Wallace's Disturbing Defense of Ahmadinejad
Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 12:43PM
“Like snow in summer and rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a fool."
- Proverbs 26:1
That pretty much describes Mike Wallace.
You may have already heard about the telephone interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show with CBS's Mike Wallace. Wallace interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week for this Sunday’s 60 Minutes on CBS. On CBS’s website is a clip from the Ahmadinejad interview as well as Wallace's thoughts about the interview.
Those “thoughts” are less measured on Sean Hannity’s radio show a few days ago, although clearly Wallace struggled at times to appear politically correct. Wallace was absolutely drenched in the afterglow of his meeting with the nutty professor of Iran. Wallace sounded almost inebriated with love. It was truly sickening.
To hear a good composite of clips in one link, go to Hot Air and listen to the audio. For a more in depth listen to the Hannity/Wallace interview, visit the Independent Conservative and listen to all 3 audio clips. Take the time. Listen. It is well worth the education.
Monday night on C-Span, the entire uncut commercial free 90 minute interview will be aired. Recommended viewing.
What truly makes Mike Wallace’s discussion with Sean Hannity so disturbing is not only the orgasmic nature of Wallace’s regard for himself and his alliance with an enemy of Israel and America, but the idea that he actually believed what he said. Ahmadinejad used Wallace like a pimp and Wallace seemed to enjoy every minute. The initial flattery upon this meeting of the minds by Ahmadinejad seemed to have bolstered Wallace's pride. The "He likes me! A world leader likes me!" attitude projected in the Hannity interview is simply embarrassing. Ahmadinejad proceeded and persuaded Wallace that:
1) Jews shouldn’t be in their historical homeland of Israel because it is now surrounded by Arab countries, but should be moved to Europe or America. No kidding. Israel should be moved to America....perhaps to make us both easier targets? Hard to say. The idea is that if the Holocaust occurred, it occurred in Europe. Wallace asked Hannity, “The Zionist entity goes into the middle of the Arab world…why not put it in Germany? Alaska?” This does nothing to address the historical claim the Jews have in Israel or the persecution that forced the Diaspora in the first place. Ahmadinejad acts in the interview as if Islam has not been exacting the same persecution and annihilation of Jews for centuries in the same manner as Hitler.
2) Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic.
3) Ahmadinejad is “smart, savvy, self-assured, self-righteous, impressive, reasonable, rational, attractive man, very smart, good looking”.
4) Ahmadinejad has “answers for all that” (including questioning the Holocaust and the desire to wipe Israel off the map).
5) There are many anti-Zionist Jews who also agree that “we can be Jewish in Alaska or the far east... Why is it that we have to have a state?” ("Why is it that they don't?" is the better question)
6) Ahmadinejad is not interested in wiping Israel off the map, in bombs or destroying people, but rather in sense, to love each other, to give each other an opportunity……in diplomacy…..
7) Ahmadinejad’s “dislike” for the United States is reasonably based on our support of the Zionists.
8) Ahmadinejad is not a nutcase.
9) Ahmadinejad has a PHD in Civil Engineering (and????)
10) We shouldn’t be prejudiced against the Iranian Prime Minister, who was freely elected by Iranians. (It's worth noting that Hamas was also elected into power in Palestine and Saddam in Iraq, but neither was necessarily a good thing)
It goes on and on. It’s hard to not feel uncomfortable hearing the sickening seduction, almost like listening to a date rape with a willing victim.
Here are some facts about the nutty professor of Iran:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said. "Israel must be wiped off the map. The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland," while 3,000 Iranian students chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" in response.
He is a liar, originally denying accusations that Iran trains and arms Palestinian militant groups, saying it offers only moral support. We now know Iran not only funds Hezbollah but uses Iranian soldiers in the Hezbollah Army. In other words, Iran is fighting a proxy war against Israel (Jews) using Lebanon.
Iran has gravely complicated the mission in Iraq to free 27 million people by sending Iranian terrorists to incite civil war and thwart the efforts for democracy in this country. Iran has, by this deduction, become a great enemy of America and Iraq. Many Arab countries have also condemned Iran's Hezbollah.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly refused U.N. and international calls to disarm its nuclear program while adhering to the believe that he has a role to play in the “end times” in an Islamic interpretation of Armegedon. Ahmadinejad wants to usher in this final conflict.
After his election in 2005, Ahmadinejad said: “Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
Jews and other minorities in Iran are all excluded from "sensitive" senior posts in the military and judiciary. Iranian authorities refuse to allow Jewish schools to close on the Sabbath, a normal working day for the rest of Iran.
Ahmadinejad said Jan. 5, 2006: "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."
While giving a speech at the U.N. in December 2005, Ahmadinejad had a “vision” and said:
"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad', he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes - Alhamdulillah!"
The “non-judgmental” or unprejudiced look at Ahmadinejad that Wallace urges us to all have in the spirit of peace, love and understanding is asinine. It is along the lines of, if not worse than, former Sec. of State Madeline Albright’s opinion that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, in his meeting with her, is “really quite open”, “I don't think he's delusional”.
The odd fascination of the western liberal with enemies and terrorists is one hard to understand for reasonable folks, but it exists nonetheless. The reality of media types empathizing with the thugs of the world in a mutual self-service can be summed up in the ancient words of King Solomon:
"A man who flatters his neighbor is laying a net for his steps." (Proverbs 29:5) and "Pride goes before destruction and arrogance before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18). Amen.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/628025
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (31)
that's how to be "open-minded" and cultured like the French, and Mike Wallace.
the really scary part is just how many people in the world think just like him.
What I want to know is, why is it important what terrorist and limp-wristed countries think of US instead of what WE think of them?
You make me so proud of you, I thought that I was the only one to use that definition Limp-Wristed that is what I call the Liberals all the time. LOL :-)
Does that, "Please, understand me, I'm a good man and I love my ... uh ... SELF!" look seem familiar?
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Frye? Frye?
C'mon, you gotta get this one folks ...
Who's with me?
That is the exact reason that I don't play along with the Political Correctness crowd, ever notice how Liberals get so in a huff when you make a unpolitical correctness statment, that is how you get to Liberals most of all, sure they will get angry and start to call you something like raceist homophic and all their other idiotic words, I have had that happen to me and I turn to face them and laugh in their face and that gets them even more aggrivated because Liberals don't like to be laughed at and turn away from them because they think that they deserve attention. So you have solved all kinds of issues just by doing that and you get the most affect if you treat them that way. It hurts their feelings because Liberals are not a Rational or Logic based they solve issues by feelings alone. That is also what comes of too much of an open mind is that the brains fall out.
Great article Amy. Yeah, I heard Wallace on Hannity. (Best Bugs Bunny voice) "What a maroon!" I'm beginning to think Wallace is gay. Did you notice he said Ahmadinejad was "impressive", "attractive", and "good-looking"? Yeah, really? And, so what? President Bush could be described with all those attributes too. So why does Bush get raked over the coals then? Wallace is over the edge 'looney-tunes"... Da, da, da, Dat's All Folks!
Regards...
I agree with ya, and add that such silly notions as "moral equivalence" are, at best intellectually lame, at worst, simply an excuse for a person's own immoral behavior.
It's hypocritical too, in that none of these folks who ascribe to such notions would ever be subject to them, would the average liberal want their children subject to sharia? no. only others children.
the simple fact is that some ideas are better than others, and societies are built on ideas.
Jihad against muslims !
(whisper) let the homo try to make peace with the Muslims, maybe he'll figure out who the Jihadi's really are when they're parting his noggin from his shoulders with a dull knife.
I can see it now, there's going to be a "queers for Sharia" protest group in the near future. LOL
(you can't make stuff like this up! they need to be makin ignorance of Sharia=death t-shirts)
that' just TOO funny!!
I wish I could say all these mean-spirited references to homosexuals was unworthy of your blog…but unfortunately it seems to be all too common.
Did anybody actually fact check the answers that were given by Ahmadinejad?
Did anybody notice this irony:
>>>"The popularity of Iran's controversial leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is surging almost a year after he unexpectedly won a closely contested presidential election, Iranian officials and western diplomats said yesterday.
Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said that as matters stood, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a second term in 2009. The perception that the president was standing up to the US on the nuclear issue was also boosting his standing...
..."He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. "I guess he has a 70% APPROVAL RATING right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's comfortable communicating with ordinary people."
While there are no reliable national opinion polls in Iran, western diplomats acknowledged that support for Mr Ahmadinejad is growing, defying predictions after last June's election that he would not last more than three months."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1802280,00.html
And the American President?
>>>"Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's job- approval rating declined to 33 percent, matching a record low, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that signaled public discontent with the economy and the Iraq war."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVxh9WpyPfys&refer=us
I mean, I get it. I really do. I mean, how DARE these Iranians meddle in US corporate affairs in the Middle East. I mean, what possible reason could Iranians have to challenge our corporate oil schemes and proxy wars...
except...
We did it to them FIRST.
>>>"The minority version has now been validated by the unofficial release of the C.I.A.'s secret history about the Iranian coup of 1953.
The 200-page document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role American and British intelligence services played in initiating and planning the coup. It shows that Washington and London-who constituted the coalition of two in the recent war against Iraq-shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil. Donald Wilbur wrote the document in March 1954, based on agency cable traffic and interviews with agents on the ground in Iran. Excerpts were published by James Risen in the New York Times in April 2000 and the entire document was subsequently posted on the Times web site. Recent events in Iraq have given Wilbur's history a new salience, and it is featured in the May 19 issue of Time magazine.
Wilbur lists seven reasons for why the C.I.A. carried out the coup. Oil heads the list. He says, "By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested western countries." Mossadeq was an impassioned speaker and popular politician who had long argued against the British domination of Iranian oil. The Anglo-Iranian oil company, a predecessor of today's British petroleum, held the concession for all of Iran's oil. Mossadeq wanted a fifty-fifty sharing arrangement with the British, which was becoming the industry standard, but they refused. On becoming Iran's premier, he nationalized the company.
According to Professor Mark Gasiorowski of Louisiana State University, the coup was stage-managed meticulously by the C.I.A. It prepared the groundwork for the coup by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq. There was no popular uprising on behalf of the Shah. The history says agency officers orchestrating the Iran coup worked directly with royalist Iranian military officers, sent a stream of envoys to bolster the shah's courage, directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party, and planted articles, editorial cartoons and fake interviews in the Iranian press."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2003/0528cia.htm
In other words, the US and the British instigated a "regime change" in a sovereign country over OIL.
Hmmm....
Do you get a hint of deja vu right about now?
--Cobra
It's also worth noting that while Bush's ratings may be low, people don't chant DEATH TO IRAN! DEATH TO PALESTINE! during his speeches. I guess the "DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO AMERICA!" chants don't bother you. Why should it? You love our enemies more than you love your own country. Sick.
And Oil is the big conspiracy theory of the decade. If we're trying to acquire oil, why don't we just drill in Alaska, and how come we're not benefitting (oil) from this war on terror? Where's the pay off?
>>>"And Oil is the big conspiracy theory of the decade. If we're trying to acquire oil, why don't we just drill in Alaska, and how come we're not benefitting (oil) from this war on terror? Where's the pay off?"
Actually, oil is the big conspiracy of the CENTURY. I think we have to be careful here in our terminology. "We're" not trying to acquire oil. MULTINATIONAL OIL CORPORATIONS are. There is no "United States Oil Co." that would drill in Alaska anyway, and the American people wouldn't reap any benefit from it anyway.
Where's the "payoff", you ask? Why, just pick up a newspaper.
>>>"NEW YORK -- Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest public oil company, yesterday reported that quarterly profit surged 35 per cent to more than $10-billion (U.S.), driven by yet another quarter of sharply higher oil prices.
It was the second-largest quarterly operating profit ever posted by a U.S. company, just shy of the Texas company's own record fourth-quarter profit reported in January."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060728.IBEXXON28/TPStory/Business
--Cobra