This country is getting just plain scary.
Columbia University invites a foreign head of state to speak at their school and then, in a scene that I can only describe as reminiscent of an Orwellian "1984" Outer Party "2 minute Hate rally" proceeds to insult their invited guest before the man even has a chance to speak.
Lee Bollinger was not being courageous. He acted like a coward. Between him and Pelley of CBS who sounded like a government shill rather than a reporter as he shouted hostile loaded questions as if he were Tony Snow in his interview the other day with Ahmadinejad- this country is giving off very totalitarian airs.
It is one thing for our Reichwinger warmongers in the Beltway and the Bush administration to mouth their propaganda and lies- but is quite another when university presidents and network reporters feel they must denounce the man and act like hysterical Neocons themselves in order to justify even being in the same room with the man.
What do these people fear? Lee Bollinger didn't insult Ahmadinejad by calling him a "Dictator" because he believes that (surely he is aware the Ahmadinejad's power is quite limited, that he was elected, that he is unpopular now and regularly gives speeches before hostile and even threatening audiences the likes of which we NEVER see near a politician in this country, and surely he is aware that the man most likely won't be re-elected.) Why did Lee Bollinger act in such a manner then? I think it is fear.
And it ain't that he is afraid of Iran or Ahmadinejad. He is afraid of his own government. Just as Pelley was afraid.
I am the only one who is bothered by this behavior? Who sees something terribly wrong with all this?
Schools and Colleges regularly invite controversial speakers all the time to speak and I can't think of anything that approaches the sickening display of boorish insulting behavior exhibited by Bollinger in an introduction speech before.
I have no problem with Bollinger offering up comments after Ahmadinejad spoke that would be critical or even insulting. But to do it before? In the introduction speech? That defeats the whole purpose of having him there. You invite the man to speak- then introduce him as an evil scumbag unworthy of even the respect of a neutral introduction? Isn't that baiting the audience to dismiss anything the man has to say before he says anything? That is what happens in countries that don't have free speech. That is what happens in countries in which there are consequences for not adhering to a government orthodoxy. Bollinger acted like he was a fearful Party member.
Can you imagine this happening in Iran to an American diplomat or speaker? I can't.
What Bollinger did reeks of a country swamped by hateful propaganda. Of a country isolated and living in a fantasy world. Why even invite someone to speak if you are going to introduce him in such a manner? What is going on here?
44 comments:
I share your thoughts. I am wondering whats wrong with this guy. He just was scared of all the backlash and wanted to save his skin. Its pathetic if a university president thinks of being patriotic by insulting someone who was invited to his campus. He should have allowed the students to have the free and unbiased discussion with Iran's president. I think President Bush took the visit of Iran's president with grace. Its sad that the head of an educational institution didn't have the spine to do that
It's bizarre. US diplomats and presidents and media people have sat down with some of the most blood drenched men in the world and afforded them basic courtesies that Bollinger denied Ahmadinejad.
Nixon sat down with men like Brehznev who openly gave arms to Hanoi that killed thousands of US troops. He sat down with Mao- a murderer of millions who likewise gave arms to North Vietnam. Our press was respectful of Brezhnev when he came to America.
What has Ahmadinejad done that even comes close to the evil of either of those two?
Quite scary behavior on the part of our MSM (Scott Pelley) and Lee Bollinger. What are they afraid of is my question.
I couldn't believe the guy blasted the leader before he had a chance to speak. You're right, it was cowardly. The thing is, Iran's president is twice as smart as Columbia's President.
It's actions like Lee Bollingers today that cause the world to hate us so.
Agreed on all points. Kissinger, who is practically standing on a pile of broken babies' skulls, gets more respect than this guy. Maybe if we talk to each other, we'd be a lot less willing to blow each other up. Here we had a once-in-a-generation chance to extend to Ahmadinejad our own constitutionally protected right to present his views and engage in meaningful dialog. This was an opportunity to show Ahmadinejad the best of America.
Ironically, we got exactly what Bollinger promised in his press release earlier this week: the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. Ugly Americans indeed. Shame on Bollinger. Shame on Columbia.
Anyone see Ahmadinejad on Charlie Rose? Mr. Rose is a class act.
I couldn't agree more. How sad it is that America can't even be given the opportunity to hear what he has to say regardless of how controversial it is. While there is a good chance I wouldn't agree with a lot of what Ahmadinejad had to say I still believe that he should have the right to say it. Also, there is no better way to convince him he's right than to verbally assault him and treat him like a "terrorist."
i agree with you guys but also think that somebody had to tell him what the world had wanted to tell him ,not even bush would even dare to tell him that to his face.
while every european country and the rest of theworld are peeing in their pants on each of his moves. it's time that somebody had to stand up and tell him so he doesn't think he's all that. i'm sure that he's used to millions of iranians chanting praises about him (by fear) . someone mentioned that mr Bollinger was being pathetic.well! i would like to ask my fellow American, what is more pathetic??? claiming that the holocaust never existed??? saying that isarael should be wiped of the map???. just for the record! i'm not an American nor Jewish but a man from Europe who came to the United States 18 years ago from europe and is glad and grateful to be living in the greatest country in the whole wide world . sorry! if i don't go along the flow with everyone but you are welcome to erase my comment so what's the whole point about free speech then? i'd say BRAVO and GOD Bless mr Bollinger for saying out loud what millions would love to say to him .Obama all the way in 2008!!!
I agree with the sentiments about Bollinger's inappropriate introduction even though I do not believe Amahdinejad should have been honored with the prestigious podium for what he is in the first place. Too bad the Bollinger comments have diverted people's attention to analyse what Ahminejad had said.
I take exception to what was said about Bollinger's fear of our own government. Why do we enjoy putting our government in such bad lights? It is a convenient habit to attribute all ills to the government. If he was so fearful of the government, he would not have invited A in the first place. He would have also strong armed the students who did not give the same courtesy and free speech rights to the minutemen, the ROTC, and other conservative speakers at Columbia.
Bolligner just proved to the world that he is more concerned with dollars coming into his institution than academic honesty, integrity and all the rest of that good stuff. Maybe he was worried about his job if he didn't pull off this shameless act. Or maybe he was told to do this in no uncertain terms and he had no choice. He certainly came across as a thug rather than an academic. Ironically he became everything he accused the president of being.
I was desperatly afraid that I was the only person left in America that didn't make a BAHHHHHH sound like all of the other sheep. Thank you all for showing me that there are some free thinkers left. I agree 10000%. Bush has been invited many times to interact with Ahmadinejad and has always refused. Quite frankly I TRULY don't believe that Bush could hold his ground with him. Bollinger was out of line, out of touch and embarrassed himself, his college, and our country.
I have been living in Denmark and working as an Academic for quite a few years now. I am sorry to say that I am not particularly surprised by Dr Bollinger's publicity stunt.
As much as I despise Ahmadinejad's politics and his beliefs, I was appalled that the man was treated so rudely. It does no good whatsoever to insult the man before he speaks. Dissect and expose his arguments when he is finished.
The world was watching, and this was a fantastic opportunity to further expose Ahmadinejad in the world's eye. While Bollinger may have won points in America, I suspect he has failed in the rest of the world. In my opinion Bollinger has simply reinforced the rather poor image of Americans that many of us in Europe have toward you. I wonder how many of you even care.
I'm just wondering why so many people hate this Iranian dude. What has he done? Can someone fill me in please, I've searched online and haven't come up with anything except he said the Holocaust is a Myth and Israel should be wiped off the map. Is this true? I just don't understand how so many people can hate someone because they have a different opinion. Why all the hate? baaaaaa. It's not like his troops are killing and raping innocent iraqis.
great article my friend!
Bollinger is intellectually inept.. Ahmadinejad just showed him how to do it ... and the press .. hmmmm ... what a malfunctioning machine
Ahmadinejad wasn't so much questioning the Holocaust as how the West now uses the Holocaust- to justify new aggressions, mass murder, and theft- such as the Kosovo bombing under Clinton in which the US and its toady media simply lied about Serb atrocities (Clinton claimed 100,000 Albanians had been killed- an outright lie).
The rest of the world doesn't share the West's fetish for the Holocaust - as the world worst crime ever ever ever that can't be questioned- even slightly (academics in the West who have said only 5 million instead of 6 million were killed have been called "deniers").
The Arab and Muslim world looks at the Holocaust with innocent eyes and sees an event that is used to shore up sympathy for a militarized racist state that is starving to death a million plus people amid a media blackout in Gaza right now- that just murdered 1200 people in Lebanon last year. Why shouldn't they question the Holocaust? It would only be natural for them. They are quite sick of it being used to justify the murderous policies of Israel.
And just for the record- Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map." That is a blatant- oft repeated lie by the controlled American press.
Yes- questioning the "Holy Holocaust" in the West is the equivelent of saying you are a whitch in Salem Massachusetts Circa 1640. But in Iran or Egypt- what do they care about the Holocaust? They didn't murder 6 million Jews. "Christians" did that. So they ask why they must suffer the existence of a fraud murderous little thief state like Israel in their back yard because Christians feel guilty about killing Jews or not doing much to stop it. They ask why are they the ones to pay?
Ahmadinejad asked once why Germany didn't slice off a good sized chunk of their land and give it to Jews if they felt so bad about the holocaust? Why didn't the West demand they do so? Why do Palestinians have to suffer for it?
That is what bothers them about the holocaust.
what is all the fuss..about ahmadinejad.iran did not attack iraq .bush did this ilegal war in iraq if anyone is to blame it is you stupid president bush .and his regime.you the usa have weopen nucular types just how many is anyonce guess .shame on you killing iraqis rape there womans and kill there famlies ..its time you shut up. and clean you own backyard .start .wiht bush
This seems to be the only place today where reasonable people can post thoughtful reflections.
Yes, the biggest loser is Mr. Bollinger. He lost his integrity by behaving terribly in from of the world. It is a shame!
President Bollinger (which he doesnt even deserve the title of 'President' after that ridiculous display yesterday) has decreased the prestige of both himself and his university. what kind of "President" would have the desency to say this to his guest speaker...he totally undermined his own authority. i think that you are right when you say that he is scared...he showed us how cowardly and pathetic he really is yesterday...and im sure he is very proud of himself. He is a disgrace to the US education system and Columbia University. its sad to know that mindless individuals like Bollinger are responsible for the education of our young generation...if i were a student at Columbia Univ. i would vote for the immediate removal of him from the board in the university. Im sure that not all the students at the Columbia think the way that he does, and therefore he has no right to say those things on behalf of the university. if i were a student at CU i would be walking with my head down right now, in shame.
you have mto look at the whole story...yes he was scared because hewas going against what the american people want it, and id you read the news he was going to loose a lot of financial support from the state and the goverment, so by doing this he thought he could look better and cover his mistakes
Lee Bollinger has shown to the world how shallow and graceless the American educational establishment is, and that the eighty eight professors who signed that polemic against the innocent Duke players were not an aberration, but sadly, the true reflection of a delusional population, as witnessed in the newspapers and forums where such infantile behavior is praised.
Bollinger's introductory comments were great! Ahmadinejad can speak, but so can the president of Columbia. What's the big deal about manners? Why maintain a facade? Ahmadinejad is evil and so is the government and religious leaders of Iran. Call a spade a spade.
I couldn't agree with you more. To invite any person to speak at a university and then rip them apart before they even get a chance to speak is appalling. Especially when the president of the university has said all week that the reason for inviting him was to promote different perspectives. Not only did Bollinger disgrace Columbia University, but he also disgraced the United States of America. It's ideology like this that causes countries around the world to hate us.
Frankly, I'm appalled and quite concerned about the feedback coming from this site. I do not find Mr. Bollinger's remarks patriotic, cowardly or bizarre. Forgive me for failing to find any compassion in my heart for Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has unabashedly called for another sovereign state to be "wiped off the map", questioned the existence of the Holocaust, one of the most well documented tragedies in the history of mankind, applauded and, possibly, supported, numerous acts intended to defy the United States, Europe and the United Nations and basically ignored the welfare of his own people while globetrotting to promote his own brand of subtle contempt and hate. Jeez, I hope Mr. Bollinger didn't hurt Mr. Ahmadinejad's feelings when he brought those issues up. One other thing - Mr. Ahmadinejad was able to come to this country without fear of being apprehended or interrogated by the US government. I challenge any of you to tell me that ANY US citizen could go to Iran and say the converse of what Mr. Ahmadinejad said at Columbia (that Israel has the right to exist, that homosexuals should be tolerated and supported in Iran, that the Holocaust was a real, documented episode of genocide, that Iran should stop defying UN resolutions) and receive the same courtesy.
1) the Iranian president’s denial of the Holocaust
Lee's president is committing a holocaust
2) his public call for the destruction of the State of Israel
Lee's government is supporting the destruction of Pallestine
3) his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops
Lee, apparently, supports his government's international terrorism on innocent civillians that's also killed 4,000 American troops
4) Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction
America's expansion of it's WMDs through Reliable Warhead Program in opposition to international obligations
5) his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia’s own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh (see President Bollinger's prior statement).
Lee's government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of human rights; and his government's imprisoning of hundreds of people without trial.
I've been living in the US for approximately 6 years now, and Up to M. Bush arrival, the polls showed that whole world had great opinion of the US and its politic. Nowadays, the rest of the world feels so disappointed about the US politic (watch the polls and wonder why the whole world was going for John Kerry, but in the US) and the hypocrisy of its leaders who, to serve their own purposes sent the whole country in a non-sense war. While the whole world was watching such an event to see the credibility of the US being rehabilited, M. Bollingers one more time took the US into the deepest hole he has already sunk to confirm to the rest of the world that they were not wrong feeling despised about the US. Great people with great opinions live in this country, unfortunately people like M. Bollingers stand in front of them because of their status they don't even deserve and jeopardize the whole purpose that made the US the great country known from everyone.
First off- Ahmadinejad never said that he was going to "Wipe Israel off the map." That is simply- a lie. I don't care how many times you have read it- how many times you have seen it quoted. HE NEVER SAID THAT. He said Israel would disappear off the map like other evil countries he had just listed- like the Soviet Union.
Second- Iranians and Muslims in general are sick and tired of the Holocaust being used to justify any and all murderous actions by the state of Israel. They don't happen to share the West's morbid fixation on that event and they fail to see why they should suffer for what "Christians" did.
Ahmadinejad has asked that if Europe feels so guilty about the Holocaust why then didn't Germany slice off some of their land and give it to the Zionists rather than innocent Palestinians have to suffer for it?
It is only natural for them to question an event that is stuck in their faces every two seconds for which they bear absolutely no responsibility for.
Americans go to Iran to speak? Like who? The US government won't sit in the same room with Iranians barely much less send someone to speak in Iran. Wouldn't anyone who went to Iran to speak be denounced by the usual reichwingers in this country anyway for daring to talk to the "evil" Iranian government?
I wonder what the reaction would be from the McCain's and Romney's and Hillary’s if a US University President said he was going to speak at Tehran University as Ahmadinejad's invited guest? I can tell you what it would be- they would all but call such a person a traitor for daring to visit Iran.
And lastly- Iran has passed all inspections of the IAEA on their legal nuclear program. There is no evidence of any violations of the NPT by Iran. None.
In fact, the US is in violation of the NPT for even trying to get sanctions on Iran- as Iran is guaranteed by treaty the right to nuclear power. Absent any evidence of a nuclear weapons program there is no basis for such sanctions. And- the US is in rank violation of that treaty by developing new weapons and by aiding non signatories to the NPT like India. Indeed- the question at this point is why Iran is even still a party to the NPT since the US has made it worthless by its actions and outright violations of it.
Stop defying UN resolutions? Like their right to enrich uranium? The UN's actions (which is basically half owned by the US which funds most of it) is violating an international treaty by even placing the modest sanctions on Iran that it has.
And lastly- Ahmadinejad, the "Dictator", regularly speaks before mobs of angry Iranians who heckle him and even burn his picture in his presence - meters away from him. Sometimes he has been known to even wade into crowds of hostile people to answer their questions face to face.
Contrast that to American politicians. Has Bush been anywhere near a hostile audience in his entire presidency? What would happen to someone in this country who burned a picture of Bush 10 meters away from him at a speech? He might be shot. He would at least be tasered and beaten and lead off to jail by Bush's Praetorian guard goons.
Give me a break. Iran ain't no paradise of freedom- but please don't tell me this country isn't getting more and more un-free every day.
Iran's last presidential election had 7 candidates from different parties to choose from. Not two- like this country has had for the last 140 years.
And the US in Iraq right now arrests willy nilly Iranian diplomats and "detains" them months at time- even while the Iraqi government demands they release them! How many American diplomats has Iran Arrested and detained?
Oh- and one other thing- this past month on Iranian TeeVee- a mini series about the holocaust was run in which an Iranian diplomat from Paris was shown helping Jews escape the Nazis.
it's funny how many pro-terrorist and anti-jewish are on this blog.how many of them are muslims?how many of them are from europe?
how many of them are anarchist?
it's one thing to hate bush (which i dont hold close to my heart)but to praise a anti semite just because he's against bush is ridiculous. why don't you all go to iraq and become human shields for the insurgents . so to those so-called "americans" who are leaving comments praising mini-binladen. i'd say! yeah right!
obama 2008!!!
Yawn. Is anyone else sick of the "Anti semite" whine?
And I'm a New Englander. I really don't care to be associated with a country that has murdered a million people in Iraq and doesn't seem to give a crap. You can take your "American" label and keep it all for yourself.
And as for Obama- who cares? I don't vote in federal elections and anyone who does is a chump. They are all the same- whores for the DC Beltway Oligarchy. War war war- all of them. Thieves and murderers the lot of them.
I heard Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, who I suspect opposed the idea of inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, say today that Bollinger's speech embarrassed Columbia University. I guess this could mean that the speech was so egregious that it united both pro- and anti-war in agreement, but I think the truth is that both the warmongers and the anti-establishment heroes of this weblog care more about their undefended concept of seemliness than the deadly serious situation that's unfolding.
As with Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust, Bollinger's critics are difficult to pin down. Are they saying he was wrong to say what he said before the Iranian president had a chance to speak, or that his words were unjustifiable regardless? Surely Ahmadinejad has spoken plenty in the past to justify an opinion. And I defy anyone to explain how Bollinger's speech is insulting or disrespectful. What sentiment in his speech is beyond the pale? All are widely held objections to the Islamic government's actions. His comment about Ahmadinejad being uneducated is not an allegation but a figure of speech. Of course his comments can be disputed; this was their purpose, and Ahmadinejad proved Bollinger right in that he lacked the intellectual courage to much do so. (Just to be clear, I think he did a better job than our own president could ever do.)
Why would anyone prefer a boring and totally useless pageant where both men make predictable speeches that mean nothing to anyone? Everyone just goes home with the situation completely unchanged, and we get a bit closer to the moment when Israel bombs Iran.
The way to prevent war is to follow Bollinger's example and talk frankly in public settings with our enemies as often as possible. Yesterday's event alone had these beneficial results:
- Ahmadinejad learned that in front of a self-selected audience of young Americans, he cannot hold sway.
- Bollinger demonstrated that denouncing someone requires that you first not shun him.
- Americans saw that given the opportunity to justify Iran's foreign policy, Ahmadinejad could at best only admit guilt by arguing that the US has done the same, or deflect the question by changing the subject to Palestine.
- Additionally, Americans saw that Ahmadinejad is not mad or scary, and heard mention of terrorism against Iran by a group that America supports.
- A precedent was set for rhetoric both intelligent and frank. Public people apologize for frankness all the time, but it's rarely for anything that would have ruffled anyone's feathers.
- Iranian newspapers will have to either print a concise and eloquent indictment of Iran's government, or demonstrate that they are unwilling or unable to do so. Bringing about dilemmas of this kind should be our government's job, but since they're hobbled by hypocrisy and jaw-dropping ineptitude, we have Bollinger to be grateful to instead.
Ahmadinejad is clearly a reasonably civilized man who knows that jailing or killing people for their opinions or peaceful actions is indefensible. When asked why woman and gays lack civil rights, his answer amounted to, "because it's the law." Was it that he was simply blindsided by Bollinger's lack of tact? Maybe he'll clarify his position in the days ahead?
And to begin an execrable post like this one with references to Orwell is especially obscene. If Orwell believed in anything, it was that the content of words matters more than their style. If you'll remember, the targets of the "two-minutes hate" weren't exactly present to defend themselves, and Bollinger delivered his comments calmly and confidently, without spitting or gnashing of teeth.
I defy anyone to point to an introductory speech to any invited guest at any university in this counry in history who was treeted so boorishly?
Again, the man was invited to speak. Instead of a neutral introduction he and the audience were treated to a list of administration talking points and outright lies (like Ahmadinejad is a dictator).
If Mr. Bollinger wanted to address comments or quetions to Ahamdinejad after his speech- he was free to do so and that would be appropriate. But to bait the audience and set the tone for the evening in a introductory invective laced speech is beyond the pale of diplomatic precedent.
It was infantile and reeked of a country in thrall already to a war posture against an "enemy". Mr. Bollinger appeared a frightened craven soviet "intellectual" serving his masters.
I really have no interest in the internal policies of Iran. As far as I know they don't allow the ripping apart of 8 month old fetuses in the womb or have 2 million in prisons like certain other countries. And their women can vote, be fireman, be doctors, go to college, and get elected to office- which is more than can be said of any number of US "allies" in the ME curretnly.
The issue at hand is not Iran's refusal to call those who practice sodomy "gays" or "homosexuals" or cow to western norms surrounding this "issue". It isn't if Iran's women have to wear chadors and tuck their hair in while in the street.
Mr. Ahmadinajad didn't come to this country to defend the domestic policies of his country.
The only reason to even bring those issues up in this atmosphere is to fan the flames of war and serve the propaganda intersts of the Neowhores.
Mr. Bollinger spoke like a coward and a fearful apparatchik- a man afraid of retrubution for even inviting the man to speak. It was a disgrace and if I was Ahmadinejad I would have walked out of the auditorium without speaking.
Mao wouldn't have been treated to such abuse in this country by a University President in an introductory speech.
I also would like to posit something here. Imagine if Condi Rice went to speak at Tehran University and the audience was storngly advised what their posture toward her should be by an intriductory speech by the University President of Tehran in which he called her an uneducated barbarian who comes from a country withe highest murder rate of women in the world, in which babies are torn apart in the womb two weeks before birth and whose government has committed nuclear holocaust and was founded upon the genocide of native Americans- then called her the servant of a petty evil tryannt.
What would the reaction to such an introduction be in this country? We would think it typical of a country with a controlled media and academia. We would think it was obscene behavior. We wouldn't fault Ms. Rice for walking the hell out of there after being setup so by such an "introduction."
I think your Rice analogy fails completely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think one of the main problems with our Iran policy is that we fail to see things from their perspective. Sens. Kyl and Lieberman today proposed an amendment that would make a large portion of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization," essentially criminalizing war for those who aren't us.
I would have no problem with the president of Tehran University doing as you describe, and I would expect Rice to refute or challenge his allegations. The audience would learn something from the allegations she was unable to effectively challenge. If he called her an "uneducated barbarian" out of the blue, without reference to some significant cause, I would consider it rude, but Bollinger never did anything like that. Surely, all ad hominem remarks serve to gain the passions of the audience, but all _rhetoric_ aims to do that, too. If a debate is completely bloodless, people will be bored and won't engage it.
But I really think you say more than you mean to. Look at the charges you put in the Iranian academic's mouth:
- the highest murder rate of women in the world
- in which babies are torn apart in the womb two weeks before birth
- whose government has committed nuclear holocaust
- was founded upon the genocide of native Americans
All of these are more or less factually true, and thousands or millions of Americans reasonably consider them indictments of the country's morality. Why would you think it wrong for a representative of our country to be confronted with such significant allegations, some of which you probably agree with yourself? I doubt you really do.
When Bush wasn't given the usual deferential treatment by a TV interviewer in Ireland a few years ago, did you think he was justified in taking offense, or spoiled by kingly treatment?
If you have no interest in the internal policies of Iran, fine, but then you hardly have cause to defend Ahmadinejad, which you do rather poorly. Yes, women can vote, but only to the extent that the men can. The parliament has very limited sovereignty in Iran, and Ahmadinejad's election was rigged by preventing numerous unsatisfactory candidates from running. His challenger was a former president, one of the richest men in Iran. In other words, to win, Ahmadinejad had to beat someone no one loved, and if he somehow failed, the establishment would still have a satisfactory man in charge. Even with all this, it's by no means clear that they counted the votes fairly. I don't mean to bore you, but you did laud Iranian democracy, Orwell.
As for Iran being a better place to live than Saudi Arabia or Iraq -- well, of course. Proving America hypocritical is irrelevant.
And domestic policies aside, it is Iran's foreign policy that most concerns people. This is hardly something you can disregard, and for better or worse, simply shredding our alliances and commitments isn't a polically practical solution. So complaining about Israel and Neocons doesn't actually improve anything.
Bush being asked challenging questions (for once) isn't being called a uneducated boob and "petty dictator".
As for Iran's elections being "uncompetitive" I would wager they are, by a wide margin, far more competitive with more diversity of choice than American elections.
I particularly enjoyed reading about the "message" that was supposedly sent to Bush in the last congressional elections when 94 percent of incumbents were re-elected instead of the usual 98 percent.
From a country that has had two parties to pick from which now have only meaningless fraud differences- to criticize Iran's nascent elections and democracy is quite humorous.
Yes- I understand that you believe it is perfectly acceptable to invite foreign heads of state to your country to speak and then proceed to berate them before the audience in the introduction as petty tyrannical idiots.
Hundreds of years of standard courtesy and well- diplomatic jurisprudence say otherwise.
I imagine any leader on Earth can be so criticized and attacked for some aspect of their culture or government.
The West sorta got over all that a couple few hundred years ago when they agreed that internal policies of other countries were no reason to justify wars.
And what aspects of Iran's foreign policy are at issue here? This is a country surrounded by US miltary bases. That was attacked by a US backed proxy and had to fight a murderous war of defense for 8 long years. And now that neighbor has been invaded with millions of refugees now fleeing over the border into Iran- and this country has the audacity to accuse it of "meddaling" in Iraq?
As for this "nuclear crisis"- there is no evidence of even an Iranian nuclear weapon program. None. Iran has passed all IAEA inspections and is in violation of no aspect of the NPT treaty. Which cannot be said for the US which is developing new nuclear weapons and aiding a non signatory to the treaty with their nuclear programs- India.
The question I have at this point is why is Iran is still a party to the NPT. Well- I know why- cowards and liars like Bollinger would accuse them of "hiding" something if they left the treaty- a treaty the US is in rank violation of.
As Chirac said when he "gaffed" and let the truth slip out- the only people concerned about Iran is the US- meaning the DC oligarchy and its media whores.
"People" are not concerned about Iran's foreing policy. Propagandists and liars want them to be. Bollinger is a part and parcel to them.
And by the way- Ahmadinejad isn't responsible for every aspect of the Iranian government, culture, and society.
Just as Condi Rice isn't responsible for every aspect of US culture and history.
If Condi Rice were confronted with some highly selective idiotic tirade about aspects of US culture, law, government and history as well as foreign policy- all in an atmospehre of heated war propagnada flying around with the government of Iran releasing mystical reports of US skulduggery and involement in all manner of nefarious evil plots- who would expect her to answer? That was the point of her theoreticla visit to Tehran? To defend America from the selective tirades of some government ideologue? That isn't what diplomats are suppossed to be confronted with- and nor are heads of state either.
Given the atmosphere in our media- the charges swirling around our media- the same media that passed on one big whopper after another about "WMD" in Iraq and "Al Qaeda links"- about Iran- it is quite an obvious to most people that DC is waging a propaganda campaign designed to justify either bombing Iran or full fledged war.
Bollinger's remarks cannot be examined except in this light.
Somehow I don't think Bollinger would address the leader of the Burmese dictatorship in such fashion nor do I think he would have acted the boor while introducing a Mubarak of Egypt.
Bollinger was acting like a gubmint propagandist- doing his bit for the war effort. Sand bagging a foreign head of state for his DC masters. Even if that wasn't the case? That is what it looks like to the whole world. Not to you? Congrats. You have a special mind.
Thanks for speaking out loud.
The only thing I want to add is "manners". This president of Columbia University has no manner and that is unfortunate for a famous school (Or the junk has made it more famous?)
1. I would have thought the "America's democracy has bad problems, too" response predictable enough to skip.
2. Bollinger isn't a shill for the government, he's a shill for his university. He was afraid that not making a tough speech would piss off a lot of Jewish alumni, with possibly serious consequences to Columbia's finances. He has an obligation to Columbia as well as to principle, and while I'm bothered somewhat by the feeling that he would have wished away the entire situation if he could have, I think he found a very nice compromise -- allow him a forum, but criticize him harshly.
I don't doubt at all that Bollinger believes what he said. Saying that he "sandbagged a foreign head of state for his DC masters" is a genuine smear, completely free of evidence, and ruder than anything he said to Ahmadinejad. But I guess because you're not saying it to his face, it's ok.
3. I don't think much of "standard courtesies and diplomatic jurisprudence" that prevent a country's "honor" from being questioned but routinely fail to prevent wars. The last few hundred years in Europe have hardly been peaceful.
Regardless of that, Bollinger represents Columbia, not the United States, and its perfectly within Columbia's purpose to criticize the leader of another country.
4. Heads of state should act as representatives and advocates of their countries. If faced with substantive criticism, they should argue back, knowing that if they fail, their country will be looked down on by the rest of the world.
5. The fact that US is hypocritical doesn't justify Iran's actions in Iraq. Both need to work together to try to achieve peace in Iraq. No doubt you'd prefer to wash your hands of all of it and not care if they all kill each other.
6. No country would do other than to seek nuclear weapons, and no responsible leader would do other than to lie about it. This might be a slight exaggeration, but why would you trust them, other than that you don't care? Even if Iran doesn't expect to get them soon, they do hope to get them, and a peaceful program would be at least a step in that direction for them. I won't pretend to know if it's remotely plausible that they would build nuclear power plants instead of refineries to process their ample oil reserves, but it certainly seems odd.
7. The aspects of Iran's foreign policy at issue:
- Ahmadinejad represents a desire to retrieve the ambition of the 79 revolution, and expand Iran's influence. Until we have an alternative to oil, this matters to us. Even if, as I'm sure you'd suggest, we simply let Israel fend for itself, allowing the expansion of theocracy hardly sets a good precedent. When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia decide that they need their own Sunni Islamic states (with nuclear weapons, of course), do you think America will be able to keep to itself well enough that it won't matter? Not caring about anyone else catches up to you eventually.
This is of course not a short term possibility, but the fact is that Iran's government has some principles we abhor, and if we allow those tendencies to grow by neglect (or encourage them to grow by belligerence), we might not like the results.
- Even though peace in Iraq shouldn't be our responsibility, it is. If we stay in Iraq and fail to achieve peace, we suffer for it, and if we leave and the place gets even worse, we suffer for it. Iran knows this, so they at best support narrow sectarian interests in Iraq, and at worst foment civil war to frustrate us. If the US can demonstrate goodwill, Iran should help achieve peace there.
Of course you would rather avoid the facts of the US government's fraud electoral process in which what? Americans will soon be treated to a quarter century of the Presidency being traded between two political houses, with the last election a choice between two men who are each members of a secret society whose members number no more than a few hundred at any given time. That you find it irrelevent is quite odd considering you find criticizing Iran's elections germane.
Columbia, like all American schools takes chunks and gobs of money from the federal government in the guise of "Grants" and half of whose students get student loans from de facto government entities like Sallie Mae. Jewish Americans are actually more inclined to be antiwar than most other groups- if not radical politically. I doubt very much he fears "The Jews".
Give me the opportunity to "say it to his face" and I would. I would call him a coward, a boor, and say he was complicit in aiding a propaganda campaign designed to murder Iranians. For that is what he did.
Both need to work together? Like it is any part Iran's fault? Any actions by Iran in resposne to the US invasion and murderous occupation of Iraq is frankly justified out of real self defense- not the fraud "defense" reasons the US used to justify this murderous war.
It's apparent that you ascribe "good intentions" to America's actions in Iraq. That you think America is there "to help". How you could think that is beyond me. Why you think Iraqis or Iranians or ANYONE in the world would think that is even more bizarre.
So the charge that "I dont' care" while you do- because you think the noble good American army in Iraq with its pure intentions can't leave just yet because they are the only thing stopping the what? The violence? Good lord. How delusional.
There is no reason, at all, to suspect Iran of nuclear program. None. Not even rhetoric of leaders. In fact- quite the oppossite including a fatwa against nuclear weapons by the current to mullah. In fact- Khomeini himself was quite the anti nuke cleric (he even disbanded the hated US funded Iranian army - the biggest in the muslim world at the time- only to be rewarded for this by the US backed Saddam's assault on Iran.)
And the fact of the matter to date is this:
Iran has passed all IAEA inspections. Has that mattered at all to the US or the US media? Not at all. Just spew the same dis-information. Indeed- one is at pains to find even mention of the NPT treaty in American media in regard to this fraud staged "Crisis". Why? Because Iran's right to enrichment is spelled out in it. ANd the US is in rank violation of it on several levels. In fact- has made the whole treaty worthless.
The whole goal of US policy is so insult Iran that they withdraw from the NPT treaty and kick out the IAEA. For no matter what they do the US ratchets up the pressure. Pass all inspections? The US goes to the UN to arm twist sanctions. The IAEA and Iran agree on a time table to answer the absurd idiotic "unresolved questions" about minutia that the US demands? The US then demands a new round of sanctions.
And as for Iran's need for Nuclear energy- you obvsiously know nothing of Iran's domestic oil subsidies which are eating away its oil earnings and even of the fact that it was the US that strongly advised the Shah to start building such reactors to conserve Iran's limited reserves for foreign sale.
You think the US is in Iraq for peace? What about the last 5 years convinces you of that? What convinces you of US good intentions which you take as a given? Because we be all good and stuff?
What about US actions in the region in the last 50 years would leave anyone with the impression that the US "wants peace" and has nothing but the best interests of Iraqis and Iranians in mind? Would it be the ousting of Mousedeq and the subsequent support for the Shah and his militerized dictatorship for 30 years? Would it be the support for Saddam when it was in "US Interests" even to the point of refusing to condemn his use of "WMD" on Iran at the UN (the US called "WMD" - "Area battlefield Weapons" when Saddam was killing Iranians with them. Would it be the murderous sanctions on Iraq for a decade and the bombing campaign all during that time?
I understand you think the US motives are good and noble but why would you think ANY Iraqi would think that or Iranian?
Iran has shown no aggressive actions in 100 years. If Iran is "meddaling" in Iraq who the hell could possibly blame them? They live there!
And again- do you think it is the policy of Bollinger to confront all foreign heads of government with drooling invective and insult or just the ones the US gubmint is currently engaged in setting up for "pre-emptive" attack against? Just curious.
Lastly- "our interests"? What are you talking about? Let's say that Iran magically "takes over" the whole ME (preposterous but lets assume that moron scenerio). What are they going to do with the oil? Eat it? Wash in it? No- they will sell it. And we could buy it. But buying oil doesn't employ legions of wonks does it? Doesn't keep a trillion dollar a year military alfoat does it? doesn't justify 1000 foreign military bases does it? All those "think tankers" funded by the Raytheons and Lockheeds would have to get real jobs!
All this malarky about "National interests" and the like code for gubmint and their parasites to find work and make enemies and keep the whole scam going.
Many Jewish alumni of Columbia were outraged by the invitation. That's clear. I didn't say anything about "the Jews."
I think America's government intended to achieve peace in Iraq mainly for selfish reasons of power. At the moment, Bush would clearly love it if the Iraqis finally stopped killing each other. If we could assure Iran that we won't try to overthrow their government, we should be able to cooperate in getting the Iraqis to reconcile.
I don't think the Americans are preventing much violence in Iraq, but with political progress, there might be some limited use for them. (Such as attacking al Qaeda-affiliated fighters and peacekeeping.) And I don't think we can plausibly continue diplomacy if we withdraw all of our soldiers.
Iran subsidizes gasoline. That's just an attempt to placate the public. So what? Where did you read that the US advised Iran to build nuclear plants? It doesn't seem like very good advice, since thirty years later, Iran still ranks fourth in world oil production. If your country had gasoline lines causing public unrest, would you build refineries, or instead propose a nuclear energy program that would take many years to bring to fruition?
Your caricature of my opinions about America's intentions is ridiculous. I never implied that America is automatically noble and good.
Why do you assume that US belligerence is a reaction to a made up problem? Isn't it much more likely that it represents a bad solution to a real problem? Or even, a bad solution to a real problem created by US actions, but nonetheless existing? I agreed that getting rid of Saddam would be good, but I didn't support the war. Bollinger means what he says, but that doesn't mean he supports war.
I didn't say Iran would take over the ME. I said they represent not just power interests but ideological interests. The comparisons to Hitler are dangerous and wrong, but small threats to liberal democracy are still threats that deserve attention. I agree that solving these small conflicts would be aided by untangling American business interests from our foreign policy and creating a successful Palestinian state. But the idea that the trillion dollar military isn't just misguided but a big conscious conspiracy is absurd. The Soviet Union inspired the build-up, and while you can say it was unjustified, you can't think that a lot of the most powerful people in this country didn't sincerely believe it was the right thing to do. The Cold War created norms with regard to America's military posture (both expense and ideology) that have unsurprisingly been hard to undo. And of course, conservatives, especially neo-, have a commitment to perpetuating those post WW2 norms, much more from ideology than from greed.
Do you really think the people leading our government are so evil that they would orchestrate the deaths of hundreds of thousands in sole service of a conspiracy to further enrich themselves? Why isn't it enough to believe that they think America needs hegemony to prop up the dollar, but that, conveniently, American dominance would be good for the world?
As far as your confidence that economic self-interest is enough to insure peace, why doesn't your cynicism about government extend to countries that aren't the United States?
At the moment Iraq's "government" embraces Ahmadinejad and Iran and denounces the US when it kidnaps Iranian diplomats or, just today, finds out that the US has been buidling a military base on the border with Iran.
Do you think Iraqis think "Iran" is the problem?
So Bush would be happy if the "sectarian violence" stopped?
That is now the stated reason for why the US has to stay in Iraq. To "stop the violence."
In fact, the major beneficiary of this violence (like the British before them in the 20's in their intentional policy of inciting such violence) has been the US. There was a story the other day of US military financed radio stations blasting anti Shia propagana all day long in Sunni areas.
I'm curious. What actions by the United States would Iran be justified in seeing as aggressive and with bad intent towards them? Any? Exactly what does an aggressive war of conquest and selfish self interest look like if waged by the United States? Is that even possible in your mind?
Goverment do evil things. Sometimes Iran's government does evil things. Sometimes the US government does. Who do you think is largely in the fault currently in the ME? Who do you think is the aggressor and the "problem"?
Frankly- your response is abusrd.
And please do your own google search. Iran, Shah, nuclear reactors, and US advice does the trick nicely to any number of links detailing US aid to the Shah in such programs.
And please. The fact of the matter is that the US IS spending nearly a trillion a year on "intelliegence", "defense", and foreign wars. And for what? The Soviet Union was at least a plausible peer threat. But these discordant bomb throwers from the third and second world of the ME? That don't control a single government or nation state? Are you kidding me? Do you consider me a retard? Am I a child?
Wether it was "conscious" or not is immaterial. The interests are real- the motives for conflict are embedded in DC. That they sugarcoat their greed, theft, and murder with shit mist sprayed by hired pens and whore "intellectuals" on the gubmint tit is surprising? Are they suppossed to walk around with "I'm evil" placards about their necks? Of course they fool themsevles with pretty lies and flowerly rhetoric. And meanwhile guys like Tenet take their "Freedom medals" and then go to "work" for Defense firms at no show jobs making millions.
Could you tell me what you would consider a wholly unnecessary and evil war waged on part of the United States? What would that look like? Do you suppose that the leader of an evil America would say "Hey- lets go murder people and steal their stuff?" Is that how it works? Or would he lay thick with a lot of blather about "democracy" and ridiculous absurd stories about killer bug spraying drones and "mushroom clouds"? Maybe he would throw in some atrocity stories like a wood chipper used to chop up people and baby incubators too?
After Bollinger had finished insulting his invited guest, president Ahmadinejad showed admirable restraint, especially considering:
1. USA overthrew the democtratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 to install a dictator who oppressed the Iranian people for a quarter century.
2. USA supported Sadam Hussein's war against Iran, including supplying Sadam with chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Please read the following article and make your own judgment. He has been the ugly American of the weeks at least once before, perhaps he hasn't gotten the publicity the other time.
http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/PRPressReleaseDetail.aspx?nPRPressReleaseId=1406&nYear=2006&nMonth=5
Post a Comment