Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Ahmadinejad gets blistering welcome from Columbia

I suspect you are right about that Ron. Is there something he said or did that led you to believe he was as misguided as our Commander in Chief was about invading Iraq?

Interesting counterpoints.

My own sense of it is that Ahmadinejad's visit will have little or no effect on people's opinions. The fact is (I believe) most "true Americans" could care less about whether his government is persecuting a few intellectuals or homosexuals. What they care about is whether Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, or developing nukes to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

There is nothing he could say to address those points. I gather he didn't bother to try.

Just in case you were wondering what the right-wing whack-jobs thought of all this, here's Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter's take on the situation:
Duncan Hunter for President

And while we're at it, aren't there a few other things in that pesky Bill of Rights we can do away with...?

Mal,

Colonel Lang may have issues with the current administration. He damn well has a right. The Bush Administration ignored the retired members of our Intelligence services who had real on the ground contacts in the Arab Middle east, as well as a background that made them choice picks to call back into duty after 911. Neoconservatives wanted nothing to do with these Arabists, and used that term derisively, often implying that it meant lefty, socialistic, islamofascist appeasers. Pure dialectics from Trotskyites.

Let's reminiscence about the Reagan Admin's Iranian appeasers, who were willing to covertly trade high-end modern weaponry with that government, which they had placed on the terrorist sponsoring countries list, in the hopes that they might be able to affect the Lebanese militants who held American hostages. Look at two who were in the thick of those unlawful negotiations: Michael Ledeen, and Robert Gates.

And I do not think it was a Lang depiction of Ahmadinajad supporting “scholars who seek the truth”, he was translating what was said. Lang is not defending Iran or Almadinajad, in fact his remarks about Persian subtlety in full context indicates that he is both a realist, as well as one who appreciates irony and satire:
You do know that the MEK is a Marxist revolutionary org, which sits on the State Department's terrorist org list, and that prior to the Invasion of Iraq, received most of its funding from Hussein, aren't you? (CFR - Global Security) There have been some pretty credible rumours that the Bush Admin has been providing backing for The MEK. Then there was the April ABC News story about the US supporting an anti-Iranian Pak based terrorist group:

Justin Rood and Gretchen Peters, "The Secret War Against Iran", ABC News, April 03, 2007

I understood Lang's subtlety remark to be a jab in the nose of the hypocritical policies of the Bush Administration. Col. Lang makes a lot of assumptions about his blog readership's awareness of current events. This isn't a freshman intro course.

I have been tied up with other concerns both in my private/work life, and my public postings. Part of this is your fault (kidding-ok? truthfully, thanks for the pointer to G.N.), as I have been doing a bit of digging into ties between the Austrian School and Dominion believers; it isn't rock solid yet, but potentials are ugly. So excuse my ignorance here: Was Almadinajad speaking English at Columbia? Who was translating it if he was not? Might want to investigate that. If it was Memri, or anyone remotely associated with Pipes, I'd trust Lang's version hands down. I haven't been to Prof. Cole's site in a while, so I am not up to speed on his take. There must be some here who are though.

I'll take a quick trip to a couple of sites I am familiar with that are authored by strongly secularist individuals of MidEast origins, and see if they are commenting.

Here's a couple of links to interviews by the Turkish Tank: International Strategic Research Organization. While checking their website, Journal of Turkish Weekly, to make sure these were still live links, I scraped some other news story links too, and am dropping them here. I just took part in a sort of group conference IM session on Euro time. Not business, it was working on a goofy theory regarding collaboration, and I'm an old fogey, out of my league using IM to communicate anyway. I'm going to get a few hours sleep now, and get up for an early afternoon meeting. I'll check back after that.

• 15 November 2005 - Iran's Nuclear Program - The full text of the interview made by NTV with the Head of International Escort for the IAEA Inspections in Iran, Mr. ALI ASGHAR SOLTANIEH who was invited by International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO)
• 28 February 2006 -Interview: A General Evaluation of ...nd further Estimations on Nuclear Crisis - International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO) that is concentrated on the effects of Iranian developments on the region had interviewed Prof. Ehteshami on Iran’s current situation and asked him for some further estimation. Prof. Anoush Ehteshami is Head of School of Government and International Affairs at University of Durham, United Kingdom.

• 24 September 2007, Ahmadinejad Says in US TV Interview Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons
• 24 September 2007, Ahmadinejad's U.S. visit to spark protests
• 24 September 2007, U.S. offers Caspian gas to Turkey in place of Iran’s alternative
• 24 September 2007, Iran not in need of nuclear bombs: Ahmadinejad
• Ahmadinejad, Castro discuss world developments
• Ahmadinejad: Nothing can stop nation from its legal nuclear right
• Ahmadinejad calls on Islamic states to promote their potentials
• Iranian Ahmadinejad's statements on Israel
• West's enmity towards Iran stemming from opposition to Muslims' progress: Ahmadinejad
• Jakarta offers Iran mediation
• Ahmadinejad: Israel will fall without West's support
• Ahmadinejad: Iran will defend legal rights of all free nations
• Ahmadinejad Says Israel 'Will One Day Vanish'
• Indonesia offers Iran mediation
• Iran: What is underneath the Ahmadinejad remarks?
• Iran's New President: Conservative Politics and Traditional Values
• Lessons from the Rightwing Backlash That Led to Ahmadinejad Victory?
• Iran's New Leader: A Familiar Face?
• Ahmadinejad's First Year

The point I'm trying to make here is that this is getting distilled into one of those "your either with us or against us" Bush black and white things, and nether side is being honest. I am not attempting to defend Iran, but instead trying to turn the tide from America embarking upon another unjustified war. We know that the Bush Administration is capable of and willing to engage in deceits. Even when it means heading away from our true enemies into an unrighteous war. They cannot be trusted to decide. Cheney is especially untrustworthy, because he was willing to invoke the El Salvador Solution. am I the only person in America that was completely creeped-out by it?

Bush in Teheran would not be the same as Ahmadinejad at the UN. In the strict sense of diplomatic protocol, Mr. Ahmadinejad was not in the US on an official state visit to us; he was here to attend the UNGA meeting. If he was dissed - again, strictly in the diplomatic sense - it was by the City of New York (the Ground Zero gaffe) and Columbia University (Bollinger's broadside), not by the US government. However, given that the State Department apparently did nothing to grease the skids for his extracurricular activities, I'd say that they are not overly upset with what happened.

Perhaps the Iranian foreign ministry protocol boys who set up the visits could/should have done their homework better. Surely they had adequate information to judge what would likely happen over a visit to the WTC site? Surely they had some idea that the Columbia appearance would not be a controlled grip-and-grin?

This guy is no dummy! He may not be Steven Hawking, but surely he is an astute enough politician to realize that he would be in a situation where he could not control the format or the dialogue. From his facial expression and other body language, I got the very strong expression that he was totally surprised by Bollinger's broadside. Did he assume that he would receive a more or less neutral introduction, such as the chief of state for a country does when welcoming the Olympics?

Perhaps his handlers did not brief him well for the experience. Surely, they had enough skinny to know what the general ambience was in the largest Jewish population outside of Israel? What about the WTC gaffe? Didn't anyone see that as having much the same effect as the Israeli PM visiting the Temple Mount?

I see it as a case of him being misinformed by his own staff - either because they failed to read the general situation or because nobody wanted to tell him that the crowd down at the Long Branch was in a knot-tying mood.

I think he made the best of it he could under the circumstances, but he was clearly not expecting what he got.

That's twice in one page you've brought forth that argument, Ron. Again I must ask, what did Ahmadinejad say or do that leads you to believe he was not prepared for the reception he got?

In my previous post: From his facial expression and other body language, I got the very strong expression that he was totally surprised by Bollinger's broadside.

For a minute there, it was the deer-in-the-headlights look. Then I got the distinct impression of anger/embarrassment.

I realize that it may not be exactly concrete, but that is what I read out of his apparent reaction.

George W. Bush will not even go in front of the American press Corps for anything approaching those kinds of questions.

Insinuating that the most courageous man alive would shirk a meeting with Iranian academics or the American press corps flies in the face of all logic.

The only reason why President George Walker Bush would avoid a confrontation with rude, insolent and ignorant people is to protect the dignity of the office of President of the United States of America.

Mocked by the envious and haters worldwide, our president has the strength of his convictions, a true leader who will never wilt nor bend under pressure from the peanut gallery.