Bollinger addresses Ahmadinejad
Free speech at it’s best in this Youtube Video:-
We should speak with our enemies. However we should also keep it real. Bollinger delivers.
24 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
The Q&A with Iranian President Ahmadinejad is here:-
I will leave it to others to judge the accuracy of President Ahmadinejads answers* however I think that in PR terms he did better than might be expected given the signficant baggage of his past public comments. His ideas were put in moderate terms. He appeared comfortable with engaging in an exchange of views. And just the fact that he took questions in the first place gave him a positive hue. Of course those that were critical of Columbia Universities invitation cite any such positive spin as a reason why Columbia University was wrong to give him this platform.
* Except for his claims regarding homosexuality in Iran which I regard as hopelessly ridiculous. Although they are not so different to the comments we might have got from an Australian politician only 30-40 years ago.
I thought Bollinger’s speech was very good and I’m a little alarmed to see westerners’s blog comments suggesting this is a media/political stunt to create a climate for war with Iran.
I’ve also seen lefties making comments that Bollinger was so harsh because he wants to appease the authorities to ensure his uni gets more funding. This may be true but it’s intellectual laziness to dismiss him for ad hominem reasons. And I thought lefties liked state sponsored academia!
Ahmadinejad is charismatic. In PR terms he probably did quite well:
But he did a lot of question evading. (just as Bollinger predicted).
eg/ Q1) He evaded the question on does his state sponsor terror groups. Q2) He did not state his position on the holocaust except to say that he doesn’t outright deny it took place. Q3) He evaded the question on women’s rights simply saying they are able to vote. He says that women are the most free in Iran but then contradicts this by saying Iranian culture gives men more responsibility.
In the same answer he rambled on about unrelated drug offences and 1) implied that not prosecuting is the same thing as “rewarding” and 2)talked about “having laws” that need obeying as if this justified the laws themselves. Of course there were many, many other problems with his arguments.
I also thought the standard of the questions could have been higher by being more specific. I think specific questions are more difficult to evade.
His statements didn’t seem to answer the questions at all. He seems to have mastered political spin to a calibre unmatched even by Australian pollies.
The homosexual “phenomenon” doesn’t exist in Iraq? I guess that’s because they’ve all been hung… Just because homosexual culture, or even homosexual behaviour doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean homosexual or bisexual inclination is absent! Just that people would rather be alive and abstinent than sexually active and dead.
I really did like Bollinger’s speech. I thought he rambled a little too much about people getting upset or being offended. You’d think that is implicit in such a controversial figure speaking.
I would not have applauded Ahmadinejad, I did not respect much of what he said. I was surprised by the levels of applause he received, actually.
An edited transcript of Bollinger’s speech can be found here.
Good stuff by Bollinger.
Tim R;
This should not be a surprise. The left are against the US, and tend to identify with anybody who is against the west, and there is a growing trend to support islamofascism, a sort of ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’.
The man made very valid points in a very articulate manner, and being true are therefore pretty much unanswerable.
Its simply a case of playing the man instead of the ball.
I agree Jim
So does anyone have an opinion on whether the Iranian President should have been let into the US in the first place?
Is it better to negotiate with terrorist harbourers or take a tougher stance on them?
My view is that you should always talk to your enemies. The risk is that you get taken in by their charm but that risk is less than the risk of not fully understanding your opponent.
There is a saying that you should never negotiate with terrorists. Whilst I agree with the sentiment that most people intend when they say this I think the more accurate point is that you should not make bargains that show you to be weak or that invite further attack. Terrorism should not be allowed to deliver benefits to terrorists due to governments striking foolish bargains. However if terrorists hijack an airplane and demand a ten bottles of fresh water or they will shoot one of the hostages then not negotiating on this issue is pointlessly principled.
I think that the USA was right to let the Iranian President in. However given that the USA hosts the UN it would seem unlikely that it was ever going to stop him.
A more significant point might be will the US government talk directly with him. I think that they most certainly should given that he is the recognised leader of a recognised nation and they have lots to talk about. Although when the USA does talk to him maybe they can take some tips from Bollinger.
Whilst he is the leader of a nation, neither nation ‘recognises’ the other, as neither has diplomatic relations with each other.
Iran and the USA are not listed on the following:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_countries
Fred Thompson
I do wonder sometimes why Saudi Arabia avoids equal scorn.
Probably because they are masters of playing both sides and the middle. My personal opinion of their leadership is that they are sleazier than Bin Laden.
Yes, let’s keep it real. Let’s also talk about how the US has the worst human rights record of any developed country. Indeed, China puts out an annual report on this very issue. Government is government. They kill people and cover it up.
That’s just what they do. That’s what the CIA has done since it was formed. Hundreds of journal articles are written every year on executive abuse of power in the US.
It’s great that the leader from Iran came along to try and open up friendly relations. We should trade freely and maintain peaceful relations with all governments. Encouraging politicians to criticise Iran (to shore up political support back home) shouldn’t interfere with broader economic & security objectives. I prioritise national security higher than the cheap thrill that comes from taking the moral high ground on Iran while the US conducts extraordinary rendition so they can torture people in secret prisons.
Sukrit – the Wikipedia article about the China report is hardly compelling.
Yes Sukrit, The Wikipedia link you posted is undisputable evidence for the CIA secretly killing off its civilians in a Stazi like manner.
Tiananmen square was really lie made up by the Americans to try to make the rest of the world hate the communists. The American hate violence and discrimination is far worse than any attrocotie ever commited in China! Down with the Americans!
Of course China has never had such incidents and doesnt continue to kill off its citizens and political enemies on a yearly basis.
Just for future refence, Is Sukrit a visiter from a leftist blog?
I agree with Sukrits assertion that all modern governments kill people and cover it up. It’s just a matter of measurement. But it’s important to judge which government does this the most, which does it the least? China and Iran would have to be some of the worst in terms of capital punishment.
So Sukrit, you are saying that if the US didn’t let in Ahmadinejad it would be for the purpose of “taking the moral high ground”. But some people think it would be for the purpose of demonstrating to Iran, that the US will not tollerate Iran’s terrorist harbouring. Don’t give them credit where it is not due, just stamp out any security threat to your citizens.
To be honest, I’m not sure what to think on discussions with terrorist harbourers, although I think Terje’s post is quite persuasive in drawing a distinction between discussions and compromising barganing.
Perry #18 – plan the ball not the man.
It’s great that the leader from Iran came along to try and open up friendly relations
Sukrit – relations would be a lot friendlier if the Iranian govt stopped stoning homosexuals and adulterers, stopped denying the existence of the Holocaust, stopped publically proclaiming the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, stopped arming Shia militia in Iraq, stopped arming Hizbollah terrorists in Lebanon and stopped trying to build a nuclear bomb. That’s just for starters.
Still, i’m very glad you’re pleased with the Iranian govt for making the effort to travel all this way. It’s awfully decent of them.
Wonderful speech from Bollinger, Terje. Who said academics were a bunch of totalitarian-appeasing surrender monkeys?
I did, but its nice to see the exception.
Is Sukrit in deep cover from Leftwrites?