Was that a threat?

Many readers have written to take issue with my interpretation of this passage of the 18-page “Dear George” letter by Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various
aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

Immediately following the quoted passage is a long critique of American mass media along the lines of Noam Chomsky and the leftover left. I read Ahmadinejad’s imputation of responsibility to an intelligence sevice to refer to the CIA, consistent with the echoes of leftist lunacy that appear elsewhere in the letter passim.

Reader Michael Stalker’s message reflects the thinking of many other readers:

It is conceivable that this was intended to be a threat. Assuming the referenced intelligence and security services are Iranian, Ahmadinejad could be sending the message that Iran has the capacity to unleash more 9/11’s on the U.S.

Alf Sherk makes the same point less tentatively:

I read the above statement quite differently – that Ahmadinejad was implying that the Iranian intelligence services were involved and that it was an implicit threat of what they are capable of inflicting on America.

In the context of the Chomskyite lunacy that otherwise permeates the letter, I think my interpretation is correct. In either case, however, the letter demands a strong and forthright response from the White House. In the meantime, if you believe that laughter is the best medicine, and if you have read the kidnapper-in-chief’s letter, go immediately to Iowahawk for healing.


UPDATE: Stanley Renshon adds a poltical/psychological comment:

The question is not whether he is “crazy,” a word the Wall Street Journal used in the title of an editorial about him. In the clinical sense, he is as sane as the leadership he represents, and that is our problem.

At NRO’s Media Blog, Stephen Spruiell notes the New York Post healdline over Deborah Orin’s column: “TYRANT’S LETTER LUNACY/IRAN JERK BLAMES U.S. FOR 9/11 IN ‘DIPLOMATIC’ MEMO.” I think the Post has it right. Spruiell also awards the Post “headline of the day” recognition for its cover headline today (above).

PAUL adds: Never mind that. What’s the deal with the model’s potty plunge?


Books to read from Power Line