Lieberman is a realistic democrat.

Let's have a quick review of what passes as "realistic" in Tiberius' universe.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

"We have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam.”

“The difference in this town — here in Washington — on the war is not between Democrats and Republicans; it’s between people who believe essentially we’ve already lost in Iraq and it’s time to get out — and most of the rest of us who believe not only have we not lost, but we’re winning.”

“There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.”

“The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam’s possession–chemical, biological, and nuclear in time”

There are literally hundreds more.

Tiberius, thanks for offering up the standard of what you consider to be realistic. It definitely completes a picture about you.

I suppose Bolton is thinking of the last time we "regime-changed" Iran, from Mossadegh to the Shah. This was in no way clandestine to the Iranians, who will harbor eternal resentment over that. So who was it clandestine to? Some imbecilic republicans, of course, who can't conceive of Uncle Sam wearing the black hat.

But times have changed. Nowadays, republicans are fully complicit in their ignorance. So go ahead and invade Iran. Your supporters will never be able to face the real reason. Doing it clandestinely is a waste if time and yields the same results anyway.

Gordon Wagner, you are either an idiot or completely disingenuous. Go look up the history of Germany and Austria sometime and see why it's a crime to DENY, not question, the holocaust publicly. What "recently released Nazi-era records" are you spouting off about? I've visited to the concentration camps in Germany, you should too, you worm.

etyfreak, while I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, your comments clearly illustrate the argument he poses regarding the decline of intellectualism. Your over-the-top vitriol to Gordon Wagner's reasonable question clearly shows that even talking about questioning the holocaust (which doesn't come close to denying it) is off-limits for some people. The question is, why? Gordon Wagner asked that, and I ask it too. You regard such questioning as equivalent to waxing nostalgic about Kristallnacht.

I've been on a tour of Dachau, and it is truly shocking. Overall, the evidence that the Holocaust did in fact occur and was completely barbaric, is overwhelming. I agree with Gordon Wagner, that those who suffered (or their descendants) should invite questioning the Holocaust, if only so more people would research it and discover its astonishing scope.

...and not the Holocaust. Because in so doing, you lied:

At Columbia University Mahmoud Ahmadinejad established himself as the Great Denier -- of nuclear weapons, the Holocaust and homosexuals

Look, I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad, but to lie and say that he denied the holocaust is to actually support his argument and make him much larger than he is. Here he is "denying the Holocaust":

However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s.

That's a pretty crappy denial. He says he believed it happened. He says when he believed it happened. He doesn't say it never happened. You just pretended that he did. In the same way Ahmadinejad pretends there are no gays in Iran. So either quit criticizing Ahmadinejad's denial, or stop engaging in denial yourself. I strongly suggest the latter.

David Sugarman is an unhinged personality. His personal descent from simply being rabid against Arabs to being a religious delusional (Abraham likes me best...jeez, where are those guys in the white coats when you need them?) clearly exposes him for who he is. At this point, one might be inclined to ignore him, or perhaps throw him a dollar bill so he can get a bit to eat.

However, as his views are so closely aligned with the hardcore Zionist movement, I think Sugarman's views deserve some extra analysis.

• He is overtly anti-American
• He puts Israeli priorities on a much higher level than American priorities, although I'm sure he would like American resources put to work in pursuit of Israeli priorities

In short, Sugarman clearly articulates the position of AIPAC, which has an enormous sway on American foreign policy. We all need to let our representatives know that such a psycho, misguided group of people cannot have any say in American policy.