Iran leader denied on WTC wreath request

[Bronco Bob]

Iran leader denied on WTC wreath request

By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 19, 7:18 PM ET

NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week,
but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.


Ahmadinejad, who is arriving Sunday to address the United Nations' General Assembly, had asked this month for permission to visit the site of the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

The request to enter the fenced-in site was rejected because of ongoing construction there, Browne said.

"Requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds," Browne said.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters Wednesday that the United States would not support Iran's attempt
to use the site for a "photo op."

"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions," such as dropping support for Lebanese militant group
Hezbollah and suspending their uranium enrichment program, Khalilzad said.

Browne said Ahmadinejad had asked permission from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, U.S. Secret Service and police department.
The police and the Secret Service provide security to visiting heads of state.

The Port Authority, which owns the trade center site and is the only agency that could grant him permission to go inside, said it never received such a request,
contradicting the police statement.

"We have not been asked to accommodate the president of Iran," Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said.

It wasn't clear whether Ahmadinejad wanted to descend to the base of the trade center site, where the twin towers once stood,
or lay a wreath on a public sidewalk outside the site.

Telephone calls to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations were not immediately returned.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said a visit to ground zero "is a matter for the city of New York, but it seems more than odd that the
president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero."

Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic relations since Washington cut its ties with Tehran after Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
The Bush administration has accused Iran of arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

In a television appearance earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said his country wanted peace and friendship with the United States,
as tensions continued to mount between the two countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_us/ahmadinejad_ground_zero


{hey folks, don't taz me, I'm only the messenger}

[Rohirrim]

I would have invited little Ahmadjihad to the site. "Hey, Ahmad. Move closer to the edge so you can really see how deep the site is." Bump. "Ooops."

[Garcia Bronco]

I really don't see the problem with letting him visit the site. At least that way he won't be able to deny it's existence.

[Spider]

those construction workers would abuse him like a 16 year old girl in a Mississippi trailer park ........ Lets not forget that some of the Iranian hostages pointed out the president almond joy was the ring leader of their capture .....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In a television appearance earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said his country wanted peace and friendship with the United States,
as tensions continued to mount between the two countries.

See, that's his problem, right there.

Smirky McWarhardon wants war, and that's that.

When have facts and evidence ever stood in the court-selected idiot's way when it comes to building a case for a war of choice?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/iraq-baton.gif

[Bronco Bob]

See, that's his problem, right there.

Smirky McWarhardon wants war, and that's that.

When have facts and evidence ever stood in the court-selected idiot's way when it comes to building a case for a war of choice?

From what I've heard, Bush is sort of ambivalent about going to war
with Iran. It's Cheney who is the hawk and twisting arms in the WH
to go to war with Iran. Where-as Rice has still wanted to try diplomacy,
but is starting to get worn down by Cheney. If it happens, if nothing else,
it will show who is actually running the country, Bush or Cheney.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From what I've heard, Bush is sort of ambivalent about going to war
with Iran. It's Cheney who is the hawk and twisting arms in the WH
to go to war with Iran. Where-as Rice has still wanted to try diplomacy,
but is starting to get worn down by Cheney. If it happens, if nothing else,
it will show who is actually running the country, Bush or Cheney.

The same thing has been said about most of the items on the PNAC/neo-con to-do list, i.e., that the "grownups" had to sell Vacation Boy on much of the agenda.

[Spider]

See, that's his problem, right there.

Smirky McWarhardon wants war, and that's that.

When have facts and evidence ever stood in the court-selected idiot's way when it comes to building a case for a war of choice?

I dont buy it .not for a second , those bastards attacked a US embassy , took hostages ..... I wouldnt be shocked to find out , this idiot wanted to lay the wreath @ ground zero for the hijackers ..........
I am not advocating war with Iran , but on the same hand we shouldnt drop our pants and welcome this scum sucking terrorist supporting camel jockey

[Taco John]

From what I've heard, Bush is sort of ambivalent about going to war
with Iran. It's Cheney who is the hawk and twisting arms in the WH
to go to war with Iran. Where-as Rice has still wanted to try diplomacy,
but is starting to get worn down by Cheney. If it happens, if nothing else,
it will show who is actually running the country, Bush or Cheney.



If this is the truth, then Bush should avoid any hunting trips with Cheney for awhile. :angel:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I dont buy it .not for a second , those bastards attacked a US embassy , took hostages .....

What those bastards did was wrong, bro, but it wasn't unprovoked.

The hostage crisis was the culmination of troubles that began for us when the CIA ousted Iran's elected president in the 50s and paved the way for the Shah. The resurgence of radical Islamic fundamentalism in Iran was a direct result of this meddling on our part.

It's called blowback.

You'd think the architects of this Iraq fiasco would have learned from this experience.

I don't think things are going to get better for us in the ME until we start taking responsibility for the things we have done there.

(Cue the "America hater" cries from the righties...)

[ant1999e]

See, that's his problem, right there.

Smirky McWarhardon wants war, and that's that.

When have facts and evidence ever stood in the court-selected idiot's way when it comes to building a case for a war of choice?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Rigs11]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You're either with us or against usLOL It's a good thing we don't have someone like you running this country. oh wait...

[Spider]

even still no way I let that bastard near ground zero ......... hell he would be lucky to see a McDonalds .......

[Smiling Assassin27]

I dont buy it .not for a second , those bastards attacked a US embassy , took hostages ..... I wouldnt be shocked to find out , this idiot wanted to lay the wreath @ ground zero for the hijackers ..........
I am not advocating war with Iran , but on the same hand we shouldnt drop our pants and welcome this scum sucking terrorist supporting camel jockey

with the exception of the truly ignorant term 'camel jockey', i concur. mobilizing security for this is bad enough but the symbolism is way over the edge. not to mention that a denier of the holocaust who's on record saying his goal is to wipe Israel from the map really has no business at the UN, much less the US.

[alkemical]

I've been thinking about this:

I think we should allow him to visit and lay a wreath. not for his sake, but for ours.

Even if we dislike this man and his beliefs, i think we should be the 'bigger' person and let him do it. No matter what we think he "gets out of it".

It's sort of like the sacrifice of forgiveness. If we could grant him this opportunity, it gives us an opportunity.

[El Guapo]

I really don't see the problem with letting him visit the site. At least that way he won't be able to deny it's existence.

This was solely a political ploy on his part. He KNEW we weren't going to let him do it... but in turn the denial by America helps him stay strong politically over there.

[Spider]

with the exception of the truly ignorant term 'camel jockey', .

well I wanted to call him much worse , and I would if I ever saw him in person ..... he was the ring leader in taking American hostages , he hasnt answered for that crime ....... now we cant arrest him diplomatic immunity ..... but we can restrict his movement .........

[elsid13]

It not about bringing "peace and friendship" it about the opportunity for the little prick to make a political statement that will most likely be about how the US deserved what we got. For the last 20 years Iran has funded terrorist groups that have directly attacked the US and our democratic allies. Has anyone forgot those Marines and State Dept folks that died in Beirut??? He just another representative of a regime that want to dictate a totalitarian views on individuals.

[ant1999e]

You're either with us or against usLOL It's a good thing we don't have someone like you running this country. oh wait...

:bs: You wackos aren't much different than bush.

[ant1999e]

well I wanted to call him much worse , and I would if I ever saw him in person ..... he was the ring leader in taking American hostages , he hasnt answered for that crime ....... now we cant arrest him diplomatic immunity ..... but we can restrict his movement .........

Hey man. It's o.k. that he did all that stuff. We were asking for it. It's really our fault for having bad foreign policies.:peace:

[Bronco Bob]

Hey man. It's o.k. that he did all that stuff. We were asking for it. It's really our fault for having bad foreign policies.:peace:

That's the fact. And there's a word for it. It is "blowback".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

[Spider]

That's the fact. And there's a word for it. It is "blowback".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

Blow back my ass ....... we did some ****ed up **** in the name of money and oil , but there is no excuse for attacking American citizens .

[ant1999e]

That's the fact. And there's a word for it. It is "blowback".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

So, if the president would have went to war with iraq on the grounds of "blowback" for Saddam attempting to assasinate his daddies life, it would have been "justified"?

[Bronco Bob]

So, if the president would have went to war with iraq on the grounds of "blowback" for Saddam attempting to assasinate his daddies life, it would have been "justified"?

Only if your consider getting 3000+ soldiers killed worth it.
Hey, Saddam's minions didn't even succeed. If they had
killed HW, W would have at least had a little more justification.

But that's sort of begging the question. Who said the Iranians
were justified either? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think you are misinterpreting the term blowback.
Blowback is the unintended consequences of a covert action.
In this case the CIA deposing a popular president and installing
a brutal dictator led to long simmering resentment which
finally boiled over in 1979.
Likewise the taking of hostages led to long simmering
resentment by Americans against Iran, the blowback
of which the Iranians are still feeling today.

[ant1999e]

Only if your consider getting 3000+ soldiers killed worth it.
Hey, Saddam's minions didn't even succeed. If they had
killed HW, W would have at least had a little more justification.

But that's sort of begging the question. Who said the Iranians
were justified either? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think you are misinterpreting the term blowback.
Blowback is the unintended consequences of a covert action.
In this case the CIA deposing a popular president and installing
a brutal dictator led to long simmering resentment which
finally boiled over in 1979.
Likewise the taking of hostages led to long simmering
resentment by Americans against Iran, the blowback
of which the Iranians are still feeling today.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :notworthy