John McCain on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University (cite):
A man who is directing the maiming and killing of American troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university.
This is an appalling quote in many ways. First off, the ideals of this country demand that anyone be allowed to speak and even to advocate for ideas that everyone else agrees are appalling. A veteran such as McCain should know this as well as any of us.
But perhaps McCain is simply criticizing Columbia for inviting him; just because someone has something to say does not mean that you have a responsibility to give him a forum. (Indeed, I advocate in a similar manner over here; you're welcome to go see if I'm being sufficiently consistent.) Nonetheless, McCain is still wrong, because, second, as an accused enemy of America, what Ahmadinejad has to say is inherently of the greatest interest to America, and we should pay attention to what he says, if only to be prepared to refute it.
Third, Ahmadinejad claims not be an enemy of America; like an accused criminal, he should be afforded the widest latitude to defend himself and his country.
Fourth, if indeed Ahmadminejad is "directing the maiming and killing of American troops", the evidence for this should be published, and placed before an appropriate tribunal, such as the International Criminal Court or Security Council, in order to secure justice. Complaining that he's our enemy without that evidence makes us sound whiny or bullying.
Speech, the marketplace of ideas, is one of our primary birthrights as free people. It should be cherished even when it's repugnant.
Posted by Greg at September 24, 2007 11:23 AM
I disagree with you here on several points. Actually, on all points.
If we first assume that Iran is directing the etc etc., then: we can hear what hostile foreign leaders have to say without giving them the honor of addressing a prestigious American university. Ahmadinejad can address the UN; that's the traditional way of doing it.
As far as whether Iran is directing the maiming and killing of American troops, it seems likely to me that they are; they'd be foolish not to. They want to be as strongly tied to the Shi'ites in Iraq as they can when we pull out, and what the Shi'ites want (among other things) is help driving us out, so surely Iran is helping. I'd do it if I was Iran.
I don't even agree that McCain should be presenting evidence to tribunals rather than throwing accusations around: he's a politician making political points. He's also trying to convince the country of the need for a war with Iran, and trying to convince Iran that we're just crazy enough to attack them (or will be if he's president). And: I'm sure McCain doesn't have any evidence in a form he can present to any courts, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing this.
My feeling is we're too weak to have a successful war with Iran. We could do it with a draft and war bonds and such, but we just don't care that much - we prefer a nuclear Iran to a draft, if those are the only options. What we could do is trash their country like we did to Iraq. I think that would constitute a war crime - we can't admit we're going into a country in the full knowledge that we're going to leave anarchy when we come out. Which in turn makes the brinksmanship tricky, because we can't spell out what we're threatening them with.
Fifth, Ahmadminejad is not "directing the maiming and killing of American troops"; he is a civil authority only, with no control over the Iranian military.
Claiming that McCain is a political making political points doesn't seem like a defense, since that adds an invidious motive to the problem of making an un-American statement.
Ok, actually while I am giving that first argument as a legitimate reason someone could object to Columbia's letting Ahmadinejad speak, on reflection I don't actually agree with it.
I don't know what this "un-American" refers to. I think it doesn't refer to anything that I didn't already argue you were wrong about.
Ahmadinejad is Iran in the eyes of the American public. When McCain can get a sound bite on the news, he isn't going to waste it nitpicking over the details of the powers of Ahmadinejad's office. If he thinks we need to get a war going with these people, and it's of direst urgency that he spend his limited points on that, then he's saying the right thing. It's a simplification (and, sure, technically untrue) for him to imply that Ahmadinejad is doing the directing, but I think it's not an important simplification. Do you think there's some chance that Ahmadinejad really wishes his government would stop assisting the Iraqi Shi'a?
Also "The representative of a country" instead of "A man" isn't as punchy.