Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia

"I don't think honest students of history will regard present day Iran as more dangerous than the former Soviet Union"

Unlike Iran, religious extremists did not drive the Soviet Union. The real power behind Iran's leaders, are the devils in cleric robes, which corrupt and twist Islam to justify their hatred of the US. This mere fact makes Iran more dangerous that the Soviet Union ever was.

Let him speak, hell with our government trying to hide what he says to us. I dont trust our government as far as i can throw them and the more our government threatens the university the more impatience I have with them and the more I do not trust our government.

I want to hear what Iran has to say.

Columbia administrators are intellectual, condescending pompous eggheads. They applaud freethinking and use the opportunity to give this second rate clone of Hitler, as an example of their commitment to free though. Yet, they still pick and choose what, ideas they will allow their students to hear. As Lex commented, Columbia administrators have chosen to deny the ROTC and the extremist group the Minutemen any opportunity to address their students.

If their philosophy is to allow their students access to different points of views, then they should be truthful to their so called convictions and allow these groups in a well

If I recall correctly, Columbia DID allow the head of the Minutemen to speak, but he was shouted down by radical student groups. I disagreed with that and I disagree with those who would "save us" by protecting our delicate ears from Ahmadinejad's opinions. Frankly, the American people have shown a lot more wisdom when it comes to world affairs than the current administraiton (no fair saying the American people elected Bush - he was never elected by a majority of potential voters, just a vanishingly small majority of those who actually DID vote, and we were lied to even at that). ROTC should be allowed to speak, so should any group that is not officially criminal. When I went to college, a Klansman was allowed to speak at my school. You can bet that was controversial, but we survived and the vast majority of us knew him for what he was. Students aren't dumb, or at least they won't be dumb if they are allowed to make up their own minds. In an increasingly competitive world, we can ill-afford to coddle our best and brightest.

oh please, you listen to the babble that runs out of our own presidents mouth (if you can even understand it), if bush told you his sh*t smelled like roast beef you believe him.

True American, LOL that sounds exactly like the Bushies.

I think he's sweet.

LOL, this sort of reminds me of that movie where there was a bunch of people atop a building, sporting banners to welcome aliens from their spacecraft hovering overhead, when all of a sudden---poof, the people and their welcome banners were vaporized by some nuclear beam the aliens shot down at them.

Has anyone seen those Death to America posters? They aren't real, ya know, it's all in your mind. YOU comjured it up in YOUR dreams of who YOU think Ahmadinejad and his people are. In fact, he isn't real either, he is just a figment of Bush's imagination that has been projected onto the people of the US. Oh, and Tony Blair had the dream as George Bush.

Get a life.

First of all - if being a Liberal in ones eyes is being fair - then I am proud to call myself a liberal... but if one being called a Liberal is being called a fool - than by no means will I address myself as one...doing the right thing is not being foolish.

But I will say this...I have been listening to one of the most irrational debates I have ever thought possible - to the point where I have heard enough and turned it off.

There is nothing Ahmadinejad's can say from now on anywhere that I will respect or believe. He has taken on the guise of an intelligent, well learned man and turned it into a three ring circus...and played some sincere teachers of life into first class fools.

Each and every question that has been put to him has been answered by a question..

He has skirted around each and every concern presented to him which tells me he is as full of it as any one can possibly be and has lost any credibility he might have had (declaring freedom of speech and wanting to be heard) up to now.

We have been suckered into believing that they are innocent bystanders, and I just don't buy that anymore...he just blew that argument out of the water.
.
His reference to Moses, and biblical situations confirms the religious belief that is held in the Middle East, over what might be considered humanitarian in other religious beliefs....I feel they should be allowed to practice their belief as they see fit....dose not mean I have to choose that lifestyle or even identify it as a religion over a form of tyrany. There is serious injustice over there that those folks have allowed and lived with for centuries. . . and we need to keep our focus and that dose not include mistreatment of any human being be they homosexual, divorced, adulteress, or physical abuse of any kind.

The sooner we let those animals choke on their oil the better...and our trying to keep any amount of control over there is obscene in my opinion which makes this situation we are in with Iraq even worse than I thought possible.

What Columbia University chose to do I believe has a lot to do with the Middle Eastern dollars being spent by students attending that University.... .I do not believe it had anything to do with free speech...if it had, arrangements could have been made to have the same attendance at an off the campus location....Madison Garden would have worked...any place other than a University campus in a nation that calls itself DEMOCRATIC.

This guy did not answer a single direct question. The speech was a farce and the question and answer segment was hilarious. This was nothing more than a propaganda event for Iran, which was sponsored and paid for by Columbia and the administrative nitwits that thought this was a good idea.

Lex...just wanted to share this with you and others who feel the Liberals are the fools...

The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time.
Franklin P. Adams

Did Columbia pay for that mini Hitler, Charles manson clone to "speak" ?

A bit of persepective here-
I think it needs to be mentioned that the audience of "liberal" students and faculty at Columbia was not even remotely receptive to anything that came out of Ahmedinejad's mouth. They openly laughed at him when he said that "Iran does not have homosexuals like you have here". I perceived the event in a rather different way from some of you: not as evidence of traitorous "fellow travelers" within the USA, but rather a example of intelligent people listening to a stupid person and eventually reacting with hostility and mockery. It was pretty obvious by the end that the Iranian dude was angry and humiliated by his hostile reception.
Look, it never works out well when you let yourself be led by a stupid person. Don't we know that here in the USA as well as anyone anywhere?

I think this whole "debate" as to whether we should or should not let this "leader" of Iran speak is absurd. Enabling Ahmadinejad speak his mind gives us all an opportunity to carefully observe who we must take serious note whether we like it or not.

In my opinion the man is a sophist - one who pretends he is a truth seeker when in fact he is nothing more than the most pretentious of pretentious sophomores taking great pride in playing the game of I Gotcha.

If we want to outwit him at his own game I suggest President Bush indicate that he would like to return the favor and be invited to speak his piece in front of a prestigious Iranian University.

Turn about is fair play.

Not allowing Ahmadinajad to speak . . .

. . . leads to the absurdity that we only allow speakers to echo our own values in a mock debate. The idea that we can pre-certify our opponents in debate means just that...we pre-certify and stamp others as "acceptable" prior to "playing the game" of debate in "open forum" -- and this means that *our idea of an "open forum" is not open to debate. One man's blind (and rather naive) perspective cannot be shunted into oblivion by shouting over them, nor will the plugging of ears help other minds evolve to the correct perspective.

Someone said

"Unlike Iran, religious extremists did not drive the Soviet Union. The real power behind Iran's leaders, are the devils in cleric robes, which corrupt and twist Islam to justify their hatred of the US. This mere fact makes Iran more dangerous that the Soviet Union ever was."

Actually, it appears that you can state at least a handful of facts

Eg.

FACT: (1) Iran ruled by Islamic clerics

--------corollary opinion-------
--------: Russia not ruled by religious fanatics; Iran ruled by religious fanatics

... I didn't see much more than that

You seem to divide "religious extremism" from what was known as "left-wing extremism" under the un-analogy you propose of in Iran vs. the Soviet Union.

A quick cheap shot: It would seem to me that only a communist would think that Islamic extremists were "more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was" -- end cheapshot, don't take it seriously.

But according to officials during the time of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was terribly dangerous. Our military arsenal (of which is also in danger of falling into Islamicist's hands) would probably not exist had it not been for our well-founded belief in the mutual danger both of our countries posed to the other. So the genesis of Islamic extremism can be found in the murky geo-political shatterbelt between titanic powers wielding weapons of mass destruction (USA and USSR).

And here's my analogy for your mental predicament: you have a patient that needs a triple -bypass and you want to solve the problem with a pedicure.

Allowing Ahmadinejad to appear at Columbia isn't a crime, if we profess to be a Democratic nation that values free speach then we have little choice but to let him speak... doesn't mean we have to agree with him or treat him with respect. The President of Columbia did a good job of insulting the man before he even got his chance to speak and even though Ahmadinejad tried to claim the moral high ground... (sic)"you insulted me first!"... he lost it as soon as he began his diatribe against the oppression of the Palestinian peoples asking "Why do the Palestinians have to suffer for Hitler's crimes against the Jews?" (sic)

As for allowing him in our country... that's part of the price of housing the world headquarters for the United Nations.

I watched part of the address with a gentleman who worked for U.S. Companies in Saudi Arabia for over ten years... when the President of Columbia University referenced the issue of the numbers of people executed by hanging in Iran... including minors, the person I was watcdhing this with commented on how, when he was in Saudi Arabia, they used to avoid the public markets etc on Friday because Friday is the day that all executions are held in Saudi... anybody who is on the streets is forced to watch foreigners and Saudis alike ... the method of execution... Beheading!

How does it make US look when we use a double standar in this issue?

On the other hand I wonder how Ahmadinejad felt having a woman translator... in effect having a woman speak for him?

Great article Scott, what is wrong with listening to opinions that differ from our own...? If we are on the right side.... We should have nothing to fear, right? It is always disconcerting to hear from those who hail from the "conservative mindset" who almost always resort to name calling & labels when a hole is poked into their logic. If I didn't know any better I would think that they have the keys to the universe....

*sigh* if anybody sees a lone 'd' around it belongs in my last comment, at the end of "standard"...

Did anyone else hear the cheering of the students gathered when Ahmadinejad defended himself when the Columbia President Lee Bollinger accused him of being petty and cruel? I know he was booed several times during his speech, but the cheers from them over this is a bit startling.

It's interesting to muse on what kind of reaction Pres. "I'madinnerjacket" would have gotten when stating that they don't have homosexuals before an Iranian audience in Iran. I think they would not have guffawed as they did in NY for fear of what the government might do to them. That highlights the differences in the lives that Americans and Iranians lead. He should have known that free speech would be practiced with abandon at a liberal bastion like Columbia. They gave him what he deserved, including a severe tongue-lashing by the president of Columbia U, before he even took the podium. And so even "I'madinnerjacket" of Iran also has paid a price for our free speech!

His choice of Columbia U was also interesting in that he could have tried to speak before a group with views closer to his own - religiously tainted, repressive to women, disrespectful of the holocaust, reactionary, and brutal to his political opposition - a group like the Christian Coalition, or the Council of Conservative Citizens. He could have gotten a lot more respect from a group of Catholic Bishops, don't you think?

I don't think he should have come, I am wondering what his ulterior motive is. Why would a man known for terrorism and supporting the practices over there even want to come to America, unless he had a goal of sneering in our faces, or being somewhat evil minded in his message to us. It was like a slap in the face I think. Read the book Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee, whether you are religious or not...you'll find it very interesting and eye opening.

Thank you for all your comments. It's not quite as many as the NY Times - somewhere over a thousand, last time I looked, but clearly there is a lot of interest in this.
A couple of points:
1. President Bollinger did a pretty thorough job excoriating Ahmadinejad. Anyone who thought this was a liberal whitewash of Ahmadinejad's record didn't see the presentation.
2. The biblical stuff in the beginning of Ahmadinejad's speech was pure nonsense and completely irrelevant. The fact that he would go on and one about the Garden of Eden and try to connect that somehow to modern science just shows how far apart our cultures are. Of course, the present occupant of the White House is a bit of a religious fanatic too, so that lessens that argument a bit.
3. That leads me to my third point: there are far more similarites between Bush and Ahmadinejad than either of them, or their supporters, would care to admit. For instance: Both are highly religious, both twist the facts and substitute inspiring rhetoric to gloss over inconvenient truths - Ahmadinejad has his "Israel should be wiped off the map" moments (while being ever-so-careful not to say it should be Iran that actually does it), and Bush has his making the "Middle East safe for democracy" and weapons of mass destruction goose chases. Last time I looked both of these missions had failed to produce results.
4. It's unfortunate that Bush has handed Ahmadinejad easy talking points like Adb Gharib, illegal wiretapping, search without warrents, lack of Habeus Corpus, suppression of free speech etc. Bush makes it pretty hard for America to take the high ground when he's racing toward the bottom. Like a lot of Americans, I now wonder whether the reports of Iran's involvement in anti-American activities can be fully trusted. It's not that I believe Ahmadinejad - I don't - I just no longer fully believe our intelligence services, or even some of the military when it comes to connecting the dots. Too many "slam-dunks" and trailers containing biological weapons of mass destruction that didn't turn out to be, for me, I'm afraid. Too much corruption in military contracts - 6 billion being investigated by the Petagon today alone, for example. Too many mission changes and defining down success - the latest definition of success from Bush is "A country that can sustain itself, defend itself and maintain itself." Uh, isn't that what we had when Hussain was there? Was it worth nearly 4,000 American lives and over 20,000 casualities to get rid of Hussain, who was never more than a regional threat anyway? He was contained after the first war, when Bush senior left him alone in Bagdhad - which more and more, seems like a brilliant decision in retrospect.
I think Bush Junior is itching to expand the war to Iran, and will probably use some boarder skirmishes as a way around Congress, until Iran is provoked into responding, and he can say they struck first. Then he'll run out the clock and leave the worst foreign policy mess in American history to his successor.

4. It's unfortunate that Bush has handed Ahmadinejad easy talking points like Adb Gharib, illegal wiretapping, search without warrents, lack of Habeus Corpus, suppression of free speech etc. Bush makes it pretty hard for America to take the high ground when he's racing toward the bottom

That is very close to suggesting that people who fudge on their taxes have no grounds to criticize pedophiles.

May I remind you that torture, execution after a speedy mock trial, and routine violations of basic civil rights are policy in Iran. On the other hand, what you claim is "illegal wiretapping, search without warrents, lack of Habeus Corpus" hardly places the United States in the same oppressive sphere as countries like Canada, Brition, France, Germany, Spain and Japan where the same practices that drive civil libertarians in the United States to hysteria -- are common practice.

To compare these things with "Bush" is to demonstrate that one lacks the ability to compare.

We've heard it all before from Ahmadinejad. His intent is to sew doubt and questions in his victims to make them feel guilty. This is a man who when you listen to a few of his arguments you realize that like a snake the whole arc of his life is committed to evil and violence.

I am all for democracy, free-speech, non-violence and reasonable discussion.

Letting Ahmadinejad speak is just self-humiliation for America and the West. Why are we so stupid to think that we need to hear this man vent his hatred and propganda to be good people or to live up to out ideals?

The answer to that is that we have so many Americans who grasp at straws of illogic in order to think they are patriotic. I'll never understand it, and I'll never agree with it.

The sooner this guy is assassinated or blown to bits the better off the world will be. The sooner someone who mocks law and order and morality is recognized and dealth with for what he is instead of a inquiring mind eager to learn about history, or eager to understand other people.

I consider myself a Liberal, but nothing in my has any desire for this nonsense of putting up for a second with Ahmadinjead. If he was here in this room with me now, I would know my duty to the world and go into the kitchen, come back with my biggest knife and cut his evil throat.

Spartan, there is no such thing as an honest dialog with such people, there is just appeasement and delay. All our security measures are because of the threat from these people, I suggest we turn the tables and affect their lives in ways that change their lifestyles, their security, and their new world order. We will "get" what is going on at some point, the question is whether it will be before or after a new world war, or a nuclear war?

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks, Scott. I'm not sure that Bush should be allowed to address the Iranian prime minister (among others) one-on-one, although there's no reason why an envoy couldn't be used in his place.

Keith, the answer is not to ridicule Americans and fight like Sunni and Shia. I am so sick of the anti-Liberal talking points. I am a Liberal in many things and I was calling for the invasion of Afghanistan since just before they started blowing up the stone Buddhas. You get yourself a big thrill I guess imagining you are riding sidesaddle with the likes of Rush, why don't you just concentrate of the facts that will convince them of your correctness of arguments instead of attacking the people themselvse over your own imagined scenarios or stupidity?

Chive? ... that makes you a vegetable I guess? I'll forgive your faulty reasoning in that case.

It was rather interesting however to learn the Iranian slur for homosexual is "corpse."

"Those who do cannot recall the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them" - Santayana

Doomed - that is an intense word. Of course, in our PC culture most of us have heard the glossed-over version parroted as "fated", "destined", etc. The correct word is doomed.

Yes, it's fine that he was in this country. What plans did his terrorist goon squad make while he was here? Doesn't matter. We need to face it. But we also need to face the truth that he is what he is. A liar - a sophist, as one previous posted eloquently put it.

I am not liberal. I am not Republican. American could be the greatest country on earth again, but we can't get past these little puerile "I'm right" - "No, I'm right" spats that we've been lock-stepped in ever since the 70's. And yes, I am old enough to remember the 70's. And a good portion of the 60's.

Right now Ahmadinejad is just a punk. But he's a punk with power because he has charisma and people behind him. He has a cause and he has the unpredictability of Islam behind him while he builds his nuclear arsenal. Anyone who believes he's building power plants and not weapons can contact me about some swamp land I have for sale in Afghanistan. He is a danger and a menace. And while he was here on American soil we head the opportunity to show him that we have the will to crush him. Instead we showed him what a bunch of spoiled brats we are - offering our own personal version of "fair" in allowing him the opportunity to speak and defend himself without answering a thing.

Will he become Hitler? Maybe. He has backing. There are so many others who run amok right under our noses because we ignore them and come back to haunt us - not the least of which was Saddam Hussein. And while we should never have gone into Iraq until we were done in Afghanistan, he had to be dealt with. Because he was another bully who was trying to get nukes. There's a possibility that I won't discount that Iran's nuclear capabilities are so far advanced because Saddam dumped what he had across the Iraq/Iran border before we invaded. Anyone who thinks that is far fetched doesn't remember Vietnam (a war that Democrats involved us in, for the record)

Should he have spoken? Yep. Should we have allowed him to finish? No way - Americans should have shouted down every word he said. Unfortunately Americans don't understand what it means to be Americans anymore. We're too busy being Diversity-Americans instead of remembering that the first word in our country's name is UNITED. The UNITED States of America. If we don't unite soon, we won't have to worry about being Americans for much longer.

Oh - one last thing - remember we are supposed to be the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. We are neither. Those who would be free are primarily cowards - those are brave would make us slaves.

Letting people speak is the best thing universities can do. I always remember 1970 an Afro-coiffed Angela Davis after refusing to answer a question, screaming from the podium at USC "Shut up, shut up, shut up! Listen, you f***ing rich kids had better realize; after the revolution, counter revolutionaries will be silenced!"

look at the knees jerking in here!

yeah.... it has been a bit more than 100 days... hmmmn.

Chive,

I don't think that anyone is as fearful of Israeli retaliation as you think they are. After all, everyone sucked air when the Iraqi SCUD fell in Jerusalem in 1991 waiting for them to counterstrike - perhaps with a nuke of their own. Nothing happened. That lack of action has convinced the Arabic people that the Israelis will not strike back. Instead they have seen that Israel will stand back in deference to the American money that pours into their land and wait.

But lets look at another factor that truly emboldens Ahamdinejad. Have you noticed Iran's neighbor to the north? It's not the big bad Soviet empire anymore, but with Putin in charge and with the old-time Communist regime pushing to undo nearly 20 years of glasnost & pseudo-democracy as well as having rogue states with nukes missing, it's not a pretty sight. The single factor that stood in America's way of directly attacking Iran in the 80's was the Soviet Union. Whether or not it is a viable political power any more, there are enough sympathizers to that former power plus the cache of weaponry it still holds that Iran, Mahmoud and all of its powers that be know they are protected by it. Look at it from the American perspective - no matter what the political differences we may have at times with either Mexico or Canada, do you think we would allow our neighbor to be attacked? What sort of threat would that pose to us? Now turn it back around. Do you not think that Russia and the former Soviet Republics - especially Georgia and Kazakhstan - would not see that as a threat and band together to ensure that we would fail? Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

No, Iran knows that they are at present free to do whatever they wish to do - and so they do. And Ahmadinejad is just the puppet to make sure that we are goaded and prodded into anger - but not action.

There is a level of entertainment watching the 'lefties' stand up for Ahmadinejad and in some cases show him admiration. Well at least the '9/11 truthers' now have another 'prestigious' name to throw into their ranks...a holocaust denier who stated that his country has no homosexuals…he claims that this is a western phenomenon?!?!?

So when you ask why most reasonable people choose not to trust him and his ilk (Chavez, Castro...) ask yourself just how much of a grip on reality do you think he really has? While your at it, check your own…

It does not matter whether we declared war on Iran. Iran declared war on the US in 1979 and has been waging it ever since. The (cough, cough) president of Iran is free to speak his mind whenever he chooses (not a luxury afforded the citizens of his country). Freedom of speech means he should be free to speak his mind. It does not mean we should invite him to an Ivy League School and afford him a prestegious megaphone from which to spew his hate. Don't you people understand that the video from that speech will be cut, editted and transformed into a recruitment tool for terrorists to be aired on tvs everywhere in the Islamic world.

3. That leads me to my third point: there are far more similarities between Bush and Ahmadinejad than either of them, or their supporters, would care to admit. For instance: Both are highly religious, both twist the facts and substitute inspiring rhetoric to gloss over inconvenient truths - Ahmadinejad has his "Israel should be wiped off the map" moments (while being ever-so-careful not to say it should be Iran that actually does it), and Bush has his making the "Middle East safe for democracy" and weapons of mass destruction goose chases. Last time I looked both of these missions had failed to produce results.

Scott, you make some good points but so many here seem to want to ignore those little details.
Chive, it looks like you were having an interesting discussion with the invisible Keith... apparently you "won" after all as he has removed his comments from this thread.
It's sad to see so many who would rather ignore the point that Scott made comparing Bush and "I'madinner jacket"* (I couldn't resist such a witty mangling of his name!)* In many ways Bush comes closer to being the 'Hitler' of the 21st century than I'madinnerjacket could ever hope to be.
Hitler became so powerful because he played into -- and was able to massively inflate -- German nationalism, a sense of unity and pride so badly shattered after the victors in World War I stomped their asses in for them economically, politically and socially. Hitler pandered to a base starving for patriotism and German pride and quickly mobilized a country desperate to be made whole again, that's how he became so powerful
Substitute Bush for Hitler and American for German and you have a close approximation to the political climate in this country at this time...

On the other hand, what you claim is "illegal wiretapping, search without warrents, lack of Habeus Corpus" hardly places the United States in the same oppressive sphere as countries like Canada, Brition, France, Germany, Spain and Japan
I'd also appreciate if some one could explain to me how Canada and Britain came to be described as "oppressive"? In some ways these two nations are much more open then we are right now. Much as Greg might like to believe otherwise, the last time I checked both countries still recognize Habeas Corpus and people's right to free speech, including the right to not have to worry about disappearing into limbo if some one in the government decides you are an 'enemy combatant'. The closest Canada came to that in recent memory is when Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis in the 1970's... and even that was a temporary measure that could not be carried on indefinitely without Legislative oversight and approval.

I have yet to see any examples of responsible Congressional oversight on the current issues mentioned in the above quote...

> Substitute Bush for Hitler and American for German
> and you have a close approximation to the political
> climate in this country at this time...

oh really?

I don't have much more to add to the comments here, except to one person's comment that Ahmadinejad got where he based on Charisma and empty promises. He got where he is based on a largely socialist agenda of promissing to redistribute the oil wealth of his country to a large a base of poor, unemployed (and unemployable) people. Like most such socialist schemes, the end result was corruption, draconian measures against those who pointed out the weaknesses of the failed policies, and beligerent posturing against external powers (the U.S.). The probelm is, as I've send in numerous other articles, is that if we don't get off the oil tit these third world dictators can continue along these paths for a very long time. Ahmadinejad (or Chavez, for that matter), are able to push through inefficient, capital destructive policies because of one thing - oil. It's not a recognition of the correct path by Allah; it certainly isn't an endorsement of Communism, it's just a geological accident that they are where they are. Frankly, I don't blame these two leaders for running with the ball we gave them, even though their understanding of their good fortune is severely limited, I blame Bush and his administration for not seriously promoting energy independence. As I write this, 19% of our Nasdaq corporation is up fro grabs by Dubai, our banks and investment centers are being gobbled up by the Chinese, all because of the weak dollar and unsustainable trade deficit. We're giving away the store, folks, while we pointlessly chastise unpopular leaders for their swaggering. If we want to have fewer Ahmadinejads and Chavezs, we need to stop buying their friggin oil. You'll never change their ideology or actions otherwise. Meanwhile, we should continue to promote free speech, and free listening to that speech, whereever possible.
OK, this is getting off-topic. You can read my opinions in other articles.

This is really silly to take this time to bash socialism. Ahmadinejad supports an Islamic state, aimed against Israel and the West as outside threats to hold the country together. Socialism? Your comment is a joke.

Thinking that all we need to do is isolate ourselves behind a new energy technology is also really naive. The world runs on oil, and it is not just the US who put dictators in power all over the world, we just aimed a little of that dictator power that was already there to expand trade and capitalism.

Whatever happens these dictators are in strategic places to affect the world, and our war on terrorism is partially an attempt to break the back of Islamic terrorism and make these countries less belligerent. Otherwise we are the ones who will be locked out and essentially embargoed.

If we want to remain a strong country, Deb, we need to have huge energy availability, period. We cannot ration ourselves with solar power and be content with that, we need other power sources, and right not the blood of the world is oil. If the war we are in is a war on oil, so what? You want to wait until we are starving or have no oil to finally do something about it? There is always promising research, I have heard that since I was a kid, hydrogen, wind, solar, geothermal, ocean temperature differential ... on and on. The reason they do not take hold is that at the base of it all, behind everything, oil is the cheapest most plentiful commodity. If the current war was not happening oil would probably be around $1.00/gallon. The problem is who is going to control the spigot and who is going to get screwed, and it has nothing to do with imagined ideas of fairness and morality or even whose oil it is. It is not like the Middle Eastern oil producers are not well-compensated, the greatest transfer of wealth ever in history has been going in their direction for 50+ years.

Substitute Bush for Hitler and American for German and you have a close approximation to the political climate in this country at this time...

Wow...this is either a complete ignorance of history or a blinded ideologue...good luck with either option

Lending any credibility to the many depts of the executive branch would be unethical--equivalent to rewarding the past distortions and concoctions of this current Administration and every administration in the future that follows down the same road. Disbelief in the current leadership of our government is not just a matter of looking at the facts (WMD debacle in Iraq; linking Saddam and 9-11; considering Iraq an "imminent" (nuclear) threat) -- it is a matter of principle. As ethical beings, we ought not to put our trust in lying leadership, nor suffer blindly their continued presence in office.

It is our patriotic duty to never forgive those in power who overtly lie to the people, and at such a terrible price.

You are all missing the point. The idiot has all the free speech he could ever want. Allowing someone to speak freely is very different than legitimizing the creten by giving him a pestegious forum from which to preach his hatred. I guess none of you are aware that the video has already been re-edited and being aired on islamic television. It's like a terrorist recruiting film being used to enlist more radicals kill you! You libs are so stupid it is pathetic. You apparently are missing the fact that this idiot wants you dead. He represents everything you are supposed to be against. The crimes he commits against women alone should make your skin crawl. Do you know what a female circumsition is? His country hangs homosexuals. His country is arming and funding the insurgents that are killing our troops that you profess to support. Let me ask you this if your best friend invited the guy that raped and killed your sister to his house to give a speech, would you say "Well it's okay. He has the right to free speech after all. My friend shouldn't care just because he has a different view point then me."? He should have been arrested the second he got off the plane.

I'd also appreciate if some one could explain to me how Canada and Britain came to be described as "oppressive"? In some ways these two nations are much more open then we are right now. Much as Greg might like to believe otherwise, the last time I checked both countries still recognize Habeas Corpus and people's right to free speech, including the right to not have to worry about disappearing into limbo if some one in the government decides you are an 'enemy combatant'. The closest Canada came to that in recent memory is when Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis in the 1970's... and even that was a temporary measure that could not be carried on indefinitely without Legislative oversight and approval.

The last time I checked Habeas Corpus and free speech still exist in the United States despite the hysterics of the left, and that was the point.

My other point was that The Patriot Act hardly moves the U.S. into the realm of Canada and Briton, places where wiretaps are entirely legal in cases where the target is a non-citizen or one connection of a phone call comes from outside the country.

You are quite correct about Canada's reaction to the terrorism of the 1970's and British reaction to the IRA, yet neither are "police states" and neither are we.

You are quite correct about Canada's reaction to the terrorism of the 1970's and British reaction to the IRA, yet neither are "police states" and neither are we.

Now, now Greg...you are making entirely too much sense. Of course we are now a fascist police state with a dictator for life with no freedoms other than those we conjure up in our own heads...haven't you heard the cries from the extremists over the past couple of years...they could not possibly be wrong....again, could they?

The way you expose someone like this is to let them expose himself. This is exactly what Ed Murrow did with Joe McCarthy--he didn't get on television and denigrate McCarthy. Instead he showed clips of the Senator that let viewers see for themselves. That's all Columbia did too, and the Iranian President came off as looking pretty foolish.

Just (too) briefly on the Alternate Energy route:
1. We had an oil crisis in the 70s and learned to live with less. Result: a better, stronger, America with a booming service economy. Time to revisit the conservation trough now that we've had over 30 years to perfect energy conservation - LEED certification, flourescent light bulbs that burn 10% of the energy and produce the same light (people will not shiver in the dark), cars that can get 40mpg (hybrids are a start; all-electric would be even better, if we can get teh recharge times down and the capacity up. Gee, how about we carve out a teeny piece of that trillion dollars we've spent on the Afghanistan/Iraq wars so far - according to ABC News the other night, if you add up everything - for a little bit of energy research. I know, I know, free market, blah blah. Maybe we need a free market in middle east wars too - let the best side win...)
2. Why not give the automakers a real incentive - double (tripple?) the credit toward making their fleet meet the upgraded CAFE standards for every non-oil ZEV (Zero Emmission Vehicle - as in greenhouse gases) using car they add to their fleet (hydrogen, electric etc.)?
3. Nuclear - yes, I know, the waste. Hey, guess what, Socialist France reprocesses all their waste in a their giant Socialist reprocessing plant until they can just bury the rest safely. Oh, did I mention they get 80% of their Socialist electricity from Socialist Nuclear plants? Germany gets about half that from windmills now. America - about 20 from nuclear and under two percent from all renewable sources (sun, wind, geothermal) except hydropower, which is a whopping 6%!
4. Clean coal - yes, it's been experimental since I was a pup, but that's mostly because there are no incentives to make it live. Hmm, greenhouse gases will eventually cost all of us a lot more than the difference between a clean plant and dirty one. Perhaps the power industry should be made to pay the difference in taxes, or else build only clean plants? Oh heck, let's just tell them they have to build clean plants only from now on, which by the way, the next 151 coal plants waiting for authorization are NOT. Got to slip those plants online while Bush is still in office, you see, before the Dems change the rules. By the way, one coal plant operating for two years obviates all the savings even if EVERYONE switched to flourescent light bulbs permanently. Coal provides over half our power needs, so we can't ignore it. We definitely need to do something about the current rage of blowing off moutain tops to get the coal underneath or we'll turn Appelachia (and a good bit more of the country) into a slag-heap.
5. True cost taxing. I alluded to this above, but we've really got to start charging the oil companies for keeping their fields free of those pesky terrorists. According to Alan Greenspan, Iraq was all about oil. I wouldn't go quite that far, but it is interesting how we quickly shifted our attention from Afghanistan - where there were terrorists but no oil - to Iraq - where there is oil but no terrorists. Oh wait, now Iraq has BOTH terrorists and oil. How did THAT happen? There were no terrorists when Hussain was there; he killed them all as they were a threat to him too. Hmmm...
6. We have an experimental wave power plant here in Manhattan that powers a large supermarket on Roosevelt Island. Yes, the tidal forces were even more powerful than the designers thought when they put the wavemills underwater, but this is how we learn. Or has the country stopped taking chances and dared to explore since the Apollo program? My point is that we need to start taking some risks again, and not just in "Foreign Entanglements"

OK, I could go on and on, but this is getting off-topic. Someday, maybe I'll write (another) book detailing what I'd do if President, just for laughs. Oh, I am too tired and bitter...

I said this in 2004 when Osama bin Laden made comments indicating a preference in the election :

When the people begin to figure things out and call a spade a spade, the best propaganda tactic is to employ a scarecrow from the "evil axis" to make an insidious copy this "making of sense" -- it is all too convenient when your avowed enemies parrot your public opposition: i.e. talking about abuses of human rights, etc.. Its the quickest way to shut down those who are just making too much sense.

That's what made dinner-jacket's visit so terribly obscene.

For whatever it's worth; the I'm-a-dinner-jacket mnemonic for remembering Ahmadinejad's name was thought up by Katie Couric. Perhaps this says something about the level of today's news media, when even the news anchor of one of the major networks needs to come up with a silly mnemonic like this to remember the name of a leader who, rightly or wrongly, is constantly in the news. Or, perhaps it says something about all of us that we have to stoop to such schoolyard name mangling in an effort to belittle an opponent who so obviously already has so many shortcomings. As for me, I worked too hard to remember how to spell and pronounce Ahmadinejad to confuse myself with deliberate alterations. Besides, the issues are just too serious.

Actually, my mother and I made up this name long before Katie Couric was even a household name. I know this for a fact.

But to be fair, you are correct--we shouldn't stoop so low. And media needs to quit pretending that they come up with all this stuff.