Yes, the Iranian presiden sends a letter in stark opposition to the entire American way of life, and threatens the existence of a vital US ally..... and you refer to the tone as "fairly mild". And you're the so-called centrist dem!

No wonder the democrat party has a national security problem.

Perhaps something was lost in translation?

Watch for the Kevin Drum and the left to dismiss the mad ravings of our modern day Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and explain why there's nothing wrong with him having nukes.

But under Bush a serious diplomat is considered a worthless wimp or a traitorous appeaser, so don't expect anyone to be searching for that nugget.

Great comment over at Drezner's thread on this subject. In part:

Obviously, a resource as valuable as Karl Rove must come at some great price. And I know the only price you would accept from me is the termination of our nuclear program. This, I can never do. Else I would have the popularity ratings of that Jacques Chirac. But I believe I can achieve the same result in a manner acceptable to my people. How, you rightly ask?

I will announce the conversion of your advisor, Donald Rumsfeld, to Islam, and his immediate translation to our nuclear program. With his steady hand and ready grasp of reality, it will be some 30 years before we realize our nuclear dream. But his colorful talk -- much more to the point than that boring Osama fellow -- will keep our press entertained in the meantime. And it will look to be such a coup!

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

hmmm. that doens't sound familiar at all. what a strange country Iran must be.

...and Al prematurely invokes Godwin. fool.

I can't read PDFs on my technosauric gear ...

Anybody have an HTML link to the full text of Mahmood's li'l screed?

Bob

cleek:

I think he meant the Islamic world's answer to GW Bush :)

Bob

But Kevin, as Juan Cole, who can read Farsi, has repeatedly pointed out, the claim that the Iranian president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" was based on a bad translation; it was a quote from Khomeini predicting that the occupation of Jerusalem would be erased from "safheh-ye ruzgar", which means something like "the page of fate". It's passive voice, meaning that who will carry out the erasing is unspecified (God, presumably). It is not justified to claim that he made a military threat against Israel, and he couldn't back it up in any case.

I was only able to get about through three pages of it before I had to stop reading it because there just was not much of substance to it.

Two quick points:

1. Like many who probably only read about what others say about the Bible, Ahmadinejad has an entirely incorrect perspecitve on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
2. He certainly does not understand the real motivation behind the policies of George Bush.

I think the letter reads like someone trying to repeat the arguments of the American left, but with only a TV news understanding of the way American politics and American debate really works.

Maybe by reading this letter, the "I hate Geroge Bush" crowd on this site will understand how pointless their ad hominem arguments sometimes sound. Perhaps then we can get on to better discussions that don't contain inane references to the supposed lack of intelligence or moral purpose of the President and we can argue ideas and approaches based on their merits.

I missed the citation, where did the quote come from ? Was it Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed ?

Don't they have word processors in Iran? The letter looks like it was banged-out on an old-school typewriter. Sad.

John Hansen: I ..think the letter reads like someone trying to repeat the arguments of the American left

Yes it certainly does. Look at this para.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Amazingly leftist!

The letter looks like it was banged-out on an old-school typewriter. Sad.

Wait, was the kerning correct? How about any superscripts? I smell Dan Rather!

And to think that, for the first time since the Revolution, on September 14, 2001, Friday prayers in Tehran did not end with a rousing cry of "Death To America!" It is sad how badly this crew has bungled things.

Was it Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed?

I had no idea that Ahmadinejad was Michael Savage's stage name. Or, is it the other way around?

There is something rather pathetic about debating the Iranian presidents intent. We don't know ANYTHING about their country and politics that isn't filtered through the western media. I'm not saying that the guy is a great statesman, or that he doesn't have troubling ideas, but I'm no more scared of him nuking anybody than I am of the resident [sic] of the united states. Bush and pals seem pretty trigger happy (tactical nukes). Who wouldn't want to pursue nukes of their own once they've been threatned to be nuked by the only country that has used them. It's like the democrats pointing fingers at the republicans and visa versa; it's always the other guy that's wrong. They are not us--BOMB THEM!

'We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"'

What frightens me is not that the Iranian leader wrote this, but that President Bush, in his heart, agrees.

I can't read PDFs on my technosauric gear ...

?????

Please exit the Internet, as you are demonstrably incapable of keeping up with the flow of traffic.

The language and concepts are not that distant from what our president seems to utter frequently. This seems a good time for a summit and direct diplomacy. Neither president is politically significant at this time. But it would give an opening for secret negotiations between the true deciders, Persian and
American.

...serious diplomat

Kevin, there is the rub. Serious dimplomacy was throttled in its sleep 5 1/2 years ago. One of the many things that the Bush Republicans can be very proud of.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems.

Is this from the Iranian letter or one of Bush's speeches? Because from the text alone I really can't tell....

He certainly does not understand the real motivation behind the policies of George Bush.

Oh, and you do? Do you "see into his soul"?

Tell us - what is the "real motivation" behind his policies?

Man, he sounds just like James Dobson or Robertson or Falwell, doesn't he? Uncanny.

He sent a letter, looking conciliatory. The smart diplomat's move is to welcome the letter, placing the onus on him to behave in a yet more conciliatory fashion. Say we welcome this sign of a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than threats and defiance. Say you greet this new openness with an unconditional willingness to discuss a non-aggression pact and the resumption of IAEA snap inspections and so forth. Then if he backs out, you make him look insincere and aggressive.

This was Reagan's approach with Gorbachev: accept it all at face value. Lock him into the happy-smiley dynamic. Make him look like the aggressor if he backs out. I don't give Reagan much, but I think he handled that aspect of the US-Soviet dynamic well, post-'85.

Dismissing the letter makes no sense. Unless you're trying to build up to war.

To repeat the above. Ahmadinejad did not call for the destruction of Israel. He called for the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel to cease-and the referecne was an allusion to the end of the USSR. Don't pass the lie on.

2. He certainly does not understand the real motivation behind the policies of George Bush.

Hey, me neither!

"modern day Hitler"

I would like to propose a new form of Godwin's law:

As a president's poll ratings fall, the probability of a third-world dictator being compared to Hitler approaches one.

Man, I posted my comment before reading the thread -- amazing how many people read that passage about Almighty God and thought the same thing.

Bob:

You should be able to read PDFs on almost any computer. Free download of Acrobat Reader here.

***

Was nice of Kevin to jump all over Bush a couple of days ago for not giving the Great Statesman of Iran the attention he deserves. Of course, that was before the letter actually came out. It was simply assumed that somehow Ahmadinejad had come up with an eminently reasonable peace offer.

It is fascinating to watch people who would probably ream Bush out for his choice of breakfast cereal continue to come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior.

Any bets on how long before Ahmadinejad's face starts showing up on T-shirts?

He sent us a letter?! And it doesn't say "I surrender"?

The gall!

Let's bomb immediately! It's the only "serious" response!

...who would probably ream Bush out for his choice of breakfast cereal...

Don't be silly, vampires don't eat cereal.

I would think that the mentions of the Almighty alone would strike fear into the hearts of the users of this blog.

You guys must hate this guy. Time to start UN sanctions. They work every time!

This vehement desire to "defend" Bush at every step has always seemed like the sort of thing someone does when the source of their erotic affection is being criticized.

It's hard out hear to be tbrosz!

Every few minutes you have to find a new way to call the leftists the Big Bad Haters of America.

OOPS. hear=here.

continue to come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior.

Oh, and T-bone - more dishonesty from you. I read the above and I see a lot of making fun of the Christianists, not support for Ahmadinejad. But thanks for the t-shirt idea - I'm sure I can sell them in the RNC lobby.

tbrosz

Palo Alto is a very multi-cultural and multi-ethnic town. Talk to some foreign looking people. It will do you good. I worry for your mental health. The comments on this site would be one big mutual wankery session without you.

I immediately thought of Bette Davis, "I've written a letter to daddy"

The horror and absurdity seem to match, I need the lyrics and couldn't find them on the net.

I don't understand how the notion that Ahmadinejad doesn't have much power is supposed to be comforting. Wasn't that what a lot of people said about our CEO president when he came to office?

It is fascinating to watch people who would probably ream Bush out for his choice of breakfast cereal continue to come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior.

Does it bother Flanders that he has almost no consistent positions on foreign policy at all, with the possible exception of "find out what Bush will do, and support it?"

I simply do not understand why America invests billions of dollars in Israel. Nor do I understand why our young soldiers die fighting for Israel's interest.

I feel it is a travesty that US foreign policy is held hostage, by Israel's interest.

AIPAC runs our foreign policy like the evangelicals and fundamentalism are driving our elections...both are religious views.

Why is our democracy being held hostage to religious beliefs both domestically and internationally?

If we really are a national of laws and no one is about the law..then the Consitution should reign and we should not be countermanding our domestic interests for Israel.

My solution would be to let Israel fight their own battles, and offer all Jews in the Israel to make their homes as citizens of the USA.

This has been a 50 year battle and it is not producing anything close to peaceful results and worst of all, it is simply against our national insterests to continue to support Israel as we have.

How many schools could we have funded with the dollars sent to Israel annually, 300 Billion dollars would educate an awful lot of American citizens, and it would also provide healthcare for many many American citizens, it would also build hospitals and fund rehab programs for drug abusers and victims of domestic abuse...and that is for just one year of what it costs us to support Israel.

I am tired of Israel's issues dominating our national interests.

I don't understand how the notion that Ahmadinejad doesn't have much power is supposed to be comforting. Wasn't that what a lot of people said about our CEO president when he came to office?

Yes, but we have different systems. The Iranian president is the head of state, but not the head of government -- that position is held by Supreme Religious Leader Khamenei. The armed forces, for one thing, are under the control of the Supreme Leader, not the president, and most major policy decisions are made by the ruling council of mullahs.

Part of the confusion is that people see the term "president" and think it implies the same as in the US, where the president is both head of state and head of government in one, while Iran actually splits the two functions.

This letter points out a real cultural gap between East and West. The Byzantines knew a thing or two about negotiating with the Persians. I wonder how Justinian I would have responded. A huge tribute of gold perhaps?

We don't know ANYTHING about their country and politics that isn't filtered through the western media.

Isn't the job of a President to find this out--perhaps by actually engaging in dialogue. Many sources familiar with the situation have been calling for dialogue. Last, Wes Clark was talking about how urgent it was that we engage Iran before things got out of hand. Many others with intimate knowledge of the situation have been encouraging the same thing.

Well – I just finished reading the whole letter. You’re right, Kevin there are no concrete proposals regarding the nuclear weapons issue. However I think in his own stubborn, fundamentalist way, Ahmadinejad is trying to open a dialogue. Essentially I think he’s saying “You don’t trust us to have nuclear power without developing nuclear weapons? Well, here’s why we don’t trust you.” And on some of what he says, I can see his point.

Is he sincere or is it a delaying tactic? I don’t know. But we should engage him in dialogue. War is too expensive and terrible an option to use before all other means have been tried.

In repeatedly calling upon the President to heed the teachings of Jesus, the letter reveals how completely Ahmadinejad misunderstands George W. Bush and his core supporters. As I've written before, the President's evangelical supporters are not so much concerned with bringing the word of Christ to the Middle East as much as they are focused on fulfilling biblical prophecy about the End of Times.

For the full story, see:
"Text of Ahmadinejad Letter to Bush Published"

Kevin,

You completely missed the point. This is a letter from a religous perspective, and is addressed by proxy to the world at large, as well ironically. the Christian base at home. The potential next victim of US conquest, Iran is laying out on paper a case condemning the pursuit of US foreign policy and the policies in small part of its Isreali ally. It lays out the case that Iran has been a long time victim of US abuse and moves the Mid-East conflict from a local matter to a world wide one where the US is to be the universally opposed villain. Further, the arguments discusses the failure of the war-tent economy to serve the interest of the US citizens at home.

Why does this matter? Are these accusations new or different from any amalgam past accusations? The difference is that Iran is soon to become an ally of the newly emerging opposite pole of power centered around China. By addressing all the diplomatic questions, in the expectation of a near future solely milatry response, the letter serves as a rallying call to all those world wide who oppose US policy especially the many nations that have been subject to it, many of China's newest allies.

How does this letter play to the US?. Many of the letters points echo questions that the blogsphere have attempted to address, 9-11, US imperialism, the crushing economic injustice of these policies on the average US citizen.

But the Ahmadinejad binds all these criticisms into a religious condemnation with an attempt to universalize and Christianize muslim teachings to make these resonate with his intended foreign audience. It's not just muslims that lose according to Ahmadinejad, its that all those of mono-theistic faiths lose world wide and even the president and his backers ultimately via religous judgement, in which the president's Christian base seem to firmly believe. The Iranian president invokes of this evangelical perspecitive to justify an emerging world wide anti-US coallition is the new twist.

That the Wall Street Journal, a business newspaper has printed this, says that those in power in the West see the writing on the wall for both the current US conquest, and the beginning of the emergence of a dipolar power structure.

As I have been saying over at the Moon of Alabama. The bill has come due to both the president and his backers. This is the first dunning letter of the world wide collection agency.

That the Wall Street Journal has put this letter on the web, signals that West has acknowledged the reality of the debt and the reality of those claiming the power to collect it.

This is a VERY BIG DEAL. The problem can still be solved domestically, but as the letter insinuates the world will not wait long for a domestic solution.

Palo Alto is a very multi-cultural and multi-ethnic town.

Um. Not the Palo Alto I know. I lived with two other people--all of us minorities--and when one moved to San Francisco we would joke about how PA just lost 33% of it's minority population. Not that the people aren't friendly, I just wouldn't call it "very" multi-cultural.

Bush outta write back and say he can have the bomb when the Twelfth Imam comes home.

Over at HuffPo, Tehran-born and U.K./U.S.-educated Hooman Majd explains the letter:

"The significance of an Iranian leader writing to a U.S. President under any circumstances is huge; for Mr. Ahmadinejad to do so is groundbreaking. President Ahmadinejad would have had to receive Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's blessings to even contemplate such a thing, so the White House should, rather than characterize it as not being an overture, look at it as precisely that . . .

"There's a word in Farsi that has no proper translation into English but that every Iranian knows the meaning of: ta'arouf. Ta'arouf is social convention in Iran; it can be nothing but small talk, or frustratingly incomprehensible back-and-forth niceties uttered in any social encounter. It can be a long-winded prelude to what is actually the matter at hand, whether the matter be a serious negotiation or just ordering dinner. It can also be polite entreaties, or overtures, and on all counts Mr. Ahmadinejad just made ta'arouf to Mr. Bush . . ."

Yes, but we have different systems.

Stefen, I understand that we have different systems. But we also have a system designed for limited presidential power. Look at what happened to our country after 9/11. All three branches of government handed near-total power to the Executive for what they told themselves was the good of the country.

What makes anyone think that a threatened Iran wouldn't do the same thing?

Um. Not the Palo Alto I know. ..

Sorry. I should have said that Palo Alto is in a very muti-cultural and multi-ethnic area, to include the Silicon Valley and the Bay Area.

Hm.

Iranian Theocracy sounds a whole lot like American Theocracy.

This letter just underscores who the real enemy of the Liberal Democracy and the principles on which this country was founded. We should stop playing footsie with ideological zealots, like the GOP, and deport them to where they'll feel more at home: Iran.

2. He certainly does not understand the real motivation behind the policies of George Bush.

Do you?

Um. Not the Palo Alto I know. I lived with two other people--all of us minorities--and when one moved to San Francisco we would joke about how PA just lost 33% of it's minority population.

Palo Alto is 17% Asian, 75% white.

Cross the highway to East Palo Alto and it's 27% white.

Stefen, I understand that we have different systems. But we also have a system designed for limited presidential power. Look at what happened to our country after 9/11. All three branches of government handed near-total power to the Executive for what they told themselves was the good of the country. What makes anyone think that a threatened Iran wouldn't do the same thing?

Probably because the Iranian mullahs are a whole lot more self-interested and determined to hold on to power than the average American voter, judge or Congressman.

Look, it's an apples to oranges comparison, as power in Iran is already concentrated -- but in the person of the Supreme Religious Leader and the ruling council of mullahs, not the president. It's Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, who's the Decider.

Ahmadinejad to Bush:

I'd like to talk about relations with the United States. But before I do, I'd like to take a moment to talk about another country that is currently having trouble being understood by the US, and that is Iraq.

Mesopotamia is the birthplace of schools and of painting. In recent years, however, the painting of schools in Iraq has been in trouble...

We should stop playing footsie with ideological zealots, like the GOP, and deport them to where they'll feel more at home: Iran.

It's funny, isn't it, that the fundamentalists here are designating Iran as an enemy when by most accounts they'd be quite comfortable with it in many other ways: after all, it's a country without separation of church and state, with prayer in schools, no abortion, a strong family structure, the subordination of women, imprisonment by the state at will, few civil liberties, etc. etc. Add a flat tax and it's paradise on earth for them!

It's Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, who's the Decider.

To make the bizarro world connection complete, he's probably an avid hunter with a lesbian daughter.

To make the bizarro world connection complete, he's probably an avid hunter with a lesbian daughter.

But as far as I know, he hasn't shot any of his friends in the face.

I think Bush's answer would be a resounding "yes". "Yes, Mr. Iranian man, I would very much love to rule over a theocracy. Why, that's jes what we're trying to set up. I could use some tips, actually. Why doncha come down to the ranch sometime and help me "clear brush". That's Texas for "rape rabbits"."

Let's see.. a weak, ineffective president.. trouble with Iran.. a military expedition in the Middle East gone awry.. gold hitting record highs.. oil prices going through the roof.. does Bush rhyme with Carter?

It's funny, isn't it, that the fundamentalists here are designating Iran as an enemy when by most accounts they'd be quite comfortable with it in many other ways

Not really; those who want to concentrate all authority in their own hands are natural opponents not only of those who want power widely distributed to the people, but also of every other group seeking to similarly concentrate power.

Ahmadinejad's Epistile to the Infidels

maybe he is shooting for a spot in the New Testament?

Sounds a lot like the religious right, no?

Hey Bush, ya gonna let him just do that? All the name calling? By God, he just called you a LIBRUL!

I think the letter reads like someone trying to repeat the arguments of the American left

Yeah condemnation of liberalism is very popular among the American left. Go F yourself, troll.

This letter is nothing more than an open invitation to our president to negotiate.
Bush if stone cold set against Iran having any nuclear anything at all (at least publically that is). The Iranian president must come out on the opposite end for the start of talks (no mention of nuclear). If bush really wants to negotiate this is his open invitation, stop flapping his jaw on TV and get busy.
Bring it on Mr. President, put your money where your mouth is.

Bush won't speek to Ahmadinejad directly. Seeing them side by side might make clear how close their positions actually are.

Sounds like Ahmadinejad and George Bush have a lot in common. They'll probably get together and chat about the greatness of theocracy over tea and biscuits.

It is fascinating to watch people who would probably ream Bush out for his choice of breakfast cereal continue to come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior.

It is fascinating to watch tbrosz contort himself to create entirely new straw men to come up with excuses and justifications for his carrying water for the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence, and corruption. Shame on you, tbrosz.

I call, tbrosz. Who here has "come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior," and how? Put up or shut up.

OK, I'll take a shot.

Iran is still hurting from the Arab/Islamic invasion of 1400 years ago, which continues to this day. Their language and culture is Indo-European, their natural ally is India. They want out of the Middle East game plan and want to assume a role as a western power.

Their religion is basically a defensive one, an adaption to Arab Islamic invaders. Hence the waiting for the 12 imam, who likely will help them escape Arab treachery.

Ahmadinejad doesn't think himself a religious prophet, he wants to be Cyrus the Great. At one time, Persia was the world's power.

What they really want is to join the western anti-arab alliance. Their complaint with Israel is a competetive one, not a religious one. They want the role that Israel plays.

"On the plus side, Ahmadinejad merely questions Israel's existence rather than calling for its outright destruction, which I suppose is progress."

WTF is wrong with you?

Don't you just wish we had somebody, anybody, in the higher reaches of government capable of thinking three or four moves ahead.

Ahmadinejad must have watched a lot of boxing in his youth, because this letter demonstrates his mastery of the Ali rope-a-dope. Dancing around the ring, keeping his opponents off balance, it's brilliant. Instead of talking about how to stop Iran from making nukes, he has you all talking about how we have to understand Iran and its concerns and its complaints about the US and Israel and how we can move forward to have a "dialogue," blah, blah. Rope-a-dope, that's all it is.

Gold is usually separated from the dross in a lead phase and then separated from the lead by the addition of zinc to form a gold containing zinc slag. At no time is it in nugget form.

OK DBL, how do we 'stop' Iran from making nukes? Nuke 'em to prevent nukes from being in the wrong hands?

Can anyone out there tell me whether the content of a letter like this matters or not? In this level of diplomacy, how much does the very fact that he wrote a letter at all count for?

shorter DBL: their zealot is smarter than our zealot.

Hey DBL, you prepared to watch gasoline go to $5 or $6.00 per gallon. That is what everybody predicts if the Iranian supply is shut off. I got a hunch the Chinese aren't so excited about seeing gas go up so much. You want to finish driving the Iranians into the hands of the Chinese or maybe the Russians?

I say we talk. Talking doesn't mean the same thing as losing. It means talking. If the Iranians demonstrate they are actually (as opposed to potentially) dangerous we can always act. Who knows we could get lucky and win without killing anybody. I know one thing the Iranians are at least as patriotic as the Iraqis. They won't be greeting us with flowers in the streets. Bomb them and we have to deal with them for at least 20 years even if we don't invade.

Have you and Dick Cheney gone totally f**king nuts. Didn't you learn anything from Iraq? War should always be a last resort. Never the first option.

I think we do a global re-assignment of what the word "liberal" actually means.

This letter from the current president of Iran is a very dangerous and ominous one.

He is actually suggesting that the West should reconsider warfare and aggression. He is condemning our secret and illegal prisons which we have all over the planet.

What is with him? Doesn't he know that warfare is a cash cow for certain folks?

How dare he question our motives.

Why shouldn't we disperse depleted uranium anywhere we choose?

Why shouldn't we spend endless tax dollars on perpetually rebuilding an ever crumbling and sabatogeable infrastructure?

Why shouldn't we be suspicious of folks who pursue nuclear technology? So what if we are devising new tactical mini-nukes ourselves.

It's our god given right to have the most obscenely bloated defense budget the world has ever seen.

I mean, what is with this guy? Didn't our own commander in chief actually look under his oval office desk for Iraq's WMD's?

Go USA. S--- Iran/Iraq/Darfur/Cuba/Venezuela/etc.

tbrosz:

Excuse me, but do I really seem like *that* much of a total idiot?

Don'tcha think that if I *could* download Adobe Acrobat, I would have done so, like, a decade ago?

I run the pure-text Lynx browser through a Unix shell ISP account. I can't properly-speaking download *anything* to my home computer -- though I can DL to my scratch disk space and then use Kermit to get it to my machine, if the need ever arises.

But Adobe wouldn't work with my gear. It's a graphical program -- DUH.

It doesn't matter; the NYT has Le Monde's transcript of the English version (undoubtedly translated by Persians), which looks like it has about the standard syntax and grammar facility of your average American highschool ...

The words were all spelled correctly, though.

Bob

Don't you just wish we had somebody, anybody, in the higher reaches of government capable of thinking three or four moves ahead.
Posted by: Ron Byers on May 9, 2006

We do have someone Ron.

Unfortunately we do not agree with his philosophy or strategies, he nevertheless remains as Vice-President.

Kevin -- Juan Cole has some thoughts on that (here); he's pessimistic that it has much significance.

Cole may be right, but given Iran's other recent moves, this may be as much to help bolster domestic and regional support as anything (and as much positioning of anti-US as pro-Iran sentiment).

p.s. The full text of the letter is now available on Ahmadinejad's web site here (the scanned WSJ PDF is a bit hard to read).

Excuse me, but do I really seem like *that* much of a total idiot?

Sorry if that came across wrong, but note that of the two people who commented on your problem, I was the one who didn't insult you.

I work with a lot of people to keep their computers running, and it's amazing at what some otherwise quite intelligent people don't know about common software.

tbrosz:

To merely hint by implication that I never thought of downloading Adobe Acrobat is an inescapble insult, Tom. I mean -- I post a lot. It's not like I'm some granny graduating from writing emails and mailing picture of the grandkids to posting on blogs -- PDFs are flippin' ubiquitous.

They're also despised by a few computer consultant-types, because of the vast resources they consume when you use Acrobat to view docs instead of just to print them.

You were trying to be helpful (and I appreciate the intent). WTF's snark wasn't worth considering twice.

Bob

inescapble = inescapable

Of course, tbrosz' constant stream of straw men, intellectually dishonest arguments and assorted bullshit is, in its own way, just as insulting to everyone here.

Sepaking of which, tbrosz, who here has "come up with excuses and justifications for Ahmadinejad's behavior," and how? Put up or shut up.

rmck1 -- The version on Ahmadinejad's web site (see previous post) is I assume the official translation. (The Le Monde translation has a few minor problems.)

Bob,

Is it just your intent to stay on dial-up, avoid pornography/viruses, prove your technological skill, or something else . . .?

Cause there are generally a lot of 4 year old PCs out there available for free or for a nominal 10 or 20 dollar fee. Someone here could probably hook you up. I have a stylish 8 year old mac lap top that would probably be an improvement.

Nevermind, avoiding adobe and MS is an end itself I suppose.

Sorry... you have to scroll up the page using that link to Ahmadinejad's site; or use this link

toast:

Well, you can throw in pure obstinacy as another big motivation. Oh, and Gates-tred -- lots of that, as well.

When my gear dies a natural death, you best believe I'm going Linux ...

But mainly -- I just don't want to devote a whole lot of my time to geekdom. And, I have a bunch of music files carefully composed using proprietary software that would have to be entirely re-done with a new program.

That, and the fact that I'm a word guy, and there are literally millions of lifetimes' worth of words on the net that are perfectly accessible to a machine that can't run JavaScript, HTTPS or frames.

Appropriate technology is an affirmative choice. I just don't miss the bells 'n' whistles.

Bob

Just a few edits in the first paragraph, and you have Rush too

Liberalism and Democratic policies have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal Democratic systems.

has407:

Thanks for the link. It's a much better translation, for sure -- but didn't add anything substantial in the way of meaning.

My take on the letter? It's entirely sincere. For those who said that Bush is less concerned with the teachings of Christ than in the End Times prophesies -- well, bear in mind that Ahmadinejad is an end-times-er, too. The cult of the Twelfth Imam (considered to varying degrees apostasy by mainstream Shi'ism) is every bit as loopy as anything believed by the Left Behind/Rapture crowd ...

Yes, the letter does contain the oft-repeated litany of leftist critiques of American foreign policy. And yes -- there's some anti-Israel conspiracy theories implied in it, a suggestion that maybe the Holocaust didn't happen -- but "say for the sake of argument" that it did ...

It's still a very serious document. The NYT seems to consider the whole thing ominus, because how Bush responds is going to have tremendous play in the Arab world. He can't just afford to dismiss it out of hand the way we in the West dismiss communiques by al Qaeda ...

Most importantly, it rasies the conduct of foreign policy to a high moral plane -- the level of discourse that presidents like to present to their citizenry. Bush can't just repudiate it without looking kind of ... Satanically hypocritical ... in Iranian eyes.

So how does Bush respond in a way that does dignity to the eyes of the world watching him?

Hmmm ... this is going to be interesting to witness.

Bob

so why doesn't the bushliar-criminal communicate with Ahmadinejad, theocrat to theocrat, emphasizing all the common ground:

- they could talk about the criminal endeavor of war and oppression against the Almighty's creations;
- they could discuss the inherent right of humans (no need to separate woman at this point) to follow their faith and the need of all to be tolerent of the faith of others;
- they could discuss the Almighty's intent for the advantaged to aid and help the disadvantaged.

oh...never mind.

rmck1 -- I also believe the letter was sincere. Although I personally don't buy into his religious prescription, there's little to argue with in broad strokes. And other statements by Iranian officials reinforce the "popular mandate" appeal to the citizenry both domestic and regional.

brooksfoe's observation about the appropriate way this should have been handled is spot on. However...

That Ahmadinejad released the full text of the letter this soon--after reportedly stating something to the effect of "Islamic courtesy prevented him from revealing its contents" earlier--suggests that it's as much for regional/domestic consumption as anything. Iran has also been on a diplomatic offensive in the region (e.g., Bahrain, "[Iraq] occupiers illegitimate; Qatar defense agreement; Turkey meeting of foreign ministers; Iraq warm-fuzzy statements; etc.)

On that score the NYT is right, but it appears that Ahmadinejad et. al. is at least one step ahead of the administration.

John Hansen, you show your ignorance.

Jesus Christ is a major figure in Islam, and has a starring role in the Koran. The Koran says that Jesus's teachings differ from what the Bible says they were. Furthermore, there are dozens of other "gospels" that give still different interpretations of Jesus's teachings. He's not basing what he says about Jesus based on things he's heard about the Christian Bible, as Muslims believe that the Bible is not the true word of God, but is rather a distortion.

has407:

Agreed very much that brooksfoe nailed the correct diplomatic tone we should take -- i.e. out-gracious Ahmadinegad in response and essentially call his bluff ...

But Bush, of course, won't/can't do that. Saddest of all, his base believes that Iran is truly a Great Satan -- the Antichrist, to be specific -- and that calling on a common religious tradition as monotheists of "the Book" is pure Satan-speak. Bush can't address the religious comments warmly without being *villified* by his base (which is probably true of Ahmadinejad's base as well -- but double-talk to oppressors in Islam is duly sanctioned).

So how does Bush appear to simultaneously embrace the common elements of the religious rhetoric (to do otherwise would look hypocritical from any vantage point), while sending subtle signals that it's really Western Christianity that's God's favored belief?

Heh. Expect a *lot* of smarmy talk about the sacredness of "Western democracy" -- that's gonna be the code-phrase for the evangelical base :)

Bob

Joe Buck:

No, I think that's kind of distorted.

Jesus doesn't have any more of a "starring role" in the Koran than Moses or Elijah or Daniel any other prophet. The Koran fits extremely well with the Old Testament (actually, Muslims should have less doctrinal issues with Jews than Christians) and differs with the New Testament primarily to the extent that it believes that Jesus was only another prophet, and not the Son of God.

Bob

Bob:

To merely hint by implication that I never thought of downloading Adobe Acrobat is an inescapable insult, Tom.

Yeah, good point.

That, and the fact that I'm a word guy, and there are literally millions of lifetimes' worth of words on the net that are perfectly accessible to a machine that can't run JavaScript, HTTPS or frames.

Appropriate technology is an affirmative choice. I just don't miss the bells 'n' whistles.

Gee, now you sound like one of those young people who doesn't want to buy health insurance. ;)

My machine was built for heavy-duty graphics and design calculations and things like internet access and PDF are almost lost in the noise. Unfortunately, although it was cutting edge when I built it, it's getting old and slow now (Dual Pentium IIIs, just to show you how old and slow) and I'm going to have to cough up for something else pretty soon. Much of my posting in places like this is during waits for things like large Solidworks assemblies loading, and there's only so many times you can get up for another cup of coffee. Looking at something with a pair of Opteron dual cores.

rmck1 -- Sacred Western Democracy... excellent! Of course the appeal to having the required prophet, apostles, etc... will also play well.

Ahmadinejad may be a nutcase, but you gotta respect a good dig like this...

"We will wait to see what would be the reaction of the other side and then we will make the decision," Ahmadinejad said.

"Fortunately, we have no problem when it comes to making decisions," Ahamdinejad added.

The contents of the letter have now been posted at IRNA. Expect regional warm-fuzzy reaction soon. Expect the administration to be caught flat footed and on the defensive.

As much as I despise Ahamdinejad, I can't help but conclude that the leadership in Iran is one helluva lot smarter than what we have in Washington.

2. He certainly does not understand the real motivation behind the policies of George Bush.

Do you?

From everything I have seen of George Bush he is a straight shooter. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. During the 2004 campaign it was admitted by most that at least you could be pretty clear that GWB usually meant what he said.

What's funny is that many people who don't agree with his policies, and disagree with his stated reasons, have to come up with motivations based on their own world view. So rather than taking him at face value they make up all kinds of reasons for him doing what he does.

1. He's not that smart.
2. He's hates black people.
3. He wants to favor rich people.
4. He wants to give paybacks to all his oil buddies.
5. He wants to start an American theocracy...

People who proclaim things like this for the motivations of Bush policy do not really want to discuss issues on the merits. They want to tar and feather the position by associating it with a recgonizably abhorrent personal trait. Its a lot easier to discuss things with people who don't assume anyone who disagrees with their world view is a moron. Unfortunately, such an arrogant attitude is very prevalent amongst the left bloggers.

John Hansen: People who proclaim things like this for the motivations of Bush policy do not really want to discuss issues on the merits.

Bullshit. It is you who use "motivations" as a thinly veiled excuse to avoid discussing "issues on the merits". I could give a rat's ass about "motivations". I care about tangible actions and results--as do most people. On that score Bush (and his enablers in Congress) is an abject failure.

From everything I have seen of George Bush he is a straight shooter.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here, from the Center for American Progress, a list of notable Bush flip-flops:

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

…Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

…Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

After reading Stefan's list I'm beginning to think there's not one but two George Bush's out there -- and that the "double" we saw at the Correspondents Dinner was actually the other "good" Bush who came into existence after an accident with a transporter.

He now spends his time traveling around the country trying to correct the mistakes of the first Bush and covering for him when he's on a bender.

If I understand Kevin correctly, he's saying that somewhere in that manure-filled stable there has got to be a pony.

Sooner or later you will hear just about anything in the blogosphere.

Wow Stefan - can I order that list embroidered on a pillow?

I know some people who need to see it...

Thank God that President Bush will never have to debate this man on live television before the world.

The call for justice and (equal) dignity is a powerful one, and it's too bad we don't live up to our promise in our affairs around the world.

Mahmoud writes a sober and powerful critique of the Bush Administration and U.S. foreign policy over the past decades, but he falsely jumps to the conclusions that somehow liberalism (liberal democracy) has failed.

The policies of George Bush cannot be equated with liberal democracy, as his contempt for liberal democracy is freely evident.

We haven't yet realized the promise of liberal democracy in this country, in terms of weeding out corruption and ensuring equal rights and dignity, not only at home but how we act in the world, though we have made progress where such did not interfere with our prosperity (or the prosperity of the few).

Obviously, that's not good enough, to just make progress and efforts that don't interfere with one's desires, while stifling progress and sewing devolution when this harmonizes with our "interests".

This is a problem within liberal democracy, to this point, and also in how liberal democracies engage others in the world.

As to religion and the prophets, one can easily surmise that most if not all of the prophets would approve of the ideals of liberal democracy - equal rights and dignity for all human beings under God.

All religions may flourish under liberalism, and all have done so where the religious spirit has remained in the populace.

It may be fair to say that "Western-style" democracy has failed, or is failing, from Mahmoud's non-Western view, if that criticism honestly and implicity (or explicitly) asserts that such a failure, or failing, is in reality and and not ideality, in that it is a failure to live up to "liberal" democracy, to not make good the promise, which should play no favorites in giving equal rights and dignity to all God's children.

Indeed, this is where Mahmoud's conclusion, from his own perspective as articulated in the letter, does not follow from his rational arguments leading up to them, for he says that both liberalism and "Western-style" democracy have failed, when he ought to realize that his conclusion should be limited to "Western-style" democracy (as implemented).

Democracy, the equal right of all individuals to participate in the life of the community, grounded in an inalienable right to raise one's voice in the choice of leaders and institution of laws, most often associated with the right to vote, directly follows from the philosophy of liberalism, which teaches the inherent equality of all human beings, itself following from the wisdom and teachings of our holy books and prophets, which preach the equal dignity of all God's children.

Strains of liberalism do not require the prophets or holy books, but the teaching and promise is the same.

If Mahmoud sees evil in man's doing, whether in the name of "Western-style" democracy or some other form of tyranny to him, he should see that this is a common failing of men throughout history, a failure of individual men in power and those individuals who look the other way, primarily for the pursuit of self-interest and in denial of equal respect and dignity.

For, if we are to put together communities and nations that honor the prophets, liberal democracy is the ground and vision, and it is up to all of us to lend a hand in ensuring we keep our promises, speak truth to power, and show compassion to the powerless.

In this, we agree.

The alleged failure is not liberalism, or liberal democracy, but human hearts and avarice undermining the practice and implementation of liberalism, which is grounded in the prophets and great religions, and which makes no natural restrictions on human beings wishing to practice their religions.

The answer is to root out corruption, and honor the promise of liberal democracy, at least for those of us living under "Western-style" democracies.

For those who are not blessed with liberal societies, or societies committed to equal respect and dignity, at least in word, the answer is enable them to choose that destiny if they would.

In the pursuit of equal rights, respect and dignity, what other system exists, or has been proposed, to ensure such, consistent with these principles, other than liberalism and "liberal" democracy?

One way to look at the letter is as an attempted "end run" around Bush to his conservative Christian base. An intelligent Islamic radical probably wonders why right-wing Christians should support Israel when, in truth, the most orthodox of the Jews have exactly the same disdain for Christ as they do for Mohamed.

I can see two problems with the President of Iran's approach. First, most conservative Christians have a healthy respect for the role of prophecy. They see ancient prophecy as still being relevatnt to present-day events, especially the creation of the modern Israeli state. Secondly, any Christian has a hard time relating to the mindset of the suicide bomber.

Contrary to popular belief, a lot of early Christians did renounce their faith when faced with being consumed by the lions as a public spectacle. We Christians have our martyrs, but we also have the pragmatic side. As St. Thomas Acquinas (I think) noted in urging that those who had renounced be accepted back into the church once the persecutions relented, we are not all equally brave.

Certainly, some of the Christian crusaders fell prey to the martyr syndrome in that they started to think it was more important to march out and do glorious battle whether the army had its logistics (particularly the water supply) in order or not. Being stupid is just a form of useless suicide.

Ahmadinejad is not as clever or as important as he thinks he is, but his eye is certainly on the long-term confrontation of Islam with the West.

Shattering of Iranian society and fall of Crazy Ahmadi Nejad sounds more like it...