Why does Duncan Hunter hate our freedom?
| By BingVanGorden - Sep 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm EDT |
Free speech opponent Duncan Hunter, Republican from California, is threatening to cut off funding to Columbia University because they invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come speak. I don't know his motives and won't speculate. I can only say it's fool hardy. These assaults on free speech are not healthy. I've heard all kinds of reasons why some find free speech as being dangerous. From we're aiding the terrorists or giving comfort to the enemy by speaking ill of the Iraq war or the President. I never understood that logic. It's never really been explained. They just kind of blurt it out like "bringing up torture only aids the enemy!" When it's painfully obvious that the torture itself does that. Or something like "criticizing the President in a time of war only helps the terrorists!" Huh? How so?
But I see the pattern with their profound inability to understand what the hell we're talking about. We say "we should support the troops by bringing them home" but they comprehend "we hate the troops, and America which we always blame first." We criticize one General and they figure we hate the entire military. So I'm not too surprised that some body with an (R) after his name has to exercise his free speech by trying to cut off funding to a prestigious University because he doesn't like the speech of somebody they invited to speak. This misses the value of honoring all free speech.
President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger introduced Ahmadinejad by taking him to task for everything from his denial of the Holocaust to Iran's involvement in Iraq killing US soldiers. In what other setting could this have occurred? And what American could resist having an opportunity to fully skewer Iran's current president? In closing Prof. Bollinger stated this to his school's guest,
"Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, 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. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. "
Cut funding? This guy should get a freakin' medal! He articulately and forcefully called the guy out on the spot. But the knee jerk reaction for Duncan Hunter is this was bad, they should be punished, they somehow aided him by giving him a platform to further make an a$$ of himself. Bill O'Reilly called it giving him "stature." Really? If Bollinger is correct, and I believe he is, that every time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth Iranians at home roll their eyes. So giving him a forum to further embarrass himself and his radical views should be commended. What a public service! And notice how rude the Professor is? Mmmmmmmm love that free speech! The nerve of him talking to his guest that way, and in this case the guest certainly deserved it. Read his introduction here.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html
This new surge to suppress free speech has to stop. Disagreeing is one thing but Duncan Hunter here wants to threaten a University by yanking federal funds. Senator John Cornyn (R) offered an amendment to the latest military spending bill that reads,
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."
This is a direct response to the MoveOn.org ad. It means little technically as it is not a law, however the Senate as a body in a official capacity made a statement against free speech because they found it rude. That's not their job. They have much more important things to do.
"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection."
General Colin Powell
But I see the pattern with their profound inability to understand what the hell we're talking about. We say "we should support the troops by bringing them home" but they comprehend "we hate the troops, and America which we always blame first." We criticize one General and they figure we hate the entire military. So I'm not too surprised that some body with an (R) after his name has to exercise his free speech by trying to cut off funding to a prestigious University because he doesn't like the speech of somebody they invited to speak. This misses the value of honoring all free speech.
President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger introduced Ahmadinejad by taking him to task for everything from his denial of the Holocaust to Iran's involvement in Iraq killing US soldiers. In what other setting could this have occurred? And what American could resist having an opportunity to fully skewer Iran's current president? In closing Prof. Bollinger stated this to his school's guest,
"Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, 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. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. "
Cut funding? This guy should get a freakin' medal! He articulately and forcefully called the guy out on the spot. But the knee jerk reaction for Duncan Hunter is this was bad, they should be punished, they somehow aided him by giving him a platform to further make an a$$ of himself. Bill O'Reilly called it giving him "stature." Really? If Bollinger is correct, and I believe he is, that every time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth Iranians at home roll their eyes. So giving him a forum to further embarrass himself and his radical views should be commended. What a public service! And notice how rude the Professor is? Mmmmmmmm love that free speech! The nerve of him talking to his guest that way, and in this case the guest certainly deserved it. Read his introduction here.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html
This new surge to suppress free speech has to stop. Disagreeing is one thing but Duncan Hunter here wants to threaten a University by yanking federal funds. Senator John Cornyn (R) offered an amendment to the latest military spending bill that reads,
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."
This is a direct response to the MoveOn.org ad. It means little technically as it is not a law, however the Senate as a body in a official capacity made a statement against free speech because they found it rude. That's not their job. They have much more important things to do.
"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection."
General Colin Powell
Comments are closed for this post.
Columbia University, which just hosted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has barred the ROTC from recruiting on their campus. That alone should have disbarred them from federal funding immediately. This is the same university that hosted Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the illegal immigrant watchdog group known as the Minutemen. Do you remember what happened? Gilchrist was forced off the stage.
Does the treatment of Gilchrist and the ROTC not strike you as a double standard by Columbia University?
Let's not forget that this is the President of a country who is currently engaged with us in a proxy war, sending weapons, supplies, and manpower into Iraq to head off our efforts there, while also supporting suicide bombers in Israel.
And this is the SAME President Ahmadinejad who has been confirmed (by the former hostages) to have been one of the primary instigators of the Iran Hostage Crisis, where diplomatic AND international law was broken when the American Embassy was seiged and Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
Ahmadinejad should not have been invited. The right to freedom of speech does not equal the right to be heard. I don't care what about Bollinger's harsh introduction. Arabic news sources, when delivering the report of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University, will either write it off, ignore it, or twist it to fit their own anti-American propaganda.
Link
Ahmadinejad got what he wanted. He got air time. And he has a willing Arab media to bolster his image on the air. I think retracting Columbia University's federal funding is perfectly reasonable, given past actions regarding Gilchrist/ROTC, along with the current situation regarding Ahmadinejad. Were the circumstances different, I'd agree with you. But Ahmadinejad is not just a critic of the US government. He's a terrorist and an enabler of terrorists.
If this were a case back in 1942 where Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo were invited to speak at a university, I wouldn’t shed a tear if a Congressman or Senator threatened to pull funding for inviting someone who’s at war with us and is seeking to legitimize themselves before the public. The same applies here with Hunter, who wouldn't do this in different circumstances.
Columbia may be a private entity, but there is no reason that taxpayers should have to subsidize an institution that allows a self declared enemy of America to have a platform, but not the ROTC.
As for not allowing the ROTC on campus, at the risk of sounding "anti-military" that is the right of the University. Just because you and some others find that unpopular or wrong should also not effect their funding.
Unless you want to live in a dictatorship where elected officials decide what is free speech and what is punishable speech. Man, we have certainly fallen far from the Constitution when we're having discussions like this. We are heading down that road my friend, little by little we are heading down that road.
Second I find your reasoning flawed when it comes to Ahmadinejad's speech. He was given a forum to expose himself as a wing nut. He appeased his hard liners but the moderates in Iran, which outnumber them like in this country, were not swayed by his statements or treatments. They only view their leader with more embarrassment that he represents them. Much like this country.
Providing a forum for free speech leaves the university open to this charge but it misses a profound point. Providing a forum doesn't mean the University agrees with or implies they condone all of the speech being given. I think the President of Columbia laid out an elegant argument for free speech in his introduction.
Barring the ROTC from campus was an example of free speech. Is it not prudent that the government be told that many on the campus believe the military is being misused? After all they haven't always banned the ROTC from campus. Even if they did, it's not relevant to their right to free speech.