Columbia University, by inviting Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, has shown confidence in the wisdom and adultness of their students and our republic.
Ahmadinejad is the president of a major nation in a vital part of the world, and we should have enough self-assurance and belief in our own system of government, and in the intelligence of our college students, that we can let them (and our larger public) evaluate his words, whatever they may be.
To be terrified of his speaking there (or, for that matter, laying a wreath at Ground Zero) is behavior one would have expected from a fragile régime like Khrushchev’s USSR or Burma’s military junta, not the bold, brave, and fearless USA.
We are the nation whose President Nixon reached out to and met with China’s Mao Tse Tsung at the same time Mao was funding and arming the North Vietnamese to kill our soldiers in Vietnam. We’re the nation whose President Reagan confronted Soviet President Gorbachev, who at the time had thousands of nuclear warheads armed and pointed at us and was actively funding and arming proxy wars we were fighting in more than a half-dozen nations. We’re the nation whose President Roosevelt said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
And let’s also remember that the people of Tehran, Iran, produced one of the largest candlelight vigil demonstrations in the Muslim world in support of the USA the day after 9/11, repudiating the act and actors of that event. We still have the ability to make an ally of that nation, and shouldn’t blow it by fear and bluster (or bombs). America is better and stronger than the nervous Nellies and chickenhawk war-mongers who currently have control of the Republican Party (and a few Democrats, apparently).
As JFK said: “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
We are not afraid. We are Americans!
Permission is granted for reprint in print, email. or web media so long as this credit is unchanged.
but since when providing access to the podium became 'an American value'?
And since when the USSR in 1960s was ' Khrushev's' and why was it fragile at that time?
We here seem to glorify more and more the simple acts of normalcy. The foreign dignitary comes and a University invites him to speak. It should be a routine procedure. Instead it becomes a feat as if we have to make a titanic effort. If that is a titanic effort, than maybe there is something wrong with us? Of course, there is a plenty of wrong with us. We killed a million people in Iraq, you know. He didn't.
There is nothing specifically American in giving a podium to a foreign person. There is nothing special in it. It is a privilege of any University in the democratic society. The fact that it has to be justified, glorified, made a special thing is sad. That means that we are drifting from being a democratic society. And that is a sad truth indeed.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 2:21:47 PM
Some guy is repeating his angry order for 'Freedom Fries' just before hopping into the SUV and driving home to kick his neighbor's dog...
I enjoyed watching and listening to him address Columbia (I'm not saying that I support him or even like him for that matter) but I'll just say that Mark is very very correct on this one!
It's kinda like tooting your own horn or pointing out something stupid like 'I'm not racist. I've got a black friend'!
When we make such a big deal about it... -it truly has to be a sign that the standard American Values are not what they used to be!
Are we trying to say, 'Hey, I've got an Iranian friend'???
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 3:00:50 PM
It is sad that we have to glorify and praise free speech. It means that Americans feel that speech is no longer free, and that we might be tazzed for speaking up.
I might also add after listening to him speak, that Iran’s president sounds more intellectual and thoughtful than our own president, and far less belligerent.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 3:08:35 PM
Aftre watching the news flashes it is apparent that Columbia's president actually set the Iranian president up to try to humiliate him, reaching a new low in etiquette toward guest speakers, insulting him with a tirade of every hackneyed hate cliche that has been hurled at Iran for the past two years. Way to go, Columbia, we should always attack our guest speakers when we introduce them, so that the audience is frothing with hatred before they even begin to speak. Next time why not just have a lynch mob waiting with a rope on stage.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1064 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 3:24:29 PM
but, given the viewpoints of Iran's prez, would it not seem customary to open the dialogue with a rebuttal of his previously stated positions? I'd expect that of just about any host worth their salt...
I watched the whole thing (or at least all of the televised event) and not just the highlights or lowlights...
I'll grant you that, overall, it did appear like his whole appearance was set up to be a sort of mob attack on him... but there was plenty of applause for what would not be acceptable positions for the common American. I didn't see him being censored... and he did say he was presenting himself for others to interpret as they would...
How would you account for that?
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 4:17:40 PM
I can't really comment too much without seeing the whole thing, having only seen what was coming across the news, which focused on Bolinger's opening tirade, which certainly went well beyond protocol. He was covering his butt for sure by reciting the attack points of the White House.
It has been hashed out a hundred times now that Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but after the first mistranslation, it was too late. And all the hate-Iran crowd will not let go of this because it emotionally charges them up. We are witnessing paroxisms of hatred in New York today. An interesting, but very ugly phenomenon, which gives you an idea how much ideology trumps reality.
We have to keep asking all these diehards, has Ahmadinejad invaded another country? No. Has he oppressed the Jews in Iran? No. Is he arming "terrorists"? Besides the utter relativity of that term to begin with, the only alleged proof is compromised immediately because no one intelligent can trust what the American government of military says. And on and on with diatribes and attacks. We are actually seeing him equated with Hitler and the Third Reich. Amazing! Meanwhile, the Fourth Reich is on the march.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1064 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 5:20:26 PM
The first time Ahmadinejad’s extreme anti-Israeli hate propaganda drew international attention was when he addressed the “World without Zionism” conference at the Interior Ministry in Tehran on 26 October 2005. There he quoted Imam Khomeini who had said: “This regime that is occupying Quds [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history,”3 a typical expression for Israel’s destruction.
Ahmadinejad repeated these calls on many later occasions in more or less similar terms.4 He also asked for the removal of Israel from the Middle East, suggesting it be placed in Germany or Austria. Western diplomatic reactions were almost exclusively verbal.
Ahmadinejad’s statements are a public incitement to genocide and thus contravene international law. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide came into force on 12 January 1951. It has been ratified by 138 states, among them Iran.
An no, Jews are not treated well in Iran:
Despite the official distinction between "Jews," "Zionists," and "Israel," the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious freedom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with "imperialistic America" — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions imposed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.
Iran's official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government's publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.3
A Dhimmi must acknowledge Muslim superiority, and is relegated to an inferior status.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 10:21:37 PM
Yes, it's a mistranslation. Your attempt to twist it comes
from sources with no credibility. You offer a translation of the phrase, then add, oh-so-innocently, that it's "... a typical expression for Israel's destruction."
Says who? Who says that this phrase is a "typical expression for Israel's destruction" in Farsi? Well, you have a footnote that attributes the "translation" to MEMRI. And your entire quotation comes from SPME, an organization that constantly spouts stuff demonizing Iran, & accusing it of the same things people like Bush, Cheney & John Bolton accuse it of. Here's SPME's home page, proudly displaying remarks from the likes of Thomas Friedman & the star of the day, Columbia Pres Lee Bollinger.
Going over to the MEMRI website, we see, for example, something called "The Islamist Monitor Websites Project." Hmmm. They only monitor Islamists, but they don't "monitor" Israel. How interesting.
This page shows us that 3 days ago, they published an article implying great indignation that a talk show host on Al-Jazeera recently accused the US media of employing the methods of Josef Goebbels. This gives us an idea of where MEMRI is coming from. They're apparently very devoted to portraying Iran as a monstrous threat to civilization. Your source SPME, on the other hand, proudly shows on its homepage a quote by none other than Lee Bollinger, the star of today, the pres of Columbia University. Anyone who saw his "introduction" for Ahmadinejad knows he's about as "fair and balanced" as FOX News.
So, in other words, you only cite rightwing sources -- organizations which exist merely to defend Israeli govt policy at every turn. You may as well be quoting FOX -- it's the same thing.
If you want to read a really scholarly account of the mistranslations of Ahmadinejad's past remarks, try Virginia Tilley's article in Counterpunch. It cites real scholars, like Juan Cole -- not just pro-Israel shills.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 11:54:23 PM
You like to quote anti-Israel sources, and that is your perogative. However, I disagree with your portrayal of Iran as a peaceful country and Israel as an aggressor. This is simply a juxtaposition that equates the act of defending oneself with the act of aggression. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 9:41:22 AM
Comparing Israel to Iran, which one has hundreds of nukes?
Which one has invaded all its neighbors & bombed them on numerous occasions, with the billions it's given in aid by the US govt? Which one has maintained a harsh occupation of the lands of another people for 40 years? And which of the two states has done NONE of those things?
That should tell you which one is the "aggressor," & which one is "peaceful."
Oh, and by the way, MEMRI was a favorite source of "translations" for Judith Miller!! Most of its staff is former Israeli intelligence agents. If you Google on "MEMRI" and "Judith Miller" there are 11,000+ hits!! Many of these (including a big expose in the London Guardian) specifically expose the right-wing bias & inaccuracy of MEMRI "translations."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 10:15:55 AM
...by today's standards, Columbia's allowing Ahmadinejad to speak is noteworthy.
After so much criticism the dean was undoubtedly responding with what seemed like an overtly hostile introduction in an academic setting.
In a time when the leader of the free world personally responds to a newspaper ad that was in his words "disgusting", and the senate actually votes on legislation regarding the same, any engagement with a man Bush terms part of "the axis of evil" (probably--super disgusting), seems like a freedom affirming event.
by
CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 5:25:20 PM
Well, mostly American values, except for busing in demonstrators from other colleges and a fairly Bush-league introduction. Which brought this--
“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment” he said through a translator, “And we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”
All in all, I have to wonder what the current state of free speech or expression has come to in this country when we congratulate ourselves on letting someone speak.
But, thank you Thom, for saying it as you did--
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 51 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 382 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 6:09:47 PM
9 Responses, & no one here even notices Hartmann's
obnoxious appeals to nationalism? The article reaks of it in almost every sentence.
"...behavior one would have expected from a fragile régime like Khrushchev’s USSR or Burma’s military junta, not the bold, brave, and fearless USA.."
- Excuse me? The US is not bold, brave, or fearless. It is a nation of ignorant bullies, a violent predator terrorist state, whose media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the govt.
"We are the nation whose President Nixon reached out to and met with China’s Mao Tse Tsung at the same time Mao was funding and arming the North Vietnamese to kill our soldiers in Vietnam..."
- Nixon was a murderous lying criminal. He didn't "reach out" in friendship; he was motivated by considerations of US self-interest. And, if Mao was indeed funding and arming the N Vietnamese (which I doubt), he had every bit as much right to do so as the US govt had, to put American soldiers in Vietnam in the first place. Hartmann seems not to even recognize that Nixon & the USA were the true criminals & mass murderers in Vietnam -- not Mao. It's not even close to a contest.
"We’re the nation whose President Reagan confronted Soviet President Gorbachev, who at the time had thousands of nuclear warheads armed and pointed at us and was actively funding and arming proxy wars we were fighting in more than a half-dozen nations..."
Again, utter tommy-rot. Gorbachev was Reagan's mental & moral superior any day of the week. Hartmann's paragraph omits the salient "detail" that the US was the driving aggressive force in the arms race, & had thousands MORE nuclear weapons than the Russians did, & was always the power more likely to use them in a first-strike. The Russians had missiles, yes, but they were by far the weaker power, & certainly had a right to defend themselves against the nuts in this country, who even today are preparing to attack Iran, another relatively defenseless country, on the usual phony pretexts. Why spin it as though the Russians were the aggressors? They were no more the aggressors than Saddam was, or the Iranians are, in current confrontations.
"America is better and stronger than the nervous Nellies and chickenhawk war-mongers who currently have control of the Republican Party (and a few Democrats, apparently)..."
- A "few" Democrats? Oh, just a few? You mean, the ones who have laid down on their backs for stolen elections, illegal wars, rightwing judges, spying on Americans, the repeal of habeas corpus, tax cuts for the rich, etc etc? The ones who were elected to end the war but refuse to? The ones who took impeachment off the table? Oh, that was only a "few" Democrats?
"We are not afraid. We are Americans!..."
- If there was the slightest truth to this, we would have marched on Washington by now, dragged the swine of both parties of Congress out to the streets, and, ahem, given them some badly-needed political education. We would have impeached Bush, and set him and his gang before an international tribunal of justice. // I'm sorry, Hartmann, but that praise you lavinsh on your so-called "brave Americans" is simply unearned.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 7:12:09 PM
Maybe I did not specify it so clear in my comment above.
. To add I would say that as it was reported the Columbia President insulted Ahmadinejan and Iranian Nation when introducing him and persisted on insults further on. Really, what a great American! One of the issues was,of course, Holocaust. It was funny to hear Americans to vehemently defend the actual happening of the Holocaust while the US was the least contributor to saving of any of the European Jews. All in all on the West the credit ( if any) goes to England and Free France and on the East- to Russia. In 1844 thosee were the Russians who battled the 5th SS tank army in Hungary literally saving thousands of Hungarian Jews sent to death by Salashi. Hey, in 1956 the so much beloved in the West Hungarian uprising was virulently antisemitic and Nixon encouraged it. BTW, Iran was the ally of the anti-fascist coalition at the WWII times, you know. Mr. Bollinger has nothing to do with it. Hey, Joe Lieberman poked his nose into that business too!
This whole stinking spectacle was disgusting. But we see so many disgusting things here now that another one does not look that different, I suppose.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 7:39:49 PM
You're right, Mark. You did indeed make this point above, in
the first response, when you wrote "since when providing access to the podium became 'an American value'?"
I overlooked it, probably because Hartmann had written so damn much BS, so I was looking to see someone rebut him in detail. I mean, he misrepresented and twisted every single historical point he alluded to!!
Americans are such ignoramuses. Last week I was at a fancy corporate function in Lake Tahoe. I was talking to the wife of a fairly powerful executive, and she asked me if I'd been doing anything interesting lately. I told her I'd just read a great book about the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. She looked at me blankly and said, "The Spanish Civil War?" She'd never even heard of it, didn't know what it was about.
You raise an important point there when you reference WWII, and the fact that the US did less than anyone to save the European Jews, despite all the hype about "The Greatest Generation," and all the supposed glory of the WWII victory. Actually, Americans are raised to think that the US won WWII all by itself. Almost no one here knows that it was actually the Russians who did 99% of the fighting and dying.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 8:23:55 PM
Ahmawhackjob shouldn't have been invited. But at least Bollinger and the students asked him some tough questions, which he totally dodged and made a fool of himself in the process. Sure beats storming the stage and shutting down the event, like those thugs did when the Minutemen tried to speak.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 489 comments)
on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 12:20:18 AM
from the audience which can be considered as ' tough'. Most of those were empty rhetoric and Bollinger just made fool of himself by delivering insults. The President of Iran, a smart politician as he was, totally won the show. His goal was to show that he represented his people the proper way. He did just that. He was not taling to us, he weas talking to his people and he won. If we here really wanted to show to the people who he was we should let him speak and then invite other speakers on the podium to talk about Iran our way. Instead there was a disgusting spectacle, nothing more. And in mirky waters evil wins. Always.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 8:09:47 AM
