To attack the Iranian president as Bollinger did seemed like a calculated American response to shift the spotlight of the Iraq war and Bush's ridiculous global warming position. Once again kudos to American ingenuity at spin, they've pulled the wool over our eyes yet again.

After all, even if Ahmadinejad denies the existence of gay people in Iran, many of our own most prominent
Christian leaders would love it if gay people
didn't exist.

Accepting gays is ok - but that issue pales in comparison to the issue of the invasion/occupation, and the needless deaths of over 800,000 Iraqis, and the crippling of over a million.

We should never accept the bastards in the white house and on capital hill. They are the world's worst monster, the corrupt obstacles to world peace. THEY should be placed in steel and concrete cages.

Of course I don't agree with Ahmadinejad on everything, but unlike Bush and the other bastards in Washington, he deserves much respect and admiration.

-------------------------

Here's a nice `10 minute talk from President
Ahmadinejad to the National Press Club. In it, he refers to the divine spirit of mankind, the need for truth, peace, and the role of the press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXng5MWgD68

Another very well written piece, I think that people really need to be more informed regarding the role of Ahmadinejad in his country, it is not the same level of authority as the President of the USA, in Iran, bush's counterpart would be the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Agree with ceti, the holocaust and the homosexuals are not issues here at all, certainly not worth going to war over.

Anybody notice the difference in the podiums used? Was Ahmadinejad's made smaller for any particular reason? They didn't want to give him anything to hide behind?

Press around the world called it an ambush, sorry, just another day of infamy.

Will Bush return the favour and bravely visit an Iranian university to take hardball questions?

No. He'd more likely allow the Dems to steal one over him and watch Pelosi do the 'diplo-thang' instead.

(Or at best, he'd send Condi. She's harder, smarter and will make them sweat.)

And, as far as Ahmadinejad's denial of gay's existence, this is common attitude outside the west, except for Japan and maybe some parts of India.

Once at work, the subject came up with an Eithiopian co-worker who said "we have no homosexuals in Eithiopia - it's against the law! and, when I was in grad school, I once had a Chinese student brag: "Americans allow too much immorality and decadence! In China, we have none of your gays and your AIDS!"

Persian hospitality is world renowned and goes back to ancient traditions. You never ever ever insult a guest even if that guest is your bitter enemy in Persian culture. Shame on Bollinger. I am against a lot of Ahmedinijad's views and his oppression of his own people as I am a big supporter of Shirin Ebadi. However, freedom of speech means freedom of speech even when we are against the message. We can learn alot from this experience always treat a guest with honor and respect and freedom of speech means a person has the right to express thier views.

Of course its blatantly obvious who Bollinger was pandering to.

There's not a single thing Ahmadinejad has said or done that compares in criminality to that of this administration--and all of its zionist neocons. Instead of making the ritual statement of "balance" (this monster Ahmadinejad) you would have more credibility if you could name his "monstrosities," a difficult task considering that in Iran, Ahmadinejad has less power than a US vice president. Furthermore, the monstrosity of words cannot compare to the monstrosity of deeds, and Bush & co. are the leaders in that field. How many countries has Iran invaded in the last six years? How many Guantanamos has Iran created? If Ahmadinejad is a "monster," he is one completely made up by Israel, AIPAC, and the neocon cons.

Hey, no homosexuals exist in the Catholic church either apparently according to Church officials. I don't hear any mobs of Catholics being rude to the Pope.

Another great piece, btw.

Homosexual rights is such a red herring, when people like Newt Gingrich use it, like Laura Bush used women's rights to attack the Taliban regime (in fact, women are even worse off now than before). Neo cons going to war to support gay rights is also pretty far fetched!

Homosexuality is also illegal according to British Law in most of the Commonwealth. In Jamaica, there enormous violence against gay people, but we don't have warships circling that country.

Moreover, Ahmedinejad has no power over social policy. That's in the hands of Ayatollahs who on the other hand, have enforced fatwas that ALLOW and SUPPORT transsexuals seeking sex change operations.

Christians should learn their own texts. Matt 7 opens with an injunction not to judge others for the specks in their eyes unless you remove the logs in your own. Bush is our log.

There is a HUGE point that is being overlooked by nearly every commenter and pundit about the Iranian President. It is a ceremonial position. He has no real power over Iranian law, the military, the judiciary or much else. When he was the Mayor of Tehran, he had more power. His position is very similar to Presidents of other parliamentary systems, including Israel. When was the last time anybody quoted anything said by the Israeli President? To place him on an equal platform (power-wise) with Bush is naive and misleading.

Good and BALANCED analysis of both leaders, Mr. Tristam. Gracias.
FED UP WITH POLITICS: You're right on!

That doesn't matter--go to above thread and see how, even on this site, some are ready to go to the matresses in attacking him based on pumped up rhetoric to fire up the population to back invasion of Iran. Jesus how can some be so blind!

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the following last night at the close of his interview with Charlie Rose:

"Best of luck to you and best of luck to the people here in the United States, the American people. These problems too shall pass. The bright future is awaiting everyone, filled with brotherhood, peace & closeness."

Charlie Rose with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
56 min - Sep 25, 2007 -
A conversation with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7351989860835767572

CSPAN.org has the whole talk he gave at columbia on their website.

He's quite a remarkable man and he KNOWS what he's
talking about!

---------------------------
Who does Ahmadinejad know about?
Http://www.Share-International.org
He calls him "the hidden Mahdi" and has said that "He's hiding like the sun on a cloudy day"

The part about homosexuality in Iran was kind of amusing in a sad way for those of us living here. Maybe he's right though because if you're gay maybe you wouldn't want to live there? Of course, there are mitigating factors like how do you get out of any country? and where would you go?

On the other hand, reading the papers in the past few days I see that whatever or whoever is ruling this country has numerous blind spots that we have to endure here. Arrogances, stupidities, repetitions of the identical movement toward war that we just went through and turned out to be the total lie most of us here at commondreams realized it was from years before it actually happened.

Apparently, there are countless Americans who have been deluded for so long and so deeply that they will not be able to see the truth until it finally reduces them to tears, and all that they once had is lost.

The fear-brokers have stumbled over their adolescent version of tough-guy manliness again. In denying the Iranian president a visit to ground zero, Ahmadinejad comes out looking like the decent little courageous man wishing to pay his respects, while Dubya/Cheney/Rudy/Hillary come across looking as though afraid of his shadow.

We hear rumblings of another autumn "product rollout". Remember that one? Businessmen marketing wars, cowards who among them have not one day in military service, while a slew of retired generals condemns the whole lot for their ignorance.

So, if not this year, next. Just in time for the Fall shopping season, or between the primaries and the election, sending Democrats off with tails between their legs, Bush will invade Iran. Where will it stop? I fear we'll see goosestepping Blackwater troops on Main St. before the US public even connects the dots enough to organize a General Strike or demand impeachment.

Havent some of our most prominent christian leaders turned out to be gay?

Between bush and Ahmadinejad, I'm all for the latter without qualifications or caveat. There is so much nonsense attributed to him due to intentional misquotes, mistranslations, or pure animosity to demonize him that it is hard to find anyone writing about him without first acknowledging that he/she does not approve of the man. This is quite understandable when one considers how corporate loudmouths can easily destroy or glorify someone.

One of his often misquoted statements about Israel—actually not his own, but he was quoting Khomeini—is the following:

"The regime occupying Palestine should perish from the page of time"

The meaning here should be clear. The regime occupying Palestine, as most people know, is Zionist; and by force of nature and time, all regimes would eventually disappear any way.

If anyone reads anything else into this statement, like he wants to destroy Israel itself or its occupants, then one must have an agenda.

When he called a convention to research the truth about the holocaust, the usual suspects got all up in arms claiming he was a holocaust denier. For the sake of discussion let's assume that he was dubious about the holocaust. You, as a reader, are you definitely sure that it happened as horribly as they claim? And if you do, because you have reached that conclusion upon an exhaustive research, then good for you. Did really 5 or 6 million of them perish, or was it one million? We have read that in WWII 60 million lost their lives.

A lot of people haven't done any research, and would've welcomed Ahmadinejad's search for the truth. If it really happened and is documented and is true, then why so much fuss about it since the truth would come out again?

And still, one of Ahmadinejad's questions remains, not just unanswered, but wholly ignored:

The Palestinians were not involved in WWII, or with Hitler, or in the Holocaust at all. So why have they been made to suffer for 60 years?

Just asking. Bush. Bush. Bush. (Does Ahmadinejad force all government agencies to invoke his name at least three times per page, too? Again, just asking...)

Between bush and Ahmadinejad, I'm all for the latter without qualifications or caveat. There is so much nonsense attributed to him due to intentional misquotes, mistranslations, or pure animosity to demonize him that it is hard to find anyone writing about him without first acknowledging that he/she does not approve of the man. This is quite understandable when one considers how corporate loudmouths can easily destroy or glorify someone.

One of his often misquoted statements about Israel—actually not his own, but he was quoting Khomeini—is the following:

"The regime occupying Palestine should perish from the page of time"

The meaning here should be clear. The regime occupying Palestine, as most people know, is Zionist; and by force of nature and time, all regimes would eventually disappear any way.

If anyone reads anything else into this statement, like he wants to destroy Israel itself or its occupants, then one must have an agenda.

When he called a convention to research the truth about the holocaust, the usual suspects got all up in arms claiming he was a holocaust denier. For the sake of discussion let's assume that he was dubious about the holocaust. You, as a reader, are you definitely sure that it happened as horribly as they claim? And if you do, because you have reached that conclusion upon an exhaustive research, then good for you. Did really 5 or 6 million of them perish, or was it one million? We have read that in WWII 60 million lost their lives.

A lot of people haven't done any research, and would've welcomed Ahmadinejad's search for the truth. If it really happened and is documented and is true, then why so much fuss about it since the truth would come out again?

Maybe some of our "gay" people aren't really gay, maybe they're just confused. That's to be expected in a nation where almost anything goes, where excesses are celebrated, where the blind lead the blind, and the military is used to kill and cripple hundreds of thousands - all for the benefit of the insanely greedy few. The USA is a very confused (F'D up!) nation. Good is bad, down is up. So called christian values are often separative, judgemental, greedy, hateful and murderous. Many American men apparently don't have balls (look at Bush!). What a mess. It's the collapse of a barbaric and ugly little part of our civilization. Thank goodness for that.

Perhaps the authorities are putting cow tranquilizers in the water supply. Glad to get my water from a clean well!

The darkest hour comes right before the dawn. A brand new beginning is near.

Please write your politicians telling them to quit F'ing with Iran, and to get the troops the hell out of Iraq!

========

Thanks for a basically honest article. I would simply direct the readers' attention to another related and very current matter which has gone virtually unremarked in US media: the war crime committed by Israel and our Government on September 6, 2007, when Israel -- after consultation with and approval of our Government -- conducted a military attack against Syria. The CNN and Washington Post articles on this attack make clear that it was not in response to an actual or imminent attack by Syria -- the only exception to the UN Charter's prohibition of unilateral military attacks by member nations against other member nations. The CNN and Post articles contained not one word about the illegality of such an act of agressive war -- the very "Crime Against Peace" for which German political leaders were tried, convicted and executed at the first Nuremburg trial in 1946. (GOOGLE this and see for yourself, if you doubt me.) All that our media seems to be interested in with respect to the September 6 attack on Syria are essentially technical questions such as the identity of the target (still under dispute), the difficulties overcome by the attackers (not many), and the results of the attack (Israeli and US sources are reportedly "pleased" and "satisfied" with the destruction they caused). My question for the US media and fellow readers: What happened to the country I once knew and loved?

Bollinger is the posterboy for the Stupid Ugly American. The Iranian President was elected by a much more honest system than BUSH was.

Also, Iran has never invaded another country.

The USA has been fucking with IRAN since the 50's, when the CIA overthrew the electred Predient and installed a pro-USA "cruel and pety dictator" whpo tortured and murdered people for years, while syphining off all the oil to US interests.

Then, after IRAN rightly rejected the US puppet, the USA encouraged SADDAM to invade and kill millons.

Now, when IRan is legally developing a nuclear energy program, BUSH is threatening to invaded and bomb them again.

THE USA IS THE CRUEL AND PETTY DICTATOR.

"THE USA IS THE CRUEL AND PETTY DICTATOR."

Ditto from me.

I agree mostly with this article, but want to remind folks that Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He is subordinate to the Supreme Leader of Iran -- currently, a post held by Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei has all the power and authority. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is the number two guy in all respects.

We should acknowledge that this fact has been willfully ignored by the Bush Administration who is able to continue to advance an aggressive Middle East posture in part by perpetuating the misperception that the President of Iran is the guy in charge.

Ahmadinejad got a boorish reception from New Yorkers yesterday because most of what he says about Israel is true.

Ahmadinejad says that the events that Jews refer to as The Holocaust affected others besides Jews. That's true. Millions of non-Jewish Russians, Poles, Communists, Gypsies, and others were put to death by Germany. Ahmadinejad considers all of these historical events worthy of continued study. Don't you?

Ahmadinejad questions why a Jewish state had to turn Palestinians out of Palestine. Palestinians had no part in the extermination of Jews. Europeans did that. Ahmadinejad's right. Jews, Christians, Muslims and others were living in peace in Palestine before the Jewish state was established. There were no Nazis in Palestine. Wouldn't you like to know why it was necessary to install a European state among peoples who had been repelling European invaders for 2,000 years?

Ahmadinejad believes that Israel should give way to a non-Jewish state. As a holder of office in a theocracy, he may be on thin ice when he makes an argument against sectarian government, but he's right nevertheless. Americans have always stood for the proposition that a state establishment of religion is bad for the state and bad for religion, too. Israel has a state religion. So does Iran, but that doesn't make it right.

Ahamdinejad expresses the resentment and sorrrow of all the displaced people of the region when he condemns Israel for inviting Jews from far and wide to populate the occupied territories of Palestine and evict anybody that gets in the way. Who could disagree with this condemnation? Talk about unwelcome immigrants. Here are waves and waves of decadent European and American white people supplanting the indigenous brown people of the eastern Mediterranean. Why couldn't they have put Israel in Texas, where white people are still popular?

Speaking at Columbia University, Ahmadinejad could have said but didn't that American Jews bear considerable responsibility for the oppression of Palestinians and others in the region. Too many Jewish Americans put their legacy in Israel–Judaism is the only religion that comes with a birthright in other people's lands–ahead of all other allegiances. Of all the identifiable U.S. ethnic groups supporting our various wars, especially the proposed war against Iran, Jews seem to be the most consistent boosters, notable as they are for their absence among the ranks of the young people doing the actual fighting. Ahmadinejad could have pointed this out, but he didn't. Too polite. Unlike his hosts.

Ahmadinejad and Bush see the world in the same way, through religious, xenophobic lenses. They're really the same guy. However, Bush can only dream of participating in a theocratic government free of the checks and balances of the current American system. If Bush could think clearly, he'd look upon Ahmadinejad with envy.

Joe Lieberman and one or two more far-right Zionists have submitted a Sense of the Senate amendment to the defense funding bill that includes, in part:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah and indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

With Lieberman's prior anti-Iran resolution, could this (if passed) be considered by Bush and Cheney as their "authorization" from Congress to carry out Cheney's 3-day aerial blitz of Tehran in order to remove the danger they have been trying so hard to make us believe is there (but have not provided evidence for)???????

Nice job, stepfour.

Question: Would Bush have the courage to go an Iranian university and field questions? I doubt our Dear Leader would even have the courage to go to Columbia, come to think of it! Notice how he rarely addresses the nation due to his embarassing lack of public speaking ability!As for gay rights are you f@#$%ing kidding me! Go to Alabama or even Cheney's home state of Montana and announce your gay.I'd be willing to bet you would get an "Iranian" reception there! Just ask the ghost of Scott Shepard!I don't know, but I hold Ahmadinejad in higher regard than The Decider!At least he has courage!

Bush and New York have turned ground
"O" into a propaganda cow and they won't allow anyone but themselfs to milk it.

One by one we are being sucked into the Bush/Cheney black hole. Canada too. See http://tinyurl.com/2z4z2z
We have fanatics in the making here too. I hope we have the people who will stand up and speak out as so many of you are doing. Bravo.

By attacking Iran in any "miltary mode" will in all probability result in two outcomes; a) the acceleration of the downfall of the US as a major power and b) a blowback of intense hatred of, unfortunately all Americans of Jewish heritage.

Along with escalating and continuous costs in collateral damages as well as in financial terms that will materially change the health and welfare of all Americans for a very long time.

As some one mentioned on another topic American and Israeli Zionists would have to be the ones that would lay claim to the dubious distinction of the complete destruction of the USA, which powers like the USSR, Hitler's Germany and Japan could not accomplish singly or collectively.

we used to have political theater but now we have political spectacle.

i think we can all agree that the pr coup for the day went to ahmadinejad. the whole world focussed today on the words of a minor official of a third rate country and ignored the president of the united states, who, by the way, gave a performance so bereft of statesmanship that he might as well stayed at home.

ahmadinejad talked, among other things, of high ideals and hopes and dreams. he has neatly insinuated himself into the role of spokesman for, probably, half of the world, body count wise.

bush bitched about the performance of the council, i thought i'd gag. he beats them and cows them into submission and then attacks them for being that way.

the miserable bully.

is it me or does he seem tired these days. he looks like his soul, as if returned from the ashes of one of his coke and booze binges, has taken him somewhat to task for his evil follies in iraq and elsewhere.

to lose the spelling bee to ahmadinejad is a new low for the presidency, of which bush has authored so many, and calls into question the wisdom of any of his decisions in a whole new way.

more than ever, he seems an idiot.

his words are all four letters or less. soon he will be reduced to grunting.

but consider this; his un meltdown not withstanding, i suggest his low point, both as a man and a president- in so many ways a whole new brand of low - came today when he once again threatened to use his veto over the extension of health care benefits to children of poor and low income families.

his comment, which i offer for clunker of the decade, was to say that the democrats don't care about children one little bit. they don't like children. bush said they only wanted to support the health care benefits to create a wedge issue in the election season. (i guess without rove there to remind him that that is their modus operandi - he tends to forget who is doing what to whom) his plan is to cut about a million more children off health care.

what a cruel and terrible man.

Mahmoud a monster? Never again, right Philip?

Tristam (and Roth) pretty much summed up my opinion nicely.

Ahmadinejad is pretty clearly a crackpot in many of his beliefs. He seems to have the same messianic zeal of George W. Bush. The two men are alike in many ways: unyielding, self-righteous, condescending and largely unreflective.

All that being said, Lee Bollinger's behavior on Monday was atrocious and embarrassing, for himself, for Columbia and for the United States. Crackpot or not, Ahmadinejad was an inivted guest of Columbia University, not to mention a head of state (albeit with limited power) of a sovereign nation. He was entitled to a certain level of respect and dignity. Ahmadinejad said, "In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment". I would hope that this would be the tradition in any academic environment. If Ahmadinejad is as horrible as Bollinger claims the responsible reaction would be to either A) Not invite him or B) Let him speak as any other guest and allow for the audience to make up their own minds.

My guess is that Bollinger invited Ahmadinejad (or approved the Dean's invitation) for the noble reason of advancing free and open discourse, being provocative and piquing the public's inquiry into the Iranian issue pushed so thoroughly by this administration. Very admirable. But along the way, Bollinger was likely pressured and harassed by AIPAC and the like to retract the invitation. He refused (again admirable), but offered the tirade trashing Ahmadinejad as a token (reprehensible). In the end, he tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one.

In addition, I'm wondering if there wasn't a more malevolent motivation. Bollinger might have speculated that if he (or the audience) antagonized Ahmadinejad enough, were rude and insulting enough, that Ahmadinejad would lose his temper, rant and rave and "reveal" himself as a lunatic to the world. This would provide quite a boon for Bush's push for an Iranian attack ("we need to facilitate regime change; their leader is obviously insane"). If this was Bollinger's intention, it failed miserably. Ahmadinejad was calm, restrained and polite: virtures of a serious speaker.

Building on Philip Roth's quote, it is a catastrophe when the President of a country with a theocratic, misogynistic, anti-liberal regime appears far more reasonable and respectable than the President of a highly prestigious American university.

Lastly, Tristam rightly pointed out that as extreme and unyielding as Ahmadinejad appears to be, he still willing faced an extremely hostile audience and defended his views and a calm, restrained manner. When has George W. Bush ever done the same thing? In the Twilight Zone, maybe...

"And we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students." What's there to disagree with?

Is this the first time in history an American has publicly agreed with a foreigner? It may be the start of something good.

So, it's not only gun-toting rednecks enabling the imperial misadventures, is it, dear scholars?

Israel has only 6 million people. Why are we supposed to be concerned about them more than their just due 1/1000th of the world's population ratio?

I was watching CSPAN 2 yesterday and caught the Q and A at the National Press Club. The President of the Press Club would ask a loaded question, then look at the audience with an "I've got him now" look and smirk. Whatever.

Then the event began at Columbia University. Only one word comes to mind to describe how I felt regarding the President of Columbia University's "introduction" of President Ahmadinejad. Embarrassed. THEY invited him to speak there for God's sake! How can an academic institution in New York City invite the President of a country we may go to war against pre-emptively (and illegally as in Iraq) and treat the man with such utter contempt? It was absolutely shocking, subjective and inappropriately ethnocentric.

He was in the middle of his speech when CSPAN announced they were going to the House of Reprepresentatives and that Ahmadinejad's speech would be carried on CSPAN 3!! Naturally I don't have CSPAN 3!! Couldn't manage to stream it on line either. So I found it on CNN and while he was talking they had his voice loud and the translator's voice barely audible as they were scrolling nasty things about him along the bottom of the screen. Classic upstaging.

Had to run out in the car and turned on FM to NPR and they were having nonsense discussions about everything but his speech. I finally gave up.

One would think in the United States we would want to be able to hear what this man has to say and listen to all the questions and his answers. The American People are smart. IF they can receive the information. Yesterday wasn't one of those days.

The obvious question is this: Why would the United States go out of its way to make sure the President of Iran would not have a civil platform to discuss the problems facing our countries bilaterally??

abbybwood
"and smirk"

In the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War, George Bush (senior) and Saddam Hussein agreed to speak to each other's people on TV.

First Bush gave a 10 minute talk on Iraqi TV. Then when it came to Saddam's talk, we saw a SMIRKING Bush saying he gave the video tape with Saddam's message on it to the main stream media to "see what they could do with it". Needless to say, I have yet to meet any American who heard that half hour long talk by Saddam Hussein to the American people. The most we may have heard is a one or two sentence summary by a reporter instead of any part of the promised speech. Even shots of Bush's speech being watched on TV by Iraqis got much more air time in the U.S. than any content of Saddam's speech.

But the main thing I remember was the obnoxious attitude of the then President Bush. It was SO dismissive of anything that Saddam might have said.

This time people are starting to wake up to the systematic propaganda we are subjected to and the lack of respect for anyone elses views.

Abbybwood,
Here is where you can get the Iranian President's speech to Columbia University:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html

.

Who was the wing-nut that said that outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan that homosexuality is denied? I want to hear more about the Ethiopian and the China man!

His homosexual denial was more like the US military's don't ask, don't tell policy. Gays are not allowed in the military, but so long as they stay silent they are permitted. If they tell, they are gone. No gays in the military. In Iran it is the same, if you say you are homosexual or are caught in the act, well, you are gone as well (a bit more violently though). Homosexuality is not permitted in Iran, therefore there are no known living homosexuals. Problem solved.

The President of Iran has no control over the police or military, he is no danger to anyone but himself and those in Iran. His job is to keep the people supporting government. Our scare mongering makes his job all the easier. If he was really the threat the war mongerers say he is, he would not be allowed to go back to Iran, or his plane would suffer mechanical troubles on the way home. But he is safe, as is Bin laden, since we need these monsters alive, even if only digitally, to justify our own monstrous acts.

His Holocaust arguments, whatever they are, may be a result of suspicion that the numbers and events were exaggerated so that the UN would give the Jewish people a state in Palestine, and to allow Israel to justify their treatment of the Palestinians. His main point seems to be that whatever happened to Jewish people, happened in Europe, so why did the Palestinians have to pay the price? Consider the role American bankers and corporations had in Germany's economic and military resurgence under Hitler, and that Prescott Bush was chairman of a Nazi owned bank as late as 1942 until it was seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Those who made money arming Hitler in the 30's, paid no penalty for his crimes. The Palestinians land was used to pay the European Jews for Hitlers crimes.

WHAT I SAID, AFTER 9/11 IS:
#1 - RE- MAKE THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY INTO THE STATE OF NEW JERUSELUM AND AIRLIFT ALL THE JEWS FROM PALESTINE TO THAT NEWLY FORMED STATE OF THE USA (SAME POSTAL CODE AS BEFORE, BY THE WAY)
#2 - INVEST ALL OIL COMPANY SUBSIDIES AND WHAT NOT INTO A SUPER-HUGE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
PROGRAM THAT WOULD MAKE OUR NEED FOR MIDDLE EAST OIL OBSOLETE WITHIN 5 YEARS (THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT A YEAR AGO)

THEN THE ARABS - SUNNI AND SHIITE COULD CONTINUE THEIR FUEDING AS IF WESTERNERS HAD NEVER BEEN THERE.
THE USA WOULD NOT NEED THEIR OIL OR NEED TO PROTECT THE ZIONIST PROJECT ON FORIEGN SOIL.
NEW JERUSELUM WOULD BE A U.S. STATE IN WHAT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
THE ZIONIST AGENDA WOULD THEN BE CURTAILED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - PROHIBITING OFFCIAL RELIGIONS AND SO FORTH.
AND SINCE U.S. STATES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS THERE WOULD BE ONE LESS NUCLEAR POWER IN THE WORLD.
IRAN WOULD HAVE LITTLE REASON TO PERSUE ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM - PROLLY TOO.

as presented at the WORLD POLICY FORUM BANQUET AND RAFFLE - 2007

BUH: But what about making money and being the hand of god?

Amadinejad just said they don't have homosexuals in Iran LIKE they do in America, not the same 'phenomenum' was what he said. He is right, they are out and proud here--for the most part-finally. And Vern you were right on about there being no Catholic gays. I grew up Irish Catholic, and I swear this is true, my mother told me almost all homosexuals were Jews because their mothers were too overbearing. It turns out our gays just became Priests or the family bachelor quietly drinking himself to death in his shame.