From an article about the Iranians being upset with Bollinger's treatment of that madman Ahmadinejad:
In their letter, the university chancellors asked Bollinger to provide responses to 10 questions ranging from: "Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein" during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, to "Why has the U.S. military failed to find al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, even with all its advanced equipment?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us
These sounds strangely familiar, don't they?
2007-09-26 04:35:01 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Pip,
I wasn't asking about AJad's popularity, I was asking why these Iranians are asking the same questions some Libs do here.
Nice deflection though.
2007-09-26 04:42:57 · update #1
Information Police,
In what way was I comparing Bollinger to Libs. The comparison was the Iranian and the Libs.
2007-09-26 04:57:42 · update #2
PIP is that a PIP spin answer there ? Liberals questions are the same because they have the same anti American views. I can't understand if the Liberals hate America so much why don't they leave ? How shameful was it the kids at the Columbia University applauded The Iranian leader knowing he kills American Troops! It would be great if these spoiled rotten student's had to live in IRAN for a week. with the rest of the ungrateful Liberal American haters . They would come back with there tails between there legs praising Bush ......
2007-09-26 05:11:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I read the article about the Iranians being upset with Bollinger's speech.
It is unfortunate that we believe our leaders such as Bush, Cheney and others who have given us the false impression that whoever stands against us is either evil or a madman. How utterly none sense.
How can we believe Bush and Cheney, when he lied to us about the reasons to go to war with Iraq. His lies have cost us close to 4000 American lives, thousands maimed for life, over 500 billion dollars burned, while he kept Bin Laden free to plan and kill more Americans, Canadians, British and others in Afghanistan. And you have the audacity to call Ahmadeen Najad the madman. Don't you think the real madman is here in our country..masquerading as the leader of the free world.
The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying I quote "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with ... a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful." I believe any civilized man who's fair and sincere to the principle of human dignity would agree with these Chancellors.
In my opinion, Bollinger by his remarks, portrayed us as hate and insulting mongers. If there is anyone that can be called petty and cruel, I think Mr. Bollinger would be best suited to fit the description.
2007-09-26 05:06:00 · answer #2 · answered by clearwater 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't get the point of your question or of Bollinger's questions, for that matter.
In most circles people are saying that the President of Columbia was very agressive in questioning Almadinejad. You are comparing Bollinger to libs. Does that mean you think libs ask tough and even rude questions about Iran???
Anyway, as far as the questioning goes, I think it shows that free speech is a 2-way street. It was right for Columbia U to invite Almadinejad to speak, and it was right for the president of the university to use his right to ask tough questions.
Free Speech wins both times.
2007-09-26 04:44:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I was looking at your avatar and was thinking....did Reagan bash and insult Gorbachev during the Cold war, or was he civilized when negotiating a truce?
That old saying also comes to mind " keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".
Certainly Bush could learn a few pointers from your hero.
2007-09-26 04:49:52 · answer #4 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'm constantly surprised how they hone in on a female conservative presence and attack, looks they do no longer understand she may well be a he, or perchance they determine the female presence will back off. sturdy success on that one. Stalking women, what a superb bunch of wackos.
2016-10-05 09:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's reflective of the fact that almost everyone is aware of the United States ugly history. It 's kind of like asking why Iranians and liberals both answer that 4 is the result of 2 plus 2. Both groups say the same thing only because that is reality.
2007-09-26 04:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by Trevor S 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
No, the validity of the questions do not depend on who asks them, the questions stand for themselves.
This is a variant on the attacking the messenger theme, except in this case you're attacking the people who are asking probing questions by associating them with the enemy.
2007-09-26 05:00:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah I was really surprised how many Ahmadinejad comments could have come directly from Pelosi and Reid.
2007-09-26 07:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would think the iranians have every right to ask why we supported Sadam, he was responsible for a war with Iran that killed thousands upon thousands of their children,,,,,,,why would it be strange that they would like an answer to that....the second one is a good question also...why havent we caught him?
2007-09-26 04:43:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's not that interesting to see that liberals ask these questions and that Iranians ask these questions. Most of the world seems to be curious about these questions.
It's interesting to see that Republican conservatives tend NOT to ask these questions.
2007-09-26 04:52:28 · answer #10 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋