Gotta agree with Kristol on this one.
« Other People's Liberty | Main | The MSM Strikes Back » Ahmadinejad at Columbia22 Sep 2007 10:40 am Comments (40)
Whether or not there's some moral outrage or definable harm in letting the president of Iran speak at Columbia, Kristol's position certainly strikes me as *politically* unassailable. People's toleration for free speech seems to end where Holocaust denial begins. 
Reinstating ROTC when we're in the middle of Dumbya Bush's Military Madness March isn't something I would approve of, either. Good work backing up Billy the Bloody's propaganda, though, Ross. Congrats, you've now become a small part in his Kill Iran Now effort. How proud does that make you?
HDG writes: Given these realities, I don't see by what logic you can argue that Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to speak at Columbia. Look, it's not as though Bill Kristol isn't employing logic to make his case. It's just a question of which considerations outweigh which. It shouldn't be our business whether or not he supports Palestinian insurgents; that's Israel's fight, not ours. Since Ahmadinejad's support of Palestinian insurgents features extremely imflammatory rhetoric, and since Palestinian "insurgents" are habitually viewed as terrorists by the mainstream in this country, I think you're being a little naive here. The Ahmadinejad regime is not at war with the US, and has not committed crimes against us. Not according to the many who claim they're attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq. I don't know whether they are, but people are going to take the army commanders' word for it, not yours. Moreover, Ahmadinejad is one of a very few world leaders today who is intelligent, charismatic and not a total mediocrity like virtually all Western leaders are. Huh? (perhaps this says something about liberalism and the kind of leaders it produces.) For this reason along we deserve to hear what he has to say. Hugo Chavez is intelligent and charismatic. So is Castro. So was Hitler (well, he was charismatic...well, some people said he was...never mind, he was a total creep). Lots of thugs exhibit these features in public, and know exactly how to manipulate people with them. Just playing devil's advocate here. I don't really know what I would do if I were Bollinger...
I don't know the particular circumstances at Columbia. But I do know that the main basis of the objections to ROTC on-campus recruiting elsewhere is opposition to the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Trying to get our own country to change its policies is very, very different from permitting an objectionable foreign leader to speak on campus. And it's not, for chrissakes, a statement that Ahmadinejad is awesomer than the US military. And bear in mind, the war's cheerleaders, such as Kristol, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, et al, are eager to jump over to "the dark side" by engaging in torture and supporting murderous thugs that profess to dislike Iran, such as Sunni militias and Saddam Hussein. So I'm pretty unimpressed by his "moral" stand on this or any other issue.
Giving someone a forum to express their views is not the same as endorsing those views, nor does providing them with a platform make any statement whatsoever about their morality or value.
I don't give a tuppence for Kristol's views. You seem to. He is a dishonest man, a warmmonger and in some ways no better that Ahmedinajad. We make excuses for ourselves. We have never supported terrorist regimes: think :Pinochet, Apartheid South Africa, Egypt (oh, yes they have elections - 90% vote for Mubarak and it is a flourishing democracy). And what about that great breeding ground for terrorrists: Saudi Arabia. Oh but they own us. We have the gall to lecture others. Surprised at you Ross. Joining the war's discredited cheerleader?
i have far more respect for president Ahmadinejad than I do for the chimp in the White House right now. and he didn't call for the destruction of Israel, he wished for the day that it 'vanishes' (not 'wiped out') from the world map. how is than any different than lots of conservatives in the 1980s saying they wished the soviet union would disappear. and anyone who calls either Fidel or Hugo a thug, is not worth my arguing with. what business is it of yours whether Cuba is communist, Venezuela is socialist, and Iran is Islamist. leave them alone!
Ross: Do you read your comments? They're getting pretty weird.
Holocaust denial is certainly both stupid and highly offensive, but it's hardly of paramount importance to U.S. security or international relations generally right now. The list of other items Bollinger said he is going to challenge Ahmadinejad are much more important. And I don't understand why it's a propoganda victory for the guy to apepar at Columbia. If, for example, Bollinger or panel of experts he puts together embarrasses the little man in a civil debate, then he'll take a PR hit. This sort of thing provides a good opportunity to reach an important audience that otherwise would not be listening and possibly persuade a few people. What is Kristol afraid of? Rhetorical question, obviously. He just wants to feed the meme that eastern "elites" (christ, I hate that word) have affection for terrorists and hate our troops.
Aaron, I would have thought that my admiration for the regimes of venezuela and Cuba is no more 'weird' (from a mainstream US perspective), than Steve Sailor's bizarre race theories. both socialism and racism are out of the meainstream in America, but i think racism certainly more so....certainly racism has been more of a threat to the liberal order in America than either Fidel or Hugo ever had. If Steve Sailor is allowed to post here, then why not me. and personally, i bet Ahmadinejad could run rings around this Bollenger character in a debate.
Ahmadinejad appeared to question the holocaust, yes, which was stupid and offensive. But i don't think he really doubts the holocaust happened. of course he knows it happens, and (i would assume) deplores it. he said something in a moment of passion, after having been baited by people who hate his regime, his ideology and his religion. when we are baited by our enemies, we often say things we don't entirely mean, in a moment of irritation. in the same kind of way that some conservative might say that he wished that America had its own Franco right now. if Ahmadinejad really doesn't believe the holocaust happeneds, that would be a problem, but i think that this has been blown out of all proportion.
Here is Iran's version of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is what Iran is buying in Palestine. This is what they're buying in Lebanon. This is what they're buying in Iraq. But whatever, right? Let the man speak. We might learn something.
"I don't know the particular circumstances at Columbia. But I do know that the main basis of the objections to ROTC on-campus recruiting elsewhere is opposition to the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy." And homosexuals are executed in Iran, yet the president of that country is welcome to speak on Columbia's campus. "Giving someone a forum to express their views is not the same as endorsing those views, nor does providing them with a platform make any statement whatsoever about their morality or value." Great point. It's too bad that Bollinger can apply that reasoning to Ahmadinejad and not to the ROTC.
...he said something in a moment of passion, after having been baited by people who hate his regime, his ideology and his religion. That was a hugely extended moment of passion.
The ROTC analogy is pretty weak, I must say. Ahmadinejad doesn't appear to be trying to influence the curriculum at Columbia in the way that ROTC necessarily does.
torourke writes: "And homosexuals are executed in Iran, yet the president of that country is welcome to speak on Columbia's campus." They're executed in Saudi Arabia, too, but Dumbya Bush plays public kissy-face with Abdullah and I suspect that didn't bother you a bit.
But whatever, right? Let the man speak. We might learn something. Ok, once more, with feeling-- giving someone a platform to speak does not in any way constitute an endorsement of what he says, what he does, or what he is. Why is that so hard to understand?
Hi, Just some FYI: WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Friday Freedom’s Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman released a statement and a copy of the print advertisement it has requested to be run in the Monday edition of the New York Times. “Freedom’s Watch could not sit back and allow a terrorist to come to The text of the advertisement follows: Ahmadinejad Is A Terrorist Columbia University is wrong to give him a platform. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the Yet, while Columbia gives a terrorist like Ahmadinejad a platform to What has happened to this prestigious university? People who support killing Americans are welcome. But the military that Columbia should be ashamed of its actions. Freedom’s Watch knows that America and the forces of freedom are right. The terrorists and their appeasers are wrong. “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon Support Freedom’s Watch. ~ Stand up for freedom and those who defend it. ~ Surrender is not an option. ~ Victory is America’s only choice. Visit http://www.freedomswatch.org/ or call 877-222-8001 Paid for by Freedom’s Watch ~~ Thank You Freedom's Watch For Taking A Stand For OUR Country And Troops! ____ Peace!
I don't recall making any arguments about endorsements. Giving someone a platform to speak at the very least implies an expectation of value. One argument is that Ahmadinejad, as the head of state of a foreign country, carries inherent value as a speaker. The counterargument says, yes, normally that would be the case, except here are several...mitigating...factors that tend to drop Ahmadinejad's expected value. Not just to zero, which would be where Jim Bob from Bi-Lo would rank as a speaker, but to the negatives. Notice I said nothing about endorsement. My argument is that a speaking engagement at Columbia is quite a privilege, and Ahmadinejad -- given what he stands for, what he enables, and what he's said in the past -- simply doesn't deserve it.
well, shit. that last comment was by me.
Dan posted: "Freedom’s Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman released a statement and a copy of the print advertisement it has requested to be run in the Monday edition of the New York Times. “Freedom’s Watch could not sit back and allow a terrorist to come to Let’s be clear, Iran today kills American soldiers in Iraq and they will not stop Let's really be clear - Bradley Blakeman is a former member of the Bushpig administration and a confirmed chickenhawk warmongerer. You might as well be posting more quotes from Bloody Billy Kristol.
So let's review the Weekly Standard worldview: Political Correctness = Bad Hmmm. Personally, I think this shows questionable judgment on the part of the University President. If they're willing to weather the inevitable controversy, though, that's their business. On the other hand, can we please drop the pretense that any particular group has a monopoly on "political correctness?" We all have sacred cows that we don't like to see gored. I'd be offended if someone invited a violent extremist like Bill Kristol to speak on my campus, but I'd let the man speak freely.
Columbia just gave their opponents a gift. Too bad, because I think they were wrong on the merits.
Bollinger is being either naive or malicious in making his university a propaganda tool for Ahmedinejad. If the university invited Ahmedinejad to share the stage and debate a leading Iranian dissident human rights advocate, that would be different. His lame claim that he will "challenge" Ahmedinejad rings hollow. He lacks the moral authority and will instead be a willing dupe. If Ahmedinejad was willing to freely debate one of his regime's opponents, I'd say let him do so in the spirit of free inquiry. Playing rope-a-dope with a lefty university president doesn't count. Regarding the argument that Columbia shouldn't host Ahmedinejad because Iran is allegedly killing American troops in Iraq: if this is true, I'm less concerned about Columbia than I am about the inaction of the U.S. Government. I can't expect a university president to treat Iran as an enemy we are at war with when the President of the United States equivocates on this. Had Bush bombed Iranian military targets in retaliation of their alleged complicity in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, then we would be in a de facto state of war with Iran, and thus it would be inappropriate for any American university to host the Iranian president. ROTC is a separate issue, but one which clearly highlights the Columbia administration's hypocrisy. It also highlights the stupidity of their ban on ROTC. They always seem to forget the blatantly obvious point that ROTC isn't just the presence of the military in the university, but also the presence of the university in the military. If you think it's worthwhile to give a platform to the president of Iran, who better to have in the audience than future military officers? Similarly, if Bollinger and the university faculty value their various political perspectives, wouldn't they want future leaders exposed to these views? Or would they rather that the bulk of the military's officers come from southern state college ROTC programs? Maybe a Columbia-educated military police officer would have prevented the abuses at Abu Ghraib had he been stationed there? By banishing ROTC, Columbia denies itself an opportunity to shape and influence the military.
Ok, once more, with feeling-- giving someone a platform to speak does not in any way constitute an endorsement of what he says, what he does, or what he is. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it so hard to understand why other people *would* interpret it, if not as an endorsement, as a tacit expression of toleration? It all depends on where you care to draw the line. Try a thought experiment: is there ANY world ruler (past or present) you would object to seeing hosted in a civilized talk at Columbia?
Iran under war monger Ahmandinejad is the largest exectuor of children. Human rights abuses, torture of students, public hanging of gays and others and execution of journalists... Why should Columbia honor terror monger from Iran with freedom of speech on Campus? Pretty Simple.
Iran Leads World in Executing Children
Pakistan's terrible human rights record-- we must ban Musharraf from coming to America. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/14/usint16481.htm
Pakistan's military dictatorship oppresses its people. Why do appeasers want to "engage" the dictator? http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-20-voa28.cfm
And Kristol isn't an accessory to murder? He's been cheering on the invasion of Iraq for 10 years now, in violation of all International law.
- He is the leader of a country that has huge human rights violations - not the nickel and dime stuff, but pretty horrible. http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2954 - Anti-semitic, quite obviously, when applied to the Jewish side of the Semites. and here to: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php "Let's really be clear - Bradley Blakeman is a former member of the Bushpig administration and a confirmed chickenhawk warmongerer. You might as well be posting more quotes from Bloody Billy Kristol." - Fer cryin out loud Moe's-ess, this kind of juvenile word creativity is pretty much an example of an emotional level near that of a 12 year old, not someone who wants to be taken seriously in any kind of legitimate discussion. ANyone can do it, e.g. "Ahmad-handjob" or "My Ham Id is something I just can't rely on for religious guidance" Please dispense with the childish witticisms or I'll inflict more inanities on you.
Ricky Retardo writes: ""Let's really be clear - Bradley Blakeman is a former member of the Bushpig administration and a confirmed chickenhawk warmongerer. You might as well be posting more quotes from Bloody Billy Kristol." - Fer cryin out loud Moe's-ess, this kind of juvenile word creativity is pretty much an example of an emotional level near that of a 12 year old, not someone who wants to be taken seriously in any kind of legitimate discussion. ANyone can do it, e.g. "Ahmad-handjob" or "My Ham Id is something I just can't rely on for religious guidance" Please dispense with the childish witticisms or I'll inflict more inanities on you. " I don't care what your sort calls me, Retardo. I'm disgusted by what your gang has done to this country over the past 7 years, and I'm treating you with the "creativity" you've earned. You Bushpigs have lost the right to take part in "legitimate discussion," since you're confirmed liars and fools. And you may think anyone can do it, but I'm quite sure I can do it better than you.
Arguably, seeing Ahmadinejad in person might give students some insight into his regime and how we could mitigate the harm it causes. No such logic would apply with ROTC recruitment.
plastochron contagiosity asthenopic idolodulia figureheadless porphyria thankfully pseudographeme
plastochron contagiosity asthenopic idolodulia figureheadless porphyria thankfully pseudographeme
would you like a donkey punch?
moilingly atridean positivize taun ghostland swirring hyalobasalt corimelaena
buy xanax online
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hey Ross,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be true to say the following?
-Ahmadinejad has never been implicated in a single terrorist attack on American soil.
- Ahmadinejad's regime has never been implicated in any kind of dealings with Al Qaeda.
- The response of the Iranian government to September 11, 2001 was of sympathy and support for the American people.
- The Iraqi factions supported by Iran, are Shia armies who are bitter enemies of Al Qaeda. To a large extent they have been doing our dirty work for us (i.e. killing Sunni extremists).
Given these realities, I don't see by what logic you can argue that Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to speak at Columbia. It shouldn't be our business whether or not he supports Palestinian insurgents; that's Israel's fight, not ours. The Ahmadinejad regime is not at war with the US, and has not committed crimes against us. Moreover, Ahmadinejad is one of a very few world leaders today who is intelligent, charismatic and not a total mediocrity like virtually all Western leaders are. (perhaps this says something about liberalism and the kind of leaders it produces.) For this reason along we deserve to hear what he has to say.
I'm no fan of Islamic government, or even of Islam in general, but one has to question whether soime form of Islamist government might be more suited to Middle Eastern conditions than the decadent puppet regimes we are trying to introduce under the name of western so-called democracy.
Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 22, 2007 10:59 AM