Whats the problem? Shouldn’t current candidates be able to call Bush a bad president either?

That’s right, Aor. People like you and me can use terminology like “lousy president” to describe Bush. Someone who aspires to his office, who hopes to lead our nation, can’t. They also can’t say, “Flash. Hello?” Unfair but so very true. It’s time to make the office of president worthy of respect again, and that starts with the office-holder.

Carter started this whole Islamic terrorism thing when he allowed Iran to be hi-jacked by a bunch of ragheads with AK-47s and a goal of extermination of those who vowed not to follow them.

If Carter were never elected Islamic terrorism would not exist, the war in Iraq would not have happened, Iran would be an ally, and we would all be better off.

Liberals are so stupid. They hate Biblical prophecy, despite truth, and ultimatley are brain damaged. 1960-1969 = decade of stupidity and ignorance. The worst thing that ever happened to America is communism, and socialism that liberalism brings with it.

NOBAMA

Keep the Change!

It was dunderhead Ronald Reagan who gave weapons to the Afghan rebels, including Osama bin Laden. Reagan sold weapons to the same Iranians who kidnapped our people and he gave WMD to Saddam Hussein which Saddam used to gas thousands of his own people.

But no president has done more to advance the cause of terrorists than your Dear Leader, George Bush. He’s opened the floodgates of terrorism all over the Middle East. We’ll be paying for his abject incompetence and stupidity for decades to come.

Jimmy Carter was a better president when he was asleep than any of these jokers were or are wide awake. He’s also a decent and honorable man, which is more than can be said for Reagan or Bush.

Like I said earlier, Carter started it before Reagan and Bush. He rushed in the age of radical Islam from Iran and let it spread like wildfire. Reagan helped the Afghans defend against communist Russian forces. How werer we to know that these people would forget who helped them?

Carter did not “start” anything, nor did he “rush in” to Iran. Except for a rescue mission sent after the hostages, the US military did not go into Iran under Carter at all.

Here are the facts.

The Shah was a longtime US ally who early on had depended on British and US secret operations to stay in power after a coup. By the 1970s, despite the trappings of westernization, he had become a tyrant who had abolished political parties and used his secret police, SAVAK, to round up religious and political dissidents whom he had tortured and killed.

As always happens under repressive regimes, revolution fomented inside Iran, with radical groups ranging from pro-democracy intellectuals on the left to ultra-religious clerics and their followers on the right plotting the overthrow of the royal family. The most powerful of these was a faction led by the rightwing religious fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini, whom the Shah had exiled to Paris. Khomeini’s religious extremist followers are the “terrorists” referred to by Defender in this thread.

In January 1978, the dissidents launched the Iranian Revolution, during which a theocratic Constitution was written. The Shah and his family fled the country in January 1979. A month later Khomeini returned from exile and took command of the government.

At the time of his ouster, the Shah was stricken with terminal cancer and asked Pres. Carter’s permission to come to the US for treatment. Carter reluctantly allowed the Shah to enter the United States. This touched off a new wave of violence in Iran and, in October 1979, the US embassy was captured and 52 hostages were taken.

As the 1980 elections approached, many people now believe that soon-to-be VP George Bush, who had served as head of the CIA under Nixon, secretly negotiated with the rightwing Iranian terrorists to have the hostages freed at the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. Others call this a spurious rumor.

What is known is that Reagan-Bush officials, in particular Oliver North, illegally negotiated with the Iranian Islamic regime during what became known as the Iran-Contra Scandal.

Say what you will about Carter, unlike Reagan and Bush, he never negotiated with terrorists. In fact, to lay any responsibility for the rise of terrorism on Jimmy Carter — the last truly decent man, an evangelical Christian, to hold the office of president — is a vicious lie.

Carter claims to be an evangelical Christian, but caters to the far left who cannot be true Christians. They may or may not be saved, but Christianity cannot and will not endorse abortion (infantcide) and homosexuality. Evangelicals cannot truly say they follow Christ while supporting the very sin that Christ died to save us from.

Rightwing Troll Tactics 101: When proved wrong, change the subject. We’ll take the fact that the subject has been changed as an admission that the statement that Jimmy Carter caused terrorism was flat wrong.

Speaking of flat wrong, evangelical extremists are the ones who are not “true” Christians. Jesus was a liberal. His message was about love and peace, which is the opposite of the hatred that christianists spew. Their leaders fly around in private jets and have amassed huge fortunes. Pat Robertson, for example, has invested the loot he has accumulated by shaking down widows on Social Security on diamond mines in Africa where he regularly consorts with brutal dictators.

While evangelical Republicans like Robertson count their money and wallow in their judgments and bile, Jimmy Carter does good works all over the world, building homes for the poor and facilitating research to end diseases in the Third World. They talk the talk but he walks the walk.

If there is a hell, haters like Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell are roasting there now, and keeping seats warm for Robertson, Dobson, Sheldon, Hagee and the fundamentalist leading light, Fred Phelps.

“Carter started this whole Islamic terrorism thing when he allowed Iran to be hi-jacked by a bunch of ragheads with AK-47s and a goal of extermination of those who vowed not to follow them.”

Defender, what hardcore drugs are you on and how can I get some for myself?!!

We meddled in Iran keeping the Shah in power as he became more and more hated. The people revolted. Big surprise there.

Almost every ‘hard on communism’ leader that we secretly or not so secretly supported ended up turning against us or ended up being horrible leaders: Sadam Hussain, Fidel Castro, Pinochet, the Afghans we armed against the Russians, the Shah of Iran, and the list goes on.

We meddle secretly in other countries and often seem to pick the wrong side to support … they end up being a huge thorn in our side down the road.

Carter didn’t create ‘islamic terrorism’ - our policies in the middle east did that. We encouraged this person to do that and this other person to do another thing.

Pretty much whenever we do something to help overthrow a government that we consider soft on communism we create huge problems down the road. I wonder why that is?

Communism isn’t the boogy man we’ve been lead to believe it is.

I think communism and socialism are natural stages that countries try out or have to go through to advance as countries.

What happens? Communism or socialism ends up not working out - it never can because it can never truly be implemented - the people in power always get corrupted and oppress the common folks.

If we had just let these ’soft on communism’ governments alone we’d be in a far better world today.

Some of the governments would have tried out socialism or supported countries that try out socialism … they would fail miserably and continue on the road to democracy.

The stigmatism of communism has caused nothing but pain and suffering the world over.

What is really so evil about communism or socialism that threatens us? Who told you that and why do you believe them?

What is so very threatening about the ideas of socialism and communism? Hell, we should be encouraging countries to head that route if they are interested. It’ll just speed up their arrival at democracy.