There are no cats in America gays in Iran

So says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It would be funny, because of its blatant absurdity, if it weren't coming from someone whose government executes gays as a matter of policy.

Also, it seems Columbia President Lee Bollinger gave Mad Mahmoud quite a mouthful in his introductory remarks. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) I haven't watched the video yet, but it sounds like a pretty awesome, and well-deserved, "string of insults," as Ahmadinejad put it later, taking umbrage just as he took umbrage at Mike Wallace daring to ask direct and forceful questions on 60 Minutes. (You'll have to forgive Mahmoud; he's not too familiar with the whole "free speech" thing.)

Less awesome is the fact that, apparently, Ahmadinejad got a good reception from some of the far-left idiots in attendance at the Columbia event. Anybody who childishly mimicks anti-Bush talking point is okay by them, I guess. Some think he's "entirely reasonable." Some even have crushes on him! And some were utterly humiliated by President Bollinger's factually accurate "insults," and cheered and applauded Ahmadinejad when he criticized Bollinger's lack of "manners." I guess some folks weren't really interested in a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, including harsh criticisms and tough questions for Dear Leader Mahmoud?

But hey, although they might not realize it, those Ahmadinejad-apologist fools are actually an unwitting testament to what's great about America: in this country, you have the unalienable right to be an idiot -- and more to the point, the unalienable right to speak out against your government, no matter how wrong-headed your views might be. Imagine if George W. Bush (or, ahem, perhaps a slightly more articulate American leader) came to speak at a university in Iran, and started reciting anti-Ahmadinejad talking points. There might be some Iranian dissidents who would cheer, but they would do so at great personal risk, as they could potentially be arrested or even killed if the government deemed them enough of a threat. Certainly, the government would do everything in its power to exclude them from the lecture hall if it could identify them in advance, thus producing a mirage of monolithic anti-American sentiment. In this country, by contrast, no such effort was made; the government did not try to "manage" the event so as to make sure the audience response was uniformly anti-Ahmadinejad. The marketplace of ideas was allowed to do its thing, unfettered and unimpeded, and thus, unlike in Iran, and unlike in the fanciful dystopia that some radical lefties erroneously believe they are currently living in -- y'know, Chimpy W. Hitler's fascist police state of Amerikka -- the result was the gloriously messy cacophony of viewpoints that can only happen in a free country. Somehow I suspect the amazing virtue of that reality will be lost on Mahmoud, but we shouldn't let it be lost on us.

Comments

[ScottF]

"..we shouldn't let it be lost on us."

Amen.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

While I don't disagree with the substance or the justification of what Bollinger said, I think his frontal attack as the host of Columbia University plays into Ahmadinejad's hands by painting us as the "ugly Americans." Bollinger certainly could have accomplished the same thing with more rhetorical restraint.

[Condor]

"Some think he's "entirely reasonable.""

I don't think that he's entirely reasonable, but I can see how people would come away with this view. The view arises, I think, out of a disservice that the media and politicians do in treating him as the totally evil in every aspect all accross the board. Of course, It's really hard for a dictator can to live up to that discription on every level, so when people hear him and there's dissonance between what they've heard about him and what they hear from him, they start to disbelieve all of what the media has said about him and think he's an allright guy.
I lived in Germany a couple summers ago, and I read an interview with him in Der Spiegel. My impression, based on the US media was that he wasn't nearly as bad as what they said (if only because no one can live up to their discriptions). But when I read the letters to the editor the next week from all the Germans who thought, based on the interview, that he was a total nut-job, I realized that they had the more reasonable assessment because they were, without any media interference, assessing the guy.

[David K.]

Mad Max, I disagree with you completely, and while I think it was an absolute mistake to give the man a place to speak. When we give people like this, whose ideas are repugnant and not reasonable at all, a platform that makes them appear equal, no matter how much we like the idea of free speech, we are doing more harm than good. Free speech isn't about saying "all ideas should be considered equal no matter what". Free speech is saying "you have the right to have an idea no matter how stupid". Free speech is not taking away their ability to speak, but it doesn't mean providing them a place to speak from.

He does not deserve respect. He wants Israel destroyed, he calls the holocaust a myth. The man is frightening, especially that people consider such ideas reasonable.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

David K-

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I don't disagree with the gist of what Bollinger said. I disagree with the frontal attack. What do you think Al Jazeera and Iranian TV are playing tonight? Bollinger attacking the nut-case. Frankly, I think statements like "there are no gays in Iran" are damning enough without Bollinger trying to underscore and underline them.

[anon]

newsflash! anyone who disagrees with brendan is an idiot, especially if they don't share westernized morals.

[Brendan Loy]

Is the belief that gay people exist a "westernized moral"?

[anon]

im not sure that the "idiots" that you were referring to were applauding that specific remark.

i think it was more about cherring anyone who was against american imperialism, and while i question supporting a guy who is a strong public figure (remember hes not in charge over there) in a regime with lots problems and faults i could see where they are coming from.

[Brendan Loy]

cherring anyone who was against american imperialism

"Anyone" is right. You're talking about people who willingly associate themselves with the absolute worst kinds of tyrants imaginable if it suits their ideological cause du jour. It's pathetic and reprehensible and I will not accord it one iota of respect.

If they want to speak out against the ills of American foreign policy, that's totally fine. But to cheer the talking points of a man like Ahmadinejad just because he claims to hold some of the same ideological viewpoints, in spite of his other reprehensible qualities, it absolutely detestable and indefensible. If they're going to cheer him, they might as well cheer Bin Laden, who says many of the same things in his videotapes. At what point do they draw the line, and say, "I will not lend any support or credence to this man, even if we superficially agree on some things"? Clearly, if they're drawing the line on the wrong side of Ahmadinejad, they are -- as I said -- idiots.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. To make an analogy that a liberal can perhaps more easily relate to:

Suppose the guy who murdered that abortion doctor in Amherst, New York, is giving a speech against abortion. And suppose a bunch of supportedly moderate anti-abortion folks come to the speech. And suppose, when the murderer says "we must not allow the slaughter of innocent unborn children to continue," the supposed moderates cheer and applaud him. How would you interpret their action? Are they just innocently agreeing with a defensible viewpoint? Or are they indefensibly lending credence and support to a murderer by attending his speech and then cheering for him in spite of his heinous crime? I would certainly take the latter view, and I imagine that 99% of the people who were cheering for Ahmadinejad today would, too. Yet somehow the same standard doesn't apply when it's people on the Left who are associating themselves with indefensible people because of a superficial agreement on ideology. Funny how that works.

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I make no apologies for reaching the harshest possible judgments of anyone who cheered for Ahmadinejad today. Such people deserve zero respect, and I will accord them precisely what they deserve. "Idiot" is too kind, actually. They are filth. They are scum. They are lending their support to the propaganda efforts of a murderous and oppressive tyrant who has the blood of our soldiers, and of his own people, on his hands, and who would love to have some Israeli blood on his hands as well. There is absolutely no excuse for such dangerous ignorance, especially at a place of higher learning like Columbia. Many people in Iran don't have access to the volume of information we here in America have at our fingertips, so they can be forgiven for falling victim to the propaganda. For educated people in this country, there is no excuse. Apologists and appeasers all. Shame on them.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

There are no ... gays in Iran
So says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It would be funny, because of its blatant absurdity, if it weren't coming from someone whose government executes gays as a matter of policy.

Why do you think it absurd? perhaps he's been completely successful in his carrying out this policy? and those he didn't find and execute may have emmigrated to more friendly lands.

[Sean]

I really don't understand. It seems to me that a liberal - by the original, actual definition of the word - should find plenty of reasons to hate both Bush and all the dictators of the world. Seems to me a liberal-minded person should hate crazed dictators even more than Bush. And this coming from a guy who despises everything the man stands for. (Not what he claims to stand for. What he actually does stand for.)

[Angrier and Angrier]

I think the fact that Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran should have a chilling effect on everyone, including the "useful idiots" on the American left who cheer him on just because they don't like Bush (I don't like Bush, but I know the difference between an incompetent elected official and a vicious dictator like Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez).

By saying there are "no gays in Iran," what he is saying is gays won't be allowed in Iran. Either they will be driven out, sent underground or executed. While I am not one who believes in comparing every dictator to Hitler, the fact is both Hitler and apparently this fucker exterminate(d) gays as a matter of government policy.

[Johnny O]

What I find most amusing about this is those same "useful idiots" who applaud Ahmadinejad and say he has a right to speak, are the same ones who throw a rod when Ann Coulter gets up to speak.

[Becky]

Sean, if you can't tell the difference between George Bush and a dictator, you really need to slap every social studies teacher you've ever had as hard as you possibly can.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Becky-

In defense of Sean, it sounds like he is saying that in a liberal society - a free society - it is okay to openly dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad, disliking Ahmadinejad even more because he is a dictator.

Now, openly cheering for the f--ker is something else. Where's a Taser when you need one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s

[Brendan Loy]

Becky, what Angrier said. (Ha! Betcha didn't see that one coming, A & A!) Sean's comment doesn't say Ahmadinejad = Bush, it says Ahmadinejad and Bush are both bad, but Ahmadinejad is clearly far worse. If only everyone on the left (and yes, I know, Sean, you're a libertarian, not a liberal, but bear with me for present purposes, I'm trying to compliment you :) were so lucid.

[dcl]

I think Sean's punctuation is the problem. From my read of what he said I don't think he is calling Bush a dictator. Though, like I said, the punctuation is a little iffy so I can't be sure.

On the issue of speech, he has a right to say whatever he likes--but that does not mean I've got to pay attention to him, and only do insomuch as what he has to say is dangerous and we need to pay attention to the lunacy coming out of his mouth so we make sure we condemn his ravings for what they are and work to counter the idiocy coming out of his mouth. This is the same position I take on Ann Coulter. Sorry to disappoint Johnny O by treating both lunatics the same way. I also would like to thank David for pointing out that all ideas are not created equal, and some are just stupid like there are no gay people in Iran or the literal truth of creationism as taught in the bible.

I also agree with the president of Columbia attempting to engage in a debate on various issues. Though Max is not wholly incorrect in thinking it may not play well in Iran. Which, of course, is a concern when you are doing battle with a person who has lunatic ideas and does not actually allow free speech in his own country.

Brendan, I don't think things are as black and white as you'd like to believe they are, however. And things become increasingly difficult when you start to realize that all sides of an argument are actually wrong. This is especially true with any argument involving Israel. If you are looking for a simple answer to that question you are delusional. Unless you'd like to accept everyone is wrong and has their head up their ass. Which is, of course, not an answer so much as it is a negation of all available answers without necessarily precluding the possibility that an answer does exist and may eventually be found--this also does not mean that part of a real answer does not exist with in the raving inanities of any side you choose to look at. Cheer or not I don't care, but lets face it not killing people is, objectively, preferable to killing people (I think that is serviceable for both examples present in that argument?). Understanding the other side is important, even if it is insane, or you think it is insane. I don't recall there being anything to actually cheer about in Ahmadinejad's speech but neither is everything he said so facially wrong as there are no gays in Iran. To wit, you are over simplifying the question and situation simply because you hate the man. Which is not nearly as contemptible as cheering on a mass murdering psychopathic dictator(? he was elected, but Iran's elections are a kind of fuzzy thing) but it's still not what I would call a position of strength. Be that as it may, I think there is some reason to hope that left to his own devices Ahmadinejad will self-destruct without any help from us. To wit giving him the rope with which to hang himself might not be such a bad idea to wit, giving himself a platform on which to make an ass of himself by saying something as stupid as there are not gay people in Iran...

[Angrier and Angrier]

I didn't see that one coming. Thanks for giving me some credit ; -).

[Becky]

Hey! Maybe I just enjoy the mental image of Sean slapping biddy old teachers!

[Sandy Underpants]

American (republicans) actually believe liberals, democrats, or "left-wingers", are cheering on Ahminidonadouche? Please, turn off Bill O'Reilly and open your eyes/ears. The reason MoveOn.org and the rest of the screamers don't deride Iran, et al. is because there's no voice supporting them, so it would be a waste to preach to the choir. Whereas, being Americans in America with the government we've had this decade is pretty damn shameful not just because they've been destroying everything Real Americans want for their lives, but they've been re-elected after doing it.

[Becky]

Mr. (Ms.?) Underpants,

Come on now. I don't think the Bush administration is really destroying everything that Americans want for our lives. Curtailing it? Dampening it? Perhaps. But have some respect for our institutions and the beauty inherent in their creation. No president or administration could possibly destroy "everything Real Americans want for their lives" in merely 8 years.

And um, just out of curiosity, what is a Real American? I'm not sure that I know.

[Asaf]

General question. Is it possible for someone outside of the goverment to contribute political commentary without said commentary being derided as 'talking points'? I realize that most of what gets recited, are gleaned bits of info from various news outlets, blogs etc. , but assuming some person has come to their beliefs through some thought process, would these still be considered 'talking points'?