From the President of Iran, the same man the American Left embraced when he spoke at Columbia University: (h/t – The Corner)
“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” he said.
“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”
Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.
“I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed,” he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
What exactly would a President Obama talk to this guy about?? Oh, its okay. No need to worry….. Let’s just get the child-raping, money-stealing, dictator-propping, resolution ignoring, Isreal-hating  United Nations on the case!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
So, it appears that President Obama had best get his trip in quickly if he is going to have anyplace to come home to.
Hmmm…at what point do we stop brushing this guy off as a raving, religious, lunatic and start taking him seriously. Sooner rather than later I hope. And I just don’t think PO’s the guy to take him down.
I’ve been warning about this for years, but the President didnt want to listen.
This is the man and regime Pelosi just praised for their good work in Iraq.
#4 – Maybe we should send Pelosi as special envoy to Iran for oh, I don’t know, maybe indefinitely?
Besides, she’d look good in a burkha. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I thought Pat Robertson was unfairly criticized when he suggested Hugo Chavez be assasinated. Frankly the world would be a lot safer if various tyrants were mysteriously being shot in the head
When, oh, when will Israel tire of his threats and open a big ol’ can of whoopass on him? Maybe they will wait for Obama come to reason with him first, then they will blow him up to his 72 virgins.
Hey Dan, what’s Whoopass in Hebrew?
Anyways, guess who’s in charge of the UN Security Council this month.
Who?
That be we.
They left REALLY, REALLY WANTS to keep defending Ahmadinejad–and it was easy to do when he seemed so much more “presidential” and spoke so much more eloquently than our own “embarrassment” of a leader at Columbia (denying the Holocaust, saying there are no gays in Iran, of course), and had a terrific column castigating U.S. aggression and imperialism in Newsweek–but, when he says things like this…well, it just makes it really, really hard, you know? Why won’t he just cooperate? The left now has retreated to the only two strategies it can get away with: (1) just ignore him completely, and when he is brought up just pretend they didn’t hear the question; or (2) write him off as no big deal, since afterall, he’s “just a figurehead” with no real power.
Of course, going into Iraq and deposing Hussein (Saddam, not the Democrats’ nominee for President) was UNTHINKABLE, since Hussein was the PRESIDENT of a sovereign nation. But with Iran, naturally, the title of “President” means nothing–it’s apparently Arabic for “Dogcatcher.”
Actually, I don’t know what all the fuss is about. This is probably just religious fervor and rhetoric run amok–totally harmless. Like when he said Israel would be “wiped off the map,” he was just speaking in terms of a future peaceful existence where the borders on the map might change a little bit through a negotiated settlement with Israel, not about violence. Like he said at Columbia, Iran “loves all countries.” His words about “wiping Israel off the map” were wildly misinterpreted by American philistines and these statements are just being misinterpreted as well. There’s a message of peace in there somewhere–Americans just don’t have the brains to detect the subtle nuances. I mean, it’s not like he led an angry mob in a chant of “DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO ISRAEL!” or anything.
Oh. Ummm. Wait a minute….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
So it’s okay for the Bush administration to talk to Iran but not Obama’s. Right wing logic escapes me.
#13: It’s not “right wing logic” you don’t understand, it’s just logic period that “escapes” you, and your first statement conveniently proves it. The fact that you are unwilling (or more likely, unable) to see any distinction between the Bush Administration “talking” to Iran and what Obama has proposed demonstrates that logic doesn’t interest you in the least. If it did, you might have some idea of what the Bush Administration’s “talks” with Iran has consisted of and you would be able to contrast it with what Obama has said he will do with regard to Iran.
#13 – Snoopy, who said anything about Bush talking to Iran? I thought the libtards wanted the UN to do the talking. Remember what Kerry said in 2004? (Oops, bad analogy since he lost the election.)
Or how about Carter’s whimpering about how both the USSR and Iran “lied to him.” (Oops, another bad analogy since he really was the worst president of the 20th century.)
If anything, Bush should do an aerial carpet bombing of Iran and let Israel attack from the western front before he leaves office. THAT is how you deal with AhmadinaHitler.
Libtards want to talk to dictators. Conservatives want to eliminate them.
Libtard logic is so hard to follow.
Regards,
Peter H.
Anyone advocating for more talks with Iran needs to see this video clip of Chief Iranian Negotiator on the Nuclear Issue. They open acknowledge that they use negotiations specifically to stall and buy time so that they could accomplish fait acomplis. And the West is so stupid as to ablige them. And by the way, I think this video was made before the current nutcase A’jad was President.
Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm
Here is a transcript:
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[…]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA – this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.
[…]
We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.
[…]
Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.
[…]
Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting – the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.
[…]
There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.
[…]
Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.