Wallace asked questions about the Nuclear program in Iran. Ahmadinejad spoke of the need to produce its own energy, that being able to produce one's own energy leads to independence. Wallace didn't seem to want to go down that road so he pushed Ahmadinejad to respond to questions about Israel. Ahmadinejad asked if he could finish his comments on nuclear energy. Wallace accused him of fillabustering. Ahmadinejad spoke only a little more briefly about nuclear energy then proceeded to answer the questions about Israel. Wallace suggested that Ahmadinejad wanted Israel wiped off the face of the earth, but Ahmadinejad's response to leading questions was that why should Palestine pay for agressions againsts jews that took place elsewhere in Europe. Why not create a homeland in Europe instead of Palestine? Wallace didn't answer this but moved passed this answer quickly. Hypocracy.
Every question was biased. Ahmadinejad asked if Wallace was representing American and Israeli interests or was an a journalist in reponse to Wallace's "yeah, right" reponses to comments Ahmadinejad made. While Ahmadinejad spoke about American made military equipment being used by Israel in it's agressions against Lebanon (which outside of this discussion do seem to be defensive, but that's another issue...) Wallace kept inserting that Iran was supplying Hezbollah with missles...anyway the hole exchange can be read on the 60 minutes site. here
The video is there, too.
While I am skeptical of every leader of every nation, much of what Ahmadinejad had to say is worth considering.
The next interview was with the witty and brilliant Stephen Colbert discussing his notion of TRUTHINESS in the news. I found it quite ironic following the Wallace interview. I used to admire Wallace's resolve and questioning skills, but he didn't seem interested in hearing what the Iranian President had to say as much as framing it in a manner that would justify Bush's attitude toward Iran.
In the 18 page letter Ahmadinejad wrote to bush, he suggests that if Bush were really a follower of Christ that he would be less war agressive and more peaceful, seeking a different attitude with the rest of the world. I find Bush's dismissal of the letter to be a direct example of the self righteous attitude that is ruining this Country.
Despite all this I am seeking hope that we can rise above it all. To quote Cornell West :
I use the language of decline, decay, and despair rather than doom, gloom and no possibility because I think any talk about despair is not where you end but where you start. And then the courage and sacrifice come in. But at the level of hope, not optimism. Optimism and hope are different. Optimism tends to be biased on the notion that there is enough evidence out there that allow us to think that things are going to be better. Much more rational, deeply secular. Whereas hope looks at the evidence and says 'it doesn't look good at all.' Says 'it doesn't look good at all.' Says 'we going to make a leap of faith, we going beyond the evidence that kept to create new possibilities based on visions that become contagious to allow us to engage in heroic actions always against the odds, no guarantees whatsoever.' That's hope. That's hope.
