Mike Wallace interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I guess Mr. Wallace wanted to give Mahmoud the opportunity to pontificate on how America is evil and must become an Islamic theocracy in order to acheive true greatness:
(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down with Mike Wallace in Tehran on Tuesday in a rare, exclusive interview with a Western reporter.
In the wide-ranging interview, the Iranian leader comments on President Bush’s foreign policy, the lack of relations between Iran and the United States, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.
Speaking about President Bush’s failure to answer his 18-page letter that criticized U.S. foreign policy, Ahmadinejad said, “Well, (with the letter) I wanted to open a window towards the light for the president so that he can see that one can look on the world through a different perspective. … We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate. You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day 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.”
Right. This monster is going to offer advice to President Bush about how to hold his head high as a leader. So, Mr. Ahamdinejad, does hanging 16 year old girls help you hold your head high?
Update: Robert at Jihad Watch:
When Iran’s Thug-In-Chief sent his letter to President Bush, I pointed out that it had the form of invitations to accept Islam that preceded jihad attacks all the way back to Muhammad’s day. The prophet of Islam himself wrote to the Byzantine emperor Heraclius and other rulers, telling them, “Accept Islam and your lives and property will be safe” — with the clear implication that their lives and property would not be safe if they did not accept Islam. Muhammad directed his followers to call unbelievers to accept Islam or dhimmitude, and to go to war if they rejected both (cf. Sahih Muslim 4294). Ahmadinejad here makes clear that that is exactly what he is doing with Bush: telling him to accept Islam, or face the consequences.
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.
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?!?!?!?
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:
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:
Clinton steadily ticked off the Russians. And just when we all thought we were all going to be the best of buds.
Chinese Reaction:
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.
Nathan O’Rourke
I believed the President when he said this. Why shouldn’t you?
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?)
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?
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.