Yes, I read it. But when I'm trying to establish someone's veracity, I don't just check back with them to see if they still say they're right. I check the facts. And the facts just don't bear out Tahiri's story.

But that doesn't seem to be your style. Tell you what, here you go. I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you the truth. There, now you have to believe me, if you use the same criteria you're applying to Tahiri.

I forgive you. Now, do you really think that someone who lies about the situation in Iran should be consulted by the White House as an expert on the situation in Iraq? Ever think about answering that particular question, or are do you just plan to dance around it some more?

My apologies, I read it too fast, and concentrated more on "expert" than "Iraq".

Taheri's original statement was that the law was passed by one sector of Iranian government. He then went on to speculate what the law would consist of. The righty papers ran with his comment as if it was law and as if the the speculated part was already a part of it. Taheri included too much speculation in his original article but it's the fault of the righty papers for getting it wrong.

This article from Assyrians in Iran summarizes it well. The law is to institute the nature of Islamic dress, not to differentiate non-Muslims. Which it already does; if you are a woman in Iran you will be heavily scrutinized for acceptably Muslim costume. They just want to do it more.

Dare to unwrap your womenfolk.

Not a germane question until you show me where Taheri lied. His words, not third-hand commentary. Until then it's question-begging (in the petitio principii sense).

Essentially on target, although I'd characterize it differently from "speculation"...he's describing what his sources inside the Majlis told him about what the "consensus" was likely to consist of...at least before the brouhaha.

As I read it, the law actualy reifies ahead of time the "consensus of a committee that consists of members from the Ministry of Islamic Orientation, the Ministry of Commerce and the Cultural Subcommittee of the Islamic Majlis" with final approval by Khamenei...the lawmaking as such is already done.

It's just so convenient having an official state religion, you can incorporate such a pronoucement by reference in law retroactively without having to actually legislate again.

I'm on it. ;)

No . The idea of men unwrapping 'their' womenfolk is just as bad as the idea of men wrapping up their womenfolk . Women should be the ones to decide to wrap or unwrap themselves . Full stop .

Not to worry, that is part of what warch was saying. She is sufficiently progressive.

Or each other. Now that's progressive.

Excellent , MaggieL ! I keep meaning to go , and someone makes me laugh again . And I stay , and stay , and stay ....

i believe there are 12-Step Meetings for this now. One day at at time, brother! One day at a time!

My life is more in the two-step / foxtrot line , Brianna .

And that is why you should stay.

After a few days you won't be making 70 posts a day. It will roll back to a more reasonable maintenance level of addiction. Really. We've all been there.

I wish.

Sigh.

From the article you posted as the original source, which appears under Amir Taheri's byline:
At no point in the article is there any indication that any of this is Taheri's speculation. It's reported as established fact.

And who would be more knowledgeable about, and more outraged by the passage of such a law than the Jewish representative on the Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed? What does he have to say about this?

From Agence France-Press:The paper that printed the original story issued a retraction and an apology. There is no evidence for the claims stated in the article. There is considerable evidence against it.

That counts as a lie in my book.

So, is the man who fabricated this story a reliable and competent expert, worthy of being consulted by the White House?

Well,

I bet being leader of the Jewish caucus in the Iranian parliment is an interesting job, now that Iran's on recent record for "wiping Israel off the map". I wouldn't expect a member of the Iranian parliment to publically support a negative article by an expat who's been editor of the big newspaper in town under the previous regime. I understand the Vichy government expressed a high opinion of the Nazis, too.

The article points out that the law had passed, and that the official clothing rules would be codified (with comfortable deniability in the event of a ruckus like what actually ensued) in the "consensus" of the aformentioned committee. He then descibes what he'd found out about the likely content of the "consensus".

The Canadian paper withdrew their publishing of the article, including the headline and wrapup comment/teaser that they wrote.

Should the White House listen to input from ex-pat editor of a major Iranian national newspaper on matters of Middle East policy? Yes, I think they should. Should they consider the motivations of people they listen to when evaluating what they say? Absolutely.

Would Molly Ivans meet your "worthiness" test for a White House meeting? By your standards for "lying"?

How about Arafat?

"Well, doc, you know... after you diagnosed me with testicular cancer for what turned out to be a zit, I had my doubts. Especially after all those office visits. Now I've got this rash, I'd like your opinion on it. But I'll have you know... I'm keeping my eye on you, by Jove."

I don't know much about her. Why don't you explain to me why she shouldn't be trusted? Use examples, please. Her own words, now.

Looks like you've got a lot of homework.

I made the case that Taheri lied, and I made it using the papers that published him, reliable sources, encyclopedia entries, politicians in positions to know all about the issue... etcetera. I'm bushed. If that's not enough to convince you that perhaps this man fabricated a story to further his own ends...

you're just not worth arguing with.

A guy's got to have his standards, after all.

Actually, no. I'm not trying to discredit her as a "liar". Just suggesting that...
...your "standards" are variable.

Then prove to me that the people you proposed are as deceptive as Mr. Tahir.

I'm not the one flinging accusations about on who's a "liar" and pronoucing judgments on who's "worthy" to speak to Bush. I do note that you bit hard on the "Truthdig" (love the name!) bait-and-switch on Iraq vs. Iran--nothing deceptive there, of course.

Besides, you've already pronounced me beneith your notice. You should go hobnob with tw or something.

Unless you *are* tw, of course. :-)

Thread Hijack
-------------

Huh.
More power to ya.

As per your choice of weaponry, always remember -
Gun control means hitting your target.

-----------------
End Thread Hijack

So, if we would nuke Iran, would that make it Shiites of Glass, or would it be The Light of a Thousand Sunnis?