Wallace has interviewed Ahmadinejad for Sixty Minutes. According to the Hollywood Reporter, "The 88-year-old Wallace, who has interviewed almost every notable person in his nearly 40 years on '60 Minutes,' said Wednesday that he wasn't going to let a little matter such as retirement stop him from doing a story about one of the biggest gets these days."
So what does he think of the man whose agents are killing scores of Americans in Iraq, not to mention thousands of Iraqis, and who also is the world's leading Holocaust denier and most dangerous anti-Semite [relevant aside: Wallace is Jewish], currently engaged in a devastating proxy war with Israel and threatening to wipe out the country entirely? "He's actually, in a strange way, he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way.... He couldn't have been more accomodating. He had a good time doing the interview." These comments are not balanced out by any negative impressions from Wallace, except to note that his interview subject is "very, very short" but, he added immediately, "he's comfortable in his own skin." If Wallace doesn't feel revulsion at meeting the likes of Ahmadinejad, it really makes me wonder. [This can be dangerous stuff. I was going to post something along the lines that I'm sure Stalin was quite charming, too, but then I remembered that Stalin actually charmed the pants [actually the Poland] right off of FDR.]
UPDATE: Powerline has similar thoughts.
UPDATE: I guess I shouldn't have wondered. Wallace apparently has no moral sense beyond a belief that he should "get the story." Outside the Beltway recounts this hypothetical posed to Wallace:
With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn’t," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That’s purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings’s answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You’re a reporter. Granted you’re an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I’m a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn’t Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
UPDATE: A commenter notes that Chris Wallace says his dad has "lost it." In December, Wallace said that if he had the chance to interview President Bush, he'd ask: "What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?" Somehow, I doubt Wallace will be as hostile to the President of Iran!
Related Posts (on one page):
- Kos Readers Reactions to Wallace Interview With Ahmedinejad:
- Mike Wallace Buddies Up to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
He met him. You didn't.
That's probably why he stands on a box for photo-ops with others.
How about a question about Ahmedinejad’s statement that Israel, ‘whose philosophy is based on threats, massacre, and invasion, has reached its finishing line.’?
I'm with you Prof. Bernstein, if I was that close, it wouldn't be to chat. One of us would walk away alive, and the other dead.
Sorry, CaDan, but if it comes down to a choice between Bernstein and Ahmadinejad, I'm voting to keep Bernstein.
Perhaps I should point out that the authors' names are prominently displayed right at the top of the post, and if you don't like reading what a given author says it's very, very easy to just avoid him.
The man is leading Iran in the wrong direction and Wallace probably didn't pin him to the wall as he should have, but Ahmadinejad is not Jeffrey Dahmer, oozing unwholesomeness and derangement. At the end of the day, he's just another guy.
John: Isn't banality palpable by definition? Ahmadinejad particular brand of evil may be unoriginal, but it's quite perceptible.
Suppose Mike Wallace interviewed the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, and pretty much made positive comments about him, and didn’t ask tough questions. How would you feel about that?
What they do is allow dull-witted people (the only kind who watch '60 Minutes') to feel they have 'gotten to know' some distant personage.
It ain't journalism, but Wallace has not been about journalism for a long, long time.
Perhaps my definition of 'lunatic' differs from John Armstrong's, but by my definition, Ahmedinijad is a lunatic all right. That he is indistinguishsable from anybody else in the Iranian government doesn't change that.
And because I don't have the ability to edit my posts: In my 12:37am post I meant "Hugo", of course.
It could just be me, but maybe that's why this compulsive newsjunky hasn't subscribed to a newspaper or newsweekly in 8 years, nor watched CBSnews or what's his name's progam for a lot longer.
Is anyone else tired of Professor Bernstein's pro-Israel propaganda on Volokh? In my opinion it is really getting ridiculous. You don't advance a position by obsessively flooding a law blog with transparently one-sided posts.
Does Eugene Volokh promote Mr. Bernstein's posts? If not, I would recommend the following for Professor Volokh: (1) Get an anti-Zionist blogger to help balance Professor Bernstein's point of view. (2) Move all Israel related posts to a subsection of the blog, where they can be accessed by those who want to read them, without suffocating the rest of the blog.
Just a thought.
So why are leftists so utterly infatuated with totalitarians? Because they ARE totalitarians.
If history has taught us anything, it's that short megalomaniacs who want to kill all the Jews are trouble for us all.
If history has taught us anything, its that short, genocidal megalomaniacs with any kind of ethno-supremicist, religio-supremicist, etc. bent are trouble for us all.
Harry Eagar-
What they do is allow dull-witted people (the only kind who watch '60 Minutes') to feel they have 'gotten to know' some distant personage.
Riigghht. I'd like to see a rundown of your weekly viewing habits. I'm sure we'd be in for some real cultural and intellectual enrichment.
I'm sure someone is. I'm not. But I'm here because I enjoy reading interesting, educated and intelligent commentary from people I generally agree with.
For the same thing as Wallace's interview on a smaller scale, on Monday morning ABC reporter Matt Guttman in Beirut was doing phone conversations with various newsradio reporters. On WBZ-AM (Boston) he ended his call with Gary Lapiere by noting the damage that the Israeli airstrikes were doing to Beirut without killing the Hezbollah leaders they claimed were in bunkers they were going after. (There was an implication, or at least a drawable inference, that Guttman thought this was merely an excuse to destroy parts of Beirut.) Guttman concluded (close to verbatim, from memory -- this part of the interview was not on the website a few hours later) "If the Hezbollah leaders have survived this much bombing, more power to them."
I emailed WBZ about one of their reporters cheering for the terrorists and requested a response, which has not yet come.
Anybody care to comment on the UK's breaking up a plot to blow up numerous commercial jets filled with Brits and Americans? Like I said, savagery.
I like reading Volokh, but I love reading Bernstein. Often I don't agree with the exact degree of his opinions, but they are interesting to read, and once I've gone through the comments, I usually have a bettter understanding of whatever issue os being discussed.
I don't think 'Zionist' really represents any particular side in this battle. Israelis have their home now, and if it really was unjustly earned (which seems ridiculous) then that makes Israel no different from most other nations. They are just trying to survive in their home - isn't that clear? Could they be more accomodating?
What is going on in Israel is extremely important. It's a heck of a lot more important than crosswords and penumbras (though that stuff is also interesting). Bernstein is a great credit to this blog, and it's kinda tiresome to see anonymous people rag all over him when his posts are always critiqued very thoroughly. He's not exactly being a coward here, even if he is predictable.
That one or more readers think this is a good occasion to suggest that the VC add an "anti-Zionist" commentator is very curious. How about just coming out and defending Ahmadinejad on substance? You know you want to.
[FURTHER Complaints about Bernstein deleted. This is a comment thread for the post above, not the complaint dept. I've left the part of the post that is at least tenuously related to the topic of the thread intact.]
I'm a big supporter of Israel, including Israel's attack on Lebanon, but I have to agree with this. Moreover, I'm pretty appalled by Bernstein's demands, which remind me of nothing more than a ceauceascu-ian demand that everyone in the country toe the line set by the rulers. And this holds true for several commentors as well.
I mean, get a grip. Wallace made *no* comments that expressed any support for Ahmadinejad's stupid or lunatic (it can be hard to tell). Instead, he wrote:
These are Wallace's impressions during the interview; they don't strike me as being particularly sycophantic, nor is it surprising that a successful politician should be self-confidant or attractive. I think the the public benefits from knowing something real about A's personality and how he presents himself, even if he "self-assurance" is a positive trait.
So these stalinist-style demands that Wallace find/include/invent/demonstrate a series of traits that will balance out these comments is misguided and wrong.
Inequities? Have you looked at a map? Arab and Muslim nations have vast swaths of land, the majority of all the oil, and a good many nations with decidely ruthless governments under actual theocratic law.
Israel is a little slice of land with resources built from the sweat and blood of those who would work the land. Where's the inequality? Equality does not consist of what Ahmadinejad wants which is the entire destruction of Israel so that Iran and Syria can oppress Palestinians.
Israel exists and has the right to defend itself from foreign terrorists and nations. Racism is indeed over. Deal with it.
Moreover, he castigated Peter Jennings who said initially that yes, Jennings would inform of the impending ambush.
That is all you need to know about Mike Wallace.
After getting word two weeks ago from CBS's liason in Tehran, Sia Zand, that Ahmadinejad would be willing to talk, Wallace hopped a plane to Paris and then Tehran with producer Bob Anderson and associate producer Casey Morgan.
But when they got there they were told that the Iranian president was very busy and may not get to talk to them. The CBS crew cooled their heels, so to speak, in Tehran's 100-degree heat in a hotel without air conditioning.
"We waited, and they said, 'he's still busy, he doesn't know, he hasn't decided,'" Wallace said. "We were scheduled to return. If he hadn't talked to us by late Tuesday we were going to get on the plane. All of the sudden word came through he was going to talk."
The 3:30 p.m. interview didn't come off until 5 p.m., but Wallace said their talk stretched for an hour and a half. "We went on and on," Wallace said. "We were told we were going to get 30 minutes."
Wallace has spent a lot of time in Iran over the past four decades, interviewing the Shah, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and, most famously, the 1979 sitdown with the Ayatollah Khomeini who asked the Iranian leader what he thought of Anwar Sadat's desciption of him as a lunatic.
There wasn't any of that this time. Wallace dismissed the common perceptions of Ahmadinejad.
"He's actually, in a strange way, he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way," Wallace said. "He's very, very short but he's comfortable in his own skin."
Despite problems with translation -- there was only one translator for a time during the interview -- Wallace said Ahmadinejad was patient.
"He couldn't have been more accomodating. He had a good time doing the interview," Wallace said. And he believes that it was Ahmadinejad's idea to do the interview. He acknowledged that he had become a much-desired interview subject but told the veteran CBS journalist that he remembered a discussion the two had over a year ago when Ahmadinejad was in New York.
"I don't know if you remember this or not but you and I had a talk over breakfast at the United Nations," Ahmadinejad told Wallace. "Do you remember that you asked me at the time if I would sit down with you ... and I said by all means, let's do it." Wallace said he was surprised that Ahmadinejad had remembered.
BTW, by commenting at all on what he thinks of his interview subject, Wallace makes himself part of the story in the sense that he isn't just letting viewers decide for themselves after watching his interview. A truly "objective" journalist wouldn't comment, but also would get less publicity for his interview. I guess ratings trumps all.
I think it's a good thing to let the guy talk. People have a better chance to see his evil.
If this were 1935, I would say, "Let Hitler speak his mind. The more we hear, the better."
Moreover, Prof. Bernstein has the gall to state facts that would lead reasonable people view Israel in a positive light. That is very unfair.
AM is completely right. For balance, the blog needs an anti-Zionist, a hater of the Jewish nation. I suggest that Prof. Volokh recruit an anti-Israel blogger from Neo-Nazi writers, as it may be legally problematic to have direct contact with Al-Qaeda. The Neo-Nazi bloggers have impeccable anti-Zionist credentials. Thanks AM for your brilliant comment!
Indeed, the basic idea is quite simple: journalists serve a greater good by conveying their observations to people who cannot witness things (important people, events, and so on) directly. And if that is indeed a greater good, then sometimes it may be morally justifiable for journalists to choose to take actions that will help them gain and preserve access (for themselves and for future journalists as well), rather than following what would otherwise be the right course of action for a non-journalist in the same position.
And a lawyer should indeed at least understand this concept, even if he personally does not agree with its conclusions. In particular, lawyers should be quite familiar with the idea that a system in which different people have different roles to play, and where the participants are ethically bound to constrain themselves to playing their assigned role and not others, arguably may end up achieving a greater overall good than a system in which each person is tasked to be a completely independent moral agent.
Of course, some lawyers reject that notion with respect to the legal system (although usually not "conservative" lawyers--see "judicial activism"). Again, though, any decent lawyer should be able to recognize that there is in fact a moral underpinning to professional ethics, even if they ultimately disagree.
Besides, all the "positive" statements were preceded by "in a strange way..." This seems to indicate that he would expect his behaviors to be less than cordial, being that he is evil. Perhaps Wallace is actually giving us MORE--He is demonstrating that people are not defined by good or evil. Most people, though obviously not to the degree of this special kind of Jackass, exhibit both positive and negative qualities. Demonstrating that someone acted in a "positive way" does not translate to defending that person's evilness. It is merely offering observations.
In a legal analogy, if a man is being tried for some heinous act and counsel asks a witness to describe their interaction with the person, and that person responds with "he always seemed quite nice, he would always say hello when he saw you, if he saw you needed help, he'd offer his assistance, he was pleasent, and always smile. I also thought him to be quite self-assured, and based on his good looks, I thought he'd really make something of himself." ?
Are we to view that witness as evil as well, because they said something nice about the person? What about Capote interviewing the murders and writing "In Cold Blood?" Is that some moral deficiency?
As to the Jennings thing, I think Wallace is right. Sure, at first glance it's easy to say that it is absurd to sit back and watch. But, that is the duty of a reporter. The question itself is so hypothetical that it is borderline absurd. This is the same thing as the philosophy professor that, after hearing a student make some absolute statement, proposes the most far-out possible example of the question, and asks whether or not the absolute statement stands. It is easy to say you will follow the obligations of journalism when facing something minor, such as a car accident; but when facing the most serious of instances is when those obligations must be tested. And, if they are to be followed for every day events, ought they not be followed when facing the most horrific circumstances?
I understand politeness on Wallace's part, but the compliments were in piss poor taste considering what this islamic lunatic is. He at least leaves the door open to the notion he found Ahmadinejad personally attractive rather than how well he trims his beard. I don't recall anybody saying anything similar about Franciso Franco and you can substitute any of a number of other names where Wallace's comments would be disagreeable to the what's the big deal crowd.
Chances are whoever it is wouldn't quite measure up to Ahmadinejad. Try this one,"Walter Cronkite says Batista is just a regular guy and personally attractive". And batista wasn't even developing nuclear weapons.
Something to think about for the future and you may yet have an opportunity to remember Wallace's words then.
I think it is quite possible that we will find him not asking any hard questions to Ahmadinejad at all.
I imagine we might even find him more admiring of Ahmadinejad than of Bush. I went to a debate a few months back between Chris Hitchens and Eric Margolis, where one of the audience members - two or three seats down from me - hated Bush so much that, to her own shock, she found herself nodding in agreement when a clip of Osama Bin Laden critiquing President Bush was shown. Likewise, here, I imagine Wallace's "admiration" for Ahmadinejad will shine even brighter because of his disdain for Bush and all of his foreign policies.
I didn't realize Wallace was Jewish though. That does put an even more disturbing slant on things.
Yes, the right NEVER supports totalitarians, except maybe in Central America, or when arming Saddam in the 80's (remember Rumsfeld shaking his hand?). I believe it was George W. Bush who said he "looked into [Putin's] soul" and saw that he was good man and an ally.
There's no doubt elements of the far left HAVE been fond of totalitarians such as Mao and Stalin, but to say the left as a whole is "utterly infatuated" with them is absurd. And to say that they are totalitarians (which I assume is based on desire for more gov't power and control) is perhaps even more absurd when the the Bush admin. is an example of the right. Or do massive increases in gov't spending, aggressive new controls over private citizens, and attempts to hugely increase executive power not count as "totalitarian" any more?
And by the way, why should Bernstein be more "balanced" as some commentators are insisting? I often disagree with him but this is a blog, not a newspaper. He should be asserting his opinion. If you disagree with him on facts then state them. I'll admit that he has had a heavy hand with the comments-editing at times, but he typically doesn't shy away from an argument. I've learned a lot from these posts and the comments about them.
I don't interpret Wallace's comments as in any way judging Ahminejad or expressing a moral view; he is clearly trying to avoid doing so. And I agree with Wallace's goal -- neither our journalists nor our Supreme Court justices should pose as authorities on morality, which they are not. Wallace deserves criticism only for not being enough of a journalist to ask harder questions.
It's fine that the Professor has chosen a job where he is encouraged to express his strong opinions and not one where he has to compartmentalize to get the job done. His criticisms of Mike Wallace's comments about the Iranian President's personal demeanor and appearance will have a little more value when he is able to get an interview with a head of state.
Until then, he's just hurling invective from the ivory tower at a journalist who has chosen not to wear his personal opinions on his sleeve while doing his job.
he has strong negative opinions regarding Iran's President. It's also obvious that these negative opinions would prevent him
As any one who has ever cross examined a cagy witness knows, that very often, a witness can seem convincing, and use the right words, and tonality, but upon further examination, the examiner determines the true heart of the witness. The examiner can not point to any one statement, but knows that the witness is a liar. Perhaps that is what Wallace will report.
Big internet out there; if you want "balance", I'm sure you can find it.
SMG
Properly understood, this captures the newsworthiness of Wallace's observations. Bernstein has certain expectations about what it would feel like to be in this person's presence, and thus Bernstein might actually learn something from someone who was in that position and had an opportunity to test these expectations.
But Bernstein's approach to all this seems to admit no possibility of him actually learning something. The underlying idea seems to be that Wallace should merely be confirming Bernstein's expectations, and if anything Wallace observes contradicts Bernstein's expectations, then there must be something wrong with Wallace.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that one should simply accept what Wallace reports uncritically. But if there is any point to journalism at all, it would be that journalists can report things to us that we didn't know or wouldn't have expected. If you instead merely want journalists to tell you what you already know or would expect to me true, then they would indeed be pointless creatures.
It is important that Americans get to see this man in person, get to hear his side of the story, so they can understand what drives him. Demonizing him, as so many prefer to do, is not going to get us anywhere.
I'd also like to remind everybody that Iran's government is not similar to America's. In their system, the President does not have anywhere near as much power as our President has. Our Vice-President has about as much power as Mr. Ahmadinejad has. His statements should be interpreted in the same manner that statements from our Vice President would be interpreted. Mr. Khamenei is the leader of the Iranian government; his opinions are the ones that truly matter.
Next, I'd like to remind those who are quick to condemn Mr. Wallace that they are jumping the gun. The interview is the substance of Mr. Wallace's work; why are you condemning Mr. Wallace before you have seen the interview? Surely you can afford to wait a few days before you take up the cudgels. May I also suggest that Mr. Wallace, as a canny journalist, might just be using you to generate audience for his interview? By leaking some vague positive comments about Mr. Ahmadinejad, he can set tongues wagging and spread the word about his upcoming story. He appears to have been remarkably successful with this tactic.
A.Zarkov asks me Suppose Mike Wallace interviewed the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, and pretty much made positive comments about him, and didn’t ask tough questions. How would you feel about that?
Mr. Wallace's 'positive comments' are about as bland as could be: "he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking...". I read them as deliberately uninformative -- they are sweet nothings. Notice that these comments communicate absolutely nothing about his political beliefs. Yet some people are up in arms about these sweet nothings. Your hypothetical scenario asumes that Mr. Wallace did not ask tough questions. You don't know that to be the case in the real scenario. Why do you rush to judgement? Why don't we all hold our fire until we've actually seen the interview? I don't know if you recall some of Mr. Wallace's interviews from the 70s, but this man is no amateur. He knows how to set up the interviewee, make them feel comfortable, and then ask the killer questions in a manner that isn't immediately obvious. There are some idiots here who would prefer to ask questions such as "You fucking moron, how can you justify your insanely evil notion that the Holocaust never took place?" Questions like that don't elicit revealing answers.
"he's a rather ugly man, very stupid, unsophisticaded, unsure of himself, ugly...". I
Mr. Bernstein, would this have made you applaud Mr. Wallace?
Are we sure Wallace wasn't looking for a date instead?
A little, but not as naseous as what David Duke actually says. If Hitler had good table manners, I would have no problem with a reporter saying so.
We should only be concerned about whether Wallace accurately described the guy. Further, if the West wants to contain (or destroy) Ahmadinejad, understanding him personally can be helpful. Not in an Oprah-like way, but in the way that you want to find where his soft points are.
Let him speak. The more Americans hear Ahmadinejad's actual words, the better. The more policy makers understand him, the better.
Let's be honest: a VC without Bernstein would be like NASCAR without the car crashes. Fine legal analysis is great, but that's not what fills the bleachers.
LOL. David "Flaming Car Crash" Bernstein. It's catchy.
Journalists these days tend to see themselves as some type of high priests who are always above the fray. It appears not to occur to them that our country's enemies could be using them for propaganda purposes. I prefer a journalist who I know is on my side.
I hope you really aren't a public defender. I'd be very concerned for those you claim to be "defending".
What did I say that you think is wrong? And why?
I have never seen or heard of others putting right actions before their media jobs.
The ideal of journalistic objectivity is not some sort of new-fangled invention; it's the nature of the profession.
It appears not to occur to them that our country's enemies could be using them for propaganda purposes.
Most journalists are well aware of the biases of their interview subjects and the attempts to use them as propaganda tools. Their job is to get the story anyway.
I prefer a journalist who I know is on my side.
I prefer that journalists be on the side of truth, not "my side," but that's because I find facts more useful than echo chambers of approval for my already-held beliefs.
The two most consistent aspects of the modern leftist academic persona is
(1) a persistant nihiilsm that argues that every aspect of the culture that sustains and allows him is worse than all other cultures (and [he] might be the pest evidence of this)
(2) that not only should all contrary opinions be fought, but preferable never expressed. Anywhere.
I find Bernstein's analysis of the current crisis some of the best informed and wel lthough out anywhere and it drives more visits to this BLOG by me.
But then, I usually view most Rawlsian analysis as a cover-up for hidden agendas, whether spouted by academics or reporters.
I want to reiterate that Prof. Bernstein's assumption that meeting someone as evil as Ahmadinejad would be inherently revolting is itself dangerous. What it means is that when he sees someone running for public office here who is "a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way..." he will assume that this candidate cannot be as dangerous as Ahmadinejad is. In clinging to assumptions about superficialities, Prof. Bernstein abdicates his responsibility for any true analysis. If most Americans behave in the same way, this country is in serious trouble.
Some may say we already are.
Prof. Bernstein and several commenters assert that Ahmadinejad is "genocidal." Is this based on the assumption that someone (like him) who wants to destroy Israel as a nation also necessarily wants to slaughter all of its (Jewish) inhabitants? Or is it inferred from his stated desire to destroy Israel as a nation in combination with his pursuit of nuclear arms? Or has Ahmadinejad said elsewhere that he want to slaughter all the Jews?
If the description of him as genocidal is inferred from "destroy Israel as a nation+ pursuit of nukes", how do you distinguish Communist China, which has nukes and an ideology committed to the destruction of capitalism, but no one would argue that there's a serious threat of a Chinese nuclear attack on the U.S. in the short-term or mid-term.
If he hasn't said he wants to slaughter all the Jews, but that is in fact his goal as Prof. Bernstein assumes, why doesn't Ahmadinejad say so?
Many thanks for educating me.
And as for the potential questions for an interview with Bush, Wallace, as a senior American journalist, conducting an interview for an American audience on American soil, was asking precisely the sorts of questions that citizens want answered in these difficult times. The execution of the War in Iraq has not clearly gone as well as one would have hoped (oil is not cheaper, the Middle East is not blossoming with stable democracies, Israel is not more secure, terrorism has not been demonstrably reduced, and the balance of power has shifted alarmingly towards Iran), and there is a critical need to determine what went wrong in order to get it right.
Prof. Bernstein, you are clearly someone with whom I share a support for the state of Israel, but I find it continually curious that you attack those who are out to give us some useful information and analysis, rather than contributing to better policy making through analysis and criticism of clearly failed policies. Why isn't there a conservative Juan Cole out there, offering daily translations from the Arabic press, and simulataneously translating classic (small d) democratic documents into Arabic?
I'm not sure I understand this complex claim (literally--I'm not sure I understand what it is supposed to mean). But I think John Armstrong raised an extremely important point: if Bernstein cannot even consider the possibility that he would find charming someone who had abhorrent beliefs, it seems awfully likely that Bernstein is exceptionally vulnerable to charismatic manipulation.
And I would again note that Bernstein seems to be insisting on the idea that if Wallace tells him anything he wouldn't expect to be true, Wallace must be wrong.
So, not only are you unable to do Mike Wallace's job, you're a "better human being" than he is because of that inability?
Keep on digging, the bottom of the hole is somewhere.
It reminded me of an experience I had a few years ago. By a strange set of coincidences, I very nearly had the opportunity to chat with Mr. Bush at a restaurant. I did not, but he did engage some other locals in conversation. I often wondered to myself, what would I have said had Mr. Bush approached me and asked my opinions? Remember that I have elsewhere recorded my judgement that Mr. Bush is the worst President in American history. Yet, upon reflection, I decided that I would not make hostile statements. Nor would I feel any personal revulsion toward the man. I would offer my criticisms in a sympathetic tone. I do not feel any personal antipathy towards Mr. Bush because I disagree with the man. He and I are worlds apart in values and perceptions. Yet I think I could enjoy dinner conversation with him. Does that make me a worse human being?
That's the funniest thing I've heard this week.
From those "similar thoughts":
Have you ever watched a White House press briefing? Bloggers get to be jerks precisely because they are on the sidelines and don't have access to actual interview subjects.
It's very easy to tell the Internet how totally hardcore you would be if you got to interview the President of Iran, in the exact same way as it was easy to brag on the playground about how "your dad could beat up my dad."
He has a strangely attractive and well-groomed beard, though.
I would, assuming I was a journalist at the time.
And if you did, would you come back talking about how charming and handsome he is? What are your limits?
Given that a journalist's duty is to seek out and report the news, I would come back talking about the interview and what it revealed. If it revealed that Pol Pot was in fact "charming and handsome" in person, I would say that.
Are you suggesting that a journalist should hide the facts if they are positive observations about a "despicable" person? If so, it bespeaks either a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of journalism or a lack of respect for the profession.
Lawyers zealously advocate for their clients. Journalists observe and report the facts. That's their job.
On to more substantive matters:
Ahmadinejad has not just made remarks wanting to destroy Israel, but to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. I don't have time to look for them now, but they're there.
If you want to know his attitude towards Jews, why don't you ask him if he would allow Jews to live freely as Jews in Iran, or whether he would slaughter them.
If you read the Jerusalem Post piece (which no one has commented on so far), it's clear that Wallace is shilling for the guy. Zionist State? Saying that, in effect, justifies Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about destroying Israel.
Furthermore, Wallace's positive comments about the guy aren't preceded by something like, "You know, it's strange that a man who wants to commit repulsive acts would be so charming." But it's not. All there is are the positive comments devoid of context. I think the strange part isn't, "It's strange because he's a murderous loon" but rather, "It's strange because we ASSUME him to be a murderous loon."
If you think that Wallace couldn't get the interview to air if he actually had asked tough questions, then why did Wallace do the interview? I thought journalists are supposed to deliver the truth and explore all sides thoroughly. Why do the interview, then?
He asked a question about nukes and Ahmadinejad said something like, "We're not interested in weapons. We're interested in cooperation, blah blah." And after that, Wallace didn't observe the obvious, that this is a load of bull? Maybe he didn't, in which case he's a useful idiot. Again, what added value did Wallace bring here? What duty so compelled him to interview someone who is obviously a liar, has been proven to be a liar in the past, and was using this as a PR opportunity?
The NYT apologized for having Judy Miller be used by Chalabi and the Pentagon to beat the drum for war. And rightly, people criticize the Times for Miller's unquestioning reportage. Why shouldn't we criticize Wallace? The best Wallace could say after that answer on nukes was, "he seemed charming"? Pathetic.
Finally, let me get this straight from all those who criticize Bernstein for his Israel post. So, the fact that Bernstein doesn't sit here and write long nuanced dissertations that list all of Israel's crimes every time Israeli children get blown up on buses, makes his posts somehow not worth reading? He has an opinion on a subject. He expresses it. You can politely disagree with him in the comments. Unlike Brian Leiter or other bloggers, he won't delete them (unless you insult him). What is the harm here?
If you want to see the example of the difference between Israel and its enemies, Nasrallah yesterday issued a warning to the ARABS of Haifa, saying that they should leave. Israel issued a warning to EVERYONE in the areas it was attacking to leave. See, to Nasrallah, only Arab life is important. To Israel, all of it is. I think that distills the entire conflict. Right there, in that little statement by Nasrallah.
You ask: "If you think that Wallace couldn't get the interview to air if he actually had asked tough questions, then why did Wallace do the interview? I thought journalists are supposed to deliver the truth and explore all sides thoroughly. Why do the interview, then?"
One basic answer is that a softball interview may be more informative than no interview at all. Moreover, as others have noted, usually just giving people like this an opportunity to talk reveals quite a bit, and often more than they realize. In other words, they think they are providing effective and self-serving propaganda, but their audience often sees right through it.
Much like this blog post.
You write, If you read the Jerusalem Post piece (which no one has commented on so far), it's clear that Wallace is shilling for the guy.
I googled "Jerusalem Post" and "Mike Wallace" and found only an AP story, four paragraphs long, which said nothing about Wallace's comments. The story was dated August 10th at 1:16. Here is the only paragraph with any kind of political content:
During the midst of the American hostage crisis in 1979, Wallace interviewed Iranian leader Khomeini, locking eyes with the cleric when he asked for a response to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat calling Khomeini a lunatic.
Could you provide a URL to the article to which you refer?
You write, If you want to know his attitude towards Jews, why don't you ask him if he would allow Jews to live freely as Jews in Iran, or whether he would slaughter them.
I suggest you consult this article; here's an excerpt:
According to Roya Hakakian, the Jewish Iranian author of Journey From the Land of No, "There are signs in many parts of the world that attest to the rising tide of anti-Semitism. But Iran is another story." Jewish businesses, synagogues, and cemeteries have not come under attack in cleric-ruled Iran nearly as often as they have in countries friendly to Israel, such as Turkey, France, and Germany. "Tehran is still home to the largest community of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel," adds Hakakian, who sought and received asylum in the West for reasons unrelated to her Jewish identity. Even though there were instances of harassment of Jews in the chaos and war that followed the Revolution of 1979, it is not clear if Jews who left Iran by the thousands were fleeing discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims also left Iran in search of a better life or more freedom.
Patent BULL. You just lost any hope of credibility.
Some of us like to think for ourselves. Ahmadinejad is, unfortunatly, a major player in the world today. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to what he has to say, in his own words. I have enough self-confidence to trust that I will not be hypnotized by his words. I certainly dont need editorial comments by his interviewer to set me on the "correct" path to interpret what he says. I could not care less whether his interviewer manages to utter a sufficient number of politically correct insults about his subject.
I dont have much respect for Bernsteins work. I find it ridiculously one sided propaganda, with no attempt whatsoever to help his readers gain deeper insights into the issues. That he mounts an effort to discredit an interviewer for ridiculous reasons like this, seems very much in character. If we had more people like Bernstein, we would all be dumber, less informed, less capable of drawing independent conclusions. Better sheep. That is the goal of all propagandists.
Saying that a genocidal maniac also has good personal manners provides useful information. It isn't in anyway inhuman to say that. Some think that evil people all are drooling, ranting nutcases who don't take showers and who make children cry.
As to Pol Pot, I wish more people had given him air time in the West. Maybe there would have been enough of an outcry to try to stop him sooner.
If Wallace editted the interview to make Ahmadinejad look better, you'd have a fair gripe. If Wallace failed to ask Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, you'd have a fair gripe.
But claiming that you're a "better human being" because you are unable to see reality through your emotional cloud is just sanctimonious crap. Are you vying for a guest spot on Oprah?
We can certainly see that here at home, with the Evil War on Drugs. Would any of us consider Orin Hatch, or William Bennett, to be an "evil" person? I think not. Yet they openly promote one of the greatest evils currently besetting the Earth (and, I might add, greatly serves to facilitate international terrorism).
Surely, in his own mind, Ahmadinejad feels he is serving the greater good, by striving to rid the Middle East of the "evil" of Judaism, and subject the entire world to the cleansing effect of Islam. That, in order to do that, he evokes the skills of a politician, should come as no surprise. Whether his intentions were such or not, that Wallace points this out does us a service.
You are confusing a blog and the contemporary academy. No blog changes the decades-long reality that thinkers who are right of center have been almost completely purged from entire academic fields.
Part of what makes the Holocaust so evil is that the people who perpetrated (at all levels) were very often polite people who otherwise led decent lives. You might even say that many were "rather attractive , very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way.... [They] couldn't have been more accomodating. [They] had a good time [chatting with visitors]. . . ."
We shouldn't forget that good manners and goodness are two very different concepts.
Federal Dog, your assertion that thinkers who are right of center have been almost completely purged from entire academic fields. is patently false. One need only look at the impressive list of conservative thinkers presently working in academic positions. Do you claim that there are no impressive conservative thinkers in academic positions?
I also would not equate Iran's President with Pol Pot, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else who is truly evil. As repellent as the guy's views on Israel are, he has not done anything concrete (that I or the Professor knows of) to implement them, apart from supporting Hezbollah (which also enjoys widespread support from the Arab world, which views it as an anti-imperialist force). I for one think we should talk to the Iranians, and try to work out a rapproachment with them on a range of issues, including Lebanon, providing for Israel's security, with an aim at reestablishing trade and encouraging reforms.
Our problems with Iran stem from the US' long history with that nation that often involved the US taking very regrettable actions (because of the cold war view that dominated our foreign policy), not just from recent events or the country's control by Islamists. The CIA toppled the democratically elected PM of Iran in the 1950s, even though he was a moderate whom our current government would doubtlessly embrace as an acceptable leader. The US (and Israel) during the 1960s and 1970s supported the corrupt Shah, despite his obvious human rights problems and brutal, police-state tactics, which gave rise to the Ayatollahs' rise to power.
While the current, cleric-dominated government has brutal and police state tendencies, there is a strong current of reform in the country among its citizens, who admire western cultural. Indeed, I found Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush to be an effort by him to try to understand why Iran and the US have such strong differences, and to reach out (albeit in an ignorant way) to someone who, like him, is religious, by convincing Bush of the error of the US' ways. That hardly strikes me as the actions of an evil madman whom we have no choice but to confront militarily. Maybe I am wrong, but I think Iran and its president can be moderated (see what happened to Qaddafi), before he has done anything too bad, although he and Iran will never turn into an ally of Israel (so long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved). And, I am sure everyone agrees, if we could reestablish a constructive dialogue with Iran, and Iran stopped supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel as a result, we would all be better off.
On the other hand, by demonizing Ahmadinejad as someone we or our press shouldn't even talk to, as Professor Bernstein suggests, we are simply pushing him permanently to the camp of our enemies, and driving us closer to yet another middle east war.
Ahmadinejad has demonized himself. He is "permanently [in] the camp of our enemies. . . ." If Wallace's interview helps us to see Ahmadinejad for the man he is, then Wallace has done a public service.
"Your children are about to be gunned down by North Kosanese. Do you just film the incident?"
And then the follow-up:
"Why are your children more worthy of defense than anyone else's?"
We need Mr. Bernstein's commentary in the same way that we need Noam Chomsky's commentary, not because one or the other is right or wrong, but because it stimulates discussion in the body politic. We need people raising controversial points. It gives everybody a chance to sort out their thinking. It's especially useful when the nut cases present the extreme points of view that reasonable people can recognize as untenable. When stupid ideas are soundly refuted on boards such as this, we all learn something useful.
That aside, I wonder if Wallace's answer would have been the same if, for instance, the issue were that he were with a hired hit man who was going to kill the family of a protected witness in an ordinary criminal case. Or if it's only American soldiers whose lives he doesn't care about.
Lawyers have attorney-client confidentiality as a near-sacred obligation... but if we know our client is about to kill someone, our obligation to protect people outweighs attorney-client.
----
No, what it means is that when we see someone running for public office who is evil, we don't spend lots of time dwelling on his pleasant personal hygiene habits. You have it backwards. It is Wallace that is distracted by, and reporting on, these "superficialities." Hopefully you would be revolted by David Duke, regardless of how "pleasant" he seemed.
Did Wallace "spend lots of time dwelling on his pleasant personal hygiene habits"? That's the excerpt that Bernstein quoted, but one quote doesn't show that Wallace "is distracted" by "superficialities." It's one thing if Wallace spent the whole interview discussing how cute Ahmadinejad was. It's another if that was a brief personal note in an otherwise substantive interview.
You claimed that academics cherish intellectual diversity, and then say that the minority of conservative academics proves this. How is this proof of your claim? It is a good counterexample to the statement, "There are no conservative academics," which no one made (although someone said they were almost entirely absent).
Could you say that the existence of some Jews in Germany in 1945 proved that the German government cherished the Jews? I'd bet a fair number of leftist academics do cherish intellectual diversity, and that many more would claim they do, and more still would claim they do, but with reasonable limits. I don't have much experience other than my own undergraduate education, and I haven't done any research on the subject, so I don't know whether your claim is generally true. However, I do know of a handful of specific examples to the contrary.
Nor did I label them as such. Yet it seems we agree (or at least that you allow for the possibility) that they have allowed themselves to become conduits for evil.
Christopher Cooke:
Through the prism of history (or, in Saddam's case, contemporaneous footage of him in the defendant's box), by examining them under the microscope, we have been able to determine that all these characters were/are quite mad. And, as we have judged them deliberate in their madness, we label them "evil".
But, do we know that much about Ahmadinejad? Certainly, his ends and his mechanizations are evil. But is he himself "evil", or just another deranged soul, such as Orin Hatch, or Bill Bennett?
On review I think I was mixing your comments up with those of others. My apologies.
I must commend prof. b. in his intensity and his dedication in presenting "the other side of the story" in his recent posts related to the israeli incursions into lebanon. over the last six weeks, I have been more than a little surprised by the sloppy and slanted reporting of the goings-on in lebanon by the main stream media. at first, I suspected that the claims of doctored photos and other journalistic mischief were merely self-serving justifications for the loss of life caused by israeli strikes in lebanon. however, prof. b's informative and probing posts have tempered my initial skepticism of the claims of media bias against israel with respect to the current mid-east conflict (even though the posts have been overwrought at times). this has been so largely b/c prof. b seems to have been correct on many of his early hunches.
so, ahem, thanks prof. b. for working hard to help force a little honesty, and reveal what lies may yet be uncovered.
Finally, it seems to me that Ahmadinejah's views probably are not unique to Iran or to the Muslim world. So, unless we want to write off a large portion of the world's muslims as "evil"--and thus declare ourselves at war with possibly a billion people--we should start talking to their leaders and trying to get them to see our perspective on a host of matters. It may not help, in the end, but I hardly see how it can do worse than the Bush Administration's current policies. Since he started the dialogue with his letter, I would try to engage him in some way, even if secretly at first and through intermediaries (as was done with Libya and Qaddaffi). If we could reach some deal with Iran, the payoffs for the US (in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere) and Israel could be enormous. Unlike Pol Pot, I don't think he personally has done something yet that should disqualify any civilized nation from dealing with him (contrast this with Hitler, at the time of Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with him, who had already started the wholesale round-up of Jews and began to implement the "final solution). Can anyone really say that Ahmadenejah is worse than Qaddafi, who sponsored numerous acts of terror in Europe during the 1980s, and who was personally responsible for these acts as the totalitarian dictator of Libya?
As a newspaperman, the question is not so much whether an interviewer found the subject more or less suave than he expected. The question is, why do the interview?
If just because the subject is celebrated, then that's not journalism, that's scalp-hunting.
If a man says a whole country should be wiped off the face of the earth, what else do you think you need to know about him?
Is he serious, or just pandering? Is he mentally capable of causing a war? Does he want war, or long-term hostilities? Does he have the sort of charisma that might keep him in power longer? Is he insane, or just playing politics (see serious v. pandering, above)? There are things to be gained from an objective interview, even if the subject is a monster.
"We can always count on Erasmussimo to defend people who beat up Jews."
That's a reprehensible thing to say.
If a man says a whole country should be wiped off the face of the earth, what else do you think you need to know about him?
It might help to know that you have misquoted the man. The actual quote was a reference to an old Persian poem, and a better translation is "would disappear from existence". The verb, as I understand, is not imperative but subjunctive, referring to a supposed situation, not an active intention. I don't know enough about Farsi verbs to understand the precise mood they use, but the phrase has definitely been misinterpreted by the American media. It's not a threat, it's a wish.
Colin, thanks for standing up for gentlemanly behavior. My attitude towards comments such as the one you cite is not anger but bemusement. It's rather like going to the zoo and watching the chimps hurl feces. I don't get mad at the chimps for hurling feces at me; I find it amusing to contemplate the crudity and directness of the communication. It would be silly to scold the chimps for their bad behavior, or even respond to it; that's just the way chimps are. And I feel much the same way about the shit flying through the air around here. I suppose that the zookeepers could do a better job of keeping the aerial shit density down, but there are so many chimps and so few zookeepers that I can understand that they are overwhelmed. The best thing that civilized folk can do is carry on a decent conversation while trying to ignore the feces. It would be silly to respond to these people.
I also echo Colin's remarks about keeping the debate civil. I don't ascribe bad motives to anyone posting here, just strongly held beliefs. I would hope people would reciprocate.
You are a sanctimonious prick, sir.
Regards,
A.
Several posters up the thread have given Wallace the benefit of the doubt here by suggesting that if Ahmadinejad is indeed charming and savvy we should know that.
Fine.
But we should also know if that's a show being put on for Mike Wallace and CBS.
I'm probably misstating this, but there's a scientific principle I've heard regarding experimentation that seems apt here. Basically, it dictates that the person observing an experiment influences it just by observing it. In other words, you can't take the observer out of the picture ever.
Think of it this way—consider a zoo. It's interesting to see exotic animals and all, but because of the circumstances, they know they're being observed, they don't behave as they otherwise would.
This really has to be considered here. Ahmadinejad knew he was being watched. He knew he was being observed. Anything you could gather from him in an interview would be basically worthless unless you thought you were capturing him as he'd be without you there. Is there any reason to believe that?
No, not really.
Arafat comes to mind here. He was notorious for saying one thing to the world and another thing altogether to the palestinians.
If he might possibly be in a position to try it some day, pretty much everything I can.
That is a false dichotomy (that if it is not purely candid, it must be completely worthless). I understand that he is going to try to BS me, but I might still learn something. And again, people in these positions tend to reveal more than they think.
In fact, that is the only reason that I still watch ANY politician give a speech, interview, press conference, etc.--not for the BS they plan to say, but for what they inadvertently give away.
For instance, read Hitchens on Cole's claim. Cole is at best wrong and at worst dishonest.
And the point was, the number of drive-bys that suggest that Bernstein should not post anymore....
hmmm
And Erasmusimmo - do not preseume how many top 25 institutions and their academics I interact with regularly. As a group, those in the Humanities ar eprofoundly intolerant, those in the sciense oblivious in the sense that they are so focussed that the cannot see of their slide, and the administrations, well, they take the worst from both factions, to the detriment (and higher cost) of undegrad education...
The problem is that this fellow has pretty much already given away the store in that regard. You act as though there's something more we could ascertain from anything he might say.
I'm already assuming he's completely dangerous and is an iminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. There's nothing left to know.
To sit back and claim we get something worthwile from allowing a man like this to broadcast propaganda is absurd.
Just think about it--try to give up an offer of proof of what you think we might learn about his intentions that we can't already gather simply by taking him at his word elsewhere. He's a sworn enemy of the United States and he wants Israel gone.
Giving a savvy fellow like him a platform that doesn't represent who he really is isn't perfectly harmless, you know. For many in the US, this will be their only experience with him. They'll see a man that by all appearances is perfectly rational because that's the way he wants to appear.
Please disregard any further comment I might make tonight on this, or any other thread.
Oh well, time for bed anyway.
This is unfair. I don't think this is what Bernstein is saying.
It's one thing to talk. To report. To investigate.
It's another thing altogether to lick the man's boots.
You say: "I'm already assuming he's completely dangerous and is an iminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. There's nothing left to know."
I'm not sure I know what you mean by terms like "completely dangerous" and "iminent threat". Those are just generic phrases, and I would want details. What precisely is the danger? What exact form does the threat take? And so on.
And frankly, the idea that we would ever stop studying dangerous people, claiming we already know everything there is to know about them, strikes me as absurd. Human beings are complex, shifting creatures. So, I don't see why you would ever assume that you have completely and permanently figured out a dangerous human being, and stop gathering information about that person. In short, I would always want to know as much as I can about things like his current thinking, because that could be subject to change.
And I don't buy that we need to keep the American people sheltered in order to save them from the effects of propaganda. Give them a little credit, theo--they aren't complete idiots.
It means that there's nothing he could say in an interview that would make me think he's more dangerous to us than I already think he is.
This isn't hard to understand.
[quote]And frankly, the idea that we would ever stop studying dangerous people, claiming we already know everything there is to know about them, strikes me as absurd. Human beings are complex, shifting creatures. So, I don't see why you would ever assume that you have completely and permanently figured out a dangerous human being, and stop gathering information about that person. In short, I would always want to know as much as I can about things like his current thinking, because that could be subject to change.[/quote]
All I asked for was one simple thing--an offer of proof. What do you think we have to learn from this guy that we don't already know about him? Give me your best case scenario about what we'd learn from him in a fawning Mike Wallace interview. Just give me your wish list.
[quote]And I don't buy that we need to keep the American people sheltered in order to save them from the effects of propaganda. Give them a little credit, theo--they aren't complete idiots.[/quote]
You know, it's funny that so many on the left complain about the easy treatment Bush gets. What do organizations like Media Matters even exist for?
If the people are smart enough to always see through a fraud, then what's the purpose in having any kind of truly investigative media?
Face it--people get mad when they think the media is letting someone off.
Toby, your mudslinging against academics reeks of anger, not analysis. Were you to offer a thoughtful comment on the foibles of the academic world (of which there are many), I could take your comments seriously, but the hyperbolic tone you take, and the broad condemnation of an entire subculture composed of hundreds of thousands of very bright individuals -- that simply doesn't wash with me. I am hard put to think of any subculture as large as the academic world that sports so much intellectual diversity. I'm sure there must be something out there -- can anybody nominate such a subculture?
"Couldn't be more dangerous" is still completely generic (and obviously false, I might add--bad as it is already, the threat to U.S. interests posed by Iran could indeed get much worse). Again, I'd want to know much more about the exact form of the danger, other than how you place it on some generic danger scale.
Or, to use the analogy suggested by another poster, imagine a CIA analyst who was asked to write a report on the political leadership of Iran. Imagine the Presidential section of the report just said, "He is completely dangerous, he couldn't be more dangerous, he is very, very dangerous." That CIA analyst would get fired.
As for an "offer of proof"--first, I'll note that is an odd question ("What do you think we have to learn from this guy that we don't already know about him?"). An "offer of proof" is a term used for when an attorney already knows what his witness will testify about, and is trying to show the judge why that would be relevant to a third party--the jury. But here, we are in the position of the jury, not the attorney offering the witness, so it is a bit odd to be asking me, as a member of the "jury", to give an "offer of proof" for this "witness" (and incidentally, I'm not sure why you get to be the judge). In short, my point is that I actually don't know what he is going to say in this interview, which is why it could contain information, and so it is odd to ask me to tell you what he is going to say.
But here is a short list of things I would certainly like to gather information about: his current thinking about Iraq and any goals he would have for a state in Iraq; his current thinking about America and its participation in Middle East affairs; his current thinking about the Israel/Hezbollah conflict; his current thinking about Iran's nuclear ambitions; his current thinking about Iran's role in the Middle East in general. Obviously, aside from general philosophy and long term goals (both of which are important), I'd also like to gather information about current plans and tactics. And so on.
Again, to me it is basically absurd to stop gathering this sort of information on the theory that we have already learned everything there is to learn in the past. To continue the analogy, it would be like asking the CIA analyst to update his report on Iran's political leadership in light of recent developments in the Middle East, and him saying, "I already wrote a report in 2004. Why do you need a new one? I already told you he is completely dangerous!"
Finally, you say: "If the people are smart enough to always see through a fraud, then what's the purpose in having any kind of truly investigative media?"
Obviously, in part so that the people have the necessary information to see through the frauds. In other words, I think it is obvious how these are complementary goals: give people the information that the politicians don't want them to have, and then let them observe the politicians and judge what they are saying.
In general, it makes no sense to me to say that the American people are better off just being left in total ignorance of what is going on, or that they should only be given whatever information that some elite thinks they are capable of handling. Indeed, this very idea is fundamentally undemocratic--an informed electorate is necessary to a functioning republic, and if you can't trust the electorate to critically assess information, then our entire political system is fundamentally flawed.
But I don't believe that.
I do not agree that Bennett and Hatch are "conduits for evil." Please don't put words in my mouth.
American Psikhushka,
Apology accepted. We all make mistakes.
No one cares what the "President" of Iran has to say. Everyone knows he's a dirtbag. Even those who say otherwise.
I doubt that "everyone" knows the depth of Ahmadinejad's evil. That's why it's important for people to hear him speak.
This post and the comments demonstrate the cliche that the remedy for bad speech is almost always more speech.
But an even more persuasive and important documentation is found in Geraldine Brooks' 'Nine Parts of Desire,' published in 1994, which quotes another leader of the Iranian revolution to the same effect and in almost exactly the same words.
Fact is, the Iranian Revolution -- which is also the government of Iran -- is an antisemitic, genocidial organization. Those of us who pay attention to such things have known this for a long time.
I repeat, what else do you need to know?
The query, are they capable is meaningless. As Winston Churchill said, long after it was too late, 'There was a time when Hitler could have been stopped with the stroke of a pen.'
It's disturbing to find that defending the proposition 'no Jew should be murdered for being a Jew' is controversial.
Can you cite any commentators in this discussion who have argued that it's acceptable to murder a Jew for being a Jew?
The media's position seems to be: Report or don't report, using harm to Americans and America as the standard. Will it harm America or Americans to report? Then report. Will it harm America or Americans to not report? Then don't report.
At least that way, you can't be accused of bias toward America.