A lot of those questions could be aksed, on a daily basis, in Salon, and not just on a one-time basis for Iran's pariah president.

What about Iran's role in attacks on U.S. troops?

A lot of those questions could be aksed, on a daily basis, in Salon, and not just on a one-time basis for America's pariah president.

What about America's role in attacks on Iranian troops?

I'm pleased to be able to read Mr. Bollinger's introduction and questioning of of Mr. Ahmadinejad. His words are certainly of note as the invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad has become a news story.

To provide Mr. Bollinger's largely disparaging and certainly confrontational remarks without also providing Mr. Ahmadinejad's response undermines Salon's otherwise excellent journalistic record.

As a long time reader and subscriber to Salon I am disappointed by your decision.

This is a problem with an easy solution. I will anticipate the posting of Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments.

I, too, was looking for a transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech. Especially if we are to honor the premise that Bollinger made in the beginning of his speech.

Dr. Bollinger raised very good questions that are very much on the minds of many people in the world?

What were President Ahmadinejad's answers? I think in the free speech tradition of this country, the press should also publish a word-for-word report of the response and of Ahmadinejad's speech. If he did not answer any of the questions, we should be able to see that for ourselves. It isn't right, and it isn't American, to print "our" side and not print the

"other" side.

I cringe in embarassment for Mr. Bollinger for the tone of the speech towards the Iranian President. Frankly, it's unbecoming for a man of his stature to stoop to that level and I think in a couple of years he'll be cringing as well. I suspect he wrote that speech to counteract the criticisms he was receiving about extending the invitation in the first place. It was a CYA move.

Between the frothing 60 minutes reporter yesterday, Mr. Bollinger today and the whole hysterical reaction to the visit of the Iranian president from the American media and select populace the unthinkable has happened...the "petty dictator" came off as a rational, articulate, level-headed person. And in actually facing, and responding to hostile reporters, presidents of universities, demonstrators and college audiences he has shown more spine that G. W. Bush who has never been subjected to anything less than fawning interviews, carefully vetted audiences and v.limited questioning.

Why all the fuss re this visit?. Are these more diversionary tactics to take away the focus from the quagmire of Iraq and the abysmal state of the American union?. Last week it was Moveon.Org and now it's the visit from Iran's president?.

Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. They actively helped the US in trying to smoke out al-Qaeda in Pakistan before Bush decided to give up and instead pursue Saddam and yes, their human rights record is abysmal but no more than Saudi Arabia's, Egypt and China and countless others and I don't see us going all insane about our so-called allies abuses. His anti-semitism is repugnant (par for course in the Middle East) but he knows that if he dares points so much a a bb gun towards Israel his nation would be carpet-bombed to hell.

We are treating Iran, a mere third-world country, as if it was Nazi Germany and it is not, no matter what the neo-cons want you to think. There are rational and diplomatic ways of dealing with them and we all have to step back and look at the situation with rational minds, clear eyes and no cant. Unfortunately, that won't happen until this administration is out of power and it might be too late then.

It seemed like Bollinger had some good points to make. Too bad he was unable to deliver them without stooping to name-calling.

I wonder if Ahmadinejad was less bellicose? I guess we'll never know.

They are. Only they're asked of Republicans. And they've been as forthcoming as Ahmadinejad.

"What about Iran's role in attacks on U.S. troops?"

You mean the role for which no credible proof exists? Haven't we had enough of charges for which no credible proof exists, or are you still waiting for them to find WMD in Iraq?

Do you think they would invite Bush/Cheney?

..that's frankly quite rude. There are some excellent points in there, but it looks like Bollinger is so terrified of the bad press he's got for agreeing to get Ahmadinejad to speak anyway, that he has chosen to swing too far the other way to prove he's not a traitor of some sort. If this is the sort of discourse that such fora are expected to provide, perhaps there's no point to inviting a world leader at all. I'm not Iranian, and have no sympathy for Ahmadinejad, but I cringe to imagine the feelings of an Iranian with no sympathy for Ahmadinejad witnessing this sort of treatment of their elected president while a guest at a distinguished institution.

The questions themselves are problematic in their own way; does anybody else notice that the section on Petraeus' allegations about Iran does not ask for a clarification, but chooses to assume that Petraues is correct? Dishonest framing; but then Bollinger's really just a lawyer, not a real academic.

I thought that the first part of Dr. Bollinger's speech, where he explained why Columbia invited President Ahmadinejad, was necessary and eloquent. Colleges are where we teach people by exposing them to different views. That makes me even sorrier to say that the second half of his speech didn't live up to the ideals that the first half espoused.

I agree that Dr. Bollinger had the right to state his extremely reasonable dislike with President Ahmadinejad and his regime - he's part of the Columbia community, too. But at this point, Dr. Bollinger's role was to introduce Ahmadinejad - to play the part of moderator. It _wasn't_ to get in the first swing.

This wasn't a necessary correction of the discussion. All of the questions he asked would surely have be asked by those intelligent Columbia students - if he'd given them a chance.

If Columbia invites people with unpopular view in the future, will they come? Knowing that they're likely to be sandbagged in the introduction? Hasn't Dr. Bollinger just made sure that people who we dislike, but whose reasoning (or lack of it) we need to understand, won't come, and won't further the education of his students?