Of course there is no way to ever definitively prove this but we couldn’t help but feel that a particular set of people in this country were pretty tickled that Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was going to be speaking at both Columbia U. and in front of the U.N. General Assembly. Afterall, he hates Bush… they hate Bush. He hates the Western ideals of freedom and liberty… they (secretly) hate the Western ideals of freedom and liberty, etc., etc.
Its reminiscent of the free pass that Communism got back in the 20s and 30s in this country from the very same socio-economic set because it offered an alternate path to the wage-enslavement of capitalism. That, and it wasn’t Nazi fascism. Yes, there was a time when being against anti-Semitism was quite fashionable.
Its reminiscent of the free pass that Communism got back in the 20s and 30s in this country from the very same socio-economic set because it offered an alternate path to the wage-enslavement of capitalism. That, and it wasn’t Nazi fascism. Yes, there was a time when being against anti-Semitism was quite fashionable.
Anyway, his talk at the U. was pro-forma for dictators (transcript can be read here) wanting to leverage audience dissatisfaction here with the current elected leadership… lots of make-nice relativism, veiled swipes at U.S. foreign policy over the years and “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” pap…. generally the stuff that sends Sandalista hearts aflutter. And by all accounts, things were going along swimmingly until the Q & A session after his speech.
He talked around the issues of denying the Holocaust and of wanting to destroy Israel but he veered wildly off-course when he was confronted about Iran’s treatment of homosexuals... and no, this "treatment" is not a medical reference, per se, but rather "treatment" of homosexuals that has terminal medical consequences:
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
(sound of record needle skidding across vinyl…….. woooopsy-daisy…)
We especially liked the transformation of audience reaction once they realized this guy wasn’t making a joke…. when they realized fully the implications of “We don’t have that in our county.”
It had to happen, though, right? Really, was there any doubt?
After performing admirably to that point in his little try-out to be Bush’s chief 3rd world foil, he stepped right in it. In this case, it wasn’t with respect to the Jews but rather homosexuals. Nice try, Mahmoud. Damn, you were right there, buddy.
“Is Hugo ready for his close-up?”
Posts
4 comments:
Ok, you’ve got your silly poll. This is question of, “have you stopped beating your wife?” Of course it’s wrong to give this tyrant the bloody pulpit, it provides him with a propaganda tool. Yet, at the same time, the liberals that wish to use him for their own agenda, (Bush bashing) get to see how enlightened he is. So how do I answer such a silly poll? Have you heard the press reports from his country spinning his “second coming” and how he was ambushed?
Every poll is spun, by the mere semantics of the question. Here is the question with Kent spin; Was it worth it, to give our enemy opportunity for propaganda, in order to enlighten those who do not fear him? Yes or No?
Kent
If your original stance was to deny this loser the platform from which to express his views, then please respond accordingly in the poll. Rest assured, we will "spin" the results accordingly in a future post.
Because I put one stance subsequent to another, didn't give it more merit. Frankly, the outrage caused a more desirable outcome than I expected, possibly giving it more weight. So in hindsight, I would say give him his bloody pulpit.
Had the university president not been pressured into a more critical line of questioning, the outcome, therefore my opinion may have been different.
So now that I know the outcome of having the buffoon exposed, and watched a leader of a liberal bastion twist in the wind of public opinion, I guess that I am greatful he was allowed to speak, despite any objections I had the prior day.
On Sept. 24 my answer would have been no, the freedom of speech should not be confused with the right to be heard. On Sept 26, after bufoonery exposed my answer is yes.
So with the wisdom of hindsight, I will respond to the poll.
Kent
I found that after I voted, there was option C, to change my vote. I would be interested to see how many voters would have changed there vote if the poll was presented the day before.
Post a Comment