Comments on: Ahmadinejad at Columbia

By: SD

SD — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:22:34 +0000

Roger,

As for Mahmoud (easier to type than his last name…) having desired the fracas at Columbia, I think you’re giving him way too much credit. He was blindsided alright.

And Columbia isn’t just free to invite unpopular leaders — it’s their responsibility to their students to present the world in all its messy details. Had you been on campus that day and seen the activity, the protests and dialogue it generated you might be more sanguine about the event.

By: Roger Godby

Roger Godby — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:44:01 +0000

Somewhere I read the claim that the Columbia excoriation was quite possibly desired by Ahmadinejad: In the cultures he is most focused on for keeping and expanding his power–Islamic, Arab, Persian–such rude treatment of a guest was the epitome of rudeness, savagery; in short, Bollinger potentially won Muslim sympathy for poor li’l abused Mahmoud and made the Great Satan look, well, even more devilish (and petty, especially Bollinger, as if took real balls to dump on Ahmadinejad–unlike Bollinger instead finagling an invite to meet him at an Iranian university and then dumping on him there, in his face, in his thugocracy?).

Another plausible benefit for Mahmoud was that a prestigious American, Western, uni inviting such a thug was a thumb in the eye of Iranians protesting him, seeking allies against him, suffering under him. If you were a non-existent Iranian gay, a feminist, an anti-government student on a state police wanted list, a real activist in Evin Prison, how would you feel if one of the few countries or institutions you might have hoped for help from extended a welcome to your dictator/thug? Maybe a cynical, “Gee, thanks a lot, Columbia”?

I’m glad Columbia is free to invite him and that anyone, even a foreigner, can rant freely in the US; however, that does not make Columbia’s choice a wise one, for anyone who is interested enough to know who/what Ahmadinejad is already knows he’s a swine in Iran. Why invite him to be one in the US as well?

It’s not quite “equal airtime for Hitler,” a la Jesse Helms’ gripe, but why go out of one’s way to bring such a swine and give him a platform to spew? Sorry, but boo on Columbia for this one.

By: SD

SD — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:58:35 +0000

Aatom, today in the NYT Stanley Fish castigates Bollinger for, basically, being opinionated. The people commenting are all exercised over a university president being “rude”… to a fundamentalist thug.

Amazing.

By: Nov Shmoz ka Pop

Nov Shmoz ka Pop — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:10:42 +0000

I know that Mahmood Achmedinajad is a lying, manipulating, criminal, powerless figurehead, and professional asshole.

However, are those the credentials necessary to speak at Columbia? I guess, then, although I am a NY Times #1 bestselling author (3 times) I will never qualify.

By: Aatom

Aatom — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:28:24 +0000

I thought exactly the same thing when I read that Sullivan passage. Lazy thinking. I wondered what kind “right-wing extremist” he would put on a par with the President of Iran, a nation we are in a proxy war with in Iraq currently and which seems to have an interest in rattling some pretty disturbing sabers in our direction. Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter? I think having “the same views as Ahmadinejad on women, gays, Israel and the Holocaust” is a pretty weak bar to set for this sort of invitation. I’m pretty sure it was his relevence as a world leader whose every action affects us directly that made thee visit worthwhile. And Bollinger’s speech blew me away. Precise, detailed, calm, and devastating. Any doubts I had about this visit from him were dispelled after hearing it.