It was perhaps a bit too symbolic... an American who invited a Middle-Easterner to speak, and then gives in to conservative pressure and insults him. Now, before I come across as an Ahmadinejad apologist I should make my necessary disclaimer: Ahmadinejad is a bad person.
I get that.
I also get that bad people don't really become bad by us calling them so, but rather by demonstrating bad behaviors, which he has done.
However, Bollinger looked like a fool and made a fool of America because whether we like it or not he was representing us too. Unfortunately for us, he fed right into the plan: let America look arrogant, ignorant, and bigoted. Thanks Lee.
This was a world event and was broadcast to people around the globe. We must remember that the perception of people in the Middle East is formed by their media, just as ours influences us. The supposedly "liberal media" began adding to the pressure to cancel his opportunity to speak from the moment they learned of it. Right-wing radio began with their typical claims that it would be un-American of us to have a terrorist speak in this country, etc.
If diplomacy is possible; we started the talk with a slap in his face. If not, we gave him propaganda. Either way, we lost a good opportunity on that one all because Mr. Bollinger got scared by the right-wing brown shirts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that the president of Columbia was a little of an embarassment. He came across as a show-off, trying to show that he could be a tough guy. He was not a very gracious host, even if it was a "bad person" as his guest. That bei;ng said, I don't necessarily agree with what you think were his reasons to his(the pres) behavior. I don't think that he was taking advise from Rush Limbaugh to write down his speach. I think that was his own fault, not the influence of the "right-wing media"
p.s. This is a good blog, I appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing more!
I believed Bollinger's comments in the debate to be more influenced by his own desire to appear to be a competent and a formidable party to the debate.
Ahmadinejad wasn't simply invited to "guest speak", but to participate in a "debate"... wasn't he? I think the questions were, for the most part, very appropriately aimed at contrasting Ahmadinejad's (and possibly much of the oppressed middle east's) views and concepts against those of the west - for the purpose of showing that there really is a difference between the liberal free thought and "culture of education" of the west and the culture of oppression, religeous fundamentalist governments, and ensuing ignorance of much of the middle east. I know some people may like to label me as a bigot at this point, but I believe Ahmadinejad's responses to most of the questions posed to him at Columbia supports some basis to my position.
The highlight to this whole contrast, in my opinion, is with Ahmadinejad now inviting Bush to come speak in Iran. Honestly. Who in either hemisphere would believe that Iran could guarantee Bush's safety. Doesn't this further highlight the glaring differences in our societies and our ways of life?
All this said, I am glad that Bush is not able to travel to Iran to speak. I'm sure he would embarass the US, just as Ahmadinejad embarassed Iran.
I'd like for pinko lefties like you to go live in Iran or shut up!
Post a Comment