If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
WHY DOES MITT ROMNEY AGREE WITH CARTER AND OBAMA?
by Don Hank, blogging at Laigle’s Forum
(Feb. 2, 2011) — Mitt Romney has broken with conservative opinion in his statement on the Egyptian crisis, coming down on the side of the mob of angry Islamists and Barack Obama (see linked article):
Obama, who has in fact demanded Mubarak’s immediate withdrawal, saying it “must begin now” (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41377934), is following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter, who — you may recall — righteously demanded, back in the 70s, that the Shah of Iran be deposed because he was not democratic enough. The assumption was that whoever replaced the Shah would, of course, be democratic.
So once the Iranian radical clerics saw that the Shah would get no more support from the US, they moved in for the kill, long knives drawn. The Shah’s overthrow paved the way for the eminently authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly took the US embassy personnel captive, as a way to say “thanks” to Jimmy Carter for all the support.
That went so well that, several years later, the democratic Khomeini’s successors eventually chose radical Islamist Ahmadinejad, who hates Western style democracy, as the leader of Iran. Democratic uprisings are now put down with an iron hand in Iran, but after all, that’s no longer important. The US democrats got what they wanted – elimination of a true American ally in the Middle East and his replacement with a man who hates America and Israel.
So now, Mitt Romney is in turn following Obama’s – and, let’s not forget, Hillary’s — lead in denouncing Mubarak in Egypt because, after 40 years of serving as an invaluable go-between for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, why, it turns out he, like the Shah, is not democratic, never has been. Hillary was quick to scold Mubarak for not letting the Islamic radicals have their fun and organize his overthrow via the internet.
Discussion in the media generally portrays the Egyptian mob as the good guys, just as the media – and Carter – portrayed the Khomeini’s supporters during the 1978 upheaval in Iran.
But the persecution of Christians (as well as of Jews and Baha’is) was stepped up once the Khomeini was in power and Christians were forced out of their homeland. The media have forgotten that just a few weeks ago, a Coptic Christian church was burned by some of this same mob that now demands Mubarak’s overthrow.
The parallels are significant and if the lessons are clear they are clearly not learned.
If this Egyptian mob behaves the way the Iranian mob did in 1978 and the majority of Christians are driven from their homeland, remember the names:
as being solidly behind the overthrow of a leader who played the lead role in stabilizing the region.
And then ask yourself if Mitt is your man in 2012. (But don’t forget to save a copy of the above-linked article, since Mitt has a habit of flip-flopping on everything as the wind changes directions or as he moves from one audience to another. One of his favorite lines is “I never said that.”)
Here is a brief profile for those not familiar with Mitt and his MO: