Stanley Kurtz makes the case that A-job’s visit to Columbia was a success.
Let’s acknowledge that the Ahmadinejad event at Columbia was a huge success, which does indeed prove that debate and dialogue work. It’s just that the debate in question wasn’t between Bollinger and Ahmadinejad. The debate that mattered was the one between Bollinger and his American critics. Once Bollinger was called out on the blunder of his invitation, he was forced to redeem himself by publicly speaking the truth about Ahmadinejad. The real success of that event was Bollinger’s introduction, and it happened before Ahmadinejad said a word.
I’m willing to concede that forcing the Looney Left to say words they otherwise wouldn’t is a political silver lining, but I want someone to tell me why Bollinger shouldn’t be tried for treason. Answer these two questions for me:
- In what way is Ahmadinejad not our enemy?
- In what way did Bollinger not give him aid or comfort?
Update:
Arthur Herman is just as impressed as I am with the supposed silver lining.
Leave a Reply