September 20, 2007

Terrorists Go Home -- And That Means You, Mahmoud

These days, not too much unites Americans. We spend most of our time heatedly debating the war in Iraq, domestic spending policies, and issues of culture and race. However, one event has galvanized the American body politic into unanimity, and ironically, it's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero:

New York pols were outraged at the prospect of the Iranian stepping on perhaps the city's most hallowed ground.

"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," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the idea "outrageous."

"This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring [Osama] Bin Laden's son and other al Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons," he said.

Frankly, it's appalling that Ahmadinejad will enter the US at all. Our agreement with the UN forces us to issue the Iranian president a visa for his visit to Turtle Bay, which may be yet another argument for asking the UN to find another shore. Of all the tinpot dictators to enter the US through this technicality, Ahmadinejad and his Hitleresque take on the Jews may be the most offensive ever.

The visit to Ground Zero would be an insult to the memory of the thousands who died there. Their murderers held the same radical Islamist philosophy of the Iranian president, and his visit there amounts to triumphalism -- and don't think for a moment that the jihadists won't realize that. They will replay video of Ahmadinejad's homage to the work of Mohammed Atta and his crews ad nauseam. Ayman al-Zawahiri will feature it in AQ videos for years.

Even though the city has rejected the request, Ahmadinejad is still determined to get his photo op:

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.

I'm not in New York City. However, I'm sure that the same people who strapped a nation on their back and showed us how Americans react to cowards and their sneak attacks will not allow Ahmadinejad to make it to Ground Zero. We can expect a massive example of civil disobedience, with New Yorkers lining the streets to block Ahmadinejad's access to the site. If enough of them hit the street, the police will not be able to stop New Yorkers from bringing Ahmadinejad's progress to a standstill -- and given how many NYPD and FDNY heroes died at the site, they may not be motivated to assist Ahmadinejad at all.

We need to send a message to the jihadists: Terrorists, Go Home. That includes their chief sponsor.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrorists Go Home -- And That Means You, Mahmoud:

» U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero from Stop The ACLU
UPDATE: He plans to go anyway, despite the NYPD rejection! Michelle Malkin is trying to organize a counter protest! Anyone in NYC know how to apply for a permit to organize a counter-protest to defend Ground Zero? Is it too late? Think this will hap... [Read More]

Comments (89)

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 20, 2007 9:48 AM

Let him visit. He cannot do anything to tarnish that hallowed ground. But let him walk through peaceful protest which admonishes him.

If we're smart enough we'll throw in a few "embrace Judaism" signs in the gamut he must walk.

Of course, he'll think our government organized the protests, because that's how they do things in his land.

Posted by TomB | September 20, 2007 9:51 AM

My plan for Ahmadinejad's visit:
1. Airport;
2. Hotel;
3. UN;
4. Airport.
Specifically, no shopping and no free walks, rides, or talks. Everything under strict FBI control (for his own good), all transportation in a van with no windows.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 20, 2007 9:52 AM

Feh, let him visit. We're bigger than that, Ed.

Posted by hermie | September 20, 2007 9:55 AM

I'd modify that list:

1. Airport

2. 2 hrs at Baggage Claim

3. 3 Hrs in NYC Rush hour traffic.

4. 2 hrs in hotel lobby while they try to 'find' his reservation

5. 2 more hours in NYC traffic

6. UN

7. 3 hours in traffic on way to airport

8. 3 hours waiting to get through TSA check

9. 2 hours on tarmack waiting to take off.

Posted by itsspideyman | September 20, 2007 9:56 AM

I would love to see hundreds of thousands in New York blocking the motorcade, forcing him to turn around.

Let him try. But STOP HIM.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 20, 2007 10:06 AM


He's got a beard. Should TSA not give him the full montie?

Posted by Ripper | September 20, 2007 10:06 AM

'Feh, let him visit. We're bigger than that, Ed.'
Are you nuts? How about a David Duke visit to Treblinka? Ed is right - a I'madinnerjacket visit has an air of triumphalism about it. His otorcade? Well "they shall not pass" is a great battle cry.

Posted by Immolate | September 20, 2007 10:07 AM

"But let him walk through peaceful protest which admonishes him"

In New York???? Fuggedabowdit

Posted by treehugger | September 20, 2007 10:14 AM

My nephew is serving in the US Armed Forces, the very same forces that the thug in chief is attempting to kill with IEDs and such.

To even let him step on American soil is an insult to every man and woman in uniform.

I guess you don't have a loved one in harms way, Starfleet Dude.

The fact that you are willing to overlook his role in the murderous attacks on the very people who have pledged THEIR lives to keep YOU safe is despicable.

Posted by Peyton | September 20, 2007 10:18 AM

I'manutjob's gonna visit on his own, without the protection of the Secret Service or NYPD? What a shame, should sumthin' happen to him. Are there any really deep holes at the site that the crowd might jostle him into?

Posted by TomB | September 20, 2007 10:19 AM

He shouldn't be let out of a windowless van. Any footage of him on a street will be used as a propaganda tool to show how submissive and stupid Americans really are. He, after all, is one of the US Embassy kidnapers for heavens sake! We have to let him in to visit UN, but I hope free street walks and types of vehicle were not specified in the UN Charter.

Posted by hvywgt | September 20, 2007 10:21 AM

Simple list:

1. Airport

2. UN in the back of a garbage truck.

3. Airport.

Posted by Salamantis | September 20, 2007 10:21 AM

If he is allowed to lay a wreath at the site, videos and downloads of it will flood the Islamic world, labeled something like this:

President Ahmedinejad laying a wreath at the sacred site of the glorious martyrdom of several brave shaheeds, in honor of and gratitude for their steadfast and pious actions, which struck a holy jihadist blow at the profane and despised vitals of the Great Satan.

Such a video would serve both to inspire present mujahids, and to recruit new ones. We should NOT allow this to happen.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | September 20, 2007 10:23 AM

Is ANYONE in the NYC or New York State, or heaven forbid, the USG, going to accompany him the Ground Zero or be there when he arrives? If any are, make bold note of their names. If Bloomberg shows up, as rumored, as part of the delegation, his political career is toast.

Let him go to Ground Zero. And let the people of New York be there to let him know exactly how they feel about it. He has said that the American people are not his enemies, only the US Administration. Well, let the American people let him know that they are no friends of his. A few thousand Americans exercising their 1st Amendment Rights would send a pretty clear message to this nutjob.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 20, 2007 10:27 AM

My idea of showing respect to those who died at Ground Zero isn't to bitch about who visits there. Nothing, not even a visit by Osama bin Laden himself, could diminish the tragedy of that day or the bravery of those who died giving their all for their fellow men.

Posted by Sashland | September 20, 2007 10:29 AM

Sorry, no Secret Service protection provided.

Didn't Iran supply Iraq insurgants with Austrian rifle scopes and British night vision goggles.?

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 20, 2007 10:45 AM

Steve Benen has a thoughtful take on all this here:

Ahmadinejad denied access to Ground Zero

Posted by NahnCee | September 20, 2007 10:48 AM

starfleet - question out of idle curiosity: did you *ever* meet a terrorist you couldn't love? If so, who might that be?

Posted by Jack Okie | September 20, 2007 10:50 AM


The answer is: No, in some cases, we can't just all get along. This jerk is funneling weapons into Iraq intended to kill our troops.

How old are you, anyway? Do you have even one hair on your a$$? How many people respect you, as opposed to liking you (which I'll admit might be possible)?

Posted by quickjustice | September 20, 2007 10:52 AM

I went down to Ground Zero on 9/11/07, and saw the Truthers on the street corners, spouting out their venomous lies that "Bush and the Jews" perpetrated 9/11. Ahmadinejad is of a piece with them.

I then joined Karol in her counter-protest. The Truthers outnumbered us, but the passers-by were supportive.

If Ahmadinejad chooses to go to Ground Zero, he will face protests. Whether they're as massive as you hope, Ed, remains to be seen. His presence will enrage New Yorkers whether they show up in person or not.

I personally view his repeated, bizarre hi-jinks as the "gift that keeps on giving" to American foreign policy.

Posted by Sue | September 20, 2007 10:52 AM

New Yorkers will line the streets to support this devil. That has been the tinfoil hatted leftist loons position in the Senate, House, local why would this be any different. They voted in a carpetbagger who now wishes us to become a socialist country just as the socialist countries in Europe are beginning to rid themselves of that method of governance. New Yorkers, in particular Jewish New Yorkers need to stand up and finally be counted as for this country and against the insanity of this less than human thing! New Yorkers have allowed an Islamist school with their tax dollars and mine, their local rag the NYT continues to support them and turn its back on America. I don't wish New Yorkers another 911 or the insufferable shame of this thing coming among them, but I do wish they could grow a pair and do the right thing!!

Posted by coldwarrior415 | September 20, 2007 10:53 AM

Runored that Ahmadinejad is going to speak at Columbia. Why am I not surprised?

Posted by John Houghton | September 20, 2007 10:54 AM

I hope that we have backup. If Mahmoud's car turns right when it should've turned left then that car should be destroyed immediately. There's a photo op jihad would love.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 20, 2007 11:03 AM

Best suggestion I've heard yet (from a comment at the Carpetbagger Report) is to let him visit Ground Zero and then invite him to tour the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

Posted by UC Prof | September 20, 2007 11:11 AM

Here is an email sent to UC faculty:

The Regents have rescinded their invitation to Larry Summers to be a speaker at the Regents’ dinner Wednesday, September 19, 2007. This is in response to the petition initiated by women faculty on the Davis campus (see below). Also please see the Davis Enterprise story on this topic:

Linda Bisson
Academic Senate Chair, Davis Division

It has come to our attention that Dr. Lawrence Summers has been invited to address the upcoming meeting of the University of California’s Board of Regents on September 19, 2007, at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento. We the undersigned faculty of University of California believe this invitation is not only misguided but inappropriate at a time when the University is searching for a new president and continues to build and diversify its community.

Dr. Summers, who resigned as president of Harvard in 2006, gained notoriety from his poor relationships with both women and underrepresented minority faculty at Harvard University. In 2002, Summers created controversy by attacking the scholarship and teaching of noted African American Studies Professor Cornel West, a conflict that contributed to Dr. West’s decision to leave the Harvard faculty. In January 2005, in a much-publicized speech to the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER) Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce, Dr. Summers ascribed the under-representation of women in science, math and engineering to, among other things, the “relatively clear evidence” that men and women differ for attributes such as “overall IQ, mathematical ability, [and] scientific ability.” Perhaps most importantly, the Boston Globe (January 17, 2005) noted that Dr. Summers’ actions as Harvard University president had matched his controversial words. From the time of his appointment in 2001 until his NBER speech, the number of women offered tenure in the arts and science faculty at Harvard had declined dramatically, reaching a nadir in 2004, just prior to Summers' speech, when only four of 32 tenure offers were made to women.

The Regents represent the leadership and public face of the University of California. Inviting a keynote speaker who has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia conveys the wrong message to the University community and to the people of California. It is our fervent hope that the Regents will rescind this invitation and seek advice elsewhere.

We urge those who share the University of California's long history of commitment to enhancing diversity and fighting prejudice to make their views known to the Regents and to the citizens of California.

Please join us by signing on to the following petition:

Posted by Ripper | September 20, 2007 11:11 AM

'My idea of showing respect to those who died at Ground Zero isn't to bitch about who visits there. Nothing, not even a visit by Osama bin Laden himself, could diminish the tragedy of that day or the bravery of those who died giving their all for their fellow men.'

You sound like Alan Colmes. Imadinnerjacket offends us by brething the very air that we do.

Posted by Noocyte | September 20, 2007 11:13 AM

I really think those who would allow Ahmagodhe'smad to visit GZ on the grounds that "we're bigger than that" are missing the point by a wide margin.

This is not about being churlish or vengeful (OK, maybe not entirely so), but about not giving an enemy in what is largely an information war undue access to ammunition to use against us. Salamandis (10:21AM, above) got it precisely right about the uses to which an Ahmadinejad visit to Ground Zero would be put in the Jihadi recruitment and Psy Ops machine. As ammunition goes, it would be a crate of armor piercing, explosive-tipped anti-personnel rounds, with a handy reloading rig thrown in for good measure.


Posted by Bob Mc | September 20, 2007 11:19 AM

Maybe we should create an educational blogumentary to warn the citizens (especially children) of New York of the dangers of the old-school practice of tossing burning garbage cans from roof-tops onto cars passing below.

Not suggesting anyone actually go out and do that.

Or, maybe we could take him to another Ground Zero by mistake: The Trinity Site. All we need is a sign put up that says: "The Future of Tehran"

Posted by Derek | September 20, 2007 11:39 AM

If I may...

1. Airport.
2. UN.
3. Gitmo.

Posted by naftali | September 20, 2007 11:40 AM


Let him visit. He cannot do anything to tarnish that hallowed ground. But let him walk through peaceful protest which admonishes him. If we're smart enough we'll throw in a few "embrace Judaism" signs in the gamut he must walk. Of course, he'll think our government organized the protests, because that's how they do things in his land.

Figured it out.


Posted by Mike | September 20, 2007 11:45 AM

I think Bob Mc has a very good point. Throwing burning objects, or concrete blocks, or old furniture, or islamists off rooftops CAN be a dangerous thing. That might also be a good reason for a heck of a lot of NYPD to call in sick for the day. While I am not and can't be in NY that day, I'd prefer to see Imadinnerjacket allowed to visit the hallowed ground and then be shipped back to Asscrackistan in a bag with a zipper. Has everyone forgoten that this is the same guy who held Americans hostage back when Jimmy Carter was President?

Posted by CatoRenasci | September 20, 2007 11:48 AM

My email to Bloomberg:

As a US Army veteran and former New York city resident, I am appalled at the prospect that the Iranian President is trying to visit Ground Zero. I urge you to use all of resources of the City to prevent this travesty!

This would be like Tojo visiting Pearl Harbor in 1943!

I will join many others in helping provide a human wall against the Iranian's desecration of our sacred ground.

Posted by quickjustice | September 20, 2007 11:50 AM

New York certainly has more than its fair share of moonbats, but I don't think they'll be lining the streets in support of this guy except up in Harlem, where Charlie Rangel thanked Hugo Chavez for the free oil he "donated" to Harlem.

If Hillary Clinton is criticizing Ahmadinejad, then the Democrat leadership will line up with her. They're not quite suicidal enough yet to publicly embrace the Iranians.

And Starfleet: Benin's blog is hardly "thoughtful". It's ignorant. Just for starters, we don't have diplomatic relations with the Iranians due to their imprisonment of our diplomats during Jimmy Carter's administration. Come to think of it, why don't we imprison and waterboard Ahmadinejad for an identical length of time?

Posted by Mark Hagerman | September 20, 2007 11:51 AM

I say let him visit, and make sure no one is within 20 meters of him.

Target practice.

Posted by Jim M | September 20, 2007 12:01 PM

How about if a group of "students" captures him; blindfolds him, and then holds him hostage for about a year or so. That would be sweet poetic justice....

On second thought....Nah. Just block the streets with mobs of people and physically prevent him from getting anywhere close. And no photo-ops. If he gets out of a windowless van, shoot the son of a bit**.

Posted by Sashland | September 20, 2007 12:04 PM

Iraq had "Nothing" to do with 9/11.


What did the 9/11 report have to say about Iranian involvement in the attack?

Posted by Bob Mc | September 20, 2007 12:06 PM

Consider this:

In an attempt to garner a banner headline on Terrorist Times (international edition) by sending the lovable Imadinnerjacket to the scene of the crime, could it be this is rather a monumental strategic mistake?

Two of the top runners for POTUS hail from New York. One was mayor of NY on that fateful day, the other a newly elected Senator.

We all expect Rudy to ask for a denial of the visit. Hillary has said it (the visit) is outrageous. Can it be? What will the Kossacks do now? Agree with conservatives and Clinton that Iran is a bad actor, or disagree and be forced to defend the visit?

Not only is the anti-terrorist campaign boosted by this error, but the pro-terror lobby (and terrorists) are made to look like fools.

Wow. Only Rove is capable of generating this level of serendipity.

Divide and conquer

Posted by Derek | September 20, 2007 12:08 PM

"My idea of showing respect to those who died at Ground Zero isn't to bitch about who visits there. Nothing, not even a visit by Osama bin Laden himself, could diminish the tragedy of that day or the bravery of those who died giving their all for their fellow men."

That's interesting, because my idea of showing respect to those who died at Ground Zero is to deny access to those who have been proven to financially support terrorists - you know, the same terrorists that we're fighting on two fronts?

He knows that the US & Israel are ready to destroy his military and nuclear facilities. This is a desperate attempt at a photo op to gain support for his 'moderate' administration.

Remember the British sailors? Same motivation.

Forget Ground Zero - this man shouldn't be allowed to enter the country.

Posted by newton | September 20, 2007 12:08 PM

I have an idea: why not let the 9/11 Truthers serve as his security?

After all, they're in the same garbage pile!

Posted by JAT | September 20, 2007 12:10 PM

Let him go anywhere he wants as long as he has to ride on the back of a pig!

Posted by ZeteBoy | September 20, 2007 12:18 PM

Is Bobbie Lee Swagger or Jack Bauer available the day he visits?

Posted by coldwarrior415 | September 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Earlier this month, the Federal District Court in DC, Judge Royce C. Lambert presiding, ruled that Iran owes $2.65 billion to the families of U.S. Marines killed in the 1983 attack on the Marine Barracks in Beirut, and ordered Iran to pay up.

Maybe, we can hold Ahmadinejad as bond? Or, better, seize all Iranian diplomatic missions (and that Iranian aircraft out at JFK) until the cash is paid out? This ruling authorizes the litigants to seize Iranian government assets to satisfy the debt. So?

Where are the lawyers now?

I realize that because the UN is in New York, and diplomatic immunity being what it is, there are limits to doing things officially against Ahmadinejad. But, what we can and should do is permit him to have limited movement -- airport - UN - airport --only, and NO sidetrips of any sort at all. He is here as a "guest" of the UN, not the U.S.. Ground Zero is well removed from Turtle Bay and in no way is on any route to and from the UN.

Posted by dave rywall | September 20, 2007 12:21 PM

Now Ed doesn't want to allow UN members to enter the US to go to the UN.

Gee, that's mature.

Ahmadinejad's jackassness notwithstanding, here's an idea: while you're on the topic of undesirables entering one's country, perhaps you could all stop your little stand up comedy routines on what you'd like to to do to Ahmadinejad while he visits the UN in NYC and think for a second about how people feel in the Middle East feel about having one of your military bases on their sovereign land. Not interested? Didn't think so. Don't give a shit how they feel? Of course not. You're Americans.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 20, 2007 12:22 PM

Agreed Captain.

One must thank the expression of Mr. Romney, for he seems to be the only Candidate who correctly advocated the rejection of this Monster.

Posted by burt | September 20, 2007 12:23 PM

I would have liked this post better if the headline were, UN GO HOME--AND THAT MEANS TO GENEVA OR OUT OF BUSINESS. Geneva Switzerland likes anyone who brings money.

Posted by docjim505 | September 20, 2007 12:28 PM

To borrow from some of my (ahem) less than genteel Southern ancestors...

"Somebody git a rope."




An American

Posted by Ron | September 20, 2007 12:30 PM

I wouldn't even let this terrorist into the country, UN visit or not. And if those other terrorist sympathizers down at the UN complain, then I would send them the same message that Charles Lichtenstein, our mission to the UN in 1983, gave to them following the Russian shooting down of KAL007. Foreign minister Gromyko was scheduled to give a speech at the UN and his plane was refused landing permission. Members of the UN General Assembly began to rail on the US after the Soviet mission began to publicly complain. Here is the text of the message Lichetenstein had for these jokers then:

"If in the judicious determination of the members of the United Nations, they feel that they are not welcome and that they are not being treated with the hostly consideration that is their due, then the United States strongly encourages such member states seriously to consider removing themselves and this organization from the soil of the United States. We will put no impediment in your way. The members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail into the sunset."

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 20, 2007 12:30 PM

lol. Columbia U is allowing Holocaust denier Imadinnerjacket to speak at their esteemed institution, however David Duke is refused the honor.


Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 20, 2007 12:33 PM

Dave Drywall says:

perhaps you could all stop your little stand up comedy routines on what you'd like to to do to Ahmadinejad while he visits the UN in NYC and think for a second about how people feel in the Middle East feel about having one of your military bases on their sovereign land. Not interested? Didn't think so. Don't give a shit how they feel? Of course not. You're Americans.

Dave Drywall means:

9/11 was justified.

Posted by Bob Mc | September 20, 2007 12:37 PM

think for a second about how people feel in the Middle East feel about having one of your military bases on their sovereign land

Dave makes a good point, y'all!

While I'm thinking about that, I'll also think about how the people of Germany, Japan, Bosnia, England, Kuwait, South Korea, Azores, Iceland, Thailand, and Singapore and other places feel about US Military presence on their soil.

Sorry Dave, no cherry-picking allowed.

Posted by Al in St. Lou | September 20, 2007 12:42 PM

Isn't it obvious that we (i.e. the U.S. government) must keep him away from Ground Zero for his own safety? At least, that's what we need to tell him and his government.

Posted by Hope Muntz | September 20, 2007 12:48 PM

There's a giant elephant missing from this debate. Ahmadinejad has been identified by several credible sources, including at least one of the American embassy kidnap victims, as one of the hostage-takers of Tehran. In a sense his regime has taken the entire nation of Iran hostage--as with Saddam's Iraq, most of his subject population are merely human shields for an illegal gangster regime. If any of his victims serves him with a warrant, it will be blocked by his diplomatic immunity--but why indulge in legal niceties here since he himself obviously does not believe in them? If there were any real American men left in NYC Ahamadinejad himself would be taken hostage by its citizens--and not released until the jails of Iran are emptied of all political prisoners--some of them still American, BTW.

Or am I mistaken in imagining there are still any real American men left anywhere in this country? All gone to Iraq, have they, leaving only bloggers behind?

Posted by Mike | September 20, 2007 12:49 PM

Dave Drywall

As long as the people in the Middle East behave like a bunch of murdering heathens, I don't even care if they live or die. No, that is not right either; for as long as they pose any level of threat to me and mine, I would prefer they die. Care how they feel? Actually, no,I don't really give a shit how they feel about anything. May once I would have, but no longer.

Posted by owl2 | September 20, 2007 12:51 PM

But, what we can and should do is permit him to have limited movement -- airport - UN - airport --only, and NO sidetrips of any sort at all. He is here as a "guest" of the UN, not the U.S.. Ground Zero is well removed from Turtle Bay and in no way is on any route to and from the UN.

Correct solution. The roads from the airport to UN should be lined with peaceful protesters holding signs reminding this thug that we have not forgiven his embassy seige or the hostages.


Posted by Salamantis | September 20, 2007 1:06 PM

With all the US and international media talk about the staged demonstrations on the proverbial and dreaded "Angry Arab Street", it DOES offer an opportunity to show the media and those whom it informs, both foreign and domestic, what an unstaged and justifiably angry American street looks like. I'd like to see a New York gauntlet arise that Ahmedinejad and his security cannot run.

Posted by Wayne | September 20, 2007 1:12 PM

Hey, Columbia U must be running for Douchebag and Moonbat Haven of the Year.

Not only do they ban the Minutemen from speaking about the ills of illegal immigration on the campus but they turned around and replaced them with Armegeddon-eye-jab.

I guess that what "education" at a modern university is all about.

Dave Rywall, as a proud veteran of many years service in these United States Armed Forces, I would deeply appreciate it if a person of your "gifts" made a better use of them by locating yourself somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Waziristan where you can share them with those who need a "leader" like yourself to show them the way.

Did you go to school at Columbia U? Just asking.

Posted by Joseph Eversole | September 20, 2007 2:08 PM

dave rywall,

That is a well thought out and articulate response. I guess the answer would be, which base do you refer to? Are they the one's in Iraq? As I recall Iraq's duly elected representational government has made no request that the bases be moved. Oh wait, maybe the one's in Qatar. Nope, no request for removal there from thier government. Saudi, nope, His Royal Highness has yet to ask us to leave......As to the "people" of the Middle East, I guess we should ask each one of them who owns property where these bases are how they feel about it. If they don't have any issues, then I suggest that you shut your pie hole your ignorant moron.

Posted by Joseph Eversole | September 20, 2007 2:11 PM

Correction: Mr. Rywall, I should not have called you ignorant. Ignorance would be one who hasn't had the opportunity to learn. I should have said stupid. Stupid means that you did learn, and chose to ignore the lesson.


USAF Vet Joseph D Eversole

Posted by NahnCee | September 20, 2007 2:14 PM

think for a second about how people feel in the Middle East feel about having one of your military bases on their sovereign land

I'm not aware of any countries in the Middle East or any where else where we have installed military bases and are remaining after having been asked to leave. I wish you would tell me one place where the government has told the US military to get out of their country and we have not done that.

I *am* aware of several countries that are begging us not to leave including South Korean, Germany and Kuwait.

Would it make any difference in your muddled thinking processes if we demanded that the UN leave America, perhaps relocating to the Middle East where the thugs and terrorists could have all the easy access they desire?

Posted by dave rywall | September 20, 2007 2:51 PM

docjim505 - Thanks for your kind mature words.

Hugh Beaumont - No. I didn't say 9/11 justified nor do I believe it was justified. But, I understand why it happened. Do you?

Bob Mc - Sure, some countries' citizens are okay with your bases on their land. What does that have to do with those who are not? Nothing.

Mike - Good luck with your anger.

Wayne - I love how veterans bring out their resume, as if their opinions are more valid than any other adult's.

USAF Vet Joseph D Eversole - Again, your service for your country doesn't make your opinion any more valid or important than anybody else's,s o why do you bother to list it? An older, stubborn person such as yourself will never change, so I invite you to run your little opinions up the flagpole and parade around the town square saluting yourself silly.

I didn't list the countries in the Middle East where the US has bases. Sorry about that. But if you think the vast majority of citizens of any Middle Eastern country are happy your country has bases on their land, then clearly I'm not the one who's ignorant or stupid.

Nahncee - Have fun.

Posted by Bonnie_ | September 20, 2007 3:15 PM

Wow, what a troll we have in Dave Rywall. Here is a man who thinks that the slaughter of innocents (including pregnant women and a little girl on her first trip to Disneyland) is UNDERSTANDABLE. That there is a REASON why people would want to massacre helpless kids.

Why, we ask? Why do they? Because they are so darned angry at the U.S. bases, by golly. Our bases are just so rude, perhaps decorated in a contrasting color. They defile the earth they're on. (Particularly, if you please, a place where women are allowed to walk around freely! Vote! Express an opinion! Horrors!)

None of the contributors to Captain's Quarters has any illusions as to why the jihadists hate us (and Jews, and Hindis, and Buddhists, and every other religion on earth.)

We just don't accept it. (Or, to use a Muslim word, we do not SUBMIT to it.) Calling people ignorant because they won't drop to their knees along with you doesn't impress me.

Posted by markD | September 20, 2007 3:30 PM

rywall, if you're not ignorant or stupid, why are you evading the point? It's up to the host governments to ask us to leave. Many have done so. Libya, Afghanistan, and the Phillippines for example. In every case we've been asked to leave, we have.

Are you suggesting it's our fault the host governments may not represent the will of their people? If so, what do you expect us to do about it, overthrow them?

Posted by newton | September 20, 2007 3:32 PM


It just shows what kind of element that troll is: just another jerk. Were this nation governed by people like him, we'd be all enslaved and stupid.

I have an even better idea: let's put this troll in that security detail, with other nutso "Truthers". Just imagine how fast he and those others will be tarred and feathered out of this country.

Nope, I will NEVER SUBMIT to terrorists... nor to any and all who aid or comfort them.

Posted by Derek | September 20, 2007 3:36 PM


"No. I didn't say 9/11 justified nor do I believe it was justified."

You here that beeping noise? That's my newly installed bullshit detector.

Just say it already Dave, I know the KOS in you is dying to reveal itself. You believe that America deserved it's 9/11 because of it's meddling in the Middle East.

America is arrogant. America is imperialistic. And America deserved a punch in the nose because of it's school ground bully behavior of other nations.

Be honest.

Posted by dave rywall | September 20, 2007 3:43 PM

Bonnie I never said the reason for 9/11 was the presence of American bases in the Middle East. I never said anything about accepting terrorist actions. You're just another one of those knee jerk people who loves to pile on and build a bunch of straw man garbage.

All I said was it is my belief that the majority of citizens of any Middle Eastern country with an American base in it wish it would leave. All this other stuff you guys are claiming I believe is a bunch of bullshit you made up in your little heads.

I was attempting to draw a comparison between you yahoos being upset an undesirable from another country was visiting America and people of a country the Middle East having to deal with one of your bases in their country. I didn't think it was that complicated, but you all managed to work yourselves into an indignant America-knows-what's-best-for-the-world tizzy.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 20, 2007 4:22 PM

RE: starfleet_dude (September 20, 2007 11:03 AM)

Best suggestion I've heard yet (from a comment at the Carpetbagger Report) is to let him visit Ground Zero and then invite him to tour the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

Bzzzt! Change in the itinerary:

Strike "visit Ground Zero and then invite him to tour the Holocaust Museum" and change to "divert entirely from Ground Zero directly to the Holocaust Museum. Complimentary lunch of BLT sandwiches and pork rinds will conclude the tour with dessert of humble pie to be served on way to Reagan National Airport where entourage will be promptly cleared to leave American airspace after appropriate full-body cavity searches."

Posted by Big Dan | September 20, 2007 4:29 PM

Dave, it's my belief based on a poll of all the inhabitants of this room that the majority of citizens in the US want you to vacate our sovereign territory and leave. Sorry about that.

Or should we do what makes us safer instead of more popular? There really is life outside high school.

Can you bring your Middle East popularity poll to G-d and ask him to restore to life 3,000 fellow humans? How does that work exactly, an uptick of 10 percentage points brings back 1000 people? And what happens if it (shudder) takes a downturn again?

Sorry, Dave, I won't conveniently die based on your choice of polls.

Or is the base question just something the US does that lets you decide 3,000 should have been killed? Are you happy that the US had its nose bloodied? Say yes, and make me the happiest man in the room.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 20, 2007 4:36 PM

RE: dave rywall (September 20, 2007 12:21 PM)

"Now Ed doesn't want to allow UN members to enter the US to go to the UN.

Gee, that's mature."

Gee, that's disingenuous. Ed doesn't want a particular UN member, the president of a terrorist sponsoring nation if not a terrorist himself that lead the kidnapping of Americans in '79 by the way, to sully now hallowed ground... a grave and memorial to the victims of ME terrorism. Somehow that extrapolates to UN members in general. How 'bout those straw men.

Posted by naysayer | September 20, 2007 4:52 PM

We should send a troop of Marines to the airport and drag this worthless little raghead into the street and empty the magazine of an assault rifle into his pointy little head.

Problem solved.

Posted by NahnCee | September 20, 2007 5:13 PM

Following from LittleGreenFootballs quoting from an upcoming 60 Minutes segment:

And he’s [Ahmadinejad is] “amazed” anyone would be insulted [that he wants to go to Ground Zero].

PELLEY: Mr. President, do you intend to press your request to visit the World Trade Center site?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that.

PELLEY: But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can’t do that, I won’t insist.

PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans.

AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting?

PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?

PELLEY: Well, the American nation—

AHMADINEJAD: You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.

Daily Kos, he’s talking to you.

* * *

Dave D - he's talking to you, too. How does it feel to be a terrorist enabler?

Posted by NahnCee | September 20, 2007 5:15 PM

DaveD in above post should be DaveR.

Posted by Sashland | September 20, 2007 5:18 PM

Use non-violent protest to keep him away from Ground Zero.

Need to get a PETA parade scheduled ASAP!!!

Fight fire with fire?

Fight boobs with boobs!

(and, NO, I don't mean OJ)

Do you think it might lose something in the translation?

Posted by Bob Mc | September 20, 2007 5:25 PM

Sure, some countries' citizens are okay with your bases on their land. What does that have to do with those who are not? Nothing.

Your? Not our? Dave, you're not an American citizen, are you......

Posted by mrlynn | September 20, 2007 5:43 PM

When Ahmendinajad and his compatriots seized the US Embassy in 1979, that was an act of war.  Every subsequent act of Iran that enabled terrorist attacks against the United States has been an act of war.

I don’t know what the UN Treaty says about guaranteeing foreign leaders safe passage, but let this little bastard stray one inch from his immune path, and then let’s arrest him as a war criminal—right on stage at Columbia, perhaps?

Then it’s time for a military tribunal. And a firing squad.

/Mr Lynn

PS Ask Columbia if they’ll host David Duke.

Posted by hunter | September 20, 2007 6:27 PM

should Japanese soldiers and leaders have visited Pearl Harbor while the war was still being fought?
If you had proposed it during WWII, you would have gotten a free nose job. I think if you propose your latest idiotic drivel of an idea in patriotic parts of America today, you will get at least a free nose job.
The lack of judgement you demonstrate in even proposing this is so informative of what drives you.

Posted by Salamantis | September 20, 2007 6:42 PM

Interesting PS comment, mrlynn; especially since Ahmedinejad himself hosted David Duke at the Holocaust Denial conference he held in Iran. He, of course, was trying to do the impossible, that is, to discredit the horrific and rationally and evidentially undeniable first Holocaust, in order to ease the path for him to perpetrate a second.

BTW: If Ahmedinejad WAS allowed to develop nukes and reify his imagine-the-world-without-Israel fantasy of wiping Israel 'off the map', assuming a much larger Iran could absorb a dying-Samson Dimona counterstrike from them and still survive, what about the poor Palestinians, millions of whom would also be collaterally vaporized? I guess sending them en masse to Paradise as choiceless martyrs is the very least that Iran could do, after the Islamofascists have callously and for many years used them as a disposable cudgel with which to bludgeon Israel, morphing their society and culture into a fanatically zealous, child-programming, death-and-murder-worshipping cult in the process.

Posted by Bostonian | September 20, 2007 6:58 PM

The man shouldn't be allowed anywhere on US soil.

It is an insult beyond belief that he wants to prance around our country guarded by the same people who protect our presidents.

Posted by Mr. Michael | September 20, 2007 9:44 PM

Really, for the first time in my life, I would like to visit New York City. You know, just to hang around... blocking a street. Quietly. Politely. Firmly.

If taken to jail for my actions, I would plead guilty, serve my time, and hang the paperwork on the wall. In a frame.

Posted by jaeger51 | September 20, 2007 10:14 PM

This Dave character is amazing, but sadly common. 40 years of political correctness (translate as: America is always wrong, white males are always wrong, anything done traditionally is wrong. All minorities and 3rd worlders are inherently noble NO MATTER what they do.)will create people like that. It's also amazing that Achmanifursnizgle is even allowed in the country. We just captured an Iranian officer in Iraq aiding insurgents, today. There is no end to the amount of evidence that Iraq is supporting our enemies and helping kill our soldiers. We need to wake up and smell the enemy here...what is wrong with these people in our government? Believe me, Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would not have been allowed to come and go during WW2 even if the League of Nations had invited them. What has happened to us? It is amazing.

Posted by gordinkneehill | September 20, 2007 10:23 PM

Heck, let him visit. It's a construction site now. With cranes. And rope, lots of rope. Let him visit; heck, he could even hang around for a while.

Posted by reddog | September 21, 2007 7:50 AM

I'm not getting the Iran-9/11-al Qaeda connection.

Were any of the 19 Persian? Were any Shiia? Does Iran fund al Qaeda, provide them with weapons, training, asylum ?

I was under the impression that they provide support to Shiite militia groups and separatists. Different thing. The ruling Ayatollahs in Iran don't like Israel. Different thing. They are Holocaust deniers. Different thing. They're still mad at us for foisting the Peacock Throne on their backs. Different thing. They want to develop nuclear(not nukuler) weapons. Different thing.

Maybe they were using box cutters of Iranian provinence. That could be the connection.

Posted by Mike | September 21, 2007 9:07 AM

reddog, al Qaeda is a pretty diverse organization, so it is understandable that you might miss the many tentacles of its reach. But al Qaeda's supreme leader, Osama ben Laden, has claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attack. Since then AQ has been under attack in many areas, and has morphed and made new alliances as their situation demanded. Today, al Qaeda of Iraq, AQI, is being directly supported by Iran with materials that are used to press their assault on the human race. Thus, Iran, even if it did not have any direct part in the events of 9/11, has bought a hand in the game on the same side as AQ, and their nutjob leader now just as much our enemy as ben Laden.

That is the large picture. The smaller, more local picture is that the interests of AQ, AQI, Iran and many of the other organizations of ideological malcontents, are also being aided and supported but people who actively try to conceal or distort the realities of the situation. That includes at least half of the Democrats in our congress, MoveOn,org and individuals like yourself who want us to not keep our eyes on the ball. There are a great many people in the world who seriously want America to fall, and anything that keeps us from recognizing and acting to prevent their aims is a threat. I for one think it is way past time to deal harshly with all of those threats. I’m not against free speech, mind you, but that is partly because it helps us identify the enemies among us.

Posted by Howard C | September 21, 2007 10:18 AM

"Today, al Qaeda of Iraq, AQI, is being directly supported by Iran with materials that are used to press their assault on the human race."

Just because you say it's so, doesn't MAKE it so. AQI is Sunni. Iran is Shia. And NEVER the twain shall meet.

That's not to say Iran isn't funding Iraqi Shias, and/or giving them weapons and munitions to kill US troops, or that AhmadenaHitler has any right to visit Ground Zero... but to make patently false assertions just to prove your point is disingenuous at best.

Posted by T.G. Scott | September 21, 2007 10:29 AM

I agree with Hagerman about using him for target practice. However, we could also go the slow route and let an angry mob pull him by his beard out of the vehicle he's being transported in, then draw and quarter him in short order. I would not let this scum get away. As Barney Fife would say, "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!"

Posted by mike | September 21, 2007 10:54 AM

" make patently false assertions just to prove your point is disingenuous at best."

Yes, it is. From either perspective.

Posted by Derek | September 21, 2007 1:50 PM

"Just because you say it's so, doesn't MAKE it so. AQI is Sunni. Iran is Shia. And NEVER the twain shall meet."

That's a pretty bold statement.

Unless you got Ali Khamenei on speed dial, your assuming just like the rest of us.

Works both ways.

Posted by Eric | September 21, 2007 1:56 PM

Attention New Yorkers,

Block the streets. Prevent the motocade. Turn him back.

Posted by Eric | September 21, 2007 1:59 PM

Off subject, but...
Cars...the thing about cars is they stall sometimes. And sometimes, after they rest for a while they restart, but then the funny thing is that sometimes the car right behind them stall.

It's weird how cars work.

Posted by LG | September 25, 2007 12:27 AM

Dear Ed Morrissey,
As a student at the University of Southern California who avidly reads about politics, I find it a disgrace that President Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University and had an open forum expressing his bizarre views. There was no real need for students to see his propaganda and ignorant diatribe in person, when so much of it is already recorded and very accessible. The only helpful aspect I have seen coming from his visit has been the further uncovering the 2008 presidential candidates views on how they would deal with an adversarial foreign leader. As you have pointed in your comments, there has been much bipartisan opposition to the terrorist-supporting leader stepping on American ground. I feel that Rudy Gulliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain have done an excellent job at pointing out the fallacies of Columbia University’ President in allowing Mahoumoud Ahmadinejad a platform to spew his disengenuousness. McCain was quick to point out the “irony of the university allowing the controversial Iranian leader on its grounds but preventing ROTC from returning to campus” (full text can be viewed here). It doesn’t make sense to not allow the ROTC on campus because they don’t allow open homosexuals in the military, but perfectly fine for the head of a state which routinely executes homosexuals, to say “In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country ... I don't know who's told you that we have this.”
Furthmore, I am disappointed in some of the Democrats weak explanations concerning why the Iranian President shouldn’t come to America. Barack Obama said “ One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak." (That is our tradition, but it is not his constitutional right!) But then, later, Obama said if he were the President of Columbia, he probably wouldn’t have invited Ahmadinejad in the first place. (That sounds like fence straddling to me.) Edwards simply stated, "I think this is for Columbia to decide whether they want a man like this to speak at their university." I believe any future president must very strong and versed in foreign policy, especially dealing with unstable world leaders. Republicans have take good advantage of making it known that they would not go blindly into conversation with President Mahoumound Ahmadinejad. Maybe it is time for the democrats to rethink their stance, because the American people don’t seem to be with them on this issue.

You can visit my student blog where I have posted my comments at Thanks!

Post a comment