| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Ahmadnejad insists on Ground Zero Visit |
| 2007-09-20 |
| HT Drudge... (New York - WABC, September 19, 2007) - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested to visit Ground Zero during an upcoming trip to New York. That request was rejected Wednesday. But a source tells Eyewitness News that the decision may not stop him. A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m. The source says regardless of the NYPD's rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran's president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States. The Iranian mission to the United Nations made the initial request to the NYPD and the Secret Service, who will jointly oversee security during the president's two-day visit. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly, as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment program. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the NYPD and Secret Service were in discussions with the Iranian mission about the logistics for the possible visit to the World Trade Center site. "There has been some interest expressed in his visiting the area," Kelly said. "It's something that we are prepared to handle if in fact it does happen." The request was rejected Wednesday afternoon in a meeting which included NYPD, Secret Service and Port Authority officials, who said the site is closed to visitors because of construction. They said requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds. Kelly said that Ahmadinejad had not indicated why he wants to visit the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Mayor Rudy Giuliani released the following statement on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden's son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero - hallowed ground for all Americans - is outrageous." Senator Hillary Clinton released the following statement: "It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country's support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history." |
| Posted by:BigEd |
| #33 Unless it's the end result of a legal judicial process, of course. Which is how it should be—in terms of targeted killings—but I digress. I'll sum up by saying that I have most often posted about my wish that Ahmadinejad would catch a headshot in front of untold numbers of his admirers. NO! Not at Columbia University, I mean in Tehran! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 22:51 |
| #32 I think a pretty solid rule to follow us not to talk about killing Americans or killing people in America. That tends to concern people who's job it is to be concerned about such things. Unless it's the end result of a legal judicial process, of course. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-09-20 22:25 |
| #31 You are falling into the politically correct trap of not saying something controversial because you're afraid someone will bust your chops for it. Guys, this little fuckwad is an enemy. Killing him is not taboo. Mentioning a rifle as the mechanism as opposed to say burying him, which comment was allowed to stand yesterday, is not inappropriate. There's controversial, and then there's short-sighted stupidity. Yes, he's a fuckwad. Yes, he deserves killing. But. Not. In. New. York. You may think it appropriate. But you don't have to live with the fallout. Or have to personally deal with the consequences. Or do any of the heavy lifting that results. If my troops have to fight, I'd rather it be on our terms, and not because some 'patriot' decided it for us. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-09-20 21:39 |
| #30 Frank, puhleese don't try to convince me that a snarkmeister like you is humor impaired. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 21:38 |
| #29 violent agreement? Please clarify. I'm in agreement as well, but if I'm getting into an ass-kicking contest, I wanna know why and when. |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2007-09-20 21:24 |
| #28 As a participant in the takeover of the embassy, he should be a) banned from the US and b) arrested for his crimes if he does show. Nothing less is acceptable. Fear not, Mercutio, we are in violent agreement. Ahmadinejad's disregard for—and violation of—International soil should strip him of diplomatic immunity. We are the worst sort of fools for allowing this Islamic cockroach to set foot upon American soil. Otherwise, trailing wife sums it up rather well. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 20:19 |
| #27 Mercutio, 'tis said some of our lurkers wear very neat black suits with crisp white shirts, and some are not now wearing their uniforms. (Or at least, given the caliber of the non-snark analysis here, I hope so -- it would be well worth their while to check in periodically). But we don't want to say the kinds of things they would have to take entirely more seriously than would have been meant, and our moderators work to ensure that. Zenster is aware of that, hence his immediate response yesterday, since on more than one occasion he has added a great deal to our discussions. We all understand the sentiment, though -- especially our moderators, I suspect. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-20 20:07 |
| #26 Z. I don't disagree that Fred (POOBAH - May He Find Many More Dirty Old Lady Pics) gets to set the rules. I merely believe those rules were violated/mis-interpreted by purging an appropriate response to a totally unacceptable gimmick dreamed up by one of this country's most active enemies. As a participant in the takeover of the embassy, he should be a) banned from the US and b) arrested for his crimes if he does show. And no, I really don't care very much about the agreement with the UN to let scum into the country. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2007-09-20 20:06 |
| #25 The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime Don't anybody kid themselves, Ahmadinejad is going after a terrorist "trophy". |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 19:58 |
| #24 You know why he wants to go to Ground Zero? The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime*. * By no means do I consider Ground Zero to be a crime scene - it was just another attack in Islam's long war against the West. I just couldn't say "a criminal always returns to the scene of the attack" and have the line work. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2007-09-20 19:30 |
| #23 Mercutio, thank you for providing an outside assessment of yesterday's snafu. While I might agree with much of what you posted, it remains that Rantburg and its moderators make the rules and we follow them. Participation here is voluntary and strictly at Fred's discretion. I think it's safe to say that—for how often I have opposed the accepted wisdom here—Rantburg is nothing less than a last bastion of truly free speech. If there were even a remote chance that my suggestion might have drawn unwanted attention from other circles, then Steve White had every right to redact my post. In light of the short shrift Rantburg gives Political Correctness, I'm more than willing to dismiss it as being the reason my comment was redacted. Time might prove me wrong but I sincerely doubt it. Again, I deeply appreciate your own take on this. I, too, feel that Ahmadinejad is both an enemy of the state and a direct accomplice in the murder of American soldiers and citizens. My initial post's mention of "hostage-taking" was a direct reference to 1979. All said and done, I still feel that the Bush administration has its head in the sand about this. There should an executive order prohibiting Ahmadinejad from getting within even a mile of Ground Zero. You and I both know that this visit is strictly for purposes of propaganda back in Iran and that it would be a travesty for national security if it is permitted. Bush simply has no grasp as to the vital importance of propaganda in largely illiterate high context Muslim cultures. His inability to properly articulate Islam's threat threat to America reflects this astonishing lack of appreciation on his part. This shortcoming already costs—and will continue to cost—American lives by needlessly prolonging this conflict and inadequately militating the public against Islam. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 18:41 |
| #22 JohnQC (#17), I can see your point, in complete agreement. The first mental image that comes to my mind was that of Hitler and his smirk, standing bold and tall in front of the Arc de Triomphe when France fell. Who can guarantee me, right here and right now, that Ahmadinejad won't smirk or crack the slightest smile that cameras may pick up on zoom, while standing at the 'Pit of the revenge to the 'Great Satan'"? |
| Posted by: smn 2007-09-20 18:37 |
| #21 The term "tear limb from limb" comes to mind. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-20 18:26 |
| #20 No use protesting or demonstrating at the UN, save the people power for ground zero. They (the secret service can ferret him in and out of the UN by underground or by in yard or building top heli. Much more difficult for a blood fanged gawking Ahmadinejad at ground zero. The crowds can be held back by force by the Feds but not at the cost of that photo shoot flying aroung the world of the US Government 'rough housing' it's citizens to allow a known terrorist standing tall, gloating at the nation's par-non #1 memorial site! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-09-20 18:19 |
| #19 It would be a mistake if he were allowed to visit the site. It would be a bigger mistake if he were allowed to leave the site alive. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2007-09-20 17:49 |
| #18 as quoted in the NY Sun: When, at a private dinner party at which Ambassador Gillerman was also present, Mr. Kelly was asked what he thought Mr. Ahmadinejad would want to do at ground zero, the commissioner growled that the Iranian wanted to "scout the next attack." |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-09-20 17:29 |
| #17 This little turd was part of the rabble that seized the American embassy in 1979. This should have been an act of war then. Today, he is not about respecting what happened at the WTCs. He is about exploiting a visit for propaganda in the muzzie world. Personally, I don't give a crap what happens to this little version of a muslim Hitler. He is an evil man. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-20 17:12 |
| #16 Reading round the blogosphere - he might not even be able to get there! Organization is happening! From Michelle Markin: Update 3:20pm Eastern 9/20. Ken Timmerman sends word that his organization, Foundation for Democracy in Iran, is organizing with David Bossie of Citizens United, to counter-protest at Ground Zero. They are chartering buses from Washington, D.C.: Dear Friends of Freedom, The Foundation for Democracy in Iran, in coordination with Citizens United and other groups, is calling on all Americans, regardless of their origin or political believes to come to New York on Monday to defend Ground Zero from desecration by the terrorist president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We will be chartering buses from the Washington, DC area. Please watch our website, www.iran.org, for more details and for rendezvous points. And the latest update at www.iran.org/ Sept. 20, 2007: • Update, 4:41 PM: Ahmadinejad tells Scott Pelly of CBS 60 Minutes he is "amazed" that Americans are upset about him going to Ground Zero, and hints he may drop that part of his trip. But don't bet on it. You can send an email to the US Secret Service, who will handle his security (now that NYPD says it won't), to protest their action.(More phone numbers, here) (I didn't do the linky thingy from the update) |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-09-20 16:57 |
| #15 I suppose ya could go all Islamic and stone him... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-20 16:23 |
| #14 Yesterday Zenster was censored for mentioning a sniper rifle in connection for this story. The moderator(s) felt he had transgressed some putative line in the sand. He even apologized. I respectfully submit that he broke no such bounds of decency. IF he had recommended the target as the Mayor who apparently sanctions this travesty, or George Soros, or Columbia University, or ANSWER, Code Pink, etc. etc. etc., then you all would have a point. As it was he suggested a target who is an enemy of America and democracy in general, one who advocates the destruction of a major US ally and who has threatened the US as well. He is reputed to have been involved in the US embassy takeover and have been a part of assasinations in Austria. There's no question that is gov't is killing US service men and women in an undeclared war. You are falling into the politically correct trap of not saying something controversial because you're afraid someone will bust your chops for it. Guys, this little fuckwad is an enemy. Killing him is not taboo. Mentioning a rifle as the mechanism as opposed to say burying him, which comment was allowed to stand yesterday, is not inappropriate. This is the last site I'd have expected political correctness to rear it's ugly behind. Don't screw it up. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2007-09-20 15:45 |
| #13 HELL NO, HE WON'T GO!!! If New Yorkers and others visiting the good city were to traffic jam the first 3 blocks around the site by cars; and throw in half a million on the streets (sort of like a New Years eve party), a powerful message would be sent to him and his mop headed bosses! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-09-20 15:12 |
| #12 Arrest him for disturbing the peace and then let him spend a night in the pokey. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-09-20 15:12 |
| #11 And we insist on tossing rotten tomatoes at him. Only fair. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-09-20 14:50 |
| #10 I imagine he wants to visit Ground Zero for the same reason Japanese tourists used to visit the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor. Really? When I visited the Arizona, back in '89 or so, there were a surprising number of Japanese tourists. We had a young tour guide give a little speech before we got on the boats. Said his grandmother (an immigrant from the Phillipines) drove a forklift during the war. At the end of his talk he re-iterated: Never forget. I wondered what the Japanese were thinking. Come to think of it, I don't remember many Japanese on the Missouri, but it's not organized the way the Arizona tour is. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2007-09-20 13:37 |
| #9 If he refuses to leave the chopper, set him on fire. Isn't there some way to do both? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 13:32 |
| #8 He insists... Well, what part of NO he doesn't understand? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-20 13:18 |
| #7 How uncouth. A well-mannered guest respects his host's stated limits. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-20 13:18 |
| #6 I imagine he wants to visit Ground Zero for the same reason Japanese tourists used to visit the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor. The lure of the USS Arizona to Japanese has been diminished since President Bush parked the USS Missouri next to it. For some reason they aren't as eager to visit the USS Missouri. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-09-20 13:11 |
| #5 Expect prayer rugs. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-09-20 12:56 |
| #4 Im sure we can arrange a Lee Harvey Oswald to take him out!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-09-20 12:23 |
| #3 If he shows up, drop a girder on him... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-20 12:20 |
| #2 Give him the full WTC experience -- lift him up in a helicopter to the 100th story level, then drop him. If he refuses to leave the chopper, set him on fire. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-09-20 12:13 |
| #1 Tell this worthless hostage-taking turd to walk on over there by himself. I'm sure there's plenty of New Yorkers who'd love to give him a personal |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-20 11:48 |