Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Iran endorses Bush
October 19, 2004 11:28 PM   Subscribe

Iranian regime endorses Bush, saying democrats have historically "harmed Iran." Head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, Hassan Rowhani, is very close to the hardline leader, Ali Khamanei. But the truth is Republicans have always helped dictators in Iran,. Biggest example: 1953 coup that toppled Mossadeq, the extremely popular elected official prime minister of Iran and brought back the tyrant Shaah.
posted by hoder (20 comments total)

 
Ooh, this can't be good for Bush.

Let's shout it from the rooftops!
posted by fenriq at 11:38 PM on October 19, 2004


Every dictator, save Saddam and the Taliban, are better off today than they were four years ago. Of course both Afghanistan and Iraq are far from finished business.

N. Korea: More nukes than ever.

Iran: Soon.

Gaddafi: I hate some rusting mustard gas from twenty years ago in the garbage. Now I'm in with the west!

Pervez Musharraf: thanks for the f-16s!

While democracies are becoming more corrrupt are ruthless:

Russia: fuck these democratic reforms.

Turkey: we cant stop killing kurds and as a partner onthe war on the terror, america wont care!

Israel: Killings kids and planting settlements for Jewish Fundamentalists faster than ever!

Haiti: So long elected Aristide, hello chaos, mob rule, strong men, and US approved leaders.
posted by skallas at 11:42 PM on October 19, 2004


Nevertheless, Bush removed Iran's two big threat: Saddam and Taliban.
posted by hoder at 11:44 PM on October 19, 2004


"Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is hoping John Kerry wins the presidential election in November, several Palestinian leaders told WorldNetDaily."

At least John has some foriegn friends to help him. And, of course, all the French.

By extension of course everyone involved with the UNSCAM "Oil-for-bribes" program wants Kerry to win as well. It might take some heat off them.

Well, with a little help from his overseas admirers (and the Guardians super clever letter writing campaign) things will be just fine.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:56 PM on October 19, 2004


Yeah because Yassar "i am being bombed in my complex as we speak" Arafat is comparable to an anti-democratic state who is the region's superpower, has the largest military, and soon or already has a nuclear weapon.

>UNSCAM "Oil-for-bribes"

Yeah, a link to some wingnuts blog with an giant anti-UN rant is very credible. Last I checked the UN not only disarmed Iraq but told Bush they didnt have any of the WMD you GOP apologists demanded would be there, through "faith based" reasoning. Oh right, now we attacked Iraq for the oil progam. Its so hard keeping up with the ministry of truth, ya know.
posted by skallas at 12:08 AM on October 20, 2004


"Oh right, now we attacked Iraq for the oil progam"

I don't recall seeing anyone claim any such thing. Has your paranoia reached such levels that you attribute anything you can think of to those who disagree with you? If such a claim has been maide it certainly wasn't in what I linked to, and it certainly wasn't anythign I stated.

"Yeah because Yassar "i am being bombed in my complex as we speak" Arafat"

So your idea here is that Arafat isn't an important endoresement because, as a terrorist leader, he isn't that successful? How many more suicide bombings does he have to inspire before his Kerry endorsement will make the front page of the Daily Kos?

"you GOP apologists demanded would be there"

I never "demanded" that they be there at all. I have always maintained that the threat of their being there was enough. Given the poor state of the UN intelligence at the time and the widespread belief (you do realize that others besides Bush believed they may exist right? Including the UN? Including Kerry?) I think it was justified.

But thats OK, since your making up things why stop now.

Poor Arafat, I wonder if he knows he isn't a big enough killer to arous concern?
posted by soulhuntre at 12:31 AM on October 20, 2004


skallas: You do know that Kerry is probably as pro-Israel, if not more so, than Bush?
posted by PenDevil at 12:39 AM on October 20, 2004


Oh man, give it up already. Arafat's lack of important is due to the fact that he has no state and no military. Of course Arafat would go dem, afterall we almost had peace in the middle east with clinton, arafat, and rabin and whoops a fundamentalist killed Rabin. Also, ripped from today's healines "Sharon fears assisination." The question isn't how many people Arafat has killed (which is a far reaching strawman), the question is who can give us peace in the middle east and end the I/P conflict. I'll give you a hint, it isn't the guy in office right now.

>Including the UN?

Like Hans Blix or Scott Ritter?

>But thats OK, since your making up things why stop now.

That's funny coming from a guy who links to worldnutdaily and right-wing screeds as "proof."

Now Iran is a real state, with a military, with influence, with many young men ready to fight, etc. They plainly spell out the US's fucked up foreign policy of "today an ally, tomorrow an enemy, and we'll overlook gassings and mass murder if your the former."
posted by skallas at 12:39 AM on October 20, 2004


I admit it's a little amusing after the constant squealing of "a vote for Kerry==a vote for Osama" from the rabid bits of the right wing.

But, that said, whether from the right or the left, conjecture about what terrorists and despots want is a really stupid way to score points for either candidate.

Like the pathetic scare tactics of pointing to Spain (usually leaving out this tidbit: Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush) as if it somehow proves something about who Al Qaeda wants to win. The debate always ends up in the pointless circular argument about who is tough, and who is creating more recruits, etc.

Aside from the fact that there is no way to know if these are genuine endorsements, political mind games, or whatever, these are not people we should be looking to to prove anything.
posted by malphigian at 12:45 AM on October 20, 2004


This is not too different from the thread the other day with the British woman who wants Bush to win...just so the terrorists will be unhappy!

Has America gone so far down the road towards a pure personality cult that actual outcomes and policies don't even enter the political debate?

Sometimes I hear people arguing against some idea or policy on the grounds that it will "appease terrorists".

Other times I hear people arguing against some idea or policy on the grounds that it will "make the terrorists angrier".

Since when should we give a shit what "terrorists", or indeed the Iranian regime, thinks about things? All we should be worrying about is actual outcomes. And the most fundamental outcome is to stop people being killed -at the end of the day, that's what it's all about. Any policy that achieves that goal is successful, whether the terrorists like it or not. Any policy that increases the killings, and makes the world more dangerous, is bad policy from a bad leader, whether the terrorists like it or not.
posted by Jimbob at 12:57 AM on October 20, 2004


>indeed the Iranian regime, thinks about things?

The article is a good indictment against the very things youre complaining about: policies. This isnt just a two paragraph piece off AP or some wingnuts blog, but a decent piece on how bullshit alliances are nothing but moral relativism. One day we turn a blind eye to Saddam gassing Kurds, the next he is a state enemy because of it.
They outline Bush's policy failure to punish them as compared to Clinton.
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."
Not to mention dirty deals and realpolitik:
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 won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.
Yeah, on a certain level some people will just see this as "lookee! Bad men want what I dont want." On a higher level its evidence that the GOP, historically, cares more for oil pipelines, allies 'of the hour', care not for human rights, do not do their duty to stop nuclear proliferation, etc.

>stop people being killed -at the end of the day, that's what it's all about.

Not at all. That's a naive way to look at things. Regional dominance, effecting the outcome of elections (Reagan), oil pipelines, defending Israel, etc are much more important than the life of some innocent civillian to the US's leadership. The GOP is serial offender in these regards and its no surprise ruthless dictators applaud this. Birds of a feather, man.
posted by skallas at 1:16 AM on October 20, 2004


"Not at all"

On that I agree. There are many things more important than peace at any cost. Freedom would be one of them. US security would be another.

"Since when should we give a shit what "terrorists", or indeed the Iranian regime, thinks about things?"

I think it's something worth looking at. Peopel generally support things that will provide them with some gain... thus if an ememy of the US supports a policy or a cadidate I want to know why.

Now, whether that endoresement is legitimate or part of a larger head game is also a fairly important question. But then I am not the guy who figured these endoresements were worth a FPP. Then again, anything anti-Bush seems to be poster here as a matter of course, sometimes twice a day!
posted by soulhuntre at 1:30 AM on October 20, 2004


You all forgot Poland :-)

Seriously, why wouldn't Iran like Bush? Under his stewardship the US military has eliminated Iran's external enemies. Also with so many troops tied up in Iraq the US wouldn't be able to attack Iran even if a situation came up which would make that eventuality completely justifiable -- say, a state-sponsored terrorist act on the scale of 9/11 or worse.

Also the last year and a half have enabled Iran to continue working on its nuclear weapons program. Iran is now openly flaunting world opinion on the subject, whereas they previously used to hide their program. That's certainly not the stance taken by someone who's afraid of retaliation.
posted by clevershark at 8:35 AM on October 20, 2004


Vladimir the Putin also endorsed Bush.

So that makes the headline:
"Ex-KGB Communist Veterans For Bush"

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Now for Iran:
"Axis-of-Evil Islamist Leaders For Bush"

Look out Drudge, I'm coming for you!!
posted by nofundy at 9:23 AM on October 20, 2004


Putin, Sharon, Saudi Arabia, Iran's ayatollahs: with Bush

Rest of the world: with Kerry

oh, soulhunter, please keep linking to worldnetdaily's original reporting and that other madman's blog: it's priceless stuff!

in the meantime,

10/20/04 USA Today: 300 Iraqi soldiers abandon unit in Samarra
At least 300 Iraqi soldiers abandoned their 750-man unit after they were deployed to Samarra earlier this month as part of a U.S.-Iraqi operation to retake the militant-controlled city.
10/20/04 CNN: Abu Ghraib guard pleads guilty
U.S. Army reservist Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick pleaded guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and committing an indecent act under a plea agreement.


this Iraqi thing is such a (dangerous) disaster that I can understand wingnuts losing their always-tenuous grasp on reality.

DOWN WITH UNSCAM! KERRY DIDN'T BLEED ENOUGH! MORANS!

*snicker*
posted by matteo at 9:37 AM on October 20, 2004


The whole game of speculating which foreign leaders want which candidate to win is pointless and retarded. Anyone who engages in it is not being serious, they're just trying to score cheap political points and demonize foreigners.
posted by cell divide at 9:45 AM on October 20, 2004


By extension of course everyone involved with the UNSCAM "Oil-for-bribes" program wants Kerry to win as well. It might take some heat off them.

So Cheney and Halliburton are actually rooting for Kerry? cool!
posted by amberglow at 9:55 AM on October 20, 2004


"So Cheney and Halliburton are actually rooting for Kerry? cool!"

If you have a Cheney / Haliburton link to UNSCAM, feel free to post it.

"that other madman's blog"

Did I accidently link to Kos? :)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:16 AM on October 20, 2004


Well, we'll never know what Americans or American companies were involved in the food-for-oil scamming will we?

The names of American companies and individuals who might have been involved in oil deals weren't released because of U.S. privacy laws, the report said. -source
posted by Orb at 1:05 PM on October 20, 2004


"Axis of Evil Nations For Bush"

Next : North Korea !
posted by troutfishing at 6:51 PM on October 20, 2004


« Older It didn't have to go down this way....  |  The National Flu Surveillance ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments