Giving radical Islam its start
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, January 29, 2007

Recently Jimmy Carter was on television, denouncing President Bush’s policies in Iraq. I find this highly ironic, because Jimmy Carter and his liberal advisers helped the Ayatollah Khomeini to come to power in Iran a quarter of a century ago. Thus they gave radical Islam control of its first major state. How this happened is worth recalling, because from Carter’s failure there’s a valuable lesson to be learned in Iraq.

Islamic radicals have been around since the 1920s, but for decades they were outsiders even in the Muslim countries. One of their leading theoreticians, Sayyid Qutb, argued that radical Muslims could not just promulgate theories and have meetings; they must seek to realize the Islamic state “in a concrete form.” What was needed, he wrote, was “to initiate the movement of Islamic revival in some Muslim country.” Once the radicals controlled a state, he suggested, they could then use it as a beachhead for launching the takeover of other Muslim countries.



Former President Jimmy Carter smiles as he is introduced before addressing an audience at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007. Carter visited the heavily Jewish University Tuesday to address the furor over his new book on the Mideast, which has been criticized as slanted against Israel. (AP Photo/Steven Senne) In 1979, Qutb’s goal was achieved when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran. The importance of the Khomeini revolution is that it demonstrated the viability of the Islamic theocracy in the modern age. And to this day post-Khomeini Iran provides a viable model of what the Islamic radicals hope to achieve throughout the Muslim world.

Khomeini also popularized the idea of America as a “great Satan.” Before Khomeini, no Muslim head of state had said this about America. Khomeini was also the first Muslim leader in the modern era to advocate violence as a religious duty and to give special place to martyrdom. Since Khomeini, Islamic radicalism has continued to attract aspiring martyrs ready to confront the Great Satan. In this sense, the seeds of 9/11 were sown a quarter of a century ago when Khomeini came to power.

Khomeini’s ascent to power was aided by the policies of Jimmy Carter and his allies on the political left. Carter was elected president in 1976 by stressing his support for human rights. From the time he took office, the left contrasted Carter’s rights doctrine with the Shah’s practices. The left denounced the Shah as a vicious and corrupt dictator, highlighting and in some cases magnifying his misdeeds. Left-leaning officials such as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, UN envoy Andrew Young, and State Department human rights officer Patricia Derian pressed Carter to sever America’s longstanding alliance with the Shah. Eventually Carter came to agree with his liberal advisers that he could not in good conscience support the Shah.

When the Shah moved to arrest mullahs who called for his overthrow, leftists in America and Europe denounced these actions. Former diplomat George Ball called on the U.S. government to curtail the Shah’s exercise of power. Acceding to this pressure, Carter called for the release of political prisoners and warned the Shah not to use force against the demonstrators in the streets.

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. Increasingly paranoid, the Shah pleaded with the United States to help him stay in power. Carter refused. Deprived of his last hope, with the Persian rug pulled out from under him, the Shah decided to abdicate. The Carter administration encouraged him to do so, and the cultural left celebrated his departure. The result, of course, was Khomeini.

The Carter administration’s role in assisting with the downfall of the Shah is one of America’s great foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. In trying to get rid of the bad guy, Carter got the worse guy. His failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies.” Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter’s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.

By aiding the Shah’s ouster and with Khomeini’s consolidation of power, the left collaborated in giving radical Islam its greatest victory in the modern era. Incredibly this same cast of characters who lost Iran wants to block Bush’s policies in Iraq. In doing so they are playing with fire. The radical Muslims who already control Iran are trying to bring a second major state, Iraq, into their orbit. Then, they have said, they will target Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Iraq maybe a mess but in trying to get out of a bad situation, we don’t want to create a worse situation. Insurgency and sectarian strife is dangerous, but Iraq in the hands of Iranian fanatics or Al Qaeda fanatics is far more dangerous. America doesn’t need more foolish advice from Jimmy Carter. What it needs from him is an apology.

And then daddy traitor bush and the repuslickans gave them missiles. So?

Dinesh D'Souza is an ignorant bullsheitter and a professional blame shifter.

I guess it takes one to know one.........

Sure he/they did. And God is responsible for evil, since God created the Devil.

Ergo, Dinesh D'Souza is full of it.

I forgot the libs still see the fall of the shah and the rise of the Ayatollah as a victory for the US

I am sorry, what?

The Shah AND the Ayatollah are the responsibility of Cold Warriors, Republican and Democrat.

Deal with it.

And there is no way in Hell anyone can consider Carter a Cold Warrior thats for sure.

That's sad, JT. You know that is not true.

The Shah AND the Ayatolah.

Boy it sure is too bad that the military failed when they tried to go in and rescue those hostages back then when Carter was prez. Then these effing morons would have no one but reagan to blame.

That debacle was well after the Iranian pooch had been screwed.

If the military had rescued those hostages then that would have been the example from that day foreward. No october suprize etc.

Iran would still be run by nuts, and it would still be Carter's fault.

How the fark would that be Carter's fault?

cowdoody rightwing nonsense, pure and simple.

Iran before Carter, ally run by nominally sane shah with no ill-will or American hostages, after Carter, run by Islamic nuts holding our embassy and waiting for an Imam to come up from a well to destroy the infidels and usher in the caliphate.

So, that proves that it was Carter's "fault" (or the Carter Administration policies were the causally most significant factor)???

Seriously, dude.

Carter did nothing, as with most everything else he was ineffectual.

Well, that's a start.

Yes, what needs to come next is what Carter could have done to keep the Shah on the peacock throne.

And how surpressing a popular revolution would have turned out in the longer run.

We had been in the business of farking suppressing popular movements and revolutions for far too long, in that as well as other parts of the world. Very much like our great adversaries, the Commies. Hungary 1956 takes the cake.

How popular it was when Khomeini got intrenched is up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini


Islamic constitution and its opposition
Ayatollah Khomeini talked about democracy and freedom before returning home from exile, and his first government was dominated by liberal figures. Most Iranians were astonished when the ayatollah later announced that he was going to establish a theocratic state.[25]

Although revolutionaries were now in charge and Khomeini was their leader, many of them, both secular and religious, did not approve and/or know of Khomeini's plan for Islamic government by wilayat al-faqih, or rule by a marja` Islamic cleric -- i.e. by him. Nor did the new provisional constitution for the Islamic Republic, which revolutionaries had been working on with Khomeini's approval, include a post of supreme jurist ruler.[9] In the coming months, Khomeini and his supporters worked to suppress these former allies turned opponents, and rewrite the proposed constitution. Newspapers were closing and those protesting the closings attacked[26] and opposition groups such as the National Democratic Front and Muslim People's Republican Party were attacked and finally banned[27]. Through questionable balloting pro-Khomeini candidates dominated the Assembly of Experts[28] and revised the proposed constitution to include a clerical Supreme Leader, and a Council of Guardians to veto unIslamic legislation and screen candidates for office.

Main article: Khomeini's Islamic leadership In November 1979 the new constitution of the Islamic Republic was passed by referendum. Khomeini himself became instituted as the Supreme Leader for life, and officially decreed as the "Leader of the Revolution." On February 4, 1980, Abolhassan Banisadr was elected as the first president of Iran. Helping pass the controversial constitution was the Iran hostage crisis.






Somehow leftists think every revolution is "popular". No matter who they murder or what powers they assume.

So, that supports the argument that it was Carter's "fault" that Khomeini came to power and established the Islamic clericocracy after the fall of the Shah how exactly?



Are you BLIND??????????????

Hungary 56 hardly takes the cake.

Of suppression of genuine popular revolution by the Soviets?

Well he should have invaded and occupied and committed the country to another Viet Nam.

Or shaved his head and change his name to Lex Luthor. He'd get the Republican nomination then.

Blame Jimmy Carter for Murder in Eilat

Israel National News, by Jack Engelhard


2/7/2007 2:04:20 AM

Words have consequences. At about the same time that Jimmy Carter was talking up his book at Brandeis University, a Palestinian Arab suicide bomber stepped into a bakery shop in Eilat and murdered three Israelis. Coincidence? No. This was the first such attack in nearly a year. Jimmy Carter has some explaining to do. He is a smooth talker, but will forever be tainted by the blood of Eilat...

Blame Cheney's daughters pregnacy on him too.

That conclusion is just absolutely nuts - the blood of Eilat can be directly blamed on the fool who blew up the bakery.

The Israeli counterpart to Paul Craig Roberts.

Not exactly.

Former U.S. President Carter wins Grammy Award

Reuters
Sunday, February 11, 2007; 7:07 PM

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Jimmy Carter became the second former U.S. president to win a Grammy Award when he was honored in the spoken-word category on Sunday for the audio-book version of his bestseller "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis."

Carter, 82, shared the award in a rare tie with actress Ruby Dee and her late husband Ossie Davis for "With Ossie and Ruby: In This Life Together."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7021101102.html

Looks like Jimmah's still behind.

December 21, 1985- Bugs Bunny recieves a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame.

Good to see Jimmah and the Dipsy chicks up there with critically acclaimed previous winners......

Best Rap Solo Performance-2006 Grammy's
Common - Testify
Eminem - Mockingbird
50 Cent - Disco Inferno
Ludacris - Number One Spot
T.I. - U Don't Know Me
Kanye West - Gold Digger

Arent the libs always mawking the south? Jimmy carter and the dipsy chicks they praise.

If Hollywood gave righties awards you'd have to worry. Now you can sleep tight.

Sleep tight. Rudy's on the way.

But can he sing?

He's been playin a different tune than the base. You'll see all kinds of clips of it.

If Democrats are gay marriage loving, gun grabbin baby killers then old Rudy is too.

Sounds like dems will vote for guiliani in droves if he gets the nomination.

Nope, he's too hard on terror and might actually be for winning in Iraq. Lefties hated him when he became mayor because he wanted to fight crime and clean up NY. Remember Ghouliani?

And yet, the same electorate who voted handily for Sen. Clinton elected Giuliani. Amazing.

Why? She the carpetbagger voted for war to go along with the crowd, and he's a liberal Rep that cleaned up the city he loves.

Therefore?

I don't really understand the 'why' part.

Amazing? Why? Doesn't surpise me they'd elect a famous carpetbagger Dem or a local DA who was a liberal Rep.

It's not like they elected Hitler or Tom DeLay.

For once, you failed to detect my poorly disguised sarcasm.

I thought he and Arafat solved that mideast mess. They got peace prizes for it.