A world leader who has sent weapons to Iraq that have killed thousands of people wants to speak this week in New York. While some may protest, I say- let George W. Bush be heard. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad too. Of course The Daily News and The Post call Ahmadinejad "a madman". Why is it that every world leader who we disagree with goes right to the "madman" category? Isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Of course, the President of Iran has said disturbing things about Israel and the Holocaust. But calling someone a "madman"(remember Sadaam Hussein?) pretty much excuses a rush to war.
I say, put down the weapons and try a more disarming word. Instead of "madman", let's try "Schmuck". Lots of world leaders say schmucky things, but you don't invade them because of it. And frankly, it makes Jews like myself feel better calling someone a schmuck, than a madman.
And what does it say about our country that a bigot like Ann Coulter earns thousands of dollars on speaking engagements across the US, but Columbia University is pressured not to let the President of an actual country speak. And irony lessons are also in order for those institutions who have recently cancelled appearances by authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who write in their new book "The Israel Lobby" that debate about the Middle East is stifled in the US. And what better way to show that than to not let them speak?
The only way to achieve peace in Iraq, with Iran and in the entire Middle East is to talk. Some people say, "We tried talking; it didn't work". That's like saying, "I tried breathing; I didn't care for it". Here's a wild idea. When Bush and Ahmadinejad are in New York this week, why don't they sit down and talk? I guess if I brought up that idea to the Bush Administration they'd call me a madman.