Bush gets key endorsement

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections" target="_blank">Bush Receives Endorsement <font size="5">From Iran!</font></a>

The head of Iran's security council said on Tuesday the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era - despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran - he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."
HAAAAAAAA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Apparently the Iranian mullahs are perfectly happy with a US president that calls them names while turning our country into a paper tiger with a military quagmire next door and alienating the Europeans who actually have economic bargaining power over Tehran. No wonder republicans <font color="beige">(Karl Rove)</font> started the campaign to create the perception that terrorists wanted Kerry to win - they must have known that they had the endorsement of the #1 state sponsor of terror and future nuclear threat all locked up.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-19-04 @ 5:28 PM

[DarkHippie]

Let the spin begin!!!

<IMG SRC=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/HippieRat.jpg>
<marquee> Check out DarkHippie's latest story, "Keeper", at http://home.pcisys.net/~drmforge/dftoc2.htm </marquee>

[NewYorkDragons80]

The head of Iran's security council said on Tuesday the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Or maybe you're part of their strategy; present Bush as making the world less safe so the guy who won't have the courage to give them trouble will get elected. Considering that some Air America personalities, bumper stickers, and cartoonists have tried to scare people into thinking Bush in '04 means war with Iran, I would go with this statement as strategy on Iran's part.

No wonder republicans <font color="beige">(Karl Rove)</font> started the campaign to create the perception that terrorists wanted Kerry to win - they must have known that they had the endorsement of the #1 state sponsor of terror and future nuclear threat all locked up.
Ah-ha!

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[FUNKMAN]

You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round



it's hard to decipher all of these mexed missages...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/images/3dflagsdotcom_gfr_2fawl.gif">

[Yerdaddy]

Or maybe you're part of their strategy; present Bush as making the world less safe so the guy who won't have the courage to give them trouble will get elected. Considering that some Air America personalities, bumper stickers, and cartoonists have tried to scare people into thinking Bush in '04 means war with Iran, I would go with this statement as strategy on Iran's part.

Ah! The old reverse-psychology trick. Ever popular in TV sitcom plots in the 60s and 70s.* I don't think it's that, but I'm almost positive it's some kind of reverse-reverse-psychology: they want us to think that they want us to think that they want us to support Bush, but what they really want is for us to think that they think that we think that they want Bush. Ah hah!



















<font color="red">* Karl Rove invented this and leaked it to Aaron Spelling so that we'd think of this when the Iranians endorsed Bush. He's an evil genius, that one is.</font>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[ChickenHawk]

<IMG SRC="http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/ManitobaCrafts/storyofwool/images/artifacts/spinningwheel.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.tar-vizjak.com/king/images/naslovnica.jpg">

<IMG SRC="http://www.ukgameshows.com/atoz/programmes/p/price_is_right/bpir_wheel.jpg">

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

[DarkHippie]

So which cup has the Iocane Powder?

<IMG SRC=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/HippieRat.jpg>
<marquee> Check out DarkHippie's latest story, "Keeper", at http://home.pcisys.net/~drmforge/dftoc2.htm </marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

So if republicans pull the theory out of their asses that terrorists endorse Kerry it's perfectly logical, but if Bush actually gets the endorsement then it's spin? OH! I know! It's reverse-spin! Clever! Damn you Rove!!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[East Side Dave]

In other news Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has just gotten endorsements from George Michaels and Adolph Hitler.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on 90.5 The Night FM;
Friday and Saturday Night: Midnight to 5 AM you bastards!

[Yerdaddy]

Actually this ties in nicely with this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34439-2004Oct15.html" target="_blank">survey of public opinion</a> of our allies: Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia.

People in all ten countries were asked who they hoped to see win the White House on Nov. 2, and the result will make Kerry wish they had a vote.

The Democrat was favored by healthy to enormous majorities in eight of the nations -- 72 percent supported him compared to 16 percent for Bush in France.

In South Korea, it was 68 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Bush; in Canada, 60 percent to 20 percent; in Spain, 58 percent to 13 percent; 54 percent to 28 percent in Australia and 50 percent to 22 percent in Britain.

Bush came out on top in Israel by a margin of 50 percent to 24 percent and in Russia, 52 percent to 48 percent.

So overall, Bush is favored by enemy regimes, but opposed by most of the citizens of our allies. How is that defensible in any way?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Ah! The old reverse-psychology trick. Ever popular in TV sitcom plots in the 60s and 70s.* I don't think it's that, but I'm almost positive it's some kind of reverse-reverse-psychology: they want us to think that they want us to think that they want us to support Bush, but what they really want is for us to think that they think that we think that they want Bush. Ah hah!
Oh, I'm completely tongue-in-cheek on this because the topic is ridiculous to begin with. But there are a LOT of people on your side of politics who feel Iran is next if Bush is re-elected. Let's say Israel attacked Iran a la Osirak (a very likely scenario). Which administration is more likely to support them (If not diplomatically, then perhaps even with intelligence)?

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Yerdaddy]

But there are a LOT of people on your side of politics who feel Iran is next if Bush is re-elected.
I really don't know how to answer the question because I'm not one of them. Oh, I don't doubt they'd like to attack Iran if they thought they could, but what are they going to invade with? The Country Bear Jamboree?

Honestly, I think they thought that Iraq would be such a success that it would deter Syria and Iran from sponsoring terrorism and pursuing WMD, but they fucked it up so bad that Iran doesn't feel much military pressure from us at all. (I'm sure they're wary of us spying from next door, and I have no doubt that we are. We should be.) But they aren't feeling the immediate pressure of military threat from us that they were before the Iraq War. We just don't have the resources, militarily or diplomatically, to invade Iran right now or in the near future.

As for Israel, sure Bush has given Sharon a blank check regardless of how much his policies have damaged us. But Kerry's no slouch in support of Israel either. But, again, I don't think Iran is all that worried about that right now. For one, Iran is largely cooperating with the IAEA, which hasn't concluded that Iran has a weapons program yet. So what would Israel hit right now? Second, we're going to risk opening up another front in this war when we already have to use "stop loss" just to keep soldiers "volunteering" in Iraq?

No. I think the reason Iran endorsed Bush is that the democrats understand the "soft power" of diplomacy and sanctions, and Republicans just want to reload their gun so they can fire it again. But that won't be for a while now and Iran isn't worried about that. Iran would be Iraq x10. What worries Iran is the thought of us working with the rest of the world again to make trade conditional on non-proliferation, human rights, and sponsorship of terrorism. They don't want us to regain our prestige again because that will bring cooperation, and the long-term committment to a real war on terror that honestly and smartly seeks to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. They fear our values when we apply them more than they fear our military might.

Sorry, my tongue came out of my cheek for a second there.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[NewYorkDragons80]

As for Israel, sure Bush has given Sharon a blank check regardless of how much his policies have damaged us.
But wouldn't you agree that Bush would be free to form a lasting peace with the Palestinians if he is reelected?

But, again, I don't think Iran is all that worried about that right now. For one, Iran is largely cooperating with the IAEA, which hasn't concluded that Iran has a weapons program yet. So what would Israel hit right now?
Israel may have Iran in its sights (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041022/ts_latimes/israelmayhaveiraninitssights)

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Crippler]

So, basically what you're saying is...
http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/70520110.jpg
[color=white]

This message was edited by Crippler on 10-22-04 @ 4:26 PM

[Yerdaddy]

But wouldn't you agree that Bush would be free to form a lasting peace with the Palestinians if he is reelected?
I don't think so. <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485929.html" target="_blank">He certainly wasn't committed to the "Roadmap to peace" in any meaningful way.</a> He's the first American president to ever condone settlements, (even Bush sacraficed much of the Jewish vote in order to threaten to cut aid to stop settlement expansion). He has rejected dealing with Arafat outright, but neglected to support the two subsequent prime ministers who were supposed to take his place in negotiations. It will probably be brought up that he's the first to openly support Palestinian statehood, but the article linked to above renders that statement meaningless.

Why do you think, though, that he would be more free to form a lasting peace with the Palestinians than Kerry would?

Israel may have Iran in its sights
It's an interesting article. I like anything that quotes Anthony Cordesman. In fact I think he had the most important quote, which also reflects many of the other points about the differences between Osirak in 1981 and Iran:
Another U.S. analyst said that Iran's program was further along and more dispersed than Iraq's was in 1981. "The comparisons between Osirak and the situation in Iran today are simply wrong," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

He said Israel's attack slowed, but did not terminate, Iraq's effort to develop nuclear weapons and probably encouraged Hussein to try to develop biological and chemical arms.
I'll modify my statement: I don't think Israel will find a situation with everything coming together to somehow launch a military strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities (note the plural). I think there are too many problems - from the lessons Iran learned from Osirak, to the international effort to confront Iran, to the absolute stupidity it would take for the Bush administration to sign off on such an operation at this time, (you can assume I have a snide comment about that here). I'm also not convinced that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has stated that they haven't found proof that there is one. I suspect Iran might be doing a bit of what Saddam did - let the world think he has nuclear weapons for the deterrant value, but not actually invest in the program, (like puting a secutity alarm sticker on your car but not the alarm). A few years ago the story of Iran's nuclear program was boosted in the media for a while when Iran invited Russian and other nuclear professors to a conference in Tehran. The media was all over it, but only a minority of them were shrewed enough to make the point that if you want to build a nuclear program you don't want professors with theoretical knowledge, you want working scientists - with actual hands-on experience in nuclear programs. Talking heads put on a show about "proof" that Iran had a program, but experts were more convinced it was for show.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.