Cliff LyonSixty Minutes Interview With Iran’s President
I must say, I was quite taken by the Mike Wallace interview with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You can read the entire transcript here.
I like him. He seems like a peaceful man, kind eyes, nice smile. Certainly nothing he’s done suggests otherwise, as compared with the current occupant of the White House. And certainly his rhetoric, that is the short elected clips we see, is no more violent than Bush’s.
If you suspend for a moment the hysteria about Iran that the administration has been throwing around, and listen to the man, he makes a lot of sense.
Below are some excerpts from the interview with my comments:
“I will tell you that I fully oppose the behavior of the British and the Americans.” – So do I.
“The problem that President Bush has is in his mind he wants to solve everything with bombs. The time of the bomb is in the past. It’s behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges.” – True.
“I think that Mr. Bush can be in the service of his own people,” Ahmadinejad said. “He can save the American economy using appropriate methodologies without killing people, innocents, without occupation, without threats. I am very saddened to hear that 1 percent of the total population is in prison. And 45 million people don’t have a health care cover. That is very sad to hear.” - He’s right. It is sad.
And then he had a new message for President Bush: “Please give him this message, sir. Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate.” Asked what that means, Ahmadinejad said: “Well, you see that his approval rating is dropping everyday. Hatred vis-Ã -vis the president is increasing everyday around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high.”
August 13th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
I guess we can say goodbye to Mike wallace.
August 13th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Cliff
I am absolutely shocked that you would succumb to Iran’s propaganda. Remember this interview was completely for the consumption of the American people to try and sway public opinion. The reason you agreed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is because he was regurgitating Democrat party talking points.
So do you also agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he says he wants to “blow Israel off the map”, or “The holocaust is a Zionist Lie”, or his countries support for Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups? Or is all that just made up by George Bush?
SeeBS and Mike Wallace is acting in the spirit of Cliff
I am absolutely shocked that you would succumb to Iran’s propaganda. Remember this interview was completely for the consumption of the American people to try and sway public opinion. The reason you agreed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is because he was completely regurgitating Democrat party talking points.
So do you also agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he says he wants to “blow Israel off the map”, or “The holocaust is a Zionist Lie”, or his countries support for Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups? Or is all that just made up by George Bush?
SeeBS and Mike Wallace are acting in the spirit of Joseph Goerbles. In the name of “freedom of the Press†They along with the entire “main stream media” have become the propaganda arm for Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and every other tin horn leftist government.
Before you say you like the guy just ask yourself if you are comfortable with him possessing a nuclear weapon? In the name of “freedom of the Press†They along with the entire “main stream media” have become the propaganda arm for Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and every other tin horn leftist dictators.
Before you say you like the guy just ask yourself if you are comfortable with him possessing a nuclear weapon?
August 13th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Wow. Is this satire?
If so forgive me. But if an oppressive, terrorist-supporting leader just needs to regurgitate some DNC talking points to win over some of my fellow Americans than I am completely shocked.
While we may have significant political differences, I would have never have compared President Clinton to Ahmadinejad as you have with President Bush.
The disconnect between my reality and yours is very disturbing.
Wow.
August 13th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Ken, I think all reason has departed you. Try to be objective for a moment.
Bush has declared war on all of Islam, killed tens of thousand of innocent muslims and clearly wants to occupy their lands forever.
What on earth would you expect someone in his position to say?
I wonder if you know the history in Iran?
I am shocked your response and attitude is so far away from anything remotely resembling a Christ-like posture, YOU should be ashamed.
The FIRST priority is peace. Iran has attacked no one. What’s the harm in discussion?
August 13th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Thanks for post Cliff. I was glad to hear I was not the only one that felt that way after the interview. I realize that it was a lot of propaganda; much like the propaganda our administration likes to utter. I am so tired of the right comparing the DNC to evil. Why do we have to fear reason? Someone help me understand.
August 13th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Cliff
It was George Bush that dubbed Islam “the religion of peace”. He has hardly declared war on Islam when the opposite is true. Militant Islam is in open war with us and we have hardly responded. We are so worried about offending Muslims that we have gone out of our way denying who the enemy is. At airports these days we are making women who are obviously not terrorists drink their own breast milk as to not target people who actually may be terrorists.
Cliff I know you are an intelligent person but your obvious hatred towards George Bush is clouding your thinking. I just hope you are not one that subscribes to the idea the Bush planned 911.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Tania -
Who is calling the DNC evil? I would just be upset if a man who openly questions the historicity of the Holocaust and calls for wiping Israel off the map was aping my political views to score cheap political points. I don’t agree with the DNC but I don’t think it’s evil because a clever propagandist wants to imitate its talking points.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:47 am
Cliff,
A person that declares that his goal is to anihilate the Jewish state has put himself outside human society. only one man had such policy in modern history, that was A. H. of Germany. Even if all that he says other than that it enlightening and true, this man must be fought by all humanity.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Sorry, off topic (sort of).
Elisha -
The Red Cross, international advocator of the Geneva Conventions, has now condemned Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Lebanon.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7CF5BABF-8D42-4110-8EE4-350B13EA2941.htm
So do you think the IDF’s campaing was worth it? Was it worth this cease fire?
August 14th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Here’s a great piece by Robert Parry that illustrates perfectly how current US-Israeli relations enable exactly the kinds of fiascos like the invasion of Lebanon and possible attacks on Syria and Iran.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/081206.html
August 14th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I think it’s fair to ask why the USA doesn’t have a president who can speak softly, smile, and occasionally say something logical.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Richard W. It has to do with our failed experiment in letting the supreme court select (5 > 4) the ‘leader’. Now, after upwards of a hundred thousand deaths and untold injuries and damage to infrastructure, all the talk is about attacking Iran. The supreme (not) court should be ashamed, very, very ashamed.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Elisha, I of course agree in principle, but perhaps not with the means. Somehow, the political dynamics in the Middle East have evolved such that anti-Israel propaganda is the most successful strategy to gain and hold political power in the Islamic countries.
The success of this strategy has been well proven as evidenced by the success of Islamic fundamentalism all over the Near, Middle, and Far East.
So has Christian fundamentalism proven to be a successful political strategy in America.
In both cases fundamentalism is a “means to an end” which should be ignored in favor of the more realistic fact that economic security is the real goal of any country and government.
I believe all fundamentalist rhetoric must be ignored as nothing but shameful propaganda if we are ever to find peace in the world.
Of all places in the world, Iran is one where Jews have lived most peacefully throughout history. The truth is, Israel is a more powerful as ally of Iran than enemy.
As Ahmadinejad says the US can use different words to speak to the Muslim world, but the bigger person must go first.
I believe Bush likes war more than Ahmadinejad. If Iran were going to attack Israel, they would have done it long ago. Why do you suppose they have they not?
August 14th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Ken,
Shame on you to say “It was George Bush that dubbed Islam “the religion of peace†as if to argue that Bush has extended the olive branch.
This is a disingenuously selected statement. Bush also said Islamofacists on Saturday.
You are being an apologists for Bush.
Who exactly is “Militant Islam”? Where did they come from? Why are they there? Who has threatened them? Who has killed their families?
For the sake of CHRIST Ken, get curious and stop defending the warmonger Bush for the sake of it.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Cliff
The President called Islam “The religion of Peace” shortly after 911 with many Islamic and Arab activists standing behind him. Of course it was meant as an olive branch. I am glad that George Bush used the word “Islamofacist” this week because it is time we understand who these terrorists are and what thier aims and goals are.
You say that Muslims are just trying to protect thier homes and families but it’s a strange way to protect your family by sending your sons and daughters off to become suicide bombers. The truth is that we are dealing with the largest death cult ever conceived. Islamofasists have one thing in mind which is Islam encompassing the entire globe under Sharia law. The United States is viewed by them to be the greatest impediment to that goal, therefore it must be destroyed.
I am not getting this from George Bush. This is what they openly teach. You may not believe they can take over the entire globe but they certainly believe it. They are actively working to that end. Both Christianity and Islam believe in end times and an apocalypse but the difference is that as Christians we look forward to the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ but we are not actively trying to bring it about. Much of the Islamic world is actively seeking to bring about the end of the world because it will bring the 15th Imam back to Earth to preside over an Islamic world. That is a scary prospect especially since your new friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who may soon have nuclear weapons has publicly stated that is his calling in life is to hasten the the return of the 15th Imam.
August 14th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Ken,
This statement is exactly the problem: “I am glad that George Bush used the word “Islamofacist†this week because it is time we understand who these terrorists are and what thier aims and goals are.”
Putting such a large popular movement into nice little neat simplistic boxes cannot possibly lead to a thoughtful solution. This will lead EXACTLY NOWHERE!
What would Christ say?
“This is what they openly teach” What if I could prove to you that WE (the US) funded the very text books they use to teach this. Because we did. Represents a bit of a problem doesn’t it?
And don’t you dare doubt me Ken. Lay off the Drudge Report and Fox and do the work man.
Respectfully,
Cliff
August 14th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Cliff
I wouldn’t doubt one bit we fund text books that teach young Arab Muslims to hate us in those countries. So much of our foriegn aid ends up being used against us. We are supplying the rope for them to hang us with which is truly insane. In that we both agree.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Ken, the ‘rope’ we’ve provided ain’t the long stringy type, and it comes in more shapes than just textbooks. Recall the Shaw of Iran’s ascention and decline. Recall Saddams coming to power and life as a tyrant. Recall Chile, Nicaragua, the Philipeanes, Vietnam. There were certainly some textbooks sent to these places, but the real ‘aide’ from our side was the more explosive, more damaging, more costly to replace (hense more profitable), and WAY more likely to produce feelings of revenge. We know these scarred victims now as terrist. Now I hope that all the holes in all our beliefs can be filled with the truth. You’re not the only one who’s missing somethings about the way our gov’t has been working over the years. I fear that this administrations tendency towards secrecy and use instead of lies and propaganda is going to muddy matters more than clairify them. Peace.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:26 am
No Ken, The CIA helped write the books and paid for them. Do not embarass yourself. Do the research. I would give it to you, but you need to do the work to find reliable information the contradicts your world view. This is the only way you can claim to hold knowledge and critical thinking over stubborn conviction.
Here is a little article for ya.
The Guardian (UK), August 14, 2006
Bush’s belief in a worldwide Islamist Conspiracy is foolish and dangerous
“We can only see off the serious threat we face if we separate real Muslim grievances from al-Qaida’s homicidal mania” - By Max Hastings
George Bush sometimes sounds more like the Mahdi, preaching jihad against infidels, than the leader of a western democracy. In his regular radio address to the American people on Saturday he linked the British alleged aircraft plotters with Hizbullah in Lebanon, and these in turn with the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. All, said the president of the world’s most powerful nation, share a “totalitarian ideology”, and a desire to “establish a safe haven from which to attack free nations”. Bush’s remarks put me in mind of a proverb attributed to Ali ibn Abu Talib: “He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.”
In the United States a disturbingly large minority of people - polls suggest around 40% - remain willing to accept Bush’s assertions that Americans and their allies, which chiefly means the British, are faced with a single global conspiracy by Islamic fundamentalists to destroy our societies.
In less credulous Britain one could nowadays fit into an old-fashioned telephone box those who believe anything Bush or Tony Blair says about foreign policy. Many of us are consumed with frustration. We know that we face a real threat from Muslim fundamentalists, and that we are unlikely to begin to defeat this until we see it for what it is: something infinitely more complex, diffuse and nuanced than the US president wishes to suppose.
There is indeed a common strand in the anger of Muslim radicals in many countries. They are frustrated by the cultural, economic and political dominance of the west, whose values they find abhorrent. In some, bitterness is increased by awareness of the relative failure of their own societies, which they blame on the west rather than their own shortcomings.
They turn to violence in the spirit that has inspired fringe groups of revolutionaries through the ages. It is essential for the western democracies to defend themselves vigorously against such people, whose values and purposes are nihilistic. We must never lose sight of the fact that al-Qaida’s terrorists attacked the twin towers on 9/11 before Bush began his reckless crusade, before the coalition went into Afghanistan and Iraq, before Israel entered Lebanon.
In September 2001, most of the world clearly perceived that a monstrous crime had been committed against the United States, and that the defeat of al-Qaida was essential to global security. While many ordinary Muslims were by no means sorry to see American hubris punished, grassroots support for Osama bin Laden was still small, and remained so through the invasion of Afghanistan.
Today, of course, everything has changed. In the eyes of many Muslims, the actions of Bush and Blair have promoted and legitimised al-Qaida in a fashion even its founder could hardly have anticipated a decade ago.
Bush has chosen to lump together all violent Muslim opposition to what he perceives as western interests everywhere in the world, as part of a single conspiracy. He is indifferent to the huge variance of interests that drives the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents in Iraq, Hamas and Hizbullah fighting the Israelis. He simply identifies them as common enemies of the United States.
Almost three years ago he contemptuously challenged the Iraqi insurgents to defy American will: “My answer is - bring ‘em on.” Today he has widened this bold defiance to embrace a vastly more ambitious range of foes: “He who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.”
Far from acknowledging that any successful strategy for addressing Muslim radicalism must include a just outcome for the Palestinians, he endorses Israel’s attempt to crush them and their supporters by force of arms alone, together with Israeli expansion on the West Bank. The west faces the probable defeat of its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, a worthy objective, because of the likely failure of its campaign in Iraq, which began on false pretexts.
August 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I wonder why Mike Wallace doesn’t push his pointer finger in the face of Bush and say give me some answers you fucking jerk like he did to Ahmadinejad. Indeed, listening to Bush answer questions is no less frustrating than listening to Ahmadinejad.
Quite frankly, I think Wallace met his match on this interview, and Ahmadinejad came away looking reasonable and no more war-mongering than our own jerk-face president does on a daily basis.
I only wish I had more than two middle fingers for Bush when he visits on August 30, both of which will be flying high and proud in the direction of his motorcade.
August 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Don’t you mean the towers were destroyed by Al CIA DUH?
Read Dollars for Terror, by Jacques Lefebvre.
We made the Muslim Brotherhood out of whole cloth to facilitiate the current theft of arab persian resources, we have to, we have a pirate economy, we either seize what is theirs or go tits up. israel is just the poor sap in the thick of it.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:15 am
hydrocodone without prescription…
news…