From your first response to me:

Concern troll or not, your question reveals that you have meekly accepted the assurances of known liars as they go about slandering another innocent victim.

(Yes, for all the morons who will jump on that last phrase, I know Iran is not innocent in the absolute sense. But they are, as of today, innocent of what they're being accused of.)

Some would question whether this makes your own question as innocent as you tried to present it ...

From your second:

...your entire manner of approaching this question reeks of predispositions that have no basis in the events of recent history.

You have accused me of "meekly" accepting the "...assurances of known liars as they go about slandering another innocent victim," of harboring "... predispositions that have no basis in the events of recent history..."

You are, denials ("...Concern troll or not...", "I accused you of nothing. In fact I very carefully did not do so.") notwithstanding, accusing me of motives suspect and impure. I have no interest in playing coy, lawyerly rhetorical games about what "accuse" means.

My original post was concerned with an issue which is important, but only tangentially related to Glenn's original post. The original post is concerned with the media and mainstream establishment - both media and political - {"Village") - acceptance of these claims in the face of a compelete lack of evidence.* I have no quarrel with that point. I would absolutely not accuse Iran of having a nuclear weapons program or ambitions for one based on the evidence I know of (which, admittedly, is not much - I make no claims to expertise).

What my concern is is over-correction. With all of these asshats crying wolf all of the time, what happens when a wolf shows up? If the US intelligence community HAD credible evidence of an Iranian nuclear program/ambition/capability - and I am NOT saying that we have such information or that the Iranians have said program/ambition/capability - what would the dissemination of CREDIBLE information regarding this look like. Powell at the UN, in such a context, is a good answer, even though his entire speech was a bunch of easily disspelled hooey. But there are a whole lot of people out there who would be happy to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in Atlanta, or St. Louis, or Dallas. The prevailing assumption in progressive circles that the US government is always lying is, to me, no more intelligent or useful than the prevailing assumption that Iran is trying to make a bomb.

But it is impossible to raise such an issue without being accused, in however subtle a way, of carrying water for "Conser-va-thug-licans" or whatever stupid shorthand is being offered today for the villain du jour in our domestic squabbles.

I am trying to ask a responsible question, IMHO. I am not accepting anyone's assumptions regarding Iran's intentions/plans/capabilities. If you feel that I have, please point out where. Don't read into what I am saying, because I am not trying to advance some kind of hidden agenda here.

I am often frustrated by the assumption of bad intentions when I come in and ask a question which is not in line with the prevailing opinions expressed here. While I do not comment often anymore, I have been reading, and commenting on, Glenn's posts going back to the days before he switched the Blogspot comments to haloscan. You can read through my contributions here and there and decide whether you like what I have to say, but I think my history of comments will prove that I am not here just to stir up shit or offer blind or ideologically driven apologies for any government malfeasance - a la Bart, or Shooter, both of whom I have argued with till my fingers turned blue. I don't even need to voice an actual contrary opinion in order to be accused of harboring some sympathy for the idiotic, mendacious, and often downright boneheaded actions of our foreign policy establishment.

I am sorry if I don't live up to your standards of cynicism or passion in order to be pre-judged to have a worthy amount of skepticism regarding our government. I'll try to do better next time.

* (To answer Baldie's question from a while back about whether the administration planted the story - sounds about right to me.)