Speakeasy forum

General discussion

So the terrorists want Kerry to win, huh?

by Josh K / October 24, 2004 11:32 PM PDT
Then why did the head of Iran's security council just endorse Bush?

TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said on Tuesday the re-election of President Bush (news - web sites) was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.


Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.


"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.


"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."


Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: So the terrorists want Kerry to win, huh?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: So the terrorists want Kerry to win, huh?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: So the terrorists want Kerry to win, huh?
by TONI H / October 24, 2004 11:55 PM PDT

Sanctions that Iran can ignore or buy their way out of like Saddam was able to beat the hell out of pushing the buttons of a President who can and will shove back.

TONI

Collapse -
Should we take that at face value?
by Bill Osler / October 25, 2004 2:37 AM PDT

I don't know how to interpret the Iranian remarks.

Do they want Kerry to lose (as stated) or do they want to stir the pot to make Bush look soft on Iran and alter voter perceptions enough so that Kerry wins?

When dealing with security types one never knows what is true and what is disinformation.

Collapse -
Re: Should we take that at face value?
by Josh K / October 25, 2004 6:43 AM PDT
When dealing with security types one never knows what is true and what is disinformation.

The same can probably be said about the Iranian government in general.

I wonder though --- had they endorsed Kerry, how much you wanna bet certain members of this forum would have been happy to take it at face value and post "See??? See??? They want Kerry to win!! See???"

Wink
Collapse -
Re: Should we take that at face value?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 25, 2004 1:25 PM PDT

Hi, Dr. Bill.

I think you give the Iranians more credit for deviousness than they deserve -- they're usually straightforward about things (ask Salomon Rushdie!)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Gimme a break.They'll be dancing in the streets if he wins.
by EdH / October 25, 2004 2:43 AM PDT

Because they know Kerry will do nothing against them.

Collapse -
Re: So the terrorists want Kerry to win, huh?
by Roger NC / October 25, 2004 3:04 AM PDT
...preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.


Maybe it's that simple. They feel that they are immune from any direct action, or can at least avoid any, on issues like the nuclear proliferation. But they don't want to be portrayed in public as such human right violaters that some of the rest of the world/UN might (even if reluctantly) take a public stand against them.

Perhaps they balenced out where they saw risks and/or inconveniences for them and decided they were weakest there.

Of course, that's accepting (ad hoc? or historical?) assumption that Republicans would press human rights issue less than Democrats.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
Why ask when you posted the answer?
by Edward ODaniel / October 25, 2004 7:32 AM PDT
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats,"...


Interestingly enough we too haven't seen anything good from Democrats.

Collapse -
Re: Why ask when you posted the answer?
by cbbrown / October 25, 2004 8:46 AM PDT

Meaning that you agree with a terroist-sponsoring nation and part of the axis of evil that Democrats should not try to hold their feet to the fire on human rights.

Nice of you to tell us.

Collapse -
When have the Dems held anyone's feet to the fire...
by EdH / October 25, 2004 9:00 AM PDT

on Human Rights? They were horrified that Reagan kept harping on it to the Soviets and China.

"Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body."

When was that? When the peanut farmer sent the helicopters to crash in the desert? Sounds a lot to me like "Don't throw me in that briar patch"

Collapse -
Although there is no such 'meaning' in my...
by Edward ODaniel / October 25, 2004 10:17 AM PDT

comment it would do you good to do a little searching and discover that Iranians assisted the coalition along the Iraq/Iran border (Kerry's French kin were conspicuously absent) and that they have turned over several terrorists.

Regarding "human rights" you might look at who the countries on the UN Human Rights Commission are since voting the US off the commission--such fine upstanding human rights advocates as Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Togo.
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/2001digest/may-jun/un_ousting_of_us_from_human_righ.htm

While I won't blame Clinton the Democrat, it should be noted that much of the ill will against the US came about or was exacerbated during his time in office.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It just goes to show. No one can be wrong ALL the time.
by Kiddpeat / October 25, 2004 1:59 PM PDT
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.