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?