"It's like the Iranian regime is daring me to want them overthrown."

Why does everything have to be about you?
 D. Ghirlandaio | 1:41 PM

Well, it is my blog.
 Spencer Ackerman | 2:03 PM

You want "hard thinking on Iran"?
Ignore the post here but read the comments.

Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran, he is the president and as such has no power over foreign policy. He was elected as a populist winning the protest vote against corruption of among other things the religious elite. Seyyed Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader as he was over Khatami and has to deal with his troublesome, uneducated, rabble-rousing and more extreme underling.

We're the one's with the official First Strike policy and you complain that your feelings are hurt by a PR stunt?
As with your "observations" about Iraqi nationalism you should be asking questions not answering them with the caveat[!] that you don't really know enough to have an educated opinion.
 D. Ghirlandaio | 2:05 PM

d. ghirlandaio,
Not to sound like Spencer's hit-monkey or anything, butw hy come to Spencer's blog only to post malicious comments and irrelevent analysis?

You tell us that Ahmadinejad is not the true leader of Iran as if that's some profound, esoteric fact. Of course he isn't the leader, the government is a theocracy. Khameini has final say not merely over foreign policy matters, but over all governmental affairs. If you think that the Holocaust-Denialstock festival didn't have the blessing of the Ayatollahs, you need to think your thoughts through a little better.

Your criticism of Spencer's criticism of this event appears largely non-sensical to me as well. Nobody is talking about First Strike policies, or even US policy for that matter. Spencer made a snarkish single sentence post, that (at least to me) seemed to indicate that despite the way in which the Iranians attempt to paint themselves--as oppressed underdogs--to seek world sympathy, they are a rather despicable lot.

Additionally, your continued harping on Spencer's use of the phrase "as best I can tell" is laughable. He's a foreign policy reporter who has been to Iraq. Utilizing his knowledge and experience, he wrote an observation about Iraqi nationalism and labeled it as an appeared truth. Due to what I imagine (I'm sure you will find fault with me having an imagination) is the complexity of the subject, Spencer was cautious and did not relay his observation as an impermeable fact. Perhaps I'm just dim, but I see nothing wrong with this. I guess he could have wrote this statement as a question, although that seems to be more of a matter of syntax than you having found a falacy in his argument.

-Eric
 Eric the Political Hack | 3:13 PM

"If you think that the Holocaust-Denialstock festival didn't have the blessing of the Ayatollahs"

There are factions and those factions are not unified.
Did Khatami have the backing of Ayatollahs? if so which ones? Gimme details not hot air. List the Iranian proposals that got shot down by the US only because the iranians refused to kiss our collective ass. The people of the United States can't be counted on to even know the name Mossadegh, let alone the meaning of "Savak." Yet American liberals are debating first strikes and what do we do about the Iranian "threat"?

I'm not going to get my back up over a PR stunt starring David Duke, Robert Faurisson and a few Satmar Rebbi's in a country with the largest Jewish population in the middle east outside of Israel.
 D. Ghirlandaio | 3:47 PM

Once again your comments seem largely unrelated to my arguments. That the American people would debate preemptive strikes on Iran without knowing the name of the Shah's prime minister may or may not be a valuable discussion to have, although it has no relevence to our current debate.

As for my use of "the Ayatollahs", I probably should have said something like, "Khamenei and his clerical allies." Of course not all of the religious leaders of Iran agree on all policy matters and that's a fair point, I suppose.

As far as Khatami having the backing of the Ayatollahs, you've got me. Although I once again don't see how this relates to our debate, I've read that Khatami's reform-minded government did unnerve many of the clerical leaders, although all candidates that run for election in Iran need at least the approval of the Ayatollahs. But as to whether or not they backed him...well I'd probably say, "there are factions and those factions are not unified." Or at the very least, you'd probably say that.
 Eric the Political Hack | 4:23 PM

"without knowing the name of the Shah's prime minister..."

without quibbling, could we have a bit more here?
 D. Ghirlandaio | 8:09 PM

Quibbles and bits. That's what you're all about though, right? I clicked over to your blog and your top post had this little gem:

And Spencer Ackerman is another teenage putz. I've had a little fun with him on his page. He writes to express his opinions even while admitting he doesn't have the right to have them. A true Pundit. An American liberal in every sense of the word that makes me cringe.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You are the type of narcissistic prick that would troll someone's blog, then post little inane comments accusing the blogger of all sorts of bullshit because he's younger, and smarter than you, or because he wrote "best I can tell", THEN link to it on your own irrelevent (like your comments here) blog, while congratulating yourself because nobody else will. I mean who else would? Your blog only a 22 hits a day.

It's kind of pathetic really. What with you coming here, throwing out the lamest of arguments--arguments that I quite frankly was fortunate to rip to shreds. Not because I'm especially intelligent, just because I was the first person to respond. Then you linking back from your little site, with your little upside down American flag because you are so original/clever/recalcitrant. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 Eric the Political Hack | 9:15 PM

Well, that was productive.
 Weaver | 10:55 PM