I just realized that I was quoted last month in the Spec:
James Hare, a teaching assistant for the religion department’s class on Islam, said that when Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, another controversial figure, spoke at the World Leaders Forum, he “received not only a glowing introduction from Bollinger, but a standing ovation from the audience.”
“The contrast in the reception of these two heads of state makes Bollinger seem less like a critical intellectual and more like an ideologue for the Bush administration,” Hare said.
My point, though, wasn’t that Musharraf is simply controversial; it was that he is a military dictator and, as such, is deserving of public condemnation. Musharraf is an ally of the Bush administration while Ahmadinejad is an opponent. I think this distinction alone accounts for the difference in their official receptions.
No Comments
Leave a Comment
trackback address