here is Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush... no secrets here

[tocqueville]

http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/doc/20060509/769629_lettre.pdf

Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

......

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. THANKS!

[Cooley Hurd]

2. He had me, and then he lost me with the Holocaust denials...

From the text of the letter:

<snip>
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
</snip>

Professor Cole's take:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/ahmadinejad-as-w.html

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to W., in which he insisted on Iran's right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct scientific research on uranium enrichment. The NPT does in fact allow such research, but it is Bush administration policy to abrogate that right and stop even civilian research programs that might lead to the closing of the fuel cycle. It is another big leap from such an ability to making a bomb.

Ahmadinejad is a crank, and some of what he says is either badly translated or makes no sense in the original. Both are possible.

In any case, his letter to Bush holds no prospect of reducing tensions. It should be remembered that then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh angered Washington in the early 1950s by nationalizing Iranian petroleum. Eisenhower slapped sanctions on Iran and destroyed its economy. Washington at that time thought Mosaddegh was a pinko, though in fact he was a relatively conservative aristocrat. At the height of the crisis, Mosaddegh wrote a letter to Eisenhower, which was ignored. Ike had the CIA overthrow the elected, parliamentary government of Iran and install the Shah as a megalomaniacal dictator. So the tradition of letter-writing by Iranian leaders at times of tensions with Washington isn't replete with successes. Of course, the Iranians took revenge for the heavy-handed US interference with their form of government. They made an Islamic Revolution in 1978-79, and more recently elected Ahmadinejad. What Washington wouldn't do to have that nice Mr. Mosaddegh back.

<snip>
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as opposed to a still backward civilian energy research program. But if you were Iran's security establishment, what would you conclude you had to do after Peres's remarks?

The misquotation of Ahmadinejad, who actually quoted Khomeini as saying, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," now seems all by itself to be producing visions of nuclear war!

Ahmadinejad, however, has condemned mass killing of any sort and was not threatening military action (he is in any case not in command of the Iraqi military). He compares his hope for an end to any Zionist regime in geographical Palestine to Khomeini's prediction that the Soviet Union would one day vanish. It wasn't a hope to kill Soviet citizens, but a desire for regime change. Ahmadinejad's hostility to Israel and his Holocaust denial and bigotry are beneath contempt. But he has not threatened military action, and has no unconventional weapons, and his words, however hurtful, do not constitute a legitimate basis for a war of aggression on Iran.
</snip>

I trust Juan Cole's opinion...

[katinmn]

5. This part?

"I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?"

[Cooley Hurd]

7. That's it.

:thumbsup:

[endarkenment]

16. He doesn't deny that the holocaust happened.

He says, 'assume that it did happen, why are the people of the middle east forced to suffer as a consequence?'. This is a fair question which has, unforuntately, no good answer. The Europeans put 6 million innocent jews to death and afterwards, feeling guilty, they compensated the survivors by allowing them to take land from the people living in palestine. Why were the people living in palestine, people who had nothing to do with the crimes committed by the nazis, forced to compensate the victims of the holocaust? Can anybody give a reasonable answer to that question?

Ahmadi-najad is going to keep asking that unpleasant question and we are going to keep not hearing what he has to say but instead looking for ways to avoid dealing with his complaint, for example by reinterpreting his words as holocaust denial and then dismissing his complaint. Of course he deliberately facilitates this by using language that is ambiguous "they claimed", "assume that these events are true". This is the language of the other side in the Arab/Israeli conflict. In fact, as Ahmadi-najad refers directly to 'the state of Israel' he is going further than most muslim states in the regions who, as for example we learned recently about Dubai, generally insist on calling Israel 'the Zionist entity'.

[LeftHander]

6. Despite the Israel part...he asks a lot of good questions...

Questions that the American press has failed to ask, and that GOP backers have failed to ask and for the most part, the American people refuse to ask....except for the rather vocal DU and liberal bloggoville.

Condi dismissed the letter as a diversion and went right on the fear mongering attack.

I fear that the stage is set for a Iran war...there is no stopping BushCo....

[Cooley Hurd]

8. I agree - the rest of the letter is quite good and spot on...

...If Mahmood left that crap out, it would be much more palatable.

[alfredo]

24. He needs to meet with some survivors. If that doesn't soften his

heart, then he is beyond hope.

[sellitman]

11. He sounds like a Schizophrenic.

So sane and human on one side and then able to justify the extermination of Israel on the other while denying the Holocaust.

Weird.

Too bad the one who will not be named can't read. He might learn something.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Where did Ahmadinejad flatly deny that the Holocaust took place?.....

...Doesn't he state rather clearly, "let us assume that these events are true"? IMHO, that's not a denial.

Additionally, the figure of "six million Jews" is an approximation of the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We don't really know the exact number. IMHO, simply making the statement that "they claimed that six million Jews had been killed", is not denying that the Holocaust took place. (As a side note, before anyone attacks me as a non-believer in the Holocaust, let me assure you that I am quite certain that the Holocaust took place and that millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in the most horrible ways possible).

We also don't know the exact total number of all other groups killed in the Nazi death/concentration camp system. Those groups included gays, Gypsies, teachers, political figures, and enormous numbers of Russians that the Nazis believed were "untermensch", or subhumans. That number, over and above the total number of Jews killed, is also approximately six million people, a number we rarely see discussed by anyone. Why? Were their lives any less important than the lives of the Jews?

The idea that Ahmadinejad is a "crank" was originated by the NeoCons who apparently never rest when it comes to the demonization of foreign leaders that defy the NeoCon Junta. The U. S. MSM has spread that same/similar description of Ahmadinejad to all corners of the earth, just as they spread the same descriptions of Saddam, Kim, Chirac, Chavez, Castro, and any other leader who has expressed thoughts independent of the thinking of the NeoCon Junta.

And as far as trusting Juan Cole, never forget that he is a political conservative, and that he has perticipated in the smear campaigns of Democratic Party leaders in the past.

[pberq]

15. Well said, MLD!

Like you, I do not see this as a holocoust denial.

[katinmn]

3. Thanks.

[Theres-a]

4. Thanks

[bdamomma]

9. is the olive branch going

to be snapped away from Pres. Ahmadinejad's hands, I wish he would accuse bush of being a dangerous dictator we can all agree with him on that. Also Randi Rhodes was saying yesterday that this isn't the first time that Iran offered to talk to the US, since 2003.

You can see that this sick corrupt evil bush regime, does not want diplomatic relations with anyone.

[Stockholm]

10. Once again DU is fast as lightning

Thanks Tocqueville - K&R!

BTW, was the letter originally written in English or is it a translation and if so by whom?

[tocqueville]

17. probably passed from the French Foreign Office to Le Monde

I imagine it was written in Iranian first and the translation sent to Bush. I know that the letter has been then passed around to all countries involved in the discussion with Iran, that is to say the 5 permanent members + Germany...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Will Boobya respond to his questions?

He asks some pretty good questions. Some of which he should try answering himself, especially those espousing the one God for all humanity that he shares with Bush.

Like all politicians, he deals in platitudes and quick fixes. In his worldview "God" is the answer. Just as in Bush's "democracy" is the answer. Of course, for both, the definition of "God" and "democracy" is limited to their own vision of them.

He may be a teacher, but he skipped a lot of history classes on his way to whatever degree he holds.

[PATRICK]

14. The most offensive word

is identifying Bush as a Liberal constantly in a cultural sense he wouldn't recognize in a heated spoon.
I understand how the term Liberalism is applied by the theocratic Muslim but that it includes Bush as its CHAMPION is a hoot.

The intent of this letter clearly was to be quickly released as a populist address against Bush appealing both to Christian and Muslim worldviews. There is no diplomatic dealing or private overtures to conceal, no issues specific to the pretext for war this time. And the ham-handed, "silence is golden when my lying tongue is tied" slowness of the beleaguered WH is totally inept to deal with this. A real overture or deal would have been easily denied with immense gratification. This is not a letter to Bush but more likely to we the people and our better natures.

When it comes to Israel one should remember this the very widespread basic belief of a huge portion of the Muslim world, most especially the ME. That attitude cannot be changed by the current alliance of the
WH and the rightists in Israel. Minus all past history whatsoever, it is the current mistake of aggressive nation building/destroying that creates simple and lasting animosity that will endure as long as the policy scars the region. Only a decent future can cope with the horrible past. Violence will ensure the extinction of what is being fought for and the victory of darkness.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Well,

Compared with Ahmadinejad, Bush is very liberal indeed.

There's a frightening thing to contemplate...

[NobleCynic]

36. no no no...

The international usage of liberal means capitalistic. A liberal political party advocates private property rights and opposes government intervention in the economy. Only in the US does it mean left wing.

[PATRICK]

40. Sort of libertarian?

But Bush is false to that wide definition also. He is mainly an opportunistic ideologue no matter how you define it. Everything narrows down to a pyramid of clubbish greed. What distinguishes him from the Iranian President is total lack of sincerity. One cannot believe or know even if Bush believes himself, the wild hypocrisies that spew from his mouth automatically.

I was aware of the differing language for political ideology, which unlike the religious paradigms, the Iranian President(whose name it is now evident I cannot yet automatically spell) is not as concerned with. it is one of those things where it is evident the letter is not crafted for Bush, not as much for the news-sheltered US as the rest of the planet.

Still the word is jarring with unintentional irony, offbase politeness. A more astute honesty or cynical observation would call out Bush for what he is- and it certainly is little beyond personal gain. That he uses Bush to discredit everything Bush has usurped is very fair game and irresistible since more broadly this helps iran in the culture war. The problem with the word definition is the bastardizing or Gingrichment of political discourse in this country where anything free and essentially populist must be shaded toward radical bogeymen.

The fact that this letter cries for intelligent response- and will(can) receive none from our regime- makes it simply a stand alone address to the world and a burr under the Bush hobby horse saddle.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Thanks for posting

This is no way to make friends and influence people.

This is the sort of letter I or another would post on Democratic Underground as a way of expressing the point to Bush is a grotesque cross between a tyrant and a dolt. However, this letter is not supposed to be a work of art but a diplomatic overture. As that, it serves terribly.

Yes, I know; Bush really is a grotesque cross between a tyrant and a dolt. Furthermore, there is not one charge that Ahmadinejad makes that is so unreasonable that it can be dismissed out of hand. However, the issue before these two men is what Iran plans to do with its nuclear technology. That is the matter on which this letter should focus.

Does Ahmadinejad know to whom he's writing? I don't mean the presumptive leader of the free world; I mean G. W. Bush, human being, with all his quirks and idiosyncrasies. Ahmadinejad wants to sit down and talk to Bush about life, the universe and everything. There are few people in America with whom I would less rather have such a conversation than Bush. For one thing, it is very doubtful that Bush is at all interested in holding such a discussion with Ahmadinejad or even Socrates. Bush is very sure of his simple-minded view of the world. When he to talks to God, he probably tells God what is so. Don't try to suggest to him that there is some other way of looking at things.

The letter to Bush didn't need to be this long. A better one would have simply been:

Dubya, my man:

You want something from Iran and Iran wants something from the United States. Let's sit down and talk about it. I'm open next week. What do you say we meet over some coffee at a neutral site? Maybe it can be by a river well stocked with fish. I hear you like fishing.

I'll be waiting for your call.

Sincerely,

Mahmoud.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. NO!!!!!!! not coffee. Jim Beam and coke.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. What kind of coke do you mean?

Just wondering.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

33. sniff. I am amazed that you would ask.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

"Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?"
Compare and contrast with the rights of women and homosexuals in Iran

"Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?"
Compare and contrast with his comments about Israel.

"History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive."
Compare and contrast with the suppression of political reformists in Iran.

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime?"
Compare the word "any" with the actual examples of scientific achievement or attempts thereat that have been portrayed as such. Consider also whose speeches threatening Israel with destruction lead to them being viewed that way.

"Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media."
Compare and contrast with the degree of state interference in the media in Iran.


He makes a few points I agree with, but this should not distract attention from just how unpleasant and repressive the government of Iran is.

[BBG]

35. Let he without sin cast the first...

Fuck if I care how unpleasant or repressive Iran is. I care about how fucked up my government is and why we aren't focusing on how ashamed we should be for our current role in world affairs.

Check the American hypocrisy first! There's a slogan for ya.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. No, international politics can't operate on that principle.

It has to be based on different, imperfect, governments trying to keep one anothers abuses in check. Observing that America's government is bad and observing that Iran's government is massively worse are not mutually exclusive.

I'm sorry you don't care about how repressive or unpleasant Iran is; I think you definately should.

"Check the worst first" is the slogan I'd counter.

[magellan]

22. He really lost me at the end

Liberalism and Western style democracy 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.

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?”

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice
and the will of God will prevail over all things.

This anti-secular rant puts Mahmoud in the same boat with Bush** and the fundies as far as I'm concerned. It claims the failure in our society is due to a lack of religion when just the opposite is true: step by step, the intentional dismantling of the separation of church and state has quashed liberalism and Western style democracy in the US. On average over the last few decades, the US has been host to one of the least progressive representative governments in the Western World. Compared to Europe we're socially conservative misfits -- ignoring the needs of our own to appease zealots and corporatists, and calling it God's work. Bush**'s own track record on behalf of the religious right is a study on how to kill democracy by presuming to know the will of God. Mahmoud has nothing on Bush** on that score.

[jjmalonejr]

23. From one fruitcake to another

n/t

[ShaneGR]

25. Bizarre

If that is authentic, and I doubt it is, it's a really poor letter filled with so much hypocricy I wouldn't even know where to start. It's a shame it's going to have to be a Democratic President who ends up having to deal with this guy.

[tocqueville]

27. why shouldn't it be authentic ?

Do you really think that the n°1 French newspaper would fuck around with a phoney letter on its first page ? the letter has been largely commented by other media by the way.

[Stockholm]

31. Don´t forget it is all a matter of perspective

To you and me much in the letter is bizarre but that can largely be written down to us being unused to arabic rethoric (well thats me at least). In the end the letter was probably not even meant for Bush, it plays to a larger audience and the harder the administration comes down on it (like Rice did today) the more reasonable he seems (that´s what you get when your sole focus is to fix water leaks instead of modernising the plumbing).

And, I am not surprised the letter was leaked.

[mom cat]

34. Thanks for trying to put the letter into a cultural perspective.

A letter like that would not float in this culture, but the author is from another culture.

[bananas]

28. It's on the NPR website now - NPR has an "annotated" one

I haven't checked to verify that it's the same translation or not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2614516
edit: apparently the NPR version is "annotated"

[KamaAina]

29. It's a fake! And I can prove it!

Right on page 3 it says, "You are familiar with history." If there's one thing even a nutjob like Ahmadinejad ought to know about the Dumbass Supreme(TM), it is that he is in no way, shape or form familiar with history. Ergo, a fake. :tinfoilhat: :sarcasm:

edit: Clintonesque failure to include the word "is" :-)

[tocqueville]

30. here is the HTML version

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-727571,36-769886@51-677013@45-1,0.html

[Minnesota Libra]

32. I'd distrust him solely on the Holocaust denial. He's got some good.....

.....points other than that, and the world will see him as trying to make peace. I'm not sure at this point.

[Ioo]

37. What does PBUH mean?

[charlie]

39. Peace Be Upon Him n/t