’)There they go again. Look, even if I bought all the scare-talk about Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (anyone remember when Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic was touted as the “new” Hitler? I do.), what exactly is there for the cons to be so afraid of him coming to the UN or to Columbia University? Seriously. Cons push this image of them as the tough ones and us supposedly fey liberals are to be the wilting flowers who faint at the drop of a hat. But it is indeed the right that wets its pants every time Fox puts up a TERROR ALERT graphic. It is the right who freaks out when the Justice Department arrests the latest gang of nincompoops they call a “terror cell”. And it is the conservatives who think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting the UN and a college to… talk should prompt a round of “Oh no!!!!” again and again.
Please, grow a pair.
Their entire foreign policy is rooted in wet-their-pants fear of TEH TERRISTS. Look at how quickly they give up every civil liberty they can think of for a little protection at the first sign of a dark-skinned person on a plane.
(anyone remember when Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic was touted as the “new” Hitler? I do.)
Well- Saddam used poison gas to kill civilians. Milosevic also slaughtered civilians for a cynical ethnic war. Both used mass rape (which, maybe I’m wrong, wasn’t as widely used by the Nazis)
I roll my eyes when comparisons to Hitler are made- but these were both really bad guys who fought offensive wars for land and slaughtered people who didn’t fit their plans- so I’m not that embarrassed by it.
Conservatives do not fear what Ahmadinejad has to say.
But let’s clear up some misconceptions. This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech means that if you find yourself a platform and make public utterances, the government cannot punish you for your expressed view. It does not say that you are owed a platform.
Columbia wants to give a platform. Fine, the pursuit of knowledge, understanding and all that. Although experience and tradition have led to the practice of giving audience only to those with some degree of good well, in order that the practice not be traduced. Ahmadinejad has given scant evidence of good will.
If an institution wants to go beyond that standard for an educational purpose, fine. But then a standard of even-handedness and rigorous teaching of independent-mindedness must be present. Columbia has a history of offering neither.
So what *is* at stake? There are those at Columbia, sick people, with a history of trying to help prop up Ahmadinejad at home. Allowing him to speak at Columbia, to visit Ground Zero, these things would dampen the spirit of the liberals in Iran who oppose his tyrrany.
That, my friend, is what certain on the far left are trying to make happen and why conservatives do, and liberals should, oppose any honors accorded to the man.
If “dampening the spirit of Iran’s liberals” were ever a concern of ours, we wouldn’t be spending all of our time these days saber-rattling about a new war with Iran.
Iran’s liberals were actually making excellent headway until Ahmadinejad and his party convinced Iran that it would take strength and unity behind Islam to resist being invaded and taken over by an overzealous Western nation. The party gained power because our actions in Iraq made the liberals, with their designs on peace and cooperation with more secular parts of the world, seem irrelevant.
Funny thing is, the same thing happened here…Americans geared up for constant war because peace has become irrelevant in the face of perceived danger.
SpiderJ,
When you say “concern of ours,” are you talking in terms of US foreign policy or US liberal opinion toward other liberals in the world?
If the former, some administrations certainly have supported overseas liberals overtly, Kennedy for instance. Bush, too, but not to the extent possible given that our former liberals have mostly morphed into isolationist progressives, and therefore he has little support from the left.
If the latter, I find it absolutely unconscionable that those who call themselves liberals no longer have an active interest in the freedom of their fellow man. Whatever your nightmare is about Bush, liberals in Iran, and there are many, many more chilling here to avoid death and imprisonment, have to deal with the same nightmare in the flesh.
Let’s put it this way, if you were a Kurd, Arab, Chaldean or Van or anything other than a high-born Iranian in Iran today, you would almsost certainly be a marked man, doubly so if you happen to be non-Muslim, gay, intellectual or fond of a sex-and-good-times lifestyle.
And you want to give such a regime props?
“Grow a pair?” Is that what you think this is about?
Will you ask the UC professors who felt that having Larry Summers speak at a private dinner function to similarly gain testicular fortitude?
The objection to Ahmadinejad’s invitation has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with providing a high-profile stage for a certifiable maniac.
The real irony is that they talk about how they need to promote dialog while someone is busy writing in their op-ed pages that people shouldn’t have to listen to the likes of the Minutemen as their ideas are just too poisonous apparently. (Since it was a woman I guess you’ll have to excuse her for not “growing a pair.”)
Um. No. I never said I wanted to give such a regime “props.” I don’t see how you got that from my comment, but good job knocking that straw man over.
I don’t support Bush’s policy because he has proven over the course of the past six years to have no handle on even his own ideas, much less the ideas of more knowledgeable men. I supported the response in Afghanistan…in fact, I wanted us to do something about Afghanistan before 9/11, because anybody with two eyes and a brain could see something truly terrible was happening in that country, but Bush’s crew did little to nothing to contain the Taliban threat. And years after we should have crushed them utterly, they’re still gaining strongholds in Afghanistan…because we had to divert resources and go after somebody who hadn’t attacked us.
This is a man whose policy to change Iraq into an ally and stepping-stone for Western-style democracy in the Middle East was woefully planned, terribly executed, and yet continues to exist in a perpetual state of “maybe.”
And now I’m supposed to trust Bush to “free” Iran? Horsefeathers.
I have no love for Ahmedinejad, and not just because its always such a hassle to spell his name correctly. But no, I won’t trust Bush to make this turn out all right.
Wasn’t an accusation, SpiderJ. It was a question.
And since your personal narrative on the history of Islamist politics in Iran and your own level of trust with President Bush are your own business, I guess that’s it.
Their entire foreign policy is rooted in wet-their-pants fear of TEH TERRISTS. Look at how quickly they give up every civil liberty they can think of for a little protection at the first sign of a dark-skinned person on a plane.
That’s not entirely true. They quicky gave what they think are OTHER people’s civil liberties. Conservatives are NEVER willing to make even the smallest sacrafices no matter how good (at least in their minds) the benefits are. They would absolutely refuse to kill themselves if it meant peace on earth and the end to all disease, but they wouldn’t think twice about killing their own mother to supersize their fries.
“they wouldn’t think twice about killing their own mother to supersize their fries.”
As a conservative I object to Zython’s remark. I would most definitely think twice before killing my own mother to supersize my fries. Maybe even three times.
The conservative objection to the visit by the President of Iran is not made out of fear but rather a wish to avoid legitimizing his discourse, ideas, and policies.
We object to conferring legitimacy on the representative of a government that executes gays, endorses spousal abuse, and denies the Holocaust.
One could argue that allowing Ahmadinejad to visit does not confer legitimacy upon him or the policies of his government, but in this post neither you nor your commenters do so, resorting instead to a crude ad hominem and accusing us of being matricidal.
The actual ‘progressive’ critique of the conservative position goes something like this:
While the Iranian regime does indeed violate human rights and international law, conservatives only seem to object to those violations when they can be used to make a case for undermining Iranian sovereignty or going to war, and that if conservatives were really concerned about human rights and international law their policies and rhetoric would be quite different.
Even assuming this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that Ahmadinejad represents a bellicose, homophobic and deeply misogynistic government that sent him here for its own benefit. By allowing him to be here at all we support a government that willfully violates human rights.
It’s possible for progressives to say that conservatives are arguing in bad faith. That does not however, mean that the argument we’re making isn’t true.
So no, we’re not wetting our pants. We’re indignant. If you want to make this meme about our fear of Ahmadinejad stick, they’re going to have to do better.