putting crushes aside and speaking truth to Mahmoud

Here is the text of Columbia University president Lee Bollinger's remarks before he gave the microphone to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What would Bollinger have said had Columbia not been so excoriated over the past week? It's interesting to think about, but largely meaningless because, obviously, we can only examine what he did say.

Ann Althouse examines what Bollinger said.

Bollinger explained his reason for inviting the Iranian president:

...to those who believe that this event never should have happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech and academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is “an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university, and Columbia itself.

So having Ahmadinejad speak was somehow a "requirement" of free speech? Why wouldn't he give the stage to anyone who wished to speak? I seriously doubt someone would be allowed to stand on the stage and share the Gospel, or to merely recite the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments.

Forget Obama. I got a crush on Mahmoud.

I certainly believe that in a democratic society, the citizens have a fundamental right to question the actions of the President. To paraphrase Michael J. Fox's character from The American President, it's our responsibility because this is our president. We have a right to voice our concerns and to vote for those who we think will best lead the country.

However, I don't think we should pay that much attention to what leaders of other countries are saying about our leader, especially leaders of certain countries which have a history of ill will towards us. I believe things are seriously warped over at Daily Kos if one of his "diarists" thinks it's worthwhile to examine Bush through the lens of Ahmadinejad.

I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.

If Bush was speaking "blunt truths" about Admadinejad, would they post about that? I know, I'm stupid for even asking such a question. Of course they wouldn't.