Dersh & Bolt
December 16, 2006 1:24 AM   Subscribe

Dershowitz & Bolton team up to call for the prosecution of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
posted by pwedza (47 comments total)

 
woo boy the "discussion" under the Ahmadinejad clip is a right stew pot of ignorance and bile.

Dershowitz & Bolton are about as creditable as my left shoe, they talk of bringing charges for "inciting genocide" but do very little about real, ongoing genocide in Darfur, nor do they talk about prosecuting peoples responsible for starting a war on false pretenses.

Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nut, but to be fair so is Bush.
posted by edgeways at 1:56 AM on December 16, 2006


What a joke. Bolton has had no problem with genocide in other areas of the world, and Dershowitz has few problems with Palestianians being murdered. Next Bush and Cheney will be calling for independence from foreign oil.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:00 AM on December 16, 2006


Just to note, the US made a reservation to the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) article 20 stating that:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

For more.

But, of course Bolton knows that. What, having been the UN ambassador and all.
posted by pwedza at 2:17 AM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Michael Bolton owes far too much to Percy Sledge to call for the prosecution of anyone.
posted by landis at 2:18 AM on December 16, 2006 [3 favorites]


Does anybody here suppose the UN has any power to stand up to America? We just ignore them.
posted by Sukiari at 4:33 AM on December 16, 2006


When I see "Dershowitz & Bolton team up..." I expect it to be followed by "...only to be foiled by the Justice League of America!"
posted by languagehat at 5:30 AM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Two thugs walk into a bar. Both have mustaches. One is a lawyer. The other a failed UN representative. After advocating torture and the disbanding of the UN, they have an idea . . .

Never mind. Two pieces of human trash. Who cares.
posted by spitbull at 5:52 AM on December 16, 2006


Dershowitz and Bolton are, to finish the thought, no better than Ahmadinejad. I hope all three are playing bocce ball in hell next year.
posted by spitbull at 5:53 AM on December 16, 2006


When I see "Dershowitz & Bolton team up..." I expect it to be followed by "...only to be foiled by the Justice League of America!"

And I tell you, Spider-Man is in cahoots with those two, or my name isn't J. Jonah Jameson!

Miss Brandt! Are you writing all this down? And where is Parker???
posted by evilcolonel at 6:31 AM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


uphill ... it wouldn't be bocce ball in hell if it wasn't uphill ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:39 AM on December 16, 2006


How serious is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? We can take him for his word that he plans to commit genocide - or we can take him at his word that he is a peace loving school teacher.
posted by stbalbach at 6:52 AM on December 16, 2006


Michael Bolton owes far too much to Percy Sledge to call for the prosecution of anyone.

When Amman loves a woman...
posted by hal9k at 6:56 AM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


The cherry on top is this:

A suit will be lodged with the international court of justice at The Hague [...]
posted by uncle harold at 7:07 AM on December 16, 2006


Per Uncle Harold:

Strange, they are legitimizing the international court of justice. Usually that is one of those institutions (like the ICC) that is the target of attacks from the rabid pro-Israel crowd. The ICJ of course came down with an advisory ruling against the separation barrier in Israel -- but it was thoroughly attacked by the pro-Israel crowd as being out of its jurisdiction and what not, I think Israel even refused to defend itself officially at the court.
posted by bhouston at 7:32 AM on December 16, 2006


Bolton never had any credibility among non-carpet chewers but it's sad that Dershowitz is still taken seriously by some. (He still has an outlet at HuffPo, for example).

To the extent that he retains credibility among liberals, Dersh is a deeply dangerous man in the same way that Lieberman is, since he provides cover for the nuttiest of nutty nutjob foreign policies produced by the right.

I'm just waiting for Pammy to join them for Appletinis and a threesome.

While videoblogging.

Now THAT would be worth watching.
posted by unSane at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2006


Strange, they are legitimizing the international court of justice.

That's what I thought. Then we can start to hold the US accountable there, too. Cool!
posted by carter at 8:21 AM on December 16, 2006


"How serious is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? We can take him for his word that he plans to commit genocide"

I don't speak persian, but as far as understand it Ahmadinejad has not called for genocide of jewish people in Isreal, but for the political desturction of the State of Isreal. He has compared this "wiping off the map" to what the destruction of the Soviet Union, which of course was not a genocide.
posted by afu at 8:45 AM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Isn't the U.S ignoring a ruling by the ICJ concerning our support of terrorists in Nicaragua?
posted by wrapper at 8:52 AM on December 16, 2006


I think stbalbach is correct to ask.

We can talk about how unpalatable Bolton and Dershowitz are, especially together, but regardless something has to be done about Ahmadinejad.

I think what he says is a little bit too dangerous to ignore. When he says "destruction of the state of Israel," follows up with a Holocaust deniers' conference and meanwhile, works to get the kind of weapons that would allow him to put his words into action, can we really sit idly by? Even if his words mean only political destruction, that is still quite a statement. Advocating the destruction of a Western, democratically elected government is very serious. Especially when all evidence points that in Ahmadinejad's eyes, the replacement government would be an Islamic theocracy.

There is a lot of talk about the U.S. leaving Iraq. I was against the original U.S. invasion. Now, I'm not sure what to think. If the U.S. leaves and the result is another Iranian Shiite ally, can we tolerate a Cold War-like outcome [it is debatable if this will actually happen but after Saudi Arabia's statement that it would sponsor Iraq's Sunni militias, it is a definite possibility]? Further, if the U.S. engages Iran in talks and yields to their nuclear program it seems that Israeli military action is inevitable.

[Sorry to put the thread on a bit of a tangent.]
posted by yevge at 9:10 AM on December 16, 2006


I could very well be wrong, but my impression is that Ahmadinejad is basically a populist politician who's using the anti-Israel frothing as a convenient way to distract the attention of the voters from his failure to implement the reforms that are the reason people voted for him in the first place. He's not actually going to attack Israel any more than the frothing anti-Communist U.S. politicians of the '50s were going to attack Russia.
posted by languagehat at 9:38 AM on December 16, 2006


I can't wait to see Rummy carry the indictment to the Hague. No, wait! Rummy probably can't travel to Europe anymore. Someone might try to arrest him for his leadership at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's depressing to see the US further humiliated by having its foreign policy defended by a Dershowitz media farce.
posted by crispynubbins at 9:54 AM on December 16, 2006


Dershowitz I think falls into the category "driven insane by 9/11". I'm not aware of his mental aberrations being prominent before then.

Bolton has always been nuts.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 11:13 AM on December 16, 2006


yevge - re: what to do about Ahmadinejad?

I think the ICJ is a good move -- especially if it deflates any push towards attacks on Iran. It is just Ahmadinejad and his language that is the issue. Iran as a country is not a threat to anyone. Iran also, in my opinion, has the right to nuclear technology and while some predict doom, there is no reason why MAD-strategies don't apply to the middle east as they do elsewhere (such as between the SU and the USA and between India and Pakistan.) The problem is that there is a lot of confusion in the rhetoric directed towards Iran that conflates the inflamatory, populist but otherwise impotent rhetoric of Ahmadinejad with concerns about general region power politics in the middle east.
posted by bhouston at 12:27 PM on December 16, 2006


I'm not convinced we have to do anything about Ahmadinejad.

1 - I don't know what he's done other than the threats only voiced by rightwing pro-war media.

2 - I see him getting political mileage out of anti-American sentiment, the same way Chavez does. I don't view Chavez as a threat to US security either.

But I really don't understand what Ahmadinejad had to gain by holding the Holocaust denialist convention. I view it as further alienation from the European partnerships which keep Iran secure: for every US hawk screaming for an invasion of Iran, there's a European conglemerate building a hospital, a shopping mall, a pipeline, an office building or a highway in Iran who won't allow the US to bomb their investments.
posted by surplus at 12:33 PM on December 16, 2006


re: surplus - I completely agree that hosting that Holocaust denialist conference makes no sense from a strategic point of view. I am starting to think that Ahmadinejad may be more interested in being news and being the center of attention than in actually acting smartly. Iran's initiation of their nuclear program and the decision to take a ambiguous stance on it (sort of like Israel's up until recently) predated Ahmadinejad arrival on the scene -- I am actually unsure of anything really strategic that I can credit Ahmadinejad for, I think he is actually counter productive to Iran's national interests.
posted by bhouston at 12:46 PM on December 16, 2006


Ahmadinejad likes to pull the West's chain with regards to Israel and the Holocaust and then we obligingly froth at the mouth and provide a spectacle not lost on Muslims and Arabs that already think we are in Israel's pocket.

Last summer Mike Wallace interviewed Ahmadinejad and the first question, the FIRST QUESTION, was about Holocaust denial. I could easily imagine millions of Muslims turning to each and going "See?"

Worse by far than a bunch of pathetic deniers of the undeniable is a major country whose official policy denies their role in another genocide, this time of Christians.

Do you think Mulims wonder why Christians seem to be so much more exorcised by genocide against Jews than Christians?
posted by wrapper at 1:00 PM on December 16, 2006


I don't think Ahmadinejad could be liable in U.S. courts. I see they want to indict him in the International Criminal court. Ironic, since Bolton doesn't think it ought to apply to the US (I don't know if Dershowitz does)
posted by delmoi at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2006


"How serious is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? We can take him for his word that he plans to commit genocide"

I don't speak persian, but as far as understand it Ahmadinejad has not called for genocide of jewish people in Isreal, but for the political desturction of the State of Isreal. He has compared this "wiping off the map" to what the destruction of the Soviet Union, which of course was not a genocide.


Exactly, he's never called for "Genocide." Just for changing maps (and politics). Obviously you can parse that different way, but that's why he's a politician.

When he says "destruction of the state of Israel," follows up with a Holocaust deniers' conference ... Advocating the destruction of a Western, democratically elected government is very serious.

I'm not fan of holocaust denial, but "democratically elected"? Millions of people who live in the west bank and gaza have no say in their government at all. The PA government is being bombed by Israel, which still maintains tons of settlements there.

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad was actually elected in a popular vote (while, yes, certain candidates were bared from running)
posted by delmoi at 3:37 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


I could very well be wrong, but my impression is that Ahmadinejad is basically a populist politician who's using the anti-Israel frothing as a convenient way to distract the attention of the voters from his failure to implement the reforms that are the reason people voted for him in the first place. He's not actually going to attack Israel any more than the frothing anti-Communist U.S. politicians of the '50s were going to attack Russia.

In no wise should I be considered a defender of Israel or any of its policies; that said, I would like to point out that there are good historical reasons to take this sort of fulmination at face value...

Exactly, he's never called for "Genocide." Just for changing maps (and politics).

...and that's just disingenuous. Obviously in this case I am reliant on sources like the BBC for the translation from Farsi, but when I read that Politician N has called for "wiping Country X off the map," I think it's absurd to assume he or she means (or is understood by their audience to mean) that this should be accomplished via negotiated settlement rather than force of arms.

C'mon, dudes, you're smarter than this.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:43 PM on December 16, 2006


Bolton never had any credibility among non-carpet chewers but it's sad that Dershowitz is still taken seriously by some.

Bolton has a lesbian* constituency? Or is this your cryptic way of signaling that John Bolton is the biological father of Mary Cheney's baby? Do tell!

Dershowitz's "taken seriously by" claque is equivalent to, and overlaps heavily with, Christopher Hitchens's vanishingly small sphere of influence. D's ongoing presence on HuffPo is due to the fact that A) he's a Harvard prof, and B) Arianna knows everyone and/or is within the set of his last five ongoing sexual partners. (Emphasis on "ongoing.") Also, D's not a sweating-gin, throbbing-liver alcoholic, which is a point in his favor v. Hitchens. Did I mention that D's a Harvard prof? Welcome to publishing.

He's not actually going to attack Israel any more than the frothing anti-Communist U.S. politicians of the '50s were going to attack Russia.

Thank you so very much, languagehat. This is the perfect historical analogy -- so organic that I feel stupid for not noticing it before.

*Yes, I know that statistically most carpet-chewers are heterosexual men (or so I, and all heterosexual pole-smokers like me, hope). But, c'mon.
posted by vetiver at 5:48 PM on December 16, 2006


I'm not fan of holocaust denial, but "democratically elected"? Millions of people who live in the west bank and gaza have no say in their government at all. The PA government is being bombed by Israel, which still maintains tons of settlements there.

I am talking about Israel proper. The people of West Bank and Gaza have a say: they elected the Hamas government recently. Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza, and the current Prime Minister has expressed his desire to withdraw from the West Bank. At the present, Israel's occupation of the West Bank is based on their desire for security.
posted by yevge at 5:57 PM on December 16, 2006


Bolton has a lesbian* constituency?

I read it that way, too.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:57 PM on December 16, 2006


Munching is very different from chewing...
posted by Artw at 6:12 PM on December 16, 2006


there are good historical reasons to take this sort of fulmination at face value...

Well, duh. But... look, it's very hard to talk about this stuff and not be perceived by somebody as at the very least a fool or dupe, but I'll give it a try. Here in the West, we're saturated in Holocaustiana. When we think of WWII, we think of the Holocaust. When we think of Jews, we think of the Holocaust. When we think of the foundation of the state of Israel, we think of the Holocaust. There's nothing wrong with that, and there are good historical reasons for it. But it's a localized phenomenon. People in Africa and Asia, for example, don't necessarily have the Holocaust in the forefront of their consciousnesses in the same way. That doesn't mean they're anti-Semitic, just that their focus on history is different. People in China are much more focused on anti-Chinese atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese, also for good historical reasons.

Now, non-Israelis in the Middle East, for their own historical reasons, focus on the fact that Jews came over from Europe and took Palestine away from its previous inhabitants. When they think of Jews and the foundation of the state of Israel, that's what comes to their minds. That doesn't necessarily involve Holocaust denial—I have no idea what the percentages are, but certainly there are a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims who are perfectly willing to agree that the Holocaust occurred and the Jews suffered terribly, but do not agree that that entitled them to come over from Europe and take somebody else's land away. So when somebody like Ahmadinejad (which should really be written Ahmadinezhad, but that's irrelevant here) rants about Israel and how it doesn't have a right to be there and how the map needs to be changed, etc. etc., we in the West think "Holocaust!" but his audience in the Middle East thinks "justice." I know it's very hard for those of us who care deeply about what happened to the Jews of Europe and who are horrified at the possibility of its happening again to step outside of that set of reactions and see with different eyes, but I think it's necessary if we're to avoid being sandbagged by our own preconceptions (and possibly getting into yet another pointless, destructive war for what turns out to be no good reason).

Yes, Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic, pointlessly provocative, and generally a bad egg. But I think the Iranian voters will get fed up with him and vote him out of office and try somebody else; for us to mistake his yelping and snarling for a genuine threat and take action for that reason would be (in my opinion) a terrible mistake.

Again, though, I could be wrong, and I'm glad I don't have to make the irrevocable decisions.
posted by languagehat at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


languagehat: I think you are right. But I wonder, does the way we perceive his statements make a difference? If we think "holocaust" and they think "justice," he is still saying "destroy the State of Israel." If you look at Israel's 50 year history, it has been full of wars with its Middle Eastern neighbors. Especially from 1948 to the late 1970s these wars sought to destroy the State of Israel and replace it with another regime (the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War). Based on its history, it isn't too crazy for Israelis to think that 30 years after the last such attempt, another Middle Eastern leader will try to do the same. With such a history of very real existential threats, Israel will not take another lightly. Especially one where the goal for destruction can be achieved with a push of a button.
posted by yevge at 6:46 PM on December 16, 2006


good historical reasons

Just as a sidenote, I wasn't actually primarily thinking of the Jewish Holocaust. My top-of-mind examples are anti-Armenian blustering on the part of various Turkish eminences in the run-up to 1915, and of Japanese speeches and policy positions developed for domestic consumption concerning the respective roles of ethnic Koreans (to be reduced to slaves) and Chinese (to be annihilated) in the putative Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere to come. Closer to the present day, of course, we have similarly "wild" eliminationist invective aimed at Bosnian Muslims and Tutsis. In all cases, "outlandish" rhetoric was followed by direct action of explicitly genocidal intent.

I'm not sure, therefore, why you'd cast this as an issue of lazy Eurocentrism. We needn't take a Godwinian detour to the pages of Mein Kampf to find plenty of examples of despots of whom it's fair to say the world would have been better off taking at their word.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:54 PM on December 16, 2006


Obviously in this case I am reliant on sources like the BBC for the translation from Farsi, but when I read that Politician N has called for "wiping Country X off the map," I think it's absurd to assume he or she means (or is understood by their audience to mean) that this should be accomplished via negotiated settlement rather than force of arms.

Yes, this translation was incorrect. Ahmadinejad never said anything about wiping anyone off the map. He said: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of history". But that doesn't sound quite so genocidal. In any case, Iran has no ability to destroy Israel - on the contrary, Israel could easily wipe Iran off the map, as it cheerfully demonstrated earlier this year in Lebanon! Ahmadinejad is a big-talking reactionary whose demographic associates Western-style economic liberalism with impotence in the face of an aggressive Israel. In some ways I find it hard to disagree with them.
posted by stammer at 7:25 PM on December 16, 2006


yevge - Um, Israel started the Six Day war.
posted by Artw at 7:37 PM on December 16, 2006


Artw:
From Wikipedia:
"When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt. Jordan in turn attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day."

It was abundantly clear from all of Egypt's actions that war was inevitable. It was a question of *when* Egypt and others would strike, not *if*. Not to mention that blockade is an act of war. While Israel technically started the war, saying that without all of the necessary context is misleading.
posted by yevge at 8:04 PM on December 16, 2006


Actually, let me rephrase. I wouldn't call it "abundandtly clear" but "very, very likely."
posted by yevge at 8:12 PM on December 16, 2006


A recent Stratfor intel report on the Iranian position has some interesting analysis of Ahmadinejad's "crazy" act as a carefully sustained part of a larger strategy towards regional hegemony:

(This is an excerpt, and sorry I can't find a link to this entire document on the public web.)
Tehran has been maneuvering for years to secure certain interests in the region. First and foremost, of course, is the country's own national security, for which the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad was a prerequisite. With the establishment of a friendly (or at least neutral), Shiite-controlled government in Baghdad, Iran would be able to both secure the primary goal of security and be well down the path toward a secondary and equally desirable goal: regional hegemony.

Therefore, an Iranian strategy began emerging almost from the moment the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad fell in April 2003. The strategy has revolved around shaping events in the region and, crucially, external perceptions of Iran and its leadership. The chief tactics employed have been manipulation of political events in Iraq, a vocal emphasis on Iran's nuclear program, skillful use of politically incorrect (at times, seemingly maniacal) statements by Ahmadinejad, the activation of regional proxies and, above all, patience. Stratfor has explored many of these tactics in detail before, but we will recap them here briefly as the strategy, viewed in full, is quite something to behold.

[...]

Let's begin with the most potent part of the strategy (both politically and militarily): the nuclear program.

Iran clearly has used this as a bargaining chip in the back channel dealings over Iraq. Rather than pursuing a covert nuclear program -- which has been the logical course if obtaining nuclear weapons were truly Iran's primary goal in the beginning -- the Iranians made a conscious decision to tout their nuclear advances publicly. Their political and energy partners in Moscow and Beijing routinely have played defense, ensuring that the nuclear issue languishes in the U.N. Security Council. And Tehran has made sure to crank up the rhetoric whenever political developments in Iraq take an unfavorable turn -- while always staying clear of the red line (beyond which the United States or Israel could be expected to mount pre-emptive strikes). This tactic has helped shape perceptions of Iran as a force to be reckoned with, while keeping Washington and its allies off balance in negotiations over Iraq. And, significantly, nuclear weapons no longer appear to be a red herring tactic, but an end of themselves for Tehran.

Closely related to this has been the image campaign for Ahmadinejad, who has been carefully and purposely branded in the public mind as an utter lunatic. The nearly unknown, populist mayor from Tehran was captured in the public spotlight during Iran's 2005 summer election season. Before the world could even begin to form an opinion of him, he began threatening to wipe Israel off the map, labeling the Holocaust an enormous lie and so forth. As North Korea's experiments with the "crazy fearsome cripple gambit" have showed, an otherwise weak state -- headed by a seemingly wild-eyed leader who just might be mad enough to launch some of the nukes that the state may or may not actually possess -- can gain useful concessions, if not respect, from the rest of the world. And in Iran's case, it certainly made Israel and the United States to think twice about whether to attempt any military adventures concerning the Islamic Republic.
posted by edverb at 9:35 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Interesting analysis.

I'm not so sure this is true:
And in Iran's case, it certainly made Israel and the United States to think twice about whether to attempt any military adventures concerning the Islamic Republic.

I think Iran hasn't become more scary to the U.S. and Israel. If anything, I think Israel is more likely to strike now than it otherwise would be.
posted by yevge at 10:32 PM on December 16, 2006


Just as a sidenote, I wasn't actually primarily thinking of the Jewish Holocaust... We needn't take a Godwinian detour to the pages of Mein Kampf to find plenty of examples of despots of whom it's fair to say the world would have been better off taking at their word.

Sorry, I misunderstood you then. All I can say is that for every despot who's followed through on threats, there have been hundreds or thousands who didn't. Talk is cheap, war is expensive (and often results in despots losing power). And in my opinion, Ahmedinejad is pretty clearly the all-talk sort. I respect the opinion of anyone who feels differently (unless said opinion is a knee-jerk reaction from someone who doesn't know anything about Iran or Ahmedinejad except that they don't like Israel, which is clearly not true of you).
posted by languagehat at 5:31 AM on December 17, 2006


Yege - I'd modify "very very likely" to "possibly", and with historical hidesight regarding the nations surrounds Israel, their prepairedness and their capabilities that becomes "Not very likely at all".
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on December 17, 2006


Today's NY Times Week in Review has a piece by Neil MacFarquhar that addresses these issues; a few excerpts:
In the tea leaves used to assess the murky, shifting alliances among the mullahs, such publicity [about a group of students who burned his picture and chanted “Death to the Dictator!”] seemed to signal that someone fairly senior is less than enchanted with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

“There is dissent in Iran,” said Vali Nasr, author of “The Shiite Revival” and a professor of Middle Eastern politics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The perspective the U.S. has of Iran being a monolithic country under this demagogue is not correct.”

The first fissures in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s popular image come at a potentially significant moment. The Iraq Study Group recommended that the United States open a dialogue with Iran...

Being seen confronting the West burnishes Mr. Ahmadinejad’s populist image at home and adds to his aura on the Arab street, feeding the mullahs’ dreams of leading the world’s Muslims.

“They say Ahmadinejad is standing up to the Americans, he is standing up to the Israelis, and he is defending our rights,” Akhbar Ganji, Iran’s leading dissident, said in a talk at Stanford University this fall. But Mr. Ganji and a number of other Iranian analysts say that the West falls into a trap when it lets Mr. Ahmadinejad set the parameters of any dialogue or even interviews.

“Nobody asked him questions about democracy and human rights in Iran,” said Mr. Ganji, referring to recent exchanges the president had with Western questioners. “Nobody asked why they kill and imprison dissidents. This is the country’s Achilles’ heel, and they have no answer."...

“It’s time for a reality check — Iran is a third world power,” said Ervand Abrahamian, an expert at Baruch College on Iranian opposition movements.

The correct reaction to the Holocaust denial would be to ridicule it as rank stupidity, he and other Iranian experts say. To compare Mr. Ahmadinejad to Hitler is to assume wrongly “that he is in charge of Iran and that he is the country,” Mr. Nasr added.”
Which pretty much fits with what I was saying.
posted by languagehat at 11:14 AM on December 17, 2006


knettergek, both.
posted by Substrata at 4:33 PM on December 17, 2006


vetiver, are you saying Dershowitz has slept with Arianna Huffington? There's an image we don't need!
posted by spitbull at 8:02 AM on December 20, 2006


« Older Man pulls botfly larva from his own stomach....  |  Capt. Travis Patriquin's Power... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments