Charlie Rose Interviewed Ahmadinejad yesterday. Ever since Michel Foucault's repulsive embrace of the Iranian revolution, the pomo gay left has had a soft spot for Islamo-fascists. This is an email sent out by the Columbia Queer Alliance. It beggars belief. Here's the throat clearer: "We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government.."
Watch it here.
Here is a sampling of viewers reactions, from the comments page:
* "Charlie, I want to hear more from President Ahmadenijad. Thank God there are still some world leaders today with common sense!"
* "The President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad interview on "Charlie Rose": His calm smile is quite effective but, less so than his ever so slippery 'Vaseline' coated winter ice! He is an expert in appearing to respond to your questions -- but, avoiding them completely. A previous comment included his being called a "nut case." But, he is a very smart "nut case." And, this category of person can do tremendous harm. E.g. the leader of the Third Reich. Like Hitler, he can be quite charming (to his advantage.) He used the word "Zionist" (not Israeli) numerous times. As the Iranian economy suffers, he and other Middle East countries need the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, more than ever, to divert attention from the real problems (lack of freedom, democracy, bancrupt economies,... all of which Israel has. Get your population to talk about "the "Zionists" -- and you can ignore the most serious difficulties! "
* "I commend Mahmoud on his willingness to stoop to being interviewed by a lowly foreign TV host, as any world leader would prefer to make a statement or speak only with foreign governmental elites. "
* "I have not had as much fun since listening to "Baghdad Bob's" ranting and raving that the U.S. forces were being "soundly defeated" and pushed back and that they were no where near the city or Baghdad airport. It seems that those in power in the middle east forget that they only control the media in their countries and that the rest of the world has had freedom of speech and press and can spot deceit when we hear it. I can guarantee no western person would be allowed to get the freedom of speech that the Iranian madman has received here in the States. Bitch and moan all you want about the U.S. and its policies but I am thankful that we get an opportunity to hear all sides! "
* "Mr. Rose, I had hoped you would interview Mr. Ahmadenejad. But I thought there is no way in my wildest dream you would under the pressure of the Lobby. "
* As an Iranian who suffered a lot, who has no home and wondering in the world, who left his family and friends and hopes because of the dictators such as this man and his leaders, your way of interviewing this lair and murderer that we all know was involved in Mikonus terror in Germany and Dr. Sami's murder in Iran and executions in 1367 and imprisoning and torchering Iranian intelectuals now, your laughing and joking with him was discusting I'm so sorry.
I noticed at the end of the interview Charlie sat with his hands crossed on his papers, which were lying on his lap. No handshake was proferred at least not for the benefit of the cameras.
Anne Applebaum, of the Washington Post, has a Modest Proposal
"... the university should have demanded genuine reciprocity. If the president and dean of Columbia truly believed in an open exchange of ideas, they should have presented a debate between Ahmadinejad and an Iranian dissident or human rights activist -- someone from his own culture who could argue with him in his own language -- instead of allowing him to be filmed on a podium with important-looking Americans. Perhaps Columbia could even have insisted on an appropriate exchange: Ahmadinejad speaks in New York; Columbia sends a leading Western atheist -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or, better still, Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- to Qom, the Shiite holy city, to debate the mullahs on their own ground. "
Andrew Sullivan on Ahmadinejad:
"But then the pomo knee jerk kicks in:
"... we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire."
Ahmadinejad was right, you see? There are no gays in Iran. Just ask the Queer Studies Department.
Freemania blogged about the Iranian prez:
"The Iranian President - the man who puts the ‘mad’ into ‘Ahmadinejad’ - has taken his sub-Galloway stand-up routine on a US tour...." (Keep reading...)
a blessedly laconic footnote from Oliver Kamm:
No nukes, no gays
Only The Guardian could put it this way:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, told Americans yesterday his country had no nuclear weapons programme, but then called his own credibility into question by insisting it had no gay people either.
Ever since Michel Foucault's repulsive embrace of the Iranian revolution, the pomo gay left has had a soft spot for Islamo-fascists. This is an email sent out by the Columbia Queer Alliance. It beggars belief. Here's the throat clearer:
"We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government.."