Taliban Terror Tactics Working – Karzai Offers High Government Positions

Again, people think that putting terrorists into government positions is a good thing. Afghanistan President Karzai wants to GIVE the Taliban positions in his government. Over 4,000 Taliban have laid down arms already, with no carrot being given to them to be part of Karzai’s government.

Mr. Karzai, look at Palestine and Lebanon to see how terrorists respond when given power in the government. Mr. Karzai look at what the Taliban did to your country prior to 9/11. Mr. Karzai  think about the consequence of your offer and where it will lead Afghanistan  in the future. Mr. Karzai why don’t you go after then and either arrest them of kill them as they are criminals wanted for murder. How many Afghans have they killed Mr. Karzai?

President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

Reiterating a call for negotiations he has made with increasing frequency over the last several weeks, Karzai also said he was willing to meet with factional warlord leader and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

“If I find their address, there is no need for them to come to me, I’ll personally go there and get in touch with them,” Karzai said. “Esteemed Mullah, sir, and esteemed Hekmatyar, sir, why are you destroying the country?”

Karzai said he has contacts with Taliban militants through tribal elders but that there are no direct and open government communication channels with the fighters.

“If a group of Taliban or a number of Taliban come to me and say, ‘President, we want a department in this or in that ministry or we want a position as deputy minister … and we don’t want to fight anymore … If there will be a demand and a request like that to me, I will accept it because I want conflicts and fighting to end in Afghanistan,” Karzai said.

“I wish there would be a demand as easy as this. I wish that they would want a position in the government. I will give them a position,” he said.

Karzai earlier this month renewed a call for talks with the Taliban, and a spokesman for the militant group initially said the fighters might be open to negotiations. But spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi later said foreign troops must first leave the country — a demand Karzai said Saturday he would not meet.

“It should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don’t want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan,” he said.

He said he still wanted negotiations with Taliban militants of Afghan origin “for peace and security.” He ruled out talks with al-Qaida and other foreign fighters.

NATO and the United Nations have said an increasing number of Taliban fighters are interested in laying down their arms. NATO’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Daan Everts, said this month that NATO would look into the possibility of talks.

More than 4,500 Taliban fighters have laid down their arms and pledged to abide by the government’s laws through a reconciliation process that is more than two years old.

Terrorists to Provide Cultural Training to FBI Special Agents

More sensitivity  Cultural training by terrorists, this time it isn’t the TSA, it is worse, the FBI… How long until people realize you cannot have terrorists providing sensitivity training of those that are suppose to protect us. Political Correctness at it’s liberal worst.

Here we go again, as the leaders in charge of protecting us from terrorism show an amazing cluelessness about the subversive Muslim Brotherhood groups operating in the US. Bill Gertz in the Washington Times: FBI reaching out to jihadist-linked group.

The FBI is cooperating with a U.S. Muslim group recently linked to global extremists and is asking the group to provide “cultural training” for its special agents, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee report.

The FBI’s “Muslim outreach” community program included talks with the vice president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) about cooperating with the FBI, according to a report recently made public that contains written answers to questions posed by committee members.

The FBI as of June was seeking ISNA’s help to “schedule tours and cultural training for FBI [special agents] at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center, and to coordinate the introduction of the community executive seminar training program to the local organizations by the national leaders,” the FBI stated in the report.

ISNA was recently identified as part of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in a document submitted into evidence at the federal terrorism trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a group facing charges of illegally funding the Hamas terrorist group.

Disclosure of the FBI link to ISNA comes amid congressional opposition to the Justice Department’s participation in an ISNA conference held over Labor Day weekend. Two members of Congress urged the department in a letter not to attend the conference to avoid lending credibility to a group linked to extremists. The department ignored the request.

Reps. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, and Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, stated in a letter to the Justice Department that ISNA should not be legitimized by Justice’s participation in the conference, because of ISNA’s “extremist origins.”

American Congress for truth has a bit more to the story



Steven Emerson, a domestic counterterrorism specialist, said the FBI held previous talks with ISNA Vice President Mohammad Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, a Virginia mosque that has been linked to Islamist literature by the group Freedom House.

“The FBI leadership has been repeatedly warned about getting in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, not only by outsiders but insiders as well,” Mr. Emerson said. “But they persist in legitimizing branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Stephen Coughlin, a counterterrorism analyst on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, recently stated in a memorandum that the 1991 document identifies ISNA as an element of the Muslim Brotherhood.

U.S. government outreach efforts to such groups can undermine domestic counterterrorism efforts and “lead to potential for embarrassment for the [U.S. government] and legitimize threat organizations by providing them domestic sanctuary,” he stated.


Tsouli, Younis Tsouli – Terrorist 007

The trial for Younis Tsouli, AKA irhabi007 as commenced. This will be one to watch, although I doubt the liberal media will allow much on it as it shows how Al Qaeda and other terrorists are utilizing the Internet to provide support and direction to conduct terrorist attacts, spread anti-semitism, and recruit new terrorists.

A London computer expert acquired worldwide notoriety on the internet as an al-Qaeda propagandist called “Irhabi 007”, a court was told yesterday.

Younis Tsouli allegedly used his web identity – which translates from Arabic as “Terrorist 007” – to spread extremist material around the world.

One of the many websites he set up, irhabi.007.ca, received 14,244 hits in August 2005 from users in Saudi Arabia, France, Belgium, Sweden, Israel, Canada, Britain, Mexico and other countries.

Mr Tsouli, 23, also stored media articles about the international hunt for Irhabi007. One article described him as an al-Qaeda “cyber ghost” and another as the “hacker extra-ordinaire” who defied attempts to close down his network of jihadi websites. His use of “007” in his pseudonym earnt him the nickname “Bond” among some of the users of his websites, which were allegedly financed by credit card fraud.

The court was told that he and his codefendants Waseem Mughal, 24, and Tariq al-Daour, 21, had close links to al-Qaeda in Iraq and posted videos of its attacks on coalition forces and the beheading of Western hostages.

The jury at Woolwich Crown Court was told that Mr Tsouli boasted online to associates about being the terrorists’ “favourite files-uploader online” and that “AQ in Iraq” had asked him to organise translation of their electronic magazine.Mark Ellison, for the prosecution, said that in one online exchange with Mr Mughal, Mr Tsouli said that he wanted to join the fighting in Iraq. “It sucks that we are here and not there,” he wrote. “But I suppose someone has to be here.”

But Mr Mughal urged him to continue with his “media work”. He wrote: “A lot of the funding that the brothers are getting is coming because of the videos. Imagine how many have gone after seeing the videos. Imagine how many have become shahid [martyrs].”

On the day before the suicide attacks in London on July 7 2005, Mr Tsouli allegedly wrote: “The only thing that would stop me from joining the brothers is to attack the bastards here in London. The sooner the better.” After the attacks he wrote to an associate: “Brother I am very happy. From the moment the infidels cry, I laugh. Unfortunately most Muslims are not adherent. They don’t understand the attacks must be more profitable in a way that they don’t play into the hands of the infidels.

“The attacks are soft. It is difficult to sell it to the general public. I seriously think there are certain individuals that should be assassinated, striking at precise targets. That’s what I would like to see.”

The three men were arrested in October 2005 as a result of intelligence gathered from the arrest of two terrorist suspects in Bosnia. A video was found showing one of the men in Bosnia, Bektasevic Mirshad, posing with explosives and weapons saying: “We are Muslims. The Lions are coming. We are ready to attack.”

It is alleged that Mr Tsouli and Mr Mughal had the mobile phone number used by Mirshad and had also chatted to him online. Mr Tsouli, a Moroccan living in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, Mr Mughal, from Chatham, Kent, and Mr al-Daour, from Bayswater, West London, deny charges of possessing items and documents of use to terrorists and of inciting terrorism overseas. Mr Tsouli and Mr Mughal also deny a charge of conspiracy to murder linked to the arrests in Bosnia. The trial continues.

Background information on Tsouli from last year when he was arrested:

By Rita Katz and Michael Kern

Sunday, March 26, 2006; Page B01

For almost two years, intelligence services around the world tried to uncover the identity of an Internet hacker who had become a key conduit for al-Qaeda. The savvy, English-speaking, presumably young webmaster taunted his pursuers, calling himself Irhabi — Terrorist — 007. He hacked into American university computers, propagandized for the Iraq insurgents led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and taught other online jihadists how to wield their computers for the cause.

Suddenly last fall, Irhabi 007 disappeared from the message boards. The postings ended after Scotland Yard arrested a 22-year-old West Londoner, Younis Tsouli, suspected of participating in an alleged bomb plot. In November, British authorities brought a range of charges against him related to that plot. Only later, according to our sources familiar with the British probe, was Tsouli’s other suspected identity revealed. British investigators eventually confirmed to us that they believe he is Irhabi 007.

The unwitting end of the hunt comes at a time when al-Qaeda sympathizers like Irhabi 007 are making explosive new use of the Internet. Countless Web sites and password-protected forums — most of which have sprung up in the last several years — now cater to would-be jihadists like Irhabi 007. The terrorists who congregate in those cybercommunities are rapidly becoming skilled in hacking, programming, executing online attacks and mastering digital and media design — and Irhabi was a master of all those arts.

But the manner of his arrest demonstrates how challenging it is to combat such online activities and to prevent others from following Irhabi’s example: After pursuing an investigation into a European terrorism suspect, British investigators raided Tsouli’s house, where they found stolen credit card information, according to an American source familiar with the probe. Looking further, they found that the cards were used to pay American Internet providers on whose servers he had posted jihadi propaganda. Only then did investigators come to believe that they had netted the infamous hacker. And that element of luck is a problem. The Internet has presented investigators with an extraordinary challenge. But our future security is going to depend increasingly on identifying and catching the shadowy figures who exist primarily in the elusive online world.

The short career of Irhabi 007 offers a case study in the evolving nature of the threat that we at the SITE Institute track every day by monitoring and then joining the password-protected forums and communicating with the online jihadi community. Celebrated for his computer expertise, Irhabi 007 had propelled the jihadists into a 21st-century offensive through his ability to covertly and securely disseminate manuals of weaponry, videos of insurgent feats such as beheadings and other inflammatory material. It is by analyzing the trail of information left by such postings that we are able to distinguish the patterns of communication used by individual terrorists.

Irhabi’s success stemmed from a combination of skill and timing. In early 2004, he joined the password-protected message forum known as Muntada al-Ansar al-Islami (Islam Supporters Forum) and, soon after, al-Ekhlas (Sincerity) — two of the password-protected forums with thousands of members that al-Qaeda had been using for military instructions, propaganda and recruitment. (These two forums have since been taken down.) This was around the time that Zarqawi began using the Internet as his primary means of disseminating propaganda for his insurgency in Iraq. Zarqawi needed computer-savvy associates, and Irhabi proved to be a standout among the volunteers, many of whom were based in Europe.

Irhabi’s central role became apparent to outsiders in April of that year, when Zarqawi’s group, later renamed al-Qaeda in Iraq, began releasing its communiqués through its official spokesman, Abu Maysara al-Iraqi, on the Ansar forum. In his first posting, al-Iraqi wrote in Arabic about “the good news” that “a group of proud and brave men” intended to “strike the economic interests of the countries of blasphemy and atheism, that came to raise the banner of the Cross in the country of the Muslims.”

At the time, some doubted that posting’s authenticity, but Irhabi, who was the first to post a response, offered words of support. Before long, al-Iraqi answered in like fashion, establishing their relationship — and Irhabi’s central role.

Over the following year and a half, Irhabi established himself as the top jihadi expert on all things Internet-related. He became a very active member of many jihadi forums in Arabic and English. He worked on both defeating and enhancing online security, linking to multimedia and providing online seminars on the use of the Internet. He seemed to be online night and day, ready to answer questions about how to post a video, for example — and often willing to take over and do the posting himself. Irhabi focused on hacking into Web sites as well as educating Internet surfers in the secrets to anonymous browsing.

In one instance, Irhabi posted a 20-page message titled “Seminar on Hacking Websites,” to the Ekhlas forum. It provided detailed information on the art of hacking, listing dozens of vulnerable Web sites to which one could upload shared media. Irhabi used this strategy himself, uploading data to a Web site run by the state of Arkansas, and then to another run by George Washington University. This stunt led many experts to believe — erroneously — that Irhabi was based in the United States.

Irhabi used countless other Web sites as free hosts for material that the jihadists needed to upload and share. In addition to these sites, Irhabi provided techniques for discovering server vulnerabilities, in the event that his suggested sites became secure. In this way, jihadists could use third-party hosts to disseminate propaganda so that they did not have to risk using their own web space and, more importantly, their own money.

As he provided seemingly limitless space captured from vulnerable servers throughout the Internet, Irhabi was celebrated by his online followers. A mark of that appreciation was the following memorandum of praise offered by a member of Ansar in August 2004:

“To Our Brother Irhabi 007. Our brother Irhabi 007, you have shown very good efforts in serving this message board, as I can see, and in serving jihad for the sake of God. By God, we do not like to hear what hurts you, so we ask God to keep you in his care.

You are one of the top people who care about serving your brothers. May God add all of that on the side of your good work, and may you go careful and successful.

We say carry on with God’s blessing.

Carry on, may God protect you.

Carry on serving jihad and its supporters.

And I ask the mighty, gracious and merciful God to keep for us everyone who wants to support his faith.


Irhabi’s hacking ability was useful not only in the exchange of media, but also in the distribution of large-scale al-Qaeda productions. In one instance, a film produced by Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda, titled “All Is for Allah’s Religion,” was distributed from a page at http://www.alaflam.net/wdkl .

The links, uploaded in June 2005, provided numerous outlets where visitors could find the video. In the event that one of the sites was disabled, many other sources were available as backups. Several were based on domains such as http://www.irhabi007.ca or http://www.irhabi007.tv , indicating a strong involvement by Irhabi himself. The film, a major release by al-Qaeda in Iraq, showed many of the insurgents’ recent exploits compiled with footage of Osama bin Laden, commentary on the Abu Ghraib prison, and political statements about the rule of then-Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Tsouli has been charged with eight offenses including conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to cause an explosion, conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, conspiracy to obtain money by deception and offences relating to the possession of articles for terrorist purposes and fundraising. So far there are no charges directly related to his alleged activities as Irhabi on the Internet, but given the charges already mounted against him, it will probably be a long time before the 22-year-old is able to go online again.

But Irhabi’s absence from the Internet may not be as noticeable as many hope. Indeed, the hacker had anticipated his own disappearance. In the months beforehand, Irhabi released his will on the Internet. In it, he provided links to help visitors with their own Internet security and hacking skills in the event of his absence — a rubric for jihadists seeking the means to continue to serve their nefarious ends. Irhabi may have been caught, but his online legacy may be the creation of many thousands of 007s.


Rita Katz is the author of “Terrorist Hunter” (HarperCollins) and the director of the SITE Institute, which is dedicated to the “search for international terrorist entities.” Michael Kern is a senior analyst with the institute.

The Dwarf and Iranian Jihadist Parliament Declare CIA and US Army Terrorists

Ahmadinejad trying to save face, has Iranian Parliament declare the CIA and US army as terrorist organizations.

Ahmadinejad has been racking up the tension in recent threats to US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying and training terrorists in Iraq through Quds forces, working with N. Korea in expanding Iran’s Nuclear Program, Syrian cooperation in development of Chemical warheads, Hugs and Kisses with Hugo Chavez, closing of any diplomatic solution to the Nuclear issues, puchasing of weaponary from Russia, included surface to air systems, fighter jets etc..

This latest posturing movement is bringing the region closer to another war, one that Ahmadinejad will not win and will cause Russia to loose face.

Iran’s parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution to label the CIA and the U.S. Army “terrorist organizations.” The move is seen as a diplomatic tit-for-tat after the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

“The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror,” said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The hard-line dominated parliament said the two were terrorists, because they were involved in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, used depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supported the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombed and killed Iraqi civilians and tortured terror suspects in prisons.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that — if ratified by the country’s hardline constitutional watchdog — would become law. The government is expected to remain silent over the parliament resolution and wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

The Bush administration had already been considering whether to blacklist an elite unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.

The U.S. legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that his country would defy attempts to impose new sanctions by “arrogant powers” seeking to curb its nuclear program, accusing them of lying and imposing illegal penalties on his country.

He said the nuclear issue was now “closed” as a political issue and Iran would pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program “through its appropriate legal path,” the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated over Washington accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and has been supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with deadly weapons used to kill U.S. troops. Iran denies both of the allegations.

Atlas expresses a few great thoughts on the subject:

When the world can not distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, the narrative is up for grabs. The thugs and bullies control  the argument. I am sure this latest joke is an intended smack down of the legislation before Congress to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. A move, IMAO, that is nonsensical. Why the separation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Guard? It’s the same thing.  Iran is a terror state at war with us.  We  ignore that painful truth – at our peril. Iran’s Proxy War Against America

Iran’s parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army “terrorist organizations,” in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

While on its face, it appears ridiculous. But repeat it enough times and it becomes part of the narrative much like the Arab narrative in the Pali Terror/Israeli conflict. Lies all. And yet Bush is still calling for a “two state solution.” Who could have imagined 40- years ago that the President of the United States would be advocating the establishment of an Islamic terror state after all the murder and mayhem despite all the billions thrown at them not to mention international legitimacy. So you see it works. Churchill was right when he said a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

Will Iran Test their first nuke, or use it? Reliapundit

We must, of course, preemptively attack Iran here, at POWER LINE.

Iran News Round Up NRO

Blackwell Security Forces – Excessive Force or Proportioned Response?

Did the Blackwell Security Forces act accordingly?

The first pictures from the scene have been made public and from the initial look of things, Blackwell SF appear to have responded appropriately.

The destruction from the explosion indicates a scene that needed to be completely secured and deadly force would be necessary to control the enviroment if a potential threat were to be perceived.

Based on the accounts from the Blackwell SF, there was an ongoing threat to their safety as well as their package.

This was a well coordinated attack that did not include just the explosion. The mission appears to have been to kill the US official. The target was not random, it was timed and intentional with a backup plan being implemented when the bomb did not kill the intended target.

The Iraq Police may or may not have been actual police, as police uniforms have been distribued to terrorist entities within the region, additional even if they were police, that does not mean they were not involved. There is a possibility that they misconstrued the threat and thought the Blackwell SF were the enemy, however that is quite unlikely based on the vehicles they were traveling in.

This seems more to be another attempt to demonize the lower ranks in a continued effort to sway public opinion.

The still images, taken at 11:50 that morning, show the car bomb explosion near a financial compound in western Baghdad that precipitated the incident. A State Department official was visiting the compound when the bomb went off about 25 yards from the entrance. Immediately after the explosion, Blackwater is said to have called for reinforcements.


In later images, two convoys of Blackwater security forces are seen arriving at the compound ten minutes later to escort the official.

As the two convoys escorting a State Department motorcade leave at 12:05, the third vehicle in the second convoy was attacked, according to Blackwater’s version of events included in a sensitive but unclassified State Department report obtained by ABC News: “A white LN sedan had approached the motorcade at a high rate of speed from the south. The gunners [Blackwater forces] used hand and arm signals to stop the vehicle, then threw water bottles to get the driver’s attention. Local pedestrians also attempted to wave down the vehicle, but the vehicle continued at a high rate of speed. The gunners then engaged the vehicle with M4s [rifle] and later M240B [machine gun].”

The Blackwater account of the incident also describes the activities of Iraqi policemen (IPs) in the incident. “An IP then ran to the vehicle, peered inside, then began to push the vehicle towards the motorcade. The gunners then engaged the vehicle again, and the IP ran away.”

According to the account, Iraqi policemen started shooting from a shack and a tree line south of the convoys and an insurgent in civilian clothes started firing on the convoy from a dirt mound.

In sworn statements given to State Department investigators and obtained by ABC News, Blackwater guards provide detailed accounts of the incident. At least four of them reported firing their weapons at the white sedan which approached the convoy. “I turned and engaged the car with approximately 20 to 30 rounds from my M4 rifle. After I no longer felt the threat to my life, I turned back to cover my sector,” wrote one guard.

Blackwater guards also reported coming under fire from gunmen dressed in civilian clothes and Iraqi police. When one of the men in civilian clothes fired in a guard’s direction, he reported, “I fired one shot from my SR25 at the closest threat.  He went down and did not fire anymore.”   

One guard reported observing the driver of another white sedan pulling his vehicle into the convoy, prompting the guard to fire his weapon at the roof of the car. “The driver exited the vehicle and produced a small device in his hand and held it out in the direction of his vehicle. I perceived this device to be a trigger for an explosive device.  Fearing for my life and the lives of my team members, I fired several well aimed rounds center mass at the threat.”

As the Blackwater vehicle injured in the attack was being towed away, one guard reported coming under fire from a red bus, returning fire and warning civilians to take cover. “As we were going over the curb, I noticed several civilians and I was motioning, and screaming that they get down and find cover.” 

Included in the State Department report is a photo depicting the alleged damage to the Blackwater vehicle. “During the encounter numerous small arms rounds impacted the Command vehicle, including at least one round that ricocheted off of the ground and into the radiator, rendering the vehicle immobilized,” according to the report.

Blackwater’s account of the incident is very different from the description provided by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. According to the Iraqi account, Blackwater guards halted traffic and fired on a white sedan that failed to slow down as it approached their convoy. That car erupted in flames, killing the driver and a woman and Blackwater guards continued to fire their weapons as people fled the scene. According to the ministry, Blackwater guards killed a total of eleven people and wounded twelve.

Bush Anzar Memo Without the Liberal Mis-Translation

Pajama Media has performed an actual translation, not a comptuer literal translation, and is reporting that the liberal spin that has been put on it, in order to call for Impeachment of Bush, is completely inaccurate and a lie. What else is new from the liberal left or the liberal media.

Juan Cole is calling for the impeachment of George Bush over the transcript of a private conversation the President had with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar in 2003. But startlingly enough, it could be the exoneration of Bush. PJM’s senior editor Jose Guardia translates the memo in its entirety from Spanish and comments.

by Jose Guardia

Much is being made of the scoop by Madrid’s daily El País of the – until now top secret- transcript of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Jose Maria Aznar during their meeting in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor & Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here.

Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:

“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”

All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.

That is the astonishing revelation in the memo, but Bush’s critics entirely ignore it.

The part being ballyhooed by them is that Bush was planning to go into Iraq under any conditions.

But even that is wrong. What the transcript doesn’t say in accurate translation, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not – many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.

Here’s the relevant section:

Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on I’ll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.

If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war as much a possible; that they were concerned of its human toll and that they were quite confident that they would obtain a second resolution. It was the threat that they would act if there wasn’t a second resolution that made them quite confident that there would be one.

At one point Bush explicitly says: “I don’t want war. I know what wars are like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wifes of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.” That doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent to going to war no matter what.

Both Bush and Aznar showed they wanted to work with allies; Bush even wanted to soften the rivalry with Chirac, thinking he was being ill-advised. He even asked Aznar to send the French president his best wishes, since Aznar was going to meet him in the next days.

This is the gist of it. Clearly this is not an equivalent to the Downing Street memo, but a leak from a Zapatero administration official to a friendly, anti-Bush, anti-Aznar newspaper in the hope of embarrassing the two, and atrociously translated to make it all look worse. But I’m sorry to say they only embarrassed themselves. No matter how much you spin it, the transcript shows exactly the opposite of what critics think it says. In layman’s terms, they got hoisted by their own petard.

Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)

President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].

PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.

Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].

Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?

Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.

Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.

We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.

Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.

Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”

Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed – we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].

Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.

Aznar: We’ll send you some text.

Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.

Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.

Bush: Perfect.

Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.

Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.

Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?

Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.

Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.

Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.

Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.

Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.

Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.

Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.

Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.

Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?

Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.

Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?

Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.

Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.

Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.

Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.

Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.

Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.

Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.

Aznar: That’s better than good.

Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.

Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.

Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.

Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.

Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.

Russia & Iran Prepare for War With US/Israel

Some key points:

  1. Russia is really selling a lot of stuff to Iran and has been for quite some time, including equipment for the enrichment of nuclear fuel, not to mention the help of building and setting up the sites. Russia does not want us to go into Iran for a reason…
  2. North Korea has been heavily involved in the region of late and have brought nuclear material to Syria. They are in communications/negotiations with Syria and Iran…
  3. The Israeli raid on Syria & N. Korea’s nuclear stocks was a show of capabilities. There is nothing between Israel and Iran to stop them or us. Syria’s air defense is useless, we will provide open flight space for Israel over Iraq.
  4. The Dwarf should be home my the end of Ramadan…After the impression he made while he was in the US and the recent threats by his government against the US, he is definitely feeling the heat.

This is a translation from Radio-Canada.com. Original text at the bottom.

Mind you this is speculation, however there does seem to some strong indication of possibility.

The French newspaper the connected Duck affirms, in its edition of Wednesday, which there would be a plan of attack israélo-American against Iran. The newspaper indicates that in fact the Russian secret service discovered this plan. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, would have already informed the Iranian authorities.

Initially, Israeli aviation would carry out raids against the Iranian nuclear sites. The American plane-radars would guide and protègeraient these raids. Thereafter, the United States Air Force would take the relai, according to results’ obtained, supports the newspaper.

The Russian secret service even specifies that the attacks would take place between the end of the Ramadan, that is to say towards mid-October, and the beginning of the year 2008. Let us recall that the Security Council of UNO gave to the Islamic Republic until December 2007 so that it makes it possible the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out new controls of its nuclear sites.

The article of connected Duck also states that the French secret service observed an important delivery of weapons from Moscow in Teheran. They would be anti-ship batteries of missiles, anti-aircraft missiles and helicopters.

Always according to sources’ of the French secret service quoted by the newspaper, American plane-radars AWACS and of the Israeli planes carried out several exits near the Iranian targets.

The mysterious Israeli raid counters Syria, last on September 6, could be seen as a repetition before a possible attack against Iran.

The nationalist daily newspaper panarabe Al-Qods Al-Arabi, published in London, had evoked, a few days ago, an American attack against Iran. According to the author of the article, there would be indices which leave think that Teheran will be the next target one of Washington.

Among the indices advanced by the author, the fact that George Bush used the terms of “nuclear holocaust” is a warning in Teheran so that it ceases enriching by uranium; the presence of Nicolas Sarkozy as a new ally of Washington leaves the vacant place left by the ex-first Tony Blair minister; finally, the signature by Saudi Arabia of a contract of some 5 billion with an American company to involve and equip some 35 000 men charged to protect the Saoudi oil installations.

 Original Text

Téhéran sera-t-il attaqué?

Le journal français Le Canard enchaîné affirme, dans son édition de mercredi, qu’il existerait un plan d’attaque israélo-américain contre l’Iran. Le journal indique que ce sont les services secrets russes qui ont découvert ce plan. Le président russe, Vladimir Poutine, aurait déjà informé les autorités iraniennes.

Dans un premier temps, l’aviation israélienne effectuerait des raids contre les sites nucléaires iraniens. Les avions-radars américains guideraient et protègeraient ces raids. Par la suite, l’aviation américaine prendrait le relai, selon les résultats obtenus, soutient le journal.

Les services secrets russes précisent même que les attaques auraient lieu entre la fin du ramadan, soit vers la mi-octobre, et le début de l’année 2008. Rappelons que le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU a donné à la République islamique jusqu’à décembre 2007 pour qu’elle permette à l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique d’effectuer de nouveaux contrôles de ses sites nucléaires.

L’article du Canard enchaîné indique également que les services secrets français ont observé une importante livraison d’armes de Moscou à Téhéran. Il s’agirait de batteries de missiles antinavires, de missiles antiaériens et d’hélicoptères.

Toujours selon des sources des services secrets français cités par le journal, les avions-radars américains AWACS et des avions israéliens ont effectué plusieurs sorties à proximité des cibles iraniennes.

Le mystérieux raid israélien contre la Syrie, le 6 septembre dernier, pourrait être vu comme une répétition avant une éventuelle attaque contre l’Iran.

Le quotidien nationaliste panarabe Al-Qods Al-Arabi, édité à Londres, avait évoqué, il y a quelques jours, une attaque américaine contre l’Iran. Selon l’auteur de l’article, il existerait des indices qui laissent à penser que Téhéran sera la prochaine cible de Washington.

Parmi les indices avancés par l’auteur, le fait que George Bush ait utilisé les termes d’« holocauste nucléaire » est un avertissement à Téhéran pour qu’il cesse d’enrichir de l’uranium; la présence de Nicolas Sarkozy en tant que nouvel allié de Washington laisse la place laissée vacante par l’ex-premier ministre Tony Blair; enfin, la signature par l’Arabie saoudite d’un contrat de de quelque 5 milliards avec une société américaine pour entraîner et équiper quelque 35 000 hommes chargés de protéger les installations pétrolières saoudiennes.

It’s Good To Be The King – Democratic Closet Candidates

Hillary, Obama and Edwards have some interesting views on Gay Marraige and teaching 6 year old children about it. This question was related to if the candidates would feel comfortable with their children being read “King & King” in second grade.

A fairy tale about two princes falling in love sparked a backlash — and a lawsuit — against a teacher and a school last year when it was read to a second-grade class in Massachusetts.

But the three frontrunners in the Democratic presidential race suggested Wednesday night at their debate in New Hampshire that they’d support reading the controversial book to children as part of a school curriculum.

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they’d be comfortable having the story — called “King & King” — read to their children in school

Edwards thinks it is ok to teach to 6 year olds so that they can grow up and NOT understand why he is against it.  He also does not want to influence his children on the subject. Hello John, isn’t that what parents are suppose to do. Influence their children. This is a shining example of why morales and values have disappeared from most of the kids today. Don’t forget, John is not Gay, nor was the other John, his running mate… what was his name , oh yeah Kerry. And on top of it, he did not even know what he had actually responded to… Note the Blue highlight.

Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer — a resounding and instant “yes, absolutely” — although he added that it “might be a little tough” for second-graders.


“I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives,” Edwards said. “I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who’s 9, and Jack, who’s 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who’s 25, has reached — which is, she doesn’t understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage.”

The 2004 vice presidential candidate and former North Carolina senator said he doesn’t want to influence his kids’ opinions about the issue.

“I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children,” he said. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Obama thinks it is a ok to teach to 6 year olds, they are old enough to understand it. What are you talking about feeding the American people fear and conflict and division? Obama are you saying that by not teaching second graders about gay marraige we are teaching them fear? What did you smoke before this.

Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.

Obama told Russert that his sentiments are similar to those of Edwards, and, when asked whether he’d sat down to talk about same-sex marriage with his young daughters, he replied that his wife had.

“The fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples,” the Illinois senator told the debate. “One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different. …. One of the things I think the next president has to do is stop fanning people’s fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided.”

Hillary thinks it should be the parents responsibility, but does not actually say it should not be taught in school. Remember she is not a lesbian…

Clinton said she believes it’s up to parents to decide how to handle such topics, but added that it’s important to teach kids about the “many differences that are in the world.”

Clinton said she respects the viewpoints of Obama and Edwards, but she sidestepped the question of whether she’d be comfortable having a storybook like “King & King” read to her own child at that age.

“With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion,” Clinton said. “Obviously, it is better to try to … help your children understand the many differences that are in the world. … And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.”

Now remember these guys and Hillary oppose gay marraige…


Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and, as Russert pointed out Wednesday, most of the Democratic candidates have said they oppose it. But though they don’t back the legislation, they apparently think it’s OK to teach elementary-school students about gay marriage.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is vying for the Republican nomination for president, weighed in afterward with a statement accusing the Democratic candidates of being “out of touch” with America.

“Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade,” Romney said in the statement. “This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand up to their ultra liberal base and do what’s right for our children.”

Some Lexington, Mass., parents were livid that a Joseph Estabrook Elementary School teacher read “King & King” to their second-grade children in class.

The Dutch tale, which has been translated into English, is about a prince whose mother pressures him to find a princess but who ends up falling in love with and marrying the brother of one of the prospective brides instead.

Last year, a judge dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by two sets of parents of students in the class who objected to the introduction of homosexual themes to their 7-year-olds without alerting them first, on the grounds that it was a violation of the state’s sex-education parental notification clause.

State law requires teaching about gay marraige? Something is wrong when a law requires that gay marraige be taught in public school, when you cannot event teach about G”d in public school and there are those that want ban the  Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word G”d in it. Wake up America!

School officials stood by their decision to teach about different kinds of marriage and said that Massachusetts law requires them to do so.


Hillary, Edwards and Obama Agree They Cannot Commit to a Troop Withdrawal Time Table

Democrates have made more than a u-turn in their view on withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Last year they promised if they gain control of Congress they would force a pull out. At the beginning of the campaign season, the one the democrats started early, they made that one of their biggest issues, by trying to force Bush into setting a time table.

Now the leading candidates, the onese most likely to be elected, have done a 720 and are chasing their tails. The trailers, claim to be able to with draw troops, because they know it will get them some vote… maybe… Not that they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination to run for President.

At least Bush has been realistic all along and not set a time table, because he knows it is not a feasibility.

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.


The candidates have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Protesting the Dwarf

Atlas Shrugs: The Zero is a No Show at Ground Zero

Can’t say I am surprised. The evil dwarf punked out and did not make good on his threat to pay his respects to the Islamic suicide terrorists that invaded our great nation on 9/11.

I caught the downtown train to meet up with Kevin McCullough  and march to Ground Zero to keep Ahamadinejad off the hallowed ground at Ground Zero.

Only the best people were there.


Claudia Rosett, love that woman. She had to bolt to cover another oil for food trial – considering she is the only one covering the greatest scandal in human history, she could hardly miss it.

Kevin and Desiree Burnstein, 9/11 family


Law enforcement made us move the signs off Port Authority property and would not let Desiree speak at Ground Zero (watch the video.) If we were screaming Death to America, perhaps we would have gotten more respect. /sarc tag off.










The evil dwarf couldn’t shine these folks shoes


Atlas reader met up, Edge, and insisted on providin transport  to the next stop on the ” Death to America” Tour. I’d tell you who he is but then I’d have to kill you. 😉


UN coverage coming up. Check back


Atlas Shrugs: There are no Homosexuals in Iran:

Columbia University Awaits the Killer. Columbia University Awaits the Killer. Of course he invoked the mahdi in the opening statement. Listening to the brutal despot, Glick is right when she said Columbia has disgraced itself beyond repair.

Excellent photos thanks to Elizabeth


Enormously talented artist Creative Patriot


Outside of Columbia – no free speech on campus for these folks, they had to demonstrate off campus.


Drum roll for the new Hitler



Useful idiots


Moral Equivalence


Students wait in front of Butler to watch the showdown between Sheriff Bollinger and I’m A Dinner Jacket on the big screen 


“Peaceful” Iran’s love of humanity


The leftards are so ……predictable. Evil’s handmaiden.


I just got back from the UN (video and pics to come, check the blog) – I couldn’t make it to Columbia – had to get my kids off the bus but I did catch the poison dwarf spew his invective on FOX.  What can freedom loving peoples say to such an abomination?

That this huge media opportunity was given to such a madman is tragic. The oppressed peoples of Iran must give up all hope when they see  Ahmadinejad’s heralded  appearance at one of the world’s leading universities.

His lies, his narrative, his Zionist oppressor bile, his contention that the woman of Iran are the free-est in the world, his despicable homophobic assertion that there are no gays in Iran “no such phenomena” (perhaps because he hung them all) was all to be expected. The really sick part was the uproarious applause of the morally ill in the audience. Columbia is a complete and utter failure.

John Bolton spoke after the evil midget made his speech and was dead to rights when he said of Ahmadinejad, “he got exactly what he wanted.”


Ahmadinejad Speaks During Controversial Appearance at Columbia University  FOX NEWS

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday questioned why Iran doesn’t have the right to have a nuclear program but the United States does and repeated his inference that the Holocaust is a myth in animated remarks before students and faculty at Columbia University.

“How come you have that right and we don’t have it?” he challenged, referring to the development of nuclear weapons capabilities.

During his third visit to New York in three years, Ahmadinejad opened his remarks with an objection to a scolding by Columbia University’s president.

After sitting through the blistering introduction by Lee Bollinger — in which he was lambasted for calling for the annihilation of Israel, denying the Holocaust and supporting the execution of children — Ahmadinejad said it was insulting to be spoken about that way.

“At the outset, I want to complain a bit about the person who read this political statement made against me,” Ahmadinejad said. “In Iran, we don’t think it’s necessary to come in before the speech has already begun with a series of complaints … It was an insult to me and the knowledge of the persons here.”

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he exhibits “all the signs of a brutal dictator.”

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the “myth” of the Holocaust “absurd” and saying that he doubted he “will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

“When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous,” Bollinger said. “The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.”

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger’s opening was full of “insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully.”

Ahmadinejad accused Bollinger of offering “unfriendly treatment” under the influence of the U.S. press and politicians.

He did not address Bollinger’s accusations directly, instead launching into a long religious discursion laced with quotes with the Quran before turning to criticism of the Bush administration and past American governments, from warrantless wiretapping to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad’s talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.

“You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader’s Holocaust denial. “Will you cease this outrage?”

Ahmadinejad said he simply wanted more research on the Holocaust, which he said was abused as a justification for Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.

“Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?” Ahmadinejad asked. He closed his prepared remarks with a terse smile, to applause and boos, before taking questions from the audience.

President Bush said Ahmadinejad’s appearance spoke to the “greatness” of the United States of America.

“He’s the head of a state sponsor of terror, and yet, an institution in our country gives him the chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country,” Bush told FOX News on Monday. “I’m not so sure I’d offer the same invitation, but nevertheless, it speaks volumes about the greatness, really, of America. We’re confident enough to let a person express his views. I just really hope he tells everybody the truth.”

Bush said that while he’s “not sure” he would have offered the Iranian leader a platform from which to outline his agenda, he thinks it’s OK that Columbia University did invite Ahmadinejad to speak.

“This is a place of high learning and if the president (of Columbia) thinks it’s a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it’s OK with me,” Bush told FOX News in an interview. “The problem is Ahmadinejad uses these platforms to advance his agenda, which I suspect in this case … He doesn’t want America to know his true intentions.”


Before his Columbia appearance Monday, the Iranian leader opened his U.S. speaking tour by inferring the Holocaust was a myth, taking a swipe at Israel — it’s “a regime based… on racism” — and defending his request to visit Ground Zero.

The Iranian leader, speaking via video from New York City to journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., tossed aside a question about Israel by saying Iran doesn’t recognize the “regime,” accusing it of killing people and committing various other atrocities.

It was typical of many of Ahmadinejad’s responses, which often started with laughing challenges to journalists in which he said, “That’s not right,” or asked, “Where are you getting that?”

On the Holocaust — which the Iranian leader has called a “myth” — he said that “if the Holocaust is a reality, why don’t we let more research be done on it? … Where did the Holocaust happen to begin with? It happened in Europe, and given that, why is it that the Palestinian people should be displaced? Why should they give up their land?”

He also said that he wanted to “pay my respects” at Ground Zero — the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City, where the World Trade Center once stood — since his visit here last year. But, he claimed, the U.S. government and other politicians prevented that from happening.

“I was interested in expressing my sympathy to victims of tragedy,” he said. “It’s the responsibility of everyone to understand the root causes of 9/11.”

At the Press Club, the Iranian president delivered some remarks through an interpreter, and then answered questions from the moderator. A similar format was used at the Columbia event.

Ahmadinejad said the world needs to build a better future “based on peace and security of all humanity,” and he spoke of a world full of love, kindness, beauty and allegiance to God as the ultimate goal.

“No one should prevent love and kindness from flourishing in mankind and turn it into hostility,” the Iranian president said. “Family is the center of love and beauty.”

He said people should follow God, who would lead them to a “sublime” state.

“When we take a look around us, we are not happy with what we see,” Ahmadinejad said. “Threats of war have affected everyone. Continuous wars have in fact hurt the human spirit. If we look at the root cause of some of these problems, we will be able to think about how to build a better future, a more prosperous future based on peace and security of all humanity.”

Ahmadinejad spoke of the importance of the press, in spite of the fact that Iran’s media is state-run and criticized as tightly controlled by the government.

“The press plays a connecting role. It provides information and can serve as a channel for promoting current thinking,” he said. “The role of the press is to disseminate moral behavior … The press can be the voices of the divine prophets.”

The Press Club moderator asked the Iranian leader about Iranian weapons and involvement in Iraq, about his views on whether religions other than Islam have a place in the world and on his country’s treatment of women and approach to the freedom of the press.

The Iranian president repeatedly asked where the moderator got his information and challenged the truth of his statements.

And when asked whether Iran was sending weapons into Iraq to fight against American troops, Ahmadinejad replied that “Iraq security means our security.” When pressed, he denied that Iran was engaging in that kind of activity.

When asked whether he wanted to go to war, he said he did not.

“Why is there a need for war?” Ahmadinejad said. “Why should they threaten another country? Why should they create more insecurity? I think officials who talk this kind of talk should really be pressured and warn to know what to say and when not to say something.”

Ahmadinejad said that the religions of “Christ and Moses” as well as Islam are “all brothers. They all want the same thing.”

He defended Iranian women as among the most free in the world, and said they were involved in all walks of life in Iran.

The Iranian president started his speech at the National Press Club by reciting some verses from the Koran. No one on the panel or seated in the audience applauded or reacted in any way when he was introduced.

Amid angry demonstrations on the Ivy League campus and at the United Nations, Ahmadinejad delivered a speech and conducted a question-and-answer session at Columbia, followed by a scheduled address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press that Iran would not launch an attack on Israel or any other nation, and he does not believe the U.S. is preparing for war against Iran.

“Iran will not attack any country,” Ahmadinejad told the AP. Iran has always maintained a defensive policy, not an offensive one, he said, and has “never sought to expand its territory.”

Asked whether he believed the U.S. is preparing for war, he responded: “That is not how I see it … I believe that some of the talk in this regard arises first of all from anger. Secondly, it serves the electoral purposes domestically in this country. Third, it serves as a cover for policy failures over Iraq.”

In a 30-minute interview at a hotel near the United Nations, Ahmadinejad struck a soothing tone. He said Iranian foreign policy was based on humanitarian concerns and seeking justice.

He reiterated his call for a debate at the United Nations on world issues with President Bush.

Referring to fears of a military campaign against Iran, he said: “We don’t think you can compensate for one mistake by committing more mistakes.”

The Columbia event has spurred an emotional debate about free speech.

Over the weekend, the university said it would welcome any notable figure visiting the United States — even Adolf Hitler — to speak to students and faculty at the Ivy League college.

But there are those who have questioned the New York college’s standards. They ask why a school that will not allow an ROTC program to be part of its curriculum would allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of America’s avowed enemies, onto its campus.

Critics wonder why the leader of a nation that exports terrorism is allowed to speak, but the leader of an American organization that seeks to secure U.S. borders was not.

“It’s extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries,” Bollinger told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they’re fanatical or to see whether they are sly.”

The Iranian president addressed students and faculty at a forum only days after Columbia retracted a speaking invitation to the president of the Minuteman Project, a controversial citizens’ group that seeks to secure America’s borders from illegal immigrants, even going so far as to try building a fence along the border with Mexico.

Minuteman founder and president Jim Gilchrist said he feels “sweet and sour” toward Columbia after an invitation to participate in an Oct. 4 talk was taken away last week. Gilchrist appeared at Columbia last year, but his speech was thwarted when students and other opponents stormed the stage as he took the podium.

“I’ve always respected Columbia, but I’ve relegated it to a gutter school after that incident,” Gilchrist said in a phone interview. “They’ve stopped free speech. That’s worse than killing people. With that, you can kill an entire nation.”

But Gilchrist — an ardent supporter of the First Amendment — actually backs the university’s decision to host Ahmadinejad.

“I’m defending his appearance,” he said. “I think he should speak. To say no, he cannot speak, is to support exactly the same thing that happened to me.”

He believes Columbia’s administrators are good about fostering free speech but give too much power to “radical” groups in determining who gets a forum on campus.

Student and faculty group the Columbia Political Union initially voted to ask Gilchrist back this year, but it was ultimately the organization that reversed the vote and rescinded his invitation. The CPU apparently was not a key factor in the Ahmadinejad visit, which is sponsored by Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and is part of the university’s annual World Leaders Forum.

Several Columbia students — even some who planned to rally against Ahmadinejad — said they supported the Iranian president’s appearance.

“He’s a leader of a large nation and what he says is important, even if it’s wrong,” said Dmitry Zakharov, 25, a Columbia University graduate student.

University officials did not return calls from FOXNews.com seeking comment on the school’s public-speaking policies and decisions.

But John Coatsworth, the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, said in a weekend interview with FOX News that just about anyone would be welcome to speak at the university — except the leaders of countries with which the United States is at war.

As for Hitler, he said, prior to the invasion of Poland in 1939, “if Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms to speak in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and discussion, and be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.”

“Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas,” Bollinger said in a statement issued last week. “On occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. …

“It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very dangers in such ideas.”

Bollinger said that the “faith in freedom” is “our nation’s most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best.”

Click here to read the entire Columbia statement about the Iranian president event.

Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, as well as helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops — claims Iran denies.

“Well, you have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?” Ahmadinejad said in a “60 Minutes” interview aired Sunday, taped earlier in Iran. “In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

He also said: “It’s wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing.”

Before leaving Iran, Ahmadinejad said the American people have been denied “correct information,” and his visit will give them a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Ahmadinejad has appealed to the American people before, distinguishing between the population and their government. Recently, he told a television show that Iran wants peace and friendship with America. Since coming to power in 2005, Ahmadinejad also has sent letters to the American people criticizing President Bush’s policies in the Middle East.

Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open. The commander of the U.S. military forces in the Middle East said he did not believe tensions would lead to war.

Ahmadinejad’s scheduled address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday was to be his third time attending the New York meeting in three years.

But his request to lay a wreath at ground zero was denied by city officials and condemned by politicians who said a visit to the site of the 2001 terror attacks would violate sacred ground.

Police cited construction and security concerns in denying Ahmadinejad’s request. Ahmadinejad told “60 Minutes” he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans.

Columbia canceled a planned visit by the Iranian president last year, also citing security and logistical reasons.


Michelle Malkin’s Mahmoudapalooza: The madman comes calling:

This is probably one of the most powerful signs I snapped photos of today…


Absolute moral authority.

Meantime, no sign of the Iranian nutjob here at Ground Zero. It’s possible he squeezed in his visit this morning when the protesters were cleared up. If so, though, why would he sit on the disgusting propaganda photos?


Outside Columbia University at the Stand with Us/Hasbarah protest, approx. 1:00pm Eastern.

Update 5:45pm Eastern. Judith at Kesher Talk has photos of the protesters and 9/11 family members who gathered at Ground Zero this morning before being hustled out by the Port Authority.

Gerard Van der Leun has a round-up of reax to Bollinger’s rope-a-dope.

Update: 4:35pm Eastern. We’ve headed over to Ground Zero, where some of the Columbia University protesters have gathered in case the Iranian nutjob decides to sneak his cursed wreath onto the memorial site.

After the Columbia University speech let out, dozens of protesters stood at the front gates of Columbia chanting “Shame on Columbia!” The anti-Mahmoud coalition took on a few clueless ANSWER protesters clad in orange and Bush Derangement Syndrome bumper stickers. I interviewed Iranian-American dissident Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of the Secular Muslim Summit, who was livid after confronting the moral equivalence and historical ignorance of the moonbats holding anti-Bush signs. The Jewish groups and Iranian critics of the mullahcracy were joined by many NYC-area bloggers and Gathering of Eagles members as well.

Speech highlights: There are no gays in Iran, don’t you know? More on Mahmoud’s John Lennon peace, love, and harmony routine. And here’s the Bollinger intro.

Dan Riehl sheds light on the significance of Mahmoud’s science and technology spiel:

Anyone listening closely should have been able to comprehend that Ahmadinejad’s discussion of science and technology was about the search for truth and it was based upon the notion that to discern truth one must be free of ideology and bias due to a pure understanding of Islam via The Koran. That was why he preceded all that science and technology stuff with the little intro on divine wisdom. And the particular truth he was riffing around had to do with the Holocaust.

It’s precisely that point, which the Left and apparently some on the Right miss that makes Iran and Ahmadinejad so dangerous.

Don’t let the warm embrace of some of the Columbia University students fool you. We saw plenty of disgusted Columbia alumni and families who were not impressed.

Update 2:15pm Eastern. Watching the speech on a TV at a deli. So, Columbia is getting an earful about Allah and Islam. Lots of finger-waving…and now he’s accusing the West of forcing other cultures into “submission.” Classic projection. He’s complaining about nuclear intimidation. Seriously. He attacks the West for “denying the scientific progress of others.”

One CNN commentator is calling Columbia president Lee Bollinger’s introduction a “humiliating dress-down.” Bollinger chided Mahmoud for his “preposterous, belligerent statements.” Raves for Bollinger here. I’m withholding judgement. If you caught it and you agree, chime in.

Update 1:35pm Eastern. Inside the gates, Ahmadinejad has begun the “dialogue.” Video. There are several hundred counterprotesters outside the Columbia gates, mostly Jewish organizations and some brave Persian dissidents. I’ve talked to rabbis, young families, students, alumni. Most are livid that Columbia has penned them off campus. There are busloads of kids here, but many older folks are disappointed that the turnout isn’t higher. This may be because lots of people turned out for the anti-Mahmoud rally at the U.N. Organizers expect many of them to head over here. Lots of helicopters overhead.

We’re going to try to do a livestream from the protest. Meantime, a few more photos:

This mother and daughter drove from Morris County, NJ:

Here’s the Iranian nutjob’s National Press Club appearance.

Update 11:46am Eastern. Allah passes word via PJM that Ground Zero was cleared of anti-Mahmoud protesters this morning.

Meantime, we’re stationed at Columbia at the front gates on 116th and Broadway. I just interviewed CU undergrad Jacob Kriegel, president of the student Jewish organization LionPAC. There’s a sizable crowd gathering. Many Persian students raising their voices in opposition to Ahmadinejad’s presence. We’ll have video.

Here are a few pics of the scene on Broadway, which is lined with media:


columbia rally

Update 9:50am Eastern. Was there a quid pro quo? CNSNews’s Susan Jones raises the question in a story about the recent release of an Iranian Columbia alum (hat tip – reader Jeff):

The president of Columbia University is expressing relief that a Columbia alumnus was released from an Iranian prison — just days before the Iranian president is scheduled to speak at Columbia University.

Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh, who works for George Soros’s Open Society Institute, was one of several Iranian-Americans detained by Iran for allegedly conspiring against Iran’s national security.

Tajbakhsh was freed on bail last Thursday. Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad is speaking at Columbia on Monday, and the invitation for him to appear on campus has drawn widespread condemnation from politicians and ordinary Americans, who view Amadinejad as an enemy of the United States and Israel.

Here’s more from the student publication, the Columbia Spectator.

As they say: Question the timing.

Update 9:30am Eastern. Spoof time–a reader sends along the webpage of the new Columbia University School of Terrorism.

columbia terrorism school spoof

Fake, but accurate.

Not a spoof: Left-wing lesbian crushing on Mahmoud.

Another small sign of sanity at Columbia: The law school dean, David Schizer, speaks:

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

But Hugh Hewitt is right:

While the dean’s candor on what Ahmadinejad represents is welcome, the idea that “prestige or legitimacy” is not inherent in the invitation is just absurd. It is the “World Leaders Forum” at one of the world’s great universities –of course Columbia is not merely “lending” the fanatic “prestige” and “legitimacy,” it is wholesaling both to him and all he represents.

For as long as we recall that Iran has been killing American soldiers and Marines, we will also recall that when Ahmadinejad came to the United States, it was Columbia that welcomed him and gave him a stage, a microphone, a vast audience and all the “prestige” and “legitimacy” Columbia can confer.

Hitler Ahmadinejad

A reminder again about the protests taking place today in NYC and D.C. against Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadenihad, via The Israel Project. I’ll be in NYC today for his “Manhattan Moment.” How about you:


What: Ahmadinejad to speak at luncheon at National Press Club by videolink

When: 12 p.m.

Where: Washington, DC: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW


What: Rally led by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Community Relations in cooperation with United Jewish Communities, UJA-Federation of New York and Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Speakers include Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, (Capt., USNR, Ret.), pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

When: 12 p.m. (rain or shine)

Where: NYC: Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 2nd Ave. at 47th St.(across the street from the UN)


What: Rally by students from Columbia and other universities incuding Rutgers, Brooklyn College and Queens College, area high school students and dozens of Jewish organizations

When: 1-3 p.m.

Where: NYC: Outside Columbia University at W. 116th St. and Broadway

Keep checking back for updates.


American former hostage Barry Rosen, held captive in Iran for 444 days with more than 50 other innocent citizens, delivers his message to Mahmoud in the NYPost today:

Ahmadinejad was one of those outrageous Iranians who took me and more than 50 other Americans hostage for 444 days, violating international law and making us suffer indescribable moments of terror.

There is simply no reason to give him a platform to spew his venom.

No matter how hard-hitting Columbia’s president questions Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader is a winner.
Every word he utters is meant for his radical constituents at home and legitimizes his standing among other dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

It’s only when Ahmadinejad permits his own people to march and speak freely, that I believe Columbia President Lee Bollinger would be justified in giving the Iranian president an open forum.

Not before then.

Clint Taylor looks at Columbia and is reminded of Yale’s embrace of the Taliban.

Michael Rubin nails academia’s selective defense of free speech:

The issue we see with Columbia is deeper than freedom of speech but rather the inconsistency with which university faculties choose to support it. If men like Richard Bulliet and Lee Bollinger, and women like Lisa Marie Anderson cared about freedom of speech, they might want to enable those who don’t have it, rather than celebrate the men who have taken it away.

Exactly. It has been nauseating listening all weekend to the same, speech-squelching student mobsters who shut down secure-borders proponent Jim Gilchrist now preaching about allowing “dissenting voices” to be heard.

There is one, rare voice of sanity and adulthood at Columbia. Power Line reprints a statement from Columbia U’s business school dean, Glenn Hubbard. His bottom line:

Some would argue that a University should be a place of intellectual freedom and open debate, but others ­ including me argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel, has proven himself incapable of engaging in a true and honest academic discussion.