John Kerry evades question of ties to Iranian Goverment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 09:29 PM

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry’s campaign Thursday was accused of avoiding sticky questions about Iranian influence on his presidential bid.
"Do I think they're running out the clock until after the election? Absolutely I do," responded Bob Jenevein, attorney for a top figure in the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI). Story Continues Below

In answer to a question from NewsMax.com, Jenevein said the Kerry-Edwards campaign was stalling on signing any deposition acknowledging that Hassan Nemazee, a New York investment banker, had "provided the campaign with advice and/or insight on matters relevant to Iran and U.S.-Iran relations." Nemazee is listed as a member of the board of American-Iranian Council, which SMCCDI says favors "eventually normalization of relations with Iran," a state sponsor of terrorism. The attorney said Kerry’s campaign told him that even though he had sought since July to put the Democrat nominee’s foreign policy adviser Rand Beers under oath about Nemazee's relation to the campaign for the White House, Beers would not be available until Nov. 10, 8 days after the election. "That is unacceptable," Jenovein told NewsMax. SMCCDI has alleged Nemazee has used his position to advance the interests of Iran’s Islamic regime. Jenevein represents SMCCDI Coordinator Aryo Pirouznia. Nemaze had filed a $10 million suit against Pirouznia charging defamation of character and denying that he has served as an agent for the Iranian government. Pirouznia has counter-sued, and his attorney's effort to put Kerry’s campaign under oath is a part of that legal battle. Nemazee himself has been scheduled to provide a deposition on Monday in New York.

NewsMax has attempted without success to elicit comment from Kerry’s campaign on this. We were put in touch with an assistant to Beers, Greta Lundeberg, who refused comment and referred NewsMax to the campaign's press office. That phone went unanswered. A "fact sheet" issued by Jenevein cited reports from the mainstream media and from Kerry’s campaign itself that Nemazee had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the senator's race.

John Corsi, who co-wrote the best seller "Unfit for Command," which contradicts many of Kerry's claims about his stint in Vietnam, reiterated at today's news conference that Kerry’s campaign had been backed by pro-mullah groups that are funding terrorists attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

SMCCDI has cited Kerry's comment in the first debate with President Bush, where the candidate made the following statement regarding Tehran and nuclear weapons: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide [Iran with] nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together."

Corsi compared that to handing a 5-year-old child a stick of dynamite to “see what happens." Or, he added, perhaps something similar to the mistake the U.S. made in the 1930s in selling scrap metal to the Japanese, only to have them shoot it back at us at Pearl Harbor.

In his most recent letter to Beers and Lundeberg of the Kerry campaign, attorney Jenevein urged them to "confirm under oath what you have already confirmed on the record with a reporter." The reporter in question was investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, who was also at the news conference at the National Press Club.

Timmerman said he had warned Nemazee against joining the board of American Iranian Council, telling him that freedom-loving Iranians would regard him "as a traitor" to their struggle. SMCCDI’s "fact sheet" notes that Nemazee nonetheless is on the council’s board.

As for SMCCDI Coordinator Pirouznia, he told the news conference that he had "no agenda against John Kerry" or for President Bush, that his only interest was in securing freedom for his native land and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the radical mullahs who rule it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/170936.shtml

Edit:

Doesnt this mean a foreign power is imposing( giving money to canidates)on our elections? Isnt that illegal?

Its kinda ludacrious to talk about "big coporations" giving money to Bush for tax breaks ( such was implied when he mentions Enron getting tax breaks) when your taking money from one of the "axis of evil" countries?

Sorry for not posting comments- its late

plz love me

Stare At The Sun · 10-14-2004, 09:40 PM

You post some stupid article, say little about it; you silly troll.

kutulu · 10-14-2004, 10:33 PM

newsmax. that's all i needed to see

KnifeMissile · 10-14-2004, 10:46 PM

Actually, there is something worth mentioning about this post.

Kalibah, could you please read TFP guideline H-3 (in section II). Remember, we'd like you to express yourself, rather than someone else's opinion...

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

You post some stupid article, say little about it; you silly troll.

I felt the article speaks for itself. If i were trolling id have said OMG LOOK WHAT KERRY IS DOING- but im smart enough to realize nothing has been proven yet.

But that said...

okay ill fix the post

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

newsmax. that's all i needed to see

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...4639-5209r.htm

martinguerre · 10-14-2004, 11:47 PM

yeah...the washington times makes it more credible. sorry...but we really can't afford to feed the trolls..on either side. when you admit that bush wore a wire in the debates, we'll talk about iranian funding of kerry's campaign.

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

yeah...the washington times makes it more credible. sorry...but we really can't afford to feed the trolls..on either side. when you admit that bush wore a wire in the debates, we'll talk about iranian funding of kerry's campaign.

But this is based on more than a picture of the presidents back

HugAPug · 10-15-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...4639-5209r.htm

Here's the commentary posted ( for those of you who don't like clicking links):

Quote:

Kerry's Iran scandal

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Kerry-Edwards campaign is headed toward a campaign finance scandal involving contributions on behalf of a foreign power, similar to allegations that plagued Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. Instead of Communist China, this time the foreign power seeking to influence a U.S. presidential candidate is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's premier state sponsor of international terror.
The Chinese sought U.S. military technology to enhance their nuclear missiles. The record shows the Clinton administration provided them key assistance in that area.
The so-called "Islamic" republic of Iran is seeking from Mr. Kerry a series of concessions that would allow them to become a nuclear weapons power and circumvent the restrictions of the USA Patriot act to infiltrate intelligence agents and potential terrorists into the United States.
How could Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards, who claim to be able to defend America better than President Bush, allow themselves to fall into such a trap? Top Kerry and Edwards advisers warned both candidates against accepting campaign donations from people with close ties to mullahs in Tehran months ago, sources inside their respective campaigns say. And yet, neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Edwards has done anything to distance himself from these donors. On the contrary, both have continued to take their money and promote their agenda.
Mr. Kerry adopted a key element of that agenda in last week's presidential debate. If president, he said he would have "offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel" to Iran, to "test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." Mr. Kerry's words brought comfort to Tehran's top mullahs, who have been seeking to buy time from the international community for the past two years while they continue perfecting their nuclear weapons capabilities.
Even the International Atomic Energy Agency is no longer willing to certify Iran's "peaceful purposes" in seeking nuclear technology. I heard that personally from the lips of IAEA Director General Mohammad el Baradei while reporting from Vienna, Austria, two weeks ago during a board of governers meeting on Iran's case.
And yet, Mr. Kerry thinks the United States should open trade with Iran's clerics, not isolate them — as if concessions could convince them to abandon their pursuit of 20 years duration in the face of U.S. and international punishment.
Mr. Kerry's support for a pro-regime agenda is troubling as America enters an extremely difficult phase of the war on terror. Tehran's mullahs are playing a sophisticated shell game with their nuclear capabilities. Like a drunken reveler at a county fair, Mr. Kerry has bought the empty shell, while proudly insisting that "as president, I'll never take my eye off that ball."
Top among the pro-regime fund-raisers who have contributed to the Kerry campaign is a recent Iranian immigrant in California named Susan Akbarpour.
Miss Akbarpour came to this country in 1997, claiming to be a political refugee. In seeking asylum, she told U.S. authorities she feared she would be persecuted if she was forced to return to Iran. And yet, in court records I examined in California and described in this month's American Spectator, Miss Akbarpour maintained a privileged relationship with government agencies of the Islamic Republic, even after she came the United States. (Her lawyers deny this, but in the settlement agreement the disputed document is allowed to stand).
Here in the United States, Miss Akbarpour has become an outspoken public supporter of the regime — odd behavior for someone who claims to have been persecuted in Iran. She has been one of the privileged few admitted to closed-door meetings with regime officials visiting the United States, and has been videotaped by Iranian television reporters in Los Angeles screaming at pro-freedom demonstrators. As part of her effort to build a pro-regime lobby among Iranian-American high-tech executives, she has hosted conferences to promote venture capital investment in Iran, though the Clinton administration made it illegal for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to invest in Iran.
The Kerry campaign credits Miss Akbarpour and her new husband, Faraj Aalaie, with each raising $50,000 to $100,000 for the presidential campaign. Mr. Aalaie is president of Centillium Communications, a Nasdaq-listed software firm.
These contributions continue despite even though Miss Akbarpour was not a permanent U.S. resident when she made her initial contribution to Mr. Kerry on June 17, 2002, as this reporter first revealed in March. (To be legal, campaign cash must come from U.S. citizens or permanent residents).
Miss Akbarpour, her husband and members of the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) hosted a fund-raiser featuring Rep. Anna Eshoo, California Democrat, last Sunday in California. Ms. Eshoo is a member of the House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence.
IAPAC's agenda includes opening trade with Iran and ending the fingerprinting of Iranians coming to the United States, two measures with pro-democracy advocates say will bolster the rule of radical clerics in Tehran and allow them to more easily send intelligence operatives to this country.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards need to distance themselves from the pro-regime lobbyists who are raising money for their campaign. To start with, they might return money raised by Susan Akbarpour, some of which was donated illegally. They might also explain how they would help bring freedom to Iran, instead of bringing comfort to the ruling mullahs.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is author of "The French Betrayal of America" and others books from Crown Forum.

seretogis · 10-15-2004, 02:18 AM

If it shows Kerry in a bad light, it's just the rantings of a troll. If it slams Bush, it is "unimpeachable evidence."

host · 10-15-2004, 03:07 AM

Timmerman is a blatantly partisan Republican. Visit the archive.org record of his
now defunct timmerman2000.com website. We'll see many more threads like this
started here in the next few weeks. Hopefully, most members will screen their sources
for some shreds of credibility before starting new political threads.
<A href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/">http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/</a>

filtherton · 10-15-2004, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

If it shows Kerry in a bad light, it's just the rantings of a troll. If it slams Bush, it is "unimpeachable evidence."

That's ironic.

Newsmax and op-ed commentary. Oooooooh. Lemme go see how if i can find some quote from a jounalistically questionable source repeated in op-ed commentary that i can pass off as fact about president bush's war for oil. I'm thinking moveon.org and molly ivins. Then we'll see about "unimpeachable evidence" and the rantings of a troll.

kutulu · 10-15-2004, 12:00 PM

Might as well be posting Ann Coulter.

Lebell · 10-15-2004, 12:44 PM

I see alot of attacking the messenger, which may or may not be a legitimate source.

Has anyone investigated this seriously?

We do know for a fact that foreign governments try to influence US elections (China/Clinton).

And posting Ann Coulter would be legitimate under the rules of TFP Politics, as would posting Al Franken (both of which has been done).

If you folks don't want to read things that disagree with your opinions, I can direct you to Democratic Underground (liberal) or Free Republic (conservative).

As far as TFP goes, this kind of smack down is inappropriate.

martinguerre · 10-15-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

If it shows Kerry in a bad light, it's just the rantings of a troll. If it slams Bush, it is "unimpeachable evidence."

This goes for Lebell, too.

Frankly, i don't think Kalibah posted anything of merit...article is put up with out comment, no evaluation of the credibility of the source. What exactly are we supposed to respect? I don't agree with the name calling...the adjective "troll" works far better than "silly troll." But with all due respect....Newsmax? C'mon...i'm sure y'all can do better.

The whole thing beggars belief. It's about as subtle as claiming that Osama endorses Kerry.

cthulu23 · 10-15-2004, 01:01 PM

All the piece states is that a Kerry donor has ties to the Iranian government and that Kerry has proposed a plan for Iranian engagement that the writer disagrees with. There is no evidence to tie these two claims together...in fact, Timmerman doesn't even try to link them, allowing his reader's to jump to their own conclusions. More "damning evidence" that turns out to be so much hot air.

If we want to talk Iranian scandal, how about the administration's full endorsement and support of an Iranian spy? We haven't heard much from Ahmed Chalibi lately, have we?

Lebell · 10-15-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

This goes for Lebell, too.

Frankly, i don't think Kalibah posted anything of merit...article is put up with out comment, no evaluation of the credibility of the source. What exactly are we supposed to respect? I don't agree with the name calling...the adjective "troll" works far better than "silly troll." But with all due respect....Newsmax? C'mon...i'm sure y'all can do better.

The whole thing beggars belief. It's about as subtle as claiming that Osama endorses Kerry.

I can appreciate what you are saying, martinguerre, but what I would hope we can evolve into is that if a member needs to post a comment, then the veterans should respectfully suggest that.

If a source has questionable merit, then the veterans should know to say something like, "You know, I've never seen a story verified from this source. Do you have any other sources to back up this allegation?"

Do you see the difference?

As it stands, this is just one step above, "You suck for posting that, you troll!"

10-14-2004, 09:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	John Kerry evades question of ties to Iranian Goverment WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry’s campaign Thursday was accused of avoiding sticky questions about Iranian influence on his presidential bid. "Do I think they're running out the clock until after the election? Absolutely I do," responded Bob Jenevein, attorney for a top figure in the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI). Story Continues Below In answer to a question from NewsMax.com, Jenevein said the Kerry-Edwards campaign was stalling on signing any deposition acknowledging that Hassan Nemazee, a New York investment banker, had "provided the campaign with advice and/or insight on matters relevant to Iran and U.S.-Iran relations." Nemazee is listed as a member of the board of American-Iranian Council, which SMCCDI says favors "eventually normalization of relations with Iran," a state sponsor of terrorism. The attorney said Kerry’s campaign told him that even though he had sought since July to put the Democrat nominee’s foreign policy adviser Rand Beers under oath about Nemazee's relation to the campaign for the White House, Beers would not be available until Nov. 10, 8 days after the election. "That is unacceptable," Jenovein told NewsMax. SMCCDI has alleged Nemazee has used his position to advance the interests of Iran’s Islamic regime. Jenevein represents SMCCDI Coordinator Aryo Pirouznia. Nemaze had filed a $10 million suit against Pirouznia charging defamation of character and denying that he has served as an agent for the Iranian government. Pirouznia has counter-sued, and his attorney's effort to put Kerry’s campaign under oath is a part of that legal battle. Nemazee himself has been scheduled to provide a deposition on Monday in New York. NewsMax has attempted without success to elicit comment from Kerry’s campaign on this. We were put in touch with an assistant to Beers, Greta Lundeberg, who refused comment and referred NewsMax to the campaign's press office. That phone went unanswered. A "fact sheet" issued by Jenevein cited reports from the mainstream media and from Kerry’s campaign itself that Nemazee had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the senator's race. John Corsi, who co-wrote the best seller "Unfit for Command," which contradicts many of Kerry's claims about his stint in Vietnam, reiterated at today's news conference that Kerry’s campaign had been backed by pro-mullah groups that are funding terrorists attacking U.S. troops in Iraq. SMCCDI has cited Kerry's comment in the first debate with President Bush, where the candidate made the following statement regarding Tehran and nuclear weapons: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide [Iran with] nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together." Corsi compared that to handing a 5-year-old child a stick of dynamite to “see what happens." Or, he added, perhaps something similar to the mistake the U.S. made in the 1930s in selling scrap metal to the Japanese, only to have them shoot it back at us at Pearl Harbor. In his most recent letter to Beers and Lundeberg of the Kerry campaign, attorney Jenevein urged them to "confirm under oath what you have already confirmed on the record with a reporter." The reporter in question was investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, who was also at the news conference at the National Press Club. Timmerman said he had warned Nemazee against joining the board of American Iranian Council, telling him that freedom-loving Iranians would regard him "as a traitor" to their struggle. SMCCDI’s "fact sheet" notes that Nemazee nonetheless is on the council’s board. As for SMCCDI Coordinator Pirouznia, he told the news conference that he had "no agenda against John Kerry" or for President Bush, that his only interest was in securing freedom for his native land and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the radical mullahs who rule it. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/170936.shtml Edit: Doesnt this mean a foreign power is imposing( giving money to canidates)on our elections? Isnt that illegal? Its kinda ludacrious to talk about "big coporations" giving money to Bush for tax breaks ( such was implied when he mentions Enron getting tax breaks) when your taking money from one of the "axis of evil" countries? Sorry for not posting comments- its late plz love me Last edited by Kalibah; 10-14-2004 at 11:30 PM..

10-15-2004, 02:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	If it shows Kerry in a bad light, it's just the rantings of a troll. If it slams Bush, it is "unimpeachable evidence." __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-15-2004, 12:44 PM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I see alot of attacking the messenger, which may or may not be a legitimate source. Has anyone investigated this seriously? We do know for a fact that foreign governments try to influence US elections (China/Clinton). And posting Ann Coulter would be legitimate under the rules of TFP Politics, as would posting Al Franken (both of which has been done). If you folks don't want to read things that disagree with your opinions, I can direct you to Democratic Underground (liberal) or Free Republic (conservative). As far as TFP goes, this kind of smack down is inappropriate. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 10-15-2004 at 12:47 PM..

10-14-2004, 09:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	You post some stupid article, say little about it; you silly troll.

10-14-2004, 10:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	newsmax. that's all i needed to see

10-14-2004, 10:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Actually, there is something worth mentioning about this post. Kalibah, could you please read TFP guideline H-3 (in section II). Remember, we'd like you to express yourself, rather than someone else's opinion...

10-14-2004, 11:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	yeah...the washington times makes it more credible. sorry...but we really can't afford to feed the trolls..on either side. when you admit that bush wore a wire in the debates, we'll talk about iranian funding of kerry's campaign.

10-15-2004, 03:07 AM	#11 (permalink)
host Banned	Timmerman is a blatantly partisan Republican. Visit the archive.org record of his now defunct timmerman2000.com website. We'll see many more threads like this started here in the next few weeks. Hopefully, most members will screen their sources for some shreds of credibility before starting new political threads. <A href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/">http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/</a>

10-15-2004, 12:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Might as well be posting Ann Coulter.

10-15-2004, 01:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	All the piece states is that a Kerry donor has ties to the Iranian government and that Kerry has proposed a plan for Iranian engagement that the writer disagrees with. There is no evidence to tie these two claims together...in fact, Timmerman doesn't even try to link them, allowing his reader's to jump to their own conclusions. More "damning evidence" that turns out to be so much hot air. If we want to talk Iranian scandal, how about the administration's full endorsement and support of an Iranian spy? We haven't heard much from Ahmed Chalibi lately, have we?