How Iranian President was treated
Students faculty, Alumni and all Americans should be embarrassed by the treatment received by the democratically elected President of Iran from the appointed President of Columbia University. Good manners requires respectful treatment of invited guests. Academic freedom requires that students be informed and when informed be allowed to make their own judgment about the information received and its source. They don’t need an indoctrination by the president of the university first in order to make an informed judgment about what the President has to say.
This letter has not been edited.
why should he be treated better than president Bush? you are a real lover of the morons over there arent you? do you really love the way he treats all of the people of iran? he also speaks of love for the world doesnt he? remember he is the one who still does not believe anything happened to a few Jews during WWII.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:32 PMSpoken like a true head in the sand liberal leftist who at the drop of a hat spew forth hatred and curses at fairly and legally elected President Bush
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:33 PMThe letter is pretty lame, but the impotent anonymous Republiscum responses are typical.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:47 PMThis has got to be a planted RMN letter. Boyero Colorado?
It makes me wonder what the heck he's being taught in that one room schoolhouse town.
Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't already know just what a maniac the Iranian "President" is?
Oh, but in the name of "free speech" we're supposed to provide him a forum to spout his drivel? Please...
Death to Israel, Death to the US, the Holocaust was a myth, there are no homosexuals in Iran, the list is endless. Heck while we're at it, let's dig up Hitler, Stalin, Mousolini and invite them to profess the virtues of hatred and death.
When you pay any credence to these types of nut jobs, you only serve to legitimize and condone they're insanity.
The United States should be ashamed we let Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s feet touch US soil let alone speak. It is high time we rid ourselves of the U.N. and the pseudo-diplomats associated with it. Let’s face it, the U.N. is at best dysfunctional, at worst dangerous and has lost relevance. Kooks like Ahmadinejad do not deserve a forum anywhere in the U.S. As for James Bowen, I suppose we should be cordial to the memory of Stalin too after all, he only killed 50 million people and was freely elected also…get serious.
Posted by kobetabber on October 1, 2007 03:01 PMI have no problem with some pseudo-dictator coming here to speak--let them enjoy our freedom of speech! But there should be no rock-star, sneak-thru-the-back-door priviledge for these people. Please take them through the front door so they can hear others (the protesting masses) enjoying their freedom of speech (and right to assemble).
Posted by shaupeen on October 1, 2007 03:19 PMWhy do you think the letter writer is a "liberal?" I too think that the religious nut -job Holocaust-denying whack job doesn't deserve any respect, let alone a speaking opportunity on American soil.
Posted by drew on October 1, 2007 03:28 PMJames-
Are you insane? Seriously? I am a liberal... and have no problem with the treatment Ahmadinejad got...
Two years ago, his government hanged to death two teenaged boys, aged 15 and 16, who were suspected of homosexuality. Have you seen the pictures of these boys being led to the gallows? Their faces, stained with horro and tears, knowing that they were about to die? Did you see the photos of their lifeless bodies hanging from a rope, moments after they died?
Please, James... Ahmadinejad got far more respect than his regime afforded those two boys, and countless others.
Posted by JB on October 1, 2007 03:28 PMWHAT?!
This man is a monster, a terrorist hiding behind the title of President. A liar, an evil enemy plotting the destruction of the Jews and planning how to eliminate anyone who does not think like he does.
He is a partner with the other monster in Venezuela. How about we invite HIM for cookies and milk, too?
Another insane dictator who didn't deserve to breathe our air. Enough said.
Posted by c on October 1, 2007 03:45 PMThis was a perfect missed opportunity for a retired sniper to brush up on his craft.
Posted by skeptical on October 1, 2007 04:28 PMWhen we give a scheming little man like Ahmadinejad a platform to speak, let's think about how it plays abroad. Be sure that what did not flatter him is not mentioned. Instead, he is portrayed as the brave leader preaching reason from the mouth of the giant serpent. Do you think the world considers us open-minded? They just think we are silly and weak to allow our arch enemy to spout his stuff at one of our leading colleges.
Posted by Denise on October 1, 2007 04:29 PMFrom the For What It's Worth Dept...
At least those who feel Moremad is a rational dictator got a taste of what a nut job he really is. It's sometimes best to let the cat out of the bag so you can see what he looks like. At least in this case it was.
The letter writer is obviously still in denial. Calling Moremad a "democratically elected" president. Yeah, sure he was.
That's funny!
Posted by KW on October 1, 2007 04:34 PMKW, Saddam used to use that same tired line of being elected.
Moremad came, he spoke with a stupid smirk on his face, and he was let alone and not beaten up by a mob.
That is good enough.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 1, 2007 04:40 PMMy, my, my.
So much fuss and furor over the President of Iran. Why?
Well, the answer there is easy. He may well be a monster, a horrible person, and a dictator - and worse yet. BUT! He is NOT OUR dicator
As were Somoza, Norriega, and even Saddam, when it was Republican policy.
But, gee whiz! Just blame it all on the "liberals". That's what."conservatism" is all about anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 04:41 PMLetting him speak allowed him to put his foot in his mouth for all to see. His treatment should have been expected considering he's a religious nut-cake with sprinkles of brutality on top.
Now if only the dominionist Christian nut-cake evangelicals yearning for the "rapture" were given the same treatment each time they ascend to the pulpit or speak in public there would be equity.
Posted by Charles B. on October 1, 2007 05:10 PMANONYMOUS(ES) 1 and 2... you both claim that the writer wants to somehow show more respect to Ahmedinejad (pron: AhMED ee --Knee JAD) than to Bush.
Question: where did you see that in the letter? I have read, re-read and forwarded same to several friends and no one came to the same conclusion as you two. I would suggest a remedial reading course.
Good Luck.
KISSES!!!
Pardon: Ah MAHDee KneeJAD
Posted by Sheila on October 1, 2007 05:40 PMAhk-moot-Mahommad-did-his-dad, was declared a democraticly elected official by former President Jimmy Carter. As was hugo Chevez, again by Jimmy Carter.
I personally think that the socalled chastizeing by Columbias Dean before the "discussion" was a plant to save face in the media. I was astonished by it. The fact he presented clear facts of Irans oppression and then commented with leading rhetorical questions part 1 through 12 to him was funny.
At that point the big shocker was that Ack-moot-Mohammad-did-his-dad did not get up and walk out. There was enough propaganda there to last for years. Well it already is being spun by Al_Jazzera on thier press site.
The proposed question or should I say the proposed thought /comment to start this discussion is more then likely a plant by a staff member in ordr to find something to write about.
Posted by JustAnotherOpinion on October 1, 2007 06:55 PMIf President Bush went to, for example, Germany or France and got treated the way the president of Columbia treated the president of Iran, most Americans, regardless of how much they oppose President Bush, would feel insulted.
Likewise with the Iranian people, including the many there who have no use for their president.
While small minds, such as those possessed by most of the posters above, do get a childish kick out of insulting, the problem is getting childish kicks is not a good way to win hearts and minds.
It sounds like most of the posters went to the George Bush School of Diplomacy.
The way the Iranian president was treated at Columbia did the opposite of furthering American interests.
Posted by Truth on October 1, 2007 07:43 PM
Charles B. 5:10-
When exactly did he put his foot in his mouth?
When he parrotted Dem talking points on Katrina,The Patriot Act,Isreal, 911,....?
And do you realize how much of an idiot you look like trying to rationally compare Ahmadinejad to Christian Evangelicals?
Islam Macht Frei.
Posted by Sheik Yurbuti on October 1, 2007 07:56 PMJust Another Opinion-
Can't stop laughing at your version of the Iranian president's name.
God, there is NOTHING like a good laugh!
Posted by c on October 1, 2007 08:15 PMShiek Yurbuti-
GOOD one, too!
Posted by c on October 1, 2007 08:20 PMSheik-
The time he crossed the line from later on to way back when.
Posted by Get Real on October 1, 2007 08:37 PMFolks,something Truth said should be catching your interest.The bit about the Ahmedinejad's treatment at Columbia not furthering American interests.Truth,if you get back on this thread,would you give us your thoughts on the kind of treatment that would best have advanced our interests? How and why.......And could we all not flame for a bit? OK?
Posted by Jimminy on October 1, 2007 09:53 PMGet Real asked rhetorically:
"When exactly did he put his foot in his mouth?"
Did you miss this one?
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country,"
Of course, your question was merely an excuse to poison the well and claim guilt by association:
"When he parrotted Dem talking points on Katrina,The Patriot Act,Isreal, 911,....?"
...which led us to the bottom line problem you have with my comments:
"And do you realize how much of an idiot you look like trying to rationally compare Ahmadinejad to Christian Evangelicals?"
You"re a religious nut-cake yourself...
...so transparent and easy to dissect.
Posted by Charles B. on October 1, 2007 10:12 PM02:32 asks ”why should he be treated better than president Bush?”
Wrong question boyo.
The correct question is why any guest should be treated differently to any other.
02:57 asked ”Oh, but in the name of "free speech" we're supposed to provide him a forum to spout his drivel?”
Yes
Kobetabber said ”Let’s face it, the U.N. is at best dysfunctional”
But it still serves its purpose of advancing the priorities and wishes of the US and the other major players on the Security Council. That’s why its headquarters are in the US.
JB claimed ”Are you insane? Seriously? I am a liberal... and have no problem with the treatment Ahmadinejad got...”
So in other words you are only a liberal until it becomes inconvenient, and then you are a fascist. The surest path to fascism is to grant lesser dignities and freedoms to those you don’t like. There is always a handy reason to pillory somebody else, but take it and you become the opposite of liberal.
So long JB, you have just joined the dark side.
Skeptical said ”This was a perfect missed opportunity for a retired sniper to brush up on his craft.”
Wonderful, so assassination becomes a valid tool. You won’t mind living in a world in which countries routinely assassinate each other’s leaders. Wave goodbye to the last several thousand years of civilization. Funny sort of Conservative that throws away tradition on a whim.
KW said ”The letter writer is obviously still in denial. Calling Moremad a "democratically elected" president. Yeah, sure he was.”
So how did he come to power then?
… and while you are researching that (har har), look up what Kermit Rooseveld got up to in Iran. Might give you a clue as to why the Iranians are a tad neurotic.
Sharon said ”Moremad came, he spoke with a stupid smirk on his face, and he was let alone and not beaten up by a mob.”
Et tu Sharon?
I thought you had more sense.
So what if he had a smirk, what did he say
Charles said ”Letting him speak allowed him to put his foot in his mouth for all to see. His treatment should have been expected considering he's a religious nut-cake with sprinkles of brutality on top.”
Exactly!
However, not everything he said was tinged with religious nutcakery, he expressed several things that should make us consider what is making him and his countrymen so nervous and prone to suspicion.
He also invited a reciprocal visit, Columbia should take that up.
Truth said ”The way the Iranian president was treated at Columbia did the opposite of furthering American interests.”
Exactly!
He now has more solidarity back home and a ready example of bad-faith on the part of America. Precisely the opposite of what the US needs, unless of course the US needs enemies.
Get Real said ”When exactly did he put his foot in his mouth?”
When he quoted scripture and when he claimed that Iran has no gays.
There were others, but those two suffice.
I laugh at how the wingnuts jumped on his "we have no gays in Iran" moment. That is what they would like for us to do here. They certainly don't support any kind of rights (marriage, adoption etc) so it seems like they are on the same page as the stooge from Iran. Not a lot of difference between the Religious Right and this nutjob when it comes to Gays.
Posted by on October 2, 2007 07:43 AMBango - If you want to believe Moremad was democratically elected, that's your privelage.
But if you think a man who orders gays to be killed would be fair and decent with election results, your right up their with the letter writer.
Posted by KW on October 2, 2007 09:04 AMThe President of Iran has about as much power as our Vice President, or Speaker of the House.
The Premier Iranian is the Ayatollha, and he is busy reigning in Ahmadinejad, knowing that fiery rhetoric inviting attack will result in his loss of power.
American war mongers vilify Ahmadinejad to create another hated figure, that Americans can feel good about attacking. But as with Iraqis, the Iranian people are not the devils that propaganda likes you to believe.
Persians are just as dignified as anyone else. As long as we see each other as a vile subhuman scum, we can justify attack and mass death as some sort of sick justice. After all they hate us for our freedoms. They will behead us if we don't convert to Islam. They only understand violence so we must kill them before they kill us. and so on and on and on. American propaganda will continue these lies, America wake up.
We are taught to see the other as separate, thus less than ourselves. But we are all one, and attacking ourselves will result in our collective death.
Posted by Holy Reality on October 2, 2007 09:16 AMKdub,
"Bango - If you want to believe Moremad was democratically elected, that's your privelage.
But if you think a man who orders gays to be killed would be fair and decent with election results, your right up their with the letter writer."
Do you think that Bush was fairly elected (2000)?
And moreover, how many conservatives secretly wish for Iranian methods of handling our homosexuals?
Posted by on October 2, 2007 09:26 AMActually, there is a difference being against gay marriage etc and what Ahmanutjob does to "non-existant homosexuals" in his country. Gay marriage is a policy issue. Being gay in Iran is a death sentence. Moral relativism at it's worst.
Ahmanutjob should never have been allowed in the country. Some things are right and wrong. Allowing a terrorist into the country is wrong. No amount of lib hand wringing will change the fact that he is a total nutters and the .gov should have denied his Visa.
It would be interesting... Is there anyone that Columbia wouldn't have over for lunch? Hitler? Stalin? Cannibals? The Hildabeast? Is there no depth they won't sink to? If Jeffrey Dahmer was alive, would they have him over for a drop trou session?
Posted by Dravur on October 2, 2007 10:02 AMI take pleasure in reading Old Grouch; however, when he says he (Iran's President) is not our dictator I am struck with the thought that the majority of the American people say" "Get out of Iraq;" whereas, W. Bush says otherwise and will retire on a generous pension with his edict intact.
it would appear that America's dictator: "We The People" is supplanted by: Me, George W. Bush.
As for civility towards Iran's President, I won't cast my oar into the water and as an aside mention that McCain said in 2003 the war in Iraq was lost and last night on talk radio the names of other prominent Republicans were mentioned as having said the same thing.
It is not fair to blame the liberal/progressives for echoing the sentiment of the Republicans weeks, months, years later.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com [Free blasphemous songs on cassette] on October 2, 2007 10:45 AMAnon 9:26 - Yes. Bush was elected both fairly and legally.
The Supreme Court didn't award the presidency to anyone. They ruled that election law was not to be changed in the recounting of the votes.
Posted by KW on October 2, 2007 11:09 AMBangalore...
I'm not sure what version of the US Constitution you grew up with, but no where does it guarantee a forum for free speech. Just your right to say what ever the hell you please, no matter how off base or ridiculous.
Nor does it protect you from questioning and ridicule of your nonsense by others.
Posted by on October 2, 2007 11:15 AManon 1:14 - Perhaps you could show me in the court transcripts where I misread the ruling?
Posted by KW on October 2, 2007 01:48 PMPoor Dravur. He's under the impression that allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at the U.N. was a liberal undertaking. Maybe it's best he doesn't know the truth. His heart might not be able to handle it. And according to the saying it is bliss.
Posted by Truth on October 2, 2007 04:15 PM11:15 said ”I'm not sure what version of the US Constitution you grew up with, but no where does it guarantee a forum for free speech. Just your right to say what ever the hell you please, no matter how off base or ridiculous.”
None, actually. There was no US constitution where I grew up.
However, this has nothing to do with constitutional free speech but with academic practice and procedure. Columbia embarrassed itself by failing to adhere to accepted norms that are practiced across the world in these circumstances.
Even if Ahmadinejad’s presence made Columbia’s president physically ill, and he had to puke in a bucket between sentences, he nevertheless has a protocol to follow or failing which stand to sacrifice the reputation and standing of the university that he represents. The president of Columbia represented his institution, not himself, and his private views, feelings, and beliefs are irrelevant to what his task was, and how he was expected to comport himself.
If he didn’t have the fortitude to take the podium, then he should have abdicated that role, but having taken the podium he knowingly accepted the responsibility to conduct the proceedings according to academic norms.
An invitation was extended by Columbia, and accepted by Ahmadinejad.
The rest is all protocol.
If they don’t have the balls to execute with decorum and rigour, they have no place in extending invitations in the first place.
Same holds for their behaviour with various right-wing speakers that they have similarly embarrassed themselves with – if they can’t do this properly, then they should stick to things they can, and not pretend to loftiness that they are not up to.
Charles B, I'm guessing you're going to dress up for Halloween as a Christian since they're the scariest thing in your world.
BOO!
Posted by skeptical on October 2, 2007 09:29 PMskeptical:
Dominionist nut-cakes who think Armageddon is a good thing scare me. Fools like you who believe as they do or support their underlying faulty premise (belief in ghosts and magic) through your own similar beliefs are their enablers, and could very well be the ruin of earth. I have kids. I'd like to know the world will be around for them to enjoy.
The whole dying tradition of monotheism will continue to scare me until the last nut-cake dies out and more rational people run things. I doubt I will see this in my lifetime.
So go worship your God and waste your only life while the grown-ups talk..
Posted by Charles B. on October 2, 2007 09:45 PMHey scary mr. grownup...............BOO!!!
Oh, by the way, this is the closest I'll ever get to hell and it could be the closest you'll ever get to heaven.
Posted by skeptical on October 2, 2007 10:15 PMUnbelievable. I wish all you liberals could come over for poker night. How gullible!
Aqua-Velvet was treated poorly at Columbia. That was foolish and wrong. He was invited. If Columbia felt so strongly about Aqua-Velvet's character, it simply should not have invited him.
But, giving him a forum was foolish.
Charles B. said:
"Letting him speak allowed him to put his foot in his mouth for all to see. "
Not exactly, Charles B. Not exactly for all to see. Have you seen the Iranian reports on Aqua-Velvet's speech? You would hardly recognize it. He used Columbia to prop himself up at home.
Bangalore Skank wondered:
"The correct question is why any guest should be treated differently to any other."
Is that really the correct question, Mr. Skank? You are smarter than that. Are you telling me we should treat brutal, murderous dictators in the same way we would treat, oh let's say, the leader of France? Aqua-Velvet is responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. This may seem like trite trivial nonsense to such a nuanced foreigner as yourself, but it bothers many American citizens.
"Truth said ”The way the Iranian president was treated at Columbia did the opposite of furthering American interests.”Exactly!"
American interests should have dictated that you do not give a brutal maniacal leader of a terrorist nation responsible for killing American servicemen an academic forum to spout his views as if he were an intellectual equal.
"Get Real said ”When exactly did he put his foot in his mouth?”When he quoted scripture and when he claimed that Iran has no gays."
No, those were the only statement that made the liberal secular audience chuckle. They did not chuckle when he refused to acknowledge his destructive plans for Israel. In fact, they applauded his phony remarks. The audience also did not chuckle when he suggested further research into the holocaust despite the fact that his is publicly on record as denying the holocaust even occurred. The liberals made fools of themselves that day. It should be a strong reminder as to why we do not want a liberal foreign policy despite Republican shortcomings in this area.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 10:42 PMNICE..p****** off the Iranian president that has nuclear. He didn't get a chance to open his mouth, and got a slap.
We all know what kind of president he is, but couldn't we let him speak and HEAR where he's coming from ? Maybe get an in site, a motive?
Did you see when he got back to his country and started telling his people his experiance in America? He went on a rant like Hugo Chavez about America. So much for a sour invitation.
One does not negotiate with a rabid dog. This nut job should be dealt with in the same way as any mindless killer. 308 in the head.
Posted by Bingo Skunk on October 3, 2007 12:45 AMJohnII asked ”Are you telling me we should treat brutal, murderous dictators in the same way we would treat, oh let's say, the leader of France?”
Absolutely.
Remember, this isn’t your living room, it’s an artificial academic environment constructed exactly for the purpose of giving a specimen room to strut its stuff for scrutiny. Besides, let’s not forget how brutal, murderous, and dictatorial the French have been in, say, Algeria, the Congo, and Vietnam, to name but three.
”This may seem like trite trivial nonsense to such a nuanced foreigner as yourself, but it bothers many American citizens.”
Not only is it trivial and nonsense, but it is counter productive, dangerous, and cowardly.
Knowing your adversary is far more important than muzzling them.
”American interests should have dictated that you do not give a brutal maniacal leader of a terrorist nation responsible for killing American servicemen an academic forum to spout his views as if he were an intellectual equal.”
Au contraire John, American interests are best served by understanding whether somebody is a brutal maniacal leader, what their actual intentions are, and why.
Again, this was not anybody’s living room, and if anyone feels sensitive about hearing such things as the guest may say, they aren’t forced to be exposed to it.
”No, those were the only statement that made the liberal secular audience chuckle. They did not chuckle when he refused to acknowledge his destructive plans for Israel”
I don’t really care what the students chuckled over, I care what the process could have revealed and what material it could have yielded. Like a laboratory experiment, we had a chance to clarify, identify, and examine. It was important to keep our own personal feelings out of it and to probe cleverly without introducing artifacts, which is why Columbia’s president bollixed it up – His questions were blunt and his manner obscured rather than revealed.
As a Conservative you believe that constraining information and limiting the spread of ideas you think might be harmful or distasteful is the best option, as a platypus, I believe that the opposite is true.
To you it was better to silence Ahmadinejad, to me it is better to hear him out and to be very careful about understanding exactly what he means.
You are worried that it gave him a platform, but he had that already.