Columbia University president Lee Bollinger blasted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while introducing him yesterday.
“I am only a professor, who is often a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express their revulsion of what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”
It’s easy to get distracted by all the heated rhetoric coming out of Dick Cheney’s shop and forget just how offensive it is to have the president of a country actively question the impact and magnitude of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad behaves like a loon, and that should not be lost in the effort to avert a potentially catastrophic war between our two countries.
While Ahmadinejad’s remarks were met with a mix of applause and boos from the audience, he provoked outright laughter when answering a question about repression against homosexuals in Iran. “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country,” he said. “We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.”
It should be obvious to everyone that this is an inaccurate statement, but if you need proof:
In 1969 I still thought I was straight… although I was starting to get the… idea that I might not be. I went to Europe for the summer with my girlfriend and when she went back to the U.S. in September to finish her senior year, I headed out in my VW van for India and parts unknown. In Tehran I had met an Iranian guy and had my first sexual encounter with a stranger. I have no idea how he’s been since the Revolution– we never developed any kind of a bond beyond that 20-30 minute encounter in downtown Tehran (in my van)– but I think he’d be shocked to have heard what Iran’s crazy president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said at Columbia today about how there are no homosexuals in Iran.
I don’t know that it is fair to say that Ahmadinejad ‘exhibits all the signs of cruel and petty dictator’. On the surface, it would be more accurate to say that he exhibits all the signs of an idiot. But he is no idiot:
In 1976, he took Iran’s national university entrance exams (konkoor) to gain admission into Iran’s top universities. His test score ranked him 132nd among over 400,000 participants that year,[19] landing him at the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST) as an undergraduate student of civil engineering.
After the Iranian Revolution, he entered the Master of Science program for civil engineering in 1984. In 1989, he became a member of the Science faculty at the university where he had studied.[20] In 1997, he received his Ph.D. in transportation engineering and planning from the Science and Technology University.
This is not a man that is blinded by faith and unacquainted with scientific method. He knows that the Holocaust happened and he knows there are homosexuals in his country. Calling him a dictator eliminates the possible explanation for his bizarre exclamations. His strange behavior is explained by the simple fact that he is not a dictator, but a politician.
Ahmadinejad became the 6th President of Iran on August 6, 2005, after winning 62% of the vote in the run-off poll, nearly twice that of ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejad’s current term will end in August 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in office in 2009 presidential elections. [37] He received the presidential authorization from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on August 3, 2005
And politicians craft their rhetoric to appeal to certain constituencies.
Ahmadinejad generally sent mixed signals about his plans for his presidency, which some US-based analysts considered to have been designed to attract both religious conservatives and the lower economic classes.[31] His campaign motto was, “It’s possible and we can do it.” (یشود و میتوانیم).
In his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad took a populist approach, with emphasis on his own modest life, and compared himself with Mohammad Ali Rajai, the second president of Iran. Ahmadinejad said he had plans to create an “exemplary government for the people of the world” in Iran. He is a self-described “principlist”; that is, acting politically based on Islamic and revolutionary principles. One of his goals has been “putting the petroleum income on people’s tables”, referring to Iran’s oil profits being distributed among the poor.
And he has cultivated a populist image.
Even after being elected President, Ahmadinejad continued living in a simple apartment flat and eating meals brought from home, in his office. Both of these traits contributed to his widespread support amongst the poorer classes of Iran.
Rather than call him a dictator, we should call him a demogogue. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he doesn’t control the Iranian intelligence agencies. His term is limited, and to remain in office he must win reelection in 2009. And, while we should expect the field of competitors for the presidency to be limited by the Council of Guardians, we should also expect that the approved candidates will have a real shot at beating Ahmadinejad at the polls. Iran is not a dictatorship. It is a democratic country where there are varying degrees, at different times, of top down control over acceptable debate and policy.
While it is inaccurate to call Ahmadinejad a dictator, it is not inaccurate to say that he often says crazy things. He has claimed that a 16-year old girl created nuclear energy in her home and that a special aura surrounded him during a speech at the UN and kept world leaders enrapt. This proclivity for nuttiness led former CIA officer Bob Baer to say, “”If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles — you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts and there’s no reason to back off.”
There are at least two problems with Baer’s analysis. First, it’s possible that Ahmadinejad is ‘nuts’ but it is more likely that he is pandering to his largely uneducated and religiously conservative base. But even if he is nuts, he is only one guy…not ‘these guys’. And, second, he is not commander-in-chief and he cannot order an attack on Tel Aviv.
As for whether Columbia, or other American institutions, should let him speak…it’s pretty obvious (from his remarks about homosexuality, for example) that he will do more to discredit himself and his government if he is allowed to speak than if he is not. Refusing to let him speak gives him the moral high ground.
Lee Bollinger’s remarks may have been a little over the top…a little inaccurate. But his sentiment is largely on the mark. Iran’s human rights record has deteriorated under Ahmadinejad’s rule.
According to Human Rights Watch, “[r]espect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement.”
There’s no question that Bollinger was justified in calling Ahmadinejad ‘cruel’ or in saying that there is ‘revulsion’ for what he stands for.
It is proper and salutary for us to have an open debate about Iran and U.S.-Iranian relations. But we should be clear about one thing. There are no good reasons for our two nations to go to war.
“There are no good reasons for our two nations to go to war.”
No one can disagree with this proposition, nor Booman’s take on the Iranian president. He is obviously not in charge as one would expect in a theocracy, i.e., heading a democracy contrained by religious edicts, which is not a democracy at all.
Given all of Ahmadinejad’s hypocrisy, one thing obviously missed in his pronouncements was the singular word that defined Iran’s enmity toward Israel: the “Palestinians.” I think he actually said the “Palestinian issue,” but it meant the same thing. It was an isolated comment and no news agency picked up on it. Then we saw Livni come on with a torrent of criticism concerning Iran, but she was careful not to mention the reason for the Iran-Israel tension. Right now, as an old Likud advocate, she is taking Rice on another round of circularity about peace through the establishment of a Palestinian state. At least Olmert was honest when he said, “maybe in five years.” What he really meant was “never.”
I gather that it is pile on Ahmadinejad time in America–or, as we referred to the game growing up, it’s time to “Smear the Queer”.
That’s all well and good to point out that Ahmadinejad is illiberal, a demagogue, and hostile towards Israel and gay people. But why single Ahmadinejad out from all the other middle eastern politicians? Are we going to subject every middle eastern politician to the same hostile and rude treatment when he visits our country? Will we collectively mock and jeer the next Saudi prince that visits?
Mocking Ahmadinejad serves only one purpose–it distracts the American people from the real dispute between our countries. Notice that our media has barely addressed Ahmadinejad’s underlying argument, that Iran has the right to pursue nulcear energy and is doing so peacefully. That may not be true but we should at least listen honestly to Iran’s arguments–even if it does come from the typical illiberal middle eastern politician.
To me, Ahmadinejad looks like a clever but insane demagogue. Nuttiness and politics are hardly exclusive. And yet I look down the list of charges against him and fail to find any substantive difference between him and Bush.
I am truly disappointed (again) in this nation that we cannot treat a foreign head of state who is a guest in our country with a modicum of respect. Ahmadinejad is certainly given to ridiculous statements and political posturing (we should recognize those traits in our own leader), and Iran’s record on human rights is far from positive (we should recognize that is true of the United States as well), but he can and should be treated with the respect due his office.
I wonder what kind of reception GWB would receive at Teheran University. Probably much better than this.
Presumably, he is no more an idiot than Ahmadinejad. Then why does he make the ridiculous statement that Ahmadinejad is a dictator? Everybody knows that they have elections in Iran now.
What is Prof. Bollinger’s excuse for making absurd and embarrassing statements? He is not a politician.
There is another story here, people are ignoring, and that is that the liberals of Iraq, do often embrace neoliberal economics. This is why the poor vote of Amadineijad. He is a union buster by the way, but he does pay lipservice to the poor, unlike the socalled liberals of Iran. Anyway, until middle eastern liberals unteather themselves from neocon/neoliberal American economics, they will not get anywhere.
sorry Iran. I hit enter when I meant to hit preview.
Bush, the Bomb and Iran
To bomb or not to bomb Iran, that’s the question the Bush Administration appears to be debating these days, once again revealing the extraordinary disconnect between the White House and the American people. With a catastrophic occupation of Iraq and polls showing the American public so skeptical about the use of military force that only eight percent support military action against Iran, there is nevertheless a clear and present danger that Cheney and the neocons will again prevail and lead this Administration into another disastrous military misadventure.
The parallels between now and the run-up to the Iraq War are troubling. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the Bush administration in 2003 about the lack of a nuclear program in Iraq and was subsequently attacked for his position by the Bush machine, the neocons and by many in the mainstream media, has now struck a deal with Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program within a defined timeline and improve access for inspectors. ElBaradei has called for a “double time-out” of all enrichment activities and new sanctions.
The result of ElBaradei’s attempt to shed light on Iran’s nuclear program? More attacks by the Bush administration.
Read on here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=236043
Well at least the Ahmadinejad hysteria on parade knocked OJ out of the news.
So the MSM are being good little propaganda purveyors and doing their usual breathless reporting on the big bad ‘dictator’ and his ‘regime’.
I see also that Congress got in the act today and the House voted almost unanimously to denounce Ahmadinejad..good show boys and girls. I see you’re real busy doing the people’s work today aren’t you. Are you going to denounce any other countries for their human rights violations, ones that are our allies..no didn’t think so.
Hillary released a tough statement against him and repeated the same old bullshit about him saying he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, that they are pursuing nuclear weapons..yada yada yada..stupid witch. I’ve said it before that we don’t need to put words in his mouth, he can say enough loony stuff on his own without our help. Then again loony and evil are two different things aren’t they. Loony makes him into a buffoon only and not the second coming of Hitler and the Great Satan rolled into one.
This ignorant insanity concerning Iran is not only stupid it’s dangerous. Today is one of those days where I just want to puke preferably all over our stupid politicians and the bought and paid for MSM.
And of course had Menachem Begin or Sharon or Rabin come to Columbia, Bollinger would similarly attack them for being personally responsible for terrorist attacks (Begin) for carrying out massacres (Sharon) or for instituting a policy of “bone crushing” of Palestinian children (Rabin)
Right? Right?
…and in the meantime, no one noticed what ELSE ahmadinejad stated:
1- THat he doesn’t deny the Holocaust, but wants to know why the Palestinians should suffer for it
2- That Iran doesn’t seek nor want nuclear weapons.