Mousavi More Dangerous than Gitmo Inmates?
The Republicans (and sad to say, many Dems) in Congress oppose Obama's plans to close Gitmo because of the "dangerous" nature of its inmates (too dangerous for our maximum-security prisons). At the same time, these Republicans are urging Obama to support the Iranian demonstrators without reservation, ignoring the dangers of counterproductive U.S. support and its potential for igniting a new set of conflagrations in which Americans will die.
Then there's Mousavi himself. Is he more dangerous than your average Gitmo detainee? Perhaps:
As Iranian prime minister during the 1980s, Mousavi was linked by intelligence services to the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 U.S. servicemen and prompted the Reagan administration to remove U.S. troops from Lebanon.
Then there's Mousavi himself. Is he more dangerous than your average Gitmo detainee? Perhaps:
As Iranian prime minister during the 1980s, Mousavi was linked by intelligence services to the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 U.S. servicemen and prompted the Reagan administration to remove U.S. troops from Lebanon.
Advertisement
Ask Salman Rushdie about Moussavi's domestic policy.
June 23, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tip. Here we go:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904194,00.html
The relevant quotes:
• While in office, he severed ties with Great Britain over the U.K.'s refusal to disavow Salman Rushdie, the British author whose The Satanic Verses spurred Ayatollah Khomeini to declare a fatwa calling for Rushdie's death.
• Has not served in the government since 1989, the year the prime minister's post was dissolved. Since then he has been a member of Iran's Expediency Discernment Council, which advises the Supreme Leader, and of the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, which monitors artistic expression.
June 23, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of this matters to our all-American selective amnesia, in which pure self-destructive folly is good and patriotic if Republicans like Reagan engage in it, while Democrats get excoriated by public and politicians alike if they are the perceived perpetrators.
June 23, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink