In his article Costello also characterizes Adelson's comments as "nuke Iran," but at least he has the courage to actually quote what Adelson said, unlike his boss. Although he starts with legitimately pointing out how dumb Adelson's comments were, he still mischaracterizes them later:
"And if launching a nuclear weapon against Iran convinces Iran's government that having a nuclear deterrent might be a good idea, Adelson casually suggests that the U.S. should just go ahead and kill millions of innocent people."He actually didn't suggest that at all. He said that America should threaten to kill millions of innocent people (you know, the way Iran does to Israel) but not actually do it. If you think I am hair splitting I again refer you to NIAC's strategy of defending everything the Iranian leaders say with constant cries of "mistranslation!" So yeah, details matter.
Then, like his boss, Costello talks about how Adelson gives lots of money to things so his opinions actually matter (unlike a certain someone I could think of ). The trouble is that then he goes after an organization that Adelson gave money to called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who have committed the capital crimes of wanting sanctions on Iran to continue:
"In other words, we should sanction Iran until we can't sanction any more. Doing so would cripple the president's ability to offer sanctions relief -- a key component of any nuclear deal with Iran - while also signaling to Iran that the conciliatory approach of their new President Hassan Rouhani only invites more pressure. By spoiling the current diplomatic opening through new sanctions, FDD would make sure that their ultimate goal -- attacking Iran and promoting regime change -- is the only option remaining."That is what I like to call a stretch. It's amazing how many Huffington Post bloggers seem to think that because some individual or NGO has an opinion about something, that limits what the President and/or government can do. No one is under any obligation to actually listen to the FDD so I honestly don't see what Costello's point is here. If he is trying to prove that Adelson's "extreme" comments were backed up by actions, then he would be better served looking somewhere else.
Anyway in this article as opposed to Parsi's the comments were a lot more ridiculous, mostly just mindless hating on Israel, which barely appears in the article.: