posted November 05, 2006 06:40 PM            

One of this nation's most influential Democratic strategist published some of the goals that should be achieved when the federal government is controlled by Democrats:

Take over some of the functions of state governments;

Ensure that an appropriate portion of corporate profit goes to support government;

Ensure that government and labor is adequately represented on corporate boards;

Interweave America's destiny with Europe's to create a lasting beneficent peace, and establish the principle of the brotherhood of man.
These goals arise from his belief that:

"... many of the civil institutions [are] debased by the power of wealth, under the thin guise of the constitutional protection of property."

"… in the future children [will be] trained from infancy [so] that they can measurably conquer their troubles by the force of mind, a new era will have come to man."

"The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice. The man or woman who fails to do his duty, not as he sees it, but as society at large sees it, will be held up to the contempt of mankind."

"Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque."
Does this sound like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, James Carville – or a combination of all of them?

While all of the above have made similar statements, the strategist quoted here was the campaign manager for Woodrow Wilson: Col. Edward Mendell House.

Col. House is no longer a subject of study in public education, but his influence is forever stamped across American society. As Wilson's chief adviser, he led the campaign to:

Establish the graduated income tax system;

The Federal Reserve system;

The Federal Trade Commission, and an extensive industrial regulatory regime;

And helped to write the Charter for the League of Nations.

Now, nearly a hundred years after the House-Wilson era, Democrats are simply updating the lyrics of the same song: more taxes, more government control, more global governance.

Like House's vision of the League of Nations, today's Democrats seem to have a dream-world vision of the war against terrorism. Their goal, of course, is to get out of Iraq under the thin guise of "phased re-deployment." Their reasoning – give the Iraqi government a U.S. withdrawal date so they will feel the urgency of taking control – sounds reasonable. Except for the "what if."

What if the new Iraqi government cannot compromise on the outstanding issues, and the government collapses? Would the Democrats send the troops back into Iraq? Or, would they turn the problem over to the U.N.? Or, would they simply take the line of least resistance and let the Islamofascists turn Iraq into a more powerful pre-war Afghanistan, a safe harbor for terrorists and a launching pad for their global jihad?

One thing the Democrats will not do: Go after the terrorists on their own turf.

The Islamofascist terrorists who are waging this jihad against the United States understand and respect only one thing: force, brute military force. They are not only willing to die for their misguided cause, they are willing to kill innocent Muslims and anyone else who happens to be between them and the death of an American. As the recent up-tick of violence in Iraq demonstrates, they are willing to suffer extravagant Muslim losses for the joy of killing a single American.

If America does not go after them on their own turf, they will surely come after us on our turf.

The House-Wilson brand of Democrats would contend that had the League of Nations not been killed by the United States, there would have been no World War II, no Korean War, no Vietnam and no Islamic jihad today. The Carter-Clinton-Gore-Kerry brand of Democrats contend that the Islamic jihad today is the result of Republican leadership of the government. Both Democratic contentions are of the "dream world" variety.

History is clear evidence that when the Democrats are in power, taxes increase, government expands, regulatory control tightens, property rights and individual freedom shrink, and the relevance of the U.S. Constitution is diminished. Even more important, when Carter was in power, the Iranian embassy was captured by Islamofascists; Carter's response was to crash helicopters in the desert – and then retreat. When Clinton was in power, Islamofascists shot down a Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu; Clinton's response was to spout retaliation – and then retreat. Had Al Gore been in power when Islamofascists attacked the World Trade Centers ........

posted November 05, 2006 07:00 PM              

Wasn't Eisenhower (a Republican) in power when they ousted Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mossadegh?

By Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman
-Guest Columnists-
Updated Aug 28, 2003, 10:13 pm

the August 7, 2003 edition of the Washington Post, Condoleeza Rice, the president’s national security advisor, writes the following:

"Our task is to work with those in the Middle East who seek progress toward greater democracy, tolerance, prosperity and freedom. As President Bush said in February, ‘The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.’ "

Now, if we only had a nickel for every time Bush, or Rice, or Colin Powell, or Paul Wolfowitz, or Dick Cheney, or Richard Perle, or Donald Rumsfeld talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Talk, talk, talk.

Here’s something you can bet on: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will not hold a press conference this month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S.-led coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. Rice and Powell won’t hold a press conference to celebrate Operation Ajax, the CIA plot that overthrew Mossadegh.

That was 50 years ago this month, in August 1953. That’s when Mossadegh was fed up with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company—now BP—pumping Iran’s oil and shipping the profits to the United Kingdom.

And Mossadegh said, hey, this is our oil. I think we’ll keep it.

And Winston Churchill said, no you won’t.

Mossadegh nationalized the company—the way the British were nationalizing their own vital industries at the time. But what’s good for the UK ain’t good for Iran.

If you fly out of Dulles Airport in Virginia, ever wonder what the word, "Dulles" means? It stands for the Dulles family: Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, the CIA director, Allen Dulles. They were responsible for the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran. As was President Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who traveled to Iran to pull off the coup.

Now, why should we be concerned about a coup that happened so far away almost 50 years ago this month? New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer puts it this way:

"It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah’s repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York."

Kinzer has written a remarkable new book, "All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" (Wiley, 2003). In it, he documents step by step, how Roosevelt, the Dulles boys and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., among a host of others, took down a democratically elected regime in Iran.

They had freedom of the press. We shut it down.

They had democracy. And we crushed it.

Mossadegh was the beacon of hope for the Middle East. If democracy were allowed to take hold in Iran, it probably would have spread throughout the Middle East.

We asked Kinzer, what does the overthrow of Mossadegh say about the United States’ respect for democracy abroad?

"Imagine today what it must sound like to Iranians to hear American leaders tell them, ‘We want you to have a democracy in Iran; we disapprove of your present government; we wish to help you bring democracy to your country.’ Naturally, they roll their eyes and say, ‘We had a democracy once, but you crushed it,’ " he said.

"This shows how differently other people perceive us from the way we perceive ourselves. We think of ourselves as paladins of democracy. But actually, in Iran, we destroyed the last democratic regime the country ever had and set them on a road to what has been half a century of dictatorship."

After ousting Mossadegh, the United States put in place a brutal shah who destroyed dissent and tortured the dissenters. And the Shah begat the Islamic revolution.

During that Islamic revolution in 1979, Iranians held up Mossadegh’s picture, telling the world, we want a democratic regime that resists foreign influence and respects the will of the Iranian people as expressed through democratic institutions.

"They were never able to achieve that. And this has led many Iranians to react very poignantly to my book," Kinzer told us. "One woman sent me an email that said, ‘I was in tears when I finished your book, because it made me think of all we lost and all we could have had.’ "

Of course, the overthrow of Mossadegh was only one of the first U.S. coups of a democratically elected regime. (To see one in movie form, pick up a copy of Raoul Peck’s "Lumumba" now on DVD.)

Kinzer’s previous books include, "Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala." He’s thinking of putting together a boxed set of his books on American coups. Get copies of "Bitter Fruit" and "All The Shah’s Men."

Read them. And the next time a politician talks about spreading democracy around the globe, ask them about Mohammed Mossa-degh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

(Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman are co-authors of "Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits" and the "Attack on Democracy." Their website is www.corporatepredators.org.)

© Copyright 2006 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com

posted November 05, 2006 07:58 PM            

Another fact you overlooked is that Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil fields and went further by expropriating...without any compensation...the British investment in Iran including the cost of exploration, drilling, pipelines, collection facilities, terminal facilities...the whole enchilada.

You omitted another fact, Mossadegh was openly consorting with communist factions and started a collectivist policy. There was great concern at a time when the cold war was getting cranked up that the Soviet Union would attempt to overthrow Iran and establish another Soviet State.

You also omitted the fact he dissolved the Parliament.

The CIA did not act alone, further Iranian oil was sold almost exclusively to Britain at that time.

posted November 05, 2006 08:30 PM              

quote:

---

As usual, your prattle omitted a crucial fact....like the fact Mossadegh attempted to overthrow the Shah of Iran.

---

The people of Iran did not elect and did not like the Shah who was giving all their country's royalties to the British. The Shah's father, who was a military dictator, passed on the position to him.

quote:

---

Another fact you overlooked is that Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil fields and went further by expropriating...without any compensation...the British investment in Iran including the cost of exploration, drilling, pipelines, collection facilities, terminal facilities...the whole enchilada.

---

But for how many years were the British taking Iran's oil for free?

quote:

---

You omitted another fact, Mossadegh was openly consorting with communist factions and started a collectivist policy. There was great concern at a time when the cold war was getting cranked up that the Soviet Union would attempt to overthrow Iran and establish another Soviet State

---

Mossadegh was not a communist.

quote:

---

You also omitted the fact he dissolved the Parliament.

---

posted November 05, 2006 08:43 PM              

quote:

---

Any number of books have been written about most subjects. Most are bullsh*t with a spin which suits the authors political views --jwhop

---

heres one straight from the horses mouth with no b.s. spin

**************

My American Journey by GENERAL COLIN POWELL

On the fall of the Shah of Iran:

We flew to Tehran on October 23, 1978, and were greeted by the head of the US Military Mission to Iran, Major General Philip Gast. There I met my first Iranian generals, bemedalled, proud, imposing, all speaking excellent English. After a lavish meal of lamb, served at the officers' club, we mounted a reviewing stand to watch a parade of Iran's crack troops, the 'Immortals', in tailored uniforms, berets, and gleaming ladder-laced boots, men who performed with much shouting and martial flair. The Iranian officer next to me explained, 'Their loyalty is total. The Immortals will fight to the last man to protect the Shah.' ... Less than three months after the trip, on January 16, 1979, the Shah was driven from his country. I saw in the 'Washington Post' photos of the naked bodies of executed generals who had been our hosts, stretched out on morgue slabs. The Homofar class went over to the Shah's enemies. The Immortals had not fought to the last man. They had cracked like a crystal goblet on the first day of fighting. My suspicion of elites and show horse units deepened. Keep looking beneath surface appearances, I reminded myself, and don't shrink from doing so because you might not like what you find. In the end, in Iran, all our investment in an individual, rather than a country, came to naught. When the Shah fell, our Iran policy fell with him. All the billions we had spent there only exacerbated conditions and contributed to the rise of a fundamentalist regime implacably opposed to us to this day.

posted November 05, 2006 08:50 PM              

This is worth repeating:

quote:

---

In the end, in Iran, all our investment in an individual, rather than a country, came to naught. When the Shah fell, our Iran policy fell with him. All the billions we had spent there only exacerbated conditions and contributed to the rise of a fundamentalist regime implacably opposed to us to this day.

~ GENERAL COLIN POWELL

---

posted November 05, 2006 09:25 PM            

And weren't women only granted the right to vote in Iran until 1962 or 1963?

Doesn't seem very democratic to me. Sure, women's rights had nothing to do with removing him. We ALL know that. How big a difference does it make?

You know what? Nevermind.

Here's a lovely "butterfly ballet".