I’d love to stage my own version of Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia and have it be like a Seinfeld monologue. Just have him saying basically the actual things he said, but on a small comedy club stage, with the Sienfeld cadences, and the little music pops. “We don’t have homosexuals in Iran.” (roar of laughter) “Why are you laughing? That’s not funny! None of this is funny! Like…what’s all this talk about the Holocaust? It needs more research!” (even more laughter) “Stop laughing! This is serious!” (music pops)
Although, to be fair, his phrasing (well, the translator’s phrasing) was accurate: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” That is true. In our country, homosexuals can openly lobby for the right to marry without being…oh, what’s the phrase…executed by the government.
Y’know, say what you will about Hitler…at least his name was easy to spell and pronounce.
PAD
• 
Okay, back from the doctor. (No shots, he won’t need ’em until he’s 11, thanks for asking.)
Nothing more untrustworthy or shakier than knowing a fact. And, I generally find, if there is more than one translation of a foriegn speech, either one is not especially trustworthy. Not that they get their individual translations wrong, mind you, but in any language, especially when spoken and later transcribed and translated, inflection, tone, and intent are lost, leaving just the words. Take any of the great speakers, I don’t CARE who, and read one of their speeches. (It helps for this example if it’s one you’re not familiar with.) When it’s just words on a page, it loses something. A lot, actually. Translation at best is an inexact discipline. That said, assuming you understand what anyone is saying in a foreign language is foolhardy at the very best and most generous. As certain posters around here have demonstrated, some people can’t understand anything even when it’s in English. Also, I’m going to assume that no one around here is a diplomat, so attempting to interpret things from different countries is a fool’s errand at the most generous.
Now, back to the real purpose of this thread–anybody else thinking the Peter David Comedy 34 1/3 Minute Comedy Show would be a smash radio hit? It could even have the Mike and Maq Misinterpretation Minute and Olde Man Mulligan’s Olde Time Kountry Kitchen Methods For Killing Zombies. I’m sensing a syndication hit, here! (And I know a brilliant young producer-type outside of Philly with lots of Adobe editing stuff on his computer just waiting for something to do….)
Peter ‘whoever criticises Israel is anti-semitic’ David, some food for thought for you and your readers
What? That’s his middle name?? How the hëll did he get “A” out of that???
I think IRAN sounds like the perfect place for the conservative Republican.
1) No Homosexuals
2) Woman don’t have any rights to their body
3) Man is supreme
4) Religion trumps Politics
Nawww, it’s the perfect place for liberal Democrats:
1- they hate Bush
2- They want the USA out of Iraq
3- They think the Christian Right has too much power
4- Actually, #1 is all it takes
But seriously…the truth is it would probably be a very close call as to which of us would be the first to be lined up against the wall and shot, were the two of us there. I guess that shows one advantage the radical Iranians have over us–they have no distractions over who their enemies really are.
Israel is not the small defenceless country surrounded by enemies — as made out by Peter, it is sustained by billions of dollars of military aid from the US, which Israel uses illegally against its neighbors.
If Peter was as pro-Israeli as you claim he’d be doing stuff like posting notes from someone who claims to be pro-Palestinian but comes across as a total jáçkášš and…oh…Well played, sir! Well played indeed!
Bill Mulligan: “Nawww, it’s the perfect place for liberal Democrats…”
Bill, I know you were kidding, but I also know you were couching a serious assertion behind that jocularity. And frankly, I don’t think it stands up to the light of reason.
Religious extremists in the U.S. have far more in common with Jihadists than they would care to admit. That radical Christians worship Jesus Christ and radical Islamists worship Allah is really a cosmetic difference. Both groups wish to impose their religious beliefs through government fiat, both tend to be anti-semitic, and both want to restrict the rights of women, homosexuals, and other minorities that offend their delicate sense of order.
Granted, radical Christians aren’t involved in terrorism the way that radical Islamists are. I believe, however, that that has much to do with the fact that they don’t feel they have to. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth, and radical Christians have an incredibly powerful lobby within the government of this powerhouse. That lobby is called the G.O.P. Radical Christians form a good chunk of the party’s base, after all.
Radical leftists have far more in common with Marxist/Communist governments. After all, both the radical left in the U.S. and Marxist regimes abroad share a disdain for religion and a penchant for clumsily (and unsuccesfully) attempting to impose equality through government fiat. Both attempt to restrict the accumulation of wealth by individuals, favoring instead the accumulation of wealth by the government while the economy around them crumbles.
Just because Two Things Are Equally Bad doesn’t mean it is intellectually valid to conflate them. Quite the opposite. The radical, secular left and the radical, religious right in the U.S. have some significant differences that bear examination.
Put another way: you cannot combat AIDS and cancer if you say, “Eh, they’re both fatal diseases, there’s no difference between them.”
By the way, Bill, I think you’re a bit out of sync with the rest of the U.S. on the Bush issue. It ain’t just Democrats who can’t stand him. Of all the staunch Republicans I know (and I know quite a few — some of my best friends are conservatives), only two don’t believe he should be run out of town on a rail.
Given how low his approval ratings are, it stands to reason that quite a few Republicans are sick of him as well, albeit for different reasons I would wager.
Just because Two Things Are Equally Bad doesn’t mean it is intellectually valid to conflate them. Quite the opposite. The radical, secular left and the radical, religious right in the U.S. have some significant differences that bear examination.
Not the least of which is that the radical secular left, though vocal, really doesn’t have a terrible amount of influence in US politics; the radical religious right has been pretty much calling the shots for the last 6+ years.
Given how low his approval ratings are, it stands to reason that quite a few Republicans are sick of him as well, albeit for different reasons I would wager.
I suspect many more Republicans are sick of him than let on, but simply refuse to admit it to a pollster
Sasha: “Not the least of which is that the radical secular left, though vocal, really doesn’t have a terrible amount of influence in US politics; the radical religious right has been pretty much calling the shots for the last 6+ years.”
I have to disagree. The radical left has a great deal of influence still. Most people agree that the next presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose, and the radical left has a great deal of influence within the Democratic party. Why else did they all agree to participate in the debates sponsored by the vitriolic Daily Kos crowd? Because they represent mainstream America? They’re no more mainstream than those who hang on Pat Robertson’s every word.
Posted by Peter David at September 26, 2007 09:12 AM
Posted by dan at September 25, 2007 07:08 PM
“The value of seeing Ahmadinejad speak is its reminder that America has not yet given in to the GOP hate-scheme against homosexuals–not because they actually hate them, but to exploit the hate of ignorant voters so that the GOP can win elections.
What? Please explain this alittle more.”
Well, I’m not Dan, but I suspect what he’s referring to is the thinking that the GOP was crucial in instigating the anti-gay-marriage bill into an assortment of states for one reason and one reason only: As a ploy to get people into the voting booths. The thinking goes that such a bill will energize the conservative base to show up at the polls on election day to make sure that gay marriage is struck down…and, oh, by the way, as long as they’re there, they’ll naturally vote for the GOP candidates.
They make sure that gay marriage is on the ballot for the same reason that supermarkets put milk and eggs in the back of the store…to pull people in. The GOP cares less about gay marriage than they do about making sure that people show up to vote for their candidates.
That’s how they propogate hate schemes aimed at homosexuals without hating homosexuals. They just see gay rights as a means to an end, something to exploit to win elections. The same way that they’re now oh-so-concerned about all the electoral votes of an oversized state like California going to the Democrats, so they’re working hard to attend to that…while, at the same time, totally ignoring any large states that go to the GOP. Their naked manipulation is really quite stunning to watch, especially since they keep getting away with it.
PAD
Thanks for the explanation Peter. Though I still cringe at the GOP/Iran comparisons.
Bill, I know you were kidding, but I also know you were couching a serious assertion behind that jocularity. And frankly, I don’t think it stands up to the light of reason.
Oh I have no problem with that, not at all. It was the claim that conservative Republicans would find Iran a paradise that I objected too–just as I would if some miscreant had said that liberal Democrats would enjoy life in Stalinist Russia (though I might leave it to the actual liberal Democrats on the board to give said miscreant a right sound thrashing, the likes of which he would not soon regret.)
By the way, Bill, I think you’re a bit out of sync with the rest of the U.S. on the Bush issue. It ain’t just Democrats who can’t stand him. Of all the staunch Republicans I know (and I know quite a few — some of my best friends are conservatives), only two don’t believe he should be run out of town on a rail.
Hëll, I’m tired of him too. 6 years is about all I think I can stand any president, even one with more competence than Bush. But I’m not about to embrace the krazy kos kids and start worrying about the upcoming Big Coup of 2008, when Bush refuses to relinquish power as part of his (fill in the blank here–feel free to include references to the Illuminati, New World Order, Theocracy, Neo-con Jews, etc). It’s virtually the same stuff the crazy right said about Clinton and it amazes me how some of the same folks who laughed–with good reason!–at that crowd see nothing funny about the synchronicity.
But we agree on the Kossacks anyway. I wonder though about their true influence–they consistently have been very antagonistic to Hillary Clinton–Edwards is their man. Given the fact that Hillary is increasingly walking away with the polls and Edwards is stuck in the low teens it’s debatable just how much they influence. Their role, whether they realize it or not, is just to be the bad cop brownshirts, attack the eventual GOP nominee (and Ralph Nader if need be), raise money, get smacked down by the adults when they inevitably go too far (giving Hillary her own Sista Soulja moment) and be forgotten when she wins. Maybe she’ll toss a few of the big names a bone–make up some bogus “internet Information Czar” or something. These guys can be bought off easy.
“Peter ‘whoever criticises Israel is anti-semitic’ David, some food for thought for you and your readers:”
Well, I never said that, and you’re a dìçk.
PAD
“Thanks for the explanation Peter. Though I still cringe at the GOP/Iran comparisons.”
Well, I didn’t make any of them. Furthermore, those who did, I think, weren’t simply lumping the GOP and Iran together. They were referring to the most extreme factions of the GOP arch-conservative/religious base. I don’t think the message is that GOP=Iran. I think it’s that extreme thinking, in any country and in any form, is inherently undesirable.
PAD
You give yourself a lot of slack to infer meaning not intended by the writer. Then with no sense of irony you slam me for doing just that.
But then you live in Pennsylvania, where they give things names like Street Road and Italian Water Ice, and the schools close for the first day of hunting season. Metaphorically, it isn’t like you can insist on a raised ship where there are no high tides.
Bill Myers: I have to disagree. The radical left has a great deal of influence still. Most people agree that the next presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose, and the radical left has a great deal of influence within the Democratic party. Why else did they all agree to participate in the debates sponsored by the vitriolic Daily Kos crowd? Because they represent mainstream America? They’re no more mainstream than those who hang on Pat Robertson’s every word.
Luigi Novi: Whatever “influence” the radical left has, it is not as organized as the extreme right. The circle in which they wield the most power may be in academia, and even there, it’s usually more of a nuisance, rather than something that can lend itself to major legal change. I think that examples of radical leftism like Michael Moore or Daily Kos may be isolated examples, and/or may operate somewhat apart from the mainstream. Moore, for example, has his demagogic apologists, but the mainstream, thankfully, takes note of the distortions in his films, which are more propaganda pieces than documentaries. As for the Daily Kos, they may be enjoying power now because the extreme right has lost much of its influence in light of Bush’s plummeting approval rating and the 2006 mid-term elections, but even if so, they may soon find themselves similarly relegated to the margins if they don’t clean up their act with respect to their most controversial statements and actions. Unless they do this, they can kiss the sort of influence with which they got that debate together good-bye.
Did it occur to any of you that Ahmadinejad got exactly what he wanted?
He appeared in the territory of the Great Satan. He spoke the truth. The infidels all mocked him and laughed at him, since they do not possess the honor and holiness of a truth teller like him.
He goes home. The mockery of the White Devils is broadcast 24/7 on Al Jazieera and other propaganda networks. Undoubtedly, the laughter will be turned up on the audio, and the translations of the Devil’s Language, English, will be mangled to make it sound even worse. He comes off looking like the Lion of the Desert, showing the courage that all Islamic youth should show in destroying Israel and killing the Godless Americans.
The President of that university, the students (some of them obviously, proudly Jews, even wearing the flag of Israel on their shirts) and New Yorkers in general have just turned an average politician into a prime recruiter for the next batch of terrorists. Thanks a lot, guys.
“The President of that university, the students (some of them obviously, proudly Jews, even wearing the flag of Israel on their shirts) and New Yorkers in general have just turned an average politician into a prime recruiter for the next batch of terrorists. Thanks a lot, guys.”
I doubt it. What you’re describing is actually a fair bit of spin. There’s no reason why they couldn’t do that much spin on anything, so this particular speech isn’t going to give him any advantage that he didn’t already have.
Yes, Ahmadinejad got exactly wht he wanted. But that is not what turned him from “an average politician into a prime recruiter for the next batch of terrorists.” It just one more move in te big game. The minute he ws invited all this became inevitable. And even if this platform was not offered he still would have had the podium of the UN and interviews in CNN and other news groups. And the propaganda f the western side also scored some points. So in this move he scored more, bt that’s it.
oh yes perhaps the best way to handle “leaders” like Ahmadinejad is laughter…wouldn’t you have loved to see the reaction of the so called intelligent representatives of the countries of the world at the UN to laugh at him like the students at Columbia did?
Thomas E. Reed: “Did it occur to any of you that Ahmadinejad got exactly what he wanted?”
Yeah, it did. And I still think Columbia University did the right thing by letting him speak.
By the way, I’d suggest you lose the “did it occur to any of you” shtick that characterizes so many of your posts in this forum. It doesn’t work for you because you rarely say anything novel or bring anything new to light.
If you’d rather just thump your chest at me, however, feel free. No skin off my ášš. It’s fun to laugh at you, too.
Thomas E. Reed: “The President of that university, the students (some of them obviously, proudly Jews, even wearing the flag of Israel on their shirts) and New Yorkers in general have just turned an average politician into a prime recruiter for the next batch of terrorists.”
See, here’s what I’m talking about. No one here turned Ahmadinejad into anything. That’s like saying I caused the sunrise by getting up in the morning. Iran has been a supporter of terrorist activity for quite some time. They have been working through proxies such as Hizbollah and Hamas. They are almost certainly building a nuclear arsenal. None of this was the result of Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia University.
Again, you’d pull off the attitude a lot better if you had an actual point.
Posted by Dave Van Domelen at September 25, 2007 10:39 AM:
…That said, I’mADinnerJacket…
Would you be a Stephanie Miller listener by any chance? AFAIK she’s the only one to use that particular nickname.
(Somebody should compile a list of all of Colbert’s manglings of the name, hehe…)
Anyway…IMHO this is something we should be careful of. The more people think of Ahmadinejad as a villain, whether because of propaganda or his own statements and/or actions, the less they’ll object to a strike against Iran.
The problem is that such a strike will inevitably kill innocent bystanders, and I don’t want to see the U.S. do that again.
Ahmadinejad can spout all the bûllšhìŧ he wants, but if Iran’s attacked then we’d better have a real smoking gun to justify it.
As far as his skepticism about the Holocaust…fûçk, I don’t know. I realize it must be insulting, like questioning the veracity of a woman who’s come into the hospital with her clothes torn and bruises all over her claiming to have been raped.
Would any proof satisfy him? Even if he were given irrefutable proof that it happened, would he then concede it happened but express a belief that it was exaggerated?
Unfortunately there are some people you just can’t reach. We’ve got people skeptical of evolution, global warming, the existence of dinosaurs (despite the bones), etc. Ahmadinejad would seem to be another one of these people. Btw, has he ever gone so far as to say “it never happened” or has he pretty much said “it may not have happened”?
I don’t understand how anybody can really believe that the Holocaust was actually faked. That’s a real stretch. It would mean that the Allied forces, from generals to grunts, were in on the alleged conspiracy and were all lying about what they saw. It would mean that all the survivors were lying and were all able to keep their stories straight. It would mean that the people actually responsible for the running of the camps who admitted as much were also lying. Even if you believe that such a huge conspiracy could exist, the question becomes: what could all of these people possibly have to gain by lying about this?
If I were a student at Columbia, I would’ve asked Ahmadinejad that question.
I’m pretty sure George W Bush — invading an oil-rich Muslim nation no threat to any of its neighbors — is unchallenged as al-Qaida’s Recruitment Division MVP. Al-Qaida is the envy of all youth recruitment organizations post-9/11 thanks to him.
Rob,
People who believe in Holocaust denial tend to believe that it was a conspiracy by the Jews, which means they believe that the Jews are an organized group that controls the world to the degree of being able to do that, which is itself antisemitism. The motives ascribed to the Jews are also obvious to them, and range from Israel, to hating the Germans to desire to control the world. Ahmadinejad would have had no difficulty answering yor question, although he would have probably answered obliquely, as he did all the other questions.
I must say I have a problem with the issues that dominate the discussion about Ahmadinejad, namely Israel and the Holocaust. I wish the people promoting the focus on these issues would stop. Excuse me, but is everything that stands between the US and Iran has to do with Jews?
Iran had a revolution which toppled an American supported leader. This has othing to do with the Jews. The US was heavily involved in Iran years prior to the revolution. That has nothing to do with the Jews. They set a theocratic form of government. This also has nothing to do with the Jews. They kidnapped American diplomats, and American soldiers died in a rescue attempt. That has nothing to do with the Jews either. They support the Hizballa, which in the 80’s kidnapped American and British nationals and bombed 300 US marines. Aside and more than its conflict with Israel, the Hizballa is involved in a power struggle with an American backed government of Lebanon. Iran also threatens the Gulf states which supply the US with oil. That has nothing to do with the Jews either. Iran is involved in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which involve in aiding factions fighting against the US. That also has nothing to do with the Jews. They are aiding your friend Hugo Chavez, which also has nothing to do with the Jews. They are allegedly developing nuclear weapons, which also thraten Israel, but whose global implications go way beyond that, and affect American interests in the region in other ways. Iran also has internal problems with its minorities and with the segment of society calling for more democracy, and this has nothing to do with the Jews.
So what has to do with the Jews? He promotes holocaust denial as a political tool. Many other in the middle east do. He is backing the Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who, adide from fighting Israel,are also in a power struggle with the American backed Palestinian president. But they did not create these groups, nor is the US directly involved in fighting them. And the potential nuclear weapons they are developing threaten Israel (although I don’t think they’ll use them).
by the way, I don’t believe there is a military way at present for the US or Israel to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, so I doubt Iran is going to be attacked.
“Did it occur to any of you that Ahmadinejad got exactly what he wanted?”
Let’s face it: This is nothing new. Terrorists and proponents of terror tactics have been getting exactly what they wanted ever since Bush took office. Whether it was the Bushies ignoring a report titled “Bin Laden plans to strike in the US” or subsequently letting him slip through their fingers so he could remain at large while shifting their focus to Iraq–an event that has served as the single biggest recruiting tool for opponents and critics of our country–every move by this administration has been a big gift box to terrorist interests. Our moral highground was bargained away for a pathetically obvious attempt at an oil grab, and terrorist organizations and advocates can instill fear of us in other countries simply by saying, “They invaded Iraq, and you may well be next!”
The sad fact is that George W. Bush is a bin Laden wet dream.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 26, 2007 11:24 PM
“Thanks for the explanation Peter. Though I still cringe at the GOP/Iran comparisons.”
Well, I didn’t make any of them. Furthermore, those who did, I think, weren’t simply lumping the GOP and Iran together. They were referring to the most extreme factions of the GOP arch-conservative/religious base. I don’t think the message is that GOP=Iran. I think it’s that extreme thinking, in any country and in any form, is inherently undesirable.
PAD
Sorry, I should have been more clear. (I tend to have that problem) I was thanking you for the explanation and cringing at what I thought was Dans comparisons.
On another Sienfeld note…
Ahmadinejad: “We don’t have homosexuals in Iran.” “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”(roar of laughter)
I can’t help but wonder if A’s(not even gonna try to mangle his name) Holocaust position is a double edged deflection. Make the rest of the world think that his country is more of a world player than it is and make the people in his country feel like their government is actually busy with something besides not making things better for them. Or is that blatantly obvious and I’m just slow on the uptake?
Mike–you’ve heard of our magnificently and redundantly named thoroughfare? Wow. Hey, nobody’s claimed that most people around here are either particularly decisive(Is it a street? Is it a road? WE CAN’T DECIDE!) or at all original. Don’t get me started on water ice. Don’t take a slightly humorous bit of alliteration as a slam, unless by doing so you prove it’s validity.
Someone please cut this man’s federal funding.
You compared me to a guy who accuses people of a severe intolerance of criticism — “whoever criticises Israel is anti-semitic” in quotes — he can’t provide an example for.
The least unflattering portrayal of the disgust vented on me here might be to call it an intolerance of inference the posters do not intend. Your giving out lessons how imprecise text is subject to unintended meaning — in the same post you criticize me for inferring unintended meaning — well, you might not be good enough to call an inference-nazi (“No inference for you!”) because it doesn’t quite cover your hypocrisy.
For anyone who might be interested, Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, was interviewed on NPR’s “All Things Considered” yesterday about the Iranian president’s visit; Bollinger’s grilling of the president (and the subsequent flack he’s gotten about that in some circles); the pros and cons of the visit itself; and related issues.
I imagine one can listen to it online at NPR.org, though how long they keep programs available online I’ve no idea.
Rick
First of all, I only say stuff like “Didn’t it occur to you” because…well, it didn’t occur to any of you guys who posted previously. Here, Ahmadinejad played all of New York for fools, and the only argument here is whether the protesters were more evil than he was.
Second, Mr. D., yes, this is one example of how the terrorists win in Bush’s America. But this time, it wasn’t due to Bush’s ignorance that he won. I doubt that two percent of the people at Columbia were right-wingers and Bush supporters. This opportunity came from largely liberal and Democratic people.
That suggests that the Bushies – his “operators,” that is – were hoping that liberals would protest Ahmadinejad, and then the Republicans could claim a “united front” against starting a war on Iran. Or if they let him speak peacefully, the right wing could call them “traitors” and lower the boom on them domestically. I don’t think they’re clever enough to pull this off. However, I think Ahmadinejad WAS smart enough to play all of America for fools and to turn this to his propaganda advantage.
This incident is like inviting Ho Chi Minh to tour Disneyland before escalating the Vietnam War. There was no talk about “peacemaking” from Bush (is there ever?) and so there’s no way America could benefit in any way from this visit. This is just another case of a foreign leader proving he’s smarter than Americans; I’m just surprised to see supposedly college-educated liberals being as absolutely moronic as Bush.
Duh. I meant a united conservative-liberal front FOR a war on Iran. Lack of sleep.
Anyway, there’s another idea buried here. I know that liberals/progressives are unable to fight ineffectively. But maybe this suggests that the Bushies have mousetrapped them into working against their own best interests. This visit has helped encourage the coming Iranian War, something liberal people probably don’t want. If people of liberal intent can be this controlled by their enemies, look for another Republican President in 2008.
well, it didn’t occur to any of you guys who posted previously.
Just because we didn’t give you a point-by-point bulletin of everything we think about A’s visit doesn’t mean it didn’t occur to some of us.
As far as his skepticism about the Holocaust…fûçk, I don’t know. I realize it must be insulting, like questioning the veracity of a woman who’s come into the hospital with her clothes torn and bruises all over her claiming to have been raped.
Would any proof satisfy him? Even if he were given irrefutable proof that it happened, would he then concede it happened but express a belief that it was exaggerated?
I suspect A-Jad knows and believes that the Holocaust well and truly happened. However, it serves his political ends to be disingenous about it.
Thomas E. Reed: “First of all, I only say stuff like ‘Didn’t it occur to you’ because…well, it didn’t occur to any of you guys who posted previously.”
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong about why you use that phrase so often. How do I know? Because I am certain you cannot read minds. You cannot know what did or did not occur to us, but you’re arrogant enough to believe it.
The quality of your ideas doesn’t match your level of arrogance, by the way.
Thomas E. Reed: “Here, Ahmadinejad played all of New York for fools, and the only argument here is whether the protesters were more evil than he was.”
Oh, settle down, for Christ’s sake. You sound like Chicken Little. Ahmadinejad’s visit isn’t going to have that much impact over the long haul.
Also, it is important to note that there are veins of pro-U.S. sentiment coursing throughout Iranian society. New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof spent a good deal of time in Iran and wrote about what he learned. It turns out that prior to the invasion of Iraq, most Iranians had a surprisingly positive view about the U.S. They hate their government, you see, because it is regressive and oppressive. They know their government lies. Therefore, if the Iranian government denounces the U.S., many Iranians believe the U.S. can’t be all that bad.
Unfortunately, our invasion of Iraq queered up the deal. See, rather than tapping into pro-U.S. sentiment in Iran and helping to foment change by engaging Iranians sympathetic to the U.S., we went bulling into Iraq. Iranians may hate Hussein but, hey, the Middle East is their “hood” and the Iraqis are more their “peeps” than we are.
The fact is that we have pìššëd away some, but probably not all, of the pro-U.S. sentiment in Iran. It may not be too late to leverage some of that. But we can’t do it by bullying them. They may not like their government, but it’s still their government and they’ll side with it if they feel they’re being bullied by us.
Oh, and Ahmadinejad is a nut but he would actually like to improve relations with the U.S. See, our diplomatic and economic embargo of Iran is hurting them and making his job a bit more difficult. If nothing else, it’s producing a lot of dissidents and he doesn’t love that. Right now, we’re not doing so hot with our Middle East foreign policy. We’re struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can we trust Ahmadinejad? Fûçk, no. But neither can we afford to overlook the possibility that he could prove useful in some respects.
Look at it this way: how well has George W. Bush’s “no talking with naughty countries” policy served us? How well has his invasion of Iraq served us? I don’t like dealing with filthy people like Ahmadinejad, but sometimes life requires getting your hands dirty.
So, you see, the situation is infinitely more complex than “Ahmadinejad played you all for suckers!” And you really shouldn’t be asking us rhetorical questions like “has it occurred to you,” because frankly you’re not knowledgeable enough to pull it off. You’re like someone who constantly bluffs at poker, gets his clock cleaned repeatedly, and doesn’t learn from it.
“The President of that university, the students (some of them obviously, proudly Jews, even wearing the flag of Israel on their shirts) and New Yorkers in general have just turned an average politician into a prime recruiter for the next batch of terrorists. Thanks a lot, guys.”
Doubtful. He was already a figure of some stature in the wrong kind of circles. All his visit did was make him look like a clown to those who felt him a clown, a hero to those who felt him a hero and maybe tipped a few who were “neutral” about him towards the direction that they were looking for an excuse to head towards anyhow. Besides, I would tend to think that the Bush Administration’s words and actions against/about him over the last year have given him a far higher profile as a hometown hero and prime recruiter then Columbia University ever could. Hëll, half the pro-Bush pundits on radio and TV that have been building him up as the greatest force for evil in the world today as preparation for the “inevitable” war with Iran have done a better job of making him a hometown hero and prime recruiter then Columbia University did.
First of all, I only say stuff like “Didn’t it occur to you” because…well, it didn’t occur to any of you guys who posted previously. Here, Ahmadinejad played all of New York for fools, and the only argument here is whether the protesters were more evil than he was.
It occurred to many here. Some saw it as a far more minor matter then you and some dismissed it all together. I don’t feel that he played all of New York for fools and I seem to have missed where the debate here was about how people that protested his speech or disagreed with having him here were more evil then I’mAnOddJob is.
I doubt that two percent of the people at Columbia were right-wingers and Bush supporters. This opportunity came from largely liberal and Democratic people.
How made him look like an idiot and laughed at him.
That suggests that the Bushies – his “operators,” that is – were hoping that liberals would protest Ahmadinejad, and then the Republicans could claim a “united front” against starting a war on Iran. Or if they let him speak peacefully, the right wing could call them “traitors” and lower the boom on them domestically. I don’t think they’re clever enough to pull this off.
Except, that’s just what they’re trying to do now. There are movements and calls from many quarters on the Right, from Capitol Hill to the usually air-headed punditry, to punish the lib traitors at Columbia and to convince a portion of America that we have to go to war against Iran. Hëll, I was channel surfing the other night and Fox News was playing some sort of computer scenario designed by “experts” to show just how quick and easy the war with Iran would be. Fortunately, Bush and his helpful morons in the media have all wasted whatever trust the majority of Americans would have given them with their Iraq folly.
This is just another case of a foreign leader proving he’s smarter than Americans; I’m just surprised to see supposedly college-educated liberals being as absolutely moronic as Bush.
He looked like a joke and those “supposedly college-educated liberals” showed that they weren’t afraid of the words of a clown. You’re right, he won on sooooo many levels.
This visit has helped encourage the coming Iranian War, something liberal people probably don’t want. If people of liberal intent can be this controlled by their enemies, look for another Republican President in 2008.
No, it hasn’t. You’ve spent too many hours listening to Beck, Rush and Hannity this week. Outside of their little bubble in that thing called The Real World, there is no giant groundswell of support for starting a war with Iran. And if the Republicans tried to gin that one up after being almost destroyed by the Iraq debacle… I don’t think they want to commit suicide just quite yet.
Some of this isn’t as complete as I wanted to answer, but I’m going to be late for work if I keep typing. I’ll flesh things out later if others don’t beat me to it.
Posted by Pat Nolan at September 27, 2007 08:41 AM
On another Sienfeld note…
Ahmadinejad: “We don’t have homosexuals in Iran.” “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”(roar of laughter)
Oh yeah, that definitely would’ve been good. 😀
Here’s another one for the comedy show.
A couple of years ago, Bush asked “Is our children learning?”
And, yesterday, we got our answer, straight from Bush himself:
“As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.”
*roflmao*
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Bill Meyers:Can we trust Ahmadinejad? Fûçk, no. But neither can we afford to overlook the possibility that he could prove useful in some respects.
Thom: Bill! Surely you cannot suggest that we deal with such a person! We would NEVER do that.
It’s not like we’d pal around with someone like Saddam Hussein…I mean Manuel Noriega…. err Idi Amin… Baby Doc Duvalier… Joseph Stalin… Kaddafi… Ummm, Nevermind.
Obviously great (or otherwise) minds work alike – as this cartoon by Bob Englehart (9/28/07 – available for thirty days) would indicate…