September 11, 2006

"Because of the crimes he conducts" and "because he conducts them in the name of Islam, the religion which is a harbinger of peace and justice."

Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, speaking at Harvard University, condemns Osama bin Laden.

20 comments:

Goesh said...

They hang teens in Iran for being gay and women for adultery. What a friend the Left has in Iran.

Icepick said...

From the article: "[Khatami's] speech is on ethics and violence. It would be very bizarre if he came here to speak on ethics and violence and did not acknowledge and discuss his own record in Iran," said Eric Lesser, 21, president of Harvard College Democrats, which teamed with their Republican peers for the protest. "Students were arrested and thrown in prison for speaking their mind in the same way we're doing right now."

Goesh, on this day let's try not to make our fellow citizens into the bad guys, especially when the evidence suggests otherwise.

SippicanCottage said...

I feel as though I'm listening to Carlo Gambino lecture Raymond Patriarca about the proper way to grease somebody.

No, no, RayRay, small caliber, behin' da eah, so dey rattle aroun in dere afore dey come out.

Whatsa mattah which joo? Joo doon it all rong, RayRay.

David said...

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

NEVER FORGET!

John said...

Maybe you should edit the your comment to reflect the fact that this is the "former" president of Iran. He is former for a reason - too moderate. But he also is a useful tool for the regime in Iran. His dialogue and harsh words condemning Bin Laden give the liberal left exactly what they want to hear. Meanwhile, the real president of Iran and more importantly the radical religious supreme leader sit back and gain time to execute their strategy: elimination of Israel and harm to the US.

Susan said...

I like
Mitch Townsend’s take
on Khatami’s selected topic of “Ethics of Tolerance
in the Age of Violence”:

"We did not attempt to get tickets for the lecture, which was to feature the fruits of Ayatollah Khatami's lucubrations on Tolerance. Perhaps when Madonna comes to lecture on personal modesty, or Donald Trump on humility, or Bernie Ebbers on business ethics, we will try harder."

Ann Althouse said...

John: Thanks. Sorry. Fixed.

JohnF said...

Isn't it obvious that the current government in Iran approved this guy's visit, knew exactly what he would say, and are using him as a foil to dupe whatever useful idiots they can scoop up into thinking Iran may really not be such a threat?

Isn't this obvious?

Chrees said...

"the religion which is a harbinger of peace and justice"

Yeah, well good luck with selling that.

MadisonMan said...

If what the Iranian ex-President says is true, why aren't more leading Muslims speaking out against terrorism?

My guess is if they did, they'd have to do something more about the horrible conditions in their own back yard. If there's an "enemy", you can direct all your vitriol against the enemy, and blame all your woes on it. That way nothing's your fault. Poverty in Iran? Not addressed, because the focus is on Israel and the US.

gj said...

It's very discouraging to see the immediate and absolute hostility to Khatami in these comments.

This guy is the former President of Iran. He was a moderate. He worked to expand civil liberties in the country and brought something of a Western worldview to his job.

Was he a saint? No. But he's miles away better than the guy that Iran has in the driver's seat now. Khatami was at least trying to take the country in the right direction, whereas Ahmadinejad looks like he's pushing either for the 13th century or the apocalypse.

Unfortunately, Khatami lost his power struggle with the religious conservatives who essentially hold veto power over everything and anything the elected government in Iran tries to do. But the point is, he tried, and he did have a positive influence.

If the U.S. is serious about "encouraging democracy in the Muslim world" --- which I hope we are --- Khatami is the kind of person we will have to take seriously and bring into the dialogue.

The kneejerk reaction that any leader from Iran is the devil's spawn and our enemy won't get us anywhere. Or worse, it will get us to a very, very dangerous end.

Pogo said...

Re: "The kneejerk reaction that any leader from Iran is the devil's spawn..."

True, we'd much rather negotiate with a sane "President" (as if elections mean much in Iran) than a mad bomber.

But that doesn't mean we have to listen to these fascists try to tell us what's what. The objection is not that he's as bad as the current "President", but that Iran has no ethical standing whatsoever to be preaching to others, then or now.

It's not the international politics I decry, it's the left's cluelessness. It's like having Krushchev lecture us on democracy. WTF?

Fenrisulven said...

It's like having Krushchev lecture us on democracy. WTF?

Its a rheorical fallacy or tactic that I can't name. Maybe from psychology. Little help in identifying it please?

It goes like this:

Khatami expects the US will blast Iran on human rights abuses. So he preempts criticism by leveling the same charges against the US. A neutral/favorable audience will now view any similiar criticism from the US as a pot-kettle-black syndrome, thus undercutting the merit of the complaint.

The tactic is designed to limit fallout from such criticism. I see politicians use it all the time - they will falsely accuse their opponent of a corruption they are about to be legitimately accused of, counting on the public to react with indifference - shrug and claim "well, both sides do it".

There's a name for the tactic, and its really bugging me that I can't think of it.... help?

Revenant said...

Goesh, on this day let's try not to make our fellow citizens into the bad guys, especially when the evidence suggests otherwise.

They're hosting a guy who represents one of the top terrorist-sponsoring regimes on Earth and enthusiastically supports the use of terrorism -- and they invited him to speak on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history.

So as far as I'm concerned, Goesh is right on the money. September 11th is a time when Americans should seek common ground with each other -- not common ground with our enemy.

The Machinist said...

"Fenrisulven said...

It's like having Krushchev lecture us on democracy. WTF?

Its a rheorical fallacy or tactic that I can't name. Maybe from psychology. Little help in identifying it please?"

Would that be..."Tu quoque?"

SippicanCottage said...

gj- I see your point, but I think you need to give people a little credit here.

Iran, and Katahmi, declared war on the US when they invaded our embassy. I've got no use for him. There are plenty of people worth listening to in Iran. Maybe Harvard could have used their clout to get one out of prison to speak instead of this guy.

Governments have realpolitik considerations between bad and worse. Universities have no such needs. It's a stunt, and a vile one at that, in my opinion.

chuck b. said...

It bothers me tremendously that this man was allowed in to our country.

(Part of me wants to point out that we're better than Iran for letting him come here in the first place. Something in the vein of "Would Iran let any of a former US president speak freely to the Iranian people? Of course not." But I don't really care about any of that. (Although, why shouldn't someone ask Iran for that?)

Why are we giving this guy a platform? What is the point? I can only assume there's some diplomatic game going on over my head. A game I have run out of patience with.

The whole situation with Iran and the United Nations--with it's always-renewable extensions and make-believe deadlines--sometimes makes me feel like we're all living in a satire written by Kurt Vonnegut or Voltaire.

Revenant said...

The whole situation with Iran and the United Nations--with it's always-renewable extensions and make-believe deadlines--sometimes makes me feel like we're all living in a satire written by Kurt Vonnegut or Voltaire.

Nah. If we were living in a satire written by Kurt Vonnegut, our world's Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have been given such dippy dialogue to say this last few years. :)

Fenrisulven said...

Would that be..."Tu quoque?"

Yes, thank you.

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.


Close enough, but doesn't address the tactic of pre-emption...hmmm

sharinlite said...

What I would dearly pay to see is a, several hours, long discourse between this "moderate" and Robert Spencer.