'60 Minutes' Cut Ahmadinejad's Statement, 'Solution Is Democracy' in Israel/Palestine

[Kaminyu]

Report: '60 Minutes' Cut Ahmadinejad's Statement, 'Solution Is Democracy' in Israel/Palestine:

The interview that Mike Wallace did of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2 years ago was aired on C-Span recently, and a diligent blogger has reported on what "60 Minutes" cut out of the interview when it aired. When Wallace confronted Ahmadinejad with the "wipe Israel off the map" threats, Ahmadinejad said that "the solution is democracy" in Israel and Palestine, a suggestion that he favors a one-state solution. I agree with blogger Tom Murphy that "60"'s edits misrepresent Ahmadinejad's thrust, making him out to be far more confrontational than he is, especially after Wallace promised Ahmadinejad that he would listen to his complete answers to questions. And yes, that this amounts to "suppression of basic facts concerning Israel and the Palestinians."

Here's Murphy's data:

The text in red was edited out of the 60 Minutes broadcast:

MR. WALLACE: You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, don't be hasty, sir. I'm going to get to that.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not hasty.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.

So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead? Even the Palestinian administration and government which has been elected by the people is being attacked on a daily basis, and its high-ranking officials are assassinated and arrested. Yesterday, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament was arrested, elected by the people, mind you. So how long can this go on?

We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Look, I mean no disrespect. Let's make a deal. I will listen to your complete answers if you'll stay for all of my questions. My concern is that we might run out of time.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, you're free to ask me any questions you please, and I am hoping that I'm free to be able to say whatever is on my mind. You are free to put any question you want to me, and of course, please give me the right to respond fully to your questions to say what is on my mind.

Do you perhaps want me to say what you want me to say? Am I to understand --

MR. WALLACE: No.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: So if that is the case, then I ask you to please be patient.

MR. WALLACE: I said I'll be very patient.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Maybe these are words that you don't like to hear, Mr. Wallace.

MR. WALLACE: Why? What words do I not like to hear? [the words highlighted in red and edited out of the interview]

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Because I think that you're getting angry.

MR. WALLACE: No, I couldn't be happier for the privilege of sitting down with the president of Iran.

[Foxhole]

Kaminyu said

Report: '60 Minutes' Cut Ahmadinejad's Statement, 'Solution Is Democracy' in Israel/Palestine:

If the solution is democracy in Palestine/Israel, why is there no democracy in Iran? If he wants the Palestinians to voice their desires about what kind of government they would like to live under, why cannot the Iranian people make the same declaration?

I don't hold Ahmadinejad to be an honest man. Just like the rest of the lying Iranian regime, swinging their good book around like it gives them legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the explicit and clear support of the people, only. Failing that, they're clowns.

Simple question: if the Palestinians voted for a two-state solution that leaves Israel permanently in place, would Iran accept that? Would you, Kaminyu?

[wheelworks]

Kaminyu said

Report: '60 Minutes' Cut Ahmadinejad's Statement, 'Solution Is Democracy' in Israel/Palestine:

Dang it! Roberto was just going to post this article but you beat him to it.

[Chisti]

"Do you perhaps want me to say what you want me to say? Am I to understand --"

funny guy!

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

If the solution is democracy in Palestine/Israel, why is there no democracy in Iran? If he wants the Palestinians to voice their desires about what kind of government they would like to live under, why cannot the Iranian people make the same declaration?

I don't hold Ahmadinejad to be an honest man. Just like the rest of the lying Iranian regime, swinging their good book around like it gives them legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the explicit and clear support of the people, only. Failing that, they're clowns.

Simple question: if the Palestinians voted for a two-state solution that leaves Israel permanently in place, would Iran accept that? Would you, Kaminyu?

If that was the case, then why doesn't America eliminate the electoral college and move away from a republic with anti-majoritarian mechanisms into one of direct democracy?

[FMROMMEL]

jinnzaman said

If that was the case, then why doesn't America eliminate the electoral college and move away from a republic with anti-majoritarian mechanisms into one of direct democracy?

Stop with this electorial college stuff. It was put in the system for a reason.......I am sure if your candidate had won because of it you would be very happy with it.

[jinnzaman]

FMROMMEL said

Stop with this electorial college stuff. It was put in the system for a reason.......I am sure if your candidate had won because of it you would be very happy with it.

Firstly, I voted for Nader in 2000. I'm not a diehard democrat and I'm not a hardcore opponent of Republicans. So I have no beef with the Bush v. Gore showdown.

Secondly, the electoral college was the product of a compromise and not necessarily a rational debate to appease smaller states that were concerned with the popular vote not because they were undemocratic but because southern states got to include their slave populations as a factor in setting districts.

Thirdly, assuming for the sake of the argument that the electoral college isn't a big deal, what about the other anti-majoritarian constraints such as:

- the fact that the house has terms of 2 years. To top it off, the population ratio for house districts are usually organized around political parties (resulting in the representatives picking their constituents rather than vice versa).

- the senate has 6 years, but is based on the state. this results in 18% of the population determining the majority of the seats in the senate. Yet in spite of not being representative of the majority of the country's population, it is the senate and not the house that gives advice and consent to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, ratifies treaties, and convicts impeachments (rather then the house which initiates it)

- the president not being directly elected by the people but through the electoral college where most states are 'winner take all'. In other words, its not a true representation of the popular vote

- The Supreme Court is given life-long terms and is not accountable to any directly elected institution at all.

- On top of the institutional constraints, the electoral college system creates a bipartisan system which has enabled financial elites to unduly influence the political system, further reducing any popular participation.

Isn't it strange that in our "democracy" the branch of government that has the most direct connections with the people is given only a 2 year term and has no relevant powers whereas the most undemocratic branches have a life long term and interpret the Constitution?

So if the US wants to promote democratization abroad, perhaps they should do so at home first.

[m_ali_qazi]

Foxhole said

If the solution is democracy in Palestine/Israel, why is there no democracy in Iran? If he wants the Palestinians to voice their desires about what kind of government they would like to live under, why cannot the Iranian people make the same declaration?

I don't hold Ahmadinejad to be an honest man. Just like the rest of the lying Iranian regime, swinging their good book around like it gives them legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the explicit and clear support of the people, only. Failing that, they're clowns.

Simple question: if the Palestinians voted for a two-state solution that leaves Israel permanently in place, would Iran accept that? Would you, Kaminyu?

that was good

now explain why 60 minutes is so full of crap for cutting out a major piece of the segment

[Kaminyu]

Foxhole said

If the solution is democracy in Palestine/Israel, why is there no democracy in Iran? If he wants the Palestinians to voice their desires about what kind of government they would like to live under, why cannot the Iranian people make the same declaration?

I don't hold Ahmadinejad to be an honest man. Just like the rest of the lying Iranian regime, swinging their good book around like it gives them legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the explicit and clear support of the people, only. Failing that, they're clowns.

I think the simplest answer to that, is that Iran and Israel/Palestine aren't the same, nor are they in the same, or similar, situation.

Simple question: if the Palestinians voted for a two-state solution that leaves Israel permanently in place, would Iran accept that? Would you, Kaminyu?

Obviously. The only ones who wouldn't accept it, would be Israel.

[Kaminyu]

wheelworks said

Dang it! Roberto was just going to post this article but you beat him to it.

Mr. Roboto wouldn't post this, as he believes Ahmadinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and that Iran is "planning on building nuclear weapons".

[wheelworks]

Kaminyu said

Mr. Roboto wouldn't post this, as he believes Ahmadinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and that Iran is "planning on building nuclear weapons".

I woz being Sarcastic

[Kaminyu]

wheelworks said

I woz being Sarcastic

oh, right...

[SaidAbdullahofDarfur]

FMROMMEL said

Stop with this electorial college stuff. It was put in the system for a reason.......I am sure if your candidate had won because of it you would be very happy with it.

Hmm what do the hip kids say when confronted by this kind of situation....

something along the lines of Rofl or such?

So yeah, your excuse and only way out is to say....

Its not democracy, not even a republic, but a representative republic but its only bad when its not your candidate?

I do beleive the point my brother is trying to make is...

Dont diss Iran's Theocratic republic, when America is running on a sham democracy run by the CIA/Fed/World bank etc.

Aint capitalism a...um slang word for the dog of the female?

[FMROMMEL]

SaidAbdullahofDarfur said

Hmm what do the hip kids say when confronted by this kind of situation....

something along the lines of Rofl or such?

So yeah, your excuse and only way out is to say....

Its not democracy, not even a republic, but a representative republic but its only bad when its not your candidate?

I do beleive the point my brother is trying to make is...

Dont diss Iran's Theocratic republic, when America is running on a sham democracy run by the CIA/Fed/World bank etc.

Aint capitalism a...um slang word for the dog of the female?

Hmmm.......read next time. I never said anything about Iran?

And if the US election is such a shame then why do we have a Black person who was born to a muslim father and a White woman from Alaska running in our election for president\vice president?

[FMROMMEL]

jinnzaman said

Firstly, I voted for Nader in 2000. I'm not a diehard democrat and I'm not a hardcore opponent of Republicans. So I have no beef with the Bush v. Gore showdown.

Secondly, the electoral college was the product of a compromise and not necessarily a rational debate to appease smaller states that were concerned with the popular vote not because they were undemocratic but because southern states got to include their slave populations as a factor in setting districts.

Thirdly, assuming for the sake of the argument that the electoral college isn't a big deal, what about the other anti-majoritarian constraints such as:

- the fact that the house has terms of 2 years. To top it off, the population ratio for house districts are usually organized around political parties (resulting in the representatives picking their constituents rather than vice versa).

- the senate has 6 years, but is based on the state. this results in 18% of the population determining the majority of the seats in the senate. Yet in spite of not being representative of the majority of the country's population, it is the senate and not the house that gives advice and consent to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, ratifies treaties, and convicts impeachments (rather then the house which initiates it)

- the president not being directly elected by the people but through the electoral college where most states are 'winner take all'. In other words, its not a true representation of the popular vote

- The Supreme Court is given life-long terms and is not accountable to any directly elected institution at all.

- On top of the institutional constraints, the electoral college system creates a bipartisan system which has enabled financial elites to unduly influence the political system, further reducing any popular participation.

Isn't it strange that in our "democracy" the branch of government that has the most direct connections with the people is given only a 2 year term and has no relevant powers whereas the most undemocratic branches have a life long term and interpret the Constitution?

So if the US wants to promote democratization abroad, perhaps they should do so at home first.

Look the reason why we have 2 senate seats for 6 years and house seats for 2 years based on population is that the senators represent the states. The house represents the population. The president is elected by a mixture of the two. The electorial college is set up to represent the population as well as respecting states rights. Also the electorial college is a check and a balance against unwise popular vote for a president that could do harm.(remember Hitler/his party won a good amounts of votes in the german elections). As for the congressional districs being set up for certain parties, it is a problem but not that big of a problem it seems because the house and senate control have changed many times.

As for you saying the house has no power is wrong. The house holds all the purse strings for the government. All spending bills come from the house not the senate. The house also is the only branch that can impeachment charges. The house can impeach a supreme court justice. It however is up to the senate to try them. And the big thing is that if the candidates don't get enough electorial votes to win the presidency the house is the ones who elect the president.

As for the winner takes all thing, it up to the states to decide how to elect thier electors.

Personally the founding fathers of this country did a damn good job of figuring out a system that has its checks and balances. Its not perfect but it works better that most other forms of goverment by far.