Today, KUOW's Gang of Four began the Weekday program with Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University. The four journalists agreed on what they clearly considered the main point: Columbia University President Bollinger was rude to this mobster's mouthpiece. Bollinger was rude to the representative of a regime that is oppressing women, persecuting homosexuals, executing dissidents, and has threatened Israel with genocide. (The regime is also supplying weapons to Iraqi terrorists, who are using them to kill American soldiers and murder Iraqi civilians — but I am not sure that all of the four would consider those actions wrong.) The rudeness was more important than the crimes of the regime — at least for KUOW's Gang of Four.
The four, just to show this was no fluke, were also unhappy that 60 Minutes, in their interview with Ahmadinejad, had quoted some unpleasant things that President Bush had said about this mobster's mouthpiece, Ahmadinejad.
None of the four disagreed with what Bollinger and Bush had said; they just thought it was mean to say these things, especially to a gentle soul like this mobster's mouthpiece, President Ahmadinejad.
All this confuses me. It is wrong, the Gang of Four thinks, to be rude to a man who works for a regime that executes homosexuals and oppresses women (and helps kill American soldiers and murder Iraqi civilians). But the Gang of Four would not think it wrong to be rude to President Bush, who has freed millions, and who is trying to protect those same Iraqi civilians. I am no expert on etiquette, so I won't try to explain their rule on who you can be rude to (though I would be pleased if they would).
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(In case you missed it, here is my description of the Gang of Four, along with an explanation for my interest in the group, and my grading scheme for their Weekday appearances. Susan Paynter of the Seattle PI retired, and was replaced by D. Parvaz, an editorial writer at the same newspaper. Parvaz was chosen, I assume, to ensure that there was as little diversity in the group as possible, political diversity, that is.
As often happens, I heard a factual error on the program; Knute Berger ascribed the Hitler comparison to President Bollinger, rather than to Dean Coatsworth. (I noticed another factual error, but I was driving at the time, and couldn't make a note of it.)
Since I had errands to do this morning, I was unable to listen to the entire program, so I can give a grade only for the first part of the program: 0.05. Surprisingly, D. Parvaz raised their score above zero by noting that Ahmadinejad would have dealt rather roughly with Iranian students who raised the same questions as the Columbia students did.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 28, 2007 01:16 PM | Email ThisBUT....that is but a tiny part of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that Columbia thought it was cool to have a rabidly anti-semitic madman come and say ridiculous things to an intelligent group of people who were wondering why they'd allowed themselves to be played fools by a guy who said all the silly things he said to them about Iran being such a free and open place. Uh, sure Iranian women might be freer than in Saudi Arabia. But that's probably like saying "It's not as hot in Las Vegas in the summertime as it is in Death Valley in the summertime!"
That a university considered the Minutemen and the ROTC too distasteful to be allowed on campus or to speak, but thought that having Mahmoud come and tell them a bunch of strange rantings and lies was just wierd.
Posted by: Michele on September 28, 2007 02:03 PMAs intelligent and progressive and liberal as he pretends to be, he turned himself into a bigger jackass than ahmamadjihadist and at the same time gave the tyrant more credence.
Spin it any way you want, it was a perfect example of liberal idiocy.
Posted by: dan on September 28, 2007 02:25 PMBollinger was indeed rude. You invite the guy and then run him down. And then when Aquavelvajad insults you back and lies to you, you don't call him on it.
The worst moment for me was when Aquavelvajad says their are no homosexuals in Iran and the audience boos. Okay, good that they booed on this, but not when the Holocaust denier or the one wanting to wipe the state of Israel of the map makes those statements, he is met with silence. Then when the audience cheered that the Palestinians are treated poorly, I couldn't help but appreciate the irony. Of course they are repressed; if you had Arafat and the Iranians holding you down for 30 years, you would be, too.
Why can't Aqualvelvajad release the Palestinians so they can prosper?
And the Weekday program, why can't our own Berens make any progress with these nimrods? Oops, there goes my etiquette.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 02:27 PMBut they won't have Thomas Sowell or any free market economist, because they disagree.
If gay rights had been the issue of the day, they NEVER would have had this guy speak, because he disagrees.
I'm glad he spoke. He exposed his views for what they are. In some areas he is right, and in others he is living in the 10th century.
This guy did say some interesting things, though. He said that he has become the enemy of America because we are arming Israel, and he is the enemy of Israel. The friend of my enemy is also my enemy. Bush uses this same kind of reasoning. Iran is the friend of the Islamic terrorists in Iraq. So Iran has become our enemy. Both Bush and the Iranian President have both identified what is going on here.
But the solution is not for us to go to war with the friends of our enemies. The solution is for Iran to try to live at peace with Israel; to aknowledge the Zionists right to exist as long as they do not threaten their neighbors. Similarly, the US should not meddle in the affairs of other nations, so long as they do not threaten us.
The ultimate goal should be an end to US foreign aid to Israel (and all other countries) AND Iran's (and all other nations) allowing Israel to exist.
It seems to me there is room for compromise, here. Will they see it? I doubt it. Brace for war.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 28, 2007 03:00 PMSeattleJew, for example, finds it more offensive that I used "the f-bomb" than it is that he was lying.
Many on the left consider hypocrisy to be a greater crime than, you know, actual crimes. So Vitter is wrong not because he potentially violated the law and his wife's trust and did something generally distasteful, but because Republicans SAY it's wrong. So the REAL crime to them is the hypocrisy, whereas most sane people would say, no, the real crimes are the actual crimes against law, oath, and decency.
No doubt hypocrisy is bad, as is rudeness. But I am often rude or profane JUST to contrast that to the actual problem at hand. As if to say, "if you are offended by my manner or tone or method ... why are you defending THIS!?"
I rarely get an answer of course.
It's the age old style-over-substance, but there's more to it: it's the postmodern postmodern (not a typo) there-is-no-truth-but-what-is-true-for-you-unless-I-happen-to-hate-your-truth-in-which-case-you-are-evil. And even then, they make exceptions for people who are either their allies (such as Venus Velazquez) or who are enemies of their enemies (such as Ahamdinejad).
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2007 03:06 PMAnd you are right with China and Russia; each of them are weaving their own quilt.
Someone mentioned that we are ceding the Pacific to the Chinese fleet. Bruce Guthrie, is that what you want with an isolationist foreign policy? If not, you have not been clear.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 03:56 PMBollinger is worse. He bleats about free speech, then cheerfully allows his security folks to turn their backs when lefty fascists beat up the speaker for the Minutemen, and goes on to administer just a whisper of months-later discipline to the brownshirts. And assents once again when his pet 'activists' succeed in shouting down a second invitation for the Minutemen to present a point of view at Columbia. Some diversity.
In fact, Bollinger is analagous to the twerp who slaps you around on the schoolground while three big jerks hold your hands behind your back. He could never go to Iran and spew his oh-so-PC talking points to Ahmadinajad to his face on Iranian TV - that Columbia performance was just posturing for Western 'public opinion' purposes, in the full knowlege that the Iranian people would never have a peep at it.
Old-time liberals could tolerate dissent and contrary opinions. The PC crowd cannot, and moves mountains to suppress the speech of its opponents, including the classic liberals. Columbia only provided Ahmadinajad a platform to quack from as a launching pad for the 'fixed' Bollinger theatrics, and in the knowlege that the naked views of the mullahs who pull Ahmadinajad's puppet strings would be concealed in his diatribe and doublespeak.
We learned well enough of Hitler's views and intentions without honoring him at Columbia, and Ahmadinajad has the same bloody megaphone - the world press. There was no need to bring him. It wasn't an 'exchange of views' - it was an exchange of harangues, similar to two guys in a bar before a fight, except that here everyone knew the bluster on both sides in advance, and nobody would lose except George Bush.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 28, 2007 04:34 PMWhat rock have you been hiding under? Has moral relativity so corrupted your thinking that you cannot contemplate the concept of "good and evil"? Israel is a free nation of free people, surrounded by the most evil, despotic governments on the face of the earth, including the terrorist state of Iran. Yet you would leave the free people of Israel, who exist on less than 1% of middle-eastern land, defenseless in the face of regimes sworn to destroy them? You and the rest of the limp-wristed nutcases who would grant the same standing to Iran and Syria as you do to Israel are a disgrace to the American people, and to freedom-loving people throughout the world. Heaven help us if your ilk ever gain the majority in our government.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 29, 2007 07:23 AM"Propaganda accepted without investigation is dangerous"
You don't perhaps attend the Evergreen State University? Your babblings sound like the usual Rachael Corrie "logic". Perhaps if you expended some effort reading real history, about 5,000 years of it, you wouldn't have the time to "read closely every word" of a madman's rantings. Than again, you probably would have absorbed every word of Mein Kampf in 1938 and believed Hitler to be a peaceful and misunderstood soul.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 29, 2007 07:48 AM"There we had a man who is responsible for death and mayhem in the Middle East, who sponsors torture and secret prisons, and we had an Iranian." Apparently this entire statement describes Ahmadinejad as opposed to Freebird's intent to try to include President Bush.
Posted by: me on September 29, 2007 08:49 AMOur collective fears, stoked and nurtured by the Bush clowns, ensured al Qaeda obtained its objectives. And, of course, ALL terrorists' objectives are to make people and societies behave and react in ways that they normally wouldn't -- ie wars of preemption, torture, etc. Also, terrorists hope to instill fear -- on both counts the Republican administration ensured those objectives were met and for what? So they could win an election ... never mind, I guess, it caused America to lose the so-called war on terror.
Finally, regarding Iran's loony leader, our national insecurity led us to act like a bunch of scared 3-year-old children. There was a time this nation could have invited a moron like Ahmadinejad to speak and, to prove our greatness, treated him in a dignified manner. Instead, Columbia's President, FOX News, Right-Wing propaganda radio and the blogosphere made him look like, in the eyes of Islamic radicals, a big man who was brave enough to confront head-on, the rude bullies in America.
Job well done GOPers! Bin Laden murders 2,500+ and you all made him look like a hero and now, you all have done it again with an idiot like Iran's president. Proud?
Posted by: A. Alexander on September 29, 2007 09:26 AMBut I have no right to employ the US government in the defense of a foreign nation. It's not in the Constitution, and it's not in our best interest. I'll contribute money for the defense of Israel, but it is not my right to force my neighbor to contribute to the defense of Israel, any more than it is OK for me to force my neighbor to pay for someone's abortion or welfare check.
And Israel has proven time and again that it can take care of itself. The '67 war was an Israeli victory, and they haven't been seriously defeated yet. The Arab nations military technology and leadership is pathetic.
So I say we get the proud Israelis off the dole. I say we let people like you and me and the millions of free Jews in the world fund the defense of Israel voluntarily. The Israelis will still kick the Arab's butts, as long as the Arabs stick with socialism/dictatorship instead of capitalism. It's the same lesson most of us learned with the collapse of the Soviet Union, being played out in the Middle-east. The Arabs are being slow-learners on this issue.
Isreal will struggle, but she will be just fine. I just loved their recent air-strike into Syria. That was their mission to run, not ours, and they did it with their usual precision.
But when WE fund the defense of Israel via our tax dollars, we invite terrorist attacks on our own soil. The cost is the very Liberty that makes the US strong, virtuous, and one of the greatest nations on the earth. It is wrong. The ends don't justify the means and it's just not worth it.
Swatter @ 10
I'm kind of getting tired of the "isolationist" label. You've read my response to this one at least twice before, but since you didn't get it those two times, I'll give it to you again:
Isolationism is incompatible with free trade. I promote free trade, therefore, I am a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. There is a huge difference between these positons, and your application of that label to me is a deliberate attempt to set up a straw-man argument or to smear me. Because I know you to be an honorable man, I know that this is beneath you.
When goods cross borders, troops tend not to. Free trade has a greater effect on preventing war than does top-level diplomacy. It creates bonds and friendships among the trading people of nations. It creates interest groups on both sides of borders that tend to oppose wars. Wars help the military-industrial sector of a nations economy, but it tends to hurt the far larger segment involved in peaceful non-military trade.
So, contrary to the liberal's argument, capitalism reduces the chances of war. It is the liberals who want to be economic isolationists, while pushing for military intervention in places like Darfur. Wilson was a liberal Democrat. Bush is acting like a liberal Wilsonian by trying to export democracy and engaging in the fools errand of nation-building in the middle-east. The result is blowback, and it's not worth it. I say let the Iraqi's go to heck their own danged way. They want to kill each other. I say "let them."
As far as China and the Pacific goes, I'd like to see the oceans chopped up into quadrants and sold to private fishing and mining investors, or even environmental groups if they could pony-up the cash. Sea-lanes could also be privately owned so that they could be leased to those who use them. I don't care what political entity provides the defense of these ocean property rights, as long as it defends our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property in the areas concerned. I doubt that China or the UN would do a good job of this. Perhaps what we need are defense associations paid for by the owners of the shipping/fishing/mineral rights in the regions.
Swatter, do you propose that the US become the policeman of the seas? Shouldn't people who benefit from that police protection pay for it, instead of the average American taxpayer?
And why the heck did you bring up China and the oceans anyway? What did this have to do with the Iranian President speaking at Columbia?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 29, 2007 02:23 PMJust to get it correct.
The term Palestine actually means Philistine and refers to the people Samson fought with, coastal invaders NOT the indigenous Canaani or Hebrews. The term was imposed on Judea after the Roman conquest as a way to humiliate the Jews ... by that time there were no Canaani or Phillistines.. Later it was used by the Crusaders for their colony. That was the last time any country was called "Palestine." After then the term was used not for a people but for a region of the Turkish Province of Syria.
When the Zionists came, they and others used the term Palestinian to refer to the JEWS living here. The identification with an Arab people is a very rece4nt evetn, largely the idea of Nasser.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 29, 2007 06:38 PMI am NOT a relativist.
I'm a natural law, Libertarian.
I'm an Ayn Rand fan.
I love the US Constitution.
To paraphrase Rand:
I suggest you check your moral assumptions.
I suspect there is one lurking in there that you would drop like a hot potato if it was pointed out to you.
Just because some of my principles differ from yours, you should not assume that I have none.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 29, 2007 09:51 PMI would have given you some credit if you indeed were a moral relativist, but now it seems you are just a utopian fool, so I can give you none.
The solution is for "Iran to try to live at peace with Israel"? Neville Chamberlain's solution for 1938 was for Germany to "just try to get along" with it's neighbors. The parallel? Germany was led by a madman, as is present-day Iran. People who hate do not "just get along", and to believe such is foolish.
You also insinuate, in posting #6, that we should not have allies, for fear of pissing off the enemies of those allies. That "logic", in the case of Iran and Israel, amounts to relativism. You are, de facto, placing Iran on equal footing with Israel. It also displays cowardice, indicating we should not stand for our principles or friends, for fear of retaliation.
So, if you are not a relativist, you are an unprincipled fool.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 30, 2007 07:57 AMI'll overlook your ad hominem attacks, and look for some reasoned argument in your post.
I advocate helping good causes, but I also advocate adherance to the Constitution, the rule of law, and good strategic sense. Just because I oppose using the federal government to help Israel, does not mean I oppose PRIVATE aid to Israel. In fact, I encourage it, and I did so above. Your insistance on doing unconstitutional things in order to promote the cause of Israel is a form of "ends justifies the means" or "two wrongs make a right" thinking that is more often attributable to the American left than the right.
As far as allies are concerned, there is a longstanding American conservative tradition, dating back to Washington, Adams (both John and Quincy) and Jefferson to seek free and friendly trade but avoid entangling alliances. I advocate strong trade relationships as a way to make war less likely, as did our founders, but I oppose getting drawn in to stupid sectarian civil wars as we have done in Iraq.
My position is distinct from Neville Chamberlain's as well. I seek a strong national defense. Chamberlain delayed in beefing up Britain's defenses. But what we have now is a strong OFFense, and we have troops stationed in about 130 of the world's 190 countries. I say that this constitutes a welfare handout from US taxpayers for the defense of these foreigners. I say we get the foreigners off the defense dole. South Koreans send us Hyundais. Good cars, but we have about 40K US troops on the DMZ with N. Korea. The S. Koreans can handle their own defense. Iraqis have blown their chance. They no longer deserve our help in setting up a republic. I say let them have the civil war and bloodshed they seem to want so badly.
And the Israeli's can also handle their own defense. They will continue to kick the Arab's butts without our defense welfare checks. But that does not absolve us of our INDIVIDUAL responsibility to help good causes in the world. We the People did not grant the government power, via the Constitution, to be do-gooders abroad or to be the world's policeman. To advocate this position is to do damage to the Constitution, and to grant dangerous and excessive power to the US government. Power corrupts. Limiting government is the key to defending Liberty, and Liberty is the goal here, not security, because the cause of Liberty will always have risks.
My point about the optimal solution in the Middle-east being peace, was meant as indicating that the Arabs are too dense to see what is in their own interest, not as advocating unilateral disarmament of the Israelis. Far from it; I wish the Israeli's a robust national defense. Above I applaud them for their recent bombing run on Syria.
I just wish the US knew the difference between offense and defense.
I AM principled. But my principles differ from yours. Just because you do not understand my principles, that does not make me a relativist.
Am I an unprincipled fool? That is merely the opinion of one salty fish. You will notice that I have tried to keep our conversation civil. If you are an honorable man, I trust that you will avoid personal attacks if you bother to reply at all.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 12:34 PMI apologize for my previously stated opinions of you. Not because I think your opinions are correct, but because you are undoubtably a pretty good guy. In any case, I should not revert to name calling.
I agree we should not have gone into Iraq. George Bush was goaded into this war by Don Rumsfeld and a good portion of the leadership of both political parties. Read the quotes from Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry, et al. The all believed that Iraq had WDM's and was prepared to use them on his neighbors. I am not defending the president, as sometimes leadership involves NOT taking the actions demanded by others.
I also agree the time has come for the Iraqi people to learn to work together to drive the foreign terrorists from their land. Our forefathers were willing to die for their freedom and thus gained that freedom. I don't think the Iraqis will ever get to that point. What I and many Americans are unwilling to do is to admit defeat and pull out. If we don't fight the Islamic terrorists on middle eastern soil, we will have to fight them in our streets. Pulling out and attempting to "leave them alone so they'll leave us alone" will not work. They hate us and will attack us at home to kill us.
As far as alliances, this is not the 18th century. We must defend our friends and ask them to do the same for us. I would like to see us pull the majority of our troops out of Germany, Japan, South Korea and the Balkans. These countries are rich enough to defend their own interests and we have no business in the Balkans anyway. Let Europe, in particular, learn what an army costs, and they may not find socialism so attractive.
In any event, Bruce, I enjoy our discourse. Have a nice afternoon.
Ole "Saltherring" Birkland
Posted by: Saltherring on September 30, 2007 02:03 PMOle
Posted by: Saltherring on September 30, 2007 06:46 PMI mentioned the Chinese fleet outpacing our own fleet in the Pacific as a followup.
However, I do not see a big difference in the wording of isolation and nonintrovene. I, like Buchanan and several others, do not want the USA to be 'policeman of the world', just as you stated. However, I see no way around it.
I am impatient with North Korea and Iran, where we are supposedly letting the world community monitor these rogue countries.
Yeah, right; there is no will to control these entities. Germany kind of likes Iran now, don't they? Wonder why? Iran denies the Holocaust and the Germans perpetuated it. Aquavelvajad is a fascist and the Germans invented it.
So, while I agree with your ideals (hey, I even respect Kucinich's ideals), I don't think they are practical. They just don't work anymore. I wish they did, though.
Posted by: swatter on October 1, 2007 07:36 AMN. Korea ain't our problem. Our involvement is what MADE it a problem. If Kim hadn't thought he could get fuel oil or some other concession out of us, or sold his nukes to people who were afraid of us like Iran, he would have had no nuke program. N. Korea IS a threat to Japan, S. Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. THEY should deal with Kim and we should butt out, including our 40K troops in the DMZ.
It WOULD work. It just sounds odd because it is so different from what we have been doing for decades since Wilson. But we have met the enemy, and he is us.
Same with Iran. They are Israel's problem, and Israel would kick their butts and they know it. If we butt out, then Iran has no possibility of getting some subsidy or concession from the "rich satan" in N. America. As I've said elsewhere, I'm a fan of Israel, but Americans should fund Israel individually. If we eliminate all foreign aid (and corporate welfare, etc.) then taxes could be slashed and rich Jews and rich gentiles who support Israel could send bigger checks. They would also have much more money to send, since the tax cuts would allow the economy to grow...
It is interventionism that is utopian and just doesn't work. Interventionism is the tactic of a bygone Wilsonian era, and the wreckage of the 20th Century can be partially blamed on it.
It is time for a new era of economic globalization and inter-dependance. The result will be more peace and prosperity.
Admit it: nation-building in Iraq is a fool's errand. We can not be the world's policeman and be a free and well-loved country. We've tried it for decades and the strategy of foreign interventionism isn't working, and is antithetical to the values of the American Founders.
It is time for a non-interventionist foreign policy and free trade.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 1, 2007 05:03 PM