Tehran endorses Bush????

Dec 3, 2003
903
19
16
Fayetteville
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1856&e=7&u=/cpress/iran_endorses_bush

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday the re-election of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) would be in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations Iran harbours al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.



Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.


"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.


Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.


"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran is supporting Democratic Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.


The Bush campaign said "No thanks."


"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.


"Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the UN Security Council."


Kerry, who said halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He said Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.


"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said.


"But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."


The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.


The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.


The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummetted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and pre-war Iraq.


The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies - the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.


Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."


And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.





"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the responsibility Bush had will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.

Mofidi added: "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said.

"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."

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations but in recent days, there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West but will not concede its right to the technology.

The nuclear issue has been most sensitive and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Tehran said its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.

Wow! I thought 10/10 terrorist agreed that Kerry should be president. :huh:
 
dilloduck said:
You don't recognize reverse psychology when you see it?

This is so very classic. Communists endorse Kerry! Communists! Bin Laden endorses Kerry! Terrorists! Chirac endorses Kerry! French!

Iran endorses Bush....reverse psychology.

:bs1:
 
nakedemperor said:
This is so very classic. Communists endorse Kerry! Communists! Bin Laden endorses Kerry! Terrorists! Chirac endorses Kerry! French!

Iran endorses Bush....reverse psychology.

:bs1:


What is so classic? Are you insinuating that the argument made is not worthy of contemplation?

First: Bush will be defined as the republican party, because this is really what is being said by Iran supporting the republicans over democrats and also for simplicity sake.

Is this classic, in your definition of "what is classic?":

As to communists, I can not give a reply, for that system of government or ideology has changed much in the past decade.

However, Bin Laden is easy, Bush declared war on Bin Ladin. So kindly explain where reverse psychology would help OBL.

Further, Bush has not declared war on Chirac, there exists merely political differences, the consequences of I do not bring up. Only that the two leaders don't like each other. Therefore, what would Chirac gain from supporting Bush.

Lastly, Iran has been labeled as part of the "axis of evil" by Bush. At first blush it might seem that Iran has nothing to gain by supporting Bush, however, upon closer examination, Iran says it's support is based on the fact that democrats are more concerned with human rights than republicans, ie, President George W. Bush. This is a sly shot below the belt so to speak.

So you see, Iran did have something to gain.
 
Iran knows what they are doing.

If Bush wins, you can bet your last dollar some action will be taken with Iran.

If Kerry wins, the only action with Iran will be some diplomatic/political orgy that will be totally benign.

So, Iran is pretty much kissing Bush's ass in the event he wins in November.

That's just how I see it.
 
nakedemperor said:
This is so very classic. Communists endorse Kerry! Communists! Bin Laden endorses Kerry! Terrorists! Chirac endorses Kerry! French!

Iran endorses Bush....reverse psychology.

:bs1:

I agree...endorsements go both ways if we are honest.
 
drowe said:
Iran knows what they are doing.

If Bush wins, you can bet your last dollar some action will be taken with Iran.

If Kerry wins, the only action with Iran will be some diplomatic/political orgy that will be totally benign.

So, Iran is pretty much kissing Bush's ass in the event he wins in November.

That's just how I see it.


TOTAL political ass kissing.. IMO, everyone just needs to shut their trap about it (the world) but thats not gonna happen.

Im not sure if I want action taken against Iran besides Covert Ops cause honestly, we cant afford another conflict.
 

Forum List

Back
Top