Bollinger Forgot to Stand Up for the U.S.

Real Clear Politics ^ | September 25, 2007 | Ed Koch

[vietvet67]

President Lee C. Bollinger of Columbia University and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran met Monday on a field of rhetorical battle at Columbia.

Bollinger opened the proceedings, to which he had invited Ahmadinejad, by presenting a series of sharply-worded questions. Bollinger, normally a genial, soft spoken man who is always courteous and deferential to his guests, was in a totally different mode. His voice was hectoring and bullying. He included in his litany of questions provocative and insulting statements about his guest.

Bollinger's change of style was, I believe, to blunt the enormous criticism that ensued following Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak there. In his defense, Bollinger's supporters constantly invoke the concepts of free speech and the First Amendment. But in this case they simply don't apply.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No government action was taken to stop Columbia and Bollinger from extending the invitation and holding the event as they did. I watched it on television, 600 people watched it from within the auditorium and thousands of Columbia students sat outside watching and listening to a giant TV screen.

The right of free speech - Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were exercising it before, during and after this controversy -- was never in question. What was in question was Bollinger's judgment. Why provide the President of Iran -- who supports terrorism and whose government provides bombs to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists who use them to kill American soldiers -- with the prestigious platform at a great American university?

[MarMema]

Did you watch the video/live speech?

Do you think evil is best kept in the dark or brought into the light?

[HardStarboard]

>>>Do you think evil is best kept in the dark or brought into the light?.<<<

Most enlightened Americans, although not at Columbia (since he received a standing ovation from at least half in attendance) know that Ahmadinejad is a violent little thug with dangerous delusions of grandure and inconvenient access to somewhat formidable armed forces. The light has shone on his face in America.

Where we need to show he is an evil, deluded worshiper of the 12 Imman is in the Middle East. If we would have "dissed" him and prevented his attempt (it was successful) at a propaganda triumph, it would have been a defeat for him. As it is, he came off as pissing on the Great Satan in his lair....a propaganda coup for recruiting for his "America Defeated In Iraq" project.

I have been watching "War" on PBS, a documentary of WWII. It occurred to me that if a University had invited Hitler to speak at any time after Dunkirk, where the British got thrown off of European (French) soil by the Germans, the provider of the invite would have been mobbed, severely beaten and perhaps killed By Patriotic Americans!

I have had the questionable luxury of living through that period, and, although young at the time, I vividly remember the American mood.

Where were American Patriots when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia? Sure, there were demonstrations - but this guy heads a government that is killing American soldiers and Marines!

Americans, you included, should have demanded he be run out of town....tarred, feathered and on a rail! That he was allowed to speak is to Americas shame.