TUESDAY UPDATE BELOW -
“Mr. Popular” is in town and everybody seems to be flipping out over it…
From FoxNews:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Arrives in NYC, Dismisses Nuke Threat in TV Interview
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a low-key entrance into New York City on Sunday evening amid extremely tight security as he faces a firestorm of controversy surrounding his visit to address the U.N. General Assembly and speak to students and teachers during a forum at Columbia University.
Ahmadinejad said the American people have been denied “correct information,” and his visit will give them a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.
“The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions,” Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying. …”
(Snip!)
“… The visit also comes as the United States and its European allies continue to urge Iran to stop uranium enrichment. The White House wants to set more economic sanctions against Iran, which it calls a sponsor of terrorism, that is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies those charges.
In a “60 minutes” interview Sunday evening, Ahmadinejad said, “Well, you have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?”
“In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union.”
He also said, “It’s wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing.” …
I truly wish I could believe all of the above and I wish I could share Ahmadinejad’s optimism over the prospects of a U.S. – Iran war but I cannot. I’m leaning more toward the opinion and observations of Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (source: CNN) on that one. Iran’s got oil and any country with a healthy oil supply is in danger when our countrymen and women continue to insist upon electing “Big Oil” men and women to high offices. Sorry if you don’t like it but it is what it is…
As for “The Bomb”, I share the opinion of Ahmadinejad; at least, as STATED above — it doesn’t do anybody any good to have nukes and his point about the Soviet Union is a clever one, indeed. As for the propaganda the American People are exposed to via the so-called “Press” — another good point; a point we also know has an element of truth to it, which is exactly why I like to read foreign press reports on a regular basis.
More “snippets” from the FoxNews article:
“… Some students and activist groups blasted Columbia University’s decision to allow Ahmadinejad on campus, but the Ivy League school plans to stick to the schedule.
Hosseini said there “are efforts to cancel” the Columbia speech, but the Iranian government is continuing to pursue the program. He did not elaborate other than saying that a lot of pressure was being placed on the program’s sponsors.
A student group opposing his speech at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs plans to form a human chain at Ground Zero where Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath. One student called the visit a “dangerous opportunity for him.”
“I really don’t know what President Bollinger was thinking to give him a bully pulpit to discuss his detestable creed,” said Ari Gardner, 22, a member of Hillel, a Jewish student group.
Other efforts to condemn Ahmadinejad’s visit include a full-page ad set to run Monday in The New York Times by Freedom’s Watch. The ad calls him a “terrorist” and blasts Columbia’s decision to allow him to speak.
“People who support killing Americans are welcome. But the military that defends them is not,” says the new ad by Freedom’s Watch.
Ahmadinejad is using America with his visit as a propaganda tool, Brad Blakeman of Freedom’s Watch told FOX News.
“He’s using America, he’s using our democracy as a tool against us,” Blakeman said. …”
Good point by Freedom’s Watch — the one they’ll be making about the hypocrisy of Columbia University to give an open forum to a KOOK who denies the Halocaust while remaining off-limits to our military men and women of honor — a statement, which proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let us not forget who these TREMENDOUSLY ANNOYING “Freedom Watch” characters really ARE though, which was very cleverly pointed out by my good friend, Megan Donovan of C’est Moi Polical Blog, and her friend, Alan Martin a couple of weeks ago in some brilliant investigative blogging:
The Incestuous Puppet Masters Behind Freedom’s Watch
By: Alan Martin and Megan Donovan
“… Freedom’s Watch is a new White House front group of prominent conservatives with a pro-Israel agenda masquerading as a grassroots movement. Formed only two weeks prior, it began a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign on August 22, 2007 “to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to ‘cut and run’.”
It has been described as “a covert ‘cut-out’ organization” and an “outfit dedicated to keeping the war industry thriving.” “A sort of shadow White House communications shop has emerged to help the beleaguered president sell his unpopular war to the American people,” Jake Tapper and Avery Miller wrote August 22, 2007, at ABC News.
Additionally, the Freedom’s Watch “campaign clearly suggests that if the US loses in Iraq, it will be because anti-war forces, lefties, Democrats and other weak and disloyal elements sold out American troops and betrayed their sacrifices. This is the core story-line of the classic fascist propaganda weapon, the ’stab-in-the-back’ myth,” PAF wrote. …”
If you haven’t already read the Donovan-Martin report, I advise you to do so now. You’ll learn that, behind Freedom Watch lurks former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and lots of “Big Oil And Nation Buildin’ Bidness” money; just so you KNOW.
And as for all of the outrage over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit, everybody should just chill out and let the KOOK speak and expose himself for what he really is. If Columbia University officials are truly planning to hold the man accountable for some of his ludicrous actions and statements as they say they are, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the whole thing. In fact, I look forward to hearing his responses to the tough questions, but what I REALLY think is going to happen is the same thing that happened to the spokesman for the Minutemen at that same university last year — he’ll get shouted down by a bunch of JACKASSES and the Q&A session will be cut short…
And that is my unfortunate prediction.
UPDATE – TUESDAY:
Well, “Mr. Popular” did, indeed get to speak and my “unfortunate prediction” was wrong after all…
From The New York Times:
Ahmadinejad, at Columbia, Parries and Puzzles
By HELENE COOPER
He said that there were no homosexuals in Iran — not one — and that the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews should not be treated as fact, but theory, and therefore open to debate and more research.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, aired those and other bewildering thoughts in a two-hour verbal contest at Columbia University yesterday, providing some ammunition to people who said there was no point in inviting him to speak. Yet his appearance also offered evidence of why he is widely admired in the developing world for his defiance toward Western, especially American, power.
In repeated clashes with his hosts, Mr. Ahmadinejad accused the United States of supporting terrorist groups, and characterized as hypocritical American and European efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding, pointedly: “I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically, they’re backwards. Retarded.” …
(Snip!)
“… He began the afternoon on the defensive.
Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia, under intense attack for the invitation — one protester outside the campus auditorium where Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke passed out fliers that said, “Bollinger, too bad bin Laden is not available” — opened the event with a 10-minute verbal assault.
He said, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” adding, “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”
The Iranian president, who was seated 10 feet away from him on the stage, wore a frozen smile. The anti-Ahmadinejad portion of the audience, which looked to be about 70 percent of it, cheered and chortled.
Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president, then continued his attack. He said it was “well documented” that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused “to adhere to the international standards” of disclosure for its nuclear program.
“I doubt,” Mr. Bollinger concluded, “that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad did not directly answer the questions, but he did address them. Before doing so though, he said pointedly:
“In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty.”
He added, to some cheers, “Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.” …
(Snip!)
“… Inside the auditorium, the Columbia students laughed appreciatively when Mr. Ahmadinejad pushed back against the attempts by Dean John H. Coatsworth, the event’s moderator, to get him to stop rambling and answer questions directly.
“Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel?” Mr. Coatsworth asked.
“We love all people,” Mr. Ahmadinejad dodged. “We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran.” He went on to say that the Palestinian “nation” should be allowed a referendum to decide its own future.
Mr. Coatsworth persisted: “I think you can answer that question with a simple yes or no.” …
All in all, it wasn’t that bad of an event and I’m glad no violence erupted on the campus. The Iranian president pretty much demonstrated the fact that we are, indeed, on two different sides of the same world when it comes to rationalization, which demonstrates our inability to get along well with each other.
WELL DONE, Columbia University – but I’m still not sure what it is you accomplished here…
***
Thanks to our good friend William Teach of Pirate’s Cove for linking in with Ahmanutjob To Columbia: Free Speech?
Thanks also to The Blue Star Chronicles for linking in with There are no Homosexuals in Iran!
Loading ...
1:38 pm on September 24th, 2007 1
“And as for all of the outrage over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit, everybody should just chill out and let the KOOK speak and expose himself for what he really is. If Columbia University officials are truly planning to hold the man accountable for some of his ludicrous actions and statements as they say they are, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the whole thing.”
Except that by giving him a respected forum from which to speek they give credence to his statement. And, by holding him accountable” they are setting themselves up to a debate, and a debate implies that both sides have merit. He is looking for justification and acceptance in the west and, as usual, the ivory tower of academia is rolling over to give an anti-American thug a golden platform from which to spread his hatred. As for tough questions – you can bet that any questions will be marshmellows and anyone who dares to try to ask a question with teeth in it will have the mike shut off and be escorted out.
3:14 pm on September 24th, 2007 2
Is it Joe Lovell’s view that Bush is entirely right and the Iranian president is entirely wrong? What a blinkered approach. There is nothing in the current relationship between Bush and Iran that could not be dealt with through tough diplomatic negotiations. As for the Iranian president being shouted down at Columbia, that would be a real pity, and would reveal the weakness of rational arguments against him.
3:44 pm on September 24th, 2007 3
exactly- the guy was put in the hot seat at Columbia and seemed like he wanted to be invisible-
A hoisting by his own petard, so to speak.
5:46 pm on September 24th, 2007 4
“Is it Joe Lovell’s view that Bush is entirely right and the Iranian president is entirely wrong?”
I must have missed that in my post. Can you please provide the quote where I said that?
“As for the Iranian president being shouted down at Columbia, that would be a real pity, and would reveal the weakness of rational arguments against him.”
So, shouting down, or attempting to shout down,someone shows “the weakness of rational arguments against him.”
In which case the left has been showing a “weakness of rational arguments” for decades since that is a standard tactic when the left wants to stifle free debate. And at the same time be treated to the same “hospitality” that most conservative speakers get if they somehow break the blockade and manage to present their views on a college campus. Kind of funny how the left, which prates and brays about welcoming debate and free speech, only grants it to those who expound leftist views.
“There is nothing in the current relationship between Bush and Iran that could not be dealt with through tough diplomatic negotiations.”
This is true. If both side were to sit and bargain in good faith, it would be fine. But remember that the culture from which Mr. Amadinejad comes finds that it is honorable and acceptable to lie to ones enemies or competition, and that his holy book reccomends it. While the roots of diplomacy seem to be built on disimulation and twisting or hedging meanings, outright lies are frowned upon. Not everyone has the same respect for the truth as, say, Feinstein, Clinton, Kennedy, or Schumer.
7:42 pm on September 24th, 2007 5
[...] on the trail: Blue Crab Boulevard, Gun Toting Liberal, Hot Air has lots, including protesters being removed from Ground Zero, The Jawa Report, MVRWC, [...]
9:24 pm on September 24th, 2007 6
The President of Iran comes from a culture that “finds … it is honorable and acceptable to lie to ones enemies …”
Maybe so. But the President of the United States who lied his fellow citizens into a tragic war should be the very person to deal with him.
9:49 pm on September 24th, 2007 7
There are no Homosexuals in Iran!…
I watched Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University today. Its being covered extensively over the blogs, so I will be brief. The man is smart, possibly brilliant, he is charming in the sense that a sociopath is charming, he had a Clintonesque quali….
11:46 pm on September 24th, 2007 8
“The President of Iran comes from a culture that “finds … it is honorable and acceptable to lie to ones enemies …”
Maybe so. But the President of the United States who lied his fellow citizens into a tragic war should be the very person to deal with him.”
I see. It’s all about Bush. No one else ever does anything wrong. So 5 years ago when the entire western world was convincded that since SH had ignored at least 14 UN resolutions to allow inspectors into Iraq because he indeed still had WMDs (remember he had used them against his own people after Gulf I – I guess that was Bushes fault too), it was all the fault of Bush. I recall that a lot of so-called progressives in the halls of Congress, in both houses, also agreed with that conclusion. But, I guess to the “progressive” mind, Bush, and therefore America, is evil incarnate and can do nothing right. I guess H. Clinton lied to us when she spoke in support of the war. Likewise most of the darlings of the left when they also spoke in support of the war. Somehow their on the record statements of their belief that SH was a threat to the mid-east and to our national interests gets lost by those whose only platform is hatred of Bush. One can’t blame just Bush for the war, there were a hell of a lot of good, card carrying “progressive” Democratic capons who were just as strong in support of it at the start as he was. Revisionism seems to be alive and well on the left.
Sounds like the Iranian got exactly what he wanted – the ivory tower crowd rolling over for him and giving a patina of credibility to his words.
1:22 pm on September 25th, 2007 9
Joe Lovell: We may not always see eye to eye, but you sure nailed this one, on all counts.
The Iranian did get exactly what he wanted, and I’m sure he probably believes he put the Americans in their place. What was said is not important, the fact that he was invited to speak at Columbia will provide years worth of propaganda.
1:38 pm on September 25th, 2007 10
Isn’t it too bad the President of Columbia invited the President of Iran to Columbia and then spent `10 minutes insulting him.? Is that how senior academics treat their guests no matter what baggage they are carrying. Verbal terrorism is terrorism wherever it occurs. I am sure the broader Muslin world drew the appropriate conclusion.
1:57 pm on September 25th, 2007 11
In the eyes of some, anti-Americanism is quite Fashionable, ithn’t it?
7:11 pm on September 25th, 2007 12
Has anyone heard or read some of the stuff being written and said about Rumsfeld by the O! So tolerant! leftists at Stanford in reaction to his being named a Fellow to the Hoover institute? Here is one of the tamer pieces:”He contradicts the fundamental standards of the university, which are order, morality, personal honor and most importantly, the rights of others,” said Pamela Lee, a Stanford art history professor who helped write the petition.” And I heard on the radio this morning an interview with some prof at Stanford who was using erudite and tolerant terms like “slimey” and “scum.” (there was more, but traffic got kind of squirrley and I needed to pay more attention to that than to the radio)Sounds like the Pres. of Columbia mistook the President of Iran for Bush or some other american right winger (or “reichwinger” as I have heard some fascilibs say). Seems that it is acceptable for senior academics to insult and belittle Americans with whom the disagree. Of course, the chances of a conservative or a Republican (or even a Conservative Republican) being invited to talk at Columbia, or any other major university, are close enough to zero to not make any difference, so naturally they won’t be able to insult their invited guests. And, if by some mistake one DID get invited to talk, the chances of being allowed to talk are, again, close to zero. The O! So Tolerant! leftists that run most universities would manage to shout him or her down, or find some other way of preventing opposing views from being presented. I’ve personally seen it happen several times out here in CA, at various CSU & UC campuses.
Yep, free expression and open exchange of ideas is alive and well in academia. So long as those expressions and ideas parrot DNC and other socialist talking points.
You might check out the Huffington Post for some of the other tolerant, diverse, and inclusive comments by left leaning people on this subject.
Also check the column by Cal Thomas today.
1:02 pm on September 26th, 2007 13
Joe:
“or “reichwinger” as I have heard some fascilibs say).:
so a reichwinger=fascilib? pot, meet kettle-what’s cookin?
name calling does not cancel out previous name calling.
4:35 pm on September 26th, 2007 14
But there is a difference, I don’t claim to be O! So tolerant, diverse, and inclusive as the fascist liberals (which I usually contract to “fascilib”). Also, the term to which you object is just a contracton, not a juvenile twisting of words. And, the pointing out of my less than tolerant turn of phrase does not address the systematic supression of conservative ideas at the vast majority of universities and colleges in the US, or the almost universal use of invective and vitriol by the O! So tolerant! left against those who dare to voice opposing opinions.
Or, I could claim that I was just following the standards set by the fascist liberal faculty members of ivory tower academia. After all, they are O! So tolerant and inclusive! that their usages MUST be correct.
4:50 pm on September 26th, 2007 15
“Also, the term to which you object is just a contracton, not a juvenile twisting of words. ”
I
Semantics. contractions are the order of the day it seems. what I am saying is that being a mynah bird and calling liberals “fascists” is really an ungrounded ad hominem attack talking point, much like the far left knee jerks and calls the far-right “reichwingers” as an homage to wordplay/Nazism. Do you even know what these concepts mean when you throw them around? Is your washer permanently set on “spin” or what?
“Or, I could claim that I was just following the standards set by the fascist liberal faculty members of ivory tower academia.”
Thanks for that frank assesment, yet wholly ungrounded and sweepingly general spin on our educational system. I guess you are not sending a donation to Oral Roberts University this year then…..
8:58 pm on September 26th, 2007 16
“Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state.” (and the “state” could be the one world government that many of the leaders of the left seem to be working towards)
Which pretty well sums up the attitude of the leaders of the left. From what I see DiFi, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, and the rest of the anointed ones doing, they fit nicely into that definition, hence my use of the phrase “fascist liberal.”
Oral Roberts? Why would I support someone who preaches what I consider heresy? Or, at best, heterodoxy? No use for the man or his institution. And what does ORU have to do with most of the major colleges and universities only allowing free exchange of ideas on campus if those ideas fit into the current liberal world view? (Kind of like when I contacted KPFA radio out here – a supposed “free speech radio” station – about getting some of the local NRA Members Council people on the air. I was told that there was no way in hell that they would have anything to do with something that contradicted their gunz-r-bad stance. Same thing when I tried again a year or so later to get some Russian Orthodox music on during some of their music of the world programs, along with some short explainaitons about the Orthodox Church – nope, can’t do anything that might show Christianity as anything but a bunch of closed minded bigots [paraphrased there, but that is what it boiled down to once stripped of the doublespeak]).
As far as my “yet wholly ungrounded and sweepingly general spin on our educational system,” I only know what I read in blogs, newspapers, magazines, campus newspapers, or what I hear from actual students on campus. My college days are well behind me, but I keep in touch. A conservative speaker at a major college or university is about as likely as a kluker being invited to address a Panthers rally.
And, again, the O! so tolerant! liberals seem to have no problem slinging the mud, engaging in ad homenim attacks, or using terms that by their standards would be hate speech if similar terms were applied to them or their causes(but since the liberals are using them for their purposes, they are OK). I’ve learned from debating them on the RKBA that we both need to play by the same set of rules and definitions. I am more than willing to play by their rules and their standards. I have found that using their rules and standards against them tends to upset the liberals, it jars their world view.
So, are you going to address the hypocritical intolerance and closed-mindedness of the self-proclaimed tolerant, diverse, and inclusive left? Or are you keep havering at me for my use of the term “fascilib”?
And thank you for illustrating my point for me.
12:37 pm on September 27th, 2007 17
havering? what is that exactly?
Of course I’m going to “haver” at you for regurgitating demonising labels ( probably originating from demagogues like Coulter, Hannity, et al. )
Speak without the vitriol and personal prejudice and your arguments hold more weight.
As for ORU and your own experience with conservative speakers, I am sorry that they are so one sided. As for me, I was able to hear the likes of Jello Biafra and William Safire in the same semester. Most halls of learning, by their nature are progressive ( in philosophy, not neccesarily politically ),for the sake of learning and open-mindedness ( like a parachute, only good when open ) In practice I think they should be neutral – but that’s hard to achieve with people being “people”.
My point is that you lump all those in the “ivory towers of academia” as libifascists. I’m sure your professors that taught you would appreciate it. What weighted evidence besides this one controversial anecdote do you have? There are as many liberal-minded professors as there are conservative so go to the blackboard and write “I will not engage in confirmation bias-based arguments” 1000x
a bit dated- from 2005- but you get the idea.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p02s01-ussc.html
Would you lump these schools into libifacist land? Doubt it.
Personally, I don’t think that “Christian values” should have ownership by any political camp. That’s hypocrisy and counter to the teachings of the Son of God.
To say that Jesus would have been a Liberal or Conservative is pure hubris, and quite silly actually.
I don’t need to illustrate your points – you apparently have a power-sprayer of ignorance to do it for you. May I suggest you read a book called “Un Spun” by the founders of Fact Check.org- it’s a non partisan book about cutting through the swath of these type of arguments. I recommend everyone read it regardless of their political prediliction.
On another note, I don’t think the president of Columbia should have started in with the “we’ll let you speak even though you are a petty tyrant” rant. Kind of invalidates the whole notion of free speech to my mind.In that I may agree-let those who will say to us “we will bury you” dine on crow and shame by their own misdeeds. And, for my own curiosity , wonder if the translator was transposing the questions and answers without bias as well.