If Bush went to Tehran…
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007
I have no idea what to think about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because the only lens I see him through is American media. I’m sure I’d never join a fan club of his but the way he was received at Columbia University got me thinking.
If George Bush gave a speech at Tehran University and the President of the university made a speech about him like Columbia President Bollinger did about Ahmadinejad the other day, many Americans and most of the American media would go ape shit and cry fowl.
Bollinger said: “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” adding, “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”
Would Lee Bollinger have said that to George Bush? He certainly exhibits the same signs. I would love to see and hear an educated world leader say something similar to Bush or introduce him by telling the truth about him.
I’m no fan of Hugo Chavez’s either but when he called George Bush “the devil,” some Americans got up in arms but I felt like for once someone with a microphone was at least standing up to Bush and calling him out for having no clothes. Okay, Chaves and Ahmadinejad may not be the best folks to be doing this but the rest of the world seems to be as chicken as our Democratic Congress.
We like to think of ourselves as the bastion of free speech and free ideas and I initially applauded Columbia for asking Ahmadinejad to speak but my word, what Bollinger did was not a demonstration of a civilized society, it’s a demonstration of just how far we’ve sunk during the Bush years.
We’ll never know what would happen if Bush spoke in Tehran because Bush won’t speak anywhere there will be protesters, even in the United States. He complains about the way gays are treated in Iran but won an election here using fear of gay marriage.
Long before this incident I felt like Ahmadinejad was exactly like Bush: an extremist President who does not represent his people.
Given that we know that Bush doesn’t represent a majority of Americans why is it that we insist that this guy represent Iranians? That seems to me to be a Bush/Neo-con invention to rationalize an invasion of Iran.
The fact that Americans are weighing in the way they are on this issue (many supporting Bollinger for verbally abusing Ahmadinejad) demonstrates our continued double standard about our place in the world and given our current “regime” I’d say we have no leg to stand on.
Should Iranians have nuclear power? Who the hell are we to decide that? We’re the only country on earth to ever drop a nuclear bomb (twice), have more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined, and have recently invaded and destabilized a country for no good reason. And, we’re being run by a nut case president who, more than any other looks like he’s just itching to drop a bomb. I’d say Ahmadinejad has it right: if we want him to dump his nuclear program then we ought to be dumping ours too.
It is absalutely a double standard - the way our country treats foreigners as to how we, as Americans, expect to be treated.
I feel very uncomfortable with this man being invited to speak and then treated in such a hostile manner- and so publicly! As if it is all for hype! As usual I feel a sense of embarrassment that Americans feel so justified in our judgements of everyone else. Besides, even if we could say that Ahmadinejad is a bad bad man there is still as you said Richard- a way to confront, discuss and interact with each other in a civilized society.
Thanks Bonnie, glad you felt the same way. I added a bit to the post since you commented… about Chavez who is in the same category.
The part of this that is upsetting is that people like Bollinger should know better. His speech was a public relations stunt that plays right into the hands of Bush. We are so messed up here… Sigh.
The New York Times ran an editorial this morning: Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks. It starts but doesn’t go far enough.
I for one can’t stand a whole lot of things about Mr. Ahmadinejad.
However, I find myself getting really annoyed at how good he is at “bobbing and weaving” and slipping away from anwering questions. Part of what bothers me is that he acts just like most US politicians in this regard. The other part is that he’s aggravatingly better at it than many US politicos.
To me, Bollinger’s pre emptive strikes were embarrassingly obvious attempts to assuage his (Bollinger) critics for allowing the speech at all. My opinion: Bollinger obliterated the illusion of objectiveness and actually helped Ahmadinijad. Had it been a debate, that would have been another story.
In the meantime a huge problem is how, due to this administration, we’ve lost so much credibility when attacking from any kind of moral ground. I hate the fact that when our administration legitimately refers to another country’s human rights problems for example, our own crap bites us in the rear.
Sandy: You could easily substitute “Bush” for “Ahmadinejad” in your second paragraph.
I agree with the Dean who invited Ahmadinejad to speak (not Bollinger) a few years ago: if you invite someone, you treat them civilly, otherwise don’t invite them.
The idea is to not go to war with Iran. I just got finished listening to Norman Podhoretz, arguably the architect of many of Bush’s ideas (and he’s advising Rudy…) and he wants, more than anything else, to go to war with Iran. He’s one of the most dangerous people around, maybe more dangerous than Bin Laden.
Ahmadinejad isn’t even the most powerful guy in Iraq, doesn’t represent popular Iranian views, and he’s probably not going to be reelected as he’s fucked the Iranian economy. The best way to deal with him is to ignore him. But, if you invite him to speak, treat him civilly and don’t use him for your own political gains. Bollinger should be fired for what he did, he disgraced the school and he embarrassed me.
Richard, a superb, hard hitting and VERY accurate post. I’m in full agreement. Bush is the most dangerous man in the world right now, with his terms coming to an end and the power he wields. Scary.
I would love to see his face if someone did say it like it is, in front of the world’s media, and preferably in no uncertain terms.
Jon: I wish people and/or countries had the guts, it would make my day. Only people like Hugo Chavez who doesn’t care about trade with the US can get away with it. Sigh.
I, too, was very disapppointed in Bollinger. The University setting should be a bastion not only of free speech but of information about our world and its people.
We don’t need to be told what to think. We can listen to Ahmedinejad’s speech and decide what kind of guy he is on our own.
I’m sick of having opinions shoved down my throat by the government and the tv news media (and now, University presidents???)
Right Sheryl, and the idea that he felt like he had to insult this guy because so many people were calling him a “traitor” for having Ahmadinejad speaks worlds about how he is all about public image, not about defending what’s right.
Things like this really do point me in the direction of non-violent confrontation (what Bollinger did was violent). If you want things to work well with Iran, an important country in the world, why not talk with them civilly instead of bullying them.
If some country told us we couldn’t have nuclear power and that we had too many bombs and our leader was a tyrant…
A great post Richard, and bang on too. I’ve watched the US/EU/Iran thing with interest for quite a while. The amount of posturing coming from the US now is quite disturbing, hell, even France is upping the game now.
Your last paragraph clinched it for me. I just don’t understand how we have the right to say that another country is not able to use nuclear power responsibly. Christ, even if he was making nuclear weapons what right do we have to say that he can’t? It is completely bizarre. Double standards at the ultimate level.
What worries me the most is that Bush only has a little time now to put anything that may be on the board into action. Maybe i’m being overly concerned. Does he actually have the ability/resources to do it in that time? I’m not so sure.. but my gut says that he may try.
Jamie, I don’t think he’ll invade Iran like he did Iraq but it does seem like he’s trying to push so hard on them that there’s an incident that pulls both countries into a conflict. It is so painfully obvious that instead of working to find ways out of this problem, Bush is trying to make it worse at every turn.
And, the other issue that’s scary is that Americans (and maybe Brits too) have a very short memory. It’s now generally accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq but Bush is claiming that Iran has a weapons program. Sound familiar.
In the end, it’s all about trust. I don’t trust Bush or Cheney at all. Nothing either of them say or for that matter, anyone in their corrupt administration is believable.
Here’s another soon to be considered fact: the US went into Iraq for oil. All of us said it right up front and we have Bush on video denying it. Even Alan Greenspan says it in his recently published book.
What will make the world a better place is for Bush, Cheney, and all of them to go on trial as war criminals. Maybe Blair too, who knows.
Here’s some more on this from Iranian bloggers: Blogging Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
Fascinating.