THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yesterday, Rick Perlstein wrote a post in which he contrasted the way America greeted Ahmadinejad this week with the way we greeted Nikita Khrushchev in 1959. Ahmadinejad, of course, was met with sharp denunciations from politicians, activists, even his host at Columbia, Lee Bollinger--whom Perlstein accused of "whin[ing] like a baby bereft of his pacifier that his guest is a big meany poopy-head." By contrast, Perlstein writes, Khrushchev--who, like Ahmadinejad today, was an enemy of our country when he visited--was treated to a white-tie state dinner, an open limo ride with President Eisenhower, and tours of Manhattan, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Perlstein's point is that 1950s America was more mature than contemporary America. "Nikita Khrushchev," he writes, "simply visited a nation that had character. ... Now when a bad guy crosses our threshhold, America becomes a pants-piddling mess." He called his post "Bed-wetter Nation."
This is, frankly, an astonishing sentiment coming from a liberal. Now, it's true that, as Perlstein points out, one reason for the difference between 1959 and today is the rise in prominence of a certain brand of conservatism that thrives on promoting fear. Moreover, clearly some of the responses to Ahmadinejad's visit have been hysterical. Whatever you think of Columbia's decision to host the Iranian leader, calls by people like Duncan Hunter to cut off federal funding to the university are obviously ridiculous, and should be treated as such.
At the same time, does it not occur to Perlstein that there are other key differences between 1950s America and contemporary America? For starters, human rights is much more central to the way we think about geopolitics today than it was back then: We simply know more, and care more, about the internal character of foreign regimes. Yes, Americans in the 1950s were aware that the Soviet Union was a repressive place. But, today, thanks to the web, thanks to the heroic efforts of journalists to infiltrate closed societies, thanks to groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the average American has access to detailed information about the ugly way regimes like Iran treat dissidents, women, gays, and religious minorities--the types of details that a typical consumer of news didn't have about the Soviet Union in the 1950s. (See, for example, this photo of gay teenagers being hanged in Iran; or this description of women being beaten in a Tehran square.) As the world has gotten smaller, empathy has become more natural; and simply looking the other way in the face of faraway injustice has gotten that much harder. Knowledge of what authoritarian regimes are busy doing to their own people makes it understandably difficult for Americans to roll out a clubby red carpet for the leaders who perpetrate such crimes. This, fundamentally, is progress.
There is another way in which America has changed since Khrushchev's visit, and it too helps explain why Ahmadinejad was greeted so critically this week: We are today a more open society than we were in the 1950s--less preoccupied with decorum, less inclined towards self-censorship for the sake of civility, less deferential towards authority. Civility, of course, is nice, but one of the casualties of civility is often truth. And I think it's fair to say that our culture's general disposition towards the tradeoff between truth and civility has changed since the 1950s--tipping further in the direction of truth and away from civility. This, too, has been a good thing. America in the 1950s was a place where it might have been considered rude for a university president to attack a visiting foreign leader for his government's cruel policies towards its own citizens. It was also a place where it was considered rude to discuss race (even though apartheid conditions still prevailed in half the country) and gender (even though women remained trapped in a de jure and de facto sexist culture that severely constricted their life choices). Obviously, one of the great achievements of the 1960s generation was to begin dismantling the barriers that prevented minorities and women from integrating fully into American life. But a related, and perhaps even larger, achievement was to start pushing our culture away from the sort of instincts--a preference for decorum over honesty, for self-censorship over confrontation--that had made too many people complicit in these injustices for too long. Perlstein seems to think this change has made our society more childish. I would argue it has made us more liberal.
Of course there are people who want the United States to go to war with Iran, and who therefore had their own set of reasons for giving Ahmadinejad a rude reception this week. I am, emphatically, not one of those people. But does opposing war with Iran really require liberals to act politely towards an illiberal monster like Ahmadinejad--to overlook his repression of dissidents, his sponsorship of terrorism, his fanatical anti-semitism? Does Perlstein really think we would be better off if we lived in a country where people declined to confront foreign leaders when they behaved badly? I'd be curious to know. Because there is a word for people who romanticize the surface comity that characterized the 1950s; who long for the days when politics was a polite game of chess conducted by a club of world leaders, before pests like human rights groups showed up to complicate great-power relations; who believe that maturity means looking the other way while the strong do terrible things to the weak; and who disparage the instinct to speak out against injustice as a childish impulse of bed-wetters. Those people are called ... conservatives. --Richard Just
42 comments
It is possible to convey extreme reproof without resorting to name-calling, as Bollinger did. A polite 30-second intro along the lines of "Thank you for coming, Mr. President" would not in any way have hampered the hard questioning of the next hour, where Ahmadinejad managed quite ably to hang himself. We have, in daily life as well as in politics, become a nation that mistakes rudeness for honesty, where it is considered ok to tell a stranger, "Hey, that dress makes you look fat," as long as the dress does indeed make her look fat - "Dude, I was just being honest!" You are correct that conservatives do recognize that mistake, and the better class of conservatives are able to maintain a polite smile and a courteous mode of speech while tearing an enemy to shreds. That does make them more adult, and it is one of the things I like about them.
- dhauck
September 27, 2007 at 4:50am
dhauck, Thank you for expressing something I have believed and have always practiced--to be courteous to a despicable person does not mean one agrees with him.
- cd024
September 27, 2007 at 5:15am
According 1st amendment rights to a foreign tyrant seems like a stunt to get attention. They sure scooped other universities with this entrepreneurial idea.
- satyendra
September 27, 2007 at 8:00am
The point of Columbia's invitation was to have it both ways with a faculty that is badly split on Middle Eastern matters. To avoid Larry Summers' fate, Bollinger needed to appear respectful of the significant group of Islamist appeasers on his faculty, while not becoming one of them. A year ago, the faculty invitation to Ahmadinejad was withdrawn; this year, Bollinger tried to come up with a more creative response.
- kyoung
September 27, 2007 at 8:26am
I am normally with the "being polite matters" crowd. I've always hated it, for example, when students get up and harangue a speaker in the guise of asking a "question." It's rude not just to the speaker, but also to the other members of the audience, who are there to hear the guest and not one of their self-important, holier-than-thou classmates. I suppose one might apply that logic to the Bollinger-Ahmadinejad situation ... Or not. Ahmadinejad may not be a dictator in a literal sense, but he's one of the most radically conservative figures in a repressive, theocratic government that appears in its darker moments to be under the sway of a martyerdom cult (of which Ahmadinejad is one of the leaders). Bollinger spearheaded the effort to bring Ahmadinejad to Columbia; and he gave him ample time to rebut every charge that Bollinger made in his short, calm introduction. (Hardly a "rant," as you'll know if you've seen the video.) Giving Ahmadinejad a forum to express himself at length without interruption was appropriate -- but that is the only courtesy he deserves.
- Bowdoin
September 27, 2007 at 8:34am
No arguments that Ahmedinejad is a bad guy, with negative views toward homosexuals, women, liberals, atheists, agnostics, and non-Moslems. Confronting someone on those issues is fine. But when you invite someone, even an enemy, as your guest, you should treat them as a guest and use some tact, diplomacy and empathy. Our leaders and media certainly do so when dealing with other leaders that hold views anathema to ours, and many that have committed crimes as bad as Ahmadinejad. Plenty of our Saudi and Egyptian and other Arab allies have rather negative views of Jews and do or condone horrible things toward their people or their enemies. And they are given the red-carpet diplomatic treatment. On a different day, you could convince me to kill Ahmadinejad, but today I say, we didn't act maturely as a nation, and if you invite someone to talk, even someone with what you consider a crazy view, you should not start out with insults. Unless you're on some day-time Jerry Springer style talk show. By the way, there are probably many Americans that would be very comfortable with some of Ahmadinejad's attitudes toward gays and and to a lesser extent toward women. Furthermore, while the type of Justice (and/or oppression) meted out by Ahmadinejad may seem "evil" to us, it is in accordance with his belief-system, and despite his hateful rhetoric, he may not be such a bad or evil man, as a confused man, much as many of our own conservatives are. I think Perlstein was right.
- toddwpeterson
September 27, 2007 at 8:59am
The notion that Americans must cover someone with abuse to register their disapproval is absurd. That should go without saying. As for Americans being smarter these days...are we sure about that? Sure, the average American has access to all sorts of information about human rights abuses in Iran, but how many Americans actually take advantage of that access? Let's face it, Americans know a lot more about Paris Hilton's various social diseases than they do about the internal nature of the Iranian regime. Perlstein was right. The bed-wetters were, as usual, wrong.
- Fairfax
September 27, 2007 at 9:26am
Rick Perlstein is a self-hating American. He subconsciously, if not even consciously, believes the United States screwed the Iranian people. Ahmadinejad is merely a reminder of our nastiness. Perlstein is on record denying Islamic nihilism is really that serious of a problem. No, we are allegedly overreacting because of the nefarious influences of the neoconservatives. When everything is said and done, Ahmadinejad is a victim of American imperialism.
- thomsondavid
September 27, 2007 at 10:23am
I hope it was all staged: Invite Ahmadinejad, disagree with him in public, and then give him a chance to open his mouth and prove what kind of person he is. Works for me.
Why do you think that Bush refuses to hold very few press conferences? It reduces the chances that Bush will prove that he is a fool. Every world leader should have to go somewhere and defend themselves in front of people that aren't afraid. It isn't going to happen in Iran. If Columbia is going to volunteer, I'm all for it.
I also agree with Noam, all this kind of courtesy does is allow people to get away with things they shouldn't. I don't think it's rude at all to tell someone they're wrong, and neither do any of you, or you wouldn't be posting on TNR. It's much more rude and dangerous to let someone go ahead and do what they are going to do anyway.
- anonevent
September 27, 2007 at 10:39am
there are also other crucial differences between Iran and the USSR. We had diplomatic relations with the USSR, albeit chilly, they were a superpower who had been our ally in WW2, we were in a propaganda war with them (hence dazzling the world as we dazzled Kruschev). And it was a state affair. We have no diplomatic relations with Iran, his visit was a UN affair and visit to Columbia strictly a private one, Iran is only a regional power. We are not in a propaganda war with Iran, or at least one that has any relevance outside of the Muslim world. Iran was never our ally and has acted as our enemy for a generation. So in the end I think the comparison is basically pointless when the caveats are longer than the piece itself.
- blackton
September 27, 2007 at 10:51am
is a self-hating repubarab. He is on record as being in favor of financing Islamic nihilists by buying Arab oil through his denigration of conservation, alternative fuels, and cleaner air. He desires the enslavement of Americans to the Repubarab Bin Laden corp. When everything is said and done, he lusts for Iranian oil.
- blackton
September 27, 2007 at 10:56am
Bollinger was more Catholic than the Pope because he was getting ripped by the major media, so he showed off by being impolite to an invited guest. Bad form. Especially for the Ivies. They're so much smarter than all of us hoi polloi, don't you know. Blackie, what's with your latest anti-td rants? I can't believe he's worth the time to you.
- butchie b
September 27, 2007 at 11:25am
"Does Perlstein really think we would be better off if we lived in a country where people declined to confront foreign leaders when they behaved badly?" Yes, if these foreign tyrants are anti-Bush
- jacksondyer
September 27, 2007 at 11:44am
"Bollinger was more Catholic than the Pope because he was getting ripped by the major media, so he showed off by being impolite to an invited guest." You probably would have been polite to Hitler had he showed up at your College, wouldn't you?
- jacksondyer
September 27, 2007 at 11:45am
- dubyadoubte
September 27, 2007 at 12:02pm
I not sure why the conservative commentators are really so angry about old Ahmedindejah. If he was your president you would probably be pretty satisfied (pro-traditional values, belligerence, ostentatious piety). And Islamic Nihilists? "Say what you will about Islamism, dude, at least it's an Ethos>"
- ligedog1
September 27, 2007 at 12:03pm
I suspect that many among the etiquette crowd would have supported the invitation in the first place, which exposes their complaints as ironic to say the least. We are told first that the traditions of free speech and free exchange of ideas in the academic community require providing this forum, but then told that only the guest and the students may speak their minds. For some reason, which totally escapes me, notions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas applied to everyone in the room *except* Bollinger and the institution he represented who was sponsoring the event. Since when did free speech advocates, or liberals generally, become so hysterically preoccupied with civility and what you must not say? What happened to speaking out -- loudly, clearly, and rationally -- against violations of human rights and their perpetrators? Blackton is exactly right: The Khruschev situation was a state affair. Bollinger isn't a diplomat, nor does he represent the United States. He represented the university which had a *duty*, in my view, and not merely the option, of making clear that unlike the usual situation where an academic or other personage is invited to speak, the university did not view Ahmadinejad's substantive viewpoints as worthy of respect. It's not a matter of mere disagreement. It's not like a liberal introducing a conservative. People who characterize Bollinger's speech as "name-calling" or "insults" need to go back to the tape. The speech was dispassionate in tone, delivered in a cool and collected manner, and constituted a well-supported list of serious offenses which Bollinger invited Ahamedinejad to respond to if he could. The speech was insulting only insofar as it was accurate. Are we compelled to always say everything that's accurate? Of course not. But comparing Bollinger's speech with calling a woman fat is ludicrous. Bollinger's speech was not gratuitous (unlike Ahmadinejad's), as it provided context and perspective for the event. The purpose was twofold: clarify the university's position (which Bollinger had every right to do especially where saying nothing substantive would convey a false impression), and impart valuable knowledge to the students in the room and other observers. The notion that being polite is a sign of maturity in this context strikes me as backwards. In England -- known for its manners and maturity -- journalists routinely grill guests in a far more challenging and pointed manner than journalists here do and in a far more challenging and pointed manner than they would address, say, a lunch companion. Why? Because their job is to get at the truth, it's an important job, and it means being something other than nicey-nice. Just as journalism is (our ought to be) dedicated to getting at the truth, so too are institutions of higher learning, and Bollinger's speech, I think, could only help do that while saying nothing would have been contrary to that mission. By the way, it is my understanding that Bollinger required -- as a condition of having the universtiy sponsor this event -- that he be permitted the opportunity to deliver his tough questions at the outset, and that everyone, included Ahmadinejad, knew that that they were coming beforehand.
- jhildner
September 27, 2007 at 12:09pm
classes start next week so I am venting out the frustrations of my lesson preparations on poor TD. Also, my 3 year old had an alergic reaction to 2 wasp stings 2 days ago. Stress. so baiting TD is just a little diversion. It doesn't hurt anyone since he doesn't even care.
- blackton
September 27, 2007 at 12:34pm
This nonsense about how people who think Mr Bollinger was rude are opposed to truth-telling and confronting evil is really, really stupid. Even by the standards of the times we live in. It is perfectly possible, even for the meanest of intellects, to register strong disapproval without being rude. Mr Bollinger was being rude. No one is opposed to telling the Iranian government that they should change their ways. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it and Mr Bollinger chose the wrong way to do it. And the media hysteria, especially in NY and on Faux News, was very telling. How can we have such a man in the country?! Will our Republic fall if the President of Iran communicates with college students thru the power of speech?! Those who favor a free exchange of views between the American people and the government of Iran should be ashamed!! It was pathetic. It just goes to show, once again, that the right-wingers who are always banging on about how much they admire strength and fortitude and courage are the biggest bunch of pansy-assed sissyboys on the planet.
- Fairfax
September 27, 2007 at 1:06pm
Bollinger's speech was that of a craven academic hack, trying to cover his ass. Nothing more.
- jm_rice
September 27, 2007 at 1:09pm
Bollinger *did* register strong disapproval. That's *exactly* what he did. He listed the guys offenses, and asked him to respond. Did he use some harsh characterizations? Yes -- well-deserved too in context. He said that he exhibited the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, which he does. He said that his Holocaust denial was mark of ignorance or something worse, which it is. His speech was nothing like the Fox News coverage or anything like that -- those are straw men in this discussion. He didn't say anything nearly as rude or crude as that he's "really, really stupid," for example.
- jhildner
September 27, 2007 at 1:55pm
Nice to see Butchie and other conservatives understand the value of good manners. And you're spot on about why Bollinger made a complete fool of himself. "Sticks and stones and bunker busters may break my bones but words will never hurt me". What an embarrassment Bollinger is. (Allusions to Hitler highlight how warped the Iran debate has become.)
- The Ignorant Populist
September 27, 2007 at 2:08pm
"Allusions to Hitler highlight how warped the Iran debate has become." You really are ignorant hysteric. It was the Columbia admin that introduced Hitler into the debate by saying that they would have invited him too to speak there.
- jacksondyer
September 27, 2007 at 2:19pm
The USSR post-WWII was essentially a conservative power upholding its end of a tacit bargain to divide (and remilitarize) Germany as the basis of a divided Europe. We had clear rules of engagement, early warning systems, and were moving toward test ban and other treaties with this essentially conservative rival in order to organize, codify and contain our competition. A'jad's Iran is a revolutionary power that respects none of the standard rules of diplomatic engagement (cf respect for embassy rights and diplomatic immunity)-- let alone works with its rivals to order and contain the rivalry.
- teplukhin2you
September 27, 2007 at 2:27pm
There were many well-meaning folks in the '30s who thought Hitler wasn't so bad. The Holocaust was still in the future, and most found it improbable that he would go anywhere near that far -- even Jews in Germany at the time. Now we have a guy who, if he had his druthers, would I think wipe Israel "away" or "off the map" or whatever translation you prefer. Here's a guy who doesn't have a problem executing gays for being gay. Here's a guy who is motivated by a hateful, all-consuming ideology that is fundamentally opposed to pluralism, democracy, equality, social justice, and human rights. If Hitler had been given the chance to speak at Columbia in the '30's, I would hope, as Americans first began to fully comprehend and understand this enemy, that he would have been strongly and rationally denounced for his fascistic and murderous words and actions. The fact that people such as yourself get really exercised about, of all things, being *rude* to Ahmadinejad is the real sign of how warped the Iran debate has become.
- jhildner
September 27, 2007 at 2:29pm
OK, first things first Jhildner. If gay rights is the issue, then bomb Saudi Arabia. If social justice is the issue then invade any of the multitude of post Soviet criminal regimes that is supported by the west for energy concerns. If pluralism... You get my point. None of that serves the debate at all. Nada, not one bit. It's not even about whether Iran would use the bomb. (I suspect even the most ardent proponent of this argument knows different. After all Iran isn't even close to being as unpredictable as N. Korea.) It's about the increased reach and protection Iran's conventional weapons would have if it was nuclear armed. The only argument I can find reasonable for a strike is the Washington Times one: We barely survived the Cold War and had close calls like The Cuban Missile Crises - so it's insane to think that MAD will work in the cauldron of animosities that is the ME. For me that line of reasoning brings in a much wider debate about Israel's Nukes and Americas escalation of the nuke race: http://tinyurl.com/ywc299 As regards threats: What if Iran went one step past rhetoric and announced that they were funding anti government operations inside Israel with the aim of overthrowing the government? Or that they were funding something similar with a base of operations in Texas? That's exactly what the Bush administration has done. So, please, please stop the Hitler nonsense. It may feel good but it's really quite sad to see.
- The Ignorant Populist
September 27, 2007 at 3:04pm
When did I say that we should bomb or invade Iran? The issue on the table is not whether those issues I mentioned merit war; rather, it's whether they merit a critical speech. I would not be disgusted or appalled -- as you guys seem to be -- by a similar speech under similar circumstances if the personage had been the head of any regime with a poor human rights record, including Saudi Arabia. Indeed, there should be a lot more speech along those lines.
- jhildner
September 27, 2007 at 3:17pm
The notion that we owe this psychopath any measure of courtesy is ridiculous. Where's the cream pie squad when we need them? Since A'jad has skipped, maybe they can target Bollinger.
- jm_rice
September 27, 2007 at 3:22pm
And I don't except the US or the West from harsh criticism of its own actions. On the thread on the Plank I said that I would seriously consider delivering a devastating critique of President Bush if he had been asked to speak at my university. I suspect that there are a lot of people who see Bollinger's speech as rude would view my hypothetical speech as heroic.
- jhildner
September 27, 2007 at 3:25pm
I'm against being rude to one's guests, period. The instinctive response of any remotely fair-minded member of the audience will be increased sympathy for the target of boorishness-- especially if he has the mettle and good humor to defuse the attack with some irony or wit, as Reagan so often did, and Ahmadinejad clearly showed himself capable of doing the other day. This is an especially devastating response when the (c)rude attacker and his partisans assume that their target is an ignorant and/or ill-mannered rube. The joke is ALWAYS on the pseudo-sophisticated one.
- teplukhin2you
September 27, 2007 at 3:39pm
OK Jhildner. Point taken. I'm no fan of the nutjob either.
- The Ignorant Populist
September 27, 2007 at 3:39pm
The President & Prime Minister of Communist China both got red carpet treatment when they recently visited. What makes their regime better than Iran? That's just one example. The hyperventilation over Ahmadinejad is just more of the Repuglicant demonisation process to convince you to allow them to launch another incompetently waged war (which isn't a slur on your military, by the way, but on your incompetent civilian leadership - chickenhawks the lot).
- bloodnok
September 27, 2007 at 3:40pm
I would not support an equivalent introduction for George Bush if he ever condescended to speak before a hostile audience. If some liberal MC opened with a lambasting like that, I would think "nice, idiot, you just handed W a PR bonanza." Having said that it was even worse for Bollinger to treat Ahmadinejad that way that it would have been for him to do the same to Bush because Ahmadinejad was not just a guest at the school, but a guest in our country and the cultural divide between Bollinger and Bush is greater than the cultural divide between Bollinger and Ahmadinejad calling for even more tact. I am not saying there should not have been tough questioning. But Bollinger wasn't posing real questions. Instead, he was making a lot of assertions - many of them not well-founded. Bollinger's introduction was cowardly, bullying and intellectually sloppy. Even with Ivy League grade inflation it deserved an F.
- seanwright
September 27, 2007 at 4:04pm
to Adolf (I assume his appearance is pre-Kristallnacht) in the introduction, but would have larded the audience with anti-Hitler questioners. Look, I despise Pres. Nutjob, but we need more speech, not less, even from people who are sworn to our destruction (Nikita Sergeevich comes to mind). And if we're going to invite them, at least give them a polite intro. Then rip their nuts off.
- butchie b
September 27, 2007 at 4:12pm
Your Gators got a bit of a scare in Oxford. Of course, I can't really say anything with the way my Hogs are self destructing. Feel bad for DMAC, because Heisman is probably out of reach with him being on a bad team, even if his numbers are great. Best of luck with the War Tigers this weekend.
- mghogwild
September 27, 2007 at 4:56pm
It is all about trade and commerce, as someone above implied. At this moment, Iran needs to continue exporting it's increasingly lousy quality oil to take advantage of high prices so they can continue to subsidize their population with social programs and cheap energy. To continue exporting oil (rather than being forced to use it all domestically) they need to develop nuclear energy, this is their prime motivation. 'The bomb' is a stick they get to wave around in exchange for security guarantees and favorable economic treatment. There is a raft of sticks and carrots we could use to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. And I'm with Perlstein, it was a bunch of bed wetters. Let Mahmoud talk and then take him down on his human rights record and the incredibly offensive and threatening things he's said with regard to the Holocaust and Israel. It's not 1938 everyday, not everyone is either Churchill or Chamberlain or Hitler.
- mmathog
September 27, 2007 at 5:41pm
"Look, I despise Pres. Nutjob,..." I know you do. I think everyone here, with the exception maybe of a couple of posters do. That is not the issue. We are arguing about how best to deal with tyrants when they visit our shores. There is room for disagreement here, even passionate disagreement.
- jacksondyer
September 27, 2007 at 6:08pm
"And I'm with Perlstein, it was a bunch of bed wetters. Let Mahmoud talk and then take him down on his human rights record..." Problem is that not everyone cares about his human rights record or his views on the Holcaust. For some these views and his threats to Israel is what draws them to him.
- jacksondyer
September 27, 2007 at 6:11pm
"For some these views and his threats to Israel is what draws them to him." Jackson do you fear this in general in America? (No doubt this is a big part of his appeal in the Middle East...)
- mmathog
September 27, 2007 at 7:00pm
...the only possible reason for Bollinger to have toned down his intro was Mideast concepts of hospitality...but the session took place here, and there's a real need to be up front and confront leaders -- whoever they are. Being "polite," whatever that means, doesn't cut it... So true, as someone above said, that Americans get all squirmy when politicians are actually confronted with real questions...
- LISAH
September 27, 2007 at 8:09pm
...would be useful to maybe do a survey -- wanna bet how many of those most strongly liking Ahmadinijad (and his various ilk) are also anti-Israel...???? I have no problems with Columbia inviting him -- it's pure and simple a speech issue for me. But let's be clear on what he is and on the views of those who like what he is...
- LISAH
September 27, 2007 at 8:19pm
Should be OK at home against the Tigers/War Eagles/Plainsmen - isn't there a limit on nicknames for one school? Sets up UF-LSU for next week. Oh, RP, where you at? DMAC still is the guy to beat. Tim T is only a soph.
- butchie b
September 28, 2007 at 10:37am