Captain's Quarters -

I'd demand the same treatment to some of the "Global Warming Deniers" from the Columbia University, but I'd not hold my breath... There are after all still some limits on what you can deny at the Academia.

If Prof. Bollinger agrees that Amadinejad is a tyrant whom he wishes defeated (politically. if not militarily), how does giving a forum to hear the tyrant speak work to defeat the tyrant?

Bollinger's stunt was damage control, plain and simple. A cynical ploy to appease Columbia's alumni.

TomB - a more accurate comparison would be neo-nazis or as Captain Ed points out the head of the KKK.

Ahmadinejad is currently murdering people for being homosexuals - along of course with American military personal, Afghanis, and Iraqis that stand in the way of Iranian interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The man is at war with us, and civilization. We should not be giving him a podium, but instead responding in kind...

I was accepted into the Columbia Business School MBA program in the early '80's. For financial reasons I attended another fine NYC Business school. Sometimes I regret that decision. Not anymore.

Kudos to all the upstanding, clear thinking Columbia Professors and Staff who have spoken out against this abomination. Both the guest and the invitation.

When the Minutemen tried to speak at Columbia, they got rushed. I'd like to see Columbia hold an honest debate on immigration and invite them back.

Or Columbia could invite Donald Rumsfeld or Larry Summers.

New Columbia Motto:

No Holocaust Denier Denied.

Is it just me or did I miss the promised 'dialogue'?

Bollinger is a hack.

I'm not impressed with his so called condemnation.

Academic freedom doesn't demand that discredited ideologies be revived and showcased on the campus of any university.

Lee Bollinger's fundamental problem was that he invited Ahmadinejad to Columbia as an honored guest, which implied that Bollinger would treat him as an intellectual and moral equal.

After the fierce protests, Bollinger then realized that he had to take Ahmadinejad on, so he constructed the "aggressive questioning" format. But the aggressive questions, and Ahmadinejad's lies and evasions in response, exposed a simple fact: that Ahmadinejad was NOT Bollinger's intellectual or moral equal.

That, in turn, exposed the folly of the initial invitation.

The truth is that having put lipstick on a pig, Lee Bollinger then had to get down in the mud and wrestle him. The pig liked it.

I think politics lately could use a little less outrage.

first of all - Bollinger said on the first day when it was announced that Ahmadinejad was going to speak that he disapproved, intended to criticize him, and that there was to be a lot of time for questions for the express purpose of challenging Ahmadinejad's psychotic views.

Secondly, i think there is nothing wrong with him speaking. I completely agree that he's a nut, he's evil, he's dangerous to America and Israel. But I think it's important to understand our enemies. Columbia is an excellent University, in terms of academics at least, and although the students tend to be a bit naive at times I think it's a stretch to think that they're going to be taken in by Ahmadinejad.

Look at the results of inviting him. Nothing bad has happened, instead it has united everyone in their condemnation of Ahmadinejad. And exposed at least one more of his extreme ideas, which we in the West will have to confront. I think today has been a worthwhile success.

When Ahmadinejad told Columbia today that Iran doesn't have homosexuals, he meant that the theocracy has done its level best to cleanse Iran of gays and lesbians.

Without having heard the speech, I'm imagining PrezA saying, "WE don't have homosexuals in Iran," with the emphasis on "we". Translation would be "we're manlier men in Iran than you weaklings here in the west, and our women don't produce babies that grow up to be homosexual." I interpreted it as being more of a pissing contest comment, than a Shariah interpretation.

Captain, why do you assume that this "bestowed academic legitimacy to Holocaust denial, as well as to rabid anti-Semitism" on Ahmadinejad or that Columbia treated him as an "honored guest"?

Colleges and universities (or groups in colleges and universities) invite all sorts of people to speak on campus.

Looks to me that all he did was show what an idiot he is.

And he is a "world leader" and would continue to be so--just like Kim of North Korea--whether or not he spoke at Columbia.

Bollinger was applauded for his initial attack on Ahmadinejad, but that was a "laundry list" attack, not an academic debate. It didn't require Ahmadinejad's presence, or any intellectual engagement. It didn't "advance the argument" in any meaningful way.

Ahmadinejad also was applauded repeatedly for his evasions, lies, and attacks on the U.S. Administration. I'd say Bollinger and Columbia University proved that debating with a liar demeans everyone involved in the process. In this, they lost, profoundly.

You are so right when you say: "...Bollinger will get kudos from many today for insulting Ahmadinejad in his introductory speech" It's already happening!
And what nonsense that is - as if his 'personal rhetorical performance' undoes the academic, intellectual, and moral obsenity of his invitation.
There is "no fool like an academic fool", so Bollinger destroys his own earlier excuse about 'open dialogue' and 'free debate' by unleashing a torrent of name calling and ad hominem attacks and then fleeing the stage! Of course this 'man' is a contemptible psychopath - Duh! So, why did Bollinger invite such a character to an institution of intellect and dialogue if he always knew that?!
Either Bollinger is such a fool as to not see the contradiction of his own performance, or he became desperate to try to save his self-inflicted PR disaster. In either case he is an embarasment as a teacher and an 'intellectual'.
As a graduate of Columbia, I am doubly disgusted.
gsg

Re: Jim - September 24, 2007 4:26 PM

By the time al-Leni Riefenstahli in Iran is done with the video, it will look like Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly and respectfully. The unpleasant details will all be missing.

Ed, this is pretty intellectualy lazy stuff. You simply assert that Bollinger was reacting to criticism by talking tough, but you have no basis for that. Bollinger has been clear all along that this was what he was going to do. He laid out the points he was going to make well before this erupted into a controversy. You and others on the right just ignored this because you were too busy succumbing to yahooism and expressing your righteous indignation. If you'd take a second to actually look at what happened today, you'd see that it was the exact opposite of what you have been claiming it would be. Ahmadinejad was forced to sit there as an American academic boldly confronted him about all the terrible things he's said and an audience of students cheered. That's no honor. Ahmadinejad looked small and pathetic sitting on that stage next to Bollinger. And he embarrassed and discredited himself when he finally got to speak. Columbia did not disgrace itself in anyway and it in no way lent any legitimacy to Ahmadinejad. Quite the opposite. It helped to marginalize him and expose him for what he is. And on some level you know this; you're just too embarrassed to admit that you got this thing completely wrong, that you gave in to all the mindless know-nothing yahooism that preceded this event and was far more disgraceful and embarrassing than anything that actually happened on stage. Just this morning, politicians were threatening to retaliate against Columbia if they went through with this. Think about that. Politicians were threatening to use their official powers to sanction a private university for allowing someone they didn't approve of to speak. How absurd and disgusting and totally un-American. And conservative bloggers were cheering them on. How embarrassing.

Well said Captain...

Seeing fools applaud this monster was truly disappointing.

Columbia tried to limit the damage in the final minute...

Desperate to separate themselves from this fool, but it really was a weak reaction to the outrage.

Perhaps the outcry from the sane American Public is a positive sign.

Some may enable the horrid, but the rest of this Nation is not living in some bizarre denial.

Columbia University is not known for its athletic teams so perhaps Lee Bollinger decided it was time to get close by inviting the Iranian President and spearing him with insults. Each insult inadequately handled by the Pres counts as one point for Lee, Columbia's team leader, guru and chief understanderer. It did not last as long as a football or basketball game so something more is needed, a second act perhaps. Athletes from the University could take the stage and juggle, tumble and throw dwarfs through hoops. For a flourish the Iranian President might be encouraged to throw pies at Jewish looking students.
Such is the level that a major American University stooped to provide a forum for its leader to prove that the school does indeed understand Iranian anti-American behavior but can still engage in heroic dialogue. Compared to a sporting event it reminded me of the Globe Trotter games where it was obvious that the Globe Trotters would beat the team they brought with them. The only difference is that the Columbia contest appeared to be between fools.

"Nothing bad has happened..." How the hell do you know? Isn't it a possiblity that Nutjob can and will use this speech in a triumphant cut and paste propaganda manner at home - undermining and discouraging and demoralizing the valient students and others who are underground in Iran?

"...instead it has united everyone in their condemnation of Ahmadinejad." Everyone with half a brain, which apparently excludes most liberals and academic wonks were already "united in their condemnation" of Nutjob. No, all it did was stir up some heated condemnation of Columbia. Oh, and Libtard college kids would be wearing Nutjob t-shirts by next week, if he'd just soften up his stance on gays a bit. No prob with the Jew hatred, the Amerika as Terrorist State message, the Sharia, the "we're going to be armed with nukes if we damn well please," message. It's just that darn anti-gay stuff which is a bit problematic - otherwise he'd be the next Che. Ah well, at least he's not as bad as Larry Summers, right old bean? Snort.

"And exposed at least one more of his extreme ideas, which we in the West will have to confront."....His ideas have been out there, fully exposed, for quite some time...without an American University giving him the prestige of a platform upon which to preach. It is only the American left and American MSM (but I repeat myself) which CHOOSES to ignore his ranting speeches about destroying Israel, etc., and excuses it away as "mere hyperbole," which has led to any sort of failure of the West to "confront" his "ideas." Oh, and I suppose also, the defeatist screaming from the left which will most probably prevent us from actually taking concrete ACTION to remove his nukes before it is too late.

"I think today has been a worthwhile success." Yeah. Do you enjoy being delusional?

The way to really defeat this guy is to just let him keep talking.
Denying him a chance to speak makes it seem as if we're afraid someone might agree with him.

RBMN, don't you think that would have happened in the context of other visits anyways (like his earlier visit to the UN)? Iran doesn't have a free press.

Bollinger accomplished exactly what he set out to accomplish. A week ago the name Lee Bollinger meant nothing to the majority of Americans. Today it is almost synonymous with this event. Ahmadinejad was feeding on Columbia to increase his legitimacy, and Bollinger was feeding on the media event to increase his standing in academia. In some circles, including the administration of American universities, that kind of name recognition can be priceless. So what does Bollinger care if it might indirectly lead to the death of a few more soldiers. Bollinger hates soldiers anyway.

I wasn't wowed by Bollinger or you either Anonymous Liberal.

If you're so smart, and we're so intellectually lazy then why do you even bother?

I'd like to see Columbia hold an honest debate on immigration and invite [the Minutemen] back.

Surely you jest! An honest debate from the PC Nazis? More likely you will see William Jefferson Clinton keep his hands to himself and stop speaking with a forked tongue!

Someone else once put it very well - American universities are Stalinist islands of repression in a sea of freedom.

This was a Liberal/MSM funfest. They even wrote their own headlines and 'way out of this mess' with the new and improved Bollinger.

Is this what the Democrats call open dialogue?

He escaped every question.

He smiled and the audience clapped. Clapped. Yep, I call that a real discussion and confrontation. These pitiful people are so anti-American, so anti-military, so anti-Bush that they sat and clapped for the person that is killing their own and intends to kill them.

Only one thing stood out today....they clapped.

So what does Bollinger care if it might indirectly lead to the death of a few more soldiers. Bollinger hates soldiers anyway.

My my. What a brave, breathless statement. 101st Keyboardists, away!

More seriously, the talk showed the enormous confidence America has in itself -- we're no more threatened by the President of Iran speaking in one of the best universities in our biggest city than any other minor thug walking in the street. And, given a chance to make his point, he pretty much talks in the same way.

How scared should we be of this unshaven fool, anyways? This is the New Hitler? You're scared of THAT?

It gave Ahmadinejad a forum -- and he embarrassed himself with it. People who quake in fear at him, or quake in anger against Columbia, miss the point. It brought low a petty bully, and made him lose stature. It's more than what your usual righty blogger does when he moans and cries about the evils of the liberal media and quivers at a picture of a guy with a turban.

I don't mind any of this "disgrace." This blew up in Iran's face. Couldn't happen to a better government.

Most of you can realize that if you step back from the rage-sessions and take a look.

DU

Putting the disgrace that is Columbia aside, I'd have paid good money to see the "petty and cruel dictator" lose that seemingly permanent smirk. Having it removed by the teat on the liberal hog could not have been expected.

Hearing the same monologue from a conservative would just be ignored.

Butching up or not, it was priceless. I wonder how the videos will play in Iran.

You simply assert that Bollinger was reacting to criticism by talking tough, but you have no basis for that. Bollinger has been clear all along that this was what he was going to do. He laid out the points he was going to make well before this erupted into a controversy. You and others on the right just ignored this because you were too busy succumbing to yahooism and expressing your righteous indignation.

Right. On. The. Head.

There's been a lot of insinuation with no basis in reality on this site lately.

One other point....where were those great Senators from NY? I did not see either use their influence to stop this idiot from showing up and trashing America in their state. Why has the media not been all over them? Answer: The Dems own the MSM.

For that matter, why has the Pugs given them a free ride? Oh, that's right...they are not Pugs.

Two comments.
Has Bollinger been invited to Iran to speak in a public forum.

A liar aways blames the victem.

It would have had more impact had Bollinger not endorsed Ahmadinejad as a world leader by inviting him to Columbia in the first place.

Really? I think it's more impactful for a man -- an American -- to stand infront of the leader of Iran and publicly challange him -- face to face --about his words and actions.

And inviting him and challanging him "sharply" (which is what Bollinger said from the start) does not endorse him.

Bollinger was covering his and his anti-American azzzz. He wrote the anti-American MSM headline for them. So cute. He never confronted him but asked questions and let him slide.

You know the answers to those questions now?

Those grand open-minded people in the audience did not need answers.....they just clapped and clapped.

It does not get any sicker than this. Not the nuts on the stage (we know who they are or this would have never happened) but I am talking about the audience.

It may be a good thing that Americans can take a close look at Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes and at Columbia U. Who is going to trust this type of person with nuclear technology? Who would want him as a partner in the Middle East peace process? His presence can only help rally support for a hard line against his country.

This is the annual silly season on the East Side. World leaders come to New York in the fall, some criticizing the President, causing a media frenzy, then going home as the President's poll numbers edge up a few percentage points.

"His ideas have been out there, fully exposed, for quite some time."

I don't intend to start an argument by quoting this particular passage, but it does illustrate something else that's good about this talk, especially the news coverage it's getting.

We all tend to think, because we follow the news very closely, that everyone else knows what's going on the same as we do. That's not true. I was in a grocery store this morning, and the talk was about Ahmadinejad at Columbia today. The checker and another woman were discussing something along the lines of "How do we know he's so bad, everyone should get a chance to speak." I am sure that these people would disagree with Ahmadinejad if they knew what he does, what his views are, but they just don't know. These are just "regular" people who don't pay as close attention to the news as we do, and they probably represent a majority in this country. It's unfortunate, but I think it's true.

If we want to succeed against Ahmadinejad we need to show everyone why they should be against him. A lack of success in engaging such people is, I think, a reason for many of the political hurdles facing conservatives.

The Kos Kidz check in, and they approve of the nut from Teheran:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/24/175516/264

Even the low-life Iranians have more media savvy than your average leftist.

How much play in the MSM did the screechfest against the Minutemen get?

Now, in several posters here, we have a clearer picture of what Stalin meant when he described the left as "Useful Idiots".

Columbia banned the ROTC program due to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (set by Congress - not the militarym BTW).

When a JAG corps recruiter tried to meet with an interested student on campus, the "kind and tolerant" liberals on campus organized a demonstration that scared off the student.

But the murdering goat violator from Iran? Welcome! In the interest of what passes for "intellectual" discourse at a place where original thought died a pauper's death years ago.

Columbia is vastly overrated, ridiculously overpriced peddler of ignorance and treason. Just business as usual at Jackass U.

BTW, here's the full text of what Bollinger actually said:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html

Even the low-life Iranians have more media savvy than your average leftist.

Wait, I thought the left controlled the media and used it to smeer republicans...

Yup Owl2, the real disgrace is not that Ahmadinejad spoke -- I really don't care one way or the other if he did -- but that so many in the audience applauded. Where I work, there was one law student watching it, and he was saying that Ahmadinejad was a great man, didn't necessarily agree with everything he said (the usual copout) but that he was a great man. Presumably because Ahmadinejad was parroting the Democratic Party line.

Thank you, Captain Ed, for the position you've taken.
A great deal of pathetic gullibility goes into any defense of Bollinger's performance today, especially defenses from conservatives.
The idea that this charade was in any way enlightening--as if America had no idea what to expect from Ahmadinejad before Columbia and Bollinger opened its eyes--was put to rest when audience members continued to applaud the Iranian president, who willfully evaded clear, honest answers. One might think he was being applauded primarily for outfoxing not only Bollinger, but America itself. Mightn't one?
Indeed.
It was an awful, shameful show, on the part of both men, and I'm shocked anyone calling himself a conservative fell for it.
I'd like to say both sides of this 'debate' lost today; but that's not so. We all lost when it went on as scheduled, and we lose further by denying its harm.

We gave him a chance to spread PROPIGANDA. That makes us losers. This thing has made us look weak and cowardly in their eyes, and the Muslims' black hearts will be gladdened by how the students clapped and cheered when he insulted America!
It doesn't matter if the WHOLE audience believed a word he said, just ONE person has to, and that person will talk about it, spreading the propiganda further. I have been saying this for years, warning people about how POWERFUL a weapon propiganda is, but obviously it's all in vain.

Written by RBMN:
"By the time al-Leni Riefenstahli in Iran is done with the video, it will look like Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly and respectfully. The unpleasant details will all be missing."

I'm glad SOMEBODY is paying attention.

I'm surprised he hasn't been shot yet by a dissident whose family members have been killed by the regime.

Really? I think it's more impactful for a man -- an American -- to stand infront of the leader of Iran and publicly challange him -- face to face --about his words and actions.

Maybe, if that had happened. But unfotunately, besides a couple of meaningless initial soundbites at the very beginning, all that will be either played or heard was him schooling some tenured Ivy League professors, particularly, and this is the most disgusting of all, the Dean of the international studies school.

When he claimed that there were no gays or lesbians in Iran, he got laughter and it went unchallenged. You libs have chased people off the stage for less than that. Why not today? When he avoided the question about the Holocaust, he went unchallenged. When he denied that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons, he went unchallenged. Next question. Human Rights violations. His non-answer once again, went unchallenged. When he denied that he was seeking nuclear weapons, his country's intransigence and the subsequent imposition of UN sanctions wasn't even raised.

So where exactly, other than a couple of throwaway catchphrases for the camera at the beginning, which I'm sure Bollinger et al will be lauded for at retirement, was the "impactful challenge"?

At least one question was answered at least somewhat honestly: "What do you hope to accomplish by your visit to Columbia"?

He hoped to have an increase in prestige and a worldwide televised audience of billions to whom he could lie and propagandize with impunity; a platform where he could be seen continuing to deny the Holocaust with nebulous non-answers about mathematics; where his denials of terrorism, nuclear weapons, and human right violations would go unchallenged by the so-called professors of what was once a prestigious American University; where he could suggest Israeli politics be decided by plebiscite and go unchallenged, and where he could once again play the victim to a larger audience; the Islamic hero who went into the enemies' territory and lectured them without any kind of substantive challenge, and walked away with greater prestige than he had before. The Muslim Hero who singlehandedly took on the suppossed best America had to offer academically and won.

And that is exactly what he got.

You libs can huff and puff about the wingnuts all you want, but Ahmadinejad schooled us today; if you think the beginning of Bollinger's speech with be played anywhere but Us media for the next twelve hours only, you're dreaming. This is a tremendous propaganda victory for fundamentalist Islam today.

Enjoy your victory, pyrrhic though it is.

Black crepe draped the background. WHere, usually, COlumbia lets you see her name repeated ... for a whole screen shot.

THEN? The podium got draped. In black crepe.

No one will have any idea in what shit hole Ahmin-da-dinner-jacket-dude, was standing. He could'a been in the stall right next to Larry Craig.

Of course, "there are no homosexuals in Iran." Ya know why? They call that "fun" ... And, you're forbidden to do much with the goats that prepare your meals; and squeeze you out at night ... Because that's not "fun." That's duty. Spell it any way you like.

They should have hung a piece of black crepe from the iranian midget's nose; signifying his brain is dead.

Oddly enough, columbia did its own university harms.

While today, InstaPundit put up a "sad" story for young lawyers; coming out of law schools, to find that they're offered starter jobs at $50,000 per year. WHile plumbers and electricians as young as they, are making $150,000 per annum.

Do the math. If you have school debt that's over $150,000 ... And, yes, you're expected to pay it back ... Where did this debt come from?

And, for how long are you gonna sucker people to buy this crap?

Need a clue?

"There's been a lot of insinuation with no basis in reality on this site lately."

At least you're admitting that your comments have fallen a little short lately, Tom, and that's always the first step towards improvement. (j/k)

One small correction: Bollinger didn't invite Ahmadinejad. According to the blog of a Columbia law professor this is how the invitation happened:

"Ahmadinejad sought the invitation to speak at Columbia through Professor Richard Bulliet of Columbia's Middle East Institute. The invitation was ultimately extended by John Coatsworth, the Acting Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, who says: "Opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and dangerous world."

http://michaeldorf.org/2007/09/ahmadinejad-again.html

Hopefully someone will be smart and do a compare/contrast essay on the "Columbia gave him hell" argument with what is written and shown in Tehran.

Now THAT would be interesting.

Bollinger had a nice opening statement and stated what is obvious to everyone (except of course for the brain damaged lefties who were actually clapping whenever he brought up a lefty talking point which they could relate to (we should all strive for peace (YAY!!! clap clap). ,however, the questioning did nothing except allow him to duck answers and insert propagandistic sound bytes, which the lefties in the crowd clapped to like sheep on cue.

Its funny how often and quickly the enemies of this country trot out the lefty talking points, nand the degree to which their message appears tailored to those on the left. Sympatico? The enemy of my enemy and what not.
The fact is, this was completely unnecessary. Only in the haze of the lefty brain is anything that bollinger said at all in dispute. You would think that based on bollingers characterization that he was describing an evil regime. Does make one wonder then how bush hatred could override those feelings to make one actually clap when he says in his roundabout way that israel shouldn't exist.
But he said he wanted peace see. He said so. His waging of proxy wars against Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel and arming of jihadists kililng our soldiers in iraq, as wel as funding and training both Hamaz and Hesbollah, not to mention defying the UN and developing a nuclear program while screaming death to israel and the US.
But wait, he said that there was a holocaust but it needs more study. Ah yes, lets clap for that. He doesn't really want israel destroyed. He just wants more study. And Israel was only created because of WWII and the holocaust, so why should the Palestinians have to suffer? that's worthy of a clap. Sounds like Amajinajad and the lefties have been reading from the same literature.

The problem was not the opening statement. the problem was this is not a dialog. Having someone answer qeustions with questions and propagandistic talking points and not following up to demolish those talking points is merely giving someone a soap box with which to spout their dementia. Its so clear to bollinger what a ridiculously evil regime Iran is, yet the audience is politely applauding everytime he raises one of his non points in a reasonable manner. The entire enterprise undercuts his entire opening statement, thus making him look like a bully as opposed to exposing how extreme the leader of Iran actulaly is. And across town at the UN the security council is desparately trying to get yet another resolution passed to hold Iran accountable for their nuclear program which they refuse to stop or slow down. this isn't just Bush saying this its all the members of the security council, even France.
This just shows how vapid this whole, we have to talk and dialog and columbia is a place of learning. There was no dialog here. There was nothing learned that isn't known by everyone already who isn't a brain damaged bush hating lefty. But somehow allowing the Iranian leader to dodge questions and ask questions instead of answering them is a worthwile task. This is exactly why negotiations are so pointless, with Iran.
Its a broken record. It reavealed nothing at all about the Iranian leader, the only thing it reavealed is how much the lefties in the audience have their head shoved up their ass.

sorry, that should read:
Its a broken record. It reavealed nothing at all about the Iranian leader, the only thing it reavealed is how much the lefties in the audience who were politely clapping, have their head shoved up their ass.

Well, Bollinger must have also ordered all that black crepe covering up columbia's name. And, really depriving Ahmin-a-ding-dong much of a photo op. He could'a been on a stage, anywhere.

But columbia still takes the hit.

It looks flakey ...

On par for affirmative action quibble.

But not a serious place for adults.

Not that I care. It's not my expensive sheepskin that's been dragged through the mud.

And, Chris Muir, today, nails it! These people are parasites. Has nothing to do with an education.

Just makes all those students look soft in the belly; and even softer in the head.

Wacky professors; if they weren't in this profession they'd be bums. Or desperate enough to manage others flipping hamburgers.

The Humanities in the modern Western university are a death cult.

"Opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and dangerous world."
Her come my next candidates for open minded Columbia idiots:
"Society for Flat Earth",
"Convention of Perpetual Motion Inventors",
"Elvis Sighting Society"
"Monkey International Association"
Other suggestions on request.
I strongly believe the tenured academia from Columbia University could also learn a thing or two from the mentioned above, in the name of open minds and shrinking worlds.

"Opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and dangerous world."

Apparently, the tender ears of Columbia cannot bear to hear a speech from a United States recruiting officer, while they can hear from the deranged, delusional, goat violating, murdering piece of rotten feces like Ahmadinejad.

Columbia is run for and by inane, insipid circus clowns. If I was unfortunate enough to have a degree from that sham of a "learning institution" (translation: legacy project for the wretched offspring of trust-fund millionaires), I'd torch it.

Don't forget that the Iranians have been known to hang or stone women and girls to cover up the sexual transgreesions of the Mullahs.

This is how it is being reported in Iran:

"On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.

Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians' resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters."

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm

jonnymozart has it exactly right with the following:
When he claimed that there were no gays or lesbians in Iran, he got laughter and it went unchallenged. You libs have chased people off the stage for less than that. Why not today? When he avoided the question about the Holocaust, he went unchallenged. When he denied that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons, he went unchallenged. Next question. Human Rights violations. His non-answer once again, went unchallenged. When he denied that he was seeking nuclear weapons, his country's intransigence and the subsequent imposition of UN sanctions wasn't even raised.

So where exactly, other than a couple of throwaway catchphrases for the camera at the beginning, which I'm sure Bollinger et al will be lauded for at retirement, was the "impactful challenge"?

Allowing him to answer questions without challenging his answers is simply giving him a soap box with which to espouse his propanda. Not only that he even got a cheering section. Bollingers statement, while certainly valid was not at all expanded upon or validated by his lack of followup or challenge. Bollinger actually did a disservice to his students by not giving them an accurate portrayal of Ahmadinejad. He was so vanilla he was getting applause from the audience for things like israel shouldn't exist and the holocaust should be further studied without a serious rebuttal.
So what was the point. Bollinger already knows what the regime is all about, the UN and international community alraedy know what the regime is all about, Bush had him on his axis of evil since early in his presidency and clinton had Iran as one of the largest sponsors of terrorism on his watch. The only ones clueless about Ahmadinejad are the useful idiots, and they're incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Even Bollingers denunciation in the beginning is utterly useless. We already know this. If his audience of idiots actually bought the argument they woudln't politely applaud his talking points, nor would they be suggesting that Bush is somehow acting like a warmonger for citing Iran as a member of an axis of evil or suggsting that Iran having nukes is a threat. But what part of this speach wil actually even make it into the hands of Ahmadinejad's enemies in his country. Are they ever even going to see it? Or rather are they going to see Ahmadinejad making his standard point about how isreal shouldn't exist, and the holocaust needs to be studied and then getting a nice applause shot from teh audience. See how rational and peaceful he is, the audience loves him.

Wow, we sure put Ahmadinejad in his place.Not.

At the risk of repeating myself:

And this defines the state of our "enlightened" higher educational system in the 21st century. The next question for President Bollinger would be if Osama Bin Laden were available, would he be provided a platform? Perhaps if Jeffery Dahmer had been allowed to speak at Columbia, we would have understood his "taste for humanity" too.

NoDonkey: Apparently, the tender ears of Columbia cannot bear to hear a speech from a United States recruiting officer, while they can hear from the deranged, delusional, goat violating, murdering piece of rotten feces like Ahmadinejad.

I think that this is a real kicker, though it pales in comparison to inviting the president of a hostile country to address a prestigious American university. Columbia has made it quite clear that they only value "diversity" when it fits into their cherished little worldview. It's OK to invite Ahmadenijad and treat him with respect, but it's NOT OK to allow the Minutemen to speak.

The hypocrisy is sickening, but what's even more sickening is that so many libs seem incapable of seeing it.

Here's a suggestion: perhaps the next time Columbia wants Ahmadenijad to address them, they can ask the Israeli ambassador to "challenge" the Iranian thug-in-chief. How about a Holocaust survivor? An Iranian dissident? Perhaps a Marine crippled in Iraq by a bomb supplied by Iran? Nah: that wouldn't show Ahmadenijad enough respect.

On a related note, what is it with liberal attempts at machismo regarding thugs like bin Laden and Ahamdenijad? Honestly, they sound like modern-day Tom Sawyers: "We're not a-scared o' THEM!" The implication, of course, is that conservatives are cowards because we take the threat posed by the islamofascists seriously and want to do something about it (as in kill off said islamofascists).

One wonders what liberal pinheads would say if we could put them in the Wayback Machine and send them to, oh, 1943. "I ain't a-scared o' Hitler! See! We'll invite him to speak at Columbia and ask him some Tough Questions(TM)! That'll learn 'im that he don't scare us none!"

Big, bad, brave liberals: safe behind the "wall" of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, CIA, FBI, NSA, police, and other agencies that protect their dumb asses from the very people that they applaud.

We live in such a strange world.

It did happen. Again, read this.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html

When he claimed that there were no gays or lesbians in Iran, he got laughter and it went unchallenged. You libs have chased people off the stage for less than that. Why not today?

It's reported some laughed (and they very well could have been laughing at the ridiculousness of the statement), but it's also reported that this statement got the loudest boos and jeers from the crowd. Yes, he was booed and jeered. Don't see that little detail in your post -- or anyone else's on here, including Cap'ns. Doesn't fit your storyline,

Faculty and students did question and challenge him about his comments and his actions as president of Iran. I don't know what you want them to do when he dodges an answer or doesn't give an answer you're looking for, but he was challenged, booed and jeered by the audience, as well as greeted by angry student protests outside the building.

Fact is, today a foreign leader was given the harshest and most public dressing down probably in the history of the United States. And all you guys can do is ignore and spin what happened in your ongoing campaign against the left.

Give. Me. A. Break.

wow, he got some boos. He also got some cheers. He also got to pretend as if he had some meaningul dialog and how he's misunderstood and just wants peace and is no threat and see how reasonable he is. He also got the Dean to shake his hand at the end of the debate. Great job, sir!
But again, what was the point of this again? Who was enlightened, what was learned that those who know about Iran and consider it a terorrist state weren't aware of? A couple of jeers, is evened out by a couple of cheers and in either case he never answered any questions.Meanwhile he gets a nice propaganda bonus which he can bring back home. He can simply edit out the boos, and edit out the speech at the beginning and simply show the westerners applauding at the agreement they have that Israel shouldn't exist.

"Fact is, today a foreign leader was given the harshest and most public dressing down probably in the history of the United States."

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think this probably qualifies as the harshest and most public dressing down ever.

"No foreign head of state had testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in recent memory, current and former committee aides say. And last week, after the disastrous appearance of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai -- said to be furious and insulted by the event -- it's clear why not."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31239-2003Mar2?language=printer

Fact is, today a foreign leader was given the harshest and most public dressing down probably in the history of the United States. And all you guys can do is ignore and spin what happened in your ongoing campaign against the left.

No, sorry Tom, what you do seem to grasp is that we (conservatives) acually despise, scorn, and loathe this pathetic piece of garbage far more than we do the left.

I meant what you don't grasp. But I needed to get the spin in I quess.

Putting that weasel on a pedestal was the most embarrasing action an institution could have ever done.

Bennett, I'll just go ahead and assume that's another joke.

we (conservatives) acually despise, scorn, and loathe this pathetic piece of garbage far more than we do the left.

See, this really explains it. You get so much mileage and self-worth from your belief that the left are treasonous American-haters.

And when you heard that this guy was speaking at Columbia (especially in the wake of that poly-sci students op-ed), it just was the perfect story for you. "Lefties embracing a dictator!" Just as you knew they would!

Then, the lefty you condemned for inviting him goes and rips the Iranian president (sorry, don't want to look up the correct spelling of his name) a new a-hole, and your little "lefties embracing evil" storyline doesn't fit. Doesn't mean you'll reverse course and maybe admitt you were wrong, or at least applaud the guys efforts, no, it means you spin away. Don't let the truth hinder your reality.

There are some great posts here by so many including jr565 and johnymozart but, IMHO the 8:11 post of the always brilliant Bennett is the best because it is the most pertinent.

Bollinger was played - as we on the right knew he would be. Overcome by hubris, he gave no consideration to the propaganda victory he was about to hand this mad and evil enemy of America.

He gave a platform to a man who is the President of a government which conducts operations against, and supplies arms that kill young Americans. Young Americans who are risking their lives to protect the ungrateful, sorry, liberal asses of the Bollingers of this world.

In giving a platform to a delusional psychopath who yearns for the return of the 12th Imam (the end of this world) and who will soon have his hands on nuclear weapons, Bollinger demonstrated how hubris can easily debase the already limited intelligence of the post 9/11 liberal.

Bollinger claims he wanted to expose his students to new ideas. And he did. They now understand that being a holocaust denier isn't so bad so long as you also hate George Bush.

The argument that it was good for the students to hear first hand the views of this would be Hitler are absurd. Those students who needed to hear him first hand to know what he stands for should be given dunce caps and sent home. In any event, given the reports of applause for this cretin it appears that a lot of these students are ineducable. They learned nothing. They are as stupid as their professors.

The Columbia debacle is further evidence which begs the question whether liberalism is more a political philosophy or a death wish.

Yes, it is a dangerous world. It is less dangerous because George Bush's war has resulted in Iraqis swearing on the Koran to rid their country of al Qaeda and embrace the rule of law. It is more dangerous because of leftards who attack Bush, support America's enemies and are too filled with pride to learn anything.

Here's a new thread on Kos that hasn't gotten too many replies-I wonder why that is?

"I have been reading with disbelief some of the diaries posted here that appear to be favorable to Ahmadinejad.

This is supposed to be a Democratic website.

So tell me, how does excusing a person who murders gays and represses women, fit in with Democrats?

I thought we were the ones who support women and gays."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/24/195358/842

No surprises here. The Columbia administrators and 60s retread professoriat think getting stoned in Iran involves a water pipe.

Not unlike for Stalin and Pol Pot there are two main population groups in Iran. The obeisant villagers scraping by inside the town walls and the crowded mass graves of inconvenients located just outside of town. Besides leaving a crippled economy it's Peanut Carter's other dark legacy.

Terry wrote:
The argument that it was good for the students to hear first hand the views of this would be Hitler are absurd. Those students who needed to hear him first hand to know what he stands for should be given dunce caps and sent home. In any event, given the reports of applause for this cretin it appears that a lot of these students are ineducable. They learned nothing. They are as stupid as their professors.Absolutely right! Exactly!

What IDIOT is not familiar with Ahmadinejad being an evil thug. Its why Bush had Iran listed as part of the axis of evil (and of course it was the left that pilloried Bush for daring to call a spade a spade) its why they've been on the terrorist watch list for decades. Its why the security council, including france and germany are backing the US in holding Iran accountable. No one but complete IDIOTS need to be told that this guy and his regime are among the most backwards and barbaric in the world. Everyone knows that Iran has been funding both Hezbollah which has been waging wars against Israel and Lebanon. His country has been behind several terrorist attacks. Iran is well known to treat women like 4th class citizens and to execute gays and to be completely repressive.
Ahmadinejad shut down about 15 universities in Tehran for the love of god.
This is well known, has been well known for anyone but complete idiots. Are columbian students that obtuse and that backward and moronic that they need to be shown that IRan is bad? What are they teaching at this university. Its like having to be told that fire is hot by shoving someones hand in the fire. "Wow, that's pretty hot that fire" Hmmm, you think? That's something that has to be demonstrated to a college student? What are they teaching in universities?

The first thing people I saw today wanted to know was did I see what Bollinger said - and who in the dickens did he think he was fooling!

So LOL! What a total #$*&%$#!!!
(Gee, try as I might, I cannot think of a single civilized word to describe the creature.)

He's still guilty of TREASON.

The truth is that having put lipstick on a pig, Lee Bollinger then had to get down in the mud and wrestle him. The pig liked it.

**************************

Now both pigs are for ALL intents, totally indistinguishable. And they've certainly earned eachother!

Look at the results of inviting him. Nothing bad has happened, instead it has united everyone in their condemnation of Ahmadinejad. And exposed at least one more of his extreme ideas, which we in the West will have to confront. I think today has been a worthwhile success.

Only in your own little mind, which you seem to think is the entire world.

There were at least 20 rounds of applause from your friends for him in that meeting.

When he gets through playing those tapes throughout the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and where ever else he pleases, he will agree with you thoroughly - it will indeed be HIS GREATEST TRIUMPH.

And you can be sooooo hugely proud of him!!!

We all know you shall be! Just tremendously! Reaaaaalllly you will!

Posted by NahnCee | September 24, 2007 4:17 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Doesn't matter how he SAID it - everyone knows they kill homosexuals in all the muslim nations. The SECOND there is a HINT. EVEN if it is only "in the way you walk"...
One can only wonder if they always bother with PROOF! OR WHAT KIND!

One doesn't have to wonder at all if their deaths meet the demands of the ACLU for "kind and gentle". None of those nasty "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" painkiller shots, first, either!

Posted by Jim | September 24, 2007 4:26 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Do you imagine the billion muslims, or the billion whatever plus Chinese, the new Putin "more militant" Russia, and whoever else, Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc et all, when they view the tapes and see 20 rounds of applause by Columbia students for him, will comprehend it as ANYTHING LESS than "academic legitimacy" and WORLD VALIDATION.

You've lifted him up immeasureably before the eyes of the world, on a platform provided by "THE GREAT SATAN" itself! That his worst enemies in the entire world COULD NOT PREVENT!

Is there higher prestige for him???

Those world crowds will not perceive the Americans applauding him in that room to be merely jackasses, at all.

They have achieved a coup, in their eyes.

I don't imagine for one minute you misunderstand in the least. After all, if your lover did this to you with someone else in your very presence, I'm sure you would be very quick on the draw to figure it out, wouldn't you!

Posted by RBMN | September 24, 2007 4:37 PM

Re: Jim - September 24, 2007 4:26 PM

By the time al-Leni Riefenstahli in Iran is done with the video, it will look like Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly and respectfully. The unpleasant details will all be missing.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

There were unpleasant details??? (From his POV???) What were they???

"It's time somebody put their foot down...and that foot, is ME."--Lee Bollinger

Posted by Anonymous Liberal | September 24, 2007 4:39 PM

Ed, this is pretty intellectualy lazy stuff. You simply assert that Bollinger was reacting to criticism by talking tough, but you have no basis for that.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

What an INSIPID statement. The man has been proud as punch of himself for this "intellectual challenge".

There is NO BASIS for assuming it to be anything other than what it blatantly is on the face of it. CRAWFISHING for "public" consumption.

Ahmadinajab didn't think he was being insulted.

And NOBODY in America thinks Bollinger's "attack" was SINCERE OR CREDIBILE!

It won't cover his tail for TREASON, either!

It isn't nice to suck up to dictators!

Tom,

What I expected was a Professor of International Affairs to insist that this man, whom you have contended was "sharply challenged", answer the simple yes or no questions that he was asked instead of diving into irrelevant non-sequiturs. Instead of insisting that he answer the questions he was asked, they simply accepted his non-answers and proceeded. That, in my mind, despite your silly grandiose fanfare of the event, would have represented a far better "challenge" to him, rather than simply letting him not answer the questions, lie with impunity, and then simply move on to the next question. And, if you would like to post a citation where someone refuted (with evidence, not boos)his assertion that there are no homosexuals in Iran, or insisted that he answer the question as to WHY more research is needed into the unassailable fact of the Holocaust, then by all means, link to it here. I say again, you people have shouted down people for suggesting far less. So much for "the greatest public dressing down in the History of the United States."

All this circus did was lend a tinpot despot the ability to punch above his weight, and he used OUR prestige, not his own, to do it. Congratulations.

Give me a break, indeed.

Posted by Rovin | September 24, 2007 9:43 PM

Fact is, today a foreign leader was given the harshest and most public dressing down probably in the history of the United States. And all you guys can do is ignore and spin what happened in your ongoing campaign against the left.

No, sorry Tom, what you do seem to grasp is that we (conservatives) acually despise, scorn, and loathe this pathetic piece of garbage far more than we do the left.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

As dispicable as Ahmadinajab is, many of us do NOT hate him worse than we do SOCIALISM.

After all, where would he be without his ENABLERS?????

IN THE GRAVE!

Instead, he has spent the day exalted high above, on a "PRESTIGEOUS" American platform, elevated before the WORLD.

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 24, 2007 10:10 PM

***********************

Do you think some "minority groups" are feeling a lot less SAFE, tonight? :) Feeling a little of Absolute Truth intruding in on their "relative" philosophies and fantasies???

Posted by Tom Shipley | September 24, 2007 9:00 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Your protestations are irrelevant and without credibility - the platform given to Ahmendinajab was far far far above all the small tiny jeers in the room - no Muslim nations will see it - and NOT BECAUSE WE CONSERVATIVES have anything to do with "censoring" it - and every Liberal knows it. AND THRILLS AT THE JOINT VICTORY!

We salute your dhimmitudeness.

Here's an example of what I mean:

MR. COATSWORTH: Which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students. Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you award them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.
My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For -- 26 years ago, where I work, close to where I work, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.
A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers, bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups, all this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully that same terrorist group, now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely. And their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government.
Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. (Applause.)

No answer. Next question. No challenge. No rebuttal. Just moving on. How does that constitute a challenge?

Nevertheless, I don't disagree that Bollinger's performance deserves a bravo. I particularly liked this bit:

MR. BOLLINGER: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. (Laughter, applause.)

Nevertheless, that is all it was: a performance. Hardly a challenge.

Here is Ahmadinejad in his own words:

Religious extremism and martyrdom:

"We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.“ 1
"The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world." 2
"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi." 3
“Soon Islam will become the dominating force in the world, occupying first place in the number of followers amongst all other religions.” 4
“Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.” 5
"What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.'' 6 [President Ahmadinejad’s comments on an aircraft crash in Tehran that killed 108 people in December 2005].
Ahmadinejad praises Iran for being able to recruit thousands of suicide bombers a day. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised his country's ability to recruit "hundreds of suicide bombers a day," saying "suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.“ Amadinejad said the will to commit suicide was "one of the best ways of life." 7
“This regime (Israel) will one day disappear.” 8
“The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.” 9
Israel is "a disgraceful stain on the Islamic world" 10
Israel is doomed to be "wiped from the map" in "a war of destiny." 11
Ahmadinejad said that "the countdown for the destruction of Israel" has begun. 12
Zionists are „the personification of Satan.“ 13
"In the case of any unwise move by the fake regime of Israel, Iran's response will be so destructive and quick that this regime will regret its move for ever." 14
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the Holocaust is a “myth.” 15
“Them (the West) invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews and placed it above Allah, religions and prophets.” 16
Iran, its nuclear ambitions and sanctions:

“By the grace of Allah, we (will be) a nuclear power.” 17
Ahmadinejad fired off a fresh barrage of warnings to the United Nations, saying Iran did "not give a damn" about demands to freeze sensitive nuclear work. 18
"Iran does not give a damn about resolutions." 19
"The Islamic republic of Iran has the capacity to quickly become a world superpower. If we believe in ourselves... no other power can be compared to us.“ 20
"Iran's enemies know your courage, faith and commitment to Islam and the land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead." 21
"Our enemies should know that they are unable to even slightly hurt our nation and they cannot create the tiniest obstacle on its glorious and progressive way." 22
“In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies.” 23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Naïm, Mouna, “Damas et Téhéran entendent "résister" ensemble,” Le Monde, January 21st, 2006

2 Pryce-Jones, David, “A Particular Madness—Understanding Iran’s Ahmadinejad,” National Review, May 8, 2006

3 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

4 March 5th, 2006

5 MEMRI, July 29th, 2005

6 La Guardia, Anton, “’Divine mission’ driving Iran’s new leader Ahmadinejad’s confidence,” The Daily Telegraph, January 14th, 2006

7 Cohen, Dudi, “Iranian President lauds suicide bombers invincible,” YnetNews, April 1st, 2007

8 “Iran: Ahmadinejad annonce la «disparition» d'Israël,” Libération, May 11th, 2006

9 Baldwin, Tom, “The state of Israel will soon be history, says Iran’s President,” The Times, April 15th, 2006

10 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

11 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

12 “Ahmadinejad: Countdown to Israel’s destruction has begun,” YnetNews, June 3rd, 2007

13 “Satan in Person," Süddeutsche Zeitung Online, March 1st, 2007

14 Williams, Stuart, “Ahmadinejad says Iran ready for 'final nuclear step,” Agence France Presse, November 16th, 2006

15 Naïm, Mouna, “Damas et Téhéran entendent "résister" ensemble,” Le Monde, January 21st, 2006

16 Ghazi, Siavosh. “Ahmadinejad qualifie de "mythe" l'Holocauste, ne cède pas sur le nucléaire,” Agence France Presse, 14 December, 2005

17 “Les prix du pétrole reculent avec la dissipation des craintes sur l'essence,” Agence France Presse, April 27th, 2006.

18 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

29 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

20 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

21 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

22 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006

23 “Ahmadinejad threatens the Western world”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, January 22nd 2006

If someone were able to actually rebut him with his own words, instead of just letting him drone on and on for the homegrown masses without having to actually answer any of the questions posed to him, then maybe I could agree with you, Tom, that it was the historic smackdown you seem to be making it out to be.

But it wasn't.

Sorry to abuse the bandwith here, but it bears repeating and I can't link to the middle of the transcript.

Here's the last example:

MR. COATSWORTH: A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts are well-documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as an historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is incontrovertible?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable.
Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutism, gotten -- forward other different logics of looking at mathematics, and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that?
I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not (the ?) judgment that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? This is a serious question. They're two dimension. In the first question, I --
MR. COATSWORTH: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis -- some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (Applause.)
Let me move on to -- (pause).

And he does. Mr. Coatsworth moves on. Ahmadinejad has just denied doing what he is obviously doing, and what he is on record doing (see above), and after tolerating a complete (and inaccurate) non-sequitur about mathematics and physics, and an attempted sidestep into the question of the Palestinians, his complete lie is left unchallenged and they move on to human right violations against women, which he also denies, and that denial too is not rebutted.

How is that, in any way, "challenging" or a "dressing-down"??

"Fact is, today a foreign leader was given the harshest and most public dressing down probably in the history of the United States."

Yeah, he was treated practically as if he were Michelle Malkin.

Thing is, it doesn't stop Michelle Malkin either.

So much for "the greatest public dressing down in the History of the United States."

Name me an instance when a foreign head of state came to America and received a harsher, more public criticism than Ahmadinejad received yesterday from Bollinger.

And I'm sorry the professor didn't meet your standards and insist on a yes/no answer. But he did challenge him by asking the question. You're nitpicking.

Honestly, what happened yesterday was quite remarkable. this guy was harshly criticized, protested and questioned about his remarks and stances and all you guys can do is nitpick or say/think "i would have done more..." or "I hate him more than these guys..."

Whatever.

And JM,

Coatsworth does rebutt him by saying:

So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years.

You don't let a rabid dog in the house so that you can lecture it on chewing the furniture.

But he did challenge him by asking the question.

Tom, what I gave you a few weeks ago was a "dressing down". You might recall that. In addition to harsh critcism, I also used facts to refute you. Columbia did not.

For example: Ahmadinejad, as I noted before claimed that the IAEA had no problem with Iran's cooperation:

This from the IAEA's own website:

But as I have also stated before, gaps remain in the Agency´s knowledge with respect to the scope and nature of Iran´s current and past centrifuge enrichment programme. Because of this, and the lack of readiness of Iran to resolve these issues, the Agency is unable to make further progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. This continues to be a matter of serious concern.

I should also reiterate that it is counterproductive for Iran to link its cooperation with the Agency to its ongoing dialogue with its European and other partners. Increased cooperation and transparency are indispensable to resolve these gaps in knowledge regarding Iran´s past nuclear programme, and would assist greatly in overcoming concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear programme."

Did anyone try to refute this lie, Tom? No. But I guess to point that out is "nitpicking". Silly me. Ho hum. It is to laugh.

So, he is able to lie openly in public without challenge, but you're impressed with a little namecalling by the President of the University. Good for you. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Tom, as impervious as I know you are to common sense, all this did was increase his prestige at our expense. Despite your lofty ideas of vindicated free speech, it still turns out apparently that you guys are more threatened by the free speech of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh than you are of an Islamist terrorist and murderer. Surprise, surprise.

Johnny, the fact that you think you gave me a dressing down is laughable. What you did was repeatedly and inappropriately use the word "racist" to describe my argument.

It was one of the more idiotic (and dishonest) things I've read on this cite. The fact that you look back on it with pride is quite telling.

And I would have to say, given some comments I've received recently on here, there are quite a few people on here who take me seriously. So speak for yourself.

I stand by what I've said.

Hello

Me found [url=http://fioricet4.tripod.com]cheap fioricet[/url] site.

Hey, can anyone recommend a site that supports 3410 Nokia ring tone? Nokia forums weren't much help unfortunately.
I'm an IT guy but apparently I suck at cell phone tech. Heheh :)