Looking at the hysteria caused by the visit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to New York and Columbia University, I would like to dare George Bush to reciprocate the visit. And I would like to dare the Iranians to let him. It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad actually says. What matters is that he is entering the territory of a president who has openly vowed to put him out of business, and has dared to speak, indeed, has dared to give what appears to be his honest opinions. And he has been confronted by protesters and by irate news commentators (such as Scott Pelley). Would Bush allow the same sorts of confrontations? I doubt it. He doesn't even allow himself to confronted by Americans who disagree with him.
One thing the right wing hates in the U.S. is the humanizing of someone they have tried to dehumanize. That's why they have so objected to the Iranian president's visit. But, hey. He's human. I defy you to prove to me otherwise. Now I would like George W. Bush to prove the same thing.
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
Bush is a COWARD of the first order. The white south can keep him and the entire Bush family of oil corruption.
In the Movie, Liar, Liar, a lawyer has to tell the truth. I would like to see a similar movie where the President of the United States is suddenly forced to tell the truth.
Bush would be saying that Saddam had NO connection to 9-11, the war in Iraq is all about oil, Saddam had not WMD, climate change is beyond dispute, he has more doubts about his faith than Mother Teresa, he is still drinking, he couldn't care less about victims of Katrina, the GWOT is a money-maker for his friends, Petraeus is his "toy soldier" for the politics of prolonging the war, and that Karl Rove was used to divide the American voters so that his buddies could fleece the country like a Banana Republic.
Jim Carey could pull it off.
Subplots would be about other politicians such as Larry Craig, "I am not (openly) gay!" Lynne Cheney, "We DO torture." Alberto Gonzalez, "I couldn't care less about those kids." Condi Rice, "What the hell, are you nuts? - there's no mushroom cloud or a smoking gun. What have you been smoking?"
Ahmadinejad should admit that there WAS a Holocaust.
That's a film I'd like to see. What I actually hear from these people is just one big lie after another lie.
Lee Bollinger, President of a prestigious university, to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." Apparently a prestigious university head is not immune to projection and transference.
Perhaps it was bold of you to allow an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to speak. Perhaps you simply allowed President Ahmadinejad to visit so you could show publicly your ignorance and cowardliness. Mr. Bollinger you should be ashamed of yourself for embarrassing Columbia University. Your remarks were uncalled for, "modern American" governmental political correctness. It seems that you are a corporate hack or government lackey. Perhaps you are both. Oh, that's right. You were just playing to your base, Columbia's donors and the owners of Columbia's endowment. So coward is the correct word. Another spineless non-entity in an important position.
I would suggest you consider resigning and accepting a sunset job with the Bush administration. Or possibly "60 Minutes". You and Mr. Pelley should have no problem seeing eye-to-eye. Whatever you decide, the important thing is that you now go away.
--
I saw a lot of HATE oozing out of the woodwork. Well, no, not out of the woodwork,but from the mouth of some people who showed their bias by misquoting Ahmedinejad and giving him bad descriptions, etc.
I also saw a calm gentleman shrug off that immature behavior and speak plainly and intelligently about serious matters of truth and justice.
Now I see a lot of people who either didn't listen or don't care for the truth anyway, still giving out lies.
Oh, he made a funny, saying that Iran didn't have homosexuals. (He might have said the same about our army once!) aand those idiots and worse who want his country bombed (and could find nothing else to latch onto) have used it as proof of his evil.
Now I ask those of you with brains to put them in gear and think: which of these seems more sane, more rational, more moral, more intelligent and more civilized?
And Bush woulden't be able to answer my questions, such as "What did you do in the military?" "How did you like using hard drugs?" "Are you really on the wagon?" "Why did you lie about WMDs in Iraq? Why did you lie about who forced the inspectors out? What do you think about Plamegate?" "Why were you so eager to make war? And why in Hell are you repeating that same despicable pattern now?"
I could ask impolite questions but why bother; those about facts are too tough for Bush.
When Bush was interviewed for TV, he came across as uneducated, uninformed and not an intellectual. He smirked while talking about serious subjects. Watching Iran's president, he came across as intellectual, intelligent, and informed. Everything Bush lacks, this man has. Wish we had a smart man as president. WE DO NOT. He is more of a figurehead than a president, an embarrassment both when he appears here, or on the few occasions overseas. He has a low I.Q., and it shows. The college president was a moron to greet a foreign dignitary with all those insults. Even as below par Bush is, Americans would be appalled if someone overseas invited him, then told him what a moron he is. Mostly it would be because we know it, just do not want to be reminded of it, since it reflects on the American voter.
The great Martin Buber has asked:
How do we manage to conceal these "truths" from ourselves? How do we accomplish the extraordinary feat whereby, we play...
"the uncanny game of hide-and-seek in the obscurity of the soul, in which it, the single human soul, evades itself, avoids itself, hides from itself."
Psychiatrist Scott Peck examines Buber's theories in his book, "People of the Lie." Peck examines why the U>S atrocities in Vietnam were so common place.
Peck's book, "The Road Less Traveled," was the first bestseller by a psychiatrist. "People of the Lie" advanced the hypothesis that narcissism allows soldiers to collectively follow orders or commit atrocities on their own initiative by dehumanizing the "enemy."
Evil comes in all packages - even behind the waiving flag and the Bible.
The My Lai incident in Vietnam was a frequent occurrence, as are the atrocities by Blackwater and at Abu Graib. Unfortunately, the collective hysteria of the war drums, the narcissism of those who feel God ordained the killing of evil people, and the failure to have empathy militate in favor of mass extermination of other human beings.
There was an attack on the complicity of religious leaders who underwrite these killings during wars in Dr. Peck's book. Billy Graham never saw a war that he didn't support, says Newsweek recently.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
--- Pogo
The term "shadow" was first used by the renowned psychologist Carl Jung to describe the repressed or denied parts of the Self:
"The shadow is the negative side of the personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide, together with the insufficiently developed functions and the contents of the personal unconscious...."
It is tempting to equate the obscurity and "darkness" of the shadow realms with evil itself. However, Jung was quite clear that this would be an error. Human evil, as he defined it, is actually a result of a "failure to meet the shadow." Said another way, what most characterizes people who have "stepped over the line" is not a lack of conscience,but rather an absolute refusal to tolerate what their inner awareness reveals.
In Lifting the Veil: the Feminine Face of Science, Linda Shepherd writes:
"The power of the collective mind reinforces our most cherished ideas and opinions¦It requires a tremendous effort of consciousness to question dogmas of orthodoxy and the behavior of authorities who have a strong sense of entitlement. Projecting our shadow onto others can justify the most extreme atrocities.
"In order to thwart the Devil¦the Church tortured herbalists, midwives, and wise women suspected of witchcraft until they confessed their crimes and denounced their 'accomplices.' Over 100,000 people were put to death in Europe [under these circumstances]; 83 percent of them were women."
Elements of the shadow that we do not accept tend to function behind our back, leaking out when we least expect it. And, as, Shepard also notes:
"If we have not sufficiently integrated a part of our personal shadow, the collective shadow [is able to sneak] in through this backdoor."
Bush wouldn't?
In what way doesnt he answer questions? He has participated in numerous debates, interviews, etc, many of them hostile. Furthermore why in the hell would any US president lower himself to a Q&A at the university of a pathetic despotic and barbaric country like Iran?
Ms Smiley, I would reccomend you lay off the kool aid jut a bit, it seems to be severely impairing your thinking.
Always amused: My own impression is that I remember no presidency in which the president answered so few questions. I dont think the question is about speaking in Tehran, the question is would he even answer open questions from students at an american university ? He could of course prove you right. Will he?
Thanks, Ms Smiley, for giving voice to something that occurred to me as well. Whatever else could be said about him, Ahmadinejad had the cojones to face what he knew would be an extremely hostile crowd; Dubya hides behind uniformed military audiences and preselected venues, never mind a Q & A in a foreign country, for Chrissake!
Great blog Jane . . . I would also like to see the cravenly cowardly lying chimp go to Iran . .. I President Ahmadinejad was brave and congratulate him.
I don't understand the protesters at all . . . I guess they just have to keep hiding behind hate rhetoric and bigotry . . . America's greatest enemy is the bush administration and all its supporters and Israel . . . Iran isn't a threat . . .
Bush could never survive such a frank exchange. He is too stupid to respond, would get angry and even looser in his associations and eventually have a meltdown. Ahmadinejad at least stayed focused at Columbia. He may have been lying through his teeth but he didn't go into incoherent rage. Bush can barely handle English when he's at the top of his form. Could you imagine what he would be like agitated. Sheesh.
Well one thing for sure, the President of Tehran university WILL NOT insult Bush. Those guys have culture and dignity..
Culture and dignity - yes. The honor killings and stonings do a pretty good job of keeping things orderly and homosexual-free over there.
Man oh man, you guys are relentless in your support for all things Iran and all things terrorism. Wow, just wow.
They have culture because they are FORCED to have culture, they have no choice in the matter. For you to believe that it is just a country full of laughter and roses is so naive I don't even know where to start.
Why don't you ask Iranian women, homosexuals, etc about Iranian culture and dignity. I guarantee they have different views.
Liberals are laughable!
They are forced to have culture!!!! i thought that that particular culture had been developing over centuries and were a rival to Alexander's culture long ago. You must believe the Iranians would like to become barbarians as soon as this repressive culture is removed.
Less relentless by far than your blind support of all things Bush it seems.
Who is claiming support of all things Iranian and all things terrorism? You're making it up to create an intellecturally dishonest abstraction.
Tens of thousands of Iranians may be killed and maimed by the Bush/Cheney policy of pre-emptive war. To shut down discussion, to not see Iranians as multidimensional human beings with grievances, beliefs, hopes, and families is to prepare them for a propaganda-driven slaughter.
What country is most likely to be attacked in the next year? Maybe it will be necessary and just, but let's know what we're doing, and not be collective dumb-asses who absract everything to evil-doers.
ahmad....was faced w/ a blistering prepared critique, which had passed through many interested fingers, while he showed up almost unarmed. I have no use for the guy, but we already know he was not going to be warmly rec'd.
I don't recall Sharon receiving a harsh reception despite the blood on his hands.
"Would Bush allow the same sorts of confrontations?" Of course. He puts himself out in front of the White House Press Corps. You can't get any more hostile than that.
So true, no one hates Bush more than the liberally biased media...especially David Gregory. He absolutely despises Bush and he uses his pompous attitude to slam Bush with every question.
Look, liberals are blinded by HATE for Bush and it absolutely has hindered them from thinking clearly. Putting Mahmoud at a higher level than Bush is just plain rediculous.
Blinded by the hate - it's sad, it reduces partisans on all sides to idiocy. Dems hate BUSH so much the elevate mass murderers... Righties hate Clinton so much they lose sanity. Both groups are idiots for this behavior, regardless of particular issues.
you're wrong. hatred of bush and hatred of clinton are not a fifty/fifty deal. bush truly has ruined america, while clinton was an honorable man who was occaisonally naughty - personally. infidelity of spouse, is not being the great infidel who murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and ran up a debt that will equal more than a trillion dollars, in a misguided effort in the middle east (the cost of pull out and medical treatment for life for all those injured will be more than a trillion dollars - not to mention the true death count of innocent iraqis - plus american dead and wounded).
a great republican lie is "you say, i say." this is not the case. if i said it's day right now, and you said it's night - it's not a fifty/fifty argument. maybe at dusk or dawn we could parse. but truly, the american debate between republicans and democrats is skewed: the truth has a liberal biase.
Ms. Smiley every place the POTUS goes he is meet with protesters.
One could argue that his speech today at the UN will not be to a freindly crowd.
Unless of course the huffsters are over stating how much the rest of the world hates Bush.
The key word here is "met." Free speech can be extinquished by decorum or staging it so that the Office must be respected. Bush will be granted that pass at the UN.
The Bush propagandists have answered the question of a tree falling in the forest....if you shuffle free speech off to an isolated cordoned off area, then it is speech without an ear to hear it. It effectively makes no sound. Blogs can have the same problem...Columbia let free speech make a sound because it was heard by who it was spoken to.
i challenge bush to speak before ANY american university and take questions from real people. he is so full of corruption and lies that he'd melt like the wicked witch of west with water (truth) thrown on her.
america needs to rid itself of this blackheart administration. if not impeachment then continued investigations after "regime change" to hold these criminals accountable.
america needs to bathe itself in justice. we've been sullied by the dirt of this administration, and we need to come clean.
(part two)
RIGHT ON SA...too bad they put your great post,
below the crazy neo con post.....good job.
it's startling to see what a real leader looks like - a real man speaking a vision and speaking from his heart. a brave man at that.
here in america we have a different sort of man - a liar built on conceits and corruptions who barely will talk to the whitehouse press corp. he would never dare speak and take questions at an american college - let alone an iranian one. he only speaks in front of and backed by military groups and military colleges. the columbia university president was a weakling hypocrit - wanting his cake and eating it too - to feign "intellectual openness," while carrying the bush administration's water and insulting the guest before he speaks: ahmadinejad out classed columbia university. he also spoke about being a "sponsor of terrorism" - an american label, only to ask about america's sponsor of terrorism against iran. america is full of shit. we backed sadaam against iran. rumsfeld and sadaam were photo'd together. the reason he (sadaam) was hung so quickly is that future trials were about to reveal just how deeply america and sadaam's iraq were in bed together. america has no right to run the world or even use the expression "terrorism." the lie of freedom being espoused is just to set up more employees for ceo-usa to reap profit off their backs.
america could seek a golden era for its people, but instead has traded that for corporate corruption and the raping of the world and its people. america needs a true leader and visionary - not a scion with an mba - one bent on global capitalism and the exploitation of all resources including human.
the iranian president also expressed an inconvenient truth about israel and america's hypocrisy therein. perhaps israel doesn't deserve carte blanche support, and that criticizing israel is not being "ANTISEMETIC!"
this is why freedom of speech is so critical - corporate media that has siamese twined itself with the u.s. government. america is so corrupt it now takes documentary films - bypassing the news media, in order to tell the truth.
(part one)
You are kidding right? Mahmoud is a real leader and real man? I swear to God, you liberals are absolutely INSANE! There I said, certifiably INSANE. This man is not a real leader, he kills his own citizens because they are gay or a woman. You support that? You support this "real" leader?
Liberals say they stand for human rights, civil rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, etc. and yet they support a man who dispises all of that and KILLS people that fall into those categories. So you are either lying about really caring about those folks(which I believe is true) or you are lying about your support for Mahmoud simply because you HATE all things Bush. Which is it? I personally think it is both.
Liberals are certifialby INSANE, plain and simple.
i'm not a "liberal," i'm a man.
who's done more damage to america and the world - the iranian president or the american president?
he's a real leader because he is authentic - right or wrong. he's not a coward like w.
The Bush team has an army of paid boo people and clappers all over the place. The propaganda machine makes sure their boy is covered. I have to admit "Ackmanijob", handled himself pretty well. I would have answered that yes or no question the same. He also had a good answer for the nuclear weapons thingy. Let's see: it's okay for Babuska, who many say is insane, to have his thumb looming over the Red Button of destruction; but no other country can protect themselves. What a joke. Is it January of 2009 yet?
"One thing the right wing hates in the U.S. is the humanizing of someone they have tried to dehumanize. That's why they have so objected to the Iranian president's visit."
You're kidding, right?
Do you think the objection might be slightly justified? Of course you don't. This person and the government he leads are terrorist supporters. They are supplying munitons and training to those who are killing our Soldiers. He has openly stated that he wants to wipe a nation off the face of the earth and "drive the Jews in to the sea." The government of Iran is spending millions in support of Hezbollah.
I don't care what Bollinger said in his opening statement, Ahmadinejad should have NEVER been allowed to speak at Columbia U. Other than the fact that he is allowed to go to the UN is the ONLY reason he should even be allowed in the country. If you want to know what his agenda is, try reading some of the things he has already said. Lots of documents are out there that have been translated. There are many things he has said that he would have NEVER said in yesterdays forum.
Pray tell: Why shouldn't he have been allowed?
Columbia did us a service in contrasting their venue with the "Slogans to the back of me/Friendlies to the Front" cardboard cutout presentation of GW Bush.
GW Bush and Laura prefer (require?) a Ken & Barbie manufactured landscape, but Ahmadinejad was willing to walk into a real life, three-dimensional one where free speech was given voice and heard.
Next time we see the Zombie faces and two-dimensional slogans behind GW Bush, we should remember Columbia and thank them.
Artificial - thy name is Bush.
What Bollinger did at Columbia should be a lesson to every lace-cuffed traditional news celebrity in the country. No politician gets a pass on the tough questions. Make him answer them. Make him lie in public while we watch. That's what this event was all about. Here's hoping a few would-be journalists get it.
Bullshit gulopartisan.. Our journalists have always had the selective objectivity to ask foreign politicians the questions they dare not ask our own... That is the the whole basis of any propaganda..Bollinger doesn't have the balls to ask anything
The U.S. has a long history of messing with internal Iranian affairs. It isn't difficult to understand why Iranians don't like us very much. As a practical matter we don't have much wiggle room to complain. The chickens have come home to roost as they say. Unfortunately the U.S. has long used global strategies that are very one sided and this is the result that must be expected. There are many nations that fear us because of U.S. policies that have demonstrably harmed other countries.
The conduct of U.S. businesses in foreign countries is also a problem. The U.S. has historically turned a blind eye to how U.S. corporations conducted themselves in foreign lands. If U.S. corporations were held to a global standard that adhered to the U.S. model perhaps we wouldn't be losing ground in global commerce. Nations are turning elsewhere for trade agreements because the U.S. had abused its power for a long time and now with global development and new markets the need to deal with the U.S. is lessened.
As a general statement the U.S. screwed everyone in all manner of ways and now we are harvesting the sour fruit that our past conduct has produced. The myopic focus on profits is a strategy that in the long term is counter-productive. When you treat your customers and business associates like shit it will catch up with you. All the complaining of how U.S. businesses treat American consumers is the very model adopted globally and just as American consumers are not pleased, so it goes in the international marketplace.
Posted September 24, 2007 | 04:59 PM (EST)