If Rudolph Giuliani were mayor, I think his denial of terrorist Ahmadinejad's request to visit ground zero would have been a bit pithier than the current New York City rebuff.
Instead of citing "security reasons", Rudy probably would have turned the Iranian President down by saying, "Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror and this request is totally unacceptable and an insult to those who died there". The city's current administration, however, is not likely to be as forthright as our former mayor, Rudy had no problem recognizing that the attacks on 9/11, 2001, were acts of horrific terror. Would Mayor Bloomberg have returned a $10 million check from Prince Aliwad of Saudi Arabia, made out to the Twin Towers Fund, when the prince suggested that America's Middle East policy contributed to the World Trade Center attacks?? Mr . Giuliani rejected the prince's statement in no uncertain terms when he returned the donation.
"To suggest that there's a justification for( the terrorist attacks) only invites this happening in the future", he said". It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous. And one of the reasons i think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism".
Rudy made that statement on October, 11, 2001, and most of the city agreed with him. We also had no problem distinguishing which were the terrorist states. The idea that Iran, which has been threatening the demise of Israel on a daily basis , should be treated with anything other than contempt would have been laughable. That, of course, was then. The mood of my city has changed, but not for the better. I don't think its wise to forget who our enemies are.
Now our enemy is coming to NY how much of a red carpet will be laid out for this terrorist by our current " Can't we all get along" Liberal Boobs?? administration.
Is ground zero now just a whole in the ground, that the Iranian terrorist president, a person who is supplying terrorist in Iraq with weapons to kill our soldiers and citizens of Iraq, should be allowed to visit a terrorist site I'm sure he cheered when it happened.
Kick the Bum out of my City!!!!!!!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Railing against Ahmadinejad because he has the timerity to stand up to the real criminals is very sheep-like. His power is limited in Iran. Moderates are displacing his support with every election. Active engagement is the only road to changing the Iranian reliance on antiquated law. This blubbering on about his visit as the legitimate president of a sovereign nation is grovelling nationalism at its worst.
OH! Pres. Moron a Day- you want to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, Oh lets talk about some more of ideas. Your leftist pals like Stephen, would like to hear more of your hatred- WHY?- they may have purchased a education, but they never purchased any- COMMON- SENSE!!
Sue, though I find many things abhorant in the conduct of the Iranian government, as most people do, I bet you would find him to be a perfect gentleman. That really doesn't say a whole lot though. He is an elected leader, one who has in the past year lost significant support, has faced impeachment efforts, is not the ultimate decision maker in a complex government system. Is he right? Not necessarily. Mickey may think I think so, but mickey doesn't seem to think beyond a very narrow view. He doesn't seem able to hold any alternative ideas in his head while he considers the larger picture.
Iran has a third rate military, so says the CIA World Factbook. The jingoistic warmongering against Iran is indictative of larger US aspirations. Another country we may very well go bomb into submission, killing thousands more in the name of freedom and democracy. Makes ya proud, don't it?