News-Record.com

" ... even though Iran is a sickly democracy, it is a democracy".

Great. So why do we need that second example in Iraq?

==

"People do make foolish statements." AMEN

`

"Apparently, Bollinger's mother never taught him any manners or etiquette."

No, it seems that the good doctor was just pandering to all the wack jobs on the right who claimed the Iranian should NOT be allowed to speak at all.
Today, "book burners" of old have evolved into right wingers who do not want the U.S. to showcase our freedoms, but instead want to export our "freedoms" at the barrel of a gun.
Doesn't make much sense, now does it.

`

I think it's also bad etiquette to suggest that Jews should be exterminated. If you want people to treat you with good manners, you need to have good manners yourself.

LC, it's also possible that Bollinger wasn't pandering to right-wing pressure so much as himself, as a liberal, objecting to Iran's president. I know that since Ahmadinejad says bad things about Bush, it's natural for you to defend him, but not all liberals adopt such a knee-jerk reaction. In fact, my own wife, a classic knee-jerk liberal, finds
objectionable Ahmadinejad's support for terrorism and desire to exterminate Jews.

You know, with the support that the US puts into Israel; that makes the US a supporter of terrorism. So, I guess if North Korea leaves the Axis of Evil, the US can take its place!

brian, read the "diplomacy" LTTE and the posts there. It may help all concerned.

Shalom

`

brian444,
The Iranian president is dispicable, but I support 100% having him speak. We showed the world what free speech is all about by allowing the President of Columbia and the President of Iran to present entirely different perspectives on the same stage--the world stage. Only the narrow thinkers would oppose letting the tyrant speak--they are afraid of free speech.
Reminds me of the narrow Christians who think their God is so dumb he could not possibly have used an evolutionary process--they want to keep things simple, much like their own brains.

`

Bollinger's name-calling was a bad idea. It should have been possible to point out fundamental disagreements with President Ahmadinejad in a respectful way. By ridiculing him, Bollinger was not only impolite but indicated to his audience and to the world that Ahmadinejad was not worth listening to. If he truly felt that way, the invitation to speak should have been explicitly withdrawn. Better yet, it should not have been made in the first place.

It's hard to make a kook like Ahmadinejad look sympathetic, but Bollinger actually succeeded in doing this. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of a propaganda victory by his inane assertion that there were no homosexuals in Iran.

In holding Ahmadinejad up as a democrat (small "d" please), the letter writer would do well to remember that the mullahs (Guardian Council) in Iran controlled who could run in the election. In other words, they rigged the election.

It's a real shame someone didn't remove half of little Adolph's head with a .45 slug while he was here. Should have dropped him at the WTC site and put him down the port-a-john hole.
The only time little Adolph received any flack at all from the students at Columbia was when he declared there was no light loafers in Iran. (apparently even their hatred for Bush couldn't overcome this) The rest of his comments were applauded wildly by the students.
But, this was no great surprise as they are taught to hate America at these elite universities.

Since when does a two bit dictator who is an avowed enemy of the US have a right to free speech on our soil? Oh, yeah, when he hates Bush as much as the mushy headed students at Columbia and the liberals who suffer from BDS, that's when.

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy!!!! What is the world coming to? I guess I'll have to rethink this one. Even though TLC is using his usual blogbully tactics of name-calling, insulting those with other views, and making Gold Medal winning leaps, I agree with his premise that Ahmadinejad should have every opportunity to speak. As I posted last week, that came after an initial opinion that Columbia was wrong to invite him. After the speech, I thought that Columbia President Bollinger was wrong to be rude in his introduction. As I posted then, if you invite someone to your home, you owe him - at the very least - civility. I think Bollinger could have made the point much more politely, and it probably would have cut just as deep.

As for the original LTE, I would challenge the assertion that "Ahmadinejad is not responsible for the death of a single Jewish person." I believe there is credible evidence of Iranian arms in Iraq, and I would bet that the American casulties there have included soldiers who practice Judaism. He might not have pulled the trigger, or even ordered the placement of the IED, but I would hold him ultimately responsible.

Greetings from Dallas.

This may appear scary Nic, but I too agree with Demon Deacon and that happens about twice a year. Ahmadinejad is indeed a dispicable leader and a sorry ass excuse for a human being, but the fact that he is allowed to speak exemplifies the concept of free speech in our country.

I think Bollinger should have introduced him in a civil manner and THEN laid on the heavy questions. It certainly was interesting to learn that there are on gay people in Iran.

I think Columbia played it right: invite him, let him talk, but then clown him in public. Because he's a clown. I see no imperative to extend "respect" to such folk. Some people see insults and name-calling; I see descriptive language unencumbered with euphemism.

`

PUSSY kat says:

"Since when does a two bit dictator who is an avowed enemy of the US have a right to free speech on our soil?"

Another showcase in ignorance by the one who calls himself "neocon".

***************************************************
Nic & Dan,
Glad you see the value in freedom of speech.
In this case, it showed the world that we are NOT afraid of what the fellow has to say, and it showed what an empty vessel the Iranian President truly is. It was a "win/win".

Those who would argue not to allow him to speak are the ones we should really be afraid of. They are the ones who would be willing to suspend our rights for the support of an idealogue. They are the ones who feel their positions are so untenable as to hold up to public scrutiny. They are simply, the ones like neocon et al who present themselves as loving America all the while hating Americans.

`