By Benyamin Solomon
I read a blog post that's titled "Please people, Mousavi is NOT Ahmadinejad-minor…" The blog post even gets vulgar. It tells people who claim that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are the same in terms of Iran's policies to "shut the hell up". This user starts off the post as saying:

I’m tired of this meme that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad would really be the same regarding US interest. It’s never backed up by actual strategy that Mousavi has expressed during his campaign or his career, only by the fact that he was one of the revolution’s founders. I call BS on this.

Aww, so you're tired of hearing the truth. Well too bad! Unlike you, I have better things to do than to be a propagandist for the fake reformists in Iran's regime who are just as much accomplices for the regime's bloodshed as the "hardliners" are. I like to call BS to your claim. Face the facts. Mousavi was a radical supporter of Khomeini and well-liked by him. He was an accomplice in the regime's founding of Hezbollah [even one year earlier, he calls for the creation of an Iranian-controlled militia in Lebanon to fight Israel], supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and even was an accomplice to the regime's execution of 30,000 political prisoners, the same executions that Human Rights Watch [HRW] called "a crime against humanity". During the 2009 Presidential campaign, in many Iranian universities, many students asked about his role in those barbaric executions. Mousavi dodged those questions. Do you have an answer Iran Through MY Lens [Iran Through MY Lens is the user name of this blogger and thereby the author of this amusingly absurd post] or should those students just "shut the hell up"? When Mousavi had trouble answering that question, maybe he could've come to you for help, since you are one of the guys who seems to defend the fake reformists in Iran's regime and parrots their propaganda.
Iran through MY Lens comes out with an alleged letter where Mousavi condemns terrorist activities by the Iranian regime and quotes what the Washington Post allegedly said about the letter. But this guy makes no mention of the fact that the Guardian article dated 1989 showed that Mousavi called Rushdie an "American mercenary". Add to that, Mousavi was a big time accomplice in many of the Iranian regime's terrorist activities in Lebanon.
The post, right below the the quote of what the Washington Post allegedly said stated:

Additionally, he was not in the wilderness as much as talking-heads like to claim. In fact, he was an official adviser to president Khatami, the president who tried to tread a path towards US-Iran détente back in the late 90’s before it was derailed by hardliners in Iran and hardliners in Israel and its lobby in the US (see Trita Parsi, Trecherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, 2008).

What he had signified over and over again during this campaign was a willingness to lay the groundwork for détente, and even beyond. He knows that to do this he would have to give the West some concessions, but in tactful campaign-speak, where you not only have to appease a citizenry, but also a supreme leader, he expressed his willingness in muted tones.

Ahmadinejad on the other hand sticks his middle finger high at any concerned parties. His rhetoric inflames western resolve and creates greater fear. While he makes speeches to the west about ‘mutual respect’ and a willingness to engage, he also makes speeches to basijis berating the US and showing his disbelief in US seriousness to engage with mutual respect. He fires missiles to provoke Israeli reaction, and denies the Holocaust.

He puts the world on edge while trying to claim that Iran has no interest in a nuclear weapon. These things are antithetical, yet he pulls it off.

Of course the supreme leader has the final say on foreign policy. And in fact, when asked Mousavi typically diverted this issue to the leader’s Supreme National Security Council, of which the president is the chairmen of.

But the president is the face of foreign policy. He is the actor out there that we read in the press every day, projecting the Islamic Republic government, and its intentions, to the world.

Ahh, the good old next step. Praise Mousavi's friend Mohammad Khatami, who is another fake reformist who is also an accomplice of the regime's bloodshed. I get it. Khatami, who is just full of roses and a nice smile on his face, tried to ease the tension between the US and Iran until it was spoiled by the "hardliners" in Iran and Israel and the pro-Israel lobby. So in other words, the "hardliners" in Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are just as bad as the ones in Iran. There's a moral equivalence. Here's my response to that claim. You've got to be kidding me! Khatami praised the notorious executioner and torturer in Iran Assadollah Lajevardi. To people who know about him and to the average Iranian citizen [not to the regime] he was a butcher who killed and tortured thousands of innocent people. He was a thug for Iran's regime. After his death, the regime tried to make him look his best and failed misrably at that. Khatami's praise of Lajevardi came back to bite him, as it showed more of the fact that he's just another thug for Iran's regime. But despite his praise of Lajevardi, many people including my Youtube pal Inlukh still believed the false claim that Khatami was a pro-democracy reformist. The dialogue among civilizations is a sham. This is what Khatami said about the west:

We are fundamentally and profoundly opposed to Western
civilization and culture, which are engulfed in serious crises. We are
talking about some very weighty issues, and those who want to
propagate [Western] ways lack sufficient weight to be considered a
serious threat...

and:

The worst of Europe gathered together and went there [to the
United States] to find money. It is a culture without roots; it is based
on the technology of force... Now the Americans, a nation without
the least culture, have most of the world’s resources at their disposal.
This represents a dual catastrophe for humanity.

 Even with the presidency of Khatami, Iran continued with its uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons, continued to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism and continued to be a global threat. Khatami even stated that things like "defending the law means defending valayet-e-Faqih", the brutal radical Islamic system that was invented by Khomeini. Khatami even stated that:

The Islamic Republic of Iran
prohibits female singers from singing for the public.
This is against the law.

So please. Khatami was no reformist. He was a terrorist in the Iranian regime like Ahmadinejad. And yes Mousavi was the chief adviser of Khatami. The author does acknowledge that Ahmadinejad provokes the west and Israel. I consider him as one of the worse guys from Iran's regime. Mousavi is not that much better.
The post says that the claim that Mousavi's and Ahmadinejad's policies are the same is "an intellectually dishonest meme that really only reveals that pundit’s (or president’s) lack of intimate knowledge of Iran and its detailed and complicated history." No it isn't. It is the truth. As the author admitted, the Supreme Leader has the final say. The president has the second most amount of power. To claim that Khamenei would allow a true reformist or moderate to run as President is what really is "an intellectually dishonest meme that really only reveals that pundit’s lack of intimate knowledge of Iran and its detailed and complicated history." Or president part is referring to Obama who did say that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad have the same policies. Though I am a critic of Obama including on his Chamberlain appeasement policy toward Iran, I have to say that Obama was right to make that remark. If you were to say that he was ignorant on the nature of the Iranian regime, I would totally agree.
To "prove" that Mousavi is not a continuation of the policies of Ahmadinejad, the author gives a video where Mousavi gives his usual cheap lip service for democracy and freedom. At the end of the post, you see a video of Mousavi making his usual cheap lipservice for peace, democracy and freedom. The post says that it is a "little dramatic" and shows a video where Ahmadinejad states his genocidal goals. The video of Mousavi is more than a "little dramatic". It shows what a propagandist for Mousavi the author of this post is.
The post admits that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad have the same rhetoric regarding the nuclear program. But it excuses Mousavi by making this claim:

While some of his rhetoric is similar to the things that Ahmadinejad says regarding the nuclear issue, there are nuances one must look for in the individual himself, and how he presents these issues that the US is most interested in, particularly on the nuclear issue.

Mousavi, like all people in Iran, would be unlikely to just shrug off nuclear technology. When talking heads here in DC try to use a complete halt to nuclear technology as the starting point for talks with Iran they are only kidding themselves.

Mousavi took part in starting Iran's nuclear program. It is not for nuclear energy or "peaceful purposes". It's for nuclear weapons to be used in the global jihad. True, Mousavi, like other Iranian leaders, claim that it is for peaceful purposes. But the evidence clearly says otherwise.

The post admits that Mousavi "lauds velayat-e faqih consistently, and always has. He sat at the right hand of Khomeini many times, and was actually rescued from opposition forces by Khomeini when he was the prime minister. The difference though now is where he wants to take the Republic". Valayet-e-Faqih is a radical Islamic system set up by Khomeini, as I already explained. To say that there is a moderate proponent of Valayet-e-Faqih is like saying that there is a moderate Nazi.

Mousavi, as Prime Minister, was a radical supporter of Khomeini and well-liked by him. True, he isn't well-liked by Khamenei. Where Mousavi wants to take Iran is the same of where he wanted to take it as Prime Minister. You'll hate me for saying this. But it is the same to where Ahmadinejad wanted to take it. I must apologize that I don't find a radical Khomeini supporter [who even was embraced by Khomeini] to be much of a better choice than Ahmadinejad, even if that radical supporter wants to be portrayed as a "reformist". No real evidence has come out showing that Mousavi wants to have democratic change for Iran. The evidence shows that he is just another bloody figure from the Iranian regime. When he was asked by Iranian students about the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners, he didn't apologize. He dodged the question. He never expressed regret for anything he did when he was Prime Minister. There is no indication that he changed his views. He vows to continue Iran's nuclear program. If he was President, he would behave just like how he did when he was Prime Minister. Claiming that he and Ahmadinejad are the same regarding Iran's policies is accurate. The regime only allows their guys to run in the Presidential elections in the first place. Iran Through MY Lens, you can be a propagandist for the "reformists" in Iran's regime all you want. But I won't be one. Many people are not going to be a propagandist for them. You and Inlukh are free to spout as much propaganda for the "reformists" in Iran's regime as you want. But I won't. Many people won't. If we annoy you, too bad! When it comes to us exposing the fact that the "reformists" in Iran's regime as no better than the "hardliners" in that regime, you can either like it or lump it!