Naturally, the media was all over this unusual news opportunity. If you only heard their comments after the actual speech based on the media's perception, you really did not get the sense about this entire controversy and speech.

WAS IT SMART FOR COLUMBIA'S PRESIDENT TO OFFER THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR A MAN LABELED A "TERRORIST"? COLUMBIA MADE A POINT, BUT WAS IT SMART TO DO SO?

It told, or better showed the world, that "free speech" is well and alive in the US,at least at Columbia, even for a so-called "terrorist." That took some guts, and I am sure Mr. Lee Bollinger took lots of heat for it even though his "pre-speech" statement was very blunt and did not mince words.

WHO GOT MORE MILEAGE OUT OF THIS SPECTACLE?

I would say that the Iranian President did, no doubt about it. I am not sure if his speaking at a prestigious US university lends "legitimacy" to his regime or not, certainly not worldwide. But, I am sure the Iranians only get to hear, see or read what the government WANTS them to, and there can't be no doubt about it either.

WHAT DID IRAN'S PRESIDENT GAIN?

Those intellectuals in Iran, I am sure, know what's going on and understand what this was all about. But this entire matter is for the broad masses who may not be as educated in such matters (as many Americans aren't either when it comes to politics - and several other subject matters) and they might see it as a "victory" for the president.

DID AHMADINEJAD MAKE ANY "GOOD" POINTS?

Obviously he was very careful not to give any clear 'yes' or 'no' answers but had a very carefully scripted answer to all questions.

1 - One point he made that made sense even if the viewers had no agenda whatsoever was this: He said the Palestinians had no involvement in the Second World War and why are they being punished for it by not having their own country? He was very careful not mention the US by name in any of his answers although it was always clear when he talked about them.

2 - Whether the Iranians ever signed anything prohibiting them from developing nuclear capabilities, they have the same right if (and that is a big IF) they use it for peaceful purposes.

3 - He stated that the USA (not by name) is trying to run the world according to what benefits them in whatever way or manner, regardless whom they have to railroad in the process, and that I totally agree with. Take Bush's "private war" in Iraq, which he started regardless of world opinion. If that is not sanctioned terrorism than I doesn't know what is. Since when did the US ever care about the welfare of other people, generally speaking? They only care about a country when there is something to be gained in the process.

4 - He mentioned 9/11 and offered the possibility that it did not happen the way the world was told and led to believe. I think it is clear by now that many Americans and certainly most Europeans question this matter, knowing that many explanations are not "kosher," nor are true the way we and the world were told.

CAN BUSH AND THE US GOVERNMENT BE TRUSTED?

Is Iran telling the truth and can they be trusted? Each reader must make up their own mind. But then many Americans and the rest of the world don't believe him either, I know I do not and I am by far not alone with this way of thinking.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS

I think Columbia and the US as a country came out on the short end of the stick. Ahmadinejad raised several good questions and points that should get many Americans (except those that are nai¯ve, ignorant and don't care one way or the other) to get thinking about what our government is doing and how truthful they are with us and the world. Give this some thought and then try to figure out what's really going on in the world. Is there any big Western government any one can totally trust? I for one do not trust the US government, as they are certainly rarely truthful with us, its citizens, let alone the rest of the world.