Last night, the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami spoke at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. First of all, I think it is simply outrageous that Khatami would be given a visa to begin with. And don’t start on me with “we are America and we should accept diverse viewpoints.” Bull. We are at war. And Khatami is no reformer, despite the attempt by the American media to portray him as such.
We wouldn’t have invited Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Joseph Stalin to speak at one of our nation’s most revered religious buildings.
Three Episcopal bishops protested the Khatami visit to the Episcopal cathedral in advance of his speech.
Calling Iran a “threat not only to our own nation, but to world peace itself,” the bishops of Northern Indiana, Rhode Island and Southwest Florida have written a letter of protest to the Bishop of Washington and the Dean of Washington National Cathedral over the speech to be given there on Sept. 7 by Muhammad Khatami, the former president of Iran.
“Mr. Khatami’s actions do not support the goal of reconciliation for which our Church has so fervently prayed and worked,” wrote the three on Sept. 5. “During Mr. Khatami’s term of office, women continued to be marginalized, and homosexual persons were executed (two gay youths were hanged on July 19, 2005). Mr. Khatami has not renounced either Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the virulent anti-Semitism of the current regime, known for its Holocaust denial and call for the destruction of the State of Israel.”
In fact, Khatami has already said during his time in the USA this week that the current regime is, more or less, “misunderstood” and current Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t really mean the things he says. Riiiiiight.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy shares the outrage over Khatami’s speaking at the National Cathedral.
“The Cathedral Dean, the Very Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd, III, claimed that Khatami is committed to dialogue between civilizations and cultures,” said Faith McDonnell, IRD’s Religious Liberty Programs Director. “But IRD believes that the cathedral’s praise of Khatami shows only a commitment to monologue. We urge the National Cathedral, and all of the American universities and other venues hosting ex-President Khatami, to have the moral courage and integrity to engage in true dialogue, challenging the Islamic Republic of Iran’s former president to denounce repression and persecution.”
Just five years ago, President Bush delivered an eloquent tribute to the victims of our nation’s worst homeland attack.
America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much to be grateful for, but we are not spared from suffering. In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America because we are freedom’s home and defender, and the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come.
Khatami comes from a nation that is producing evil around the world. His speech defames the Cathedral itself and those who have been honored there in the past. It is simply outrageous that he was even allowed in our country. But should I expect when we aren’t truly fighting this war as we should — balls to the wall.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I suspect the communism-apologists would have invited Joseph Stalin to speak at the National Cathedral.
They certainly would have invited him to speak in Massachusetts.
Cheers,
Julie the Jarhead
It is so sad that only 3 Episcopal bishops felt the need to sign on to this letter of protest. What has HRC said about this visit, nothing i’m sure.
#1: Yeah, but at least my man Mitt would have refused him protection from state law enforcement.
I can appreciate the anger over the use of the Episcopal Church’s National Cathedral to provide Khatami a platform for speaking and –therefore– legitimacy.
To me, it’s like watching Slick Willy embrace and kiss Arafat at the White House.
In both events, the accomodating participants fail to accept moral responsibility for proffering a stage of legitimacy to murderous, morally bankrupt, corrupt evil leaders. And in doing so, they don’t truly advance any agenda for dialogue as they might wish to contend… they merely become willing tools and toys of evil. And to those from the GayLeftBorg who will offer in defense that it’s “dialogue” or “diplomacy”; that’s a line we’ve all heard used often by those who tolerate evil in the hope of they can influence the DarkSide toward Goodness and Light. It doesn’t work.
The Episcopal National Cathedral is a liberal, left-of-center community lead by people who are even more Left of their congregation. They do not represent America. It is not a “National” Church anymore than the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception(Catholic), National Presbyterian Church, National City Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist, Universalist National Memorial Church or others are our country’s chuch.
It’s no wonder that Khatami is hitting the Episcopal National Cathedral and Harvard and then the UN. I’m surprised that he didn’t squeeze in a visit with the Senate or House Democrat leadership… or the suits over at NPR, PBS, NBC, and CNN, Time, NYT. Those groups have certainly shown an inclination to appease evil –Khatami is that and more.
Where are the GayLeftBorgies with placards “End Gay Repression Now in Iraq”, “Let OUR People Go in Iraq”? Oh, busy sipping pink Cosmo with the DNC leadership while they destroy JoeL in CT.
#1 thru 4 – Excellent comments.
Matt, at the end you meant “Iran” of course? (Typo – I do it all the time)
Where, oh where indeed, are the “They want to put us in concentration camp!!!” gay lefties who have this golden chance to protest, on our own soil, this evil Iranian regime that really does want us in death camps?
What?!?
Your comparison of Khatami to Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Joseph Stalin is dangerous and not applicable. I know, the GOP talking points require you to use that inflammatory rhetoric but perhaps you should try to put that on hold for this guy.
Iranian hardliners in Iran hated Khatami and they killed and beat his supporters.
He campaigned for tolerance and democracy. He tried to bring the Iranian people out from under the thumbs of the religionist class.
He is the type of person who we should be listening to and supporting.
Not boycotting just because he happens to be Iranian.
Right Calarato… thanks for the correction. You are exactly correct —again.
Oh yeah keogh, he’s a real reformer and idealist –that Khatami.
Here’s what he said about Hezbollah and your buddy Chirac:
“We believe that Hizbullah has an authentic Lebanese identity, which of course we like and is close to us. I emphasized this in talks with Mr. Chirac, who said he has never called to weaken or disarm Hizbullah, and on that matter he is in disagreement with some of his European allies. Hizbullah will remain and keep its weapons.”
“http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=756#
In fact, the “Cleric in the Chocolate Robes” is such a great guy, a pal, a swell reformer… he’ll even met JimmineyCricketTraitorCarter if possible.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0831-04.htm
Heck, even HowieScreaminDean couldn’t get an endorsement out of old JimmineyCricket when he needed it badly. Khatami probably will because Carter can’t resist a chance to stick it to America.
(BTW, catch the little slight of hand from the Carter people in the PR piece: the situation in Iran in 1980 undid Carter’s Presidency, not Carter’s failure in leadership over the prior 4 years… or Reagan’s stellar vision for America –with Bush 41 as Veep.)
#5: “Matt, at the end you meant “Iran” of course?”
Actually, it fits either way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4915172.stm
But this was the relevant part of my comment, rajIan, which (by not answering, and thus far) you evade:
“Where, oh where indeed, are the “They want to put us in concentration camp!!!” gay lefties who have this golden chance to protest, on our own soil, this evil Iranian regime that really does want us in death camps?”
They’re Episcopalians (ie, Unitarians in Drag). What the hell do you expect?
Its official.
The rightists are insane.
By blindly striking out at anyone Iranian without looking at who you hit, you only solidify your stereotype.
Khatami ran on tolerance.
He hoped to make Iran a true democracy.
Now you zany rightists blame him for the actions taken by the Iranian religionists, who killed and beat Khatami’s supporters.
You rightists should be lining up to listen to him speak.
Anyone who wants to erase Israel from the map and supports terrorists who want to kill all Jews deserves neither my time or attention.
That includes you, puppet Keogh.
Definition of “useful idiot” – see keogh/401(k) plan.
Regards,
Peter H.
I bet it was Khatami who supplied the kites flown by Iraqi children under the peace-loving Saddam Hussein regime. Right keoghie baby?
??????????
Have you even heard of Khatami before Bruce’s ranting?
He was one of the saneist voices in the Middle East for a long time.
I realize that you instinctivly cringe in fear when you hear of Iran but before you lynch someone you should at least know what they stood for…
The biggest irony of this unreasonable negative view of Khatmai is that his intellectual beliefs are more liberal than those of the elected government in Iraq. Where is the conservative outcry for the Islamic government that we allowed to take root in Iraq and in Afghanistan? Those elected governments would place gays in concentration camps just as fast as Islamic totalitarian regimes.
If Khatmai style reform isn’t enough and men like him are compared to Hitler for actions that they wouldn’t have supported then how do we fight this war intellectually? Do we support hardline secularism or is each Arab country allowed a different degree of Islamist hatred?
Thought experiment:
Say Khatami is a nice guy. Imagine that the genuinely theocratic, anti-gay and fascistic regime he sweated for and risked his life for could have been reformed somehow, and that Khatami meant to do it and was going to, before the regime chose to bring in Ahmadinijad as his replacement.
Imagine that Khatami’s loud, present-day support for Ahmadinijad really does mean nothing. Imagine Khatami’s “dialogue of civilizations” shtick is sincere – not mere propaganda for DNC – Kos “useful idiots” (that was Lenin’s cynical description of Western pacifists).
And imagine that this good-guy Khatami is hightly respected by the Islamic-fascist regime he served so faithfully, such that Khatami could be an effective conduit back to them for world opinion and concerns – which is Jimmuh Carter’s premise in having Khatami, right?
OK, with me?
Then I ask again: Why aren’t you guys who believe that – or your HRC, N(S)GLTF, or Kos leaders – out there protesting the killing of gay Iranian teens that happened in 2005, under Khatami?
Has there even been a new HRC, N(S)GLTF or Kos press release?
Khatami’s here. He was just at the National Cathedral. Why aren’t y’all taking this chance to make your consciences known to him?
Why aren’t y’all teaching Khatami that world opinion – in the form of you, who believe Khatami and Iran are reachable – cries out at the murder of gays?
#17 – As for you, James – you posted a series claims and premises that, um, need evidence.
All right, show me affirmative evidence that in Iran under Khatami human rights were respected, political dissent was tolerated, and there was no state sponsorship of global terrorism.
If you have something more than “Khatami is a good guy” happy talk, let’s see it.
“Protesting the killing of gay Iranian teens that happened in 2005”
that was awful, and we should be glad we don’t live under such a religiously dominated society.
As of 2004 Khatami was president in name only then. His party lost all power in the 2004 elections because their religious council disenfranchised over 50% of Iranian voters. His followers were killed and beaten while he was under basically house arrest, his speeches were censured and could not write freely.
He could only wait to be kicked out of office at that point and had no power. There would have been nothing he could have done to stop it and he might have even spoke out against it. Everything I have read of his tells me he would be against this act.
This is all from memory so I can’t be 100% sure of the above but I am usually accurate.
I do know that He has consistently been against chemical and nuclear weapons expansion and has spoken out about the horrors of the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Right Wing Nazis.
Research his writings, perhaps you will learn that even though he is Iranian he is not bad and not worth the hate-filled puke in this post.
He is a thoughtful humanist, perhaps a little bit too flakey for you hard core rightists but he is the kind of Muslim that Americans should be embracing, not shunning.
If you can’t like him, what Muslim could you like?
keogh writes: “He (Khatami) was one of the saneist voices in the Middle East for a long time.”
And this is like writing that SandyStuffURPantsBerger was a foreign affairs and nat’l security wiz kid?
Or Bill Clinton truly cared about the dysfunctional and vulnerable women he used for sexual favors?
Or that AlGore is an election law guru?
When does reality blow up in your face, keogh? Oh, with those statements at #16.
And to answer your question, keogh. I knew about Khatami when he was helping the radical clerics ascend to power in the 1990’s.
Before you take on DNC Talking Points, maybe you need to learn who it is you’re defending. He’s evil personified, keogh. You should be ashamed to be fronting his defense.
“He was one of the saneist voices in the Middle East for a long time.” Pathetic.
Balls. And keyboards.
#19 – Well –
During his presidency (1997-2005), Khatami made occasional noises about a “dialogue of civilizations”, as I mentioned. (as opposed to “clash of civilizations”)
And yes – some desperate, ordinary Iranians permitted themselves hope that Khatami could be just a tad more liberal than the other theocrats.
That’s basically it.
As we’ve seen: It doesn’t change the evil nature of the regime he served. It didn’t change the real rulers (the Islamo-fascist clerics) one bit. Under Khatami, Iran went full speed ahead with the development of its nuclear bomb program – those things take years / decades, folks; its terrorism programs; and its Jew-murder and gay-murder policies.
“He was one of the saneist voices in the Middle East for a long time.” Pathetic.
Of course, Matt. Because in keogh-Land, pursuing nuclear bombs and developing Hezbollah for eventual combination-use against Israel somehow counts as “sane” and as being a “thoughtful humanist”. – Or so it would seem?
“As of 2004 Khatami was president in name only then. His party lost all power in the 2004 elections because their religious council disenfranchised over 50% of Iranian voters.”
keogh – Can’t you grasp the most basic, obvious implications of your own statements?
Did those things happen just by magic one day??? – Or was Khatami not always, all along, serving a ruthless, evil theocracy – voluntarily? And one that he continues to represent, defend and support?
P.S. And just because some of the Iranian people believed in and supported Khatami – as not-as-bad-as-the-other-theocrats – that doesn’t mean Khatami supported them.
Indeed, on today’s evidence he did not.
“…what Muslim could you like?”
Criteria:
(1) Doesn’t want to kill gays.
(2) Doesn’t serve as President, etc., of others who want to kill gays.
(3) Doesn’t want to kill Jews.
(4) Doesn’t serve as President, etc., of others who want to kill Jews.
I’d need them all. Khatami, at a minimum, fails (2) and (4).
Uhg..
You guys know so little about the world….and the sad thing is you won’t even try to find the truth for yourself…you just spin and spin then blame Clinton….
Facts:
He tried to reform Iran into a tolerant democracy where the Hardliners would have less control.
His supporters got killed and beaten.
He received threats and was called the enemy of Islam.
He tried to make the economy less dependent on Oil and more of a free market economy.
He has consistently spoken out against the spread of Nukes and Chem. weapons. (The Religious Ministry did the nuke research, it was out of his power)
He failed to reform Iran…but he tried….This makes him one of the few Muslim leaders who tried to make real and fundamental democratic changes in his country.
Spin all you want Matt and Cal. but that you can’t dispute those facts.
Finially,
Answer this question:
If you can’t support a person like Khatami, what signifigant Muslims can you support?
or do you just want to kill ’em all?
27,
Cal then you don’t like Bush, Blair, or any leader anwhere…
Think your posts through….
#29 – Nonsense, keogh.
Bush and Blair have made very clear that they don’t support the killing of gays nor Jews.
The issue is one of moral approval, or the willingness to work with evil. If you are going to work with evil people: you had better object to their evil and make it darn clear they are to stay in line – or else resign your post.
Bush has stated, on several occasions now, that he respects gays and as well, his opponents in the gay marriage debate. And that everyone else ought to.
In other words, Bush is NOT the President (save in the most technical legal sense) of anyone who would want to kill gays.
If you don’t know that, keogh, you don’t know much.
Has Khatami made clear, any time in the last 9 years, that he wasn’t the President of his theocrat colleagues (even if he argued with them over a few slightly-liberal measures) who did want to kill both gays and Jews? Has he come out unequivocally against the gay-killings, or against Khatami’s evil anti-Semitism? – Not that I know of.
More facts about Khatami:
– He supported Iran’s nuclear programs and ambitions. (years/decades in the making)
– He supported the development of Hezbollah. (ditto)
P.S. Or at the very least: He didn’t object. (No resignation. Weak repudiation, or none at all, of Ahmadinijad.)
(typo – should have written: “….against Ahmadinejad’s evil anti-Semitism”)
Khatami would not support the killing of Jews or Gays.
The people who did that killing and supporting of Hezbollah would be his political enemies not him….(the same guys who killed his supporters)
So…I don’t know if that fits into your ever greying “4 Criterias” or not..but I know for a fact that he has argued extensivly agianst More Nukes and Chemical weapons.
I really think you need to research him a bit, and open your mind to that fact that not all Iranians are Evil.
“…he has argued extensivly agianst More Nukes and Chemical weapons.”
More??? What is that supposed to mean? That he supports his theocrats having ‘some’ nukes?!
“Khatami would not support the killing of Jews or Gays.”
My, isn’t that putting words into Khatami’s mouth!
Fact: The Iranian theocracy he served, and still serves, does want to kill gays and Jews.
Has Khatami objected? No, or at least, not nearly enough. He’s still out there serving them – as propagandist toward people like you, back-channel to world’s Jimmy Carters, etc.!
keogh, admit the obvious: Whether or not some ordinary Iranians did try to believe in him, Khatami was and is a functionary of a irreversibly (except by overthrow) theocratic, anti-gay, anti-Semitic and fascistic Constitutional order.
Until and unless he should condemn that order and call for its overthrow, your spinning won’t change that. Game, set, match. Buh-bye.
#28: “do you just want to kill ‘em all?”
Gee keogh, do you really have to ask that question of such keyboard warriors? They want a war with Iran to keep their wargasms… err… coming – so to speak.
In fairness, there is some evidence to suggest that Khatami is relatively moderate and a reformer (in the sense that Rudolph Hess was a moderate Nazi compared to Hitler). There is evidence that he attempted reforms that were ostensibly opposed by hardliners. But it can be fairly argued that these reforms were largely rhetorical and no substantive liberalization happened under him. It is also true that the hardliners allowed him to remain in power, which suggests that he was useful to them.
On the other hand, he is here as the representative of a regime that continued to spread terror under his presidency, continued to develop nuclear weapons under his presidency, and that he continues to support Hezbullah, and that his government still has the destruction of western civilization as its foremost goal. And it is certainly fair to suggest that this is not an appropriate time to be extending this level of diplomatic courtesy to a representative of what is essentially a terrorist regime.
So, both points of view are debatable… but not with silly people who are incapable of attributing alternate viewpoints to other than bigotry.
Keogh-
I support any Muslim who stands up against the Islamofascism spreading throughout the entire world.
I support any Muslim who doesn’t believe the way to salvation is by murdering innocent “infidels.”
My question to you – what American patriot do YOU support and whose side are you on in this war declared against the West by Muslims?
iran has the largest jewish population in the middle east outside of israel. there goes your entire anti semetism argument. now what are you gonna do? khatami was a hell of alot more popular than bush and a thousand times less dangerous to the world.
can the author of this topic name one city in Iran besides tehren? do you know what language they speak in iran? god forbid, have you ever MET someone from there?
hezbollah has defended lebanon from israeli aggresions twice. though they couldn’t stop the israeli terorists from bombing an apartment building, which i guess they thought was a Transformer or something, ready to turn into a robot and march into tel aviv.
“useful idiot” definition = an expression falsely attributed to the communist dictator vladmir lenin.
Further, Keogh, do you deny Khatami’s refusal to rebuke and in fact his defense, of the current Iranian regime?
How do you answer, Oh Tyrannical Appeasing One?
I’m glad to see Lester showing his colors by his moral equivalence of a freely elected democracy and ally of the US, and a terrorist group that has murdered Americans.
Priceless.
Liberals showing their true view of “human rights” and “democracy”.
LOL!!
keogh defending the President of a country with a policy of executing people for merely being gay is the most blantant example of a gay man engaging in self-hating delusional thinking that I can imagine.
Compare and contrast.
President Bush is against gay marriage but appoints many open gays to high positions and is personally very friendly and accepting.
President Khatami presides over the execution by hanging of gays with no apologies or equivocation.
Which one would best choice for gays?
keogh likes the executioner. How wonderful.
Bruce wrote “I support any Muslim who doesn’t believe the way to salvation is by murdering innocent “infidels.””
Then you should support Khatami.
He has spoken out against nuclear proliferation and armed conflict in general while attempting to promote tolerance.
But you are right, he has not outrightly condemned the current regime because if he did he would be killed/imprisoned, along with his family.
You can call him a wimp but you can’t call him evil nor should you condemn others to see what this moderate Muslim has to say.
That what he is folks, a moderate Muslim…
#41: lester tapparently believes that Hamas and Hezbullah should be allowed to kidnap as many Israelis as they was and launch thousands of missiles into Israel, and Israel has no right to respond. lester would have denounced the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as “Jewish Terrorism.”
lester also apparently believes that combatants who wear military uniforms and hit civilians only by accident are “terrorists”, while combatants who slaughter civilians intentionally and actively put their own civilians at maximum risk (as human shields) are “defenders”.
How fucked up can a dude be? I mean, really. “Terrorist” is a word with quite a precise meaning. It means combatants who (1) don’t wear uniforms, AND, (2) kill civilians on purpose.
[Note: you can make a 2×2 matrix:
– wear uniform, try to minimize civilian deaths = Honorable soldier
– wear uniform, try to maximize civilian deaths = War criminal
– don’t wear uniform, try to minimize civilian deaths = Irregular / Spy
– don’t wear uniform, try to maximize civilian deaths = Terrorist]
I hope every gay Lefty here is ashamed of lester. I really do. Because you should be. If any of you want to defend his position, you will look as awful as him.
(further note that even if Israel Defense Forces tried to kill civilians deliberate – which they do NOT – they would still only be War Criminals. Terrorists, such as Hezbollah, are even lower.)
#46 – Cal, even the IDF have their standards. They do not kill unless they are fired upon, and even under the worst situations, all they do is bulldoze a terrorist’s house to “persuade” them to cease and desist.
Furthermore, Israel does not have a death penalty – something that the international amnesty crybabies seem to forget. Imagine, however, if they did. You would not be able to comprehend the caterwauling that would emanate from the Holy Land…
Regards,
Peter H.
Israel does not have a death penalty
Whereas lester’s heroes brutally execute “collaborators,” brutally “honor kill” their own daughters, and execute homosexuals by stoning, defenstration, or drowning them in raw sewage.
Cal is right. The lefties should be ashamed of lester, but the party of Bill Clinton long ago forgot the meaning of the word ‘shame.’
VdaK, is that the same Party and President who bypassed four occasions to take out Osama bin Laden? Is that the same Party and President who failed to respond to the attacks on American soil in the embassy bombings and USS Cole?
lester-of-the-lower-case-clan, you seem intent on defending evil in an imperfect world and rationalizing the slaughter of innocents to defend a political goal… question for you: Do you work on the US Senate Democrat Staff?
Thought so. It fits.
It also occurs to me that Eurotopian nations, especially Frawnce, have already adopted lester’s policy of siding with the Islamists against Israel. But it didn’t stop Islamist youth from rioting in the suburbs of Paris and throughout France for two straight weeks in June, while attacks against synagogues and Jewish schools in Frawnce have skyrocketed.
Nor did condemning Israel and siding with the Islamists dissuade Islamo-fascist terrorists from suicide bombing the London Underground.
And in Germany, which has dutifully sided with the Islamo-Nazis against Israel AND refused to participate in the War on Terrorism, the Islamo-Nazis rewarded their dhimmitude by plotting to blow up trains in Hamburg.
And in Spain, terrorist plotting continued even after Spain capitulated to al Qaeda and elected a socialist appeaser as Prime Minister.
So, why would lester and the rest of his ilk advocate appeasing terrorists when the policy doesn’t stop terrorists from attacking the appeasers and only leads to more Jews getting killed. Oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question.
# 43 Now keogh claims that moderate Muslims, like Khatami, support the execution of homosexuals. And he likes that. Truly remarakable.
#43 – “But you are right, [Khatami] has not outrightly condemned the current regime… You can call him a wimp but… see what this moderate Muslim has to say. That what he is folks, a moderate Muslim.”
Let’s get this clear.
A “moderate” Muslim – going by keogh, the expert – is a person who doesn’t advocate the killing of gays and/or Jews, but who does not object or even call it what it is, either. As keogh suggested, “a wimp”.
Oh, why does that sound so much like a “moderate Nazi”, or “moderate German” of the 1930s?
Since it does – isn’t that a clue as to the evil, yes EVIL, nature of the Iranian mullahcracy?
And didn’t previous generations already decide the question that yes, the Germans who disliked Nazism but permitted it silently (or continued to serve as its functionaries) were evil, actually?
Khatami, the “moderate”, indicted as killer and torturer by family members of his victims:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/coming_soon.php
My point also made by a Mideast correspondent and by Iranian dissidents – that, while some ordinary Iranians had supported Khatami, he failed to support them.
That’s my Cal – kicking a$$ and taking names!
Regards,
Peter H.
Thanks Peter 🙂
Well, at least some protested Khatami at Harvard: http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2913
From a sign: “July 1999 crackdown [under Khatami]: 4 students murdered. 300 students injured. 400 students arrested.”
I would like to know more about it: what happened, if he ordered it, if he has repudiated it, etc. I would suspect/guess he has not repudiated it. Publius has a video of an Iranian speaker, who I suppose might say, but I have to rush out – No time to download.
“moderate Nazi”
So would a “liberal Muslim” be “liberal Nazi”?
Or if a person identified themselves as a “Muslim” would you call them a “Nazi”?
What an inept analogy….
You really have to think through your comparisons because they always show how wrong and inflammatory you actually are….
Further if you actually take the time to research his speeches and books,
you will find that he has spoken out against terrorism and nuclear proliferation and other such goals of his political enemies.
He has just not outrighly condemned the leaders of his own state, if he did he would die.
So again, your comparisons don’t mesh up to his HUGE amount of speeches and writings.
Take the time to do it yourself. Don’t take the word of people blinded by their ideology.
Look it up for yourself….
Unfortunately, puppet Keogh, you have inadvertently revealed the problem with your argument.
He has just not outrighly condemned the leaders of his own state, if he did he would die.
So Khatami is going around playing PR jockey and saying how wonderful a regime is that would kill him if he spoke the truth about conditions in it or expressed his own opinion.
Looks like “Baghdad Bob” has been replaced by “Tehran Tom”.
For those who think Khatami represents a “good” in Iran, Sen Brownback held hearings this week on his Iran Human Rights Act –which calls on the Administration to present a strong, pro-democracy face to the radicals in Iran.
During the hearings (listen up keogh), Sen Brownback heard from witnesses who were tortured under Khatami’s “moderate” regime and some who still have loved ones rotting in Iranian prisons as a legacy to Khatami’s “march toward democracy and moderation in Iran” –as some of the GayLeft moonbats here have characterized Khatami’s leadership of Iran.
The Man in the Chocolate Robes is neither a moderate or a pro-democracy advocate. He should not have been allowed a visa. The Washington National Cathedral should not have given him legitimacy in offering him a platform for speech. Mitt Romney was right to deny him any support by the Mass law enforcement entities. And JimmineyCricketTraitorCarter is right in seeking to meet with Khatami because it proves again what a corrupt, anti-American, corrosive force the peanut farmer has become in American affairs.
In my view, Khatami should have been arrested for War Crimes, frog marched off to the Hague and we should have put pressure on the slimebags in the UN like Kofi to rescind his silly little exercises in finding commonality with Evil. The UN is not an eastern bazaar marketplace and it needs to stop being put up “For Sale” by Kofi’s Administration. This is what happens when we allow 3rd World bit players to command the UN… it reduces to meaningless, hollow gestures.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly announces that there are no gays in his country. Well, duh! Since the Shah was forced into exile, over 4,000 gay people have been executed. In one of the more notable cases, two gay Iranian teenagers — one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17, were executed for the “crime” of homosexuality, on July 19. The two youths — identified only by their initials as M.A. and A.M., were hanged on July 19 in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, on the orders of Court No. 19. The hanging of the teens was also reported by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. T see the disturbing photos click here:
http://www.gaysofla.com/content/view/94/1/
The photos are heart wrenching and disturbing but are a vivid reminder of the price some pay for just being who they are.
Regards & Respect,
David L. Wylie