Sunday, July 6, 2008

Obama’s Jimmy Carter Disaster

Cross posted from Canada Free Press

Hat tip to Freedom 44 at Free

Obama’s Jimmy Carter Disaster
Samuel Slater Bakhtavar
Saturday, July 5, 2008

During the 1970’s, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had acceded to the monarchist governmental leadership role present throughout Iran’s history, implemented economic, educational and social reforms. In 1978, in the midst of democratic reforms, the Shah and the Iranian people celebrated 2,500 years of Persian Monarchy. Thereafter, the Carter Administration, awkwardly wielding a contorted rhetoric of “human rights” thoughtlessly encouraged the overthrow of the Shah and thereby hastened the arrival of an exiled and obscure cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, and with him the Islamic Republic of Iran.

President Carter’s misguided approach to raising human rights (catered to fundamentalists and communists) in the context of US-Iran relations, led to the Shah’s fall. Iran then became a theocratic abyss, whose radical fundamentalists tolerated far more abuse and torture of political prisoners than the Shah ever had, and supported a stream of terrorist acts and causes. The individuals who comprise Iran’s theocracy are now the worlds, as well as the vast majority of the Iranian people’s greatest enemies.

Now, Barack Obama has said that he is inclined to meet with the internationally controversial Iranian President at the right time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. Contrary to mainstream media views, the President of Iran is virtually powerless. Any candidate for the presidency of Iran must first be vetted by a hard-line group of twelve clerics who are controlled by the un-elected Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. During the recent election for President of Iran the members of the Guardian Council disqualified over ninety-eight percent of the candidates, including all female candidates and virtually every single reformist. Hence, although Iran has elections, these elections are simply fodder for the mainstream media, providing straw figures to distract foreign politicians like Barack Obama.

Many of Barack Obama’s national security policies are sideways backward-looking and retreads from the Carter Administration. Obama supports direct negotiations with the Iranian theocracy, opposes support for pro-Democracy Iranian groups, and advocates open lines of relation with the most corrupt members of the regime. All this works to legitimize the dictatorship.

The signature moves of Obama are to be too noble for mere politics, but the team of foreign policy security advisers that his administration looks likely to field is the constellation of advisors and policy staff that will render him just another “high-toned liberal” doomed to failure. The Obama team is composed of a combination of the young and inexperienced, a retreads of the usual suspects, characteristic of the Carter and Clinton Administrations, lofted up from poorly grounded gray matter of liberal universities and think tanks. The team members may be united by with good intentions; but without appropriate grounding, they are likely on the road to disappointment and failure.

Among the few prominent figures are Zbigniew Brzezinski who was President Carter’s National Security Advisor and a veteran of multiple failures in Iran; Lt. General Merrill McPeak, designer of untimely Air Force retrenchment and stillborn change during the Clinton Administration; Gregory Craig, aide to Ted Kennedy and an exuberantly creative Clinton partisan who defended his President at the impeachment; and Susan Rice, the black hole of talk and inaction.

President Bush has consistently reached out to Iranian people, a nation that Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute dubbed the “most pro-American in the entire region, if not the world”, and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called “the ultimate red state.”, while the un-elected anti-American government wields a miniscule 15-20% support.

Although we are unsure whether Obama merits to be judged by the company he keeps, his advisors appear to adhere only to the obvious immature foreign policy proffered by Jimmy Carter. In Iran, the Carter Administration helped bring down one of the United States greatest allies and infiltrated modern terrorism. The lack of intellectual and moral clarity about global threats and how America and the freedom seeking people of the people of Iran and other mid-east nations should respond will make them incapable of acting on the crucial deeper game.

Samuel Slater Bakhtavar, J.D., LL.M, M.B.A. (Cand. ‘09) is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law and pursuing his M.B.A.

A note from Radarsite: Setting aside for the moment my deep distrust of Obama's agenda for change, his barely concealed racism, his questionable patriotism, and his ulterior motives behind his proposed actions in Iraq
(see:, we are still faced with his dangerous and delusional -- and thoroughly discredited -- foreign policy ideas. Have the disastrous political naivete's of Chamberlain and Carter taught us nothing about dealing with ruthless dictators and their murderous regimes? Does anyone really believe that by sitting down with any of Ayatollah Khamenei's criminal cronies we will accomplish anything -- other than lending them an unwarranted degree of legitimacy and buying them more time to develop their nuclear arsenal? Is the Persian disaster of 1979 just to be forgotten? Are those 444 days of shameful American impotency just to be swept under the rug? Are Ahmadinejad's unequivocal promises to destroy the State of Israel just to be ignored?

I repeat -- Obama is either playing a deadly double game or he is an incompetent amateur. Either way, the possible destructive repercussions for America of an Obama presidency are incalculable. - rg

Interesting visitors:Host Name
IP Address [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region Virginia
City Manassas
ISP Dod Network Information Center

Navigation Path
7th July 2008 17:05:22 carter i am a reglious man and khomeni is a religious man&btnG=Search


  1. You raised a good point about Obama and the company he keeps, especially when we line him up as a mirror image of Jimmy Carter.
    His rhetoric takes us to unreasonable extremes. Hence, all we know about him is the company he keeps. For all his suggested sophistication, he associates with a rather shabby bunch; just like Jimmy Carter.

  2. When Khomeini came to power Dhimmi Carter thought it was a good thing because Khomeini was a religious man. That is why Carter supports Hamas and Arafat. He sees the Muslims as a more religious people than the Jews.

    Now we will have more of the same. How many Americans will be held hostage in Iran and for how long under an Obama administration?

    How many Nukes will Iran get before they decide to use them?

    Obama is scary because he isn't naive like Carter is, but because he actually believes this BS (pardon the vulgarity).

  3. Good points Shawmut.
    And to Findalis -- Either he believes the BS, or there's some deeper game afoot.
    I know that Obama's "Muslim thing" has supposedly been put to rest; but I'm sorry to say I remain unconvinced. I sincerely doubt his credibility when it comes to standing up to the Islamists; I think he admires them. And, as I pointed out in that earlier article, everything he has said about Iraq could have come straight out of an Al Qaeda playbook.
    Do I seriously think that Barrack Obama is some sort of Islamist Manchurian Candidate? Yes, I think that that possibility exists. And that, among a dozen other reasons, makes him the scariest presidential candidate this country has probably ever had. rg

  4. Findalis -- Also, your points about Carter and religion are very convincing.

  5. "Obama is scary because he isn't naive like Carter is, but because he actually believes this BS (pardon the vulgarity)."

    Respectfully, Findalis, you're wrong: Obama's conduct shows him to be one of the most naive pols to enter the national scence in a very long time.

    Add that naivete to his ignorance of things such as economics, international relations, national security and America that lies outside the socio-political circle in which he resides--and what presents itself is a most serious train wreck waiting to happen.

    As for former President Carter's problem with Israel and the Jews, here's what opinionist Shmuley Boteach wrote in the Jerusalem Post said on Dec. 26, 2006--and it seems still to ring truthfully today:

    "Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding.

    "Carter wants to do what's just. His heart's in the right place. He just can't figure out what the right is. He is, and always has been, a man of good intentions bereft of good judgment. He invariably finds himself defending tyrants and dictators at the expense of their oppressed peoples. Not because he is a bad man, but because he is a confused man.

    "Carter subscribes to what I call the Always Root for the Underdog school of morality. Rather than develop any real understanding of a conflict, immediately he sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral."

    But, respectfully, Findalis, I think you're right with your spot-on observation about he of South Side Chicago who would bring us the second term of Jimmy Carter: He does actually believe the b***s*** to which he's been exposed.

    If that we're so frightening, it would be comical.

  6. When I was in the Air Force (US), I had the unfortunate duty of working at the White House under Dhimmi Carter. I saw first hand the ineptitude of the man and how he went about making judgments of various people.

    Obama is not naive. He is a skilled politician who knows how to play the fool when he has to. He played the fool to secure his base (liberals) and is doing the same trying to win the White House. But make no mistake. The man knows exactly what he is doing. This is the result of 20 years of mentoring by Wright and his ilk.

    Could he be the Islamist Manchurian Candidate as you ask Roger? Yes. But is he, I can't say. I do know that he is the son of Marxists (both of his parents) and is a racist and anti-Semite.

    At worst he is the Islamist Manchurian Candidate and best he is naive. But the middle is even worse: He's a true believer who will destroy the US in favor of HIS ideal focus group.

  7. "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

  8. Anyone who has been " washed" by the likes of Alinsky, Wright, and Farrakahn for over 25 Years , not to mention the daily head bashing by Michelle can only look at Jammah Cawtah as an IDOL to be followed.. while the rest of the still sane world pergs them both as living disasters!

  9. Findalis is spot on:
    Obama is not naive. He is a skilled politician who knows how to play the fool when he has to. He played the fool to secure his base (liberals) and is doing the same trying to win the White House. But make no mistake. The man knows exactly what he is doing.

    This is a very cunning individual. Roger, your comparison of him to Jimmy Carter really rings true. However, I personally think he's going to exceed the very worst of any American president in history. If America as we know it still exists when he's done, hopefully we will have a historical precedent which will caution us against trusting the poison Left in leadership again.

  10. Setting aside for the moment my deep distrust of Obama's agenda for change, his barely concealed racism, his questionable patriotism, and his ulterior motives behind his proposed actions in Iraq...

    But Roger, these are his good qualities.