Answers to Sean Hannity, No. 11

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.
Fourth and finally, the broad generic term "American interests" as used by Hannity and Kirkpatrick is misleading. In reference to the Shah's time, "American interests" actually meant American corporate interests; in reference to today, it means American mega-corporate interests. Wealthy and grasping entrepreneurs have been exerting a steadily stronger influence over US foreign policy--and, in the process, growing fantastically wealthier--ever since CIA agents handed the Shah his throne in 1953. Now with our seemingly unbreakable alliance with Israel, a long-range "War on Terrorism," the unending war in Iraq, and threats to Iran, neoconservatives have finalized the process of merging mega-corporate interests and the national interest smoothly into one in the public mind.
But no two interests could possibly be so different. The real, true American national interest is guided by religion and morality, the two pillars of our Republic as George Washington put it--and within those pillars, the proper definition of this interest is whatever benefits the common good of Americans and promotes the freedom of all peoples of the world equally, without exception.
KEYWORDS: Republican, autocrat, Jimmy Carter, Iran, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, liberty, national interest, corporate, CIA, Israel, Iraq, War on Terrorism
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < George Bush's Destruction of the Dollar | The Nightmare That Continues > |



