Time magazine’s Richard Stengel first exposes to the light of day Ahmadinejad’s formidable PR campaign and then acts as a force multiplier for it by falling—hard—for the charm offensive:

The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran “requests the pleasure” of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. …There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There’s Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. …

This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.

Hmmm. Angenlina Jolie is of course a gorgeous movie star, so I can see why the press slavers over her. But what’s Stengel’s excuse for drooling all over Ahmadinejad’s smooth performance when he is a seasoned reporter, who is expected—and paid—to be shrewd, skeptical, and analytical? And, of course, when the stakes are considerably higher than merely giving devoted attention—and a platform—to a run-of-the-mill fame whore.

When it comes time for him to address the comments, he does so by citing each speaker by name — 23 in all, he notes. In contrast with what he calls the lack of respect and dignity accorded to him at Columbia — where, he says, he found it odd that an academic institution which prizes tolerance would treat him without any — he addresses each person carefully and patiently.

Why, his manners were impeccable, in contrast to our rudeness! And surely that’s all that matters when everything else out of his mouth is an odious lie!

Early on—before the “how ruuuuude” meme broke out in the MSM—George Packer had quite a different view on this [e.a.]:

Some Columbia students condemned Bollinger’s withering introduction—as if free speech should also be free of consequences. They didn’t understand that they had just witnessed a small victory for intellectual freedom and liberal values. One student who got the point, Stina Reksten, of Norway, told the Times, “I’m proud of my university today. I don’t want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom.” Ahmadinejad was given a chance to hold forth, but it was not a free ride. In inviting him, the university didn’t surrender its powers of judgment: his monologue of sophistry and lies was preceded by hard truths. Bollinger demonstrated that universities don’t have to cave in to their critics on either the right or the left—that certain principles are stronger than political opportunism.

I couldn’t agree more. And here’s what one TNR commenter—who has family and friends back in Iran—had to say about that [e.a.]:

I applaud Bollinger’s rudeness, because someone has to be. It sure as hell ain’t gonna be any Iranians - those in Iran are cowed the rest of us abroad have families and friends who could be terrorised to buy our silence.

I applaud Bollinger’s candour because for far too long, we in the Liberal West have applied our “notions of hospitality” without once thinking of the broader consequences. How many tyrants and dictators have we coddled out of politeness?

No, Sir: Bollinger was right in bring to Ahmadinejad’s attention what it is that any right-thinking man or woman finds offensive about him. And, in fact, he got the answer he was hoping for, the supreme expression of Ahmadinejad’s stupidity: “there are no homosexuals in Iran, not like here.” In a sense, of course, he is right - “not like here” - because they get hanged; but it was the broader implication that was the issue, and he got the response he deserved in the laughter and sniggers of the audience.

It is not necessary to [overanalyse] what happened. Columbia should not have invited the jackass; having done so, it should not have molly-coddled him. And Ahmadinejad should know next time not to accept invitations such as this, or expect brutal candour.

Indeed.

But ETP’s Rachel Sklar had by far the best angle on this story—on what a snooze it must have been for the participants to spend hours and hours in that room while A’jad and 23 academics droned on and on.

So that puts Ahmadinejad opening his mouth to speak at about 9pm. By now, dinner is long gone, so you can’t even toy with food on your plate. You may be on your second, third, fourth cup of tea and/or water, just because it’s in front of you. Are you allowed to leave the room to go to the bathroom, or will that offend His Craziness? (But if you do go to the bathroom, at least you can be sure that no one from the Iranian delegation will play footsie with you in the stall, ’cause they don’t have gay people there). Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is just now warming up, “with a half-hour ode to the relationship between man and God that might have been dictated by the Persian poet Rumi.” Aaaaah can this even be distilled to a soundbite? I would be pinching my thighs under the table to stay awake at this point.