The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Ahmadinejad - Running for U.S. office?

I just finished watching Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interview with Iran's President Ahmadinejad. A lot of people think this man is crazy. To me, he seems like he could be running for a Democratic seat in Congress, or he could even be a Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Here are some of the ways he resembled a Democratic Party candidate when Wallace asked him what he thought about President Bush.


  • he showed concern for the economy, saying that Bush could save it, but chooses to wage war instead
  • was deeply troubled about the fact that one percent of the American population is in prison
  • showed he could feel the pain of 45 million Americans without healthcare
  • claimed to hold the moral high ground on the teachings of Jesus, asking Bush how he could claim to be a follower of Christ when he liked to wage war so much
  • pointed out how the U.S. is oppressing Iraq rather than offering them security
  • all but called for a timeline now that Saddam has been off the scene for three years

In addition to all this, when asked about his views on Israel, he filibustered (Wallace actually accused him of this.) Like some in the Democratic Party, Ahmadinejad seems to be taking advice from Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. When asked about Israel, he claimed that it was a "fabricated government" and a "murderous regime." (OK, maybe "fabricated" isn't close enough to "fictitious," and "murderous regime" isn't close enough to "Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world" to make this claim.) Nevertheless, the more Ahmadinejad talked, the more he sounded to me like a highly-respected member of today's Democratic Party.

22 Comments:

  • At 10:47 PM, Anonymous ghassan said…

    So many of these interviews that promise to be informative and beneficial turn out to be duds. The answers of Ahmadinajad seemed to lack both spontaneity and truthfulness because his handlers have probably instructed him about how to appeal to an American audience.

     
  • At 1:42 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Ghassan,

    The interview may have been a dud, but Mike Wallace bought the whole thing, hook, line and sinker!!!

     
  • At 5:28 AM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Come on Pal!!!! You can do better than this...your reaching. Your arguement for the most part sounds like the SAME OLD TIRED Rovian Rap: YOUR EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS BS that your fearless leader/Dick Cheney/ Ken Melman give us when they have ran out of excuses for a litany of Failures and want to shutdown dissent and REAL DEBATE.

    Also, this was a tiresome interview. Wallace can be a real Bulldog if he wants but this one was a real Yawner. What I want to see is an interview with Bush or Cheney instead of all those feel good ones on Fox News...it would be kinda tough for those liars to answer the tough questions now given that all they have said was truth has now been proven to be dead wrong or a LIE. Guess we'll just have to wait for the congressional hearings after the GOP loses big in Nov.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    ghassan and Joe,

    I agree - the interview was boring and fake (just like interviews with most politicians.) I just had to get my tongue-in-cheek point in about today's Democratic Party.

    Joe, I don't really see how my lighthearted rant about Democrats sounds like "you're either with us or with the terrorists." And everything Bush and Cheney told us has been proven to be a lie? Now who's reaching? Proven where and by whom? The media that fabricates documents and doctors pictures to further a political agenda? I'll need more proof than that.

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Return to Westernesse said...
    ghassan and Joe,


    Joe,

    Proven where and by whom? The media that fabricates documents and doctors pictures to further a political agenda? I'll need more proof than that.

    7:15 AM


    Bush whacked in poll, hits 33%

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/442739p-372908c.html


    Well pal it really doesn't matter what you guys think and I am tired of pointing out the facts over and over to you, but this tells the tale as the other half that voted for your Fuhrer has woken up to the fact he is an inept moron and the country is headed down the crapper. You and the rest of the dwindling true believers better hope that Rove can get some more Miliage out of his bag of Dirty Tricks before the elections or your Great Leader is gonna get his lame Keester Impeached. Maybe if were lucky we can get Cheney on a Two for One deal.

    HAHAHAHA!!!

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Return to Westernesse said...
    ghassan and Joe,


    Joe,

    Proven where and by whom? The media that fabricates documents and doctors pictures to further a political agenda? I'll need more proof than that.

    7:15 AM


    Bush whacked in poll, hits 33%

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/442739p-372908c.html


    Well pal it really doesn't matter what you guys think and I am tired of pointing out the facts over and over to you, but this tells the tale as the other half that voted for your Fuhrer has woken up to the fact he is an inept moron and the country is headed down the crapper. You and the rest of the dwindling true believers better hope that Rove can get some more Miliage out of his bag of Dirty Tricks before the elections or your Great Leader is gonna get his lame Keester Impeached. Maybe if were lucky we can get Cheney on a Two for One deal.

    HAHAHAHA!!!

     
  • At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Of course, silly us. How could we have misconstrued the intentions of this post? It's so very lighthearted of you to link the Democratic Party with that insane hothead in Iran. You certainly don't intend to drag the political dialogue into the gutter slop, do you? Of course not. How else but as a little giggle could we view this post that's devoid of any actual statements made by any actual Democratic lawmakers but tries to link their ideology with someone like Ahmadinejad? It's kind of like that CNN guy calling Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate" or Cheney suggesting that Democrats want the US military to suffer lots of casualties. Such a laugh!

    And how could we forget all these great truths? We found WMDs in Iraq! (not) Our troops have been greeted with flowers and candies! (not) Everything is going great! (definitely not) Oh, the list goes on and on and it's getting tiring to laugh so much.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    anonymous,

    Do you really need me to provide quotes to prove that Democrats complain about the economy, healthcare, the war in Iraq? Or to prove they threatened all last summer to filibuster Bush's appointments? Or to prove they like to claim the moral high ground when it comes to religion and the Bible? If you need direct quotes for all this, you're not paying enough attention. Just listen to people like Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc., etc., etc. You'll find plenty of quotes.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    Ahmadinajad knows that most lazy, clueless Americans are more interested in Britney Spears' maternal instincts than the war on terror. He knows that if he appears to be a reasonable person, it will be easier to sneak up on us.

    ...just like the Democrats.

    To me, Ahmadinajad came off as a very wiley and potent threat.

     
  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    Malott,

    Perfect analysis. Many people watching that intervue may wonder what there is to worry about with this guy. I do give Wallace credit for continuing to try to get him to be honest about his feelings toward Jews and Americans. This, of course, proved impossible since he knew better than to be honest with the American people. Americans don't take too kindly to hate speech (unless it is directed toward George W. Bush.)

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Perfect analysis? More like perfect paranoid delusion.

    Your plagiarized Glenn Beck routine is as tired and flabby as its source.

    Everyone with any kind of brain knows that Ahmadinejad is a manical egotist and prone to spouting a lot of crap. Like any crafty astute politician he also pulls any manipulative maneuver he can get away with. malott's sneaky boogieman post is only correct in its assessment of intellectually lazy Americans obsessed with Brangelina.

    Ahmadinejad used a bunch of tragically true statements about the current realities in America to throw back in our faces. He is sneering at America, whereas Democratic lawmakers point out these realities in an effort to get America to wake up from its collective daze and try to rebuild the American community back to where "the American Dream" can be more than a phrase from history again. It's too bad people like you and Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and Malkin don't care about the health care crisis in America or the fact that the base economy of this country is in the toilet. Name one thing that has the label "Made in America" on it anymore. Our country is $9 trillion in debt, with most of that debt held by China. You have no idea what that means, do you? It's amazing you even want to bring up Iraq with it being such a horrific mess of death, violence, and government malfeasance. Are you really happy that your tax dollars are being lost over there? $9 billion is completely unaccounted for. Missing. Gone. Are you really happy that your tax dollars are being spent via enormous overcharges by contractors over there? And you do realize that Iraq is turning into an Islamic theocracy, right? And I'm eager to hear what is so obviously Christian about thumbing your nose at torture legislation and prioritizing tax cuts for the super-rich over a minimum-wage increase for the first time in 10 years.

    Please go bring me all the quotes you promised me, and get them from their direct sources like the DNC and individual Congressional websites. Don't bother with second-hand versions, as those are useless translations taken out of context. I'd like you to actually look at what Democrats have been saying all these years that you've been blindly toeing the line of the Bush doctrine.

    "Americans don't take too kindly to hate speech (unless it is directed toward George W. Bush.)"

    Really? Gee, I thought you guys had a mandate and represented the mainstream and all that jazz. And didn't I just read somewhere that Ahmadinejad is just like the Democrats and Ned Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate, and that Katrina victims brought it on themselves and God Hates Fags and so on? Seems like you folks take quite kindly to that hate speech on a regular basis. Perhaps you're un-American.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Hey man, don't waste your time with these or any other GOP/Bush bootlicks as they are totally focused at staying on message and employing Rovian smear and evasion tactics to silence or side step all criticism of the Failed Bush/GOP agenda.

    They had their day in the sun and they blew it and even the Dimmest of Red State Bible Banging Inbreds knows it now..so instead of addressing the issues they attack and make excuses.

     
  • At 7:39 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    Anonymous

    Plagiarized Glen Beck routine? Since I don't listen to or watch Glen Beck, I believe it would be difficult for me to plagiarize him. My thoughts are my own, not Beck's or anyone else's. And no, I will not accept that it is my responsibility to provide an anonymous poster with literally hundreds of direct quotes. And if I did, why should I be forced to limit myself to the DNC or Congressional websites? Getting quotes from printed or audio file versions of their speeches would be "worthless translations?" Are we not all speaking English here? And as to your examples of hate speech, my comparison of Ahmadinejad to Democrats was tongue-in-cheek, not hateful. And all of your other examples, I never said or anything like them.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You don't have to watch or listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Powerline, Newsmax or any other of these fact-challenged broadcasts in specific since they all parrot each other and repeat the same thing ad nauseum, just like you:

    "This guy [Ahmadinejad] is Howard frickin' Dean. That is the Howard Dean message. Why are you spending so much money in Iraq? It's meaningless, it's worthless, when you don't have health care. Your economy -- you're distracting people. You're going over and killing people as a distraction because the economy is so bad. I mean, this is the Democratic platform." - Glenn Beck, 8-14-06

    Suggesting that you were just being "tongue-in-cheek, not hateful" is just a flat out bald-faced lie. Your cadre tries to link Democrats to Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Zarqawi, al Qaede, etc at every turn and it is NOT a joking matter.

    Too bad you're so afraid of getting information first-hand. Sure, we all speak English here, but you should always take quotes directly from their source when possible and not rely on second-party reporting, especially when second-party reporting willingly omits information and takes things out of context. You really think the people that read this site are stupid, don't you?

     
  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    Anonymous,

    Thanks for returning, though you still refuse to identify yourself in some way. You accuse me of lying, but I think I know my own motives better than you, an anonymous blog commentor.

    It may be interesting that my reaction to Ahmadinedjad's propaganda was similar to Glenn Beck's analysis. But to plagiarize, as you accused me of doing, one must be aware of a source and copy it without giving credit. I did no such thing. Maybe the similarities are there because both Beck and I are closer to the truth than you would recognize. I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad and members of the Democratic Party are equal. I'm saying they spew the same propaganda. There are many on the left who equate Bush and Hitler. Would you characterize that kind of speech as hateful as you did mine? The difference is, I don't hear any of those who make that comparison claiming they are just joking arouned - because they're not. They're deadly serious. Of course, for all I know, you are one who makes that ludricrous comparison. If you would give yourself some identifying mark, I might be able to differentiate you from all the nutjobs out there claiming America is turning out to be just like Germany under the Nazi Party.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You would need to have a far better understanding of fascism than what you appear to possess before you would want to engage in that discussion of the modern USA and Germany in its descent into fascism.

    As for the ridiculous harping on anonymity, everyone on this blog is anonymous. Putting a cutesy name up here does absolutely nothing to identify you and to continue to focus so much on it is just a sign of your intellectual weakness in dealing directly with the issues at hand rather than dancing around a non-issue.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    As for the ridiculous harping on anonymity, everyone on this blog is anonymous. Putting a cutesy name up here does absolutely nothing to identify you and to continue to focus so much on it is just a sign of your intellectual weakness in dealing directly with the issues at hand rather than dancing around a non-issue.

    You have really exposed your inability to grasp even the simplist situation with this comment.

    Of course we are all anonymous to the degree you do not know my true name. However, when I write something, it is labeled as the same person having written it. You can go back for over 1 year and compare what I write now to what I wrote then. You can see where I am coming from, if I am being inconsistent or if my positions are merely adjusting. You can have a lot of context behind what I am saying.

    You on the otherhand select to post as simply anonymous. On just my blog alone I would estimate there are at least 30 different people who have posted as anonymous. Sometimes I get clumps of posts in a given time frame that I can assume is the same person. Sometimes in the same post I get two posts from "anonymous" who take two different positions.

    It has nothing to do with a cutesy name. Pick a number and use it consistently for all I care. It has to do with you being willing to step up and brand your comments with an identifier so all your writing can be scrutinized in its entirety.

    Your reluctance to do this is very odd. Your being driven to name calling over it is bizarre. It is more a sign of intellectual weakness on your part than ours as it makes perfect sense to ask for this. If you are so insecure with what you wrote yesterday or the day before or a month before that you cannot step up to the plate on this; that is what R2W is referring to when he says that responding is a waste of time.

     
  • At 10:27 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    anonymous,

    I believe it is you who do not possess a proper understanding of fascism if you wish to compare the U.S. with true fascist states like pre-WWII Germany or Italy or Russia. Among the most basic components of a fascist state is the presence of a dictator-like figure. Are you seriously claiming that George W. Bush has assumed that kind of power? If so, he'd better make the best of it - he's only got two more years, and then he's history, and we can start complaining about the policies of whoever the new all-powerful dictator is.

     
  • At 5:51 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    So AICS and R2W won't be upset and confused anymore, here's a name. Enjoy.

    Among the most basic components of a fascist state is the presence of a dictator-like figure. -R2W

    As was already obvious, yours is a Cliff-notes special, utterly simplistic and reductionist understanding of a complex philosophy.

    Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    Fascism is a brand of totalitarianism that combines elements corporatism, rabid nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism and a strict social order. Your implication that it is an impossibility here in the US solely because Bush only has another two years in office (if he's lucky) shows a complete lack of understanding of how and where fascism gathers and grows its strength. You confuse fascist regimes and dictatorships, and your simplistic "explanation" makes evident that you really do not grasp the depth of this particular political philosophy and practice. The largest defining factor is not its dictator figure (that's dictatorship), because they are a mere mortal that can die at any moment. The corporatism, jingoism and demand for a strict social order are the prime movers of fascism, and each of those elements are most definitely prevalent in our modern America, that is increasingly driven by K Street, blatant hatred of The Other (whether it's France or Iran or Mexicans and so on) and the demand that everyone speak and act the same.

    As I mentioned before R2W, this is far too complicated to get into here. There are millions of pages written about it. Go read a few volumes and then let's resume at another time.

     
  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Patriot,

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. Sorry to be a bug about it but it really does help. And I just read this post after I gave you more abuse about the name. Sorry about that. I take it back, you found the courage.

    As for the volumes and volumes needed to understand facism, how about just a very quick example to point us in the right direction. Please provide the name of a country besides the US that is fascist in nature but is not ruled by a dictator. I think that would be enlightening, though I doubt a name will be forthcoming.

     
  • At 10:44 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    Patriot,

    Thanks for the textbook definition of fascism. The problem is, whether it's the textbook, or the Cliff's notes definition (both of which I can grasp with my apparently puny mental capacity), the U.S. doesn't fit either. And those of you who keep insisting Bush is a fascist continue to prove that, while you may read the same volumes I do about fascism, you don't understand what you're reading.

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Asking someone to name another state that is fascist in nature but not ruled by a dictator is a non-starter. You think these things grow on trees? How ridiculous. Ask a real question next time.

    There have been two prior funtioning fascist states. They fell. The United States is rapidly descending along parallel lines of those states into full-blown fascism as defined by Mussolini himself:

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

    But he's only the guy who invented fascism, so what does he know, right? Why not stay within our own borders and see what a former Vice President had to say:

    "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." - Henry Wallace, 1944

    Not that he would know what fascism was like either, having been in the White House during all of World War II.

    Reviewing what has happened under Bush Jr, we see massive corporate mergers and profits despite declining real wages, enormous tax breaks to corporations and the ultra-wealthy, an unprecedented expansion of unchecked Presidential powers, a consistent erosion of due process and Constitutionally mandated Rights, increased corporate control of the media. A complete and exhaustive list would still likely be unsatisfactory proof enough for you to want to take an honest look at all this and reconsider your support for the heinousness embodied in the Bush Doctrine and its players. I'd like to be proven wrong.

    Wallace also seems prescient as regards today's demonization of non-Christians, foreigners, homosexuals and anything else we can call "the other":

    "The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."

    It should sound disturbingly familiar.

    As for your being stuck on the need for a dictator-type, you forget far too quickly that Homeland Security officials were talking of postponing the 2004 election if a terrorist attack were to happen. You think that option is no longer on the table? You're fooling yourselves if you do.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home