RUSH: I’m certain that Cookie has been rolling tape on the introduction, if you will, by the Columbia University president Lee Bollinger to the Iranian axis of evil leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I have to say, folks, I do not believe what I just saw. The Columbia University president, Mr. Bollinger, in a 30-minute-plus introduction of Ahmadinejad, just took it to him, and the students applauded. [He said things like], ‘Could you explain to us why you are repressing women in your country? Could you explain to us why you are threatening your neighbors? Your maniacal statements are so embarrassing reasonable Iranian citizens that your party lost last December’s mayoral elections. You have become a laughingstock. You threaten peace-loving democracies in the Middle East. I don’t expect that you will answer any of these questions, Mr. President, but your refusal to do so will inform us much. Our military families rightly see you as the enemy. You are undermining US soldiers in Iraq. You are targeting them with your own manufactured munitions.’ He quoted Petraeus as an authority in a speech he gave to the National Press Club.
It was just a broadside. It was every accusation that you could level, that I heard, anyway, true accusations in the form of questions. He’s now saying that many of the claims by Bollinger were incorrect and so forth and that people misunderstand the peace-loving people of Iran, the peace-loving leadership of Iran, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I have to tell you, I was shocked and surprised by it. And so was Mr. Snerdley, who was in the room watching it with me. So we’ll get the tape, we’ll get some translation of all this, and we’ll probably not be able to get to this in great detail ’til tomorrow because it will take awhile. It’s going to be tough to edit that because the whole 30 minutes was bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, like ‘You little runt, who do you think you are,’ was basically the theme of the questions that Bollinger asked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
RUSH: One of the students at Columbia just asked Ahmadinejad, ‘Why are you executing homosexuals?’ and he started to answer just as soon as the break here ended. I talked earlier about how I was totally surprised, taken aback by the aggressiveness of Columbia President Lee Bollinger in his introduction of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We have two examples.
BOLLINGER: 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. Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing US troops? And, finally, Iran’s nuclear program and international sanctions: This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming the right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French president Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics and even Russia and China have shown concern. Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? 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 in nuclear annihilation?
RUSH: Now, it speaks for itself. Correct? But I, ladies and gentlemen, seeing the stitches on the fastball, have additional questions. I made mention of this when it happened, but very, very few have commented on it themselves. During General Petraeus’s testimony before the House and the Senate recently, he referred to the ‘proxy war’ that we are fighting with Iran, in Iraq, that basically our involvement in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran. The president of Columbia University just referenced it, too. In this question — this litany of charges, if you will — the liberal president of Columbia University had no difficulty whatsoever spelling out what is at stake. Why do we never hear this from the American left? Obviously members of the American left get it, understand exactly what’s going on, but yet they’re doing everything they can to undermine it and essentially aid and comfort the enemy! I was taken aback by these allegations in the questions for far more than just the words that the president of Columbia used. He is one of these leftists, folks. His faculty, as you can well imagine at Columbia University, is among those who think that Bush lied, that none of this is real, that it was all made up, that Iran isn’t a threat, that we’re causing all this. The world hates us. If Mr. Bollinger had been consistent with what he actually says publicly and people like him say publicly, his questions would have not been this at all. He would have said, ‘Mr. Ahmadinejad, what can we do to help you deal with our president who has brought war to your part of the world?’ Because that is what they think. That is what they’re out there saying. That’s what elected Democrats are saying. It’s what their kook blogosphere is saying. It’s what their base believes and thinks. There were protesters carrying signs outside this speech today, saying ‘Ahmadinejad is bad, Bush is worse.’ Now, there’s no question about it, there is some real intellectual dishonesty going on here in academia. What this tells me is these people know what’s at stake. They know full well what’s at stake. They know full well who the real enemy is. But in public discourse, even though today they don’t dare acknowledge it because that would mean Bush is right, or something else. Here is how Mr. Bollinger closed this.
BOLLINGER: In all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you would have the intellectual courage to answer these questions, but your avoiding them will in and of itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I’m reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that, and more.
RUSH: ‘May this do that, and more.’ Um… I’m really sort of perplexed here, at a bit of a loss. I mean, this is everything I would say to Ahmadinejad. I can’t believe… (sigh) I was going to say that Mr. Bollinger may end up in the same situation as Larry Summers at Harvard, but he won’t because he stood up for women being murdered and homosexuals being murdered. Well, he didn’t stand up. He actually challenged Ahmadinejad on it. But this is so off the playbook. This is, um… Well, it’s a little frustrating. On the one hand, all right! Rah-rah, way to go! I apologize for being critical of you, Mr. Bollinger. I really do. But, on the other hand, where’s this been for five years? Where is this in the academy? Where is this in the classrooms? Where is this being taught? You obviously believe this stuff. You actually faced down a US enemy instead of coddling him! The rest of the time, people like Mr. Bollinger are all coddling our enemies and blaming Bush. Where has this been?
RUSH: The funniest part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to the students at Columbia just happened. He was asked: ‘Why do you execute homosexuals in your country?’ and he started blabbering on about how we love women. Women are the most favored creatures of God in our country. We have nothing but love and love and love — and then he said, ‘We do not have this phenomenon in Iran. We do not have homosexuals in Iran. I don’t know who told you that, but we don’t have homosexuals in Iran.’ Now, this is not the way, ladies and gentlemen, to, uh (tapping desk) establish a loving relationship with the students at Columbia University, to deny that there are homosexuals in Iran. To the extent that that is true, it could only be because, yes, they are executed if they are discovered. Mahmoud may not know any homosexuals because they’re way behind the closet. Who knows what else they’re behind, but if they’re found, they are executed. They are. I don’t know if he means we don’t have any homosexuals in Iran or we don’t have any homosexuals in Islam. Regardless, whatever he meant, he said: ‘We don’t have that phenomenon. I don’t know who told you that,’ but we don’t have any gays here.