Who made Bollinger the Ambassadors of Insult?

Dean of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, tried to make it seem like his invitation to the President of Iran was useful by putting him on the spot and insulting him. I'm sorry, but this was ineffective, immature and futile. Am I to believe that the Dean planned all along to invite "Ahm-a-nuttah-job" just to insult him? 1) No, I don't believe that. 2) If it was, why does Bollinger get to appoint himself the voice of America vitriol towards Iran? Shouldn't this be the role of the State Department or the President? I'd prefer to hear President Bush calling Ahm-a-nuttah-job "a petty and cruel dictator" and suggesting he is "astonishingly uneducated".

Here's a round-up of reaction from cheer to jeer at American Digest:
--------------------
Charles Johnson at LGF holds his line: lgf: Ahmadinejad's Columbia Speech, Thread 2

Lots of readers seem to think Columbia president Lee Bollinger deserves credit for his opening speech. I don't. I think it was an attempt to redeem his reputation and keep the money flowing in from alumni, and does not even begin to make up for the atrocity of giving this creature a podium at one of America's most prestigious schools.

Koz Kids (which Johnson links to in the same item) agree with him, but for slightly different reasons: Daily Kos: Bollinger's Diatribe

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents.
----------------

UPDATE:
From Gateway Pundit's round-up, this is my fear about this invitation:
---------------
(After the Dean chastises Ahmadinejad for wanting more research into the holocost)

"But, from the applause Mahmoud's getting from the university audience, Bollinger is the one who looks ridiculous."