What the hell is Ahmadinejad is on? Writing an 18 page letter to Bush? For crap’s sake the second can’t read and the first is a loonie, what do you suspect the 18 pages contained?
A simple “I’m sorry sir, I’ve been a bad boy” would have sufficed wouldn’t you think?
Maybe he did just write that, but in large script!
Comments
I don’t know why, but every time I see a photo of Ahmadinejad, I think of him as the kind of person who starts laughing to himself for no particular reason….
c’mon, he doesn’t LAUGH to himself, that’s rude; he covers his mouth and giggles like a teenage girl once in a while. that’s all. what’s wrong with THAT?
My guess is that the purpose of the letter is the same as a magician’s trick, LOOK AT THIS HAND while the other hand is doing something he doesn’t want the audience to see.
The letter is a tactic which is a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. If it entices the US to talk, then it buys time for the Iranians to complete their nukes while they pretend to negotiate. If the US rejects talks, then Iran can pretend to be the reasonable party who tried to talk it out but was rebuffed by the aggressive American imperialists hell bent on snuffing out Islam.
Steve
Steve;
I respect the brainwashing Fox-News has been undergoing (trust me – I lived in IOWA for a few years- I know what it’s like). Forgetting WHETHER Iran wants to build Nuclear Weapons or NOT; I think the MAIN issue is an issue of Energy and the potential economic growth and development it brings with it. I personally believe the reason the Bush Administration does NOT want Iran to develop Nuclear Energy or whatever is that they are affraid this would be a reason for Iran to rapidly develop and produce energy through means that do NOT require petroleum for a change. If Iran manages to do this; it would probably be able to control its huge oil reserves more freely AND it might even begin to SELL it’s energy to other countries in the region. Through Economic strength, Iran would undoubtably gain on the political plane. This is something that threatens the Bush Administration’s current foreign policy plans. These plans include causing a decentralization of power in the Middle East. By starting “chaos” (through things such as civil unrest in Iraq, and restrictions in Syria), the safety of Israel would – in a way – be guaranteed.
Politicians suck.
Hasan: Once you engage in “forgetting WHETHER Iran wants to Build Nuclear Weapons or Not,” you can pretty much write your own plot. Is it is possible for Iran to have its own, home grown, energy only nuclear facilities? Wasn’t the Great Benefactor (Russia) floating such a plan? In other words, is there a way for Iran to do what it says it wants to do, while at the same time, assuring the skeptical that it is not doing what its agreed not to do by treaty? If there is, then Iran can continue is concentration (centralization) of power, effectively frustrating what you believe are the “Bush Administration’s current foreign policy plans,” and through its economic success in producing its own energy by nuclear means, exporting its fossil fuel resources and enjoying the profits, ultimately demonstrating to the world the ultimate superiority of its religous (legal), political, and economic systems.
When you get a chance, you might explain precisely how you avoided becoming brainwashed when so many Iowans succumbed.
Bush has a foreign policy plan? Even a brainwashed Iowan would have a better plan than him.
Of course Bush has a Foreign policy plan.
With Iraq, it was damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead for regime change.
With Iran, noticing that the rest of the world didn’t like his bravado, he decided to take the internationalist/European route.
I daresay that the former worked better; internationalism and diplomacy has played directly into Iran’s paws, with China dna Russia as enablers
Hasan,
If Iran wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes, why does it object to the international inspection regime that would confirm that? If this nuclear project is not intended to make bombs, why did the international inspectors find traces of the nuclear fuel unique to bombs in their reactors? Did Fox News plant it there or were the international inspectors just brainwashed by Fox News?
Steve
Mahmoud, that was hilarious! And yes, Wolfwood is right, he probably does have private comedy sessions.
As for the real reasons why the US wouldn’t want Iran to have nuclear power. Aside from the fun speculations one can engage in, I do think it’s clear that Iran’s own message says it clearly; it wants to nuke Israel to smithereens. Do you need any more proof of intent?
Now I’ll be the first to say Israeli politics has far from been squeeky clean and white, but wiping off a whole country?
Ingrid
Evidently Ahmadinejad’s letter is just a rambling anti-American mishmash. Here’s one key point via the AP:
“”Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity,” said the letter, obtained by The Associated Press. “Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.”
Evidently, “those with insight” are those with a direct line to the Hidden Imam and glow when they harangue the UN. And, genius that he is, he doesn’t think people are better off under democracy. I suspect that his “ideals of humanity” mean “the triumph of Islam” and the fall of the democratic systems refers to the return of the Mahdi.
What amazes me is that no matter how badly they run their countries, how much they tear up their economies, how bad their people’s lives become, these Islamic nutcases think they are models to be emulated by the world. Their indoctrination makes them invincibly ignorant.
Steve
I’d be more worried about a Chernobyl type of accident than Iran actually nuking anyone.
I totally agree Steve. And yes, it sounds completely like Bush too, the only change needed is a single word!
Religious running of a country, any religion and any country, is bad and not conducive to modern methodology.
Well said Aliandra, that’s what worries us all most. Their facility is only 120 miles off Bahrain. And in a nuclear facility, one shoud leave his or her “inshallah” mentality at the compound gates.
What would scares me completely shitless however is probably seeing a broadcast of them inaugurating the facility and see in their procedure manual that saying “bismillah” a requirement before throwing the “on” switch!
(disclaimer: I know a lot of people will have objection to this comment, and I frankly don’t give a damn. I’m as scared as I can be and no threats are going to make me more scared than I am because of a perceived and probably very real Abu-Shihr disaster.)
Mahmood: “I totally agree Steve.”
Too many people are agreeing with me lately. Is this some kind of trick? Are you becoming more of an extremist or am I going soft in my old age?
Worried Sick About Becoming Too Agreeable,
Steve
“I totally agree Steve. And yes, it sounds completely like Bush too, the only change needed is a single word!”
I’m not so sure about that, because when I want to run around and be a good time party girl on Saturday night, I only have to worry about my husband and kids catching up with me and not W cause I don’t attend mass at HIS church every Sunday. It’s alot better than getting 40 lashes or being hung cause I called the president a jerk or something; and by the way, my 401k is doing just fine.
Steve I’m glad you finally agree that Bush is just another religious extremist. I knew you had it in you to see the truth.
M party on! don’t worry about any world leader to curtail your roads to happiness because they can try to block them, but you and I know that there are many other ways to reach our chosen destination!
Mahmood,
I think you are going to have to work harder to get Steve fired up today; he seems in too good of a mood. Did some other liberal go off to rehab that I don’t know about?
“but you and I know that there are many other ways to reach our chosen destination! ”
Absolutely!
Anyone with way too much time on their hands may want to read an English translation of the entire twisted, foaming diatribe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/ahmadinejad0509.pdf
Thanks, Jared. Holy smokin’ turbans, Ibn writes smarter stuff than Ahmadinejad! This whole rambling screed reads like it was written by a college kid trying to crank out a term paper during an all nighter while smoking dope. And the references to Jesus every fourth paragraph are just creepy.
Can this numbskull really be the president of a country? With nukes? Somebody please tell me that this is a hoax. Otherwise, the light at the end of the Persian tunnel just winked off for me. The future just took a turn for the grimmer.
Steve
My favorite passage:
I just get so choked up whenever I hear one religious thug pontificating in the name of the Almighty to diss another pontificating thug, I don’t know what happens to me. (Reminds me why all kinds of extremism are lethal to human and other forms of life.)
If Bush and Ahmadinejad are both morally equivalent in your view, how do you explain that you can say so in America and the secret police do not come to your door tonight to take you to some dank prison like they do in Iran?
Sally, you need to check your tether to the real world. You’re floating away again.
Steve
Hmmm…you are the president of the United States and Ahmadinejad sends you a proselitizing letter while you are in the middle of less and less friendly ‘discussions’ about nuclear bombs. Says something about shattering and falling ideologies. Wants you to come over to their side.
Wow, if ever you wished Allah wouldnt show up and give someone a dope slap.
For your info Bush graduated from Harvard (you need to read for that) and has flied fighter planes (1) who are MUCH harder to fly and require MUCH more reading (of manuals and aerodynamics) than your average Cessna (2)
(1) despite whatever the Dan Rather memos say. You know those memos written in the 70s with version of Ms-WORD and fonts who didn’t exist before 1992
(2) And even “easy” and ‘simple” planes like Cessnas and Pipers are not for the weak of intellect.
Thank you for the erudite clarifications JFM, I wood neva has gesst.
Thank goodness that I too flied planes and red them manuals!
James Lileks has a better translation and interpretation of Ahmadinejad’s letter. And it makes just as much sense as the original, maybe more.
Steve
HA! Brilliant! Thanks for the link Steve, good laugh and I’m sure this translation makes more sense than the original booklet! 🙂
Sally,
Although Steve’s exaggerated positions sometimes irritate me to distraction, I do agree with his objection to viewing GWBush and Ahmadinejad as morally equivalent – though I acknowledge that you didn’t say that and only implied it.
I’m critical of the Bush Administration regarding their foreign policy execution, but try to avoid hyperbole because I think it would interfere with my ability to express a balanced view.
For instance, there’s excellent reason to believe that Iran is pulling out all the stops to create confusion over their ambition to obtain a nuclear weapon until such time as they can actually produce one. I think you would agree that all peaceful means of preventing this from happening should be explored if you accept the premise that building a weapon is their goal.
The US in a better position than anyone else to achieve a peaceful resolution, partly because of our position on the permanent UN security council, and partly because our current goverment, warts and all, is not morally equivalent to that of Iran.
Jared
Steve, you say: If Bush and Ahmadinejad are both morally equivalent in your view, how do you explain that you can say so in America and the secret police do not come to your door tonight to take you to some dank prison like they do in Iran?
The fact that there arent people coming to your door at night is not because Bush is morally superior to Ahmadinejad. Its because there is a judicial system in place in the US that keeps Bush somewhat in check. Ahmadinejad has a free-er hand. That said, there have been incidents reported in the US lately of people being watched, questioned and stuck in a dank prison, in violation of the law.
However, I do agree with you on Ahmadinejad being a nutcase. And no, you’re not going soft in your old age. I think I am.
I obviously have too much time on my hands and indeed read the whole eighteen pages. I disagree with your comment about it being a twisted, foaming diatribe, I think it sounds quite reasonable, doesn’t sound like the ravings of a nutcase to me. I expect the references to Jesus (I don’t think they sound creepy, but thereagain, I believe in God so I wouldn’t) are an attempt to find some common ground between Christianity and Islam. I think you’ve overreacted and haven’t read it with an open mind. Frankly, I find James Lilek’s translation/interpretation oafish and not very clever if intended to be funny. But that’s just my opinion for what it’s worth.
sadferret,
In your post under the topic How to Raise Good Children, you said:
“With all due respect Mahmood, this article has been taken from the putrid pages of a site for, and frequented by, racists, bigots and Jews. ”
Creepy is as creepy does.
Just as a clarification: I have no idea whether or not GW Bush is morally equivalent to Ahmadinejad or not – and I didn’t say he was!
My point was to point out the irony – and the humor – of one religious nut job prostelizing to another. I am not an anti-religious person (religion/spirituality being something that nourishes my personal life) but I am extremely weary of hearing boys posing as emperors preach at the rest of us, whether they do it from a throne in Iran or a pulpit in the White House.
I found the frequent references to Jesus in Ahmadinejad’s letter hysterical! As nutty as Almadinejad came off with them (and don’t get me wrong, the guy is truly a certifiable nutter) Bush et al sound almost (or at least as, depending on your perspective) as nutty when I hear things like “I hear the voices….!”
Thankfully in the US there is a system which can check the excesses of a guy like Bush – while sadly in Iran there is not, being that that the fact that the clergy maintain and hold ultimate power prevents it from being a genuine democracy. Let us pray (no irony intended) that the religious nut-job right a la Randall Terry and Pat Robertson never manages to grab power here, as they hope to.
Amen, Sally
Sally;
Your fears are unfounded. Both Robertson and Terry are widely considered to be fringe crackpots. Robertson once claimed power over hurricanes.
Almadinejad and Bush may both be religious, but there’s a light year difference of degree.
Lujayn: “The fact that there arent people coming to your door at night is not because Bush is morally superior to Ahmadinejad. Its because there is a judicial system in place in the US that keeps Bush somewhat in check. Ahmadinejad has a free-er hand. That said, there have been incidents reported in the US lately of people being watched, questioned and stuck in a dank prison, in violation of the law.”
Bush and Ahmadinejad are both products of their governments and cultures. Bush is a product of a democracy with laws. Ahmadinejad is a product of a rotten and incompetent theocracy which makes it up as it goes along.
Watching and questioning people is not exactly illegal. I do it all the time. And there are no dank prisons in America, like in Iran or even France, for that matter. If anything, they are too clean and bright. There are no people in prison in America in violation of the law.
Bush is not exactly overturning democracy to form a Christian theocracy. Ahmadinejad has overturned his government to form an Islamic theocracy. There is no time when Bush has held foreign diplomats prisoner to promote his political agenda. Ahmadinejad has. You can go to the gate of the White House and call Bush every dirty name in the book. Try that with the leaders in Iran and you will certainly go to prison and may die there of blunt force trauma. Things like that make Bush morally superior to creepy thugs like Ahmadinejad.
Steve
Again, I would urge you to read the source. Sorry to sound creepy …
Jared in NYC: “Although Steve’s exaggerated positions sometimes irritate me to distraction, I do agree with his objection to viewing GWBush and Ahmadinejad as morally equivalent – though I acknowledge that you didn’t say that and only implied it.”
Sheesh. Now Jared the freakin’ liberal from New York City agrees with me. Where have I gone wrong? Where did I lose the path?
Jared in NYC: “The US in a better position than anyone else to achieve a peaceful resolution, partly because of our position on the permanent UN security council, and partly because our current goverment, warts and all, is not morally equivalent to that of Iran.”
We are also in a better position to deal with Iran because we have President Bush in office and he has demonstrated that he will back up policy with force, which is the only thing the Islamic extremists respect. The Iranians believe that Bush is an aberation in American policy and that the next President will return to the Clinton mode of substituting talk for action. Such a passive policy would provide a safer environment for Iranian aggression, which is the object of their foreign policy.
Steve
Nope, I am not going soft after all.
Steve, you’re right, watching, questioning and detaining people in the US is no longer illegal. I forgot, the Patriot Act legalized all of that.
Therefore, I will change my argument to say that the checks that have been eroded with the Patriot Act, are still strong enough to keep Bush in check. He does not have the free hand to turn the US into the police state that he and his posse would like. Ahmadinejad does.
Not being able to say that in the middle of Tehran doesnt make Bush any better or morally superior. Being able to say it in front of the White House is no thanks to Bush. Its the result of a long tradition of democracy and free speech, protected by a strong constitution.
I expect you to patronize me with your assertions that all is well in America and all sucks in the Arab/Muslim world (mostly right on that count), but I wont back at my computer till tomorrow morning, so until then, good night.
How about less Ahmadinejad and more Dr. Ahmed Abaddi?
I particularly liked this quote from Dr. Abaddi:
““Our world is threatening to destroy itself … Morocco can help bring about peace. I think the Moroccan model is practical and helpful. It communicates an entirely different concept of Islam to the rest of the world….I personally can’t sit back and do nothing. After all, there is an Arab proverb that says, ‘Don’t be a mute Satan.’ I feel compelled to do everything I can to make a better world.â€Â
Hmmm. It’s almost as if Dr. Abaddi is saying that if you don’t do anything, you’re part of the problem, that you are a mute Satan.
Where have I heard this argument before? Where have I heard the assertion that if you’re not doing anything to reject terrorism that you are promoting it? Where was that?
Steve
Steve,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the efficacy of the Bush Administrations policy decisions.
The Clinton Administration deserves criticism for what they didn’t accomplish in the ME. The Bush administration was even less tuned in to the threat of Islamic terrorism and less engaged in the ME than the Clinton administration until 9-11.
Although I think the “with us or against us” rhetoric was unhelpful (read: believe and act that way, but say it differently in order to better achieve diplomatic goals) I think our initial response of invading Afghanistan was a logical choice considering the Taliban’s refusal to turn over OBL.
The invasion of Iraq was bungled. It may be that it would eventually have been necessary, but the timing and execution could/should have been carried out using the best advice from senior people in the Pentagon and State Dept. We might be in a better position to deal with Iran if that were the case.
That’s water under the bridge. A better debate is what to do now that would reduce US military and Iraqi civilian casualties, and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
For the record, I normally vote democratic, but have voted Republican in one presidential election and one Mayoral election. Some of my positions and Liberal, some Libertarian, and a very few overlap with some conservative positions.
Jared
Lujayn: “Steve, you’re right, watching, questioning and detaining people in the US is no longer illegal. I forgot, the Patriot Act legalized all of that.
Therefore, I will change my argument to say that the checks that have been eroded with the Patriot Act, are still strong enough to keep Bush in check. He does not have the free hand to turn the US into the police state that he and his posse would like. Ahmadinejad does.”
The RICO Act to give the feds more investigative power to pursue Mafiosi did not turn the US into a police state, but did whittle down the Mafia dearly. The Patriot Act, which extends those same powers to terrorist organizations, is not turning the US into a police state any more than the RICO act did. If you read the Patriot Act, most of it refers to existing law and merely applies it to terrorist organizations.
It’s crazy to not apply equivalent laws used against Mafia, who usually only wack each other and only use guns, to terrorists who wack anyone with a pulse and used bombs, skyjacked airliners, and WMD.
Lujayn: “Not being able to say that in the middle of Tehran doesnt make Bush any better or morally superior. Being able to say it in front of the White House is no thanks to Bush. Its the result of a long tradition of democracy and free speech, protected by a strong constitution.”
Actually, it is due to both Bush and the tradition of democracy you cite. By contrast, the Clintons demonstrated in Travelgate that the President can harass, investigate, and ruin people who have done nothing wrong but are in his way. Likewise, the Clintons demonstrated that they can acquire FBI files on their political enemies for purposes of blackmail, which Bush has not done. Likewise, Bush has not sicced the IRS on his political enemies, as Clinton did to his former sex partners to shut them up. And Bush has never sent thugs to former girlfriends to threaten them that their pretty little legs might get broken if they talk.
So, yes, Bush as a man has a lot to do with the atmosphere of free speech around the White House.
Lujayn: “I expect you to patronize me with your assertions that all is well in America and all sucks in the Arab/Muslim world (mostly right on that count), but I wont back at my computer till tomorrow morning, so until then, good night.”
Sheesh, now Lujayn can’t stop herself from agreeing with me! When will this terrible tide of harmony end!?
Well, good night then, and sweet dreams of George Bush with angel wings flitting about the White House.
Steve
Message from Mahmoud! Dear President Bush: We’ve Got Lots In Common.
Jared in NYC: “The Clinton Administration deserves criticism for what they didn’t accomplish in the ME. The Bush administration was even less tuned in to the threat of Islamic terrorism and less engaged in the ME than the Clinton administration until 9-11.”
Had there been no Osama Bin Laden, we surely would have trod a different path than the one we are on now. Bin Laden made the strategic mistakes of overreaching and providing us with the moral authority to pursue Islamic terrorists anywhere.
However, I disagree that Bush is less tuned to Islamic terror than Clinton. According to former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Clinton made no effort, despite a public promise to punish the terrorist perpetrators, to pressure the Saudis to cooperate in the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 US military and wounded 370. Instead, Clinton made a quid pro quo with Crown Prince Abdullah that he would not make an issue of it in return for a donation to the Clinton presidential library.
Whatever criticism you may make of Bush, one thing he will never do is sell out our dead military for a bribe. He can’t be bought, like Clinton, with blood money from our Saudi enemies.
Jared in NYC: “Although I think the “with us or against us†rhetoric was unhelpful (read: believe and act that way, but say it differently in order to better achieve diplomatic goals) I think our initial response of invading Afghanistan was a logical choice considering the Taliban’s refusal to turn over OBL.
I disagree. The “with us or against us” statement framed the war perfectly. The minority of European states who opposed us did so for venal reasons. In particular, the French and Russians were protecting their oil interests and both were successfully bribed by Saddam via the UN Oil For Food program.
I agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly logical considering that it was the staging point for the Sep 11 attacks and the home of Al Qaeda’s bases. Al Qaeda bought the Taliban off with a few tens of millions in bribes and effectively owned Afghanistan. The Taliban were never going to give up their Al Qaeda cash cow.
Jared in NYC: “The invasion of Iraq was bungled. It may be that it would eventually have been necessary, but the timing and execution could/should have been carried out using the best advice from senior people in the Pentagon and State Dept. We might be in a better position to deal with Iran if that were the case.”
We conquered Iraq in three weeks. That is hardly bungling but the summit of military skill. It is also evidence that the best advice was followed.
My reading of military history presents few happy endings for insurgencies, which tend to sputter on endlessly, bleeding the population, without resolution. Using history as a benchmark, the US has made remarkable progress in suppressing the insurgency within the last three years, which is on the brink of defeat.
The most recent intercepted communications from the Al Qaeda leader in Baghdad paint a bleak picture of only 110 terrorists left without adequate weapons, featuring weak mid-level leadership, and pursuing a strategy that he considers futile. The Baathist insurgents are likewise being whittled down and their political support is being undermined by Sunnis switching allegiance to the Iraqi government. We are closing on the tipping point for the insurgency.
Jared in NYC: “For the record, I normally vote democratic, ….
Whodathunkit? A New York City liberal who votes Democratic! The only surprise here is that you didn’t vote for the Green Party.
Jared in NYC: “… but have voted Republican in one presidential election and one Mayoral election. Some of my positions and Liberal, some Libertarian, and a very few overlap with some conservative positions.”
I’ll bet you keep those Republican votes secret lest you fall out of favor with the liberal herd, huh? Don’t worry, I’ll keep your guilty secret. But it felt good to pull that Republican lever, didn’t it? All I’m asking you is to let that Little Republican within you breathe from time to time. Let him out. Let him run, let him dance. Let him make romance.
Steve
Steve,
Maybe we ought to resurrect a new version of your Bin Laden drinking game. Every time you invoke “lefty herd” or label someone with a political description and then attack the label, I’ll have drink of the (very, very fine) grappa I brough back from Milan a few weeks ago. If you’re nice, maybe I’ll even share some with you. Mahmood gets first dibs though.
Factcheck.org has been a reliable debunker of idotic assertions from the left and right fringe, especially during campaigns:
For the right wing nutters – Saddam did not have Al Qaeda ties. There were NO WMD in Iraq. For the left wing nutters – Bush did NOT lie about WMD to start a war, most intelligence believed Iraq had some:
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
Leaks and Manipulation from all angles:
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
Bush Spin on Iraq progress:
http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html
Bush Administration lack of focus before 9-11. No factcheck.org articles unfortunately, so somewhat subjective. Some stuff is debateable, but clearly there’s a trail. Right fringe lunatics blame Clinton for 9-11, left fringe to the same to Bush:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2097681/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html
An Article on Bush Administration Policy mistakes afterwards:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
A claim that the Bush Administration attempted to suppress this evidence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?ex=1396242000&en=adfceace8b231d87&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Jared
Things just get loonier and loonier in Iran’s ongoing quest for new answers to the Islamic game “How Crazy Can You Get?”
The Iranian government plans to turn the former US embassy in Teheran, where they held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, into a theme park called “Great Satan Park.”
I can just see the little Persian kiddies wearing little Uncle Sam horns and whooshing down the water slides dyed red for the blood of the Iranian martyrs killed by infidels. And the Suicide Bomb Ride is an E ticket, I’m told.
Steve
Maybe Ahmadinejad really is thinking about the standard of living of his people and just wants to spur a little economic development. This from the US Library of Congress.
“The war with Iraq slowed industrial production but also created a new industry, the manufacture of prosthetics. In August 1986, the head of the Iranian Rehabilitation Agency stated that more than 2 million handicapped individuals had sought the rehabilitation services offered by his agency in 1985 but that the agency was capable of serving only 40,000 newly handicapped persons annually. In response to this need, Iran reportedly planned to increase to six the number of factories producing artificial limbs and other prosthetic devices.”
I wouldnt say Bush and Ahmadinejad are morally equivalent but mentaly its a tie.
Bush and Ahmadinejad having a beer.
BillT said “Bush has a foreign policy plan? Even a brainwashed Iowan would have a better plan than him.”
As a former Bahraini and current Iowan I always wonder why it is that people from around the country use this state as their punchline..as if the “even someone from Iowa…” makes a stupid statement more explainable.
Jared, thanks for the URL. Quite good.
Jared enjoy the grappa for now until we meet in NY! Sorry for keeping your comment in moderation as it contained more than the spambuster limit of 3 per post. I hope I have released it in a timely manner, and thanks too for the very interesting information it contains.
You guys should really get a life.. seriously..
How much time do you spend blogging!?? Holy crap!
You can be more productive taking action than ranting and ranting all day long!
and Mahmood.. seriously.. you should really spend time working and taking care of your family.. you’re a family man for chirst’s sake!
Ù‹Why thank you for your concern Shizzle. You’ll pardon me for not taking it.
Mahmood, shame on you! Time spent blogging is time away from your garden and plants. 🙂
I know… sorry!
You’re most welcome Lujayn. I’ve found it a good panacea for hysterics 😉
Will do my best to avoid hysterics, Jared.
Shizzle, you don’t know what you are talking about; human beings are multi-tasking and can hold a job, garden, blog and spend plenty of time with their family. It’s called living. I am very grateful that Mahmood does what he does. I’ve learned a lot from him and others and been forced to re-examine my beliefs about a whole lot of things, and that’s a good thing.
Oh goodness, not implying that you were engaging in hysterics Lujayne – apologies if it came out that way! Here’s another debunking site that I like – not exactly on topic, but one day it may be:
http://www.snopes.com
Jared in NYC: “For the right wing nutters – Saddam did not have Al Qaeda ties.”
Criminetly, Jared, put down that liberal Kool Aid. Saddam certainly did have long-standing informal ties with Al Qaeda. They were reported in both the Western and Middle Eastern press long before Sep 11. Mohammed Atta met with Saddam’s chief of covert ops in Europe in a restaurant in the suburbs of Prague. One of Saddam’s agents arranged and attended an Al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur which included two of the Sep 11 skyjackers.
Stephen Hayes has rounded up all the evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda ties in his book, “The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00073HH92/qid=1147354154/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7428518-8266556?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Here is an article which sums up the public evidence of collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Jared, it’s not the right wing nutters who say there was a tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda, it’s the evidence. It is the left wing nutters such as you who insanely deny such evidence exists. There are only two reasons for denying these ties: 1) Ignorance, the lefties who claim this simply don’t do their homework and don’t know any better; or 2) Dishonesty, the lefties know the truth but don’t care, they would rather support a lie that undermines Bush than accept evidence that bolsters his case.
Which category do you fall in, Jared?
Jared in NYC: “There were NO WMD in Iraq.”
You have made this false claim once and I have shown it to be false. This time you are simply lying. It is not the right wing nutters who claim to have found WMD in Iraq, it is the Duelfer Report. It takes about thirty seconds to find this stuff on the Internet. Since you are too lazy to even do that, I will spoonfeed you the relevant facts:
“Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile.”
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0
In case you are unclear about this, “dozens of additional chemical munitions” is not “NO WMD in Iraq” as you dishonestly claim against documented facts to the contrary.
Duelfer also states:
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable: Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once alreadyâ€â€during the Iran-Iraq warâ€â€and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.”
The bottom line is that while Saddam apparently disposed of most of his WMD, he still had dozens of them left and intended to resume production as soon as possible.
In addition, insurgents injured two of our soldiers in Iraq with an IED made from a chemical weapons artillery shell full of sarin nerve agent, a WMD: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Now tell us, Jared, how could that WMD be detonated in Iraq when you tell us that “There were NO WMD in Iraq.” Was that some kind of imaginary WMD?
Jared in NYC: “For the left wing nutters – Bush did NOT lie about WMD to start a war, most intelligence believed Iraq had some:
OK, Jared, there is some hope for you. That’s right, even Saddam’s generals believed there were WMD stockpiles.
Saddam was committed to WMD. They saved him during the Iran-Iraq war and he believed, in error, that his WMDs deterred the Americans from attacking Baghdad in Desert Storm.
Steve
Jared, I was going to change that to “I do my best to avoid hysterics”, but I had already submitted the comment. I have to admit, I, like most, do sometimes blurt things out without really thinking them through – its so much easier to jump on the bandwagon than to really question things. So no, I am not at all offended by your remark. It’s pointless if I’m only here to argue the beliefs that I hold and I refuse to question them.
Steve,
If I’m a liar, I guess you’re calling Donald Rumsfeld a liar as well. He also says there were no WMD in Iraq:
“They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4975372.stm
You’re sometimes, but not always a wingnut. To your credit, I admit that you are often an entertaining one. Don’t be mean or I wont save you any grappa.
Jared
Jared in NYC: “Maybe we ought to resurrect a new version of your Bin Laden drinking game. Every time you invoke “lefty herd†or label someone with a political description and then attack the label, I’ll have drink of the (very, very fine) grappa I brough back from Milan a few weeks ago. If you’re nice, maybe I’ll even share some with you. Mahmood gets first dibs though.”
My, my, my, but you have been lurking a long time to dig up such references to the Malikian Era. However, if you are intent on guzzling grappa at my every mention of leftist nonsense, take my advice and buy more grappa. A lot more. You’ll need it. It will please me terrifically to know that my words will give you a golden glow of happiness, as well they should.
I’ll have to pass on the grappa myself because more than two glasses of wine gives me a splitting headache in the morning and grappa looks more potent than the Spätlese I sip once per year. I think I’ll stick with Diet Coke, the breakfast of champions. However, feel free to pass my share on to Mahmood. Just don’t get him too drunk to type. I don’t want to see him running naked through the streets shrieking about Batelco.
And Rumsfeld’s wrong as the Duelfer Report clearly shows and he knows. He probably misspoke, thinking that there were not WMDs in militarily significant amounts.
Steve
Steve said:
Steve, your powers of reinterpreting the words of the Secretary of Defence are truly remarkable. How far does this ability extend? Perhaps you can glean similar meaning from this gem by by General Douglas MacArthur, uttered during a speech to cadets at the West Point Military Academy, October 1955:
“The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.”
Jared
Mahmood said:
Mahmood my friend, if I know you’re coming to NY, I will absolutely save an entire bottle for you and take time off to show you around!
Jared
Jared thank you very much for your generosity, nothing would make me happier than coming to the Big Apple, walking along broadway and enjoying some of the shows!
One day…
Jared in NYC: “Steve, your powers of reinterpreting the words of the Secretary of Defence are truly remarkable. How far does this ability extend? Perhaps you can glean similar meaning from this gem by by General Douglas MacArthur, uttered during a speech to cadets at the West Point Military Academy, October 1955:
“The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.â€Â
MacArthur never said it. According to Snopes, MacArthur made no speech at the Point in 1955. Apparently, it is based on a comment MacArthur made during a private visit from the Mayor of Naples, Italy about the possibility of life on other planets and that sometime in the future Earth might need to unite confront it.
That was distorted by the media into a bogus story about MacArthur warning about an imminent space war. Those bogus stories, in turn, were rehashed by UFO nuts into assertions that MacArthur was warning that aliens were attacking Earth.
So you have gone from using lefty nuts as the authority for your positions to UFO nuts. In other words, you have abandoned chicks gabbing at the next table at uptown Starbucks in Manhattan as your highest source of information and are now using guys wearing tinfoil hats in trailers down by the river.
Jared, you’re slowly floating away from Earth. Time to release some helium from your balloon and come back to terra firma.
Steve
PS. You liberal goofball. (I wanted you to get your shot of grappa. Bottom’s up!)
Very proud of you Steve, you passed – you successfully used a fact checking link that I provided (you didn’t thank me though) to check a fact. If you keep this up, we’ll let you into the republican liberal club. Giuliani will give you a hug. He’ll be easy to spot, as he’s wearing a dress.
Jared
Actually, Jared, I just threw your quote in Yahoo to see what came up. It got a Snopes hit near the top. Snopes is the king. It took about 15 seconds.
I’m not too impressed by your Factcheck.org. I leafed through a few of their posts. Based on that small sample, it looks like they brag more about being impartial than do actual research. From what I see, they snip off the extreme opinions and present a plausible slightly left of center position as the truth. By contrast, Snopes does the hard research to come up with the real answer, free of bias.
Steve
Steve and I clearly disagree on a number of issues.
Back to the topic. I’ve read through a few of articles on the current state of Iran’s foreign policy and the potential for violent conflict between them and the US. Here are two I found informative. They’re not too long, and both end with a guardedly hopeful view:
http://www.brookings.org/views/op-ed/daalder/20060421.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10672/pause_over_iran_nuclear_intelligence.html
I’m getting very busy at work with some fun but challenging projects, so I’ll be absent for a while.
Jared
The New York Sun interprets Ahmadinejad’s letter as a declaration of war:
“President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda.” What this means is “Peace only unto those who follow the true path.”
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira – the late 620s – the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/32594
The awful evidence accumulates that Ahmadinejad and his masters are bent on taking Iran to war.
Steve
Mahmood, does this make sense to you? It is from the Inter Press News Service Agency.
MAY 2006 (IPS) – Given the fragmentation of Iran’s conservative ruling elite, the response of the major powers to Iran’s nuclear ambitions will greatly affect the outcome of the current power struggle inside the country — and by implication, the fate of Iran’s nuclear programme, write Dariush Zahedi, who teaches International Political Economy and Peace & Conflict Studies at University of California, Berkeley, and Ali Assareh, a student instructor and analyst specialising in the political economy of the Middle East at UC Berkeley.
In this analysis, the authors write that pursuing the military option would create a security environment conducive to the ascendancy of Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners, who would seize the opportunity to extinguish the remnants of Iran’s civil society and roll back reforms. Sanctions would damage Iran’s struggling private sector and minuscule middle class and weaken the position of the pragmatists relative to the hard-liners and traditionalists, who control Iran’s vast network of black markets.
Engaging Iran, on the other hand, would enhance the position of the pragmatists relative to other sub-factions. A normalisation of relations between the two countries would also lead to improvements in the condition of the economy. U.S. foreign investment could boost the development of the private sector in Iran and increase the size of its middle class. This process, in the long run, will further consolidate the position of the less ideological and more pragmatic elements within the conservatives, and could lay the foundations for a peaceful and sustained transition to democracy. (END/2006)
Of course Will and it makes sense too. Attack a country and national pride and ego would force everyone to stand with that who shouts loudest and the one who wants to cow ‘the great satan’, rather than them going to moderates who preach peaceful means of resolving conflicts.
Iran needs to be engaged to get this situation to peaceful resolution, no matter what the war theorists and agitators say.
Steve, not so. To me, the phrase “Al-salam ‘ala man ittaba’a al-huda” distinctly means “peace unto those who chose the path of God” and that by definition includes other people of the book: Christians and Jews (and some say Buddhists too).
So the translation you depend on is at the very best inaccurate and want to create a condition of animosity.