There is a stunning level of moral equivalence demonstrated by one sign seen at Columbia University yesterday: Ahmadinejad is bad, but Bush is worse. It is hard to explain how this makes any sense when we consider what we know about both men. Liberals still consider the 2000 election stolen. Thats the primary reason behind all the Dubya hate. They believe President Bush cheated to win, and they cant accept any other explanation. Its not just about the war in Iraq. They just find the war in Iraq to be a more popular excuse that the average person in this country might be able to accept.
President Bush, with a majority of Republican and Democrat support, ordered the invasion of Iraq. Is it this well-intentioned decision that qualifies our President as the moral equivalent of a man who believes in the full implementation of Sharia law, and someone who does not believe in extending the same rights he enjoyed here in this country to his own people? If we had any other president, and especially a Democrat, would we hear this kind of tripe from the left?
Speaking of Sharia law
Heres the kind of guy the left prefers to Bush. Ahmadinejad is someone who supports Hizballah terrorists, refuses to admit that he is aiding the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq (despite evidence of it), and someone who believes that not only is Israel not a state, but also that it should not exist at all. He opposes freedom of speech, assembly, and most of the rights Americans take for granted, and he actively prevents Iranians from speaking their mind and opposing their government. Try all those clever protests the lefties put on at Columbia in Iran, and see how well that works for ya. Liberals generally support gay marriage and tolerance of many alternative lifestyles. In Iran, Ahmadinejad claimed, there are no homosexuals. Thats probably because his government has them executed. Sharia law makes no allowances for alternative lifestyles. It also allows the oppression of women.
Womens rights, despite what their President might tell you, are virtually non-existent in Iran. If you read Robert Spencer, or the Atlas Shrugs blog, or Little Green Footballs, you will find out the extremes to which womens rights are surrendered under Islamic law. Things like acceptable wife-beating, polygamy, divorce laws which favor the men over the women, female circumcision, rape laws which dont allow the womens testimony to be admissible in court, instead requiring 4 male witnesses to the event to prove it occurred all of this is part of the Islamic law supported by Ahmadinejad and his religious buddies the mullahs.
The Iranian President is ignoring the plank in his own countrys eye, which decrying the speck in Americas. He has no freedom of speech rights. Thats for American citizens. He also should have been restricted to the area surrounding the UN. His Secret Service protection should have been limited to that area. If you read or listen to his statements regarding Ground Zero, its clear that his motive was not to honor the victims of 9/11, but to honor the murderers who caused this attack. For that reason, we were right to keep him from Ground Zero. His propaganda tour should have ended at the UN, but Columbia University allowed him a forum to spread his anti-US message.
Columbia President Lee Bollinger would be given much more credit today for his harsh statements in his introduction of Ahmadinejad if he actually had taken a meaningful stand and not invited the guy in the first place.
Tags: Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran
The Iranian parliament has