Ahmadinejad Interview on CBS

[evox]

Iranian Leader Speaks To Mike Wallace
Exclusive Interview Will Air On '60 Minutes'

ON CBS - Tonight (sunday august 13)
At 7 P.M. ET/PT


It will be interesting to see what the Iranian president has got to say.

Watch it and post your comments after the show.

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. I can't wait to watch it, but Wallace is Pro-Israel even though he

'appears' OH so neutral. All of his 'nice' comments are surely disguised, so don't take them at face value. He reports great disdain at the money given by Iran to support Hezbollah, but no one wants to discuss how much money the American taxpayers have dealt out to Israel, and this post will probably be deleted, because we can't speak truth about poor Israel!

[cali]

28. Nonsense

your post won't be deleted, and you'll be able to continue whining about how unfair it is of DU not to allow criticism of Israel- which is, of course, total nonsense.

[everythingsxen]

70. Gosh!

Maybe Wallace is secretly a puppet of them.

:sarcasm:

Get a grip.

[Postman]

2. Too bad we won't know what he said that ended up on the editing room floor

I don't trust any of the corporate run "news" outlets to give me the unbridled truth...

Air the interview uncut and no interruptions.

[evox]

17. After watching the interview

I guess you were right afterall...

[I_Make_Mistakes]

20. C-Span is running the entire 90 minute interview tomorrow 8:00pm

[evox]

21. oh sweet

but oh no, I just cancelled out my cable a week ago! You think they might show it on their site at C-span.org?

[elehhhhna]

25. fer sure. probably live streaming.

[evox]

26. great

thanks!

[elehhhhna]

43. 8 pm eastern time, C-SPAN 1

08:00 PM EDT
1:55 (est.) Interview
President Ahmadinejad Interview
CBS, 60 Minutes
Mike Wallace , CBS
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[cboy4]

60. See, this is why I love DU so much. The information! Thanks a lot for

posting this!

[JohnnyBoots]

51. The whole thig is on C span Mon night at 8 pm, with call into follow

[napi21]

3. I hate to say this, but Amadinajad had one thing right so far.

e views the fighting in Iraq and Israel as a battle between the USa/UK and Islam for control of the ME!

I really do think this guy is a radical, but I can't help agree with him on that one!

[bdamomma]

46. I usually don't agree with radicals either but this

guy, was right on the mark concerning bush's policies. I found myself agreeing with him. And apparently Mike Wallace does not understand some leaders do not give 30 sec. sound bite answers like ours.

[Herman Munster]

4. he just said

he was very sad to hear 1% of the US population is in prison and 45 million people don't have health care and that bush should be fixing those problems. lol

[Phoonzang]

5. Really can't answer a question can he? n/t

[Herman Munster]

6. nope

and wallace was good that he called him on being evasive again and again and again.

[leftchick]

7. much like the chimp

has he ever answered a question either? Must go with the position.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

18. I thought he SUCKED as well

There were several questions I would swear rummy handed him to read. It was a pathetic attempt of an interview and mike should PLEASE retire.

[elehhhhna]

27. Seemed Adamajeeddiajdnadad was on to him though, and 'tho

Ama'dad is a bit goofy-minded, much of what he said DID make more sense than some politicians I've heard.

BTW, ever read 2 translations of the same text? Extra pts/ if you could also read it in the ORIGINAL. If you have (try it, it's an eye opener) you'll be suspicious of all translated material.

Just saying.

[DemonFighterLives]

36. Wallace was an ass

He looked like an old prune.
And as much as I know we are taught to hate Iran, this guy made a lot of sense. He looks like a leader and put bush to shame.
:shrug:

[evox]

38. my thoughts exactly! n/t

[GreenTea]

39. Have to agree....His clever days of significance have passed..........

[Phoonzang]

40. The interview was of the President of Iran...

...not Wallace. I thought Wallace was being way too opinionated, too aggressive, and smarmy, but it doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad couldn't answer a simple yes or no question. We need to be sure that we don't cheer on the guy just because he's an adversary of Bush. I don't buy the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. Ahmadinejad is a fanatical moron just like Bush. I'd compare them to Hitler and Stalin but that would be giving the pissants too much credit.

Um...I've actually been a member of DU for almost 2 years. It's just that I mainly read the site and don't post much.

And PSU? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jane_pippin]

8. Did anybody read an article last week about language in Iran?

It was, I think, a NYT article that talked about how deception or deflection is a very important device in terms of social relationships. Like, a person will ask another over for dinner, and both know full well the invitation is not sincere. That the deception is essentially a how people interact while keeping his/her cards close to the chest. It also talked about how it's ingrained in Iranians, but Westerners have a hard time understanding it since they tend to be more...blunt about things.

Watching this interview with that in mind, and thinking about it in terms of diplomacy, was interesting. Especially when Wallace kept pushing for yes or no answers.

[chimpymustgo]

22. Kind of like "Let's do lunch!"

I'm sure every culture and language has it's share of deception and disingenuousness..

[jane_pippin]

24. Kind of, yeah. The article made it seem like

it was subtle, and it described it like it was a social art form, if that makes sense. I'm not saying it's not present in every culture--it is. Having read about it recently, it was floating around in my head during the interview and I just wondered if that was part of what was going on in the interview. I just thought it was an interesting, cross-cultural thing to think about--that's all.

I found the article--it's a Times Select thing though so I can't post much more than the link.

"Iranian 101: A Lesson for Americans; The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say"
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E10FC355B0C758CDDA10894DE404482

[Autumn Colors]

29. Haha....

Well, I went to Iran as an exchange student in high school, but I'll admit that my Farsi is practically nonexistent so I can't talk about the nuances in the language. Social invitations are important, though. People visit each others' homes, with or without invitation constantly. It was one of the things I found hard to get used to there - my host family had company nearly every day or evening (so there were always unfamiliar people around).

As far as the "insincerity" of invites (a la "let's do lunch") versus the bluntness you speak of .... can you really lump all of the USA into either category?

The first reminds me of Los Angelenos and the latter of New Yorkers (have lived in both of those places as well ... I grew up in the New York area)... but even this statement is full of generalizations.

[jane_pippin]

50. I wasn't really trying to make a judgment on any culture

I had just recently read the article and thought it was an interesting thing to think about. Over the past few months I've been trying to learn more about Iranian culture--I've been reading memoirs by young Iranians and things like that--and this article just happened to be the most recent. I wasn't trying to lump either into any category, and I don't think that was the point of the article either. I think it was just pointing out one difference in Iranian vs. Western culture and how the difference might play into diplomatic relations. It wasn't like the article or I was saying one is better than the other--just that there's a certian quality or aspect to Iranian social interaction that involves subtleties and deflection that's different than the more blunt approach American social interaction takes. Of course these are generalizations, but I still think it's an interesting thing to think about.

I'm sorry if I came across as being judgmental--that was not my intent at all toward either culture. I just happened to have read the article recently and wondered how or if I might be able to make a connection between the author's description of social interaction and the social interaction between Wallace and the president. It was more of a passing thought than anything else. And thanks for telling me a little about your experience there too--I think Iran is a fascinating country, so if you know of any books I should read to learn more or if you feel like telling a little bit more about what life was like there I'd love to hear about it.

[napi21]

9. Ahmadinejad sounds like an American politician!

I have no idea if he is a evil as he's made out to be or not, but he sure knows how to talk to the press!

[Annces]

10. that was a good interview

I thought the Iranian president was very good at handling Wallace and much smarter. He is knowledgeable about the United States and Bush. Good for him.

[Opusnone]

11. All translation was spot on

Except for when Wallace asked if he could continue questioning.
The interpreter was nice and said "he had other appointments", what he really said was "unlike you I have a job to do".

Just thought you'd like to know.

I don't think he made too many new neocon friends in that interview.

[chimpymustgo]

23. Thanks for the confirmation. I'd say Ahmadinajad got the better of Wallace

Wallace seemed biased, combative and condescending. Ahmadinajad (does he have a nickname LOL?) seemed pretty savvy about dealing with our media. He didn't come across as the wild-eyed maniac we portray him to be (not saying he ISN'T - he just didn't seem that way in the interview).

[orleans]

34. i thought mike wallace was rather disgraceful--hot tempered and

just plain rude at times. who the hell did he think he was talking to? i mean, he was talking to a president of another country and he's throwing a hissy fit during one or two of his questions pertaining to israel. what a lack of professionalism!

the iranian president was pleasant & cordial--he was trying to be careful, guarded, etc like every politician, but i thought he said some very good things. and mike wallace loosing his temper, shaking in his chair, raising his voice to this man--

somebody must've kicked mike because then he complimented Ahmadinajad on his appearance/clothing and over did the compliment (to make up for being a jerk/asshole no doubt)

[Autumn Colors]

30. Salaam! Hal'e shoma chetoreh? :) (n/t)

[kineneb]

59. khoobe

didn't see the interview, but I am not surprised. Persia had culture and literature while my European ancestors were still wandering west on the Steppes.

[Opusnone]

66. khoobam, merci

[slaveplanet]

12. I don't know how much

I trust Wallace and CBS to give accurate editorializations and comments on what exactly Ahmadinejad was saying or feeling.

CBS cut in many times with Wallace overdubs that were obviously put in afterward during the edit process in order to give a certain skew or paint a certain picture.

that much is obvious.

why can't we get a straight interview without the overdubs?

[Opusnone]

14. It was very close, not perfect but Farsi is a simple language

The President spoke like a normal person, not a mullah.

[slaveplanet]

15. I'm not so much worried about the

direct translation as the obvious overdub interjections of Wallace about what the president Supposedly feels or has supposedly said in the past, but I'm sure has no knowledge of or control over in the final product we just saw.

[evox]

16. Seems a bit Controlled

After seeing the inteview I was not very impressed of how it was shown. Some parts of the interview were clearly cut out; especially the parts where Wallace would narrate over the interview and cut-off the translation of what Ahmadinejad was actually saying. Who knows exactly what he might have said unless you fully trust Wallace - or better yet the directors of 60 minutes. I would have no doubt that some parts of the interview were completely off the show - and I wouldn't even wonder why...

Also if anyone had seen the preview for the interview which can be found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minutes/main1879867.shtml

It seems the preview was a bit different than the actual interview even though the same questions were asked, anyone else notice that?

[redherring]

19. It was a good interview. However,

Wallace asked him point blank about his assertion that the Holocaust was fiction, and he tried to avoid answering the question. Wallace had to keep pressing till he answered. Overall, a good interview. Wasn't as much of a psycho as I thought he was.

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. He gave me the creeps, though.

Just a personal reaction. Not sure why. I can understand why the Iranian people, terrified of an American invasion, elected him though. He is full of attitude.

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. "Israel should have been set up in Europe or the US" --Ahmadinejad

Not a bad idea. Why the Middle East had to rearrange itself for the unremitting anti-semitism of Europe has always been beyond me.

This guy certainly has attitude, doesn't he. Don't like him at all. Sorry. On the other hand, that's no reason to get into another quagmire and kill lots and lots of innocent people.

Edited to add:

Wallace is now getting on my nerves.

"That's not the point!" About Iran wanting to resume relations to the US. Wallace is losing patience and Ahmadinejad is deliberately being indirect to the point of weasle talk.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. So, as usual, it's not about Israel's right to exist...

...except when it is.

Since the "why" has always been "beyond you", I'd humbly suggest you check out this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119561/

FWIW, I do also understand the arguments that the Creation of the State of Israel was "unfair" to some people... despite the fact that Jews had been living there continuously for centuries, a great deal of the land the Jewish Immigrants supposedly "stole" was bought and paid for, and The Palestinians had the clear opportunity to create their own state in '48 alongside Israel --instead of choosing war, which they immediately did.

[Lurking Dem]

44. We also can't forget the 850,000

Sephardim who were expelled from Arab lands. They should have gone to Germany?

[Nikki Stone 1]

56. No. And no one said they should.

But I believe in people paying for their own sins. Europe should not have pushed on the Middle East what it was not willing to take on itself. And, from what I am hearing, antisemitism is actually growing in Europe, especially in Germany and France. This is very frightening considering the history.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. You neglect the notion that lots of those people

didn't WANT to stay in Europe. They wanted to go somewhere where their own people would be responsible for their protection, because they didn't trust non-Jews along those lines anymore. And I can hardly blame 'em.

[Nikki Stone 1]

64. I understand that. And no you can't blame them

On the other hand, you can't expect people not involved with the situation to pay for it. The growing anti-semitism in Europe makes me think that many did not learn their lesson the first time.

It's a rough thing. I think we all want peace and for people to feel secure. I wish there were a surefire way to do it without killing innocent people. That's where we stand now.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I agree 100%.

One thing seems crystal clear to me: When we had competent, intelligent leadership in the WH that actually gave a shit, the whole region was a helluva lot closer to a long term solution IMHO.

[Nikki Stone 1]

55. Did you actually read my post? (If not, it was about location not about

the right to exist.) Don't you think Europe should have paid for its own sins? As it is, they outsourced their own guilty consciences.

Besides, it's a moot point, now. We have what we have now and have to deal with it as it is. At issue is not Israel's right to exist but their foreign policy, much of which is done in tandem with the disastrous US foreign policy that we are witnessing.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Well, conflating those issues by griping about the formation of Israel

can't be helpful, can it?

Like I said. Perhaps you should watch that movie. Not only is it an astounding story, It might give you a clue as to how, and why, Israel developed the way- and where- it did. Frankly, I think it's pretty understandable why folks wandering out of Concentration Camps might not want to move back in amongst the neighbors who had recently shipped them off in boxcars to be exterminated.

Another thing I find interesting about these arguments re: Israel.. so, any Immigration of Jews to Israel in the past 60 years somehow wasn't legitimate? Really? Would you make the same argument about all the Mexicans who have come to the USA in the past 60 years? How would you categorize arguments of someone who said "well, they just shouldn't have come here."

[Nikki Stone 1]

61. these issues were or are artificially conflated: they are quite symbiotic

and feed each other. That's why they end up being debated together.

And at this point, I don't think there's much point in arguing, since, as I said before, it is a moot point: the major decisions were made way before most of us were born. What we have to find now is a solution that will allow everyone to live in relative peace.

I do not download videos online, but I will take your word for it that it is a convincing one.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. It's not an online download. It's a link to the IMDB page for the film.

It's a documentary narrated by Morgan Freeman, Ed Asner, etc. You can probably find it in your local video store.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119561/

The Long Way Home (1997)
The Long Way Home Directed by
Mark Jonathan Harris

Writing credits (WGA)
Mark Jonathan Harris (written by)

Genre: Documentary / History (more)

Plot Outline: The story of the post World War II Jewish refugee situation from liberation to the establishment of the modern state of Israel. (more) (view trailer)

User Comments: One of the best documentaries ever! (more)

It's pretty educational. Obviously it's taken from the POV of Holocaust Survivors, but it's one side of the History you may not know.

[Nikki Stone 1]

65. Ok. Thanks. nt

nt

[AntiFascist]

33. What I would like to know is....

has Ahmadinejad ever seen the black and white films documenting the Holocaust? If these were somehow fabricated then they did an incredible job with a cast of thousands, and it was quite a "snuff" film.

(Loved the Hyundai Sonata commercial, btw. :rofl:)

[evox]

35. Funny parts

Not the exact words and probably not in order, (yet they seem to describe the scene almost perfectly)

Ahmadinejad seems to have quite a sense of humor:


Part 1
----------
Wallace: Do you wish to restore ties with the United States?
Ahmadinejad: well..(talks about something)
Wallace: Yes or no?
Ahmadinejad: Ok look... (seems like he wants to give an intro)
Wallace: Damn it! Just answer the question!
Ahmadinejad: You are taking 3 minutes to ask me question and you want me to answer you in 3 seconds? Is this a multiple choice test?



Part 2
-----------
Wallace: If you just answer the questions concisely, I will be able to ask more questions.
Ahmadinejad: (laughing) Each question you asked could have an answer that's a book long.




Part 3
-----------
Ahmadinejad: I think that you do not want to hear my answers
Wallace: Why?
Ahmadinejad: You don't like what I say
Wallace: What makes you think that?
Ahmadinejad: Because you seem angry



Part 4
-----------
Wallace: You are not answering my questions
Ahmadinejad: Look sir, if you don't want me to say what I think, you could tell me right now, so we can wrap up the interview and call it a day
Wallace: No no. Go on.

[Jeroen]

41. His blog: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

A long read which he ends with:

I will continue this topic later on as it took long in the beginning. From now onwards, I will try to make it shorter and simpler.
With hope in God, I intend to wholeheartedly complete my talk in future with allotted fifteen minutes.

[noonwitch]

45. I thought Wallace talked down to him

I don't like the Iranian president, I think he's a dangerous enemy, but I also don't think it's wise for a journalist to be patronizing and belittling to someone he is interviewing. Wallace treated him like he was an idiot.

[QuettaKid]

47. Wallace came off as a TOTAL tool

of the Zionist state. 'nuff said.

[Strelnikov_]

48. "Think He's A Dangerous Enemy"

More dangerous an enemy than Wen Jiabao? Vlad Putin?

IMHO a possible threat to be managed and coerced if possible, definitely. But he does not rise to a level of a Hitler, or even a Mussolini, or even an 'enemy'. A loose cannon? Who knows, but think about how some of the things the Chimp says are interpreted by other cultures.

The threat magnifier in his case is the Persian Gulf energy reserves. The thing is, only miscalculation by the US could place these reserves into danger.

Iran will not have the military strength to prevail in control of these resources for most of the remaining life of this resource (20-30 years). On the other hand, a regional war could destroy these resources, most permanently.

Containment, dialog, normalization.


Most of the current vitriol in the US is simply trying to prime the pumps for a petro-grab by the petro-oligarchs. 97% of the worlds remaining oil and gas reserves are in the hands of nation states, and the oligarchs are drooling at the wealth to be had as we slip into an era of energy scarcity.

[evox]

79. he did... n/t

[Bigmack]

49. Everybody seems to be focusing...

on the contest between Wallace and Ahmadinejad....

Ahmadinejad vs. Bush... that's the contest to think about! Iran's leader comes across as intelligent and knowledgeable, and Bush is.... well.... NOT! Bush is a one-legged man in the world ass-kicking contest.

[eccles12]

52. I believe that many of the questions were arrogant and not designed

to probe what might be driving this mad man to the lengths he seems to want to go. The questions were designed to do exactly what the administration wanted and that is to paint as bad a picture of Iran and their leaders as possible without even once trying to determine what they are really after.

[Xenotime]

53. Ahmadinejad makes very good points.

More people should listen to this man. He has a true plan for peace.

[everythingsxen]

71. So did Hitler (NT)

[bdamomma]

72. but ahmandejand is not bombing other countries is he?

or supplying cluster bombs to Iran.

[everythingsxen]

73. Not yet...

and of course, Iran was fighting Iran through their proxy, Hezbollah.

[earth mom]

54. Wallace out smirked Chimpy if that's at all possible.

:eyes:

He was a disgrace! WAY past time retirement for that dude!

Ahmadinejad was spot on in his criticisms of * & the neocons-it was priceless! :rofl:

[cboy4]

62. He had a lot of fuckin nerve with his crocodile tear concern about why

there are so many Americans in prison and without health care considering the way people are treated in Iran.

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/gay_hanging_iran.jpg

[sadiesworld]

68. They were executed based on rape charges.

[cboy4]

69. Wow. How horrific that you support hanging children:

I mean, that's the tone of your post.

Awww, well, fuck, they raped someone.....of course they should be hanged in the town square.

The Iranian government, a champion in the fight for human rights :sarcasm:, wants you to believe they raped a 13 year old.

Yea right.

Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in Iran.

Sad to see you support this:

They were children.

[sadiesworld]

82. The "tone" of my post is in your head.

While I don't consider execution to be an appropriate punishment for rape, rape is a far cry from consensual sexual activity and it was disingenuous (at best) for you to leave that tidbit out.

Were the rape allegations true? I don't know and neither do you. What I do know is there are always a lot of allegations of human rights violations when a country is caught in the neo-cons/neo-libs crosshairs. We hear about rape rooms in Iraq, Castro's dictatorship in Cuba, and the wholly made up claim that Venezuela lacks freedom of the press. Yet never a word about the very real abuses that occur in China, Saudi Arabia, etc. The difference, of course, is that China, et al, dance to the global elite' tune.

BTW, if homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran and homosexuals are regularly executed, why the need to (according to you) fabricate rape charges?

[cboy4]

86. Do you see two male children hanging by their necks in that photo?

What's wrong with you, going on and on about allegations of human rights violations in other countries? :wtf:

There's no "allegation" in this situation of a human rights violation. There's proof . . . two boys hanging in the town square.

It is absolutely, positively irrelevant whether Iran fabricated the rape charges.

The bottom line is the leader of Iran has a lot of nerve to complain about human rights problems in the United States when his country is hanging children...for any reason.

And you know what sadiesworld?

You should be ashamed of yourself for not being more outraged about this horrific photograph. How sad.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Astounding.

You see it all over this thread. The Bush Administration doesn't like this guy, so clearly he must be Nelson friggin' Mandela.

At least the threads on North Korea bring out a slightly higher level of intellectual honesty.

Here's a clue: There are totalitarian shitheads ALL OVER this planet. Bush's buddies the Family Saud put gays to death- for being gay. So does Iran.

Now, please continue your regularly scheduled lionizing of this asshole.

[rinsd]

75. Here fucking here......

I can't believe DUers have anything but contempt for a theorcratic despot.

[hogwyld]

76. So, why do you have such an irrational hatred of him?

Did he injure you personally, or someone you know? Has he started any wars? Or do you dislike hime because that is what the MSM paints for you? These are the same people who think Castro, Chavez, and Che are bad people too. And the best part? He's no * puppet!

[Warren DeMontague]

77. You mean the two gay guys hanging from the truck aren't enough?

He's a totalitarian fuck.

This isn't about Castro, Chavez, or Che. (Nice try at conflating 'em!) What I personally think of those individuals is immaterial to this discussion. This is about the fact that Iran is a theocratic totalitarian state.

Let me say it again: A theocratic, totalitarian state.

The same sort of thing Bush and the GOP want to create, here at home.

How's that for conflation?

[fujiyama]

80. But But but...

He has a plan for peace! :eyes: :sarcasm:

That's gotta be the most ridiculous line in this thread. It's funny, but for all people bash sheeple easilly persuaded by the likes of Bush, they seem to be just as naive in falling for Islamic fundamentalists like Ahmedenijad and Nassrallah.

[sadiesworld]

83. So I bring up the fact that the two Iranians were charged with rape...

and I've not only lionized Ahmadinejad, I've violated your code of intellectual honesty. What a fucking joke.

Also read post #82.

Now, please return to your regularly scheduled propaganda in support of invading Iran.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Four points:

One: if you have evidence that homosexuality is NOT a "crime" punishable by death in Iran, I will be glad to hear it. I think the fact that these young men are being publicly hung off a truck that is driving away is a pretty clear indicator of the tenor of the regime. I think it's telling that you rush to give the noose-wielding dudes with the hoods such a level of benefit of the doubt. ("They said it was rape charges!")

Two: you must not have read my previous post, where I mentioned that Saudi Arabia -run by Bush's buddies- also puts gays to death. I don't particularly like the human rights abuses committed by the totalitarian government of China, either. I'm not real big on ANY kind of totalitarianism; no matter whether they are biz buddies with the old-boy crony corporate network, or whether they have endeared themselves to certain misguided would-be "progressives" merely by virtue of being hated by the right people.

Three: You'll also note that the post in question was not only addressed to yours, but the thread in general. You can't throw a rock in this thread without hitting a post talking about Ahmadinejad's "wisdom", "intelligence" and his "true plan for peace". :puke:

Four: Stating that Iran is a totalitarian state and that Ahmadinejad is an asshole is NOT the same thing as "support for invading Iran".

Please. find. where. I've. ever. advocated. anything. even. remotely. resembling. any. such. thing.

I'll wait.

[cboy4]

88. Funny how people who don't have a problem with hanging gay children always

tend to venture off course with babble about non-related issues in order to try to distract.

What's wrong with you impeachdubya?

Don't you know if you're opposed to the Iranian government's policy on killing gays, it means you're in favor of the United States invading???? :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I know.

I'm one of those gay rights-friendly PNAC shills.

[Superman Returns]

78. I'm troubled.

Just because a world leader insults Bush and gives his administration problems, means that he is a good person? Bottom line is that he is a theocratic, conserervative, hardline leader. The same type of leader many DU'ers are trying to prevent from taking over this country. Yet because this guy talks smack about Bush and knows how to push the right buttons, he is a man who should be listened to, a leader to cheer on? Is Iran a beacon of liberalism? Does Ahmainejad have a progressive agenda for Iran? How are woman and gays treated in Iran? How is freedom of speech there? The media, is it objective? Hows the press?

I even saw one poster call Mike Wallace an agent of the Zionist state. I think people like this give us a bad name. Championing Islamic fundamentalism yet supposedly fighting christian fundamentalism, some of you people should be ashamed at yourselves, for eating up the talking points of a despot by another name an ideology. Who here wants to live in freaking Iran? Cut it out with these knee jerk reactions to embrace these despotic asswipes simply because you get jollies out of the way he talks about a Presient we don't like. Nothing like cheering on tyrants...Because no matter how much you despise the Bush agenda, supporting Ahmainejad is just wrong. You call yourselves progressives? Psss. please. Simply people who are really not Democrats, or liberals, or progressives, but supporters of anyone that hates us simply because they hate us.

[hogwyld]

87. He does what any leader would do

He's watching out for the interests of his country and his people. He's a university professor that drives his own clunker. So obviously, he's not in it for the money. He want the US and Israel to keep out of their business and region. Besides, he's the president, and thus has as much power as the "president" of Germany. He is probably a much better, and more honest person that that liar *, and he ought to get the benefit of the doubt before we convict him in the M$M.

[catbert836]

81. Dan Rather would have done much better.

Wallace seemed like he was asking questions that were handed to him directly from Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Dan Rather interviewed Sadaam twice, I'm sure he would have done a good job on Ahmadinejad.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Notice the line about "The Occupied Lands"

As in, "Please tell me, are the Lebanese inside the occupied lands right now or is it the other way around, that the Zionist troops are in Lebanese territory?"

Perhaps one of the folks praising Ahmadinejad's "wisdom", "clarity", and "true plan for peace" wants to explain precisely what they think he means by that.