NationStates Jolt Archive

What right does he have to question someone else's past?

WASHINGTON - The White House said Thursday it was investigating whether
Iran's new president played a role in seizing the American Embassy and holding 52 U.S. captives a quarter century ago.
President Bush said the allegation by former hostages "raises many questions."
ADVERTISEMENT

The administration was reviewing its files on Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the hostage comments were brought to light by The Associated Press.

"I have no information, but obviously his involvement raises many questions," Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters. The administration said it would have to deal with Ahmadinejad, regardless of his past....


Source (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iran)

What right does he have to question someone else's past?


As The Chosen One, he can question anyone he wants, so deal with it.

JK

I don't know, we've known he's been off his rocker for awhile now.

Just another thing to add to the "Reasons he needs to be committed" column

What right does he have to question someone else's past?




Source (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iran)

His debatable military service and drug antics in college are NOTHING compared to a terrorist involved in that hostage situation.

You can see how blind liberals are by their complete lack of sense. It's like comparing someone who gets busted for filesharing being compared to a serial killer.

His debatable military service and drug antics in college are NOTHING compared to a terrorist involved in that hostage situation.

You can see how blind liberals are by their complete lack of sense. It's like comparing someone who gets busted for filesharing being compared to a serial killer.


You are correct sir!!

I honestly don't think Sel App was specifically linking one to the other...

It was a kind of "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." type thing.

Or to provide a Bible reference,

"Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone"

Bush's track record isn't exactly squeaky clean for him to complain. Especially now that there appear to be allegations of him lying to the American public about our little War in the ME.

The Iranians are free to elect whomever they want. Complaining won't change the results of an election, as 49% of America has found out.

The Iranians are free to elect whomever they want.

LOL. I'll let you see the flaw in that quote by yourself. :p

LOL. I'll let you see the flaw in that quote by yourself. :p
Quit trying to burst the fragile bubble of his fantasy land.

*blushes with embarassment*

Well, as long as their vote is approved by whomever controls the country.

EDIT:Please don't burst the bubble of my fantasy land, as it is both much better, and more interesting than real life. :(

His debatable military service and drug antics in college are NOTHING compared to a terrorist involved in that hostage situation.

You can see how blind liberals are by their complete lack of sense. It's like comparing someone who gets busted for filesharing being compared to a serial killer.


theres more than the drug and military past that puts down bush. him being the one that sent our men to iraq n sent our money to iraq without a clear reason, doesnt put him too high on ne ones list. he also cant see why religions other than his should be respected. he just isnt very smart.

If I were really cruel I'd put that in my signature.

The fact of the matter is the Iranians are putting up an illusion of some sort of Democracy so they can look more benign.

Bush has to push the facts so people realize something has to be done about Iran. And no, I don't want to invade them, until we're out of other options anyway.

If I were really cruel I'd put that in my signature.

The fact of the matter is the Iranians are putting up an illusion of some sort of Democracy so they can look more benign.

Bush has to push the facts so people realize something has to be done about Iran. And no, I don't want to invade them, until we're out of other options anyway.

Well, it's kind of his own fault he has to push the facts, as he's been a little *creative* with his "facts" in the past.

theres more than the drug and military past that puts down bush. him being the one that sent our men to iraq n sent our money to iraq without a clear reason, doesnt put him too high on ne ones list. he also cant see why religions other than his should be respected. he just isnt very smart.


Haha, I needed a good laugh, thanks. ;)

theres more than the drug and military past that puts down bush. him being the one that sent our men to iraq n sent our money to iraq without a clear reason, doesnt put him too high on ne ones list. he also cant see why religions other than his should be respected. he just isnt very smart.

I'd like to point out that there were three reasons put forward for Iraq:

1. At the time we believed they had weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and foreigners.
3. To secure the region.

Pretty clear to me.

I've never seen Bush disrespect any religion: please provide an example.

You aren't very smart either judging by your grammar. And let alone the fact he scored higher than John Kerry on his SAT, the supposed thinking man.

His debatable military service and drug antics in college are NOTHING compared to a terrorist involved in that hostage situation.

You can see how blind liberals are by their complete lack of sense. It's like comparing someone who gets busted for filesharing being compared to a serial killer.

And yet when liberals make generalizations about conservatives you start with the persecution song and dance.

:rolleyes:

When the file being shared is proprietary software it's called piracy, and when it's supposed to be a government secret it's called espionage. Those can get you sentenced like a serial killer on conviction.

Now, Bush complaining about Iran's election is damaged by his own image problems, namely the 2000 and 2004 elections. It's like Ted Kennedy telling kids to not drink and drive, or John Bolton encouraging closer cooperation with the UN. The messenger stands out as farcical when delivering the message.

And yet when liberals make generalizations about conservatives you start with the persecution song and dance.

:rolleyes:

When the file being shared is proprietary software it's called piracy, and when it's supposed to be a government secret it's called espionage. Those can get you sentenced like a serial killer on conviction.

Now, Bush complaining about Iran's election is damaged by his own image problems, namely the 2000 and 2004 elections. It's like Ted Kennedy telling kids to not drink and drive, or John Bolton encouraging closer cooperation with the UN. The messenger stands out as farcical when delivering the message.

I don't see what the problem with the 2004 election was. He won quite clearly. Don't blame Bush for winning in 2000, he didn't set up the electoral college or bastardize it, and besides he became the legitimate president only by passing through the Supreme Court, which was and is pretty damn balanced.

I'd like to point out that there were three reasons put forward for Iraq:

1. At the time we believed they had weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and foreigners.
3. To secure the reason.

Pretty clear to me.

I've never seen Bush disrespect any religion: please provide an example.

You aren't very smart either judging by your grammar. And let alone the fact he scored higher than John Kerry on his SAT, the supposed thinking man.

And during the election, what did people say to allegations of bush's stupidity?

Book smarts aren't everything.

Bush isn't disrespectful to other religions, he just feels the need to force his onto everyone else.

1.We'll see once they can prove the DSM(unless they've already disproved it and I'm just slow)
2.They didn't use that until it looked like they were no WMD's
3.Huh?

Now it's my turn to be embarresed; reason is supposed to be region. :D

I'd like to point out that there were three reasons put forward for Iraq:

1. At the time we believed they had weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and foreigners.
3. To secure the reason.

Pretty clear to me.

I've never seen Bush disrespect any religion: please provide an example.

You aren't very smart either judging by your grammar. And let alone the fact he scored higher than John Kerry on his SAT, the supposed thinking man.

For the reasons...

1. Bush could have listened to all of the others who said there werent? Or he could have let the UN inspectors, who were let back into the country, do their job?

2. The US has supported plenty of dictators and the like. As feel good as this reason is, its hardly a believable one. History shows the US disregards this in most circumstances.

3. To secure the reas...what?

And if you are another person who thinks schooling is a good indicator of intelligence, well, I wouldnt be surprised.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

.

Bush isn't disrespectful to other religions, he just feels the need to force his onto everyone else.



Can you point out where he has done this? I'm still waiting to hear from people who were made to convert by agents of the CIA.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

One mans witty saying is another mans trite nightmare.

Can you point out where he has done this? I'm still waiting to hear from people who were made to convert by agents of the CIA.


gay marriage?

For the reasons...

1. Bush could have listened to all of the others who said there werent? Or he could have let the UN inspectors, who were let back into the country, do their job?

2. The US has supported plenty of dictators and the like. As feel good as this reason is, its hardly a believable one. History shows the US disregards this in most circumstances.

3. To secure the reas...what?

And if you are another person who thinks schooling is a good indicator of intelligence, well, I wouldnt be surprised.

1. Bush received reliable intelligence from our allies including Great Britain and Russia which confirmed these suspicions, what "others" said anything about Iraq not having WMDs?

2. What better time to change than now?

I don't see what the problem with the 2004 election was. He won quite clearly. Don't blame Bush for winning in 2000, he didn't set up the electoral college or bastardize it, and besides he became the legitimate president only by passing through the Supreme Court, which was and is pretty damn balanced.

The owner of Diebold being heard to the effect of trying to deliver Ohio to Bush is at the very least conflict of interest, if not an outright cocky boast of voting fraud. And 2000 ought to be in future textbooks of how to not handle a government election, with all those incidents of voting irregularities, mysteriously disqualified voters and Katherine Harris holding up the recount efforts until it was too late.

When you have someone who's directly associated with such questioned incidents, hearing him proclaim that an election in a foreign country is improper- and take into account America's history of going junta on legitimate elections (coughcoughChilecoughcough)- you should be able to see how the rest of the world is going to see a lack of credibility and ingenuity in that message.

OK, OK, everybody thinks Bush is an idiot...or a saint. What will you think when the good news is that your kid isn't being sent to Afghanistan or Iraq. The bad news is that she/he will be going to Iran or the evil empire flavor of the day.

I signed on to this plan of "support the US (and coalition) dropping into say hello" when it had some (albeit blurry at times) connection to 9/11. What does Iran have to do with 9/11? Do they support Al Queda? Saudi Arabia supported Al Queda, didn't they?

The point of my 2nd post is: while we argue over whether our duly elected, questionably sane president (and coalition) is right or wrong, people are dying who are honorably doing their duty. If we argue, can we argue from that perspective?

gay marriage?

He hasn't crammed his religion down your throat, nor has he forced you to pray. Besides the majority in this country don't want them.

Try again. ;)

Paternia, do you honestly believe this is a change, that we won't ever support a dictator again, even if it's in our interests?

We didn't even go after this one for being a dictator.

He hasn't crammed his religion down your throat, nor has he forced you to pray. Besides the majority in this country don't want them.

Try again. ;)

But the majority isn't(or shouldn't be) allowed to force it's opinions onto the minority.

Sorry, but your views aren't popular, therefore, you don't get a voice.

1. Bush received reliable intelligence from our allies including Great Britain and Russia which confirmed these suspicions, what "others" said anything about Iraq not having WMDs?

2. What better time to change than now?

1. Even if that was completely true, which it isnt, bush could have let the UN do their job, and if they found anything, then do something. US soldiers are hardly more qualified to find WMD than trained UN inspectors.

2. If you honestly believe that a century or two of policy will be changed in one presidency, you are sadly mistaken.

One mans witty saying is another mans trite nightmare.
It wasnt meant to be witty, nor is it my saying hence your remark really is unwarranted.

It wasnt meant to be witty, not is it my saying hence your remark really is unwarranted.

My point was, your statement is trite, and borderline spam.

1. Even if that was completely true, which it isnt, bush could have let the UN do their job, and if they found anything, then do something. US soldiers are hardly more qualified to find WMD than trained UN inspectors.

2. If you honestly believe that a century or two of policy will be changed in one presidency, you are sadly mistaken.

1.The UN has a job? Seriously though, the same UN that had a business interest in Saddam staying around? We're not bound to trust the UN, especially with all that GREAT work they do in Rwanda.

2. I don't.

I can see, in some ways, why people are angry that we went in and didn't find any WMD's. But it leaves me thinking:

Saddam no only had, but USED, WMD's, in both the war with Iran and against the Kurds, it was common knowledge that he had them in the Gulf War, and the inspectors never saw them destroyed, so what happened to them? It's not like we picked some random nation, said "hey, our intel says country X has WMD's, let's invade"

My gut tells me they got trucked into Syria, with all the rest of the crap they trucked out when the US coalition invaded. And it's not like they didn't find ANYTHING, they found a few things, just not in serious quantity, so there were agents capable of being used in a WMD, just not in the amounts US, British, and Russian intelligence indicated.

And it has so far only stablised the region, anyone else remember Libya openly admitting to having a WMD program and shutting it down?

My point was, your statement is trite, and borderline spam.
I dont think so. Even if the guy was involved in the embassy hostage situation, saying "ooh, he's a terrorist" is a little unfair. Lets face it, it was 25 years ago and plenty of Iranians had very good reasons to dislike the US. 'Terrorist' is a highly prejudicial term and should be used with caution.

1.The UN has a job? Seriously though, the same UN that had a business interest in Saddam staying around? We're not bound to trust the UN, especially with all that GREAT work they do in Rwanda.

2. I don't.

1. You realize the US is a part of the UN? And any faults of its are the US's too, because the US has power in the UN? The US has its fair share of Veto's in the security council, etc. Besides, the UN wanted to have men in Iraq, and the US overrode them. Get mad at them when they dont do something, stop them when they do?

2. Good.

As in so many threads pertaining Bush, people find themselves arguing about the same thing everywhere.

Bush is now president, America (and the rest of the world unfortunately) has to live with that, what happened before "shouldnt" happen again but hey, get real, history repeats itself and sometimes people just never learn.

The past teaches us, then again that depends on individual points of view.

I dont think so. Even if the guy was involved in the embassy hostage situation, saying "ooh, he's a terrorist" is a little unfair. Lets face it, it was 25 years ago and plenty of Iranians had very good reasons to dislike the US. 'Terrorist' is a highly prejudicial term and should be used with caution.

I agree, im just sick of seeing that saying.

Me too but so long everyone keeps talking about terrorism, I'm pretty sure it wont go away. I wish people would talk about things that are actually likely to have an impact on their lives.

I can see, in some ways, why people are angry that we went in and didn't find any WMD's. But it leaves me thinking:

Saddam no only had, but USED, WMD's, in both the war with Iran and against the Kurds, it was common knowledge that he had them in the Gulf War, and the inspectors never saw them destroyed, so what happened to them? It's not like we picked some random nation, said "hey, our intel says country X has WMD's, let's invade"

My gut tells me they got trucked into Syria, with all the rest of the crap they trucked out when the US coalition invaded. And it's not like they didn't find ANYTHING, they found a few things, just not in serious quantity, so there were agents capable of being used in a WMD, just not in the amounts US, British, and Russian intelligence indicated.

And it has so far only stablised the region, anyone else remember Libya openly admitting to having a WMD program and shutting it down?

A. WMD use in halabjah(which I assume you mean) still isnt proven.

B. Saddam didnt use all those WMD in the gulf war, or anytime before, on the US. Hmm...

C. Again, we should have let the UN do their job, and let them look for the WMD. We were impatient, and now we have to face the goading.

my point is that he proved willing and able to use them, making him a far bigger threat to everyone, and the inspectors had been there for a decade, with few results, how long do you think we should wait, 20, 40, 50 years?

deal with him diplomatically for 12 years and get no where, the US acts, and that's impatient?

and when was a direct attack on the US required for them to go to war with someone? Saddam didn't attack the US in '90, the North Koreans didn't attack the US, etc etc etc

and when was a direct attack on the US required for them to go to war with someone? Saddam didn't attack the US in '90, the North Koreans didn't attack the US, etc etc etc

That's usually called pre-emptive strikes, or just plain sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Either that or it happens to be a defense treaty with a signatory nation being put into affect. I don't recall the US having one of those with another country that Iraq was attacking at the point of the invasion, so it falls into the former.

Yeah because Bush has had a great past, the drunken failure that he is.

The Bushophiles certainly have made one point: Saddam used WMDs against Iran and the Kurds.

The point they missed is that the US had no problem with his attacking Iran; indeed, that's the entire reason the US SOLD Saddam aforementioned WMDs in the first place.
THEN the US got a bit sniffy when he decided to gas the Kurds as well.
Moral of story: The schoolyard bully gave a loaded gun to a three-year-old and then expected him only to shoot where he was told.

No WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion. One can only assume that an occupying force would have no trouble finding said weapons, if they were there. Certainly they've had enough time.
One can only examine the "buried in Syria" argument with cynicism: oh, right, they're not here, they're in Syria, and after we've occupied Syria, we'll probably say they're ACTUALLY in Iran. Brilliant.

As far as the original point of the thread, that being the US looking into the President-Elect of Iran's past, one can ONLY point out historical fact: the United States have NEVER had a problem with supporting former terrorists and present tyrants. Just as long as they're not currently on the "bad guy" list.

I would say that all things considered, I'd be more worried if Bush wasn't concerned with this. If Iran's new president was involved in the hostage deal, that effects a whole lot and tells us where he's coming from, even after 25 years. This is not to say he should be wagging fingers or making sweeping edicts or planing for war-but he aught to know.

Which is what I find disturbing. He didn't find out about this from the re-worked more efficient intellegence system-someone asked him in a press confrence. Associated Press scooped the CIA on something like this. Why isn't that the 'what the hell?' of the story?

I dislike Bush a great deal, but yeah-new president of a 'hostile'* nation having been involved in holding Americans hostage-yeah, something he should look into.

*Regardless of how responsable we are for said 'hostility.'

Everyone has been questioning his capability as a leader. What goes around comes around

Me too but so long everyone keeps talking about terrorism, I'm pretty sure it wont go away. I wish people would talk about things that are actually likely to have an impact on their lives.terror has huge impact on some lives. it finish them.
just because you personaly don't effected directly by terror, don't mean it has no impact at all. terror, as the femine in africa, has great impact on many lives, even if those not your lives. ignore it is useless.

The Bushophiles certainly have made one point: Saddam used WMDs against Iran and the Kurds.

The point they missed is that the US had no problem with his attacking Iran; indeed, that's the entire reason the US SOLD Saddam aforementioned WMDs in the first place.


Not to mention that because Iran were looking likely to be overrunning the Faw Penninsula, the US got jittery at the thought of two Shia Islamic Republics side by side, and gave Saddam Satellite photos of the Iranian positions to gas.

Saddam said it was "like spraying flies"

Theoritically let's entertain the notion Saddam had WMDS and moved them all to Syria and buried them there. If Saddam did have WMDS, which if he did possess just before the war would obviously be used as a deterrent, why would he move them to Syria just before being invaded? Why would he, remove the only thing possibly keeping him in power?

You can say "This is Saddam we're talking about" but I say we're talking about a Dictator who knew how to hold on to his power.

And before someone says "Because if he had used them the US would have used theirs right back" then would that not show Saddam was not a threat? Because he knew the consequences if he used those weapons again?

WMD=deterrent.

Remove WMD minus Deterrent.

He had no WMD's after 1991 UN dismantling, he would never admit he did not have them any longer because of fear of attack from neighbouring countries. Like Hans Blix said, it was like hanging a 'Beware of the dog' sign on your gate when you had no dog. To say you had the dog was the deterrent.