Monday, September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad at Columbia, post-script

His "visit" has come and gone, and I am left with a really bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing. I made the mistake of watching MSNBC's Hardball tonight. Surprisingly, it was not host Chris Matthews who irritated me. Instead, it was one of his guests. I hate to go after a person who is a supposed conservative, but does that label really accurately describe Pitchfork Pat Buchanan?

As soon as I saw who the guests were (Buchanan and some non-entity lawyer whose name was completely unfamiliar to me), I knew right away which perpsective Pitchfork Pat would take. He defended Columbia, and then essentially pussyfooted around the question of the propriety of what the Iranian whack job had to say. I suspect that it's probably because Buchanan agreed with half of what Ahdmadinejad had to say.

Ahmadinejad makes me sick, but so do his enablers in this country. We can all agree to disagree on politics. That's fine, and a good thing sometimes, in my view. However, there should be some things on which there should be universal agreement by all rational, honest people. It should be without question that Ahmadinejad is a really, really bad person, and that no matter what you may think of President Bush (believe me, he's not my favourite now either), he's not even in the same zip code as the Iranian President. This is why, when someone holds a sign outside the Columbia fiasco saying that "Ahmadinejad is bad, Bush is worse", it is abhorent to me. How can any sane person think otherwise? Does Bush Derangement Syndrome really warp its victims that much?

2 comments:

Saleem Siddiqui said...

I always enjoy the opinion of Patrick
Buchanan. He is one of the conservatives, if you can use that term, that is always interesting!

http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2007/09/pat-buchanan-bo.html

Bald Headed Geek said...

If you consider views that are anti-Semitic "interesting", then yes, I guess that his views would meet that definition.

BHG