Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

[lynn]

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush (news - web sites) was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.

The Bush campaign said no thanks.

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."

Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.

"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.

Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era — despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran — he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations, but in recent days there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday as saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West, but will not concede its right to the technology.

The nuclear issue has been most sensitive, and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran, and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us_elections_2
________________________________________________________

Now that's NEWS!

[Gary Sisco]

He's right, actually. Even the Bushites aren't stupid enough to fuck with Iran. Anyone remember the Ayatollah's funeral, where a mad crowd of his followers pulled the old guy's corpse out of his coffin in an insane show of grief?

You'd have to be seriously stupid to fuck with people like that.

[Gentle Giant]

This is just a ploy to get Yusuf Islam (nee Cat Stevens) a Cabinet post.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I guess an endorsement from Iran is better than one from France.

[Chris D]

Those darn human rights ARE pesky, aren't they?

[tippy]

Abu Ghraib stylee

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Anyone remember the Ayatollah's funeral, where a mad crowd of his followers pulled the old guy's corpse out of his coffin in an insane show of grief?

Oh, I remember it. His corpse looked like a rag doll. I tried that at a funeral once, but nobody laughed. Tough crowd, I guess.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by lynn

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer


Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

Mr. Rowhani evidently doesn't remember which party was in power when the U.S. tilted towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Oh, I remember it. His corpse looked like a rag doll. I tried that at a funeral once, but nobody laughed. Tough crowd, I guess.

I go through the same kind of shit here, Larry. I feel your pain, brother.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Anyone remember the Ayatollah's funeral, where a mad crowd of his followers pulled the old guy's corpse out of his coffin in an insane show of grief?

That was a wonderful moment.

You all will recall that the good ayatollah parked his holy butt in France before the revolution. I don't know that between an Iranian and a French endorsement there is room to choose.

[Monte Smith]

Except that wait. No one cares what the Iranians think and the French infuriate us, so a French endorsement is good fodder against Jean-Forbes Kerry.

Jean-Forbes Kerry

Hahahaha................dirty goddamn Frenchy.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hahahaha................dirty goddamn Frenchy.

Goddamn ape people with their museums and Sorbonne.

[Chris D]

Yeah, how dare they help us defeat the British?

[Gary Sisco]

Who's this "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

[Dr Dave]

Hasan Rowhani may soon wish he had endorsed someone else for President of the United States. The Bush Administration is cranking up the propaganda machine again, this time against Iran. It's right there on the front of today's New York Times. Here's the lead:

"SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 20 - President Bush increased the administration's pressure on Iran on Saturday, saying there were indications that the country was speeding forward in its production of a key ingredient for nuclear weapons fuel, a move he said was 'a very serious matter'' that undercut Iran's denials that it was seeking to build weapons...."

-30-

The question now is, how will the U.S. enforce its will against Iran. Bush may have a mandate and all that, but he's not about to start a draft. Our military is tied up and then some in Iraq. The Bushies don't do diplomacy, so what's left?

How about this: We declare Iran an immediate threat--come up with some bullshit about how they have not just nuclear capability but missile-launching capability. Then we call up Tony Blair and ask him to explain to the world that America has no choice but to drop a nuclear weapon on Tehran.

Problem solved! And a big nuclear waste cleanup contract for Halliburton in the bargain! Any takers?

[Gary Sisco]

Come on. Let's level the playing field a little, anyway. Halliburton's been making blood profits in Iran for years and years. Let someone else have a chance, once at least.

And in any case, they're not going to fuck with Iran. If nothing else, Israel won't let them.

[Dr Dave]

Israel won't let us? Because they want to do it themselves? What's with this story from the Washington Post?:

"Israel, Iran Trade Threats As FBI Investigates Spying
U.S. Ally Said to Have Received Documents on Tehran

By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A18

JERUSALEM, Aug. 29 -- Israel and Iran traded significantly escalated threats of military attacks in recent months as the FBI investigated allegations that a Pentagon official passed secret U.S. policy information about Iran to Israeli authorities.

Israel has warned that it could launch strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities to thwart the country's advancing weapons program. In response, Iranian Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said earlier this month: "If Israel should dare to attack our nuclear installations, we will come down on its head like a heavy hammer crushing its skull."

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Israeli officials have expressed more concern about the danger Iran poses and have been more emboldened in their threats to quash it..."

-30-

What am I missing?

[Gary Sisco]

Exactly, Doc. Americans might think that they tell Israel what to do but the reality in the Mid-East is that the Israelis do and the Americans talk. So the gringos can say whatever they want. Who cares? No one in power in Israel is who.

Does anyone seriously think that Israel would allow Iran to have nukes and a missile delivery system? Give it up. No one remembers when the Israelis (fuck the inspectors!) bombed Saddam's nuke project? Hello? You think they wouldn't bomb Iran's before allowing it to become a threat to Israel (or *its* nukes)?

Give us all a break, already. No way would the Israelis allow an Arab or Moslem state to have a successful nuke program.

Only Israel is allowed to have one. That's been made perfectly clear by both Israel and the US.

[Dr Dave]

Ah, I see. This leads me to some other questions: Let's say the Mossad knows everybody's business when it comes to armaments in the Middle East. What were they doing when Condi Rice was threatening an Iraqi-sent mushroom cloud? Did they laugh up their sleeves?

If Donald Rumsfeld were to go to the Israelis and say he had proof that the Iranians were going nuclear, would they ask to see the proof? Would they agree to attack on that basis? Or would they laught up their sleeves again?

Do the Israelis really have so powerful a hold over U.S. foreign policy that they can refuse to do their biggest bankroller and major protector a favor? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I really don't understand.

[Gary Sisco]

1. Yes. 1a. Even moreso after the Gulf War revealed the utter uselessness of Iraq's famous Scud missiles, manufactured in the woikers' paradise by bored and rarely paid or fed proles with vodka hangovers, nearly every one of which self-destructed on re-entry, and almost none of which were hit by the US's equally useless Patriots, as even the Pentagon has since admitted, though not at the time,when they got much propaganda value off of the self-destruction footage, which they insisted were Patriot hits at the time.

2. Rumsfeld, if he needed any proof that hasn't already been in the Times almost daily, since Iran isn't exactly being secretive about it, would probably receive it from Mossad in the first place. Let us try at least to recall recent history. To wit: The CIA found out about both Pakistan and India's nuke capabilities at the same time as the rest of the world. Which is to say, after they'd each touched off their nukes in tests. Not before. Let's also recall that the CIA failed also to even come close to indicating the coming demise of the Soviet Union and East Bloc, which they were insisting right up to the minute that it fell was actually ahead of the US in the arms race. That or the entire Reagan admin and all of the American press, the alternative press included, were knowingly lying about at the time. I'd not wager on that, myself. 2a. The Israelis don't "agree" to attack, with anyone, esp the US. They attack. On their terms. Whatever else can be said for the Israelis, I've always admired that about them. They don't need no steenking agreement.

3. The Israelis have never given a flying fuck about their bankroller when it comes to anything they perceive as a necessary defense of Israel, and have often in fact openly defied US policy for their own. Many times. What's news about this to you, Doc? 2a. Major protector? Since when? Name one time that the US has militarily defended the Israelis. They do their own defending and they do it very well, whatever else can be said for their policies. They have arguably the best intelligence agencies in the world (some would give Cuba the nod) and certainly their military is way up on the list of most modernly equipped and supertrained, combat ready at all times, for whatever they know or even think is coming their way. Again, unlike the US, which spends an enormous, historically unheard of amount of social wealth on the defense budget but apparently haven't been able to put a combat ready force together with it, even enough to fight a little war like the one in Iraq. Which is a little war by historical standards, whatever the present crew likes to think or say. The idea that Israel is somehow an American lapdog or even attack dog in the Mid-East is absurd. If anything, the US trails along behind them, since they go ahead and act, regardless. American Mid-East policy is always a matter of the US adjusting itself after the fact to events that have already transpired.

More likely the US cleared the invasion of Iraq with Israel rather than vice versa.

[Dr Dave]

Okay. My only quibble (and it is just a quibble) with your analysis is that to me bankroller=protector since money=arms. You're quite right, if anyone is a "lapdog" in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it's the big dog, not the little one.

Anyway, to get back to my original premise, how do you suppose our saber-rattling regarding Iran will play out?

[Gary Sisco]

About the same way it's played out re North Korea. A lot of talk, but neither smoke nor fire.

If you want to go with money, okay. Clearly. But the Israeli state -- the only state in the world, by the way, to not only fire on but sink a US Navy ship with impunity -- has had its middle finger in the air all the while it cashes the checks.

The truth is that the US needs Israel as an ally in the Mid-East more than the Israelis need the US (apart from its money, clearly, but also pointing out the obvious, that since there's a bipartisan consensus in Congress, there's no, zero, nada chance of Israel's bankrolling being cut off or even cut for budget purposes).

And by the way, the US supports Israel in the same degree, moneywise, as the Soviets supported Cuba, and not just militarywise. Israel wouldn't have an economy at all if it were not for the US social wealth and capital it receives gratis.

Sound strange? It's the john who does the paying, but who needs the servicing more? The john or the whore?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

We could send Ron Artest and the Indiana Pacers into Tehran.

The bottom line we (the US) aren't going anywhere in Iran. I keep repeating this but it's simple logistics. We don't have the money and we don't have the troops.

However, Israel could act as our proxy. I do remember them taking out Iraq's nuke facility. There's no way in the world they're going to allow Iran the bomb. And quiet as it's kept, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel doesn't get some behind the scenes incouragement.

[Dr Dave]

Artest would probably start his own Sunni faction.

It doesn't sound as though the Israelis do anybody's bidding unless they feel like it.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Doc,

Look at it this way. If you were Israel what would you do? I'm not defending them, but their situation is basically life and death. For us, it's just a political exercise.

They are surrounded by countries that hate them, and despite the so-called moderate Arab voices, those countries wouldn't be bothered if Israel ceased to exist. So to them it's survival of their state.

Logically, a two-state solution would be best. But there are hard-liners on both sides who will not agree to that solution. They may be a minority, but right now that minority controls the violence. So logic is irrelevent.

I'm beginning to think the natural state of man is to hate the "other", whatever that "otherness" is: race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Originally Posted by DGT

I'm beginning to think the natural state of man is to hate the "other", whatever that "otherness" is: race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Without question. That's a belief I've long held.

You can add so many other things to your list: politics, car they drive, musical taste, hell, just about anything really.

Humans are jealous, pompous, and indignant. Some just have more control over those feelings than others.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

When I was a kid my whole perspective on this was black-white relations in the US. I only tought about white racism and how it had effected me, my family and my friends.

Then the "Troubles" started in Northern Ireland. I didn't get it. Here you had two peoples who were of the same race, same ethnicity, the same damn country. I'm like, "What the hell is this?"

Then I started checking out a lot of the conflicts around the world. A couple of groups may have a tiny, almost unnoticeable difference and they were killing themselves over it. Hell, look at soccer brawls in Europe.

That's why when people accuse another person of being an "animal" someimes I feel it's an insult to the animals.

The Middle East has reached a point where it's just violence for violence sake. I figure the only cure is for the violence to reach such a horrendous level that both sides are literally shocked by the damage that they done to each other.

Originally Posted by DGT

The Middle East has reached a point where it's just violence for violence sake.

I couldn't agree more. Jihad? What jihad?

Like racism here in the U.S., it seems like much of what's going on over there is happening simply due to it being passed on from one generation to the next. These young kids are blowing themselves up, but do they even realize why? You always here about how this suicide bomber was 17, or that one was only 18. Sure, their parents are proud, but does the kid even understand why?

Most racist folk I've met in this lifetime cannot truly explain to me why they are racist. But it is always interesting to note that their parents are usually worse than they are. Therefore, the kids were "taught" that this was the right way to be. They're just never taught why.

Racism and suicide bombing. Oh those long cherished family traditions.

[Gary Sisco]

I agree with you, Darryl, re logistics and troop levels. They're approaching mutiny as it is, calling up the retired and what have you, middle-aged fathers and grandfathers in the NG for combat duty, shit like that. You'd think this superpatriot young generation would want to be out there mixing it up some, but, no -- they save that for basketball games and let the old guys do the real fighting for them. They can't maintain the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is, never mind marching into Iran. That's all blather and bullshit.

I disagree with you about people naturally hating the "other," however. With people, everything depends on the *kind* of society in which they live, not just the fact that they live. I have, however, come to the conclusion that warfare is an inherent aspect of human life, in any society (known to history or prehistory). Sometimes its a necessary evil, very rarely its based on real moral issues, and nearly always its for stupid and even lunatic reasons. But it's always there, throughout history, and in very nearly every culture, now or ever. And Euros and Euroamericans are among the most warlike or warlike cultures, ever, though they like to think of themselves in other lights. Their histories tell the real story, however, like it or not.

I'm not a two-stater, myself. One because I'm not a racist and don't believe a society has to be homogenous, and more especially, I don't believe that one ought to be homogenous, if only for ecological reasons (the more complex an ecology, the more evolutionarily creative). The acceptance of that logic, to me, is one of the most reactionary aspects of the Counter-Enlightenment. It goes back to pre-urbanization, even, which is to say to pre-civilization.

Two, and more practically, there'd be no, zero economic base for a Palestinian state, never mind one whose territory is not even geographically contiguous, but is, rather, composed of tiny bandustans surrounded by a (mutually) hostile society on all sides. That's a recipe for more failure, on still a grander scale, and hence, even more thanatoid terror and violence -- a state of permanent warfare on the civic level. That's madness.

The only rational solution is a democratic, secular republic under which all citizens, regardless of religion or any other factor, stand equal before the law.

But that's not a solution that anyone is going to go for, which is why I say that there is no rational solution to the problem. The only rational expectation that exists, therefore, is either permanent warfare such as what exists now, or genocide. I don't think genocide is on the horizon, so that leaves only one outcome. More of the same and for as long into the future as either side wants to carry on with it. Which is apparently a limitless enough time to be meaningless to guys of our age.