I lived two years in Iran, 1977-79. I was there during the fall of the Shah and the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini. I have some understanding of what is going on there today as well. It is not a matter of Bollinger speaking the truth, but rather, whether his gratuitous insults helped or hurt Ahmadinejad. I think they helped Ahmadinejad. It made him a sympathetic figure for some.
Do you have a bias? Clearly you should understand the reality of the situation (not this clowns paper-thin propaganda)
I have some understanding of what is going on there today as well. It is not a matter of Bollinger speaking the truth, but rather, whether his gratuitous insults helped or hurt Ahmadinejad.
That was my point - just because the truth hurts, does not mean it is an insult. In this country we are free to call feces feces (so to speak) - unlike in Iran. Bollinger spoke the cold harsh truth - Ahmadinejad spewed comical propaganda. It is not free speech if we are forced to "spin nice"
whether his gratuitous insults helped or hurt Ahmadinejad
Wait a minute - if it is the truth, it is not a "gratuitous" insult" - you can't have it both ways. Your wording makes you sound like an Ahmadinejad cheerleader. Speaking the truth is not an insult. Did you want Bollinger to lie and claim this clown is "man of peace and freedom" - just to make nice???
It made him a sympathetic figure for some.
Maybe you feel that way and maybe hate-America-firsters will agree - but I doubt many others will agree with you. His comical propaganda trumps the "truth is an insult" angle.