Fools On Parade: Liberals vs. Ahmadinejad
By Gary Krasner (09/26/07)
There are important lessons to be learned from allowing the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a respected institution in the U.S. These lessons are intended for liberals, because for some reason, it was only liberals who thought it would be a great idea to have a "dialog" with the Iranian President.
FIRST, a single individual who addresses (solely) questions from a large group of people is ALWAYS in control of that forum. Even when followup questions are permitted. Anyone as talented and evasive as Ahmadinejad can easily finese the most challenging questions. His favorite technique is to respond with a question of his own. Sometimes his question has absolutely no relation to the question that was asked of him. But it doesn't matter. It still gives the appearance that he responded, and you accomplish nothing except providing him a forum to furnish his propaganda. Liberals who claimed, and possibly actually believed, that Ahmadinejad would be at a disadvantage, or that such a forum would force him to speak the truth, were deluding themselves.
SECOND, if you're going to talk with Ahmadinejad anyway, then at the very least, don't have a news correspondent conduct the interview. Because correspondents can only ask questions. That's solely what they're supposed to do. They cannot get into an extended debate; make assertions of fact; or otherwise contradict the person they're interviewing without appearing to be biased. News correspondents cannot appear to look biased. So they pull their punches, and you end up with puffery. Better to allow an editorialist interview Ahmadinejad---especially one who's a neoconservative and an expert on events in Iran, and on our history with that nation.
A corollary to this rule is to make sure no liberal gets to interview Ahmadinejad. Yesterday, Charlie Rose, Lee Bollinger and Scott Pelle of 60 Minutes had at Ahmadinejad. They hardly layed a glove on the little Thug-in-Chief. The last time Ahmadinejad was in New York, he sat for interviews with the network anchors---who were liberals and correspondents. It was a disaster. When challenged, Brian Williams couldn't cite even one reason why the Jewish Holocaust was distinguishable from lesser attrocities that Ahmadinejad had enumerated.
THIRD, you must never invite certain individuals into forums usually intended to honor the speaker. Columbia is where former Presidents, nobel laureates and other honorable people are invited to lecture.
If you would never contemplate inviting despots like Pinochet or Milosovitch, or racists like David Duke or Louis Farakan for an "open and frank exchange of views" at Columbia, then what was the justification for inviting Ahmadinejad? Other than enabling an anti-American, Shiit radical to thumb his nose at the Bush Administration, there appears to be none.
Thanks to Columbia University's president, Lee Bollinger, Ahmadinejad can now list on his resume---and brag to the Iranian public---that he was invited to lecture at one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. What do you think that will do to the morale of Iranian opposition leaders who risk their lives by merely speaking out against this oppressive theocratic regime? What do you think that did to the morale of our troops in Iraq, who are being killed by Iranians and Iranian-built rockets and IEDs? I doubt Lee Bollinger bothered to consider that.
The excuse that Americans must speak to our enemies has always been the subtext of the liberal's argument. This is sophistry dressed up as a serious geopolitical strategy. Liberals have been trying to sell this tripe in force since the 2006 election. If you want to learn about your enemy, or have an "open dialog" with them, then invite a low level Iranian diplomat to Columbia, or a scholar in Sharia law, or any number of apologists for Jihad. There are quite a few in Saudi Arabia, with whom we have good relations. And you'll more likely obtain honest answers that way than from a pol like Ahmadinejad. That's the preferred alternative, because doing so doesn't elevate the stature, or confer legitimacy to, a despicable regime. Too simple a concept for Lee Bollinger and his liberal cohorts to understand.
Perhaps what best exemplifies the bankrupt rationale for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia occurred on CSPAN's Washington Journal, just hours before the Iranian President was scheduled to appear at Columbia. One of Columbia's deans was the guest, and was fielding questions from viewers who called in. In his answer to one viewer---who wanted to know why Columbia would allow Ahmadinejad on its campus, but not American ROTC units---his response was that the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, and was inconsistent with the University's non-descrimination policy. Well, Iran violates the civil rights and human rights of homosexuals. In fact, They hang or behead them!. Iran is a nation of laws, and the law is Sharia.
FOURTH, Use your home-court advantage. Even a liberal should have anticipated Ahmadinejad would deny the oppression in Iran. Yet it was well within the capability of Bollinger to have prepared slides and video clips of government sanctioned attrocitries. So that after Ahmadinejad had denied there were homosexuals in Iran, Bollinger could have lifted his arm, pointing to a screen behind the Iranian President, which exhibited news photos of Iranian homosexuals being executed. Or when Ahmadinejad denied the oppression of women in Iran, and described how they're equal to men, Bollinger could have played that video that was smuggled out of Iran in 2002, in which a woman was buried in the ground from the neck up, while being stoned to death for adultery---in accord with Sharia law. George Bush may have fumbled the ball in the public relations department, and in using mass communications to best the jihadists, but his political opponents on the left don't seem to fair any better.
FIFTH, Do not use ad hominems. Perhaps Lee Bollinger felt the criticism for inviting Ahmadinejad a bit late, and wasn't prepared to issue a properly drafted condemnation, based solely on facts, and without resorting to personal insults. Frankly, I feel that it was just the natural inclination of a liberal to employ invective. I've never found a liberal who could restrict the debate to the issues, and forego the usual vilification. Liberals don't understand conservatives, so they attribute malevolent motives to them. And I know this first-hand, as I've debated many liberals since I became a conservative 15-20 years ago. Nevertheless, because of this deficit, Bollinger succeeded in turning sympathy towards Ahmadinejad, by making Ahmadinejad appear the victim of gratuitous insults. Well done, Lee. Why in the world would you invite Ahmadinejad to a forum for a purported "enlightened discussion of our differences" (paraphrasing), only to tell him he's ignorant, disingenuous, authoritarian, antisemitic and a homophobe---all before he had a chance to open his mouth?!
Always a good barometer of the loony left, was Chris Mathews on MSNBC's Hardball later that evening. Not surprisingly, Chris adopted the simplistic calculation that Ahmadinejad had won, because Bollinger attacked him. Then Mathews jumped on his favorite hobby horse, saying that Bush is foolishly occupying an Muslim nation (seemingly ignorant that the Iraq government wants us there!); that the Jews of Europe stole the land that is now Israel (totally ignorant that hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from their homes throughout Middle East over the last 150 years, by Muslim antisemitism); and that the U.S. should seek redemption for propping up the oppressive regime of the Shah in Iran (apparently still ignorant that the Ayatollah Khomeini had overthrown the Shah, not because he felt the regime was too oppressive and authoritarian, but rather because he felt---and made no secret of it at the time---that Iran under the Shah was too culturally liberal and western, and not authoritarian enough!).
One of Mathews' guests during this diatribe was my own City Council Member, David Weprin---a very decent and reasonable fellow. It must have been a bewildering experience for him to appear on that show for the first time, and see Mathews in the grip of one of his fits of liberal guilt for not having apologized and appeased the Shiit mad men enough.
You see, Chris Mathews, as well as fellow NBC anchor, Brian Williams, were alumni of the failed Carter presidency.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
