John Conyers is Still Failing America
I recommend this video, click here for bigger screen:
John Conyers is Still Failing America
John Perry writes, "Still waiting for the House Judiciary Chairman to honor his oath and do his job by launching impeachment hearings. This video features a reading of the message I faxed to Mr. Conyers on Monday afternoon (6/9/08), with cc's to my rep and senators."
Text of fax here. See link to poll in video description of his video. Perry writes:
Contact John Conyers. Tell him to honor his oath to the Constitution and do the job the people expect of him.
johnconyersjr@gmail.com
john.conyers@mail.house.gov
John Conyers
United States House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2214
Phone: 202-225-512
After Downing Street
Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings! See VIDEO Playlist
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Congress has sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment for Bush to the Judiciary Committee.
Jonathan Schwarz of TinyRevolution.com gives this update and advice, "Congress has sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment for Bush to the Judiciary Committee. The vote was 255-161, with the majority made up of every Democrat plus 24 Republicans. One thing anyone who cares (Polls show a large number of us do, and that is with what people know so far.) about this can do is contact John Conyers [(202) 225-5126], or your representative if they're on Judiciary. You might also want to sign this new Democrats.com petition calling on Tim Russert to put Kucinich on Meet the Press to discuss impeachment."
We shouldn't even have to beg Russert to do what he is supposed to. Russert was totally out of line with his UFO question at one of the debates. (one of the debates that Kucinich was allowed into but not allowed equal time.) The mainstream media wants to send a message to the public that they should not seriously consider some of the candidates. That is the game being played right now with the exclusions of Nader.
Spread this video: We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution. See the video and pass it on
We shouldn't even have to beg Russert to do what he is supposed to. Russert was totally out of line with his UFO question at one of the debates. (one of the debates that Kucinich was allowed into but not allowed equal time.) The mainstream media wants to send a message to the public that they should not seriously consider some of the candidates. That is the game being played right now with the exclusions of Nader.
Spread this video: We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution. See the video and pass it on
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution. See the video and pass it on
Impeach President Bush NOW Call John Conyers (202) 225-5126 and call Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-4965 and tell her to uphold the law and allow impeachment proceeds to begin! http://votenader.org
http://tinyurl.com/58e96a
Impeach President Bush NOW Call John Conyers (202) 225-5126 and call Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-4965 and tell her to uphold the law and allow impeachment proceeds to begin! http://votenader.org
http://tinyurl.com/58e96a
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tell Congress Bush and Israel Have No Legal Justification to Attack Iran
Tell Congress that Bush and Israel Have No Legal Justification to Attack Iran
SEE VIDEO:
TOLL-FREE NUMBER FOR CONGRESS (just ask for your representatives' offices)
1-800-788-9372
National call-in day to tell your members of Congress to stop an attack on Iran
SEE VIDEO:
TOLL-FREE NUMBER FOR CONGRESS (just ask for your representatives' offices)
1-800-788-9372
National call-in day to tell your members of Congress to stop an attack on Iran
Friday, June 06, 2008
War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3
UPI reporter reveals what Neocons told him before the war.
Read more about War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception here:
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."
As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes,
"the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."
And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception
Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8
http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3
UPI reporter reveals what Neocons told him before the war.
Read more about War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception here:
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."
As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes,
"the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception
Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8
PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!
"PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!" is the title of a video posted by VOTERSTHINKdotORG
I don't know why Keith Olbermann says the Bush Administration lies were used for the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. First? The Iraq War isn't the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. Just take a recent example, Clinton's 1999 War on Kosovo.
"There are some striking similarities between Clinton's Kosovo campaign and George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq four years later. Both were wars of choice," writes Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. "Wars of choice," as Blumenthal euphemistically puts it, are by definition war crimes.
Editor of The Progressive magazine, Rothschild said: "What gives the United States and NATO the right to conduct this warfare? If the United States is going to engage in so-called humanitarian interventions, it is incumbent upon it to abide both by U.S. law and international law. It is doing neither here.
Chomksy points out, "let's look at the situation from the US point of view: There's a crisis, what do we do about it? One possibility is to work through the United Nations, which is the agency responsible under treaty obligations and international law for dealing with such matters. But the US made it clear a long time ago that it has total contempt for the institutions of world order, the UN, the World Court, and so on. In fact the US has been very explicit about that. This was not always the case. In the early days of the UN, the majority of countries backed the US because of its overwhelming political power. But that began to change when decolonisation was extended and the organisation and distribution of world power shifted. Now the US can no longer count on the majority of countries to go along with its demands. The UN is no longer a pliant, and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years. So brazen that even right-wing analysts are worried about it. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an establishment journal in the US, warning Washington that much of the world regards the US as a "rogue super-power" and the single greatest threat to their existence. In fact, the US has placed itself totally above the rule of international law and international institutions."
I don't know why Keith Olbermann says the Bush Administration lies were used for the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. First? The Iraq War isn't the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. Just take a recent example, Clinton's 1999 War on Kosovo.
"There are some striking similarities between Clinton's Kosovo campaign and George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq four years later. Both were wars of choice," writes Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. "Wars of choice," as Blumenthal euphemistically puts it, are by definition war crimes.
Editor of The Progressive magazine, Rothschild said: "What gives the United States and NATO the right to conduct this warfare? If the United States is going to engage in so-called humanitarian interventions, it is incumbent upon it to abide both by U.S. law and international law. It is doing neither here.
Chomksy points out, "let's look at the situation from the US point of view: There's a crisis, what do we do about it? One possibility is to work through the United Nations, which is the agency responsible under treaty obligations and international law for dealing with such matters. But the US made it clear a long time ago that it has total contempt for the institutions of world order, the UN, the World Court, and so on. In fact the US has been very explicit about that. This was not always the case. In the early days of the UN, the majority of countries backed the US because of its overwhelming political power. But that began to change when decolonisation was extended and the organisation and distribution of world power shifted. Now the US can no longer count on the majority of countries to go along with its demands. The UN is no longer a pliant, and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years. So brazen that even right-wing analysts are worried about it. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an establishment journal in the US, warning Washington that much of the world regards the US as a "rogue super-power" and the single greatest threat to their existence. In fact, the US has placed itself totally above the rule of international law and international institutions."
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception
War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."
As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes,"the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."
And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=90368
Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8
SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."
As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes,
"the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=90368
Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8
SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
I created a new channel called RepPress
I created a new channel called RepPress which will have promotional videos for the channel and the website and blog. If you want to help publicize RepresentativePress, please subscribe to RepPress also.
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RepPress
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RepPress
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Please see this video and pass it on.
Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map.” and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said, “We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.” Please see this video and pass it on.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
"A great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed"
I will be making a video about the latest bin Laden tape. I notice a few news outlets spin it as if he recently made it the main issue as they avoid reporting that in this tape he says:
“The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my nation. It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed,” he said, referring to the 19 9/11 terrorists.
I noticed ABC's Diane Sawyer said "so he is now saying Israel is the central issue which is a bit of a shift from years gone by" and Brian Ross says "in the past year or two he has begun to make that the central issue, initially it was US forces." So Ross denies what bin Laden says in the tape and doesn't even mention it in his report and makes a claim it was US troops as central issue while ignoring bin Laden's statements (and the testimony of Philip Zelikow which was purposefully left out of the 9/11 Commission Report in which Zelikow says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said bin Laden wanted to punish the US for supporting Israel) Fact is, bin Laden sometimes mentioned Palestine first, sometimes second and sometimes third in a usual list of three grievances. OVERALL, for all those involved in the attack, Israel is the main motive. But bin Laden never said, as far as I know, "troops in Saudi Arabia is the main thing" For example:
this is from the 1997 interview:
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (killings in Lebanon perpetrated by Israel)
And remember it was on the wire services on the day of 9/11/01 that "Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel."
Also, Peter Bergen points out that lies have been pushed: "conventional wisdom has it that bin Laden adopted the Palestinians issue only recently. Reading this declaration [the first declaration of war, issued in 1996] SHOULD PUT THAT CANARD TO REST." p164 The Bin Laden I Know, Peter Bergen
In the 1996 declaration, bin Laden wrote, "I still feel the pain of Al Quds [Jerusalem] in my internal organs" "My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis" "It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana [when Israeli forces struck a UN compound on April 18, 1996, killing one hundred] in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. " p 165 Bergen (see the 1996 declaration of war)
osama-bin-laden-has-been-angry-about.html
Another example, in this case, the first thing listed is "Al-Aksa Mosque" (this is about Israel/Palestine) then "Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines":
"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
“The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my nation. It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed,” he said, referring to the 19 9/11 terrorists.
I noticed ABC's Diane Sawyer said "so he is now saying Israel is the central issue which is a bit of a shift from years gone by" and Brian Ross says "in the past year or two he has begun to make that the central issue, initially it was US forces." So Ross denies what bin Laden says in the tape and doesn't even mention it in his report and makes a claim it was US troops as central issue while ignoring bin Laden's statements (and the testimony of Philip Zelikow which was purposefully left out of the 9/11 Commission Report in which Zelikow says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said bin Laden wanted to punish the US for supporting Israel) Fact is, bin Laden sometimes mentioned Palestine first, sometimes second and sometimes third in a usual list of three grievances. OVERALL, for all those involved in the attack, Israel is the main motive. But bin Laden never said, as far as I know, "troops in Saudi Arabia is the main thing" For example:
this is from the 1997 interview:
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (killings in Lebanon perpetrated by Israel)
And remember it was on the wire services on the day of 9/11/01 that "Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel."
Also, Peter Bergen points out that lies have been pushed: "conventional wisdom has it that bin Laden adopted the Palestinians issue only recently. Reading this declaration [the first declaration of war, issued in 1996] SHOULD PUT THAT CANARD TO REST." p164 The Bin Laden I Know, Peter Bergen
In the 1996 declaration, bin Laden wrote, "I still feel the pain of Al Quds [Jerusalem] in my internal organs" "My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis" "It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana [when Israeli forces struck a UN compound on April 18, 1996, killing one hundred] in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. " p 165 Bergen (see the 1996 declaration of war)
osama-bin-laden-has-been-angry-about.html
Another example, in this case, the first thing listed is "Al-Aksa Mosque" (this is about Israel/Palestine) then "Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines":
"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
Monday, May 12, 2008
Re: Got a Question for Ralph Nader?
Re: Got a Question for Ralph Nader? - see video
Mr. Nader,
Will you honor your oath to the US Constitution to uphold the rule of law with regard to the use of US Armed Forces, unlike McCain, Obama and Hilary? Will you pledge that you will not be singing about bombing other countries like McCain or that you will not keep illegal options on the table like Obama & Hillary? Will you will absolutely rule out the use force unless it is legal according to our Constitution and the Constitutional responsibility to abide by the international treaties the US has signed which prohibit wars of aggression? McCain, Obama and Hillary are unwilling to abide by the UN Charter which the Unites States has signed. Will you declare that all threats of force are off the table and that you will instead abide by UN Charter and the law of the land as spelled out in our Constitution?
Mr. Nader,
Will you honor your oath to the US Constitution to uphold the rule of law with regard to the use of US Armed Forces, unlike McCain, Obama and Hilary? Will you pledge that you will not be singing about bombing other countries like McCain or that you will not keep illegal options on the table like Obama & Hillary? Will you will absolutely rule out the use force unless it is legal according to our Constitution and the Constitutional responsibility to abide by the international treaties the US has signed which prohibit wars of aggression? McCain, Obama and Hillary are unwilling to abide by the UN Charter which the Unites States has signed. Will you declare that all threats of force are off the table and that you will instead abide by UN Charter and the law of the land as spelled out in our Constitution?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Curly quotes, Iran, Israel, Ahmadinejad & the Media
VIDEO: Curly quotes, Iran, Israel, Ahmadinejad & the Media
President Ahmadinejad and several Iranian officials have repeatedly made clear that they are not threatening to attack Israel. Iranian President Ahmadinejad did NOT threaten to use force against Israel. He DIDN'T threaten to attack Israel. It is outrageous and dangerous how 60 Minutes and nearly all of mainstream media continue to misrepresent what he has said.
http://flashjournalism.com/tips/curlyquotes.htm
Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Monday, June 12, 2006; Page A20
Regarding "A Legal Case Against Iran" [op-ed, June 6]:
It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Also, the Islamic Republic of Iran has officially declared its commitment to the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, which is to refrain from the threat or use of force against any member of the United Nations. Yet a daily barrage of illegal threats by officials of the Israeli government to resort to force against Iran has continued to date.
Iran's position is very clear: We have not threatened to use force nor have we used force against any country or government in the past 250 years. We've never done that in the past, and we'll never do it in the future.
We wonder whether Israel or the United States can make the same statement.
What is urgent about the situation is getting the U.N. Security Council to act on the daily threats against Iran by the United States and Israel.
M.A. MOHAMMADI
Press Officer
Iranian Mission to the United Nations
New York
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"There is no new policy," Ahmadinejad said. "They created a lot of hue and cry over that." Ahmadinejad added, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
President Ahmadinejad and several Iranian officials have repeatedly made clear that they are not threatening to attack Israel. Iranian President Ahmadinejad did NOT threaten to use force against Israel. He DIDN'T threaten to attack Israel. It is outrageous and dangerous how 60 Minutes and nearly all of mainstream media continue to misrepresent what he has said.
http://flashjournalism.com/tips/curlyquotes.htm
Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Monday, June 12, 2006; Page A20
Regarding "A Legal Case Against Iran" [op-ed, June 6]:
It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Also, the Islamic Republic of Iran has officially declared its commitment to the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, which is to refrain from the threat or use of force against any member of the United Nations. Yet a daily barrage of illegal threats by officials of the Israeli government to resort to force against Iran has continued to date.
Iran's position is very clear: We have not threatened to use force nor have we used force against any country or government in the past 250 years. We've never done that in the past, and we'll never do it in the future.
We wonder whether Israel or the United States can make the same statement.
What is urgent about the situation is getting the U.N. Security Council to act on the daily threats against Iran by the United States and Israel.
M.A. MOHAMMADI
Press Officer
Iranian Mission to the United Nations
New York
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"There is no new policy," Ahmadinejad said. "They created a lot of hue and cry over that." Ahmadinejad added, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
