Kevin Barrett, who describes himself as “the peace candidate for Congress” against a pro-war Democratic incumbent in Wisconsin’s District 3, has written a letter to his incumbent-opponent, Representative Ron Kind, demanding that Kind retract what Barrett calls his “false and libelous statement that Iran’s president has called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.’”
Below is the letter:
Dear Congressman Kind,
I am writing to ask you to retract a libelous, potentially murderous, and arguably criminal falsehood you uttered on the Ben Merens show on Wisconsin Public Radio Tuesday. You claimed, as many war propagandists have, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” The false attribution of such a statement to Ahmedinejad is the Big Lie that is being used to promote a US war on Iran, just as Big Lies about WMDs and Iraqi links to al-Qaida were used to launch our catastrophic invasion of Iraq.
It is now well-known and widely accepted among scholars and informed people everywhere that the quote attributed to the Iranian President is based on a misattribution and mistransation. In short, every word of this alleged statement is a lie. The “wiped off the map” lie is an act of war propaganda whose knowing transmission arguably constitutes a war crime. The quote is not from Ahmedinejad, and it does not include the words “Israel,” “wiped,” “wiped off,” or “map.” Let’s go over this word by word.
First, the statement in question is not Ahmedinejad’s, but a quote from Ayatollah Khomeni that is often cited by many Iranians, not just their President. When Ahmedinejad spoke the words in question, he was merely quoting Khomeni, not making his own statement. Attributing this statement to Ahmedinejad, rather than Khomeni, is a lie.
So what did Ahmedinejad say that Khomeni had said? The Iranian President’s exact words were: “Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).” In English: “The Imam (Khomeni) said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Congressman Kind, the United States government and virtually every other government on earth except Israel’s have repeatedly called for Israel to withdraw from all of the territories it invaded and occupied in 1967 — and that includes Jerusalem. In fact, the UN, with US support, has repeatedly ordered Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem and the other Occupied Territories. Khomeni’s call for regime change in Jerusalem is supported, for all intents and purposes, by everyone on earth except the Israelis and their unregistered American agents.
Congressman, you have repeatedly voted for the catastrophic war in Iraq that has killed many of your young constituents as well as a million Iraqis — not to mention our economy. You have voted against your own party’s attempts to set a time limit on this insane war. You say that by repeatedly voting for the war, you are voting to help our troops by providing them with bullets and armor. In fact, you are voting to kill and maim them by leaving them in harm’s way. Now you are repeating a Big Lie designed to spread that insane, catastrophic war to Iran. If war with Iran comes, with its promise of the complete destruction of our economy, $10-per-gallon gasoline, the murder of huge numbers of Iranians and young Americans, and the possibility of a nuclear exchange with Iran’s Russian and Chinese backers, your transmission of the “wiped off the map” Big Lie could be used as evidence against you in eventual Nuremburg II war crimes tribunals. I urge you to immediately and publicly retract your statement, and issue a correction explaining that Khomeni, not Ahmedinejad, is the source of the quote calling for regime change in Jerusalem, not for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
Sincerely
Dr. Kevin Barrett, Arabist-Islamologist
Ph.D., African Langages (Arabic), University of Wisconsin-Madison
Candidate for Congress, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District
31 responses so far ↓
1 RedPhillips // Jul 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Even if Impossibletospellejad did say what was attributed to him, it would still be Israel’s problem to deal with, not ours.
As are the missiles Iran test fired that we are constantly reminded can reach Israel.
2 G.E. // Jul 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I think the neocons want to attack Iran before it collapses under its Keynesian weight to keep the myth of Keynesianism alive.
3 thearmyranger31 // Jul 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
This guy makes it sound like the Iranian leadership (Ayatolla runs the show, not Ahminijadsjhksdhs) is a nice, peaceful group of lovable Persians. Many in the military contend that precision strikes taking out the leadership and command/control structure of the Iranian government will be all that is necessary because the Persian people are prone to democracy and will fill the void unlike what happened in Iraq. HOWEVER, I don’t trust the current US administration to do it right. And Olmert in Israel is not the right guy for a military campaign. Sharon would have been much better.
4 G.E. // Jul 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm
army – You are right about the tenativeness with which the evil Mullahs maintain control over the mostly peaceful, secular, and modern Persians. HOWEVER, the Persians are very nationalistic, and any strike by the U.S. against their country — even if not a single civilian or soldier is killed — will inspire the same type of mood that led this peaceful, secular, and modern people to install an Islamic dictatorship in 1979.
Stay the F out and mind our own bee’s wax.
5 thearmyranger31 // Jul 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm
G.E… You have a point. However, I would argue that the events leading to the 1979 revolution resulted from corruption and a form of abuse/taking for granted on our part. Also, according to a recent Washington Post article, many Iranians are kind of hoping the US will come and help them out of the rut they are in. Certainly, there will be fervor after such a decapitation strike (if succesful), but they will seek to fill the void ahead of overt anger which would ultimately lead to a democracy… in theory. But if Israel is directly involved or leads the campaign, forget it. Mad is not the word.
6 G.E. // Jul 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm
army-ranger: Iran was going left in 1953. They had a democratically elected secular prime minister who was a socialist. The CIA was worried he had Soviet sympathies, so he was overthrown.
Do you defend this?
What if we had allowed Iran to “go Soviet”? So what? They’d be a free and capitalistic country right now — just like most other former Communist republics –, I’d be willing to bet.
7 Deran // Jul 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Ahmedinijad, not that hard to spell. And you can swap out that first e for an a if that makes it any easier for you.
Did Iran actually test four missiles? Or is it more abt sloppy photoshopping?
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/07/iranian_missile_tests_not_what.html
When you step baack and look at the situation, Iran and Israel are really very dependent on one another. Both act as a bogeyman for the other sufficient to, somewhat, distract the Iranian and Israeli public from actual internal problems.
I think it serves both Iran and Israel’s interests to never allow a secure viable Palestine on the pre-1967 territories. If they didn’t have each other, who would they have to holler abt?
And we’re the suckers who give Israel billions in welfare, and give Iran billions in oil dollars. What a sweet grift, I wish I could a piece of that action!
8 Peter Orvetti // Jul 10, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’m puzzled how it is potentially “murderous” and “criminal” to repeat something that may be a misquote. Inexacting perhaps, or lazy, but “murderous”?
9 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 10:15 am
Peter;
Barrett has converted to Islam. Loose talk like that of Kind is certainly murderous.
10 pdsa // Jul 11, 2008 at 10:31 am
@ thearmyranger31
Ever hear of Manucher Ghorbanifar? He makes Chalabi look like a piker conman, and Michael Ledeen is up to his eyeballs inside Ghorbanifar. Who exactly is feeding the Washington Post this information about Iranians? Are they sure they are not swinging at a Curveball, low and away in the dirt?
11 thearmyranger31 // Jul 11, 2008 at 11:10 am
pdsa… The Post article was a man on the street indepth, front-page Sunday story. But the main point is that the Iranians would likely take the opportunity to fill a void in government with a law-and-order democracy if the main government institutions of the theocracy were decapitated. Is this a sure thing, no. But much more likely than what happened in Iraq where everyone from teachers to lower military officers were removed for Baath affiliation. The bigger issue than the Iranian military fight at the beginning will be all the proxy stuff around the world ie sleeper cells, Hexbollah, etc.
12 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Galileo Galilei – I’m confused by your statement at #9.
Has Barrett converted to Islam, or has Kind merely suggested that he has, which is “murderous?”
If the former, then what is Barrett saying? That Kind’s words are worthy of fatwa?
Please clarify.
13 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Barrett converted to Islam about 12 years ago, so he’s more sensitive to this stuff than most people.
One reason Barrett is so active on 9/11 Truth is that he sees (correctly, in my opinion), the war on terror to be mostly a war on Islamic people in the Middle East. They are suffering the most deaths, injuries, and property damage.
Many people identify more with people of their own religion, rather than state-promoted nationalism.
Sort of like how Libertarians identify with other Libertarians wherever they may be around the world.
14 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Again, how is “loose talk” like that of Kind “certainly murderous?”
15 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ideas have consequences. The idea that Ahmadinawhateverhisnameis wants “Israel wiped of the map” is war propaganda. War propaganda that is supposed to whip up the Amercian populace into supporting an invasion of Iran.
Dr. Barrett does not like to hear war propaganda, especially when it is focused against his fellow muslims, so he has the right to speak out against it.
16 thearmyranger31 // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Kevin Barrett devotes the front page of his campaign web site to this 9/11 conspiracy. How in anybody’s right mind would they expect to win a campaign in Wisconsin based on efforts to try and debunk 9/11? Comes across as loony. Also, if Barrett is saying that 9/11 wasn’t masterminded by a bunch of dudes in Afghan caves, then who actually did the African embassy attacks? Or first WTC attack? Or Spain and London bombings?
17 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“especially when it is focused against his fellow muslims”
So what you’re saying is that Dr. Barrett values the lives of Muslims more than the lives of non-Muslims?
I know Islam does not necessary respect freedom of speech. But Barrett is running as a Libertarian not as a member of Hamas, right?
18 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:54 pm
War hurts most of us, not just muslims. It costs us money and lives. It just so happens that it hurts muslims more.
Yes, Barrett gives special emphasis to defending muslims, but his main focus is to defend our civil liberties and roll back our military empire.
As for 9/11, it is a topic that interests many people who are not interested in politics, so it is agreat way to get a libertarian message to new people.
Poll numbers show that about 10% of the US population is MIHOP (much better than most Libertarians do in elections)
43% is LIHOP (enough to win a three-way race)
57% believe Bush exploited 9/11 for his own agenda.
84% think the 9/11 Commission is hiding information from us.
19 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Yes, Barrett gives special emphasis to defending muslims”
I find this unacceptable in a Libertarian candidate.
20 thearmyranger31 // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I didn’t know Libertarians supported the 9/11 conspiracy theories… But I’m sure they are grateful to Barrett for the association.
21 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm
armyranger – Libertarians do not universally support what you refer to as 9/11 “conspiracy theories.” Some do. Some don’t, and quite vociferously. Others, such as myself, are open minded.
I’m far more concerned by Dr. Barrett’s support for socialism, opposition to free speech, and belief in the superiority of Muslim life than I am his 9/11 theories.
22 thearmyranger31 // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm
G.E. — I agree with your assessment of Kevin Barrett in terms of his emphasis on Muslims.
There are people of all stripes who subscribe to the various conspiracy theories. But to devote the front page of a campaign site to it, combined with Libertarian affiliation, it can very much rub the casual voter drawn to his site to think of him, and the Libertarians as a whole, as loony.
23 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I’d rather have people think Libertarians are “loony” conspiracy theorists than loony “social security is a great program” theorists.
24 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Here is Barrett’s press release archive:
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/pressreleases.htm
Only one out of 12 has any special relevance at all to muslims. Even that one has relevance to us all.
25 thearmyranger31 // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Galileo — regardless, he still comes across as how G.E. described, as well as a bit of a loon.
G.E. — fair enough
26 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Galileo Galilei – I’m done commenting on Barrett in this thread, but I want to be sure you understand that my personal distaste for his candidacy will not manifest itself in anything other than fair coverage here at IPR. I know at least one of our writers, Paulie Cannoli, is a big Barrett supporter. Please do not mistake my comments as reflecting the general view of the site.
27 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:32 pm
GE, OK that’s good.
I prefer to look at the bright side. Barrett could have joined the Green party, but instead, chose the Libertarian party.
Barrett is known all over the world as a leader in the 9/11 Truth movement, and this should help bring new blood in the LP.
28 G.E. // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I’ll also add that I am known for hyperbole, and I have held myself in line because Dr. Barrett has such a professional and even-tempered spokesman representing him here.
His candidacy is INTERESTING, regardless of all else, and that’s what’s important as far as coverage at IPR goes.
29 Galileo Galilei // Jul 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm
thank you.
30 pdsa // Jul 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Attempting to defame a person, simply because of their religion is un-American.
There are many more Arabist scholars who have taken umbrage with the MEMRI translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech. MEMRI cannot be trusted to provide honest translations. They have proven themselves many times in the past to be dishonest.
From Professor Juan Cole:
See also,
Juan Cole, “Steele on Ahmadinejad: Of Arenas of Time and Intransitive Verbs“, Informed Comment, June 15, 2006
31 Peter Orvetti // Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Social Security IS a great program. To quote a Simpsons episode, “‘Great’ meaning ‘large’ or ‘immense’ — we use it in the prejorative sense!”
Leave a Comment