THE MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD-
by JOE URENECK

On the blogs that I generally favor there were vehement attacks against
Mike Wallace for doing an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad . The overall theme was that the '60 Minutes' man should not
be party to airing the views of the Iranians.

Well, I wanted to hear what he had to say. Just as I read the letter he had written
to President Bush. One can not say enough for original, unfiltered sources and
both the letter and the interview were illuminating. As to the letter, in response
to which President Bush had noting to say, there was more conciliation than
antagonism. The negative response from US officials, dismissing it entirely,
including the allusions to shared religious history of Iran and the US, was
reasonable only to those intent on stuffing their ears with cotton.

The recent interview by Mike Wallace was enlightening not so much by the
questions and answers but by the tone and body language of Mr. Wallace.

First, let’s be clear. I do have a dog in the fight so far as my family and friends
eventually must carry the water for my government’s policy decisions. Every one
has a responsibility to support their countrymen by making sure that we engage in
legitimate national defense and not in any war of aggression that fails this criteria.

As to the interview-even if an interviewer disagrees with his host one expects a measure of respect.
The host after all represents not only himself but his nation and an interviewer is
there to elicit information not as a slander monger.

Wallace pushed and broke through this envelope with his smirking and ingratiating
demeanor as Ahmadinejad answered his questions. One could not imagine his
behavior in talking with, say, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain or President
Jacques Chirac of France. When Ahmadinejad professed his belief that the US and
Britain was out to get his government Wallace expressed by his movements the utter
preposterousness of such an idea.

Preposterous? But public statements and actions are unambiguous. In 2005
President Bush denounced the Iranian elections (just as he denounced the
election results in Lebanon and Syria when, respectively, Hezbollah and Hamas
won). Vice President Cheney has warned Iran of ‘meaningful consequences” for
continuing its nuclear program.

There is no doubt that both the US and Britain would like to see ‘regime change’ in
Iran. Of this Wallace is fully aware. His interview behavior demeaned himself and
dispelled any illusion of an impartial fact finder. It was a dangerous, hubristic
act on Wallace's part, emblematic of US media and govenment attidute, to pretend otherwise.

We are now in a low intensity world war from which, temporarily, the US is
relatively immune. If we are fortunate we may retain this measure safety for a
time. But at what cost? Should US foreign policy, one which does not deal more
equitably with counties such as Iran, rely on this security to continue in the same
fashion it is easy to imagine that the asymmetrical war will also hit us hard, again
and with increasingly higher casualties, at home.

My two cents worth: As bad as the Mike Wallace interview was let’s hear more from
Ahmadinejad and others we are told are enemies. I want to see for myself.

Joe Ureneck - August 16, 2006