I say let him speak. Not because I support some wanna be dictator's hateful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad is a complete, and total idiot. He should be allowed to speak because it gives American's the opportunity to protest. He gets to see what the people of Iran are unable to do. Watching the news over the past few days, it appears that there are quite a number of groups organizing to protest whatever he has to say. I appreciate those organization having the opportunity to speak out against his rhetoric. He cannot possibly say anything that would be shocking. Prior to his trip to the U.S. he was seen on TV in an old soviet style May Day parade, with military vehicles driving by with "Death to Israel!" and "Death to USA!" written on them.
A good article on Ahmadinejad is here.
Here is another one insinuating that he was involved in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmadinejad is a nut. Let him speak, it gives a medium for his opposition and we are a free society able to offer different views and options. With that in mind, I have to question why Columbia invites Ahmadinejad to speak at their university, promoting different views on things, where the university has shown a severe lack of support for the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).
"As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus." Source
Also, "Prior to the late 1960s, Columbia’s current anti-US military atmosphere seems to have been almost nonexistent. Indeed, as early as 1916 an ROTC program was instituted on campus, where it matured and grew during the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, and even part of the Vietnam War era. Producing some of the finest naval officers ever to serve our country, at one point Columbia was actually churning out more Navy ensigns per year than even the US Naval Academy. In 1968, however, the university’s administration expelled all ROTC programs from campus in order to appease the sometimes-violent student protesters who opposed the Vietnam War – one of whom actually decimated Columbia’s ROTC offices with a Molotov cocktail.
The university’s ban on ROTC remained in place until a 1980 decision to not only allow its students to participate in the ROTC program at nearby Fordham University, but also to have a record of ROTC classes displayed on their Columbia transcripts. In 1990 however, this policy came to an end. While Columbia students could still take part in ROTC programs on neighboring college campuses, their transcripts no longer reflected that participation. To this day, ROTC classes are not considered part of the regular curriculum of studies. When the military recently forced Columbia to allow on-campus military recruiting (under the banner of the Solomon Amendment, which allows for the denial of federal funding to colleges that prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment), the university’s president openly urged students not to interview – because of what he called the military’s discrimination against homosexuals." Source
It just seems that Columbia supports anti-American rhetoric, while at the same time doesn't support the military. I have heard talk of the threatening to deny Columbia federal funding. I think that is a fantastic idea. The old 60's radicals who could not get a job other than hidden on a college campus really do not need federal money. If they are so anti-military, I say deny them their public funding. They don't need it.
9/24/2007
9/20/2007
Moveon.org, I used to like you but...
Follow the basic notion that liberalism is a disease, moveon.org’s case has gotten so sickening it’s at the point of being utterly delusional and bat shit crazy. The best way to describe my relationship with moveon.org is like a girlfriend you have. At first she is cool, but after awhile the preliminary niceties are over and one night she is convinced you are cheating on her and gives you a ration of hell for going out with the boys...but she thinks you are going to the other woman's house. For the record I am married, and have never cheated on anyone.
My turning point with moveon.org was with the ad they posted. “It's General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” This link touts their proud message https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html.
Now Bush had a speech the other day...or another episode of lies, BS, and horse s**t. Regardless of what Iraq lies he is touting, he did condemn moveon.org because of what they said about General Petraeus and no democrat has said anything about it. At the core, that is just wrong. General Petraeus is amazing. Bush is not! But General Petraeus is the sh*t. Now the official stance from moveon.org is this:
Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, reacted quickly to Bush's comments.
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/20/bush.petraeus/index.html
Slam Bush. Fine. I would expect a liberal response to be that vehement and foul...from an official. Libs are great at 2 things. Crying and yelling. I am saying that because all they do is character assassinate and whine from emotion before logic or fact. Don't get me wrong, what they said about Bush is right on, but what pisses me off is their official response is still evident of disdain towards General Petraeus. Which their official statement follows the logical fallacy of missing the point, which is quite sad when coming from an organization that tries to make itself look important.
So you have the moveon.org printing an ad equating a career military general as a traitor. The president says moveon.org sucks, and their official response bashes the president, but fails to apologize for their slander against of General Petraeus. I'd like to show the background behind the two.
Eli Pariser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Pariser
General Petraeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Petraeus
Eli Pariser is the person picked out of the lot to represent moveon.org. This is the best of their best. It's Eli Pariser's job stick to their convictions. Their lack of acknowledgment about slamming General Petraeus shows their weakness. A military General who served with distinction (under
It's tough, around 2004 I bought a movie called “Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”. It was a great documentary! Ex
Now in 2007 you have this organization prints this ad to evoke a reaction based on emotion by slandering and incredible man. They strike right at the military. An organization they only wish they had 1/10 of the integrity and honor that is associated with them. Moveon.org has only showed that they are a bunch of leftist liberal bastards who don't give a crap about making any sense when it comes to their arguments. For that, they fail. As an alternative, I watched a documentary called “Rush to War” that was very good. There was no moveon.org association with it.
In the scheme of things we still have a bunch of democrats offering "change" in 2008, but they cannot condemn the fringe aspects that their own party. Meaning that they cannot squelch their leftist aspects. They do a wonderful job and slamming the military. Just read quotes slamming them from Dick Durbin, Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. by searching the web for details. Where I will call them useless liberal cry babies, I'll still respect them for their general stance. But when they slam the military, that crosses the line. Slam the commander in chief, do not slam those who's job it is to follow orders. It's the act of a cowardice what the libs do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)