Outrage Over an Iranian Errand Boy

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com If there ever was topic for discussing freedom of speech or what is accepted as a proper response between opposing forces on this planet, the Iranian President's attendance at Columbia University certainly fits. Polarizing opinions, outrage, indifference and a broad mixture of undefined responses fill the media this day. So what is one to make of all this? An opinion column by Arthur Herman at the New York Post no doubt falls on the outrage side of the debate.

SQUALID MISTAKE ACADEMIA'S UGLY BLINDNESS By ARTHUR HERMAN September 25, 2007 -- COLUMBIA University Presi dent Lee Bollinger yester day made some cutting criticisms while introducing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but that doesn't make the school's decision to offer a platform to the head of a violent terrorist state any less abject, squalid or shameless.

Who knows what Columbia University's real motives were for inviting Iran's President to speak. At least a couple of reports indicate the expressed reason was to allow differing points of view. It seems when the person speaking in public is extremely notorious for holding beliefs or values others find deplorable or equally disturbing, the standards or principles guiding the public view are withdrawn. That is to say people allow other people to speak or express themselves as long as that person does not exceed certain limits. My first question would be why were those who are so enraged by this event not equally vocal in objecting to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her trip that included Syria and at least some discussion with heads of state there? The next reference from various sources is a contrast to Herman's opinion column at the NT Post. Carefully reviewing sound bites from the Iranian President and comparing them to related events in Iran, the author reminds the reader of the amateur attempt by this week's headline grabbing foreign visitor to misinform the audience. But maybe the Iranian is getting exactly what he wants. What would be a larger problem with his visit is not what people appear to be angry about but if his plan is successful in his own mind. Perhaps all this angst and attention is exactly what he wanted. A person would have to be extremely ignorant to believe he could come here and not receive the reaction he did from the outrageous statements he expressed.

Live From New York, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Unreality Show By Dana Milbank Tuesday, September 25, 2007; Page A02 "For hundreds of years, we've lived in friendship and brotherhood with the people of Iraq," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the National Press Club yesterday. That's true -- as long as you don't count the little unpleasantness of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when a million people died, some by poison gas. And you'd also have to overlook 500 years of fighting during the Ottoman Empire.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion and The Wall Street Journal is no exception. This being the third reference for this post is a reminder that as stated earlier the mixture of opinions is quite varied although most have an obvious negative reaction to that guy from Iran that everyone loves to hate. Without previous knowledge of the article and its information below, the same thought had probably crossed many minds after hearing explanations from Columbia for their choice of speaker this week. Would you have acted the same if the potential speaker would have been Adolf Hitler? A better question might be asked about how the rest of the world responded to Hitler before he was completely in a position to do the things he did? The Iranian President or anyone else can be allowed to speak. Words are not the problem here. How the rest of the world responds to the actions of the Iranian President and people like him is the problem. As has been said many times, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Columbia's Conceit Exactly what would it have accomplished to "engage in a debate" with Hitler? BY BRET STEPHENS Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT On Saturday John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that "if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." This was by way of defending the university's decision to host a speech yesterday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Enough with the news around the planet about this situation with Iran. No one should be overly concerned about what transpired at Columbia University this week or the UN, etc. How the world leaders will handle their responsibilities as leaders and getting a grip on war and terrorism as well as the other critical matters facing us is the real concern. The visit by and actions of the Iranian President during his visit pales in comparison to other risks.