In the future we should only support saints. That will work well.

At least with that strategy the USSR would have gone defunct long ago. Under German management.

Don't be a prick.

I noticed you were grading the quality of insults this am...as this is your handiwork, I must assume this is some of your best efforts.

Need I say more?

It's true. If we only support saints that lets out everyone, including us. Then we go from the imperfect and bad to the truly evil and destructive.

I never said that we should only support saints.

Question

Subject: Jimmy Carter's support for the Shah of Iran
Category: Relationships and Society > Politics
Asked by: sheldon-ga
List Price: $25.00 Posted: 29 Apr 2003 12:38 PDT
Expires: 29 May 2003 12:38 PDT
Question ID: 197118

In discussions of the relationship between former president Jimmy
Carter and the shah of Iran, some (conservative) writers have alleged
that Carter's failure to support the shah led to the success of the
Iranian revolution and thereby "betrayed" the United States. Others
(leftists) have alleged that Carter gave unstinting support to the
shah, notwithstanding Iran's horrific human rights record and the
Carter administration's public professions of concern for human
rights. I'd like to know how to evaluate these claims. Specifically:
*What support did the Carter adminstration provide to the Shah's
regime terms of and financial and mililtary assistance?
*What public manifestations of support did the Carter administration
provide (speeches, state visits, etc.)?
*What pressure did the Carter administration exert on the Shah to
improve his human rights record?
*Was any aid actually withheld? Did U.S. support for the Shah's regime
increase or decline under Carter?



Answer

Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter's support for the Shah of Iran
Answered By: juggler-ga on 29 Apr 2003 16:40 PDT
Rated:
Hello.


I'll start with your first and last questions because they are closely
related.

*What support did the Carter adminstration provide to the Shah's
regime terms of and financial and mililtary assistance?
*Was any aid actually withheld? Did U.S. support for the Shah's regime
increase or decline under Carter?

The US government stopped giving "aid" to Iran in the late 1960s.

"When the US AID mission to Tehran was closed in 1967, it had
chanelled a total of $1 billion in US military and economic aid to
Iran since its creation in 1954. The last military sales to Iran
funded by Pentagon grants or MAP funds were delivered in 1969."
source: Iran.org
Fanning the Flames: Guns, Greed & Geopolitics in the Gulf War
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch5.htm


High oil prices in the 1970s allowed the Iranian government to pay for
its own military programs. With the approval of the U.S. government,
American defense contractors sold billions of dollars worth of
military equipment to the Shah. This was the policy under the Nixon,
Ford and Carter administrations.

Carter entered office in 1977 with pledges to "moralize" U.S. arms
sales, saying that the U.S. should not be "the first supplier to
introduce into a region newly developed advanced weapon systems which
could create a new or significantly higher combat capability." At the
same time, Carter continued his predecessors' policies of approving
large weapons sales to Iran. In fact, the arms sales to Iran appear
to have accelerated under Carter. Total U.S. arms sales to Iran for
the Nixon/Ford term of 1972-76 were $10.4 billion. During the Carter
administration and "before the Shah fled the country on January 16,
1979 he had placed orders with US contractors for an additional $12.2
billion of military hardware, with deliveries to be spread over the
following three years."
source: Iran.org
Fanning the Flames: Guns, Greed & Geopolitics in the Gulf War
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch5.htm

-----------

*What public manifestations of support did the Carter administration
provide (speeches, state visits, etc.)?

Carter's major manifestations of support for the Shah came in the form
of the Shah's visit to the White House in November 1977 and Carter's
visit to Iran on New Year's Eve of the same years.


November 1977... "the shah's first meeting with President Carter in
Washington D.C., was disrupted by angry Iranian students. The
demonstrators, mainly Marxist activists members and supporters of
various branches of the Confederation of Iranian Students Abroad, had
been active against the imperial regime for years. The sight of the
shah, President Carter, their aids and their wives suffering from tear
gas inhalation meant for the demonstrators was unforgettable and was
broadcast all over the world.
The shah's visit to Washington D.C. and President Carter's return
visit to Tehran in late December 1977, during which he called the
shah's Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas
of the world," seems to have had two results as Iran prepared to meet
the turbulent days of 1978. First, the shah and President Carter
developed a working relationship and the shah was assured of strong
U.S. backing for the imperial regime. Second, the shah reaffirmed his
resolve to push for reforms in Iran. Issues such as human rights and
political freedoms were discussed but no pressure was exerted on the
Monarch."
source: "Rebels with a cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran,"
hosted by Iranian.com
http://www.iranian.com/Books/2001/February/Behrooz/


"Fast forward to New Years Eve, 1977: President Carter toasted the
Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him 'an island of stability'
in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose
to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to
his government mounted, he had allowed his secret police, SAVAK, to
crack down on dissenters, fueling still more resentment. Within weeks
of Carter's visit, a series of protests broke out in the religious
city of Qom, denouncing the Shah's regime as 'anti-Islamic.'"
source: PBS.org
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/people.../e_hostage.html

"The two countries were really close to the extent that Jimmy Carter
and the Shah together celebrated the new 1978 year in Teheran. The
American President danced with Shah’s wife Farah and the Shah’s twin
sister Princess Ashraf. William Sullivan, the then U.S. Ambassador in
Iran, later recalled: “The President was in excellent mood. In his
speech he said: 'Under the Shah’s brilliant leadership Iran is an
island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the
world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like
more.'"2 This was their last meeting."
source: GEOPOLITICAL ASPECTS OF ISLAMIZATION, hosted by ca-c.org
http://www.ca-c.org/journal/eng01_2000/15.papuashvili.shtml

Detailed information about the chronology of the New Year's Eve visit
is available from the Jimmy Carter Library:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/document...77/d123177t.pdf

More evidence of support...

"As late as December 12, 1978, during a White House press conference,
President Carter still reaffirmed his belief in the Shah. 'I fully
expect the Shah to maintain power in Iran and for the present problems
in Iran to be resolved. The predictions of doom and disaster that came
from some sources have certainly not been realized at all (14).'"
source: Iran.org
Fanning the Flames: Guns, Greed & Geopolitics in the Gulf War
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch5.htm

Finally, consider President Carter's own assertion that "we gave the
Shah every possible legitimate support."

"...it was a blow to the United States when the Shah was deposed. He
had been a close associate, an ally with, I think, if I'm not
mistaken, seven presidents who preceded me, and we never dreamed that
the Shah was likely to be overthrown by his own people. But when he
became embattled by attacks from his own people at home, and
particularly from the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was issuing broadcasts
and tape recordings from France, we gave the Shah every possible
legitimate support."
source: Jimmy Carter Interview, hosted by gwu.edu:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/inter...18/carter3.html

Overally, it's pretty clear that relations between the Shah and Carter
administration were quite cordial. For a general example of the
nature of teh relationship, see this 1977 address by a State
Department official:
"The U.S. and Iran, An Increasing Partnership"
http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/us-iran.html

-----------------

*What pressure did the Carter administration exert on the Shah to
improve his human rights record?


Carter's main pressure seems to have come during the November 1977
meeting at the White House, where he apparently pressed the Shah to
implement some human rights reforms.

"...President Carter, in those meeting and talks, had demanded serious
liberalization of Iran's political and economic institutions and had
tied the Shah's demand for sophisticated weaponry to serious and
tangible improvement in Iran's human rights record and Iran's domestic
political freedoms. So had members of U.S. Congressional Committees on
Foreign Relations and Arms Sales.
"Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release 'political
prisoners' including known terrorists and to put an end to military
tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil
jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a
platform for agitation and propaganda."
http://www.iranian.com/Features/2002/June/CIS/

"Carter pressured Iran to allow for 'free assembly' which meant that
groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the
government...
In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the
White House... Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more
radical changes."
source: "Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978," hosted by chuckmorses
http://www.chuckmorse.com/carter_sold_out_iran.html

Here are President Carter's own words on the subject:

"Did you tell him, when you were in office, what you thought of his
record on human rights?
JC: Yes, very strongly. When the Shah was in Washington for a state
visit in November of 1977, his secret police, Savak, had fired into a
crowd of peaceful demonstrators and killed, I believe, several hundred
of them. When the Shah came to visit me, I took him aside into a small
office that I had adjacent to the Oval Office, and I told him that I
thought that he was making a serious mistake in violating the human
rights of his own people through his secret police and in taking
strong military action against peaceful demonstrators. I advised him
strongly not to do this any further. He replied to me with some degree
of scorn and said that not only the United States but all the European
countries were making a serious mistake in permitting demonstrations
of our people against our government, that this was obviously a
communist plot to overthrow democracy and freedom in the Western
world, and we were ignorant as leaders in not stamping out this kind
of demonstration at its earliest stage. And he said that.. in the
nation of Iran there were just a tiny handful of people who opposed
his regime, and these were all communists, inspired and controlled
from outside, that there was no indigenous threat to his popularity.
That was his response. It was a very frank and fairly unpleasant
confrontation, but in private."
source: Jimmy Carter Interview, hosted by gwu.edu:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/inter...18/carter3.html

-------


Finally, here is some general information on this subject:

"Did the Carter administration 'lose' Iran, as some have suggested?
Gaddis Smith might have put it best: 'President Carter inherited an
impossible situation -- and he and his advisers made the worst of it.'
Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice
of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who
wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or
that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter
reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to
a new government. In the end he did neither, and suffered the
consequences."
source: American Experience
"People & Events: The Iranian Hostage Crisis, November 1979 - January
1981," hosted by pbs.org
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/people.../e_hostage.html

"Throughout all of 1978, as demonstrations and violence shook Teheran
and weakened the Shah’s hold on power, the Carter administration
oscillated back and forth between supporting him and pressing for
reform."
source: "Avoiding the Burden: the Carter Doctrine in perspective,"
hosted by maxwell.af.mil:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...eb/grinter.html

"There is extensive documentation on the various and sometimes
conflicting efforts made by U.S. officials beginning in November 1978
to persuade the Shah to respond to domestic demands for reform and to
share and then transfer power to moderate opposition elements. The
final agonizing days of the Shah's regime and Prime Minister
Bakhtiar's last futile attempts to keep the Islamic fundamentalist
movement in check and maintain a Western-oriented and more democratic
government in power are described in detail. The documents also give
some evidence of the divisions and uncertainty within the Carter
administration over how to deal with the revolutionary movement.
Although the White House reaffirmed its support for the Shah and the
monarchy until the middle of December 1978, the Embassy was vigorously
involved in negotiations to accomplish a transfer of power to the
opposition."
Source:
"Iran: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1977-1980"
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/irintro.htm

Finally, I found a reference to a book called "Roots Of Revolution An
Interpretive History of Modern Iran" (1981) by Nikki R. Keddie.
According to a review, one of the main claims of this book is that
U.S. policy toward the Shah didn't really make much difference either
way. In other words, the Iran situation was not the result of
President Carter giving too much support or not enough support to the
Shah. Rather, Keddie apparently argues that the Iranian revolution was
an internal phenomenon that could not have been signficantly altered
by U.S. policy. Here is a brief excerpt from a review:

"Ambassador Sullivan's book is premised on the assumption that policy
alternatives open to the Shah and the United States Government during
his tenure made a crucial difference; Nikki R. Keddie, a leading
historian of Iran who watched the Islamic revolution from a distance,
holds otherwise. 'It seems unlikely that a different American policy
in 1978-79 could have significantly changed the course of events,' she
writes. 'Probably only a very different set of policies over the
previous twenty-five years could have led to different results. As to
the Shah's vacillating carrot-and-stick behavior ... there is no proof
that different behavior in 1978 would have maintained his throne.'"
source: Book Review, hosted by danielpipes.org
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/25

I hope this answers your question. If anything is unclear, please use
the "request clarification" feature. Thanks.



search strategy:
iran, shah, carter, 1977, 1978, 1979
aid, awacs, military, shah, 1977
december, 1977, carter, tehran, teheran, sha
"aid to the shah"
"support of the shah"
"support for the shah"

November 1977... "the shah's first meeting with President Carter in
Washington D.C., was disrupted by angry Iranian students. The
demonstrators, mainly Marxist activists members and supporters of
various branches of the Confederation of Iranian Students Abroad, had
been active against the imperial regime for years

Some of the revolutionaries had the right idea but they got forqued.

The "right idea" being the left idea?

I don't think they expected the Islamicists to hijack their movement.

Marx didn't expect a Stalin or Mao to murder tens of millions using his name.

Marx didn't expect a Stalin or Mao to murder tens of millions using his name.

Nor did he expect that his "proletarian revolution" would see its first occurrence in what was predominantly a monarchical agrarian society - Czarist Russia - as opposed to more industrialized, economically capitalist society such as Great Britain or Germany (although both had monarchical attributes as well). But what the heck - things are done in the names of their founders that those founders never anticpated all the time. Human nature being what it is.

.

Nothing like Marxists bringing a fundamentalist regime to power. The fact Carter met with the Shah is hardly evidence he was a great supporter.
I remember protestors here at the UA. My bet is most of those students never went home and we're stuck with them because don't really want to live under the government they brought to power.

*What public manifestations of support did the Carter administration
provide (speeches, state visits, etc.)?

Carter's major manifestations of support for the Shah came in the form
of the Shah's visit to the White House in November 1977 and Carter's
visit to Iran on New Year's Eve of the same years.


November 1977... "the shah's first meeting with President Carter in
Washington D.C., was disrupted by angry Iranian students. The
demonstrators, mainly Marxist activists members and supporters of
various branches of the Confederation of Iranian Students Abroad, had
been active against the imperial regime for years. The sight of the
shah, President Carter, their aids and their wives suffering from tear
gas inhalation meant for the demonstrators was unforgettable and was
broadcast all over the world.
The shah's visit to Washington D.C. and President Carter's return
visit to Tehran in late December 1977, during which he called the
shah's Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas
of the world," seems to have had two results as Iran prepared to meet
the turbulent days of 1978. First, the shah and President Carter
developed a working relationship and the shah was assured of strong
U.S. backing for the imperial regime. Second, the shah reaffirmed his
resolve to push for reforms in Iran. Issues such as human rights and
political freedoms were discussed but no pressure was exerted on the
Monarch."
source: "Rebels with a cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran,"
hosted by Iranian.com
http://www.iranian.com/Books/2001/February/Behrooz/


"Fast forward to New Years Eve, 1977: President Carter toasted the
Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him 'an island of stability'
in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose
to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to
his government mounted, he had allowed his secret police, SAVAK, to
crack down on dissenters, fueling still more resentment. Within weeks
of Carter's visit, a series of protests broke out in the religious
city of Qom, denouncing the Shah's regime as 'anti-Islamic.'"
source: PBS.org
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/people.../e_hostage.html

"The two countries were really close to the extent that Jimmy Carter
and the Shah together celebrated the new 1978 year in Teheran. The
American President danced with Shah’s wife Farah and the Shah’s twin
sister Princess Ashraf. William Sullivan, the then U.S. Ambassador in
Iran, later recalled: “The President was in excellent mood. In his
speech he said: 'Under the Shah’s brilliant leadership Iran is an
island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the
world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like
more.'"2 This was their last meeting."
source: GEOPOLITICAL ASPECTS OF ISLAMIZATION, hosted by ca-c.org
http://www.ca-c.org/journal/eng01_2000/15.papuashvili.shtml

Detailed information about the chronology of the New Year's Eve visit
is available from the Jimmy Carter Library:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/document...77/d123177t.pdf

More evidence of support...

"As late as December 12, 1978, during a White House press conference,
President Carter still reaffirmed his belief in the Shah. 'I fully
expect the Shah to maintain power in Iran and for the present problems
in Iran to be resolved. The predictions of doom and disaster that came
from some sources have certainly not been realized at all (14).'"
source: Iran.org
Fanning the Flames: Guns, Greed & Geopolitics in the Gulf War
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch5.htm

Finally, consider President Carter's own assertion that "we gave the
Shah every possible legitimate support."

"...it was a blow to the United States when the Shah was deposed. He
had been a close associate, an ally with, I think, if I'm not
mistaken, seven presidents who preceded me, and we never dreamed that
the Shah was likely to be overthrown by his own people. But when he
became embattled by attacks from his own people at home, and
particularly from the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was issuing broadcasts
and tape recordings from France, we gave the Shah every possible
legitimate support."
source: Jimmy Carter Interview, hosted by gwu.edu:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/inter...18/carter3.html

Overally, it's pretty clear that relations between the Shah and Carter
administration were quite cordial. For a general example of the
nature of teh relationship, see this 1977 address by a State
Department official:
"The U.S. and Iran, An Increasing Partnership"
http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/us-iran.html

A New Chance for Peace?

By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A23

A New Chance for Peace?

By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 18, 2007; A23



I am concerned that public discussion of my book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" has been diverted from the book's basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book's title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel's status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the "road map" for peace developed by the "quartet" (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this "green line" can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas's rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any "interim" boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter -- and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party's overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

Although Israel's prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group's report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

The writer was the 39th president and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."



Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

The carter apologists fight on..........

A former U.S. Justice Department official disclosed to Arutz-7 that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s advocacy extended beyond the PA Arabs, when he interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS man.

Well, the lead - and your take on this - are lies:



What does 'special consideration for the affected families' mean ?

It is not ' on behalf ' of the Nazi SS man as your article and you would have us believe.

Would they have let out Dahmer as consideration to his parents?

Well, the lead - and your take on this - are lies:



What does 'special consideration for the affected families' mean ?

It is not ' on behalf ' of the Nazi SS man as your article and you would have us believe.

I already read it. I knew one of these idiots would gobble it right up.
Bush is a god damned monster so they have to drag down everyone who opposes him or his nightmare policies. The thing is, no matter how hard they try with Jimmy Carter, they fail. Carter could NEVER be taken as low as GW. There is no comparison at all.

A million hit pieces on GW Bush-----------All Truth.

A few hit pieces on Jimmah------------All Lies

Life in liberal looney land.

I do feel sorry for the family that found out grandpa was a murderer and Nazi, but it's hardly Carter's place to defend him on humanitarian grounds. Funny that Pat Buchanan would be involved in that. Somehow fitting the far-left and far-right agree on something like that.

Intercede, defend. Now we get down to semantics. I assume Carter gets requests from a lot of people. He didn't do much, but he probably shouldn't have done anything. Sort of like the lefties always feeling the need to speak out for our enemies and detractors.

He didn't intercede, either.

You can take your last sentence, enlarge 100x, reproduce it in paper mache and stick it up your ass sideways, mother fornicator.

Just dont say anything bad about Jimmy Carter beasty!

Dont forget the Nomarchy special...........

Sans Lubricant.

Just dont say anything bad about Jimmy Carter beasty!

It might help if whatever were said about whomever were accurate.

Intercede, defend. Now we get down to semantics. I assume Carter gets requests from a lot of people. He didn't do much, but he probably shouldn't have done anything. Sort of like the lefties always feeling the need to speak out for our enemies and detractors.

Just dont say anything bad about Jimmy Carter beasty!

Dont forget the Nomarchy special...........

Sans Lubricant.

You can take your last sentence, enlarge 100x, reproduce it in paper mache and stick it up your ass sideways, mother fornicator.

Say what you like, just don't lie. My mom told me - and I told my kids - one lie means you can never be believed again without proof.

Credibility doesn't mean anything to you guys when your defending the possibility of the rapture though, bet you'll be surprised when you watch it happen, and note you're still here after for lying like this.

Like a davis rant about Bush, for example?

So Celt you ever told a lie?

so we got JT, a bush lover/defender lecturing on lying/liars, and the firebomber saying (or seconding) the reich wing fantasy that "...the lefties always feeling the need to speak out for our enemies and detractors" and every veriation thereof.

So, the lefties complain about what the reich wingers are doing and the reich wingers complain that the lefties are complaining. The lefties seem to be limited to reacting to the results of reich wing antics and then are challenged, by laymen and self proclaimed authorities/experts, as being " anti American". Working against "America" and "American interests". Siding with persons unknown in an attempt to subvert the very meaning of "American" and Gods gift of Freedom itself.

If you define your own truth, you can define lies any way you want.

Where do you fit in? Really?

Fit in with what? Iraq? The "War on Terror"/Islam?