We read and hear every day what a trouble spot Iran is to America and the world.  "If only they would understand us" is one pet saying delivered with the shake of a head and a loud accompanying sigh.

A search through history, in this and other instances, reveals why Iran took the steps it did to bring it to its current chapter where the mainstream media engages in perpetual hand wringing over what is perceived as the policies of "crazies."

To those who have not studied the history of post-World War Two in Iran the idea of Iranians having their own functioning democracy existing under an elected popular leader can expect to be greeted with a dismaying stare and a comment of "Couldn't be!  We're not talking about the same country.  Not in Iran."

Understandably the mainstream media along with corporate giants, particularly in the global oil sphere, are not eager for the real history of Iran to be revealed.  It becomes embarrassing and downright disconcerting.

Mr. Hannity (Quoting Jeane J. Kirkpatrick): "'[The] Carter administration...actively collaborated in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to American interests with less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion.'" (p. 66)

My response: This statement typifies a biased Republican slant on history, which holds that Carter openly surrendered our national interests to foreign extremists, particularly to Iranian radical Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact, this incorrect yet ingenious claim exhibits a quadruple negative, propounding a lie within a lie within a lie within a lie.