Ahmadinejad criticized NATO’s intervention in the Libyan conflict. “In the beginning, we recommended a dialogue between the two sides and all parties, but they did not pay attention to our recommendations. And, of course, NATO intervention was effective in exacerbating the conflict. We have not received any statistics about the losses from both sides and I think instead of intervention, NATO could help to promote a dialogue among all parties.”

Ahmadinejad reserved most of his vitriol in slamming American foreign policy.

“The United States has become weaker and weaker,” Ahmadinejad sniped. “And now, they are hated in the region. They are hated in the whole world. Anywhere in the world, if you go, you see that the U.S. government is hated.”

“We must be very much happy if their policies fail everywhere in the world and we should encourage them, ‘OK, go on, go on.’ And if we were not since, we should encourage the United States to remain in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they have already been mired in those two countries.”

“But we sympathize with all people of the world,” Amadinejad continued. “We say, ‘Why Afghans should be killed? Why American soldiers should lose their lives? Why they should spend so much money for killing people instead of using the money for development?’ That is very simple. Maybe the U.S. administration does not accept that. But believe me, continuation of these policies are going to lead to the collapse of the U.S. empire. And it is against the interests of the people of the United States.”

Watch Ahmadinejad’s interview with Zakaria below via CNN:

RELATED: Ahmadinejad Essentially Tells Wolf Blitzer: ‘Iran Isn’t Gay, But Maybe You Are!’

While the full interview will air on Fareed Zakaria GPS tomorrow, CNN has released a clip today of the dictator, clad in his typically unassuming business suit and adding “dad glasses” to his attire, speaking softly about the trouble with the United States’ claims that the Syrian government should stop torturing and brutalizing its citizens. Confronted by Zakaria with the fact that “the vast majority of deaths [in Syria] are the security forces killing innocent men, women, and children,” Ahmadinejad replies reasonably that he believes “nobody should kill the other,” but that the situation wasn’t so simple:

“Nobody, nobody, nobody has the right… instead of capturing or arresting people, they should have [heard] the voice. They should listen to the people and they have things to say. And they should pay attention to the demands and requirements. We say that governments must be responsible for the requirements and desires of their own people, the security of the people and their rights. And these are — this is general for Iran, for Libya, for Syria, for Europe, United States, Africa, everywhere. And this is a general rule for all. We have announced that many times.”

He continued to add that Iran was going to “make greater efforts to encourage both the government of Syria and the other side, all parties, to reach an understanding,” but that he did not see a role for the United States. Turning to Libya, he argued that the situation could have been remedied in a more appropriate manner, but NATO “wanted the oil resources in Libya. There was no need to kill so many people,” he concluded, a lament that he seems to have forgotten to make while Gaddafi was winning the civil war.

RELATED: When Horrible People Fight: Al Qaeda Wants Ahmadinejad To Stop Being A 9/11 Truther

Below a preview of the interview airing tomorrow, via CNN:

Apparently though, that also includes the, uh, terrorists themselves. It turns out that al Qaeda is pretty annoyed the Iranian president said these things. It makes sense if you think about it. I mean, say what you will about al Qaeda but those guys put a lot of work into that thing.

The comments from the terrorist organization apparently appeared in an article in their English-language magazine, Inspire.

From The Guardian:

“‘The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al-Qaida was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government,’ the article said, according to Iranian media. ‘So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?’

…

Al-Qaida also accused Iran of hypocrisy over its “anti-Americanism”.

The article said: ‘For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-America when it suits it and it is a collaborator with the US when it suits it, as we have seen in the shameful assistance Iran gave to the US in its invasion of Afghanistan and in the Shia of Iraq, backed by Iran, bringing the American forces into the country and welcoming them with open arms.’”

Oh, snap! Did you hear that, Mahmoud? Al Qaeda just called you an anti-American poser! Are you really gonna let them be frontin’ like that?

Clearly the only way to settle this is in a fight to the death. Winner dies first.

(h/t Kurt Andersen)

Blitzer was joined by fellow CNN cohorts Piers Morgan and Erin Burnett in interrogating the enigmatic Iranian president, when he made reference the to “no gay” comment that was reported by ABC News back in September of 2007:

When asked about the death penalty Iran imposed on homosexuals, Ahmadinejad discussed the death sentence for drug smugglers. When pushed by moderator and acting dean of the School of International and Public Affairs John Coatsworth, the Iranian president said: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you we have that.”

Ahmadinejad’s response? “In Iran, homosexuality is looked down upon as an ugly deed.” He then ceded something of a recognition of at least the possibility of Iranian gays adding “Perhaps there are those who engage in such activities and you may be in contact with them and more aware of them.” In other words, Ahmadinejad effectively rebuffed Bilitzer by saying “we’re not gay, YOU ARE!”

Watch the clip below, courtesy of CNN:

Palestine, you see, recently sent a chair (as in, an actual piece of furniture meant for sitting) as a symbolic gesture in anticipation of its bid for membership in the United Nations. So, then, yes. There was a segment about chairs. The Turkish? They have their ottomans. (Cue the nervous yet heartfelt laughter of history nerds.) Swedes? Ikea furniture, of course. I’m not even going to mention what Australia has.

Stewart then poked fun at President Obama’s statements regarding Palestine and Israel, calling him “the one hardass on the co-up board.” Co-op? Oh, would you like some sushi with that latte?

Take a look at the clip, via Comedy Central:

Anyway, like always, a bunch of delegates walked out and now all the talk show hosts are asking again why we even invite this guy. However, maybe the most appropriate response was suggested by The Five‘s Greg Gutfeld.

“This guy’s staying at the Warwick Hotel which is right up the street from our offices and I’m thinking what it must be like if you work at the Warwick and he’s staying there. I mean, if I were a waiter doing room service, I would definitely make some of my homemade lemonade and offer it with his soup.”

Yes, this was probably the most immature thing on TV today and, no, it’s not very diplomatic, but…whatever. It’s Ahmadinejad.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Ahmadinejad has always maintained to the global community that Iran’s nuclear program has been strictly one of peace, and in a speech today, he reasserted his position against nuclear weapons, decrying the West for its fear in “Iran’s ability and determination that drove us into this (nuclear) path.” In his asserting that Iran has no use for weapons, he disparaged them by saying “bombs are for retarded people.” The sentiment is good news for the West– and coupled with the recent controversy in which Ahmadinejad has embroiled himself, defending the rights of women to attend colleges with men, almost a sign that his positions may be evolving into something resembling moderate as far as Iranian leaders are concerned– or, as some of the religious leaders opposing him have argued, a liberal radical. Meanwhile, in the West, the use of such deplorable slurs as “sweetie” could force a world leader into a humbling apology.

In light of the comment, the Atlantic Wire compiled a quick “greatest hits” for the Iranian leader, which serves as a reminder that he is only beginning to sound moderate compared to the off-the-charts radicals that think a leader who wants to “eliminate” Israel and denies the existence of Iranian LGBT people is too liberal. It appears that, like gays, “retarded people” also do not exist in Ahmadinejad’s Iran– or, if they do, don’t merit to be treated with any fundamental human respect, but merely as props in speeches meant to appease that meddling Free World. But hey, baby steps– it seems Ahmadinejad has at least recognized women as somewhat human.

Katie Couric

Presenting “five years in five minutes,” the Evening News‘ tribute to its departing anchor could have doubled as a crash course in American political culture for the half-decade, packed with stories that dominated water cooler conversations what seems like ages ago– the departure of George W. Bush, the 2008 election cycle, the BP oil spill– even the recent earthquake in Japan and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords felt distant when watching the footage.

Among the more interesting bits of the compilation are those showing the stark difference between the most admired people among Democrats and Republicans (Nelson Mandela was repeatedly mentioned by Democrats; Ronald Reagan by Republicans), the disarmingly calm way in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismisses the importance of the Holocaust, and, yes, the Sarah Palin interview– though not its most famous “all of them” soundbite.

Couric ended with the Beatles classic “In My Life” and some of the lighter moments from her time there. While there is no concrete news as to where she will land, Couric has hinted she’s considering a return to daytime.

Couric’s final broadcast (and retrospective) via CBS below:

After opening his show with an odd jab at Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turned his attention to Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump (among others), none of whom will be opening at the Secaucus Chuckle Hut in the coming weeks. Watch the video, courtesy of Comedy Central below.

The source of the information’s name has been redacted, but The New York Times points out that he has been described in the past as “a former Iranian revolutionary activist who ‘has reported accurately on several sensitive political and economic issues.’” They also have the full story from the cable which reads as such:

“2. (S) According to source, President Ahmedinejad surprised other SNSC members by taking a surprisingly liberal posture during a mid January post-Ashura meeting of the SNSC called to discuss next steps on dealing with opposition protests. Source said that Ahmedinejad claimed that “people feel suffocated,” and mused that to defuse the situation it may be necessary to allow more personal and social freedoms, including more freedom of the press.

3. (S) According to source, Ahmedinejad’s statements infuriated Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari, who exclaimed “You are wrong! (In fact) it is YOU who created this mess! And now you say give more freedom to the press?!” Source said that Jafarli then slapped Ahmedinejad in the face, causing an uproar and an immediate call for a break in the meeting, which was never resumed. Source said that SNSC did not meet again for another two weeks, after Ayatollah Janati succesfully acted as a “peacemaker” between Jafarli and Ahmedinejad. Source added that the break in the SNSC meeting, but not the slap that caused it, has made its way on to some Iranian blogs.”

Obviously, we will never know if this incident really took place. The Revolutionary Guard already denied the story when the cables were first published a year ago. But, we can still imagine it. Using the power of Photoshop above, we’ve imagined it looked something like the scene from the “Slapsgiving” episode of How I Met Your Mother. We’re weird though.

The interview is a great get for the highest rated cable news network, especially considering its timing—Ahmadinejad just made headlines this afternoon when he suggested to the UN’s General Assembly that 9/11 may have been an inside job.

In the video below, MIT international security expert Jim Walsh discusses Iran and Ahmadinejad with Smith, who notes that in interviews with the president, “You don’t always learn a lot, except, as you mentioned, in the nuance—how did he not answer that question?”

Writing for the Associated Press, Ali Akbar Dareini reports:

The U.S. delegation has walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were actually behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel’s survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranian leader spoke of threats to burn the Quran by U.S. religious groups, calling that an act of “evil.” He held up a copy of the Muslim holy book, saying “the truth cannot be burned.”

When asked by a scarf-clad Mitchell about how he felt about the recent Koran burning and “Ground Zero mosque” controversies, Ahmadinejad said, “There is no conflict between the two countries. We should find where the problem is.”

He continued:

I ask this question: “Do the people of the United States hate the muslims?” Is that so? That’s not true. Muslims do not hate Americans either. … We believe that there is a minority in the United States and they are zionists. They have no religion. They believe in no religion.”

When Mitchell pressed the Iranian leader to explain away the Jewish and Christian leaders who supported the controversial mosque project, as well as critical comments by his “old friend” Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad seemed put off by her interruptions, tersely saying “you should let me explain.” After some awkwardly (and unconvincingly) polite quarreling, he responded:

What you seen in Islam — Islamic countries — is what the people are against, that ugly behavior. They are not against the people of the United States. They are not against Americans. They are not against Jews. They are not against Christians or Christrianity. They are not against any church.

When speaking of how President Obama has affected tensions between the United States and Iran, he claimed that there are “certain groups” preventing the commander-in-chief from mending relations. He asked Mitchell, “Do you really think President Obama can do anything he wishes to?”

The website — which can be viewed in Farsi, Arabic and English –  features several cartoons and dedication to those who died “under the pretext of the Holocaust.” The Pink Panther theme music plays in the background.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Centre in Jerusalem called the website “the latest salvo emanating from Iran that denies the facts of the Holocaust and attempts to influence those who are ignorant of history.”

From a statement issued Thursday:

“The vulgar and cynical approach of the website, a combination of Holocaust denial and distortion, illustrated with anti-Semitic caricatures, further illustrates Iran’s disregard for reality and truth vis-a-vis the Holocaust, Jews and Israel.”

Ahmadinejad has expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views numerous times in the past, and caused a stir when he called the Holocaust a “fairy tale” in 2005. Iran’s clerical regime has “repeatedly questioned or denied the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews” and the country has hosted a conference “endorsing Holocaust denial.”

On the more technical side, the website has painfully slow loading times, testing the patience of its visitors. Salon’s Judy Mandelbaum argues that this is what will prevent the site from becoming a problem:

If you can endure the excruciating loading times and then commit to slogging your way through all the primitive, intellectually insulting drawings and boneheaded texts without nodding off, then maybe, Houston, we really do have a problem. But let me suggest that if this is the best Tehran can throw at the supposedly defenseless West, we can leave Houston to its own devices for some time to come.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

Paul, of course, is the beloved cephalopod of Oberhausen, Germany who won the hearts of the Spanish nation by predicting their World Cup victory and became an international superstar for predicting all seven German World Cup matches accurately. The international superstar has now been called out by the Iranian leader in a speech in Tehran over the weekend for his part is spreading Western propaganda and superstition.

This story has been making the rounds in the international media, but it seems the English-speaking media have dropped the ball on it, leaving us to rely on several foreign sources like Germany’s Bild (which nicknamed the leader “Ahmadine-schad”, or, according to online translators, “Ahmadine-harm”), Italy’s Corriere Della Sera, but, surprisingly, no media so far within Spain, Paul’s adoptive country. From Chile’s state-owned newspaper, La Nación (in the only language we can translate without Google):

Paul was mentioned by Ahmadinejad on various occasions during a speech pronounced today [Saturday] in which he cited the octopus as an example of “methods of propaganda and superstitions” on the West. […]

“Those who believe in this type of thing cannot be the leaders of the global nations that aspire, like Iran, to human perfection, basing themselves in the love of all sacred values,” Ahmadinejad said.

Paul the Octopus could not be reached for comment, but one would imagine he isn’t seeing very good things in Ahmadinejad’s future right now.

Golnaz Esfandiari writes:

The Western media certainly never tired of claiming that Iranians used Twitter to organize and coordinate their protests…Even the American government seemed to get in on the act. Former U.S. national security adviser Mark Pfeifle claimed Twitter should get the Nobel Peace Prize because “without Twitter the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confidant to stand up for freedom and democracy.”

But despite this, Esfandiari says the manager of “Balatrin,” a hugely popular Farsi-language website, told the Washington Post that the impact of Twitter within Iran was “nil.” Nothing. The Twitter frenzy, he observed, was mostly Americans tweeting among themselves.

But if Twitter was not a large communication tool, then what was? Simple: “good old-fashioned word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the post-election opposition activity.”

Esfandiari also brings up a Twitter user whose media coverage I remember well: Oxfordgirl. Britain’s Guardian described her as a “crucial link” between protesters and the outside world, but the reporters did not ask how Oxfordgirl communicated with Tehran when cell phone networks were down during protests. Oxfordgirl generated a great deal of publicity, yes. But for whom? Mostly herself, it would seem.

The article makes a valid point in saying that “no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.” This was a question that crossed my mind as I avidly followed election coverage, but no one seemed to address it.

Yet for all the criticism of the Twitter revolution that never was, it would be unfair to say Twitter did not play a role. Of course it did. But its role has been grossly overplayed and Esfandiari’s article is right in pointing it out. But one of the best points in the article comes at the very end:

And ultimately, that’s been a terrible injustice to the Iranians who have made real, not remote or virtual, sacrifices in pursuit of justice.

By playing up the role of Twitter, we play down the role of those Iranians who have made greater contributions. And that is, indeed, an injustice.

Bahari had just wrapped up a 180-day sentence related to his coverage of last year’s Iranian elections, after which protesters took to the streets in droves crying fraud. His latest work covering continued protests and military abuses cost him 13 years and 74 lashes– still acceptable punishment in Iran– but it was a photo that a friend of his put on his Facebook wall that got him the six years. Yes, a picture that someone else posted on his wall, of a man walking by Ahmandinejad, cost him six months, because it was deemed offensive to the manliness of the Iranian leader. Bahari is, fortunately, in the United States, so his in-absentia sentence will probably not be carried out (unless, of course, he chooses to go back to Iran).

Zakaria explained Bahari’s– who he calls a friend– ordeal on his program yesterday. Video below:

[h/t Towleroad]

Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, and among the revelations was the fact that Osama bin Laden has been living in Washington, DC. He made the claim in response to allegations that bin Laden is living in Tehran, invoking the classic diplomatic doctrine “I am rubber, you are glue.”

Among the (slightly) less insane points that Ahmadinejad touched on were:

- The fact that, while he considers Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “an enemy of Iran,” President Obama somehow doesn’t rate the distinction. Where was Ahmadinejad during the 2008 Democratic primary, when Hillary could have used him?

- Mitigating his backhanded endorsement somewhat, Ahmadinejad says “We don’t have a special friendship with Mr. Obama.” He offered, as proof, a Trapper-keeper that had Obama’s name crossed out in several spots.

- Iran won’t back down to sanctions, and doesn’t consider Israel in his defense policy, saying “They can’t even manage Gaza. They want to get into a conflict with Iran?”

- He wants justice for the 3 imprisoned American hikers, just as soon as they talk to the judge. They’ve been held without charges or access to a lawyer since July 31. When pressed, he promised to make “recommendations” to the judge. Good idea. I mean, what is this, Arizona?

- Asked to respond to allegations that Osama bin Laden has been seen in Tehran, Ahmadinejad revealed that the terrorist leader is actually living in Washington, DC.

Here’s video of the interview. (Click here for transcript)

AP (via MSNBC) is reporting that Ahmadinejad delivered the comments in a speech before a crowd of thousands intended to intimidate the West into modifying the new policy to prevent attacks on Iran (Iran and North Korea were the main nations exempted from the policy that non-nuclear nations would under no circumstances be attacked with nuclear weapons). It seems like Ahmadinejad hasn’t updated his American insult repertoire since the Bush era:

“American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately put their finger on the trigger like cowboys,” he said.

“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV. “(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.”

For one, the latter comment about American officials more bullying that Obama is perfect fodder to conservatives to perpetuate their “Obama is weakening America” talking point, since the Iranian leader half-admits to respecting his predecessors more than him. But calling a president whose resumé includes “community organizer” and “law school professor” a “cowboy,” along with an administration of similar background, is at the very least a little out-of-touch with upper-crust liberal academic culture.

It also sounds like Ahmadinejad has been taking oratory advice from his good Venezuelan buddy Hugo Chavez, who employs the cowboy metaphor on a weekly basis on his variety TV program Aló Presidente. Chavez has been using this type of language for years, however, back when it was much more applicable to our swashbuckling 43rd commander-in-chief. For comparison, here is Chavez’s greatest YouTube hit “Mr. Danger,” where he menacingly declares George W. Bush to be “the last”:

It’s good timing for the authoritarian leader to go into writing. Now that an opposition (and a nation) ravaged by arrests, corruption, and mysterious disappearances has been mostly tamed, he won’t have to face competition from smarter or more competent writers. Chavez described his new website as “candanga”– literally “the devil,” but he probably meant “awesome”– and warned that he would be using the page to both express his feelings and “communicate with the enemy– let them hit me; I’ll hit back.”

It sounds like he finally gets the internet – except he thinks Twitter is a “terrorist” organization and feels threatened by Blackberries (though that might be Colombian singer Juanes‘ fault). He’d better hurry up putting the site together though since, after all, this is the internet, and there is already a fake “Hugo Candanga” blog. Enjoy it before the culprits get arrested, hispanophones!

Chavez isn’t the first repressive dictator to experiment with internet journalism. Until recently, Ahmadinejad.ir, the Iranian leader’s blog, was up and running with his “colorful” thoughts on everything from foreign affairs to morality and the family. Last January, his site was hacked and, from the looks of it, never seemed to have recovered. And Chavez’s Papa Bear, Fidel Castro, still has a regular column in the national newspaper Granma that appears online every week despite serious internet conjecture suggesting that the former 50-year dictator isn’t even alive.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Hugo! Let’s see if you last longer than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The network said in a statement Monday that Ms. Clinton met with its director general Wadah Khanfar “and the network’s senior editorial staff for a meeting to further dialogue with Al Jazeera.”

The meeting was held on the Carnegie Mellon University campus in Doha, Qatar, the city where Al Jazeera is based. It lasted for about one hour.

The meeting was “quite frank” as Al Jazeera managers “put their frustrations on the table,” according to a network employee who was briefed on the meeting.

“Over all, the meeting was very positive,” the network employee added.

After the meeting, Ms. Clinton was interviewed by Al Jazeera’s Washington bureau chief, Abderrahim Foukara, before a group of 300 college students. The interview was shown on Al Jazeera on Tuesday.

The WSJ reported yesterday that Ahmadinejad spends 15 minutes a week updating “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Personal Memos” where he “he goes to vent and stay in touch with the common folk.” On the one hand this is particularly galling considering Iran’s treatment of reporters and bloggers and its vicious crackdown on protesters last June who were desperately attempting to reach the world with news of what was happening through social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. On the other hand, is it really a surprise? Of course a man desperate to control his own message is on the Internet. Next we’ll discover he’s also on Twitter. In fact some of his recent UN statements strike as very Twitterable, though perhaps not in the tone intended.

Anyway, according to the WSJ the Farsi version of the blog has not one negative comment on it (the fact it allows comments at all is sort of amazing), no doubt Ahmadinejad either employs strict comment monitors or people are just too scared to say what they really think. The English-language version(!) apparently has plenty, though as of this morning I couldn’t access so maybe its servers were unable to handle the excess attention. Stay tuned.

The Iran election and the subsequent protests, which took place back in June are starting to feel like another lifetime. Not a surprise considering President Ahmadinejad’s brutal crack down on both the protesters and the press. Today the New York Times reports on what life is like now for journalists remaining in the country. One short word: brutal.

The editors of some opposition blogs, which reported the killings and the mass burial of protesters, have gone into hiding, and their whereabouts are not clear. The homes of some journalists, like Mr. Maleki, have been ransacked.

Mahmoud Shamsolvaezin, a veteran journalist and media expert in Tehran, estimated that 2,000 Iranian journalists had lost their jobs recently. He said about 400 of them had approached him for reference letters so they could get work abroad. “Journalists are leaving more than other groups because the government has closed newspapers and it has intimidated and terrorized them,” he said in an interview.

Side note: Judging by the byline on the article (Nazila Fathi) and dateline (Toronto), the NYT‘s own journalist in Iran may have been part of the mass exodus. As we noted back in June, Fathi was the Times eyes on the ground during the protests and the fact she is filing this story from Toronto suggests she too was able to make a safe exit from the county.

King, ever the hard-nosed schmoozer, kept bringing Ahmadinejad back to the most basic question: “Do you agree there was a holocaust?” And then, of course, the answers meandered every which way — but mostly to Palestine, and how Palestinians shouldn’t be blamed for the Holocaust. The two postured back and forth about the Holocaust for the better part of ten minutes.

“What my understanding of the Holocaust is is the need to raise a number of questions,” Ahmadinejad told King at the beginning of the questions about his Holocaust denial. “And I actually have raised those questions but unfortunately my words have been distorted by the media … they call it information, the ‘free flow of information.’” Without further ado, Ahmadinejad in his own words:

Related: Ann Curry Grills Ahmadinejad: Did You Steal This Election? [Mediaite]

Sometime overnight, (around 4am, judging by the buzz on my TweetDeck), the Times‘ David E. Sanger broke the story that President Obama — along with the leaders of Britain and France — intend to “accuse” Iran of “building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international.” From the article:

President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials….American officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to make public the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the project

.

This is enormous news. Enormous. So much so, one imagines it will not only “overshadow the meeting of the Group of 20″ as the Times suggests, but will likely knock the health care debate off the front pages for the next few days at least. Between this and the “serious” terror plot case happening in New York City right now (see A-1 print edition) scary international news may have returned to rule the headlines after a summer domestic news topping the agenda. Also, when the President tells reporters not to give him to much grief over his “jackass” remark because he’s “got a lot of other stuff on my plate” he really means it! Alas, too bad Glenn Beck can’t also use his powers (such as they are) to get international politicians to resign.

This is the second time this week big Middle East news has been broken by the traditional media. On Monday the Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward penned an exclusive account of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 66-page report to the President, which warns that more troops will be needed in Afghanistan if the U.S.’s policies there are to succeed. Following this news was the news that the Post had delayed publication of the story for one day a the request of the Pentagon.

Two lessons here: One, newspapers still have the clout, wherewithal, and trust to do the digging and get the really big, really important stories. Two, the fact I feel it’s worth noting that the traditional media has broken not one, but two really big stories this week probably says more about the state of newspapers than six months worth of bad advertising numbers.

Ahmadinejad has always been a slippery interview, and a circuitous, verbose speaker to boot. Curry was obviously prepared for this and came in with tough, tenacious questions that left him semantically squirming. The one disappointing part was the lack of follow-up on the Iranian post-election violence — holding his feet to the fire about the government response, the forcible quelling of dissent, the arrests and imprisonments, the coerced public apologies. This is a partial edit so no doubt there will be more to come, but still — these are obviously the highlights, so it looks like Ahmadinejad did not give any more ground on the protests. Curry did get him squarely on the “stealing the election” question (ouch) and pinned him down like a laser on the “Are there any circumstances under which you would develop nukes?” question – for all his verbiage, he would not say “no.”

That said, he also came out in support of “fraternal love and happiness.” So there’s that.

He also talked about how he felt about President Barack Obama and said that the three American hikers imprisoned in Iran for wandering across the border “need to be punished.” So there’s that, too. Clip and partial transcript below; full Curry-Ahmadinejad interview after the transcript.:

On stealing the Iranian election:

ANN CURRY: Inside and outside of Iran, people are questioning the legitimacy of your presidency. So, it is important to ask you, Mr. President: did you steal this election?

TRANSLATOR: In Iran — in Iran, expressing ones point of view is fully permissible. It’s free. And if a person has an opinion to express within the confines of the law they are free to express such opinions. I don’t see any problems.

ANN CURRY: Would you like to answer that question more directly, given that it is a question that people around the world has asked? Would you like to address the question, “Did you steal this election, sir?”

TRANSLATOR: I don’t know what you mean by that.

ANN CURRY: Did you create conditions so that you would win no matter the vote?

TRANSLATOR: It’s very clear. Whoever becomes a candidate will start a campaign and will do his utmost to win. I think we should be courageous enough to accept the vote of the people. It’s more courageous than participating in the vote itself.

O-kay. “Whoever becomes a candidate will start a campaign and will do his utmost to win.” I think that about covers it.

Here’s Ahmadinejad on the post-election violence:

ANN CURRY: Human rights organizations estimate 4,000 people were arrested in these protests. Some are still missing. There are reports of torture. There are even reports, Mr. President, that some women protestors were raped in prison. Your government has acknowledged that some protestors were killed. You often speak of compassion here inside Iran. The question has to be asked, where was your compassion for your people?

TRANSLATOR: First of all, all of us regret the fact that some people were killed. Two, the police officers and those who accompanied the officers were killed. Their numbers were higher than others.

That stat — or claim of a stat, rather — seems a little fishy to me. This is all the interview/transcript has on this though — I can’t imagine she didn’t follow up there so we’ll check the extended transcript and update accordingly.

And then there’s this, reminiscent of wondering what the definition of “is” is:

ANN CURRY: Are there conditions under which Iran would weaponize?

TRANSLATOR: Well, nuclear arms, we believe, they belong to the past. And the past generation. Today, what brings power to a people is cultural and human power. Cultural influence. Human logic.

ANN CURRY: So, may I assume, then, your answer to that question is, “No.”

TRANSLATOR: My response to what question?

ANN CURRY: Is there a condition under which Iran would weaponize?

TRANSLATOR: We don’t need such — we don’t have a such a need, nuclear weapons. We don’t need nuclear weapons.

ANN CURRY: So, the answer is no, sir?

TRANSLATOR: I don’t know what you mean by ‘no’?

ANN CURRY: I’m asking if there are any scenarios in which you would change what you say is your course and move into creating a nuclear weapon. Am I correct that the answer is no?

TRANSLATOR: We do not see any need for such weapons.

ANN CURRY: You know, it — people will remark that you did not say no, as I’ve asked you three times the same question. You did not say no. Are you sure you want that to be your final answer, sir?

TRANSLATOR: Well, you can take from this whatever you want, madam.

Translation: Nuclear arms belong to the past, except when they belong to the future. Okay then.

Update: Here is the clip of Ahmedinejad talking about the hikers, followed by the full, 53-minute interview:

Ann Curry’s exclusives first aired on NBC Nightly News, followed by NBC’s The Today Show.