An advance team for the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked earlier this month that he be allowed to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site during the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week, but the request was denied, New York City police officials said today. City Room has the story.
Mitt Romney, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani each issued a statement denouncing Mr. Ahmadinejad’s request:
Mr. Romney:
Ahmadinejad’s shockingly audacious request should be met with a vehement no. It’s inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero. This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him.
Senator Clinton:
It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.
Mr. Giuliani:
Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring Bin Laden’s son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.
From 1 to 100 of 114 Comments
No way!
The place is sacred, and this dude should not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.
It’s bad enough that the place is constantly accessed by droves of NYC’s leftist conspiracy theorist anti-American clowns parading themselves as Democrats.
This is not my Father’s Democratic Party, no sir.
— Ronnie - NJJFK would’ve had missiles aimed at Tehran already, missiles a la Cuba!
It’s amusing to read the keenness of all United States adversaries to participate in ‘election process’ of the next President.Osama did his bit throught the recent tapes and now Ahmedinejad attempt to visit ground zero .Hopefully Hugo Chavez will act soon.
— Arun MehtaI’m so glad to hear that someone loves America enough to say NO to this terrorist! I just wish they could keep him out of our wonderful country!
— Vangie FichVangie Fich, Arizona
In a world of reason and international diplomacy, there is no reason Ahmadinejad should not be invited to visit Ground Zero. If he makes a fool of himself, the world can see what he is; if not — he might actually be changed by the experience.
— Richard LyonsI say let him. I’m proud to be an American and Mitt Romney certainly doesn’t speak for me.
I don’t normally comment on news items but this item really piques my curiosity. Why would his delegation make such a request? Is this the catalyst for some future warming of relations between our two countries? If so, I’m all for it and at a minimum would like to see what this could lead to.
To snub the Iranian President at this point in time does not show our resolve — it merely reveals our own insecurities.
— effodeeThis is ridiculous!!! How can it be a bad thing to let a leader from the Muslim world do something that acknowledges the tragedy of 9-11? If anything he should be welcomed! Denying him this as a political statement degrades 9-11 into a political tool. Even if Ahmadinejad is using it as a way to look stately it serves our purpose to have the Muslims of the world see us as humans not super villains.
— Travis TThe fact of the matter is this, IRAN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11 but then, neither did Iraq.
— lois wiedmerEven if you wanted to bomb Iran next week, Romney should want us engaged in diplomacy with Iran today. Talk about indicting Ahmadinejad doesn’t seem too interested in diplomacy.
Would that be a legally binding indictment, or just a rhetorical indictment? We should be clear because there are people in your party who seem eager to declare war on Iran, for real, not rhetorically.
Choose your words carefully Mr. Romney. I don’t think that is asking too much since neither you nor any of your five sons will be doing any of the fighting you seem ready to provoke.
Sad commentary that this man is a contender for the Republican nomination.
— bcdavisWhat are we afraid of? What are we supposedly fighting for–FREEDOM? I thought we were bigger than that.
Why can’t we handle it if this guy visits a site, no matter how sacred? This is the kind of pissing contest his country might participate in: “You can’t visit this shrine because my people can’t visit that other one over there nah nah nah nah boo boo!”
— delworthioIt’s good that Ahmadinejad is willing to see with his own eyes the sight of atrocities. But perhaps he should start with, say, Auschwitz?
— Erica HensonNO! Absolutely NOT! This would be an insult to those who lost their lives at Ground Zero,their families and ALL Americans. How dare him to even ask!
— marilou malletSince when did I ask Mitt Romney, a Mormon Bishop, to speak for me? I think it’s audacious for him to speak for all Americans when the majority of us are seeking peace and better relations with Iran. He needs to cut back on thee theatrical pancake make-up and stop pretending to be our current president.
— Greg GregoryGive me a break.
The situation in Iran is pretty intense - and the first gesture of sincerity from Ahmedinejad gets slapped away.
It’s stomach ache inducing to hear some of our presidential candidate’s childish reactions. “Terror” is a ridiculous label that the American people tag anything they don’t understand or anything that conflicts with our military agenda.
Iran may have individual non-government funded third party groups moving arms across the border into Iraq, I understand that. Theres not much they can do. It’s the common public ideology that the coalition occupants need to be ousted. Do you think Ahmadinejad is going to denounce his own people because of it?
I don’t think so.
Stop beating the dead horse and let the man exercise his humanity.
— Garrett DeRoseA rare opportunity to explore a possible thaw in relations; maybe open up a dialog with the Middle East on the devastating effects of terror? Naw… Why bother. Besides, what a spectacular chance all the candidates have to prove how strong they are on national security. Personally, I’m predicting unanimous statements of “shock and outrage” from the Republican ranks and probably 7 of 8 from the Democrats. And besides, what does it really matter that Iran had nothing to do with the attack, and even helped us in Afghanistan, until we labeled them as part of the “Axis of Evil”. Saber rattling is so more fun and interesting that diplomacy, isn’t it?
— WTFWhy is it that so many folks keep wanting to paint everyone in the Middle East with the same brush - except the Saudis, that is.
— Ken LawrenceSaudis under the leadership of Al Quaeda’s Osama bin Laden attack and destroy targets in the U.S. In retaliation, we attack Afghanistan because the Talian protected Al Quaeda. And that still makes sense to a degree. But then we toss in a full scale war with Iraq that had nothing to do with it, leave the Saudis entirely out of the picture and are now threatening Iran.
If things can be done incorrectly, foolishly, and with reckless disregard, then we can most certainly rely on Mr. Bush to do so. A pity he didn’t fly that way in the Guard, but then again, Lt. Bush was so seldom seen, one hardly knows if he showed up then either.
“News Flash”! Most of the world thinks of the United States as the bigger “threat of terriosim” than Amadinejad.
— Jim ScancellaI’m glad to see that candidates from both parties agree that this would be a bad idea. Obviously Iran (and Iraq) had very little to do with the attacks of September 11 but given our current relationship with Iran giving Ahmadinejad a photo op at ground zero is bound to come back to haunt us for years to come in anti-American propoganda. Why would we let him have the opportunity to make us look foolish or to gloat over our misfortunes?
— Claywell they let president bu$h desecrate ground zero with his presence, didnt they. even if iran is actually engaged in terrorism in any way, which is debatable, letting such a foreign head of state visit wouldnt be quite as bad
— peabody3000Let him.
Let anyone who wants to show honor and respect for our victims do so. It may be a step in bridging our nations.
Is laying a wreath disrespectful? Is this a ploy to use the victims as political currency as our “leaders” currently do…
Remember, the U.S. has done a great amount of harm DIRECTLY to their nation. The peace must start somewhere and somehow.
— taiHe wanted to visit the site as a propaganda/publicity stunt. It was the right call not to let him visit Ground Zero.
— Brettso what if he wants to visit groung zero, he reached out to the idiot we have in white house several times to normilize relationship between the two countries but…..dialog is the only way forward, lets stop being so Arrogant it’s not making us any safer, yes and Mitt Romney needs to shut up.
— Y IIs it any wonder that most of the world has disdain for the US? Deadliest terror attack on US soil? Obviously, Mrs. Clinton forgets the massacres of Native Americans.
— DGGMore people have died directly and indirectly as a result of US involvement abroad than as a result of the actions of any other country, period. WE HAVE NO MORAL HIGH GROUND.
Funny - after months of making threats to Iran, today we condemn them for threatening Israel with retaliation should Israel attack them first. Does no one else see the irony??
Are our leaders truly seeking peace? (whichever way it is achieved) or do they love to have these ‘bad’ guys that they can point at so that we are distracted .What happens if these bad guys did not preoccupy our daily thoughts? Maybe we would be then look at what our leaders are really doing for us.
— brianThis is politics at its best (or worst) from the politicians of both countries.
It seems that what we should be doing is showing Iran that we are not their enemy, nor are we the enemy of Islam. For a nation that touts its religious freedom, we should be trying to spread it, not hinder it. We may have our differences with Iran, but we have had disagreements with other nations and coped with them. Let’s not shut the door on the possibility of improving relations with any foreign country with whom we may disagree.
— Wes AldersonThis was obviously a sign of good faith by the Iranian leader. I think we can see that the propaganda machine is working almost too well- people on this board are already labeling him terrorist! A potential target of American aggression! We don’t even need a Gulf of Tonkin incident to offer up our support to attack his country, and more importantly the people in that country. These political candidates make me sick- already they are telling us that it will be business as usual in Washington- intolerance, lies, and global imperialism in the name of the ‘war on terror’.
— DaveNeither reason nor international dilomacy justify anything but telling Ahmadinejad to go stuff it. The poster-thug of a theocratic autocracy which actively engages terrorist enemies of the United States deserves nothing but spite.
Mitt Romney doesn’t speak for me, and neither does Hilary Clinton. But those who jump at every chance to appease the truly despicable succeed only in legitimizing the worst.
— Michael KorcokAs a conservative who has always voted Republican and voted for Bush - twice - I also recognize the sheer stupidity of the current Republican strategy of waging war and the dishonesty of turning everything into propaganda. I definitely agree we should let Ahmadinejad visit 9/11 and welcome the diplomacy. This isn’t about some warm and fluffy liberal “Can’t we all just love each other” perspective - this is about common sense and how international affairs work. Being Jewish, I also see both sides of the equation and recognize why Ahmadinejad rattles his sword so often - there’s a tremendous frustration in the Middle East toward the US and Israel - and it’s justified. At some point everyone gets tired of being bullied - hence you have nut cases like Osama who gain power and get support for committing unthinkable acts like 9/11. Despite all the propaganda - Ahmadinejad isn’t the problem, US foreign policy is. Let him go to Ground Zero - I know it won’t happen, since that would clearly humanize Ahmadinejad when the current administration and US politicians in general would rather demonize him and make him the enemy when we’re the ones creating an atmosphere of war, but if we did let him go, it would be the first common sense move made in regards to middle eastern foreign policy since 9/11.
— JewishNotExtremistI say as soon as we have control of the oil we are after. We should just claim Iraq in the name of Jesus. Thats what true Christains would do. And then set our sites on the Bastard cousin of Iraq. Yes Iran itself, and after torturing,killing,and enslaving all those who choose not to convert, turn them both in to high class posh resorts for the Mega Rich. And then hold a who has the bigger Yacht contest. So that I can win it. Also if wasnt for King George Senior 9-11 would not have even happend, the same with Slick Willy. So let him put a wreath at ground zero. I mean we have leveled entire cities and they still let us into those countries. Right? It not like everyone the U.S. kills is a criminal. Unless being a women or child is a crime. Maybe it should be. So when civilians die they wont be considered innocent. Whos with me!!!!?
— Savage Henry“….politicians in general would rather demonize ”
American politicians are demonizing a person who himself says that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world and the Holocaust never happened?
I think he did the right thing my putting the two liberals who went to ‘build relationships’ with Iran into jail. And then all the shameless liberals hung on to the coat-tails of the rest of the country to get those two released.
I would have asked what Koolaid you people drink but then again, why abuse Koolaid?
— SandyAhmadinejad at Ground Zero ?
Get ready to meet Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, a very good friend of Ahmadinejad. He will be in NY next week at UN, and just about a month ago Daniel Ortega said ” the terrorits attact in the twin tower of NY where insingnifican ” and then he goes blaming the USA for all the wars on the world. What are U guys waiting to declare him NON-Welcomen in NY>
— Isidro R. ZapataDear Mr Korcok re: post 26
I do not disagree with you. The comments and threats he’s made towards Israel, and Jewish people in general, ARE truly despicable.
But here we now learn he wishes to pay his respects to our fellow countrymen that have been killed at the hands of Islamist terrorists. He desires to show his respect to our fellow Americans. Imagine that! The leader of one of the greatest Muslim nations in the world wishes to pay his respects to some fallen infidels and all the leaders of The Great Satan want to do is deride him and rebuff his overture.
Well, maybe such a gesture could go a long way in telling his fellow Muslims that we really aren’t all that evil. They might even be more open to the idea that most of us are actually quite nice to know. In any event, at this point in time he could be denied access to the site but he’s already gotten the upper hand simply by making the request. What I’m trying to say is that whatever objective he may have had in mind has already been accomplished, whether he visits or not. Now it’s up to us to decide how we can profit from this opportunity or toss it away as he can now walk away without saying one more thing and claim he tried to do the the right thing.
— effodeeThe responses I read here are typical of why I live in fear of the bleeding left running this country.
First of all, this guy doesn’t speak for the Muslim community in his country. He’s a secular nut job.
Second, do any of you remember the absurd things this guy spewed during his diatribe at the UN? Any action that any government agency in this country would take to lend any legitimacy to this whacko would be absolutely insane.
It’s one thing to extend a hand when one is offered by a sane and reasonable person, even if you disagree. But you never put your hand in the face of a mad dog, and that’s all this guy is.
As an aside, I love how some of the posters above used this issue as a forum to vent their feelings about our current president. I don’t recall him being quoted in the article. In fact, he wasn’t even mentioned. The childish, churlish venom never stops.
And it was also interesting to see that most of you who took exception to keeping this wild animal away from Ground Zero seem to fixate on Romney. As I see it, Ms. Clinton’s and Mr. Guliani’s feelings about the issue seemed just as strong.
But you seemed to avoid attacking your idealogical queen (although her main ideology seems to be the same as her husband: getting elected) and the NY folk hero.
— LunacyI’m disgusted by the unchristian and nasty reaction to his request. Could it be this man feels guilty 911 was done in the name if islam. Give him a chance to pay his respects if he wants to.
Ahmadinejad has been brainwashed in Iran all his life and he seems to be coming out of his shell and growing as a person ! Let Him !
— MEIt is just so odd to see such resistance for a visit of a leader whose nation had nothing to do with horrific 911 event.
Mitt’s and likes reactions have nothing to do with it being right or wrong to visit. Politicians and lobbies use this just as they used and hijacked the 911 event for their own purposes.
In fact, the most offending to sensibilities of the nation are comments from politicians and lobbies who send none of their own children to war, care the least for the consequences of their broken policies, and lobby for the policies of another particular middle eastern country.
— GaryDear Lunacy re: post #32
Can’t speak for anyone else but when I made my first post (#5) and commented on Gov. Romney, his was the only quote to be found within the article. It appears it has been updated with the latter quotes as they are being made elsewhere but my feelings are no different towards the comments made by Sen. Clinton and Mr Giuliani as I feel all three of them are being shortsighted.
— effodeeIf he wants to lay a wreath, why not let him? There go our presidential hopefuls picking fights with him instead of worrying about diplomacy.
— PhilipI don’t see the wisdom in denying his request. I see fearmongering, pandering, and politicians claiming ownership of Ground Zero for their own political gain.
— FredWe can actually allow him to come and make a joke out of us. Iran has played with the UN, US and EU. We keep believing their obvious lies. Why not just pretend we are stupid as always and let him come and play his new game.
— LucyIf any of you have actually read the article, they refused to allow him to visit ground zero because of security issues. This makes sense. If they had allowed him, all of New York would have been in protest and someone could have gotten hurt. Regardless of your position on the event, I do not think that you can point fingers at the NYPD and yell at them for not allowing him to visit Ground Zero. They had a good reason for saying no.
— DavidAhmadinejad should be welcomed to the site to pay respects !!
The poor brianwashed Iranian man is just starting to see the light !!
— samiThe wreath would be praising the martyrdom of the terrorists.
— World Trade CenterI am amazed at how these presidential hopefuls react to any chance they get to show how ‘tough’ they are…such morons - if anything, they should let the Iranian President see the sight…may be he is just trying to show that he is not as ignorant/vile as his American counterpart and/or he just wants to display some civility. I don’t think he plans on mocking that site so I really don’t see why he will not be allowed to see it…
— NabeelSoon as he sets foot in the US, arrest him and never let him see the light of day again.
— MAD AS HELLWhy is Iran our enemy? I challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate reason that is based in fact and not merely propaganda-based rhetoric.
Let me start by dispelling a few myths:
Myth #1: Israel - Wiped off the map?
The propaganda hit it’s peak with the corporate media firestorm over Iranian President Ahmadinejad allegedly saying, “Israel must be wiped off the map,” which, it turns out was conveniently mistranslated in the U.S. and Israel. What he actually said, which was barely reported after the fact, was “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of history”. Much different. It was clearly a shot at the current Israeli leadership and its illegal and immoral OCCUPATION of Palestinian territory, not the civilian population. Never mind the enormous Jewish population living peacefully in Iran.
Myth #2: Iran’s nuclear weapons program
ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran.
Mohamed ElBaradei: “I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran, we have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So, I haven’t heard any other information, to the contrary. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program… I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy.”
Myth #3: Foreign fighters?
General Petreus to Congress on 9/11/07, “The Quds Force itself, we believe, by and large those individuals have been pulled out of the country, as have the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that were being used to augment that activity.”
In fact, by the Pentagon’s own admission, less than 6% of all attacks against American soldiers in Iraq are from “foreign fighters” and the majority of those foreign fighters are from Saudi Arabia.
Anyone? Why, exactly, is Iran our enemy? Because our neo-con, warmongering leadership (hell-bent on invading Iran to install a puppet regime who will cater to our multi-national corporations) says so?
Any REAL reasons?
— Thomas NYCThere are several ways of dealing with Iran. Becoming an indispensable economic partner sounds like the best way.
Being belligerent just reveals fear. Are we really that afraid of Iran or are we just afraid to look at ourselves. l cannot say. But I can say that open, honest discourse is the better place to start, a place that gets farther and farther away with each juvenile remark uttered by our would-be leaders.
Have we never sponsored terrorism? Right. We call it something different. Semantics.
— Johnny DillFirst of all Iran had nothing to do with 9/11!
And neither did Iraq!
Most of the hijackers were Saudis as well as Osama Bin Laden is Saudi, however, we have not broken diplomatic relations with them, nor have we invaded them, or threatened sanctions.
And the enlightened American public swallows this fable hook line and sinker. Can anyone explain how?
Go figure…
— RomuloI propose a trade. If Ahmadinejad agrees to abandon his pursuit of weapons-grade “nuclear power”, then we let him place a wreath at Ground Zero. How’s that for diplomacy? If the pot isn’t sweet enough for him, we can throw in visits to Bunker Hill, Wounded Knee, Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor.
And if he wants to visit Auschwitz, maybe we’ll put in a good word with Germany.
— The NegotiatorIs it a surprise that HRC is mouthing the same comments as Rudy and Romney?
We certainly expect if from Rudy and Romney, but….
Reality check!
— RomuloTo his this is just a PR ploy.
To us this presents a moral dilemma: are all human beings equal before God? If yes, don’t the victims of 9/11 deserve prayers from all people regardless of their political stance? Couldn’t he pray without being near the site? If yes, why should we give him the PR opportunity?
We have to do some cold cost/benefit analysis here: if we allow him he wins hearts in minds of many politically unsavvy people throughout the world and some American liberals. If we don’t allow him, we look like insecure morons to the rest of the world, but we will have protected the honor and memory of the 9/11 victims as perceived by many American people mostly conservatives.
Lastly, does allowing him to lay a wreath at the WTC Memorial help improve the two nations’ relationship? Probably not during the Bush Administration.
Therefore, we have no advantage in letting Ahmdinejad visit the WTC Memorial.
I like the above suggestion from No. 10 Erica Henson a lot: It’s good that Ahmadinejad is willing to see with his own eyes the sight of atrocities. But perhaps he should start with, say, Auschwitz?
Why didn’t Hillary think of that?
— Shohmurod USbekAhmadinejad’s visit, if allowed, to the the Trade Center would probably be a logistical security problem. However, I don’t think that he should be kept from the site for the reasons asserted by Rudy, Hillary, or Mitt. I wish these clowns would button it up for once. Iran had nothing to do with the disaster of 9/11….nor did Iraq. Saudi Arabia certainly did though.
As for Iran exporting terrorists, how do we answer for ourselves? Many people in the ME and in other places consider the US to be a very dangerous country. Many view our actions of invading Iraq, decimating their population, destroying that country’s infrastructure and economy, as well as their educational system (one of the least repressive systems toward women in all of the ME) as terrorist acts. How is it acceptable for this nation to do exactly what we condemn others for doing? Can anyone answer that question?
I am cynical enough to believe that Amadinehad’s request to lay a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center was the worst news Dick Cheney heard all day. The neocons want to continue demonizing this guy, who is admittedly unstable, and they do not want him to appear as anything but a monster. It’s harder to kill someone, or a huge number of innocent people once you have given them a face or a name. This is the ultimate nightmare for the neocons in Cheney’s office. Keep Iranians painted as the evil ones. Keep the progaganda coming full blast. Why? Because these nutjob neocons have already planned an attack on Iran. They want to kill innocent Iranians and they want American citizens to believe that it is for a good and just cause. These are very sick and dangerous people. They are the terrorists that they continue to condemn and they must be stopped at all costs.
— Peter G.Why don’t we ever learn from the past?
Ahmadinejad is a loudmouth, yes, but in this context he represents the country of Iran.
That’s 70 million people, the majority of which don’t like him - by the way.
Whatever his intentions behind the request are, to prevent him from making a symbolic gesture
only strengthens his position.
Look what happened to Fidel, another loudmouth we’ve tried to silence for so long.
— philStill in power, 48 yrs later.
Thomas NYC #44
— AHJEnough already with your long winded left wing lunacy. ENOUGH. Stop defending these anti American rogue dictators and their oppressive countries. Or just leave here and set up residence in one of those lovely countries.
Stop defending tyrants. Stop belittling your country.
In every thread it’s the same nonsense from you.
BORING.
Thomas NYC @44: Thanks for the information in this post. Could you tell me where/when ElBaradei said this? It seems he has learned his lesson from March 2003 very well. Have we?
***********************
*February 4, 2003- “ the Bush administration finally forwarded electronic copies of the Niger documents to the I.A.E.A. Astonishingly, a note was attached to the documents which said, “We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.”” (A) (C) (SSIC report) The IAEA “told me that they did not even know the papers existed until early February of this year, a few days after the President’s speech. The I.A.E.A. had been asking Washington and London for their evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of African uranium, without receiving any response, ever since the previous September, when word of it turned up in the British dossier.” (D)
*February 5, 2003-Libby phones Wilkerson to try to convince Powell to put Prague connection back in his UN speech, but Wilkerson doesn’t take the call. (Vanity Fair, May 2004). Powell says he was not warned that he was using material that both the DIA and CIA had determined was false. [!!!!!] (LA Times, November 20, 2005) (C)
*February 14, 2003-”We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq. However…a number of issues are still under investigation and we are not yet in a position to reach a conclusion about them.” Text of El Baradai’s UN Report http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/iraq/main540690.shtml
*March 7, 2003-UN weapons inspector Blix reports on progress of inspections, citing more cooperation and asking for more time. He had found “no evidence” of mobile biological production facilities. (C)
*March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” (Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq… , March 2003)(B)(D)
*March 2003- Cheney on Meet the Press: said that “the I.A.E.A. was wrong, that it had “consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing.” He added, “We know [Saddam] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (A)
*March 14, 2003- “Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to F.B.I. chief Robert Mueller asking for an investigation because “the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” But Senator Pat Roberts, of Kansas, the Republican chair of the committee, declined to co-sign the letter.” (A)(C)
*March 17, 2003- “…late last night…I was advised by the United States government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad.” - Mohamed ElBaradei “Inspectors had been in Iraq since November 2002. They remained until U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered their evacuation on March 17, 2003, just three days before U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/third_time_round_for_gop_hopefuls.html
*March 17, 2003-Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca) sends letter to Bush expressing doubts about administrations characterization of Iraq’s nuclear capability and the threat it poses. (C)
*March 19, 2003 – President Bush announces the start of the Iraq war in a televised address, saying it is “to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (Bush, “Addresses the Nation”)
— Fran N.**************************
(A) The War They Wanted, They Lies They Needed http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/07/yellowcake200607
(B) “The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game”
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
(C) What the White House Knew and When It Knew It: Time Lines of the Selling of the War http://frankrich.com/timeline.htm
(D) The Stovepipe, by Seymour M. Hersh, October 2003
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/03 [...]
Diplomacy, in times of crisis comes in strange forms. The United States despite its failings is a nation with a tremendous amount of potential. This potential cannot be better expressed than by its magnanimity in allowing Mr. Ahmadinejad to lay the wreath of peace and diplomacy. I believe those who fell on September 11th 2001 will not want their legacy tarnished and obfuscated by our inability to move on ahead to a peaceful future for our progeny.
Pradeep
— pradeepI have to agree with Thomas on Myth #1. I don’t agree with him on Myth #2 - I think he likely is developing nukes, but I can certainly understand why - when you have the US and Israel constantly provoking everyone in the area (prior to ‘48 for Israel - how easily history is forgotten) with no regard to the principles the US holds so high, why is it a suprise that any one of these countries wants to finally even the playing field - this frustration and hatred of the US comes from a total lack of diplomacy and sheer arrogance and certainly has nothing to do with “Freedom”.
I’m conservative, but that doesn’t mean I believe in supporting lies and propaganda - despite what other flag waving conservatives may constantly express (as demonstrated in the posts above). I’m constantly amazed at how intelligent people allow themselves to rationalize and be taken by such obvious and childish propaganda - this applies to both liberals and conservatives.
— JewishNotExtremistAHJ (#52):
Provide the proof that refutes my points and I’ll gladly stop posting. Problem is, you can’t.
The truth hurts sometimes.
One thing you need to realize is dissent is the greatest form of patriotism. Marching in lockstep with the criminal activities of your government isn’t.
So continue to call me unpatriotic, or anti-American, or accuse me of taking sides with our enemies and all of that nonsense. It’s a compliment. It tells me I’m doing my part as a good citizen; respecting the true principles of democracy.
I love my country enough to fight those who disgrace it’s sacred principles.
Tell me…..why is Iran our enemy? Facts only, please.
— Thomas NYCTo #55:
Myth number 2 is based on the fact that their isn’t an iota of proof that anyone can produce that points to Iran developing nuclear weapons. But your point is well taken.
Why would Iran want a nuclear arsenal, if indeed they do? What would be the reason? The answer is simple and can be found by taking a comparative look at how the U.S. government handled two of the three members of the “axis of evil”.
North Korea has a modest nuclear arsenal and therefore will not be attacked by the United States. Instead, we are forced to deal with North Korea through diplomatic means. Iraq had no such deterrent, and therefore was attacked as a first resort. What lesson did this teach Iran? What lesson did it teach the rest of the world? The United States, the leading Rogue State on the planet earth, perhaps in human history, will attack wherever and whenever they see a potential threat, real or imagined, unless there is a nuclear deterrent. Essentially, George Bush’s unilateral, illegal invasion has basically told the world to acquire nuclear weapons, or else face the consequences. Would you blame Iran for wanting a nuclear deterrent under this scenario? Should they be punished for a situation that WE created?
But again, it’s all speculation, as there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
— Thomas NYCIt’s strange how people can draw so many delusional conclusions from fear and ignorance. What is gained with the denial of something like a request to visit a place of historic and tragic loss? Nothing is the only answer, unless one considers false pride and sees humility as a weakness. Who cares what his motives are it is a positive gesture none the less. Only he would ever look bad in this situation yet now we as americans do to the rest of the world but what else is new. Let me know when this train of thought actually starts working on a public diplomatic level. Sometimes this uber-patriotic garble is just plain tired.
— erikdSo the president of Iran can’t lay a wreath at the WTC. Hey, maybe then he can just visit downtown New York? No? And that would be because… because… because why? You know why. Who owns New York? How embarrassing for the vast majority of New Yorkers, that their elected leaders should behave in such a puerile fashion. It really is quite disgusting. But sadly not that surprising.
— F. Bernadoottecheney could invite himto go
— PHILhunting with him.
oops what happened?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
— Benjamin FranklinAHJ,
Before you label Ahmadinejad or anyone else here why don’t you read the article below and tell me if you can blame a leader of any country for not wanting US near or within its borders?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?ref=middleeast
— skDear Americans,
You should let this Mr. Ahmadinejah in to see your ground zero. Once he is there you should chain him to a post and let him rot. He only wishes to witness first hand the suffering that his fellow sociopathic muslims have brought on to you. He will breathe in your air and feel a great sense of pride in the muslim accomplishment. His self satisfaction surpassed only by his contempt for your way of life. For those of you who would allow such an insult to your country, SHAME! You are despicable and might as well openly offer your services to Bin Ladin and company.
— wilawan trachooAmerican warmongers never back off.
We’re going to have another Great Depression from enabling these jerks.
— Steve BolgerIf Mahmoud wants to do something nice, he can have delivered a nice wreath with a nice, brief condolence note that isn’t preachy. Duh.
— corinneIt’s a public place in a free country.
Given the disinformation cited in the Israel quote attributed to Ahmadinejad; given the fact that so many of us have not a clue as to who he really is; and given the variance here that he is someone either bent on our distruction or something much less — we should extend the invitation, provide the security, let him speak through his own translators and get him on the record.
But instead the offical response is negative in the extreme as characterized by Mitt Romney’s comments.
I am more offended by the reality that for 20 minutes after the FAA made it known the second plane was enroute to the WTC, no word was able to reach ground zero and indeed people were told by officials to go BACK into the 2nd building. So where’s the outrage there?
And to those critics of Thomas NYC, yes bring the facts. I want your facts too as one who served 21+ years.
And no, we are not going anywhere because some of you want to suppress others’ right to ask difficult questions and denounce inhumane behavior which in point of fact has been perpetrated by people who have made their way into positions of power in this US government.
It’s a difficult and complex situation being a citizen of country with the reach of this USA. Let’s stay civil and do our level best to learn what is really going in our world.
We are at the same time humanity’s best hope and perpetrator of some bad misdeeds. The invasion of Iraq under pretext with real questions now of oil, extended occupation, weapons deals well into the billions, and a Middle Eastern arms race fueled and supplied in large part by the US should be giving people pause.
— bcdavisWhy not use Ahmadinejad’s apparent interest in paying his respect to open diplomatic channels with Iran? You don’t have to let him visit the site of the World Trade Center yet, but you could easily start talks with him, and maybe avert the impending Iran invasion. Who knows, maybe we could coerce the guy to denounce terrorism (economic carrot & stick anyone?), and gain a new ally in our war of terror, like Pervez Mussharaf and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (the irony there being that both either support or enable terrorism in their own countries, yet are our allies for some strange reason).
By flatly refusing his request, Ahmadinejad gets to go back to his people and say that the American people hate Muslims and Iranians because we refused a simple, respectful gesture.
— AdamDear trachoo at post 63: Why do you continue to post such despicable thoughts? The hate that pours from your posts is really rather slimy, and frankly neither welcome nor conducive to civil discourse. Please refrain from commenting unless and until you can do so with insight and respect. Otherwise please go back to your seat at once, do not speak without raising your hand first, and remain quietly in your bunker-mentality state.. See, we have laws in our country that would make it impossible to arrest any person and chain that individual to a post for the purpose of rotting in public. Nasty business, one would think.
Post @33: ME, I agree with you that it seems unchristian and unnecessarily rigid to be making political fodder with a request to lay a wreath. However, your comments, “Could it be this man feels guilty 911 was done in the name if islam. Give him a chance to pay his respects if he wants to.” is incorrect. The attack on the World Trade Center wasn’t done in the name of Islam, rather it was planned and carried out by a bunch of Saudi radicals led by bin Laden. Emphasis on Saudis…not to be confused with Iraqis or Iranians.
The attack was launched because of US foreign policies in the ME, most notably our unconditional support for Israel “right or wrong” AND our military/political presence in the Saudi peninsula and near the Holy Sites of Islam. There is a lot of historical information and documentation to back this up…..perhaps you could spend a little time and research it. It is fascinating and sheds light on what has caused the present climate of hate and fear…but mostly, it shows that this situation will not change or be mitigated or resolved unless all parties, including the US, decide to use diplomacy, honest dialogue, and reason instead of military force.
I can’t understand how or why it would be ‘treasonous’ or disrespectful to allow a foreign government leader (even one we don’t particularly like) to lay a wreath. If anyone were to benefit from this gesture, it would surely be the US…..being magnanimous enough to allow this act. Some posters seem to need the barrel of a gun being pointed down another’s throat in order to feel vindicated or superior or loyal to the US, or powerful…or righteous or …… (fill in the blanks).
The present war-mongering being carried out by the extremist neocons in our own government is the real problem, it is the real obstacle to peace. However, I do not believe that this extremist element in Cheney’s office want peace or a settlement of disagreements. What they do want is another war. What they do want is dominance in the ME, by whatever means and at any cost. They DO demand ultimate control of the vast resources located there, and are determined to kill as many innocent people as it takes for this to happen. THIS is the government that WE want here in the US?? I think not. Even these horrid people have finally come to realize that it would take enormous voter fraud to overcome the opposition that the Republican party is facing in the next election. There are now too many eyes watching for this and it would be found out on the massive scale that would be required to claim victory. So…..they want to attack Iran now while they are hanging on to the last remnants of their power. This will forever be George Bush’s legacy and he can do nothing about it. These people must be stopped.
— Mary AdamsErica Henson & Shohmurod USbek
Iran had as much to do with Auschwitz as it did with the WTC attack.
This is the result of a few years of repeating the same lies over and over - everyone believes them to be the truth.
We might as well claim that the Iranians are responsible for Mad Cow disease in England and the hole in the Ozone in Antartica.
What a deluded mob?
Cheers,
— RomuloIf Ground Zero is such “hallowed ground” and a “sacred site” why is it nothing more than a big hole in the ground? You’d think people would be able to set aside greed, ideology and politics to rebuild such a sacred place.
— nffcnnrJewishNotExtremist @ 55
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Propaganda should not be allowed to trump truth or reason.
But be careful, wilawan above will tell you that you are not a Conservative, of course if she repeats it often enough even you may start believing it.
Cheers,
— Romulowhy are officials acting so “politcally correct” and saying it is construction and such that prevent the visit.
tell the truth - we don’t want terrorist-supporting slime in our city - not at ground zero - not anywhere.
the only time to talk is when there is proof that iran withdraws its racist remarks, incitement of genocide and repudiation of nuclear ambitions.
— steveI have a few questions:
1. Are we really this weak? In this brutal world only the strong can afford to be kind. Middle Eastern cultures apparently understand this far better than we do. By denying Ahmadinejad’s request, we are only demonstrating to the rest of the world how scared and insecure we really are about terror. Can we finally get back to the “Land of the Brave”??? I have not seen it since 9/11.
2. If the king of Saudi Arabia wants to visit the site of the attack, does he get to? Has he ever asked?
3. Will someone please remind both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton that they have not yet in fact been elected to the Office of the President of the United States, and therefore are not yet the Head of State. They, therefore, should both sit down and shut up on this one.
— Blaine BynumHillary, Rudy and Mitt (birds of a feather) are afraid that Ahmadinejad may say something in front of the press that they cannot refute or spin since it would be a public event.
What do we have to be afraid of? Looking magnanimous? Proving that we really uphold freedom of speech? That we are better society for it?
What they really are afraid of, is that Ahmadinejad may say in public that he is here seeking to start diplomatic negotiations (which he obviously is, otherwise why address the UN?)or something that they do not want the American public to know.
Of course none of the Murdoch press outlets will carry this but instead will print a twisted version. BUT…. those pesky alternate media people may just use the web to post videos of what he really has to say. God forbid he says “the king has no clothes” and those MoveOn traitors get a hold of it. :-O
Liars all….
On the other hand, should Ahmadinehad choose to urinate on the spot, what more would the warmongers want to rally the mob?
We have nothing to lose and much to gain; unless the deceivers realize the veil may be lifted.
Cheers,
— RomuloBlaine,
Hillary and Romney can speak and we shouldn’t be rude. You can bet that those of us who dissent here will be in a small minority, ridiculed and abused. Don’t diminish the principles of civility with incivility.
I am proud to have registered my initial dissent at 6:10 pm yesterday in #8 and notwithstanding typos, like my #66. But more importantly I am proud to be among you other dissenters and feel a strong bond with you.
I do not condone any evil for which Iran may be responsible — but I do not slam the door in the face of this individual who I neither know nor understand. Nor do I trust what my own government tells me in this regard; nor do I apologize for my lack of trust. I have not abused the trust between the government and me — the people in power have abused the trust between the government and me.
I believe this may be single most important forum in which any of us may have participated to date. We are in real time here. Ahmadinejad has made his request; two of the the would be presidents have spoken; and we have spoken. The New York Times is making it clear for all to see.
Thank you New York Times.
Let us choose our words carefully. This is relevant, timely and goes to the core of much of what is going on in the world today. For starters it gets to the trust between the American people and their government; what it means to be an American in 2007; how we are to perceive a leader of a nation which many want to make war with; and our right to better understand that leader.
Be Ahmadinejad the evil we are told or something much less, I would hope my next president would have the courage to let the man speak before declaring war on his nation.
— bcdavis“why are officials acting so “politcally correct” and saying it is construction and such that prevent the visit.
tell the truth - we don’t want terrorist-supporting slime in our city - not at ground zero - not anywhere.
the only time to talk is when there is proof that iran withdraws its racist remarks, incitement of genocide and repudiation of nuclear ambitions.” — Posted by steve
Again, why couldn’t this be considered a stepping point to achieve those goals? Are we really going to quash an attempt at international relations, whether Ahmadinejad’s intentions are pure or not, just to show that we’re “tough on terrorism?”
If Ahmadinejad’s visit could prevent a future attack of the magnitude of the one that occured on 9/11, wouldn’t it be a better way to honor the memories of the lives lost in the attack than to flatly refuse his request?
— AdamIf you let Mr. Ahmadinejad lay a wreath at Ground Zero, maybe he’ll get around to laying one at Auschwitz, too.
— Steve Bolgerall he cares about is looking good to those who might believe or sympathize with him…he wants to portray himself as the good guy who isnt trying to go against the international community.
it would basically be a photo op for him.
— politics“it would basically be a photo op for him.” — Posted by politics
And instead of a photo-op, Ahmadinejad gets to go back to Iran and say: “Look! Americans and the West hate us! I offered them my respect, and this is how they treat me?”
— AdamLook, the only reason wants to lay a wreath at the site is to honor the hijackers. This guy is a tyrant who is even hated by most of the Iranians. Another rogue dictator.
— AHJI see nobody has answered my question. I’ll ask one more time:
Why is Iran our enemy? Facts only, please.
(the silence is deafening)
— Thomas NYCThis guy is clever. He set a media trap and we walked right into it, making the most powerful nation in the world look petty, unreasonable, and mealy-mouthed too. Clearing the visit would have turned this into a non-story. Instead we have the unseemly spectacle of hysterically shrieking pundits and empty statements by posturing politicos. We should consider that sometimes it’s beneficial to be smart, even if we’re powerful enough to get away with being stupid.
— Don’t Tread on Me BroMyth #4: Iran hates Jews
There is an interesting problem with selling the “Iran as Nazi Germany” line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?
The Ma’ariv newspaper pointed out that previous schemes had found few takers. There was, noted the report, “a lack of desire on the part of thousands of Iranian Jews to leave”. According to the New York-based Forward newspaper, a campaign to convince Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel caused only 152 out of these 25,000 Jews to leave Iran between October 2005 and September 2006, and most of them were said to have emigrated for economic reasons, not political ones.
To step up these efforts — and presumably to avoid the embarrassing incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands of Jews live happily in Tehran — Israel is now backing a move by Jewish donors to guarantee every Iranian Jewish family $60,000 to settle in Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are offered to Jewish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.
The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian Jews, which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale. “The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money. Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran’s Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews.”
— Thomas NYCI am amazed at the ignorance inundating this thread. Not one person has mentioned that the entire Iran, including it’s president, is shitte whereas Al-Quaeda is fanatically Sunni. The two want to kill each other the first chance they get. Iran sent tens of thousands of their troops to afghanistan to root him out in support of the U.S. led invasion. As a theolegist I can say with a good deal of certainty that Al quaeda is Muslim only in it’s claims. In practice it bears no likeness to it. Muslims everywhere hate Bin Laden for the name he has given them in our eyes. The only politics Ahmadinejad undestands is lip service. He services the crazys in his own country with all this cock and bull about Israel and the U.S. If we were half as smart as we were stubborn we would jump on this opportunity. If these candidates say they advocate peace why are they stomping on it when it walks in the door? Why is there so much misinformation? How can Guliani get away with the ridiculous idea that the government of Iran is harboring Bin Laden’s son? The whole point of our brilliant form of government is to be able to get rid of people like this when they step over the line.
Please, do your civic duty and inform yourselves. The press won’t do it. They’re in it for the money. It may not be convenient but that seems like a trivial inconvenience when compared to the fact that the furure of this great nation and all its children rests on your shoulders. There is more than one way to be a hero.
— PosterOperation Ajax, the US involvement along Saddam Hussein in the 875.000 Iran-Iraq war deaths, the 290 civilians of the Iran Air Flight 655 shoot down by the US army, all these facts seem to trigger the censure filter of the New York Times… What a shame!
— killawThe man is obviously not a saint, but I see absolutely no political or diplomatic gain by denying him the right to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.
And Negotiator, Auschwitz is in Poland, not Germany.
— KelseyDon’t Tread on Me Bro @ 82
Well said.
However, I think it is more like he looks clever because our leaders and the wannabes acted so stupidly and made us (the whole country) look petty and childish.
And these are the people that want our votes?
Spare me….
— RomuloI disagree with those candidates acting tough by opposing the visit to ground zero. Yes, this is a bad man, but Iran is not all bad. Remember that it helped us at the most relevant time, right after 9-11.
We are the land of freedom and have nothing to fear from this wreath.
homer
— Homer HewittRomulo at 74 hits the nail on the head.
— Thomas NYCWhat amazes me is the apparent willingness of our fellow citizens to be hoodwinked into yet another illegal and immoral war for oil. How is this possible?
Let’s look at what a war with Iran would look like, shall we?
The war plans have already been drawn up and were leaked to the British Press. It entails a blitz of cruise missiles and bunker-busters, many with “low-yield” nuclear payloads, targeting weapons systems, defense systems, government buildings, infrastructure, etc the likes of which make the initial “shock and awe” of 2003 seem like child’s play. This will result in enormous casualties, including tens of thousands of civilians, with many more likely over time (the Iraqi civilian death toll has surpassed ONE MILLION as we speak), as well as creating an explosion of regional instability throughout the Middle East. At the same time, we would step up our support of hired terrorist operations in southern Iran, in hopes of creating a coup that would install a “friendly” government, one who would keep the population in line, while catering to our corporate needs.
Iran would attempt a relatively modest retaliation, targeting our soldiers in Iraq and more likely the State of Israel, causing untold additional numbers of civilian casualties. Israel will use the Iranian attack as a call to “defense” (in spite of the fact that Israel has been clamoring more than anyone for a U.S. invasion of Iran) and unleash an overwhelming attack both on Iran AND the nation of Lebanon, adding thousands to the civilian death toll. At this point, Israel will no longer be shackled by the constraints of world public opinion and they will implement the already existing plan to annihilate Hezbollah and replace the democratically elected government of Lebanon with a puppet government that will allow them to “solve” the “Palestinian refugee problem” once and for all. Israel will also use the window of opportunity to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Saudi Arabia will have their hands full trying to ruthlessly contain the Shia rebellion that will no doubt erupt in their oil-producing region. Syria will be flooded with refugees from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, causing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Hundreds of thousands will be at risk of starvation. Millions more will be homeless.
Russia will use this window of opportunity to “clamp down” on “terrorists” in Chechnya, National Guard troops will be patrolling the streets of U.S. cities on “terror alert”. The same thing will happen in England. Civil liberties will be suppressed under the banner of “National Security.” And so on.
U.S. resentment worldwide would spike to unprecedented levels and foreign travel by American citizens would be ill advised, even to our “ally” countries in Europe and the Americas.
Meanwhile, the CASE FOR WAR is a complete and utter fabrication! Only a true lemming would fall for this song-and-dance a second time in only a five year span.
— Thomas NYCIf anyone doubts Thomas NYC@90 check out the writings of Seymour M. Hersh at http://www.newyorker.com [Search for “Iran”, and then “Hersh” in the advanced search.] There is a lot to chew on there.
Here’s one to get you started: 3/5/07-
— Fran N.THE REDIRECTION
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh
Thomas NYC @ 90
Although the evidence clearly points in the direction your post indicates, this is one instance where we are all hoping your post is way off.
However, the handwriting has been on the wall for at least 6 months now and hiding our heads in the sand (yet again) will not deter these nuke-happy Neo-cons from getting us into another mess just to give their private contractor friends another pass at the treasury.
We must keep on raising awareness of this wherever we can, I am going to start posting on the blogs of European papers and organizations. The world opinion must be informed that the actions of this government are without the backing of the country.
Cheers,
— RomuloHe should not be allowed in the country to begin with; it is about time we started standing up for ourselves AS AMERICANS- and holding people (Americans and others) responsible for their own actions! It is not out of fear that he should not come here but out of his own shame.
— SamanthaThomas NYC #81
— AHJYou’re joshing, right? As long as that current regime is in power in Iran, they are an enemy of every democracy. Are they not harboring terrorists? Are they currently supplying weapons and explosives to into Iraq to kill American military personnel as well as civilians? Did they not start the the recent war with Israel by funding the Hezbollah in Jordan? How many innocent people did that kill? And do you think that if they do develop a nuclear bomb they would not make it available to terrorists? Or do we take that chance?
And of course the way the citizens of Iran are treated, especially woman. Or Gays (there are none that will admit it, for that is immediate execution).
And that’s just for starters.
I don’t expect anything from you but more left wing ranting as an answer to this blog. Instead of sitting by your computer and blogging Monday, I suggest you go over to Columbia University to welcome Ahmadinejad and hear his presentation. Knowing how you apparently think, I’m sure you’ll be thrilled with his every word. And you surely will be among people who think exactly like you.
Very sad indeed.
Does not
the war dog
now
in slow motion
creep?
Contenders’ rhetoric
to the
mob
attempt
and fail?
Empty message,
angry,
void,
vacant.
Attempts resonate
in hate.
The joy of hate
yes, American
vote the hate.
Profound
realization
once again
of corporate greed
and angry payback
this close
to step.
All that stands
between
is
us
the thinnest
line
of hope
unread.
The haters
stuck in greed
an endless quest
never freed
shall not in our name
go.
A few who care,
who seek,
who think,
who bust the dog
and blink —
like geeks
who somehow wish
for just a second
leadership could
turn the page
and what?
Pursue
open mind
and open heart
unknowing
unpretending
bound in love?
A moment’s glimpse
above the wall
which contains
the good
and dilutes us
all?
Ahmandinejad,
who are you?
Our demise?
In our face
fashions the
plutonium?
Or is it us you fear?
To some it is clear
you are the evil
and we the saint
who must stand
vigilant
resolute in denial
of
a
wreath laying ceremony.
Welcome to New York
and if you fail
you betrayed not us
but you
your mother
your people
your nation
your religion.
Yes,
with that test,
lay your
wreath
not at WTC
but where?
Your choice.
And let us
measure
your conviction.
I will trust
and say
thank you.
Do not
betray.
And to
my people,
do not
— bcdavisbetray.
AHJ (#94):
Joshing? No. I wish I was.
I noticed you still haven’t provided any actual proof of any of your positions. Please provide factual details of your positions before asking me questions based on mere assumptions and repetitions of blatant propaganda. I will be glad to debate these issues with you, but you need to bring something to the table besides mindless rhetoric.
Facts. That’s what I’m looking for. Care to provide any?
In the meanwhile, I can tackle another misunderstood subject. Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was born in defense of Lebanese territory from the illegal aggression of the Israeli army. Why does Israel have imperialist leanings in Lebanon? It’s all part of the plan to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories. The massive land-grab in 1948 and 1967 created an enormous refugee “problem”. What to do with all of those displaced Palestinian civilians? Six million and counting? They need a place to go, and it’s not going to be their legal homeland any longer. So Israel has taken a page from the United States foreign policy handbook. They want to install a puppet government in Lebanon that will cater to Israeli needs by taking in the bulk of the Palestinian refugees, making the ethnic cleansing process much easier to achieve. Hezbollah has proven to be a formidable foe in combating Israeli aggression. Israel has illegally invaded Lebanon five times since the 1967 war, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, while destroying the vital infrastructure and decimating the economy, all under a cynical “self-defense” posture that falls apart upon modest inspection.
How is it that we never hear about Israel’s crimes? Unfortunately, the U.S. corporate media is in bed with the enormously powerful Israeli lobby (as is Congress and the White House), and they go to great pains to hide the truth from the American people. Additionally, a truly “unholy alliance” has been reached between ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalists and the Zionist Israeli’s. The Christian zealots believe the “end of days” can only be achieved through a cleansed Jewish State in the Holy Land. Only then will the apocalypse begin, bringing God’s final judgment. The teaming of the right wing Christians and Israeli Zionists form an enormously influential lobby in Washington.
As if on cue, the NY Times posted an article by Isabel Kirshner on Olmert’s waning hold on Power in Israel a few months ago. In usual pro-Israeli fashion, you’ll notice the following assertion in regards to the June 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, “The war followed the June 12, 2006, kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid.”
In the U.S. corporate media, the timeline leading to the assault on Lebanon always begins with this kidnapping. The rest of the world gets the rest of the story, which includes perhaps the most critical information, summarily ignored by the U.S. media. The day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges — hence kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians, which Israel has done in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories repeatedly and with virtual impunity, is a far worse crime than capture of soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments, otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about kidnapping is cynical fraud.
Thousands of Palestinians are currently being held by Israel along with a few hundred Lebanese, many without official charges. Eighty-five percent of Lebanese civilians support kidnapping of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange programs. You see, the Lebanese people don’t see Hezbollah as a “terrorist” group. They see Hezbollah as their only true defense against Israeli aggression. It was later revealed that Israel was hoping to illicit a response from Hezbollah, in order to justify a full-scale invasion geared towards annihilation of Hezbollah and eventually toppling the democratically elected government of Lebanon. All of these Israeli crimes would not be happening were it not for full backing by the U.S. government.
— Thomas NYCThomas NYC #96:
— AHJEvery war fought there, like those you mention in 1948 and 1967 were initiated by the Arab nations attempting to destroy Israel. You can write all the long winded leftist BS you want, but the bottom line is and always has been Israel right to exist which most Arab nations refuse to accept. Just look at all the terrorism Israel has endured for years. I don’t see Israelis strapping themselves with explosives and taking out civilians in Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.etc. How many times have Arab terrorists blown up Israeli citizens, including children?
And now you are actually defending that terrorist organization Hezbollah? Unbelievable.
Have fun at Columbia Monday!
Thomas NYC I think has gotten his “facts” confused with a Michael Moore movie. The FACT is that just today in Iran the president held a parade to showcase new weapons. Guess what was written on his tanks? Some of the trucks carrying Iranian missiles were painted at the back the popular slogans: “Down with the U.S.” and “Down with Israel.” This printed from USA Today. But Im sure you will say the translation is wrong.
— Tony W–KYTony (#98):
The US and Israel are threatening a massive assault on Iran which would include nuclear weapons, based on lies. They have actively called for regime change in Iran. They have forced sanctions against them for a completely legal nuclear program. You think because Iran has slogans written on tanks, it justifies the blatant illegal and immoral aggression I am referring to?????? Is that your ludicrous position? Once again, can I get some facts that justify war with Iran in any way, shape or form? Meanwhile, can you actually refute any of my facts that you claim have come from a “Michael Moore movie”? (a typical empty neo-con response to legitimate points is to invoke the name of Michael Moore and call it a day). Meanwhile, your rebuttal to my avalanche of factual evidence is a photograph from a corporate Mc-paper like USA Today, which is notoriously pro-imperialistic in it’s “reporting”? You might as well throw on a brown shirt and start goose-stepping.
AHJ (#97):
Once again, you are completely wrong in your Orwellian version of history.
The 1948 Palestinian-Israeli war is known to Israeli’s as “The War for Independence,” but for Palestinians, it will forever be the Nakba, the ‘catastrophe’. The end of the war led to one of the largest forced migrations in modern history. Around a million people were illegally expelled from their homes at gunpoint, civilians were brutally massacred and hundreds of Palestinian villages, many having survived thousands of years, were deliberately burned to the ground. The truth of this massive crime has been systematically distorted and suppressed, had it taken place in the twenty-first century, it could only have been called ‘ethnic cleansing’. It has been proven, through recently declassified Israeli materials, that ‘transfer’ (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) was from the start an integral part of a carefully planned strategy to remove massive numbers of the native population from their rightful homes and steal their land and resources. It was a MASSIVE WAR CRIME.
In 1967, Israel could rightly claim self-defense for the first 3 days of the conflict (even though Israel fired the first shots in a surprise attack that effectively decimated the airpower of it’s enemies in a few minutes time), at which point, having already won the war handily, they ignored the United Nations directives for a cease-fire and continued what amounted to an enormous “land-grab” and deportation campaign. They were knowingly and willingly deceiving the world community as to the status “on the ground” in order to delay sanctions against them, while they committed these crimes. They even sank a U.S. Navy ship in the gulf that they thought was intercepting their radio transmissions, which would have revealed the true Israeli intentions to the Americans, who at that time wanted the war to end. Nice, huh? Yet another MASSIVE WAR CRIME.
Ethnic Cleansing is considered a “Crime Against Humanity” and the people who perpetrate it today are considered criminals who are brought before special tribunals. But not in Israel’s case. Why? Because the United States government would never allow it. We support these crimes.
Additionally, the idea that everybody refuses to acknowledge “Israel’s right to exist” is complete and utter nonsense at this point. The most recent proposal by the Arab League has offered to respect Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation under the pre-war 1967 borders. This has been agreed to by Iran and Syria. This has been agreed to by Hezbollah. This has been agreed to by the Palestinian people. This has been agreed to by the entire planet. Which entities don’t agree to this fair and just plan for peace? Israel and the U.S. government, who have no interest in peace. Peace would mean they could no longer occupy coveted lands. Peace would mean they would have to respect international law. Peace would mean they could no longer steal natural resources. Peace would ultimately be bad for business. How can you make billions in war profits if peace were to break out? How could our oil companies make massive profits from Iraq and soon-to-be Iranian oil reserves if peace were to break out?
I suggest you read Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe’s very important book, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” which describes the events of 1948 in great detail.
— Thomas NYCAHJ (#97):
Additionally, the idea that Israel has to endure “terror” while the Palestinians don’t is more Orwellian nonsense.
Under any definition of “terror,” the largest purveyor’s of terror on the planet are the United States and Israel.
Israel is illegally occupying land and effectively imprisoning millions of native people. They have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in a cynical “self-defense” posture that has no legal standing and falls apart under a mere cursory glance. The State Terror by Israel greatly surpasses the desperate responses of their victims, who are no match to the Israeli’s United States-provided massive military machine.
Norman Finklestein explains: “Limiting ourselves to just the Second Intifada, from September 28 to the present. The record shows approximately 3,000 Palestinians have been killed; approximately 900 Israelis have been killed. On the Palestinian side and the Israeli side roughly one-half to two-thirds of the total number were civilians or bystanders. And if you look at the findings of the human rights supports — B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights in Israel, and so forth — they all say that Israel uses reckless indiscriminate fire against Palestinians, and B’Tselem claims 600 Palestinian children who have been killed, which is close to the total number of Israeli civilians killed. 600 Palestinian children killed. It hardly makes a difference whether you are purposely targeting them or not, the state has responsibility. So, you could say Israel is responsible for three times as much terrorism in the Occupied Territories as Palestinians against Israel.”
Let’s not forget that the Palestinians have a right to resistance, as proposed in the United Nations charter, tellingly rejected during the Reagan administration only by the United States, Israel and South Africa.
Let’s turn to an ancillary issue: the issue of torture. Now, the estimates are, up to 1994-1995, that Israel tortured tens of thousands of Palestinian detainees. Israel was the only country in the world, the only one, which had legalized torture from 1987 to 1999. The U.S. has apparently joined that dubious club under Bush II. No wonder the rest of the world looks at us as hypocrites.
The United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine recently submitted a 24-page report condemning the state of Israel for numerous Human Rights atrocities and equated them to the Apartheid in South Africa. The report accused the Israeli government of being ““inimical to human rights — colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation”.
Is it possible that we are the bad guys? Is that possible? How much evidence do you need to see before you remove the nationalistic glasses and see the truth that is staring you in the face? If the situation were reversed and it was a Palestinian State that was committing these crime against Israeli’s there would be cries of a second holocaust, and we would be doing everything in our power to help stop the atrocities.
— Thomas NYC