2007-09-26 Home Front: WoT
|
Ahmadinejad is our enemy, too
|
James Taranto, "Best of the Web," The Wall Street Journal
Ed Koch makes an excellent point about Columbia president Lee Bollinger's "dialogue" with Iran's titular president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
I am . . . distressed that the heart of Bollinger's objections related to Israel and Ahmadinejad's call for its destruction. Of course, that is important, especially to Jews and certainly to me, and to the world as well. But I would have preferred a question on Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of the United States. Bollinger could have said, "with respect to the U.S., shortly after your election in October 2005, you called for a global jihad aimed at destroying the U.S., saying 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' You went on to say, 'You should know that this slogan can certainly be achieved.' " Bollinger, a Jew himself, gave Ahmadinejad ammunition to be used among Islamic supporters that the battle at Columbia was primarily a battle between Islam and the Jews, and Ahmadinejad had bravely stood up to the mocking of the Jewish Bollinger.
This implicates not just "Islamic supporters" and the battle "at Columbia." Consider this report by the Associated Press's Anne Flaherty:
Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.
The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel--a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.
Has the Associated Press adopted a policy of regarding the arguably anti-Semitic and indisputably controversial anti-Israel views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer as factual?
It is true enough that Iran poses a more immediate threat to Israel than to the U.S. But the effort to marginalize concern about Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons as the narrow worry of the "pro-Israeli lobby" is troubling on several levels.
Even putting aside humanitarian considerations, does anyone seriously believe that it would serve U.S. interests, or indeed that it would not be anything less than a devastating blow against them, if a hostile and fanatical power succeeded in incinerating an American ally?
Even putting aside Israel, does anyone seriously believe that possession of nuclear weapons would not make Iran a bigger threat to U.S. interests in the region, or that an arms race between Iran and Arab states serve America's interests?
And returning to humanitarian considerations, what does it tell us about America's political, intellectual and journalistic culture that some would dismiss the threat of a new Holocaust as the narrow concern of a political pressure group?
|
Posted by Mike 2007-09-26 16:48||
||
Front Page|| [11133 views ]
Top
File under: Govt of Iran
|
Posted by JohnQC 2007-09-26 17:32||
2007-09-26 17:32||
Front Page
Top
|
|
09:43 Mullah Richard
09:27 Warthog
09:11 Mercutio
09:07 AlmostAnonymous5839
08:52 Matt
08:24 Matt
08:20 SteveS
07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker









|