Jane Smiley, HuffPo: "Would Bush allow the same sorts of confrontations Ahmadinejad has?"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Quid Pro Quo

Posted September 24, 2007 | 04:59 PM (EST)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/quid-pro-quo_b_65683.html

Looking at the hysteria caused by the visit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to New York and Columbia University, I would like to dare George Bush to reciprocate the visit. And I would like to dare the Iranians to let him. It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad actually says. What matters is that he is entering the territory of a president who has openly vowed to put him out of business, and has dared to speak, indeed, has dared to give what appears to be his honest opinions. And he has been confronted by protesters and by irate news commentators (such as Scott Pelley). Would Bush allow the same sorts of confrontations? I doubt it. He doesn't even allow himself to confronted by Americans who disagree with him.

One thing the right wing hates in the U.S. is the humanizing of someone they have tried to dehumanize. That's why they have so objected to the Iranian president's visit. But, hey. He's human. I defy you to prove to me otherwise. Now I would like George W. Bush to prove the same thing.

[zbdent]

1. I remember when meeting with Syria was treasonous

(well, if you're Nancy Pelosi; not the Repukes who also went to Syria) ... I remember a brief mention that Syria was going to be in some talks with Bush & Co. along with other "Mideast Peace" talkers today ...

[Faygo Kid]

2. I really liked this column. It made a great point.

Bush will never - never - go anywhere where he might hear criticism, or even a contrary opinion. "Our" president? I don't think so. He got an earful a couple years ago at the Coretta Scott King funeral, and has never ventured out again to such territory. You'll see Bush before a neutral audience when you see Limbaugh appear on something where a contrary opinion might be held - in other words, never. Moral cowards. At least Ahmadinejad sat there and took it, and didn't prescreen the audience or its questions.

I despise Bush for many reasons too numerous to count, but this one is right up there. The sniveling coward.

[pretzel4gore]

3. the UN's in New York, USA

nice to see them overlook that! The UN, as part of its charter, guarantees such leaders as Fidel, Hugo Chavez, Yassir Arafat, Nikita Khrushchev etc diplomatic rights while in the area where the UN was built. freepers are driven mad by this: they blame it, the toleration implicit in UN diplomatic immunity, on goddam silly liberalism when in fact the US wanted the HQ of the UN on american soil when it was being formed. Liberalism has nothing to do with it. In the 50's, when the UN was set up, the US was easily the dominant world power, with doomed USSR not even in the same league (though russia's nukes did stop the US from nuking cuba and china (until '69) not to mention korea and viet nam etc)....even back then, it was pointed out that being in the USA made the UN just another agency under US domination. certainly the UN hasn't been a factor in controlling the US or its satelite, Israel (or vice versa) which it might have been had it been HQ'ed in Geneva(?)