Eugene's right, I do disagree with Columbia's decision to invite Ahmadinejad. That Pres. Bollinger made sure to have the right to questioning him is better than giving him a completely open forum, but it's not enough.
Unlike when I objected last time Ahmadinejad was to visit Columbia, my reason this time is that Ahmadinejad is the head of state of an enemy state, whose armed forces are killing American soldiers with equipment they provide to Iraqi insurgents. That makes Ahmadinejad an enemy of the United States, something that can't be overcome with some questions.
Should an American university care? Or should a university be completely cosmopolitan about such things. In some ways it's a tough call, but ultimately I think that American universities should come down on the side of not giving a respectful forum to our enemies. It's unfashionable in Ivy League circles to talk about such things as enemies, but they do exist. And with Ahmadinejad one can't make the argument that this is just a matter of great power politics or otherwise, an aberration that could be corrected through dialogue. He's an enemy not simply in a current physical struggle, but in an ideological one, as well.
In short, I wouldn't invite Stalin or Mao to Columbia when their forces were directly or indirectly killing Americans in North Korea, and I wouldn't invite Ahmadinejad, either.
Until this is actually proven, you cannot state something like this. You can believe it, but you cannot accuse someone of something so serious unless you have proof. Last I heard, there is no actual proof that Iran has actually provided weaponry that killed American soldiers.
I mean, heck, the poor country of Iraq is awash with weaponry from all over the world. You don't think influential Saudis right up the chain of command have not given weapons and money to Sunni insurgents? Yet I hear of no talk of taking war to Saudi Arabia.
Ahmadinejad may be a reprehensible man, or he may not. It matters not. What matters is how WE treat him. It speaks volumes about who we are, NOT about who he is.
That being said, I agree with David Bernstein on this.
Last time that Ahmadinejad was in NYC for a UN session, his movement was restricted to the UN buildings, his hotel and a few blocks in between.
That's the Bush/neocon propoganda line. However, the last time I checked the United States was not officially at war with Iran. And your self-rightousness is alarming. As many as a MILLION people have died since the United States invaded Iraq. If anything, the United States is an "enemy state" to the peace and well being of the world.
Here's a quote from Juan Cole, who actually knows something about the Middle East:
"U.S. officer corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency are clearly spoiling for a fight with Iran because the Iranian-supported Shiite nationalists in Iraq are a major obstacle to U.S. dominance in Iraq. Although very few U.S. troops in Iraq are killed by Shiites, military spokesmen have been attempting to give the impression that Tehran is ordering hits on U.S. troops, a clear casus belli. Disinformation campaigns that accuse Iran of trying to destabilize the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government -- a government Iran actually supports -- could lay the groundwork for a war."
So, your neocon pals are (again) orchestrating a plot to get the United States involved in a war. This time in Iran. Shame on you.
/Dr. Evil
Exactly. Neocons hate Iran because they view it as a threat to Israel - not because they view it as a threat to the United States. Calling Iran an "enemy" of the United States is a smokescreen.
Viewing Iran as evil is, of course, a perfectly legitimate view. I myself do not think the United State should sit back idly and allow another Holocaust. And there is no question that Iran would attempt another Final Solution. But at least I have the integrity to say that I would (potentially) support, on moral grounds, military intervention to prevent another Holocaust; and not because Iran is a threat to the United States.
I just wish the lies and gamesmanship would stop. People should have the courage and integrity to stop pretending that Iran is a threat to the United States. The Iranian government is evil, and to the extent they make efforts to exterminate an entire race, they should be stopped.
Sadly, though, I don't see any neocons advocating an intervention in the Sudan. Millions are actually dying in horrible ways in Darfur. But the death on those people doesn't seem to rouse the neocons.
Why do so many noecons care more about potential dead Israeils than they do actual dead people in Africa?
MILLIONS have died of various causes around the world since we invaded Iraq, but those deaths had NOTHING to do with our being in Iraq. Why do leftists keep making up FANTASY death figures?
If anything, the United States is an "enemy state" to the peace and well being of the world.
Flights leave every few minutes. Your catching one would be most welcome.
Some people who had tickets to attend the speech were denied the right to bring an American Flag into the auditorium. If they had wanted to bring in a Hamas flag, I'm sure that would have been fine.
Don't tase me bro
Says the "Dog"
BEHOLD THE AWESOMENESS OF MY POST AND DESPAIR. YOUR PUNY COMMENTS ARE NO MATCH MY QUOTE FROM JUAN COLE.
YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT MCKEAN, I USED "AWESOMENESS"
Ahmadinejad is NOT the head of state. Cite.
Nor is he, to the best of my knowledge, the head of the Iranian military, so your indefinite pronoun usage ("whose"), combined with your factual inaccuracy, might lead some to believe that Ahmadinejad is the one "whose" armed forces "are killing Americans [indirectly]". I assume you meant to write the sentence as follows: "my reason this time is that Ahmadinejad is the head of state [sic] of an enemy state, [the] armed forces [of which] are killing American soldiers with equipment they provide to Iraqi insurgents."
I'm curious on what basis you describe Iran as an "enemy state".
Which is one reason why we should have Ahmadinejad speak, then rebut him.
The proof: American enemy, Imonajihad, is welcome at Columbia, ROTC is not.
Really?
Here's Ahmadinejad in his own words:
I don't know about you, but ruling the world sounds like more than just a threat to Israel...
Nobody has an answer. The embassy thing....piffle. Weapons to Iran? Only dead US soldiers.
They're making commercial grade uranium for their power plant. Does anybody know if they have one?
Good Democrat,
In case you haven't heard, the presumption of innocence and requirement of proof only apply to white kids accused of rape.
Was Kim Jong Il unavailable?
It's people like David Bernstein who help build Ahmadinejad up into more than he is: a ridiculous loudmouth serving as the figurehead of a weak third-world oligarchy.
I'm not keen on giving petty thugs a platform to air their lunacies. But can we do it on grounds that actually have some bearing on reality? Akbar Ganji's open letter is a good starting point.
I would be curious to know what your solution to Darfur is. The UN avenue is basically blocked by Sudan's allies. Western sanctions so far have been ineffective. What can be done?
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/rotc/hist.htm
Before saying something really stupid, please google it and at least check the first hit.
I for one am not convinced that Iran is yet an enemy. Are they enriching uranium in violation of treaty? Yes. Does that make them an enemy? Not sure yet.
As for supporting terrorists in Iraq, let's just say I don't take the blanket assertions of the adminstration as seriously as I used to.
Remember, Iran sent us a letter in May of 2003 agreeing to negotuate everything, support for terroists, hezbollah, nuclear weapons etc. We turned them down because we refused to talk to them. Do we have any moral high ground left to say that they are our enemy (a phrase used in a time of war)?
Washinton post article
The irony being, of course, that if the March '03 invasion of Iraq had been followed by the U.S.'s accepting the Iranian invitation and negotiating a modus vivendi, then Bush would've waved that as a huge success and a justification for the war itself. And he wouldn't have been wrong.
Actually, there are numerous prominent neoconservative supporters of US intervention in Sudan.
The situation seems a bit different to me: head of Islamic state that (1) supports suicide bombings, (2) advocates the destruction of Israel, (3) advocates Islamic global rule (presumably not by global democratic vote), (4) would like to get a nuclear bomb and is working toward that end. We could debate whether Iran will ever obtain a nuclear bomb or what it would do if it did get one. But I'd prefer to take Ahmadinejad's statements as serious threats and be wrong than dismiss him as a "ridiculous loudmouth" and wake up one morning to see a building collapse or a mushroom cloud blotting out rising in the distance.
Why do I have to prove a negative?
As for 1979, that ignores the small fact that the Reagan Administration was selling arms to Iran a few years later. Unless and until I see some treason indictments, I'm inclined to think that practice meant Iran was NOT an enemy. There are other problems with this theory as well, not the least of which is that the official State Department site I linked above says nothing about Iran being an enemy. In fact, it even offers some faint praise.
As for claims by the current Administration that Iran is intentionally supplying weapons to Iraqi groups, let's just say that this Administration's credibility on such matters isn't high enough for me to trust it without some verify.
Prof. Volokh would prefer to keep the sunshine off Ahmadinejad.
I like the fact that he got laughed at. Aside from demonstrating the virtues of American openness, I find branding him a threat who must be confined to the U.N. to unduly magnify him. Better to let a tinpot mouthpiece for a repressive regime see how a grand nation is contemptuous of him, rather than dignify him as a threat.
A curious prohibition, but perhaps we're still sensitive about potential spies and West Point ....
Nope. I would have said that if that's what I meant by "neocon." That's a pretty typical neocon move, though - accusing dissenters of antisemitism. (That insult, of course, is hurled once the chicken hawks realize that, as I have prior military service, they can't accuse me of being a terrorist or unpatriotic.)
I grew up in an area populated with poor, country folks. I never met a Jewish person before college. Yet people in my hometown are all major Israel backers. It's due to religious views that if Israel doesn't exist, something or other bad will happen when the Antichrist comes. All of this was supposedly laid out in the book of Revelations. You should watch the 700 Club sometime.
So lots of non-Jewish people support military intervention in Israel. Lots of non-Jewish people view any enemy of Israel as an enemy of the United States.
Again, though, nice try.
So when do we ban Bush from giving speeches?
All hail the new American facism.
The neo-cons have created a tempest in a teapot with this non-issue.
In reality it is a simple example of the Twain quote: "It is better keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
American's know stupid when they hear it.
from the link:
Who is stupid?
Etc.
Pat Robertson is non-Jewry is ever anyone was. Yet he supports military intervention when anyone threatens Israel. So do all of his "flock."
So, folks, "neocon" does not mean "Jew."
I realize, of course, you'll still call us antisemites. After all, it's easier to call the anti-neocons racists than it is to address our arguments.
But not when they read it, you hope?
Check out MyManMitt.com . As Sargent Schultz...
I forgot the period.
or is it another neocon lie?
That's all the proof I need! Or maybe not?
While someone has beaten me to it, it bears repetition: ROTC is banned from Columbia's campus. They don't /prevent/ students from partipating off campus. But I'm not certain how they could. And one suspects that they don't say "no" to the scholarship money.
As to the "something really stupid" comment, I'll just leave that one be.
MikeCandF--Your post shows only that you don't need to be a Jew to be /pro-Israel./ But that's not what you think you have demonstrated. Pat Robertson a neocon? That's new to me.
So for the record: I am generally "pro-Israel," if that means that one believes it has a right to exists as a Jewish state. I am NOT in any way a neocon. And I'm Catholic.
So what? That proves zilch about neoconservatism.
"Neocon" and "Zionist" are used so freely by anti-Semites that many of us tend to cringe when we hear how damned awful and dangerous they are. The phrases are so often deployed as code for "The Joos" that it is hard not to respond that way.
So I always ask: what IS a neoconservative? Not WHO. WHAT distinguishes a neocon? If someone has a non-ethno-religious definition, then I am all ears. If they say only that it's anyone who is more concerned with Israeli security than American security, then we have nothing to talk about. Why wouldan American think that way? Hmm. Perhaps because he's a disloyal Jew?
perhaps you should check out some of the results under the first link on your next Google search.
Calling Ahmadinejad the head of an Islamic state is a misnomer on two levels: he has only as much power as Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei (who has been ruling Iran since the early 90s) chooses to give to him, and most of the Muslim world does not regard his state as legitimately Islamic. Heck, hardliners in the Iranian parliament censured him for un-Islamic behavior only a few months back.
If one is going to take every loudmouth at his word, irrespective of facts, one is not going to get anywhere, particularly in the Middle East. We've seen that movie before. It's called Iraq. (Incidentally, the mushroom cloud imagery while nice, has a distinctly 2003 air about it).
Of course, for folks who want a war with Iran, or increased military aid to Israel or for those who just don't particularly like Muslims, Ahmadinejad is a godsend: every time he opens his mouth, he says something outrageous. Playing him up as a global threat is quite helpful in that context.
Likewise, every time we allow Ahmadinejad to appear to 'stand up' to the US by making a fuss about him, his sagging popularity at home revives, and he gets another boost in the region.
The only folks who lose in such a situation are ordinary Iranians and Americans whose real problems and dangers get obscured by this sort of posturing.
That need not stay the same. A flea with an atom bomb is an atom bomb controlled by a flea.
Appeasers like Mark F are happy to ignore distant people of whom they -- obviously -- know nothing. Anybody who cites Juan Cole is dismissed from class for not paying attention.
In fact, he made a policy that University Student Funds could not be used for any alcohol event unless it was for gay students.
He also led jihad's against student drinking, including settup up city and U police strike teams which broke and entered houses without warrants if drinking was suspected.
Bollinger and Ahmadinejad are not so different. Except for the gay issue, they are fairly alike in many beliefs including alcohol and the role of overwhelming police power unrestrained by civil rights.
If all of this is true and as incontrovertible as DB and others apparently believe, why did the United States government permit him to enter the United States?
Or, better yet, why didn't the United States just shoot down his plane as it entered US airspace?
Is it because the United States loves terrorists?
If we can imprison US citizens in solitary confinement for years without charges, it seems we should also be able to capture or kill someone who is so "obviously" an enemy of the US.
"Neocon" does not mean "supporter of Israel," so the fact that Pat Robertson is a supporter of Israel is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of neoconserativism.
All poodles are dogs, but all dogs ain't poodles.
columbia college student being interviewed on her impression of ahmadinejad: "it's amazing to me that his evil is actually palpable"
Squeezable, even.
the threads at democratincunderground.com are similarly amazing right now
bush is just as bad as ahmadinejad, we shouldn't criticize him because it's a different culture, etc. etc.
amazing stuff
worth a read
just click the "greatest threads" and prepare to be appalled
Ahh, Outside the Beltway picks up on the Right's favorite past-time: Cherry-Pick a random Kos diary that's not front-paged and not on the rec list, and use it as "representative" of the "Left." David Bernstein likes to make sweeping generalizations about the "Left" and "Kos" when clearly knows nothing about either.
You just won't give it up, will you?
From The NY Times after 1 minute of googling:
i have read mother jones and the nation for at least the last 10 years. pretty much every issue. and i routinely read democraticunderground.org and indymedia, watch the BBC on occasion, etc. so, i consider myself pretty familiar with the leftist mindset, or "progressive" if you will
the posts speak for themselves.
there are some real wacked out wingnuts on the FAR left.
you don't need to selectively quote
feel free to go to www.democraticunderground.com, click on "greatest threads" (these are threads that are recommended by MEMBERS as being especially good) and read away.
nobody needs to misrepresent the left's viewpoints. they are right there to be read.
moral equivalence, false dilemma, multi-culti insanity, etc.
it's all there. it's beautiful stuff
i am assuming you are referring to the interview on hardball. i've read the transcript.
she does NOT accuse him of that. you are lying or misinformed. not unusual for you. what she said is that there are questions about how he received the wounds, and that SOME of the soldiers have made that allegation. she said there are LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS, that is not the same as saying HE DID IT. that's, as usual, a lie to smear the right, EXACTLY what you accuse the right of doing in regards to the left. how typical. pot, kettle, black. do you have specific evidence, that SHE said he did that?
here is the relevant section of the transcript:
"BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?
MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?
MALKIN: Did you read the book...
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...
MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.
MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...
MATTHEWS: Give me a name.
MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).
MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...
MALKIN: These people have...
MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?
MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...
MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.
MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...
MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.
MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...
MATTHEWS: Why did you say?
MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.
MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?
MALKIN: On.
MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.
MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.
MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.
I haven‘t heard you say it.
MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?
MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.
MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?
MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.
"And DU is 10x farther to the left than DailyKos"
while that much is true, plenty of the people making these comments on DU don't admit that. they think they are left of center, but nowhere near far left or extremist. they are generally of the "i want kucinich, but i'll vote for hillary, even though she's a corporatist friend of the neoconz"
as for michelle malkin, if you want to provide a quote for that, i'll check it out.
Prof. Somin is quite correct. The flagship opinion publication of the "neocons," The Weekly Standard, has endorsed just such an intervention. "The Need for Leadership in Darfur":"A fascist, terrorist supporting regime is exterminating its citizens by the tens of thousands. Why then, under the most fervent advocate of freedom and peace since Ronald Reagan, is America not justly using
its mighty military force to stop them?"
I've often heard this claim. Is their any evidence for it, from sources other than the US government?
But at least I have the integrity to say that I would (potentially) support, on moral grounds, military intervention to prevent another Holocaust; and not because Iran is a threat to the United States.
Hysterical. How far from your bloodline should these soldiers be?
Clearly there is no CU discouragment of Underage drinking in the dorms because so many students participate in it....
My vote for most foolish post of the day.
I know the traditional definition of neocon, as I don't have a "whole" in my head. But support for Israel has become the sine qua non of the neocon movement. I therefore consider everyone who has an unhealthy obsession for supporting Israel (even when said support is to the detriment of the United State's interests) to be a neocon. Though, admittedly, I suppose "unpatriotic" might be a better word. (If putting the interests of another country before the interests one's own country isn't unpatriotic, I don't know what is.)
I realize, of course, neocons might not enjoy being compared to Pat Robertson's flock. But they are all birds of a feather, even if no one wants to admit it.
Sadly, though, I don't see any neocons advocating an intervention in the Sudan. Millions are actually dying in horrible ways in Darfur. But the death on those people doesn't seem to rouse the neocons.
If you don't think Iran is important to us just think how much fun you will have walking everywhere and growing your own food. Should be interesting in NYC. Oil is the life blood of the West. Even the computer you are typing on comes from oil. Iran could be positioned, if we leave Iraq, to get a stranglehold on Middle east oil, just as Saddam tried to do. The Saudi's will be the first to go. Well maybe Kuwait would go fist.
Don't forget that after they destroy Israel, you are next in line. Feel like converting to Islam? This is about the conversion of the world to Islam or the world's death. You kid yourself if you think they will stop at Israel. Ahwhosit also said he wanted to brign about he Rapture. In Islam. that is akin to the end of the world and the 2nd Coming of Christ. Remember, everyone is dead then?
As for the Sudan, there is no infrastructuire. Please, go back and see what happened in Somalia, another country bleeding hearts got us into to stop a famine then Clinton would not support the troops he sent in.
Don't you think we are havein enough trouble in Iraq? The Sudan would be even worse. Other than a few aid workers and celebrities, the only thing both sides agree on is that they hate America. Just what we need to do, invade another Musim country, one in which we have no strategic interest. Brilliant diplomacy. I think we just might be better off to stay in Iraq and prevent the bloodbath that would occur there if we leave than going into the Sudan.
In addition, we would almost certainly find ourselves in a confrontation with China who gets a lot of oil from the Sudan. You might think oil is of no importance, but just wait and see what happens if you mess with China's oil supply.
Go read and educate yourself and no, the Daily Kos and Moveon don't count.
MikeC&F,
And throwing the word neocon around is what, intellignt debate? is not a pretty typical leftist move? Avoids debate as it pretty well dismisses all who come under that classification. I think if you are going to object to name calling, you might want to clean up your own house.
Negroponte, Clarke et al. claim the same.
More evidence that Iran and its Quds forces are responsible for the proliferation of EFPs in Iraq.
Nice try breezily pretending that the Iranians haven't been meddling in Iraq. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Right now, the left in America doesn't recognize any enemies except American rightists. The right doesn't recognize the actual enemy, which is not Islamofascism but Islam plain and simple.
CrazyTrain, it's not just that Juan Cole thinks badly of Jews or Israelis. He is an active agent of disinformation. I assume he is in the pay of the Iranian government. Whether he's doing it for money or for love, he's doing it.
The most prominent example has been his continuing (widely successful) effort to mistranslate Ahmedinejad's remarks about obliterating Israel. That has been common coin of the Iranian revolution since 1979, and Cole must know it.
If I know it (and I can prove it), he must.
Crazy Train:Aside from the fact that that's a complete misrepresentation of what Malkin said, the unanswered question remains: Why has John Kerry absolutely refused to allow his military records to be opened to the voting public??
There is much speculation that Kerry does not want to make public his Dishonorable Discharge for traveling to Hanoi against orders during the war. Furthermore, Kerry now has two (2) different DD-214's. One from the Navy after he traveled to Hanoi, and one following Jimmy Carter's pardon, which just so happened to excuse anything Kerry did, including giving aid and comfort to the enemy; treason.
Kerry could easily silence such speculation by signing his DoD SF-180, just like George W. Bush did. By refusing, Kerry shows that he has something bad to hide.
Victims of false consciousness, I guess.
yes, do. your wacky claims definitely need some proof.
IRI President addresses students at Colombia University
Bear in mind that due to the control of information, this is the impression that many Iranians will get - that their nutcase president was applauded by an American university audience of thinkers.
Columbia University = useful tool.
It doesn't matter what actions america takes, it will be spun in ahmadinejad's favor no matter what.
Well, with street creds like that, I'd say Ahmadinejad has more in common with the right wing than we thought. If you just subsitute Christianists with Islamic, that is.
(okay, and the antisemitic and Holocaust-denying. I would sub anti-atheist and evolution-denying. Then we have a pretty good parallel.)
ZSo . . . there's little difference between: "I don't want homosexuals to marry in my country" and "I don't want homosexuals in my country"? Seems a huge difference to me. As big as the difference between, say, having Liz Phair's phone number and having Liz Phair. (And I know, I know. You'd have no use for either. but just fill in another name, and you get the point.)
I’ve usually found that isolating and not touching things carrying disease works even better.
Not really, I doubt that most people including most students at Columbia have even heard of Turkmenistan.
Perhaps some historical context is appropriate?
The Soviet Union was supplying equipment and technology used to kill US soldiers in Viet Nam. So did a few other of the Soviets satellites. Same with the Chinese.
During the first Gulf War the Russians supplied the arms that the Iraqis used to kill US and allied soldiers.
Were all these folks denied forums at US universities? Who was the highest ranking official of any of these countries to speak at a US university during either Viet Nam or Gulf I?
It's been common coin of the Iranian Revolution for decades. Cole is rewriting a history that you can find in any public library in America.
Just curious, but what would you call Timothy McVeigh?
Whit:
That Malkin was merely legitimizing someone else's scurrilous accusation without endorsing it is hardly compelling testimony to her restraint. Unless, that is, you think it's responsible, moderate commentary to suggest that since there are still people who accuse President Bush of orchestrating the 9-11 attacks, we should investigate that question more seriously.