Iran endorses Bush
TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure the Kerryistas are jumping with joy over this. Given the harsh rhetoric against Iran that has come from both campaigns, I think there is only one valid response they can give--that the endorsement means nothing one way or another. Bush doesn't control what the leaders of Iraq say, and clearly doesn't respect their opinions, so I don't see how it can logically be used against him. The Bush campaign's response seems appropriate within the context of their axis-of-evil approach to Iran:
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."But the Kerry campaign sees opportunity, despite there being no logic in giving credence to the opinions of people that both candidates openly disrespect:
"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of a member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."No, it isn't telling. If someone of reasonable integrity endorses a candidate, maybe it means something. But when someone whose integrity is equally questioned (rightly or wrongly) by both candidates endorses one of them, both should agree that it means nothing. If Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer both endorsed Kerry next week, or if the Unabomber and Dick Cheney endorsed Bush, it should mean absolutely nothing either way, since they're all criminals. (Now Cheney being on Bush's ticket is a different story.)