OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joe Trovato:
- High taxes hamper Milwaukee growth (March 11, 2008)
- Miller a keystone of Old Milwaukee (February 27, 2008)
- Naysayers beware: McCain GOP's best choice for presidency (February 11, 2008)
- HillaryCare veils socialist disaster (January 29, 2008)
- America, treat Russia with some respect (December 5, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Well done, Columbia (September 26, 2007)
- Senators step perilously toward war (October 8, 2007)
- Bush laughs in face of new report, marches toward war (December 10, 2007)
- Freedom vital for education (September 7, 2006)
- Bush inconsistent at home, abroad (January 15, 2006)
Share This:
by Joe Trovato
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
While Columbia University has every right to host the controversial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an "honored" guest, it doesn't mean that it should. This is America, and the fact that the Iranian president, an archenemy of our government, can come here on our soil and speak his mind is an example of our most fundamental freedom at work.
This is the beauty of our great nation, and while any sane American finds Mr. Ahmadinejad and his beliefs repulsive, it is nonetheless his right to come here and state his case anywhere he chooses.
However, this does not mean that neither the United States nor its institutions should be going out of their way to accommodate one of our most sworn and dangerous enemies. If he wants to bellow his beliefs from every street corner in New York City, or if he wants to come to Madison and scream from Library Mall like the religious fanatics or the hippy leftovers, by all means, he has every right to do that. But it would be a much different story if the University of Wisconsin were providing a venue for a man like this. The fact that Columbia University is doing just that is wholly unpatriotic.
Columbia University has every right to invite whatever speakers they would like, but voluntarily giving a tyrant like Mr. Ahmadinejad an outlet in the free world is bordering on pure unpatriotic activity. The U.S. military is fighting and dying at the hand of this man's cronies as we speak, yet the acting dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, John Coatsworth, feels that this is good for students because they see an alternative point of view. This is from the same guy who said that Hitler would have been welcome at Columbia University.
The Iranian regime is listed by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, yet here is Columbia University in New York City, where the agents of the terrorism Ahmadinejad sponsors took so many lives on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Ahmadinejad's government has also been accused of assisting the insurgency that claims the lives of American troops every day in Iraq. In addition, he has expressed his desire to have Israel wiped clean off the map, while publicly denying that the Jewish Holocaust ever occurred.
Of even bigger concern is Iran's flouting of international law and Mr. Ahmadinejad's alleged lack of cooperation with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the U.S. State Department, "samples taken at the Natanz centrifuge facility show evidence of [uranium] enrichment", which would be crucial to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran's government claims it is pursuing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, but most experts agree that the uranium enrichment occurring at Natanz is not "necessary for a civilian nuclear fuel cycle like Iran's." But most Americans can agree that Mr. Ahmadinejad's intentions are not one hundred percent noble, the real issue here is Columbia University.
Columbia deserves all the negative press it gets from this endeavor, but this is its choice and it has every right to invite Hitler, Stalin, Mr. Ahmadinejad or whoever else it pleases. In no way am I arguing that the Iranian president's comments be censored or that he should not be allowed to speak freely here. What I am claiming is that it is very unpatriotic to host this man while our troops are dying in the field because of his backing. We are in the middle of a War on Terror, yet Columbia has voluntarily given the leader of a state sponsor of terrorism a platform here in the very country he wishes to destroy. No truly American institution should give this tyrant the time of day, even though all have the right to.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is getting everything he wants from this media circus right now. He knew this would be controversial and that every American news station would jump all over an event such as this. Thus, the Iranian president got the chance to get into the home of every American via television and radio. What more could he have asked for? Columbia's patronage of this man, while it is their right, is a slap in the face to every American and especially to all the victims of Sept. 11 and our armed forces fighting his insurgency overseas.
Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 4:53am):
Agreed! Those Iranians who flew the planes into the towers deserve to pay, and Ahmadinejad is SCUM for trying to exploit the memory of 9/11! Thank God our American politicians would never do such a thing!
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 7:28am):
god, way to take the most middle-of-the-road, uncontroversial viewpoint possible on this event. contribute something new to the debate or don't write.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 7:43am):
From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial:
"Ahmadinejad's speech Monday at Columbia University in New York - protested before the fact by many - did nothing more than demonstrate what separates this country from too many others, including Iran. That would be freedom of expression and the notion that universities should be forums for varied and vigorous speech."
I could not agree more, no matter how much a tool I believe Ahmadinejad to be. It's a good country to be able say this.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 9:06am):
What an absurd argument. "Isn't America great, we can invite even our biggest enemies to our country. By the way, whoever did this was unpatriotic."
So by excercising our freedoms we become anti-American? Typical neo-con thinking.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 9:36am):
Joe, I wouldn't consider it unpatriotic because it gave us a chance to put him Ahmadinejad on the spot. He totally made an idiot of himself with the answers he gave to people's questions. When he talked about the "Israeli persecution of Palestinians" he got applause, which came mostly from Muslim students. That showed just how hateful Muslims in the US really are toward Jews. I personally don't care about the Palestinians, since none of the Arab countries do either.
But it was nice to see him show his true colors. It kind of weakens the arguments of all the liberals who love that jerk.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 9:53am):
Four years ago, a Montreal photo-journalist, Zahra Kazemi, was arrested in Tehran, taken to Evin prison, and wound up getting interviewed to death. The following year, Shahram Azam (a physician who'd examined Kazemi's body) fled Iran and said that she had broken fingers, a broken nose, a crushed toe, a skull fracture, severe abdominal bruising, and internal damage consistent with various forms of rape. Quite an interview.
It'd be nice to think Columbia academia ignored this situation out of concerns for Ahmadinejad's free speech rights. But I'll bet Ahmadinejad wouldn't really care if everyone put Zahra Kazemi on the front pages 24/7.
Ahmadinejad figures that's how it usually goes with a plump, complacent Western world that just wishes these crazies would stop trying to catch its eye. In recent weeks, Iran stoned to death various citizens for adultery and homosexuality-- which pretty much ended their free speech.
But why let a few stonings throw academia's free speech initiative off track? And, if buddying journalists in wacademia are so eager to give you a podium, why not remind them of the rules of the game? This summer, the Iranians paraded U.S. hostage journalists all over TV as they confessed to engaging in espionage, along the way fingering the Woodrow Wilson Center and George Soros as key elements in the plot to overthrow the ayatollahs.
So enjoy the self-congratulation and the journalistic majesterial objectivity, Columbia. Just don't imagine you engaged in any real discourse.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:02am):
If only they had handed out rotten eggs, fruits and veggies at the door would I endorse the invitation.
Putting him in the stocks would have been a nice touch.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:07am):
If you believe ____, then you are insane.
-Psychologist?
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:37am):
Yes. The free and open exchange of ideas is fundamentally un-American. The new America I mean. The one without a constitution.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:02am):
I completely agree with 9:06, your argument is absurd: "Isn't America great, we can invite even our biggest enemies to our country. By the way, whoever did this was unpatriotic."
It was all against one at that speech. It just proves how crazy Ahmadinejad actually is and opens up those crazy views to the marketplace.
Also, I take offense of this from 9:36:
"When he talked about the 'Israeli persecution of Palestinians' he got applause, which came mostly from Muslim students. That showed just how hateful Muslims in the US really are toward Jews. I personally don't care about the Palestinians, since none of the Arab countries do either."
It works both ways in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and I don't think Muslim students cheering shows how hateful Muslims in the US are toward Jews. I think you even saying that shows how hateful YOU are toward Muslims! And Arab countries do care about Palestine, that's why we're so hated in the Middle East, because we are such staunch supporters of Israel.
Try taking a Middle East politics or history class before you start spewing this kind of garbage you moron.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:14am):
I love the attempt at a 9/11-Iran connection by noting that Ahmadinejad spoke in NYC--the same city where the attacks happened! Bush even did a better job than that with Iraq.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:28am):
I think most of you don't realize that this is potentially a dicy issue - yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad (actually, Dr. Ahmadinejad - he has a doctorate in transportation engineering , I think) is a tyrant, yes, he is doing terrible things to the country of Iran, but no, that does not mean we should silence a voice, whether we agree with it or not. Voices are not a bomb or stones or a whip.
I wouldn't call it anti-American.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:29am):
You loose all validity when you postulate that Ahmadinejad controls Iran. He is, at best, a figure head with limited powers. Had you done any researcd instead of getting your marching orders from the far-right, you'd know that the Mullohs (sp?) still control Iran.
Demosthenes Locke (September 26, 2007 @ 11:29am):
I must add on to 11:02. First off, in addition to taking Middle East politics, you should also watch and read real news--by this I mean BBC, The Economist, Al-Jezeera, anything not American. Once you've done this, you'll realize that many of the arguments for why Ahmadinejad shouldn't be here are completely off base. For one, Joe, you said that "the US military is fighting and dying at the hand of this man's cronies". Really? Because, actually, the insurgents are not Iranian, they're not Syrian, they're not even al-Qaeda! The insurgents are Iraqi citizens fighting to get us out of they're country! They want to be self governed. As long as we are in Iraq, the Iraqis will fight to get us out.
Second, Ahmadinejad is not a sponsor of terrorism. He's the sponsor of a horrible regime, but, just like Saddam did not let terrorists in his country, neither does Ahmadinejad. In fact, Ahmadinejad and bin Laden et al hate each other.
And now just a little side note: do you know who one of our biggest supporters in the "War on Terror" and the beginning of Iraq was? That's right, it was Iran. And do you know why Ahmadinejad got elected in the first place? Because we stupidly said that Iran was a part of the Axis of Evil, thus making the Iranian people, whom we had offended, turn away from they're pro-American reformist government and towards Ahmadinejad.
Since we created Ahmadinejad's presidency, we should be more than happy to welcome our creation into our bosom.
And, when we did welcome him, we slapped him in the face for being such an idiot. He wasn't able to answer any of the accusations against him posed by Columbia in a coherent manner. I actually wish more universities would have him come and debate so that he could make an even bigger fool of himself.
And one last thing. 9:06 has it head on:
"What an absurd argument. 'Isn't America great, we can invite even our biggest enemies to our country. By the way, whoever did this was unpatriotic.'
So by excercising our freedoms we become anti-American? Typical neo-con thinking."
Exactly.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:40am):
"If he wants to bellow his beliefs from every street corner in New York City, or if he wants to come to Madison and scream from Library Mall like the religious fanatics or the hippy leftovers, by all means, he has every right to do that"
Not exactly. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech for American citizens, not humans in general.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:59am):
"And Arab countries do care about Palestine"
That's why they've made them live in refugee camps, forbidden them citizenship and in at least one case just kicked them right out of the country.
They hate the Jews, they don't care about the Palis.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:06pm):
The Columbia Spectator editorial board admits today that the speech was nothing but a hostage pay-off.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/26968
"On the same day the invitation to Ahmadinejad was announced, Kian Tajbakhsh, who received his Ph.D. at Columbia, was freed from the Iranian prison that he had been held in since May..."
Yes, Columbia, you see that would be what law schools call "quid pro quo"-- and what criminal justice schools call "extortion pay-offs."
You can stop congratulating yourselves anytime now, Leftists.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:23pm):
"for American citizens"
Being a citizen means less and less every day - except when the government is looking for taxes.
We are becoming "subjects" of an Empire instead of citizens of a Republic.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:23pm):
right on brother...I completely agree that Columbia's invite is unpatriotic, but yes they should indeed have the right to dig their own holes. why the heck would any self-respecting american want this guy to come to their university? it's not even the fact that he looked like an idiot anyways and we exposed his views or whatever...it's the principle that we are coddling a known enemy and playing right into his hands. either way...we know you're not going to get any support in this backward thinking liberal excuse for a supposed utopia. keep writing man.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:24pm):
also...it's pretty easy to be a liberal in this town and act all big and bad considering there is no one to argue against your views at all. the discourse in this town is a joke. not exactly the place to build open-mindedness.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:33pm):
I agree with Maureen Dowd's assessment from today's NY Times regarding the Ahmadinejad visit: the way we've reacted to his visit has only helped to bolster his domestic standing back home. We didn't just refute him with rational arguments, we treated him with disrespect; the ugliness of America never ceases.
It is absolutely absurd to me that 50% of this country is ready to go to war with a country for no apparent reason.
You'll say the reason is that Iran is supporting Iraqi insurgents...
If they are supplying insurgents with weapons, cut off the supply lines! Jeeze, if this is a real war, how the HELL are supplies coming in FROM IRAN? Way to conduct a war, neo-con morons and hand-tied generals.
It would be safe to say that Saudi Arabia has been meddling as much as Iran. The only difference is that the King of Saudi Arabia sleeps in the White House when he visits.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 1:19pm):
12:33 ...did the way Americans reacted to the American Bund rally in 1939 Madison Square Garden only helped to bolster Herr Hitler's domestic standing back home? America didn't just refute Nazism with rational arguments, we treated the American Bund with disrespect-- the ugliness of FDR's America never ceased!
Was it is absolutely absurd that FDR was ready to go to war with Germany "for no apparent reason"? Afterall, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps you'll say the reason was that Germany was part of the Axis Powers...
If they were supplying Japan with weapons, FDR should have just cut off the supply lines! Jeeze, if WWII was a real war, how the HELL were German supplies getting to Japan? Way to conduct a war, New Deal morons and "greatest generation" generals.
It would be safe to say that Stalin had been fascist as much as Germany. The only difference is that Stalin was greeted as FDR's ally when he visited.
/quod idiocy demonstrandum
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 2:26pm):
12:33 you really need to stand back and look at the BIG picture:
"the way we've reacted to his visit has only helped to bolster his domestic standing back home."
The WHOLE IDEA behind this guys trip was for playback "back home". And by back home I mean the whole Muslim middle east, not just Iran. Less than an hour after his "speech" at columbia, IRNA was playing it on all the official television and radio stations in Iran. (Note that Mahmoud and his pals have closed down nearly all stations and print media that dare to question their government, so only those that are official survive.) And the broadcasts don't include the "homosexual" comments Mahmoud made, or the comments made by Columbias president, or his dodging of all direct questions asked of him. They filtered out the sound behind him and showed a standing ovation from different angles 3 times. Pretty cool. Mahmoud was going to win in any case. If he was treated "badly" he would get sympathy back home. If he was treated like a hero he would be celebrated as a hero. In either case, they would doctor the tape to put it in the best light for the benefit of the folks back home. It was all a publicity stunt. And we got duped into letting him get away with it.
http://eng.irib.ir/
Can you imagine the mileage he could have gotten if he'd have been allowed to go to southern Manhattan in a caravan and visit the WTC area - maybe give a nice speech about the Holocost - protected by the Secret Service, the NYPD and NY State Police. What a show he could have had... back home...
"It is absolutely absurd to me that 50% of this country is ready to go to war with a country for no apparent reason."
Hopefully, this won't happen. But even your buddies the French realize what WILL happen if Iran gets its hands on a nuke. They'll deliver it to Isreal. Mahmoud has said that clearly many times. If that should happen, all bets are off. Isreal will retaliate - the Middle East will blow up. OPEC oil is hovering around $80 per barrel. Let's talk $200 a barrel. Who knows how it will end up, but one thing's for sure. You'll probably have to quit school and try to get a job because daddy will likely lose his. Most of us who work for a living will lose ours also.
"If they are supplying insurgents with weapons, cut off the supply lines! Jeeze, if this is a real war, how the HELL are supplies coming in FROM IRAN?"
That's pretty easy huh. Iraq has a 900 mile border with Iran. Much of it very mountainous. They have about a 500 mile border with Syria. The U.S. has roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq. They do what they can, but there are not enough troops to both fight the insurgents and patrol all the borders with adequate force 24/7. Where there's a will there's a way - weapons will get through. We could send more troops but I don't see that happening.
The Germans had 19 divisions in France in 1944. But the French underground still brought weapons through.
Bottom line is we have an agreement that's part of hosting the United Nations. That is we have to let any head of state in - no matter hour deplorable their ideas are - so they can speak before the UN. There's nothing that says we have to give them a stage in our universities to spew their garbage. It was foolish to let this little baboon speak like an honored guest at Columbia when these same enlightened students attacked the stage when 2 leaders of the Minutemen tried to speak. I guess free speech only goes one way.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 3:06pm):
1:19-- that was the most idiotic piece of reasoning followed by a fake latin snap ever. if you're a philosophy student you should be expelled. not to mention the only reason we supported Stalin, was that we decided to support the weaker of the two and let each other kill the other off.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 3:13pm):
11:29, you started off really good with your list of news sources with The Economist, but went downhill real fast. Al-Jazeera is a propaganda machine for the Arab world in the same way Fox News is for the far right.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 3:32pm):
1:19, I seemed to remember a Congressional Declaration of war for WWII. I'm not even sure if Iraq deserves the title "war."
Apples and oranges, freak.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 3:38pm):
"It would be safe to say that Stalin had been fascist as much as Germany. The only difference is that Stalin was greeted as FDR's ally when he visited."
Umm...yeah, this one is true
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 4:38pm):
"Fox News is for the far right"
Down with "fair and balanced"!
Up with "fake but accurate" and "truthiness"!
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 4:45pm):
He wasn't exactly an "honored" guest -- President Bollinger pretty much called him a douchebag.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:57pm):
wow. i can't believe this got published. of course their are reasons folks at columbia would want to bring him there- beyond the idea of "america is so great we let any idiot share his opinion". you're just so far up bill o'reilly's ass you could gnaw on the meal he shared with sharpton in harlem served to him by such "articulate and calm" black waiters.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:15pm):
11:02, grow up! Do you hear Muslims condemning the attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah? What the Israelis do in retaliation is nothing compared to what Muslim extremists do to others and each other in other countries around the world. Screw you if you're offended!
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 7:43am):
11:19 merely illustrated absurdity by being absurd-- notwithstanding the whining vapidity of 3:06 and 3:32
get a clue, numbnuts
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 7:53am):
3:32 The Iraq War Authorization listed 23 separate casus belli (from violations of the 1991 accords, to genocide, to a US president assassination plot, to sponsoring suicide bombing and harboring terrorists, etc., ad nauseum) which earned overwhelming BIPARTISON Congressional support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
When will you Leftists stop trying to revise history?
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 1:49pm):
hey 11:29...I'm sure you're extremely well-versed in exactly what is going on in Iraq and everything...I mean I'm sure you're an expert on the country. When was the last time you were there on the streets? I just got back from there and I'll tell you something...its a very different place than the view you get on CNN every night (which is the same one you base your expert opinion on)
Your cozy anti-war view that you get on the 6:00 news every day is nowhere near reality. That's what they want you to hear...of the insurgents I actually encountered there, I came across very few Iraqis. Most of them were al-quaeda operatives using Iranian bought arms. Even the markings on the ammunition and the weapons we discovered in weapons caches were written in Pharsee. That should tell you something.
We had insurgents from syria, lebanon, IRAN (alot of em), saudi arabia, the list goes on and on. And to be honest we got a warm ovation most of the time from iraqi civilians...cuz they want these foreign fighters gone.
Let me tell you...the guys over there are definitely "fighting and dying at the hands of this guys cronies". the writer is dead on. Its ridiculous that this guy is speaking here. Its like inviting hitler during the second world war.
The US state department does indeed list Iran as a state sponsor of terror...and I don't know what evidence you're basing ahmadinehjad's hatred for bin laden on, but even if you were right (which I don't think you are), the old proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rings very true here. They have a common enemy in the United States...and one is working on nukes...great stuff. (you really think the Soviets and the US had a nice relationship going into WW2?) for God's sake...Patton wanted to keep going right into Russia at the end of the war.
11:29 your ignorance about this issue is ridiculous...but I forgot that you were such an expert on Iraq and the situation. Maybe you should stop reading the NY Times, watching CNN and all the other liberal news sources, and actually go over there and see for yourself what its really like before you act like an expert on the subject.
Gret article by the way Joe.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
