Lee Bollinger rips Ahmadinejad a new one.

[RandFan]

I did look and didn't see this specific item posted. Feel free to delete or merge if appropriate.

Bollinger's assessment came as he introduced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an audience of students and faculty.

As he read a long list of documented actions and remarks by the firebrand Iranian leader and his government, the crowd of 600 applauded.
Ahmadinejad was at the university to give a speech and take part in a question-and-answer session.

During the introduction, Bollinger cited the Iranian government's "brutal crackdown" on dissidents, public executions, executions of minors and other actions.

"For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda," he said. He called the Iranian leader "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."


assailed Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust as "ridiculous."

Video.

Is there a full transcript? I can't find it. BTW, some liberals (maybe more) are apoplectic. Why? It's ok to rip on Bush but not ok to rip on Ahmadinejad.

My favorite quote of the day was from a caller on the radio. "If we can't speak the truth about petty tyrants then who can we speak the truth of?"

 

[JoeEllison]

I did look and didn't see this specific item posted. Feel free to delete or merge if appropriate.

Is there a full transcript? I can't find it. BTW, some liberals (maybe more) are apoplectic. Why? It's ok to rip on Bush but not ok to rip on Ahmadinejad.

My favorite quote of the day was from a caller on the radio. "If we can't speak the truth about petty tyrants then who can we speak the truth of?"

I don't think you're being accurate about "liberals". I'm pretty sure that most people would object to someone calling anyone an idiot before they speak in this sort of setting. It is OK to rip BOTH men... I don't think that you do that in that exact context. Bollinger was acting as a representative of the school, introducing a guest of the school. In that context, as much as he might feel about anyone, as right as he might be, and even as much as I might want to see someone do that to Bush, it was inappropriate for him to do that at that time and place.

 

[JoeEllison]

And, wait a second... are you saying that you would approve of that sort of treatment of Bush? Or were you just creating your very own strawman?

Did you buy it a hat?

 

[RandFan]

And, wait a second... are you saying that you would approve of that sort of treatment of Bush? Or were you just creating your very own strawman?

Did you buy it a hat?

I'm trying to find it a flannel shirt. Fair cop.

There are liberals who are upset with Bollinger's remarks. Should we assume that those liberals don't think it is ok to treat Bush similarly?

 

[Gurdur]

...There are liberals who are upset with Bollinger's remarks.

Who, exactly?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think you're being accurate about "liberals". I'm pretty sure that most people would object to someone calling anyone an idiot before they speak in this sort of setting. It is OK to rip BOTH men... I don't think that you do that in that exact context. Bollinger was acting as a representative of the school, introducing a guest of the school. In that context, as much as he might feel about anyone, as right as he might be, and even as much as I might want to see someone do that to Bush, it was inappropriate for him to do that at that time and place.

You are consistent so I'll give you that and I think you have a point. I'm not sure if at the moment I agree. I was thinking of a debate that some of us had here on this forum a few days to a week ago where a number of people felt that it was wrong for anyone to treat Bush, a man who had sent soldiers into harms way based on lies with any respect.

I'm talking about those kinds of sentiments.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm trying to find it a flannel shirt. Fair cop.

There are liberals who are upset with Bollinger's remarks. Should we assume that those liberals don't think it is ok to treat Bush similarly?

I don't know that you can assume anything about "liberals"... first, it assumes a level of "group think" that simply doesn't exist. "Herding cats" comes to mind.

I can tell you that I'm mild to middling liberal, and I object to a university president using the introductory time to insult and attack a guest of the university, whoever it is. Of course, your comment also suggests that "liberals" somehow support or side with "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", which is a whole other strawman, don't you think?

 

[RandFan]

Who, exactly?

Most of the comments I heard were on talk radio today. I don't remember everyone of the sound bites.

This is from someone named Thomas C at Daily Kos, it was quick and dirty. Sorry if Thomas C is a nobody. I'll try and find someone else.

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered all of us as Americans. [snip] Bollinger’s behavior was inappropriate. It presented to the world the face of an ugly and bullying America. I am utterly humiliated that Bollinger should have behaved this way.​

 

[RandFan]

I don't know that you can assume anything about "liberals"...

I heard "some liberals" express some views today. I didn't hear any conservatives express those views. Purely anecdotal I grant you. However I did say: "some liberals" I was very careful not to paint with a broad brush.

Of course, your comment also suggests that "liberals" somehow support or side with "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", which is a whole other strawman, don't you think?

I don't think it does suggest that but I'm happy to make myself clear. No, I don't believe that.

BTW, thought I don't at all see myself as a "liberal" the word isn't pejorative to me. Liberals have a proud tradion that gave us civil rights, womens rights, improved work place conditions, etc.. I think it sad and downright wrong that the word has taken on any negative connotations.

 

[JoeEllison]

You are consistent so I'll give you that and I think you have a point. I'm not sure if at the moment I agree. I was thinking of a debate that some of us had here on this forum a few days to a week ago where a number of people felt that it was wrong for anyone to treat Bush, a man who had sent soldiers into harms way based on lies with any respect.

I'm talking about those kinds of sentiments.

There's a huge difference between personal sentiment and acting in a professional capacity. Like I said, in that context, a minimum level of neutrality seems to me to be a requirement. If the university president wanted to make negative comments about Ahmadinejad or Bush or anyone else, he could have released a statement at some later date. The MOST he should have said at that moment would be some sort of disclaimer about the school not endorsing the viewpoints of their guest... and that's it.

 

[JoeEllison]

I heard "some liberals" express some views today. I didn't hear any conservatives express those views. Purely anecdotal I grant you. However I did say: "some liberals" I was very careful not to paint with a broad brush.

I don't think it does suggest that but I'm happy to make myself clear. No, I don't believe that.

BTW, thought I don't at all see myself as a "liberal" the word isn't pejorative to me. Liberals have a proud tradion that gave us civil rights, womens rights, improved work place conditions, etc.. I think it sad and downright wrong that the word has taken on any negative connotations.

Thanks for the clarification.

I can tell you that "conservatives" in the media have a ridiculous double standard. They are the same folks blasting MoveOn for "rude comments", and I've little doubt that they'll be around shortly to blast "liberals" for objecting to "rude comments".

This should be fun.

 

[JoeEllison]

Most of the comments I heard were on talk radio today. I don't remember everyone of the sound bites.

This is from someone named Thomas C at Daily Kos, it was quick and dirty. Sorry if Thomas C is a nobody. I'll try and find someone else.

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered all of us as Americans. [snip] Bollinger’s behavior was inappropriate. It presented to the world the face of an ugly and bullying America. I am utterly humiliated that Bollinger should have behaved this way.​

Why is it that when "liberals" say something that people object to, it is random semi-unknown bloggers, while the "conservatives" who say much worse things are on television and have book deals?

And, if you'll look at the objection, it was very clearly not a defense of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but an objection to the rude comments to an invited guest. I think it makes Columbia look kind of stupid, and will play badly in the press for America.

Call me biased, but I hold America to a higher standard, because I think we can do better.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Is there a full transcript? I can't find it.

Me too.
Just found, after a 30 minute search, some excerpts in video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVRc7SzCzIE&NR=1

 

[RandFan]

There's a huge difference between personal sentiment and acting in a professional capacity.

I'm not making myself clear. There are people who feel that Bush should never recieve any respect ever. Not from anyone and not in any context.

Like I said, in that context, a minimum level of neutrality seems to me to be a requirement. If the university president wanted to make negative comments about Ahmadinejad or Bush or anyone else, he could have released a statement at some later date. The MOST he should have said at that moment would be some sort of disclaimer about the school not endorsing the viewpoints of their guest... and that's it.

I understand your point. It's a good one. I remember when this woman was introducing Rush Limbaugh for an award once and she took the time to berate him on his boorish behavior and sexist attitudes. I thought her comments might be inappropriate even if Rush was a loudmouth boor. Assuming that you would, it's nice to know that you would have come to the defense of Rush even if he is a sexist boor. I would think your consistency admirable. Then again, Rush Limbaugh doesn't lead a regime that locks up dissidents, kills homosexuals and arrests women for showing too much of their face. So, I've got to think on that.

I sure as hell agree with what Bollinger had to say. I'm glad that it made headlines. I don't think a lot of people understand the issues.

 

[RandFan]

I can tell you that "conservatives"...

I'm curious, are conservatives monolithic?

 

[RandFan]

Me too.
Just found, after a 30 minute search, some excerpts in video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVRc7SzCzIE&NR=1

30 minutes? Wow, thanks.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm curious, are conservatives monolithic?

Nice edit... care to try again?

 

[Thunder]

I think Ahmedinajad is a jerk, but I dont think its right to invite someone to speak and then insult him as an introduction.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html <- a transcripts here, too

It seems to be complete.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't think a lot of people understand the issues.

I'd LOVE for you to explain how his comments cleared up the issues for anyone. I'm pretty sure just about everyone understands the general idea that Iran is a kind of crappy place to live, comparatively, and that the people in charge are to blame. Saying the equivalent of "that guy's an idiot" doesn't really add to anyone's knowledge, does it?