“The only charm of the elites is that they're supposed know how to act like gentlemen. When they lose that -- then, really, haven't they overstayed their welcome? “
Michael J. Smith

The rest of the world isn’t watching any more. That is the real tragedy of past seven years.

Oleeb, you really depressed me. I had forgotten that Ike was once President of Columbia.

So, since 1951, we have gone from Truman in the WH to Bush 43. And from Eisenhower to Bollinger at Columbia. And, in the same period, from Mossadegh to Ahmedinajad.

Darwin!!!

mjrosenberg,

Darwin!!!

DEVO

I wonder if I can get some reaction to the following query. It is clear Ahmadinejad has said a number of inflammatory comments and these are trotted out every time any contacts arehad (by US reporters...the Pelley interview seems to scrape new low levels, and the Bollinger tirade). I have the distinct impression that the same general shunning and demonization (maybe with a little less invective) went on when Khatami held office. So is the demonization dependent on who holds office?

It was fine for Bollinger to challenge Ahmadinejad (personally, I think it would have been craven for him not to have challenged him, especially on human rights issues). Where he really embarrassed, himself, though, was when he drank the administration Kool Aid about Iranian intervention in Iraq, and stooped to personal insult. Rather than behaving as a professor and president of a world class academic institution, Bollinger seemed to be trying out for a gig subbing for Sean Hannity.

Disgraceful!

Bollinger essentially read the American government's bill of particulars against Iran.

Most, if not all, of which is demonstrably false. Bill of lies is more like it. So much for the academic search for truth--propaganda rules.

Bollinger was threatened by various local officials as well as a presidential candidate (Hunter) with a cut-off of funds prior to his tirade. Money may have affected his thinking, and soon might affect his position.

*First they passed laws restricting some citizenship rights, then they went further and suspended habeus corpus and privacy rights, next they politicized and marginalized the universities, and then they got serious . . .*

In many respects, Ahmadinejad is to the actual leadership of Iran as Spiro Agnew was to Richard Nixon: a loud mouth to be sent out to make speeches, while the people with real power, such as Khamenei, get some work done. If Khamenei speaks, I listen. If Ahmadinejad speaks, it's like Pat Robertson, or perhaps a little less skilled Dominionist speaker.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

And more than that Bollinger made this country look fearful, paranoid, ill-mannered and weak.

Bollinger made America look like a bunch of idiots. Universities are supposed to be about discussion and dialog and Bolliger clearly only had ill will and anger to dish out.

I called Columbia University this morning and told them that I thought that I was listening to "Fox News" when I heard their President trash talk like that.

Of course the ill will wasn't because of Ahmadinejad since Jimmy Carter was put through the same wringer over at Brandeis. Thus, Bollinger was being blatantly racist and political...

On the Holocaust, Israel, gays, etc.

as far as the Holocaust goes, I think I agree 100% with Ahmadinejad's point that when the Berlin wall fell (wiped off the map) East and West Germany became one again. So, in that light, I'd love to wipe Israel off the map and create Israelistine, a place where Israelies and Palistinians can live together in peace.

as far as gays go, America has two cultures: one that hates them and another that sees their humanity. when the right recognizes gay marraige, I'll believe that the US is less biggoted w/ regards to gays. I attend an episcopal church and have watched a segment of that church seperate from the anglican communion on the issue of homosexuality alone and they seem inclined to at least give gays second class status if not lower.

To boldly go...

Sad to say, I remember the band. But I forgot the meaning of the name. Thanks.

Chesire111 sums it up well, except that DEVO released their debut album in 1978.  And yes, their performances were fairly theatrical, and they took advantage of the early age of music videos.  But credit them for coming up with a unique sound and making pretty good music for a gimicky punk band -- including what may be the best cover of the Stones' "Satisfaction" you'll ever want to hear.

I didn't see Bollinger's remarks, but from what I've heard of them, he acted like an ass. I DID see the last half-hour of Jib-Jab's presentation, and I have to say it was totally at odds with the contemptuous comments of Rosenberg and Marshall. He sounded both reasonable and smart as he decried US support of Saddam in the 1980s, described any political leader who pursues nuclear weapons as "retarded," repeatedly reminded the audience that a willingness to negotiate has been the basis of Iranian foreign policy since their revolution, and invited groups of students and faculty to visit any of the 400 universities in Iran.

I missed the the first part of his talk in which he apparently backtracked on his holocaust denials, and his silly comment about there being no gays in Iran. While I would not defend him, I thought he came off very well, in contrast to Bollinger, who made an ass of himself.

There are political realities in Iran and Jib-jab is at the mercy of some pretty stern bosses. Sometimes when people demonize this guy for the Iranian position on gay or women's rights, or Israel, I'm reminded of the fact that J. William Fulbright, that icon of American liberal intellectualism, opposed and voted against every single piece of civil rights legislation that came before the Senate in his legislative career, just so he could keep his seat and chairmanship of the Foreign Relations committee.

Jib-jab is no Fulbright, but he ain't no Hitler either.

I was embarrassed to see a university president treat a guest in such a way. I am sure you are right. No Israeli would treat an invited guest in this way. We are not impressed with President A but in the Middle East I bet that his stock went up. He was insulted. He stayed. He spoke. He quoted from the Koran, He invited Columbia's students to visit Iran and go to which ever university they wanted. He put in a plug for the Palestinians. We such amateurs at propaganda. We such gave this man a boost. We look like idiots. Karen Hughes: go to Bollinger and talk to him.

I figured you weren't that young... ;^)

DEVO!

Are we not men?? :-)

One thing, Bollinger did manage to unite the Iranian people behind their president which is a counter-objective to that of the US government.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranians on Tuesday called the combative introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the head of Columbia University "shameful" and said the harsh words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.

In a region where the tradition of hospitality outweighs personal opinions about people, many here thought Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's aggressive tone - including telling Ahmadinejad that he exhibited the signs of a "petty and cruel dictator" - was over the top.

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter on Tuesday to Bollinger saying his statements were "deeply shameful" and invited him to Iran.

"In other words, Bollinger looked like a kept academic sucking up to the commissars."

What does MJ mean, "looked like"?

They seem a head for our times.

Devo - Whip It

devo corporate anthem

They were also follower of the Church of
the SubGenius originally based in Dallas.

Actual church, but i'm not sure of this
part; they moved to Washington, DC or has
that changed yet to AC?

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Let's wipe out the Indian Reservations and have Ameristine.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis wish to adopt the other's culture.

If there was any doubt that a handful of influential people control the American MSM, that doubt has been pushed aside the last few days.

Both the CBS "60 Minutes" interview with Ahmadinejad, that was both haughty and arrogant in its tone and the not so veiled accusations against Ahmadinejad that were plastered across the New York papers had the air of asking someone if they had stopped beating their wife.

The American MSM has been foaming at the mouth the last couple of days over the visit, barely able to contain itself as it falls all over itself, with each form of media trying to one-up the other in painting Ahmadinejad as some sort of evil incarnate.

Strangely enough, they never mention the part of Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia where he brought up the plight of the constantly under siege Palestinians, who Israel has mandated that they will be the ones to pay for all past transgressions, real or perceived, against Israel.

And for Columbia's president to cite the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) research as a basis to attack Ahmadinejad is beyond absurd.
In the past, the CFR has devoted pages to right-wing religious nut cases like Pat Robertson and the still at large and wanted by Chile war criminal, Henry Kissinger.

Whatever one thinks of Ahmadinejad, they have to give the Iranian president high marks for keeping his cool and not going ballistic by not taking the bait, which was offered numerous times the last few days in the form of leading and loaded questions and hostile interviewers.

Do you truly think that the so-called "leader" of the free world, president GW Bush, would have been able to maintain his composure under such conditions?

So, I take it you're not interested in signing my petition to get Ahmadinejad to have a Table For One spot on the front page of TPM Cafe?

OK, fine. If you'll excuse me, I have to go back to hating America now.

when I called Columbia University, I noted that the saddest part of the whole thing was that academia dropped it's standards for discourse and discussion a few notches.

To boldly go...

What's really odd is that Lee Bollinger is a noted and respected First Amendment scholar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bollinger

"What do you call a government official with some but not complete power elected from a slate vetted by a self-perpetuating group of clerics?"

ummm, a puppet.

"Anybody who invites a low life thug like David Duke"

Actually, I've heard David Duke and he can be pretty interesting.

Free speech does not operate by self-editing censorship - it operates by more speech.

Bollinger's speech really was free since it was cheap! ;-)

To boldly go...

some estimates suggest that there were over 100 million "native americans" in "the americas" before the genocide happened. this halocaust has been santized from US history for obvious reasons.

and, as far as I can tell, Israel is running an "open air" concentration camp and has a policy of genocide towards the palestinians.

I don't think it's about culture, it's about ego and greed.

"Let's wipe out the Indian Reservations and have Ameristine."

you might want to look up the NAU (north america union). with 100 million mexicans, 33 million canadians and 300 million "americans," it makes sense to me to "wipe lines off the map" and form a larger democracy. the proposed currency is called the Amero.

To boldly go...

You can't hopscotch around the international game board without landing in some places you would rather not find yourself. Iran is one of those. And it is that way because the U.S. pretty much trashed the nation of Iran in the not too distant past. We've given little reason for Iranians to care much what happens to us. The U.S. meddled very seriously in the internal politics of Iran. The persons who happen to be in power in Iran today watched that unfold with great dismay and haven't forgotten. We can be critical all we want of the present Iranian leadership but unless you ask yourself why it is this way you've missed the point entirely. You can't just screw with people forever without realizing that eventually there will be some payback.

I think we needed for Columbia U to do this. If we are truly a democracy then we need to be the one place in the world where anyone can speak his or her mind no matter if we agree or not. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may hate our guts and maybe we didn't want to listen to what he had to say but he has honored us and honored democracy by coming here and speaking. George Bush is a chicken shit, but that notwithstanding he could not do that in Iran.

I think it is friggin awesome that someone this nation dislikes a whole lot is able to come here and make a public address. That tells me Bush and Cheney haven't destroyed this nation no matter how hard they've tried.

Hope springs eternal.

Sorry, MJR, but I agree with Scott Paul's post in The Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002369.php)
- Bollinger Gets an A. Money quote:
"it's important to see these comments in context. Bollinger told Iranian officials explicitly that he would make a critical introduction and "pose sharp challenges and questions." None of this was a surprise. And, for that matter, the rules of diplomatic protocol don't apply here and Bollinger is under no obligation to be courteous in his remarks. Ahmadinejad was invited to spur dialogue, not to be honored or toasted -- and he knew it.

Moreover, the purpose of his comments is neither to advance the war agenda nor to placate the hawks, as some have suggested. Rather, they represent the flip side of Bollinger's point on free speech: anyone who wants a public forum must be willing to endure public criticism, however unpleasant or even rude it may be. Point well taken in my book."

Are questioning the holocaust or Al Quaeda's responsiblity for the WTC attack more outrageous than denial of global warming...

Ahmadinejad simply thinks that the historical retelling of the holocaust isn't correct. And-- after watching GW fudge reports on global warming and 9/11, I'd have to agree with Ahmadinejad that the likelyhood of a fudged history of the holocaust seems plausible.

IBM, for example, was accused of selling and creating technologies that let germany carry out the holocaust [SOURCE] so what sanctions should be placed on IBM or why weren't sanctions placed on IBM?

wether these anecdotal stories are myths, or not, who knows? but the story about why the holocaust happened is a lot more complex than it's made out to be-- my opinion.

To boldly go...

This entire event really provided insight into so many areas that it may take a few more days to truly digest.

On one hand, we (Americans) showed a complete lack of humility and professionalism towards a guest (for better or worse). It is one thing to disagree with the position of a guest, but if our discontent with them is of such emotional substance, why have them as a guest in the first place? It leads one to believe we either are willing to invite the sheep in, that we might feast upon them in our own den with no fear of recourse, or we are simply poor hosts.

Almost in a spin off of the first thought, we also showed that while we most certainly have a person in this country that holds the same title as our Iranian guest, and an equally low opinion of his overall performance and motivations, we do not openly challenge him in such a manner. Far from it, should the president of the United States show up on any college campus, the questioners shall be screened far in advance, and the host would certainly not jeopardize his career or the status of his institution by such an aggressive challenge.

The last thing that really sparked interest in this whole spectacle was the Ahmadinejad speech itself. Granted there are things lost in the translation, and things like inflection and candor are hard to perceive when dealing with a foreign language, the entire presentation seemed disjointed and without focal point. Perhaps he was taken back so much by the opening remarks that he could not recover, but he really seemed to be making rambling rhetorical remarks that were not pre-planned without driving toward a key point, much like our own president has done from time to time, oft becoming the subject of clips for comedians.

All in all, a bad showing for both America, and Iran, and that is kind of disheartening considering the state of the world, and the amount of preparation both representatives undoubtedly put in to the event.

The holocaust is one of those untouchable things in history! Finkelstein has learned this lesson with his book "The holocaust Industry"

This Nation article by an Indian student at Columbia highlights the pretentious hypocrisy of the institution and Bollinger. He recounts an earlier visit by Musharraf and the curious omission of the fact that he came to power through a military coup in the background brochures distributed to the audience. Nor was "anyone with a mike" allowed to raise questions about his dictatorship.

It's a shame that in their ardor to appease, Columbia's champions of free speech didn't allow those with the most potential impact to confront Ahmadinejad; Iranian students.

"In this face-off between Bollinger's prefacing remarks and Ahmadinejad's speech, the university president "made Ahmadinejad look the winner," said Mansourian, "and that's not what I wanted." The Iranian, like the rest of us, wanted a real debate, one in which Bollinger would practice what he had preached the previous year in a campus-wide e-mail to students.

"In a society committed to free speech," it had said, "there will inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071008/vora

The tuned-in Shmuel Rosner has a different take, he sees the whole mess as ultimately bad for Israel as Israel's diplomatic focus has been to portray Iran/Ahmadinejad as a threat to the world at large rather than just themselves:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University in New York on Monday resulted in one clear loser: Israel.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad took aim at Israel. If he managed to convince one person of his views on Israel and Zionism, then he has already gained. If he managed to persuade 50, then he has gained even more.

For months, Israel worked fervently to prevent what happened on the podium Monday. For the duration of his speech, Ahmadinejad produced a televised illusion: It is not Iran versus the world, but Iran versus Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906890.html

I remember 'Communism' too. And let me tell you that the parallels with what's happening in the US nowadays are disturbing. All the official secrecy, fear of external enemy, all-powerful executive and a rubber-stamp legislature. It's not nearly as bad... but to that I have to add 'yet'.

Nationalism is indeed a terrible drug. Most of Western Europe is mostly free of it because the overdoses that culminated in WWII were a pretty powerful learning experience. The US in general is a pretty nationalist country, but so far it hasn't created major problems for Americans. Let's hope it stays that way.

Well, would Bollinger introduce Bush or Cheney the way he introduced Ahmadinejad? If not (and I'm 99% certain he wouldn't), he's a stinking hypocrite.

Bollinger's rudeness just made him look weak. Rudeness is the refuge of people who ran out of arguments.

Dunno about that. All countries seem to go through a reactionary phase in which the older generations reject Modernity and go about fighting all their medieval feuds with each other and other peoples out one last time. And they elect a group of people with medieval social and religious views, who let the country go to pot economically so that the fighting of enemies internal and external not be hindered by prosperity and cooperation and liberality and doing good and creative things with average peoples' time and money.

The real question is why the Iranian and American ruling elites had to pick this particular fight with each other. It seems a set of Cold War accidents, because there's nothing inherent or specific that forces them to be opponents. Maybe it's the American elites' crooked and unworthy alliance with the al-Saud family, at bottom, but that seems to root more in shared contempt of commoners than objective interests, perhaps. At bottom the American tack on the Middle East is nonsensical.

The major point that President Ahmadinejad has been making, and he's making it as the victor, is that Americans occupying Iraq are being killed by Iraqis because the Iraqi people have learned to hate them and don't want them there. So any other questions, Ahmadinejad posits, are secondary to this major truth, including questions about the origin of weapons used by Iraqi occupation resisters or speeches that he has made about the central problem in the Middle East, Palestine.

As the victor in the US invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ahmadinejad makes his point from a position of strength. He knows it and the US knows it, which makes him a bitter pill for the US.

The American elite, to include the media and Columbia University, Ahmadinejad is learning, can't handle this criticism of the American Empire. Can't even discuss it. It's like negotiating surrender. So they concentrate on meaningless trivialities like whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust or not. It is these trivialities, history will record, that are ostensibly driving the US toward war with Iran. Of course we know that the real reasons for a new war are that Iran won't accept US hegemony in the Middle East (and hasn't for some time) and that Iran has a lot of our oil and gas.

I'm so angry and embarrassed as an American citizen by Bollinger's insanely rude and INACCURATE remarks preceding Ahmadinejad's speech. I have nothing but contempt for Columbia's president.

As for Ahmadinejab, I listened to his speech on C-span last night and found myself agreeing with 90% of what he said. I found the 'no gays in Iran' remark to be coy, accompanied by a smile and a little joke. A. was (according to my take) saying that gays in Iran remain in the closet. Well, the same goes for gays in the more 'theocratic' parts of the US. As for his 'facts' about US interference in Iran (installing the Shah and supporting Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War, including the use of chemical weapons against Iranians) he was quite correct.

But most of all, I am just astounded and totally amazed by the anti-Iran sentiment expressed by many in the US. Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; in reality he has very little power. I checked on his domestic policies yesterday and found that many good ones, e.g., building housing for the poor and relaxing hijab (sp?) for women were nixed by the mullahs. More women attend Iranian universities than men. And the nuclear issue? Quite simply, I believe Ahmadinejad. And beyond that, if we are to have an effective Nonproliferation Treaty then we have to abide by its rules and not show favor or disfavor to countries that are allies or 'perceived' enemies. Neither India nor Israel have signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and both have nuclear weapons, uninspected and in the case of Israel, mostly unacknowledged (although everyone knows they exist). Iran has signed NPT, abides by IAEA inspections (for the most part) and has a right to make fuel for civilian nuclear power purposes according to the terms of the treaty. But the US is intent on demonizing the country. I'm just losing it entirely. I'm so sick of this propaganda crap. Oil, oil, oil... Israel, Israel, Israel...

And, as to the Holocaust question, I can't defend Ahmadinejad's interest in 'more research' but do find his pro-Palestininan views very much on mark. Iran has a small Jewish population who are treated with respect. There are synagogues in Tehran. Even though their numbers are not great enough to qualify for a Parliament seat, a seat is given to the Iranian Jewish citizenry so that they have a voice in the government. In case any of you are interested in reading more, I found a lot of this info in the Christian Science Monitor, I think April, of 2007.

Well, enough....

PS: MJ, I think it is always interesting, and potentially enlightening, to hear from any heads of state. It allows one to make personal decisions about the veracity of what that person says and to get a 'feel' for what his/her arguments are in relation to world conflicts or world peace. There are always at least two sides to every story.

Well said Crabapple.

Why is this making me hope it is as hard to spell "Bush" in Farsi as "Ahmadinejad" in English?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't get it. Ahmadinejad didn't say anything that he hasn't said many times before. And Rosner is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking with his talk of "illusions" and "mirages". It is true that Israel has been working along with the US to convince the world that Iran is the world's problem, not just the problem of Israel and the US. But frankly, with only a few exceptions, the vast majority of the world doesn't seem to be buying it. And that was true long before Ahmadinejad hit the podium at Columbia.

For Rosner, the majority of Americans are incapable of understanding the "regional complexities" of the Middle East, and that is why "for months, Israel worked fervently to prevent what happened on the podium Monday." I guess "what happened" is that the Iranian President was given an opportunity to speak to an audience of imbecile Americans who need to be protected from dangerous ideas.

I think you're taking Rosner's analysis out of context, unless I misread Rosner. I don't think Rosner's point is that Americans are incapable of understanding "regional complexities". But, come on, it is hardly profound to acknowledge that someone can say the same thing in two different settings, and in one setting, depending on the environment, what one says can be far more compelling than when the same thing is said in a different setting.

I think Rosner was speaking from a public relations perspective, and that is that what transpired outside and inside the room where Ahmadinejad spoke was a plus for him in terms of getting his message out. And I think that's a fair assessment, again assuming I'm reading Rosner correctly of course.

"There are no gays in Iran" we have killed them all.

just use cut and paste...

To boldly go...

He was intelligent, reasonable, and direct.

That's why I think Bollinger was told to take on Ab-jab's charisma. Bollinger, unfortunately, didn't seem to have much charisa in the videos I saw.

To boldly go...

Personally, I do a double-take everytime I hear the words "Department of Homeland Security"....

Reagan would have rambled on about some folksy story that he got from a movie framed as true life.

Bush would have been arrogant and insulting and made frat house jokes.

I don't think that there's much to choose from.

Are We in "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ" Territory?

I agree The holocaust is one of those untouchable things in history and you have troubles getting faculity position if you try to do more holocaust "research" as president of Iran suggested.
Other issue where there is no real freedom of research is Intelligent design.

no pain, no gain.

"To summarize: There's a word for people who want to remake the world the way they think the world should be: Bushies."

I agree, that's the problem with modern Israel and the old testament lamented that Israel couldn't get along with its neighbors. it's time to repent, it's time to repent! go meet the women at the well!

To boldly go...

I sense a new causi belli for bombing Iran.

Save Iranian gays and stop Iran from giving false hope to the Palestinians!

The only good thing about Bollinger was that his name was on Grutter v. Bollinger. Ahmadinejad came off just as he is, a relatively weak leader long on bombast and stupid moments, trying to hold on to the power he has left at home and with a few interesting statements to merit further discussion. 

"....and they became suburban and lived in ghettos."

--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from the initial post of his Blog.

He updates very little, a typical lazy blogger as I am myself.

Deleted

Yes, did you know gays in Iran are required to wear burkhas, and are used as human shields at clandestine IED plants all over the country? Oh the humanity!

What research would you propose to establish that the observed world is too complex to have arisen by chance?

Give it up.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

(New York, November 22, 2005) – Iran’s execution of two men last week for homosexual conduct highlights a pattern of persecution of gay men that stands in stark violation of the rights to life and privacy, Human Rights Watch said today.

As an Iranian who utterly detests and denounces ahmadinejads' actions and someone who has lived under the suppressive Islamic regime of Iran, I have to say that the president of Columbias’ introduction was discourteous and not remotely close to what I had anticipated from the president of a prestigious university. Ahmadinejad is an astute politician who very well realizes the power of propaganda and it was evident to me that he would not leave the meeting due to Bollingers' acerbic speech, it was a great opportunity which was handed to him in a silver platter; he stood there and addressed the audience as to show the world that americans are not even ready to have dialogue in an academic ambiance which is
expected to show more tolerance towards variable ideas and is considered to comprise the elite. It was a great move to let ahmadinejad speak at CU which could have shown the world that in a democratic country even the most abominated person could express his ideas, yet the fact that he had to be insulted for acquiring this breadth gave ahmadinejad the upper hand, you cannot imagine how this is being utilized by the Iranian propaganda machine, the americans are portrayed as barbarian, aggressive and biased against Muslims.

I for one was taken aback by Bollingers' caustic remarks albeit most of them being true. Even a seven year old knows that you cannot communicate with someone if you insult them, moreover when you insult your adversary it only exhibits your fear.
There were some questions raised in parts of his address which even I as a pro-american cannot find a proper answer to.

"If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power,"

"if the Holocaust had occurred, the Palestinians should not pay the price for it."

Although I might not be able to answer these questions but I know for a fact that the iranian government is much barbaric than anyone of you would ever conceive. Don't let his remarks deceive you, he is a fanatic and an atomic bomb in his hands should intimidate you, there is no such thing as civilian nuclear research in iran, their research was clandestine for more than 20 years but why? due to the fact that they were going after the a-bomb. They are supporting insurgents in iraq and hezbollah , jihad ,.... in other parts of the middle east.

Name-calling? Like "low-life thug"?
Ab-jab doesn't know David Duke from a hole in the ground (in fact, it would be hard to distinguish DD from a hole in the ground). It's a mistake to dismiss him completely because of this minor faux-pas. The Iranians showed terrible p.r. sense by hosting this gross "conference", and they're usually more sure-footed.

What's disturbing is the general dumping on Ab-jab with so little reason behind it. The name-calling is going on everywhere, but it's directed AT Ab-jab, not the other way around. Nowhere do I see the actual EVIDENCE of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program or their alleged export of IED components to Iraq. These things are myths-accepted-as-fact, like Saddam's WMD. The war with Iran will happen soon, and for far less reason than the one against Saddam.

I am somewhat bemused by the attention to gays in Iran. In the US gay issues have been used by the Republicans to promote hatred. The same sex marriage issue is divisive. Why are Americans appalled at what is happening to gays in Iran when their own record is so lousy. You really make a spectacle of your selves when you accuse others of things that happen in your own country. Just because you are a democracy does not mean that you are right about everything. Given Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc etc why do feel that you can lecture Iran about anything. Anyway, if you look at Iran closely you will see that Ahmadinejad in not the one who hold real power.And Iran has never invaded another country under any guise whatsoever.

uprated: I disagree with the content of Daniel's post but there's no way that it's a troll.

And Iran has never invaded another country under any guise whatsoever.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This butchering of language - a disrespect for language - that was a chief concern for Orwell.

The portrayal of the barefoot Iraqi Army as a mortal danger - and now Iran is the mortal danger - to this nation that spends half a trillion a year on the Pentagon.

It should make their heads explode to say this Leviathan is in danger - but it doesn't.

My Polish friend also emphasized that the USSR and US everyday citizens (not just elites) were/are well programmed to portray even their nation's most egregious abuses of blood and treasure - arguably genocidal acts - as 'help' to some other benighted nation.

We really 'helped' Guatemala. Russia really 'helped' Angola. Helped death squads to slaughter peasants - but hey - we 'helped.'

George Bush?

Thank God we don't have clerics vetting our candidates.

We leave that job up to wack job billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaiffe.

"You can't hopscotch around the international game board without landing in some places you would rather not find yourself."

Actually, thepeoplechoose, I understand that many Westerners find Iran to have some excellent skiing, at a VERY affordable price, and it's also my understanding that visitors are treated very respectfully. Unless the US does attack, I would think Iran would make an interesting visit. Or is it, like Cuba, on the taboo list?

MJ...

Anne Appelbaum had an op-ed in today's WaPo that offers some ways this visit and speech COULD have been handled...to our benefit and the world's.

Arsenik boldly makes some good, cautionary points.

"(remember the Red Menace?"

"I remember 'Communism' too

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't see any
disturbing parallels with US. They are world apart.

"The whole Dershowitz arsenal. The 'pro-Israel' kommisariat was out in force on Bollinger."

Finally, we can put to rest the myth of powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby/kommisariat.
The UC Regents canceled invitation of Lawrence Summers who is one of most important US economists and former Treasure Secretary because of pressure from several professors.
Meanwhile, so called most powerful lobby in US couldn’t force Colombia to cancel invitation of president of Iran.

"My guess is that Ahmadinejad's remark about not having homosexuals was ironic. "
This reminds me of pro-Stalin supporters in US.
They could justify any behaviour of USSR under Stalin.

deleted

[removed by author]

"Why is Bollinger a liar instead of just dumb?"

Well, look at this Bollinger quote:

Lastly, in universities we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power, we cannot make war or peace, we can only make minds, and to do this, we must have the most fulsome freedom of inquiry.

he disconnects "making minds" from "levers of power and the decisions about war and peace."

i.e. Bollinger misrepresented the facts that universities like MIT do plenty of research for the military. Additionally, the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago was part of the Manhatten project (SOURCE).

Since Bollinger is a smart guy, who's aware that universities act as fulcrums for the "levers of power," he's clearly lying that universities are detached from that world.

i.e. he's clearly supporting the myth that "Iranian institutions only conspire with each other towards evil purposes" while "our institutations only worry about the common good."

To boldly go...

Don, don't forget geography.  Even our illustrious James Baker has been lobbying for years for lifting the sanctions on Iran so his Carlyle pardners can make a solid investment in all those oil/gas pipelines needed to get the energy to the east.

Neoboho

"As for Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust, I have to wonder if he would have strengthened his agrument at all if he had pointed out that the grandparent of our current President, a man by the name of Prescott Bush, had had business dealings with the Nazis during WWII, an act so serious that the assets of a company in which Prescott had shares (Union Banking) were seized by the US under the Trading with the Enemy Act. History is that fiction written by those with the power to write it, which is why we Americans hear so little about this little nugget."

I don't get your point. How would the complicity of certain American companies in the Nazi war machine buttress Ahmdinejad's arguments--or whatever you wish to call Ahmadinejad's gibberish about the holocaust?

Why can't you and other defenders of Ahmadinejad on the left recognize that, at best, Ahmadinejad invited the David Dukes of the world to Iran last year to play gotcha in a painful way, and that is that he could say (arm in arm with David Duke) that certain western European nations make it a crime to deny the holocaust?
He and Duke played gotcha together.
Ahmadinejad and David Duke sure as hell showed us a thing or two. Heroes both of them in the worldwide gotcha circuit. How impressive.

Why is it necessary for you and so many other supposed lefties to excuse Ahmadinejad for his hurtful gotcha prank? You can loathe Ahmadinejad as I do and still oppose stupid military ventures by this country in Iran.

It's OK, really. Millions of us on the left know how to separate the forest through the trees, i.e. Ahmdinejad is an irrelevant ninny, he's not in charge of of his own country, going to war with Iran is nuts, and Iran is in the long run a natural ally of the United States. Now that resonates I submit.

Most Americans can distinguish between being rude to someone whom you've invited to speak in order to promote free speech, from the completely unrelated argument concerning the attributes of the person who was treated rudely.

Just what real liberals need in this country--a bunch of "allies" defending the integrity of an international nudnik. Heaven help us from ourselves.

Sorry, Bruce, I haven't figured out how to use all the bells and whistles on this site. But if you past that URL into your browser, you will get to the article. Cheers.

Personnally, I find Iran's cinema to be excellent.  Majid Majidi's Becheha-Ye aseman (1997) (The Children of Heaven), for example.  And it comforted me that this film was also widly popular in Iran - it broke box-office records.

An interesting comparison - dealing with poverty - was Satyajit Ray's 1950's Apu Trilogy.   Even Ravi Shankar's brilliant soundtrack didn't save the film in India - it bombed, was criticised severely, and I remember reading that it was banned in parts of India because of its obsessive treatment of poverty.  But when it made the rounds in US "art theaters" it was a smash hit.  All the 57 art theater viewers loved it.

Neoboho

the western view of the holocaust is that a single madman, hilter, insanely killed millions of jews for no reason.

Ahmadinejad's argument would be strenghthed if he's able to associate the holocaust with broad (international) intellectual and financial support; i.e. "the west" could be seen as having a war against itself (its own culture) over the use of resources.

The Iraq war also seems to be a war against ourselves since "it's about the oil" which has given "market economies" (our philosophy and religion) their staying power. and, unless we totally "fail" in Iraq, I doubt people will ask: "if market economies are so good, why did the government have to intervene?"

In general, I think that Ahmadinejad is a smart man and wants no part of the "Market Economy" because it's failed badly several times.

To boldly go...

My understanding is that Ahmadinejad maintains that the holocaust did not happen to the extent that has been reported and the establishment of Israel was thus fraudulent, not that others in “the west” were complicit with or enabled Hitler.

I’m not clear how his economic theories are relevant to his holocaust denial.

Thank you for addressing the argument about the wonderful life of Iranian Jews in Iran. We have been told by myriad posters about Jewish representation in Iranian government and the existence of kosher butcher shops in Iran.

So?

The Iranian Jewish population has been in Persia for millenia. There is no natural hatred on the part of the Iranian people for the relatively few Iranian Jews who remain (25,000 or so out of a population at the time of WWII of approximately 100,000). This is so in spite of the presence of the current government, and not because of it.

In any event, whether Iranian Jews have it good or not in Iran is immaterial to the real issue of whether sabre-rattling toward Tehran by this country at this time is prudent policy. It is not.

But I wish every person who has referenced the lovely life of Iranian Jews remaining in Iran could spend some time with the Iranian ex-pat Jews I have come to know. They would laugh or cry at each and every one of those who glorify Jewish life in Iran out of the room.

"Frankly, whether he has goofy views about the holocaust or gays don't strike me as quite the most pressing issues in US-Iranian relations right now. And yet these topics are used as an excuse for failure to engage with Ahmadinejad's statements on a whole range of far more pressing matters."

This is true--and very unfortunate.

"but the story about why the holocaust happened is a lot more complex than it's made out to be-- my opinion."

But not WHETHER it happened, which was A's original point, later modified somewhat I hear.

But does it really matter whether 6 million were killed...or 5 million...or 7 million?

So very true Howard.

As startling as it might be to some here in America, the United States is very young and the world is very old. And simply because we take history and turn it into action movies (with all the requisite creative license to make the heroes American and adding the mandatory hot girl love interest) does not mean the entire world does likewise.

To me, history is like the ocean or looking up at the night sky far from a city's lights - once you are alone with it and perceive it's vastness, you gain a new respect for it and begin to realize how truly insignificant you really are. If only more people in this country would take the time to learn a little REAL history I think we'd be a much more humble, and in my mind improved, nation.

There is no need to dig through the past and make dubious connections between the Nazis and the Bush family. Before the horrors that the Nazi party was ultimately capable of were finally reveled there were many people that happily subscribed to that party's rhetoric and ideology. And not only in Europe but also here in the United States. After all, at it's core it was Nationalism and our country warmly embraces Nationalism. Only the sound of a fife and drum and the crisp snapping of a flag in the wind makes it all OK in our minds and gives us conviction in distancing ourselves from the truly dark side of this insidious, intolerant and self-destructive pride.

There is also no need to delve too deeply into exactly what Iran's domestic policies are on any particular issue seeing that we here have our own tragic problems in which we've failed to deal with. And comparing what they do to people in their country and what we do in ours is a futile exercise used to avoid dealing with our own realities. That's their country, just as this is our country. I'm firmly of the belief that in it's own time the tides of change will sweep over Iran and it will be a different place than it is now. I equally believe (or I want to at least) that the same will be true in this country. But who are we to intervene and either accelerate or hinder change? I'm reminded of the quote from Lord of the Rings in which Gandalf said -

"Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the wise cannot see all ends"

Now I absolutely loved Tolkien's book and have read it and reread it many times in my life. And in it there are many applicable lessons and conflicts from which some wisdom can be attained. This certainly seems like one such instance. And when we've ignored this sage wisdom, as we have been wont to do, it's not like we've been terribly successful when we have intervened. And this rings true without even getting into the fact that referring to anyone within the ranks of our nation's leadership in recent years as wise is a gross misuse of the word.

As an exercise, try looking at the situation inversely. What would people here in America think if other countries thought to treat and do the same sorts of things to us? What if England, France and Canada sought to encourage regime change within the United States. What if they started blasting our airwaves with anti-government sentiments and calls for open resistance? What if they spent millions upon millions of dollars to support and train domestic "resistance/terrorist" fighters to lead the insurrection? What if every chance they were given they ridiculed, attacked and slandered our country and it's leaders while simultaneously suggesting that every nation needed to deal with us soon or all would be in peril? How would we all respond to this? For insight, see how our country responds to Hugo Chavez, who for all his faults, is one of the handful of people on this planet willing to stand fast in the face our our hegemonistic will. It seems almost surreal to imagine us in that position but then again it would seem surreal for a bully to consider being bullied now wouldn't it?

Ahmadinejad is a crafty man. He is an intelligent man. And he has a very clear understanding of how we work and think here in the west. Of course this gives him a clearly distinct advantage over us because we generally don't care to learn anything about others and are more than willing to live believing lies, stereotypes and fantasy so long as they further our goals and ambitions. After all, in the end everyone is supposed to be more like us so why bother right?

On the Sun Zsu scorecard - Ahmadinejad 1 / America 0. In fact, were Sun Zsu teaching this as a class Ahmadinejad would have just earned a gold star or two while we'd be sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on as our good Mr. Bollinger so perfectly and conveniently demonstrated.

"When questioned on the Jewish Holocaust, Ahmadinejad asked a very sound question: why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with? - aluding to the fact that Israel was established at the expense of the Palestinian population."

But whether the Palestinians were unfairly treated by the nations of the world in the wake of the Holocaust was not the theme of the international conference in Tehran, which featured the likes of pin-up Klansman David Duke. The theme was whether the Holocaust occurred.

"...You are arguing that Prescott Bush was complicit with the holocaust, not that it didn’t happen of is exaggerated, so I don’t think that would have strengthened Ahmadinejad”s argument...."

Well, I guess my point was that Ahmadinejad's version of the Holocaust may not be any more inaccurate than our own history of it, and that there may be other agenda for locking discussion of the "facts" of that history.

What's Ahmadinejad's version of the Holocaust ?

"than our own history of it"
Are you talking about global consiracy of US + Europe to hide truth about Holocaust?

In any case, why Holocaust is so important for
Ahmadinejad?

Doesn't he has anything better to worry about?

"Are you talking about global consiracy of US + Europe to hide truth about Holocaust?"

I'm talking about individuals, families, corporations which were involved in helping to keep the wheels of the Nazi machine rolling, therefore "assisted" in the Holocaust. Keep in mind that one of those same families that assisted Nazi Germany is now leaving it tracks across the backs of Middle Easterners. In that sense, the Holocaust is not yet done, just the ethnicity of the victims have changed.

BTW, didn't I just read this week that IBM was involved in helping the Nazis to catalog the list of Jews during the thirties and forties? Yep, saved the article, but not the link:

"....As the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide, IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s.
Only after Jews were identified -- a massive and complex task that Hitler wanted done immediately -- could they be targeted for efficient asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, enslaved labor, and, ultimately, annihilation...."

And the beat goes on........

It's all well known, nothing is hidden.

What's AHMADINEJAD's version of Holocaust and why does he care?

You are correct about where the real power lies. What appears to be quite complex, however, is the extent to which the power is exerted. Womens' dress code enforcement seems to vary over time, and some Iranian women are seen being in the latest Western fashions.

Again from external indicators, Iran seems to have somewhat more indicators of personal freedoms than the stricter Arab countries. Ironically, under Saddam, while there was brutal and corrupt government, women could have high government positions -- such as heading the biological warfare program. Dressing attractively and catching the eye of Saddam's sons, however, could be deadly.

At one point, as a victim of an impostor, I thought I might be spending time in Kuwait, and they do appear to have progressed since what legitimately can be called their liberation. Women are in the Parliament, although the real power remains in the House of Sabah. The official website even has a bit of a sense of humor, when discussing national dress. Men, according to it, usually wore traditional clothing, although where they had historically worn a dagger and a purse, they now wore a cell phone and pagers. It showed women in Western dress.

For me, one measure of the humanity of a society was that Kuwait had the only animal rescue league of any Arab nation. I don't know about the Persian states, but I do tend to feel that how animals are treated is a measure of a society. No, I am not suggesting Jain customs are required.

Other Arab (and mixed, such as Lebanon) seem to vary, with Saudi Arabia generally the most strict. None would be meet Western standards of individual rights and democracy, but they are not uniform.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I wasn't there, but it would be an exceptional university where the faculty had the ability to remove the president. I have personal knowledge of one such case. It took a court case and claims of possible fraud.

My guess is that Summers was told to leave by others besides the faculty in order to defuse the situation. Even Gonzales left. One never knows what goes on behind the scenes...

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

"What do you call a government official with some but not complete power elected from a slate vetted by a self-perpetuating group of clerics?"

George Bush?

I keep bringing up the native american genocide:

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand." [SOURCE]

or, why not look at the slave trade:

"At least 2 million Africans--10 to 15 percent--died during the infamous "Middle Passage" across the Atlantic. Another 15 to 30 percent died during the march to or confinement along the coast" [SOURCE]

thus the holocaust doesn't look like a unique event unless one understands that only the jews had wealth and power.

Ahmadinejad doesn't deny the holocaust, I think he only denies its importance and, based on other atrocities, I have to wonder myself.

To boldly go...

"Bollinger's pre-speech introduction/indictment was breath-takingly dumb."

"...to please enraged donors..."

"In the name of academic freedom, Bollinger managed to eradicate any distinction between academe and the state."

"Bollinger made us look as bad as Ahmadinejad and then topped the Iranian by being obnoxiously rude."

My thoughts exactly MJ.

Bollinger could have skewered Ahmadinejad without being insulting. That would have been the educated way - a teaching moment for Columbia students.

Hector

Zionista -- You write, "The fact remains that Israel was not established at the expense of the Palestinian population. Rather, the UN called for the partition of former British Mandatory Palestine into two (Jewish and Arab) states. The partition was not rejected by Israel, but by the Arab establishment when combined armies of the League of Arab States attacked the Jewish state." I do not condone attacks on Israel, any more than I condone attacks on Iraq, Iran, Austria, and so forth. Beyond that, I understand that there is a reasoned argument that, under all the circumstances, the establishment of the State of Israel was proper. But given all that, isn't it still the case that in your sentence that begins, "Rather. . . ", describe PRECISELY what your sentence that begins, "The fact remains . . . " DENIES? -- i.e., "that Israel WAS . . . established at the expense of the Palestinian population." If your municipal goverment "called for the partition" of your house, and the land on which it sits, "between" you and your neighbors, and you attacked your neighbors as they moved into your house, and lost the fight, would not your neighbors' gain have come "at the expense of" you?

"founding of Israel resulted from the dispossession of the Palestinian people?"

It's not true.

Founding of Israel followed by the war started by Arabs that resulted in 600K of Arabs in Israel and 600K Jews in Arab countries left their homes and moved to new places under disputed circumstances.

bslev,

Could you elaborate on the lies.

Here's a start:

you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator

Actually, Supreme Leader Khamanei is head of state, and Ahmadinejad has little power. Bollinger refers to a letter from Ganji. In ths letter, Ganji writes: "All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran's top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan." He's referring to Khamanei. Might there be two dictators in Iran? I don't think so.

you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend.

Ahmadinejad: "I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here," he said. "Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? ... Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?"

you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote.

What did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

Bollinger was astonishingly wrong. Muqtada al-Sadr is the most popular politician in Iraq, the head of the #2 Shia political party and NOT allied with Iran as the #1 Shia party is. The ruling party in Iraq is the SIIC which was formed in Iran and is closely allied with Iran. The president of Iraq has visited Iran and praised them for their support.

arms supplies from Iran, including 240- millimeter rockets and explosively formed projectiles

Bollinger is reporting fabricated charges from the US military. MajGen Lynch: "And there are indeed manufacturing marks on these munitions that could only have come from a place like Iran, the only place they could have come. They couldn't have been manufactured here in Iraq. They are being assembled here in Iraq." Right, a "place like Iran."

Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq

Bollinger made this up--even the US military hasn't gone this far with their specious charges.

You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors.

Iran continues to defy the UN because it is doing nothing wrong, as affirmed by Dr. ElBaradei and the IAEA. Everyone knows that the UN is merely acting as the agent of the US and that Iran has the right to nuclear power, just as it did under the Shah. Most important, Iran has not threatened its neighbors. It is friendly with its neighbors: Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Perhaps Bollinger was referring to Israel and the US, which have threatened Iran and so Iran has threatened to retaliate if attacked. Bollinger ignorantly and incorrectly calls this a military threat.

your country continues to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification

Untrue. According to the IAEA Iran is in full compliance with the NPT.

Or stand on the Acropolis with the Parthenon by your side and see Athens' lights come ablaze at dusk.

How does this help Palestinians?

You are quite obviously from another country & culture, your broken English typing would suggest at least this. From where do you hail originally?

Regardless of your response to the above question your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear to be clearly seen on the map. You support the Israeli/Jewish claim to the region and seem to find little fault in their means of aquiring, maintaining & expanding those lands. I myself take issue but let us move on.

To follow this basic reasoning which apparently you endorse, the native people of our nation should rise up, get international support, be given a rather cherry slice of the pie that is America, secure nuclear weapons in violation of international treaty and at that point subjugate & drive to eliminate the Anglo segment of our population...correct? It would be within thier rights seeing as this was the land that "god", whomever you fancy that to be, gave them on which to live. Forgive me but I find this reasoning to be childish. It sounds like a child saying "because I want it"! But children are not the ones making these decisions or the bloody policies & wars needed to carry them out. Supposedly, adults are. And as such I demand more thought and rationality from anyone supporting such clearly outrageous positions.

Please, please present something other than - they used to live there, some of them stayed, and "god" told us it was ours.

Falcon 10: divert the flow of discussion, without any analysis but throwing questions.

In this case, Ahmadinejad may not be trying to act in the best interests of the Palestians, as a liberal democrat might do so. He might feel that Palestinian revenge is more important to them, which would mean that supporting Hizbollah is rational.

I don't consider that rational, but I can't rule that out as a motivation. Don't assume everyone's values are the same as yours -- actually a rather frightening process if those values were yours, Davai. After all, most people here don't claim they are here to rant. Most, IMHO, are here to discuss and learn.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Thank you. That is a beautiful image of the blending of civilizations.

Many of us have strong visual memories. I happened to be flying over Washington DC the night after MLK's assassination, and remember the fires below.

Whatever one may think of Ayn Rand, she occasionally came up with a vivid image. In the sixties blackout of New York, I was in a New Jersey suburb that wasn't affected. It was eerie to see the lights of New York, section by section as parts of the electrical grid failed, go out.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

....Why is it necessary for you and so many other supposed lefties to excuse Ahmadinejad for his hurtful gotcha prank? You can loathe Ahmadinejad as I do and still oppose stupid military ventures by this country in Iran....Just what real liberals need in this country--a bunch of "allies" defending the integrity of an international nudnik....

So what was that you were sayin' upthread about Daniel Greenbaum's comment needing to be uprated but still being "unfair and inaccurate"? Hmmm? :-)

Sure seems to me that this thread has heavily slanted pro-Ahmadinejad, even tho MJ started it out with equal damnation to both "presidents." I wonder if the folks writing those type of comments are going to write him in for their presidential primary vote, as I don't believe that there are any American candidates available that support the height of their fandom.

self-deletion in the spirit of something akin to . . . nevermind. :)

I don't understand how people who deny that the Holocaust happened get the press that they do. These people belong in the tabloids with the "I Had A Martian's Baby" stories.

As one who helped 'liberate' the concentration camp at Woebbelin/Ludwigslust I can attest the Holocaust was real.

Ike knew there would be deniers after the war so he ordered all his Commanders to send as many troops as possible to these places so we would have eye witness accounts, and it also helps explain why there are so many archival films and still photos of this monumental crime.

The deniers are simply claiming they don't believe their lying eyes.

Scroll through the pictures here and the photos of the camps start on page 7.

After landing in Normandy and fighting our way across Europe and having seen what the Germans were capable of you can see why most in my regiment didn't take any SS prisoners unless ordered to do so.

Holocauhttp://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/search.php?access=selectbycategory&version=new&categoryid=545&page=1&resultsorder=DateCreationst happened

Thank you John in more ways then one.
Bruce

Hector,

i.e., "that Israel WAS . . . established at the expense of the Palestinian population." If your municipal goverment "called for the partition" of your house, and the land on which it sits, "between" you and your neighbors, and you attacked your neighbors as they moved into your house, and lost the fight, would not your neighbors' gain have come "at the expense of" you?

The microcosmic allegory works best if we assume that there were no Jews, nor any legitimate Jewish claim to national self-determination, in British Mandatory Palestine.  The fact remains that the UN partition was intended to implement a two-state solution between two peoples with conflicting legitimate national claims.  The Arab League delegations represented in the UN General Assembly at the time walked out on the vote and combined armies of their respective nations attacked the Jewish state -- two of which, Jordan and Egypt, went on to occupy the West Bank and Gaza respectively, rather than nurture any emerging Palestinian independence. 

The national rights of both Jews and Arabs in former British Mandatory Palestine were not mutually exclusive to mainstream contemporary Zionists at the time, but they were mutually exclusive to the Arab establishment (and still are, to a certain extent).  Therefore, the Arab establishment's rejection of Israel had at least as much if not more to do with Palestinian statelessness than did the establishment of Israel.

bslev,

I'm not here to defend Bollinger

You are but you don't do it very well.

Splitting hairs between exhibiting all the signs signs of being a dictator and being a dictator? Come on. You're a Bollinger apologist, disregarding common sense.

The holocaust denial I don't have time to get into. It has nothing to do with anything as regards attacking Iran. There are over 25,000 Jews living in Iran, mostly in Teheran where Ahmadinejad was mayor. They have a seat in parliament. They have resisted Israeli enducements to emigrate. They have 30 synagogues and six kosher butcher shops. If Ahmadinejad hated Jews wouldn't he have started in Teheran? I advise Jews to get over the holocaust--you should too.

I gave you eight points and you shoot at the softest two. How about the others? Are we to believe that Bollinger lies only part of the time, so it's okay?

I have said enough on this thread.

Don't stress yourself, bslev.

Another posibility is that Iran is using Lebanon and Palestinians as pawns in Iran's stategic games in ME, and iran doesn't give a damn about Palestinians, in the same way as Sadam could care less about Palestinians.

Interesting that so far there were no rational discussion why Ahmadinejad cares so much about Holocost and and about Palestinians.

There were no a singe discussion in all MJ posts and comments what Hamas is trying to do.

Most of the commentators are trying to prove that
Israel shouldn't exists for one reason or another

Yes.

Crabaple..I am forced to lend an ear to conspiracy theorists when they ask me for the causes that brought WTC7 to ground and despiet my best efforts and full blown rationale, am unable to find answers.

The US government has been so quick to build WTC 7 anew that anything apart from conspiracy fails to explain. All you tube results of 'WTC7' yield evidences of conspiracy and not one puports to give answers.

Like you, I am too tempted to look for rationale and thats why, the Iran thing is nauseating. Noone bothers about 'rationale' anymore. Ahmedinijad was all 'rational' to me.

Don Bacon,

I advise Jews to get over the holocaust--you should too.

How very white of you.  As long as we're moving along in the spirit of unsolicited advice, this Jew advises you to get over yourself.

Bruce,

if you scroll through the pictures at the Truman Library you come across a a victim who has what looks like a 6 inch diameter hole in his/her head. Stark! You try to imagine what caused this and what kind of person could do this. This is the type of horror I saw that taught me that some things you learn with your eyes you never forget.

I can only hope that my experiences there somehow made me a better man.

" my fellow Jews and I just "need to get over" it, or not"

But we did get over Holacaust.
Our lifes as as well as future of Israel doesn't not depend on Holocaust deniers. This whole discussion is rediculious.
Ahmadinejad is a clown, demagogues, he is no diffrent from clowns propagondists in USSR or Cuba or Chaves.
People who find any wisdow in Ahmadinejad
will 10 years from now try hard to find excuses for their stupidity the same way apologists for USSR are trying to to explain away their stupidity.

Thanks, Bruce. Clinton did, however, announce them at my organization, Israel Policy Forum, which was nice.

so why were the jews treated differently than poor blacks and native americans? When I ask that question, folks like you scream racism (anti-semetism) rather than wondering why that's the case.

To boldly go...

"folks like you scream racism (anti-semetism) [sic]"

Double OY!

(US. Congress-Record 67th Congress, 4. Sitting, Senate Document nr. 346)

"Full Responsibility for the First World War, lies squarely on the shoulders of the International Jewish Bankers. They are responsible for Millions of dead and dying."

To boldly go...

Davai:

In fairness to many of our fellow posters, we are in a period of time in which we are run by an Administration that has led us into an intractable conflict, with thousands killed and thousands more maimed, and resulting frustration is magnified by the utter failure of Democrats in Congress to demonstrate the kind of leadership most of us were hoping we would see from them.

When someone like Ahmandinejad pokes his finger at the direction of our leadership, I think some people take comfort in that (no matter how much the person they appear to admire represents all that a "liberal" in this country ordinarily detests: political repression, discrimination against gays, people of certain faith, and women, etc.).

I really don't believe most people on the left (even at the Cafe) think that Ahmandinejad is anything more than a tool conveniently available at this point in time to salve the frustration emanating from the disaster that is Iraq.

I have quite a bit of faith in the Iranian people, and not just because they have been good to our people for the most part over the centuries. I genuinely believe that they will in relatively short measure ensure that Ahmandinejad will ultimately be little more than an obnoxious data point in the proud and glorious history of the Iranian people.

That's one of the reasons I am so frustrated with what Bollinger did. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Bruce

artappraiser.

"Sure seems to me that this thread has heavily slanted pro-Ahmadinejad, even tho MJ started it out with equal damnation to both "presidents." I wonder if the folks writing those type of comments are going to write him in for their presidential primary vote, as I don't believe that there are any American candidates available that support the height of their fandom."

This reminds me of the logic aka "humor" frequently exhibited by Ann Coulter; especially the bit about folks writing Ahmadinejad in as their primary candidate............

hmmmmmm.......

What is your point? That there were anti-semites in the United States Senate who blamed the Jews for World War I? We are often blamed for wars.

Sound familiar? Welcome to the world of the Jewish People mcs.

From my understanding of their history, the conflict arises from the Bedouin from whom the power base grew, and the urban folk. The slow growth of an educated middle class, including some that surreptitiously educate their daughters, stresses it further.

The conflict shows in their military, where the main forces are the ones more exposed to the rest of the world, but their National Guard is not a reserve like ours, but a largely Bedouin force with the principal assignment of protecting the Holy Places. Protection from what could be better defined, but it is a natural context for conservatism.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What good would it do, CSCS?  Ahmadinejad would just parsi his words.

Neoboho

Thank you indeed MJ.

While any discussion regarding Ahmadinejad and Iran will inevitably lead to Israel's entry into the foray (not that it shouldn't), it is at those moments that the conversation nearly always devolves (ironically this word appears in one of the earliest posts!) into conspiracy theories and vitriol. It seems every online conversation that involves Israel at some point turns into the crazier stuff from tabloids. And your sure to hear any of the following - [Zionists, Prescott Bush, Nazis, holocaust deniers, and racists]. One sure fire way to quickly get over 200 responses is to post something, anything, that can tie into Israel and the holocaust. It does tend to get maddening and in cases where the conversation is about more or something entirely NOT Israel, the real purpose of the conversation is then lost.

MJ says:

However, stating that Israel was founded at the expense of the Palestinians is entirely different.
Of course it was. Just as America was founded at the expense of the Indians.

Good analogy.

What is your point? That there were anti-semites in the United States Senate

why do they become anti-semites? the "war on terrorism" is against an organization that isn't organized like a state. Secret societies, religons (christian, jewish, islamic, etc..), etc... have their own agendas which might be different than "governments."

We are often blamed for wars.

the old testament doesn't necesarily blame the jews but their "false gods." based on my reading of that text, the jews were much like the vikings and plundered wealth from surrounding villages and were hated for it. according to some, by WWI and WWII, that group of jewish elite expanded their operations to other parts of europe.

in the new testament, Jesus tried to throw the "money changers" out of the temple and took on the pharisies because they weren't democratic, inclusive or progressive.

as far as I can tell, there was a Jewish elite-- as documented by the bible, modern newspapers and congressional records, that tried to protect and grow its wealth and power.

the problem, and my point, is that jews, christians (read the vatican) and islams (read mullahs, etc...) don't have democratic organizations that interface well with non-believers and, throughout history, that has been a big problem.

To boldly go...

*see below* - Duplicated

I advise Jews to get over the holocaust--you should too.

What an astonishingly ignorant, smug, wrong-headed thing to say.

Its true that much of what is said of Ahmadinejad is exaggerated to the point of silliness (i.e. he didn't say Israel should be "wiped off the map" - there is no such phrase in Persian, he said their current regime should "fade from this page in history" or something like that, as just one example, but an important one when you think that the storyline the right wingers are trying to push here is that another holocaust is at hand when no such thing is even close to happening) but telling Jewish people to "get over the holocaust" - you ruin yourself by saying such things.

It is my opinion that the creation of Israel in that location by the European/US communities was a terrible mistake, but its a mistake that can't be undone. Ahmadinejad wants a one-state solution with a Palestine and no Israel. It isn't going to happen. But the US and our allies need to realize that we can't play with other countries like pieces in a board game, and that other people aren't just there to either act in our interests and be treated well, or not and be treated like subhumans. Neither Iran or the US measures up, these days, but the scope of our power is exponentially greater than theirs. The idea that they constitute a genuine threat to us is more laughable than the claim was about Iraq.

:-)

I can double that back on you, though. I've had people try to explain to me that comments such as some on this thread are actually made by undercover Coulterites imitating liberals, because no "real" liberals exist that would comment this way. (When one's picture of how things are becomes cofused, a conspiracy always comes in handy. :-))

"There were virtually no Jews (a tiny handful) in Palestine for about 1800 years until the Zionist movement began in the late 19th century."

First of all, there was not country Palestine.
Second
There were virtually no Arabs(a tiny handful) in Palestine for about 1800 years until the Zionist movement began in the late 19th century.
Third, Majority of population in Jerusalem were Jews.

"Europeans started coming but by 1948, when Israel was established, the Palestinian population still outnumbered the Jews 2-1."
This how Palestine was divided if you don't count Negev.

"And even the vast majority of Palestinians accept its right to exist"

It's not true.
Arafat insisted and Abass continues to insist on the "right of return"

"The above constitutes the Clinton parameters"

"there with Israel and Palestine sharing an undivided Jerusalem."
I'm not sure that was in Clinton parameters.
You also forgot several items in Clinton parameters:
"right of return" that turned to be a showstopper in 2000.
Fate of Israeli cities and towns beyond Green line.

"guarantees from the US, EU"

This is no longer realistic.

I guees, I don't understand what's your point.
If you advocate two state solution based on
67 borders plus small adjustments, + no right of return, I agree if this can be done in a way that provides security of Israel.
If you propose some kind of one state solution or the right of return, it's a moot point.
The only way to achive this solution is by destruction of Israel by military force.
I just don't see this happen any time soon.

I have been "lurking" here but, as an Israeli in Madison for a year, I had to register to say that I do not appreciate having this Davai guy make the defense of Israel look ridiculous. I have to wonder "is he for real" because every comment he makes demonstrates ignorance of Israel, its history, and the conflict with the Arabs and is offensive also.
I am not someone who likes to comment on these "blogs" but I need to say that Davai embarrasses me as he should all people who care about Israel. Some people here say he is an Israeli. I don't think so. Our schools do not produce such ignorant graduates.
Has anyone considered that he is not just a troll but a plant, designed to make my country look like idiots.
Question. Madison1776. Are you in Madison, Wisconsin?

Deleted

Deleted

davai says:

Let's agree for a sake of argument that there were Palestinians in 1948 as a separate people.

Really? Where were these Palestinians living?

No, Herzl, my "name" is my homage to James Madison. I am not in Wisconsin.
Thanks for putting Davai back in his box. Israelis like you help your country with Americans like me.
With Davai always mouthing off, it's easy to forget the vast majority of good sensible Israelis who want peace with the Palestinians.
Glad you survived last summer's war. Thank God or whoever.

artappraiser.

"I've had people try to explain to me that comments such as some on this thread are actually made by undercover Coulterites imitating liberals, because no "real" liberals exist that would comment this way"

Kind of like this guy?

On September 27, 2007 - 5:56pm Herzl said:
"I have been "lurking" here but, as an Israeli in Madison for a year, I had to register to say that I do not appreciate having this Davai guy make the defense of Israel look ridiculous. I have to wonder "is he for real" because every comment he makes demonstrates ignorance of Israel, its history, and the conflict with the Arabs and is offensive also.
I am not someone who likes to comment on these "blogs" but I need to say that Davai embarrasses me as he should all people who care about Israel. Some people here say he is an Israeli. I don't think so. Our schools do not produce such ignorant graduates.
Has anyone considered that he is not just a troll but a plant, designed to make my country look like idiots."

Herzl.

If it's any consolation to you, many of us believe that davai is Russian.

I hope you will consider becoming a contributor here. AFAIK, the only other Israeli here is bar_kochba132 who lived in LA up until 20 or so years ago.

MJ, the solution has been obvious for a very long time. The Clinton parameters represent a reasonable, if somewhat vague, articulation of the essential formula for a just settlement that has been well known to all informed observers for several decades now.

The problem, of course, is how to get there. The intransigence of the current, and past, Israeli governments has been the central obstacle, notwithstanding all of the nonsense about the Palestinians wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea," and so forth.

Israel has been able to sustain its rejectionist position, which is opposed by most of the rest of the world, in large part because of the unwavering support of the United States. Continued US support for Israeli intransigence depends, in turn, on the ignorance of Americans about past and current events and the near complete triumph in public discourse and consciousness of a narrative about Israel that portrays Israelis as largely innocent victims of irrational violence and hatred perpetrated by the Palestinian people. As long as this narrative defines and constrains public debate on the issue, it will be very difficult to change US policy. And without a change in US policy, there will be no change in the Israeli position and therefore no solution along the lines you support.

This is why it is, in fact, essential to talk about "who did what to whom" -- not to prove a point, or elicit some gratifying mea culpa from the AIPAC crowd, but to restore elementary rationality to political debate on the subject in the US. As long as opponents of a just solution can effect a moral reversal in which the people firing at children in Gaza from helicopter gunships are the heroes of the story, there is no way to persuade Americans to reject our government's disastrous policy. As long as anyone who tells the truth about Israeli treatment of the Palestinians can be instantaneously shouted down as an anti-Semite, there will be no rational debate. Achieving that rational debate depends upon correcting the skewed narrative that now prevails. To do that, I am afraid it is necessary to talk about "who did what to whom," regrettable as this is.

You cannot build an edifice of peace on a foundation of lies.

Deleted duplicate.

"You cannot build an edifice of peace on a foundation of lies."

I agree.
Let's start with telling WHOLE truth
about
"the people firing at children in Gaza from helicopter gunships are the heroes of the story"

That is a damn lie. 99% of the posters here are opposed to the occupation not to Israel."

It's not true.
Count how many people in today's MJ post are opposed to Israel.

"How do you hurt it? By lying and exaggerating."
I'm not lying, however I probably exaggerate, like everybody else, like you.
Obviously 99% is exaggeration.

"If you knew anything about Israel, you would know that most people my age (military age) hate the occupation, hate serving in the shtakim, and want peace with the Palestinians."

I know this very well.
Great comment. Please make it often here.
Don't forget that parents also agree with their children, so huge majority of Israeli WANT peace.
So why there is no peace? Are there only Israeli people to blame?
If you read comments in tmpcafe, it's seems that only Israeli people to blame?
Do you agree?
Do you agree with fear_and_.. and Don's comments
just a few comments above your comments?

BTW, in term of disclose, who did you vote for in last election in Israel and who are you going to vote in the next election?

I see that you don't want to ask fair questions,
instead you rate my comment 0.
I wonder if you are real Israeli, if you find my comments most disagreeable.

I believe that Bollinger felt that he had no choice but to insult the president of Iran because local and national politicians had threatened his college with financial penalties for giving Ahmadinejad a public forum for his views. It was brought to Bollinger's attention that Columbia University is not free to pursue truth because it is subject to the whims of jingoistic politicos who favor empire above truth.

So (and this may be your point) there's really not much freedom involved here. It's the old star spangled stage performance with the popular government/media/military cast now enlarged to include academia, all reciting their party lines against the latest appointed US enemy.

The President of Columbia University has a "sliding scale" when it comes to world leaders.

Bollinger's introduction of Pakistan's President Musharraf, a real dictator who gained his position through a coup and not an election (unlike Ahmadinejad), two years ago (Sep 2005):

"Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance. It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf and his wife, Sehbah Musharraf, to Columbia University. ...

"We at Columbia are eager to listen. As a community of scholars and as students and faculty who come from everywhere in the world, we take a great scholarly and personal interest in what the President has to say. The development in Pakistan over the past several years, from its economic growth to its fight against extremism and terrorism, are vital issues for all of us. Mr. President, as you share your thoughts and insights you will give our students, the leaders of tomorrow, first-hand knowledge of the world their generation will inherit.

"President Musharraf is a leader of global importance and his contribution to Pakistan’s economic turnaround and the international fight against terror remain remarkable - it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus."
http://www.distantocean.com/2007/09/lee-bollinger-f.html

From the Pakistan page of the CIA World Factbook:

chief of state: President General Pervez MUSHARRAF (since 20 June 2001)
note: following a military takeover on 12 October 1999, Chief of Army Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Pervez MUSHARRAF, suspended Pakistan's constitution and assumed the additional title of Chief Executive; on 12 May 2000, Pakistan's Supreme Court unanimously validated the October 1999 coup and granted MUSHARRAF executive and legislative authority for three years from the coup date; on 20 June 2001, MUSHARRAF named himself as president and was sworn in replacing Mohammad Rafiq TARAR; in a referendum held on 30 April 2002, MUSHARRAF's presidency was extended by five more years; on 1 January 2004, MUSHARRAF won a vote of confidence in the Senate, National Assembly, and four provincial assemblies
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

Why does President Bollinger insult a democrat and praise a dictator? The first is an enemy of the US and the second is a friend. It's called "academic freedom"?