When the president of the United States receives his country's first formal communication from an Iranian "president" since the regrettable unpleasantness involving Iran's unlawful seizure of the American embassy and the taking of hostages back in 1979, one might reasonably expect a conciliatory tone. You know, at the very least, something along the lines of, "Hey, sorry about what happened, but can we just let bygones be bygones?"

Or alternatively, if he just couldn't bring himself to issue even the mildest apology, however insincere, then how about an offer to honestly discuss the issues that have Iran at an impasse with not just the U.S., but also the entire civilized world?

Well, in your dreams, Great Satan! Instead, the letter contained a rambling diatribe against the United States, Western-style democracy and liberalism in general. Or in other words, all the things that make the West modern, innovative and prosperous, so clearly differentiating it whence this muddle-headed letter came.

In addition, there were the usual inferences that the Holocaust was a fairy tale and that there was something fishy about 9/11, as in, maybe, (wink-wink), the U.S. had something to do with it . . .

The letter itself was not overtly rude. It was just so . . . out there. By comparison, the Unabomber's manifesto, written in a dilapidated shack in the wilds of Montana by an obviously disturbed sociopathic loner, was far more organized and coherent. Granted, it might be that Ahmadinejad's Farsi didn't translate well, but that doesn't preclude the likelihood that this was simply a letter written by an irrational man who resides in an Islamic la-la-land.

Those who daydream of peacefully coexisting with this radical Islamic regime that is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons were hell-bent on interpreting the letter as a long awaited diplomatic opening. But such an opening just wasn't there, short of us all converting to Islam and submitting to the will of the ayatollahs.

But let's examine a few of Ahmadinejad's specific complaints in his letter. Amusingly, he wanted to know why "any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."