Many people believe that’s a nonsensical misinterpretation on a par with that around Khrushchev’s “We will bury you” remark.
tomndebb:
I’m not sure what your point is, but here are nearly 300 stories between April 2003 and October 2004 collected and re-publicized by Democrats regarding the lack of WMDs.Democrats.com Archive: Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
Regardless who acknowledged the lies:
there never were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion;
the Bush administration knew that there were few or no WMDs at the time they ordered the invasion under the pretense of preventing the use of the nonexistent WMDs.
Ah yes, after the invasion and the unending '‘Bush lied’'litany. If everybody knew there were any WMD, how did Bush get the war resolution through congress? Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia
Would you like me to explain to you how a calendar works?
The Iraq Resolution was passed in October, 2002, the month before the UN inspectors re-entered Iraq and began to find that the WMDs that “everyone knew” were there actually were not there. If you will read my posts, you will note that I have already pointed out the timeline for the various events.
And since you appear to be chronologically challenged, thelabdude , I will note that the stories to which I linked that began in April 2003 were not a response to “Who knew there were no WMDs? ” but to your separate erroneous allegation that no one called Bush on his lies after they were demonstrated to have been lies.
He acted like he really believed it.
You’d be surprised how often that works.
BrainGlutton:
So, if I’m arrested for killing a man in the street (as of course I would be), and it turns out he was Baha’i, they’ll just drop the charges and let me go?
Yes, the Bahai have no legal status in Iran. Like I said, the best word to describe the Iranian government’s attitude towards them is “unperson.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/284idyfu.asp?page=2
When asked about Baha’is in his September 24 National Press Club speech, President Ahmadinejad said merely that Iran recognizes only four “divine religions.” He declined to mention or defend either the government’s recent actions or the regime’s longstanding “Laws of Islamic Punishment” under which Baha’is fall in the category of “murder with impunity” so that, if they are murdered, the state will not punish their killers.
Not to sidetrack this thread, but are you saying people think that Khrushchev was mistranslated?
I’d never heard that.
People (Americans) thought Khrushchev was making a threat. He wasn’t. He meant only “We will outlast you” – a boast, not a threat. To “bury” a person is a Russian idiom for attending their funeral.
Well, if those damn commie Ruskies had just spoken English like all the other Christians, we wouldn’t have had that problem.
You should probably inform the official translators of Iran’s government.
[
If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.
But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
The second translation issue concerns the word “map.” Khomeini’s words were abstract: “Sahneh roozgar.” Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as “map,” and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not “Sahneh roozgar” but “Safheh roozgar,” meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word “map” again.
Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: “It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word ‘map’ was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words ‘sahneh roozgar’ are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as ‘book of countries,’ and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard ‘Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad’ — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches.”
The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s use of “occupying regime of Jerusalem” rather than “Israel.”
](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html )