Iranian president uses TV interview to deny rush to war with US

The American right wing like nothing more than a manufactured outrage, and they have been indulging themselves spectacularly this week with the news that Ahmadinejad wanted to visit the site of Ground Zero.

They have succeeded in preventing this man - who not even the most fervent right winger would claim was responsible for 9-11 - from paying his respects at the site of the World Trade Centre attacks, but he's touched down stateside anyway to address the UN.

He is also to address a forum at New York's Columbia University, an event which has had people like Bill O'Reilly in his usual state of tizzy. It's got Bill so upset that he's even gone as far as to say that he's "tired of free speech".

Now, O'Reilly seems to be lamenting the fact that when Ahmadinejad visits New York's Colombia University he will be facing an audience with the power of free speech that Bill has grown so "tired" of, unlike when he is at home in Iran. This audience will be able to ask him anything. Surely this is a good thing?

At a time when right wing nutters like John Bolton are salivating at the prospect of the US attacking Iran, surely it is valid to hear what the Iranian leader has to say?

I suspect the Billo's of this world worry that Ahmadinejad stating his case publicly and answering questions from students might in some way hinder their glorious rush to war against Iran, a war which everyone but themselves feels sure would be disastrous.

The right wing frothers are claiming that Columbia University are giving Ahmadinejad a soapbox, a point which Alternet have challenged:

Moreover, Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad not only shows the world the importance of free speech, but also demonstrates what free speech means. Free speech does not simply allow individuals to express their views. It also forces them to defend and validate those views.

Those who oppose Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia argue that we are giving him a soapbox. Ahmadinejad is clearly not challenged for venues in which he can promote his twisted ideology. His ability to spread his heinous views is evidenced by the fact that Americans are well aware of these positions. If we didn't let him speak here, he could just as easily spread hate from Iran. The difference in bringing him to Columbia is that we will have the opportunity to challenge his claims, whereas we can only cringe when he speaks from Iran. What Columbia has chosen to do is to put him in a context where he cannot take advantage of the bully pulpit, where he must defend his actions to students and academics, where, for once, he is in a conversation rather than a monologue.

I suspect that certain right wingers are not remotely interested in dialogue, which is why they object so strenuously to Ahmadinejad being given this opportunity to state his case.

They have created their own reality in which Ahmadinejad has stated a desire to destroy Israel, despite the fact that he actually said no such thing, and the more we hear what he actually has to say the more the likelihood of war may rescind itself. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that people like O'Reilly are tiring of free speech.

They are not interested in the truth, they are welded to a series of talking points which they have been fed by Cheney and Fox News and they are anxious that no information should ever be allowed to surface which may challenge their presumptions.

Ahmadinejad's opening remarks on American soil must already have enraged the war mongers:

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said yesterday there was "no war in the offing" between his country and the United States.

He told the CBS programme 60 Minutes: "It's wrong to think that Iran and the US are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing."

Likewise, his statements regarding Iran's nuclear intentions:

At the beginning of a week in which and he and George Bush will deliver competing speeches to the UN in the battle for international support, he repeated a longstanding denial of accusations that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, asking: "What need do we have for a bomb?"

By facing the university forum Ahmadinejad will be forced to publicly state his views on Israel and his bizarre views of the Holocaust. He will be able to be challenged. Facts will be presented to him, which he will either accept or deny. And, at the end of it all, the public will have a better idea of this man who some on the right proclaim as the new Hitler.

If he is as evil as the right wing frothers are claiming him to be, why do they fear us being able to hear him speak and make up our own minds?

I suspect it's because they fear that, when we hear this man speak, he might undermine their arguments for war. And it is for that reason alone that they want him silenced.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Ahmadinejad, United Nations, US, Bush, Malkin, CBS, Columbia University