Columbia University: Thank You For Exposing Ahmadinejad

Columbia University did what is expected of a  great institution. In providing Iranian President Ahmadinejad a place to speak on its campus, that university allowed him to tell his own story, a story of deceit, lies, and treachery.

That speech accompanied by Sunday's 60 Minutes interview exposed a world leader who is not to be trusted. He speaks of peace and refuses to answer questions about his own nation's involvement in furthering war in the Middle East.

He was given amble opportunity to deny that Iran was providing armaments to insurgents in Iraq and never did so. He made it clear that his version of peace will never come to the Middle East until Israel no longer exists as a state.

Columbia University, its students and faulty are to be commended for opening its stage to this dictator, and for the dignity afforded him. Free speech ensures the advocate a platform. It ensures the rest of us that he is exposed.

Recognition goes to John H. Coatsworth, Professor of International and Public Affairs and of History and acting dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. Coatsworth resolutely stood by the decision to have the  Iranian leader speak.

We are all the wiser and more knowledgeable about the dangers of Ahmadinejad's regime because of Coatworth's firm belief in free speech.

Comments

[paul]

All this about free speech is all well and good, but it misses the larger point. The US is preparing for a war with Iran, and this anti-Ahmadinejad hysteria is paving the way.
We need to expose these people for their hypocrisy, not help them pile criticisms on Iran.
Iran *might* be arming militias in Iraq? The US is doing it openly.

[Brian]

In the mainstream media coverage---you know, the kind that shapes the bounds of thinkable thought for most Americans---I have seen very little sober, accurate, insightful analysis of this topic. Remember, the mainstream media told you Al Gore said he invented the internet, and we know he never said that.

There's a great article by Juan Cole on salon.com today (also on commondreams.org) in which he points out that all the demonizing of the Iranian president assists those trying to drive our country to another war.

Ahmadinejad has some very extreme views on some topics, but as Cole notes he hasn't invaded a foreign country. And as the widely respected atomic energy inspection expert Mohammad ElBaradei authoritatively concludes, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capability.

The very same institutional processes in the media-publicity system and in Congress that led to war in early 2003 are in play now. Not much has changed. It's disappointing to have to say this, but the left, collectively, hasn't learned much from last time around about how to change the frame of the debate.

[Tom]

A lot of interesting things here. Ironic to me that Ahmadinejad can speak at Columbia, but won't let faculty speak in Tehran. Don't forget the growing list of "dissappeared" student leaders. Even more distrubing: "demonizing of the Iranian president assists those trying to drive our country to another war." So there is no cause left to fight for? Must we turn a blind eye to the monsters of the world and sit in silence because Paul and his pacifist buddies surrendered their sense of duty in exchange for Bush hatred and selective memory? Have you read the Amnesty Int. report on Iran? All the world doesn't revolve around Bush, but it does revolve. What kind of world are we living in when people think Hliburton is the enemy and Ahmadinejad is evil--but not a real threat like Haliburton.

[Paul]

The problem with you Tom, is that you twist and lie about the plain truth. No one suggested that Ahmadinejad is not a real threat --we know his record of murdering people in his own country and arming insurgents in Iraq. The problem is, that with the U.S. led by Bush, we have a less than credible presence before most of the world. Every time we warn the world of the danger Ahmadinejad poses, all he has to do is say "weapons of mass desruction."

[jim guilfoil]

I would refer you to the youtube reporting of Ahmendinejad's appearance (available at the informedcomment.org site of Juan Cole's); Al Jezeera gave the texts of Ahmendinejad speech, especially the lines on the holocaust and Israel; Even Ha'aretz gave a much different 'spin' on it.
I would have expected more from waxingamerica than this bit of rightwing jewish rant.

[jim guilfoil]

I haven't seen in any of the US media the point made by this piece in the East Asia Times. Ahmedinejad was using his speech at Columbia to speak to the muslims in the middle east. The president of Columbia aided this effort by using his position to demean the president of Iran.
Compare the Israeli use of the jewish holocaust with the Turkish use of the Armenian holocaust and you can see why Ahmedinejad is using the jewish holocaust to question its use in the foundation of a jewish state. What kind of denial do muslims use to discredit the state imposed by western colonial powers?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II26Ak01.html

[nonheroicvet]

The best thing for these wackos is to let them speak. After listening to their B.S. for a while people will figure it out. May I offer as Exhibit A: George W Bush.

[Brian]

Updating my comments, from the excellent Virginia Tilley over at counterpunch.org, we find that the president of Iran has not said some of the things that the mainstream media and U.S. politicians claim:

"Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust."

And, this morning on Wisconsin Public Radio, a guest pointed out that he has little power in his own country; can't even name his own cabinet. He sets no foreign policy for Iran.

After having watched coverage of this controversy on all the major networks plus cable, I was unable to find these important memes expressed.

[Dan Sebald]

I'd have to agree with Paul (comment #1 Paul) on this one. Ahmadinejad may be egotistical and speaks wild accusations and assertions--and then comes back to deny having said them--but so what? It's odd how there always needs to be a point of focus, some villain, to get U.S. public opinion on board.

Before using the word "evil", please point us to the evil things Ahmadinejad has done. Tom mentions an Amnesty Int report. Do you have a link for that, Tom? I'd be interested in reading. Pat Buchanan...no I don't endorse his views on immigration...gives an historical perspective of how innocuous Ahmadinejad is:

http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/pat-buchanan/infantile-nation.html

Maureen Dowd just wrote something in a similar vein for her New York Times column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

The NewsHour has conveniently organized some stories related to rule in Iran.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/archive.html

In there you'll find a wide range of things. There's a travelogue of when Margaret Warner recently went to Iran and interviewed people. The average person on the street seemed no different than Americans, to be honest. Why we'd want to destabilize another country and subject people little different than us to what Iraq is going through, I don't know. (There have been students from Iran attending the U.W., by the way.)

There's also a story of Ms. Warner being ordered to leave Iran, possibly for choosing to interview parents of a student being held captive--perhaps one of the cases this Amnesty Report Tom cites might include.

OK, so there are some human rights issues with Iran.

My opinion is that these sorts of offenses do not require military intervention of any kind. Rather, it is a case of exposing the offenses and letting world opinion and the threat of greater isolation correct those matters.

What I find interesting in the NewsHour archives list is the change in the discussion once the Bush administration takes over. Read the summaries starting back in the late 90's. The talk is about possible reform from within Iran, a new generation of youth unfamiliar with the embassy incident and Iraq/Iran war, how isolationism didn't help their country. Then around the time of Bush's infamous "axis-of-evil" quote there appears to be a big shift. The recriminations may have even made Ahmadinejad's victory at the polls possible. (Or a fixed vote, who knows?)

To me, the oppressed student leaders thing is weak justification for military action. Can we think of any other nations with poor human rights records that the U.S. does little about? The issue is just so inconsistent when it comes to congress and presidents. Another NewsHour interview from the way-back machine:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/jan-june00/bush_2-16.html

where then Gov. Bush talks about strategic interests (time and again--admittedly with some goading from Jim Lehrer) and places like Africa and Rwanda. Apparently human rights isn't too important in that case. But now supporters of Bush are claiming that human rights takes a front seat with regard to Iran?

In deference to Paul, he didn't mention anything about attacking Iran, and yeah, exposing is good. (But if this is your first exposure to the claims of Ahmadinejad, you haven't been paying attention.) The dangerous threat thing does seem a bit reactionary. The danger of Ahmadinejad's regime (really, it's not his) is to Iran itself and it is the fact they want to stay in control.

Sense of duty... That is what conscription is for, I guess, but there is no such thing right now. I mean, there are American soldiers busting their humps in Iraq. If you support the soldiers and this war, you must ask Why can't George Bush go out of his way to meet face-to-face with Iranian leaders in the Middle East and make things a bit easier for U.S. soldiers? Previous war presidents seem to have ruined their health worrying about the task in front of them. With this president it's silly jokes about WMD at a press dinner, lengthy vacations, republican fund-raising dinners, etc.

As for the nuclear weapons angle, an arms race is a big waste of the planet's resources. There should have been an all-out ban a long time ago... and there sort of was at one time, I thought. We don't appear to be living up to agreements.

I guess my point in all this is that the state department, cabinet and congress have done very little to alleviate tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the past 5 years, or any other Middle East country for that matter. On the contrary, here is the latest statement from the Senate:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r110:./temp/~r110GjWcMC

(Search for Kyl amendment SA 2948.) It pulls together bits of this and that regarding what someone has said or what some general or ambassador believes to be the case. It's reminiscent of the Powell U.N. speech: "This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth " There are no statements about assessment from anything that could be considered impartial. There's not even a statement coming from the CIA on the matter. So, the Senate has painted a picture of Iran as complicit in something and, more than anything, the Senate seems concerned Iran will control the region. (That's bad for an unexplained reason.) The senate suggests placing the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp on the list of terrorist organization (a familiar route). No mention of diplomacy or anything like that. No proposed programs to uplift the people across the Middle East.

Given what we've seen for the lead up to the Iraq War, and the fact that it is pretty much the same people in power in Washington (yes, a few key republicans in 2003 are no longer in politics), I'd think the wise point-of-view is to error judgment on the Kyl amendment laying the ground work for military action against Iran.

Good for Nay voters (two from Vermont).

[realist]

If you missed Bill Moyers Journal last night, there was a tremendous (and scary) segment with reporters Deborah Amos and George Packer on Iraq and the Mideast. Video and transcript here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/profile3.html

[Steve]

Your title should say Columbia University: Thank You For Exposing Liberals for the truly evil people they really are!

Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?

Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?

They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.

It is too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!