Well, you and I are having a civil conversation, aren't we?

"Mookie has not, in fact, always been critical of Iran."

You are conflating the country of Iran with the gov't of Iran. He has indeed always been critical of the gov't (feel free to try to prove otherwise). The Iranian city of Qom is the epicenter of Shi'ism– it's a shrine city, almost like Vatican City– and he has been there for religious purposes.

"He has visited Iran several times, including once when the surge first began"

No, he was only *rumored* to have been there at that time.

"He was trained in Iran and supplied from there."

Now you're totally talking out of your orifice. What are you saying he was trained in and supplied with? He's a cleric, not a commando! And he has been slamming the other Shi'ite religious parties who really were coddled by Iran (see the Badr Corps) for years and years.

"We do have conclusive proof, as do the British, that weapons have been transiting from Iran to Iraq."

Show it to me.

"We have captured Iranian officials who were specifically arranging those transfers."

I hope you're not thinking of the 9 dudes who were suspected of doing so, but who were recently released!

"We have Iranian documents confirming these transactions. We have copious evidence."

You have copious conjecture. Read the bottom half of this article and tell me only Shi'ites use EPF's:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/07022…

"Iran actually did attack the United States in 1979."

And the CIA overthrew their democratically-elected leader in 1953 to install the Shah, who was an asshole. In any case, Iran hasn't attacked anyone outside their borders for hundreds of years.

"It has been attacking Iraq since 2003 (even the interim government of Iraq back then made public statements asking Iran to stop trying to destabilize the government)."

No, WE have been attacking Iraq since 2003. What exactly did the interim gov't mean by "destabiilize"?

"Are you really that certain that he would not use the nuclear weapons he is working to get."

That's an excellent question. I think not, unless they really wanted to be bombed into a post-apocolyptic wasteland in their turn. Israel itself has a couple hundred nuclear warheads, not to mention our own massive stockpile. You should also note that the presidency of Iran is a largely ceremonial role– the real power (including the nuke portfolio) rests with the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khameini, who has held that nuclear weapons are not kosher, so to speak, with Islam. If they get it, they will probably– like India, Pakistan, etc.– not use it but hold that card for various negotiation tables.

"And let me say here that we know, from the Iran-friendly IAEA, that Iran now has 3000 centrifuges in operation. Those centrifuges are not used for “peaceful” nuclear power."

That depends how– and if– you use them. From the NYT on the latest IAEA report:

But the agency said that the centrifuges — fast-spinning machines used to enrich uranium — were operating well below their capacity, and that so far it had not discovered any evidence that Iran was enriching to a level that would produce bomb-grade fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeas…
You are convinced the IAEA is inept? Or R U just pissy that they're not confirming your fondest desires? Reminds me of when they said Saddam didn't have any nukes– that made conservatives get pissy, too– but they were right.

"Mad Mahmoud has on numerous occasions threatened nuclear attack on Israel and the United States"

Total B.S. If you're referring to the supposed "wipe Israel off the map" quote, context is everything. He was referencing an old quote by Ayatollah Khomeini, who "swept [the Shah's regime] from the pages of history". Yet Iranian revolutionaries didn't need to wipe Iran off the map in order to make that happen– it was a political situation. To take it to mean a nuclear attack, you must go into the land of pure imagination. And he hasn't said a damn thing about attacking the US, either.

1) You can not find someone's statements "reprehensible" and yet want to have a civil debate with them. The two ideas are anathema to each other. How else do you treat an uncivil and intransigent barbarian but with incivility?

2) Mookie has not, in fact, always been critical of Iran. He has visited Iran several times, including once when the surge first began and our troops were making very real and dramatic progress against his al-Sadr Brigades. He was trained in Iran and supplied from there.

3) We do have conclusive proof, as do the British, that weapons have been transiting from Iran to Iraq. We have captured Iranian officials who were specifically arranging those transfers. We have Iranian documents confirming these transactions. We have copious evidence. You just don't wish to admit it.

4) Iran actually did attack the United States in 1979. It has been attacking Iraq since 2003 (even the interim government of Iraq back then made public statements asking Iran to stop trying to destabilize the government). Even if that were not true, it is lunacy to allow a person to obtain the very weapons that will allow them to carry out their threats. Are you really that certain that he would not use the nuclear weapons he is working to get.

And let me say here that we know, from the Iran-friendly IAEA, that Iran now has 3000 centrifuges in operation. Those centrifuges are not used for "peaceful" nuclear power.

And if you really don't know that Mad Mahmoud has on numerous occasions threatened nuclear attack on Israel and the United States, then you're not in a good place to call me misinformed.

The president's address on the occasion of President Ahmadinejad's visit has sullied the reputation of the University with its strident tone, and has abetted a climate in which incendiary speech prevails over open debate. The president's introductory remarks were not only uncivil and bad pedagogy, they allied the University with the Bush administration's war in Iraq, a position anathema to many in the University community.

Nothing about supporting Amadingdong's repressive policies.

In fact, a little digging would have unearthed this from Foner, published the day Amadouchebag came to town:

Americans too often tend to take our civil liberties for granted. After all, haven’t they been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for over 200 years? In fact, for most of our history a rhetorical commitment to free speech has coexisted with severe restrictions on speech deemed dangerous, extreme, or simply unpopular. In the 19th century, mobs broke up abolitionist meetings. In the early 20th, members of the Industrial Workers of the World were imprisoned for delivering public speeches. Margaret Sanger went to jail in this city for distributing information about birth control. During the McCarthy era, thousands of persons lost their jobs for refusing to take loyalty oaths or otherwise being deemed un-American.

I do not wish to equate the president of Iran with these heroes of American liberty—far from it. I find his policies and beliefs reprehensible.

So there ya go, eh? He doesn't need you to put words in his mouth (Jimmie: "Foner apparently doesn’t believe that calling out Mad Mahmoud for his barbarism is appropriate").

As for Bollinger's original comments, part of the following is not true:

"While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces."

Mookie has always been critical of Iran, unlike our major current Shi'ite party ally in Iraq, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, who were based in Tehran and helped in by the Iranian gov't. Some of Mookie's men have gone off the rez and may be getting materiel from Iran, but not him.

He went on to say:

"In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240 mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to 'a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.'"

This was indeed a hot news story… but still hasn't been proven to be true.

"A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy."

No, wrong, our enemy in Iraq has always been Iraqi Sunnis, not Shi'ites (and certainly not Iranian Shi'ites).

"You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors."

Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. It hasn't made even a shade of a real move to attack Israel (I can't imagine he was referring to any other country, even though he used the plural). And they are indeed within their rights, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop peaceful nuclear power.

"And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?"

What the hell is he talking about with the global nuke annhilation crap?! Please show me the Amaboobiejob quote about that!

So when you say "I have also read President Bollinger’s remarks and found nothing in them that was innaccurate", you are clearly not as informed as you might think you are.

I have also read President Bollinger's remarks and found nothing in them that was innaccurate. I'd like to know what Foner thought was so egregious that it worth standing on the side of Mad Mahmoud to denounce.

Do read the comment above yours for my position on gay marriage. And I'll add a little bit to it for you. I will never, ever criticize any speech given by any person that is critical of a repressive and murderous tyrant. Ever. Would that the appeasing professors at Columbia had at least that tiny sliver of courage.

You didn't even follow the link, did you? It's an interview, not a paper.

"Meanwhile, he’s actively supporting a man who is actually killing gay people. I’d say his actions are not only reprehensible but cynical and hypocritical, too."

How is he "actively supporting" Amadinnerjacket? He didn't say *anything* that directly supports Iran's policies toward gays. Criticizing aspects of Bollinger's rant does not necessarily mean one supports Iran. You are the cynical one, to think that a man known for his grasp of the progress of freedom in the US (Foner) supports sharia.

"As for my opinions on gay marriage, I believe they’re irrelevant to the discussion."

They are just as relevant, if not more so, than what you accuse Foner of. You claim he must hate gays, so I showed you evidence that he in fact supports gay marriage. Be a man and admit you may have jumped to a wrong conclusion. Be a man and admit that your opinion of gay marriage is probably closer to the official Iranian one than Foner's.

Do you even know what the 100 at Columbia were specifically objecting to in Bollinger's speech? I don't; it's not really spelled out in the article. But I think it had more to do with things like war with Iran. It certainly had no bearing on gays.

You know, kind of like democracy.

Meanwhile, he's actively supporting a man who is actually killing gay people. I'd say his actions are not only reprehensible but cynical and hypocritical, too.

Unless, of course, he believes that only gay people who live outside of Islamist countries really deserve to live.

Oh, do you now? Why not just look at what the prof referenced in the article, Eric Foner, has already said about gays? Here he makes a good case for gay marriage (or at least against a common argument against it):
http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/2004/foner_3.php
How do you feel about gay marriage? Is your position closer to his or Iran's?