Neither could Jimmy Carter.

But Jimmy Carter was a genuine man of character and vision rather then the purveyor of a "pack of lies" suffering from messianic delusions of grandeur.

Hey Gregor,

I thought the joke of the cartoon was making fun of GWBush's pernunskiations? Did you hear Harry Reid yesterday pronounce it the same way as GWBush and JECarterJr? I don't want to get in a huge debate of character and vision between GWBush and JECarterJr, but JECarterJr's peaceful world vision of abandoning Pahlavi in 1979 triggered the current war the Islam has on the West.

When are you going to respond to the partial quotes you used out of context on the other post like you said you were?

Sure, he could have supported Pahlavi and left us in the middle of Iran versus hundreds of thousands of Iranians whipped up and organized to the point they overthrew Pahlavi's reign. That would have been genius! That would have been very similar to where we are right now in Baghdad except there are millions more Iranians who already were quite familiar with what a US supported dictatorship is.

Reply to the quotes - Halliburton owned the companies you mentioned and profited from their dealings with Iran. You said so yourself. To me, personally, whether this is legal or not does not negate the responsibility for participating in the transactions. If he was any kind of patriot, he would have foregone the relationship in the interests of his country's intentions/laws. If there was any genuine moral highground to be claimed by Cheney he would not have then allowed it to persist. But that he did is a reflection he lacks that characteristic.

As for the accusation that I "could care less if we are supporting or fighting our enemies, but [my] biggest fears are over people making money on war" you are half right. War profiteering is a disgusting business and I loathe those who perpetuate conflicts solely to generate profits. Yes, I believe this war is for corporation to make money. No, I don't believe Saddam was a threat or the Iraqi's were intrinsically our enemies. But they are now! Pretty much all of them ought to be hating us by now. Kill 100,000 people and their family tree ought to cover pretty much the entire nation.

Iran-Contra - 10 years ago, twenty years ago?!? You really enjoy finding the details and tearing at theose who post here. You even go after littel boys drawing thoughtful cartoons. I'm not about to tell you what I think of that, but what do YOU think of that?

As for the 8 billion, maybe it's 6 or 6.8 billion. I suspect you already have an answer and you're just tossing out bait. You're waiting to strike again and feel dominant. It's on the record of some US accounting office and I feel it likely you already know what I'm talking about and already have an answer. Don't waste my time.

The major media was reporting not long after we got into Iraq that we were paying for firetrucks that we couldn't even find and that the vendors reported they had delivered.

To paraphrase a wise Nazi: if one repeats a mispronunciation enough, it becomes correct.

While the original version was true only in the political sense , this statement is literally true.

This originally was about a cartoon.

But since it got off to Iran, I would only say "Way to go Pat Ryan!"

I followed the Iran situation closely because our jr. college in the mid 1960s had the first student body officer who was a foreign student perhaps anywhere in the country. He was Iranian. His last name was the last name of someone in the Shah's official circle (doctor, maybe?).

There was a lot of cluelessness to go around.

Also, I would recommend the book Ayatollah in the Cathedral. It was written by one of the high ranking American hostages who was held in Iran and came safely home. And some of his stranger experiences were after he came home.

Once again Andy proves he has nothing to offer this blog but useless diversions. Progressives have no need to waste space defending President Carter's character against the likes of GWB; no contest!

It is also telling that the point of young Mr. Deiz' cartoon escapes him. GWB's "mispernunskiations" are unlike the genuine regional dialecticism of Jimmy's speech; they are part of GWB's disingenuous 'good ole boy' persona he uses to bamboozle simple folk.

Hey Pat Ryan,

I don't disagree with much of what you have to say. It still doesn't change the fact that we screwed up big time in Iran and I think you pointed that out well.

Hey Ed Bickford,

Once again, what diversions? "GWB's "mispernunskiations" are unlike the genuine regional dialecticism of Jimmy's speech" Oh, I get it. GWBush is an idiot because he can't say 'nuclear' correctly. But even though JECarterJr says it the same way it's ok because he's from the South. So how do explain Harry Reid's "mispernunskiation'?

Hey Gregor,

Do you ever reread your posts? Do you notice the great amount of hatred that I see in your words?

Are you still in your twenties? I only ask because I think your views of history sound like they come from history books or professors and you were not around to experience the flavor of the time. I don't disagree that a revolution would happen in Iran, but it was a huge mistake to let Ruhollah Mousavi come home from France. Without Mousavi, would Ayman Al-Zawahiri been there to help kill Sadat? In turn, would al Qaeda even exist without Al-Zawahiri? What makes you think it would have "left us in the middle of Iran versus hundreds of thousands of Iranians whipped up and organized to the point they overthrew Pahlavi's reign." Can you tell me who "us" was? "That would have been very similar to where we are right now in Baghdad except there are millions more Iranians who already were quite familiar with what a US supported dictatorship is." Can you please stop with the clichés? What part of Iraq is a dictatorship? You mean the great Kurdish leader Talabani is a dictator? Or do you really believe Bush is the dictator of Iraq? I have many Iranian friends, why do their families and friends at home want a "US supported dictatorship"?

"Reply to the quotes - Halliburton owned the companies you mentioned and profited from their dealings with Iran." True, but you have neglected an important part, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co were doing business with Iraq long before Halliburton bought them. "You said so yourself." Yes I did. Did I contradict myself? "If he was any kind of patriot, he would have foregone the relationship in the interests of his country's intentions/laws." Once again show me the laws Halliburton violated. "If there was any genuine moral highground to be claimed by Cheney he would not have then allowed it to persist." That's a tough one. On one hand you're doing business with a dictator, on the other you are partaking in the UN food for oil program.

"Yes, I believe this war is for corporation to make money." I think you are wrong, but those are your beliefs. "No, I don't believe Saddam was a threat or the Iraqi's were intrinsically our enemies." I don't disagree, but what good are UN declarations if there is no way to enforce them? "But they are now!" It depends on your definition of they. I'm going to sound like WJClinton here. They as in people, you are right. They as in a majority, you are wrong. The majority of Iraqis do not think of the US as there enemy. Please show me any credible polls in the opposite if you can. "Pretty much all of them ought to be hating us by now." With this logic, can you tell me why all Serbians don't hate the US? "Kill 100,000 people and their family tree ought to cover pretty much the entire nation." What 100,000 people? I'm sure you read my post above your last post at pro-life. The Lancet numbers have been proven to be unrealistic and I posted several articles there to help you shed this propaganda.

"Iran-Contra - 10 years ago, twenty years ago?!? You really enjoy finding the details and tearing at theose who post here." No, I go after hypocrites. Look at all of my posts. I would prefer to say nothing, but I can't let hypocrisy stand unchallenged. Don't details mean anything to you? You posted a quote from Cheney, but neglected to include his first sentence which negated everything you thought it said. It's called details. Frankly, I don't care where "here" is. I go after people on all sides. On the radio I have won arguments with people like Pat Buchanan, Paul Begala and Bob Barr. "You even go after littel boys drawing thoughtful cartoons. I'm not about to tell you what I think of that, but what do YOU think of that?" Would you please grow up! If a child told you one plus one was three, are you not going to correct it? Or would you prefer to not hurt the child's psyche which will do more damage in the long run? If you're going to play in the big leagues, then you should expect to get damaged now and then.

"As for the 8 billion, maybe it's 6 or 6.8 billion. I suspect you already have an answer and you're just tossing out bait. You're waiting to strike again and feel dominant. It's on the record of some US accounting office and I feel it likely you already know what I'm talking about and already have an answer. Don't waste my time." Honestly, I can't read all the news and I don't know what it's about. Funny how you put out that "bait" tag. Do you think you're wrong?

"The major media was reporting not long after we got into Iraq that we were paying for firetrucks that we couldn't even find and that the vendors reported they had delivered." And I think the people who screwed up should be punished. Where do we disagree on this?

BTW, why do you have to swear in your posts. I'm sure your vocabulary is strong enough no to use those words to make a point.

No, Andy, you really don't get it. Bush is not an idiot, he just plays one on TV. Bush isn't a good ole boy from Texas; he's a transplant from Connecticut's upper crust who went down there to make a career of bamboozling simple folk who fear that clever, amoral people will destroy their way of life. The good people of Texas just didn't recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you can't see a diversion in the huge posts you make which are totally off-topic (remember the cartoon?) you must be wearing blinders.

Hey Ed Bickford,

If you can't see a diversion in the huge posts you make which are totally off-topic (remember the cartoon?) you must be wearing blinders. I was on topic. I wanted Gregor to go back to the post where he posted misleading quotes and clarify his statements. I tried to take it back there, but he brought it here. Unfortunately, this is a weak blog and you can't notify posters of a response. It also doesn't help when most of the people are afraid to use their real name or e-mail, unlike you. I think this is an interesting debate and I can never figure out why you don't like to hear other opinions if they differ from yours?

Hey Andy-

Yup! You got me! I hate Fascists! Can't stand 'em. Have no time whatsoever for them.

"us" is my country, our military.

The dictatorship I was referring to was in Iran and the Shah.

I'm not talking about laws, it's about character. As I said, if he was a patriot he would have halted the program whether it originated in France, Germany or Bulgaria. He had the power.

If it's about UN declarations, then the UN chooses whether to enforce them, not Dubya. The War was brought to us based on a pack of lies Why are you changing the rationale for the war. Wasn't it WMD? Or that Saddam was a bad guy? When did the inspectors find anything? I missed that report.

Not 100,000 dead ... yet? Give us more time. We're not leaving in the foreseeable future. And in fact, no one is counting to ensure we never know. There's a collaquialism for people obsessed with details.

Yup, you're the winner all right.

The criticism you levelled against the cartoon was with a barb about t'h artist's ignorance and was to the clarity of a cartoon. You listed a number of things he would need to include in his rendition to qualify the weapons in the assault category. Cartoons are not precise, ever, and your barb was gratuitous. You, sir, are a bully and your remark was gratuitous. But I know you manage your anger quite nicely, so I am offering no advice. Incidentally, are you intending to "damage" people?

Honestly, I am referring to a news account from Air America, but they were referring to a United States accounting office. Which one I don't recall.

Clearly, it was a waste of time to swear. You're going to miss the point, you never concede a point. Your absolutely Right in all your posts, you're the winner, thanks for playing the game, and...what is your purpose, really? Make it plain for me, I only think in cliches. Aside from taking apart the details, what are you contructing exactly? Is there something productive about your posts I'm missing?

Brendan,

I wish all of my students were even a fraction as socially aware and active in expression as you are regarding your country and world through your art.

I very much appreciate your use of satire in defining your artistic voice and I've seen marked improvement in your line as well -- its much more fluid and less rigid -- also, your composition has improved -- it's very effective when you are this direct, simple and concise.

Good job!

Andy = Artful Dodger

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

Iggi = Wennie

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/weenie.htm

"When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack." Really? Please show me where in my posts I have changed the subject? Sorry about the Weenie, but they didn't have one for poor readers or for being delusional. Time for you to play in another litter box.

Hey Gregor,

If it's about UN declarations, then the UN chooses whether to enforce them, not Dubya. This may be news to you, but UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was the enforcement resolution. Here's the brief http://www.answers.com/topic/un-security-council-resolution-1441

The War was brought to us based on a pack of lies Why are you changing the rationale for the war. Wasn't it WMD? Or that Saddam was a bad guy? When did the inspectors find anything? I missed that report. Here it is from the UN UN Security Council Resolution 1441 I guess the rest of the world was lying too?

There's a collaquialism for people obsessed with details. At least I don't make up stuff. I'm sure there's a colloquialism for that one too.

You, sir, are a bully and your remark was gratuitous. Fine, it was a cheap shot. But before I posted what an assault rifle was, did you know the definition? I doubt one in a thousand new. But the media made us think what one was. Did you ever read how the people from the Lancet compilled their data?

Honestly, I am referring to a news account from Air America, but they were referring to a United States accounting office. Which one I don't recall. You should start listening to more than one radio station. Have you ever listened to Michael Medved on 800 am from noon to three? I think he is the finest debater on the radio today. He always has liberals on as guests, even though he is conservative. He's even had Al Franken, Noam Chomsky , Alan Dershowitz and other fine debaters on. If you can get on and ever win a debate with him, I will bow before your feet. I have tried several times to best him and he's just too good. Take a listen and tell me what you think.

Clearly, it was a waste of time to swear. You're going to miss the point, you never concede a point. But I have, I've agreed with you and others on several points.

Is there something productive about your posts I'm missing? If you would have thoroughly read them, they would have pointed you to information you didn't have before. I am clueless why people a this site don't like to be disagreed with. If you only listen or talk to people you agree with, how do you know your convictions are true? There is nothing wrong with a fair debate.

I went to the delcaration and it was a threat, nothing more. More signtories of that declaration were part of the Coalition of the UNwilling, then willing. I don't think [See, it's a desclaimer, you may yet tame me ... some] the declaration of war was ever endorced by the UN.

Frankly, as to the definition of an assault weapon, it didn't matter to me. Gun control means safe practices and a steady hand, but I'm no fan of the NRA. Nice redirect, though, take the conversation to who knows more rather then how we express ourselves.

In the past, I did listen to Medved a few times and didn't care for his agenda. He uses a broad brush like I do, but I don't care for his color...too much Red.

Glad you saw the point. I am not opposed to challenging Brenden, but we could be more tactful and supportive of his continuing to develop his craft. Artful persuasion might turn him to the Dark Side...look what happened to Anikin. Right now, I'm thrilled with his expression and courage and insight. Brenden ROCKS!!!

As you can wee, sometimes I do go to the information you provide. As do you. For informative postings, there is a benefit, but I still would like to know what you would build in this country if you could. Me? Well, I was just reminiscing about a refernce durign the campaign where protesters of George II were relegated to a "Free Speech Zone". I thought the US was a free sppech zone, and maybe I'm right...it was.