Dr. J.'s Commentary: Pres. Ahmedinejad: Why all the Fuss, from the Right?
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 3:41pm.
Steven Jonas
So Pres. Ahmedinejad of Iran comes to the U.S. And boy, is the U.S. Right hot and bothered about his visit and what he wants to do here (inside the 25-mile radius from the UN within which foreign dignitaries on the Administration's s__t list must stay). First, he wants to visit the site of 9/11. Apparently forgetting that Iran delivered an outpouring of sympathy when the horror occurred, that Iran, a Shiite country, despises the Sunni bin Laden (and he doesn't like them much either), that Iran provided material aid to the original U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and still doesn't like the Taliban and certainly doesn't like the fact that under yet another Georgite-mismanaged war they have made a strong comeback, the U.S. Right launched a general "how dare he?" That of course fits right in with the current campaign to drum up Islamophobia using any convenient Muslim target regardless of politics (except, of course, the Bush-partners Saudis).
So then he gets this invitation to speak at Columbia University and all hell breaks loose, on the Right. But given what actually happened there, one has to wonder why the Right is so upset. After all, this man is so much like Bush, they could almost be twins. So the Right shouldn't be angered. They should be pleased that at least one other world leader is following the example of their man in particular or at least that of his core supporters in general. Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, ain't it? Let's count the ways.
First, before getting to the Columbia appearance, let us recall the following. As I noted in this space on Feb. 2, 2007, back in 2004, then Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas reported on a very interesting conversation he had with George Bush. Referring to the "War on Terrorism," Bush told Abbas that: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the U.S. elections will come and I will have to focus on them." On October 19, 2006, President Ahmedinejad told us that: "I Have a Connection with God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers (MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iran, as reported by Iran News, 10-19-06)." So they have God (whichever "one God" that might be) in common. Plus one for the U.S. Right.
Second, Columbia President Lee Bollinger demonstrated what a good host he could be. (He did that impression probably while looking over his shoulder at some big donors who had called to protest the fact that Columbia gave a platform to the nominal leader of a country that the U.S. is clearly threatening to "bomb back to the stone age" without bothering to talk with them directly first about U.S. grievances from which platform he could talk directly to the American people.) He called Pres. Ahmedinejad "a petty and cruel dictator." Hey, again just like Bush. He is clearly petty and cruel and is definitely on the dictator track. He ain't fully there yet, but that is not for the lack of trying.
Third, Pres. Ahmedinejad is clearly the nominal head of state of a country that is actually a theocracy. Well, how can the U.S. Right not like that? The core supporters for Bush state openly that this is exactly what they want to establish in the U.S., substituting the rule of the Bible in a particular English translation of a particular Latin translation of a particular Greek translation of a particular Hebrew translation of an original Aramaic text for that of the U.S. Constitution. Actually Bush probably wouldn't like that because he wants to be the Dictator, much less the Decider, and he wouldn't want to be bound by anyone's rules other than his own, but to get to his dictatorship, he would probably compromise first with his theocratic base before selling them out.
Fourth, let's look at the status of women. Lots of conflict in Iran over that, but they presently operate under some version of Sharia law, with head veils being the least of it. So there's another similarity. A core principle for Bush and his principal supporters is, for example, removing from women any control over their own bodies once egg and sperm have gone beyond the two-separate cell stage.
Fifth, Bush now has the power to lock up anyone he wants to without charges, without any demonstrable evidence, and without any rights either to counsel or trial, and with the power to torture when, as, and if. Just like Pres. Ahmedinejad has, and has used recently against several Iranian-American visitors who were working with liberals in Iran. But we know what the U.S. Right thinks of liberals: "traitors" and "Godless" as well, according to O'RHannibaugh. So I guess that was OK.
Sixth is the homosexual thing. Pres. Ahmedinejad says that there are none in Iran. It is hard to know what he really means by that. Are there "none" as in none, are there "none who are out," have any known ones who were asked and told (the U.S. Right's rule for the U.S. Armed Forces) been done away with in some way either by conversion or otherwise, or given that core Bush supporters such as James Dobson hold that homosexuality is a matter of choice, have they all be converted, courtesy perhaps of the Iranian secret police? Bush's core supporters, just like the Nazis wanted Germany and then the Occupied Territories to be "Judenrein" (clear of Jews), would clearly like the U.S. to be "homorein," however that might be accomplished.
I could go on, but I won't. Pres. Bush and Pres. Ahmedinejad do have so much in common that one really must wonder why the latter is not welcomed with open arms by the U.S. Right, as a brother-under-the-skin. Instead, they just let him get under their skin. Ah well, maybe it's because (one big difference) on Sept. 24, 2007, Pres. Ahmedinejad spent 1 1/2 hours openly answering questions from a generally hostile audience, something Bush never has done and never will.
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.
Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Ahmedinejad Iran Columbia free speech George W. Bush
So then he gets this invitation to speak at Columbia University and all hell breaks loose, on the Right. But given what actually happened there, one has to wonder why the Right is so upset. After all, this man is so much like Bush, they could almost be twins. So the Right shouldn't be angered. They should be pleased that at least one other world leader is following the example of their man in particular or at least that of his core supporters in general. Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, ain't it? Let's count the ways.
First, before getting to the Columbia appearance, let us recall the following. As I noted in this space on Feb. 2, 2007, back in 2004, then Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas reported on a very interesting conversation he had with George Bush. Referring to the "War on Terrorism," Bush told Abbas that: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the U.S. elections will come and I will have to focus on them." On October 19, 2006, President Ahmedinejad told us that: "I Have a Connection with God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers (MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iran, as reported by Iran News, 10-19-06)." So they have God (whichever "one God" that might be) in common. Plus one for the U.S. Right.
Second, Columbia President Lee Bollinger demonstrated what a good host he could be. (He did that impression probably while looking over his shoulder at some big donors who had called to protest the fact that Columbia gave a platform to the nominal leader of a country that the U.S. is clearly threatening to "bomb back to the stone age" without bothering to talk with them directly first about U.S. grievances from which platform he could talk directly to the American people.) He called Pres. Ahmedinejad "a petty and cruel dictator." Hey, again just like Bush. He is clearly petty and cruel and is definitely on the dictator track. He ain't fully there yet, but that is not for the lack of trying.
Third, Pres. Ahmedinejad is clearly the nominal head of state of a country that is actually a theocracy. Well, how can the U.S. Right not like that? The core supporters for Bush state openly that this is exactly what they want to establish in the U.S., substituting the rule of the Bible in a particular English translation of a particular Latin translation of a particular Greek translation of a particular Hebrew translation of an original Aramaic text for that of the U.S. Constitution. Actually Bush probably wouldn't like that because he wants to be the Dictator, much less the Decider, and he wouldn't want to be bound by anyone's rules other than his own, but to get to his dictatorship, he would probably compromise first with his theocratic base before selling them out.
Fourth, let's look at the status of women. Lots of conflict in Iran over that, but they presently operate under some version of Sharia law, with head veils being the least of it. So there's another similarity. A core principle for Bush and his principal supporters is, for example, removing from women any control over their own bodies once egg and sperm have gone beyond the two-separate cell stage.
Fifth, Bush now has the power to lock up anyone he wants to without charges, without any demonstrable evidence, and without any rights either to counsel or trial, and with the power to torture when, as, and if. Just like Pres. Ahmedinejad has, and has used recently against several Iranian-American visitors who were working with liberals in Iran. But we know what the U.S. Right thinks of liberals: "traitors" and "Godless" as well, according to O'RHannibaugh. So I guess that was OK.
Sixth is the homosexual thing. Pres. Ahmedinejad says that there are none in Iran. It is hard to know what he really means by that. Are there "none" as in none, are there "none who are out," have any known ones who were asked and told (the U.S. Right's rule for the U.S. Armed Forces) been done away with in some way either by conversion or otherwise, or given that core Bush supporters such as James Dobson hold that homosexuality is a matter of choice, have they all be converted, courtesy perhaps of the Iranian secret police? Bush's core supporters, just like the Nazis wanted Germany and then the Occupied Territories to be "Judenrein" (clear of Jews), would clearly like the U.S. to be "homorein," however that might be accomplished.
I could go on, but I won't. Pres. Bush and Pres. Ahmedinejad do have so much in common that one really must wonder why the latter is not welcomed with open arms by the U.S. Right, as a brother-under-the-skin. Instead, they just let him get under their skin. Ah well, maybe it's because (one big difference) on Sept. 24, 2007, Pres. Ahmedinejad spent 1 1/2 hours openly answering questions from a generally hostile audience, something Bush never has done and never will.
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.
buzzflash
delicious
digg
yahoo
technorati Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Ahmedinejad Iran Columbia free speech George W. Bush
