Iran president asks to lay wreath at ground zero, request denied

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.

The Iranian president, who is arriving Sunday to address the United Nations' General Assembly, had asked the police department, the U.S. Secret Service and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey earlier this month for permission to visit the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

The police and Secret Service provide security to visiting heads of state.

The request to enter the fenced-in site was rejected because of ongoing construction there, Browne said. "Requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds," Browne said.


Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--ahmadinejad-groun0919sep19,0,238155.story?coll=ny-nycpolitics-headlines

[NC_Nurse]

1. Why?

What do they think he's gonna do, blow himself up?

Seems like BS to me. But why not alienate Iran even more? :eyes:

[baldguy]

3. Because he ORDER the attacks on 9/11!

:sarcasm:

(Who's Osama? Never mind.)

[saigon68]

8. Not only that he's an islamicist and therefore a

terraistic person

</sarcasm>

[olddad56]

27. No, I think that was Dick Cheney.

[Waya]

4. Probably is BS......

....anything to avoid making Middle eastern People look like Humans.....much easier to kill them if we dehumanize the 'enemy'..dontcha know....

[emilyg]

6. Because Bush knows how to make friends

:sarcasm:

[Submariner]

2. The only reason Bush denied the ground zero request

was because it would look to be in poor taste to bomb the guys country just after he laid a wreath at a memorial. There is no other spin, this is the fact of the matter.

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. Yup. n/t

[liberalmuse]

10. I know you're right, but I hope you're wrong. n/m

n/m

[aquart]

13. Yeah, Bush is big on good taste.

Uh huh. Sure. Well, has to be a first time for everything.

So this would be Bush losing his good taste virginity?

[olddad56]

28. I'm sure that our fascist government will provide him plenty of places to lay wreaths

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

7. I'll Try To Be Voice Of Reason

I remember hearing how last week, the authorities even limited access to the families of the victims to visit the site on 9/11. They were given a time limit of how long they were allowed there, and I recall that there were some complaints that limitations were being placed on the families themselves.

I still think the excuses are all BS, but if they're limited for families of victims, then access will definitely be limited from achmunijadahadahad

[HuffleClaw]

9. that is exactly the sort of childishness BushCo. is famous for

'because of the ongoing construction' my ass

[ohio2007]

26. Senator Hillary Clinton released the following statement: ;

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."




http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5665164

Just who is he really honoring with a photo op wreath laying ?

Is he honoring the 19 martyrs ?
depends on the way which countries MSM spins it

[eagler]

30. Of course the fact that he is one of the greatest antisemites in the

world shouldn't disqualify him.

[bitchkitty]

54. How can a semite be anti-semite?

Or do you mean anti-Israel?

[ronnie624]

56. Very good! n/t

[Adsos Letter]

58. Persians are semitic?

:shrug:

[eagler]

80. Technically anyone descending from Shem, one of Noah's sons

is a Semite.

[bitchkitty]

102. Actually, they are not.

My bad. They overthrew the Semites way back when. My point is, though, that anti-Israel doesn't necessarily mean anti-semitic.

[Adsos Letter]

104. I agree...

...disagreeing with a nations policies doesn't equate with racism. :hi:

[Phrogman]

65. Ta-da-dump!

thank you

[hack89]

68. You know very well

that anti-semite in common usage almost always refers to hostility to Jews.

While the term's etymology may imply that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semite

[txaslftist]

76. Anti-Israel is anti-Semite in modern parlance.

Which is why Jimmy Carter can be called an anti-Semite without irony.

The term "anti-Semite" means nothing anymore.

[Phrogman]

89. Well you are nothing but an anti-Semite!!!

:sarcasm:

[nodehopper]

96. not everyone who is anti-israel is anti-semitic

and yet there are real anti-semites who are racist when it comes to jews--not israelis. duh.

[Megahurtz]

91. LOL! n/t

[yava]

31. no talking means war

But are we sure we can win this war?
It is traditional for leaders of competing powers or powers at war to visit and honor the graves of soldiers or victims upon visit if dialogue for peace or cease-fire is sought. In this sense, Ahmadi... is right. The Iraq study group of Baker et al recommended dialogue. What is not part of dialogue if not the Ahmadi... move to honor the 9/11 dead?
Someone is refusing dialogue. Wonder who?

[sailor65]

34. If we fight it like a war

yes, and it will be no contest.

If we waste a lot of time trying to win "Hearts and Minds" that may be a different story.

[knight_of_the_star]

41. Even if we fight it like a war we still lose

Iran is very rugged, inhospitable country. There's only three times in history outsiders have ever successfully invaded that region, the first was Alexander the Great and that's because the armies that would stop him were already dead, the Arab Muslims for the same reason, and the Mongols because they come from an even rougher part of the world than Iran.

That and we will be running headlong into a huge problem we didn't have in Iraq: we will be facing a strong, well-supplied and fresh fighting force ready for a war as opposed to one beaten down by sanctions and air raids for 12 years with an army that has been bled white for the last four.

[sailor65]

45. But you're still thinking

in terms of Iraq. A war with Iran, if fought with commitment, should have only one purpose; to completely remove the enemy's ability to threaten us further. That will not require large scale ground invasions in the case of Iran, and would not have in the case of Iraq either had the war been treated like a war.

No occupation, no hearts, minds, flowers, candy, or photo ops. Just absolute, utter destruction of the necessary targets and Iran is back 100 years in terms of threat to us.

Now before anyone starts flipping out on me, if you're reading this, read it twice and note that I'm not suggesting we SHOULD, only answering the poster's question about whether we COULD.

[bemildred]

47. The limitations of bombing have long since been proven.

That will not be the end of it. And since the "security" of the US is deemed to require the domination of the Middle East, not merely the removal of the non-existent domestic threat of Iran to the USA, it will only make the situation worse by expending our assets without any compensating improvement in control of that region. The problem is that the "threat" that Iran poses is not a military one, so damaging their military will not remove it.

[sailor65]

50. While you're not wrong

about "Other" inmplications, the question was can we win a shooting war with Iran? My answer was specific to that question.

[bemildred]

52. And you are not wrong either.

I was more quibbling with your notion of us wreaking "utter destruction" on them, and the notion that doing so would buy lots of time. I don't think it would buy any time at all, or not much, and it would precipitate other events that would make the situation worse in short order.

[sailor65]

79. And you

expressed precisely why I know we shouldn't, vs whether we could! Too many potential consequences afterwards.

[OnyxCollie]

48. Of course, you're forgetting the repercussions of bombing Iran back 100 years.

China and Russia will not be pleased, and China could seriously fuck our shit up without firing a shot.

[sailor65]

51. That's not untrue either

but is still outside the scope of my answer, which wasn't a multifront war, only a direct war with Iran.

[DuaneBidoux]

77. Yea', maybe we could if we actually had strategic thinking non-neocon leadership.

But it would still only make even more enemies and foment even more new terrorists.

[DuaneBidoux]

78. DUPE

But it would still only make even more enemies and foment even more new terrorists.

[ronnie624]

57. self delete

[LanternWaste]

103. Much like the current conflict we've engaged ourselves in...

Much like the current conflict we've engaged ourselves in, I honestly don't think there are any valid, long-term military solutions. I think it was Guderian who wrote something to the effect of, 'the purpose of the military is to deny the opposition the ability to wage war...' That being the case, we've already lost the current conflict, and conventional wisdom dictates that any conflict with Iran would produce the same result.

It was "no contest" when the U.S. launched its offensive against Iraq-- yet we're still losing men, losing money, losing hearts, losing will-power, losing influence, and (it seems) losing our collective minds. We're bankrupting this country and our best efforts merely allow us to tread water.

So for my part, I think it would be one of the worst policy, national and military disasters ever if we launched another offensive in Iran. President Napoleon simply doesn't realize that Waterloo has already been fought...

[iaviate1]

42. If he's so bad, why let him in the country at all?

He had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Why does anybody really care if he goes there? If he wants to do something insulting, it'll only bring about support for the US by alienating the moderates. But as somebody else mentioned in this thread, it would look bad if we bombed the hell out of a country who just paid respects to the gaping wound that still remains after the 9/11 attacks.

[leftynyc]

60. As hosts of the United Nations

one of the obligations is to give member states access to the UN building and traveling to and from their embassy/consulate in New York. We have to let him in.

[iaviate1]

97. Since when does this administration follow the rules?

We want to stick Iran with rules regarding nuclear research while we openly talk about developing new nuclear weapons. BTW, this isn't directed at you... I know you're right =)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. she means the terrorists in the White House of course?

[Nihil]

69. Senator Hillary Clinton criticises a politician for wanting a photo-op?

:crazy:

> "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."

Hey Hillary? Care to think back past the most recent opinion poll and
tell us how many innocent people IRAN have killed then compare it to
the number that the USA have killed (most of them with your approval)?

Maybe Ahmadinejad should lay a wreath at the foot of the Statue of Liberty:
in remembrance of what used to be a great country before the cabal of
greedy, over-paid corrupt politicos took it over?

[reggie the dog]

87. another

reason that I will not vote for her.

[ProudDad]

94. Earth to hillary

"it is unacceptable for hillary clinton to say anything about Iranian President Ahmadinejad, since she refuses to renounce and end her own country's massive support of terrorism"

Screw hillary and the rest of the war mongers...

[HuffleClaw]

98. and her too.

she's become a shill. a waffling opportunistic shill

[moondust]

11. 9/11? Ground Zero? It never happened!

Dinny's a dunce for believing all that stuff actually happened! Sheesh!

[Roland99]

12. Sept. 11, 2001 - Iran denounces massive attacks on U.S., expresses sympathy with victims

http://web.archive.org/web/20010915153141/http://www.irna.com/en/tnews/010912234912.etn00.shtml

Tehran, Sept 11, IRNA -- Iranian President Mohammad Khatami on Tuesday
condemned the kamikaze "terrorist" attacks in the United States and
expressed his deep sorrow and sympathy with the American nation.

"On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the
hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American
cities which have killed a large number of innocent people," President
Khatami said in reaction to the worst attack on American soil since
Pearl Harbor. Three hijacked planes slammed into the Pentagon and New
York's landmark World Trade Center on Tuesday, demolishing the two
110-story towers that symbolize U.S. financial might.

"My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly
those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the
victims," he said, noting, "terrorism is doomed and the international
community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to
eradicate it."

Khatami added that the Islamic Republic is treading a road to
uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no efforts.

[stlsaxman]

20. Thank you for this post!

How this admin. squandered the love and sympathy of THE WORLD for his own gain really makes me sad and angry.

[cali]

24. Ahmadinejad is no Khatami

Not even close. Having said that, if the bush admin had a smidgen of brain matter they would have graciously escorted Ahmadinejad to the site, and generated some good PR in the Islamic world.

fuggin idiots.

[Lisa]

43. at least one Iranian-American casualty on 9/11

http://www.iranian.com/Diaspora/2004/December/Rock/index.html

"This memorial rock is dedicated to the memory of Touri Bolourchi, an Iranian-American who lost her life in September 11, 2001."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

14. Welcome to Bush diplomacy.

It not only sends a Cheney-style message to Ahmadinejad ("go fuck yourself")...it sends a message to the world (same message).

If the "visiting dignitary" offered a P.R. benefit to Junior, there'd be some wreath-laying frenzy in the Oval Office. But Bush is in the process of teaching Ahmadinejad a "lesson" about who's boss, and as such, cannot tolerate any wreath laying on HIS watch.

[coffeenap]

15. Um, this is the country of freedom, is it not? Certainly, he is

welcome to leave a wreath at any space allowed for such things within the surrounding area, just like anyone else?

[rmgarrette64]

18. He most certainly is not

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ahmadinejad is not a citizen of this country, so the fact that this is or is not a country of freedom is not relevant. However, it goes further, not only is he not a citizen, he is in fact President of a truly unfree country, one involved in heavy repression of its own people, and sponsoring attacks into his neighbor, Iraq, that involve heavy fighting with our own troops.

It is entirely appropriate to deny this request. It would have been hideously grotesque to have him lay a wreath at ground zero. I'm a little abashed that this was refused on grounds of safety, rather than simple common sense.

We are perfectly within our prerogatives to deny such requests without some legalistic justification.

R. Garrett

[windbreeze]

25. You are right....it was Iran that attacked us...right???

What would it have hurt to have allowed him to lay a wreath...this has nothing to do with HIS country...and it's status...it has to do with HONOR...I actually can't believe I read this post...damn...

I would hate like hell for anyone to give an inch on this world stage...I mean, we only have how many Iranians living in this country...and don't we all have to live on this same planet...why even let him into the country then?? I am left, beyond this point....absolutely speechless...wb

[Megahurtz]

29. No, it was Iraq!

:sarcasm:

[KAZ]

33. Just go away. Sick of it already.

[leftynyc]

63. He/She is as entitled to an opinion as you are

Sick of it?....get off the thread....problem solved.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

39. President Bush holds hands with members of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family

Do you think human rights violations and civilian repression takes place in Saudi Arabia? I'll give you a chance to think about it.

[subsuelo]

61. speculation is growing as to Saudi involvement

in helping Iraqi insurgents as well

[rmgarrette64]

73. Absolutely

I find it similarly disgusting that Bush is so close to the Saudis. Somehow I don't think I'll find much disagreement on Bush bashing...

[eridani]

59. Attacks on Iraq? What horseshit.

Maybe you'd care to explain why Iran wants to overthrow the most pro-Iranian government that Iraq has had since it came into existence?

[Phillycat]

101. SHHHH! TALKING SENSE IS DEEPLY FROWNED UPON HERE.

Either work yourself into a froth or get out! :D

[leftynyc]

62. I agree with you

Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad is reason enough to deny the request. As a New Yorker, I would have been upset about it especially after the victims families had such a hard time getting permission to be there on the anniversary.

[ohio2007]

16. Officials Reject Iranian President's Bid To Visit Ground Zero

http://www.wnbc.com/news/14152775/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

I wonder if the wreath laying photo op would become a crowd control problem.

what,with all these police tazering folks and all ;)

[Robson]

17. Bush offers US diplomacy on the world's stage in the grandest sense

:sarcasm: :rofl:

Sadly and in reality he has neither common sense nor intellectual ability, nor interest in improving the image and status of the USA IMHO. HTF did this idiot ever get the GOP nomination? That's the question. We know how he got "elected".

One could have taken a dart and thrown it at a dart board filled with a random sampling of names of American citizens and anyone of them would have done a better job as POTUS.

He's gearing up for a unilateral strike on Iran and I want to know why the Democrats in Congress failed us by removing the statement on the funding bill that would have prevented it.

[wtmusic]

19. Q: Why couldn't we let an aide lay the wreath?

A: Because it still might encourage some sympathy for the country we were about to bomb the crap out of.

[Megahurtz]

21. Niiice.

Nice way to make yourself look stupid.
Good one W.H.
Good one N.Y. City.
Assholes.

Too bad this won't get out on the MSM I'm sure.

[ohio2007]

22. The Port Authority, which owns the trade center site and is the only agency that could grant

Ahmadinejad permission to go inside, said it never received such a request, contradicting the police statement.


So, the whole story may be BS.
I wonder if Amadinejad knows he requested to visit the ground zero site.


http://english.farsnews.ir/

just the usual hawkish talk from the Iranina MSM

http://www.irna.ir/en/

[Atman]

23. We can't have him looking human while Bush is trying to make him our enemy

That just wouldn't do. If 'Murkins saw just a man showing compassion, and not a devil-horned Great Satan II as Bush wants us to view him, it would ruin Bush's fun...er, I mean, plans for more war.

.

[bemildred]

46. Yep, he's not following he script. He needs to be scolded. nt

[leftynyc]

64. And you know him personally???

Do you know for a fact he wasn't just looking for a photo op? It also would have been a security nightmare. New York gets screwed up enough when the assembly is in town.

Honestly, the willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to a leader of a country that hangs homosexuals in public is pretty nauseating.

[Nihil]

66. Come on then ...

> Do you know for a fact he wasn't just looking for a photo op?

:rofl:

You make it sound as if there was a purpose to ANY politician
visiting the hole other than a photo-op!

GMAFB

[leftynyc]

70. What makes you think I give any politician the

benefit of the doubt? You want to cater to an asshole who kills gays, knock yourself out - New Yorkers obviously want no part of it.

[Nihil]

71. Your wording

> What makes you think I give any politician the benefit of the doubt?

>> Do you know for a fact he wasn't just looking for a photo op?

I read your post as objecting to him looking for a photo op as opposed
to any other dipshit politician doing the same. You reinforced that
impression with your "an asshole who kills gays" comment so yes, your
wording makes me think that you give some politicians more benefit of
the doubt than others. If not, then fair enough.

FWIW, I don't want to "cater" to any of those "assholes" yet it would
be nice if there was a degree of consistency (e.g., no Iranian "assholes",
no Iraqi "assholes", no Israeli "assholes", no British "assholes",
no Saudi "assholes", no American "assholes", etc.).

I suppose that as the precedent has been set over the last few years,
this means that ALL "assholes" should be equally welcome.

[Atman]

72. Who the hell said I want to CATER to anyone?

I'll give YOU the benefit of the doubt, although I have no real reason to; I know less about you than I do Ahmadinejad. I'm not giving him any benefit whatsoever, I have simply made an observation. Of course there are security concerns, but you know as well as I do that that is not the reason for denying him access! "Security concerns" are dealt with all the time, and if there had been the slightest PR benefit to BushCo in allowing the laying of a wreath, BushCo would have happily ordered the whole damned city shut down.

I made no claim or comment about his politics, I simply pointed out that when you're trying to get your war on, it's really bad strategically to allow your enemy to be seen as anything less than a serious threat. Allowing him to be shown as having any compassion whatsoever would seriously undermine Bush's efforts to gain support for attacking Iran...not that W will care, he'll attack when he's good and ready.

Do you deny this?

Also, I find it very curious that your only beef in your two responses was that I (or the other posters) want to cater to an asshole who "kills gays." Jesus effing christ, dude, project much? So to whom are YOU catering when you allow Republicans -- who block access to basic civil rights for gays, including health care benefits -- attend memorials, or even drive down public streets? Ahmadinejad has purportedly done and said some pretty terrible things, but you don't want him in NYC because he hangs homosexuals? Last I checked, there isn't one single Middle Eastern nation who treats gays -- or women, for that matter -- any differently. And our own leaders aren't doing too well, imho, in advancing any gay rights agendas, either. He wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but you don't want him tying up traffic because he hangs gays?

You tacked all sorts of assumptions and assertions onto my post that just weren't there. I made what was actually meant to be a semi-humorous observation about Bush's latest bogeyman, and you turn it into an accusation that I want to "cater to an asshole who kills gays?"

Seek help, man. You seem to have some real pent-up hostility there.

.

[leftynyc]

74. I apologize

It wasn’t really you that I was so upset with – by the time I got to your post, there were so many that were willing to give this miscreant the benefit of the doubt that your comment was just the one I hit reply to.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that my problems with the leader of Iran (I refuse to learn how to spell his name or use one of the childish mis-spellings that are so common online) were only in how that country treats homosexuals. All minorities and women suffer under that regime. And I agree that Muslim countries in general have an awful human rights record – especially in their treatment of women . Why people on a progressive site would defend any action by this man or any other leader of a country that has this kind of record astounds me. I can only conclude that their hatred of Bush (and I’m with them on that one) translates into seeing the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I have no desire to see this country attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 – I can’t even believe I have to make that clear on a progressive board.

My biggest beef is all politicians using Ground Zero for their own purposes. Bush standing on what really amounted to a pile of bodies to threaten the world only being the first. Then the republicans choosing New York for their convention for the most craven reasons (before and since, New York is considered Gemmorrah by that party). I have many reasons for thinking the latest chance for a photo op was occurring. Iran’s man is only trying to drum up sympathy and good will from people he really couldn’t care less about (much as Bush was). If he wants to drum up good will, he can start by treating his own population (especially the women) with some respect and decency.
Frankly, I don’t care what the reasons were for refusing his admittance – I’m just glad they did as it would have no doubt offended the victim’s families who have no obligation to look at the broader picture.

Again, I apologize for seemingly coming down on you – it really wasn’t that. I was sloppy in responding and can only chalk it up to being very early in the morning.

Peace.

[leftynyc]

75. And by the way - I'm a woman. (eom)

[ProudDad]

95. You're right

they should emulate the U.S. and hang homosexuals privately...

[leftynyc]

99. State sponsored murder of gays?

You got a link for that? Isn't this government bad enough without attributing nonsense like this to it?

[FooFootheSnoo]

32. I don't think it would be a very good idea to let him

lay a wreath there. I think some of the families would be offended. Personally, I think he's just looking for a photo op and I don't think Ground Zero should be used for that. If he really, really wants to support for the victims or their loved ones, he could anonymously make a donation to one of the memorial funds or anonymously send flowers.

[laundry_queen]

40. How do you know he hasn't? eom

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. Typical American response. n/t

[hollowdweller]

36. I think somebody made a mistake there!

Maybe I am totally off base here, but to me that would be like a gesture of goodwill and probably should have been permitted even if it was a big hassle. I think we lost the PR battle on that one.

[TroubleMan]

38. They don't want him to look human or sympathetic.....they want war with Iran.

Cheney and bush want war with Iran very, very badly, and are trying to pull out all the stops to make it happen. They are going to demonize this guy and Iran, so they don't want him to do something nice.

[harun]

81. They always have to demonize the enemy before they attack

Anything that makes him look less demonic is not acceptable to the B*sh admin.

[hollowdweller]

88. It's a damn shame. What if this is him trying to reach out? Why miss any chance for understanding.

[Harper_is_Bush]

37. Missed opportunity n/t

[Cha]

44. The real news here is that

he wanted to. That's an interesting request from someone the rogue government wants to bomb asap.

[trashcanistanista]

53. Yes, it was decent of him to request it

and it unwittingly makes * look like the bigger asshole for refusing him.

[trusty elf]

55. ground zero

[lynne]

67. Is anyone else allowed to lay a wreath or visit the Ground Zero -

- area where construction is going on? It's my understanding that access to Ground Zero is restricted to everyone because of construction. Why should Ahmadinejad be any different? :shrug:

[JBoy]

92. Apparently it wasnt' a problem

for:

Karzai: http://news.theolympian.com/stories/20020131/HomePageStories/7969.shtml



or for Putin:

[kitty1]

82. I'm betting there's an inside hit on Mahmoud when he visits....

If that happens, a rataliation of huge proportions will be paid to the big Satan (U.S) by way of car bombings, building explosion. Whatever the GOP dreams up.
This provocation will then lead to the premise to give Iran an ass whuppin. Americans will be pissed and ready to dish out Armageddon to them after that.
By killing Mahmoud, they also get rid of their chief rival for business in the ME.
I'm thinking Blackwater would handle any security (nudge nudge wink wink) for the Iranian pres.

(Oops, my tinfoil hat is sliding off)

[ima_sinnic]

83. we have become a trailer-trash country.

That sort of petty crap is what I'd expect from lameass, uneducated, inbred morons who have the wisdom and diplomacy of jackals. "No, you can't come to Uncle Johnnie-Bob's funeral because we're mad at you--you peed in cousin Gertie's Budweiser."

Is there NOBODY in power anywhere with any WISDOM?

[ShortnFiery]

84. The Ministry of Truth is saying that it was IRANIANS that bombed us on 9/11 ... we've always been at

war with Iran. :wow: :(

[SOS]

85. US to Iran:

Please show your sympathy for the victims of 9/11 through candlelight vigils in Tehran only.

[tom_paine]

86. Only Bushies get to used Mulched Amerikans as Photo Ops

Bushies to Ahmadinejad: Kill you own citizens to use as photo ops. Don't use the ones we let die for OUR photo ops.

[Socal31]

90. So we should provide security

for a man who is calling for genocide against Isreal? Let him walk down there without any of our tax dollars protecting him.

[Megahurtz]

93. He Never Called For Genocide

against Israel. You're listening to A.I.P.A.C. propaganda.

[Socal31]

105. Huh?

He has several times called for the destruction of Isreal. Noone denies that. That is from Iranian sources. Destruction of Isreal = Genocide in most people's minds.

[LeftyMom]

106. Hint: Learning to spell the name of the country you're concerned about lends credibility

:eyes:

[Socal31]

107. Hint:

Challeging the facts, not the spelling, would lend to yours.

[LeftyMom]

108. As soon as you mention one, somebody will.

With an attitude like that, you're not going to do well here.

[Xenotime]

100. He should be allowed full access to the site.