Translating Iranian President’s Ground Zero Interest
After reading the brief transcript of CBS’ Scott Pelley’s interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I realized this was definitely a case where things must be getting lost in translation….or at the very least you had to read between the lines.
So let me try my best to translate from Islamoterrorese to English:
PELLEY: Mr. President, do you intend to press your request to visit the World Trade Center site?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that.
[GP translation: "I can do whatever I want... I'm a prophet from the 12th Imam! And, by the way, if I happen to see a woman without a burka or one of those filthy homosexuals near Ground Zero, I'm throwing both of them into that big hole so they are closer to the burning hell they belong in."]
PELLEY: But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can’t do that, I won’t insist.
[GP translation: "I'm not going down there alone, dawg! Isn't that crazy Rudy G still the mayor? He still has a chip on his shoulder about my terror-brother bin Laden... I'm afraid Rudy might take me out. Go there alone? You are silly one, aren't you."]
PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans.
AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting?
[GP translation: "Nah, that's not insulting. What would be insulting is a country that holds American hostages for 444 days and then elects one of the hostage takers as their President 30 years later.... and then that leader speaks at a major US university... now THAT should be insulting to the Great Satan."]
PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?
[GP translation: "You are only a filthy media beast. The government tells you what to say -- like in Iran. You can't possibly speak for every American. ."]
PELLEY: Well, the American nation–
AHMADINEJAD: You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.
[GP translation: "Well, Scott ... thanks to our propaganda and your media's willingness to peddle it unchecked, you and I have duped half of the American public into thinking their country is evil and their own President is Hitler. Is that awesome or what?
So you can't possibly be speaking for those folks... they are just my useful idiots. And those Democrats love me and recite my own talking points.... And [*laughs*] those stupid Democrats don’t even mind that Iranian troops and terrorists are killing the troops they “say” they support. Hell, I’m just wanting to visit New York to save Nancy Pelosi the airfare costs from San Fran to Tehran. I can’t wait to give her a big kiss. Then I’m throwing her to the dogs of hell, too.”]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
51 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Perfect!
Comment by Heliotrope — September 21, 2007 @ 9:48 am - September 21, 2007
Notice he only said he wanted to lay at wreath at ground zero–what hes not saying is that he wants to lay it for the hijackers.
Comment by American Elephant — September 21, 2007 @ 9:59 am - September 21, 2007
Seriously, though, what he’s trying to maneuver is some high-profile propaganda: if down the road the US (and/or Israel and/or ???) conduct an air/missile strike on Iranian facilities, he and the IRI will be perceived that much more as being for peace and commiseration and reconciliation while the “Zionist-Imperialist-Satan” will be perceived that much more as the aggressor.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — September 21, 2007 @ 11:48 am - September 21, 2007
#2:
Yeah, all those Iranian hijackers involved with the 9-11 attacks.
Comment by Ian S — September 21, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 21, 2007
I have nothing to add, except, well done, Bruce!! Especially this part:
***[GP translation: “Well, Scott … thanks to our propaganda and your media’s willingness to peddle it unchecked, you and I have duped half of the American public into thinking their country is evil and their own President is Hitler. Is that awesome or what?
So you can’t possibly be speaking for those folks… they are just my useful idiots. And those Democrats love me and recite my own talking points…. And [*laughs*] those stupid Democrats don’t even mind that Iranian troops and terrorists are killing the troops they “say” they support. Hell, I’m just wanting to visit New York to save Nancy Pelosi the airfare costs from San Fran to Tehran. I can’t wait to give her a big kiss. Then I’m throwing her to the dogs of hell, too.”]***
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - September 21, 2007
Ian, you really are stupid and as useful and idiot as they come.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - September 21, 2007
Sorry for the typo, Ian. My post should say “as useful an (not “and”) idiot as they come”.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - September 21, 2007
As so many liberals happily believe, islamo-fascism doesn’t have a specific country or nationality. It is an ideology that has global reach. A mental illness, not unlike liberalism.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - September 21, 2007
Ok, I am mis-writing everything today!! It’s what happens when you are on a conference call and trying to post on a blog at the same time!! I meant to say, “On the contrary to popular liberal belief, islamo-fascism doesn’t have a specific country or nationality. It is an ideology that has global reach. A mental illness, too, not unlike liberalism.”
Ok, lunch time!!
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - September 21, 2007
And of course, who’s hosting Mad Jihad’s latest diatribe?
Columbia University, home of Eric “The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military” Foner and Nicholas “a million more Mogadishus” De Genova.
At least he’ll be among friends. Pelosi and Reid will probably be in the front row shrieking like schoolgirls.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2007 @ 1:18 pm - September 21, 2007
Yeah, all those Iranian hijackers involved with the 9-11 attacks.
Sinking deeper into a swamp of dumb.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - September 21, 2007
#7: Like so many ignorant cons, you foolishly lump all Islamists together and ignore the clear divisions and mutual hatred that exists among them.
Comment by Ian S — September 21, 2007 @ 3:33 pm - September 21, 2007
Oh Ian, thank you for making my weekend start off with a good hearty guffaw!! You really don’t know what you’re talking about – ever. I haven’t posted in so long, and you’re still as sophomoric and uninformed as ever!! Enjoy your weekend at whatever “Blame America For Everything” rally you will certainly be attending!!
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm - September 21, 2007
Fine. He wants to lay it for the guy who drove the truck into the building full of sleeping Marines in Beirut in 1983. (I’m sure MA remembers it like yesterday.)
Comment by Jeremayakovka — September 21, 2007 @ 4:37 pm - September 21, 2007
And, Ian, you, as befits the official Democrat belief in their inferiority, believe that Middle Eastern and Islamic peoples are so savage that they could never set aside “clear divisions and mutual hatred” and work together against a common enemy.
Which is why Shi’ite Iran is arming and supporting the Sunni Taliban and predominantly-Sunni Hamas.
Of course it’s not surprising you ignore that, as does your Democrat Party; after all, that demonstrates a) that terrorists can work together, much against your rhetoric, and, on the positive side, b) that the Iraqi people are quite capable of working together despite sectarian differences.
In short, it condemns both your inaction against terrorism and your attempts to argue that Iraqis are too “savage” to work together.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - September 21, 2007
Ian (#4) -
So tell me…. what did Italy have to do with WWII since they didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor?
Surely an intellectual giant of a liberal that you are can see that we don’t have to connect the Islamists together — they have repeatedly stated it themselves.
Surely an intellectual liberal would understand that a terrorism war isn’t confined by traditional country boundaries and traditional battlefields. Today’s battlefields are financial centers, shopping malls, airports.
Oh, but I don’t have to tell you that Ian…. you surely understand all of the complexities of the geopolitical strategy of al-Qaeda and Iran. I’m sorry to insult your intelligence.
Comment by GayPatriot — September 21, 2007 @ 4:49 pm - September 21, 2007
Ian S, I have more experience with Muslims throughout the world than I can relate in brief. I suspect you have no concept of what a strong belief system is and how it guides the believer. There are certainly a lot of Muslims who go about their faith with a wink and a nod. But just try mocking the faith and you will be treated to a demonstration of how fast blood can boil. The problem with Western liberals who think that religion is just a side show is that they have no idea how offensively wrong they are in the eyes of many. There is no counter-balance to radical Islam within Islam. None. There is a reason why. You can not take radical Islam out of the Koran. Without the Koran, there is no Islam.
If you do not understand this or believe this, you are not just a fool, you are dangerous to yourself and those around you. Go ahead and wear an “Islam Sucks” T-shirt around town and see how long you go unscathed. You won’t do it, of course, because you don’t want to “offend” anyone. Also, you secretly know that it could well get you killed, as Murtha would say, “in cold blood.”
Comment by Heliotrope — September 21, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - September 21, 2007
Ian: “With her tiny earphones and slim digital player, Jakarta office worker Mira Indriarti looks like any other young music lover–except she’s not listening to the latest tunes, but to a recording of the Koran. Digital Koran is increasingly popular in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, where such gadgets sell especially well during the fasting month of Ramadan.” (Reuters, by Staff- 9/21/2007 7:05:07 PM)
Comment by Heliotrope — September 21, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - September 21, 2007
LNC, my Sapphic fantasy!!! Long time no post. I see that you still got it, girl. Ian, Ian, Ian…how could we put it so you might POSSIBLY understand what is wrong with the Iranian President going to Ground Zero to lay a wreath? Oh, how about this…Fred Phelps going to the very fence post Matthew Sheppard was tied to to lay a wreath. Would that raise even the slightest bit of anger in you? Would not see it as a bad choice on Phelp’s part and possibly a publicity stunt for his more fanatical followers to use as a rallying cry?
Comment by Jon — September 21, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - September 21, 2007
#17, 18: I have no idea what comment I made has set you to babbling so. The simple fact is there were no Iranians among the 9-11 hijackers. Another fact I brought up is the one that there are to put it mildly, significant difference in the beliefs of the likes of bin Laden and those of the mullahs in Iran. We should be exploiting those differences instead of foolishly prodding these factions to cooperate against us.
As for #19, please cite where I stated any support for the Iranian President’s proposed visit to Ground Zero.
And come on Bruce, are you really going to try and pretend that al Qaeda and Iran are bosom buddies like Hitler and Mussolini? Please. That said, if you and the other Bushies keep trying to push them into it, you might eventually get your wish.
Comment by Ian S — September 21, 2007 @ 10:16 pm - September 21, 2007
That said, if you and the other Bushies keep trying to push them into it, you might eventually get your wish.
and the rest of #20:
Sinking deeper into a swamp of dumb.
Ian S. Britney’s image consultant.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2007 @ 3:19 am - September 22, 2007
This is so fun to read. Maybe, just for the fun of it, everyone should read a little history, to understand why Sunnis and Shia see themselves as mortally opposed in representing the true Islam. Especially Wahabis, which not so coincidentally, was a forming framework for the Saudi hijackers – and why we haven’t bombed Saudi Arabia yet for it world wide support of the most extreme and violent version of Islam attacking the West can be summed up in three words that at least Greenspan has proven he can spell.
Quite honestly, I would be worried about an Iranian laying a wreath at Ground Zero, since it might including remembrance for the innocents victims of the USS Vincennes. And before responding, do please read the link at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 .
I especially like vice president’s Bush quote – ‘”I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are” – since it seems to fit in so well with what many of the posters feel is a point of pride in their writing.
However, a couple of facts anyways, then please, do your best to dismiss them -
‘Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[11] This contradicted earlier Navy statements.’ (Yes, the American government lies – deal with it.)
‘…killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children’ (More children than died on Sept. 11 in the U.S., but then, who cares about children?)
‘The Fogarty report concluded, “The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from takeoff at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.” The fault in the USS Vincennes lying directly in the airplane’s pathway is Captain Rogers’. (Those Islamic terrorists need to be stopped before they own a few cruisers like the USS Vincennes.)
‘Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides….identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its ‘squawk’ (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed….concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian radio frequency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military aircraft, and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless.’ (Shit happens.)
‘The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human life but never admitted wrongdoing, accepted responsibility, nor apologised for the incident. Officially, it continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy’s Commendation Medal for “heroic achievement,” noting his “ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire” that enabled him to “quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure” (You know, I thought only the terrorits handed out awards for killing innocent children. Well, on the second thought, since he received his award while under fire from a passenger aircraft carrying children, this just proves that you can never stop a terrorist too early in their life.)
Comment by uh_uh — September 22, 2007 @ 7:33 am - September 22, 2007
#20 Ian S:- Just a major, huge correction in your post: Hitler and Mussolini were anything but bosom buddies. They were useful to each other—-just like al Qaeda and Iran.
Now, read my lips: It-was-radical-Islam-that-flew-the-planes-into-the-World-Trade-Center,-the-Pentagon-and-caused-the-crash-into-the-Pennsylvania-dirt. Radical-Islam-is -terrorism-without-borders. Ask-the-Spanish,-the-Brits,-the-French,-the-Dutch,-the-Balinese,-the-Thais,-the-Egyptians,-the-Lebonese,-the-Chechnyans,-the-Afghanis,-the-Pakistanis,-the-Egyptians,-the-Danes,-the-Somolis,-the-Sudenese,- the-Nigerians,-the-Saudis,-the-Turks,-the-Bosnians,-the-Iranians,-etc.-about-radical-Islam/terrorism.
State sanctioned terrorism is really, really bad, Ian S. States that turn a blind eye to the Islamic radicals among them are not long for their freedom.
There were no “Iranian” terrorists on the flights. Iranians are Persian, not Arab. But what do the mullahs of Iran have in common with the radical Islamic terrorists throughout the world from many countries and historic heritages? I am not confident you know the answer. They hate the world that does not go by their rules. That includes members of the Islamic faith who are not their brand of radical. Now they are nuking up and you are still trying to understand them.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 22, 2007 @ 9:49 am - September 22, 2007
Ok, I an, will ask you point blank then…Do you see anything wrong with the President of Iran going to Ground Zero to lay a wreath? And, if you could, please tell me why you feel what your position may be. After all, how can we understand one another without proper discourse?
Comment by Jon — September 22, 2007 @ 11:56 am - September 22, 2007
***The simple fact is there were no Iranians among the 9-11 hijackers.***
Duh, Ian. But what do they have in common? RADICALL ISLAM!!!! They all have us (yes, especially YOU, Mr Liberal) as a common enemy. If you tore yourself away from moveon.org’s groupie page for a moment, and became truly informed, you would know what’s really going on in the world (instead of the alternate universe that thrives up your own a**). Oh nevermind, your lack of intellectual honesty, and refusal to receive facts, prevents you from handling something this deep. A useful (or rathet “useless”) idiot, indeed you are, Ian. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. I can’t get past knowing you and your ilk do nothing to solve problems, except heckle from the sidelines, which makes me see you and your ilk as traitors. I don’t pity traitors, I loathe and fear them.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 22, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - September 22, 2007
#24 – **RADICALL** – should be RADICAL.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 22, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - September 22, 2007
#24 – **rathet** – should be rather.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 22, 2007 @ 1:06 pm - September 22, 2007
Look..this is a big (snore). It seems to me that Ahmadinejad wants to look moderate by going to the WTC site. The authorities in NYC said no. He isn’t going. If he wants to tell the world that he was against the attacks, he can do so in Kayhan (a Farsi Iranian newspaper controlled by the mullahs). End of story.
If he wants to speak at Columbia, that’s their decision. They are a private University. He doubt he’ll get a favorable forum there. If you don’t like it that he is speaking there, feel free to criticize them. I’ll join you if he isn’t asked about serious abuses in his treatment of moderate political leaders, democracy activists, reporters, and LGBT persons as well as his idiotic statements regarding the Holocaust.
And what does Iran have to do with Nancy Pelosi? or the Democrats?
You know, we might have a different Iranian leader had it not been for Bush’s ‘throwaway’ line in the 2002 State of the Union speech that called Iran part of the ‘Axis of Evil’. While it may be true, the forum and tone with which it was said immediately undercut the Iranian moderates. Iranians have shown the capacity to simultaneously dislike their government and rally to it when they feel that their country is threatened. So I think Ahmedinejad should be thanking the Bush Administration not Nancy Pelosi or the Democrats.
Comment by Tom in Houston — September 22, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - September 22, 2007
#23:
I don’t see anything wrong with him going to Ground Zero but I think wreath laying should be limited to heads of states that actually lost citizens in the attacks. I don’t know if that would apply to Iran. In any event, it’s simply not in our national interest to attack Iran; we need to engage them if we want to have any stability in the Middle East.
Comment by Ian S — September 23, 2007 @ 12:35 am - September 23, 2007
Considering that they are FUNDING and SUPPORTING the four groups causing said instability (the Taliban, Hizbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi insurgency), they have already declared war. Their paid mercenaries are openly shooting at and killing Israeli, Lebanese, Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, and US civilians, with weapons and technology supplied them by Iran and/or purchased with Iran’s money.
Cut off that supply and you’ll see how quickly Hamas and Hizbollah stop threatening Israel and Lebanon.
Cut off that supply and you’ll see how quickly the Taliban decides it’s in their best interest to vanish.
Cut off that supply and you’ll see how quickly the Iraqis can put their lives back together without Iranian shells and weapons blowing up their streets.
Iran has already stated flatly that their goal is to erase Israel from the map. They hosts conferences denying the Holocaust and flatly stating that it never happened. Their money sponsors television and media programming in which Jews are portrayed as kidnapping and sacrificing Muslim children to get blood for their Passover matzohs. They claim as true The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
When they decide to change their minds on those, we will “engage”. But for now, they are a maniac with a loaded shotgun, and they should be treated as such.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2007 @ 1:08 am - September 23, 2007
we need to engage them if we want to have any stability in the Middle East.
Yeah that works. What’s the EU been doing the past few years if not engaging Iran? They’re pretty much done with ‘em because they’ve discovered that “engaging” Iran doesn’t mean a damn.
The real way to gain stability in the ME is to get rid of assholes like Hussein (done), Ghadafi (done), Ahmedinajad, and ASSad. Coddling them, pretending to be their best buddy and validating and granting them credibility is only going to get a missile of some sort parked squarely up your a$$.
At what point, Ian, would you come to a conclusion that “engaging” Iran is counterproductive and is not creating any kind of stability?
Then again, the liberal notion of “stability” is everybody else bending over and grabbing their ankles.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2007 @ 6:23 am - September 23, 2007
#28
Not to mention the fact that Syria is STILL in Lebanon, but you won’t hear that on the eveing news.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2007 @ 6:26 am - September 23, 2007
One more:
If “engaging” Iran results in that country’s leadership pounding sand, I’m all for it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2007 @ 6:27 am - September 23, 2007
Ian, well done! Your #4 sent the gay patriotsy here (led by hard-charging typo-domi-natrix, LNC) into a dither. They’ve never understood how to deal with the fact that we were attacked on 9.11 by our still-best friends, Saudi Arabia, and went to war with Iraq looking for flowers and candy in a cakewalk, no, a noble cause, to find the WMDs that the Saudis who attacked us never had, nor wanted in order to achieve their mushroom cloud — or something like that. They remain as confused and agitated as their sainted Lil’ George, and hope a war with Iran will somehow take the sting out of a historic stupidity that they lustily supported.
Comment by KYKid — September 23, 2007 @ 8:44 am - September 23, 2007
KY, Ian doesn’t need your “servicing” on this site. Take it to a hotel room.
Surely even many Leftists are unhappy with having that mad animal visiting any site in America. He supports terrorism and it was terrorists who have attacked and threatened us for decades. Cold War ass-kissing is not necessary in dealing with these people.
Surely even the Left can let their revulsion for a theocrat overide their revulsion for their fellow citizens protesting this visit.
Comment by VinceTN — September 23, 2007 @ 9:50 am - September 23, 2007
Realize, Vince, that KYKid and Ian are Democrats – which means their insane hatred for the United States leads them to ally with and support terrorists.
Lynne Stewart is perfect proof of that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2007 @ 3:40 pm - September 23, 2007
KYKid says we were attacked on 9/11 by Saudia Arabia. Really! These are his words in #32 above: “….the fact that we were attacked on 9.11 by our still-best friends, Saudi Arabia, and went to war with Iraq ….” See? It is a “fact.” Now that I understand what really happened, I feel like a fool.
Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, but we didn’t want to upset our oil barons and Haliburton and Bush and Cheney, so we dithered around and attacked Iraq, because we had to attack somebody! It turns out that radical Islam is not a problem, after all. It is Saudi Arabia that bombed the night club in Bali. It is Saudi Arabia that is stirring up all the stuff in London, Oslo, Stockhom, Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bonn, Madrid, Afric, Thailand, etc. Al Qaeda is just a front for Saudi Arabia, Bush, Cheney and the Carlylse Group. Remember, the Bushes were behind Hitler, too.
You know why this hasn’t been splashed all over the media? It’s those neo-cons—-those (insert ethnic group here) who control the press and the pentagon and are draining America for Israel. That’s it. Now its out. Always look for the (insert ethnic group here).
And dumb us. We keep arming the House of Faud and supporting their crooked government, just because they are allies in helping us root out the terrorists. Why if we just nuked Saudi Arabia there would be no radical Islam or Islamic terrorism anywhere in the world.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 23, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - September 23, 2007
I’d bet anything that Ian’s playing sock puppet again. It’s pretty telling when characters come along every so often to suck his balls. You’d think Ian would be better at pretending to be somebody else, but he sucks no matter what he does.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2007 @ 7:58 pm - September 23, 2007
#32:
Very insightful as usual, KYKid. Their war with Iran will be a desperate attempt to double-down on their disastrous Iraq bet. This time, their assumption that the country will rally behind them is flawed. Instead, the already sharp divisions in evidence will be heightened further and they may be forced to institute martial law and suspend the Constitution. That combined with Iran’s potential “closing” of the Straits of Hormuz and subsequent oil spike will doom our debt-hobbled economy. None of that will bother many of the denizens of this blog and others like it. They will revel as they always do in widespread death and destruction. Neither will they care nor lift a finger to object to the loss of our freedoms – they are authoritarians and despise freedom and dissent. To them dissent equals treason. Just read their screeds here: literally dripping with hatred towards anyone not willing to worship their Dear Leader.
Comment by Ian S — September 23, 2007 @ 9:31 pm - September 23, 2007
Ian S. It is time for a glass of warm milk and a cookie.
For the sake of honoring your “dissent” let us agree to abandon Iraq in every way by Tuesday at 10 am. Bush and Cheney will resign and Pelosi will be President. The Republicans in Congress agree to vote for whatever she wants until a President in sworn in on January 20, 2009.
The ball is in your court, Ian S. Give us the formula. What does your team want? Tell us what you stand for. Tell us what your core beliefs are. Tell us how you will move us all ahead. Tell us where we are going with your team leading. Tell us.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 23, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - September 23, 2007
#38
What does your team want?
Americans & Iraqis participating in a Baghdad death march. As for the rest of your questions, Ian lacks the testicular fortitude to answer any direct questions.
#37
I take it back. You’re sinking into a deeper swamp of insanity.
First, you talk to yourself on a blog. Very pathetic.
Next, just recently, you yourself were making demands that we follow FDR’s economy wrecking steps for all out war.
It’s not conservatives who pushed to help destroy the economy with an increase in minimum wage.
It’s not conservatives who keep trying to violate the constitution by grabbing for the power of CIC from the president.
It’s not conservatives who are pushing to destroy the economy with the largest tax increases on THE MIDDLE CLASS in history.
Nor is it conservatives demanding Socialist medicine.
Oh, and it wasn’t conservatives who bitched and whined because they don’t get to see the dead on TV (but you can’t see the bodies from 9/11 on TV).
It wasn’t conservatives who bitched because they couldn’t see the hurricane Katrina dead on TV (but you can’t see the bodies from 9/11 on TV).
And, of course, it’s wasn’t conservatives who gleefully showed snipers shooting our soldiers. You know, those “terrorists” who’ve been compared to Nazis, Pol Pot and operators of Soviet gulags.
So, in short, you may drop down, fifth ring, cook.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 24, 2007 @ 1:00 am - September 24, 2007
Who ever suggested any of the hijackers were Iranian???
How could you possibly have come up with a more asinine comment?
Comment by American Elephant — September 24, 2007 @ 7:49 am - September 24, 2007
Islamic terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon, much of which is sponsored by Iran. It has been well documented. His real purpose of wanting to visit is to gloat. He never should have been invited to speak at Columbia U. Free speech should be denied to terrorists. If somebody were to say Ahmadinejad should be assasinated, is that free speech? Isreal should be wiped off the map, is that free speech?
Comment by Roberto — September 24, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - September 24, 2007
#39: I’ve presented my thoughts on Iraq before here and got no response. That said, I think Bill Richardson has the right approach. I would also go further and refocus on Afghanistan and finish what we started there. I would also plan to nail bin Laden even if it took years to get the right opportunity.
Comment by Ian S — September 24, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - September 24, 2007
I think the cluelessness of Bill Richardson, Ian, and the Democrat Party is best summed up by this; they whine and cry that the Iraqis all hate us and want us out, but then babble that “we must use the leverage of our withdrawal to bring the factions to the negotiating table”.
That only works if they want us there in the first place — but the leftist Democrats insist they don’t.
The people who want us out of Iraq the most are three groups — al-Qaeda, Iran, and the Sadrists — that also are, not coincidentally, the ones doing their best to create problems for our troops and to topple the government.
Therefore, they don’t need to negotiate — especially since idiot Richardson and his lackeys like Ian have already stated that they will immediately and unilaterally pull out, regardless of conditions. They are getting exactly what they want without having to lift a finger or give a single point; their leftist allies Ian and Richardson will pull US troops out for them without them having to concede anything.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - September 24, 2007
I would also plan to nail bin Laden even if it took years to get the right opportunity.
So what’s the difference between then and now? Are you willing to wait as long as the British?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2007 @ 6:39 am - September 25, 2007
Vince thinks first of “servicing”. TGC, always lower on the floor than anyone else, moves quickly to “ball sucking”. What’s next? Want to know how wide my stance is? Wide enough for both of you boys.
Comment by KYKid — September 25, 2007 @ 7:36 am - September 25, 2007
It’s not the width of your stance that’s the problem, KY; it’s the fact that none of us are particularly interested in what you have in the middle.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - September 25, 2007
I’ll say it again, ND30. If you think it’s such a great idea for us to be in Iraq, then head straight to the nearest recruiting center and enlist.
Comment by Houndentenor — September 26, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - September 26, 2007
Hey 48, I agree with 49. Get thee to the recruiting station. Put your buns where your mouth is, or has that already happened?
Comment by KYKid — September 29, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - September 29, 2007
Of all the ridiculous bumper-sticker arguments that fall out of liberals’ mouths when they are backed into corners, this one is the most pedestrian and childish of all. It is (once again) conclusive proof that they have no respect for the military, no understanding of the military and despise the troops.
They champion “conscientious objectors” who show up on the news stating their refusal to get on the ship when deployed because (in their individual opinion) it’s an “immoral war.” These cowards (who have of course, already received compensation and education for their “service”) are properly court martialed and the Left condemns the prosecution as an outrage. In their view, if you don’t want to go to war, then you shouldn’t have to. Conversely, per Houndentenor and KYKid (…ew), no one is entitled to support the war unless they enlist and head to Iraq to engage in combat.
Only the idiot Left could formulate such a perfect system for ensuring that our military is neither ready nor capable of protecting this country against our enemies. If you hate the war, stay home (even if you are an active-duty soldier). If you support the war, keep your mouth shut unless you are jumping out of chopper into a war zone as a soldier. Of course, this means that the SUPPORTERS of our freedoms would be the only ones actually fighting and dying to preserve them, while those who simply USE our freedoms and take them for granted would stay home to criticize, protest and condemn the war.
The Left wants a military where it’s not only voluntary to join, but also completely left to the discretion of the individual regarding whether they’ll bother to do the work assigned to them at all. In other words, they basically want it to be run like just about every other government agency in existence.
Comment by Sean A — September 30, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - September 30, 2007