Oh-eight (R): Blasting Ahmadinejad

Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:48 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Republicans

The leading GOP candidates all issued statements yesterday on the news that Iranian President Ahmadinejad wants to visit Ground Zero (the request was later turned down). Giuliani said, “Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero -- hallowed ground for all Americans -- is outrageous." Romney added, “It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero… Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him." And Thompson will likely address the issue when holds a press avail on Iran in Dallas.

Clinton was the lone Democratic candidate to issue a statement. She said, “It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history."

GINGRICH: The potential candidate-to-be (who is meeting with reporters this morning to talk up his presidential ambitions) gets the David Broder treatment this morning. Yet another sign Newt's inching closer?

GIULIANI: The Washington Post previews Giuliani’s address to the NRA tomorrow. Giuliani “will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday, seeking support for his Republican presidential campaign from a group he once likened to ‘extremists’ for its efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons. But even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation's gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.”

As if Israelis didn't love Giuliani enough, he's now proposing to invite Israel to become a member of NATO. “Giuliani said the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, called him Wednesday night to discuss Iran. The candidate said the United States would use every lever at its disposal, including a military strike, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon… NATO expansion was just one of four key elements Mr. Giuliani listed as essential in winning the struggle against Islamic terrorists.”

Giuliani also “urged NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore.”
The New York Post and Clinton supporter Tom Vilsack did the Rudy folks another favor yesterday by giving the Post enough material to run this headline: "Team Hill Readies Rudy Mud." Anytime the Rudy folks can show a clip claiming Hillary campaign fear of him, it's a good day for Giuliani's attempts to woo Republicans.

MCCAIN: The Washington Times headlines that the “McCain campaign is 'done for,' insider says.” The article says that McCain “has raised only $3.7 million to date for the third quarter.” More: “The hope was to reach $4.5 million, about a third of what was raised in the 'disastrous' second quarter," a supporter told the Times.

But some good news for McCain: Jim Burke, an advertising executive who lives in New Hampshire, had once supported Romney, but has switched allegiances to McCain.

ROMNEY: The candidate gets a nice review of his visit to Florida, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel.

The Boston Globe front-pages this headline about Romney’s new ad: “Romney takes aim at GOP leadership in new TV ad.” The paper calls the ad “the most vivid illustration yet of the balance Romney is trying to strike between condemning his party's mistakes while embracing its principles.”

THOMPSON: Thompson got some bad news, courtesy of the AP this morning. The wire service obtained a private email from Focus on the Family's James Dobson, in which the conservative leader states he can't support Thompson. From the Dobson email: "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" Wow.

So is there a real rivalry developing between Romney and Thompson? It appears so the two are now fighting to become the "anti-Rudy." Check out this Thompson subtle dig at Romney: "My philosophy doesn't depend on my geography. Wherever I stand, I'm the same way and have been all my political career – what I call common-sense conservatism."

The Arizona Republic did an analysis of the voting records of Thompson and McCain, and found the two men voted the same way 83% of the time. "They're rivals for the White House now, but during eight years in the Senate together, Republican presidential hopefuls Fred Thompson and John McCain were close allies."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Newt (isn't that kind of like a toad?) is a disgusting human being. The thought of him being president is outrageous. This man has no morals, ethics or decency. While he was bashing Bill Clinton about his relationship with Monica, Newt was having an affair with a young inter who worked in his office. He divorced his wife while she was battling cancer, and married the intern. He is a fine example of how a moral man should behave. He is so sleazy!! And he thinks he is what America needs as a president? No thank you.

Sunny, Tulsa (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:14 AM)

the newtster lurks with yet another contract on America and what a fine speciman of the right wing neo-nuts.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:29 AM)

An IRANIAN Soldier, member of their elite squad, was captured today in IRAQ smuggling in specialized explosive piercing projectiles and training insurgents to use it to kill Americans. What should our response be? I have it below:

DEAR IRAN:
PLEASE STOP KILLING OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, FATHERS AND MOTHERS, SERVING IN IRAQ. YOU ARE MAKING IT HARDER FOR US TO BRING STABILITY IN THAT COUNTRY AND EVENTUALLY BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME. MURDERING OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS WITH IEDS AND STIRRING UP TROUBLE IS NOT NICE. WILL YOU PLEASE STOP????

That should do it. What do you think??

JOEBOB (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:33 AM)

One would have thought that Mr. Giuliani had learned his lesson when, some years ago, he insisted that Yassar Arafat leave a Lincoln Center event to which he (Arafat) had been invited. This mean-spirited hubris has infected all of Giuliani's political and personal life, and does not speak well of the man's character: he has none. Now, calling for Israel's participation in NATO is calculated only to win Jewish votes. Worse, it further solidifies Giuliani's one-world government agenda. As a member of the CFR, Giuliani is playing into the hands of the elitists, those who not only put NATO in place, but also the WTO, GATT, NAFDA and the likely North American Union. Not only is this staggeringly dumb, it represents a significant threat to U.S. sovereignty and the future of our Republic. If anyone supports Mr. Giuliani, they might want to reconsider: there are far better candidates. This man is slime.

zenpiper, New York, NY (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:36 AM)

Now this is interesting....
Both Hillary and Rudy are considered slimey people.

Maybe Gravel was right....
When Gravel first walked into the senate he was in awe of all the great people that were in the room with him. Later he was wondering how the heck these people got elected.

I think the american people will wonder that after November 2008.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:45 AM)

Zenpiper,
You may be right about the calculation to win Jewish votes. But are you really losing sleep over the expulsion of Arafat? Do you realize he was a terrorist murdering thug? And who are the better candidates you speak of? Because especially in the area of foreign policy, I haven't heard one good policy.

JoeBob (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:46 AM)

Tulsa, isn't that some kind of disgusting town?

Travis Myers, Austin TX (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:14 AM)

JoeBob, yesterday's terrorist is today's statesman. You remember Menachem Begin, Israel's ex-president, don't you. He was a leader of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group in Palestine, which killed British soldiers and many civilians in terrorist attacks before Isarel became a state. Yet, he is considered a revered figure in Isreali history. Nelson Mendala was considered a terrorist by the South African government and could have been released many times from jail if he would have renounced violence against the South African government,; he would not. Ghandi's followers were considered terroists by the British government. All of these men became leaders of their countries when the government changed hands and all of them sre considered great statesmen to their people. The only reason Arafat does not have the same legitimacy is because he opposed one of our allies and Palestine has yet to become a stable state due to interference by both Israel and Iran.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere and a slew of other folks were considered terrorists by the legal authorities in 1776. Oh, JoeBob, do you remember them. They are now called our founding fathers. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter for justice.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:20 AM)

Fred/Newt 08, among the all time great teams. Like Abbot and Costello, Laural and Hardy, Martin and Lewis.

Flat-earther, Georgia (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:21 AM)

Flat earther:

How's my girl Cynthia McKinney?

Has she slapped anymore cops lately?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:50 AM)

I am way ahead of you jerry. I am already wondering how those people got elected.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:17 AM)

Sunny, Tulsa- you have it slightly wrong. Newt divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital battling cancer to marry a campign worker he was having an affair with. Then, when he was screeching about Clinton he was having an affair with an intern, resigned from the Senate because of it, divorced wife #2 and married the intern. Quite the poster boy for family values , isn't he? He's just another self-absorbed ego-maniac. Lets see...3 marriages for Gingrich, 3 for Guliani, at least 2 for Thompson, and ..oh yeah...Mitt Romney's religion says he should HAVE at least three wives. WOW... the Christian Evangelical movement must be so proud of their candidates! High morals and family values!

Also: "Later he was wondering how the heck these people got elected.
I think the american people will wonder that after November 2008."
Actually Jerry, the American people said that after 2004, hence the 2006 election that put Democrats in power.

GAB, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:35 AM)

OH DEAR GOOD GRACIOUS ROBERT CATALANO:
This is not an intellectual elite question Robert.(As a historian, I already knew everything you wrote, but thanks for the recap)
The issue is "WHAT DOES ROBERT CATALANO THINK OF ARAFAT??"
Your values will determine the answer. And I bet I already know the answer . .

JOEBOB (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:38 AM)

JOEBOB, my values will determine the answer. What a load of your brains. My values tell me that I have seen more violence and man's inhumanity towards other men done in the name of religion and one particular person's 'values' over another's than I have seen the love, compassion, tolerance and brotherhood most religious leaders believed in during their lifetimes. I have seen more hypocrisy by those who talk about values than I have actually seen them practicing them. My values are about truth, honesty and accepting one's responsibilities for mistakes and having enough brains to learn from those mistakes. My values tell me it is wrong to support one killer over another because his political beliefs are the same as mine. My values tell me it is wrong to indiscriminately kill people of another nationality because someone in the leadership of my country tells me they are my enemy. My values also tell me it is wrong to kill innocent people of a backward nation simply because they get in the way of my mercantile interests. Basically, JoeBob, I do not condone killing inless I am defending myself or my family from an iminent threat, and only if I have no other logical choice.

Have I ever gone against my values? Yes, I am human. I killed in a war against people I had no beef with except that they were considered by my nation to be an enemy. Killing, except, in self-defense, to me, is wrong, period. That is a value I have made for myself and while I will hold myself to it, it is not up to me to judge others because they choose to do or believe differently. To condemn others for what I have done myself would be hypocrisy.

As far as Yassir Arafat, history will be a better judge of hum than I could ever be. I only know of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the eyes of a press and most historians who have a decidedly pro-Israel bias. To me, he is no different from Begin, D'Aubisson, Daniel Ortega, Castro or anyone else who has risen from being labelled a terrorist to becoming a head of state. I am not Israeli, Salvadorean, Nicaraguan or Cuban. I cannot decide for those people who should be their head of state (nor should my government). I have never had to live under an overly opressive and brutal government which thwarted my people from having their own national ambitions nor have I had to live within the confines of my nation in a Civil War. My perspective of Arafat and the rest of them could never be put in the ridiculously over-simplified ideal of good vs. evil because all political movements have a lot of both within them. Did I like everything Arafat was credited with doing? No. However, in all of the terroist bombings, all of the hijackings and all of the attacks on Israeli citizens, more people were killed by the Soviet invasion and Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq than were ever killed by Arafat's organization. I guess the old saying, "one death is a tragedy;, 100,000 deaths are a statistic" in this day and age should be amended to "Two thousand deaths cause by a terrorist are worse than 200,000 committed by a sovereign nation."

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:48 PM)

Robert: When did Mandela or Adams rip off over 600 million from their own people? When did Mandela and Adams declare that white Afrikkaners and the British had no ''right to exist''? You forget that the 1936 Arab War against the Jews[formented by Nazi Party member Grand Mufti Hussein of Jerusalem], predated the forming of the Irgun. Arafat and even the Baath Party sprang from Nazi racial philosophies.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:08 PM)

Jerry get your Rudy pin ready when he's nominated b/c we all know you are a GOP toadie.

Jake (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:25 PM)

jerry - how's my boy, Tom Delay?

Has he __________ lately (fill in the blank with the many, many illegal and disgusting things on record).

jjg, ms (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM)

Robert Catalano,

Sir, your values shined through like light through glass with your very long winded answer.

SIMPLE QUESTION I ASKED:"What do you think of Arafat?"
YOU ANSWERED: that we killed more people with "our invasion of Iraq than were ever killed by Arafat's organization."
THE PRINCIPLE(an enduring truth that stands the test of time and distance): "One's actions are not excused because" you believe "others might be worse."

Your principles determine your values. You choose to believe what you wish. I was interested in your beliefs and now you have answered. I wish you well.

JOEBOB (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:59 PM)

So, Lee, you are saying that because the Irgun were formed to fight aginst one entity that their killing of others from another is OK. Typical. I also was not judging these men on their personal merits, I was speaking about the use of violence as a political tool. I also said all political movements have both good and evil within them. We, as Americans have been brought up to believe Nazi principles are evil. I believe they are. However, Stalin was our ally in WWII and he made Hitler look like a piker in the killing game. Besides, Lee, whether someone outright steals millions from their government or sends billions allocated for a war based on false and ever-changing reasoning straight to the pockets of their political friends with little or no oversight, it is still a rip-off. I say tomato you say to-mah-to.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:10 PM)

Robert, excellent post.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:33 PM)

Robert: I am saying that the Irgun is long dead and that while the Hebrew has a word for ''self-restraint''[anheco] with regards to the Arab,Arabic does not with regards to the Jew. The Arab uses violence as a means to its own ends. When the 1948 partition was granted,the Irgun and the HAGANAH were over. Israel repudiated the use of these by the creation of its own self-defense force,lawfully and legally recognized in all international treaties unto the extant hour.
The PLO/FATAH/HAMAS,could have acted as a legtimate resistance force using legitimate resitance tactic and strategy but it does not.It never has,in point of fact. Its 1967 Charter which it has never repudiated,seeks not only investment of the whole of Israel but the destruction in totality of the Jewish people. This is not how any legimiate armed resistances,in the history of the planet,have ever acted. Nor to these rely upon outside agents who are not organic to the disputed region[Iranian HEZBOLLAH,Egyptian Islamic Jihad,Sunni al Qaeda], to support their racial prejudices,or their desire for a ''Jewless''world. You also forget that Arafats ripoffs from his own people have turned Gaza into a wasteland of starvation and suffering. You may be against the war Robert,but you are not starving and you are not suffering while the widow of this man lives in palatial splendour in Paris.[and while his minions,like jackals,fall to fighting for scraps among themselves].

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:53 PM)

JOEBOB, I agree with your definition of principle. What you left out is that there are good principles and bad principles and many shades of grey in between. I was using an alliteration on the illiterate and, of course it fell flat. I was not condoning anything any of these people have done, nor was I agreeing to it; I was quite simply stating that things at one point in history are rarely the same as they are at another. Time and distance change historical perspectives no matter whether I agree with the methods or not. One thing I do know is that principles, like everything else, change with time. I am a very principled person, however, I grew up in a neighborhood full of racists in the 1960s, held some of their beliefs at the time, yet I am not a racist today. Why, because I was smart enough to see that my beliefs on the subject were based in nothing more than superstition and fear (like most religions) and I shed them like an old skin when I realized how silly they were. Racism is a principle which has stood the time of time and distance in many places around the world; does this make it a sound or a just principle?

What you have seen from my answer is that I don't believe everything is as simple as black and white, and everything is relative to everything else depending on time and space. There are good principles and there are bad principles. I try to hold to the good ones and try to have the good sense that when a principle or belief no longer holds water, I discard it. I make my decisions on how I live my life based on logic, compassion, and my own set of principles. I know that nothing is simple, exists in a vacuum or is solved by my rushing quickly to judgement on an issue simply because other say I should do so. Life is only black and white, my friend, if one is either ignorant or a true believer or both. However, I realize, in this point of history in the United States of America, logical reasoning is not a valid principle to about 1/3 of the population.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:05 PM)

Lee, you made my point for me. What is legitimate resistance? Who decides what is legitimate? If we are on the side of Israel in the conflict, how can we honestly say what is legitimate. Do I think the Arab terrorists are brutal and their methods mean-spirited, yes, I do. However, I had Jewish great-great grand parents, I live in a country who has unflinchingly supported Israel and I, personally think human beings (Americans included) should be able to find better ways of settling their differences than by butchering one another. But, who is to say my beliefs are right. What great moral definer out there in the great big cosmos decides what is right and what is wrong. Are my opinions so unbiased and knowledgeable that I am pssesed with the arrogance and judgement to decide what is right for everybody and what is legitimate? If some say God, then...whose God is right. Is it the Jewish God, the Christian God, Allah? All I can know is what is right for me and what I would do if faced with a situation. Just because I think something is bad or evil, does it make it bad or evil? Things are just not that simple. Let's face it, the Jew and the Arab have been fighting one another for centuries. Neither you or I can understand what it is to be truly Jewish or truly Arabic/Islamic and know what drives these people or what has driven them for centuries. I do not agree with their willingness to kill one another, nor do I agree with their methods but, then again, as an American who has never believed in the killing passion of religion or lived under the boot of a colonial or legitimate government which suppresses my rights or allows my fellow Americans to live in poverty as a means of containment, how can I honestly say my belief in what is or isn't legitimate really matters, nor can I say what I would do unless I had been there. Any other opinion is just conjecture and, while on its face may have some value in someone's idea of morality, it doesn't make it truly right or wrong unless one, by experience, truly understands the underlying questions.

Robert catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:32 PM)

It takes a great spirit to embrace an enemy. 20 years ago, Breshnev and Reagan were at an impasse, and deadlocked about who would remove, or dismantle, ICBMs first. Reagan (whom I did not much like) did something remarkable: he took out photos of his grandchildren and showed them to Breshnev. This proved to be a smart move; they found they had more in common than differences. The missile problems were resolved.

It is easy to huff, stamp one's feet and feel a righteous indignation, but it only perpetuates hostilities. We have killed thousands of innocents in the MidEast, and this is acceptable? If the candidates are Christian (as they claim) then they would prepare a table for their adversaries.

zenpiper, New York, NY (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 1:15 AM)

We throw people in prison who threaten to kill our presidents yet this Iranian has threatened to kill an entire country(Israel).

He shouldn't be allowed on any inch of American soil.

Sarah (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 5:47 PM)

Waw. Excellent Robert Catalano.

Youssef (Sent Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:15 AM)

I wish they would all stop killing each other and learn to get along but not happening anytime soon no money in peace. Money in war. I never felt threatened by the middle east but since the Americans have gotten themselves heavly involved along with other counties its going to happen and that just breaks my heart just I like you all and hate to think of all the human disaster that will be realized.

Colleen Moore, Vancouver, BC (Sent Saturday, September 22, 2007 5:06 PM)

God this whining by the Jewish Conservative Community is so pathetic. The man is going to speak and it wouldn't shock me if he ended up going to ground zero anyways, as it is public ground. If that nut Netenyahu were to be invited to speak all the conservatives would be fawning over his, and he is more extremist than Ahmedinajad. I bet barely anyone shows up to these protests as most N.Y. on Monday will be working and going home from work. That is how the east-coast works. No one in N.Y. is going to waste their time yelling and screaming over something that doesn't affect them and that will make no difference. I don't agree with Ahmadinajad but he is the leader of a country that is playing a very important role in the world today. Anyone against him speaking is against intellectual discourse and probably has no education what so ever. In other words you are all Bill Kristols.

James, NY, NY (Sent Sunday, September 23, 2007 9:27 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=369761