September 24, 2007
From Pelley's interview with Ahmadinejad:
PELLEY: I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush's words to you. What's your reply to the president?
Wow. Pot, meet kettle.
September 24, 2007 | Permalink
what an idiot this Pelley is. He can't think of any more attack/questions on his own so he puts another oneout there from Bush. What a cocke-up way to conductan interview.
Posted by: della Rovere | Sep 24, 2007 10:04:06 AM
OK, let's be absolutely clear about one thing - Bush is a bad president, but he absolutely has the standing to criticize Ahmadinejad, who is the bigoted leader of a backwards nation which supports Hezbollah. It's pretty absurd to compare a holocaust denier to, well, any leader of the western world.
Posted by: HFS | Sep 24, 2007 10:21:51 AM
It's a legitimate question, and it's not like it's the only one he asked. Surely what Bush and Ahmadinejad say about each other is newsworthy.
Posted by: Ronnie Pudding | Sep 24, 2007 10:22:01 AM
Okay, reading below, maybe there weren't any good questions. But asking Bush and Ahmadinejad to comment on each other is still legit.
Posted by: Ronnie Pudding | Sep 24, 2007 10:24:10 AM
Bush is a bad president, but he absolutely has the standing to criticize Ahmadinejad, who is the bigoted leader of a backwards nation which supports Hezbollah
Except that Bush has killed far, far, far more people than Ahmadinejad has, and is ever likely to.
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 24, 2007 10:45:11 AM
And starting an unprovoked war like Bush has makes him better? Are you fuc-ing kidding me?
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Sep 24, 2007 10:46:05 AM
HFS: isn't Bush a Holocaust denier in his own way? It's really sad that the only difference between Bush and the various tyrants of history is that he hasn't had his own genocide. That doesn't mean Bush is a good person! He's authorized murder and larceny on a grand scale.
Bush has no "standing" to criticize anybody else. If you want to criticize Ahmadenijad, do so by all means. But if we stack up the death tolls from Bush's war against Ahmadenijad's terrorism, the numbers really are not going to be close.
Only Americans can be so cavalier about actual war while simultaneously being so righteous about terrorism. Maybe at some point the people of the US need to wake up and realize that war is just like terrorism, but just on a much grander scale. Deploring the latter while glossing over the ills of the former does not a defensible moral position make.
Posted by: RickD | Sep 24, 2007 11:01:09 AM
I think the term for this is "projection."
Posted by: Mimir | Sep 24, 2007 11:01:23 AM
Projecting like a multiplex.
Posted by: Jack Lecou | Sep 24, 2007 11:56:01 AM
RickD: Isn't Bush a Holocaust denier in his own way?
No, he isn't. Bush also doesn't chant "Death to Israel." Need I go on?
"Maybe at some point the people of the US need to wake up and realize that war is just like terrorism, but just on a much grander scale."
No, it isn't. We didn't target civilians intentionally during this war, unlike say in WWII, and unlike what terrorism explicitly does. Not that we haven't caused tremendous suffering in Iraq, or that starting the war was somehow the right thing to do. But what we have done/are doing there is not terrorism, and we have not sunk to Ahmadinejad's level in any case.
Posted by: HFS | Sep 24, 2007 12:01:14 PM
Shorter Pelley interview: "I'll say some stupid and crazy things to you, allowing you to look smart and sane, so that way when liberals point out that you look smart, we can condemn liberals as being traitorous haters of Israel".
Nu? Isn't that what the game plan is? Or am I being too paranoid?
Posted by: DAS | Sep 24, 2007 12:02:02 PM
We didn't target civilians intentionally during this war, unlike say in WWII, and unlike what terrorism explicitly does.And unlike the Israeli bombing of Lebanon.
Although I bet a lot of people would like to see evidence that we didn't target civilians intentionally, given how many of them we seem to have "accidentally" killed.
Posted by: Chris | Sep 24, 2007 12:16:10 PM
No, he isn't. Bush also doesn't chant "Death to Israel."
So what? Bush is usually chanting "Death to [enemy du jour]." Our government's problem isn't that Ahmadinejad supports terrorists, but that he supports the wrong ones.
But what we have done/are doing there is not terrorism, and we have not sunk to Ahmadinejad's level in any case.
Have you been paying attention at all? What about the random sweeps through Iraqi neighborhoods that take civilians off to Abu Graib to be tortured? What about the Blackwater mess? Is there any nation on earth that has suffered an estimated 1,000,000 deaths, with a couple million more displaced, because of Ahmadinejad's policies?
This isn't either/or. You can be unhappy with Ahmadinejad and George Bush. The tragedy here is that the man who denies the Holocaust and chants "death to Israel" is the one who regularly comes off like a rational figure, even a statesman.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2007 12:43:01 PM
I read Pelley's "interview". Forget Ahmadinejad, he wasn't being interviewed, Pelley was interviewing for a bigger job/salary. Pelly was just in search of personal wealth and Ahmadinejad saw Pelly for the tool that he was...if Pelly wasn't hurting America's interests by making the US look infantile, it would be amusing.
I would describe the interview as one big shameless suck-up to power.
Pelly publicly brown-nosed Bush's fanny. Disgusting.
America's pathetic poodle press makes Pravda's tall tales pale by comparison.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 24, 2007 2:58:29 PM
Let's get our arguments straight here. You said Ahmadenijad was a "Holocaust denier". You have moved your accusation to saying he shouts out "Death to Israel". You do realize that you've changed the accusation, yes?
Bush has invaded a country and led to a death toll in the six figures. He is not, technically speaking, a "Holocaust denier", but he is definitely in denial about the fact that a good proportion of those deaths have resulted as a consequence of his actions.
And no, Bush doesn't chant "Death to Israel". Duh. But he did start this war with the language of a crusade, and it has been clear since 2001 that he is targeting Iran as well as Iraq and any other nation that stands in the way of American imperialistic ambitions in the Middle East. And for what it's worth, the equivalent to "Death to Israel" is "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran." That is the chant of Bush supporters.
So, tell me again, how Bush is in any way morally superior to Mr. Ahmadenijad? I think neither is better than the other, but the real difference is in how much power they command. Bush has considerably more power to exercise in this world and thus far is the one in the menacing position, neocon bedwetting night terrors nothwithstanding.
BTW, claiming that the US has not been "targeting civilians in this war" is pretty much laughable. Civilians have not only been targeted, they have been slaughtered and, while we're at it, kidnapped, extradited, disappeared in holes in the ground and tortured. From what I know about the citizens who happened to have this happen to them who also had the good fortune to be British or German citizens, it is very clear that a lot of innocent people have gotten caught up in this dragnet. But since Mr. Bush's policy is to never admit any mistakes, people continue to be detained without any evidence having been presented to any formal body about links to terrorism.
And no, terrorism is not morally worse than war. Certainly not the way the US is practicing war these days. I suggest you read up on the practice of using bait to gather targets for snipers, or what Blackwater has been up to recently. The moral degredation of the military in Iraq has been appalling, and the tone for this behavior has consistently been set at the highest levels.
On the other hand, Ahmadenijad isn't even really in charge of Iran. But he has said some hate-filled things at time, so he must be worse than Bush. *sigh*
Posted by: RickD | Sep 24, 2007 4:10:24 PM
"And no, terrorism is not morally worse than war."
Sorry. I can't have a conversation with you if you really think that, because my moral relativism doesn't extend that far. We're from different planets; in your world, the Iranian theocracy wants nothing more than to be our bestest buddies, and their sponsorship of terrorism is a legitimate tool to attain their political ends, whose stated goals include the eradication of Israel and worldwide spread of the Ummah, since non-muslims aren't human beings. In mine, I'm trying to understand how we can prevent Iran, who has been our determined enemy for years, from further ruining an already terrible situation in Iraq.
You and the others begin by assuming bad faith on the part of the Government/military and working from there. I'm not willing to do that, so it appears trying to discuss things with you is a waste.
Posted by: HFS | Sep 24, 2007 4:41:20 PM
in your world, the Iranian theocracy wants nothing more than to be our bestest buddies,
In the real world, no one believes this except you. Until you accept this fact, you'll never make sense.
I'm trying to understand how we can prevent Iran, who has been our determined enemy for years, from further ruining an already terrible situation in Iraq.
Well, you could wait until there is actual evidence that Iran is doing anything at all to make the situation worse. All we have so far is a combination of Bush Administration talking points - and discredited "evidence" - repeated ad nauseam by media-abetted GOP flacks and assumptions that Iran must be doing something, because they're bad, bad, bad.
Really, Iran doesn't need to do anything to make the situation worse in Iraq except wait until the next time someone in the Bush Administration comes up with an idea.
You and the others begin by assuming bad faith on the part of the Government/military and working from there.
That simply isn't clear at all. I would counter that the impression I get is you begin with the assumption that your political opponents are craven America-haters that mindlessly glom onto whoever the latest Bush-basher happens to be. Of course, the fact that Iran is a theocracy which strongly curtails individual freedoms in the name of God and security makes the current hostility between them and America's right wing likely a temporary thing. The left wing will always be suspicious of theocrats, even if we're capable of recognizing when they manage to say something true.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2007 5:08:37 PM
Stephen: re: Iran arming insurgents in Iraq today:
of course, one of our Generals said it, so it can't possibly be true!
Posted by: HFS | Sep 24, 2007 5:17:31 PM
That's not evidence. It's just someone saying something. I assume neither mendacity or inherent integrity just because someone is in the military.
If this nation functioned the way it's supposed to, people like Barbero and you would recognize that Barbero's boss, the President, works for the people, is answerable to them, thereby making Barbero answerable to them as well. The government of the United States is not supposed to reign over us, but to serve us.
So in my not-so-humble opinion, a civilian always trumps a soldier in rank, no matter how high that soldier's rank may become. And if one of my generals who works for me wants to say that Iran is training and arming Shiites in Iraq, he'd better be prepared to give me some evidence, something to back the claim up.
Anyway, as I said before, Iran doesn't need to do anything to make things in Iraq worse tomorrow than they are today. They don't need to arm Shiites - we do that already, depending on what time of day it is.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2007 5:33:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.