Captain's Quarters -

Columbia seems to be violating that most basic of rules: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Apart from the European history, Dean Coatsworth ignored U.S. history. There was an active, energetic pro-Nazi, anti-war movement in this country before World War II led by the German-American Bund and various isolationist groups.

Those groups were effective. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941 (two years after 1939) to sway American public opinion sufficiently to permit FDR to lead the nation into war.

Shipmates,

An overheard phone call. 1935…

“Oh yes, that nice Mr. Hitler. He’s simply charming, isn’t he? Well of course I’ve read his book, but who really means those things? Yes, yes, I know..... terrible things to write, but of course he’s just saying what he needed to in order to get elected! All politicians are like that. They write those things for the little people, you know? I’m sure he’s just what Germany and Europe needs at the moment. A man with a real plan who knows how to get things done.”

-----pause in conversation-----

“No, it’s not at all like that. Listen to me, will you? Just for once listen. I know what I’m talking about! I’m telling you, just wait and you’ll see. In ten years, you won’t be able to recognise Germany!”

Ahmadinejad has relatively little power within Iran in spite of his title, and is far from being an all-powerful dictator. He makes plenty of speeches but is not in day-to-day charge of the government, the military or the nuclear development program. Iran is a very complicated society. Elements of that society are amongst the worst enemies that we have anywhere in the world. It doesn't do us any good to oversimplify the situation by focusing only on Ahmadinejad. He may or may not be reelected, but either way there will be another front man with little power making speeches intended to annoy 99% of Americans.

The best way to prevent Iran from interfering in Iraq would be to seal the border (and Iraq's other 5 borders), something that should have been done 4-1/2 years ago. If it becomes necessary to take out their nuclear program, a sealed border will be all the more important to encounter the inevitable reprisals.

And lets not forget that by September 24, 1939 WWII had already started and Poland was well on it's way to subjugation.

Americans too often forget that WWII started in 1939 in Europe, and not with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Empire.

In 1939 there was a lot of sympathy in the USA for Germany. This was espoused by influential people like Joe Kennedy FDR's ambassador to Britain, mega rich rum runner and father of senators and a president. Also by national hero Charles Lindbergh. Only the pro Soviet professors at Columbia were actively against Hitler.

The following was posted on a prior article about Columbia.

Censorship is a fact at Columbia and has been for some time. The Washington Times has an article about it today. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NATION/109250054/1002

{An activist against illegal immigration was run off the stage by students last year at Columbia and his recent invitation back to the school was rescinded. The school became embroiled in a battle a few years ago after pro-Israel Jewish students complained of intimidation by pro-Palestinian professors, the New York Times reported.

John Leo, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, said he and other conservative speakers were essentially shut out by Columbia in 1998, after the school cited security concerns and limited the event to only those with Columbia badges. This prevented the bulk of the potential audience from attending, Mr. Leo said. The sponsoring group, Accuracy in Academia, withdrew the speakers and held the event in a park nearby.

"It was a form of censorship," Mr. Leo said. "It was typical of Columbia."}

There's a reason why Godwin's law is so effective -- the very mention of Hitler or the Nazis hardens all conversation to a standstill. No one wants to be seen as somehow enabling "the next Hitler," even as we label every third-world leader we dislike as "Hitler."

Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler. He isn't the unrivaled master of the world's most productive industrialized state -- in fact he has a superior officer in the Supreme Leader, so it isn't even technically correct to label him a "dictator." Rather, he sits as a term-limited president of a creaking quasi-socialist government that, while successful in suppressing dissent, has to work fairly hard to protect itself.

While Nazi Germany's military easily outmanned and outgunned all surrounding powers, even France, a victor in the Great War, Iran has a military that, while apparently well-trained, is a mid-ranking power matched by the likes of Turkey, Israel, and even the famously incompetent Saudi Arabian military. It's also expending inordinate amounts of time and money building an atomic bomb, which in all likelihood would, assuming its actually acquired several years and millions of dollars overbudget, would simply create a political stalemate with Israel.

Iran isn't looking to formally expand its reach, and unlike Nazi Germany has no larger goals of pan-ethnic or religious empire (while it seeks to influence Shia tribes in Iraq, even they would likely rebel under direct Iranian rule; beyond that there is no substantial Shia population).

I could go on -- and likely several experts on Iran and its government has. But forgive my skepticism when the old 1938-and-all-that Hitler analogies are once again trotted out to show how the latest irksome foreign probably is Munich all over again.

DU

Only the pro Soviet professors at Columbia were actively against Hitler.

I don't know about Columbia in particular, but most western communists with ties to the Soviets were pro-Hitler, err anti-war, until the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Prior to the invasion these self declared pacifists felt Churchill was an evil, warmongering Islamophobe, err Germanophone.

Ya know what,

Iranians barely respect Ahmadinejad, and after Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday, Americans don't either.

So what is better for America, Bombing the piss out of him, thus solidifying support for him in Iran, OR just letting him talk. Give him the rope....and he hangs himself every time.

You conservatives just don't get it. Ahmadinejad manipulates the U.S. by baiting us. Our proud chested leaders are SO happy to engage him.

Columbia was smart to let him speak. It had faith that we as Americans were capable of seeing through his nonsense.

We can let Ahmadinejad beat himself. No need for us to go do what he is thoroughly capable of. HE GOT LAUGHED AT! What the hell more could you possibly want! Thats why it DISAPPEARED from most of the blogs today. He's a fool, and now everyone in America knows it too. He is discredited by his own stupidity. He's as stupid as George Bush, A bumbling fool, trying to look important. A foolish and misguided bumbling idiot, telling us that there are no gays in Iran. Come on!

But if you repress him, you validate him. That is what free speech is all about. It weeds out the poor ideas in a vibrant marketplace of ideas.

And that is why our administration and the Ahmadinejad administration are failing to make the case.

Foston

I don't know, Captain.

If you don't believe in the value of Free Speech as a disinfectant, and in the value of giving people information and letting them make up their minds, haven't you just gutted the most fundamental American values?

Stephens says that "And the fact that their ideas were finer and better than Hitler's will have done nothing to keep them and millions of their countrymen from harm, and nothing to get them out of its way."

Doesn't that mean he thinks free speech and the ability of the common man to make his/her own decisions are worthless? Has Stephens become a traitor to basic American values?

Also,

Hitler was incredibly stage-managed. Hitler would have never visited America, let alone go to a university where he'd be openly laughed at and rebuked in public. It would have deflated his image at home once word traveled around Germany -- The Leader, laughed for his bumpkin ideas!

No, it might not have prevented World War II, but it might have deflated Hitler, who many people thought was the man with all the answers.

Still, like I said before, I'm not predisposed to turning everything into 1938 -- it turns every foreign problem into a pre-WWII situation where the only solution is to bomb or invade before the other side does the same, consequences be damned.

DU

This guy works for a .... University? WOW.

Capt, I'm glad there are guys like you around with the time and ability to call this BS out on the carpet. Thanks.

Swabbie

I thought about this exact scenario when I first heard that Ahmadinejad was to speak -- and dismissed it out of hand. Hitler, like his modern doppleganger, wouldn't be there to listen -- he'd be there to convince his listeners that his path was the right path. In fact, Ahmadinejad said exactly that when pressed on the point of Israel's right to exist. He did not consider this an open forum, but a forum only suitable for the recitation of his position.

And, like the Iranians, the German people would not have heard a word of dissension from the American audience -- they would have heard only that their august leader had spoken before the members of an august university, and had been well received.

Those of us who are convinced that Iran, left to its own devices, will soon own a nuclear one, are not convinced otherwise; those who insist that if the American Imperialists leave Iran alone, it will leave us alone, are similarly not convinced otherwise.

Like quickjustice above, I think the isolationists would still be tugging if Hitler came to speak. In the run up to WWII, the movie industry was firmly in the Nazi camp, propelled there by the friendship treaty between Stalin and Hitler. It took Hitler's initiation of war against Russia to bring these people out of hibernation.

No good came of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia -- except for Ahmadinejad, who got a photo op for his people.

Eye,

John Coatsworth was the one who invoked Hitler in his argument. The comments seem to bear out that his arguement does not hold up.

PT

From http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018558.php

"In his plea to the Yale Political Union not to host a Communist Party functionary in 1963, Williiam Buckley referred to those such as Ahmadinejad and enjoined his audience:

Fight him, fight the tyrants everywhere, but do not ask them to your quarters, merely to spit on them, and do not ask them to your quarters if you cannot spit on them. To do the one is to ambush a human being as one might a rabid dog; to do the other is to ambush oneself, to force oneself, in disregard of those who have died trying to make the point, to break faith with humanity.

In inviting Ahmadinejad to its quarters as an honored guest, today Columbia broke faith with America and, in Buckley's terms, with humanity."

As for the Iranian and Columbia apologists among the commentators, they display a profound ignorance of the history of the region. Even at the time of the Shah, whom the U.S. helped to gain power to thwart Soviet ambitions in the region, Iran was looking to extend its influence into the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The mullahs are no different, and the Persian Gulf kingdoms and sheikdoms fear Iranian hegemony more than anything else.

That explains why U.S., European, and Japanese interests are directly implicated in what happens in the region. The U.S. doesn't need Persian Gulf oil, but the European and Japanese economies depend upon it.

Iranian ambitions in the region are a direct threat to Western interests. Iran's threat to destroy Israel really is a threat to make an example of Israel for the benefit of the Arab states that border the Persian Gulf.

With respect to the etiquette of Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad, Bill Buckley has it right. For Columbia University to invite Ahmajinejad for the express purpose of insulting him was, on a human level, vile. I believe Bollinger understands that, but was forced to engage in vile behavior by public outrage.

The left is in a perpetual state of irresponsible adolescense.

Instead of respecting our freedoms, the left continually tries to test the limits, just to see how far it can go, much like teenagers try to stretch their curfew.

Yes, Columbia has every right to give the stage and to applaud a delusional, derganged, state sponsored psychopath.

Doesn't mean it's the responsible thing to do.

When will the left get beyond it's 13th year?

Old Adolf just might have visited Columbia figuring he could spin that university's pseudo-perfessers and administrative hacks as easily as Neville Chamberlain. The American Communist Party would be throwing rose petals in his path as long as an alliance with Stalin was upheld.

Adolf wouldn't be trying to convince the American people at large, of course, just to recruit enough Lord Haw Haws, Tokyo Rose's and Ward Churchills to damage military recruits' morale, promote brownshirts as campus fashions and to exploit the naivete of the more impressionable college yoots seeking an angry outlet for adolescent angst, insecurity and hopes for an easy A.

Sorta like the rock musician's marketing formula. If it sufficiently irritates the parents it's a sure sell to their kids.

PalmettoTiger:

If I'm not mistaken, the dean was answering a hypothetical where a questioner invoked Hitler -- I believe it was a reporter from Fox News, appropriately enough.

I harp on the Hitler angle because Morrissey takes the idea and runs with it, making all those pat comparisons to World War II many on the right are fond of:

The parallels between the 1939 hypothetical of Coatsworth and the appearance of Ahmadinejad yesterday do seem striking -- and they refute any defense of Columbia's staging of Iranian propaganda.

On so many levels -- control of the media, relative domestic power, military strength, relations with other regional and world powers -- Iran simply isn't in Nazi Germany's position. Iran feels more like the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s -- somewhat ascendant due to American weakness, but wracked by internal economic and political problems that can be exploited through deterrence, containment, and a diplomacy that is both calls their bluff and is welcoming.

Hitler's dead. Iran isn't Germany. On that level I disagree with Morrissey.

DU

For those who have (and, no doubt, will) wave their hands and ASSURE us that Ahmadenijad is no Hitler and that Iran is no nazi Germany...

How many nazis were there in Germany in 1929, ten years prior to the nazi invasion of Poland?

Would any "reasonable" person in 1929 have ever dreamed that, in ten years, Hitler would be on his way to near-mastery of Europe and would have set in motion plans for the worst slaughter of innocents in Europe since the Middle Ages?

Now, of course, we look back from the comfortable distance of almost seventy years and see that Hitler's path was obvious, that steps could have been - and SHOULD have been - taken to stop him, that millions didn't have to died either in ovens or on battlefields.

But when confronted with a modern-day Hitler, what do we get from "reasonable" people? Excuses. Dismisal. Sneers. Calls for "dialogue" and "understanding". Invitations to speak and Columbia under the rubric of "free speech". Moral superiority on the part of people who aren't "afraid" of the dictator. Praise for people who offer "criticism" in the safety of a lecture hall in America.

But no expressions of determination that we won't let history repeat itself. No warnings to the dictator that aggression of any sort will be met with force. No reexamination of our defenses. No calls to meet with allies to set a firm policy to confront the dictator.

It may well be - indeed, we all may well hope - that Ahmadenijad will go the way of Idi Amin, Khadaffi, and other tinpots who caused some trouble but ultimately became laughingstocks. However, as we don't know what the future will bring, it's wise to assume that he won't, and that we'd better be ready to fight.

Since I can't resist:

Mechanical Eye: Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler. He isn't the unrivaled master of the world's most productive industrialized state -- in fact he has a superior officer in the Supreme Leader, so it isn't even technically correct to label him a "dictator."

OK. Would you feel better if we compared him to Tojo?

Mechanical Eye: While Nazi Germany's military easily outmanned and outgunned all surrounding powers, even France, a victor in the Great War...

I believe that you will find that the French army was a good bit larger than the German army in 1939 and 1940. IIRC, the French army also had more tanks. Combined with the armies of Britain, Holland, and Belgium, it would have been enormously larger than the German army. The reasons for France's "strange defeat" in 1940 have been a subject of debate since they surrendered, but Germany "outmanning and outgunning" them is not one of them. The interested reader is referred to: Julian Jackson, The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Mechanical Eye: It's also expending inordinate amounts of time and money building an atomic bomb, which in all likelihood would, assuming its actually acquired several years and millions of dollars overbudget, would simply create a political stalemate with Israel.

Holy smokes! You're actually ADMITTING that the Iranians are trying to build a Bomb??? And you think that the only result will be that they achieve a balance of terror with Israel? This is an acceptable outcome as far as you are concerned?

Mechanical Eye: It would have deflated his image at home once word traveled around Germany -- The Leader, laughed for his bumpkin ideas!

Umm... People around the world (well, the western world, anyway) had a pretty good idea of what Hitler was about. There were newsreels, newspaper reports, etc. His book was published in America, Britain, and (I suppose) other European countries. I think that, to the extent that many Americans thought much about Schickelgruber at all prior to 1939, they thought he was rather funny. What's with all that goosestepping stuff?

It was quite a shock for people to realize that (1) he was dead serious and (2) capable of achieving the "impossible" goals he'd so plainly stated.

Propaganda piece though it might be, I recommend Frank Capra's "Prelude to War" (Part 1 of "Why We Fight") for a view of what Americans thought about Hitler prior to 1939... and how many of them were kicking themselves after 1941. "How could we have been so stupid???"

As for "bumpkin ideas", totalitarianism was rather avant garde in the '30s; quite a few "intellectuals" thought that democracy was just too inefficient and untidy to manage the modern, industrialized state, and only a strong central goverment (communist or nazi) could do the job properly.

I'll agree with the Eye on one point. Hitler was a fair distance from attaining nuclear weaponry therefore Iran isn't Germany. Ahmanutjob could easily kill far more than Hitler did with enough money to spend and a few phone calls to the right sources.

Meet the new SPECTRE where the underworld Islamofascist management wouldn't blink an eye at holding the world hostage with a nuclear holocaust then pushing the button anyway for the express ride to 72 virgins in paradise.

The Left's wackiest error is thinking diplomacy is effective with those who have no qualms about blowing themselves up.

"The Mechanical Eye" said

I harp on the Hitler angle because Morrissey takes the idea and runs with it, making all those pat comparisons to World War II many on the right are fond of

And explain to me how the comparison is not apt?

We have Judenrein statements from Ahmadinejad, as we did from Hitler.

We have gay persecution under Ahmadinejad, as we did under Hitler.

We have Ahmadinejad destabilizing neighboring countries, just as Hitler did prior to his annexations.

We have a significant isolationist minority which believes that Bush outward defense is a greater evil than Ahmadinejad, just as we had one which believed that Roosevelt's outward defense was a greater evil than Hitler.

Now, addressing his/her "levels":

Control of the media -- absolute under Iran, as in pre-WWII Germany.

Relative domestic power -- absolute under Iran, as in pre-WWII Germany.

Military strength -- largest regional army in Iran, as in pre-WWII Germany. Rapidly modernizing armed forces in Iran, as in pre-WWII Germany. Attempting to acquire force equalizers (in pre-WWII Germany, naval fleet outside treaty regulation, in Iran, nuclear weapons outside treaty regulation).

Relations with other regional and world powers -- good for both pre-WWII Germany and Iran, with healthy GDP capable of fuelling military development.

Germany was also wracked by internal economic problems, but that didn't stop them from arming and going to war. Even the nature of the internal problems are similar in pre-WWII Germany and Iran.

Still, like I said before, I'm not predisposed to turning everything into 1938 -- it turns every foreign problem into a pre-WWII situation where the only solution is to bomb or invade before the other side does the same, consequences be damned.

Translation: Just do the Neville Chamberlain thing and sit back and think things will be just fine, say things will be just fine, and they probably will be.

Eye:

You contradict yourself:

"Iran isn't looking to formally expand its reach, and unlike Nazi Germany has no larger goals of pan-ethnic or religious empire (while it seeks to influence Shia tribes in Iraq, even they would likely rebel under direct Iranian rule; beyond that there is no substantial Shia population)."

Expanding it's reach and influence over the Shia in Iraq is exactly what they want to do. Otherwise, why babysit AlSadar. Oh, and check your math, the Shia are the majority in Iraq.

Shipmates,

Of course Ahmadinijad isn't Hitler. Doesn't mean they dom't have similar goals. Iran, of course, doesn't have a "Jewish" problem. They've pretty much gotten rid of the Iranian Jews alrady. They are also making great strides in eliminating the homosexuals as well.

Germany passed it's Nuremburg laws, but Iran doesn't actually need those. It has it's own version: The Koran.

However, Iran certainly sees itself as the center of a "greater umma". It sees Iran as the logical successor to the great Caliphs of the past. Ahmadinijad has publicly stated his aims to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. In the west, we refer to that as Armaggedon.

Persia has been a pain to civilization everywhere for 3000 years. It's time we put an end to that.

Persia Delenda Est

After listening to leftist pundits yesterday and reading some of the comments here, I'm convinced that all any tyrant has to do is to say the right things, and "progressives" will obligingly ignore everything the tyrant actually does.

Actions don't matter. Words are paramount. They have a hypnotic power over leftists, turning them into passive, suicidally naive children. "Progressives" swallow Iran's propaganda unquestioningly and regurgitate it word for word.

Iran can pursue nuclear weapons, sponsor global terrorism, kill American soldiers, use proxies to assassinate moderates in neighboring countries, arm the Taliban, give haven to al Qaeda--but as long as the Iranian president says "I come in peace," leftists smile and say "See? He comes in peace. There's nothing to fear."

It reminds me of a scene in the movie "Mars Attacks," in which the Martians are leveling Las Vegas with their ray guns while using loudspeakers to broadcast the message "Do not run. We are your friends."

Tom W.,

Excellent post.

You can add the "Independence Day" scene where all those people are thinking good thoughts at the alien space ship hovering overhead...

Those of you deriding the comparison to Hitler on the grounds that Ahmadinejad and Iran are not as strong as was Hitler & Germany are ignoring two basic facts.

First, in 1938 and 1939, Hitler and Germany were comparatively weak as well. Testimony of high-ranking Nazi officials after the war, from people as high as Goebbels and from Hitler's own documents, show that any single act of military opposition from England, the US, France or even Italy during the period of 1938 - 1939 would have stopped Hitler dead in his tracks.

At that time, many in Germany doubted Hitler’s leadership and thought he was steering Germany towards disaster. Had the West stood up to Hitler, those doubts would have increased and his influence would have waned -- and the post-war German documents and testimony prove that Hitler was well aware of his shaky standing.

However, all of the efforts to appease Hitler greatly strengthened his standing with the German people. Many who had doubts as to the wisdom of his aggressive approach were amazed to see the West crumble and give in to his demands time after time. This bought Hitler time and brought the German people around to his view that the West lacked the will to resist the German people.

Second, it must also be noted that Ahmadinejad does not hope to conquer us militarily. Rather, he believes in the Shia hidden imam theory; according to this belief, if a sufficiently cataclysmic event happens to the Muslim world, this long-lost imam will reappear and lead the Muslims to world domination. So Ahmandinejad doesn’t need to build an army capable of conquering all the non-Islamic countries of the world. He would be quite content with nuking the Jews because he believes the retaliation that would follow would be just the cataclysmic event needed to trigger the imam’s return.

The historical record, then, is clear: appeasement does not work. It merely plays into the hands of people like Hitler and Ahmadinejad.

Foston said:

You conservatives just don't get it. Ahmadinejad manipulates the U.S. by baiting us. Our proud chested leaders are SO happy to engage him. Columbia was smart to let him speak. It had faith that we as Americans were capable of seeing through his nonsense. But if you repress him, you validate him. That is what free speech is all about. It weeds out the poor ideas in a vibrant marketplace of ideas.

This is dangerous foolishness because in fact you have NOT seen through his nonsense. You have swallowed hook, line, sinker, rod and reel exactly what he wants you to swallow and are reacting exactly the way he wants you to react: you don’t see him or Iran as a threat and now you are working to convince others that we need not worry about either of them. And that is his mission with respect to the people of America: convince them to do nothing. With you and your fellow pacifists, he has succeeded admirably.

As far as the people of Iran are concerned, there is no “vibrant marketplace of ideas” inside a theocracy. All they will be permitted to see is our apparent weakness in the face of his threats, weakness that makes him look strong by contrast. Thus, it is our appeasement that “validates” his claims with his own people and buys him time to continue his quest for the bomb.

Iran will force us into a choice: inflict mass casualties over there or suffer mass casualties over here (or in Israel). The left, the Democrats and the pacifists will do everything in their power to prevent the American people from realizing that this is, ultimately, our choice -- they will do everything to see that the casualties are our's or Israel’s, but not Iran’s.

For all the protests otherwise, Iran does seem strikingly in the same position as Nazi Germany (proximity of acquiring a nuke not withstanding).

Also, I would note that it would have been in Hitler's interest not to declare war on the US. As I understand it, he did it because the US was supplying the Allies anyway, and because Japan promised him more assistance than they could or would give him. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, and had managed to keep the US from declaring war on him (more or less throwing Japan to the wolves), he could have focussed on Russia, and worn Britain down. The very fact that the US was diverting resources to the Pacific instead of Britain may have finally convinced the Britain's to accept a peace agreement with Hitler (which was what he wanted). Likely, Russia would have been defeated, the population of Ukraine and other Eastern European countries would have been slaughtered. It might debatable whether the "Final Solution" would be carried out; I remember hearing that it was a response to German losses, though there were apparently people in Hitler's organization who were dedicated to it ideologically. If it was, no one would stop it. The end result would be a cold war between what amounts to English speaking democracies and a fractious collection of fascist states lead by Germany, rather than Imperial Communism. No Free France, and probably no Free Italy, plus you can forget about the end of Colonization.

The Columbia appearance only help enable and legitimize the guy with his domestic and Middle East constituencies.

Some excerpts from the Iranian press:

"On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture ....

"The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

"At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters."

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm

Here's one of the ironies of the posited scenario.

So, Hitler visits the United States and concludes that the Americans are dangerous. But it's 1939, so the war with France and Britain are underway.

In which case, what the Dean is positing is that Hitler, after Pearl Harbor, does not commit Germany to war with the United States.

Exactly how does this benefit the United States?

If Hitler did not declare war on the US, would progressives be prepared to call for the US to declare war on Germany? Remember, this is a nation that had not attacked the United States.

Indeed, the comparison really would be to Dubya declaring war on Iraq, when it was Afghanistan and the Taliban that were the attackers.

"Why are we spending thousands of American lives, bombing the daylights out of a nation that had NOTHING to do with Pearl Harbor? Why have we not strung up Tojo and Hirohito, when they were the ones responsible for the worst attack on American soil?"

Indeed, FDR was extremely worried that Hitler would do precisely what the Dean at Columbia was talking about---and thereby removing the obvious casus belli of a German declaration of war.

The irony of those who would echo the Dean's position is quite stark. (But then, as was also noted, much of the Left was anti-war until Hitler invaded the USSR.)

Foston wrote:
Columbia was smart to let him speak. It had faith that we as Americans were capable of seeing through his nonsense.
Funny, i and all the "neocons" have seen through his nonsence and didn't need to hear a speech at Columbia to know what's what. we've been the ones arguing that IRan is a threat and needs to be contained so that it doesn't create a nuclear program. And usually we end up arguing with some libs that IRan poses no threat, that Bush is the warmonger, that Bush is hyping the threat, that IRan shouldn't be listed on the axis of evil, that Iran is only getting its weapons to protect itself from us, etc ad infinitum. Bollinger's speech points out common knowledge for us neocons, and sorry if the lefts Bush derangement syndrome prevented them from using their eyes.Glad to see you on board. Wondering why it took so long.And why did this speech suddenly make everything all clear for you doubting thomases? Seriously, were you not paying attention? Or because it was being said by Bush did your side ignore it?

It does bring up an interesting argument though. Was Bollinger arguing Bush talking points when he dressed down Ahmadinejad, or does that mean that those who were poo pooing the threat posed by him and his regime understating the threat so as to paint Bush as a warmonger. In other words, if Bollinger is right, then a whole lot of people have had their heads up their ass for an awful long time because that is what Bush and the evil vile neocons have also been saying (in fact there a few daily kos diaries talking about how bollinger was just using Bush talking points and hyping a threat).
We already knew he was a threat, we didn't have to have a college professor say it for the lightbulb to go off in our brains.

Gotta disagree with these comments:

1. Iran isn't looking to formally expand its reach

If Iran isn't looking to formally expand its reach, why are they supplying weapons to Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, etc?, and why has Ahmadinejad said that Islam is ready to rule and dominate the world?

2.(re: Ahmadinejad) He's a fool, and now everyone in America knows it too.

Not all of America thinks he's a fool. Some of America was fooled by what he said at yesterdays speech, otherwise they wouldn't have clapped/yoo hoo'd.

3. He is discredited by his own stupidity

I don't think he's stupid at all and I think the similarities with Hitler outweigh just dismissing him.

I'm not so sure Hitler wanted to win World War II. He certainly wanted revenge for his insecurities by whatever means available but whether or not Nazism was merely his cover for an end goal of nihilism and total world destruction is open to debate. Hitler routinely overruled the sounder military strategies of his advisors and commanders (Rommel, Guderian, Canaris) in favor of the screwball freaks (Goebbels) and drug addicts (Goring) closer to him.

The same goes for Ahmahnutjob yet in a nuclear age. When he talks about the problems he's solved he's talking about the problems he's exterminated. Like Goring or Himmler or Adolf or Saddam Hussein his mindset is to keep on eliminating until it's his turn to cheat the gallows. That is what makes them so dangerous in terms of negotiations where parley is simply a stall tactic to keep the ovens running.

It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941 (two years after 1939) to sway American public opinion sufficiently to permit FDR to lead the nation into war.

You're forgetting the undeclared naval war for the most part of 1941 conducted by the US Navy on the Kriegsmarine submarine forces in the North Atlantic. It was a one-way war, given that the Kriegsmarine was under strict orders not to engage US ships no matter the level of provocation.

Modern progressives would have a heart attack if the current president did anything similar...

I read that article in the Wall Street Journal and anyone who doesn't believe that Coatsworth and Bollinger were p*wned have their heads up their arses. So why should today be different from any other day for most libs/dems?
The only other item I haven't seen any commentary on is WHO SUPPLIED THE TRANSLATOR For Amamadjihadi while he was at Columbia? I think this is important. Anyone who has had any dealings with translators in oppressed countries, such as China, any muslim dictatorship (do i repeat myself) commie dictatorship, knows that the translator's job is not to accurately translate what was said, but to obfuscate on both sides. So, when we hear that what Amamadjihadi made a 'ramble' of his speech, perhaps it was the translator (assuming she was from the Iranian Embassy) who feared for herself or her family if she too 'accurately' conveyed what the terrorist was actually saying to the audience.
Just a thought.

What is Going On at Columbia University?

Columbia University has been in the headlines this week over the speaking appearance yesterday of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The university and its president, Lee Bollinger have taken a lot of heat for providing Ahmadinejad a platform. Probably due to the the fact that he had placed himself in such a public spotlight, Mr Bollinger publically rebuked Ahmadinejad in strong terms in his introduction. Yet, to many, including those who demonstrated against the speaking appearance, Ahmadinejad's appearance was totally inappropriate. While I defend the principle of free speech, I don't think any institution or entity has an obligation to provide such an offensive figure with a speaking platform. Thus, I tend to be on the side of the demonstrators as long as they didn't disrupt the event itself. Where do we draw the line on who gets invited to a university event to speak? Would Columbia have invited Adolf Hitler to speak as well? Larger questions also exist. Did Columbia invite the controversial Ahmadinejad to speak in order to provide an open forum for debate? Or did they invite him to appear because there was some degree of sympathy for the man, his country and his ideals?

Given President Bollinger's remarks to Ahmadinejad, it would be easy to say that Columbia was right in its invitation, and that it was only to provide an open debate, especially since many of the questions were pointed and that Ahmadinejad, in his anwers, demonstrated what a fool he is. One example was his answer to a question about persecution of homosexuals in Iran; he stated that, unlike the US, there were no homosexuals in Iran, a statement that drew laughter from the audience.

But what about the idea of providing a forum to a man who questions the Holocaust and has made statements about Israel being wiped off the face of the earth? Senator Charles Schumer of New York, in criticizing Columbia's invitation, asked if a university would invite a representative of the "Flat Earth Society" to come and argue that the world is not really round. Nice analogy, but is Senator Schumer aware that Columbia already employs a professor, one Joseph Massad of the Middle Eastern Studies Department, who not only defends Palestinian suicide bombers, feels that Israel has no right to exist, but who also has argued that the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre was carried out not by Palestinian terrorists, but by Israeli agents? Sen. Schumer, the Flat Earth Society is alive and well at Columbia. Massad is not the only terrorist sympathizer at Columbia. There is also professor Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Chair, Middle Eastern Studies Dept. at Columbia, who holds similar views as Massad. In fact, many have charged that Columbia, like so many other universities, is noted more for its faculty of radical leftists than for a faculty of true scholars, especially in Middle Eastern Studies.

Meanwhile, if speakers like the Minutemen happen to be invited to Columbia by conservative students, what happens? Not only is their presentation disrupted, but the stage is stormed by no-nothing students, egged on by their radical professors, something that did not happen to Ahmadinejad. Does the US Military enjoy the opportunity to come to Columbia to recruit? No, but the president of Iran, who is sending bombs and weapons to Iraq to kill our soldiers, is invited. Kind of shows you where Columbia is politically, spiritually and intellectually.

As I said, I believe in free speech. I simply question whether everyone is entitled to a public platform to mouth their insanity. We have plenty of street corners where Ahmadinejad could have said whatever he wanted and no one would have arrested him. Personally, with everything that is going on in the world right now (emanating out of the Middle East), I feel it would have been more appropriate to escort Ahmadinejad from the airport to the UN and back to the airport. As Americans, we need to tell him and his ilk that they are not welcome in our country, we are up to here with their nonsense, that we will stand up to them, we will stand up for Israel, and if his 3rd rate country tries any military or terroristic action against the US or Israel, that we will crush them like the bugs that they are.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Talk about apples and oranges.

What a pointless and irrelevant comparison.

What is Coatsworth smoking?

As Americans, we need to tell him and his ilk that they are not welcome in our country, we are up to here with their nonsense, that we will stand up to them, we will stand up for Israel, and if his 3rd rate country tries any military or terroristic action against the US or Israel, that we will crush them like the bugs that they are.

This, and the easy "Persia delenda est" talk, makes me wonder if all the people excitedly making the Hitler comparison actually have a good understanding how weak Iran is compared to the United States. Those of you referring me to Frank Capra movies as proof of liberal feckless in 2007 sometimes betray a confidence that conjures memories of 2003 -- all that easy celebrating, the "Mission Accomplished" banner, the pompous talk of an "Arab Spring." People who want a war tend to be convinced that victory will be cheap, and easy. It seldom ever is.

To sum it up, we've heard the Hitler talk before, before the Iraq War. What happened next isn't following the World War II script.

World War II was "our finest hour," but I think its misleading to compare the President of Iran to Hitler -- for that inevitably turns us into the Greatest Generation, and lets us bathe ourselves in a glow of nostalgia and Hollywood heroism. Too many of our statesmen have turns everyone from Saddam Hussein to Slobodon Milosevec to, hell, Bashar Assad into Hitler.

Analogies are brittle things - they might be enticing, but if you press them too hard, they'll break. History never repeats itself exactly, and is best treated as a guide, not a handrail. We don't do ourselves, or the people of Iran, any good by making a plaster Hitler out of Ahmadinejad.

DU

JR565 Wrote:

Funny, i and all the "neocons" have seen through his nonsence and didn't need to hear a speech at Columbia to know what's what.

Very true. But his visit provided a high profile opportunity for people to hear him. HE LOST in the eyes of the American Public. Including liberals, in whose camp I firmly stand.

The problem I see is when these protesters, who want to stop his opportunity to speak to the American public in advance of military planning against his nation.

There are 2 wars. One of public relations and public opinion, and the other is a military venture we are probably going to try, and most certainly going to lose if we do.

We will lose because our administration is incapable of thought. They do not have critical thinking skills. Critical thinking and dissent within the administration is squashed. Good decisions - which come from dissent and resolution - are not a part of this administrations decision making process. It is all about 1 or 2 people who are the deciders. Search your feelings Luke, you know this to be true.

Ahmadinejad's standing in the first war was greatly diminished as a result of Columbia allowing him to speak. Absent free speech, his standing would be enhanced because no one (other than hard core neocons)trusts our administration to tell us the truth. They have lied REPEATEDLY, so why should we believe that the administration is telling the truth now about Ahmadinejad?

You can't have it both ways. If you don't let him speak, then the American public gets only sound bites of what he says. Without full information, democracy is diminished to despotism or monarchy, with the elites running the show.

In short, the conservative position was enhanced, I believe by letting him speak. He showed that he was incompetent(grossly uneducated) or nuts.

Great thing come from free speech. So let it be free, and stop fussing.

Foston

ME:

Well said.

Mechanical Eye: To sum it up, we've heard the Hitler talk before, before the Iraq War. What happened next isn't following the World War II script.

Yeah. We didn't wait for an Iraqi Fall Weiß or Pearl Harbor v2.0 this time.

How might history have been different if the French had fired a volley over the heads of the Germans who nervously crossed into the Rhineland in '35, or if Chamberlain and Deladier had stood with Benes against Hitler instead of throwing him under the bus in '38? Oh, wait... That would have been preemptive action! We can't have that, can we? Why, Chamberlain and Deladier might have been called (gasp!) WARMONGERS! Or even (cringe) NEOCONS.

Mechanical Eye: History never repeats itself exactly, and is best treated as a guide, not a handrail.

Yep. There's always juuuuust enough difference between then and now to allow people to keep making the same damned mistakes over and over and over again.

"How might history have been different if the French had fired a volley over the heads of the Germans who nervously crossed into the Rhineland in '35"

William Shirer (author of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) wrote in his Berlin Diary that the French Army was rife with Communists and that it's possible that they didn't fight the Nazis because of direction from Moscow.

The lunatic western left is already playing footsy with the Islamists. Will history repeat itself (in Europe, anyway?)?

I am watching the Ahmadinejad's thread with one eye, but so far non of even the most open minded visiting Liberals was able to tell what is it exactly he, or she learned from Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. So please somebody come forward and enlighten this unwashed.

The Mechanical Eye:

So a bunch of people who have avoided the news for years might have learned that Ahmadinnerjacket is a bloodthirsty, unapologetic lunatic with visions of grandeur. (I would have preferred a special on PBS--but wait, they're not likely to do that.)

You're ignoring what else happened:

1) The world learned that America is reluctant to call such a man an enemy. This gives every tyrant in the world a bit of breathing room, which is not something we should give them.

2) Iranians learned that Americans clapped for the man they hate.

****
WHY does the Left continually ignore the messages they broadcast so loudly to the enemies of this country? And why does the Left have so little regard for our would-be allies, namely anyone suffering under the boot of creeps like this?

And of course, the #2 selling book in the Middle East, right behind the Koran, is Mein Kampf.

The laughed at Hitler, they laughed at Mussolini, the really laughed at the little twerp Tojo.

Forty million dead later, they weren't laughing, nor were they expressive about how stupid they were. As a matter of fact, the self same folks felt they should be in charge of the post-WWII world, this time with the Soviet Union as their guide.

The objective of mature, conceptual/abstract thinking is to see _similarities_, not just exact matches. This, of course, is outside the leftist capacity.

Analogies are brittle things - they might be enticing, but if you press them too hard, they'll break. History never repeats itself exactly, and is best treated as a guide, not a handrail. We don't do ourselves, or the people of Iran, any good by making a plaster Hitler out of Ahmadinejad.

Nostradamus factoid: The population of Israel is now in the range that were snuffed out in ovens in Germany.

History apparently does repeat itself and you did not respond to the point by point parallels listed by unclesmrgol above. You can't deny (at least with intellectual honesty) that Ahmednijad has pledged to wipe Israel off the map. And he apparently is gathering the resources to enact this statement. That is enough of a parallel for me. Never again should mean something.

Arthur Herman's article in the New York Post is a treasure trove of historical parallels and intelligent analysis. Here's an excerpt:

The left in this country concluded long ago that this is not a war between Islamic extremist fascism and Western civilization, but a fight between Islamic "militants" and President Bush. The events of 9/11 never changed the left/liberal view that the real menace to world peace is the Bush administration and what Sen. J. William Fulbright used to call "the arrogance of American power" - much as British leftists in the early '30s assumed that the real cause of war wasn't men like Hitler or Mussolini, but capitalism and arms merchants.

Unfortunately the "free speech" simpletons who most need to read it, won't. It explains why people who would not hesitate to deny a platform to conservatives are now sudddenly free speech zealots. The irony is incredible. American universities are a quagmire of political correctness and nearly bereft of conservative free speech. As pungent as it is however the hypocrisy of the left pales in comparison to the idiocy of the left.

TomB, you asked:

"I am watching the Ahmadinejad's thread with one eye, but so far non of even the most open minded visiting Liberals was able to tell what is it exactly he, or she learned from Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. So please somebody come forward and enlighten this unwashed."

I've found that usually the Left's commenters don't venture into any discussion where they can't insert the name "Bush" or "Cheney" at least half a dozen times

Foston wrote:
Very true. But his visit provided a high profile opportunity for people to hear him. HE LOST in the eyes of the American Public. Including liberals, in whose camp I firmly stand. So in other words your side was wrong about him. And your side was wrong because you are preoccupied with Bush hatred to the point where you refuse to acknowledge basic facts, which have to be laid out to you and spoon fed to you like you're absolute imebeciles. He lost in the eyes of the american public, including liberals. Where have these liberals been all this time that they need to be shown this stuff as if its new to them?

The problem I see is when these protesters, who want to stop his opportunity to speak to the American public in advance of military planning against his nation. If bollinger is true with his characterization, then doesn't that make it that much more imperative that we deal with Iran as a threat either through the UN or if that fails through war? If your eyes are suddenly opened to the evil taht is Ahmadinejad, then the left should not be pilloring the bush administration for trying to hold Iran accountable or that Bush is trying to start a war on an innocent country, but rather recognize that the sole reason they are before the security council is because of IRans actions and because of Iran's regime, not because Bush is a bully. And rather than trying to foil war plans should recognize that the only options available are war or containment by the UN. But not to let Ahmadinejad get his way by bypassing the mandates of the international community. And recognize also the limitations of the UN approach.

We will lose because our administration is incapable of thought. And your side has thoughts? Your side has to be told by Bollinger how bad Ahmadinejad is, as if these points were never known before or if its some news flash.

Ahmadinejad's standing in the first war was greatly diminished as a result of Columbia allowing him to speak. Absent free speech, his standing would be enhanced because no one (other than hard core neocons)trusts our administration to tell us the truth. They have lied REPEATEDLY, so why should we believe that the administration is telling the truth now about Ahmadinejad?
This just shows how lame and vaccuous your argument actually is. One, Bush lied about nothing. Not the sixteen words, not the rationale for the war. Its your side who has lied and demagogued this for 4 years, just as, though your eyes are supposedly opened about Ahmadinejad now your side will similarly lie and demagogue Bush as being a warmonger if we do go to war. Then you'll fall back on the standard talking points the left has been putting on their banners for the last 4 years. How do we know Bush didn't lie. Because there is a history in Iraq prior to Bush taking office. How come the UN and not just Bush signed resolution 1441 UNANIMOUSLY if Bush was simply a liar. And that's resolution 16. How come the UN signed resolutions 1-15, many before Bush took office if Bush is simply a liar. How come the US and clinton signed the iraqi Liberation act which called for regime change AND democracy in 1998(!) if Bush is simply a liar. If Bollinger, in 1998 invited Sadaam Hussein to Columbia in 1998 to speak before his students about what a bastard Sadaam was, I'm sure you would argue it would open your eyes, but even in 1998 his denunciation would be old news and wouldn't be at all a shock to the sytem or some eye opening event, because all the facts that would be laid out by Bollinger in 1998, would be common knowledge to all but the most feeble minded. This knowledge would guide various countries actions and write the history that we have to deal with now. So therefore Clinton and the UN setup no fly zones, sanctioned iraq, contained Iraq, bombed Iraq for these exact reasons, and the UN went along with it for the exact same reasons. History didn't start on the eve of this war, and you don't get to wipe everything prior to bush clean simply because it fits your simplistic slogans.

And why should you "believe that the administration is telling the truth now about Ahmadinejad?" Because Bush is not the sole source of information about events in the world you dolt. This is not the first timeAhmadinejad has spoken before the world, nor the first time his intentions were made plain, nor is Bush the first person to suggest that Iran is a rogue state that is a threat to the world. What about the remaining security council members who also said similar things, what about previous administrations who also listed Iran as a rogue/terrorist state, waht about all the organizatiosn that pointed out human rights violations that Iran has commited. Where is Bollinger getting his facts from. that supposedly opened your eyes? You shoudln't need to rely on Bush's word as the sole source of whether an event should be trusted or not, because of course, he's not the only person to say such things. But then again, you think history in iraq started in 2001, and of course you were completely in the dark until Bollinger opened your eyes about how bad Iran is by insulting Ahmadinejad?

You can't have it both ways. If you don't let him speak, then the American public gets only sound bites of what he says. Without full information, democracy is diminished to despotism or monarchy, with the elites running the show.
Don't let him speak? What did he do today but speak at the UN? He's being denied access to speech? And what did you get from him but soundbites at Columbia? Did he answer any questions? No of course not. So you didn't get full information from him. And he has spoken before you know. He hasn't been living in an underground lair. His comments about death to israel and america were broadcast during past speeches in public which were printed in newspapers and shown on news, which you could have read about. This is likely where Bollinger got some of his points that he used to rebut amadhinajad with, by the way. The point is, he has been speaking, this isn't the first we're hearing of Ahmadinejad. I'm sorry if you're just now hearing about it. Maybe if your side hadn't been covering your eyes and ears screaming "Nah nah nah bush lied people died, haliburton Bush is Hitler nah nah nah" you wouldn't have to be told about it in a lecture.

jr565 is way cool!

Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University, 60 Minutes and the Press Club are not about the US. They are about swaying Islamic opinion.

How has Islamic media portrayed his appearances. Does the media say anything about Bollinger's rant? or do they report that Ahmadinejad has gone into the belly of The Great Satan and emerged victorious.

"Iran isn't looking to formally expand its reach, and unlike Nazi Germany has no larger goals of pan-ethnic or religious empire (while it seeks to influence Shia tribes in Iraq, even they would likely rebel under direct Iranian rule; beyond that there is no substantial Shia population)."

As I've said elsewhere, this is false. Beginning no later than the Shah, Iran consistently has sought hegemony in the Persian Gulf. Its meddling in Iraq is of a piece with those ambitions. The Arab states on the Persian Gulf fear Iran. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off oil supplies to Europe and Japan.

Only the U.S. Navy has prevented that outcome. The stakes in the Middle East, and in Iraq, are sky-high. And I haven't even mentioned Israel.

Ahmadinejad in America- A Suggestion

About 50 years or so ago, when Chief William Parker was building the Los Angeles Police Department into the finest police department in America, they used to regularly get calls from eastern police departments, such as New York and Philadelphia with requests for surveillance of known organized crime figures who were flying to LA. The LAPD was regularly asked to be present at LA Airport and place the arriving hoods under surveillance during their stay in LA in order to determine who they were meeting with and what they were doing. The LAPD basically complied with half of the requested action. They would meet the plane and promptly place the bad guys on the next returning flight back east. The message was simple: Mafia hoodlums were not welcome in LA.

Well, today with our courts, liberal judges and the ACLU, these practices are no longer permitted. But it raises an interesting question given the visit this week of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadiniejad, who came here under the auspices of the United Nations and stayed a while to speak at Columbia University, as well as attend a dinner with such media figures as NBC's Brian Williams, who positively gushed over the chance to rub elbows with this loon.

In the wake of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, I suggested in a previous blog that we should have escorted the Iranian dictator from the airport to the UN and right back to the airport for a return flight home. As you know, we are bound by our UN commitments to let any foreign head of state come to New York to address the UN. Unfortunately, that has allowed such odious types as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and now Ahmadinejad to loiter around and appear before our own adoring leftists. Kudos to the City of New York for not granting this bum permission to defile our hollowed Ground Zero in New York during his visit. Unfortunately, Columbia University could not live up to the standards of the city in which it is located. But what do you expect from an American university?

Personally, I would have preferred that the State Department refuse his visa in defiance of the UN. What would the UN (a corrupt and inefficient organization made up largely of corrupt dictatorships that are hostile to the US) have done in response? In the past, the UN has threatened to leave New York in response to our refusal to allow some of our adversaries entry rights. Oh please! Wouldn't that be a great set-up, kind of like OJ Simpson being lured into a Las Vegas hotel to steal back his sports memorabilia?

Either scenario strikes me as favorable to what transpired this week. Either deny his visa and tell the UN to leave if they don't like it-or give Mr Ahmadinejad a quick turn-around (Teheran - New York, a 2 hour trip to the UN and back to JFK for the return flight home. In other words, let this third world nose-picker from a 3rd rate country learn what real jet lag feels like.

But I did not get my way, alas. What resulted is that, thanks to our left-wing academia and news media, Ahmadinejad scored a PR victory for the screaming mobs back home in Greater Lunaticstan.

gary fouse
fousesquawk