Ah yes, there's nothing like a good conspiracy to get you started off on the right foot. And it is a conspiracy theory: just look at the rhetoric. American politicians need to "have the courage to stand up publicly," as if they are being controlled by"U.S Political Leaders: Have the courage to stand up publicly to AIPAC lobbyists and their supporters who would pressure you to send our troops into another preventive war."
By the way, nowhere in the article does it say that AIPAC wants a war with Iran. Seriously. Go and read it. I attended the AIPAC policy conference this year and no one anywhere expressed a desire for America and Iran to fight. What they wanted was for Iran not to have nuclear weapons, and if Mr. Bournomo was as well informed as he would have us believe he would actually know that. Sadly, however, telling the truth does not appear to be what the Huffington Post brought him on board to do.
Finally, he doesn't appear to know what the word "preventive" means, because it means "serving to prevent." Perhaps he means "preventable," because I think a war that prevents Iran from attaining nuclear weapons would actually be a good thing, and I don't think he would agree. Isn't that the point of his article?
More classic newspeak. According to Mr. Bounormo, Ahmadinejad has never made any genocidal comments about Israel! They've only ever been interpreted that way. Never mind the fact that he made some just last week, we can't be bothered to tell the real truth, not when there is so much Huffington Post truth to tell."Iranian Political Leaders: Disavow statements made by President Ahmadinejad that have been interpreted as genocidal toward Israel....Your president's inflammatory and threatening rhetoric may result in a conflict that will likely cause great suffering to you and your people. On the other hand, the international community would undoubtedly be more open to your pursuit of nuclear energy if you distanced yourself from such irresponsible and seemingly irrational statements."
There is more propaganda rhetoric contained in this paragraph: Ahmadinejad's statements will "result in a conflict," according to Mr. Bournomo. As if the only thing Iran has ever done is talk. But no, in reality Ahmadinejad is making statements and Iran is racing toward nuclear energy and has been supporting terrorist and insurgent organizations for years and has a history of throwing its own people under the bus if it means pursuing the regimes goals.
Let's not forget this either:
As I have often said, it's one thing to disagree about how to deal with Iran. One can even debate on whether or not they are seeking nuclear weapons and to what extend America is culpable for the current situation. But as I have also often said, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
In his article it is becoming more and more clear that Mr. Bounormo is only interested in the facts that support his position, and the rest remain firmly swept under the rug.
"U.S. Political Leaders: Stand up for American principles by imposing real political and economic costs on Israel for its settlement expansions and denial of Palestinian rights. Continued economic aid should no longer be a given but, rather, should be contingent upon the Israeli government's demonstrated progress in this area"If you're wondering what any of that has to do with Iran, don't bother because it is never explained. Mr. Bournomo just needs to stick to Israel as much as he can, so he'll drag the Palestinians into it. He is more than happy to join the ever growing list of Israel haters who see the Palestinians solely as a club to be used against Israel and then discarded when it is no longer needed.
You don't chant "death to America" because you are upset about Jews living in Hebron. Nope. Sorry. Isn't going to fly. And I like to think that most Americans with brains can see that.
After this Mr. Bournomo speaks against to Iranian leaders, indicating that he fully believes that they are not and never will developing nuclear weapons. Again, this is a legitimate point of view but I can't help but wonder what will happen should evidence be found that Iran has or will have nuclear weapons. Will his point of view change? I'm guessing not so much:
I'd be curious to know Mr. Buornomo's answer to a question I have often asked: if the Iranian nuclear program really does have nothing to hide why are they so insistent on dodging inspectors and absorbing sanctions that even their supporters admit are making the lives of their people harder?
"Fully comply with IAEA inspections to allay the international community's concerns over alleged clandestine nuclear weapons sites. Time is needed to build trust....Don't play into the hands of U.S. and Israeli hawks by playing Saddam's guessing game."
Don't expect him to answer. There's no way to spin it to blame Israel.