Ahmadinejad: Why The Right Is Wrong
The man whose name you can't pronounce is landing in New York. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address a select group of Columbia University faculty and students on Monday as part of the school's annual World Leaders Forum.
Reactions to Columbia University's decision to invite him have been mixed, and right in line with expectations. McCain, Giuliani and groups including The Anti-Defamation League have come out swinging against the Columbia-Ahmadinejad coupling, armed with terms like "Holocaust denier," "Persian Hitler" and "state sponsor of terrorism." They also make note of what they see as Columbia's other failings: lack of an ROTC chapter, the decision to let Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist speak last year and Columbia Dean John Coatsworth's recent remark that he would also invite Hitler to speak "if he were willing to engage in debate and a discussion."
Supporters, including Columbia President Lee Bollinger, have for their part expressed concern about the dangers of curtailing free speech. In a prepared statement, Bollinger wrote: "That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here."
Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here's why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad's Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more "evidence" the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime's elimination -- like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad's words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn't afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.
As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O'Neil rightly notes: "If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr."
While all eyes are on Manhattan, precious few are watching what's happening in Washington. On Thursday, Senators Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman filed an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill that would make it official U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. Section 5 calls for the United States to formally designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. If passed, this amendment would open the door even wider for military action against Iran.
Why hasn't this bit of news sparked similar debate?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Free speech does not exclude unpopular, or even inflammatory speech. The difference between oppression and freedom is that not only can anyone state their views, but anyone can reply to them, stating their opposing views.
You cannot eliminate one side of an issue in the practice of what we all recognize as freedom of speech.
If you do, then that freedom does not really exist, but is an illusion.
Let the Iranian state his case. Surely there will be those who are sure enough of their opposing position to put it forward as well.
That is what the freedom that President Bush keeps reminding us that the Middle East does not have and that he is determined to bring to them represents.
What is everyone so afraid of? Are they afraid that Ahmadinejad will have some valid points?
Let him speak, just as anyone in a free country, no matter their viewpoint is allowed to speak.
What is the use in trying to change the way Greed and power works, we the people can’t verify any of the crap the politicians and their media mouthpiece feed us , so I must look behind the mask for answers.
The Repuplic/rebs can use made up Ben Laden tapes, Syrian Nukes tapes concocting stories they need in order to steer the masses in any direction they chose for maximum effect.
The only thing I have to fall back on is Americas past history, Anglo-Saxon Colonial history , who is fighting, who is making money and in whose country.
Are the Syrians leaders debating how to destabilize America ,control its government and it’s economy? Are they fearful of the USA ? Which countries have attacked Syria in the past?
Are the North Koreans leaders debating how to destabilize America , control its government and it’s economy? Are they fearful of the USA ?Which countries have attacked North Korea killing their citizens in their own homes in the past?
How about Iran, do they have flotillas of Battle Ships in American Waters, troops and plains in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Nassau while their leaders rally the rest of the Arab and Muslim world in debating on how to destabilize America’s government, control of its economy, trade and natural resources, and it’s military? Are they fearful of the USA ? Which countries have attacked Iran killing their citizens in their own homes in the past?
Conclusion …..The bush boys is Extremely Machiavellian in their thinking, words, and deeds, however 70% of the American citizenry are dumb to it 10% are awake to it 20% are in league with it. That 20% is largely Anglo Saxon and Jewish
Here is a question for you pea brains……”If American banks and Insurance companies had held the notes and securities on the Buildings and infrastructures of Iraq,Lebanon and Iran , how do you think the war would have affected our Interest rates in the west,and the rich cats dividends.?”
Yes you are right THEIR WOULD BE NO WARS !!!
C ‘est la vie!(That’s life)
"Why hasn't this bit of news sparked similar debate?"
Because the American mainstream media and the government have succeeded in shutting down the debate on the following propositions: 1) Our very existence is threatened by so-called Islamo-fascist terrorists, 2) Iran is the number one Islamo-fascist exporter of terrorism, and 3) Ahmadinejad is its crazed anti-semitic leader.
Any and all mention of Ahmadinejad and Iran is now couched in hysterical indignation. The neocons and Likud supporters have won the propaganda battle.
Ahmadinejad will go on Moveon.org's version of Mount Rushmore
Linking Ahmadinejad with MoveOn.org now? Wow...that's original.
I love reading so many posts referring to him as an idiot or crazy bla bla bla.
It's so funny.
note to people who oppose this visit: grow up. when did americans become so afraid to hear things they don't like or agree with? contrary to contemporary american practice, we are not required to believe everything we hear. first he'll taint our 'sacred ground' with his very presence and then he'll poison us through our very ears! we have attributed this man with the magical powers of a muslim svengali. what are you really afraid of?
Watching the Iranian president on 60 Minutes tonight, I was very impressed. He is intelligent, and very knowledgeable about the US. When asked questions, he answered without hesitation. Has anyone ever seen Bush do that? People should be leery of accepting all that emanates from this White House. They lied about Iraq, now they are beating the drums against Iran. Not a single one of the highjackers from 9/11 were Iranian, so why not let him visit ground zero? Bush has been, and he ignored all the warnings. I doubt that university students ANYWHERE in the world would welcome Bush. He commands no respect. Hopefully the day will come when this country has a leader who is intelligent, well read, and willing to travel to countries that are not too welcoming.
I too was very impressed with Ahmadinejad. That CBS reporter was unnecessarily confrontational, condesending, arrogant and therefore unprofessional. He was so proud of himself for being the tough interviewer who's gonna put it to Ahmdinejad. He ended up getting his butt kicked, the guy was totally in over his head. Someone who speaks
Farsi said they edited out Ahmadinejad saying he wanted dialoge with the United States and not bombs. He would run intellectual circles around
GW so don't look for them chatting anytime soon. That's too bad because I'm afraid it's going to end up costing thousands of lives on both sides. But at least George can save face.
I agree with everything you have noted here. What are the repugs afraid of. No harm will come to the USA if he speaks at Columbia. Maybe they are afraid he will be more intelligent than Bush and we may find out he is not as warmongering as Bush, Cheney, republican senators and Leiberman.
I loved the part where Pelly relayed Bush's message to Ahmadinejad. It sounded to me like the First Fool was describing himself.
" you’ve made terrible choices for your people.
You’ve isolated your nation.
You’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world."
I'm with you Colmore . . . a couple of weeks ago Jon Snow from Channel 4 News UK had an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . . . it was good. Yes, he is a very intelligent, well-informed man . . . unlike the chimp . . . who is a total disgrace . . .
Dialogue is the way forward for world peace . . . I think it is wonderful that Columbia have invited him to speak . . . it is more than time that our fellow Americans started to come out of their rigid shells of bigotry and listened and thought rather than being slaves to the lies coming out of the bush WH and the main stream media.
I heartily agree. Almost everything we hear about Iran and Ahmadinejad comes from the very people who 'misled' us into a war with Iraq. We should be questioning every single thing that they say, and again, we get very little help on this from mainstream media, who continue to parrot the administration with little analysis. My understanding of the oft-repeated phrase "wipe Israel off the map" means that they believe that the establishment of the state of Israel by wiping the state of Palestine off the map was very wrong and should be rectified. I do not think that Iran believes it can be done by nuclear weapons. But perhaps they want nuclear weapons to make sure that the next country wiped off the map will not be Iran.
Hi vote4kucinich . . .when Jon Snow interview Ahmadinejad he asked about Israel . . . the impression I got from Ahmadinedjad was something most of us know . . . if Israel meets all the Palestinians demands . . it will end israel and the zionists want it . . . it will no longer be an apartheid state . . . it will be like South Africa . . . or the Soviet Union . . . that kind of end . . . not war . . .
I wrote to CBS, asked why Bush is not ever questioned in this manner. He smirks, gives evasive answers. I asked if we could trade him for the president of Iran. It would be nice to have an intelligent person in office for a change.
Once again, kids:
Mae West never said, "Come up and see me sometime."
James Cagney never said, "You dirty rat!"
Humphrey Bogart never said, "Play it again, Sam."
and
Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map." That is a terrible mistranslation of his desire to replace the current leaders of Israel.
George W. Bush did, however, say, "The Ring is mine, Sam. I will not give it up."
Some fair and balanced news show should run the Ahmadinejad "60 Minutes" interview(even with it's truncated translation)side by side with bushs' last press conference. Might need a translator for bush, too.
WHO was quoted saying what to who
".......quote-speaking to you..........you’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation you’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world."
uh, could well have been the other so saying to THE OTHERcould well have been a REVERSE...and found LOGICAL to be so said as well.....
(..."As an American citizen tell me what trait do you admire?" the president asked Pelley.
"Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man for example, as you are," Pelley replied.
"What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?" Ahmadinejad asked.
"I take it you can’t think of anything you like about President Bush," Pelley remarked.
"Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman’s private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or determined man," the president said.
"I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me-quote-speaking to you, that you’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation you’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush’s words to you," Pelley said. "....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/60minutes/main3282230_page3.shtml
The Columbia forum is a positive step. Someone please get the answer to the following question: Will the next president of the United States be invited to a similar forum at Iran's most prestigious university?
If the US was interested in doing that they could have tried a little harder. Who is going to invite you to speak if you are constantly threatening to nuke them?
Let us wait to see that come in effect after the 2008 election with, hopefully, Hillary. I would not like to see Mr. Bush engaged in any forum to speak on anything. His language skills are not adequate.
Here's a question that never seems to be asked: does GW "represent" every American? If GW makes some inflammatory speech, does every American say, well I don't agree with him but he's the president so I stand behind him?
So why is it we assign Ahmadinejad the title of universal spokesperson? Iran is a large country with a diverse population. He holds power the same way our president holds power, through cynical xenophobia. Just as we hope GWB will pass, he too shall fade into the woodwork.
BTW - HuffPo blogger Boteach follows the same line of reasoning as the neo-cons here, with the same specious arguments and appeals to emotion. Unfortunately, this works very well in our nation of idiots.
Good Comment! Bush's distortion of the English language definitely does NOT represent ALL Americans, ONLY the Loony RIGHT!
"this works very well in our nation of idiots."
This is the disturbing fact, 28-30% still support this man after wrecking our image around the world and our economy while killing untold millions of innocent people in the Middle East.
John Dean's new book, Broken Government, lays all this out for those of us who can still read. A long time Republican, Mr. Dean berates the silent majority of the Republican Party for not standing up to an authoritarian minority that have sentenced the party to minority status for years. Interesting that he also blames Pelosi for allowing this abortion to continue by rejecting her own party's call to implement impeachment procedings.
Obviously we don't punish the bad behavior of our king as evidenced by Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon. Without a rebuke, is it any wonder that someone with little moral character would try it again ?
H e should be allowed to speak.Bush and Cheney would not be allowed to speak publicly in just about any western country never mind the Middle East,so we should show our principles are not selective.America's ability is only to destroy,we need to discuss issues,even tho the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Ah, sorry. As Commander In Chief of the Western World, our leader can levy troops from any and all allies. Read your history.
Bush is not the "commander in chief of the western world". Damn...such idiocy should be illegal.
"Commander In Chief of the Western World"
- has he just had a promotion?
As Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy and other presidents who actually cared about this country understood, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
NOT COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES.
"our leader can levy troops from any and all allies"
Which you may have noticed are becoming scarcer and scarcer - the coalition of the Billing is shrinking.
Muslims Against Sharia condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the decision of Columbia University to provide a speaking venue for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently letting Akbar Rafsanjani speak at the National Cathedral was not the height of American Dhimmitude, because providing a venue for the world's foremost anti-Semite, whose proclaimed goal is the destruction of the USA and Israel, definitely takes the cake. What is surprising is that we don't hear any complaints from Columbia alumni who should be ashamed of their silence.
More on the subject: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38223
Why Does Columbia host Ahmadinejad?
"whose proclaimed goal is the destruction of the USA and Israel"
what?
who told you that?
Its a false statement - exactly how would Iran destroy America? Or Isreal? A sense of perspective is needed here and you don't have one.
When will this endless stoking of the flames come to an end? Is our entire dialog so skewed toward warmongering that we can't even see the forest anymore? Diplomacy begins with words; War begins with silence. It isn't possible to speak out against silence, but once we have heard what he has to say we can parse it (and dismiss it, and discount it, and ...) for years.
I think it was MAO, a buddy of the left, who said peace came at the end of a gun. I'm not a big fan of the little red book and I've noticed historically how many movements want to kill all of their enemies in the name of peace and the "people". this nut from Iran should not be given a forum. He doesn't get free speech here.
Thanks. Would you post more often? We, in the West, need to have more and different views on the situation in the Middle East and Iran in particular. Most of us are not familiar with either the Quran or Arabic, or other Middle Eastern languages and have to rely on what only two different voices state. Also, is there more backgrouond on Ahmadinejad? Who is he, what are his credentials and life history? Is he a married man? Being prideful to be an Iranian is not bad. Persia has a proud history. And in the past jews and persians got along fine. What is this person's shtick?
There is also the argument to made that by graciously allowing him to view the WTC site, by extending him hospitality, we put a human face on America, making it that much more difficult for him to demonize us, and vice-versa. Maybe this is Iran's Nixon-goes-to-China moment, a chance at a new start. I applaud Dean Coatsworth's decision to invite the controversial world leader.
I have always heard it said that the least popular speech is exactly the speech that needs defending most.
Isn't it strange that the left would rather boycott, ridicule, and attack 'Global Warming Deniers' than this self avowed Holocaust Denier?
It was a stretch to even link the two by borrowing the 'denier' terminology in the first place. But now it's gone so far that the left thinks it's actually worse to deny global warming than to deny this horrible stain on humanity.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA553_GlobalWarming_Intolerance.html
"Mormondude
Isn't it strange that the left would rather boycott, ridicule, and attack 'Global Warming Deniers' than this self avowed Holocaust Denier?
It was a stretch to even link the two by borrowing the 'denier' terminology in the first place. But now it's gone so far that the left thinks it's actually worse to deny global warming than to deny this horrible stain on humanity.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA553_GlobalWarming_Intolerance.html"
This is a fucking ignorant generalization.
Would I go to see "Unpronouceable" just out of curiosity? Yes.
Would I go listen to a global-warming denier just out of idle curiousity? Yes. I would go to either one if they didn't charge admission. I guess I would pay admission to see this camel jockey because he's really historically significant.
Yes.
Would I deny either of them their freedom of speech while in the US? No.
I (and thousands of others) would have had a really hard time with him going to Ground Zero- as in, it would be an incredibly insensitive and boorish thing to do, but the bottom line is that it's things like this that America is about.
I am for universal health care and universal education and I guess that makes me a "leftie". Having you make these ignorant statements about "lefties" or "the left" or whatever, shows about the same level of intelligence and cultural sophistication as "Whats-his-name".
Boycott, attack, ridicule? That's free speech. I would like to boycott and ridicule this statement you just made, but it's too insipid to "attack", and I defend your right to say it.
INVITING AHMADINEJAD DOESN'T MEAN AGREEING WITH HIM....
Besides, I think Ensha is right. Inviting A. to the U.S. is really just playing into the right wing's hands by giving them an easy target. (Hey, a "terrorist followed us home" -- see, we were right.) For this reason, I would rather Columbia HADN'T invited him -- it's really got nothing to do with so-called free speech. It's all the politics of warmongering (about which Columbia sounds incredibly naive, I have to say).
"Isn't it strange that the left would rather boycott, ridicule, and attack 'Global Warming Deniers' than this self avowed Holocaust Denier?"
Ahmadinejad is not a Holocaust denier. Rather he has expressed disapproval of the way the Holocaust is used to justify Israel's land grabs and apartheid regime in occupied Palestine.
Ridiculing 'global warming deniers' is a full time job; maybe if you helped out, we'd have enough energy to also ridicule those that deny the holocaust. No one will ever say or even infer that they agree with the denial of such a terrible and meaningful moment in history; I think this school just wants to hear what the man has to say and come up with their own opinions about it. We still give a certain public official a chance to speak and he can't even form a coherent sentence let alone avoid attacks on sovereign nations, culture, religion, history and science all at once.
Once again like always, mormondude shows how incredibly limited his intelligence level is. To allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come to Amrica and have his say is to show his country what democracy and freedom is all about. it is amazing how little people like mormondude actually believe in what makes America great because he's mentally living in the dark ages and the thought that there are others who yearn for knowledge terrifies him. Many republicans in the early 30's and early 40's thought Hitler was a genius and wanted him to come to America and speak. No matter what you think of any nation in the world, if the United States allows one country to have them but not the neighboring country to have them, then the US needs to guarantee the security of that nation against that neighbor that does have nuclear arms. Tell Israel that we will obliterate them if they use a nuke on Iran and lets see what happens!
The image of Ahmedinejad laying a wreath at Ground Zero would have had a tremendous impact on perceptions in the Middle East. Here is a "state sponsor of terrorism" publicly distancing itself from the most successful act of terrorism since World War II. Here is the president of the country where "Death to America" has been a slogan explicitly mourning the deaths of Americans. Ahmedinejad was offering to distance himself from the crazies, and the New York authorities *wouldn't let him.* Certainly, he may have been insincere. He may have had another agenda of his own. He may have made contradictory statements later. The crazies would undoubtedly come out with a wide range of conspiracy theories (it was a double, not Ahmedinejad really; the Zionists hypnotized him; he's been an Israeli spy all along, etc.). Nevertheless, the image would have had power, like the picture of Nixon in China or Sadat in Israel that those of us old enough to remember carry with us. I think anyone who opposes letting Ahmedinejad do this shows a real lack of concern about 9/11.
From the Dilbert Blog;
Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons.
You know, this may have been so subtle that many readers (particularly the trolls) may not have understood your irony. So I will help them out:
GWB -- THE RAPTURE
Perhaps that will make it more clear.
Well, I do not know what differentiates the coming of the twelfth Imam from the second coming of christ. Would you please explain this to me? Oh, and by the way, we jews are also awaiting the coming of the messiah. Now, how about that? That coupled with the belief, of each religion, that there is only one God, one has to wonder. If A = B = C, and there is only one? And by the way, the three religions have something else in common, namely Torah, also known as the old Testament. If we could all start to abide by the law, as laid forth in one common book, we might all have something in common to agree on for a change.
Lodipete: "From the Dilbert Blog"
Totally brilliant! You made my day!
Ahmadinejad as Twelfth Imam juxtaposed with
the bush as captain of the Rapture!
Spot on! Trying to "out-immature" Iran is self-deeming and hardly helps our world stature.
"Why hasn't this bit of news sparked similar debate?" - it would not be kosher.
Only those who lack insight can believe that other countries care about us putting on a "human face". Are you kidding? They hate us for our liberty. The first thing they would do is put covers on the ladies, stop teaching our female children, get rid of posts like this, have us all going to our local mosque whether we wanted to or not, and getting whipped for our trouble if we had the temerity to question their authority. sound like openminded libertarian people to you? Why should we give him anything?
The rolling-over democrats, or the "giv'em what they want and maybe they will go away and not hurt us" mentalities will get us into a world war yet.
Why wasn't the whole post about the last two paragraphs in your post rather than the redherring of the university versus republican rightwingnuts?
If you, who?
If not now, when?
Hey, why not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxmEGsOkEVc
How about Osama bin Laden? Sure, why not?
How about Kim Jong Il? Of course!
The only question is whether Hussein O'Fonda will attempt to sit down for tea with them during their visits...
Its amazing how ignorant so many Americans are. As if laying wreath would not be a propaganda coup for the US and not Iran. Of course the corporate-owned media and support the idiots that are running.We get the usual choice of tweedledum or tweedledee. God do we need a visionary like Kucinich for president instead of these fools trying to outtough everyone else.
mormondude --
You are soooo 6th grade. And your straw man arguments about OBL and Kim Il Jong are predictably pathetic.
Apparently you, and other Cheney/Bush apologists insist on being the nation's arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Bill of Rights.
If you and your ilk are so threatened by freedom of speech, why don't you move to a place where it doesn't exist? You wouldn't even have to leave the country -- say, Texas, for instance -- you'd love it there. And you could worship your idol, Dubya, with uninterrupted rapture.
Barack's really getting under your skin, isn't he? Good.
What Bush has done fighting the battle on the wrong battlefield,in Iraq, and screwing it up so badly, has given the kumbaya segment of the left a larger voice in their denial of the serious threat of radical Islam and their anti Israel and anti-US Jihad.
Bush in his incompetent tunnel vision on Iraq has let Bin Laden and the Taliban get stronger, and has lost the ability to counter the real threat of Iran. Yes, the people of Iran may not be all anti-US and Israel, but all their leaders including that wacko being allowed to talk at Columbia are. I think mormom dude and I would agree on this, which is amazing that we agree on anything, Ahmendinijhad is an "enemy combatant" and should not be allowed distinguished scholar rights at a Columbia podium. If he could have ordered the hit on 9/11 instead of Osama, he would have.
Nonsense!
YEAH, THE LIEBERMAN AMENDMENT...
Is pretty scary. And if the Dems continue to cave like they've been doing, they'll probably pass it. (And, after all, Lieberman is still a kind of "honarary Dem.")
Why are we all assuming here that a war with Iran hasn't already started. Why do we talk about the right as if they are an entity like the so-called left, let's just call them the gov't, Bush right now is acting no more like a lame duck than Ike did when he authorized Nixon to work with the CIA on the Bay of Pigs in 59. This is the same playbook. The only difference is that Cheney is not running. If the so-called right doesn't retake the White House, they have the fall back plan of instigating agitation through the CIA, ala the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy. That was Nixon and Bebe's baby all along. Right now we are in Iran, supporting groups opposed to the regime, disseminating disinformation and since we have gun boats in the area, it is not a stretch to think there might be seals or special op forces or CIA deep covers inside the border, beyond the usual run-of-the-mill spooks we've always had there. But what Iran is really about is George H.W. Bush's legacy, which he won't be able to control anymore once Dubya is out of office. It is about the Shah, an Intaglio money printing press, the Iranian National Guard, Hezbollah, Syria, and Ollie North. Read your history. It tends to repeat itself. And oh ya, don't forget whom it is written by. Vino, vidi, vici.
Joe Lieberman for President !
Of Israel.
Since the Anti-Defamation League, which is a Jewish organization, sides with the right-wingers, it should be pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, there is a small but stable Jewish community in Iran (about 60,000 people)
They understand the difference between Ahmadinejad's POLITICS (which are despicable) and Iranian government POLICY regarding ethnic/religious minorities.
I think the only reason this administration hasn't attacked Iran yet is that George Bush cannot pronounce AHMADINEJAD. If you've ever noticed, he's rarely, if ever, said his name in public. He'll refer to "the Iraninian Leadership" or the "Iranian President" but never by his full name. I think it is a great strategy for other countries to protect themselves from American imperialist notions. The best method to avoid being attacked by George Bush, is for each nation on earth to find the citizen within their country who has the most unpronounceable name. Because it's a well known fact that you can't attack that which you cannot pronounce.
That was Iraq's problem, other than having a leader who was a convenient Middle Eastern boogie man (which if not for Bush's notorious phonetic difficulties, Ahmadinejad would easily assume Saddam's old role), the name "Saddam Hussein" was far too easy for Bush to articulate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
