While I don't have the specific complaint that r.johnson does, don't we hear continually that the world changed on 9/11?

Why would either side consider or do pre-9/11 activities? Appeasement? There is simply no one offering appeasement on the Democratic side.

Cynical businesses doing business with "terrorist-sponsoring regimes" and that may be true for a minority of companies, I don't see any evidence that America is increasing investment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.

Do you have any evidence of Hanson's assertion?

r.johnson (Expat),
I don't know Michael, but I think it fair to say real reverence is not on the table at least not as a consequence of this single oped piece by Hanson. Maybe it is the body of Hanson's work that is revered (so-to-speak);I will go out on a limb here and assert that M.D. was using a figure of speech when he referred to God and reverence. But hey, do not let that get in the way of your unwarranted self-righteous indignation. This would be a slightly less interesting blog without it.

When did the rules change regarding editorials and opinion pieces? I hate the guys that did that! Used to be that one could sit down and read an editorial (in e.g., the NYT or WP or WSJ) without being bothered with references. Today, I hardly read editorials anymore, what with all the rigorous citation of claims that are made wading through the footnotes is soooooo tedious. I just don't do it.

And now you are advocating fairly constrictive standards for blog posts. (Note to self: Next time you post links to an opinion piece you really like be sure to include an analysis, some critical thought on the problems with the post, AND recognize how your revered author has created a false construct(s) that you have bought into. Gee, I may not be able to post again, but maybe that is r.johnson's point.)

As for the quote, which really is not important, that much you made abundantly clear, the source for many of the blog references to it appears to be a 2004 WSJ oped piece by Amir Taheri, (although Wright is an earlier one). And, you know what, that son-of-a-gun did not use footnotes in his oped piece either!! (Taheri is an Iranian exile living in Europe, France I think, and apparently part of the global neocon conspiracy which should give you some satisfaction.) A better source, I suppose, is a TIME magazine news article written during the time that the leaders of the soon to be terrorist state were struggling to subdue their opposition. You can find the article here.

For those who do not want to read the full article, the quote is on page three, or here:

"Carter called two special sessions with top foreign policy advisers and insisted that they curtail any substantive comment on Iran policy. One official who did speak out was Andy Young, the ambassador to the United Nations; he predicted that 'Khomeini will be somewhat of a saint when we get over the panic.' Said Presidential Aide Jody Powell when asked about the remark: 'The U.S. Government is not in the canonization business.'"

Not exactly the Hanson quote. Maybe Young made the reference more than once, who knows?

He is also quoted here as follows:

"At a news conference the previous Friday he commented on the execution of convicted murderer John Spenkelink in Florida. Young said: "'I don't see any difference in the so-called due process of Florida and the so-called due process of Khomeini (in lran).'"

It was not that difficult to find, just had to know that people often refer to the guy as Andy. And, not that surprising coming from a man who has a long history of making provocative public statements--but I suspect you knew that.

A few other random comments regarding the moral indignation directed at Michael's unbelievably, outrageously irresponsible post:
"republicans kill innocent people"
Actually yes, you can say that, and you can say that Democrats kill innocent people too (and any other party that engages in war). If I were in Grade School, I might have thought you said something important. By innocents I assume you mean civilians who are not actively engaged in fighting. It happens in wars. As far as I know, the options are pacifism or acceptance of the tragic fact.

The 'appeasement' charge against Democrats and the 'doing business with terrorist regimes charge' against Republicans have been around for decades. There are plenty of discussions of this just a Ask/teoma search away (some good ones, even) if you take the time to look for them. I suspect you will also find them in periodicals like the National Review or American Spectator and The Nation or Zmag going back for at least a couple of decades (I imagine Foreign Affairs has a ton on the subject). I guess your and expat's shock must come from the audacity of Hanson who asserted in an oped that both charges are valid (WITHOUT PROOF!! IN AN OPED!! "I am shocked, shocked I tell you")--oh, the inflammation...

How old are you guys?

"Right, and Syria was only helping the Lebanese government, just like Moscow was helping Poland, Hungary and other countries as part of the former Soviet Union."

Wrong. Not like that.

And, finally, as for real or pretended discourse, you killed that possibility on this topic with this pearl from another comment thread:

"You have to place the success in context of the whole picture, and the countless lives lost and billions of dollars spent mean that nothing we do in Iraq can ever be described as success."

Now that is a conversation stopper.