Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made perfectly good sense

when he pointed out that Iraq was invaded under

false pretenses, that Palestinians are displaced from

their homes by Zionists, that drug production

has increased in Afghanistan while under NATO control

Parts 2 & 3

If George Bush and Barack Obama both call you crazy, you're probably in your right mind.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made perfectly good sense when he addressed the UN General Assembly, in New York.

He correctly pointed out that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses, that Palestinians are displaced from their homes by Zionists, that drug production has increased in Afghanistan while under NATO control.

And that the U.N. Security Council, controlled by the guilty parties, is ineffectual and unable to stop these actions. In the Dem/Rep book, that makes him crazy.

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made a remarkable announcement. He's admitted that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel.

Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?"

This was his astonishing reply:

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.

Since most Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution, the Iranian president is, in effect, agreeing to Israel's right to exist and opening the door to a peace deal that Iran will endorse.

Ahmadinejad made this apparently extraordinary shift in policy during an
interview last week when he was in New York to address the UN general assembly.

He was interviewed on September 24 by reporters Juan Gonzalez, writing for the New York Daily News, and Amy Goodman for the current affairs TV program, Democracy Now [see video above].

Undemonizing Ahmadinejad [Source]

Last week the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. That fact is not newsworthy in and of itself. Ahmadinejad is one of many heads of state who speak at the U.N. every year.

However, because Iran is now the focus of American and Israeli hostility and evil intent, its president is treated by American politicians and corporate media as if he were anything but.

Barrack Obama wasted no time in currying favor with the Israeli lobby. "I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad's outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views."

Ahmadinejad's remarks in his U.N. speech were neither outrageous nor anti-Semitic. He correctly pointed out that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses, that Palestinians are displaced from their homes by Zionists, that drug production has increased in Afghanistan while under NATO control.

And that the U.N. Security Council, controlled by the guilty parties, is ineffectual and unable to stop these actions.

Although Ahmadinejad didn't mention either man by name, he certainly called them out.

"It is deeply disastrous to witness the presidential or premiere nominees in some big countries have to visit these people (Zionists), take part in their gatherings, swear their allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial and media support."

There is no reason to be mad at Ahmadinejad just because he hits the nail on the head in describing the AIPAC conference.

Truth is not important in America, especially in an election year. Lying is the key to victory, as seen in the first presidential debate. Moderator Jim Lehrer gave both men their cues.

"Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat to Iran right now to the security of the United States?"

Lehrer made no pretense of fact finding with that leading question. McCain didn't miss his chance.

"The Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq." Even the Bush administration has given up trying to trot out that canard, but McCain repeated it and Obama didn't correct him.

Because accuracy is of so little importance, McCain and Obama were both unable to correctly name Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Both referred to it as the Republican Guard, which was actually a unit of Saddam Hussein's army in Iraq.

Revolutionary, republican, Iran, Iraq, whatever. Presidential contenders know that they don't get elected by acknowledging differences between swarthy Muslims who don't deserve to live if they get in the way of personal ambition and the American empire.

During the debate McCain claimed that Obama was not sufficiently eager to label the Guard a terrorist organization, but Obama made it clear he was of the same mind.

"I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so." It was but one example of rampant me too-ism throughout the debate.

"McCain and Obama both referred to Iran's Revolutionary Guard as the ‘Republican Guard,' which was actually a unit of Saddam Hussein's army in Iraq."

While the two quibbled over the difference between precondition and preparation and whether either one is sufficient to talk to the Iranians, both claim, against all factual evidence, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Both agree that the United States, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, shouldn't allow it to do so. McCain didn't sing a song about bombing Iran, and Obama didn't feed red meat as he did at the AIPAC conference, but they agreed on their willingness to go to war against Iran in the absence of any threat to the United States or any other country.

When it comes to certain issues, there is no real debate, not even in a debate. "Senator McCain is absolutely right,[italics mine] we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran."

In a CNN interview, Larry King asked Ahmadinejad why McCain and Obama hadn't met with him.

He replied, "You should ask that from them. Don't ask me."

If they were asked we would here lunatic raving from McCain about a second holocaust and more composed answers from Obama about precondition and preparation.

Perhaps the remaining debates will actually live up to the meaning of the word, but don't bet on it. Obama will tell us that Senator McCain is absolutely right about other issues too.