After watching the interview

It is clear why certain people are afraid to let Ahmadinejad speak- He is articulate and intelligent, and on top of that, he makes the neocons look like evil liars when he answers their accusations against him and his country.

If he were as stupid as he is portrayed, or he if was unable to effectively answer charges against him, they would welcome him with open arms.

-- sunny miller

Which begs the question, why does the State Department issue him visas to come to the US? If he is as dangerous as the right is portraying him, and shouldn't be allowed to visit the WTC because his country supports "terorism" then why is he allowed to cross our borders?

Do they think they are succeeding in protraying him as unreasonable in these interviews? It appears they are trying to bait him into more "extreme" statements that they can then use against him to further their cause, but shouldn't someone be questioning why this Very Dangerous Person is allowed to visit our country at all?

Maybe my earlier question was naive or ill-stated, but I am still curious, so I will try to rephrase. I really value any thoughts commenters might have on this...

It appears (at least to many here, myself included) that the media's attempts to portray Ahmedinejad as unreasonable, etc. are not succeeding. He handles hostile questioning well and attempts, when allowed, reasoned responses. His responses, while we may not always agree with them, are thoughtful and thought-provoking (provided you are not in the knee-jerk 30th percentile).

We all know that this administration will go to great lengths to suppress information and punish those that challenge their stated goals and positions. Evidence for this abounds. So why would an administration that stopped Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) at the border allow Ahmadinejad to enter?

Is it some Rovish plan to stir up the base hornet nest? Is there some legal reason they cannot keep him out? What am I missing here? I am glad they have not taken this action because I think we need as many opportunities as possible to hear what he has to say as it can only promote greater understanding. It just seems to me that this might be working against the administration and they are not tolerant of that sort of thing.

Glenn, thank you for revealing these egregious attempts to subvert the Constitution. You are haging a decided trickle up effect. I am seeing your name in lots of places and it's all good.

Is there some legal reason they cannot keep him out?

It's one of the prices we pay for hosting the UN. Iran is a member.

I thought of that, but it just doesn't convince me as the sole reason since I just can't see Bush respecting that, or respecting it any more than he has any of the other rules/laws he has broken for political gain.

IS Iran such a wonderful place?

Pedinska,

I have a question for you...since Ahmadinejad invited Columbia Student to visit Iran, would you go if you could? I'm really just curious.

Yes, I would go if I could. Would I have reservations and concerns? Yes, but I also had concerns about visiting the Czech Republic and my husband's family, who also seem to have issues about women's place in the world.

Hell, my own father thinks women are better seen than heard - especially me. And he's from the Christianist hinterlands of central Ohio. ;->

He went to New York to visit/speak at the United Nations. Refusing his entry to do that would set a terrible president and set the stage to move the UN to another country.

-- Retired Military Patriot

Makes sense to you and I because we believe in precedents and things like manners and propriety, but this administration is all about setting terrible precedents. And Bolton declared it would be no great loss if the top 10 floors of the UN were to just go pffft!, so why would they care if the UN left (other than that it might be more difficult to get them to cooperate the few times that they actually want something for nothing, that is)?

Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) is not a head-of-state, but Ahmadinejad is. And as others have mentioned, he was visiting the UN.

-- Karen M

I knew this wasn't the best analogy but it was the only one I could come up with on short notice. With all the contempt this administration is capable of mustering, I am just not as sanguine as others here that UN protocols are sacrosanct to them. They just don't seem to care about any limitations at all. If they will call the Geneva Conventions "quaint" then why feel restricted by the UN charter?

The only possible reason to silence him is to prevent the realization that he's just another human being.

-- Paul Dirks

Exactly Paul. Hence my question regarding allowing him entry to the country, even if barring him would flout every rule in the book at the UN.

The admin has done everything in it's power to dehumanize Iran, following the same playbook they used against Iraq. They have done their best to conflate a relationship with Al Qaeda, to convince us that Iran is responsible for attacks on our soldiers etc. etc. Why allow Ahmedinejad to come here and refute this at all?

Maybe they believe they can control groups asking him to speak if their attack dogs do their job well enough against Columbia but then it would seem there should also be backlash against the media outlets who were "out of line" in interviewing him. Maybe those have occurred too and I just haven't seen evidence of that yet.

Maybe I'm just having a bonehead day and don't want to accept how many times the admin just does things that make absolutely no sense at all