What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
481 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+152"PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans, as if to be mocking the American people.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation? You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people."
Ping! - schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -18/+125Wow, that "reporter" is such an unbelievable *****. That's what counts as journalism nowadays in the US? The country is circling the drain faster and faster.
- xvazquej, on 10/10/2007, -27/+107Oh my...what are the neo-cons to do with these answers...I didn't realize how articulate the Iranian president was...I quess all the propaganda had me thinking he was some crazy war monger...this story will probably not be covered by the Main Stream Media...or they will just find a way to spin the heck out of it....I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will cover it and say he didn't answer the questions, just like the so called reporter asking the questions...
- soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -18/+96Ahmadinejad owned Pelley's biased questions. I don't care for Ahmadinejad, but this war that the neo-cons are putting forward amounts to madness and lies, and is a repeat of the pre-Iraq war drum beat of 2002/2003. It needs to stop now and reporters need to do their jobs and ask the Bush administration some tough questions, instead of accepting what Bush says at face value and spitting it back out at Iran.
- adaire, on 10/10/2007, -22/+74Unfortunately, as most Bill O'Reilly-watching, couch potato douches only have an attention span of 10 seconds, they assume that an articulate answer to a question is avoidance.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -18/+69Are you comparing Bush or Amadinejad to Hitler?
I'm not calling either Hitler myself, nor would I ever. But your statement is ambiguous at best, and frankly silly. - leetleo, on 10/10/2007, -14/+61Ahmadinejad highlights some interesting points and shows himself to be an intelligent, articulate, and apparently rational individual. Yet I would caution against getting too caught up in his rhetoric. Lets not forget that he IS a politician, and the goal of any politician is to swing as many individuals into his favor as possible. This is still the same man that has threatened death to the U.S. and Israel on multiple occasions, this is still the same man who has openly denied the events of the holocaust, and this is still the same man who quells the right to free speech and other inalienable rights that we hold dear in America.
It's encouraging to see people have an open mind, but be careful not to forget who we're dealing with here. - aaronwolfe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+52What a great quote...
It's almost funny that this man who our leaders would have us think is an American hating, terrorist supporting, monster could articulate something so right and so in line with what (intelligent) people in this country believe. Of course, who knows how sincere he's being, but put this quote up next to the smartest thing George W. Bush ever said, and he'll make Bush look like an idiot. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -13/+57I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad (he's Iran's George W. Bush), but there's no excuse for Scott Pelley's consistently nasty tone. There's tough questions, and then there's acting like an O'Reilly-esque ass.
- moghua, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46What amazingly direct and aggressive questions! Imagine if someone in the media interviewed an important American politician that way (for example, calling them out when they dodge questions), it would almost be... what's the word... newsworthy!
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -14/+53Again, are you talking about Bush or Amadinejad?
/rhetorical question - quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39i speak fluent farsi and the translator did a horrible job translating and it felt like more of an interrogation than an interview. one thing that was really blatant was that when he first asked him to give a definitive answer on whether iran is pursuing nuclear weapons he responded "i can answer that with an affirmative no!" and went on to justify his answer. they conveniently did not translate this over in the program and the guy then accuses him of dancing around questions and not giving proper answers, despite the fact that all answers i heard were perfectly straight forward. another great part was when he asked him to say something nice about bush and then tells him what bush said about him when asked the same question (which was a personal attack). wow, it's amazing what the media has become now-a-days. if only MSM interviewers like this guy interviewed people in the bush administration in this manner.
- loganhid, on 10/10/2007, -6/+43I think we all know who the real terrorist is.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41Maybe Bush should hire an english translator.
- jollyholly, on 10/10/2007, -11/+45Are you sure Pelley isn't from Fox News? Some of the things he says remind me of Bill O'Reilly..
- Raian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34You do realize that America tried to destroy Iran by giving Saddam Hussein large quantities of expensive advanced weaponry... and that Iran actually stood up to America/Iraq and actually won despite a massive amount of dead soldiers and casualties.
America has acted in a very underhanded manner towards the middle-east-- and who knows why... they are dead-set in establishing control over the region and have been for years, trying to destabilize governments and depose leaders.
Maybe it's oil, maybe it's manifest destiny, who knows... Iran stood up to the US and won and now the US wants to demonize the place. - whuddafugger, on 10/10/2007, -11/+39Was Pelley mistaking Ahmadinejad for Osama bin Laden? Maybe one of the fact-checkers should have clued him in on some of the differences before conducting this interview.
I was looking forward to an investigative and insightful interview but was disappointed with this largely inflammatory, accusatory, and seemingly biased encounter (in favor of the Bush administration)
between a very patient President Ahmadinejad and a seemingly hysterical and over-emotional Scott Pelley. Whatever happened to balanced and fair reporting? Seemed more like an outright attack, one that was sorely lacking in
tact and diplomacy.
I couldn't believe Pelley's audacity in warning Ahmadinejad about marching "down a path to war" with the United States! He's a second string reporter! What's this guy doing threatening the president of a sovereign nation? He should be working for the FOX News network or one of those other biased talking head "news" networks that have sprouted like weeds on cable TV. Or is he (Pelley) trying to become the next Nancy Grace? - aaronwolfe, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37He made Scott Pelley look pretty silly...
- OGla, on 10/10/2007, -6/+33Brilliant answers by Ahmadinejad. And what a lousy journalist. Is everyone on TV in the US owned by the government?
- dreambringer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them.
- jroll8481, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23I think the main reason that a suprising number of people are supportive of him is the fact that for the past 7 years we have dealt with a government that treats us like children. Even if Ahmadinejad is lying through his teeth, it is still refreshing to have someone go through the effort of giving us a plausible explanation and actually answering the question. He doesnt carry himself with this attitude that feels as if he is honestly suprised that you would question his actions. He is even willing to sit down and have an interview with someone from a clearly hostile perspective. I have never expected the person running this country to run it exactly how i want it run, I just want to feel like that person is being honest with me as far as explaining how they chose to run it. Another thing you would notice in the interview are no absolute statements ("if we dont defeat them there, they will come here!") or vauguely glossing over facts that you dont like to discuss (" for political reasons") or catch phrases ("cut and run", "stay the course"). This is why I dont understand why people are protesting him speaking at Columbia, why are we as a people so afraid of simple discussion? allow people to hear what the man has to say and make their own opinions from it.
- sovereign3, on 10/10/2007, -12/+34Scott Pelley was embarrassing in that interview. His tone was accusatory and subjective. He sounded less like an unbiased journalist and more like a incisive diplomat. Normally, I am very pleased with 60 Minutes' presentation and journalistic integrity, but this interview was a disgrace.
Thank God I watched Football yesterday instead of watching this drivel on 60 Minutes. - vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24To be fair, they wouldn't be chanting "Death to America" had we not overthrew their legally elected government in the 50's and installed a dictator who they overthrew in a revolution. And to be really fair we gave WMD and plenty of conventional weapons to Saddam and told him to invade.
- jeffman12, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29He really nailed this question:
PELLEY: Mr. President, American men and women are being killed by your weapons in Iraq. You know this.
AHMADINEJAD: No, no, no.
PELLEY: Why are those weapons there?
AHMADINEJAD: Who's saying that?
PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir.
AHMADINEJAD: Very good. If I may.
AHMADINEJAD: Are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? This is what the American officials are claiming. Well, we don't need to arrest many people to prove that Americans are occupying Iraq or produce fabricated documents. If you go to the streets of Baghdad, you will see American helicopters and tanks and Humvees, so on and so forth. So the Iraqi people are just defending themselves. I think the way out for the American official from this problem that it has created for itself shouldn't be in accusing Iraq, Iran, rather. You need to understand the realities of the region and also respect the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people, like other people, want to have security, want to have peace, want to be free. When they see that soldiers come into their houses, they react. So if the American government does accept this reality, this truth, everything will changes. If they accuse us 1,000 times, the truth will not change. They need to accept the truth and also the wishes of the Iraqi people. That is a way out of this deadlock. - Dorian822, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Pelley has got to be, in this interview, one of the most pretentious pricks I have ever seen deem themselves a reporter. I may not believe in the values of the Iranian president and his lack of progressive policies but that doesn't mean I have to conduct an interview in the manner of someone on the offense (in more then one shade of the word) with a political leader.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21the christian right isn't going to like that
- Aaronthethird, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Apply this same logic to Bush and you can see why so many other countries fear and hate us.
- devoted, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21The full CBS interviews (Video) is right here: http://www.hooqs.com/interview-with-ahmadinejad/17 ... and so are interviews on CNN, Canal 5, and commentaries about Amedenijad by George Bush and Shimon Peres
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19"Because if you are to do that, we have to go over the dossier of the activities of various American administrations in this country from 1337 Iranian calendar onwards."
Iran has a 1337 calendar? - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21C-span is showing Amedenijad's speech (to the National Press Club) at 12:00 EST http://www.cspan.org
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26It was just you. Ron Paul doesn't want to be friends with all nations. He simply doesn't want to interfere militarily, except where Congress declares war. And he would certainly cut foreign aid, which means giving less gifts to win friendship.
- timbellomo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian?
- roodammy44, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Don't blame him, he's only taking part in Godwin's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19it almost looked like pelley was pulling a colbert, he should have just asked him "bush: great president, or greatest president?"
- firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Iran, 1953, Project Ajax.
That disqualifies every American from criticising any Iran leader until America has apologised and paid reparations to Iran. Until then you're all a bunch of hypocrites. - olschool82, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Im sure Ahmedinejad was personally responsible for that. Im sure america's foreign policy record is immaculate, as well.
- whaambulance, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Amazing how bush can outright refuse to answer strings of questions because he doesn't like them, but when a well-spoken, intelligent, foreign president agrees to an interview he gets absolutely lambasted by an aggressive right-wing douche. The sad thing is none of the people who are actually against Iran will read this whole interview, they will pickup the heavily spun version from Bill-O and the rest at FOX news.
I feel bad for not doing something about the ***** going on in the states and I'm Canadian. :(
I take anything any politician says with a grain of salt, but reading his well thought out replies and him actually admitting he loves all Jews on camera is a big deal. He knows his people will see this broadcast so to say that shows that he isn't nearly as anti-semetic as people make him sound, and lends some credibility to the argument that he is just against the state of Israel and their policies relating to the Palestineans. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Nah, China is a bigger enemy to environmentalism
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17you mean "why do you like eating babies so much?" isn't a fair line of questioning?
- sonstone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17There is a perspective that the questions could be perceived as very offensive. I can't imagine a reporter in the US asking such questions to Bush and being as disrespectful as that reporter was. Maybe, the Iranian President felt like he was answering the questions as directly as the questions deserved a response.
- lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -20/+35I'd be more inclined to believe him if it weren't for his "death to America" rallies.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+25Articulate? Yes. Intelligent? Yes. But he dodged nearly all of the yes or no questions. He's simply a good politician. Very often we forget what good politicians are, because Bush is an imbecile, can't speak in public if his life depended on it, and is the furthest thing from I'd call "articulate". Even bin Laden, if you read his latest video transcript, is very calm, articulate, and intelligent. But that doesn't mean that he's not a crazy fundamentalist nut. It just means that he's intelligent and well-educated.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17i speak fluent farsi and the translator did a horrible job translating and it felt like more of an interrogation than an interview. one thing that was really blatant was that when he first asked him to give a definitive answer on whether iran is pursuing nuclear weapons he responded "i can answer that with an affirmative no!" and went on to justify his answer. they conveniently did not translate this over in the program and the guy then accuses him of dancing around questions and not giving proper answers, despite the fact that all answers i heard were perfectly straight forward. another great part was when he asked him to say something nice about bush and then tells him what bush said about him when asked the same question (which was a personal attack). wow, it's amazing what the media has become now-a-days. if only MSM interviewers like this guy interviewed people in the bush administration in this manner.
- sovereign3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Exactly. Where was this directness and aggressiveness leading up to the Iraq war? He put this man on the hot seat for the entire interview, yet we never see this sort of approach on our own politicians. I feel truly let down by 60 Minutes.
- devoted, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15sorry, broken link - the interviews are here: http://www.hooqs.com/interview-with-ahmadinejad/17 ...
- billm317, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...
I'm no expert on this, but it seems both statements may have been butchered in translation. One thing I will say is that I don't immediately trust our media or government. Ahmadinejad may be a total scum bag, but there's no doubt in my mind that we're not seeing the entire picture. - theworldisflat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17But at least he is well spoken and understands basic concepts. Oh... and he doesn't control the countries military or nuclear weapons.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 487 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is