I think this is a bunch of shit and has no bearing on who Obama is or what he is doing, but thanks for clarifying.
I learnt a lot about the US when I came to the realisation that most Americans regard CNN as left wing.
Your new president is about as Marxist as Stalin was.
I don’t think that’s going to help.
I have never asserted that he was a secret Muslim, or had ties to terrorism. I have, on this very board, ridiculed those who were/are claiming that he doesn’t have the citizenship requirement to be the President. Don’t confuse what I say, with what others have said.
In fact, if he were a Muslim, that would make little difference to me. As an Atheist, I am somewhat consoled that at least he is not a nutjob Christian.
I’d kinda like to hear more about Carter throwing the Shah under the rug, myself. Stan, you’re aware that Iran wanted the Shah extradited, and that we didn’t, right?
It might if people actually though about it for a second or two.
But considering that this is unlikely, I concede your point.
Carter loved the theists that took over Iran. As a religious nut himself, he saw kindred in them. The Shah’s extradition, post facto, was considered a minor point, seeing as he was dying of some terminal disease at that point anyway. Carter ensured that the next regime would be fundamentalist wackos, and it came back to bite him, as well as the rest of us, because it laid the groundwork for 9/11.
Nor did I. I’m simply pointing out that I have no reason to take his alleged ties to “hard left Marxists” just because you say other people have covered the subject elsewhere. Especially since you come across as the sort that thinks that someone is a “hard core leftist” if they don’t actually have a shrine to Reagan in their living room.
And your evidence for any of this ?
Here’s some reading for y’all regarding Jimmuh: Cite
Cite? I’ve never heard, read, or smelled that before. Please provide me with factual information.
Considered a minor point by whom?
Please provide a cite for this assertion. Or is this just something you “know”?
Man, you should see mine! I have a big old picture of him that is bigger than my wide screen teevee, and I place fresh flowers and ripe fruit under it as an offering on a daily basis! 
That would be funnier if it wasn’t possibly true, giving outright idolatrous way the Right looks at the old monster.
Jeez, do I have to look up EVERYTHING? Carter himself said it.
Folks who weren’t wackjob Muslim fundies.
See the link in my post immediately previous.
That’s not a cite, that’s a book cover.
“Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work”
So if I linked to a book with the title “Bush and Reagan : Devils, Fools, or Madmen” you’d consider that an unbiased sounding source ?
‘currently is seen as a mistake’?
Here’s some extracts from former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s resignation speech on the eve of the war:
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
…
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
…
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
…
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
…
Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
…
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
…
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
Cook knew there was no evidence of WMDs. He knew there was no international agreement. He knew it was about overthrowing Saddam, not WMDs. He predicted massive civilian casualties.
Bush obviously knew all this too.
Well, the next regime was Reagan, so the point is arguable, at least.
Nah, that’s not fair; I’m pretty sure you meant the next regime in Iran. But we need a lot more than the Amazon page for one book to support your claims. And it’s worth pointing out that Carter didn’t turn over the Shah and did get the hostages released.
I have a number of criticisms for President Obama’s efforts thus far.
But it was very irksome to read “Shrub” and “Commander in Chimp” and the like directed at Bush, proving that the writers thereof were so empty-headed that an insult substituted for actual argument.
Now, this being Great Debates, I of course do not suggest that of you. But inasmuch as it’s possible another reader might come to a similar conclusion about you from reading “Obamunist” in your post, perhaps a useful rhetorical technique might be to offer actual argument instead of insult.
Point taken.
That is a slanderous lie, Der Trihs. George W. Bush is far more intelligent than every fish, reptile, bird, inverterbrate, amoeba, and…
:: reads note someone slips onto my desk ::
Oh. You mean human population. Carry on, then.