digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Iranian Leader tells CBS Reporter "You don't represent 300 million people."

rawstory.com — We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad replies. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • QuantumBios, on 10/10/2007, -22/+317This almost proves that the media is the 4th arm of government, the propaganda ministry division. Americans have got to wake up to this.
    • Arkavus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65I thought Cheney was the 4th arm of the government?
    • fasda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17I'm not actually joking about this but when I took AP US Government and Politics the textbook has the bureaucratic agencies listed as the fourth branch. Then the media is kinda the 5th so I think Cheney is really the 6th.
      • swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The way I leaned the bureaucracy was considered part of the executive branch
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -44/+8Oh no, the media claimed Iran supports terrorism. They mush be working for the Bush admin. No sane person could come to that conclusion on his own by following the news.

      That is what you sound like, a retard.
      • Dax420, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39Hang on. You're saying if the media watched the news they could come to the conclusion about what to claim on the news?
      • Camote, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21That's pretty funny. So the media gets their news from the media? That would explain a lot.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12That was priceless... Way to stick your foot in your mouth!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Once again we see the result of following Bush Administration policy too closely, intelligent ideas like "the media gets their news from the media". Brilliant. Run for office, there is a future for you in the GOP.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The media does get their news from the media, what do you expect? Someone like Reuters posts a story, then other outlets pick it up.
    • Oakes, on 10/10/2007, -25/+9What exactly was incorrect about the reporter's questions? Do you guys seriously doubt that Iran has actively supported Hezbollah, a known terrorist organization? I'm not a fan of the administration, but trusting the delusions of Ahmedinejad, whose oppressive government makes ours look saintly, is going way too far.
      • TopherT, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25What, might I ask does Hezbollah have to do with 9/11? Also, Iran is not nearly as ***** a place to live as, say Iraq, or Afganistan. Its a reasonably nice place I'm told (at least if you're rich). The Ayatollah and Islamist government doesn't play all that huge a party in people's lives and there is a bustling metropolitan air in the larger cities.
        • Oakes, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2I didn't say it had anything to do with it, and neither did the reporter.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Yes, he did. He said that it would be insulting to the people in America that lost family there at ground zero. Please explain what Iran had to do with Ground zero, and why it would be insulting for him to pay his respects. We certainly have Bush leaping in front of every place there is a photo op, I'm not sure why other leaders are suddenly evil and insulting to do the same.

            We need to start building bridges, instead of trying to blow a gaping hole into the relations with every nation in the world that isn't Israel.
      • SiliconRain, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21I think the point is that Ahmedinejad is *not* actually the terrorist-supporting, fundamentalist baby-killer that the MSM would have you believe. Yes, he is a definitely a bit of a hard-liner, but he is no nutter. He is a relatively sober, intelligent, sophisticated and shrewd politician, who would knows it is not in his country's interests to oppose support terrorism or go down the road of Khomeini and spout fundamentalist Islamic rhetoric until America is ready to bulldoze Iran's cities down.

        9/11 was used as a convenient smoke-screen for attacking Iraq, and it worked. There isn't such a convenient smoke-screen this time, so your government has just decided to make stuff up. Wake up.
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You know when Admedinejad was elected, he was praised as the young, great, fresh face needed in Iranian politics. Everybody loved him. Now we're supposed to hate him.

          So which is it?
          • painted82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then is then. Now is now. They tell us to hate him now, so hate him now... until you're told otherwise. It's not rocket science. :P
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31It's not a known terrorist organization, first off. It's only recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Australia, and Israel. Great Britain only recognizes its military arm as a terrorist organization while separating its diplomatic and humanitarian arm. That's 5 countries out of 193.
      • Oakes, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5Should we wait for the other 188 to chime in before we decide whether a group that vaporized 241 Marines deserves the title of "terrorist organization"?
        • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17You know, bad ≠ terrorist. A legitimate military could could attack us too.
        • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I think a sensible nation, deep in debt with two wars on its hands, would at least listen to find out if they were willing to try peaceful solutions first. You know, like talking about it. This is all about Israel, let's face it. Some Iranians want to bomb Israel, and Israelis lately are looking for opportunities to bomb everyone they think they can get away with bombing. We need to try peaceful solutions before defending a nation that is constantly begging for money from us when they are perfectly capable of handling their own problems.
        • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's time to realize almost every single terrorist event is a false flag operation.
    • mishaco, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13i'm awake . where do i sign up for the resistance ?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Umm, the media should be the fourth branch of the government. It's been called that before, and it's a good thing. Well, a "good thing" assuming that balance of power and checks and balances still exist.
      • posure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I won't believe that Iran is a terrorist country simply because the Bush administration says so...they're all about lying anyways.
        • painted82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5According to the standard definition, Bush is the biggest terrorist in the whole world. He uses fear for political reasons all the ***** time.
      • wankelrotary, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think you're referring to the term "The Fourth Estate."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_estate
    • Plant11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why does the first comment have to say that we have to 'wake up' to whatever the article is saying? Come on, people, say something different. Its either 'wake up to' this or now we are living in a Police state, etc....Or a random 1984 term. Please; this only makes it easy for people to ignore you. State it in your own words and maybe you'll open some eyes. A lot of people are just going to shut you out as soon as you spit out that first loaded, overused key word. Thats all, sorry; i had to get it out there at some point.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh yes, we all know how Conservative and Bush-loving the media is, especially CBS, the former home of Dan Rather.

      Tough questions to a terrorist supporting, nuke building, racist, anti-freedom tyrant does not make one a mouthpiece for Dick Cheney, it just makes you a reporter who asked the questions that I would have asked if I could speak to him.

      The real scandal here is the lack of clear answers. I'm more afraid of this monster than ever before.

      And some are treating his obfuscation like some sort of victory.

      Silly.
  • TecHeavy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+192Your absolutely right QuantumBios. There is somethings in this country that is not seen by the majority of citizens. Ahmadinejad mentioned "the root causes of such incidents," this is what we as Americans are not being shown. Islamic leaders know the other side of our government...the side that we don't see and need to wake up to see. You said it QuantumBios...it is the 4th arm of the gov, and they are used to tell us what to see and believe. We are a sick nation, and if we don't get better....we as a nation will die. I love this country with all my heart, but it has been taken over by Neo conservatives who are imperialistic, greedy, and power hungry. This is what the world sees our country as now, we are no longer that shining city up on the hill...it makes me want to cry.

    I Hate the Bush's and all like them.
    • art42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Not to justify Bu$h Co I despise them as much or more than anyone else but...
      The US has been in similar wars and failures of the "4th estate". Read about what our gov't did in the Philippines, Cuba (The Maine), and other ventures. The US atrocities in the Philippines are as bad or worse than what the US is doing in Iraq.
      Read Twains "The Damn Human Race" - compilation of Twain's writings on the human race - many only need the country's name changed...
      It's sad some don't learn from history or don't care - does Bu$h Co want a quagmire in Iraq?
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -6/+35The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
        * making the world safe for American corporations;
        * enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
        * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
        * extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
        This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
        The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
        China, 1945-49:
        Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
        Italy, 1947-48:
        Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
        Greece, 1947-49:
        Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
        Philippines, 1945-53:
        U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
        South Korea, 1945-53:
        After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
        Albania, 1949-53:
        The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
        Germany, 1950s:
        The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
        Iran, 1953:
        Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
        Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
        A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
        Middle East, 1956-58:
        The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
        Indonesia, 1957-58:
        Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
        British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
        For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
        One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
        Vietnam, 1950-73:
        The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
        Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
        Cambodia, 1955-73:
        Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
        Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
        The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
        In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
        Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
        • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5There was International Communist Alliances (Warsaw Pact), much like there where International Capitalist Alliances (NATO). (Also, apparently NATO was formed first, and Warsaw was a response to that) There was a Cold War between the west and communism which involved espionage, proxy wars, etc.. These aren't the same thing as conspiracy.
        • Victorioso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Alot of that is true, and some not. Correct me also, but Khadafi also admitted to the bombings of that USA jet. I heard he is being sued by the families, and probably got a settlement against him by a US court. Also, I think it was his son, and not the daughter that was killed by the bombings. He calmed down after that.
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30Brazil, 1961-64:
        President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
        For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
        Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
        Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
        In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
        Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
        A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
        In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
        Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
        Cuba, 1959 to present:
        Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
        The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
        Indonesia, 1965:
        A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
        It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "
        Chile, 1964-73:
        Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
        After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
        They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
        Greece, 1964-74:
        The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
        It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
        Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
        George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
        East Timor, 1975 to present:
        In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
        Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
        Nicaragua, 1978-89:
        When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
        Grenada, 1979-84:
        What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
        U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
        At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
        In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."
        Libya, 1981-89:
        Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
        • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You forgot the part about Libya sponsoring terrorism. You know, blowing up dance clubs frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Germany in the 80s, trying to build a chemical weapons factory, etc. And yes, Pan Am 103. If there's one thing the invasion of Iraq actually accomplished, it was the capitulation of Qaddafi who agreed to scrap his chemical weapons program when the U.S. and the U.K. told him that he "was next".
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Panama, 1989:
        Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
        Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
        George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
        Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
        Iraq, 1990s:
        Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
        Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "
        Afghanistan, 1979-92:
        Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
        El Salvador, 1980-92:
        El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
        Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
        Haiti, 1987-94:
        The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.
        Yugoslavia, 1999:
        The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.
        • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2translation: the evil US is the sole reason the world hasn't awakened to the glorious paradise of socialism
          • Silencer7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9translation: the US is terrified of the threat of a good example, anywhere, for whatever reasons.
            ...unless you think our system is 100% perfect...?
        • bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Easily the best set of comments on digg, ever. The most educational 20 minutes of my life too, I think.
        • KryptoniteKid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If your comments were more of a cry against US intervention in foreign affairs and less of a socialist rant, they might've sounded smart.
      • technoholic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10I logged in just to digg up your comments. Well written and comprehensive. Good work.
        • notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20If you're talking to me, it was William Blum.

          As for comprehensive, it should include our attempted coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now.

          Thanks.
          • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3All the CIA did was give Chavez a free plane trip, much like Southwest will give you after earning so many Rapid Rewards points. That's a far cry from the things they tried on Castro back in the day. It should be noted that they didn't try to give him a radioactive present, unlike say the Russians.
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You make it sound like if Hugo Chavez committed a coup against a widely popular president (Bush after 9/11 or Clinton during most his presidency), and installed a dictator that immediately threw away the constitution and put in massive repression that we'd be cool with that. It was just a plane trip.

            It's disgusting in all manners, shape and form. Pure terror to a population that barely held strong against us.
    • santacruzach, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2the reply butan is there for a reason
      • dannyboy3020, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14So is the spell check button. Zing!
        • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1How exactly does spell check fix errors such as "you're" versus "your"? This is NOT a spelling error. It's a stupid human error.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL I suppose you can't be faulted for assuming that if someone commented on the spelling of a comment, it must include a misuse of your or you're, I mean, this is Digg.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Yeah whatever, how many terrorist come out ot a secular Muslim country like Turkey, versus Saudi Arabia and Iran.... we're not the cause of terrorism. Self inflicted misery in those countries is the source.
    • Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2Oh yeah, you love America. You sound just like the guy who killed his wife and then said, I ccould never hurt her. I love her! The Left is destroying the country from within. Your philosphy is that you don't mind destroying that which you profess to love in order to stop it from doing that which you don't agree with. My opinion and your opinion are never going to agree. The best we can do is compromise. The left does not compromise and every time a Conservative tries to compromise the left uses it against him to alinate him from his own party. This cost Bush Senior his re-election. It is, in large part, the reason for the hate of George II. The war is an excuse. The enemy, to the left, is the Conservative party. Any bed fellow is acceptable as long as they are enemies of the right. Keep working on the sheeple, right now you are in their good gracies. Unfortunately for you, the sheeple do not agree with your liberal politics and the hate you instill in them towards the right won't last forever. At that time the right will once again be in power.
      • DiggSystemAdmin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If the right is so great, what have they done right? Please explain.
    • JustinTense, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It's so sad, yet so true. Story time...

      I'm Australian, 25 and male. I have had one dream my whole entire life. A simple dream, that is to experience a white Christmas. Snow. I remember growing up as a kid in Sydney Australia and almost being in awe of our big brothers across the oceans that seperate us so far. They had everything, and they had it now. We were behind, so far behind in most general aspects of social life. I truely believed it to be my destiny to live the rest of my adult life in the land of the Americas. This is a dream that burned deep into my heart from a early age, a dream that burned so bright, it light up my entire life...
      This light turned to twilight, and then to darkness.

      Childhood dream, oh how I miss thee. RIP.
    • LoungeActx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@TecHeavy
      I agree, and honestly, I'm kinda interested in what Ahmadinejad has to say at Columbia University. At least then I'll hear what he has to say straight from his mouth, and it won't be regurgitated and possibly misquoted by the media/government. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in our country we don't even give people with other points of view any sort of forum with which to present their issues. It's either you agree with us, or you don't. With us, or against us.

      I know that Iran has a track record of lying, and backstabbing, but at the very least, let the American public hear what they have to say and make up their own minds.
  • jollyholly, on 10/10/2007, -12/+154I've been to Ground Zero and it was a very moving experience. Just because the White House has an agenda here doesn't mean this guy shouldn't be allowed to pay his respects..

    I think that the media is drawing the wrong kind of attention to this.
    • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31I don't even understand the reporter's point. Who in America besides someone very ignorant would be insulted the Iranian president visiting Ground Zero? It never even occurred to me to be bothered by that.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3Well I am, extremely insulted. The next upcoming Hitler wants to visit a sacred shrine in my country? FK that.
        • vjeko, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17What about that Hitler sitting in Oval office?
        • sonnybobiche, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I haven't seen Bush SHUT DOWN NEWSPAPERS or SELL ARMS TO IRAQI INSURGENTS yet, have you?
        • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wow nice of you , to declare your narrow minded view , to be the definitive policy for all three hundred million independent minded Americans.
          Say when were you elected to that office , by the way ?
        • smpdigital, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When appetite said "besides someone very ignorant" it was clearly referring at you
      • sathias, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The only people who would be insulted is people who *want* war with Iran. Their leader making an effort to position himself as a non-enemy of the US subtracts from their pretense for war.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6CBS is owned by Westinghouse, a major US defense contractor...
    • kildorn, on 10/10/2007, -23/+5Families who have been torn apart by iranian made efps.
      • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20how many weapons of U.S. manufacture have "gone missing" in the Middle East?
    • gpaone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2THAT is one of the most naive comments I've heard in a while. Agenda? The fact that 'appetite' never even thought of that shows a hint of the doom that looms over us.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Would he pay respects to the 3,000 victims, or to their 19 murderers?
  • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -16/+116Pelley doesn't speak for me or any other rational American.
    Of course all the Fox news viewers eat this dumb ***** up.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+52Fox News viewers probably now think Iran was responsible for 9/11.
      • Dax420, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Of course they were, Iran gave Iraq the weapons of mass destruction that they used to perpetrate 9/11
        Haven't you been watching the news?
        /fox news watcher
      • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2They played a role. Read the 9/11 commission report, ignorant fool.

        http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7 ...
        In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.
        • Tabou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25If that's the "role" Iran played, then what do you say about the US government granting visas to the hijackers? You're pathetic!
        • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18The US played a role too by training Bin Laden and co.
          Both nations are guilty but Iran isn't all evil.
        • wisam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Referencing to the 911 commission report is of no use. The government lost its credibility when Collin Powel showed the world a few photos of trucks in Iraq claiming links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. "Evidence" that we later learned to be nothing but a lies.
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The fact is we provoked the attack with over 60 years of irresponsibly aggressive and imperialistic foreign policy. It's blowback for our own actions. Once you understand that and we begin to make amends with the middle-eastern countries, the healing can begin.

          Or, on the other hand, we can continue our idiotic current strategy, which (by now any blind person should be able to see) isn't working and results in our loss of freedom and will bankrupt our economy.
        • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yep, now it is Iran's fault. Is there anyone else we can go ahead and blame for 9/11 BEFORE we decide to start a war with them, too? I think the State of Florida is also responsible because the hijackers were there, should we go to war with them, too?
        • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I luv it when people bowl their own balls out in trying to prove a circular argument !
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -28/+2Ha ha, you criticize Fox News viewers, but are so ignorant you don't even know that Iran aided Al Qaeda before 9/11.
      • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Show facts or shut up Geekee. There is NO evidence for that.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The US supported Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Osama Bin Laden used to be one of "our" guys. Behind the scenes, he was on good terms with us until just a few months prior to 9/11 when he decided against allowing the construction of a giant oil pipeline through part of Afghanistan. Just a couple of months later, 9/11 happens, we invade Afghanistan, and then we build the damn pipeline.
        • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bin Laden had been wanted for years prior to 9/11. Embassy bombings, the first attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, etc.
      • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Jesus Christ, what a ***** dumbass. Iran is a Shi'ite Muslim country, and Al-Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim organisation. Al-Qaeda considers Shi'ite Muslims to be heretics. Iran and Al-Qaeda are enemies, just as Saddam and Al-Qaeda were enemies.

        How exactly did Iran aid Al-Qaeda before 9/11? Is it a coincidence that these allegations only exist in the US media, in what could be the run-up to a war with Iran?
      • Cole2026, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm guessing this guy is a Fox News viewer. As kronix said, Al Queda is Sunni Muslim based, whereas Iran is strictly Shi'a muslim. From Shi'a and Sunni history alone, one could tell that they are enemies.
    • elatbashan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Seeing that conservative-bashing comments are wildly popular and liberal-bashing comments are wildly unpopular makes it clear that most diggers plowing their way through this thread see things through a strong shade of liberal pink. You accuse Fox News of shaping news/reality with a anti-liberal slant yet you shape your own liberal news/reality at sites like Digg and the Dailykos. Gotta love all the double-standards. Now, may the digg-downs commence!
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, how dare O'Reilly demand straight answers!

      Liberals love meaningless blah blah, conservatives demand clear answers, and when they don't get it, they point it out.

      So I guess we know what you prefer. No wonder this interview was so frustrating for you. Not enough bloviating.
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/10/2007, -15/+141I got no beef with Iran. They want nukes? fine. If we don't want them to have a nuclear program how about we disarm first and lead the way towards peace?
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+52They want nuclear energy which is their right under the non-proliferation treaty. The population of Iran is very strongly against nuclear weapons.
      • epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1They may be, but parts of their government are absolutely trying to acquire them. Its gotten so bad that moderates are actually winning back power, it will be interesting to see where this all goes.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26notgue is right. Don't buy into the nonsense you hear from the White House about Iran and nuclear weapons. Iran is seeking nuclear energy.
      • modestmouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Even if this is proven that, the administration will repeat misstatements until their base believes it.
        • positron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Also known as "catapulting the propaganda".
    • provost, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20what nobody ever says about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that when the US signed it, they signed that they would gradually be phasing out nuclear weapons to the point of disarmament. Iran, under the same contract has the right to have nuclear power. The neo cons are 100% wrong on every turn they try to make on this.

      We have made no attempt to disarm; in fact, we have done the opposite.
      we are not granting them the rights we said we would.

      we are wrong, iran is not.
    • mikewhite314, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5You don't have to be a Bushie to know that Iran getting nuclear weapons would not be a good thing.
      • vjeko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13For me US having nuc. weapons is also not a good thing...
      • WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And what are they gonna do? Attack us? Mutual assured destruction.
        • Drizzit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2MAD does not work against terrorists.

          Still we let pakistan get nukes. Possibly worse is India and China who both have a border with each other. I would hope they never get into a nuclear exchange because the world has to deal with the fallout.
      • positron, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6The United States is the only country in the world to have detonated nuclear weapons in an armed conflict, and purposefully targeted civilian population centers at that, all while ignoring the targets' agreement to surrender.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6How about him repeatedly saying Israel is gonig to be wiped out completely. Oh yeah that's right, we hate Israel too, I forgot what being on Digg implies.
    • WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Iran's population is probably the most Western of all the Middle Eastern countries. And besides, Iranians aren't idiots, why not have let them have nukes? They know quite well that any attack by them would be sure and complete destruction for themselves. Mutual destruction?
      • epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1-You have to separate their general population from their government. Their population is definitely more popular than their government. The problem is that their government is quite conservative/fundamentalist. Hope their government becomes more moderate. As to MAD, it doesn't work against people who actually think it would bring to fruition the apocalypse that will have their hidden iman back to life.
    • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I want to see a nuclear-free Middle-East. No nukes for Iran or Israel.

      Israel already has nuclear weapons, and they aren't a signatory to the NPT.
    • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I can't believe someone buys that Iranian explanation about peaceful power for the uranium enrichment program they have. The ONLY reason to do that is weapons.
      • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Most interesting since Canada has Nuclear Reactors , Finland and Sweden too , so by your convoluted logic these three countries too would have a hidden cache of these Weapons of Mass Destruction as well , so can you tell me where they are hidden in these three countries ?
        • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Those countries are run by civilized westerners. Iran is ruled by members of a backward death cult called Islam.

          There is no moral equivalency.

          The west is better than Isalm.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We are leading the way to peace, by toppling dictators who support terrorists, opposing tyranny, fighting terrorism, and supporting democracy.

      Want peace? Stop the enemy from carrying out his evil deeds.

      This man who has vowed to wipe another country off the face of the earth, and who lies and thumbs his nose at international law and UN resolutions and demands, and is a member of a suicide cult...and you think it's ok for him to have nukes?

      While the US was the first to have them, and only used them 60 years ago in an act that probably saved more lives than it destroyed.

      Please please please think!
  • sacr3dc0w, on 10/10/2007, -16/+84Did any US allies in the Middle East hold vigils for 9/11? No? Then the guy should be allowed to pay tribute whether you agree with his policies or not. Where are the Saudi Royal family coming to pay support? Oh that's right, they won't. Since they know it was their citizens that caused that horrific day.
    • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You said it 100%. We could find our terrorists in Saudi Arabia, but no one is looking there. That's probably where the weapons of mass destruction are.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2The Iranian govt. was helping al qaeda before 9/11. The Iranian people can visit WTC all they want, but representatives of their govt. should STFA.
      • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sadly Al Qaeda , is and will always remain a figment and creation of the CIA front cover organization for it's own terror activities !
        You just lost your credibility by spouting propaganda as fact !
      • atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorst organization, they hate to death Shiites which Iranians are, it's far fetched to say that Iranians helped Al Qaeda.
    • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually, one of the Saudi princes wanted to donate a large sum of money to New York City over 9/11 but the mayor at the time refused to accept it because the prince had stated that what had angered so many Middle Easterners into becoming terrorists was the U.S. support for Israel.
  • Frei, on 10/10/2007, -15/+24I think it's ok not to like him, Bush, or the media. In fact I'd say an open mistrust of those things is rather healthy.
  • SilentJay74, on 10/10/2007, -9/+60I have to say that I am impressed with the fact that Ahmadinejad wants to pay respects. He does know that it was a terrible loss to the US population and he wants to show the US people that he may not be the ***** that the media and the US Government play him out to be. But then again he very well may be. Only time will tell.
    • zydeco, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8I don't think he really cares about paying any respect. This is more of a bluff to point out the USA's attitude toward Iran.
      • jj101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Or it could be an attempt to rebuild relations and avoid having war?
        • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3No. Allowing inspectors to view his reactors would be a step towards peace. How the ***** is visiting ground zero going to solve anything? Use your brain. It evolved for a ***** reason.
          • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Saddam allowed inspectors in and the US still went to war with Iraq.

            In fact, the weapons inspectors later said that if they'd have been allowed to do their job by the US, they'd have reported that Iraq had no WMDs.
          • jj101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Calm down mate! Yes that would probably be good too. But any kind of political dialogue is better than none. And remember the saying: "Keep your friends close..."
      • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Too simply the Bush Administration just cannot afford to give the proposed future enemy of the US a human face and one that gives respect to the fallen few , because the repercussions would scupper all his war plans and empire ambitions at the same time !
    • gpaone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I think he does a fine job of making a sh@thead out of himself. What if his intentions aren't to paint daisies and kiss little babies? He certainly has done nothing to prove that he's got our interest in mind.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1While he may have a better side, he does, for example, deny that the Holocaust ever happened, which most people consider to be pretty vile.
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And most people are oversensitive to the issue as well, which is probably why they have such a knee-jerk reaction.

        While there is no historic doubt about the factual extent of the Holocaust, and any claim to the contrary by Ahmadinejad is naive and short-sighted, many of Ahmadinejad's points on the issue remain completely valid: that the Holocaust is treated as a sacred, untouchable subject, that it is used to justify far too many modern policies, and that the injustice that was the Holocaust itself is not sufficient to gloss over the further injustices potentially committed in trying to make up for it.

        And he never denied that it happened; his belief is more of a "I doubt it was really as extensive as you say it was". To be honest, it's hard to be overly critical of that viewpoint, because the holy furor with which it is held in US foreign policy does make the whole thing seem rather suspicious, on a reactionary level. It's seldom that something historical can really be held in such sacred regard without suffering some exaggeration, though in this case, it is generally a valid and accurate portrayal of history.
  • whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+35I was going to bitch about rawstory after reading the article, but then I saw this: ""Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley says." ARE YOU ***** SERIOUS MAN?
    • Bodhinature, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lets see...he funds Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and supplies insurgents in Iraq with bombs...

      Yes. I think he was serious. And even more serious...Amidijan never denied it!
  • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -7/+159A Quiz!
    Which Middle East country held spontaneous candlelight vigils for victims of the World Trade Center Attack on 9/11?
    Kuwait - No.
    Saudi Arabia - No.
    Israel - No.
    Iran - Yes!
    http://www.bestirantravel.com/culture/wtc-vigil.ht ...
    • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Oooops!
      http://www.bestirantravel.com/sights/tehran/tehran ...
    • Carburetor, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8I don't know about other countries, but i can tell you this.
      the 9/11 was a huge shock all over Israel, the media coverage was massive,
      it couldn't be more massive, even if that occurred here.
      I was a high school student, we talked about it in the class with the teachers the whole day.
      most of the people i sew, felt and feel deeply identification.
      I actually cried when i sew the buildings falling, and i'm usually nonchalant tough guy.
      By the way, the poor palestines most of you concerning about?
      thousands of them danced on their roofs,fired in the air and yelled "Allah huAkbar" (they blessed their god for doing this).
      they actually celebrated this.
      I promise i'll look up for vid if any exists on the net.
      • moonguidex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6"SOME" Palestinians, just like not "ALL" Israelis cried when they saw the towers collapse....
      • jj101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Could that be because their media and government expose them to the same kind of biased information we get in the west? The Palestinians were probably celebrating because they considered 911 an attack on a country that supports Isreal, who they have been at war with since forever. Clearly its shameful behaviour on their part to celebrate the deaths of innocent people but there is a subtext and had it been Outer Mongolia who had funded Isreal all these years they would probably have celebrated an attack there. Besides the comments are about Iranians not Palestinians.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The way that Israel treats the Palestinians, I don't blame them for anything they did.

        Any person in their situation would do that same thing, including every one of the neocons on this board today.
        • Aharoni, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Palestinians celebrating in the streets on 9-11? Israel's fault!
          Suicide bombers aiming at women and children? Israel's fault!
          Global Warming? Israel's fault!
          Digg's ***** comments system? Israel's fault!

          You people are getting ridiculous.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Israel is responsible for many of Israels own problems. They would do well to try diplomacy themselves rather than making enemies of everyone around them.
          • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tell me more , but for those that ignore the fatal lessons of 78 AD , appear to be doomed to repeat them yet again !
        • Carburetor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4look, i can't and don't have the right to change your opinion, I think that Israel is the most controversial country on this planet, some people love it, some hate it, and others don't give a damn about it.

          A lot of People overseas criticize Israel, and you know what? that's our fault, not because the treatment the Palestines get, but because our lousy explanation, but i can only blame my gov for this.

          there's a big problem with the palestines, i mean, that's true, there are innocent people out there, but there are also a lot of inhuman people there, sending their little kids, and their pregnant wifes to commit a suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. we're in big problem here, because each time we let palestines to work Israel, the radicals there take advantage on this and murder Israeli kids, women, and olds.
          a year ago,the IDF arrested Palestine that was part of humanitarian organization, between Israeli and Palestine doctors.
          he tried to take advantage of his clearance, in order to blow himself up in a crowded Israeli area.

          Each time Israel tries to do a gesture, it gets it in the face.

          There's no place the Jews can just take themselves and stop the "occupation", so, in theory we all should get along,
          but Israel failing doing this, and that's not it's fault.

          I promise you this, the day U.S propose to resettle Israel on one of it's deserts in order to join the states, i promise you i'll evacuate the same day, and take my family with me.

          Because i can't see this unrealistic thing happen, i think the disagreement about the palestines and the existence for Israel will remain for good.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The odd thing is that there are two sides to every street. The IDF arrested someone that was part of a hunamitarian organization, supposedly trying to use his clearance to blow up himself on a crowded street. Do you know that it actually happened that way? Because there is propaganda in your country, too, and quite a good bit of it.

            Israel is not without blood on its hands.
        • Stryder81, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2God damnit this isn't about " JEWS " get that ***** outta here.

          It's about the Zionist Jews, The ones that even traditional jews fight against. Stop blinding people and grow up.
      • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3There were candle vigils in the Palestinian territories following 9/11. The pics are on the net.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well I didn't hold any candle either. So what? Does that make me a member of Al-Qaeda?
  • futureisours, on 10/10/2007, -81/+13Okay, the leader of the country that is the most active terrorist sponser in the world has the audacity to visit the WTC site and make a mockery of it? And you stupid moonbats are just lapping it all up and attacking our president? You traitors are rotting our country from the inside-out. Why don't you take your relativistic, PC, worldview, anti-american US garbage and go live in another country, such as Iran please.
    • Arbreng, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33Why don't you take the narrow-minded, self-centered, nationalistic, warmongering ***** you're spewing and go live somewhere else as well? Seems like hell would be a good choice. *****.
      • askjoe, on 10/10/2007, -20/+4You're the idiot.....they'd hang your morally delinquent ass faster than you could make your liberal head spin in Iran. Go live there and see.
        • jj101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So. He never said Iran was a nice place or did I miss that? How do you know he'd morally delinquent?
      • jj101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Mate, while I understand where you're coming from don't you thing flaming the guy like that is just as unhelpful as the comment he posted. He thinks what he think and you what you think. Neither of you should have to emigrate, least of all to hell, because of a difference of opinion. Especially when you both are clearly passionate about the country you already live in.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Nationalistic is a bad thing? Go FK yourself as you vote me towards a socialist world government.
      • elatbashan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Haha, you call your fellow "world-citizen" a narrow-minded *****? Seems to me that you are the one who is narrow-minded. Gotta love the double-standards...
    • askjoe, on 10/10/2007, -32/+9I second that.

      This guy is the next Hitler and the libs are taking his side? Iran has something like 20+ hangings a day for petty crimes.....not to mention how they treat women, gays, and minorities.

      Liberalism is a true mental disorder.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Dude. I'll type this slowly, so you can keep up: Bush is the next Hitler. Just look at what a xenophobic ***** he's turned you into.
        • Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Dude, let me type this even slower for you. You don't even know what the first Hitler was. Before you insult the millions of people that lived under Hitler, were murdered by Hitler, know what true attrocities are, you need to take a step back out of your hate filled little bubble of a world and face reality. Even if I totaly side with you and your leftist buddies and indeed contribute every death in Iraq to Bush, he falls short of 1 million deaths by a lot. Hitler, and his war, killed approximately 72 million people. But it's ok, you and the left can just keep making your really stupid comparisons.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Bush is the next Hitler? Yet this Iranian president who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet is not?

        I'll type this slowly, get the moveon.org ***** out of your mouth
      • barbobot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4"Liberalism is a true mental disorder."

        I don't think you meant to, but you just insulted all of the signers of the declaration of independence in one swoop.
        • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3They were "classical liberals"; not the modern American version/misappropriation of the word. There is quite a difference.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5lol, in true republican fashion this idiot comes up with a bunch of made up lies fueled by his hate for anything non-white. you got any sources to back up your claims cletus?
        • halliburke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lefties like you love to use the hate word to describe the beliefs of conservatives... and other people who don't agree with your conclusions about Bush, life, and the world. I think it's sad that you can't see beyond your own small-minded, biased, unfounded, hateful speech towards conservatives and see things in a more balanced and accurate manner. Thankfully, some of us are still capable of rising above the hate-speech that so many liberals are engaged in... we balance (cancel) you folks out. Otherwise, I'd be afraid to see what the world state of affairs would be if it was ruled by people with your angry, extreme-left mindset and agenda.
      • ryanisnotsuper, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0It would be tough for Ahmadinejad to be the next Hitler, being that Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader of Iran and Ahmadinejad is a figurehead.
    • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34If questioning the media and the government makes me a traitor, I am a traitor. I judging a man based on his words and his actions, and not based on what someone else says about them makes me a traitor, than so be it.

      If lapping up Bush and the media's ***** about Iran makes me an American, well sir, you can have my citizenship, because its worthless.
      • Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1bye. Don't bother telling me where you're going, I don't care, just leave.
      • sonnybobiche, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So... how have you researched his words and actions? By watching all the media coverage of him? Or by actually figuring things out for yourself... My guess is the former.
      • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is ok to question the media and government actions. It is not ok to give a murderous thug a free pass, while refusing to give the leader of the freest country in the world (and one victimized by terrorism) a fair hearing.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Iran sponsors terrorism against Israel. Israelis have a legitimate beef. The last thing Iran did against the US was the hostage crisis, which Reagan essentially forgave with the Iran/Contra affair. And that's after we toppled their democracy and installed the Shah.
      • munen123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Israel sponsors terrorism, they were the assholes who invented the car bomb! the stupid israeli government is no better than iran or the us.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So let Israel deal with it. They got 30 Billion in aid over the last few years, they can afford it, but we can't. It is way time that Israel fought their own battles and quit relying on everyone in the world to feel sorry for them. They start their own messes, and they need to clean them up.
      • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would like to know how the Shah is considered worse than his successors that installed the Islamic Republic of Iran? Seems there are certainly more exiled (self-exiled) Iranians living abroad after the "Revolution" than when the Shah was in power.
      • jeffman12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so as long as the terrorism doesn't show up on our shores we don't have to give a *****?
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's the way it should be. I'm sure most of the world would LOVE it if America stop gaving a ***** and just worried about itself for once.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Stopped at "moonbats," you thundercunt.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What's up with these new names. It reeks of prepubescence.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7You're talking about George Bush right? because in case you can't read a history book and look at current world events:

      The U.S. is the greatest sponsor of terror on the planet! We practically invented 21st century terrorism and actively train known corrupt factions. Look at yourself before you judge the ugly kid next to you.
    • Bodhinature, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you actually supporting a President who, just last week, gave Saudi Arabia 20 billion dollars in military aid? Not only did Saudi citizens attack New York, but a majority of insurgent activity is funded by Saudi Arabia. Read a book.
  • AndinoMan, on 10/10/2007, -46/+11Ahmadinejad can pay respect to my ass anytime he wants
    • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Are you propositioning him? You'd be hanged in modern Iran for such an offer.
    • billm317, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3sounds like someone has a World Leaders fetish!
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Andino, think twice before letting Ahmid do anything to your bum.
  • brandensnyder, on 11/05/2007, -38/+21The guy claims that the holocaust is a myth. I don't know who is more of an ignoramus, him or all of you idiots who are praising him. BTW, if you could see the womens' rights violations that occur in his country, you would be shocked.
    • maduzah, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11It's not his country per se. Ali Khamenei holds higher power than Ahmadinejad.
      • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He represents that country. He is the mouthpiece of that country. He is the declared leader of that country.

        But perhaps you are right, the problem isn't just him, it's the entire leadership that should be replaced.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17What about the violations of our constitution that are happening in America? What about the war for oil and all the dead bodies being shipped home from Iraq? What about the crashing dollar and lack of universal healthcare while Bush hands out corporate welfare and spends trillions on war? You aren't outraged by that?! You praise Bush for that?! You're worried about Iran when your own president is a mass murdering, psychopath bent on destroying our way of life. Man, you've got some messed up priorities.
      • sonnybobiche, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2OH MY GOD.... no universal healthcare!!! Oh Noezzz...
        how about the fear of being found guilty of being a homosexual and being hung to death for it?
        Kind of tips the scales one way, doesn't it?
      • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm from a country that has universal healthcare, or as I call it, breadline medical services. You ain't missing much.

        And if it is a war for oil...what happened? How come the US never got a drop after all these years?

        And, sorry, but most of the deaths in Iraq are not the result of US forces, but rather Muslims killing Muslims, with bombs supplied by Iran.
    • isellmacs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Ahmadinejad asked something along the lines of 'If (Nazi) Germany killed all of the Jews, why should the middle east (Palastine) give up land for the Jews (Isreal) and not Germany, the US or Britain?'

      Are you sure that he's saying the holocaust is a myth? Some things don't translate very well, I think this might just be one of them. When I read this sentence, I don't think he was really trying to imply the Holocaust didn't exist.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Holding a comic contest with the subject being the Holocaust is enough for me. Apparently you need NPR to tell you this guy is bad before you believe it.
        • chroko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Oh no, they made a comic. Let's nuke them.

          Grow the ***** up. You're just being selectively hypersensitive about issues that bolster your opinions.
      • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He doesn't mind contradicting himself, as long as he scores points.
    • khatarnaak, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Stop spreading your ***** here already!

      All he did was to bring into question the NUMBER of people killed in the holocaust. He did not deny it happened so STFU!

      Now am I gonna get dug down for being "anti-semitic"? Well you can suck my anti-semite dick.
    • Bodhinature, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There is no one here that is praising Ahmadinejad. Letting him pay his respects or lecture at Columbia U is not praising him.
  • senatebuddy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+71I am really disgusted that they refused him a visit. Land of the free my ass. It shows how determined our goverment is to strike Iran, and how they are prepared to completely ignore diplomacy and decency to do so.

    I don't want war with Iran. I wouldn't have refused this leader's visit. They are denying him any sympathy from the American people, THIS NATION IS NOT OUR ENEMY PLEASE SIRS
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Yea, they are the enemy of the US. They are currently fighting proxy wars with the US on two fronts, and they aided Al Qaeda before 9/11. Maybe if you got your news from reliable sources, rather than relying on Digg, you'd know this.

      U.S. commander: Iran supplying Taliban
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_as/af ...
      • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Nice 404. If China invaded Mexico, I'm sure no one in the US would do anything about it that could be used to inflame a war with us. Oh yea, they would have to have called us part of the Axis of Evil beforehand. Who wants war? Bush wants war.
      • bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1As long as the sheeple continue to eat up every bit of propaganda that our government and its mainstream media mouthpiece spews, we're *****. Don't quote a "U.S. commander" as a reliable source of facts.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1America is the land of the free. Iran is the land of the tortured-to-death.

      Ahmidijan is not an American.

      And if a nation supplying weapons to those attacking US soldiers and threatening to Nuke a US ally is not our enemy...who is? According to you, what does a nation have to do to become our enemy?
  • lalop, on 10/10/2007, -11/+82Ahmadinejad is a pretty smart guy. Bush (probably anyone from the government) would have no chance on an open debate with him.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8They're both liars, so a debate between them would be a waste of everyone's time.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I actually agree. Bush, of course, would dismiss any such requests as being for TV (but then again, that's his response to every challenge).
    • moonguidex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Wait, don't push Bush too hard. Debating world leaders? Let him try winning a debate against a 5 year old first. Baby steps...
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5No *****, because any debate in his country would end before it started with prison or death.
    • tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Any debate televised debate with Bush would remind me of the argument over the phone in Dr. Strangelove.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Watching this interview is like the con game where the guy shuffles walnut shells around, hiding the one with the marble.

      Watch the movie "Thank You For Smoking" to understand what really happened in this interview.

      I don't doubt he would win the debate. He would win it by lying, obfuscation, distraction, and bloviating.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -7/+44Dear American,
    Propaganda is good for you.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6You mean Iran's propaganda.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Especially if it is viewed with a critical analysis. It can be very educational, and give clear warnings.
  • trendygamer, on 10/10/2007, -47/+40It takes a rather naive mind to think that Ahmadinejad wants to visit the WTC site out of a genuine feeling of sympathy for what happened there. I'm really quite amazed that recent comments on digg, which would absolutely light up a similar gesture by Bush as nothing more than "using 9/11 for political purposes," is so quick to accept the Iranian president with such open arms. As it has been pointed out, it is true that there is a significant percentage of Iran's population that identifies with more classical liberal ideals; however, the reactionary Islamists in charge of the country are on the exact other end of the spectrum. Ahmadinejad is their poster boy, and heck - there have been rumblings that he's been too confrontational for even the Ayatollahs themselves. Ahmadinejad wants to visit the site for no reason other than to try to make it appear that he is "the same as us"; that he believes in the same values we do so that we start to believe that he and the Iranian leadership "aren't so bad." It's a diversion, a PR stunt, and many of you are startlingly willing to buy into it.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15trendygamer, how did you escape Ahmedinejad's brain, because you seem to know some much about what's going on in his mind? If you can provide such conjecture, so can we. If I am naive for my conjecture, so are you, since you're providing the exact same thing I am providing.

      Your opinion vs. my opinion. Who wins? No one, because only facts win, not opinions.

      I still say Ahmedinejad is sincere, but you may consider me biased because I have long praised him, despite the fact that I would wish he take back some of the stuff he's said about Israel (and hopefully he'll try to better relations with Israel). I am still glad that he won't back down to the bullying of the U.S. government.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Agreed. My first thought when he said the reporter did not represent 300 million us citizens, I thought to myself how ironic it was, seeing as Ahmadinejad does not represent 65 million Iranians either.

      It's a bunch of political maneuvering on each side. The only honesty will come from the people who are always being spoken for: the civilians, iranian or american.
      • sathias, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"I thought to myself how ironic it was, seeing as Ahmadinejad does not represent 65 million Iranians either."

        I thought thats what an elected leader was for?
    • timbellomo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What do you actually know of him -- that is to say, other than you've heard from the media?
      What makes us naive and you not?
    • spearce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17of course it's political you idiot. but ask yourself "who is extending the olive branch?"
    • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'll take whatever works to avoid an unnecessary, idiotic and potentially devastating war. If he's just trying to kiss a little ass, fine by me. The Iranians are working harder to throw him out of power than we are to get rid of our war mongering president. Their moderate candidates are building momentum.
      • Lynxpro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Our "war mongering" President will leave office in January 2009. If you wish to have him leave office prior to that, call up your Congressperson and Senator and demand impeachment and a following trial in the Senate. Can an Iranian citizen do the same for their President without fear of being jailed? Better ask those elderly visiting Iranian-Americans that were jailed for allegedly being "spies" about that.
    • likeyehokwhatev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I can't believe people are actually digging this comment down. Listen, if you don't agree with it, fine- state why. But don't digg down an intelligent comment like this when the other viewpoint is blindly repeated over and over... sheesh
    • maxputer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You imply that he is "not the same as us"... clearly he has different opinions on Judaism, and Israel, but I am not sure that means he is totally evil... and happy about 9/11 or the mass death of any other body of civilians... I don't like Bush, I don't like USA's imperialistic ways, doesn't mean I approve of 9/11 or any other attack on Civilians. I think your post displays a very biased opinion of Ahmadinejad... and for you to call other diggers naive because they don't agree with you is not well founded... Clearly he is no saint, and clearly there is other motives as well... but I would not be totally surprised if he had some genuine sympathy for 9/11 and the civilians that lost there lives that day.
    • moonguidex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is an intelligent comment. However, you have to think about the big picture. Iran, as a nation, through its president, is offering this as a symbol of how the government stands. While it may sound incoherent if you truly believe Iran is a hotbed of terrorism, it is a sign of goodwill, and it would be a good step toward the improvement of their country's relations.
    • Gavagai80, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Of course it's about PR, he's an elected (even if from a hand-picked field) politician who like our own has made a career of PR. That doesn't mean he should be refused access. If all PR-motivated events were disallowed, no politican on the Earth would ever get out of bed. PR is the backbone of democracy... are we against democracy now too?
    • Bodhinature, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why is it okay for Bush to use 9/11 for political gain but Ahmadinejad is a villain for doing the same? If anything, its worse for Bush to do so because he's an American.
  • digggggggggggg, on 10/10/2007, -39/+12Ah yes the guy who calls for the destruction of Israel and denies the holocaust happened is definitely a voice of reason
  • lopezhs7, on 10/10/2007, -10/+31HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Scott Pelley got bitch slapped. What a noob.
    • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah! He asked for clear answers and didn't get them! How wonderfully brilliant of Ahmidijan!

      And the real losers are those who actually wanted Ahmid to honestly answer those questions. Like me.
  • IkeMavent, on 10/10/2007, -29/+19Look I don't like Bush either, but its a far cry from not liking him to wanting some holocaust denying maniac use a tragic event as a photo op...he doesn't give a ***** about americans, and would almost certainly use his visit as propagana against the US.

    The guy is far from mainstream...even FRANCE is considering sanctions. Everyone who is posting in support of this guy is ***** up
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Digg Democrat Children (the DDC) can't handle the truth
    • buildbyflying, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4There's a difference between showing support for the man's policies and condoning his visit to ground zero.
      It's a free country.
      But then if high grand master bush tells us we're not allowed to listen if Ahmedinejad chooses civil discourse over war, then GW must be correct.
      He would rather we choose one ***** over another.
    • Carburetor, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4I think most of the Iran supporters here aren't Americans, or they're pretending they are, that's the main logic around here.
      that doesn't make any sense so much people are hating bush so hard, i mean, if it was like this, huge protests were all over america.
      I heard bush doesn't have much support, but not like what's going on here.
      i always tell myself stop commenting on politic issues,and to read tech only, but that's stronger then me to see lies spread all over.
      that's the hard part, when you say the truth, and someone else lies, and you need to prove you'tr the one who's not lying.
      • terrordome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm not American. I don't support American policies. Infact, I hate American policies, foreign and domestic. I'm a Socialist, borderline Communist. I support Iran, and why wouldn't I? There is no reason, at all, to side with the US in any of the recent wars or conflicts. They've all been fueled by economic interests.

        You seem to claim you know the "truth", please tell me, what is the "truth"?

        I find your comment slightly incoherent, so I'm sorry if I somehow misunderstood it.
    • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Are you reading any other news source besides those based in the US? My God, Man, why do we have to have a war with everybody, and take offense at attempts at peace? It has to start somewhere. As for France, no offense to them, but France is hardly an example to hold up as a beacon of awareness and truth in the world.
    • terrordome, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3"Even FRANCE is considering sanctions"

      France is not considering sanctions, it's the racist neo-conservative marionette Sarkozy who is threatening Iran. Europe would be much better off if Ségolène Royal had won the 2007 French presidential election.
      • Johnny100Pesos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think France has had enough socialism for a while. Let them try this novel new approach, and see if it ends the downward spiral that those failed socialist policies are hurtling it towards.
        • terrordome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'd much rather have "failed" Socialist policies (why are they "failed", by the way?) than Sarkozy's US ass-licking policies.

          The Europeans have nothing to gain from siding with the US in their "War on Terror", except more terrorist attacks and less freedom.
    • smpdigital,