Ground Zero panders.
It's perfectly understandable that New York authorities wouldn't let Ahmadinejad visit Ground Zero to lay his wreath for "security reasons", although it frankly would have been brave and gracious to make an exception. What's galling is the outrage being ginned up over the supposed sacrilegious symbolism of Ahmadinejad paying respect to the victims of an American tragedy. Frankly, it's American cultural insecurity at its worst, and it's especially depressing to see Hillary Clinton playing along:
Several presidential candidates also condemned the requested visit. Hillary Clinton, the New York senator and Democratic front-runner, called the request "unacceptable." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a leading Republican, called it "shockingly audacious."
A lot of things Ahmadinejad says and does are "unacceptable" and "shockingly audacious" (for example), but I really wouldn't think publicly lamenting the deaths of 2700 innocent Americans would be among them.
But of course, for stupid 911 posturing, Rudy always takes the cake:
Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor during the attacks and is now a Republican presidential candidate, branded Mr Ahmadinejad's request "outrageous" and described him as "a man who has made threats against America and Israel; is harbouring [Osama] bin Laden's son and other al-Qaida leaders; is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents; and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons".
...Giuliani...said that "under no circumstances" should Ahmadinejad be allowed to visit the World Trade Center site.
The idea underlying all this outrage is that Ahmadinejad's concern for the victims of 911 is hypocritical, and that's true, judging by the information in this interesting piece from just over a year ago. Ahmadinejad says he's sorry about 911 but allows al-Qaida operatives, including Saad Bin Laden (who wasn't directly involved in the 911 attacks), to run around free in his country or at best sees them as possible pawns in US-Iran relations rather as criminals whose culpability rises above his own strategic concerns.
But hypocrisy over other nations' tragedies is pretty much a fact of diplomatic life, as might be surmised from the 0.2% of GNP that the US spends on non-Iraq-based foreign aid (about a third of which goes to Israel and can't really be considered humanitarian support). Isn't it better to have objectionable world leaders publicly siding with the victims of 911 over the perpetrators? Can't US politicians take empty diplomatic gestures for what they are? America isn't weak, so what exactly does it say that the dominant American political culture turns every goddamned thing into a referendum on its weakness?
Several presidential candidates also condemned the requested visit. Hillary Clinton, the New York senator and Democratic front-runner, called the request "unacceptable." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a leading Republican, called it "shockingly audacious."
A lot of things Ahmadinejad says and does are "unacceptable" and "shockingly audacious" (for example), but I really wouldn't think publicly lamenting the deaths of 2700 innocent Americans would be among them.
But of course, for stupid 911 posturing, Rudy always takes the cake:
Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor during the attacks and is now a Republican presidential candidate, branded Mr Ahmadinejad's request "outrageous" and described him as "a man who has made threats against America and Israel; is harbouring [Osama] bin Laden's son and other al-Qaida leaders; is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents; and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons".
...Giuliani...said that "under no circumstances" should Ahmadinejad be allowed to visit the World Trade Center site.
The idea underlying all this outrage is that Ahmadinejad's concern for the victims of 911 is hypocritical, and that's true, judging by the information in this interesting piece from just over a year ago. Ahmadinejad says he's sorry about 911 but allows al-Qaida operatives, including Saad Bin Laden (who wasn't directly involved in the 911 attacks), to run around free in his country or at best sees them as possible pawns in US-Iran relations rather as criminals whose culpability rises above his own strategic concerns.
But hypocrisy over other nations' tragedies is pretty much a fact of diplomatic life, as might be surmised from the 0.2% of GNP that the US spends on non-Iraq-based foreign aid (about a third of which goes to Israel and can't really be considered humanitarian support). Isn't it better to have objectionable world leaders publicly siding with the victims of 911 over the perpetrators? Can't US politicians take empty diplomatic gestures for what they are? America isn't weak, so what exactly does it say that the dominant American political culture turns every goddamned thing into a referendum on its weakness?
1 Comments:
Sadly, here's what is says:
Perception IS reality.
If the leaders and politicians in the United States continue to make themselves look small-minded and weak...
... then everyone will believe the US is small-minded and weak...
... then the US will become weak.
Post a Comment
<< Home