Maniacal Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to spew ‘alternative views’ to an audience of American ivy league faculty, students, and guests during a speech at Columbia University this afternoon.
One would assume that those ‘alternative views’ will include the fact that the Holocaust never occurred and is simply a Zionist-inspired hoax, the fact that the state of Israel should be annihilated, and the fact that 9/11 occurred because of America’s support of the 'illegitimate' state of Israel and because of America’s affluence and colonial aspirations.
The international terrorist leader ‘graciously’ stated last night on 60 Minutes that he would not press the issue, after being denied an opportunity to lay a wreath at Ground Zero during his visit to New York.
How sad for him. And how surreal it might have been had he been allowed to lay a wreath in remembrance of three thousand-plus innocent American dead while, no doubt simultaneously, a representative handful of American soldiers might have met their brutal, bloody deaths in a remote area of Iraq as a result of an Iranian-supplied IED.
In his ‘gracious’ response to the wreath-laying denial, Ahmadinejad stated, ‘Usually, you go to these sites to pay your respects, and also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents.’
Translation: Mahmoud believed Ground Zero to be an appropriate site at which to propagandize about the evil that is America, and to justify the tragedy that occurred there. (Who knows? Perhaps in another decade or two he might find it conceivable, even advantageous, to deny the existence of that holocaust as well.)
The nephew of a friend of ours was killed near Fallujah by a (no doubt Iranian supplied) IED back in December of 2005.
I spoke with her yesterday, and she (normally a quiet, mild-mannered, 'live-and-let-live' woman) is outraged and inconsolable. She told me that the fact that Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak at an American ivy league college makes her almost want to renounce her citizenship -- except for the fact that the decision-makers at Columbia don't yet represent mainstream thought in academia (although I'm not so sure that I agree with that assessment).
I suppose 'treason' is a word that is applied far too liberally today, by many on both sides of the political spectrum, but I believe the decision-makers at Columbia have stepped over the delicate line of demarcation between free speech and traitorous intent.