Andrew Mathis gives his perspective.
And an excellent analysis it is, too. One brief excerpt:
...I have to wonder exactly where a man who runs a police state gets off asking a question like this. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not allow religious freedoms outside those recognized by the Qur'an. People are thrown in jail -- routinely -- for opposing the government. When government opponents visit the country, they are jailed. I say this without qualification: Every single country that has a law against Holocaust denial is a more free country that Iran. EVERY LAST ONE.
Now, none of us here at HC Blog believe in having laws against Holocaust denial, but one must wonder why Ahmadinejad has taken this issue up as his cause célèbre.
Indeed. As much as I hate laws outlawing Holocaust denial, it is bizarre in the extreme to see the leader of a theocratic police state chastise European nations on this issue.
That's not all he's crazy about. This story is unlikely to make the US media, but it's quite interesting nonetheless: Essentially, Iran is criticizing Canada over its human rights record. Yes, seriously.
The situation is that Canada has been pushing in the UN to censure Iran for their human rights record. Iran tries evading it and pointing to a lack of evidence (caused by their refusal to report any abuses), but the process marches on. At this point, they're getting a bit desperate, so they come out and try to prove that Canada is being hypocritical by pointing to flaws there (which are available courtesy of Canada self-reporting and making itself available for inspection).
It looks like essentially the same gambit going on here. Iran's trying to make itself look good by making other countries look worse. It's quite similar to many crank tactics I've seen, actually, like the "Science has been wrong before" gambit.
Holocaust denial from an official of a large and powerful middle eastern nation is one of the things that will ultimately continue to trip up Iran as far as credibility among nations. Yes, they have lots of money and you can do almost anything with enough money, however it leaves them with a serious credibility issue.
I do not beleive they (Iranian government leadership) are as stupid based as much of what the Iranian president would have everyone believe. He is merely the political lap dog for the regime of Iran. They are far to calculating to go out on a limb and try to actually flex thier muscles. They are actively involved in trying to upset the apple cart of the middle east, basically throwing gas on the fire as much as possible. They will try and exploit any opportunity that they can.
We should keep our enemies close as the saying goes. let him visit let him speak its a free country to bigots and racists as well. Just keep an eye on the little guy and make sure he doesn't steal any towels from the hotel.
Orac claimed that Iran is supplying the Shi'i militias in Iraq and that this, if true, is a notch against Iran. Glad to see Orac is using the same talking points source as the Republic "let's bomb Iran" crowd.
He is merely the political lap dog for the regime of Iran.
Dave, I think he is merely an Iranian politician with the job title of president. The real power in Iran is held by the revolutionary council. There is a better than even chance he will lose his job in the next election. Doubtlessly the revolutionary council agrees with many of his views, but their control of him, as well as his power are both more limited than commonly believed.
I'd be a lot more amused by Ahmadinejad if our politicians weren't a bunch of retarded koo-koos, too. So he's a holocaust denier. What an idiot. But how many of our politicians are evolution deniers?
That would have been a fun question to ask Ahmadinejad. "Do you believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago?"
Tom,
Your right. I have also heard rumblings that he may very well loss his title as President in the next election.
Good point.
Not sure what that will eventually mean, but true.
Tom...Ahmadinejad argues that no issue is ever 100% settled, that academics should be free to research whatever they want, we should be "open-minded", blah, blah, blah, in defense of his views on the holocaust. At the same time, he offered nothing in the way of support for his position. Where have we seen that before?