*The Attack On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad * *By Dan Lieberman*
08 October, 2007 *Alternative Insight <http://www.alternativeinsight.com%20/>* *M*ahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, arrived in the United States with a baggage of alleged demagoguery. He didn't have to bring demagoguery here; the U.S. media showed it has enough to stock the world. Ahmadinejad is not a leader who appeals to progressive persons. He is faithful to the more extreme interpretations of the Koran. He inflicts his religious convictions on the Iranian masses, has agents aggressively monitor violations of Iran's dress code and remove satellite dishes, is dishonest in many of his remarks and has been accused of involvement in assassinations in the Middle East and Europe. With all this in mind, the United States media had an opportunity to examine the motivations of a well-educated and important Iranian - after all he is president - who, although not a cleric gained a high Iranian position, and represents the third world opposition to U.S. and Israel's common policies. Instead of stimulating a dialogue, the U.S. media engaged in demagoguery, sarcastic baiting, insult, insolence and diversions from meaningful arguments. The meetings and interviews with Iran's president had a common focus - discredit him with ridicule and prevent him from presenting reasons why he contradicts U.S. and Israeli policies. The right wing fringe started it all with their usual extreme and disarming rhetoric of attempting to associate anyone who criticizes Israel with being either a reincarnation of Hitler, a Nazi, a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite. CBS reporter Scott Pelley, in a 60 Minutes interview with the Iranian president, defined the media thrust to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit. Pelley leaned forward in his seat and, with a smirk on his face, asked embarrassing questions to which he already knew the answer and which were only meant to annoy the Iranian president. Examples: "Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans." "It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?" "For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?" Columbia University President Lee Bollinger continued the unwelcoming tirade with an insulting introduction that left any decent, cordial and open-minded person in gasps. Bollinger's counter-productive comments lacked grace and knowledge. He could ask himself some simple questions: "Why was Iran President Ahmadinejad not treated as cordially as Pakistan President Musharaff, who is a known dictator?" "Is President Ahmadinejad more deceptive, cruel or petty than U.S. President George W. Bush?" "Would it be accepted that a forum for George W. Bush, or any President, be preceded by an equally insulting introduction?" Some of Lee Bollinger's "questions," with rebuttals. "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." How has President Ahmadinejad, elected by an overwhelming majority of the Iranian people, exhibited "signs of a petty and cruel dictator?" Compare his few nasty occurrences with Olmert's daily pulverizing of the Palestinian people and Bush's slaughtering of the Iraqi people. "...the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the 'debate' over the Holocaust defy historical truth...." Ahmadinejad made clear he has not denied the Holocaust's existence. He feels history is being gathered from preferential sources and being used to justify Israel's oppressive actions. If Bollinger feels the research is ended, why doesn't he complain about the daily media reports of the Holocaust, fifty years after the event and be concerned that the first international conference on the Holocaust was held in Spain during the same week that Ahmadinejad arrived in the United states? Israel's Yad Vashem's International Institute for Holocaust Research (IIHR) organized the conference. Slavery, genocide of the American Indians and all other historical events are still gathering information. Why exclude the World War II genocide from additional research? Doesn't this attitude generate suspicion? The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially denied the Armenian Holocaust. Was it because Israel has good relations with Turkey and the ADL didn't want to disturb those relations? Here we had an absolute denial for possible political reasons. Why no slurs against the ADL? "Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map." There is no question that President Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped off the map. So, do all other Middle East nations, including many considered to be America's friend. Nevertheless, the Iranian president has qualified his remarks; he wants regime change in Israel, and for good reason - the present regime is oppressing the Palestinians and is prepared to seize all of Jerusalem, an Islamic holy site. Compare Ahmadinejad's ramblings, not backed up by force, with U.S. and Israel's aggressive rhetoric that demands regime change in Iran and threatens wholesale bombings. Unlike Iran, its antagonists also have the weapons to carry out their threats. "It's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad." None of the mentioned groups, except for one or two ancient and unverifiable actions, have actually been responsible for terrorism against the United States. Bollinger must have known that and also realized that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran's military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can't answer? Where is it well documented that Iran "is a state sponsor of terrorism?" As a matter of fact, Iran has suffered greatly from terrorism, much of which the U.S. has sponsored. Iran has been a consistent enemy of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Compare it's minimal support for Hezbollah and Palestinian groups to U.S. overwhelming support for Israel. Iran feels it is supporting groups battling against a perceived oppression. "Your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent forces." Again! Bollinger must have known that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran's military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can't answer? No proof has been offered for Bollinger's remark, while the Iraq government has praised Iran's efforts. Actually, the Iraq government has expressed concern that the U.S.is now "arming and providing safe transit to (Sunni) insurgent forces." "There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination." Which verified reports? "Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?" Has this been verified? Even if there were no Iran nation, wouldn't the war in Iraq continue? "Frankly, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do." Bollinger must have been looking into a mirror when he composed this salutation. Ahmadinejad's biggest mistake was not to walk out. After creating a tense atmosphere for President Ahmadinejad, intensified by tense questions that led to tensions, the Washington Post added a ridiculous coda to the discordant theatrics. A headline stated: IRANIAN LEADER FAILS TO EASE TENSIONS Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be a demagogue and not beneficial to the Iranian people. Nevertheless, he neither has the authority nor the following to be of any danger to the United Sates. The U.S. media and public demagogues revealed themselves as only interested in silencing criticism of the U.S. and Israel (USrael) and promoting an agenda that is not beneficial to U.S. interests. That was the most revealing feature of this shameful episode. *Dan Lieberman *has been active in alternative politics for many years. He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle East conflicts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
