From the Islamic Republic News Agency:
Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.
The American media establishment, hostile to free speech, stacked the deck against our brave President. But stalwart in spirit and confident in his convictions, Mahmoud perservered.
On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.
The boys and girls, they absolutely swooned! Like that Jewish Lesbian, Sally Kohn, before them! And all it took was telling them what they wanted to hear!
My, what soft touches these critical thinkers are!
Before President Ahamadinejad’s address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran’s stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.
The truth would finally be told.
He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.
Except when it comes to sending personnel and weaponry into Iraq to blow up Iraqis and US troops, or when it comes to funding Hezbollah, or using Syria as a terrorist client state.
Then there’s the whole “wipe Israel off the map” thing — and the attempt to circumvent international law and build a nuclear weapons program.
But it turns out all you have to do is deny most of that — hell, some of it they didn’t even bother to ask you about, Allah be praised! — and they’ll believe you, and turn on their own President, who it turns out represents the real evil in the world today.
Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians’ resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.
Though advancement toward what, nobody knows. That’s for the Mahdi to decide, ultimately — but in the meantime, the mullahs will speak to just how far they’ll allow “technological achievements” to wander into the twenty-first century.
The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.
— Which, given that we know who causes all of the world’s tensions (cough cough *Great Satan and Little Satan, and all the Jews in between* cough cough), means that what the American students were applauding for was the recognition that it is their own belligerent leadership, along with the machinations of the international Zionist conspiracy, that is responsible for “international crisis” — though it’s not really a “crisis,” because, well, Iran is peaceful and non-aggressive.
Nothing to see here. MoveON!
At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students’ questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran’s nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.
Because, of course, he has nothing to hide. And the students, bless them, cheered and cheered! — except, of course, when it came to the status of the cast of “Will & Grace,” on which point they were dubious.
Which is why we’d rather not mention that here.
All in all, a glorious trip for our President, who represented us well, and, though he traveled into the mouth of the lion, returned unharmed — and having won over the lions cubs by speaking Truth to Power.
Thank you so much, Columbia University, for providing us this opportunity!
And you Iranian dissidents? Sucks for you!
(h/t Major John)
Didn’t I hear in a sound bite “I am a muslim, I cannot lie”. Help me here, is this a physical incapacity? Is it like the gay thing, there are no liars in Iran?
Not to mention that they invited him to speak and then insulted him before he even had a chance to open his mouth. Oh, the insult. Civilized people do not do such things.
Why is Columbia on the US side of the vs?
Dan – They’re not really. Alumni and others must have threatened to cut off contributions. That’s the only explanation for Bollinger’s attempt to save face. They’ll go back to being dictator loving America hating swine tomorrow.
[…] And they’re having a ball with it. […]
Bollinger’s in a real bind. If I were a Lesbian cowpoke with freckles, I’d feel like Bolli just spoiled a quarter century of “progress” for spotted bull-dykes.
In fact, the next time the Asian-Students Association claims that they’ve been “disenfranchised” by an Animal Rights editorial in the Columbia campus paper, the editors just to have to point to Dinnerjacket’s “reasonable” editorializing at a university-sanctioned event in order to avoid the requisite tortures of “racial-sensitivity” training.
I think that, if Columbia ever wakes up from its current stupor and stumbles onto the task of cleaning up after their latest party, they’ll discover that many of their post-modern touchstones will have to go out with the trash, like so many used paper-cups.
Because it’s all about teh “SUCK-SOR.”
Iran 1? He scored more points than that. More like 147-0 in this round.
But of course, according to cleo, he’s been exposed for who he REALLY is: a defender of the scientific method (should we really close the book on the Holocaust?), democracy (let’s let the Palis hold a referendum on whether Isreal should exist), and The American Way (you should not let your president tap your phones).
A caller to Hewitt’s show from Afghanistan said that there’s a joke in the ME about how if you go to Teheran and drop your money, don’t bend over to pick it up…
He is indeed, but for another reason as well. Aside from being peppered with that incessant, hypocritical, free-speech turd, I admit being amazed at his opening remarks. THOSE should be where moonbats rally — imagine the gall of a university president verbally pre-convicting our gentle Dinner Jacket. Bollinger did. (Anyone know if such an irony is playing out right now at C?)
Unless that too was stageplay.
Nah. Or?
Because they’re wearing the same jerseys?
Bollinger = Franklin.
Public reaction: “Aw! You threw the ball the wrong way!”
Conservative reaction: “Darn! You just lost the game!”
Far left reaction: “Hurray! I’m for the other team!”
My son returned from Iraq yesterday.
The Marines are NOT amused.
That link, to Sally Kohn? Pure comedy gold. Bush responds to [b]everything[/b] by building a wall, especially that wall he fought tooth and nail against building, ya know, the one in Mexico, where he’s made it a point to resist enforcing any sort of border security whatsoever, going so far as to accuse proponents of a security fence of being anti-American, and this stupid twit credits the idea to him. I’ve joked that even if Bush switched parties and gave Democrats everything they’ve ever wanted, and then some, they’d still accuse him of being the root of all evil, but, wouldn’t you know, regardless of how much you think they can’t get any insaner, they’ll find a way.
. . .amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. [Marcus Tullius Cicero]
Unfortunately, Ahamadinejad’s position on Jews is not much different than the netroots’.
I think the dude A’jad lies freely in the spirit of the Islamic principle of “taqiyya”, aka bullshitting the infidel in service to the grander plan of Allah.
The visit just might allow a few more people to see up close and personal the depth of the man’s absurdity.
Oh come on guys! This was nothing more than neo-cons demonizing a very nice man to further our promotion of war.
At least that’s what Juan Cole says.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/index_np.html
Any chance we can get all the students who applauded Ahma-D to accept his invation to study in Tehran? What a semester abroad that would be. They could set up a Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual Alliance chapter and a Women’s Studies department. And I bet their “Take Back The Night” rally would be one for the ages.
Coming soon to Al-Jihad Campus Theater: The Vagina Monologues!
Man, I really hope sementicle (or whatever that thing’s name is; I’m not bothering to look it up) doesn’t come in and piss all over the rug again.
That rug really tied the room together.
“That rug really tied the room together.”
Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue.
Bollinger’s quite vitriolic remarks may have been influenced by funding threats.
On a related topic, did you know the extent to which Saudi money has infiltrated America’s institutions of “higher” learning ?
With some strings attached as to the kind of “chairs” they may fund with a $20 million endowment ?
I find the insidious, silent battle more alarming than A’jad’s evidenced stupidity at Columbia.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/the_progress_of_hassan_albanna.html
Why couldn’t we taze him, Bro?
You know how certain persons defended the appearance on the grounds that it would enhance the image of the US by demonstrating our dedication to free speech? Well, our friends at the BBC reported that A’jad was not reaaly afforded free speech because of the intimidating criticisms levelled by Bollinger. They then went on to broadcast several comments by attendees stating that A’jad had gotten the better of Bollinger both in deportment and substance.
I guess someone didn’t get the memo from cleo that the appearance would discredit A’jad. Fancy that.
“…our friends at the BBC reported that A’jad was not really afforded free speech”
Good ole BBC, par for the course.
Been condemned itself from a lot of quarters in recent years for a distinct lack of…balance.
For the record, I didn’t think the President of Columbia should have used his pre speech platform to condemn his invited guest, no matter how much of a jerk that invited guest was.
Why are all you wingnuts afraid of TEH FREE SPEACH?!!1!one!!
SPEACH ?!
The (or teh) free speech rant is knee jerk.
The first amendment is a list of things Congress cannot legislate to inhibit or curtail.
It’s not some kind of license for stupidity.
Besides, anybody who READS or LISTENS has heard A’jad make those identical points over and over.
Except the lack of “homosexuals” in Iran was an interesting touch.
(adios)
Dang. I was just aiming for “jerk.” Next time, I’ll include a to avoid confusion.
That should have read, “Next time, I’ll include a [/troll] to avoid confusion.”
It’s getting harder to parody these people, and it’s getting harder to leave comments with sarcastic tags, too.
“For the record, I didn’t think the President of Columbia should have used his pre speech platform to condemn his invited guest, no matter how much of a jerk that invited guest was.”
I second that. What’s even worse is that after Bollinger got done playing bad cop, Dean wermer proceeds to toss softballs to ahmadumbass, and then fails to follow up on any of the mullah’s mouth piece’s bullshit answers. Bad form ALL AROUND by the enlightened set at Columbia. If Gandalf and Aragorn were that inept in treating with Sauron’s mouthpiece, Middle Earth would have been done in.
I wonder if, a few years down the road, any of those kids applauding will look back at that with any shame.
Where are the Gandalf,s of yesteryear?
H/T Joe Heller.
See #13 above.
Ards,
Thanks for the Schoolhouse Rock link. What fun!
The room in which I am a guest still has papers stuck to the wall by my hosts’ absent college-age son. One says, “Well, let’s just bite off our fingers, ’cause we got no food, and we hate our hands, anyway.” Is that a quotation from something? Anyway, it fits the CU attitude somewhat.
T&T
Their regrets will be that they didn’t take part in “direct action”.
So, just wondering… when does Ahmadinejad’s marginalization begin?
When they are discussing this war with their grandchildren, all of them will claim to have been outside the auditorium protesting his visit. Similar to the myth of the French Resistance.
I’m beginning to understand what Churchill felt on September 25, 1935 or so. Applause for a deluded monster.
Except Hitler didn’t have the V-2 and a shitload of centrifuges in 1935.
Propaganda Battle Lost…
In spite of Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s excellent preamble to Monday’s Columbia speech/Q…
He “answered questions”,??
What question did he answer?
1) Sally Kohn will eventually regret her legendary status, which will grow with time and stupidity. Any guesses as to when her Wiki page goes up?
2) “Boy, you Boellingered that up right good.” “Wow, you really made a Columbia of that situation, didn’t you?”
3) All kidding aside, one wonders whether the left’s nihilistic attraction to our enemies has reached its nadir, or if this will just bee seen as a milestone in their descent into oblivion?
Oh, and 4) the “cannot lie” thing – is an example of how lying is such an ordinary thing in Iran (apparently) that even gigantic whoppers go without comment.
Kind of helps explain the distrust, internal violence, and general shithole nature of (much) of the Middle East.
Shut up Wingnuts! Let the religious zealot speak!!
(Sweet delicious irony)
Ahmadangnutjob must be HEARD!
Doesn’t this merely prove that however Columbia responded — be it rebuffing Iran’s offer last year or caving to pressure — the Iranian media would’ve turned it into a propaganda coup? I mean, if Columbia had responded the Iranian consulate’s offer last December by saying, “No, we don’t want him to lecture here,” it would’ve proven of American hypocrisy vis-a-vis free speech. If it caved to pressure once he entered the states, it would’ve proven that American institutions have no back-bone, and that extremists in America refuse to listen to the voice of the Muslim world.
The only solution was to not have extended the original offer, made shortly after Ahmadinejad had been elected back in 2006. Obviously, the climate in which that offer was extended was much, much different than the current one. But that’s the only way I don’t see Ahmadinejad’s speech being spun into a coup.
Well, it’s not like he could decry the lack of free speech in America during his 60 Minutes interview and at his time at the Nat’l Press Club. That would have been silly.
if Columbia had responded the Iranian consulate’s offer last December by saying, “No, we don’t want him to lecture here,” it would’ve proven of American hypocrisy vis-a-vis free speech.
Well, no it wouldn’t. Because they wouldn’t allow a member of the Bush administration to darken their threshold, either, or a domestic creep like Fred Phelps, or the Klan, or the Pope or anyone else whose message isn’t hard Left.
Also Scott, did you see the comment at #21? Which in a way makes your point that the spin was out of anyone’s hands, much as you describe, just differently.
SEK —
I think rescinding the offer with the message, “sorry, we don’t give lecterns to Presidents of countries who bury women up to their necks and brain them with large stones” would have sufficed as an explanation for our change of heart.
Obviously, the climate in which that offer was extended was much, much different than the current one.
No it wasn’t.
“it would’ve proven of American hypocrisy vis-a-vis free speech”
Now it has been a while since my last Con Law class, but I seem to remember “free speech” and all being a right for US citizens, under our Constitution, Amendment I.
I must have missed the part about foreign despots and “free speech”…
snark aside, I think Jeff has the right answer.
About #46, I was going to offer a red-state metaphor about not engaging your moral inferiors, but it involves a not so euphemistic pig-wrestling visual. So I won’t.
Now Scott, that’s just silly. “Different” in what way?
In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the man who led the “students” who invaded the American Embassy, took the staff hostage, and held them for over a year, with maximum posturing. In 2006, the Council of Mullahs of Iran had declared war on the West, specifically the United States, some thirty years previously, and had procured any number of bombings, murders, kidnappings, etc. In 2006 Salman Rushdie was under interdict — “fatwah” — for apostasy. In 2006 Iran was executing homosexuals by various forms of torture, lashing rape victims for “failing their families’ honor”, and shipping various sorts of bombs, etc., to the Heroic Resistance of Iraq. Precisely what was “different”?
Regards,
Ric
Excuse me, about #43. I fluster easy.
I have to ask, given that Iranian were apparently “dismayed” at Nutjob’s “rude reception”.
I have to wonder what kind of reception Bush would receive if he went to Iran. (Three years ago, I would have bet my life against that happening. Today, I wouldn’t bet bus fare.)
Ric:
In 2006… In 2006… In 2006… Precisely what was “differentâ€Â?
It was 2005. Columbia approached Ahmadinejad shortly after his election to discuss the future of Iran. There were scheduling conflicts. In 2006, Iran approached Columbia, &c. &c. &c. propaganda coup.
Jeff:
I think rescinding the offer with the message, “sorry, we don’t give lecterns to Presidents of countries who bury women up to their necks and brain them with large stones†would have sufficed as an explanation for our change of heart.
And the Iranian media still would’ve spun the rejection such that it constituted a propaganda coup, right?
happyfeet:
I’m not quite sure I follow. The BBC’s coverage was critical, except where it quoted the Iranian press.
It was 2005.
The question still stands.
Yeah, Scott, 2005 or 2006, the situation was the same; in what way was anything different?
One thing that was not different, is not different now, and will not be different when the Sun gutters out: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the Man who Showed the Way. It was he who invaded an embassy, killed some of the staff and took the rest hostage, and held the hostages for more than a year while St. Jimmah dithered and stammered about “malaise”, thus establishing once and for all that Americans were a free target with no repercussions. Murder, maim, or kidnapping, it doesn’t matter, have all the fun you like at no cost whatever, and build your rep at the same time. A truly Historic figure.
Regards,
Ric
Scott – I’m just taking Smoke at face value, – I think he may have heard a radio report or something. The gist is that the BBC, according to what Smoke heard, claimed that Columbia had not created an environment conducive to free speech.
So my point was just that the potential for negative spin was probably wholly resistant to any set of facts, which is basically in agreement with part of what you were saying, just with the intimation that the lose-lose-lose proposition is inclusive of, you know, what actually happened.
And the Iranian media still would’ve spun the rejection such that it constituted a propaganda coup, right?
Irrelevant. You do what’s right, regardless of what people say, and giving this scumbag a forum was wrong, irresponsible, and unwise.
Ric:
One crucial difference was that we didn’t know of Ahmadinejad’s involvement in the hostage crisis. Another is that the initial invitation to speak was given by Lisa Anderson, dean of the school of international relations, in 2005; when the Iranian consulate approached her again in 2006, Bollinger quashed it. Noted Israel-hater Alan Dershowitz, being quoted in the far-left New York Sun, disapproved of Bollinger’s actions. Quoth The Sun:
So yes, I believe that the newly elected leader of a state of vital importance to US interests in the Middle East is a legitimate candidate for a lecture in an international relations department. However, given what Ahmadinejad has said and done since being elected, it wasn’t the greatest of ideas. That said, one the ball was rolling, there was absolutely nothing Columbia could’ve done to prevent the Iranian press from declaring absolute victory. To say otherwise is, well, to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the politburo’s media.
happyfeet:
So my point was just that the potential for negative spin was probably wholly resistant to any set of facts, which is basically in agreement with part of what you were saying, just with the intimation that the lose-lose-lose proposition is inclusive of, you know, what actually happened.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. What’s odd is that no one seems to share my distrust of the Iranian media.
Bullshit. The people who were actually held in Teheran as hostages were saying it even as the news of Nutjob’s election was being reported, and I would be willing to accept their testimony over that of, say, the BBC or some student groups at Columbia, being peopled as they are with people who were not even alive when those hostages were having their lives threatened for no other reason than because they were from “the Great Satan”.
Which kind of shoots down the whole “marginalization” argument pretty thoroughly.
Bollinger’s disclaimer was just about as effective as the disclaimer at the beginning of 30-minute infomercials on “how to make a $million$ in real estate”.
And the message that followed was just about as truthful.
Scott – I agree with that, as far as it goes, which is not to say I think that’s somehow inherently exculpatory of Columbia. (I think they are badly behaved and self-serving.) But – I poked around and could not confirm Smoke’s report of what the BBC said, so there’s that.
the newly elected leader
Or to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the mullahs’ elections.
Not criticizing, SEK, just correcting your set of facts.
(/my uncle was on the next-to-last flight out of Teheran in November, ’79)
With Drumwaster’s codicil applied, I agree with you, then, Scott. Once the invitation was issued, the rest was just wheels rolling down hill.
And I submit to you that Dershowitz’s criterion has been met. If Ahmadinejad may speak at Columbia, but Summers, Gilchrist, and Rumsfeld may not, the “…standards regarding who is welcome to speak on their campus…” are pretty damned clear, aren’t they?
Regards,
Ric
#47.
Thank you, thank you, Jeff. For knowing the difference between a lectern and a podium.
Thank you.
Ahmadinejad’s involvement wasn’t independently verified until early this summer. When the story first broke, the man who’d been jailed for advocating closer ties with America said Ahmadinejad wasn’t involved. The picture which “proved” it was him, well, looks more like Adam Goldberg to me. (Seriously: compare those two pictures. Who looks more like the kidnapper? Ahmadinejad or Goldberg?)
Which kind of shoots down the whole “marginalization†argument pretty thoroughly.
Wait, he’s being marginalized by his own state-run media outlets? No, I don’t think that’s the case, nor would anyone argue that. You might as well say that now that Head-On, Apply Directly to the Forehead, has been officially declared a fraud, CNN will stop playing their meta-meta-meta-ads. Not going to happen.
With Drumwaster’s codicil applied, I agree with you, then, Scott. Once the invitation was issued, the rest was just wheels rolling down hill.
Comity!
Scott – I still remember a Col. Higgins, part of a UN Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon. He was kidnapped, tortured and hanged. What part of Iranian support for Islamofascist groups don’t you get? What part of they are at war with us, by their own volition, don’t you get?
#58. Geez, Christopher Taylor! You sound like my parents did, telling me to do what was right and not what the cool kids wanted me to do.
BTW, you are right, as were, and are, they.
“One crucial difference was that we didn’t know of Ahmadinejad’s involvement in the hostage crisis.”
Irrelevant. He is head of state for the same regime. His personal part in the embassy seizure is irrelevant. This is not totally about him. It is about allowing whomever is head of state for Iran to have that lectern on that podium. Iran is a declared enemy of the United States. Don’t you get that or do they have to charter a Cessna 172 to drop a grenade on the USS Arizona to get that concept across?
It doesn’t matter when he said what he said, when he was invited or when people realized that he was one of the hostage-takers. In fact, focusing on Ahmadinejad is in some ways counterproductive. He is not a dictator; he is merely the face of the theocratic junta that actually runs Iran.
Was Iran any less oppressive to its people, less hostile to the West or less supportive of terrorist organizations when the president was the “reformer” Khatami? Not at all. For whatever reason the mullahs chose a couple years ago to select a president who is willing to openly express their true intentions. How much power he actually wields is an open question.
The danger in focusing on Ahmadinejad is that a few years from now they will select a new president, revealing that Mahmoud is not a dictator. Considering the actual ruling structure of the regime it is quite possible that he will have more impact on policy than before. The danger is that this may be interpreted to mean that 1) Iran is not a dictatorship, 2) that Iran is becoming more “moderate”, and 3) that the “confrontation” at Columbia played a part in his political demise.
Meanwhile the regime will continue oppressing its people, plotting the destruction of the Little Satan and the Great Satan and exporting the Islamic Revolution around the world.
Mike:
I still remember a Col. Higgins, part of a UN Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon. He was kidnapped, tortured and hanged. What part of Iranian support for Islamofascist groups don’t you get? What part of they are at war with us, by their own volition, don’t you get?
I get that, but when a new leader is elected, and there’s a vibrant pro-democracy movement among the young, well, that’s a good time to ask the new leader to talk about how he’ll navigate unchartered waters. Another way to put this is: there is, and has been, a pro-democracy movement among college students in Iran. It’s largely been squashed, but in 2005, money from expats was flowing in, the students weren’t being immediately and permanently jailed, and there was reason to believe that supporting them could have a significant and lasting effect on the Iranian regime. Turned out, Adam Goldberg would have none of it. But still, in 2005, the situation in Iran was far, far different than it is today. (I wish I could remember the title of the documentary on student dissidents in Iran. If someone could help me out here, I’d appreciate it.)
Here’s a Frontline thinger from 2004.
Hot summer of 1954, late on a Saturday night. A mile from a nondescript town in the Old South part of Texas sits a white frame “dog-trot” farmhouse, two rooms on each side of a long hall, now upgraded with actual indoor plumbing, and wonder of wonders — the road out front got paved last fall. On the front porch are half a dozen individuals, all male, dressed in various casual ways, from white shirts with suspenders to what we now call “wifebeater” undershirts, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and drinking Pearl beer from the old-fashioned steel-topped cans that have to be punctured in little “V”s. A scene DiPalma could do something with, eh?
But appearances are a bit deceiving. On the porch are two OSS veterans, a third whose status isn’t quite clear (and who currently has the floor), the ex-CO of a wing of bombers, a guy (my Dad) who was an administrator in a Signal Corps company intercepting Japanese communications, and the son of a Bulgarian defector who calls himself “Greek” but hates garlic.
Pud (short for “Puddin’head”) explains; there are questions and answers. The man sitting on the steps volunteers some information, and the others nod. (When there’s a parade, he leads carrying the flag, medals flashing in the sun, empty sleeve pinned up neatly so the insignia shows; but he can’t come up on the porch. He’s black, you see.) After a while there’s a short silence. Dad sips his beer and shakes his head. “They didn’t give enough to the religious people,” he opines. “I give it twenty-five years.”
Pretty good for a iggornt redneck, don’t’cha think?
Regards,
Ric
So?
Personally, I think once you’ve added someone to your Axis of Evil, following up with a rescinded invitation is not much of a propaganda coup, especially when it’s attached to a note that says, “Stop stoning gays, beating women, and threatening nuclear holocaust on Israel, and we’ll talk.”
C’mon, Jeff. I’m not trolling — we’re talking about propaganda here. “So?” doesn’t quite qualify as a response. I think opening diplomatic ties to a country with a strong, home-grown pro-democracy group is a good thing, no matter what axis said country belongs to. (I mean, the counter-argument here’s basically that we should have no dealings with any regime which opposes us … which is bad policy, all the way down, especially when said countries come with corn pone dissent.)
Ric, I appreciate points literary more than most, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at, and don’t want to risk misunderstanding.
happyfeet, that’s what I’m talking about. Support those folks, no?
Agreed.
But what conclusion to draw from this?
Since any possible act on the part of Columbia would be spun by the Iranians as a victory why not just ignore their prattle and do what is morally right?
Is that too much to expect from Columbia? That they be less concerned with the ravings of the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda and more concerned with showing some respect for and solidarity with all of those who suffer under the Mullahs?
Too nuancy for academia?
I support the dissidents, absolutely, even if they are not of my tribe politically, but not Frontline. Can’t be real supportive about whatever they’re up to. Lot of Iranian kids around here, Sherman Oaks down the way has something of an enclave, but I think it’s a lot Jewish, least, those are the only ones I know personally. They are great people. Liberals all, though. The new girl that bought the lunch counter upstairs is a persian jew too. She makes me kebab whatever, and is not particularly skilled at keeping Java Monster in stock. This is the point where I’m commenting and the sleeping pills kick in and I am prone to blathering.
Where has all of this diplomacy gotten our European allies in dealing with Iran? Last I saw, they threw up their hands, and walked away from the table scratching their heads. I suppose we could negotiate with them. Maybe they would be willing to only wipe the northern half of Israel off the face of the earth at this time, and they promise to take less hostages next time around.
I didn’t say you were trolling, and “so” wasn’t the extent of my answer, though it very well could have been.
If the Iranian propaganda machine was unstoppable anyway, do the right thing if you are Columbia. And I recommended what I thought that was.
Has nothing to do with “diplomacy,” because Columbia is not elected to run our foreign policy.
I’ll say it again: he never should have been invited; and then, once we heard him talking about “wiping Israel off the map,” he should have been disinvited.
I don’t understand why you want to make this any more complicated.
Giving him the forum was not about him, or free speech. It was about Columbia. Unfortunately, they were outplayed by a mullah’s puppet.
Which many of us knew would happen, the state of both academia and the press being what they are — and thus the reason for our disgust over the event.
Well, that and the HYPOCRISY!
SEK,
Opening a dialog *to* a growing democratic faction is profiable. Opeing a dialog to a despot who actively works to snuff that democratic faction out is not.
Especially when the choice in discussion is “we’ll let you have a nuke if you quit killing our military members” or vice versa.
Some more of President Ahmadinejad’s resume:
Revolutionary Prosecutor in Evin Prison who executed hundreds of prisoners every night.
Senior Commader of the Qods Force. Lead several extra-territorial missions and directed assassinations.
Organizer of Ansar-e-Hezhollah
So none of this is especially new, y’know.
It seems alot of people want to give Bollinger a pass based on his introductory remarks. Quite frankly, this was one of the most embarassing parts of the whole episode, one that will bring deserved scorn from those who consider themselves our betters.
If you invite a guest, treat him like a guest, else do not invite him. Alternately, when faced with an ill planned invite recind the invite and then state your litany as justification for the snub.
Columbia is a national embarassment and Bollinger only made matters worse.
Thomas D – Though I understand your point fully, I disagree. If given a microphone, and the dubious honor of introducing AhmadestroyIsrael, I would like to think that I would take that opportunity to blast him for being the raving nutjob that he is. I agree with not inviting him in the first place, and uninviting him. But it would be fun to stand there, face to face with that fucktard, and speak to him in a decidedly non diplomatic manner. But, then again, I can be an ass.
I can’t help you with the name of the documentary, Scott, and if you’ll think a bit about what went down the previous year you might get my “literary allusions”, but I can tell you that from where I sit it looks like Goldberg was right.
I knew a couple of guys in the early Eighties, people who’d made it out of Iran before the mullahs clamped down. They’d both marched in the demonstrations and done what they could to help boot Reza Pah’levi out of the country, and been marginalized or worse for their efforts — the usual reward for fellow travelers. Both of them were fairly bitter about it. They were firmly convinced that the rest of the world was on the side of Khomeinei and the turban-topped spittle-flingers, and were more than a little puzzled that so-called “liberals” should be so firmly allied with theocrats.
Unless that perception has changed — and there’s no reason it should have; vide yesterday; consider the Mooreonic Convergence — any “student” or “liberal” revolutionaries in Iran consider themselves entirely on their own, and would regard aid from Western sources as being at best tainted and at worst coming with strings suitable for crane-cables attached.
There is and will be no liberal or Leftist revolution in Iran until some outside force starts shooting mullahs. Any aid from outside that purports to set one up or aid it will be assumed to be entrapment by the pro-mullah West.
Regards,
Ric
SEK once seemed reasonable but has gone downhill recently. It’s gotten worse with each visit. It started with his ardent defense of Beauchamp I think.
I think he’s still reasonable, daleyrocks. Just, in this case, completely wrong.
If he were unreasonable, for example, he might be telling us all what a bunch of provincial wingnuts we were for thinking the way we (in, of course, lockstep agreement, collectively) do.
Let’s not confuse “unreasonable” with “disagrees with me”.
Me, I think it’s rather interesting that anybody can speak at Columbia. When’s my turn, I might ask? See, I think it’s not so much anybody as whoever they choose to invite. Interesting, then, to observe who gets invited and who doesn’t. I don’t think this phenomenon indicates a failure on Columbia’s part as it does underscore a particular selection bias on their part.
Which, of course, can’t possibly be mentioned in polite company, can it?
Speaking of competing points of view, Iran is looking a lot like China, these days.
Sure, it’s tough to accuse the other guy of human rights atrocities while simultaneously ensuring death-by-stoning on one hand while hanging homosexuals with the other, and surreptitiously enabling “dissidents” in Iraq to blow up crowds of civilians, and do so with a straight face, but I don’t think Ahmadinejad has any other kind of face. Probably why he’s where he is.
Or, possibly, you can accuse Satan of anything at all, just because he’s Satan. Which we are, collectively, but Iran harbors no hostility towards us just because of that little thing, does it?
Anyway, all very reminiscent of stuff I read in China Daily while I was over there. I think it bothered people that I was laughing out loud; I just couldn’t help it. The part where China was complaining about the US death penalty being barbaric, see, that was high comedy. It’s just barely possible that they see the protracted appeals process as being unnecessarily cruel, which it would be over there, because the bullet hits the bone no matter what. Why prolong the inevitable?
> 87
> SEK once seemed reasonable but has gone downhill recently.
> It’s gotten worse with each visit. It started with his ardent
> defense of Beauchamp I think.
I’m writing this w/o having read Slarti’s two follow-ups – or anyone else’s, for that matter – so sorry, if I repeat, inadvertently and poorly, something.
You want and need people like SEK and Gabriel (sp?) because they threaten you worldview in ways that force you to think. You cannot harden your defenses, so to speak, w/o them being tested.
Snark being the lingua franca of most socio-political websites, PW is always in going to have its trolls like Semanticleo or alphie or monkeyboy etc. They are fun and all, but they rarely strengthen your position by showing you its weaknesses.
By the way, any time Semanticle, AJB, Christine, and any other troll who thinks all the wingnuts in here don’t put up with dissenting viewpoints, I’m just going to refer to this thread.
The BBC comments on Ahmamadjihadi’s speech World wide a resounding victory for the poison dwarf.
Slart – My point was not made because SEK presents opposing positions, which is fine with me. He usually was able to present creditable arguments for his positions, which adds to the debate. In the Beauchamp debate, his central theme seemed to be this can’t be false because I have read Vietnam memoirs that sounded like this, ignoring comments of those more expert on the subject matter and those that had researched Beauchamps diaries in depth such as Confederate Yankee. Honest debate, I think not. In addition, the genre was not memoir, the diaries were presented as factual reportage. In this thread he merely argues in circles like a typical troll, which he actual feels compelled at one point to argue to Jeff that he is not. He’s really reaching folks.
As I said, I viewed him as one of the more reasonable lefties, but he has gone downhill. His bias and irrationality are on more open display. The mask has slipped.
The Iranian people are not the enemy.
Many still harbor good feelings relative to the United States and “the west” and contempt for the religious authorities.
Even some prominent mullahs have taken issue with the current religious dictatorship, which has more or less destroyed any authority of the Iranian Parliament (Majalis).
Under Khamenei and his crowd, the Parliament has becoming something of a rubber stamp, sort of like what Chavez has effected in Venezuela.
Persia and Persians have rather a grand history and culture and many in Iran still remember that. The horror is that A’jad, the thought police and the mullahs are trying to subjugate and even erase that grand tradition as, apparently, any greatness apart from themselves is antithetical to their religious agenda.
A’jad draws what genuine (uncoerced or unmanipulated) support he has in Iran from “the poor”, just like OOgoe does in Venezuela.
This is how the Atheist Oogoe can be best buddies with the Religious Nut A’jad.
Besides them both wanting to use their oil resources as a weapon to bring down their perceived political enemies.
I tend to look at it this way: SEK’s argumentative tack, if you will, in that thread was, in my opinion, whacking the strawman. I don’t recall anyone in that thread arguing that those things couldn’t have happened (although some of them looked to be severely unlikely, none of them were downright impossible, in theory) so much as that they didn’t, actually. To me, his argument looked to be something like: those kinds of things can and have, in fact, happened, so it’s not a lie to write about them as if they were directly observed.
Which didn’t make sense to me at the time, and I deeply disagreed with it. But I don’t have any reason to suspect Scott of being deliberately dishonest. And of course I may have just completely mischaracterized Scott’s point, which is just one of many reasons why I try to think five or six times before calling someone a liar.
Of course, this disagreement with you probably won’t do anything at all to dissuade folks like alphie and Semanticleo that this is nothing but a Halleluja chorus comprised solely of Jeff’s rhetorical bootlickers, them being mostly immune to facts inconvenient to their respective (though, in effect, lockstep) POVs.
Thanks Slart, but the Beauchamp pieces were presented as fact not memoir, a point which SEK intellectually refused to accept in his arguments. The argument that these things could have happened in my mind was far outweighed by the commentary of all those explaining why it did not. His explainations were along the lines of Dan Rather saying no one has definitively proved the documents to be false, which generates incredulity even on most of the left these days I believe.
I thought on the Beauchamp debate it seemed like Scott was talking about something not-Beauchamp, more an idea of some kind of can I have a witness soldier boy truth to power thinger, which was really, I thought, just a gamble that the story would develop differently. What’s telling about that is that on some level it reflects that Scott has an abiding faith in the Franklin Foers of the world, which is kind of touching. Nauseating, but sweetly naive I guess. Aside from that I think he has an amazing brain mostly – before you take too negative a measure, you should poke around his site. His comments threads can be an unbelievable chore to struggle through though.
Memoirs are factual recounting, or at least they’re intended to be, so to me there’s no difference at all between fact an memoir, for all practical purposes. Witness accounts are fraught with unintended error; no surprise there. The errors Beauchamp committed, though, were such that if they weren’t deliberate, Beauchamp needs some serious pschoanalysis.
In any event, this whole thing is bigger than Beauchamp alone. Anyone can write anything at all, and have it appear in TNR? Next, Whitley Strieber will write about alien abduction and TNR will take it and publish it as factual, fact-checked material.
Your comments notwithstanding, I think I’ll continue to think of Scott as being mistaken WRT the Beauchamp incident.
Good description happyfeet. I have poked around the site. I loved his takedown of JC Christian.
SEK – As you know, the BBC does more than run a website. BBC radio and TV news ran soundbites and clips reflecting the point of view I described, which I heard and saw.
At any rate, the point I was making is that the claim, made by cleo and others, that A’jad’s apperaance would be a PR coup for the US and a disaster for him has not (of course) been realized. As you acknowledge, there is absolutely no chance that, no matter what actually happened, the Iranian/Arab press was going to treat this as anything other than a triumph. Columbia made it possible and the useful idiots who attended the speech and made the comments broadcast by the BBC made it easier.
Any reasonably person would have seen that, once the invitation was made and not withdrawn, no other outcome would occur.
Jeff,
My point was simply that you shouldn’t slag Columbia for providing the Iranian media a propaganda coup, since, no matter what they did, they would’ve provided the Iranian media a propaganda coup. As Ric wrote:
Once the invitation was issued, the rest was just wheels rolling down hill.
My point about 2005 is that simply that the invitation was given at a different time, in a different political climate. Certainly, Khatami had just been defeated by the conservative Ahmadinejad in a shenanigans-filled election; but Ahmadinejad had yet to out himself as the utter loon he later proved to be.
I’ll say it again: he never should have been invited; and then, once we heard him talking about “wiping Israel off the map,†he should have been disinvited.
Which would’ve provided the Iranian media a propaganda coup, and for which many on the Right would’ve slagged Columbia for further diminishing the US’s reputation abroad. Which, really, is all I’m saying here: is it fair to criticize an individual when anything he does will be grounds for criticism? If he willingly and knowingly put himself in the position to be criticized, the answer’s a hearty affirmative. If he didn’t, the criticism ought to be tempered.
JD:
I don’t think you would’ve been an ass for confronting him. To be frank, I’d rather we had a President who could’ve took Ahmadinejad up on his offer and trounced him. Nixon would’ve, and it would’ve been fun to watch.
Ric:
[R]evolutionaries in Iran consider themselves entirely on their own, and would regard aid from Western sources as being at best tainted and at worst coming with strings suitable for crane-cables attached.
They’ve actively sought and received aid from Western Europe and the US. You can read more about it here, although the specifics are, for obvious reasons, sketchy. From an article by Jared Cohen (via Project Muse, so no link):
daleyrocks:
SEK once seemed reasonable but has gone downhill recently. It’s gotten worse with each visit. It started with his ardent defense of Beauchamp I think.
I don’t want to revisit that, but I refuse to accept that I’ve gone downhill. Wherever I am, I’ve been there for some time.
[H]is central theme seemed to be this can’t be false because I have read Vietnam memoirs that sounded like this, ignoring comments of those more expert on the subject matter and those that had researched Beauchamps diaries in depth such as Confederate Yankee.
Alright, alright, a minor revisitation. That wasn’t quite my argument: I said, “War is Hell; soldiers write about it; I’m not going to pillory a soldier who says ‘War is Hell’ until I have evidence and reason to do so.” I didn’t think “wanted to be a writer, said some improbable things, and is a leftist” constituted evidence and reason enough to pillory him. But, as I say to Slart below, when the evidence was presented and the reasons given, I said I was wrong.
[T]he genre was not memoir, the diaries were presented as factual reportage …
Diaries are closer to memoirs than journalism, no? For instance, memoirs aren’t fact-checked the way non-fiction books are, because what’s more important is what someone remembers, not what happened. There’s a great bit in Steve Silberman’s profile of Oliver Sacks about this:
This sort of thing happens all the time in memoirs, and it’s telling that Sacks “remembers” this, even if it isn’t true. This is more of a meta-point, however, unrelated to deliberate fabrications.
happyfeet:
Aw, don’t go and make me cry now. I don’t like people to see me cry. (Of course, if you click over now, you’ll find a caption the LOLar bear contest.)
Slart:
To me, his argument looked to be something like: those kinds of things can and have, in fact, happened, so it’s not a lie to write about them as if they were directly observed.
… and the corollary to that was, when they proved not to be, I admitted as much and said I was wrong. Also, thanks for the defense. I think I’m more or less rational, however wrong I may end up being.
But I didn’t already say that, stupid WordPress. Let’s see if I’ve said this yet.
I have said this. Is the other comment in the moderation queue?
Sorry, Scott. No sale.
Not all media coups are equal. Not allowing Mahmoud to climb into the lion’s maw and escape with one of its eye teeth is better, on whole, than being criticized for not allowing Mahmoud an audience with the lion to begin with.
So, wait, if Columbia had never invited the Monkey to speak, and he hadn’t asked, Columbia would have provided Iran with a propaganda coup?
Not that you can’t defend yourself, but I’d like to see you keep coming back, and people treating you differently than, say, they treat Semanticleo. I think you’ve earned serious replies almost to the extent that Semanticleo has unearned them.
Not proper English, but the point may carry.
Which is case in point for: I don’t presume to defend you better than you can, but I can act as a character witness.
No sale.
But everything’s 50 percent off! That’s a sale, damn it, and you’re missing all my spectacular offers!
Seriously though, I’ve been thinking about this more, and the more I think about it, the more I like the decision to let him spout his lunacies in a forum he 1) didn’t control and 2) couldn’t intimidate after the fact. When last he spoke of the “wiping Jews off the planet” and “the Holocaust didn’t exist,” the Iranian media attempted to palm it to poor interpretation. He can’t do that here. When he made the comment about there being no gays in Iran, the audience laughed at — not with, but at — him. That would never happen in Iran — actually, that would never happen to Bush in the States. But you know what? The man needs to be laughed at. He’s proven, beyond a doubt — and to everyone, across the political spectrum — that he’s not the sort of person who can be reasoned with. This should please you, I think, because it makes it more likely that the Democrats will lobby to put pressure on Iran. Before, they could be quasi-neutral and point to how Iraq is the real problem — but now, when confronted with the problem of Iran, they’ll have to wrestle with the fact that it’s a country without The Gays, &c. He’s made a mockery of himself on the world’s stage. My mind’s not settled on this issue, but that’s its general direction.
Slart, I appreciate it.
SEK – How’s that mockery and marginalization on the worldstage going? It seems like the Midget Mahdi is actually getting a bunch of favorable press instead. When does the mockery begin?
Post-Ahmedinejad interview with Bollinger. I haven’t heard yet.
http://www.npr*.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14742209
Odious codger bemoans Bollinger’s bad manners.
http://www.npr*.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14738155
(copy link and take out the asterisk – is it the domain the filter doesn’t like? that seems an odd one to get included)
happyfeet, in the moderation queue is a long post, full of links to articles around the world, all of which point and laugh. Good stuff. In case it never shows up, know that it proved me definitely correct about absolutely every I’ve ever written, including the stuff about Beauchamp.
Scott – I’ll be checking back – you should get an account in the pub for longer pieces with lots of links – no filter that way. Then you can just track back here, and your stuff is easier to track down later. I think registration is open, but I’m sure JG will be glad to hook you up otherwise.
Oh – btw – in future, should the filter eat your comment, you can hit “back” on your browser (maybe a couple times), and your comment will be in the comment box – you can grab it out of there and either edit out the links like I did at #110, or sometimes that’s when I do the trackback from the pub thing.
Scott – I’ll be checking back – you should get an account in the pub for longer pieces with lots of links – no filter that way.
If I get another blog or blog-type-thingy, my wife will leave me. Otherwise, I would.
Oh – btw – in future, should the filter eat your comment, you can hit “back†on your browser (maybe a couple times), and your comment will be in the comment box – you can grab it out of there and either edit out the links like I did at #110, or sometimes that’s when I do the trackback from the pub thing.
I’m not worried about losing the comment — I compose in an Outlook window, as I can’t stand these claustrophobic little boxes. I’m sure it’s just stuck in moderation, since it contained so many links. If someone weren’t so busy watching his Rockies scrape back into the pennant, I’m sure it’d have been posted by now. (Of course, if the Mets win tonight, I’m sure he won’t approve it, the damn conservative bastard.)
Also, if you send me an email, I can send you the post to read and/or post and trackback to. (I take it the address you’ve left at my place ain’t the one you use, as it has “fatal errors.”) Either of my accounts — my full name (at) gmail (dot) com or acephalous (at) gmail (dot) com — will work.
I sent to your gmail –
…
ahmadinejad’s propaganda “coup” [SEK]…
Australians think he was flattened:
Today, after his brutal and unexpected denunciation of Ahmadinejad as a cruel and ridiculous tyrant, the Columbia president has suddenly gone from a leftie pariah to a rolled-gold American hero.
Carried live on cable…
Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?
Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?
They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.
Too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!
I found this site called Dog Training Manual, It has alot of awesome information on how to train dogs. Check it out!
Dude, Ron Paul is so correct about Iran’s non-intensions. It is war propaganda and everyone in the US is buying it and going bankrupt because of it. I’ve never been in politics until I ran into this man. We must restore the Constitution to drive back this country to it’s original intent…
Nice handbags and the colors looks pretty with bright outfit..
Can some one give me one..I loves handbags ..lol
cheers,
checkout latest handbags
thanks for the blog, very interesting prespective, i still think b is a soft tyranny tho
wow.. i really like the info at this post.. thanks!!! Tiffany Jewelry Tiffany Necklaces
Come Visit and Enjoy what you see – Upscale Handmade Bridal Jewelry and Wedding Accessories – Wedding Jewelry Designs – a New Site, with Products still Filling in.
[…] Propaganda 101: Iran 1, USA/Columbia University 0 […]
[…] more here: Propaganda 101: Iran 1, USA/Columbia University 0 Click here to cancel […]