Ahmadinejad was told that, due to ongoing construction, the site would be blocked off to all foreign emissaries and a visit would not be possible. But the matter did not end there. Upon hearing of Ahmadinejad's request, several political figures in Washington responded. One top U.S. ambassador suggested that Ahmadinejad was seeking a "photo op" at Ground Zero on behalf of terrorists.
"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions, such as dropping support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and suspending its uranium enrichment program," the ambassador said.
Another official, a spokesman for the White House, said that Iran was a "state-sponsor of terror" and the Iranian president had no business being at the 9/11 site.
The media's attitude was no different.
"Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran," declared AOL Time Warner's article about Ahmadinejad's visit. The same article mentioned that an official in Ahmadinejad's government had been involved in the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran, a major incident in which 63 U.S. diplomats and 3 U.S. citizens were taken captive in 1979.
Now maybe it's just me, but "Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran" sounds like a really dramatic way of stating the obvious; I mean, what country would not retaliate if it were attacked by another country? As for the hostage crisis, AOL Time Warner's focus on what ''one'' public servant happened to be doing thirty years ago might seem a bit petty, but there is probably a reason for the focus. Not too long ago, the Western mass media stumbled upon the fact that one perpetrator who was been photographed during the hostage crisis looked like a young version of Ahmadinejad. Today, the CIA claims with "relative certainty" that the man was not Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, without waiting for verification, the media began spreading rumors about the photo. Once the story fell apart, perhaps the best the media could do to insinuate a relationship that was the equivalent of "he was your 'father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate' - which is indicative.
The Western mass media also accused Ahmadinejad of declaring that Israel should be "wiped off the map". In response, the Iranian president was quickly berated for his "anti-Israel rhetoric" and for "advocating genocide." One unnamed Israeli official even called for the capture of Ahmadinejad so that the president could be tried for his words in an Israeli court. As it turns out, Ahmadinejad did not even say what he was quoted as saying; the words cited were fresh from the imagination of Ethan Bronner, a writer for the Jewish-owned New York Times, who had "accidently" mistranslated a speech that the Iranian president had given.
Of course, the pieces begin to fall in place when one is aware that U.S. media giants like AOL Time Warner support Israel and those who support Israel are eager to agitate against Iran and its president. It is no surprise why. Iran's president questions the accepted version of the Holocaust and dares to suggest that its purpose is to justify Israel's existence and guilt Germans into financing and supporting it. Additionally, although Israel is the only country in the Middle East capable of launching a nuclear attack, Iran is making progress towards obtaining nuclear power abilities, which could disrupt Israel's regional hegemony. Iran is also an avid supporter of Hezbollah, a resistance group with which the Israelis are at battle with over land claims.
Every American is entitled to look up the facts and form their own opinion about Iran, Israel and the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli and Lebanon crises. But any prospective involvement derived from that should be about what is best for America and what America has to risk and gain in consequence, not what some pro-Israeli lobbyists see as the best outcome for Israel exclusively. The distinction is critical, because the pro-Israel camp would love for Americans to get involved on their side in any of aforementioned crises to the greatest extent possible no matter the cost to America; after all, the more involved the U.S. is on Israel's side, the less of a sacrifice has Israel to make to achieve its objectives, and the less of a danger there is for Israel to risk overplaying its hand for maximum gain. This is one of the reasons we should be wary of the pro-Israel lobby, as well as its bought-out politicians and allied press and media, because everything they are saying is basically to propagate U.S. involvement. We should never forget that.
Another thing we cannot forget is that it could be our lives at risk in consequence. You would think that, coming off of two huge operations in the Middle East, with reminders of the cost of war fresh in mind, people would be more concerned about this. But public discourse seldom goes in this direction. Additionally, one should consider the tax dollars and growing debt going towards something so intangible when it comes to being economically beneficial or productive, and what it means to finance Israel's war machine and supply the bombs dropped on Palestinian civilians; we should think about what it means when Israel's military leaves Lebanon in ruins after an out-of-proportion, "retributive" strike against a Hezbollah-led government. Because, more important than the hypocrisy of finger-pointing at Iran for "sponsoring terror" by supplying Hezbollah, these actions can come back to us in a big way. Participation is not without consequences. The public should already know this, given the popularly-accepted understanding that the 9/11 attacks were carried out because of American involvement in the Middle East.
The U.S. Founding Fathers tried to warn us about foreign intervention and alliances. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington told Americans to "steer clear of a permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"; President Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address included similar advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none."
Having broken free of London's overlords, the U.S. Founding Fathers obviously understood what it meant if Americans had loyalties to some foreign power. For this reason, all immigrants to the U.S. were forced to renounce foreign oaths. These days, however, if you were born in Israel, you can be an American, Israeli and even German citizen all at the same time, and who knows what direction your loyalties will take you. Is nobody able to see the problem?
In another example from history, the idea of a private bank instead of a national one was hotly contested, with some dedicating their lives to expose the danger of a private bank and others risking their lives to prevent it. Yet today, we live in an era where the pro-Israel lobby is the biggest financier of the U.S. government, does not even have to register as a foreign entity, and everybody is too afraid to expose this. The Founders would have found this state of affairs to be completely outrageous. But look up "AIPAC", and you will see that it is the second strongest, if not the strongest, political funding source in America.
Perhaps the size and power of AIPAC is itself a red flag; after all, would there be a need for politicians to be bought out, corrupted and bribed if the wish to support Israel could be expected to appear organically? This is why, when politicians say things like "but democracy" or "Judeo-Christian values" or "Israel is our aircraft carrier in the Middle East", listen to see if more follows than just buzzword jingoism - and be sure to look in their pockets. There is a big difference between being a public servant who thinks they are advocating policy for the betterment of their own country, and a public servant paid to pretend this is the case.
In conclusion, Americans should continue to be wary of those who wish to make their own enemies America's enemies. As those with power and influence in this country spread propaganda about Iran and Ahmadinejad and urge us to jump into the trenches with Israel, I urge the public to listen to our forefathers and be wary of those among us with foreign ties. Long before it was "politically incorrect" to be concerned that the loyalties of America's citizenry might lie elsewhere, beyond American borders, this was common sense. Unfortunately, in the midst of mass hysteria, such common sense is becoming increasingly less common with each passing day.
