America Can Be Better

Her take on Ahmadinejad's visit, on top of how the war in Iraq has been conducted: "We just can't stop being nice to Iran." She couldn't be more right. We hand Ahmadinejad a golden opportunity in Iraq to advance his agenda in every conceivable way and then invite him here and act like the ignorant, backwards slobs he delights in telling the world we are.

Ms. Dowd opines very correctly that "New York's hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Iranians felt that their president had tied everyone in knots, including the "Zionist Jews," as Iranian state television said. The Times reports that Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, was on TV criticizing the rude treatment his president received: "It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way."

I don't care much what the protesters outside Columbia said. I don't care much what the protesters at the U.N. said. Outside, you're a private citizen, and you put yourself forward in any way you want the world to see you. I was glad all the protesters were out there for the world to see. (Of course, that's not to think for one second that an Iranian in Iran will see them.)

I care very much that the president of Columbia, as Ms. Dowd puts it, "gave the meanest introduction in the history of introductions — one that only managed to elevate the creep sitting on stage with his thugs." I think she's right that "Even some in the anti-Ahmadinejad audience gasped a bit" at the effrontery. "Once you've made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can't undo it by belittling him in public ... It would have been far better just to hand the mike to the students and let it rip." She's right. She's absolutely right. Everyone in a prestigious position should have exercised restraint. The president could have asked the tough questions he asked in the intro, without the name-calling. And the effect would have been far better.

But how, some ask, can we treat this lunatic with respect, even deference? Yes, he's a head of state, but that head is addled, even vicious, and worse, far worse. True, Ms. Dowd might agree, but "The Soviet Union's stated policy for 70 years was the total eradication of American capitalism and democracy — backed up during the cold war with actual nuclear weapons. But while challenging the policies and ideology of the Evil Empire, Ronald Reagan understood he had to engage Mikhail Gorbachev, not ignore or insult him.

There is more, actually much more, of real worth in her editorial. You should read the original. You should heed what she says. And I will try to absorb the shock of agreeing with Maureen Dowd for more than about 10 words. When she's right, she's right. This time, she completely right.

I have to add, though, because it's just irresistible, that it would have been nice if she, and a number of her associates, could have remembered any of this idea of using restraint or showing deference for someone in office, even when he does stupid things, just because he holds a certain office. Do you suppose that she will review any of her (or anyone else's) sophomoric comments about George Bush and mention that maybe she (or they) could have shown more restraint? Lord knows that Mr. Bush has done enough odd things, said enough bizarre things, and just simply gone off the rails on important topics, enough to give anyone the shudders. But, he is still the head of a state. I'm not sure why "belittling him in public" seemed stupid vis-a-vis Ahmedinajad, but really clever and essential when talking about Mr. Bush.

Never mind. Just read today's article and take in every word she ways. Maybe she will do the same.

America Can Be Better