State Deptt says that this is for NY city to decide.

NYPD decides not to assist his visit, but is not planning to actively prevent it.

Secret Service will meekly accompany him.

WTF is going on here? Is this the most powerful nation on the planet, or a banana republic? Is there no way and no authority than can say that Mad Mahmoud will not be allowed to visit WTC, and will be arrested if he ventures within a mile of the place?

You know, I have a very, very serious problem with my tax dollars funding protection for this person. 

And that he is taking it upon himself to go anyway - what supreme arrogance.

I say we revoke his visa. I think he shouldn't even step on American soil (which he would do if coming in via JFK).

If they can figure out a way to fly him straight to the UN, I guess they could do that, but this is sort of "Merchant of Venice"-y --- can't be in U.S. territory. It's technically feasible (ship in intl waters, then helicopter to UN building), but very difficult to do.

Monday, 10 a.m. 

Roger, copy the targeting info.  Designate Target Pork Patty.

Out.

>>If they can figure out a way to fly him straight to the UN....

The air above NYC, including over UN, is severeign US territory. If he does not have visa, they cannt fly him to UN. His plane can be shot down before it reaches the shore.

severeign = sovereign

Tushar = tard

>>Only no secret service and he has to take the subway.

I will be rooting for the hobos.

My subconscious is screaming at me to remember that stuff you post on the internet can come back to bite you in the ass later.

Must... use... restraint.....

Never happen in a million years. It's incredibly provocative (read: retarded) and there's no way in Hell anyone will take him on such a mission.

The response from State should have read:

"If he wants to put his finger in a wound, a nice fresh one can be provided for him."

We should take him into custody and release him in about, ooh let's say 444 days.

meep--and let the damn OIS pay his expenses, not the US and NYC taxpayers!

Bush is the new Chamberlain.  Bloomberg is the new, what?  Chamberlain's toe lint?

Taking a page from Dailykos:

There's a lot of highrise buildings around GZ with windows.

Just saying...

That would be a nice location for a beheading…payback a bitch!

http://broun.house.gov/index.shtml

Guess that party!  He replaced Charlie Norwood after he passed away from cancer.  It looks like GA has another distinguished congressman to replace Mr. Norwood.  Good job GA!

It doesn't say on his website that I can see if he is a R (yeah, I sometimes struggle finding stuff, so if it's front and center, ya know..), but knowing the district I'm going to guess he is.

Can we send the UN the hell out of the country NOW?  Again, why the hell does every tin pot psychopath dictator get to make Manhattan his playground?

Put the damn thing over in Lagos, where they like corruption.

Hell, build it in Tehran, and ban us and Israel from membership....PLEASE.

This doesn't make it wrong by definition, but denying him a visa would be granting him attention he doesn't deserve. In a perfect world we'd all ignore the little shit--that would drive him to distraction. And the Iranian people need to know we don't live and die by what their shithead leaders do to get a rise out of us.

I think Bush handled a similar situation with shitheel Chavez pretty well--he ignored him. I'd be willing to follow his lead again, as this stuff is one of the dwindling few things Bush handles well.

Anyone in the NYC area that can the time off of work needs to be down there Monday morning and form a human blockade of the place.

This is an absolute outrage!!!!!!

I call on every New Yorker, and party affliliation should not matter, to show up at ground zero and refuse to let this bastard in.

I mean, c'mon, it doesn't take much time to get some mid level government drone to stamp "DENIED" on a visa application and slip it in the pouch for the Swiss consulate in Iran.  What, 5 minutes?

Where would Adolf Jr. get his attention and sympathy from?  Le Monde?  Der Spiegel?  the NY Times?  Who gives a flying fuck?

EC, you beat me to the punch.

Secret Service or not, there's no way in hell that Manhattan can be made secure and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

Where are the real lunatic fringe when you need them?

I'm getting to really dislike protests. Us, Them, doesn't matter. It's all just looking so foolish and pointless.

Maybe it's just fatigue.

I wonder if JFK's Secret Service detail is available for Ahmadeniwhatever's visit.

<p>

That detail has an excellent performance record that could come in very handy for this event.

I don't do the protest thing.  Shrug, don't like crowds.

Anywho, any guesses as to whether a certain Ms. Idris Leppla is all excited about this EXCITING OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN from the other?:

In other news from the world of academia, it seems that while Larry Summers isn't welcome to be a dinner speaker at the University of California, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an honored guest at Columbia. (Hat tip: Becky.) Well, that makes perfect sense to me. Ahmadinejad may be a murderous, oppressive tyrant bent on destroying Israel, dominating the Middle East, opposing America at every turn, and potentially hastening the apocalypse and the arrival of the 12th imam -- but hey, we should listen to what he has to say, right? Only closed-minded bigots and crazy right-wing warbloggers (but I repeat myself!) would say no to an "opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran." Free exchange of ideas, understanding the "other," and all that sort of thing. Summers, though -- Summers questioned feminist orthodoxy! Tolerance only goes so far, people. The free exchange of ideas extends to Holocaust denial, but it doesn't extend to suggesting the possibility that men and women might not be biologically identical. There are some things you just don't say.

http://blog.brendanloy.com/2007/09/court-rules-fra.html

Tush, what I am is a thinking man. I really am beginning to dislike this impulse to charge ahead into the breach without a thought toward what is to be accomplished and how best to do it. You want to let that shit know you dislike him? He knows this. That's why he's coming here.

It's a no-win for us. He returns home to show his people how much Americans hate them. It only strengthens the regime. If you know anything about Iran at all you have to know this.

If you really think about it, you have to know the best thing is just to ignore the little shit. That's the only play that will actually resonate with reformists in Iran, and that's the only audience that's in play here.

Spongeworthy,

this  'Iranians hate the Mullahs, but any US hostility will play into their hands and strenghten the regime' line is getting old now. I don't care what effect our actions will have on the Iranian people, and how will it translate into support for Mad Mahmoud.

All I care about is that I don't want this monster to come and gloat (or shed crocodile tears) at the place where we lost thousands of innocents at the hands of his bloodthirsty co-religionists.

I am too stupid to analyse the nuances of Iranian people's thought-process. All I know is that him visiting WTC is a grave insult to all Americans.

that's why you deny his visa.  don't let him come here at all.  poof, problem solved all the way around.

Bush is in charge of the State Dept, he could end this crap in a 10 second phone call.  Why doesn't he?  Why does the man seem to believe that Adolf Jr. deserves a vacation in NYC?

Hey, I've never killed a single US soldier, or been a Holocaust denier.  Can I have that nice 24/7 US Secret Service protection if I come to NYC?  Will the UN pick up my hotel tab?  What about my meals, will they be provided too?

Thanks America!

Let me tell you a secret, Tushar. There are even worse cocksuckers than him visiting that site (not many.) I don't like it, but there's no test for moral purity to visit Ground Zero. If I had my druthers, he'd not be allowed to come anywhere near the place.

But that's strictly an emotional response--granted, a deeply visceral one not easily ignored. The question is, what do you accomplish with your emotional response? Make yourself feel better? This guy is literally beneath your contempt.

And really, saying something's "getting old" is not an argument. In this case, what I'm telling you is as close to being fact as any educated guess about a very complicated geopolitical situation can be. I'd like to see a little less killing of the messenger around here and a few more real arguments.

Of course, I'd like more than 90 seconds of sex a week, too, and I ain't getting that anytime soon.

Bacon fence, LOL. 

Wish I could be there, with pork rinds.

Spongeworthy, when I say the argument is getting old, I mean it is really getting old. We have been waiting for what 25 years now for the Iranian people to finally tire of the Mullahs and depose them. Iranians do not seem to have the initiative to do it. Saying that hostile US reactions strengthen the regime and give them a lease on life from the Iranian people is the same type of argument that blames US action (or inaction) for every bad thing that happens in the world.

Face it, Iranians are nowhere near getting rid of the Mullahs. It is a revolution just waiting to happen, and will always be waiting to happen. It is time to start calculating the flight paths for the B-52s.

Can't help you much about the sex issue. But sometimes it helps to take matters in your own hand. IYKWIMAITYD.

I wonder if we can declare him an enemy combatant.

It'd be cool if the SS (heh) would say, yeah you can go where you want in NYC, but we're only gonna protect you between your hotel and the UN.

Tush, it would be great if the Iranian people would suddenly understand that the world doesn't revolve around a U.S.-Iran axis. But this is what they think and have for a long time. Does making a fuss over their joke of a leader do anything to help them put things into perspective?

And this has nothing to do with any revolution. The struggle between reformists and conservatives in Iran is a daily thing. Anytime the regime can use a potential threat to tighten the screws, they do it and the populace are tolerant. They seem too willing to buy into the paranoia the regime happily feeds them.

I believe, and I'm not alone, that when you show the Iranian people a little respect, a little dignity without endorsing their shitty leadership, the people agitate pretty successfully for greater freedoms. The regime does not seem willing to push too hard once they meet resistance. But protesting is a type of endorsement for their shitty leadership.

If I thought for a minute the Iranian people would say, "Look, those are ordinary Americans who can't stand that little dipshit. They've got nothing against us, just the garbage running this place," I'd STFU and STFD. But because of their captive media and the way a protest will be spun, I'd put the chances of that at about 1 in 20.

Sometimes the greatest victory is in denying your foes their own. I guarantee you if there's a spinnable scene for his visit, he wins. Not us.

lauraw,

I agree about the protests. But I think it seemed for so many years that only the left got mad about anything. I remember when the 2000 election had those white preppy guys storming the "vote counting center" or whatever it was called,  and I was like.."Damn, look at those dorks protesting finally."

But now, although we don't look nearly as silly and crazy as they do. The American  people just yawn at all of us.  

Spongy,

so if you must let him visit, strip off all regalia. He should go there alone, like a common visitor. No media and security entourage should be allowed. Maybe allow him one aide. And for traffic related reasons, block traffic around WTC so he has to walk a few blocks to get there, not just alight from a limo. Take all steps to ensure that he cannot create a media event out of it.

Now you're talking.

I just can't see throwing the little jackoff a circus for his domestic media consumption. That's the shit those people do.

Ignore

Now you're talking.

I just can't see throwing the little jackoff a circus for his domestic media consumption. That's the shit those people do.

Ignore the

Now you're talking.

I just can't see throwing the little jackoff a circus for his domestic media consumption. That's the shit those people do.

Ignore the little

bitch.

That was pretty weird.

Spongy,

will you get to the point? If you are going to be adding one word at a time, I will check back tomorrow.

If a half pint

Dictator says he hates ya,

Ignore the little

Masturbator.

Burma Shave!

I wonder what the odds are of a starving herd of feral swine showing up in Ahmadinejad's vicinity anytime soon... 

I've heard that pigs will eat snakes, even poisonous ones.

On another note, I think that any protesters who go to line his route should carry signs expressing support for domestic Iranian opposition groups and/or reformers.  Preferably ones that are very much secular and democratic in outlook, and already officially outlawed in Iran.  I think that would send a much better message to potentially friendly Iranians.  Signs enumerating specific grievances against Ahmadinejad might be okay, too, although he's such a cocksucker he might think we meant them as compliments.  Also, don't shout anything.  Just stand very still and stare at him.  Try to creep him out.

This Iranian shitbag will be making a very nasty, sordid appearance at the U.N. next week, so he decided to add a visit to ‘ground zero’ to his itinerary? It’s bad enough that The State Department allows despots to gain entrance into this country and use the U.N. as an anti-American soap box. Now, some brain dead obliviot considered allowing one of the world’s leading terrorist scumbags to admire the handiwork of the al Qaeda he supports.

I want to know who made the decision to let him in here in the first fucking place. The decent thing to do would be to tell him not only “no”, but “hell no”.

We need to take full control of who gets to come into or visit the United States. Allowing asshats like Hugo Chavez to stand up in front of an international audience and spew anti-American rants was sickening.

For over 50 years during the Cold War, the United Nations served as nothing more than a Communist forum for the world’s Bolshevist misfits. Since the Wall came tumbling down, they’ve switched to whatever lunatic fringe happens to screech loudest, pro-al Qadea included.  As long as they fit the requisite ‘oppressed people against global capitalism and the West, blah, blah, blah’, there will always be an outlet for their destructive idiocy. The U.N. needs to be kicked out of our country.

As a former Soldier and Iraq War veteran, I cannot believe that this country would tolerate a visit from an asswipe who sponsors the terrorism that took 3000 lives on this soil. In case you’ve forgotten Bloomberg, look at your skyline . Anything missing? I don’t even like the Japs visiting Pearl Harbor; it’s the perpetrator returning to the scene of the crime.

There are many people here and around the world who have repressed the slaughter of Americans far back into selective memories, or worse, dismiss it as if it doesn’t matter. I would gladly trade “Truther” conspiracy morons, Hollywood halfwits like Rosie O’Donnell, or anyone who doesn’t believe we should fight Islamofascist nation-states tooth and nail, for the innocent people who perished on 11 September 2001.

Most of you guys probably saw this already but it's worth a (re-) read.  From Barone to Glenn Reynolds:

Just a random thought on Ahmedinejad speaking at Columbia.

Columbia doesn't host ROTC or (I think) military recruiters on campus, because it would be just too offensive to do so, because the military obeys the law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Bill Clinton which bars open homosexuals from serving in the military. OK.

But Columbia does host Ahmedinejad who heads a government which executes homosexuals for the crime of being homosexuals.

So it's obnoxious beyond belief to exclude homosexuals from military service, but it's not obnoxious beyond belief to hang them from the neck until dead.

I'm inclined to think that Congress and the military should rethink their policy of barring homosexuals from military service. It's a long argument, which I'll omit from this post. But I don't have any trouble joining the 99.99% of Americans who oppose execution of homosexuals for homosexual acts. And who think it's a barbaric act, incapable of being supported by any decent argument.

Why does Lee Bollinger think a man who heads a regime that executes homosexuals--not just excludes them from military service, but hangs them by the neck until dead, in public ceremony-- should be honored with an invitation to speak at Columbia?

Because Ahmadinejad doesn't like Bush, and that covers all sins?