Top Romney adviser campaigned for Marxist Islamic terrorist group

rawstory.com

Salon.com

A foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been active in recent months in an advocacy campaign to rehabilitate the reputation of an underground organization in Iran known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq. The MEK has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a "terrorist" organization.

Mitchell Reiss, former director of policy planning at the State Department during the Bush administration, is now advising the former Massachusetts governor on foreign policy, the New Republic recently reported. Reiss also advised Romney's 2008 campaign.

The MEK claims to have renounced terrorism since 2001, and has embarked on a campaign to rehabilitate their image in western eyes. It regularly pays influential individuals tens of thousands of dollars for brief speaking engagements, and a number of high profile political figures have come out in support of the group, including former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D). It is not clear where their funding comes from.

The headline on rawstory.com is a little misleading as the group has seemingly renounced terrorism back in 2001, but Reiss has campaigned for them nonetheless. However the organization is still listed by the State Dept as a terror organization, and according to Salon article, this designation makes it illegal for American citizens to join or support this organization. Reiss has campaiged to get the organization removed from this list.

Should the organization be de-listed? Apparently politicos from both sides of the aisle think so, but I dont think its a very good idea to be publicly linked to such an organization. This news isnt exactly damning to the Romney campaign, but it certainly isnt helping.

Islamic and marxist?

You sure?

Are they as bad as the Tea Party or Ron Paul supporters or former military? Isn't that the yard stick now for who is and is not a terrorist?

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Links with a well known domestic terrorist didn't hurt Obama's election. Why should it hurt Romney's chances?

/TOA

This story makes me wonder: How many times (in an average day) do Americans/British hear, read, or say the word 'terror'. In the last decade we have been inundated by this buzzword in the media and in everyday conversation. Does anyone actually consider the word anymore? Does it have any meaning?

/tangent

reply to post by The Old American


It depends on what stance you took when this sort of info came out about Obama's alleged ties.

Did you criticize Obama? If so, then you should be critical of Romney....and visa versa.

What's important is to be consistent.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Islamic and marxist?

You sure?

Not my adjectives...
That is simply the rawstry headline, which is a bit misleading. I suppose from the other politicians that have been on their side, namely GWB and Howard 'Wooooo' Dean, its probably not as much of an issue that people will like to make out of this, simply because its Romney.

reply to post by youdidntseeme

Cultural Marxism tells us Mormonism is just a version of Christianity.
Get real.
Its a political cult of polygamists that has conquered a state.
Another version of insanity.
Belief in it should disqualify anyone from office.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Cultural Marxism tells us Mormonism is just a version of Christianity.
Get real.
Its a political cult of polygamists that has conquered a state.
Another version of insanity.
Belief in it should disqualify anyone from office.

So what yu are saying is that the article in the OP here doesn't hurt Romney's chances for office as much as yu wuld disqualify him for his religious beliefs?

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Cultural Marxism tells us Mormonism is just a version of Christianity.
Get real.
Its a political cult of polygamists that has conquered a state.
Another version of insanity.
Belief in it should disqualify anyone from office.

So what yu are saying is that the article in the OP here doesn't hurt Romney's chances for office as much as yu wuld disqualify him for his religious beliefs?

I seriously doubt he believes in anything except his getting as much money and power as possible
for him and his rich friends.
Religious insanity should be a reason to disqualify anyone.
And there is an element of terrorism in Mormonism regarding taking children as wives.
And yes having someone who gives advice to a terrorist organization as your adviser shows
where these flies hang out; no beliefs ,no morals,.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by The Old American

 

It depends on what stance you took when this sort of info came out about Obama's alleged ties.

Did you criticize Obama? If so, then you should be critical of Romney....and visa versa.

What's important is to be consistent.

It apparently doesn't depend on anything, because my comment still stands. It didn't seem to affect Obama one iota that he was friends with Bill Ayers.

And, yeah, that nagged at me. But I still voted for the guy. I was on the side of making fun of Palin for the "pals around with terrorists" comment.

Is that consistent enough for you?

/TOA

Originally posted by RRokkyy

I seriously doubt he believes in anything except his getting as much money and power as possible
for him and his rich friends.
Religious insanity should be a reason to disqualify anyone.

Well if you dont believe he actually believes in his religion, then the second statement doesnt apply to Mr. Romney.

And there is an element of terrorism in Mormonism regarding taking children as wives.

Mainstream LDS no longer condones this practice, it is that is a fundamentalit practice only. But again if Mr. Romney doesnt believe, then this does not apply to him either as well.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Wow this is a weird one. The group, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), is on the list and is number 28 on the list.

US State Department list of designated terror organizations - May 2011

the groups main focus is the overthrow of the current Iranian government. It was supported by Iraq in the past, allowing them to work out of their bases an supplying weapons / support to them. Im going to guess the reason they are on the list is they would do no better than the current regime in the eyes of the US (since the list is essentially politicaly based anyways.

The People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI, also MEK, MKO

this part was interesting -

The United States, Canada, Iraq and Iran have designated the PMOI a terrorist organization.[13][14] On January 26, 2009, following what the group called a “seven-year-long legal and political battle”, the Council of the European Union removed the PMOI from the EU list of organisations it designates as terrorist.[15][16][17][18]

The PMOI and the NCRI claim to have provided the United States with intelligence on Iran's nuclear program in 2002 and 2008.

That might be why is is campaigning to have them removed. I would say of the EU removed them from the list, the aid might have some luck on this side of the pond.

As far as Iran goes though, with their programs that are in question, the devil we know, beats the devil we dont.

reply to post by The Old American


Better to pal around with terrorists than spend time campainging in all 57 Us states

................

reply to post by Xcathdra


That is what makes this story especially intriguing. There exists a State Dept labelled terror orgaization. Said terror organization's 'enemy' is the Iranian govt, who is also an enemy, or at least antagonistic, to the US Govt.

However they were allied with Iraq, who at the time of their designation was also an enemy of the US. In 2001, Iraq was considered more of n enemy to the US than Iran was and most likely led to their designation as a State dept labelled terror organization.

We have all heard this before but...the enemy of my enemey is my friend, and my addition....even if they are a terror organization.

Originally posted by relpobre000
This story makes me wonder: How many times (in an average day) do Americans/British hear, read, or say the word 'terror'. In the last decade we have been inundated by this buzzword in the media and in everyday conversation. Does anyone actually consider the word anymore? Does it have any meaning?

/tangent

the US government calls any militia with free standing goals that oppose corprate justice terrorists, these poloticians would be rotting in cuba if the MEK werent paying 10s of thousands of dollars into their pockets, im sure its the same case with obama, these movements against corrupt government are being called terrorists because their a business obstacle to the corprate parasite that feeds of the decent mans stuggle,

It is amazing how people are so blind from hate.Exact idetnical insanity that happened during the holocaust and world war 1 and world war 2 is all through the islamic world and is spreading again in other nations.