Think Wallcce asked him about the little girl?

Monster is right.

This bastard needs the Harry Callahan treatment.

Is it just me, or is this a Neville Chamberlain moment??

"...We are all free to choose."

He's kidding, right?

This story should be filed under the same category as the Dan Rather interview of Saddam.

You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day around the world.

Try this: s
Step back, squint your eyes and you can see a Democrat being interviewed and giving answers instead of Ahmadinejad.

Yeah .. what Ruth said.

Why is it that CBS is always the one to get the interviews with the crazies?

Well the thing they won't tell you on CBS is that when Ahmadinejad says he "wanted to open a window into the light" he means that he wants the US to convert to Islam. And when Ahmadinejad says "we are all free to choose" CBS won't tell you that he means all of us who live in the United States, whether you say Bush is "our president" or "your president", Ahmadinejad wants us all converts or submissives. There's your fascism. Too bad CBS, the increasing power base of the Democratic party, and the looney left in general still thinks fascism is American government.

Well there you have it. Ahmadinejad is in agreeance with the Democratic Party. That is the vote of confidence you don't want.

Maybe radical Islamists are ready for diplomacy after 6 years of having USDA Grade A Boot Leather in their asses. And with Israel in the getting in on the act, Iran and Syria are sweating bullets (no pun intended).

This move was a PR one all day. Israel is wearing Hezbollah out. If Hezbollah is handled so easily, what will Israel do to Syria and Israel. This interview was done to increase world pressure to reign in Israel. And CBS and Mickey (lib=anti-Semite) were happy to oblige

How come CBS journalist are hard hitting and aggressive, but they are the only ones who get to interview Islamic despots. Remember the 2003 Dan Rather interview with Sadaam? He actually referred to Sadaam as MR. PRESIDENT. Then refers to Bush SR and JR as just BUSH.

While Wallace and others of his ilk talk of having courage when it comes to their handeling of Republicans, they are pretty cosardly when it comes to putting that same intensity on Islamic despots, or any despot for that matter

Who wants to bet there isn't one question related to the many speeches in which this guy chants "Death to America"....CBS = benedict arnold news

When President Reagan opened up dialogs with the superbutchers in the Soviet Union the world gained. When President Nixon opened up dialogs with the superbutchers in China the world gained. Why not Iran, Syria and North Korea? The alternative is war forever and the sacrifice of the lives and limbs of thousands of young brave but innocent Americans as in Vietnam and Iraq and the innocent human beings of those countries. CBS is only the messenger. Never shoot the messenger.

Yeah, interviewing a head of state is a total communist left wing move... Everyone knows that the only way to make maniacal dictators go away is to close our eyes and shut our ears and pretend they aren't there. The war in Iraq is going to turn the corner any day now, the Koreans are slowly but surely Americanizing and the people of New Orleans deserved that 'cane because they were having interracial anal sex!!!!

paul schrade,

Neither Russia nor China was a religious fanatical government with dreams of an Armageddon ending and a worship of death.

Reagan's "dialogs" to Russia didn't gain ground on talking nice. Reagan's "diplomacy" was like the old cliche' of saying "nice doggie" while reaching for a rock. It wasn't until Reagan told the Soviets he considered them an Evil Empire and was tired of playing the Cold war and he was going to move to "win" the Cold War. Mutually Assured Distruction worked as a deterrent because basically, the Russians didn't have a death wish.

China is the same way and Nixon got their attention by threatening to cease trading and completly obliterating their economy. Their near collapse over the failed collective farms had them in a vulnerable position.

With the fanatics of the Middle East they don't fear destruction they welcome it. They aren't interested in survival as long they can take you with them.

The problem with CBS is they aren't just the messenger but they actively change the message to suit their own needs. How much more fakery do you need to see from the so called "media" to understand they are no longer just the messenger?

I just happened to stumble upon this sight. Here are a couple of thoughts!
Lib does not equal anti-semite. No explanation necessary, except maybe, perhaps, one should look up "semite".
You all seem like some Bush lovers. Sometimes it's hard to believe that you guys are serious. Wasn't he the one in charge on September 11th? If someone remotely competent at anything were president that day, Sept. 11 would not have happened. He's a freaking idiot that goes to events with world leaders, just to curse in public and talk with his mouth open.
I really would love for someone to tell me the benefits of the Bush presidency. I do like the lower capital gains taxes on my trades. Besides that, though, it's been all bad news. Or is that the Democrats' fault, too?
Any benefit anyone can name, please help me understand!

Nathan, your reasoning about Bush being pres on 9/11 rests on believing that Bush had control of the growth of radical Islam since the colonial period of France and England. This is why you're either misguided or deliberately narrow in your intellect. It does not follow that because Bush was president, that he was the cause of the manifestation of the growth of radical Islam across the Middle East. Does that make enough sense to you?

Thank you Faith+1 we are making the same point dialogs and threats made the difference with the USSR and China. Their ideological fanaticism compares with the fanatics of some of the Middle East. The Reagan and Nixon Strategies worked as you point out. What is your strategy for Iran? What would Reagan and Nixon do?

Liberal .. under current terms, does not necessarily mean "anti-semite." I agree. However, based on what I read/hear liberals trout out as items for discussion, I have come to determine that "liberal" means "comepletely ignorant."

Ala:

"If someone remotely competent at anything were president that day, Sept. 11 would not have happened."

Posted by: Nathan Feltman at August 9, 2006 08:05 PM

I've heard this statement copious amounts of times and yet have never heard the person flouting that opinion follow it up with any sort of proof, or even any sort of rational argument.

That's about as assinine a comment as saying that if there were a more competent person in the president's chair in Dec '41, Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened.

Dude. you're off your nut.

The worst thing about the "modern liberal" is that they start off with a seemingly salient point of view; but, give them enough time (and it doesn't take long) they ALL eventually slide right off the table and take all logic with them.

You're not here looking for someone to change your mind, you're looking to pick a fight and push along some whack-job theories. And, to take that tact within the starboard side of the blogosphere is akin to taking a knife into a proverbial gunfight.

The one major advantage to having Bush in office is that he's so enraged the "modern liberal" that they can't help themselves from displaying their true colors.

An unfortunate aspect of giving "modern liberals" access to the internet is painfully reminiscent to the reason you don't give a loaded gun to a toddler.

Bush isn't responsible for the hate, just the lack of defense. Which reminds me of the benefits of the Bush presidency. We get attacked. Say what you will about Clinton, Carter, whatever Lib (is that suposed to be capitalized?) you'd like to blame, but none of them had September 11th happen to them.

Holy s - - t, Mike Wallace is Jewish?!?!?!?

I just happened to stumble upon this sight

Interesting that you used the word “Stumble”.

Here is a clue. The world didn’t love us more because a Democrat was in the oval office.

When Clinton took us to war in Iraq, completely blindsiding the UN Security Council, here was there reactions.

French Reaction:

First, the US decision to bomb Iraq was made without the prior consent of the United Nations Security Council. This is a "legal" mistake, as France believes that the only body with the authority to make decisions regarding Iraq is the Security Council.

Second, the decision to strike was based on the report made by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, which stated that Iraq did not allow the UNSCOM inspectors to complete their missions. However, this position has been challenged by Mr. Butler’s French and Russian advisers, as well as by the report produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which reaches the opposite conclusion. Further, Mr. Butler’s decision to withdraw UNSCOM personnel from Iraq before the strike without prior consultation with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan or the Security Council is another "legal" mistake that has been severely criticized by Minister of Foreign Affairs Vedrine.

Third, the strike was not justified. Even thought Saddam Hussein did not cooperate "sufficiently" with UNSCOM personnel, he did not create a real crisis.

Finally, the strike may invalidate UNSCOM's work, which is broadly considered to be positive, since it has allowed the destruction of more weapons over the past few years than were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War.

What was that all about? You mean to tell me we were not “feeling the love” from the French diplomatically under Clinton.

Oh, I remember were the love fest started with the lefties and the French, it was when the lefties used France as an example how it was OK for their leaders to keep mistresses. They were sooooooo much more cultured for doing so.

Russian Reaction:

The key criticism today is that the air strikes were undertaken before the UN Security Council could formally review the report by Richard Butler, meaning that there was no formal endorsement of his findings and thus no automatic right to use force.

Clinton steadily ticked off the Russians. And just when we all thought we were all going to be the best of buds.

Chinese Reaction:

The Chinese Government harshly condemned the US and British air strikes on Iraq this week. China’s UN Ambassador Qin Huasen was reportedly very angry when he emerged from a Security Council session Wednesday evening after learning the attacks had already begun. "There is absolutely no excuse or pretext to use force against Iraq," Qin said. The Chinese Ambassador noted that the US and British military strikes "violated the UN charter and the norms governing international law." He added, "the leader of UNSCOM has played a dishonorable role in this crisis" by conspiring to provide the United States and Britain with a pretext for their attacks.

What the hell? You mean permanent members of the Security Council didn’t even see Butler’s report before we went to war. Please say it isn’t so.
Too late, it was so.

I just wish that I had a President I felt I could believe, that I believed could get things done, and that I could chat in a right wing blog and not use an alias. Y'all are in denial!

See? They start off with a salient point, and then ... whooosh .. right off the table (I'm ignoring the name changes):

"Say what you will about Clinton, Carter, whatever Lib (is that suposed to be capitalized?) you'd like to blame, but none of them had September 11th happen to them."

Posted by: Nathan Watkins at August 9, 2006 08:22 PM

Ugh - let me know if any of these rings any bells:

Carter: Iranian Hostages

Reagan: Beirut

Bush 1: Kuwait was enough

Clinton: WTC attack of '93, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, OBL declares war on the West ...

I guess I should direct you to the dictionary for the entry on "escalation."

To blame Bush for 911 and not blame Clinton for the WTC '93 attack, or the subsequent terrorist activities is, like I'd said previously, ignorant claptrap or simple partisen slobbering.

And to ignore Carter's role in this entire issue is beyond ignorant.

I'll put my gun away if you drop the knife ...

True, I guess Clinton took us to war with Iraq (it's never declared a war anymore), but Clinton bombed, Bush invaded. Harldy the same thing. Clinton's move was much smarter--so was Clinton.

I just wish that I had a President I felt I could believe, that I believed could get things done, and that I could chat in a right wing blog and not use an alias. Y'all are in denial!

Posted by: Nathan O'Rourke at August 9, 2006 08:32 PM

Denial? You're the one changing names, champ.

Though, I apologize to the other wizbangers ... I've violated the "don't feed the trolls" guideline. For that I apologize.

Every major foreign policy defense problem we face in the USA was generated by actions taken by Democrat administrations, 9/11, Korea, Iran (Carter), etc. Just because the manifestation of those problems don't appear, like 9/11 or revealing massive weapon build-up by Hezbos in Lebanon, until the GOP takes over (having to deal with it), doesn't change the causation of the problems.

The same applies to Israel, where Israel must now confront the build up of all those weapons in Lebanon, enabled by Clinton "diplomacy" in the middle east.

What's sad is that you can ascribe precision blame to Bush because he couldn't stop a somewhat random assembly of people from gaming our way of life to attack us, Nathan. You want to talk tactically about what the U.S. should/could have done to prevent 9/11? Then try to explain to me how Bush could have monitored phone calls and pored over phone records databases and looked at money flows to help narrow the field of suspects and find the perpetrators before they committed the act.. Oh wait, the left side of the aisle blows a gasket! Your logic requires suspension of what life was and is like before and after 9/11 in order to follow.

Contrary to what you might think about conservatives, we don't want to have total govenrment oversight over our entire lives. That the U.S. is not North Korea should be enough evidence of that. I think you may be jumping through hoops to hate on Bush Nate. Eventually you run out of hoops.

I just wish that I had a President I felt I could believe, that I believed could get things done, and that I could chat in a right wing blog and not use an alias

I believed the President when he said this. Why shouldn’t you?

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

There's a difference between Kuwait, Iran, Beirut, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, et al, and getting your butt blasted right here in the USA.
I do have to concede the WTC attack under Clinton.
I'd just prefer execution to slogans and crap. All we get with Bush is slogans and crap.

Um, tactically? Not let 'em on the plane.

There's a difference between Kuwait, Iran, Beirut, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, et al, and getting your butt blasted right here in the USA.
I do have to concede the WTC attack under Clinton.
I'd just prefer execution to slogans and crap. All we get with Bush is slogans and crap.

Posted by: Nathan at August 9, 2006 08:42 PM

Of course you concede the point, you have to. Fact and logic win, all the time.

While I'm up, lemme' grab you a map: In 1993, the WTC, as far as I know, was in the US.

And, how about a book on how a US Embassy is considered US soil. So, getting turtled while religious zealots hold 52 citizens for 444 days would, in my book, constitute a form of "blasting."

As for execution v. slogans ..., that's absurd. The Dems are nothing but slogans, and weak ones at that. Granted, the Bush administration is a bit weak in the slogan department; but, I'll let it slide as long as they're distracted from good slogan creation due to their effectiveness in vaporizing terrorists.

Oh, and the only difference is in geography, there is no difference when someone decides to indiscriminately target innocent people to further their facist goals.

Um, tactically? Not let 'em on the plane.

Posted by: Nathan Watkins at August 9, 2006 08:45 PM

Um, tactically to do that would require racial profiling.

Um, legally ..? The ACLU's panties would be all up in a twist over that, and all the free-love hippie liberal types would be rioting.

What else you got?

I'd just prefer execution to slogans and crap. All we get with Bush is slogans and crap.

Posted by: Nathan at August 9, 2006 08:42 PM

Hezbollah's slogan: "Only The Flock Of Allah Are Victorious" (source: http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/8_04/poster.htm)

America's slogan: "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one.) (and yes, it's now "In God We Trust", but that neither implies a specific god nor that you have to worship a specific god, and I obviously prefer the original one)

Maybe you'd like to diversify your mind and start to look into slogans from Hezbollah if you're so sick of ours? You should note from the link I provide how they create posters of their children covered in weapons and clutching Korans because they're so proud of them for that.

Note that this sort of activity would be properly shunned and ridiculed in the United States if some religious group did that here (it happened with the KKK). Then contemplate why that is.

Um, tactically? Not let 'em on the plane.

Posted by: Nathan Watkins at August 9, 2006 08:45 PM

So how does a president figure out that 19 specific airline passengers are going to hijack and crash planes? Please tell me since you're quite the genius on these matters.

Let me explain for the obtuse

Name one liberal who
1. Supports Israel right to defend itself
2. Does not engage in moral equivocation when comparing Hezbollah/Hamas/Ansar Al Islam/PLO/Any garden variety Islamic radical with 1/4 stick of dynamite and Israel
3. Call a terrorist enabing state a terrorist enabling state (Iran, Former Iraq, Syria, etc)
a. Calling the US a terrorist state/state that commits terror does not count
4. Gets as angry about a radical Islamist fired rocket hitting civilians/person detonating a omb in a civilian market place as they did about Abu Gharib/Guantanamo Bay
5. That would wear fasion with the star of David on it, instead of the latest fashion phenomenon

http://newsbusters.org/node/6503
http://newsbusters.org/node/3142
http://newsbusters.org/node/4688
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005577.htm

Regardless of the politics, one cannot deny Liberals close affinity with Palestine i.e. the terror groups mentioned above

Y'all wore me down, so lick my butt!

^^translation: Once again, in an open intellectual environment, common sense trumps illogic and disguised/misappropriated hatred for Bush. I must flee! Poopyheads!

Bush could have prevented 911 by launching some personal nukes from Crawford and wiping out the middle east, thereby destroying about 96.7% of potential hi-jackers? However the nineteen Ahmadinejad look alikes were already in the country.. So much for Your kook whackjob twisted convoluted delusions You nutjob leftist Nathan whatever..

I was leaving...
I am of the strength=defense school, a la Reagan and Casey. Have it here, coiled and ready to crush at a moment's notice, with some lightning bolts from time to time in the from of covert action, again a la Casey. Don't slow bleed in Iraq, for goodness' sake; what good is that doing us? I don't question the conservative defense philosophy, just the execution of such by this frat boy---aww I couldn't help it (beacause I'm the troll, I guess?)

So how does a president figure out that 19 specific airline passengers are going to hijack and crash planes? Please tell me since you're quite the genius on these matters

Well Tony, to be a part of the intellectual Latte Biscotti Crowd, one has to possess extreme amounts of hindsight.

Yep, it takes real genius for that.

Weren't some of those guys on some watchlist?
Oh, my fault, that was Ted Kennedy1

Nathan, to reply to your post just above Jumpinjoe: While we have the ability to nuke the everloving crap out of a country, and even though we wouldn't lose a single citizen by pressing a button and making a boom across the planet, Americans are better than that. I think we have more respect for our fellow human beings than that, and will instead try to get rid of just the bad (radical Islamic) element, while allowing the victims of the bad and the innocent people to live, and hopefully afterward, prosper. Maybe that's bad cause it's not the quick fix that would play on a half hour TV show, but I don't think so.

And I must stress that I am not saying that Islam is bad. These groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have perverted their religion. Please do not think that because I have harsh words for the people who pervert an otherwise good mesage, that I'm harshing on Islam in general.

3 words to Ahmadinejad and the mythical 12th imam:

BRING IT ON!

MIKE WALLACE is a traitor he is going over to the enemy and inserviewing the leader i mean could you imagine ED MORROW going over to NAZI GERMANY and interviewing ADOLPH HITLER? he is just like your avrage liberal left-wing antiamerican journalists

While some of you have some rather comedic comments, I have yet to see much in the way of dialogue from anyone. It becomes far more difficult to converse when the only voice you hear is your own. That being said, I'll move on.

Weren't some of those guys on some watchlist?
Oh, my fault, that was Ted Kennedy

The only watchlist Ted needs to be on is the National Liquor Stores Association.

Pfft, you think Bush is gonna learn anything about executing non-responsible human beings from this guy? Dubya was executing retards way before the Grand Ayatollah's hand found its way up Ahmadinejad's ass.

USA! USA! USA!

Greenstater

So which Dems did He execute??

ha ha just kiddin..

BC said: " It becomes far more difficult to converse when the only voice you hear is your own. That being said, I'll move on."

Didn't you just fall into your own observation there, sporto?

Dubya was executing retards way before the Grand Ayatollah's hand found its way up Ahmadinejad's ass

Funny, but your hero of the left Bill Clinton started executing retards before Bush was even Governor of Texas.

In fact Clinton had a retarded man executed just to show us how tough he was on crime in the 1992 Presidential Campaign.

I’ll even provide a LEFTY SITE HERE to prove my point that will tell you all about it.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at August 10, 2006 04:16 AM

Yeah, but at least he/she sounded and felt superior to us while saying it : )

I hope this newest crisis is A WAKE UP CALL to all who deny we are at war with the Islamofacists.

To those in my home state of CT who voted for Ned Lamont on Tuesday, I hope you take this new threat very serriously.

Hell yeah, BigCatGirl! A vote for Lamont is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

USA! USA! USA!

Hello American Fascists. Haven't you had your fix of bloodlust yet? The people of the world will resist your Crusades and incursions. Only ohen you stop thumping your Bibles and kneeling before God's chosen people will the world will stop hating you.
Sod off you Fascists.

Ahhh reality check please, those who choose to compare Clinton to bush accomplishments are far by off.. Who’s accomplished more for the American people? Clinton.. Who turned a national deficit into the largest surplus in 30 years? Clinton, and who spent most of it? Bush.Unemployment during Clinton’s presindency was @ an all time low. He might not have been good @ foreign policy but he sure cared about the American people. So Mr. Nathan please excuse yourself from your 'I Love president Bush's dick' rhetoric...

I have an important question to ask about this whole Iranian "threat." What is OUR problem? What I think Iran Leader is doing is trying to FIX the world, not destroy it. No man, in his right mind, would want to destroy countless people, while saying that murder is a sin. He wants US to act, and ACT we SHOULD. Are we the "greatest" nation? Or are we the most Naive? Who are we to say that Iran can't build nukes? Yes, maybe he IS going too far, but didn't we go TOO far in alot of things? Why are we fighting? What is the point of fighting? All that happens in fighting is destruction. All that happens in destruction is what? Rebirth. But why would we want to destroy? why not just be Born Again? In this day and age, people are turning from Christ more than ever. But yet again, who are we to judge? Who is Iran to judge. I think Iran is judging us to Help Us. HOW CAN WE BE SO STUPID! They are telling us that what we are doing is wrong, so why do we proceed? God above only knows why. So my final words are, Let's make peace with Iran, and focus on the main threat....ourselves.