POST SCRIPTS

Well, "serious" is nice, but smart is better. I'll still take a crafty womanizer over a dim-witted Bible-thumper.

Would you look at the mess that very serious dim-wit has made.

Which womanizer is Libby talking about? Jack Kennedy? Didn't we almost have WWIII during his tenure? Which dimwit is she talking about? Carter? Who ruined our economy and caused us universal disrespect in the Middle East which we still pay for.

Libby, Any woman who thinks a "crafty womanizer" is smart is a dim bulb. Especially when considering this man who signed legislation making even "talking" in a suggestive way to an underling a criminal act. Fawning by "feminists" in these circumstances was downright ignorant and showed them up for the nasty lying witches they are. Talk about a mess.

Your ability to see the root cause of whatever "mess" there is is equaled only by your ability to determine what constitutes "smart".

Ron: "Which womanizer is Libby talking about? Jack Kennedy? Didn't we almost have WWIII during his tenure?"

No, we didn't. Beause he did not fly off half cocked during the Cuban Missle Crisis. He kept his crafty head and got us through unscathed. Would that the dim-wit could make the same claim for his response to 9/11. What a bloody mess~!

Ron: Which dimwit is she talking about? Carter? Who ruined our economy and caused us universal disrespect in the Middle East which we still pay for.

Carter, a womanizer? I don't think so. For all his religious scruples, "lusting in yer heart" don't count. And as to the Middle East, I'll have you know that it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who colluded in the overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran (who had the audacity to nationalize Iranian oil !! You watch yer back, Mr. Chavez !!), and start us down the merry road to the Iranian Revolution. Which would make Dwight and the Shrub all dimwitted together.

Jimmy was too busy counting peanuts or something and meanwhile, how long were those Americans held hostage? Talk about a mess!

UPI Compix/EB Inc.

Within Iran, Mosaddeq's social democratic policies, as well as the growth of the communist Tudeh Party, weakened the always-tenuous support of his few allies among Iran's religious class, whose ability to generate public support was important to Mosaddeq's government. In August 1953, following a round of political skirmishing, Mosaddeq's quarrels with the shah came to a head, and the Iranian monarch fled the country. Almost immediately, despite still-strong public support, the Mosaddeq government buckled during a coup funded by the CIA. Within a week of his departure, Mohammad Reza Shah returned to Iran and appointed a new prime minister.

Mosaddeq 's "policies' and the "communist Tudeh Party" weakened his "always tenuous support" from his "few allies among Iran's religious class"...I dunno, Libby, sounds like there was a lot going on in the country even without the CIA. Why would the Shah need to flee the country, for instance, it couldn't be because he feared for his own life.

Eisenhower was such a meany...From the Sep. 14, 1953 issue of TIME magazine:

To President Eisenhower went a personal plea from Iran's new Premier, Fazlol-lah Zahedi: "Iran needs immediate financial aid to enable it to emerge from a state of economic chaos." Back went the President's reply: "We stand ready to assist you." Early one night last week, U.S. Ambassador Loy Henderson trudged the stairs to the third floor of Iran's rambling Foreign Office, where Premier Zahedi and his Cabinet awaited him, to keep his Government's promise. He handed over a second letter from Ike, which tendered $45 million in emergency aid to Iran.

And also, (Eisenhower's)Address to the Members of the Parliament of Iran
December 14th, 1959

The message I bring from America is this: "We want to work with you for peace and friendship, in freedom." I emphasize freedom-because without it there can be neither true peace nor lasting friendship among peoples.
All of us realize that while we must, at whatever cost, make freedom secure from any aggression, we could still lose freedom should we fail to cooperate in progress toward achieving the basic aspirations of humanity. The world struggle in which we are engaged is many sided. In one aspect it is ideological, political, and military; in others it is both spiritual and economic.
As I well know, you, and the people of Iran, are not standing on the sidelines in this struggle.
Without flinching, you have borne the force of a powerful propaganda assault, at the same time that you have been working at improving the living standards in your nation.

I imagine all of these historical events are more complicated than either of us is qualified to argue since experts would disagree but, you have once again revealed your true colors with respect to loyalty and support for the democratic republic that has given you freedom to speak your mind. I'm sure Mr. Chavez is grateful for your support.