Time Gushes Over Ahmadinejad

Does the media have any understanding at all of how important they are to terrorists and other enemies of the United States with their determined moral equivalency? When it comes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the answer appears to be a resounding no. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel provides a glowing puff piece on the Iranian leader, entirely abrogating his responsibility as a reporter to provide any context whatsoever.

Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,

The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "requests the pleasure" of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dinner is at the Intercontinental Hotel — with names carefully written out at all the place settings around a rectangular table. There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There's Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. And at a little after 8pm, on a day when he has already addressed the U.N., the evening after his confrontation at Columbia, a bowing and smiling Mahmoud Admadinejad glides into the room.

This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.

This is appalling on a number of fronts. Stengel admits right at the beginning of his puff piece that this entire event is a media opportunity for one of America's greatest enemies to use the American press to get his message out to the American public. He understands exactly what Ahmadinejad is trying to do and enables it anyway! This is the same press that continues to preface United States military announcements of progress with the word 'claim', yet they have no compunctions whatsoever about swallowing Ahmadinejad's propaganda whole. During the event, Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,

When it comes time for him to address the comments, he does so by citing each speaker by name — 23 in all, he notes. In contrast with what he calls the lack of respect and dignity accorded to him at Columbia — where, he says, he found it odd that an academic institution which prizes tolerance would treat him without any — he addresses each person carefully and patiently. Some highlights
- The US and Iran can play a positive role together in Iraq. "If the US withdraws from Iraq, good things will happen," he says. "I believe that the Iraqi people can rule themselves."
- In the Middle East, Ahmadinejad says the world must allow the Palestinians to decide their future for themselves: "That is the human solution to sixty years of instability." He refers to Israel only as "the Zionist regime" and does not mention the Holocaust.
- Ahmadinejad claims there are thirty newspapers published in Iran that are opposed to his government, citing that as evidence of press freedom in Iran.
- In answer to a question about how he viewed Hitler's legacy, he says, "I view Hitler's role as extremely negative, a despicably dark face."
- He notes that Americans don't understand Iranian history, saying that the movie 300 — with which he seems intimately familiar — was a "complete distortion of Iranian history." Iran, he says, has never invaded anyone in its history.

Stengel allows Ahmadinejad to state each of these ridiculous propositions, and does not question a single one, though his profession is one that seems to demand confrontation, especially in the case of U.S. Republican office-holders. Can anyone imagine an allied foreign leader receiving a similarly approving reaction from the press? Of course not. In fact, as reported by NewsBuster Geoffrey Dickens, Afghani President Hamid Karzai certainly did not receive a friendly welcome from the U.S. press corps, as Meredith Veiera asked repeatedly what was won in Afghanstan. Yet many of the press' major figures allowed Ahmadinejad to make his statements with not so much as a single challenge.

For example, if Stengel and his colleagues were honest reporters, they could have challenged Ahmadinejad on his statement that Iran has never invaded anyone by asking about the ten-year war with Iraq, when both nations did indeed invade the other at times. And the fact that Persia (the ancient name for Iran) did indeed invade a number of other countries (including Greece) is a matter of historical fact. In addition, since Islam's conquering of Persia, Iran has been involved in a number of Islamic invasions of the West, including 1683 at Vienna. And Islam has the most comprehensive record of invasion and destruction of other cultures in history. Yet no reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that.

In addition, Stengel or one of his counterparts (perhaps Christiane Amanpour of CNN, who is so concerned about God's Warriors) could have asked for clarification on Ahmadinejad's comments about allowing Palestinians to decide their future for themselves. Isn't that precisely what Israel is doing? And allowing the Palestinians to decide their own future does not allow them to decide Israel's as well, which has been the sticking point- both Hamas and Fatah call for Israel's destruction as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Yet not a single reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that small problem- which the Iranian did not address.

Finally, why did not a single media member at the event ask Ahmadinejad about his comment that if the U.S withdraws from Iraq "good things can happen". What good things, Mr. Ahmadinehad? Good things for whom? Why did not a single reporter try to get clarification?

Stengel ended his piece by writing of Ahmadinejad,

Finally, in response to a question about whether war with Iran was growing more likely, he says, "Mr. Bush is interested in harming Iran. But I believe there are wise politicians in America who will prevent such a war. We hate war. We would not welcome it. But we are prepared for every scenario. Yet I don't think war will happen."
With that, Ahmadinejad says he has an early morning appointment the next day, and that he welcomes greater dialogue like this evening. And then, still composed, and with the same slightly mysterious smile that never leaves his face all evening, he bows deeply and heads upstairs.

I can well imagine he smiled. He had just succeeded in presenting his version of events to a group of American media sheep, and knew that he would receive valuable media time for his propaganda. The American media should be ashamed of themselves. Once, this kind of thing would have been unthinkable. Would the U.S. press have interviewed Adolf Hitler in 1943? Or Tojo Hideki in 1942? Of course not. Why then are the U.S. media so willingly compliant in allowing a man who espouses the destruction of a free Jewish State, whose government is actively engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq and whose government is attempting to gain nuclear weapons to use them to advance his horrific goals? The only answers I can think of are either political partisanship or simple naivete. Neither bodes well for the future of American journalism. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Columbia's Silent Shame

Yesterday, Columbia University invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak as part of their Heads of State series. Leaving aside the impropriety of Ahmadinejad- a Holocaust-denier, supporter of Adolf Hitler's 'final solution' and a member of the force that kidnapped and held American diplomats hostage in 1979- speaking at an American university, the larger shame belongs to the students and faculty of Columbia University.

After Ahmadinejad entered, Columbia President Lee Bollinger addressed the Iranian theocrat in no uncertain terms. During a ten-minute address, Bollinger said,

Mr President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad, accusing him of brutal crackdowns on the country's academics and homosexuals.

"Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?" he asked, challenging the leader of the Islamic republic to explain his comments downplaying the Holocaust.

"Frankly, in all candor Mr President, I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions," he added.

"When you come to a place like this, this makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," he said.

I happened to hear this address on radio while on my way home and I was struck by the fact that while Bollinger spoke these truths to Ahmadinejad, there was absolute silence in the auditorium. Not one person expressed support for Bollinger's strong statements. Not a single voice was raised in support, though according to some news reports, Ahmadinejad received applause during his address, despite neglecting to answer Bollinger's questions.

So Ahmadinejad received support from the audience. Yet not one member of the audience could show support for Bollinger's strong questioning of the Iranian theocrat, who holds his position only through the threat of force- he has never been honestly elected. Columbia should be ashamed of itself for its poor showing, if there is any shame left in the hearts and minds of these useful idiots of the academy.

Carter Says Iran No threat To Israel- Too Far Away

Proving once again that common sense is no prerequisite for occupying any government office, let alone the White House, former President Jimmy Carter said today that Iran was no threat to Israel. According to Breitbart News,

Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that it was almost inconceivable that Iran would "commit suicide" by launching missiles at Israel.
Speaking at Emory University, Carter, who brokered the 1979 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, said Israel's superior military power and distance from Iran likely are enough to discourage an actual attack.

"Iran is quite distant from Israel," said Carter, 83. "I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel."

This displays a level of ignorance and naivete that I find almost unbelievable. Of course, Carter is not known for his political understanding. Iran's physical distance from Israel is irrelevant, when one considers that the commander of Iran's air force said yesterday that Israel is within range of Iranian medium-range missiles. In addition, Iran's president has said on a number of occasions that Israel should be destroyed. The belligernat statements emanating from Tehran seem to indicate that Iran thinks it can indeed destroy Israel without suffering serious damage to itself.

Israel is at risk, in part due to Carters' own feckless foreign policy, and his failure to act when Iran committed an act of war agsint the United States by seizing its embassy in 1979. the ramifications of that act are still unfolding and ultimately it is my belief that we are going to have to fight Iran, unless the population removes the mullahs before we have to go in with our own forces, which I find unlikely. The only thing that Carter's outburst does at this stage is reinforce his image as America's worst ex-President, and confirms us in our wisdom that Jimmy Carter is not to be trusted where his own country's intersts are concerned. He is more likely to give them away as he did the Panama Canal than to actually stand up and fight for his fellow countrymen.

Nuclear Mullahs

Iran has claimed on Tuesday that they have successfully enriched uranium for the first time. This was accompanied by a claim from the so-called 'President' that the Iranian nuclear program is 'peaceful'.

This is bad news all around. The Iranian leadership has shown on many occasions since 1979 that they do not respect the United States or international agencies. They have repeatedly flouted the UN's nuclear watchdog, and they are serious that they want to destroy the United States and establish Muslim rule (preferably led by themselves, naturally) over the entire globe.

When will the US leadership wake up? This problem could have been taken care of some years ago, but now the US is not able to do anything other than invade or try a massive air strike to knock out the Iranians' nuclear ambitions. The former may not be possible, thanks to the bitter antagonism shown this Administration by the Press and the Washington elites. Their savage attacks on the President and their unceasing hostility toward any attempts to defend this country against radical and hate-filled regimes (Saddam Hussein, the mullahs, Venezuela's Chavez, al Quaeda, etc) have seriously weakened the US credibility and may have put the possibility of military action out of reach for this President.

However, this needs to be addressed. There are two regimes in the world that must be stopped- North Korea and Iran. Removing China from the grip of the Communists would also be nice, but is not possible. Therefore, we need to pull the teeth of these two nations, so that the world can continue to dream away as Islam slowly takes their countries away. But at least we will be safer. And that is really the only question. Is the United States safer with Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear business? Yes. Both would have no compunction about selling nuclear weapons to a terrorist group, and both hate the United States deeply.

One hopes that President Bush will pull together his political willpower, especially now that he no longer needs to run for election and put the Iranians' nuclear program into deep freeze. And it would behoove us to use those troops in Iraq, if Iran makes any further noises about their nuclear program. Let's see if the mullahs' army is any better at fighting than was Saddam Hussein's. And quickly- before the Iranians really do unlock the nuclear genie, in which case we are in a world of trouble.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Nuclear Iran

I have been somewhat lax in posting of late, due to personal and professional conflicts which made it difficult to keep my blog current. Hwoever, I happened to notice that the European Union apprently has actually pulled its head out of the sand, recognizing the futility of further diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Iran.

This is probably not particularly news-worthy save for the fact that it marks the first time in recent memory that the EU has abandoned its selfish and possibly suicidal attempts to undermine the United Statest at every step of the way. Perhaps with a nuclear Iran looming around the corner, and with a mad dictator in North Korea possibly already having nuclear weapons, the Euros will come to their senses and assist the U.S in dealing with a reality that even the delusional Left must recognize can have no good ends.

Hat tip to Captain Ed.