Iran Endorses Bush (no joke)

[SpazzMunky]

Although it does read like something out of the Onion....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections_1




Presidential Elections - AP
AP
Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Tue Oct 19, 4:22 PM ET


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

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.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

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."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Clinton in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations, but in recent days there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday as saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West, but will not concede its right to the technology.



The nuclear issue has been most sensitive, and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Washington accuses Tehran of trying to build bombs. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran, and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.



rofl rofl rofl

[Romulus]

The title should read " Hasan Rowhani would rather have Bush Re-elected"

[usa320]

wow... that surprising...

[SpazzMunky]

The title should read " Hasan Rowhani would rather have Bush Re-elected"

He happens to be head of Iran's National Security Council. How much more official do you want it? A public statement from the Ayatollah?

[KB]

The Bush Administration has eliminated Afghanistan and Iraq as threats; Iran hasn't had to fire a shot.

[scm77]

But aren't they worried about the US firing shots at them?

[VorpalDoom]

Israel will do something about it long before the US does anything.

Israel will do something about it long before the US does anything.

I really doubt that, I don't think israel would attack iran

[SpazzMunky]

Israel will do something about it long before the US does anything.

I really doubt that, I don't think israel would attack iran

I think Isreal would. A nuclear Iran would be an intolerable threat to Isreal, and they aren't worried about pissing anyone off, because everyone in that area hates them anyway. There isn't much to lose from such a maneuvar.

[moughoun]

Israel will do something about it long before the US does anything.

I really doubt that, I don't think israel would attack iran

I think Isreal would. A nuclear Iran would be an intolerable threat to Isreal, and they aren't worried about pissing anyone off, because everyone in that area hates them anyway. There isn't much to lose from such a maneuvar.
the fear is Iran might only need 3,4weapon's to obliterate Isreal, Israel need's atleast 20 to 25 to cripple Iran,

[moughoun]

But aren't they worried about the US firing shots at them?
Not really, the US is engaged in Afghanisatn, Iraq and a few other place's, they just can't handle an Iran sized war right now

[OB Kenobi]

This just shows what a great job Bush is doing. ;)

[Romulus]

The title should read " Hasan Rowhani would rather have Bush Re-elected"

He happens to be head of Iran's National Security Council. How much more official do you want it? A public statement from the Ayatollah?

I know that.

Thats like saying, Condi Rice hopes Chirac wins re-election.


A public statement from the Ayatollah?

Yeah then I could justify saying Iran supports Bush's re-election.

[Phil642]

Conservatives of all countries united! rofl

[Sir Zach of R.]

Conservatives of all countries united! rofl
:cantbeli:

[Moledet]

Israel will do something about it long before the US does anything.

I really doubt that, I don't think israel would attack iran

I think Isreal would. A nuclear Iran would be an intolerable threat to Isreal, and they aren't worried about pissing anyone off, because everyone in that area hates them anyway. There isn't much to lose from such a maneuvar.
the fear is Iran might only need 3,4weapon's to obliterate Isreal, Israel need's atleast 20 to 25 to cripple Iran,
The public oppinion is for attacking Iran, if someone make a poll, probably 75%-80% will support attacking Iran (muslims are 20% of the Israelis, that's why the percentage won't be over 90%).

We aren't afraid of them at all, we know this type of countries too well, they like to bark and show their nice weapons, but that's it, they are frighthend of making anything larger.

[priccobe]

I'll bold the REAL reason they would most likely want a Democrat over a Republican. Also, see bottom for the truth about this AP Post.


Although it does read like something out of the Onion....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections_1




Presidential Elections - AP
AP
Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Tue Oct 19, 4:22 PM ET


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

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.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

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."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Clinton in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations, but in recent days there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday as saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West, but will not concede its right to the technology.



The nuclear issue has been most sensitive, and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Washington accuses Tehran of trying to build bombs. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran, and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.



rofl rofl rofl

Here's an AFP release on the Turkish News website. Look how the Associated Press deliberately omitted a key portion of Hasan Rowhani’s statements. These statements make it very clear Iran does not endorse Bush at all: Kerry or Bush, makes no difference to us: Iran. http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=31107


TEHRAN, Oct 19 (AFP) - It makes no real difference to Iran whether US President George W. Bush or Democrat contender John Kerry wins the presidential elections, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

"We have not seen any good coming from the Democrats, so we won't be happy if the Democrats win," he said.

"Also we should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during Clinton's administration," Rowhani added, referring to former president Bill Clinton.

[Fox2]

Perhaps we should look at this at more than face value?

Obviously, a sworn enemy of the United States endorsing one candidate or the other would definitely be bad PR for that candidate. The Iranians aren't stupid; they know this. By making public their "support" for President Bush, they give him bad publicity.

I'm willing to guess that the true situation is exactly the opposite. They don't like President Bush because he might just be willing to engage in a war with them. So, to try and damage his campaign as much as possible, they come out publicly in "support".

I'm sure a lot of the resident spin doctors will scoff at the premise of -- *gasp* -- taking what the Iranians say with a grain of salt. Regardless, have a good one and just some thoughts. :D

[cut]

I'll bold the REAL reason they would most likely want a Democrat over a Republican. Also, see bottom for the truth about this AP Post.


Although it does read like something out of the Onion....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections_1




Presidential Elections - AP
AP
Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Tue Oct 19, 4:22 PM ET


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

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.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

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."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Clinton in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations, but in recent days there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday as saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West, but will not concede its right to the technology.



The nuclear issue has been most sensitive, and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Washington accuses Tehran of trying to build bombs. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran, and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.



rofl rofl rofl

Here's an AFP release on the Turkish News website. Look how the Associated Press deliberately omitted a key portion of Hasan Rowhani’s statements. These statements make it very clear Iran does not endorse Bush at all: Kerry or Bush, makes no difference to us: Iran. http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=31107


TEHRAN, Oct 19 (AFP) - It makes no real difference to Iran whether US President George W. Bush or Democrat contender John Kerry wins the presidential elections, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

"We have not seen any good coming from the Democrats, so we won't be happy if the Democrats win," he said.

"Also we should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during Clinton's administration," Rowhani added, referring to former president Bill Clinton.


I bet you wouldn't rely on Agence France Press in any other situation

[priccobe]

Well, I'm forced to rely on whatever news stories get posted whether it's by *******, AP, AFP, BBC... I just don't like it when the gut of the story is the same yet two different news organizations spin it completely differently.