Tom Brokaw took the occasion of the ceremonies attending the death of President Ford to take shots at the foreign policy of both Presidents Ford and Reagan. Speaking with Chris Matthews on MSNBC during the 6 PM ET hour, Brokaw observed:
"President Ford and Henry Kissinger, fairly I think you can say, were over-infatuated with the Shah of Iran. Iran was an important launching pad for the United States should a war with the Soviet Union break out. It was also the source of great oil [sic], but there was already at that time very strong evidence in Iran that there was an Islamic uprising that eventually overthrew the Shah of Iran."
The Shah fell largely because Jimmy Carter abandoned him. Is Brokaw saying the US should have jumped earlier on Ayatollah Khomenei's bandwagon?
Later, Brokaw was loath to recognize President Reagan's signal accomplishment. "The Cold War was at its peak in those days. Can you say, automatically, it worked to have a hard line against the Soviets, ultimately, when Ronald Reagan said it's an Evil Empire, "tear down this wall" and can you apply the same formulation to Islamic rage? I don't think so."
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have been wondering these l
December 30, 2006 - 18:50 ET by kathleenirishI have been wondering these last few months: What the hell happened to Tom Brokaw? Is it the water or something?
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Tom 'speak from his stomach'
December 30, 2006 - 19:02 ET by Andrew H.Tom 'speak from his stomach' Brokaw never impressed me as anything but another leaning liberal news reader. In my view he is simply more confused these days--more silly and more liberal.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
NBC should just leave the e
December 30, 2006 - 21:46 ET by PabloHoneyNBC should just leave the editorial comments to the pros. Broke-jaw is a moron and seriously left bent. I guess the MSM just keeps this up because the average Joe has no clue and no one calls the networks to task on such BS.
Brokaw: Ford 'Over-Infatuated' With Shah, Won't Say Reagan's Har
December 30, 2006 - 22:17 ET by CaliosEither Brokaw does not understand that though Ford did not lose a major ally in the struggle between Freedom-loving and Freedom-hating nations or he's FOR the side opposing the Freedom-loving USA like Ford's successor, Carter. I am amazed at how some can call themselves patriots or Americans and yet give an anounce of respect or courtesy toward those that wish and intend to destroy Western Civilization.
It's noteworthy that Reagan was able to somewhat overcome most of Carter's failures, but not reinstate the Shah and thus save us from a future and more dangerous foe to the USA (at the expense of some three thousand lives on 9/11/2001).
Sharing a tent with a snake means sharing the warmth and disturbing that peaceful arrangement could cost you dearly.
Brokaw is either intentionall
December 30, 2006 - 22:22 ET by GalvanicBrokaw is either intentionally rewriting history, or he's ignorant of it. Either case is abyssmal for a man who spent a career as a journalist covering these very events.
Brokaw needs to ask himself if Iran --- and the Persian Gulf region --- is better off with the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini, or would have been better off with the Shah. But he's too plastic to do any genuine analysis.
They have their lies they feed Galvanic
December 31, 2006 - 05:00 ET by SportPoliticsThey have their standard feed line lies all prepped up for republican bashing they have been delivering since 1979, that's 27 years of BS. They snowed me for most of those.
When you confront liberals with the truth, they have a problem since they've been living the lies for so long, it becomes "mean, offensive, and a personal attack upon them, " so any denial, redirect, or dismissal is neccessary for them to produce.
I am amazed at what gigantic lies they have concocted and dispersed with such utter precision and control of content, especially on this particular topic.
They are LIARS.
What Brokaw is saying
December 31, 2006 - 04:49 ET by SportPoliticsHe's saying he hates Ford and Kissinger, and they had a bad foreign policy, and he's sorry they ever represented anything in the USA, and they love murderous evil regimes, and propped one up, and he's glad one of them is gone and hopes they convict the other. That's what he's saying. I'm just sorry he didn't slip in a tear for Saddam, and mourn over the fact that his own personal strongman hero won't ever rule with an iron fist anymore, thanks to the "criminal George Bush he wants hanged", but he of course couldn't say that on the air.
Oh yeah, he's also saying the 59 million Iranians who drop to their prayer mats under the threat of a blade and beg for the return of life and times as it were under the Shah can go to ******' H E doubletoothpicks, because it's more important for Brokaw to be a lying left gasbag than it is to report on the wishes of 59 million people, just so Brokaw can slam away at the republicans again.
The shah fell because ordin
December 31, 2006 - 08:01 ET by sarcasmoThe shah fell because ordinary Iranians (rightly!) hated him. The first time foreign students in the USA had to wear masks when speaking to protest their own government was Iranians under the dictatorial rule of the Shah. He was as much of an asshole as Saddam was (and that's not the only similarity). It's not the responsibility of US taxpayers to support murderous dictatorial assholes, even if they have oil. I wish I could say more about it, but the situation in Iran for ordinary Iranians these days is very bad largely because of bipartisan stupidity.
JMR
Gasp, what a morning already. I agree with you Sarc.
December 31, 2006 - 08:44 ET by acaiguanaGasp, what a morning already. I agree with you Sarc.
People don't realize the context of Iran. And we screwed the pooch on that one pretty badly. But Carter was the key to losing the opportunity to fix Iran's relationship with the US and even its own people.
We had the opportunity to support people in Iran who would have been able to stand up to the Mullahs. We didn't.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
"I wish I could say more
December 31, 2006 - 10:11 ET by Galvanic"I wish I could say more about it, but the situation in Iran for ordinary Iranians these days is very bad largely because of bipartisan stupidity."
The current situation in Iran for ordinary Iranians these days is very bad largely because of Iranians. They have been in control of their own destiny since the ousting of the Shah 27 years ago.
I don't think so.
December 31, 2006 - 08:41 ET by acaiguanaI don't think so.
The Chinese never say "I don't think..."
It is illogical to them.
But Brokaw is more precise here.
One should complete his thought. "I don't think so." So, what? We already know you don't think.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
Dems, Soviet people, and Gorbachev had role
January 1, 2007 - 21:25 ET by americandudeThe fall of the Soviet Union was not primarily related to anything Reagan did. It was the Democratic Congress led by Tip O'Neil that penned the budgets allowing the military build up. It was the Soviet people under the leadership of Gorbachev who desired change. It was the Soviet government that relaxed communistic policies allowing winds of change. Reagan had a role but he was only part of the story.
Liberal revisionist history a
January 1, 2007 - 21:50 ET by BlondeLiberal revisionist history at work....in spades.
Sheesh.
Perhaps you can explain why o
January 2, 2007 - 01:24 ET by UnsanePerhaps you can explain why other Dem Senators and Representatives were working overtime to help the commies. You know, like Sen. Alan Cranston running for President on a nuclear freeze platform; Kennedy virtually begging the Soviets for help in dealing with Reagan (documented elsewhere on NB), or the gaggle of Dem Congresscritters who wrote a gushing letter in support of the Sandinista Marxist Daniel Ortega.
Before you respond, I recommend reading Mona Charen's Useful Idiots very carefully.
Oh, and since when were Soviet governments ever responsive to their people? History contradicts you. Gorbachev was selected on the KGB's recommendation, but only after going through what I like to call "The Morgue": Brezhnev (solo after Kosygin's death), Andropov, and Chernenko. None of these men, from what I understand of how the Soviet Union operated, were selected by the vote of the people. In fact, do you care to guess who found out Chernenko died first? Not Muscovites or Leningraders. Try everyone on earth but people within the Soviet Union.
I also recommend carefully reading both The Black Book of Communism and Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar. Apparently you are severely lacking in knowledge in how the Soviet Union operated.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)