Tweet
THE ATTACK ON MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
By Dan Lieberman
CounterCurrents.org
http://www.counterc urrents.org/lieberman081007.htm
Oct 8 2007
India
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, arrived in the United
States with a baggage of alleged demagoguery. He didn't have to
bring demagoguery here; the U.S. media showed it has enough to stock
the world.
Ahmadinejad is not a leader who appeals to progressive persons. He
is faithful to the more extreme interpretations of the Koran. He
inflicts his religious convictions on the Iranian masses, has agents
aggressively monitor violations of Iran's dress code and remove
satellite dishes, is dishonest in many of his remarks and has been
accused of involvement in assassinations in the Middle East and Europe.
With all this in mind, the United States media had an opportunity to
examine the motivations of a well-educated and important Iranian -
after all he is president - who, although not a cleric gained a high
Iranian position, and represents the third world opposition to U.S.
and Israel's common policies. Instead of stimulating a dialogue,
the U.S. media engaged in demagoguery, sarcastic baiting, insult,
insolence and diversions from meaningful arguments. The meetings
and interviews with Iran's president had a common focus - discredit
him with ridicule and prevent him from presenting reasons why he
contradicts U.S. and Israeli policies.
The right wing fringe started it all with their usual extreme and
disarming rhetoric of attempting to associate anyone who criticizes
Israel with being either a reincarnation of Hitler, a Nazi, a Holocaust
denier or an anti-Semite.
CBS reporter Scott Pelley, in a 60 Minutes interview with the Iranian
president, defined the media thrust to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit.
Pelley leaned forward in his seat and, with a smirk on his face,
asked embarrassing questions to which he already knew the answer and
which were only meant to annoy the Iranian president. Examples:
"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most
sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that
visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans."
"It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian
know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on
your hands. Why?"
"For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the
world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer
you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?"
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger continued the unwelcoming
tirade with an insulting introduction that left any decent, cordial and
open-minded person in gasps. Bollinger's counter-productive comments
lacked grace and knowledge. He could ask himself some simple questions:
"Why was Iran President Ahmadinejad not treated as cordially as
Pakistan President Musharaff, who is a known dictator?"
"Is President Ahmadinejad more deceptive, cruel or petty than U.S.
President George W. Bush?"
"Would it be accepted that a forum for George W. Bush, or any
President, be preceded by an equally insulting introduction?"
Some of Lee Bollinger's "questions," with rebuttals.
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel
dictator."
How has President Ahmadinejad, elected by an overwhelming majority
of the Iranian people, exhibited "signs of a petty and cruel dictator?"
Compare his few nasty occurrences with Olmert's daily pulverizing of
the Palestinian people and Bush's slaughtering of the Iraqi people.
"...the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.
Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments
about the 'debate' over the Holocaust defy historical truth...."
Ahmadinejad made clear he has not denied the Holocaust's existence.
He feels history is being gathered from preferential sources and
being used to justify Israel's oppressive actions. If Bollinger
feels the research is ended, why doesn't he complain about the daily
media reports of the Holocaust, fifty years after the event and be
concerned that the first international conference on the Holocaust
was held in Spain during the same week that Ahmadinejad arrived in
the United states? Israel's Yad Vashem's International Institute for
Holocaust Research (IIHR) organized the conference. Slavery, genocide
of the American Indians and all other historical events are still
gathering information. Why exclude the World War II genocide from
additional research? Doesn't this attitude generate suspicion? The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially denied the Armenian Holocaust.
Was it because Israel has good relations with Turkey and the ADL didn't
want to disturb those relations? Here we had an absolute denial for
possible political reasons. Why no slurs against the ADL?
"Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue
its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have
delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you
said that Israel "should be wiped off the map."
There is no question that President Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped
off the map. So, do all other Middle East nations, including many
considered to be America's friend. Nevertheless, the Iranian president
has qualified his remarks; he wants regime change in Israel, and for
good reason - the present regime is oppressing the Palestinians and
is prepared to seize all of Jerusalem, an Islamic holy site. Compare
Ahmadinejad's ramblings, not backed up by force, with U.S. and Israel's
aggressive rhetoric that demands regime change in Iran and threatens
wholesale bombings. Unlike Iran, its antagonists also have the weapons
to carry out their threats.
"It's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that
funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
None of the mentioned groups, except for one or two ancient and
unverifiable actions, have actually been responsible for terrorism
against the United States. Bollinger must have known that and also
realized that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran's military and
foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can't answer? Where is
it well documented that Iran "is a state sponsor of terrorism?" As
a matter of fact, Iran has suffered greatly from terrorism, much
of which the U.S. has sponsored. Iran has been a consistent enemy
of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Compare it's minimal support for Hezbollah
and Palestinian groups to U.S. overwhelming support for Israel. Iran
feels it is supporting groups battling against a perceived oppression.
"Your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding,
arming and providing safe transit to insurgent forces."
Again! Bollinger must have known that Ahmadinejad has no control
of Iran's military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question
he can't answer? No proof has been offered for Bollinger's remark,
while the Iraq government has praised Iran's efforts. Actually, the
Iraq government has expressed concern that the U.S.is now "arming
and providing safe transit to (Sunni) insurgent forces."
"There are a number of reports that also link your government with
Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government
through violence and political assassination."
Which verified reports?
"Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq
by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
Has this been verified? Even if there were no Iran nation, wouldn't
the war in Iraq continue?
"Frankly, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual
courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in
itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical
mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do."
Bollinger must have been looking into a mirror when he composed this
salutation. Ahmadinejad's biggest mistake was not to walk out.
After creating a tense atmosphere for President Ahmadinejad,
intensified by tense questions that led to tensions, the Washington
Post added a ridiculous coda to the discordant theatrics. A headline
stated:
IRANIAN LEADER FAILS TO EASE TENSIONS
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be a demagogue and not beneficial to the
Iranian people. Nevertheless, he neither has the authority nor the
following to be of any danger to the United Sates. The U.S. media and
public demagogues revealed themselves as only interested in silencing
criticism of the U.S. and Israel (USrael) and promoting an agenda
that is not beneficial to U.S. interests. That was the most revealing
feature of this shameful episode.
Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics for many years.
He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based
newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle East
conflicts. [email protected]
By Dan Lieberman
CounterCurrents.org
http://www.counterc urrents.org/lieberman081007.htm
Oct 8 2007
India
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, arrived in the United
States with a baggage of alleged demagoguery. He didn't have to
bring demagoguery here; the U.S. media showed it has enough to stock
the world.
Ahmadinejad is not a leader who appeals to progressive persons. He
is faithful to the more extreme interpretations of the Koran. He
inflicts his religious convictions on the Iranian masses, has agents
aggressively monitor violations of Iran's dress code and remove
satellite dishes, is dishonest in many of his remarks and has been
accused of involvement in assassinations in the Middle East and Europe.
With all this in mind, the United States media had an opportunity to
examine the motivations of a well-educated and important Iranian -
after all he is president - who, although not a cleric gained a high
Iranian position, and represents the third world opposition to U.S.
and Israel's common policies. Instead of stimulating a dialogue,
the U.S. media engaged in demagoguery, sarcastic baiting, insult,
insolence and diversions from meaningful arguments. The meetings
and interviews with Iran's president had a common focus - discredit
him with ridicule and prevent him from presenting reasons why he
contradicts U.S. and Israeli policies.
The right wing fringe started it all with their usual extreme and
disarming rhetoric of attempting to associate anyone who criticizes
Israel with being either a reincarnation of Hitler, a Nazi, a Holocaust
denier or an anti-Semite.
CBS reporter Scott Pelley, in a 60 Minutes interview with the Iranian
president, defined the media thrust to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit.
Pelley leaned forward in his seat and, with a smirk on his face,
asked embarrassing questions to which he already knew the answer and
which were only meant to annoy the Iranian president. Examples:
"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most
sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that
visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans."
"It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian
know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on
your hands. Why?"
"For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the
world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer
you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?"
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger continued the unwelcoming
tirade with an insulting introduction that left any decent, cordial and
open-minded person in gasps. Bollinger's counter-productive comments
lacked grace and knowledge. He could ask himself some simple questions:
"Why was Iran President Ahmadinejad not treated as cordially as
Pakistan President Musharaff, who is a known dictator?"
"Is President Ahmadinejad more deceptive, cruel or petty than U.S.
President George W. Bush?"
"Would it be accepted that a forum for George W. Bush, or any
President, be preceded by an equally insulting introduction?"
Some of Lee Bollinger's "questions," with rebuttals.
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel
dictator."
How has President Ahmadinejad, elected by an overwhelming majority
of the Iranian people, exhibited "signs of a petty and cruel dictator?"
Compare his few nasty occurrences with Olmert's daily pulverizing of
the Palestinian people and Bush's slaughtering of the Iraqi people.
"...the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.
Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments
about the 'debate' over the Holocaust defy historical truth...."
Ahmadinejad made clear he has not denied the Holocaust's existence.
He feels history is being gathered from preferential sources and
being used to justify Israel's oppressive actions. If Bollinger
feels the research is ended, why doesn't he complain about the daily
media reports of the Holocaust, fifty years after the event and be
concerned that the first international conference on the Holocaust
was held in Spain during the same week that Ahmadinejad arrived in
the United states? Israel's Yad Vashem's International Institute for
Holocaust Research (IIHR) organized the conference. Slavery, genocide
of the American Indians and all other historical events are still
gathering information. Why exclude the World War II genocide from
additional research? Doesn't this attitude generate suspicion? The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially denied the Armenian Holocaust.
Was it because Israel has good relations with Turkey and the ADL didn't
want to disturb those relations? Here we had an absolute denial for
possible political reasons. Why no slurs against the ADL?
"Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue
its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have
delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you
said that Israel "should be wiped off the map."
There is no question that President Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped
off the map. So, do all other Middle East nations, including many
considered to be America's friend. Nevertheless, the Iranian president
has qualified his remarks; he wants regime change in Israel, and for
good reason - the present regime is oppressing the Palestinians and
is prepared to seize all of Jerusalem, an Islamic holy site. Compare
Ahmadinejad's ramblings, not backed up by force, with U.S. and Israel's
aggressive rhetoric that demands regime change in Iran and threatens
wholesale bombings. Unlike Iran, its antagonists also have the weapons
to carry out their threats.
"It's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that
funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
None of the mentioned groups, except for one or two ancient and
unverifiable actions, have actually been responsible for terrorism
against the United States. Bollinger must have known that and also
realized that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran's military and
foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can't answer? Where is
it well documented that Iran "is a state sponsor of terrorism?" As
a matter of fact, Iran has suffered greatly from terrorism, much
of which the U.S. has sponsored. Iran has been a consistent enemy
of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Compare it's minimal support for Hezbollah
and Palestinian groups to U.S. overwhelming support for Israel. Iran
feels it is supporting groups battling against a perceived oppression.
"Your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding,
arming and providing safe transit to insurgent forces."
Again! Bollinger must have known that Ahmadinejad has no control
of Iran's military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question
he can't answer? No proof has been offered for Bollinger's remark,
while the Iraq government has praised Iran's efforts. Actually, the
Iraq government has expressed concern that the U.S.is now "arming
and providing safe transit to (Sunni) insurgent forces."
"There are a number of reports that also link your government with
Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government
through violence and political assassination."
Which verified reports?
"Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq
by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
Has this been verified? Even if there were no Iran nation, wouldn't
the war in Iraq continue?
"Frankly, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual
courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in
itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical
mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do."
Bollinger must have been looking into a mirror when he composed this
salutation. Ahmadinejad's biggest mistake was not to walk out.
After creating a tense atmosphere for President Ahmadinejad,
intensified by tense questions that led to tensions, the Washington
Post added a ridiculous coda to the discordant theatrics. A headline
stated:
IRANIAN LEADER FAILS TO EASE TENSIONS
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be a demagogue and not beneficial to the
Iranian people. Nevertheless, he neither has the authority nor the
following to be of any danger to the United Sates. The U.S. media and
public demagogues revealed themselves as only interested in silencing
criticism of the U.S. and Israel (USrael) and promoting an agenda
that is not beneficial to U.S. interests. That was the most revealing
feature of this shameful episode.
Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics for many years.
He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based
newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle East
conflicts. [email protected]