September 26, 2007
Three Presidents and Only Two Balls

On Monday’s news I watched a little of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia and too much of President Lee Bollinger’s introduction. Today I got around to reading the transcript, naturally not in search of enlightenment. To seek enlightenment in the speeches of presidents, whether of colleges or countries, is to go duck-hunting where no duck dwells.

Instead I wanted to be sure that the TV excerpts had fairly represented Lee Bollinger’s remarks, and they had. This was a disappointment, as the president of Columbia had earlier given hints of a certain testicular presence by approving Ahmadinejad’s appearance on his campus.

But of course this had stirred up a perfect storm of the squawking that, when Israel is on the agenda, greets the the most tentative deviation into sense. So now it was CYA time: after a nod in the direction of academic freedom Bollinger turned his introduction into an attack on his invited guest.

This was understandable but it was also unforgiveable. Sins against God, country, and the legal code are merely venial, while sins against good taste are mortal.

Once Bollinger was done with armoring his ass against further assault, Ahmadinejad took the mike and politely said:

At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a — to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in — (applause) — with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

Another thing struck me while watching this small, slightly-built man take on a hostile crowd in a hostile city. Ahmadinejad — although every bit as despicable as such other enemies of the republic as King Abdullah, General Musharraf and Vice President Cheney — showed that he is at least no coward.

The Conqueror of Baghdad and the Lion of Guantánamo, by contrast, would have surrounded himself with a battalion of Blackwater mercenaries before running such a risk. Whenever G.I. George ventures out in public his aides even issue orders that he is to be protected from so much as a glimpse of an antiwar button on man, woman or child.

Any little thing from the reality-based world outside, they seem to fear, might pop their boss’s bubble.


G.I.-George.jpg

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Jerome Doolittle at September 26, 2007 06:21 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

excellent post. I agree that you don't insult a guest that you have invited. Leave it to the audience to ask their own searing questions. Let the idiot's craziness show in the course of the speech. Instead, the president gave that crazy dictator the opportunity to take the high ground! Ha!

I was so proud when the audience laughed out loud in response to A. saying there were no homosexuals in Iran. Bastard. Also disturbed by how much applause he got throughout his speech. He, like Bush, knows how to wrap the package in such a way as to please the recipient.

Posted by: tara dharma on September 26, 2007 7:42 PM

what's your problem? Too screwed up or what?
i mean tara d.
i mean if you are calling the Iranian president a bastard then are we to understand that he is indeed a bastard? o.k. ahmeddj.cannot deny that there are bastards in Iran.The question would be stupid.If you have a mind to invert logic then the question and answer about homosexuals in Iran is even more stupid.The answer is surely a personal opinion. That is the only way to save the questioners face. Do you get it?
Bastards are not un-natural.the universalizing of marriage [ the birth of marriage]took place in the middle ages, 1000 years ago.forget it. However,you cannot deny that 11,000 years ago all our ancestors were bastards. Simple archaeological record.But the same cannot be said about homosexuality.
What is really common between bastards and homosexuals is `the condition or the being outside family'.Not to get you one up, i am talking now in cultural terms.
are you really concerned about the negative that bonds both?

Posted by: kynikdog on October 1, 2007 7:16 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?