A lot of different views posted, and then someone seeing then as all one and the same thing.
It is all one and the same thing: it’s a lot of different voices both talking and LISTENING.

I think there is potential for advertising TMV on this basis.

Now my post sounds as if it was written by Mr Cheney (DICK: where the heck is my payment?).

Actually, if you’re new to this site all of us have our own ideas and we all call each issue as we see them and that means we may not always fit into a predictable slot on each post we write. And in comments were really do prefer people spell out why they feel we are wrong and what the proper view is. But thank you…it was fun being accused of working for Cheney. It really does help if you disagree with someone to stand back a bit and then explain in detail why rather than try to negatively label them because that way the person with whom you’re disagreeing may read your comments, consider them and perhaps change their mind on an idea or two. If you are a new reader you’ll see all kinds of viewpoints…often ones by the same writers that may not fit into a D or R or L or C slot.

You’ll also note if you read tmv that some of us will post on the same thing and have totally different viewpoints, but we respect each others’ views.

This is “The Moderate Voice”? It reads more like a script direct from the Vice President’s office. Apparently, your mind was made up long before Ahmadinejad ever arrived in New York.

Now, that’s a first, LOL. Joe are you secretly in bed with Dick Cheney????8)

Many people are making that argument, but there is a hole in the logic.

Even if Ahmedinejad had been locked up in a closet while in NY, the anti-US press would have given him the show he wanted: stories about US hypocrisy re free speech, stories about repressive treatment of visitors, stories about how the US was AFRAID to hear him speak, etc etc.

Ahmedinejad’s show was guarnateed the minute his plane touched down. The only way to mitigate the effects was to give him a platform with rebuttal capabilities.
I actually think the rebuttal aspect was ruined to some degree by it being too bombastic. One way to devalue the dangeraous is to provide the sharpest contrast possible. Oppose diatribes with dignified speech; oppose lies with citing factual truths; oppose posturing with calm grace.
That way, the audience would be clear about who the bully was and who the hero was. Descending to his level makes it hard to distinguish betwee the opponents.

Of course, a lot of news coverage will be generated indepently from actual events or appearnces.
This wasy is the only way to, at least, indluence a portion of it, IMO.

1. Bring him, then ignore him. Let him go to NYC, and lay the wreath, with no official accompaniment beyond security, and keep even that discreet. Convince the media to not cover the event or do so only minimally, no shouting, no flashing lights, only a little man in a big construction site. Let him go to Columbia….then have no one attend the conference. Again no media coverage, nothing. Just to annoy the president could visit a little league game that day and have that get huge media coverage.
• Advantage: You cheat him out of his big spectacle of “standing up to the Empire”. You diminish his importance and send the message that the US has about a million things more important to it than the little man from Iran.
• Disadvantage: No chance to showcase some of his more ridiculous rhetoric. Also no chance to show the world that we are a strong enough republic to allow even our avoud enemies a platform.

2. Bring him, then denounce him (or what actually happened): No need to describe it, since that’s what happened. Media explosion, angry reactions, defence of free speech, etc.

• Advantage: Showing the world that we believe in free speech so much that we will even allow someone we believe is evil to exercise it on our turf. Showcasing his ridiculous claims and also showing that we will not sit idly by while he says blatantly false things.

• Disadvantage: We gave him the show he wanted. All attempts to shut him down or shut him up play nicely into his hands. Americans must stop deluding themselves as to the way the news is given in the rest of the world, especially the Arabic world. We are not the good guys by default there, quite the contrary. He got to portray himself as “speaking the truth to power” and having the balls to flip it to the enemy on it’s own ground. It probably will play really well at home, where he’s almost certainly not liked, but probably not as hated as us.

Overall I think we would have been better off with option 1, but I also think that option 1 is not the end of the world, and pretending it is only makes us seem more insecure.