Hi I'd like to put a wreath there. Maybe then deny it ever happened...

September 20, 2007 1:10 AM

Getting this new cold war off to a good start. (newsfilter) I mean, seriously? NYC actually considered Ahmadinejad's request to go to Ground Zero?

I mean...wow.

posted by allkindsoftime (69 comments total)

I gotta say...of all the nutjobs on the world political scene, I like Ahmadinejad the most. He's kind of like a Bond villain, with his reptilian smile and snazzy Brooks Brothers suits.
posted by Roman Graves at 1:17 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to admit the Holocaust never happened!"
posted by Roman Graves at 1:20 AM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

Ahmadinejad talks a good game but he has about the same amount of power as a parking lot attendant. Well, maybe a little more.

There's more to the whole story than just, OMG! Filthy Iranians at ground zero!
posted by From Bklyn at 1:22 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

And with Osama bin Laden being an Iranian and all. Shame on him.
posted by cillit bang at 1:24 AM on September 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

I gotta confess, when I see Ahmadinejad I have "Leisure Suit Larry" flashbacks.
posted by RavinDave at 1:26 AM on September 20, 2007

It'd be much classier to release white doves.
posted by Poolio at 1:32 AM on September 20, 2007

And with Osama bin Laden being an Iranian and all. Shame on him.

Hah! Good point.

BTW, Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I wonder if bin Laden is a religious chap?
posted by allkindsoftime at 1:33 AM on September 20, 2007

Muslims should be banned from Ground Zero? Is that your point? Or just Muslim government officials?
posted by stammer at 1:39 AM on September 20, 2007

Why not seriously? Isn't one Ground ZeroTM enough? Here's a guy who represents a country that half of America wants to start a war with. He's got something to say at the former site of New York's World Trade Center? Why not let him talk? Where is the possible harm? The stuff he says, it's comedy genius. Bond villian? Try Basil Fawlty.

Instead of denying this joker the perfunctory honor of laying a wreath at the site of America's great gaping wound, I'd put him on with Leno and then let him open for Saturday Night Live.
posted by three blind mice at 1:39 AM on September 20, 2007

allkindsoftime writes "BTW, Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I wonder if bin Laden is a religious chap?"

They're not from the same sect of Islam, and this isn't exactly a pedantic little difference. Saying that they're on the same team is like saying that the protestants and catholics are in league with each other because they're all christians.
posted by mullingitover at 1:40 AM on September 20, 2007

Are we at war with these guys yet? If not, let him put flowers on the hole.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:45 AM on September 20, 2007

Exactly, whyever not? If he dances a jig, well, everyone already knows he's an asshole. If he lays a wreath and cries crocodile tears, well, there's a whole bunch of assholes been by to do that already. What's one more?

Of course he could point out how perfectly the hole symbolizes the way the Bush administration has led the USA to rebuild and recover, and ask how many more holes just like it they intend to put in Iraq before they're satisfied, but everyone already knows all that too.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:55 AM on September 20, 2007

Every time this dipshit opens his mouth, Lieberman and Cheney get hard-ons, and the world gets a little closer to another disaster. Why give the neo-cons the satisfaction of having another news cycle filled up with the rantings of this clown, deflecting attention from their own staggering incompetence?

Besides, what's he going to say that he hasn't already? "Now this is how you wipe something off the map, Ladies and Germs, amirite? Thank you, goodnight. Try the veal, but not the pork!"
posted by Optamystic at 1:58 AM on September 20, 2007

It's understandable though. The Republicans would never allow 9/11 to be used for political ends.
posted by sien at 2:09 AM on September 20, 2007 [7 favorites]

I fail to see the problem. You do remember that the Iranians helped the USA after Sept. 11th? Even providing tangible support for the invasion of Afghanistan.
posted by knapah at 2:09 AM on September 20, 2007

Iran is, according to the US, a state sponsor of terrorism. Yet we're so tied up in Iraq (not formerly a state sponsor of terrorism) that the best we can do is stop this guy from laying a wreath.

What a disaster.
posted by Nahum Tate at 2:12 AM on September 20, 2007

Can't afford to have sympathetic images of Ahmadinejad laying a wreath in respect for the dead playing on CNN. Sheeiit, how could the crazies at Chimpy HQ successfully talk up a war with these people if the populace started to be able to imagine them as something akin to human?

If it played on FOX, O'Reilly's head would pop like a fucking lightbulb.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 2:14 AM on September 20, 2007

" Why not let him talk? Where is the possible harm? The stuff he says, it's comedy genius. Bond villian? Try Basil Fawlty.

Instead of denying this joker the perfunctory honor of laying a wreath at the site of America's great gaping wound, I'd put him on with Leno and then let him open for Saturday Night Live."

And I thought, like, right on! and then, "Every time this dipshit opens his mouth, Lieberman and Cheney get hard-ons..."

And like, I thought, oooo, oooo, totally, totally. No, no, keep him away... and then, like "The Republicans would never allow 9/11 to be used for political ends."!

Oh SNAP! Just totally, SNAP-O!

Oh, there's the timer! popcorn's done... (wait, what's on the OJ channel?...)
posted by From Bklyn at 2:18 AM on September 20, 2007

what is it, exactly, that you're afraid he's going to do there ?
posted by silence at 2:19 AM on September 20, 2007

what is it, exactly, that you're afraid he's going to do there?

A Pat Paulsen routine, only in jewface.
posted by Roman Graves at 2:25 AM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

They're afraid he might start Islaming it all up around and in the hole. That would ruin it. No god fearing pure christian american could visit the new building, when they finish it circa 2045, without being remindered of the islam vibe he left there. Ruin the concession business.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 3:05 AM on September 20, 2007

I'm worried he might fly an airplane out of it. Cuz that would be some freaky shit. We'd all be, like, where the fuck did that airplane come from? Has that shit been hidden underneath Ground Zero all the time? And where the fuck is he flying that crazy thing?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:15 AM on September 20, 2007 [6 favorites]

He might not take it seriously.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 3:18 AM on September 20, 2007

The Wreath of Ahmad was my favourite Star Trek movie.
posted by srboisvert at 3:48 AM on September 20, 2007

his country is a state sponsor of terrorism? why not arrest him and send him to gitmo as an enemy combatant? i'm so confused.
posted by quonsar at 3:58 AM on September 20, 2007

BTW, Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I wonder if bin Laden is a religious chap?

Actually, Ahmadinejad is a Shiite and bin Laden is a Sunni. As anyone who's not ignorant on the level of a Miss South Carolina knows, they're two different sects of Islam that hate the ever-living guts out of each other.
posted by EarBucket at 4:23 AM on September 20, 2007

Arrest Ahmadinejad and send him to gitmo? What a brilliant idea. Too bad for the soldiers in Iraq, of which not a single one would come back alive. But hey, its their job, right?
posted by CautionToTheWind at 4:26 AM on September 20, 2007

It does seem like a ballsy request on his part, but then again, every thing Ahmadinejad does is ballsy. He didn't expect this to get authorized. He just likes fucking with everybody.
posted by itchylick at 4:51 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

BTW, Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I wonder if bin Laden is a religious chap?

Almost more importantly, Ahmedinejad is Persian not Arab. During the Iran-Iraq war, the rhetoric was mostly ethnic (on the Iraqi side) and on the Iranian side it was anti Ba'ath party rather than in terms of the Sunni/Shi'a divide.
posted by YouRebelScum at 5:03 AM on September 20, 2007

Iran's gulf of misunderstanding with US
"In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, there were some tentative steps.
In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium
posted by adamvasco at 5:08 AM on September 20, 2007

Iran is, according to the US, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Yeah, they make the IEDs with english writing on the side.

I won't be an apologist for Iran, but it sure seems that the "state sponsor of terrorism" argument is a flag of convenience for us most of the time. That's the only way to explain why we're all buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

It must just be degrees of state-sponsored terrorism that determines who we love and who we hate.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:09 AM on September 20, 2007

It must just be degrees of state-sponsored terrorism that determines who we love and who we hate.

Nah. It's who the terrorism is directed against. Terrorism against Britain or Spain is bad. Terrorism against the Palestinians, for example, is wonderful. In fact, in a case like that, we don't even call it terrorism. We call it "self defense."
posted by Clay201 at 5:33 AM on September 20, 2007

In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium

This is worth repeating. Just six years ago, Iranians held demonstrations in the street in our favor, and look how bad the Bushies have fucked everything up.

For a brief time, we had more brownie points in the world than we have had since World War II, and we wasted them on two invasions we won't even win.
posted by Malor at 6:01 AM on September 20, 2007 [6 favorites]

Here's a question: is Iran currently in a state of war with the United States? (Didn't they declare war a few decades ago?) Do nations even declare war on each other anymore?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:22 AM on September 20, 2007

The US government doesn't want to be caught doing anything diplomatic, fer chrisakes.
posted by jaronson at 6:28 AM on September 20, 2007

It'd be much classier to release white doves.

I heard he was going to write SLAVE across his cheek to protest his treatment by Warner Bros.
posted by gimonca at 6:29 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well said, Malor.
posted by fleetmouse at 6:31 AM on September 20, 2007

NYC actually considered Ahmadinejad's request to go to Ground Zero?

Why do you consider the request so far beyond the pale that the City should not even have considered it?

Even as a New Yorker, I'm getting tired of the relentless efforts to treat "ground zero" (an overblown concept in itself) as some sort of sacred ground. I'd prefer Giuliani to be kept away from the site.
posted by brain_drain at 6:32 AM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

Maybe we could've avoided all this fuss if we hadn't overthrown Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:37 AM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

If they keep Ahmadinejad away, they ought to keep Guilliani away as well, since he's just as much of an asshole and the ground-zero firefighters hate his guts now.

BTW, Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I wonder if bin Laden is a religious chap?

Should all religious people be kept from ground zero? Just murslims? Bin Laden wouldn't even consider Ahmadinejad a real Muslim, since he's a Wahabi Sunni. Moron.
posted by delmoi at 6:46 AM on September 20, 2007

Ground Zero is America's Kaaba.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:56 AM on September 20, 2007

t must just be degrees of state-sponsored terrorism that determines who we love and who we hate.

Nah. It's who the terrorism is directed against.

Nahnah. It's what kind of terms they let us have their oil on. Saudi Arabia - good. Iraq, Iran - bad.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:00 AM on September 20, 2007

As a New Yorker I'm absolutely infuriated that this has been turned into a big deal. I don't see any problem with Ahmadinejad laying a wreath - I do see knee-jerk playground cowboy anti-diplomacy on the part of the city in order to help ratchet up the case for war with Iran.

I actually tried to send an email to Bloomberg from his site but it was impossible.

It's beyond stupid.
posted by maggiemaggie at 7:17 AM on September 20, 2007

I'd have no problem with this if Ground Zero was open to the public. After all, he's a person, and people are allowed to go to buildings if they want to.

However, letting him have access to a restricted area? Ridiculous. We don't owe him any favors. Why should we go out of our way so that he can have his little photo op?
posted by Afroblanco at 7:22 AM on September 20, 2007

What the hell does 9/11 have to do with Iran or Iraq? As adamvasco and Malor pointed out, Iranians were genuinely sympathetic after 9/11. Why is it outrageous for their leader to want to express that sentiment? This post seems to imply that somehow one's right to mourn the victims of 9/11 has something to do with how one has reacted to the foreign policy decisions America has since made.

In any case, I agree with Afroblanco.
posted by dsword at 7:37 AM on September 20, 2007

Why does he want to go to Ground Zero anyway? It's not like there's anything the- oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:42 AM on September 20, 2007

Because he's the leader of a foreign country, whose citizens demonstrated in our favor in the millions, and who wants to defuse the artificial tension between the two nations?

Just a thought.
posted by Malor at 7:47 AM on September 20, 2007

I was contemplating the lost opportunities here, how we could have used that first post 9/11 speech to start the metamorphosis, at last, away from the Cold War... and how we chose, at that moment, to go down the path of perpetual war and perpetual fear instead. I think, in all of history, there may have been no greater chance to make a fundamental change in the world. It could have been one of humanity's most important speeches, and pretty much all Bush did was bluster and threaten.

While thinking about the speech that I wish had been given, a thought crossed my mind. I think it's entirely possible that the Iranians lit more candles for the 9/11 victims than Americans did.
posted by Malor at 7:57 AM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

Since when did being Muslim, or being from the middle east, mean that a person can't be saddened by what happened on September 11?

Oh... right. Since we started bombing the life out of them, because god knows the US never bombs people who don't deserve it.

I'm guessing he hoped this gesture would smooth things over with the US. But we can't let our next target placate us, now, can we?
posted by cmyk at 8:12 AM on September 20, 2007

It's depressing and disgusting that people like Hilliary Clinton would advocate denying Ahmadinejad's request just to score some cheap political points. The site is supposed to be more than a soundstage for American politicians, I think.

Perhaps they'll reconsider and let him visit, as long as he's dragged there in an "I am a terrorist" cage, and dressed as Osama.
posted by washburn at 8:23 AM on September 20, 2007

Gesture of goodwill anyone?
posted by history is a weapon at 8:25 AM on September 20, 2007

Henry C. Mabuse writes "They're afraid he might start Islaming it all up around and in the hole."

Oh ... I almost never do this, but ...

Metafilter: Islaming it all up around and in the hole
posted by krinklyfig at 8:29 AM on September 20, 2007

Via Time:

"It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous."

And from Wikipedia:

Hezbollah leader Fadlallah, has told interviewer

We believe there is no difference between the United States and Israel; the latter is a mere extension of the former. The United States is ready to fight the whole world to defend Israel's existence and security. The two countries are working in complete harmony, and the United States is certainly not inclined to exert pressure on Israel. [69]

So yeah, I am a moron, as stated, for not believing that Iran loves America and is our biggest supporter. Or something. We should let this nation's leader come display this love on the same spot where Hezbollah was eclipsed as the terrorist organization with the largest tally of American deaths.

Makes sense to me.
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:34 AM on September 20, 2007

And I'll save you the trouble of jumping all over the wiki article with everything else it said below...Hezbollah may not be actively attacking us now, but why should they waste their time with piddly stuff when one of their principle supporters is about to become nuclear?
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:37 AM on September 20, 2007

So yeah, I am a moron, as stated, for not believing that Iran loves America and is our biggest supporter.

What at all does that have to do with turning down a gesture of goodwill at a time when tensions are running high?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 AM on September 20, 2007

Anyway, the level of editorializing in the post really detracts from its quality. Is this really the best of the web, or the best presentation of the subject? Flagged.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:44 AM on September 20, 2007

What at all does that have to do with turning down a gesture of goodwill at a time when tensions are running high?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 AM on September 20

Seconded.

This is diplomacy, something the US used to understand.

How many times in the past 50 years has the US sent condolences to other countries during disaster or death of state leaders when we were practically hostile with them?

If he wanted to come drop a wreath, why in the world would you refuse?

Oh, right. Because the bombing plan has already been locked in and scheduled.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:01 AM on September 20, 2007

allkindsoftime - The interview with Falhallah was over 20 years ago when it was consumed with post-revolutionary fervour and entrenched in a particularly vicious war against Iraq - which had invaded without justification and was being fed nasty biological and chemical weapons by the West (and was it only the West Germans, or might the US have had something to do with that too?)

Right now, the Iranian nuclear threat is not primarily to the US, but to Israel and to the Arab states, both of whom they fear - the latter with reason. It's only their position against Israel, which I find abhorrent, which isn't a direct cause of the West's mismanagement.
posted by YouRebelScum at 9:06 AM on September 20, 2007

maybe they could do an exchange where bush gets sent to mecca ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:12 AM on September 20, 2007

See, this is the kind of thing that makes you appreciate a guy like Richard Nixon. He went to China in 1972, not because he thought Chairman Mao "loved America and was it's greatest supporter," but because he recognized that opening relations was a better strategy than isolation. Things aren't perfect in China now, not by a long shot, but they're (slowly) getting better, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that they're joined at the hip with us economically.

Nixon would have understood that guys like Ahmadinejad and Kim don't really want nuclear weapons, not as an end unto themselves. They see them as a way to gain legitimacy and respect on the world stage. Nixon would have taken Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero, done a big photo op with his arm around him and flashing his V for victory, and then back at the White House Kissinger would have sat down with the Iranians and explained why they couldn't have ze nuclear weapons.

Oh, and this: Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Are you saying that no Muslims should be allowed to visit Ground Zero? That's what it sounds like you're arguing.
posted by EarBucket at 9:19 AM on September 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

I would welcome him to ground zero after first being escorted a little further south.
posted by markulus at 9:28 AM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

Let him speak. Let him host SNL. Someone do something interesting already...
posted by MeatLightning at 9:33 AM on September 20, 2007

Well, they're letting him speak at Columbia.
posted by SBMike at 10:09 AM on September 20, 2007

Oh fuck! Out of popcorn!

*scampers off to kitchen*
posted by From Bklyn at 10:55 AM on September 20, 2007

Not to quibble overmuch, but "new cold war" makes me think of the renascent Russia, which is looking more like a less ideologically driven but equally statist version of the old Soviet Union with each passing day. Anybody else squint at that phrase, then see mention of Ahmadinejad and go, "Hmpf," shrug?
posted by pax digita at 1:14 PM on September 20, 2007

I would welcome him to ground zero after first being escorted a little further south.

Ummm, just because he's anti-Israel doesn't mean he's an anti-semite.

Seems to me that if he really hated the Jews he'd wipe this community off the map, THEN get started on wiping Israel off the map.

(IIRC, "wiping Israel off the map" doesn't mean getting rid of the Jews; it refers to getting rid of Israel as a distinct political entity.)
posted by John of Michigan at 1:38 PM on September 20, 2007

I'm not excusing Iran's Holocaust-denying stance. At all. It just seems that the whole situation isn't as black-and-white as the neocons make it out.
posted by John of Michigan at 1:38 PM on September 20, 2007

It just seems that the whole situation isn't as black-and-white as the neocons make it out.

It isn't. I don't think it's even as black and white as more middle of the road Dems make it out. I think Ahmadinejad has been grossly mis-characterized in the US and other western media basically because it serves broader US policy goals to keep pressure on Iran. It's our default diplomatic posture: Any international leader of significance whose policies don't align with our own is mercilessly vilified. Ever since WWII, American leaders have found it easier to get the public to go along with their policy positions by casting unfriendly world-leaders as the second coming of Hitler. Qaddafi, Saddam, Chavez, Castro, Noriega--when we aren't busy building up strongmen with secret CIA pay-offs, we're busy tarring them all with the same brush. But in Ahmadinejad's case, it doesn't even make sense, because he isn't a strong man. He doesn't even have very much real power!
posted by saulgoodman at 2:08 PM on September 20, 2007

"It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous."

Oh my god! There's a BOMB in that wreath!

This is really stupid.
posted by stammer at 2:27 PM on September 20, 2007