One of the country’s most prominent neoconservative pundits has been accused of using a fabricated quote from Iran’s supreme religious leader in pushing his argument that a US invasion is the only recourse to deter that country’s nuclear ambitions.

Norman Podhoretz is among the most vocal in urging President Bush to bomb Iran, and he has predicted the president will launch an attack before his term is up. Podhoretz’s argument is based on his belief that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be deterred from launching its missiles because its leaders do not fear their country’s destruction.

The Economist has called into question an oft-cited statement Podhoretz attributes to Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, saying it is likely “bogus.”

more here
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Neocon_accused_of_misquoting_Irans_leader_1119.html

Voters elected Ron Paul for 10 terms. He's a pediatrician.
Any doctor who can get elected 10 times has my respect, but you are right, anyone who opposes the war is asking to be labeled with the "wacko" stereotype.

McCain can sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran, boooomb iraaaan" To the tune of "barbara ann" But that's just normal psychotic behavior, and we can't at all condemn that kind of thing. Someone who watches TV might think Iran expects to be bombed, or that they are "asking for it."

Here's the song to sing: http://www.videosift.com/video/Adam-Kontras-Lets-Bomb-Iran-to-the-tune-of-The-Beach-Boys-Barbara-Ann
Here's a moron singing it:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran

"Okay, Giuliani is taken care of. Who do we go after next?"

I dunno, are there more hypocrite presidential candidates? Like say, ones that push gay marriage bans, but are really closeted. How about politicians that talk about family values every chance they get, but really are visiting prostitutes or young underage male interns. Or maybe there are some candidates that like to dressup in women's clothing.

How about anyone that says we need to use nukes on other countries? Or ones that want to double Gitmo? Who is next?

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran (that was McCain, but Rove already torpedoed him)

what are you gonna do, farhad? bomb iran with your treehugging liberalism?
better to nuke the place and be done with it. can't risk that smoking mushroom gun cloud.
and we should scare russia too, that would be great, wouldn't it?

</sarcasm>

ahhh heck i hope i live to see my children look back on this era with incredulity.

"Daddy, why did people vote for George Bush?"
"They didn't, son. They didn't."

SilentPoet says: "That doesn't make sense. Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates. How do I end up with someone worse than the two canidates by voting for someone who I believe would make a better canidate?......How is choosing the canidate whom you believe would serve best irrational? That seems to simply go against the very meaning of democracy to me."

It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?

Think of it this way: Say you have 3 choices, A, B, & C. You like A better than B, and B better than C. Thus, you like A better than C (by transitivity). Now, imagine that an evil wizard comes up to you and says, "You can choose A, but if you do, I will make it immediately disappear, and you will be stuck with C. If you choose B, you will get B. If you choose C, you will get C. Which do you want?"

It is obvious which choice you should make. You should choose B. You could choose your favorite choice (A), but you know if you do you will not get it anyway, and in fact will be stuck with the thing you like the least (C). You don't want to choose C right off, because then you'll get it, and you'd rather have B. If you choose B, though, you'll get B (and avoid C). B isn't perfect, but at least that way you end up with your second ranked outcome instead of your last ranked outcome.

Now, replace A with Nader, B with the Democrats, and C with the GOP, and you see why voting for Nader is irrational. It is the equivalent of choosing A in the thought experiment described above (the evil wizard is, of course, the American 2 party system).

Now, the argument above is based on 6 assumptions:

1) That Nader can't win.
2) That voting for him knowing he will lose will not make for any significant structural/institutional changes, even in the long term (and may even result in a regression away from your admirable political goals if the Republicans are helped to win by your so voting).
3) That the Democrats--while shitty--are not NEARLY so shitty as the GOP, and will not get alot of people killed by staying the course in Iraq, bombing Iran, etc.
4) That the Democrats are not MORE corrupt than the Republicans.
5) That your politics are closer to Nader's than, say, Fred Thompson's.
6) That the next presidential election will be close enough that if a good number of people follow your advice, we could see a repeat of the 2000 Nader/Gore/Bush debacle.

I think the first 4 are all indisputable. The fifth one is reasonable given that you are advocating a vote for Nader instead of a different "3rd party" candidate. Number 6 is a guess, but I think it's a decent one. Anyway, vote for who you like. I just hope you won't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing anyone but Nader a favor. You won't, if my argument is correct, even be doing yourself a favor.

"I admit that I usually have to read his comments several times before I figure out what he is saying. Like I said, he rambles a bit, but there may be some method in that madness."

This is proof that you are more intelligent than me. I cannot figure out what choggie is talking about. Ever.

"... but seriously folks, don't bomb iran, it will lead to a loss of innocent life for no reason."

yeah, that's probably what he said.

Well. I was pretty sure we weren't going to Bomb Iran.. even in spite of National Israel Nuke Drill, and Israel requesting airspace access over Iraq to fly to Iran... that and the two fleets of cruise and patriot missile ships we sent to Gulf. Oh and the mine seek and destroy naval group. And the MSM rhetoric exactly matching the march up to Iraq war.

Well, how could I be so sure Iran wasn't inevitable? Look at the stock market. Thing clearly said, no insane missle / mini-nuke dropping fiasco. Until, guess when..

Hey, for giggles, go look at Jan and Feb 2003 before Iraq invasion. Go ahead. I'll wait.

In 1979 during the “Iran hostage crisis,” Vince Vance and the Valliants recorded “Bomb Iran” to the tune of The Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann.” Adam Kontras sings his own “Lets’ Bomb Iran.”