<p>I wonder what the president of a country will say to citizens of a country that sent 130,000 “foreign fighters” to his country’s immediate neighbor, causing the migration of millions of refugees into his country, and has been threatened repeatedly and labelled as axis of evil.</p>
<p>I wonder if “don’t tase me bro” will make an appearance? </p>
<p>It is interesting to see the fear a certain wing of our political system is having… watching Newt complain about how they treat homosexuals (which is terrible) it kind of odd hearing it from the party that won’t let our homosexuals serve their country, grant them marriages or employment protections…It’s like you should hate this guy, “because” he hates gays worse than we do…</p>
<p>They are so affraid of what this guy has to say, you have to wonder what’s behind the curtain? </p>
<p>What I see in this guy is he is a political opportunist, he says what gets him re-elected… how is that so different than our guys? </p>
<p>He says what plays to his audience, not ours. In the same way gw stands up there and declares an axis of evil… vegas crowd vs. salt lake? Why should we expect him to be pro US?</p>
<p>“What I see in this guy is he is a political opportunist, he says what gets him re-elected… how is that so different than our guys?”</p>
<p>Oh, that’s simple. He didn’t use chemical weapons against us, and he hasn’t been working assiduously for 30 years to eliminate the Republic of the United States from the face of the earth. </p>
<p>(but, in terms of face politics, he isn’t much different…and, as long as we don’t mess things up, he’ll be out of office the same time as GWB - maybe they can find an adult community to live in together.)</p>
<p>If he had his way, MA would certainly have used chemical weapons against us, and wiped Israel off the face of the map.</p>
<p>I take him at his word.</p>
<p>Words are nice - how about looking at DEEDS?</p>
<p>Is M.A. being paid a speaking fee? How much? Who gets to attend? Cameras allowed for the entire program? </p>
<p>I would love to watch the whole thing on U-Tube, but I really feel that Columbia has just given him a platform. I wish they would give the same considerations to pro-life speakers, US military representatives, and others who hold less than the accepted Liberal viewpoints.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m just trying to picture the corollary here. President Bush is speaking in Iran; he is “forced” to take questions from the audience (something he would NEVER EVER do here at home); he is expected to explain the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in a war we went into without reason…</p>
<p>FM–So you think MA espouses an “accepted liberal viewpoint?”</p>
<p>I don’t know too many pro-violence, anti-women, Holocaust denying liberals, but maybe I just don’t get out too much.</p>
<p>Ah, Garland. There are plenty of anti-woman, pro-violence Progressives. I read their swill on the Democratic Underground.</p>
<p>How does that make them Progressives? Seems a contradiction in terms.</p>
<p>Beats me. I have been trying to figure that one out for years.</p>
<p>Didn’t Columbia invited Jim Gilchrist last year?</p>
<p>“I read their swill on the Democratic Underground.”</p>
<p>Ya know the lunatic fringe is at both ends… Why are you suprized? Let’s whittle the 5% off each end and then look at what is being said…</p>
<p>I don’t consider newt to be the crazy fringe of the gop, do you? Now the screamer that was on the today show this morning… yup he’s a kook. Either he has a hearing problem or he figures if he shouts his discussion out as if the louder he is, the more you’ll believe him.</p>
<p>weenie-
Since you quoted my answer, I’ll respond to you. I think that George Bush should respond to spontaneous questions here and also in Iran if he is invited there and decides to go. If the rationale behind giving a politician a forum at a university is to foster educational give and take, the students and faculty in the audience (whether here or abroad) should be able to ask spontaneous and unscreened questions.</p>
<p>markr- while I agree with the above sentiment, I don’t think it’s practical. The university doesn’t want a repeat of the incident at the Kerry forum last week. Emotions run high in these situations, and safety is a concern.
I’ve been to forums where the questions have been chosen by the group putting on the show. With the time allotted, it seems like it’s more likely that good questions will be asked if they have been somewhat vetted, and no one person will have an opportunity to monopolize.</p>
<p>I also think there is educational value, regardless of whether the speaker comes with an “open mind.” Rarely, does a world leader or even a specialist in a particular field come with the expectation of having his or her mind changed. I think there is value in hearing what they have to say - and I don’t think that Columbia’s students will be buffaloed.<br>
MA is just one of many speakers this day, even though by far the most controversial. It was interesting to me to read about the graduate student who plans to attend the event, and then rejoin his group of anti-MA protesters afterward. Now, that’s engagement!</p>
<p>Anyhoo, Allmusic, those bloggers can call themselves what they want, but the fact remains that there is nothing “liberal” about AM. (And, has been pointed out, Columbia invites speakers of all political persuasions.)</p>
<p>AM was not “elected” in the sense we understand (absent the results of 2000 election). Think more like elections in former Soviet Union or client states…</p>
<p>Columbia’s president did a pretty good “smackdown” of AM in his introduction–no question about the humiliating (and true) nature of it–good for him!</p>
<p>Where is Miss South Carolina when we really need her? Perhaps she can decipher what he is saying–I sure can’t!</p>
<p>Now I just hope George Bush (or Bill Clinton for that matter) will go to Iran and answer questions from the Iranian press. They might start with Clinton’s murder of Iraqi children, and then move on to the building of permanent U.S. military bases on Iran’s border.</p>
<p>Then they can ask about renditioning and Guatanamo. ;)</p>
<p>At the end, they can be invited to lay a wreath at Iran’s Ground Zero - the Behesht-i-Zahar Cemetery in Tehran, where the victims of U.S.-backed chemical warfare are buried. </p>
<p>I know that seems like a lot. I also think it would do more for the cause of peace in the Middle East than any single action by an American President in the past 20 yeras. </p>
<p>“AM was not “elected” in the sense we understand (absent the results of 2000 election). Think more like elections in former Soviet Union or client states…”</p>
<p>You have no idea what you are talking about. The differences among Presidential candidates in Iran, for the last 20 years, have been far, far greater than the differences between Democrats and Republicans (and the candidate of mullahs has NOT always won.)</p>