Iranian Pres Speech...

[_KimberlyAnn]

Hi Dart, this is now 2007... As sincere as many politician I hear... I give him the benefit of the doubt... Why not??

Because he is a proven liar, not just then, but now as well. It was just recently he said he wanted to destroy Israel. It was just recently he insulted the intelligence of the masses by stating no gays exist in his country. This he said as a means to bypass any explanation of their persecution. And you think he gives a flying flip about human rights and oppression. How much nonsense do you need to hear...

This is just a canned sermon designed to get everyone's attention at the UN while his real complaint regarding human rights has to do with the US in the Middle-East and the oppression of the Palestinians. Occupying foreign lands he says. Gee, I wonder what he is referring to! He is a Muslim speaking on behalf of Muslims who he feels should be ruling the world. Muslims have traditionally lived as superiors to all non-Muslims, and it drives the Mid-East countries nuts to see Muslim Palestinians ruled over by non-Muslims, especially Jews.

I mean really... how can anyone give this idiot any credibility when he flat out denies the holocaust took place. Everything is a conspiracy for these crack pots. Giving him a pulpit is not doing anyone any favors. It is the propagation of further ignorance.

Amen.

KA

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi ALL, i'm impressed with the immediate responses. Speaks well of this site, Doc... I'm also somewhat surprised by the general tenour of the comments.

Because he is a proven liar, not just then, but now as well. It was just recently he said he wanted to destroy Israel. It was just recently he insulted the intelligence of the masses by stating no gays exist in his country. This he said as a means to bypass any explanation of their persecution. And you think he gives a flying flip about human rights and oppression. How much nonsense do you need to hear...

RM: He isn't the only International Liar... Recall the failed search for WMD sworn by US nobility to exist? That lie resulted in the near total destruction of a prospering nation. Albeit one not of our persusaison. Hmmm, you say he can't be believed, but yet You react to an unbelievable statement?? My intelligence is not easily threatened by a "liar"??? His might be on display for evaluation, which is actually a good thing... Nonsense doesn't bother me. As many of us have, I've listened to it most of my/our life/lives, and don't pay that much attention to it...

This is just a canned sermon designed to get everyone's attention RM: Nothing new. WE hear them quite regularly right at home... at the UN while his real complaint regarding human rights has to do with the US in the Middle-East and the oppression of the Palestinians. RM: As are the compaints of many from every nation... Occupying foreign lands he says. RM: And so they are. Thanks to Britain and cohorts... Gee, I wonder what he is referring to! He is a Muslim speaking on behalf of Muslims who he feels should be ruling the world. RM: And the USA represents who/what??? Muslims have traditionally lived as superiors to all non-Muslims, and it drives the Mid-East countries nuts to see Muslim Palestinians ruled over by non-Muslims, especially Jews. RM: And, why might Christians & Mormons attempt to convert?? Cuz their's is the bestest!! LOL!!

I mean really... how can anyone give this idiot any credibility when he flat out denies the holocaust took place. RM: Denial doesn't undo reality. Why so frightened by "...this idiot..."?? Everything is a conspiracy for these crack pots. RM: And cracked kettles :-) Giving him a pulpit is not doing anyone any favors. RM: Oh contraire... It is a demonstration of democracy in action. And, provides occasion for a request of resciprocation. IF/WHEN dialogue is really desired... It is the propagation of further ignorance RM: You say he isn't believable... So just acknowledge him as another human, equal in the sight of "God" worthy of respect, in the company of other ladies and gentlemen of charcter. He occupied a podium that while standing behind should have demanded the presence--not necessarily the agreement--of all delegates. In my seriously considered opinion, IMSCO.

Hi TD, you said:

He is basically ripping on America here... perhaps rightly so nevertheless, I think Bush's choice is understandable. :-)

I agree with all three of your observations. And, while, "Bush's choice IS understandable," i think it poor, and detrimental to better understanding cultural differences, that is absolutely imperitive to advancing peace and goodwill beyond our family BBQ. Ya know what i'm sayin'?

Hi Jason, you said:

I do not think he should have been allowed on American soil. He is clearly our enemy.

I know you're not alone with that sentiment. But that does seem incongruent with "The Gospel" as writen to be a guide over troubled-waters, to wax poetically. Following the express message of Jesus the Mortal, or the Divine--how ever one wants to cloak him--we are to make peace by making friends with those we might deem as enemies, those who dispitefully treat us and others.

If he had stood prandishing a MK47 spraying the audience with death, i could find justification for anger & fear. That was not the case. He filled his responsibility as a Speaker to the UN Assembly. As such HE IS NOT "OUR" ENEMY, he is representing His country. As is every other delegate.

As long as such animousity exists, there is little hope that the UN will come near filling its mandate. Exemplified by the low position of USA (21) & Canada (15) in meeting the .7% income towards World Poverty agreed upon in 2002. Maybe that's irrelevant.

However, if the USA cannot stand to face the cricicism of a small Eastern country, then the magnanimity that founded the great Democratic experiment has been lost in its Government's arrogance... If their is any USA face to save, it will only be with an official apology for its rudness, IMSCO. From there a move towards justice will be much easier than it now is... That's assuming World Justice is desired?? Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Hi Roger,

I agree with your analysis (Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:35 am).

It struck me as inappropriate that the president of Columbia University introduced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran with insults. Why?

It was surely to cover himself. Some claim Americans are “hated for their freedoms.” It’s a claim that I think is wrong. Americans may be hated but that’s not the reason.

The introduction demonstrated hate and unnecessarily. Why couldn't Ahmadinejad have been simply introduced as the President of Iran? This was a university. Amadinejad was invited and spoke with freedom to say what he wished.

Why not let him make is own mistakes and allow students to hear?

This comment is no admiration, but rather a thought that anyone invited to speak to a student body at an American university should be given an introduction which is not pejorative.

If a president of an American university wanted to give cause for America to be hated, the introduction was sufficient.

That Amadinejad was wrong/misinformed is something to be discussed after his speech, not in an insulting introduction before the speech.

JAK

[_JAK]

Hi dartagnan,

dartagnan stated:
Because he (Ahmadinejad) is a proven liar, not just then, but now as well. It was just recently he said he wanted to destroy Israel. It was just recently he insulted the intelligence of the masses by stating no gays exist in his country. This he said as a means to bypass any explanation of their persecution. And you think he gives a flying flip about human rights and oppression. How much nonsense do you need to hear...

We claim, in the USA for political purposes, that we believe in free speech. I’m skeptical. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran speaks as the president of his country. G.W. Bush speaks as the president of his country. Politicians distort and/or lie when they speak.

The US is engaged in a war in Iraq which costs its blood, treasure, and reputation. There were NO weapons of mass destruction. That was the “solid case” for preemptive attack on Iraq. It was to be a "short war," and Iraqis (we were told in the US) would thank us for what we were about to do.

Well, who lied? Who cherry-picked mis-information to make the case for a preemptive attack? And now G.W. Bush and company wants to prohibit other nations from having exactly what we insist we have for ourselves (nuclear capacity).

“How much nonsense do you need to hear...” from an American president before you recognize that you have been duped?

I don’t say that to excuse or elevate the president of Iran. I say it because there appears a perception that our elected are good, decent, honorable, trustworthy people. They are not. Some are. But, clearly some are not. How do we distinguish those who misinform from those who inform? I submit, as a group (voters), Americans have done a poor job.

dartagnan stated:
He (Ahmadinejad) is a Muslim speaking on behalf of Muslims who he feels should be ruling the world.

And every head of state or sub-head of state is “speaking on behalf” of those in his/her country.

dartagnan stated:
I mean really... how can anyone give this idiot any credibility when he flat out denies the holocaust took place. Everything is a conspiracy for these crack pots. Giving him a pulpit is not doing anyone any favors. It is the propagation of further ignorance.

Why not be pleased that he demonstrates his level of being misinformed when he makes statements such as this. Now, if he should be prohibited from speaking, just where and how should that be done? It does not seem as if anyone has done Ahmadinejad any favor by allowing him to speak. On points which he is clearly wrong, his speaking is harmful to him. Allowing him to speak particularly when he is wrong is damaging to him.

Or, do we really believe in “freedom of speech”? I’m skeptical that as a collective society, we do.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi JAK, you're right, the CU introduction certainly discredited that institution, and its Head. Interestingly, the inappropriateness wasn't lost by Iran's President either, who responded with the question, 'why so much time was taken from him to be insulted and embarrassed by his host.' Or words to that affect. Maybe we expect too much of 'men-of-letters'? They too are exposed to the same indoctrinations as everyone else.

That indoctrination so effectively reaches such high places is in its self scarry. Seems we've descended a long way from Voltarie... Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Richard, I'm a bit surprised by Your reaction... I'll be in italics:

Did it hit too close to home? Why did the USA absence itself? Especially being the host country, for born-again Pres Bush to not attend is nothing less than an expression of ignorance and arrogance that discredits the generous hospitable spirit of the vast majority of American people that I have experinced.

Iran declared war on the US in 1979. They have not revoked this declaration. They are murdering American soldiers in Iraq. President Bush did the right thing by not attending.

RM: And US invaded VN without declaring war!? Since when are soldiers murdered during a war?? They are killed in action, by friendly fire, ambushed etc. From what I read and hear, many Americans do not agree with Bush spurning MM...

Richard And I'm surprised by your posts here. I thought better of you. The US intervened in South Vietnam in response to the invitation of the South. To my main point, do leaders from countries which are at war attend the speeches of the leaders of their enemies?

Pasted below is a segment of MM's speech. Had it been made by Tony Blair, it would have received a standing ovation...

"Today, humanity passionately craves for commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, enforcement of justice and respect for the dignity of human beings, elimination of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed. And a longing for peace constitutes the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

"Madame President,
"Excellencies,
"What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress on others and oppress them.

"By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

"Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

"Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

It is easy to name-call and scoff at the Iranian President. As at CU... To disagree with THEIR social standards, as they do ours, is a matter of reality. Some might even be offended that they believe in the same "God" in Iran as is believed in America. So be it.

But, the fact of Universal suffering, disparity, and injustice that he addressed are the same problems recognized by most thinking, feeling, empathetic folks world wide. These are the issues that should unite human efforts. Where the BILLIONS of military $$$ should be directed. That there are things difficult for US to understand, and agree with, in THEIR culture, is beside the point when considering the more important: Our supposed common concern for poverty and health...

I respectfully suggest GOOGLING his full speech... Warm regards, Roger

Yes, we should not scoff at people who want to wipe out Israel. RM: Why so? They are inhabiting land taken from others, not 'rightfully' theirs...

[b]Richard I guess if you think that they are occupying land that's not their own (which is a debatable point), it's OK to wipe them out.

The Soviets had great rhetoric too while they were murdering tens of millions of people. RM: Yes, and the Allies where glad to cooperate with them...

YRichard es, I have argued that films like "Why We Fight" about Poland were ridiculous since they left out the Nazi_soviet Pact of 1939 dividing Poland.[/i]

It appears that Roger would have been one of those Westerners praising Stalin in the 1930s. RM: Sorry you think that Richard. It is a total figment of Your imagination... The Soviet Constitution in the 1930s promised great things too. What they delivered was the Gulag

RM: Many wonder had they not been challenged by "The Cold War" to spend their VERY Scarce resources--recall their 25,000,000 human loss, and the devastation of property, industry etc--on defence, their promises might have come true following the brutal Stalin regime. Conjecture of course. None the less a possibility that Capitalism could not countenance... Recall also "Sputnic"???[/b]

Seems I got carried away and became [b]"Bold" but did soften it with "Italics"... Warm regards, Roger

Richard And where has Communism been successful. China is a success economically only because they started allowing capitalism. The joke is that if the Communists took the Sahara they would soon run short of sand. The Austrian economists were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union long before it occurred.

[_richardMdBorn]

Roger, lest we get lost in minor points, you central point in my opinion is

To disagree with THEIR social standards, as they do ours, is a matter of reality.

Now this is interesting. You disagree with me on issues such as the morality of homosexuality. What does Iran stand for:

1) Executing homosexuals

http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml


2) Repressing women

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/ ... -whispers/

3) Threatens genocide

“shortly after your election in October 2005, you called for a global jihad aimed at destroying the U.S., saying 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' You went on to say, 'You should know that this slogan can certainly be achieved.'"

"Ahmadinejad has also revived an old slogan of the Khomeinist movement that had fallen into disuse in the '90s: 'Death to America!' Every meeting he addresses in Iran starts and ends with this cry - chanted by professional demonstrators working for the regime."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printp ... ger_0.html

Roger illustrates the point that far too many on the left will embrace almost anyone who attacks the West. It’s striking that it includes those who would destroy everything Roger claims to stand for if they take power.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Richard, i'll be UL below...

Hi Richard, I'm a bit surprised by Your reaction... I'll be in italics:

Did it hit too close to home? Why did the USA absence itself? Especially being the host country, for born-again Pres Bush to not attend is nothing less than an expression of ignorance and arrogance that discredits the generous hospitable spirit of the vast majority of American people that I have experinced.

Iran declared war on the US in 1979. They have not revoked this declaration. They are murdering American soldiers in Iraq. President Bush did the right thing by not attending.

RM: And US invaded VN without declaring war!? Since when are soldiers murdered during a war?? They are killed in action, by friendly fire, ambushed etc. From what I read and hear, many Americans do not agree with Bush spurning MM...

Richard And I'm surprised by your posts here. I thought better of you. The US intervened in South Vietnam in response to the invitation of the South. To my main point, do leaders from countries which are at war attend the speeches of the leaders of their enemies?

RM: To your main point: generally "no" because they are not easily accessed. Nor made in the hallowed halls of academia. And, if/since there is no precedence, this would have been a wonderful opportunity to set one. Who knows, this could have been providential?? Seems meaness blinds one to opportunity...

Pasted below is a segment of MM's speech. Had it been made by Tony Blair, it would have received a standing ovation...

"Today, humanity passionately craves for commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, enforcement of justice and respect for the dignity of human beings, elimination of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed. And a longing for peace constitutes the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

"Madame President,
"Excellencies,
"What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress on others and oppress them.

"By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

"Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

"Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

It is easy to name-call and scoff at the Iranian President. As at CU... To disagree with THEIR social standards, as they do ours, is a matter of reality. Some might even be offended that they believe in the same "God" in Iran as is believed in America. So be it.

But, the fact of Universal suffering, disparity, and injustice that he addressed are the same problems recognized by most thinking, feeling, empathetic folks world wide. These are the issues that should unite human efforts. Where the BILLIONS of military $$$ should be directed. That there are things difficult for US to understand, and agree with, in THEIR culture, is beside the point when considering the more important: Our supposed common concern for poverty and health...

I respectfully suggest GOOGLING his full speech... Warm regards, Roger

Yes, we should not scoff at people who want to wipe out Israel. RM: Why so? They are inhabiting land taken from others, not 'rightfully' theirs...

[b]Richard I guess if you think that they are occupying land that's not their own (which is a debatable point), it's OK to wipe them out.

RM: Personally i do not like the term, "wipe-out" used by anyone... Although the 1948 take over by Grt Br. for the Jews, or to dislodge people from their homes is even more to my dislike. Reminiscent of the Caucasion expulsion of Native Americans...

The Soviets had great rhetoric too while they were murdering tens of millions of people. RM: Yes, and the Allies where glad to cooperate with them...

YRichard es, I have argued that films like "Why We Fight" about Poland were ridiculous since they left out the Nazi_soviet Pact of 1939 dividing Poland.[/I]

It appears that Roger would have been one of those Westerners praising Stalin in the 1930s. RM: Sorry you think that Richard. It is a total figment of Your imagination... The Soviet Constitution in the 1930s promised great things too. What they delivered was the Gulag

RM: Many wonder had they not been challenged by "The Cold War" to spend their VERY Scarce resources--recall their 25,000,000 human loss, and the devastation of property, industry etc--on defence, their promises might have come true following the brutal Stalin regime. Conjecture of course. None the less a possibility that Capitalism could not countenance... Recall also "Sputnic"???[/b]

Seems I got carried away and became [b]"Bold" but did soften it with "Italics"... Warm regards, Roger

Richard And where has Communism been successful. China is a success economically only because they started allowing capitalism. The joke is that if the Communists took the Sahara they would soon run short of sand. The Austrian economists were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union long before it occurred.

RM: The success/failure of Communism is a most worthy topic. You do well to recognize its evolution. Since it started from zero following the 1917 Russian Revolution, i imagine any thinking person--& i do consider you one such--knows the struggles and mistakes made when instituting anything new. Made especially difficult when bucking traditions and established practice. Too often desparation brings out the worse in folks.

Unfortunately too few offer help, but in fact attempt to foil a competitor's success. (BETA vs VHF) Often too, the helped turn on their benefactors in greed. (Colonists vs Indians) Richard, i find it hard to understand a Christian principled person, such as yourself, and many others here, having such hard hearts when faced with folks with whom they disagree. (Cuba is another case in point. What, rationally do you/they fear about this tiny neighbor?) Disparaging jokes like that i immediately "Delete"... Surprised you'd even repeat it ;-) Warm regards, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi again, I'll be 'bold' this time :-)...

Roger, lest we get lost in minor points, you central point in my opinion is

To disagree with THEIR social standards, as they do ours, is a matter of reality.

Now this is interesting. You disagree with me on issues such as the morality of homosexuality. What does Iran stand for:

1) Executing homosexuals RM: I do not condone execution of anyone... Not in defence of the execution, but i read it was for "Rape"???

http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml


2) Repressing women RM: I'm against repression of all freedoms, including speech.

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/ ... -whispers/

3) Threatens genocide RM: Threats made in posturing & pravado, made by anyone, i don't take too seriously. I think some tend to make too much of such... Recall Kruchev (SP?) hammering on his desk in the UN with the heel of a shoe? And, when flying over Detroit boasting, "...we'll bury you..."

“shortly after your election in October 2005, you called for a global jihad aimed at destroying the U.S., saying 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' You went on to say, 'You should know that this slogan can certainly be achieved.'"

"Ahmadinejad has also revived an old slogan of the Khomeinist movement that had fallen into disuse in the '90s: 'Death to America!' Every meeting he addresses in Iran starts and ends with this cry - chanted by professional demonstrators working for the regime." RM: Note, not by the common folks...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printp ... ger_0.html

Roger illustrates the point that far too many on the left will embrace almost anyone who attacks the West. It’s striking that it includes those who would destroy everything Roger claims to stand for if they take power.

Richard, I will address your last pargraph: First this accuassion is fabricated nonsense. If not an insult...i'll go with the former so we'll remain friends. But, i ask you, "is THE West above reproach or question?" IF so, "why?"

PLLLLLLLLLLLEASE reread my posts. IF you find that i said anywhere on this page that i agreed with what you point out as Iranian "bads", please 'copy-&-paste' them in a new 'post'. The point i'm attempting to make--without a lot of success--has nothing to do with Iranian or its Pres' behaviour!!

It has to do with the actions/reactions of the USA's Pres & the absence of common courtesy afforded a Nation's (any Nation's) representative to the UN--UNITED NATIONS. Such childishness is not becoming anyone, or collective, beyond their adolescence... Thoreau-- "what you do rings so loudly in my ears, i can't hear a word you say,"-- an early, respected American.

Your fear mongering is repugnant to me. I respectfully suggest, "...if they take power..." it will be because the USA fails to recognize that might does NOT always make right. There will ever be a BIGGER BULLY to challenge an eroding hero. Is that not made clear in America's school's history books?

To prevent that "take-over" mighty-arms and closed minds will not do what helping-hands and open minds/hearts will. Dialogue>>>> talk>>>> negotiate>>>> compromise>>>> LET LIVE!!!!! Where there's life,and DIALOGUE there's hope. Where there's no hope there's defeat. Defeat never brings real peace. That only comes through mutual reconciliation and respect. Unfortunately, you guys really blew it again... Really what's a big guy like youse afraid of anyways??? Warm regards, as ever, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi dartagnan,

dartagnan stated:
Because he (Ahmadinejad) is a proven liar, not just then, but now as well. It was just recently he said he wanted to destroy Israel. It was just recently he insulted the intelligence of the masses by stating no gays exist in his country. This he said as a means to bypass any explanation of their persecution. And you think he gives a flying flip about human rights and oppression. How much nonsense do you need to hear...

We claim, in the USA for political purposes, that we believe in free speech. I’m skeptical. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran speaks as the president of his country. G.W. Bush speaks as the president of his country. Politicians distort and/or lie when they speak.

The US is engaged in a war in Iraq which costs its blood, treasure, and reputation. There were NO weapons of mass destruction. That was the “solid case” for preemptive attack on Iraq. It was to be a "short war," and Iraqis (we were told in the US) would thank us for what we were about to do.

Well, who lied? Who cherry-picked mis-information to make the case for a preemptive attack? And now G.W. Bush and company wants to prohibit other nations from having exactly what we insist we have for ourselves (nuclear capacity).

“How much nonsense do you need to hear...” from an American president before you recognize that you have been duped?

I don’t say that to excuse or elevate the president of Iran. I say it because there appears a perception that our elected are good, decent, honorable, trustworthy people. They are not. Some are. But, clearly some are not. How do we distinguish those who misinform from those who inform? I submit, as a group (voters), Americans have done a poor job.

dartagnan stated:
He (Ahmadinejad) is a Muslim speaking on behalf of Muslims who he feels should be ruling the world.

And every head of state or sub-head of state is “speaking on behalf” of those in his/her country.

dartagnan stated:
I mean really... how can anyone give this idiot any credibility when he flat out denies the holocaust took place. Everything is a conspiracy for these crack pots. Giving him a pulpit is not doing anyone any favors. It is the propagation of further ignorance.

Why not be pleased that he demonstrates his level of being misinformed when he makes statements such as this. Now, if he should be prohibited from speaking, just where and how should that be done? It does not seem as if anyone has done Ahmadinejad any favor by allowing him to speak. On points which he is clearly wrong, his speaking is harmful to him. Allowing him to speak particularly when he is wrong is damaging to him.

Or, do we really believe in “freedom of speech”? I’m skeptical that as a collective society, we do.

JAK

It seems that a common argument in favor of allowing Ahmadinejad to speak.

First we believe in free speech. Free speech is a right extended to US citizens. It is not the right of the leader of a nation that has vowed to destroy one of our key allies as well as us. It does not extend to the president of a nation that sponsor terrorism.

Nect, George Bush lied about WMD and Iraq. Well we could discuss the merits of that argument in another thread. But for this thread I say SO WHAT? So that means we let our enemy come here and pander his feel good rhetoric? Hardly. The two are irrelevant.

Roger stated that based on the gospel of love that we should be willing to let the man speak. Well I am all for the gospel of peace. But I am not naïve about the world we live in either. History had taught us to be wary of people and nations like Ahmadinejad and Iran. In such a case I am for the gospel of hard line and strong defense. Ahmadinejad, Iran and radical Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to peace and well being for the way of life as we enjoy it in the west. I believe that we must be prepared to defend our culture and nations at all costs agains this. I have become a one issue voter on this and that is why I voted for Bush four year ago and that is why I will support whoever I think is going to be strong in defense.

So there you have it.