I disagree completely.  It would have said nothing of the sort.  It would have been NOTHING but a PR stunt in order to rally the world around the "harmless, charismatic, charming" leader of Iran.  I guarantee, had he been there pretending to honor the fallen, he would have been heralded as a great man by much of the world media.  He had no business there, and America had no reason to let him be at ground zero.  It had NOTHING to do with 9/11, the victims, or the inconceivably ridiculous notion that "Iran is on our side."

Iran is not on our side.  The are not on our side against terror, and they are not on our side against Al Qaeda.  They may hate Al Qaeda as much as we do - it doesn't mean they are on our team.

Why should we let a man at ground zero who implies that Israel attacked us on 9/11 or that our own government attacked us?  Sure, some people believe that - but they are generally the same ones that agree that the Holocaust was over-hyped or that it never happened.  This is not a man that has done everything in his power to bring our countries closer together.  He doesn't speak as a man interested in peace.  He loves to ridicule America, scorn our government, and then insult the American people by attempting to question what we all (well, most of us) saw on 9/11. The fact is that the current Iranian goverment is not an ally in any sense of the imagination.  I can't name one issue where they are "on our side." 


I agree with Buchanan on a number of things - but not this.  I wonder if the Israeli Prime Minister would be allowed to speak in Iran.  Somehow, I doubt it.  And what has Israel done to Iran?  Nothing. 

America is not infantile by telling the President of Iran to shove off when it comes to perhaps the greatest symbol of American suffering in history.  We let him speak at one of our most prestigious universities, and while he received his lashes, he was free to scorn and ridicule to his heart's content.  He continued the same at the UN - no doubt a statesman in every way.........

The Iranian President doest not have the RIGHT to step foot near Ground Zero.  And as of yet, he has not earned that PRIVILEGE.  Without right or privilege, where does that leave us?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you seriously think this would have been a message to the world that Iran was "on our side" and not a cheap photo-op - you've been had.  Mr. Ahmedinejad has you right where he wants you.

So I guess Buchanan would agree with Columbia's letting him speak to its students? 

Buchanan ended with this:
I totally agree (though he should replace "hysteriacs" with "Neocons"). So does Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who is trying to bring attention to an insidious amendment by Senators Lieberman and Kyl. Some are calling it the "Bomb Iran" bill.

Here is Webb's remarks on the amendment which would lay the groundwork for making war with Iran more and more inevitable: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

You don't try to be a jerk, you just ARE a jerk... a childish jerk.

Maybe I think that this is exactly the amount of effort it deserves.

Or maybe what I *really* think is not worth the effort of telling in your alien language.

At the risk of being misrepresented, I will say that to many/most Americans, Ground Zero is sacred and "holy" ground...and there are places on the planet where unless you are a member of a certain faith, or of a certain "status"...you will be denied access to the "holy" places....I believe Christian/Jew/Hindu's are denied access to Mecca and Medina for example.

Ahmadinejad should be denied access to Ground Zero...it is a matter of what he represents, justified or not...and if that isn't good enough for you then he is not a "member" with "status" to have access to our "holy" place.

I bet you do.  As does every single person in this country.

Do you believe in imprisoning someone for committing a crime?  Doesn't confinement essentially take away their freedom?  Do they DESERVE freedom?

You see, merely using the words "freedom and equality for all" is not doing the argument justice.  We make exceptions to "freedom and equality for all" every single day, without fail, and we are all perfectly OK with it. 

Ahmadinejad was attempting to use this as a photo-op.  That was the whole point.  It was propaganda from the start.  He knows how to play to the media and by merely asking was in a win-win situation for him.  Either we let him there, so that he can pretend to be some great man with peaceful intentions.  Or, we tell him to go away - and appear to be cold and arrogant.  Lose-lose for us.

I don't have a problem with him speaking.  And he did - making himself look pretty foolish in a number of ways.  But allowing him to use perhaps the greatest tragedy to ever befall our nation as a cheap way to gain political points?  That would have been a disgrace of the first order.

There are many people that are undeserving of many things.  Ahmadinejad does not deserve the opportunity to use the victims of 9/11 as a propaganda tool.  It seems to me he should have to earn that privilege.  His rhetoric alone makes him unworthy.

Ok, I get it.  Freedom isn't free. 

Hypocrisy I guess is just a side effect.

I don't care what they build on top of it. A lot of people died there, oh well. A lot of people died in KCK last year but ain't nobody migrating to worship on 12th Street.