Mousavi behind the attack on Marines in Lebanon?
posted at 12:11 pm on June 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Did Mirhossein Mousavi play a leading role in the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US Marines and caused Ronald Reagan to retreat? CQ Politics says yes, calling Mousavi the “Butcher of Beirut”. It serves as a reminder that the man whom the mullahs have suppressed was and perhaps still is of their regime:
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.
The connection to the attack is direct, according to the man in charge of American operations in the Mediterranean at the time:
“We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon,” retired Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.
“The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ’spectacular action’ against the Marines,” said Lyons.
Mousavi and his allies, perhaps cognizant that this history would surface eventually, tried applying a little proactive balm on his reputation earlier this week. In a Guardian article defending himself against criticisms that there were few differences between himself and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mousavi’s spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf said that Mousavi previously “knew only Che Guevara,” but now “he knows Gandhi.” It does confirm that the government of Iran has waged war by proxy against the United States as well as Israel for three decades, and that Mousavi participated in that war.
Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as I’ve written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office — perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. They’ve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power, and in doing so actually make Mousavi less important as a safety valve, a loyal member of the ruling class that could mainstream the opposition so as to make it benign to the real power in Tehran. It’s inexplicably stupid, like deliberately throwing gasoline on a fire.
Still, it’s good to remind people in the West of Mousavi’s actions within that ruling class. Perhaps he regrets his actions, and the Guardian statement seems to suggest that, but we’d need to see a lot more than a reference to Gandhi. We need to focus our support on the people of Iran and not Mousavi, and hope that they can soon choose leaders outside of the mullahcracy that has choked Iran for 30 years.
Update: Yes, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I won’t do. I’d trust that he’s telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Oh man. Not good.
upinak on June 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM
One can support the dissidents without supporting Mousavi.
myrenovations on June 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM
It wouldn’t shock me one bit if the left uses this to delegitimize the entire uprising, just for the sole purpose of giving their false messiah cover for sitting on his hands and remaining silent on it.
I fully expect one of these useful idiots to suggest that That One knew all along of Mousavi’s chequered past and that’s why he kept quiet.
CurtZHP on June 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
ditto
cmsinaz on June 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
No wonder Obam…uhhh… was taking it so slowly on Iran. He wanted confirmation that this was true before throwing his full support behind Mousavi.
Master Shake on June 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
WTF.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
We should still support the uprising because
–we don’t know this is true
–he opposes the mad mullahs running the show
–the people voted for him
–he might be martyred & a better leader could emerge
jgapinoy on June 23, 2009 at 12:17 PM
you think they will bring this up during his press conference??
cmsinaz on June 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Nice. An oppo dump on Mousavi.
What are the odds this is coming from the White House?
Robert_Paulson on June 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
It’s Iran, you expected differently?
It’s the process; not the person. The only major difference between dinnerjacket and Mousavi is a tonal change. The guys don’t hold a lot of real power; but the tone would change that might make a difference.
The process, though, of the vote of the people mattering is the important thing.
lorien1973 on June 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Looking for an Iranian leader with a clean slate is looking for an ice cream stand on the surface of the sun…
CMonster on June 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Debbie Schlussel has been on this for a while. She seems to bring out and then someone else carries it as their own.
bloggless on June 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Don’t forget Dinnerjacket was accused of being one of the terrorists that invaded our embassy and held our diplomats hostage. I’ll take which ever one can destroy the theocracy.
Laura in Maryland on June 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
This is further proof why you can’t trust Muslims even the ones we are forced to side with hate us.
lavell12 on June 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I’ve heard of this last week….and agree. This isn’t about Mousavi. This is about the people. Pray for THEM!!!
capejasmine on June 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Oh..the irony. Hard line Mousavi forced to become the symbol for revolution against the masters he served.
Thunderstorm129 on June 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I was pretty much under the impression that we were. HA, for example, has had lots of discussion about the people of Iran but not a whole lot of support for Mousavi or suggestions that he is the champion of freedom.
That being said, and not giving Mousavi a pass for anything he did in the past, it is entirely possible that Mousavi the political candidate in 2009 has different views than he did 30 years ago. I know I do. Again, this is not defending the man but suggesting that individuals can’t be seen exclusively in the context of who they were before they had three more decades of life experience.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Certainly. Besides, even if this is true (and I don’t doubt that it is), it doesn’t excuse what’s being done to the protesters.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I lol’ed
Thunderstorm129 on June 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Let me add one:
- It could get completely out of hand and bring the entire system down.
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM
We supported both sides of the Iran/Iraq war just to keep the conflagration gowing to weaken both beasts. Now we only need to support one side, and only with words, not money or guns. Obooba will find a way to screw it up.
Akzed on June 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM
You’ve got to be kidding. Such inconvenient questioning would take away from finding out how the housebreaking of Bo is going or Obama’s take on the John/Kate break-up.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM
None of this really matters, and I am shocked that no one (on TV, at least) really admits what a sucessfull revolution would mean…. YES, it’s true that Mousavi might not be much better (if any better) that dinner jacket… BUT, the PEOPLE OF IRAN will taste VICTORY…. they will KNOW that they can overthrow a repressive regime… which means that Mousavi or whomever else comes next will be on a MUCH SHORTER LEASH with the citizens.
BPD on June 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
…In a Guardian article defending himself against criticisms that there were few differences between himself and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mousavi’s spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf said that Mousavi previously “knew only Che Guevara,” but now “he knows Gandhi.” It does confirm that the government of Iran has waged war by proxy against the United States as well as Israel for three decades, and that Mousavi
participatedDIRECTED in that war. — EdFIFY, Ed. I’d still support the protesters even if Mousavi became the new leader of Iran. Change of any sort in the case of Iran is good. Because there is nowhere to go but UP!
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I distinctly recall blatantblue and progressoverpeace bringing these points up days ago… thus the lack of enthusiasm for the “revolutionaries” on the streets…
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Anyone who has ever held high office in Iran’s regime is not to be trusted. All the candidates for the presidency of Iran were selected by Ayatollah Khamenei. Ahmadinejad was simply Khamenei’s preferred thug, but Mousavi is still a thug.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
why do conservatives want obama to support terrorists?
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
The candidates are hand-picked by the ruling council, so nothing would surprise me about the guy.
It hasn’t been about this guy for a few days, if it ever was. It’s about years of repression and disaffection being lanced by the sham of an election.
Asher on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
This is the kind of trap the Obamaites are looking for. They’ll argue we shouldn’t support the protesters because they’re led by this man who is obviously no George Washington. Well, no kidding. But if he gives us a better chance of ending the nuclear threat and toppling the Mullahs, it would be folly to not hitch our wagons to his wagon-train. The old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” isn’t fool-proof, but it’s better than the current status quo.
Jim-Rose on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Exactly. It’s not like we’re being left with any good choices here, and at least this one has opened the eyes of the people to the corruption in their government. I’ll take that over the status quo anytime, though had he simply won the election and been allowed to sit in office, it’s possible nothing would have changed.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
So that he remains consistent.
BPD on June 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I told you..the ONLY good Iraqi, is a dead Iraqi.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
This is not about Mousavi anymore. From here, it looks like Mousavi was the catalyst that sparked the expression of Iranian discontent toward an oppressive regime. That discontent can lead to fundamental change in the regime. While we can’t predict the form that the change would take at this point, given the nature of the current leadership, it could hardly be worse than what we’re dealing with now.
Cicero43 on June 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
We’d prefer he throws all of his support behind Bill Ayers instead of half-a$$ing it. It’s just not the American way…
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I’d suggest our motives for support were a little bit more complex than wanting them to kill each other. I’d further suggest that we changed the dynamic by going in and changing the political landscape in Iraq, which in part is why the Iranians were able to rise up in protest.
Nevertheless, you are right. The President needs to be unequivocable in his support of people seeking freedom no matter where in the world they are. Instead he equivocates and is quick to assure the repressive regime that he really really likes them too. There is only one term to describe this administration: Failure of leadership.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Protesters in the street being shot by government thugs are terrorists?
Even “obama” isn’t so simple minded that he can’t specify who’s who in this situation and why shooting unarmed people in the street is a bad thing.
Asher on June 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
What’s that got to do with Mousavi and Iran?
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
the marine barracks bombing killed a friend of mines brother,and it was one of the reasons i joined the army as soon as i was old enough in 1987.
trailortrash on June 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Who says we want Obama to support him? I’m certainly not saying that. I just want him to support the right of people to speak freely without being shot in the heart.
Seems a small thing really.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Wrong country and just plain wrong.
Asher on June 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM
my bad
cmsinaz on June 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM
i’m sorry, you’re either with us or against us in the WOT.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I’ll say it again, as much as I hate to say it at all – this doesn’t matter. The Iranians didn’t get to choose their candidates, so there’s no surprise here. The important thing is to dismantle the system that led to this man’s candidacy, and if that takes a while, fine. But the revolution you see developing is the cure for him and his ilk in the long run.
commenter on June 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
WTF?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Like everything else in this administration bipartisanship and what conservatives want is inconsequential. Obama has always supported terrorists and terrorist organizations. There is no way he is going to stop doing so now that he is on the world stage.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I always placed Imad Mugniyah as the point man. He later became the head of Hezbollah’s ever popular exterior operations group which operates in Bosnia, TBA in S. America and runs cells in the US and Canada, as well as Europe and elsewhere.
There are a number of unsavory characters associated with Mugniyah, and one of those would also show up in Iran/Contra. Someone had to be the go-between between Mugniyah and Iran/Syria… wouldn’t be surprised if it was Mousavi, but there are a couple of others also on that list given later activities. One man did not stand up Hezbollah, that took a couple of the canniest on-the-ground operatives in the Middle East from Iran and Syria to do.
That does not stop my support for the Iranian People.
While Mousavi is no great shakes it is apparently going beyond him as the IRGC has given signs of cracking. If the regime can be brought down, they can ask for, and get, a clean slate by coming clean and opening up how Iran supports groups such as Hezbollah and HAMAS, and cooperate with others like al Qaeda. Our beef, as a Nation, is with the catspaws who have gone on to wage non-State warfare that seeks to overthrow the idea of Nation States. We can and should ask for those who know in Iran to come clean if the regime falls: rolling up terrorist organizations from the top and bottom will be successful. A new government can do that, and ask for a clean slate by coming clean.
I don’t know if that will happen, but we now have the first hope of that since 1979.
I do not fear the people of Iran.
I detest the regime there.
ajacksonian on June 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Didn’t you get the memo? We are way past all of that… We’ve moved towards free vacations for terrorists. Keep up, man.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Ooopppss..Did I get THAT wrong!!..The only good Iranian is a Dead Iranian…
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I was on recruiting duty in L.A. when the bombing happened. It was tough telling Johnny that there were new openings in the Corps when on his T.V. blasting for weeks the images of the bombing and how many bodies they pulled out of the rubble that day.
We don’t get much better with “ImInNeedForJihad” either, as he is reported to be a captor of the hosteges in 1979.
Either way, we get scum. The only thing I can do is support the people that want democracy and that is what these brave people in Iran are doing. I see change comming, I’m sure it will be better than what we have now.
bbordwell on June 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I agree and they said this along with others who I can’t remember that it has been repeatedly mentioned that Mousavi was complicit in the attacks on OUR Marines and now it is confirmed by a US Navy Admiral who has knowledge of lines being tapped. I also mentioned an article by Timmerman where he says that Mousavi was part of the secret police(modeled after the KGB) who imprisoned Iranian dissidents etc.
I do agree with Ed that the Regime was stupid in their handling of the elections and that NOW they have a revolt on their hands that is beyond Mousavi. If I were Mousavi and the “students” get in power- I would flee because if his history comes to light he will be hanging from a rope and lightpole right after the Mullahs.
journeyintothewhirlwind on June 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Iranian students never before had that choice. It’s insane to pretend they have. Now we’re actually getting to hear their voice, and you don’t want to listen.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
you don’t want him to support a terrorist who killed 240 US servicemen, only his followers who are willing to face martyrdom for him.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Doesn’t matter. Mousavi is riding a current going some unknown direction. He is simply a means to an end. The Iranian peole had two choices,..bad and worse. But, now, Mousavi isn’t in charge of where this thing is going. I don’t think anyone, including the protestors knows. Messy, but given enough time and support, Iran will be a much better place than it is now. I suspect a key to the whole thing will be how well Iraq’s fledgling democracy holds up as an example.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
If this had just been about them, then why’d they take to the streets when he told them not to?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Many, and probably most, of the dissidents are Mousavi supporters. I’ve tried to be careful in my expressions of support here and on Twitter to support Liberty and Justice for all Iranians and the Iranian people’s right not to be brutally oppressed and butchered and butchered like animals.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
On a thread over the weekend a commenter was discounting our support of Israel because American Jews voted overwhelming for Obama. A revolution is what the powers that be have been hoping would happen for years. I am not sure you can count on all the players being perfect for their roles.
Cindy Munford on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Wonderful- so let’s say the uprising succeeds, the mullahs lose power and Mousavi is installed as leader. I hear he’s on record as supporting Iran’s nuclear program and now we find out he’s responsible for the mass murder of nearly 250 US Marines. While I hate to admit it, perhaps Obama had it right when he said there wasn’t that much difference between the current leader and this guy.
While I totally support the people of Iran’s desire for more freedom and democracy I fear that Mousavi won’t be the man to give it to them. More likely one thugocracy will simply be replaced by another- he’s riding a wave of popular dissent but whether he actually represents that or not, it’s too early to say. Personally, I believe he’s co-opted the protesters to advance his own agenda. Once he’s in office, if that ever happens, we’ll see what his true colours are.
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the man involved in murdering those Marines is the same one who will aid Iran in becoming a functioning democracy.
Jay Mac on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
This is not a leader-driven uprising. Mousavi is just a vehicle for the people to express their discontent.
Ted Torgerson on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I’m not getting too excited about these protests. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Recognize Israel and stop your murderous obsession with Jews and then we’ll talk.
Mojave Mark on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
You’re an asshole Jeff.
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Also, considering their options were either him or Ahmedinijad, they’ve already picked the lesser terrorist.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Yes, there were a lot of others pointing this out too. I also recall the Timmerman article being linked to. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah, I can’t really understand how the Regime let things get this bad. That said, things have tumbled out of control. IF the students do come to power, I am worried that there will be a very violent reign of terror… Let’s hope these students embrace liberty for all instead of control for some.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
i’m listening iranian students supporting a mass murderer. they want democracy so they can elect a terrorist.
with us or against us, remember?
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM
The people haven’t been given that choice. What do you expect?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM
There’s no question this is an “oppo dump.” Now that the protests have subsided and Ahmadinejad has consolidated his hold on power, our Messiah is inoculating himself against criticism for not speaking out on behalf of the students by saying “the guy they supported is no better.”
Outlander on June 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Pretty despicable. Are you just looking for attention?
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I don’t know if I should laugh or roll my eyes on that one.
Iran and Iraq… one letter makes a difference.
upinak on June 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
No one really knows what the students want. Thus the concern. It is very easy (and right) to declare openly that you will always support those who pursue a liberalized society. It is quite different to say you are behind Mousavi. I don’t see what you don’t understand.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
You’re an asshole Jeff.
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Democrats: Now with 67% less support for actual Democracy.
Sesqui would rather play for political points than worry about actual oppression by brutal regimes.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Those were their only choices. A terrorists or a terrorist.
Your argument is like saying Americans support Amnesty because McCain and Obama both supported it.
That was about leaders, not about their people. And what does that have to do with them bleeding to death in the streets?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
You’re an a$shole Jeff.
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Of course he won’t. It is a first step. This isn’t like going to McDonalds.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
I only mentioned in almost every other post that Mousavi was behind the 1983 murders of 241 US Marines and the murders of other Americans in other terrorist attacks but no one here wanted to hear it.
Blake on June 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Your ability to distill issues to justify your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
lorien1973 on June 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
This seems to be a direct appeal to Obama-Ayers:
econavenger on June 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
The troll understands perfectly well. It’s just that the troll would rather play politics and cover Barry’s backside than do the right thing.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Oh gosh… I have to admit he’s right (good thing Katy’s not around). Yeah, Blake was one of the people that kept saying this. He definitely deserves credit DAYS AGO…
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
It stopped being about Mousavi 24 hours after the election. That was just the catalyst. I thought that was obvious by now.
TheBigOldDog on June 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Mousavi behind the Beirut bombings in 1983?
Kind of takes all the fun out of the hip Hope ‘n Change marketing fever, doesn’t it?
Urban Infidel on June 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Gee, sesquipedalian, so you don’t support Obam…uhhh… anymore due to his terrorist associates? Well, that’s progress, I guess.
Master Shake on June 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he does understand crystal clear. I never understood when the Democrats severed their support of student protesters – especially those that may support terrorists… I guess Barack has brought Change.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I hope no one is too shocked that this is a Hitler versus Stalin match-up. This is indeed Iran.
However, we have to denounce obvious thuggery when we see it. The idea is not to paint angel wings on the other thug while we denounce the murders of innocent unarmed civilians.
Larry Farr on June 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I thought a few things had become obvious by the very latest Monday… I guess I was wrong.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I’m not asking for credit. I’m asking for people to think and know their history before they get into bed with this guy. And one’s first loyalty should be to the US – not Iranian students.
Blake on June 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM
You mean you don’t think we should all wear green? /sarc
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
If the protests catapult Mousavi to power (which they just might) then this is very significant.
aengus on June 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Several folks here pointed this out earlier. Probably true. But I think this goes beyond Mousavi.
AUINSC on June 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
You’re far from the only one painting him in a bad light. Innocent Smith and another poster whose name I forgot couldn’t get enough of talking about it in a thread that was supposed to be dedicated to Neda.
But, since I was never supporting the man to begin with, I personally don’t care. For me, it’s about the people and their right to be heard. If they’re successful, it could result in real change, one that doesn’t even include Mousavi.
Honestly, I’d still support the people if it was Ahmedinijad whose election was stolen. Anything that wakes these people up to their corrupt government is a plus and a benefit to the world.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
It is the entire regime that needs to be replaced – not just the midget nutjob.
jcrue on June 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
…and you’re quite ignorant if you don’t think every one of the Iranians you see on TV wouldn’t be screaming: “Death To America”, America The Great Satan” next week.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM
From the Tweets and reports I’m reading, there is certainly a non-Mousavi aspect to the rebellion. However, Mousavi has been the symbol of it until Neda was murdered. I still have no clear sense of where this uprising is headed. If successful, it will probably result in just another set of tyrants. But I still have hope for the faction that seems pushing a much more modern, tolerant, and liberalized democracy. This is why I have been tweeting on NEDA.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM
i’ve learned to play your game. getting better. the GOP is anti-American, supports terrorists.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
bloggless on June 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Her nom de plume? It’s all about her again, NOT.
maverick muse on June 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
There’s pretty much no chance of that, but even if true, Mousavi’s positions, at least the ones he ran on, actually are better than the current winner. So while it isn’t the amazing 180 some people were thinking it was, it’s still better than nothing.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Don’t forget… Bush eats babies for breakfast.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Uh, hes one of the people the mullahs let run for President. Of course he has anti-US bona fides.
What matters is how we can use this uprising to our advantage.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
So you want to beat them to the punch and wish “Death to all Iranians”?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Of course he is. Over 400 people applied to run for President of Iran. The mullahs chose 4. You don’t get to run unless they consider you part of the regime. Thus, the election was a sham from the start, as all their elections are.
However, the people of Iran are waking up to this fact. I imagine many risking their lives in the street voted for Mousavi as the lesser of two evils.
Disturb the Universe on June 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »