I actually thought I was done with this topic. Completely disgusted, yet done. A very smart and sensitive minister of my acquaintance has advised me to put together a letter on this and try to convince people to sign it, but I know me and that's exactly the sort of project I start with enthusiasm and embarass myself by flaking on.
Anyway, what aqueezed one more post out of me was Ms. Kitty linking to this, an article on the Fellowship of Reconciliation website about reactions to the meeting. What gets me is that a Catholic peace worker who participated mentions in his letter that he understands why the questions had to be "filtered."
So basically, Ahmadinejad picked the questions he wanted to answer, knew in advance what they would be and had his glib little answers all prepared.
It wasn't even amateur diplomacy, kids, it was theatre, with Sinkford cheerfully playing the part that the man who stones people to death let him play.
And then saying he couldn't imagine President Bush doing the same thing.*
Actually, President Bush uses PR opportunities where only selected people are allowed to ask selected questions all the time.
It's just that liberals generally have the sense not to play along, and nobody calls Jeff Gannon "courageous."
I am so sick of hearing about Sinkford's "courage."
You people DO know that even if you are actually speaking out against Ahmadinejad as opposed to helping him, he can only have people who disagree with him killed back in his home country, right?
*Again, I'm not a Bush fan, but that was INCREDIBLY inappropriate, though I'm sure it made Ahmadinejad's day. That bitter little statement more than anything else says to me that this was primarily an ego thing for Sinkford.
Ps. Would someone please mention this on the ministers' chat? The one non-blogging minister I talked to about this was pretty horrified, but hadn't heard about it since these days most people pretty much ignore Press Releases from the UUA about what a great guy Sinkford is for doing something political.