perfidy

Despicable. Though you have to expect all the former hostage takers have done well for themselves. They're heroes in Iran, after all.

But does this really make a difference in the long run? I think the more important point is that Iran has elected the candidate that was the most conservative, anti-US, and pro-nuke. Before, they had the most moderate president since the revolution. I can't see any other reason for the loss of progress than the Iraq war.

The only presidents who can matter, if not make a difference, in Iran are the hardliners. Khatami was progressively neutered as his tenure wore on, and the reason was that he was never going to be allowed to do anything, in any event, ever, that didn't fit the mullahs' mold.

He was kept around long enough to drain the ardor from the reformers' efforts, and they don't need him any longer for that - they've succeeded. So, they've said to themselves, why NOT just elect a terrorist? A terrorist whose actions, as a side note, ruined the celebrations on the day of my 21st birthday. Fuckers.

Better a Fuckhead we know.

I like my villains evil. It makes the water-hearted weaklings easier to ignore. It was easy to recognize the threat of the Communists when Nikita Khrushchev was beating his shoe on the table, Mao was casually starving people by the millions, and Pol Pot was committing genocide. The nice, friendly front men the Iranians have put out there over the years have managed to fool the Europeans (who really wanted to be fooled) and at least some Americans.

Now, only the complete and total jackasses will believe they really want democracy and peace, won’t sponsor terrorism, and are developing nuclear power only because they don’t have enough fossil fuel resources.

Bram,
That dude could have horns, fangs, hooves, breathe fire, spear babies with his pitchfork and he would still be preferable to Booosh and the Jooooz to alot of people.

Based on my observations thus far, "complete and total jackasses" comprise a massive majority of humanity.

Got to admit, would be real nice to get a chance to put a 7.62mm hole through that head.

Bram,

Buckethead prefers Barrett-scale munitions for both varmints and head removal.

Ahmadinejad might be the accused person, but then again, an accusation is scarcely proof.

"Apparently," as measured by a few people thinking so, may be worth holding in abeyance until something even vaguely resembling proof turns up.

I say this without holding any brief for Ahmadinejad, of course, but as someone bothered by the fact that "apparently" apparently means "some people think so."

If he was the involved person, due repercussions should follow and due conclusions drawn.

If.

"It was easy to recognize the threat of the Communists when Nikita Khrushchev was beating his shoe on the table...."

And far easier to reach an accomodation with him in which neither side, like, launched nuclear missiles at each other, by recognizing that he wasn't, you know, Josef Stalin. True believers on both sides thought that nuclear war ASAP was the proper response to the Cuban Missile Provocation. Strangely, I suspect that we came out better for not responding in that manner.

Let's see - the response available, if Ahmadinejad happens to have been one of the participants in the embassy take-over, is, well, nothing.

It's not as though he was likely to have been invited to Crawford in any event, or that, at any time during his term, things will thaw enough between the US and Iran that meaningful discussions will result.

As a result, treating the (well-sourced and utterly believable) claims of his involvement as truth is apparently without significant downside.

But I see your point.