"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

OK, and by this he means what?

Generally, to understand what someone means by a given sentence, it's helpful to look at it in the context in which the statement is made.

In the speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

LOL. Surely you jest. I've got five blogbucks says no GG commenter has ever made a polite remark only to be answered with an all-caps howl of "anti-semiiiiite" followed by a demand to know why the commenter hated Jews. Get hyper-literal much?

The comment above, by kovie, which Glenn Greenwald cites in his second update, seems to contain one typo. It's about comments by Abe Foxman, but at the end of the sixth paragraph, it says, "But that's what Waxman basically said--and if you disagreed, well, that just proved his point. Whatever."

I assume kovie meant "Foxman," not "Waxman," but if there's a way to correct this (seeming) error, I hope someone who knows for sure will do it.

I think you've struck a nerve here, Glenn.

It's a dishonest tactic and one that I have yet to see employed by the left. To take the comment section and pass offensive or outrageous posts by users off as published and approved content to score political points has ONLY been done by the right, who feel threatened by the unfettered and unrestricted discourse found therein. Essentially, it's a smear on the blogosphere, who are identified in the mainstream media as being leftwing (and radical). I believe that their use of this tactic alone exposes the ADL's position for what it is.

Simply put, they're acting funny and responding defensively rather than being alarmed and reactive to your posts. Clearly they are not happy about someone pointing out the moral and ethical compromises they are making. What we have is a Jewish organization dedicated to defending the Jewish people from racial prejudice and hatred in bed with the very kind of people who in a vacuum would have outright disdain for them, if not much worse. They know that the warmongering right is desperate to move against Iran, their common enemy. I think the ADL feels a bit grimey rooting for at best and collaborating with at worst those who harbor prejudice against them. They resent your investigating the deal with the devil they seem to have made and their defensiveness reveals everything.

Keep sniffing, Glenn.

Yes, you are correct, I mistakenly typed Waxman when I meant Foxman.

Talk about defaming a fine legislator (who also happens to be Jewish) by associating him with someone who's bringing shame upon an important and otherwise quite decent organization.

I meant the ADL, not congress. ;-)

By the way, Mearsheimer and Foxman were on the PBS News Hour tonight to debate this matter, and I just YouTubed it. I had to split it up into 3 parts because it's nearly 12 minutes long and I've never been able to successfully upload videos of much more than 4 minutes to YouTube.

Here they are, in linear order:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcjsv_BHlYY

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj-fK224VkI

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUe8QL3dco0

Also, the News Hour has a page on this segment with the transcript and links to the audio here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/israel_10-09.html

I have four cases where comparisons to the holocausts can be favorably made--I've seldom heard these compared, which is telling.

The native Americans--this is certainly a better example of genocide realized. Our own history here is absolutely shameful. We offered them double dealing, never honored our own treaties and stole their land

The Stalinist murders--I believe Stalin murdered more Jews than Hitler. Perhaps it is harder to make Americans and Europeans feel the same culpability for these systematic murders as for Hitler.

The South/Central Americans--Columbus was tickled over how the natives would grab their broadswords, slicing their hands on the sharp blades. He wrote, these people are prime candidates for enslavement. Within 30 years their population was 1/10 of what it is when they arrived.

Black Americans under slavery--These people have one similarity with Columbus' victims. Both group's mothers would drown their own children sparing them from life under our domination.

This omits two other oft cited examples, the Armenians and the Palestinians. Further, I am disturbed by our protests of Burma/Myanmar, we've almost zero culpability for this oppression, while we ignore funding, arming and supporting Israeli "domination, oppression, humiliation and starvation of an entire people," to paraphrase 3000 IDF soldiers.

Glenn, first-time writer; long-time reader. For what it's worth, I sent the following via the ADL website:

RE: The Greenwald article. Mr. Foxman, why don't you put the issue to rest by condemning O'Reilly for likening Kos and MoveOn to Nazis and condemning Jonah Goldberg for likening Hillary Clinton to Hitler? Given all the other examples you cite, it ought to be easy. Your refusal so far to do so damages your credibilty. A child could see this.