Daily Kos

Recommended.

Good article if anyone chooses to read the entier thing.

Tim

like ours, are Republicans.

Let's get Kerry in the White House. It pisses the nicest people off.

My favorite part of the article was this:

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era -- despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran -- he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

TRANSLATION:  Clinton was too damn hard on us.  Bush talks shit but he never does anything.  Vote for Bush.

Didn't Dick Cheney as CEO of Haliburton try to get the Clinton sanctions lifted off Iran?  Didn't someone here at DKos post a diary on that?

gone off its axis?  

ng Iraq!

Don't forget, Chalabi was an Iranian agent!

Ha.  Axis of Evil Endorses Bush.

Wonder whom Kim Jong Il prefers?

an eariler open thread with more added.

Before the war, if you were Iran, you would want:

1. The Kurds in check, and somewhat powerless.

2. Relative calm across southern Iraq.

3. The Baathist party totally destroyed.

4. The United States militarily to be weakened and for the world to be outraged and galvanized against Bush.

5. Somewhat open boarders, so they could send more people in Iraq and ensure a majority.

6. The unexpected Freebie, you would want to know that the US had cracked your secret codes of communicating.

7. To be invisible, until beaten-down America leaves.

8. Freebie, posters from Abu Ghraid placed around the country to reaffirm anti-western hatred and Iran nationalism.

By my count, the have achieved 8 for 8.

Bush is indeed the man, and if he were President, it would be in their best interest.

first putin of russia, now the supreme national security council of iran. okay, that's the october surprise: bin laden is going to endorse bush for all his help with increasing bin laden's recruiting numbers.

would be placed on the front page of every newspaper in every red and purple state in the country.
Wouldn't Bush's evangelical Christian base be happy about learning this.
Evil Islamic Fundamentalists for Bush!

Keep giving this article a 5 at Yahoo! News--make sure it stays prominent.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=1&u=/ap/20041019/ap_o n_el_pr/iran_us_elections

What is also ironic about this is that Bush has quite a few pockets of support in the Iranian American community.  They perceive that he supports a harsher stance against the hated Iranian Mullahs.  Perhaps these voters should reconsider their stance and throw their weight towards John Kerry.

I guess a better title would have been  Axis of Evil Endorses Bush!

Go on and edit. It's possible, just like the rest.

So Iran has better data than the American public about just how nutzo Clan Neocon really is. I think they made a perfectly logical assessment.

do Republican October surprises always have something to do with the Iranian Moolaws?

Did they negotiate a six-pack deal for the TOW rockets back then?

I hope the Onion doesn't miss out on this brilliant guy and makes an offer to him.

"Remember this America
On November 2nd
Vote for President Bush
For it's in our best interest"

(paid for by 'Ayatollahs for Bush')

As a member of the 'faith based' community Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body has faith in the inability of Bush to take any action against Iran despite his rhetoric.

Seriously, this guy is basically mocking the empty rhetoric that is Bush.

 a great deal on the hostages back in '80.

This headline appeared in my inbox and I thought it was a hoax.  No way!  It's our lucky day.  Go see for yourself - if the Rethugs haven't suppressed it.  (I kept a copy just in case. . . )

This list is a comprehensive detailing of major companies who have illegally traded with Iraq and Iran and their executives who have given money or raised funds for Bush/Cheney.

Excellent fighting material, teammates!  

(I posted on Open Thread but it's topical here.)

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

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

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

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

Stupid Democrats, with their crying about "human rights" and stuff.  Good thing we have a President who never worries about that stuff!!! </heavy sarcasm>

A guy on IRC named Arkin just made this new ad about Iran's endorsement of Bush. You have to hear it!

to reporters across the country.  The more publicity this gets, the better.

Does this mean Bush can make Iran part of the coalition of the Willing....replacing Poland.

Now I ran. Would be funny if it wasnt so damn true

New bumper sticker:

Cheney* democracy!
Fascists for Bush!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* = f*ck

Who says Kerry is the popular pick among foreign leaders?
So far Bush has:

Khaddafi
Putin
Iran's Mullahs

I betcha Kim Jong Il is about to weigh in for W too.

...to Bill O'Reilly! If you're not sure what I'm talking about look at this headline from  
Media Matters:

On NBC's Today show, O'Reilly joined the terrorists-for-Kerry chorus

FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly joined a long line of media figures in echoing the Republican suggestion that terrorists would like to see Senator John Kerry beat President George W. Bush in the November presidential election. O'Reilly appeared as a guest on NBC's Today show ostensibly to tout his new book aimed at children and teenagers, The O'Reilly Factor for Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families (HarperEntertainment, September 2004).

Bill, don't you ever tire of being wrong?

We have:

PUTIN/KGB
IRAN
HALIBURTON
LYBIA
TONY BLAIR
KKK
NORTH KOREA (PENDING)
NRA
OSAMA BIN LADEN
RNC
SWIFT BOAT VETS
EVANGELIFUNDIES

Withh a lineup like that, who could doubt his ability!

I gave it a high rating on Yahoo, but can't find it on Google. How do we get it up there?

The highest contacts between Iranian repersentatives and US representatives occured in 2003 in Cairo.  And the Iranian regime absolutely LOVES Cheney who talked about lifting sanctions.

The funny part is that the biggest Iranian-American 'opponents' of the regime in Tehran (The Monarchists, the MKO, and the few Azari seperatists) are all hard-core supporters of the neo-con movement.  People like Rob Sobhani (ran for US Senate from MD as an R) have even advocated bombing Iran directly.  

Its very interesting because behind the scenes, every 'Iranologist' knows that the Iranian oligarchy prefers Bush b/c they know they have a better chance of having sanctions lifted and having trade deals with US companies (just like Gaddafi did)

this quote is certainly not a surprise to me.

Or, if you prefer, a case of damning with faint praise.  The ayatollahs are very subtle in their approach, and very sly.  This "endorsement" is completely disingenuous.  About the only way they could have made it more devastating would be to admit that it was so easy to plant their mole Chalabi under Bush, whereas all attempts to do something like that in the Clinton years failed.  That must have been tempting for them, but they no doubt realized it would give the game away completely.

This also shows they have a far greater understanding of our society and political culture than we have of theirs.

Let's see ...

On the Kerry side, we have the ex-diplomats, the retired generals, and the Nobel laureates.

On the Bush side, we have Pakistan, Russia and Iran.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041014-084639-5209r.htm

Kerry's Iran scandal

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Kerry-Edwards campaign is headed toward a campaign finance scandal involving contributions on behalf of a foreign power, similar to allegations that plagued Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. Instead of Communist China, this time the foreign power seeking to influence a U.S. presidential candidate is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's premier state sponsor of international terror.
    The Chinese sought U.S. military technology to enhance their nuclear missiles. The record shows the Clinton administration provided them key assistance in that area.

    The so-called "Islamic" republic of Iran is seeking from Mr. Kerry a series of concessions that would allow them to become a nuclear weapons power and circumvent the restrictions of the USA Patriot act to infiltrate intelligence agents and potential terrorists into the United States.
    How could Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards, who claim to be able to defend America better than President Bush, allow themselves to fall into such a trap? Top Kerry and Edwards advisers warned both candidates against accepting campaign donations from people with close ties to mullahs in Tehran months ago, sources inside their respective campaigns say. And yet, neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Edwards has done anything to distance himself from these donors. On the contrary, both have continued to take their money and promote their agenda.
    Mr. Kerry adopted a key element of that agenda in last week's presidential debate. If president, he said he would have "offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel" to Iran, to "test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." Mr. Kerry's words brought comfort to Tehran's top mullahs, who have been seeking to buy time from the international community for the past two years while they continue perfecting their nuclear weapons capabilities.
    Even the International Atomic Energy Agency is no longer willing to certify Iran's "peaceful purposes" in seeking nuclear technology. I heard that personally from the lips of IAEA Director General Mohammad el Baradei while reporting from Vienna, Austria, two weeks ago during a board of governers meeting on Iran's case.
    And yet, Mr. Kerry thinks the United States should open trade with Iran's clerics, not isolate them -- as if concessions could convince them to abandon their pursuit of 20 years duration in the face of U.S. and international punishment.
    Mr. Kerry's support for a pro-regime agenda is troubling as America enters an extremely difficult phase of the war on terror. Tehran's mullahs are playing a sophisticated shell game with their nuclear capabilities. Like a drunken reveler at a county fair, Mr. Kerry has bought the empty shell, while proudly insisting that "as president, I'll never take my eye off that ball."
    Top among the pro-regime fund-raisers who have contributed to the Kerry campaign is a recent Iranian immigrant in California named Susan Akbarpour.
    Miss Akbarpour came to this country in 1997, claiming to be a political refugee. In seeking asylum, she told U.S. authorities she feared she would be persecuted if she was forced to return to Iran. And yet, in court records I examined in California and described in this month's American Spectator, Miss Akbarpour maintained a privileged relationship with government agencies of the Islamic Republic, even after she came the United States. (Her lawyers deny this, but in the settlement agreement the disputed document is allowed to stand).
    Here in the United States, Miss Akbarpour has become an outspoken public supporter of the regime -- odd behavior for someone who claims to have been persecuted in Iran. She has been one of the privileged few admitted to closed-door meetings with regime officials visiting the United States, and has been videotaped by Iranian television reporters in Los Angeles screaming at pro-freedom demonstrators. As part of her effort to build a pro-regime lobby among Iranian-American high-tech executives, she has hosted conferences to promote venture capital investment in Iran, though the Clinton administration made it illegal for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to invest in Iran.
    The Kerry campaign credits Miss Akbarpour and her new husband, Faraj Aalaie, with each raising $50,000 to $100,000 for the presidential campaign. Mr. Aalaie is president of Centillium Communications, a Nasdaq-listed software firm.
    These contributions continue despite even though Miss Akbarpour was not a permanent U.S. resident when she made her initial contribution to Mr. Kerry on June 17, 2002, as this reporter first revealed in March. (To be legal, campaign cash must come from U.S. citizens or permanent residents).
    Miss Akbarpour, her husband and members of the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) hosted a fund-raiser featuring Rep. Anna Eshoo, California Democrat, last Sunday in California. Ms. Eshoo is a member of the House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence.
    IAPAC's agenda includes opening trade with Iran and ending the fingerprinting of Iranians coming to the United States, two measures with pro-democracy advocates say will bolster the rule of radical clerics in Tehran and allow them to more easily send intelligence operatives to this country.
    Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards need to distance themselves from the pro-regime lobbyists who are raising money for their campaign. To start with, they might return money raised by Susan Akbarpour, some of which was donated illegally. They might also explain how they would help bring freedom to Iran, instead of bringing comfort to the ruling mullahs.

    Kenneth R. Timmerman is author of "The French Betrayal of America" and others books from Crown Forum.

Remember THIS gem?
The statement tells Americans that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election of President George W. Bush.
'We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections,' it said.
Addressing Bush, it said: 'We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you.'
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's 'idiocy and religious fanaticism' because they would 'wake up' the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, 'Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization.'
The group also repeated its claim of responsibility for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad last August, when 22 people were killed, including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
The statement described the United Nations as 'America's tail.' 'The United Nations is a branch of the American Foreign Ministry,' it said. 'The crimes of the United Nations against Islam are countless. The way to get rid of that humiliation is through holy war that will continue until doomsday.'

Would make a fine bumper sticker.
Of course, Iran has many reasons to prefer Bush. He got rid of the Talibans and of Saddam for them, and those were 2 of the biggest enemies in Tehran hit list (Israel, USA and Pakistan probably complete that list). Then, Bush's policies made oil prices sky-rocket, which means more profits for Iran. The same goes for Russia, whose incomes have greatly increased, and whose president just fell short of endorsing W a couple of days ago.
And both Russia and Iran sees that a Bush-led US power can only go down, which is to their liking.

that as I speak the local morning news stations are accurately (!) reporting this story here in TN.  Amazing. Hehe I hope this has traction.

Yet another anti-democratic right wing religious organization for Bush.  I'm not sure this really ads much.

I'll bet the mullahs have a certain amount of respect for Bush.  "Damn, when we took over our country, we had to do a whole revolution thing.  You just slide right in their with the help of friends of your Dad."

You can learn the weirdest things if you collect Oriental rugs. The moderator of a rug mailing list I belong to is a hardcore Repub and claims to be working on W's campaign staff. He also claims that the U.S. is negotiating secretly with Iran to get Bin Laden's son as part of a deal to influence the election. I found his post to be profoundly creepy:

Bush is the better choice to fight terrorism? I just do not get it. Why can't Kerry come out and say that Bush is soft on terror and does not offer better protection, in fact he is inferior to Kerry when it comes to keeping us safe? With much evidence, why does Bush get high approvals? He did not protect us from the 911 attack. He used 911 to go after the wrong enemy. He did not do anything about the attack on the Cole. He has not secured our ports and nuclear power plants. What do we have to do to change this idea that Bush would do a better job on terror that sticks in the minds of the people? He is a bully and had made the world more dangerous. It is so frustrating!