Apparently Bollinger Interrogates Ahmadinejad Like a Right Winger

Posted by johnhouk on Sep 25, 2007
 John R. Houk
© September 24, 2007

The Blogger “Vanderleun” of American Digest weighs in on all the talk about Ahmadinejad being invited and speaking at Columbia University.

Vanderleun says he was against before he was for it.

Just kidding! Really, no “seriously” is a better word.

The Conservative Blogs (of which I am a part of by association) skewered Columbia University’s President Bollinger for inviting and giving Ahmadinejad a forum to validate the extreme radical Shia/political Mohammedanism of which the Iranian President represents.

Although I never blogged on the issue, I did read plenty who did. And I have to admit I joined in the realm of outrage and agreed with the criticism Bollinger was receiving. I even came close to signing an Internet petition to vent my displeasure over Ahmadinejad’s appointment on American soil by invitation of an esteemed Ivy League Academic institution known as Columbia University.

Unlike Vanderleun, I did not watch the whole affair feeling it would accomplish little.

However if Vanderleun is correct (I have not corroborating reports as yet), Bollinger was the victim (at least in this case) of judgment before actual assessment.

Apparently Bollinger asked some to the point precise questions that answers would demonstrate the true nature to Americans of Ahmadinejad’s way of thinking.

Here is Vanderleun’s blog post:

JRH
***********************

The Truth. Can You Handle the Truth?

American Digest
Posted by Vanderleun
September 24, 2007 3:32 PM

"I'm not so sure I'd offer the same invitation, but nevertheless, it speaks volumes about the greatness, really, of America. We're confident enough to let a person express his views. I just really hope he tells everybody the truth." -- President George Bush


For days the tom-tom's of the right side of the blogosphere beat out the dulling message, over and over, as is its wont. Columbia University's President Lee Bollinger was a craven boot-licker of tyrants for inviting the death-dwarf of Iran to speak. Dire, dire consequences were predicted for Columbia. It was evil. It was hypocritical. Etc. and so forth. And because many of the people I respect were saying this I became convinced that Bollinger was in serious error, just another liberal tool and fool. And I was compelled to watch the event on television when it came to pass.

Now I am compelled to admit that I was wrong; that I seriously pre-judged the event; that what I assumed would be the truth of the matter, turned out to be false in reality. My mind had been taken over by the sounds (how often we hear them now) of dull old axes being ground on hollow stones.

The reality of the appearance of the dwarf Hitler at Columbia was:

1) He was forced to listen to Bolllnger's carefully phrased, utterly devastating catalogue of his evil acts. This is something you can bet he has never had to endure before. To him, it was deeply and personally insulting. The only way it could have gotten worse would have been if Bollinger walked across the stage and spit fully into his face.

2) Long, long after all the too and fro about Columbia and Bollinger fade, the clip of the dwarf proclaiming "We have no homosexuals in Iran" will endure and will be used to revile and denigrate this corrupt and disgusting regime. It may well, over time, cause many people, gay or straight, to reconsider a knee-jerk support for Iran simply because it opposes George Bush and the United States. It will be invaluable. It already is enshrined in the Pantheon of Lies and it will only grow in stature there. It is a MAJOR propaganda victory.

None of this could have happened if Bollinger and Columbia had not exercised their right to invite whom they wish to speak on campus. Spare me the plaints about who they do and do not invite and who they disinvite. That is not relevant to this issue. What they did in the past and what they may do in the future does not in any way diminish the effectiveness of what happened today. Spare me to the lame excuse that Bollinger only did it because of "the criticism." You have no means of knowing that other than inside your own imagination. And even if it were the case..... So What?

Today, to be brief, "freedom of speech" worked as it should work. It revealed the truth.

You'd think that many who have been thrashing Columbia and Bollinger would have the decency and the humility to see today for what it was and to admit that, in the event, they were wrong. But as in so many things in these highly partisan times, people cannot do the plain and simple thing of admitting they were wrong. It just isn't in them to do so.

In truth, these people -- right, left, libertarian -- simply aren't concerned any longer with the truth. They want to count coup. They want to find "reasons" that the truth isn't really that true. They want to change the subject when the subject isn't going their way. In short, they are infected with the current plague of America: intellectual insanity.

Truth? Truth's got nothing to do with it. Just plain, bad crazy. So crazy they can't see when they are wrong. Then again that's one of the classical definitions of insanity: An inability to tell right from wrong, true from false.
______________________________

 Apparently Bollinger Interrogates Ahmadinejad Like a Right Winger
John R. Houk
© September 24, 2007
______________________

The Truth. Can You Handle the Truth?
American Digest ABOUT PAGE

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]