Just to swizzle their shi’ite.

He should go over there with ribs and hot links from one of the joints on 79th street

They’d kill him.

Why can’t we have a sane academia, that offers a firm and constant challenge to dictators? Then they wouldn’t have to be rude when they suddenly realize that they may have put their alumni funding in jeopardy!

A caller yesterday (Hewitt?) [Iranian American, loves America, hates the Iranian regime] was offended by Bollinger, saying that a hospitable welcome is an absolute necessity in Iranian culture, even if you don’t mean it.

eeyore on September 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM

This is true. My farsi teacher also spent a lot of time talking about customs in Iran. There are a lot of things spoken in Iran out of tradition (Shopkeepers offer to give things to customers over and over, even though it’s known by both parties that the customer will end up paying), but in the case of Ahmadinejad I don’t care.

he’s about as much a “cowboy” as John Edwards, who’s closest encounter with a horse is probably the hoof-derived gelatin skin toner he uses.

Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 3:32 PM

nice.

Bollinger’s sardonic comments…could also backfire by drawing sympathy for Ahmadinejad, even in quarters where he would normally be sharply criticized.

A caller yesterday (Hewitt?) [Iranian American, loves America, hates the Iranian regime] was offended by Bollinger, saying that a hospitable welcome is an absolute necessity in Iranian culture, even if you don’t mean it.

I don’t know why he (Ahmadinejad) stayed there and did not leave the meeting.

He will take every opportunity to play the victim card, right out of the liberal play book.

Looks like the great acadamian painted himself into a corner. Better send Newt over, a real intellectual American to bail him out.

That’s why you just slaughter them, instead

A nice hog roast, perhaps? Flash-broiled at 1/2 million degrees Fahrenheit…

If’n ya wrestle with hawgs, ever’thang git covered in sh!t

That’s why you just slaughter them, instead.

Bollinger should state that “after consulting with the state department, it has been decided that a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran poses far too great a security risk”

Let the left eat their dead

Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 4:10 PM

We do not have women in Iran. Who told you that? There is not the phenomenon in Iran like you have here.

Considering he essentially begged for the invite, I don’t think he has a choice.

Editor on September 25, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Understood. He made a great point with the invitation. I liked it. However, he should never go outside of the embassy/state protection, which I doubt he’ll have.

Besides, their invite is bogus, as he’d never be allowed to freely hold a live debate with anyone there. It’s just their way of playing baby. The region is famous for righteous indignation over little, and plagued by myths and ‘customs’.

Great list. Three more:

11. Why are women in your country excluded from from presidential candidature?

12. Why are women’s rights activists attacked?

13. Why are children of American women retained with the sanctions of your goverment when visiting families in Iran?

I think you’re being a bit… optimistic. More often than not, liberals who deviate from the BDS party line are immediately branded as traitors and Bush-loving neocon sympathisers.

Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Maybe so, but that just proves my point. There are many dailyKos nutcases who get all hot for A-jad, but there are also a great many liberals who are simply silent on the issue, for the kinds of reasons you state. There are responsible liberals in this country. Speeches like Bollinger’s can only help to embolden them. I’m not saying that it’s going to cause sweeping changes, but it draws attention to the liberal case for opposing the Iranian regime from someone not too invested in the partisan wars going on these days.

Mr. Bollinger should politely decline because it’s not safe to go.

Considering he essentially begged for the invite, I don’t think he has a choice.

First, the invitation should never have been extended.

Given that he did invite Ahmadinejad, he should have played the role of host or moderator and he should not have been the one to attack Ahmadinejad. That seemed to be in poor taste in my opinion (not that Ahmadinejad deserves to be treated with respect, but if you’re going to invite him…). That just made Bollinger look worse than he already did.

A third party, or even the students of Columbia, should have been the one(s) to put the screws to Ahmadinejad.

Having a big-time liberal academic like Bollinger bash Ahmadinejad like he did, with news organizations around the country covering it, may help to convince other liberals that doing so is “safe” and will not cause them to lose their anti-Bush credentials. Let’s hope more liberals have the guts to follow Bollinger’s lead.

Big S on September 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM

I think you’re being a bit… optimistic. More often than not, liberals who deviate from the BDS party line are immediately branded as traitors and Bush-loving neocon sympathisers.

The same liberals who wail about Darfur, Tibet or anywhere else we don’t have a significant national insterest in will happily tell you how great things were under Saddam until the evil neocons imposed sanctions and invaded.

They may not like what Iran does to homosexuals and dissenters, but they wouldn’t think twice about throwing them under the bus if it meant opposing Bush’s policies.

Mr. Bollinger should politely decline because it’s not safe to go. He should, however, respond point-by-point to their idiotic deca-list.