOP potential nominees, but most importantly, ahead of the current President, in double digits. This may be why, North Carolina, where Obama actually was ahead of Huckabee (a rare occurrence), was chosen as the site of the Democrat Convention for 2012. (Polling data referred to in this section from Public Policy Polling Note: not one of those polled has made a public announcement that they are actually running for President as of this date. One has to imagine however, that should it be the gun-toting, Christian, Israel Supporting, former two and a half term Govenor from the State of Arkansas, one Mike Huckabee, Soros may be pushed over yet another ledge.

Note: This blog does, at the moment, favor a Huckabee run at the presidency, believing his managerial experience, track record while running the State of Arkansas, his knowledge of foreign policy (form a moderate perspective), and his commitment to excellence in education, including and especially music and the arts as it relates to science and math, makes him not on the most formidable candidate, but the most qualified candidate for the job.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (two former Governors) lead the field of GOP "potential candidates" image:

In their latest 2012 Presidential polling of South Dakota Public Policy Polling surveyed a sample of 1045 South Dakota voters, matched closely to the electoral makeup of the state. In the case of South Dakota, Huckabee again, bests the list of potentials, with the exception of state Senator, John Thune. However, against Obama, Huckabee leads by 47 to 41%, Romney by 46 to 40%, with the balance of the GOP “frontrunners” (Gingrich and Palin specifically), trailing the President by 2 points (Gingrich) and 8 points (Palin). With this latest survey, the pollster views South Dakota as a swing state for Obama in 2012, based on the performance of McCain in 2008, who won the state by “less than 9 points”, and the performance of those who may or may not run on the GOP ticket.

In Arizona, which was polled on February 2nd, the state appears more competitive for the President, with Romney and Huckabee leading Obama by 49/43(Romney) and 48/44 (Huckabee). The balance of the GOP primary choices in this survey were limited to the top four, leaving Obama tied with Gingrich and ahead of Palin by 9 points.

In Republic State Primary scenarios, the latest polling shows Huckabee bests Romney, Palin and Gingrich in South Carolina, coming in behind South Carolina’s Jim DeMint by 4 points, and ahead of Romney by 6 according to a survey conducted February 1st by Public Policy Polling.

In the final analysis, according to Public Policy Polling, Huckabee and Romney appear likely to emerge as the two strongest candidates in early GOP primary states. Romney has been running the talk show circuit, appearing on the ”The View”, and showcased his agreement with Obama on the current situation in Egypt, noting that Mubarak should step down. He also appeared on the Dave Letterman show, spoofing a “Top Ten Things You Don’t Know About Mitt Romney”, which according to Politico was designed to show “voters he’ll be a better, more relaxed and relatable Mitt this time around”.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has been in Israel, commenting on Palestinian Settlements noting that those Jewish settlers on the West Bank have a right to be there, which, according to the AP, is in direct opposition to International leaders including Obama. In addition the AP story casts Huckabee as an “evangelical leader and Fox News host”, rather than his primary role as former Govenor of Arkansas (not mentioned). Time reports that Huckabee’s views on the Obama administrations’ handling of the situation in Egypt are at odds – Huckabee believes that the administration was too quick to abandon Mubarak. Huckabee's views are at odds with Romney’s, who has sided with the Obama administration.
Huckabee, one must note, has been a staunch defender of Israel, as our only ally in the Middle East, and the recent trip gave the former Governor an opportunity to highlight his foreign policy views and where they may differ from Obama, and for that matter, Mitt Romney.

Although Romney has all but formally announced his intention to run, Huckabee, leads in the majority of polling by PPP to date - both men seen by that pollster as the frontrunners. That said, in polling against Obama in Massachusetts, Romney does not hold his own state faring better than the balance of the GOP potential candidates in the survey conducted on Dec. 3, 2010. In this particular poll, however, the electoral make-up is skewed towards Democrats, with the following discrepancy Democrats 42%, Republican 20% and Independents 38%. Massachusetts Independents dominate both parties, making up over 50% of the electorate, with Republican’s holding approximately 12 to 14% and Democrats 35%. To date, this is the only poll conducted by this pollster, where the electoral makeup did not closely match those polled. (Using voter statistics from Secretary of State Websites in each of the polls conducted.)

Overall, one can look for Huckabee to announce (or not), either end February or when his contract with Fox expires (or he takes advantage of any clause in the contract which allows him to bow out). Huckabee has noted, however, that if he announces, it will not be until June of 2011. That may accomplish two things: he will have a solid understanding of which states he fares best in (with thanks to PPP), regarding primaries, and will give him the additional time to sum up any late entries into the competition as well as work on foreign policy. In that wise, although considered a frontrunner now, (by pundits and pollsters) he would, in reality become a fresh face in the pack, one armed to the teeth.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Obama Administration Walks Fine Line in Egypt with Carteresque Support for Muslim Brotherhood

Although many are hyping the value of Democracy in the Middle East, one has to remove the rose colored glasses and look to the realities of the political landscape in that volatile area of the globe. In the never ending religious battle between Islam and anyone who does not subscribe to Islam, the option of converting infidels (and/or executing those that do not conform) is best served by being part and parcel of a government. In Iran, for example, which is a country dominated by Sharia Law, hangings of innocent young women(Iran Focus)," murder of “dissidents (Christian Science Monitor, and unspeakable atrocities are committed all in the name of Allah. A strong reference for Human Rights Violations under Sharia Law in Iran are well documented by, additional resources are found at (warning graphic photographs).

In 1979 the people in Iran looked to oust the oppressive Shah, in order to bring Democracy to the nation, led by the pious Ayatollah Khomeini, who was back by former President Jimmy Carter – the preceding is the end result. It is not that people do not want a democracy, it is that religious organizations which invest in the political aspect of the nation and are provided legitimacy by more powerful foreign governments, specifically democracies such as the United States, dupe the populace into believing that the economy will prosper, that the government will take care of its people; and once in power, the rest, as they say is oppression.

In June of 2010 The Muslim Brotherhood attended an Obama Speech in Cairo via “official invitation”. It is the first indication that the administration is reaching out to that particular group.

Today’s Israeli Financial Website; a New York Times article that included Obama’s overtures to the group:

“The option to approach the Muslim Brotherhood came during a meeting of over a dozen foreign policy experts at the White House on Monday. The meeting, led by deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Benjamin Rhodes, and two other National Security Council officials, Daniel Shapiro and Samantha Power, examined unrest in the region, and the potential for the protests to spread.

"The New York Times" quotes participants as saying that White House staff members said that Mr. Obama believed that Egyptian politics needed to encompass 'non-secular' parties: diplomatic-speak for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Which is followed by a report out of the BBC: The Muslim Brotherhood is intent on seeing *(video here) Sharia law imposed in Egypt:
Zeinab Badawi asks Muslim Brotherhood's Kamal El-Helbawy if the aim of the movement is to establish a state in Egypt that is governed by the Islamic Sharia law. (BBC)

The answer in the video available on on the BBC Website, is yes, if the majority prefer Sharia Law. With the Muslim Brotherhood in power, will the majority have a choice?

Taking a step back in time, Former President Jimmy Carter was positive that the his administration would be able to work with the Ayatollah Khomeini, suggesting that the man who would become supreme ruler, would be friends – the administration had been in contact some time prior to the return of Khomeini and the end result a strong rebuff of the U.S. and the most repressive regime in the Middle East to date: From the St. Peterburgs Times, Febraruy 13th, 1979 article here

It goes without saying, that governments meddle in one another affairs, be it for profit (often the case), power (which is more often the case, but also goes to profit), or in the instance of those who’s lack of experience and naiveté enter the mix: a belief that when a group or individual insists that they re only interested I the benefit of their people, it must be true. Ideology trumps sanity and research in certain instances.
It goes without saying that he hope for Democracy to establish a foothold in the middle eastern nations that subscribe to Islam is ideal, especially with our ally, Israel, the last man standing so to speak, that would fit that criteria, surrounded by nations that would rather, by Sharia Law, see Israel depopulated of Jews and Christians. However, the likelihood, based on history and the obvious, does not give those who view the world through boring research and memories of times past, appears rather slim, rather the opposite (Iranian situation) is anticipated.

For further edification on the goals of the Religious order of the Muslim Brotherhood, the following two sources are somewhat enlightening as they speak to the Brotherhood’s operations within the U.S.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s mission is clear: to spread Islam worldwide, including the U.S. according to both documents and articles on the organizations activities within the United States

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Gallup Highlights Tea Party Importance – The Tea Party Comparison To 60’s Political Revolution

The Tea Party Patriot - image sumo tv

Politico’sJennfier Epstein, picked up on Gallup’s Tea Party poll – The question posed: Should the GOP Consider Tea Party Ideas with the result, a resounding, cross party lines, yes. It is not so much, as Epstein pointed out, that Gallup specified what the ideals of the Tea Party included, rather “leaving respondents to decide for themselves.” - while she included the following definition: “The movement draws on populist sentiments and pushes an agenda focused on reducing taxes, government spending and the national debt.” (Politico)

Gallup released the poll on Monday paired the national opinion of the Republican versus the Tea Party, with the end result that the Republican Party scored slightly higher on favorability at 47% overall, with the Tea Party garnering 39% approval. The poll included Democrats, Republicans and non-affiliated respondents, and implies that the Republican-Tea Party Movement are aligned, or in completion with one another, rather than the reality that the Tea Party Movement is a separate entity with some similar views held by established Republicans.

What would be more useful: a poll comparing the favorability of the Tea Party compared and contrasted with the both the Republican and Democrat Party. It goes without saying that Tea Party Members ran as Republican’s, gaining seats in historical proportions in the House of Representatives in this past election. Savvy politicos understand that running as an Independent and/or Libertarian, (which is the Tea Party make-up) would be akin to spitting in the wind at this point, given the fact that the Tea Party has yet to structure itself as a national political party. Therefore, running “as a Republican” would allow a brand of sorts, and an ideology which would not be anathema to the core beliefs of the fiscally conservative, constitutional based Tea Party. It is akin to the “Blue Dog” moderate conservative Democrats who ran in 2008 and joined the ranks of the majority Democrats. The difference lay in the lack of a cohesive movement on the part of the Blue Dogs, which, the end result was a partisan paring of those Blue Dogs with the rank and file Democrats. The Tea Party members of Congress, however, are not necessarily ready to run in lockstep with Party Leadership – they have a mandate that is not by political party rather by a revolution of sorts that includes all Americans.

The Tea Party Revolution:

An op-ed piece in the Hampshire Gazette, a newspaper with roots in the Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts, and the city of Northampton, which, one would think, would be the very bastion of progressive thought. Massachusetts after all, was one of the few States in the Union that did not follow the rest of the nation in 2010 and elect either Republican’s or Tea Party members to Congress and/or higher State offices. It is not so much that those Tea Party members or Republican’s were not on the ballot, they were, in droves, it was the fact that Massachusetts Republican’s and Tea Party Members alike did not have the political operation in force that was necessary to put one over the top – one has to understand, (even with redistricting about to take place, due to the loss of one Congressional Seat), that those who did run, came within points of toppling Democrat incumbents who had been entrenched for decades. That fact alone, coupled with a lack of experience and political intelligence, should have those in the Bay State and elsewhere on notice – the movement has legs.

The Gazette Article written by Dr. Jay Fleitman (a 2010 Republican Candidate for the MA2 Congressional District), discussed the Tea Party in real Massachusetts terms. Massachusetts one must understand has a long history of producing “radicals” who go on to provoke “political uprisings” and over the long haul, “change the political landscape”. Dr. Fleitman does justice to the Tea Party, noting where the various groups are (everywhere in Massachusetts), and draws from his personal campaign experience to paint a valid picture of the Tea Party Movement. Beyond Tea Party caricatures is a must read for those who would look to further understanding the “movement”. For that is what the Tea Party really is – a movement with political consequences. Dr. Fleitman in his closing, speaks to the American “revolution” of the 1960’s and the change effected by that movement, and does, for the first time, place that moniker on the Tea Party movement – a movement that is political in nature and has, to date, already affected change in the political landscape, and with continued growth, will continue to do so over the next decades.

Abbie Hoffman, wrapped in the U.S. Flag - image

In closing, Dr. Jay has a point, and the fact that economics have driven most Revolutions from the original Boston “Tea Party” (a taxing revolution that led to a new nation), to the rejection of economics by the 1960’s hippies (Abby Hoffman, a Worcester Native, wrote the tome: “Steal This Book” – available on on Amazon.comwhich defined the anti-establishment movement that shaped the ideology and minds of those who now sit in the Halls of Congress. As the Tea Party continues to move forward, one must agree with Dr. Jay Fleitman assessment, those of us who witnessed the “revolution of the 1960’s, are indeed fortunate to witness a second political revolution in our lifetime - That of the Tea Party.
It is not without some caution one must view the hyperbole against the Tea Party considering it is often derided by the left, the right, and the press.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Egypt - U.S. and Israel Begin to Take Lead for Blame Game – Evacuations of U.S. Nationals to Avoid Iranian Like Hostage Crisis – Too Little Too Late?

Crowds now Gathering in Egypt to Protest Full Article and photo credit

As the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohammed El Baradei are in talks to form a government sans the National Democrat Party in Egypt (Haaretz), El Baradei, in a statement called out the U.S. noting the same is: "losing credibility by the day" in calling for democracy in Egypt while continuing to support President Hosni Mubarak. (Montreal Gazette) This was the first salvo fired by the dissident at the United States, however, The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Anger in Egypt is beginning to turn to the U.S. and Israel, a familiar trip down memory lane.

In response to the unrest and most likely the heated rhetoric and the historical similarities as well as the same players (Muslim Brotherhood) to 1979 and specifically the taking of U.S. Hostages, governments are moving their citizens out of Egypt at a rapid rate.

Not unlike his predecessor, President James Carter, and his loss of Iran, Obama will (and already has been) credited with the of Egypt.(

What is most disturbing with this situation and others in context to what took place a scant 30 years ago is the fact that, the U.S., and anyone with an ability to research and read, would have found a blueprint designed to show “What not to do with Economics and Foreign Policy”, filed under the administration of former President James Carter. It may all be coincidence, or the fact that two men, with little to know government and/or foreign policy experience, were put into power during time which demanded the alternative. It is, as one can well imagine, “Monday morning quarterbacking”, however, the thought of an Egypt similar to Iran is abhorrent. Calls for Democracy are one thing, however, one must take a look at these nations and the characters involved to understand that those that seek absolute power, do so under the guise of Democracy, where the ultimate goal is one of a total authoritarian theocracy.

House Seeks Removal of “Public Funded” Presidential Election Fund – Democrats Hyperbolically Oppose Citing Increased Corporate Funding

As Democrats Decry the Republican Inspired Demise of Public Funding, Perhaps a Refresher is in Order - image Barbados Free Press

The House has voted to rescind the voluntary taxpayer funded “public fund” for Presidential Campaigns which was instituted after the Watergate scandal , needless to say, Democrats are now rebuking that concept. (Personal Liberty) On the one hand, the vote will eliminate the optional contributions made by taxpayers on their annual returns, which said funds have significantly decreased over the past two decades. On the other hand, Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign declined to take the public funds, opting instead to take funding from all sources. The premise of the objection by Democrats is that without the “public funding”, corporations could gain influence over candidates, however, when one looks at the projected savings of $617 million over 10 years, and compares that to monies spent by the Obama campaign (and the McCain campaign in 2008), it is a mere pittance. In addition, the program is voluntary – and the obvious decline in contributions by taxpayers makes it apparent that the public is clearly not invested in allowing the government to fund campaigns; rather the preference may be to allow individuals (as well as corporations) to donate to campaigns of choice. In addition, the point is rather moot as the Supreme Court had weighed in on limits place on corporate donations in 2010:

”The court effectively struck down restrictions on corporations and unions for how and when they spend money on ads and other political communications during campaigns.“
(ABC News)

It is, in a word, ridiculous partisan objections on the part of the Democrats, and one might add hypocritical hyperbole. If the concern over corporate interference in elections was such a priority – perhaps while the party in question enjoyed six years in power, might have put more effort into practicing what they preach considering donations from corporations and unions helped the Obama campaign push federal election spending to new heights.

While the new Republican controlled house attempts to chip away at out of control government spending, there should be bi-partisan support for projects that are clearly as waste of time. Understanding that the 2012 elections are literally in process, with Obama’s Campaign team assembled in Chicago, and the need for issues upon which to campaign, one would think the President might have understood that a major shift in the political landscape in 2010, was not accomplished by one party alone – the Republican’s, with the help of disgruntled Independent voters as well as, one can imagine, moderate Democrats swept into power on the mandate of reducing government waste. Although this is one small instance, it is a sign of what is to come, and one can predict, that the general public won’t be buying that particular brand of snake oil.

For a point of reference: Open where the top donors to Obama’s 2088 campaign include: University of California, Goldman Sachs, Harvard University, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Time Warner – and the beat goes on.

Therefore, to recap, while Obama declined to take advantage of public funding for his election campaign, allowing Corporations to invest in his campaign, Democrats find the thought of Republican’s removing the option to be the path to corporate intervention in elections.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Party Like its 1979 – Muslim Brotherhood History in the Middle East – In Brief Carter – Obama and Comparative Ideology

Political Cartoon Carter and the Ayatollah from the Press Courier Dec 2, 1979

In an article from the Sarasota Heraldwritten by Jack Anderson in 1979, one finds that the Iranian Crisis was blamed on a Lack of U.S. Intelligence. The root of the uprising involved a group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the article points to a growing problem in Egypt where the Brotherhood was forming an alliance with “leftwing” dissidents, just like it did “in Iran”. The end result was a warning to the Carter Administration that Egyptian President Answer Sadat was in trouble. (Sarasota Herald).

Sadat was later assassinated.

The group, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, with the following motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. As a political organization they began to fall apart in recent years, however recently have begun to “represent themselves as mainstream, even as they continue to embrace the Brotherhood's radical views and maintain links to terrorists.”(

What may be most disturbing and enlightening for those following the unrest in Egypt is that:

An important aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the sanctioning of Jihad such as the 2004 fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi making it a religious obligation of Muslims to abduct and kill U.S. citizens in Iraq.

An excellent treatment of the history and specifically the development of this radical movement can be found here

The ties between the Group and Iran’s Supreme Leader are treated here:
Fast forward 2011 – from Politico: “For Barack Obama, Egypt a balancing act”

“The White House tiptoed gingerly toward solidarity with the protesters thronging Egyptian streets on a day of escalating rhetoric that culminated Friday evening with President Barack Obama making a televised appeal to the nation’s leader, Hosni Mubarak, to halt his crackdown and reform the government.
“This moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise,” Obama said, while calling on Mubarak “to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors.”

History repeats itself:

In the year leading up to the Iranian Revolution, which installed the anti-U.S. Muslim Dictator, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shah was constantly “pressured” by the Carter Administration to relax his hold on the reigns of the government and release political prisoners.

Of course, the result was the expulsion of the Shah, the return of the radical cleric and the detainment of U.S. hostages up until Ronald Reagan took the Office of the Presidency in 1980.

The U.S. is constantly accused of “propping up” dictators, in nations around the world, nations who otherwise might end up in a position similar to Iran. Although, in an ideal word, democracy (or a republic) would be the preferred government as viewed by most American’s, who enjoy a particularly unique brand. The U.S. model separates the powers of church and state, and the rank and file of the electorate are educated, although there are political differences, they remain somewhat secular in nature. When one views the Middle East, however, one must take into account the differences between the nations, and the level of commitment to religion versus the secular model. It goes without saying that those Middle Eastern nations where commerce and diplomatic ties with the U.S. and Europe are in place for decades, and where Islamic Radicals, such as the Muslim Brotherhood are in place, presents a precarious fine line for U.S. relations.

Under Carter, Sadat lost his life over the peace accord (arranged by Carter) with Israel. The assassin tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Under Carter, Iran, a former ally of the U.S., saw the return of the Ayatollah (at Carters urging) and the loss of an ally (again at Carters urging), which resulted in an anti-American sentiment, which, the intent and the outcome, of course, were not as Carter had planned. He just lacked the general experience and possibly the ideological fortitude that would have seen him back the Shah, over those “jailed dissidents” of the regime.
Now, as the Muslim Brotherhood has a foothold in every Middle East Nation where the U.S. enjoyed a bit of breathing room with an ally, the Obama administration apparently is following the Carter Model.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address