60 Minutes with Ahmadinejad

Great Debates
1

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was interviewed by Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes tonight.

I’m as gullible as the next person about taking political statements and political leaders at face value, but I had an epiphany of sorts while watching this.

We might know that the US government doesn’t hate Islam, and that we don’t want to control the entire Middle East, but they don’t know it.

That’s what I got from the interview.

Did you watch it? What did you get? What do you think of Ahmadinejad? How did he strike you? Honest, or as honest as possible while keeping his job?

And do you know if anyone doublechecks the interpreter, to make sure he’s interpreting correctly?

(Keep in mind the CS rule to discuss what occurred on the show, rather than the politics, if that’s possible with this.)

2

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was interviewed by Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes tonight.

I’m as gullible as the next person about taking political statements and political leaders at face value, but I had an epiphany of sorts while watching this.

We might know that the US government doesn’t hate Islam, and that we don’t want to control the entire Middle East, but they don’t know it.

That’s what I got from the interview.

Did you watch it? What did you get? What do you think of Ahmadinejad? How did he strike you? Honest, or as honest as possible while keeping his job?

And do you know if anyone doublechecks the interpreter, to make sure he’s interpreting correctly?

(Keep in mind the CS rule to discuss what occurred on the show, rather than the politics, if that’s possible with this.)
[/QUOTE]
It’s dfficult to contain oneself to the restriction you ask when discussing politics, especially with Mahmood Ahmadi-nejad and Iran as the subject matter, but I’ll try.

I saw the Mike Wallace interview as well, and these are my impressions:

  1. It seems there were a lot of cutaways during the interview. I had the feeling we didn’t see/hear everything that was discussed.

  2. I know it’s hackneyed to say Mike Wallace is rude to those he interviews, but it seemed he was needlessly attempting to be provacative. All the pointing, other wild hand gestures, exaggerated facial contortions, and the "oh, come on"s were inappropriate and bordered on disrespectful. If what we saw was the entire interview I’m sure Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has an even poorer impression of Americans, if that’s possible.

  3. Throughout the interview I kept contrasting Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s style, control, knowledge of facts, candor, and believability with Bush and concluded that Mr. Ahmadi-nejad would wipe the floor with Bush in a debate, if you can call a one-sided thrashing a debate.

  4. Mr. Ahmadi-nejad struck me personable, but not weak. If there was obfuscation in his words, yes, as translated, I didn’t detect it. The only reticence I felt from him was when the topic of Israel came up, and although I wish he didn’t feel the need to mollify his stance, I understand the difference between the exigencies of political rhetoric and that of one-on-one conversation with those for whom a topic is sensitive. I’ve heard other translated speeches Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has given, and I have a copy of the letter he sent to Bush. He does seem sincere to me.

  5. Although I’m sure it’s simply his rhetorical prowess, I’m tempted to believe Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s claim of wanting nuclear power for non-military uses. It also struck me as true when he mentioned the US government’s desire to be the sole entity with nuclear technology so it can dictate to the world.

To go a little off the interview for a second, but to respond to you, contrary to your assertion, I believe the US government, not the citizens, the government, does hate Islam, and I’m absolutely convinced it wants to control the Middle East.

The US government has been completely infiltrated by Christian zealots. Those in positions of influence certainly seem as though they truly believe Islam to be a “gutter religion” as I’ve heard many of them Parrot, and I believe their words and actions to be consistent with this position.

Everything, and I mean everything the current administration has done since the election of Bush in 2000 shows its absolute rabid desire to control the Middle East and its resources. There is nothing, other than hollow words, which ring false when heard, and ultimately turn out to be complete lies, coming out of this administration that contradicts my assertion.

There is no misunderstanding. Mr. Ahmadi-nejad, the Iranian people, Arab peoples, and Muslims worldwide understand quite clearly what the US is doing. What this administration says and what it actually does are two entirely different things and, trust me, the only people who believe the lies spewed by the White House are Americans and , to a lesser extent, the British.

I must admit that the Mike Wallace interview has only increased my respect and esteem for Mr. Ahmadi-nejad.

Could Mr. Ahmadi-nejad simply be lying about his intents and desires? Of course. I’m not so naive as to believe that any politician speaks the absolute truth. However, it’s easy for me to see the contrast between him with George Bush, a man for whom lying comes as easily as tying his shoes, perhaps easier.

3

I predict this thread is going to move to the pit faster than anything on here this year.

I predict.

I predict they’re gonna find out the queen is a man, and no one will care.

I predict.

4

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
We might know that the US government doesn’t hate Islam, and that we don’t want to control the entire Middle East, but they don’t know it.
[/QUOTE]

Neither do we, actually.

5

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]

The US government has been completely infiltrated by Christian zealots. Those in positions of influence certainly seem as though they truly believe Islam to be a “gutter religion” as I’ve heard many of them Parrot, and I believe their words and actions to be consistent with this position.

[/QUOTE]

Name one person in a position of influence who you heard call Islam a “gutter religion”. One, just one is all I ask, even though you claim you’ve heard “many” of them say this.

This is a flat out lie, and you know it. You think you can win a debate by lying? It seems it’s as easy for you to lie as it is for you to tie your shoes.

6

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Name one person in a position of influence who you heard call Islam a “gutter religion”. One, just one is all I ask, even though you claim you’ve heard “many” of them say this.

This is a flat out lie, and you know it. You think you can win a debate by lying? It seems it’s as easy for you to lie as it is for you to tie your shoes.
[/QUOTE]
Lemur, since I certainly did say those in positions of influence consider Islam to be a gutter religion, which I stand by, by the way, I went searching for cites for you. I found quite a few conservative, or conservative-leaning sites, such as the American Partisan, and blog sites, such as John Shelley’s Journal, which not only express the sentiment, but use the words “gutter religion” with respect to Islam. You would obviously, and correctly respond that they don’t meet the criteria of being ‘influential’, so I searched a little further for the quote I’m sure I’ve heard in the world of political punditry. I found cites for influential people who’ve expressed the sentiment, but didn’t actually use the words, at least in the cites I found, such as Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, but I have yet to find a cite from someone influential in the American political sphere who has actually used the words. I therefore retract the statement until such time as I’m able to prove what I know exists.

7

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]

  1. I know it’s hackneyed to say Mike Wallace is rude to those he interviews, but it seemed he was needlessly attempting to be provacative. All the pointing, other wild hand gestures, exaggerated facial contortions, and the "oh, come on"s were inappropriate and bordered on disrespectful. If what we saw was the entire interview I’m sure Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has an even poorer impression of Americans, if that’s possible.

[/QUOTE]

I mentioned this to my husband, that Wallace wasn’t giving him the basic respect due to an elected head of a government. He said “It’s just 60 Minutes – that’s what they do.”

I agree with you. I don’t think Wallace would have behaved like that with a head of state friendly to the US.

Maybe it’s obvious to people who pay more attention to world affairs than I do, but the interview made me realize that the rest of the world probably knows us better than we know them.

I doubt there’s a Middle East version of 60 Minutes, but if there was, I’d like to see their interview with Bush or Rice, to compare.

Was it true, what he said about the US providing Iran with nuclear materials, only stopping when Israel was established? Wallace didn’t argue that point.

8

Actually, Calypso Louie Farrakhan has used the term “gutter religion” to describe Jews. Well, there was more to it than that, but you can look that up on your own.

9

[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]
Actually, Calypso Louie Farrakhan has used the term “gutter religion” to describe Jews. Well, there was more to it than that, but you can look that up on your own.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s common knowledge, with cites all over the internet.

10

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Yeah, that’s common knowledge, with cites all over the internet.
[/QUOTE]

Well, as long as we are discussing outrageous quotes by politicans, I can think of one who is a Holocaust denier, and has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

You find Ahmadinejad’s “knowledge of facts” to be more “believable” than Bush. And you admire his “candor”.

What interesting standards you have.

11

OK, this ain’t Cafe Society material. Just because it was on TV doesn’t make it arts or entertainment. In this case, I’m moving it to Great Debates, since it’s political.

If they decide it’s Pit-fodder later, that’s up to them.

12

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
I mentioned this to my husband, that Wallace wasn’t giving him the basic respect due to an elected head of a government. He said “It’s just 60 Minutes – that’s what they do.”
[/quote]
Or perhaps it has more to do with his background.

From my earlier Wiki cite.

Well, considering that Israel was founded in 1948, and the first successful use of atomic weapons was in 1945, I kind of doubt it. Perhaps you misunderstood him.

Regards,
Shodan

13

It sounded like Ahmadinejad blew a big load of smoke up Wallace’s ass and Wallace believed every bit of it.

14

I watched and I thought Wallace soft-balled him. He had several opportunities to call BS on a few of his responses (not answering the question he asked) and he never did. He was content to just get an answer and not dig for a real answer. I thought it was a pretty piss-poor interview to be honest. That whole exchange about the note and jacket was just plain ridiculous and childish.

That said, Ahmandinejad is very charismatic. As far as personalities go, I’d say he has alot in common with Bush - he has his own version of reality that he doesn’t let facts get in the way of. That was pretty clear when he was speaking about israel and hezbollah. He’s also appeared to be a very black/white type of person. I didn’t see much in the way of middle ground from his rhetoric.

15

Kudos to friend Shodan for being able to use “Bush” and “candor” in the same sentence without blowing chunks.

16

[QUOTE=Shodan]
You find Ahmadinejad’s “knowledge of facts” to be more “believable” than Bush. And you admire his “candor”.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes I do.

17

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Yes, yes I do.
[/QUOTE]

Did you, perhaps, read my cites? Do you believe that the Holocaust never happened?

18

[QUOTE=Clothahump]
It sounded like Ahmadinejad blew a big load of smoke up Wallace’s ass and Wallace believed every bit of it.
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? Perhaps Mr. Ahmadi-nejad was blowing smoke. I don’t believe this, but it’s definitely possible. But it didn’t look to me that Mike Wallace was buying any of it. It seemed Mr. Wallace was going out of his way to be obtuse.

19

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Did you, perhaps, read my cites? Do you believe that the Holocaust never happened?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course the holocaust happened, and yes, of course I understand there’s a disconnect between what Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has said about the holocaust and what I’m convinced he knows to be true, as evidenced by his mollification of his previous statements in the interview broadcast last night. However, my original statement, which you excerpted, was with regard to last night’s interview only, so yes, I found his knowledge of facts to be more believable, and for him to be infinitely more candid than George Bush could ever be.

20

[QUOTE=spazattak]
I watched and I thought Wallace soft-balled him. He had several opportunities to call BS on a few of his responses (not answering the question he asked) and he never did. He was content to just get an answer and not dig for a real answer. I thought it was a pretty piss-poor interview to be honest. That whole exchange about the note and jacket was just plain ridiculous and childish.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to rewatch the interview when I get home tonight (all hail the Tivo gods), but I don’t remember Mr. Ahmadi-nejad not answering a question and not being called on it, quite the contrary in fact. What I did feel was the interview was disjointed, like parts were cut out. I definitely don’t think we saw everything.

[QUOTE=spazattak]

That said, Ahmandinejad is very charismatic. As far as personalities go, I’d say he has alot in common with Bush - he has his own version of reality that he doesn’t let facts get in the way of. That was pretty clear when he was speaking about israel and hezbollah. He’s also appeared to be a very black/white type of person. I didn’t see much in the way of middle ground from his rhetoric.
[/QUOTE]
Please illustrate what you mean by his own version of the facts when it comes to Hezbollah.