18 Comments

Bollinger’s introduction to Ahmadinejad’s speech took away the presumption of passive acceptance of what Ahmadinejad represents. Ms. Glicks analysis is intellectually correct but primarliy useful in it’s derivative arguments re: the nation Israel created for the Arabs, the ‘Palestinians.’ The friction in the Ahmadinejad appearance reflected in the laughter over the ‘no gays’ remark and our seeing his implacable and tangential answers to issues that for us are desired objects of negotiation conveyed, to the public I think, that we are dealing with a “zombie,” that is not a person in relationship to whom there can be mutual empathy. This is a psychological statement of Ms. Glick’s argument.

Sorry for your concerns, but he is the leader of an important nation in world affairs. Columbia should be honored he accepted its invistation and embarrased at it president’s cowardly attack on this important visitor. Perhaps you are too emotionally involved to see thing clearly.

So one should never protest fascist leaders because they are “leaders of important nations”.?

Somehow, the vision that popped into my head after reading this was James Bond addressing Auric Goldfinger, “You expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!”

If the savages ever gained an upper hand, I expect that is how they would respond to our obsequious plea for “dialog.”

Well put!

“If Adolf Hitler flew in today/
They’d send a limousine anyway.”

-”White Man in Hammersmith Palais,”
The Clash, 1977

You say you are shocked by the failure of so many of the commentariat in the MSM and blogsphere to have moral clarity. This is not a surprise to me because of an earlier and much larger failingthat still absolutely baffles me, namely why did NO American media oulet - major or minor -publish the Danish cartoons? What happened to freedom of speech, moral clarity and courage 20 months ago? It was shocking to me that the American media completely kow-towed to radical Islam in that instance. Now my expectations are much, much lower.

“Are they aware of how student dissidents are beaten and tortured in Terhan?”

Of course they are aware of it. What else does anyone know about Iran except that it is a brutal theocracy?

But the Left admires authoritarianism, in fact. If they could oppress people who disagreed with them in THIS country, they would.

I discovered this interesting — and, I should think, pertinent — item from the Univ of Chicago Press: An excerpt from “Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition” by John Durham Peters (2005).

One key sentence:

“Only those with advanced training in self-doubt and stoic self-control would reinterpret their own prissy reaction to a tale of disgust as a symptom of insufficient thoughtfulness, rather than as a justified response to a provocation.”

“Sorry for your concerns, but he is the leader of an important nation in world affairs.”

Then explain, please, the legitimacy of the protests that greet the US President (whomever has that office) wherever that person goes?

Please go easy on Columbia University, for there is hope! After all, it was the Columbia University Oral History Project that got ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin to confess that he accepted one million dollars from Stalin in the ‘Kuzbas Commune’ Case in 1923.
Obviously, Baldwin let his hair down because he thought he was amongst friends. Admittedly, Columbia University has not done a good job of advertising this nugget from academia, but perhaps we can all help Columbia get the word out.
For more information on the treacherous actions of the ACLU, including their not so secret work in imprisoning the Japanese in WW II, go to http://www.outingthesenator.com

As yet unfamiliar with these charges, but I believe the Bill of Rights is the greatest thing about America’s government and these days anyway the ACLU deserves credit for defending it.

And, p.s,. to be crystal clear I don’t dispute Columbia’s First Amendment right to invite or hear anyone they want. Perhaps they should “dialogue” with A’jad’s racist fan David Duke. The point is that we also have free speech rights to protest rather than “diaolgue” with fascist theocarts with blood on their hands.

Anyone who whines about the ‘insult’ to Mad Mahmoud is an idiot. The Napoleon wannabe whined about the hospitality he received, yet what examples of ‘hospitality’ have we seen from the Iranian government?

Hospitality like that extended to U.S. Embassy staff for 444 days in 1979-1980?

Hospitality like that extended to 15 British sailors and marines earlier this year?

Hospitality like that extended to Haleh Esfandiari?

From the examples we’ve seen, Mad Mahmoud should consider himself fortunate that the U.S. government has higher standards of hospitality than his own does. Otherwise, he’d be down in Gitmo with his fellow terrorists.

“… why did NO American media oulet [sic] - major or minor -publish the Danish cartoons?”

Numerous American media outlets, major and minor, published those cartoons. I specifically recall the Austin American-Statesman, but there were many others.

You may be right, but I also don’t remember seeing them in any major American outlet, and I read a lot online and off. Can you provide a link to any major outlet?

I don’t suppose I really mind the concept of a mad man speaking as if he were a true world leader in the name of free speech. But I have two problems with the entire situation.
1. Columbia University is notorious for their Liberal views. When a Conservative attempts to speak, they can count on being physically attacked. And driven off stage. So where is the free speech? I guess it is only for Liberals and terrorists.
2. As Michael said above, Columbia gives passive acceptance to Ahmadinejad and his beliefs. More it provides him with internal stature. ‘Look’ says one terrorist to another, ‘Ahmadinejad lectures the Americans in their own country! What a Lion he is!’ So free speech becomes propaganda. And Columbia cares? Not! For them it is not a free speech issue but an opportunity to bask in the liberal glow.

Message for Ingrid van Weert:
I too was disappointed by the US media response, but a variety of print media published the rather harmless cartoons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons

I think President Carter’s book and that of Mersheimer and Walt have pretty well taken the protective cover off such contrivances as Mr. Ahmadinejad’s treatment.

To those who believe that Bollinger’s prefatory remarks took away any implied acceptance of Ahmendinejad’s policies or that these remarks represent some sort of cowardly attack on Bollinger’s part - can you show me where these remarks were seriously planned in any way whatsoever? I’m sure I followed the story as much as you did, yet I can’t remember hearing anything about them until right before the visit. Instead, Columbia defended its invitation by appealing to free speech, to open dialogue, to his status as world leader - this last was perhaps the most-used explanation originally put forth, since he was invited as part of a college course. My intepretation is that his remarks were a CYA maneuver designed to deflect increasing criticism from not only media but also from money-giving alumni. Nothing written since then has addressed this issue so as to refute or buttress my interpretation. The real answer lies with Bollinger, of course, but it would be hard to trust any statement by him in such a charged atmosphere. Naturally, if my interpretation is correct, your criticisms are moot; if incorrect, then you may feel that your criticisms still hold value, though they’ve been convincingly refuted elsewhere. (To wit - his invitation to a world-leading institute of higher learning automatically confers unearned legitimacy and implied acceptance of his policies. Asking him to account for these policies is neither rude nor an insult against any Arab hospitality customs, as some have suggested.)

Michael Brophy says,

Bollinger’s introduction to Ahmadinejad’s speech took away the presumption of passive acceptance of what Ahmadinejad represents.

What did the applause at the various feel-good moments of Ahmadinejad’s remarks do, then?

May I ask how you feel about US “surgical strikes” on the revolutionary guard? How angry should we be?

I’ve been opposed to military action agasint Iran, don’t think surgical strikes are ever surgical. I could be wrong, but I think leaks to Sy Hersh are being used by his anonymous sources to convey threats designed to deter.