Thank you so much for your post. I knew there was trouble on 60 Minutes when I saw long lanky Scott Pelley's pointy pose (yah, we know you bought new shoes, Pell) and his dismissive lean on the chair, emphasizing
Ahmadinejad's diminutive size and his disregard for his subject. The interview should have been a head to head. But, then, it wasn't an interview, was it? While I found Ahmadinejad slip-slidey in his remarks, I found Scott Pelley totally obnoxious from the get-go; a disgrace. His hammering did have the beneficial effect of heightening my analysis of both participants words. Pelley revealed himself a total ass-jack and should be relegated to interviewing on the red carpet for Access Hollywood.
I was disappointed that 60 Minutes aired this this way they aired this, and saw it instantly as an opening salvo in the press run up to war with Iran. I won't watch Pelley again and am not likely to watch 60 Minutes. While Mike Wallace could be ugly, and if he came in my front door, I'd bolt out the back, he could have provided much better insight into Mr. Ahmadinejab by maintaining at least a facade of politeness before he dug his teeth in.
As for Bollinger, the hallowed halls of academia ain't so hallowed any more, are they?
Reading The Pictures: Did You Hear Hitler Was In Town?
OMG....
Didn't anybody learn anything from the cheerleading that greased the skids of the Bush 43 Gulf War? Isn't there any spine left in the face of Dick and his Mini-Me? Is our democracy so compromised right now that we wouldn't think, simply left to answer questions, Ahmadinejad wouldn't dig a deep enough hole on his own -- without trying to slam home the fact through bullying and harrassment?
I mean, you almost expect it from a rag like the Daily News (reviving the lizard-brain Crusader "good versus evil" lingo, as well as the "greatest dictator in history" hyperbole), but what about everybody else?
Consider, for example, the small-minded attack by Columbia President Bollinger preceding Ahmadinejad's Q. and A. at the university yesterday. It's a sad day when the head of one of our leading academic institutions feels the need to build up his he-man credentials so people in high places won't try and make him pay for offering a microphone to simply the worst dictator who ever lived.
And then, look at the body language and listen to the tone of 60 Minutes crimes against humanity prosecutor Administration surrogate reporter Scott Pelley. Scott doesn't look quite as tough, however, after Ahmadinejad quick-kicks him back to the 4th Estate.
Finally, check out the last image CBS dropped into its Ahmadinejad slideshow.
Here's the caption:
A U.S. hostage (blindfolded) is seen Nov. 8, 1979, being paraded by his captors in the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. Five U.S. survivors of the 444-day siege later said they remembered seeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the dramatic 1979 takeover of the embassy. Iranian veterans of the standoff flatly denied that he was involved.
I can't (yet I can) believe that CBS would stoop so low. I did a post on this image over two years ago, right after Mahmoud came to power ... when his connection to the embassy hostage taking -- at least, as a front line participant -- was debunked.
(image 1: NY Daily News cover. September 24, 2007. image 2: CBS 60 Minutes. September 23, 2007. via CBSnews.com. image 3: AFP/Getty. Tehran, Iran. image 3: Getty Images. Tehran. 1979.)
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
They are the new grounds for fascist America.
Ahmadinejad has one problem: his loss of popularity in Iran. He came to New York to garner domestic support by "proving" to the Iranians that America is still is a great bully, sees Iran as inferior thus remains the "Great Santan". Why would the guy care about his reputation with American? The US President is much more unpopular. This trip was all about the his domestic contituency.
Bush's position on the other hand is much more complicated. Not only has lost both international and domestic support but worse, Ahmedinejad enjoys much more support (and leverage) where it matters the most: the Middle East. Here is a crucial fact: in the eyes of a critical mass of Middle-Eastern, Bush has unfortunately become what Bin Laden represents to America. The latter might even be more popular than Bush in that area. This can only mean one thing: the so-called war on terror will never be waged effectively as long as Bush is in power.
Anyone can be anti-Semitic - just criticize Israel's horrific behavior. To be Hitler, you have to be a president who criticizes Israel's horrific behavior.
I have always stated, why the Palestinians have to pay for the atrocities that were committed against the Jews until the culmination of the Holocaust? Why?
Last I heard there were no concentration camps in Palestine. In search of relieve, the Europeans know how to displace their guilty conscience by creating a new enemy of the Jewish people.
I think there are forces at work that want to make war inevitable. Come on now this guy is the what? greatest, biggest, worst dictator in the history of the world? Can anyone who supports this notion give the specifics? The band wagon is on the move. Everyone is rushing to condemn him and with the condemnation you will be backed into a war. Point out your concerns that this attack is exaggerated and prompted by ulterior motives and you will be attacked as someone who supports "the worst dictator in history"
Seen this before. You know where it goes. Everyone rushes to show that they understand the current conventional wisdom and are on board. Getting on the bandwagon is the same as letting in the Trojan Horse. We will soon hear how the fact that there is a consensus about how terrible he is compels war with Iran. Idiots. The sad thing is that even those who see through this will suffer the fate that the idiots deserve.
I know Israel is 'the only democracy in the Middle East' but wasn't this guy elected?
I forgot, elections don't count if we don't like the result.
The President of Iran is a religious zealot and a horse's or camel's ass - whichever you prefer.
Nicely done, Mr. Shaw. As I witness the lack of critical thinking in this country and short-term memory of the circumstances that created the debacle that is Iraq I really wonder -- is the ground ripe right here at home for a Hitleresque takeover? Or are we actually already in the midst of it?
Yes.
If you haven't read already, it may surprise you -- conservative Pat Buchanan's take on Ahmadinejad visit and reaction:
http://antiwar.com/pat/
I don't know what up with Pat these days.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070921/cm_uc_crpbux/op_333894
Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?
Fri Sep 21, 3:00 AM ET
It may have been politically incorrect to publish the thoughts on the sixth anniversary of 9-11, but what Colin Powell had to say to GQ magazine needs to be heard.
Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America.
"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Powell asked. "People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"
History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.
Ahmad isn't a Hitler but a Hitler wannabe. And we must do everything to ensure that he becomes nothing more.
Apollo, you have it wrong, Bush is the Hitler wannabe. Having read your profile I am inclined to believe that you are Jeb Bush.
Don't be fooled by this administrations faux concern over human rights violations, etc.
They use it only as an excuse to drum up more hatred, and support for their agenda. They could care less about the citizenry of Iran or anywhere else for that matter.
The only reason this administration invaded Afghasistan was because of their refusal to turn over Bin Laden. Not because of their denial of human rights or the torture and murder of their own citizens. Had they agreed to do so, the Taliban would likely still be in power today. That's how much they care.
Those who think Ahmadinejad was wronged by lack of respect or not allowed to place a wreath at or speak from Ground Zero are doomed to repeat history because they forget its lessons.
Hitler started World War II because we respected him too much.
Wrong.
Read history and find out yourself why he flourished.
Oh brother. I cannot believe this. Yet, as I have watched the regress of the Left, I can. Somehow, I can. Nothing the Left says or stands for can shock me any more. "At least he isn't Bush!" Hmmmm. Seems it wasn't too long ago that the chattering masses were willing to look at Hitler and say, "At least he isn't a Communist." But then, that's what the chattering masses do. And they do it so well. Pity.
Wow where to begin.Well the President of Iran is not Hitler.Der Fuehrer was after all a master politician and a superb orator.Hitler would have used an occassion like this to great
advantage.Hitler would have compared the concentration camps to U.S.Indian reservations
and denied He was killing Jews and then dropped in some statement like ''though that is what they deserve.When Hitler finished half of his American audience would have pronounced
him a great and ''misunderstood'' man.Reading your comments about the poor, misunderstood President of Iran is fascinating.The people that Lenin so long ago pronounced ''Useful Idiots'' are clearly alive and well.Your ideological ancestors worshipped Joseph Stalin,
who killed twice as many people as Hitler,as the greatest man of the twentieth century.Then when Uncle Joe went on to his reward they transferred their affections to other Marxist mass killers such as Mao-tse-tung, Fidel Castro and any other Leftist psychotic who could afford the price of a pair of sunglases.
Now you have transferred your political affections to the Islamic Jihadists.All I can say is suicide is not painless.Have a great day kids!
What about simply listening to what he has to say, without being spoonfed propoganda by our own kind, first?! I can't recall the last time I needed a neocon to preface anyones thoughts for me, so that I could use my critical thinking skills properly. Why are neocons so afraid of people thinking for themselves? It's obvious Ahmadinejad has his own agenda, from his statements. It's obvious that he disagrees with our western culture and views. It's obvious that he doesn't have a good track record with his own people. DUH! I don't need to be lead to my own conclusions or judged a sympathizer because I'm offended by manipulation from those who can't trust anyone to think for themselves. Geez, you guys make yourselves the easier target in situations like this! Just another distraction from what we could be discussing in this instance! What a yawn!!!
Here we go again--the pompoms are raised, the oil drums beating louder and louder for war. The mainstream press is not to be trusted on this, at all, on anything. It"s all a big sales job for the major corporate players at the trough, predicated propaganda at best, outright lies the norm. When Katie Couric is considered a leftist you know we"re in trouble. Ever hear from Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Cornell West, Naomi Klein, but a few of this countrys great thinkers? Not through todays media outlets. The "real" left of America is NEVER represented through the mainstream media. Yet, even after all the havoc the neocons have wrecked throughout the world their neochicanery is still given a platform as their disingenuous disciples prattle on with their naive, arrogant notions of world dominance. And America pulls its sleepy head from the sand searches the skies for a savior while walking off a cliff.
You've described the situation perfectly. The "Cons", the Neocons, Democrats, (with few exceptions), and Republicans alike,(both are really parties of the Right and henceforth should be thought of and referred to in all media as such), are "leading"(sic) the nation into perdition. All have the same paymasters, the coporations, who control all legislatures, all executives, the judiciary, the media, the armed forces and the educational system. Our "democracy" is now and has been, for years, a fascist state.
A new author to add to your list is Morris Berman who's written, "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire." Be assured of being enlightened as to the true state of affairs in America, and of also not seeing or hearing Mr. Berman on MSM.
Indubitably, we Americans are in for even darker times. Prepare as best you can.
They're not "given" a platform, they own the platform.
was i the only one who noticed that bollinger's comments about MA parroted exactly the current bush talking points on iran. so much for academic and intellectual freedom. this was a skillfully and carefully crafted dog and pony show by both the US and the iranian govts.
It didn't seem like quite a dog and pony show by the Iranians. Ahmadinejad sounded like a true intellectual, at least on this occasion. I'm glad that Iran is taking its case directly to the American people, I hope enough of us can see through the lies pushed on us by the corporate media (and universities unfortunately) and make an impact on the government's choice to go to war this time.
Washington DC...Sept 29
BE THERE
no, it wasn't just you... pathetic, and more than a little unnerving, to think the academic left is on board with the bush propaganda machine. so much for intellectual freedom, indeed.
Hahaha... "academic left" does not apply to Columbia (or Harvard, or Yale!!!).
Good an neutral article Mr. Shaw. Thought provoking as well from several angles. For example, let me quote from your linked article on another site...
"Because the context of the present day photo of Ahmadinejad is that he's now the man in charge of the country, an associative link is formed that way, as well."
Bingo, there's that phrase, "associative link". And that's one thing I've been hammering away on with anyone who would listen. It's how these neocons operate. They villify people, attach labels to them, to have them shunned. Could you imagine, for example, if the neocons rolled out their Star of David to put on people? Could you imagine the absolute outrage from the entire country??
So why are they allowed to do the same thing, with different markers, to everyone else?? They associate the word liberal with all things bad, vile and evil. And the media buys it. They villify groups like Greenpeace as the people responsible for long gas lines and high gas prices, when the blame is actually on the oil companies.
And to top off the list, at the very top, coming from the man himself.... Bush was always using that associative link. Saying Iraq anytime he mentioned 9/11. And saying 9/11 whenever he said anything about Iraq.
Food for thought into how these Neocons operate.
you have perfectly articulated what i have been trying to make sense of in my own head. it is these associative links that are so subtly manipulative, no one seems to question them.
on the less subtle level, i watched the israeli news last night and shimon peres was saying that nejad was hitler and anyone willing to speak to him or give him a voice was chamberlain, and who would possibly want to be that?
how can we possibly fight that kind of manipulation? how can anyone stand up to them when they will be accused as if the lie was true? how much have our perceptions been shaped by manipulation? i too will be hammering away on anyone who will listen from now on....
And the beauty of these carefully constructed "associative links" is that they are only associative, and never actually explicitly state what they so strongly imply. In this way the liars can revert to the careful, legalistic parsing of language that they once ridiculed, and claim with great indignation that they never said Saddam had WMDs, or that Iraq was behind 9-11.
It was just somehow "in the air" at the time, it was the Democrats claiming Iraq had WMD, it was the innate wisdom of the American people that somehow knew that Saddam was connected to 9-11. Nothing at all to do with the enormous media blitz launched to sell the invasion of Iraq, nothing to do with the way those three memes, Iraq 9-11 and WMD kept showing up in the same sentences, spoken by all the most convincing administration spokesmen with great urgency, though on closer exam the syntactic connection between them isn't really there.
After such an egregious campaign of lies it is beyond belief that the same cast of scumbags are running the exact same scam again four years later, a feat only possible in the brain-dead echo chamber of the US media.
Posted September 26, 2007 | 03:35 AM (EST)