Monday, September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

The San Francisco Chronicle thinks Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia was a resounding victory for Lee Bollinger:

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger courageously, imho, resisted pressure to call off Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia today. But he went one better. In a stunning statement, right in front of Ahmadinejad, he wiped the floor with the putative head of Iran's despotic regime, taking him to angry, articulate task on issues such as Holocaust denial, Israel's right to exist, subversion of Lebanon's government and support for terrorism.

Too bad that many may not hear about Bollinger's triumph in Iran. Reuters reports:

Iran judiciary seals offices of news Web site. ... Iran’s judiciary has sealed off the offices of a popular news Web site critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies after journalists continued to update it despite official filtering, the Web site said. ... Although Iran says it allows free speech, journalists say they have to tread carefully between a growing number of “red lines” to avoid closure. Iran’s culture minister in July said there were signs of a “creeping coup” in the country’s press.

And outside the firewall this is the way Al-Jazeera reported Bollinger's 'triumph' over Ahmadinejad. It sounds like it could be scored the other way.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, was subjected to blistering criticism of his country's human rights record and foreign policy during a controversial visit to a New York university.

"Mr President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Lee Bollinger, Columbia University's president, said on Monday.

He also challenged Ahmadinejad's reported denial of the Holocaust.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," he said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose to applause, and after a religious invocation said Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here".

He blamed the university president's "unfriendly treatment" on the influence of the US media and politicians ahead of his visit.

And lest anyone think only Al-Jazeera scored things as a win, here is Time Magazine admiring the way in which the Iranian President used Bollinger.

It was pure political ju-jitsu, using the momentum of your adversaries to your own advantage. The protestors got him on TV, and he used the platform to grandstand for the folks back home. He will share an even bigger global platform with President Bush on Tuesday, at the lectern of the U.N. General Assembly. The two men won't appear together, of course, but each is making a pitch for international support in the showdown over Iran's nuclear issue. But Ahmedinajad appeared to steal a march on Bush Monday by virtue of his televised propaganda show at Columbia.

Challenged on his statements questioning the Holocaust, for example, Ahmadinejad cleverly turned the issue around, asking, "Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" That argument may not get much sympathy with an American audience, but championing the Palestinian cause helps Iran's strategy of undermining the moderate Arab regimes allied with Washington.

Both Bollinger and Ahmedinajad broadcast their messages on a platform which grabbed the attention of the world. But what was said on that platform will be selectively quoted and amplified in a process that favors Ahmedinajad's signal over Bollinger's. The amplifying circuitry of the media will ensure that an anti-Israel, anti-American message will get more than a fair airing. Few will read the exchange verbatim. If Bollinger thinks that a few barbed questions, a few provocative statements; that a little defiance can compensate for giving the Iranian dictator an opportunity to emit a signal which is even now being tweaked and boosted to fit established talking points, he is mistaken. The medium is the massage. What works in the classroom doesn't always work on the larger world stage. In the final paragraphs of the Columbia president's speech he displays a touching faith in the power of his own remarks to explode Ahmedinajad's absurdities:

Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us.

I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do.

Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.

Does Bollinger actually believe that the more Ahmedinajad speaks the more he "undermines" his own position in Iran? That the "many good-hearted, intelligent citizens" listening to Bollinger's exchange with Ahmedinajad will have their eyes opened? About the only thing Bollinger got right was the assessment of the importance of his own remarks at the closing of his speech. The Columbia President continues:

A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president.

This is beyond sad. It's the closing of a man out of his own depth. It's a faculty lunch speech dispatched against a man accustomed to command the secret police, rockets, EFPs, sophisticated propaganda and disinformation cells. Bollinger was game, but not only is he not in the same ring, he doesn't even know where the fight is scheduled to take place. If this is what our intellectual leaders think is effective resistance against the Islamic Revolution then we are in serious trouble.


Blogger RWE said...

It's worse.

Just seen on Fox News. When Ahmadinejad began his own speech by saying how unfair it was for him to be attacked by Bollinger before he could even say anything, he received applause from the audience.

He also received applause when he mentioned the Palestinians.

I am surprised that he did not mention the Jenina 6. Somebody screwed up there on his team.

While this provided cover for him in Iran (what Iranian demonstrator could stand up to the mullas after seeing the Country's leader treated seriously in the Land of the Free?) and endless sound bites for Al Jazeera, the main thing the visit did was provide self-assurance to the anti-war crowd that Iran is not a threat. He reinforced their prejudices.

9/24/2007 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Boghie said...

Bollinger set up a fine hunt.

With himself as the prey.

Too dumb to note it.

The dogs howled.

Horns blared.

Hunt over.

More than a fool lost that one, eh...

9/24/2007 05:46:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

The principle here is very simple. Ahmadinejad is a thug like Al Capone. Columbia is, whatever else you may think it, a well-regarded institution of higher learning; a place which has generated it's fair share of Nobel Prize winners, etc.

When Al Capone speaks at Columbia, Al Capone always wins. Capone can provide no prestige for Columbia that Columbia doesn't already have. But Capone's association with Columbia, however slight, will always benefit Capone.

This is why, for example, Presidents shouldn't associate with known criminals, except in a diplomatic capacity. The former confers a legitimacy on the latter. It doesn't do the cause of virtue any good to say "the president of Columbia debated Al Capone". But Al Capone can always claim to his advantage, "I wunze debated the Presdunt of Columbine, you know that fancy school in New York?"

9/24/2007 06:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

At Columbia, mention of no gays elicits

A description of women's equality in Iran results in

The Brave Palestinian Warriors:
Loud Applause.
Yon was on Hewitt today, Burns will be on Tomorrow.
Hopefully will post on the net.

9/24/2007 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Same principles are behind the Massive Failure of GWB's "New Tone" Policy.

9/24/2007 06:04:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

I know a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by Lee Bollinger's willingness to take on Ahmedinejad so strongly. And I think we should all take off our hats to Bollinger for that. However, on balance I don't think inviting Ahmedinejad was the right thing to do because the "message" of the speech at Columbia is even now being crafted. And though I may be wrong I think this will be a net win for the Iranian dictator.

9/24/2007 06:15:00 PM  
Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

No one will remember Bollinger's name in a week.

An opinion from Ha Aretz: ANALYSIS: The clear loser from Ahmadinejad's visit is Israel

I think it was Dan Rather who interviewed dinner jacket a few years ago and said that the guy was much smarter than he expected. Apparently his debating style was not bad.

9/24/2007 06:15:00 PM  
Blogger newscaper said...

Color me unimpressed -- i still think Bollinger's performance was at least 65% in CYA mode.

9/24/2007 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Schwarzenegger supports bill against investments in Iran

The bill imposes a narrow ban on the portfolios of the nation's two largest public pension funds—the California Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System. It would ban them from investing in companies that work on defense or nuclear projects or are involved in developing Iranian petroleum or natural gas resources.

CalPERS estimated the ban would require them to divest an estimated $2 billion from 10 companies. *Pension fund officials had opposed the legislation, which they said would reduce investment options, increase earnings volatility and possibly reduce the earnings of the fund.*
"Ahmadinejad In His Own Words"
(HT: Martin Peretz)

9/24/2007 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Jesus, do people not get it? Actions matter more than rhetoric. I hate to invoke Hitler, but wasn't this exactly how it went in the 1930s? Hitler was a reasonable man and all that? Is it really possible to win people over by just saying a few things that they want to hear?

My fellow poli- sci students say nice things about this guy. What the hell? How can such educated people be so ignorant about their own history?

9/24/2007 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger xwraith said...

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won
the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." - George Orwell, 1984

Why can't students, at what is supposed to be a premier institution of learning discern between two radically opposite things? I think they do know to a degree, but are quite willing to support a tyrant and his ideas if it furthers their own agenda. Its a visceral blow when you realize that the guy having a slice of pizza next to you might, if circumstances should conspire, re-implement the horrors of the past century.

-just some dark thoughts

9/24/2007 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger nenhures said...

Didn't it occur to anyone to ask Ahmadinejad the following: Ok, if the so-called official version of the Holocaust is not only open to discussion, but seems to be so much in need of it in, of all places,Iran, would his excellency agree on the right and necessity to discuss anywhere in the world, including Iran, whether a certain legendary prophet called Muhammad actually existed? Would the president of Iran agree to host a panel or a forum in his country to discuss openly this theme, would he invite people, say, like Christopher Hitchens to it?

9/24/2007 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

And the guy who Made that Pizza is a Dead Ringer for Aquavelvetjawd.
As long as he hates America, and all it stands for, he's all right by me.

9/24/2007 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons" contains a scene where Thomas More stands accused of treason because he remained silent on the licitness of Henry the VIII's actions. The subsequent dialogue examines the power of silence as an instrument of expressing disapproval.

Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

Sir Thomas More: I do.

Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Thomas More appeals to the Law. But Cromwell was undoubtedly right in arguing that in the popular mind silence, especially from one so highly regarded as Thomas More betokened disapproval. One could argue that if Lee Bollinger had refused to invite Ahmadinejad he would have been expressing his disapproval much more strongly than words could ever convey. We understand this instinctively when a man refuses to shake our hand; when people do not speak to us out of scorn. Which of us would debate a madman or a killer without feeling cheapened by the experience?

Bollinger perhaps. And maybe because he truly believes in the power of rational discourse to change men's hearts. I think he would have sincerely tried to argue Hitler out of the Holocaust. And meant well. But it would still have been a dumb move.

9/24/2007 07:46:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The remedy, I have been told, to free speech, is more free speech.

Had Ahmadinejad not been allowed to speak at Columbia, he would have won a victory in Iran ("The Americans were afraid of me!") and a victory here ("The Americans were afraid of me!") In allowing Ahmadinejad to speak here, Bollinger still could not cancel out a victory in Iran-- he does not control the media there-- but could at least attempt a victory here.

From what I have seen so far, I am impressed. And I have not yet lost faith in the American people that they cannot see bullshit when it is exposed for what it is. The opinions of a few clapping college students don't impress me-- if they were educated and sensible, they wouldn't be there.

The question is, why has everyone else here suddenly lost their faith in the power of free speech to expose bullshit?

9/24/2007 07:52:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Because a refusal to invite is speech and at any rate, nobody is censoring anybody, except Ahmadinejad, who is blocking Iran's web access. Ahmadinejad, near as I can tell can broadcast any message he wants. And Bollinger can take out a full-page in the NYT, just like did and make his points.

But inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia is a form of speech too. It means Columbia takes him seriously. Some people, like diplomats have no choice but to talk to everyone. But Bollinger, like anyone who throws a dinner party or invites a dinner speaker has a choice. That's why any of us would be honored to be invited before Columbia; or invited to address Harvard or speak before a joint session of Congress. And if we aren't invited to address a joint session of Congress, it doesn't mean we are being censored. All it means is that Congress doesn't care to listen to what we have to say.

9/24/2007 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Because his Audience, in the Middle East, will see a propaganda production worth millions, and cost more American Lives.

9/24/2007 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Job that American Citizens nor Illegals should be allowed to take:
Redwood City man, 18, drowns in vat of sulfuric acid

9/24/2007 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger F said...

Bollinger's introduction was offensive. What does that prove -- that Ahmadinejad is evil? That he should understand the invitation to speak at Columbia starts out with preconceived notions? (So much for an "open debate".) Neither, I don't think. For my money, Bollinger realized (too late to back out gracefully) that he had made a bad decision in inviting Ahmadinejad. So to restore what little credibility he and his university had, he chose to act as a common scold. He comes out looking foolish, boorish and unprofessional. It was not academia's bright moment, and we can rest assured Ahmadinejad will not return to Tehran thinking his anti-Israel, holocaust-denying, nuclear-seeking ways are wrong. One wonders if Bollinger and his liberal friends have learned anything. F

9/24/2007 08:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Bollinger paid tribute to Alumni serving in the Military.
As his school will not allow ROTC on campus.
...and the Minuteman was NOT allowed to speak.

9/24/2007 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Definitely agree with "f"

That Bollinger HAD to put up a Brave Front to cover a Craven decision.

9/24/2007 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger Elijah said...

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be

Such people are using words like it's not possible'. They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realized.

Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods [Jerusalem] be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise. This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state [Israel] has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.

- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005

The message of the (Islamic) Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward. Have no doubt ... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.

- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, July 25, 2005.

If one day, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to an end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

- Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Former Iranian President, December 14, 2001

The world of Islam has been mobilized against America for the past 25 years. The peoples call, "death to America." Who used to say "death to America?" Who, besides the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, used to say this? Today, everyone says this.

- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, June 24, 2004

9/24/2007 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I think it was Dan Rather who interviewed dinner jacket a few years ago and said that the guy was much smarter than he expected.

Given Rather's demonstrated perspicacity in the last year or so, this is still not saying much for Ahmanwhoosit's intelligence level.

9/24/2007 08:54:00 PM  
Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

We need some of this:

Disney Education For Death - WWII Cartoon Propaganda

Donald Duck - Der Fuehrer's Face

In I',m a nut job's face.

9/24/2007 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Al Qaeda lost.
Michael Totten,

9/24/2007 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

OK, I meant Mike Wallace:

Mike Wallace Says Iranian President an 'Impressive Fellow'

Iranian Leader Opens Up
Ahmadinejad Speaks Candidly With Mike Wallace About Israel, Nukes, Bush

The point is the guy cleans up good. I think he's much smarter than Hussein ever was. Saddam hardly ever visited the West. He surrounded himself with yes-men. Mr Nut-job shouldn't be discounted.

9/24/2007 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger Mad Fiddler said...

Bollinger's attack on Ahmadinejad was - I believe -utterly disengenuous and faked. You could prove me wrong, and I would apologize all up and down, by finding some earlier public statements by Bollinger either supporting our own culture, or similarly criticizing the Iranian fanatical leadership.

It was very likely planned and discussed with the Iranian leader's people beforehand, as an agreed strategy designed first to make Bollinger appear to be courageous to those critics that view Columbia as a traitorous nest of vipers, and second, to give Ahmadinejad a chance to appear courageous for his own supporters, bravely facing the harsh, mean-spirited, oppressive infidels of one of the Great Satan's most prestigious universities.

What a bunch of lying bastards.

9/24/2007 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger Gary Rosen said...


With Ahmedinejad standing there in front of him, Bollinger had to say what he said. But other than that you are right on the money. In order to stand up to Ahmedinejad, Bolllinger had to get down in the gutter with him. That is exactly why Nutjob should never have been invited in the first place.

9/24/2007 10:59:00 PM  
Blogger eggplant said...

Utopia Parkway said...

"The point is the guy cleans up good. I think he's much smarter than Hussein ever was. Saddam hardly ever visited the West. He surrounded himself with yes-men. Mr Nut-job shouldn't be discounted."

From what I've read, Adolf Hitler was quite charming when talked to one-on-one and very skilled in the art of conversation. Certainly Hitler was one of the 20th century's most adept public speakers.

Thanks to Columbia's stupidity, Ahmadinejad has come out of this looking like a hero.

He has gone into the lion's den and beared the lion.

No doubt due to this visit to New York, Ahmadinejad's stature has grown significantly within Iran's ruling elite. He is now more dangerous than before.

Both Hitler and Ahmadinejad should be respected as dangerous and cunning enemies.

9/24/2007 11:14:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Yeah, but we have Eggplant on our side.
He'll show them Muzzies.
Worse than Pork.

9/24/2007 11:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

What's all the Fuss About?

9/25/2007 12:40:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

All Columbia's vaunted leader Bollinger did was what any self-respecting Narcissist would do when faced with exposing his true self:

Pump up your fists, throw words out and pretend you would die for some moral values a few in your audience would share.

Maybe Bollinger received some private advice a day or so ago from another great Narcissist...Bill Clinton?

Boring, but so very dangerous.

9/25/2007 06:04:00 AM  
Blogger buck smith said...

As Stalin asked of the pope, Ahmadinejad on Bollinger would be somethng like "How many cells does Lee Bollinger have?"

Ahmadinejad should be assassinated, preferably by an EFP attack in Iran, just as he is assassinating in Lebanon.

9/25/2007 06:32:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

"Never Again" should mean something more than throwing a few bon mots at some gnome.

10 megatons would be more meaningful.

9/25/2007 07:28:00 AM  
Blogger hdgreene said...

I agree that inviting the President of Iran to speak was a mistake. I think the effects of Bollinger's remarks on the Iranian Regime--assuming he doesn't "take it all back" in coming days--might be unanticipated. They may well "recalibrate" their view US "will."

Politics in a regime such as Iran takes place among about Two Hundred people who are "in the room." Another Four Hundred or so are in the antechamber. The political participation of the "400" is of nessecity conspitatorial in nature. They want in the room, and can only get in if someone else is ejected (or dies). The "200" want to keep them out while at the same time keeping their support.

Beyond the "400" are the 40,000 or so "transmission belts" who implement the policies decided above. Among their chief concerns is being lynched by the mob below or hung by the Mullahs above.

In so far as the regime worries about public opinion, it is the opinion of the "40,000" they worry about.

It is impossible to know what these folks are thinking since, as a result of the conspiratorial nature of their politics, they don't even know what they, individually, think. And there are an unknown number of sincere (and insincere) fanatics among them--wild cards and jokers in the deck.

From their actions we know there is a collective bias towards pushing their confrontations with foreign powers to the edge--but a reluctance to push on over it. Going over the edge for the "200" means the "400" get their shot at moving into the room--at the expense of the current occupants.

Meanwhile the 40,000 are standing on a frozen lake, judging the warmth of the sun above and the weakness of the ice below.

The 400 may see a military confrontation with the US as an opportunity--it will likely eject a large portion of the 200 from the room. The 200--while putting a brave face on it--may not be so sure of the benefits. The 40,000 would be nervous indeed (ice and bombs don't mix well).

The fear here is President Bush getting the bit between his teeth. Bollinger speaks for the type of people who should rein him in.

A three hour or three day bombing campaign--what they might expect from a Clinton--would serve to strengthen the regime.

But President Bush allowed Israel to bomb Hezbollah for three weeks, not three hours. He will allow himself no less time in Iran--and may allow himself considerably more. And he will go for the juggler, on past evidence. Three weeks of such attacks the regime may survive--depending on the rot--but not, on the odds, three months.

Bollinger must now undo the damage. He must come out and say that there are no circumstances where a bombing campaign against Iran will be tolerated by the political left. Otherwise the "200" may fold like a cheap suit on nukes and the Iraq proxy war, handing President Bush (and the US) a win. This would be intolerable for the left, though tolerable for me--even if it makes the world safe for Hillary Clinton.

9/25/2007 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Bollinger's comments undercut any justification for having Ahmadinejad there in the first place. If Bollinger believed everything he said, why invite this guy to speak? To give Bollinger the chance to abuse him? To publicly self-affirm his high-minded principles?

It was not a gas, it was just gas. It sounded like a mouse introducing a cat.

9/25/2007 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/25/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

9/25/2007 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

eggplant @ 11:14, "Thanks to Columbia's stupidity, Ahmadinejad has come out of this looking like a hero."

Isn't that what prompted the jihad? Our weakness used against us and we not being able to stop it because we don't have the strength to effectively control those who supposedly lead us? We have the outward trappings of the strong horse and the inner Bollingers.

9/25/2007 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger knoxlex said...

An anecdote I recall reading a few years ago seems appropriate in this situation. It had to do with Ted Bundy, who even looks a little like Ahmadinejad. A woman reporter who had been sitting in on the trial found herself mesmerized by Bundy, and was thinking he didn't seem like such a bad guy. She said she probably would have let him watch her daughters based on her impression at this point in the trial. Then came unmistakable evidence based on bite marks on the victims. She said she left the room to vomit.

The left cannot get past his pretty boy looks and pleasant manner of making threats. Let's hope we can act before there are more "bite marks".

9/25/2007 12:38:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The left like Bollinger is an emperor with no clothes.They don't have the moral currency to pronounce Ahmadinejad the evil monster he is. So instead they sniff that he's not playing nice on the playground.Teacher make him stop.Give him time out.
I'm reading a history of the rise of the monsters of the 20th century, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. How the west failed to act in the early thirties is astonishing. Hitler's rhetoric in the late 1920's was plain as could be.
To the left he was someone to reason with, a poor benighted soul who only needed enlightenment. To the isolationist right in America, it ain't my problem.The more things change the more they remain the same.
I talked to a friend this morning who is a pro-gun closed border type guy who couldn't grasp that losing the war with the Jihadis would be a catastrophe. Call me gloomy, call me apocalyptic, but I think the fire next time will make the world wars pikers.
William Carlos Williams wrote in "Paterson" ..."there's no one to witness and adjust, no one to drive the car"

9/25/2007 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Nothing new from Ahmadinejad, but I wonder if there's any precedent for the incredibly rude treatment Bollinger served up to the guest he invited.

Maybe if you have to insult your guest to preserve your own credibility/integrity, then you chose the wrong guest.

9/25/2007 01:26:00 PM  
Blogger Neo Conservative said...

I'm betting Ahmadinejad wishes he'd stuck to his original itinerary...

"Noon: To protest barbaric U.S. exploitation of women, dine at Hooters, accompanied by writer Noam Chomsky."

"1 p.m.: Tour Midwestern town of Smallville. Visit meteor site where alien boy is said to possess superpowers."

"2 p.m.: Meet with political prisoner O.J. Simpson. Exchange autographed sabers."


9/25/2007 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Whiskey said...

Larry --

As opposed to the tortures Ahmadinejad personally inflicted on the Diplomats for two years?

9/25/2007 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I'm getting a little concerned that everyone seems to be in agreement that Bollinger's remarks were "rude". Isn't that an awfully subjective description? What, exactly, did Bollinger say that wasn't true or that he didn't preface by saying it was his own personal opinion?

I recall seeing William F. Buckley in some debates, as in this one with Gore Vidal: "Vidal called Buckley a "pro-crypto Nazi", to which the visibly livid Buckley replied: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."

Now THAT is rude. I just can't see where calling a terrorist popinjay a "petty dictator" is rude. I mean, really - what has HE been calling America since 1979, and we're suppose to roll out the red carpets and rain flower petals around his shoulders when he deigns to insert his puny little self into our lives?

9/26/2007 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger F said...

No, Nahncee, we're not supposed to rain flower petals on him when he speaks -- we're supposed to pass up the chance to invite him if it will only lead to a later need to be so rude. It appears now that Ahmadinejad's Columbia visit is being played in the ME as a huge success for him. He's our enemy -- has been since he participated in the embassy hostage taking, during which several of my friends and colleagues spent 444 days as his "guest." Mostly blindfolded. This was in no way a dialogue. It was petty power tripping, and I think it failed for both parties, but especially for Bollinger. F

9/26/2007 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Nichevo said...

Speaking of Buckley, he also once said (NRO has a Buckley search page!) something to this effect, when Gus Hall, the communist (I mean he was the head of the CPUSA, not that he gave to the poor) was being invited to Harvard or some such place:

Oh I should pull up the quote but let me try to paraphrase. Basically he said: There is nothing to say to Gus Hall and thus nothing he has to say to us. The only reason to have him here is to spit on him and vice versa.

You must not spit on a guest.

But you must not refrain from doing so.

Therefore, he should not come.

...of course for actual good writing, go read WFB on NRO. Duh.

9/27/2007 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger Captain USpace said...

That mad, mad terrorist minkey is actually a very wise and shining light for the Religion of Peace. GO Sharia!

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
admire terrorist monkeys

ask them to speak at functions
hang on their every word

absurd thought -
God of the Universe claims
there are no Gay Muslims

no men attracted to men
none dream of little boys

absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
monkey clowns to rule

preaching that what I want
is to bring back the stone age

9/27/2007 05:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USpace - shiites don't follow the Sharia, Sunnis do. Thats the problem with each and everyone of these posts, you are all ethier dumb which is my personal judgement or out right ignorant!

10/01/2007 10:48:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger