Is the President of Iran a Terrorist ???

[UMichfly]

New Developments

Looks like a case of mistaken identity. Personally, I'm glad to hear that he's legit.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

 

[HH-60H]

Looks like a case of mistaken identity. Personally, I'm glad to hear that he's legit.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

When you say legit, do you mean he was "elected" to his post by the citizens of Iran?

 

[UMichfly]

When you say legit, do you mean he was "elected" to his post by the citizens of Iran?

In this context, I just meant that it appears he wasn't the known terrorist that he was suspected of being right after the election. As far as the question of the legitimacy of the election....that's a WHOLE different story.

 

[A4sForever]

CNN reports also in the same piece:

".....Two former hostages told CNN they remain certain Ahmadinejad was involved in plotting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, in which 52 hostages were held for 444 days.

The two also said they saw the man they identify as Ahmadinejad many times while they were held, and that he appeared to be in a supervisory role.

A senior State Department official said the government is defining "hostage-taker" as someone who was "involved in the planning, execution and conduct" of taking people captive.
The dispute over what role Ahmadinejad may or may not have played has immediate significance, as the Bush administration considers whether to grant him a visa to attend a coming U.N. meeting in New York...."


Give me a break. That's B.S. I guess it comes down to: who has more credibility ...??? These two former hostages/prisoners, or the CIA/State which has a vested geo-political interest in the President of Iran NOT being "that guy" .... you tell me.

 

[UMichfly]

"The State Department has been conducting interviews with some former hostages over the past week. Most of the former hostages have said Ahmadinejad was not present during the hostage-taking, two U.S. government officials said."

.Well, it's the credibility of those two individuals vs that of the CIA as well as "most of the former hostages". I agree, there's a definite vested interest in him not being that guy, but in my short experience, I haven't seen much faith placed in the word of the Iranians. I don't know why the CIA would want to change that stance now.

 

[A4sForever]

You mean the same dependable, trustworthy, reliable, gets the job done, bureacratic CIA that didn't want the alleged "Able Danger" information on Atta and others .... ???

*edit* ... "that" CIA and a ton of "other" things that they haven't done right for a long time ... where are John McCone, Richard Helms, Bill Colby, and William Casey when we need them .... ???