For the first time in 27 years and Iranian President has written a letter to an American President. Now, I don't see this any huge breakthrough because Ahmadinejad keeps going back and forth (remind anyone of North Korea over the years?). One day he's all friendly and wants to work with the UN, etc. and the next day he's denying the holocaust and calling for the annihilation. We've seen this go in circles for a number of months now, and I think if anything is clear, it's that this guy needs to go.

Setting all of that aside for a minute, here's a little about the letter from the AP via MSNBC:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to President Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter will be sent via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran which has a U.S. interests section, Elham told a press conference. Initially it seemed the letter had already been sent, but later Elham told reporters it would be delivered Monday.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his U.S. counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

Asked if the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, Elham replied: for the time being, it's just a letter."

Read on...

As I said, I don't know that this means much more than any of the other seemingly cooperative statements we've seen from Ahmadinejad in recent months, but it is interesting that it's sort of a "breakthrough" in that it hasn't happened in almost 3 decades. I guess what I'm saying is cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.

What I can't wait to see is how liberals handle this. Will they praise Ahmadinejad for being so diplomatic and trying to work with our "war criminal" President? Or will they be silent since many has said "Bush attacked the wrong country, Iran was the real threat? And why not N. Korea!?" The right has always argued that different situations call for different measures. While I agree with many that military action will probably be required to deal with Iran eventually, this just shows that the President is trying (like he and previous Presidents did with Iraq) to work the UN route and handle the situation peacefully.

I may not think this letter means much, but some might argue it's a sign that diplomacy and pressure are working a little. Again, this is a pretty unusual move. Could Iran be feeling like the heat is on them now? Who knows. But what I can say is that Saddam Hussein didn't operate like this. He was firing at no-fly zone patrolling planes regularly, and when UN inspectors were actually in country he never gave them unfettered access, and it was just a total runaround waste of time to even bother with going that route. I still believe the WMDs were there for many reasons, many of which can be found here, but that's another story.

This story is also today's liberal bias in the headlines case:

Now admittedly, I'm nitpicking here a bit, but I thought I should at least mention it, because I did notice it. Why is it "Iranian President" but only "Bush" Not "President Bush"? Of course it makes it shorter and sweeter, and they could argue: "everyone knows who Bush is, but they may not know the name Ahmadinejad", and that may have some merit, but I think the "Bush" thing is all too common. Headlines constantly read "Bush" not "President Bush", and I can't count the amount of times I hear news correspondents reporting from Washington refer to him as "Mr. Bush". I can't recall hearing "Mr. Clinton" very often though, and usually when they mention him he's referred to as "President Clinton" or "Former President Clinton". Libs would argue that this is in my head, but the simple fact is it's disrespectful that these reports insist on calling him "Mr. Bush", and it's an obvious "he's not my President" dig.

As for this specific headline, I don't know if MSNBC or the AP is to blame. My guess is the AP since I see similar headline when I do a few news searches.

For something along the same lines, Expose the Left has video of two segments from ABC's This Week in which host George Stephanopoulos refers to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as "Speaker Pelosi". Stephanopoulos first "slipped" during his interview with Tom Delay, and again later with Howard Dean. Wishful thinking Georgyboy?

And for all the liberals whining about the "Bush mouthpiece" Fox News, and citing Bush's hiring of Tony Snow as an example... I haven't heard you whining about Stephanopoulos hosting a supposedly non-partisan program, even though he is the former senior political adviser press secretary, and communications director for former President Clinton. Selective outrage? And by the way, Snow was a "Fox News commentator" and a columnist, and former speech writer for Bush 41 and this was never a secret. And as I'm finishing this, I just heard Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends say that Stephanopoulos "slipped" 4 times! Honest mistake, right?

***QUICK UPDATE***
Props to India Daily for writing a proper headline: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly written a letter to U.S. President Bush to propose new ways to resolve tensions"

***UPDATE***
Hot Air has posted on this, and sums up the entire Iran situation as it stands today.