Calm down, you neo-conservative warmongers. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's no more a threat than Congressman Joe Blow back in Cleveland, trying to appeal to the good folks who make up his base. So suggests Brian Williams. Hat tip jazr. Fresh from his trip to Tehran, where he scored a big exclusive with the Iranian president, Williams sat down with Jon Stewart on last night's Daily Show.
JON STEWART: Tell me about this guy.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: He is a lot of things. He's a Ph.D. He's the former mayor of Tehran. He's got an election next year, and, after all, at the end of the day, he's a politician. And he may very well know that the religious folks who, some would argue, more in charge than he is, have perhaps decided that embracing the West, the US, while these talks are going on in Geneva, wouldn't be a bad idea. You enter that country and you see what sanctions do. You see that the city streets remind you of a cross between Havana and Baghdad. Kind of a used-to-be Eastern Bloc nation that hasn't had a cent invested in years. Where we're staying in what used to be a Hilton until the revolution, and it has just gone to hell. Walls of the hotel are scraped and it's dirty and awful --
View video at Daily Show website [16 minutes in].
STEWART: Any stuff to bomb? Anything we could bring down with some type of explosions?
WILLIAMS [ignoring the question]: So the first indication we had --
STEWART: Were you at the presidential palace?
WILLIAMS: We were. Never happened before. I mean this is like the most heavily guarded--you come down several streets --
STEWART: You must be very special. Let me ask you this: do they have favors? When you went to the bathroom, what were the soaps like? Are they like, do they say like, "Tehran," "presidential palace"? Were there ashtrays to steal? What did you find over there?
WILLIAMS [feigning getting up and leaving]: We're on your time.
STEWART: Come back!
WILLIAMS: If you feel. I never left. Just for the record. It's an amazing place. You're in this courtyard, 95-degree heat, he comes out of what is the equivalent of the West Wing; his residence is behind you. You realize briefly you're in this courtyard where the CIA would have given thousands of dollars just to see up-close. It's never; we have very little human intelligence in Iran. And it was clear he had a message to impart. It was clear from the moment we were picked up at the airport when we learned where the interview was going to be. Ten minutes after he walked out I was on the Today show from his courtyard: absolutely unheard of. And buried in his message --
STEWART: Let me guess the message. Can I guess it?
WILLIAMS: Yes, Jon.
STEWART: Death to America.
WILLIAMS: Not so much. It was more like--I'm going to use a big one here--rapprochement. Can you handle it?
STEWART: Sounds pretty, I don't know: French.
WILLIAMS: And what's "Stewart"?
STEWART: Sort of Jew. When you talk to them, do you feel like, when he says the crazy things that he says--and he says crazy things--is he playing to his base? Is this just a politician? Because, wasn't that the mistake we made with Saddam Hussein? His braggadocio, his all those things, were of necessity, because he has to play to this base. Are we misinterpreting their belligerence, and thinking it's baiting us into a war, when it's just a way to stay in power?
WILLIAMS: Well, that's exactly what it is. There's universals in politics. He's playing to his base like a politician in Cleveland [NB: on behalf of Dennis Kucinich, I resent that!] You can go through the transcript, and he, you were joking, he says all but "death to America." At one point he said to me, and I'm paraphrasing very loosely, the atomic bomb is so 20th-century. He wanted us to know there --
STEWART: What? They have a death ray? What do you mean the atomic bomb is --
WILLIAMS: I don't know what. It does beg the question: what do you guys got?
STEWART: Really?
WILLIAMS: Yeah. But he delves into sarcasm; he tries false flattery. But then --
STEWART: Have we made a mistake elevating them to this idea that they are now the Axis Powers, that they are Germany in the '30s? Have we made a mistake in this type of elevation?
WILLIAMS: That's the great argument. First time I go to Russia, I realize Tom Friedman's theory, that the dirty little secret was they couldn't build a light-bulb back during those years we were so worried about them. First time, I was in Saddam's palace two days after the invasion. Went to drink from a faucet in his bathroom and realized the gold sink was paint, and the underside was just black metal. And that's a perfect metaphor for so much of what these rulers build up. So maybe you could argue that a military-industrial complex depends on having enemies. I'm not saying that: it's been proferred before.
STEWART: Brian Williams says beware the military-industrial complex. He makes a plea I think to the American leaders tonight on this show to stand down and embrace the Iranian people. He speaks French. And other than that, I think, really no news made here tonight. Can we --
WILLIAMS: Can we go back to the guy named Braggadocio you mentioned earlier? I think I grew up with him in New Jersey.
See, it's really our fault. Poor Mahmoud wouldn't be making trouble were it not for our being his enemy. And the harmless little fuzzball [with his 6,000 centrifuges] is no more a threat than was Saddam Hussein, the guy who gassed thousands of Kurds to death and was sitting on 550 tons of yellowcake. I tell you, Ahmadinejad's no more capable of making nuclear weapons than another guy with bad hotels, Kim Jong-il. What's that? North Korea did develop nuclear weapons, despite the bad decor? Never mind
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is how Dictators from small countries get power.
August 1, 2008 - 12:07 ET by ElyasAt the beginning, Hitler was just "playing to his base". Its when you ignore it and the "base" grows and grows until it because a serious threat beyond your ability to contain it.
Plus, now that countries have smaller terrorist cells to carry out attacks against the US and allies they don't have to have to the same power and strength as our previous enemies (i.e. Russian, Germany, Japan).
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
-Ronald Reagan
You're so right on! It
August 1, 2008 - 12:16 ET by mattmYou're so right on!
It just amazes me that supposedly educated people could actually believe Ahmad-insane-jihad is not really much of a threat...
Mattm
August 1, 2008 - 12:42 ET by EireNuaI have a tough time with calculating the threat of Iran. On the one hand, nuclear weapons are moot at the state level. With matters of mutually assured destruction and secured second strike capabilities, we still stand alone. Conventionally, we would own Iran. It would be a war of range...their tanks shoot 2 miles, ours shoot 4-6...our ships have strike capabilities from ranges of 500+ miles, they do not, and they know this. To me, it is difficult to predict how big of a threat they will be. Unlike N. Korea, they have something to lose (the prospect of oil contracts with Russia), so to start a war would be state suicide. I think the danger still lies in the region, not with specific nations. The real threat, as I read it, comes from the form of NGOs and weapons laundering. In other words, what do we do if we get hit by a laundered nuke or bio/chem weapon? That is the difficult question we are trying to answer, and that is the ONLY reason why I fear Iran. I think the scenario could be clear...a nuke is sold by an A.Q. Khan type individual in Iran, laundered through Syria by another NGO, and then used against Israel. But how do we retaliate against an NGO? I don't know, and I would love to hear who does. I do not think that Williams was entirely wrong (and let's not forget that the Daily Show is not a news show, it is a comedy show), but I do not think the situation is nearly that simple. Cheers.
It's not just a tactical
August 1, 2008 - 23:48 ET by mattmIt's not just a tactical question, it's also a question of ideology - and the ideology he espouses is one of hate and death, especially the death of Israel and anyone who supports it. The weapons and tactics are the least of which we have to fear.
Your're right about it supposedly being a comedy show...they should stick to comedy.
RE:Mattm
August 3, 2008 - 12:36 ET by EireNuaI hear what you're saying, however the Ideology means absolutely nothing without the tactical capabilities to back it up. I think it's the combination of the two that is the true threat. That makes sense, right?
Elyas
August 1, 2008 - 13:09 ET by EireNuaI think that that is where I see the threat too. However, I spent some time doing some intensive reading while I was still in school to attempt to understand the political dynamic of Iran, and what I found was that there is a major disconnect between three major populations in Iran. Mahmud is from rural Iran. The region that he hails from is among the hardest of the hard-liner theocratic regions. His base shares similar platforms/objectives as most Islamic malevolent NGOs. It is because of this platform that he gains large support by the theocratic house of Iran's government, the Guardian Council. While Mahmud is incredibly popular with this population, it only represents a plurality of Iran. What I found was extremely surprising. Mahmud is insanely unpopular amongst young people/university students as well as with commerce oriented individuals. His approval rating has never been above 50% in Iran and he is up for re-election. While this does not discount the threat of NGO cell proliferation, it does something to lessen the threat of Iran as a threat at the State leve. What I am particularly interested in is how to address cell development without war. I simply do not know the answer, and I'm not sure that anyone does.
More Threat of War
August 1, 2008 - 13:39 ET by ElyasWhich is why I believe Iraq was so important.
Would Iraq under Saddam ever had been a threat at the state level? Of course not.
Would Saddam's support of terrorism against the United States be a threat? Yes. When terrorists have state powers that will support them it makes them that much easier to operate.
We called Saddam's bluff and big words and he is no longer in control in Iraq.
Mahmud knows (at least with Bush) that if we find enough connections with Iran and possible/actual terrorist attacks on the US then we will attack.
If we don't have the threat of war then he doesn't have anything to fear from us, except sanctions/tough talk.
And popularity/re-election numbers aren't important to potential dictators like Mahmud. We saw in Iraq that a small number of the population can control a larger part through fear, intimidation, and murder.
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
- Ronald Reagan
Elyas
August 1, 2008 - 14:15 ET by EireNuaWhile I think that your point about Iraq and Saddam's support of terrorists is a bit misguided, I do undestand what you are saying. Saddam did not support Al Qaeda, in fact, Saddam's regime was at inherent odds with Al Qaeda. He was the personification of the opulence they so object. However, within his borders, I think one could make the argument that the methods of intimidation he used to keep the three populations (Sunnis, Kurds, Shiites) in order could be characterized as massive human rights violations/terrorism. However, the argument that there was a pre-invasion connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam with regards to actual operational plans has been soundly put to bed(.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda). But I digress. I think that my fear is that NGOs operating within a country do not necessarily mean said country is behind the NGOs...need I remind us of Timothy McVeigh? I am only wary of rushing into a conflict without a steadfast understanding of the threats, which we simply do not have yet.
There are STARK
August 1, 2008 - 15:11 ET by contraryThere are STARK differences between Timothy McVeigh and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Hezbollah, etc..
Your comparison is misguided.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Eira
August 2, 2008 - 00:22 ET by the strugglerTry reading Steven Hayes on Al-qaeda/Iraq connections.Citing Wikipedia proves nothing.Your big words and long posts are a drag.I'm not impressed. Go back to your Lite-Brite.
Out of Touch Elitist
August 1, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Gat New York“we have very little human intelligence in Iran.”
How does he know? Is it because no Americans were there to greet him?
There's universals in politics. He's playing to his base like a politician in Cleveland
I am not aware of even Kucinich constantly threatening the death and destruction of any forieng countries. So this statement is clueless.
Brian Williams is a Liberal snob who does not even attempt to learn the facts or probe beyond the surface of a story.
Ahmadinejad knew he had a sucker in Brian Williams and played him. Of the three network anchors Williams is the least competent and makes no effort at practicing real journalism. Most of that is because he does not have the courage to confront the truth.
“we have very little
August 1, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Jack BauerThat's because he gets his top secret news from the front page of the New York Times!
And as they haven't leaked the names of US spys in Iran yet, he assumes they must not exist.
Jon Stewart is the worst
August 1, 2008 - 14:59 ET by JnobleHe's also a liberal snob who could care less about the facts and reality. Everything in the news is just an excuse for him to mug for the camera and make more tired 'Bush is dumb/Cheney is evil/Iraq was a mistake' jokes.
Anyone else notice that whoever has the misfortune of being interupted, err, I mean INTERVIEWED by this stuttering dwarf, the conversation always is pushed into trying to get them to say what Jon wants to hear, aka "Iraq was a mistake, America is to blame for everything, We all suck" etc? That's another reason I can't sit through that show on any kind of regular basis
Any basis for the snob
August 1, 2008 - 15:31 ET by balboaAny basis for the snob attribute? And I think he does care about facts and reality, but he interprets them differently than you do...often.
"Everything in the news is just an excuse for him to mug for the camera
and make more tired 'Bush is dumb/Cheney is evil/Iraq was a mistake'
jokes."
Well...yeah.
If he did care about facts and reality
August 2, 2008 - 00:24 ET by Jnoble...he wouldn't be such a screaming liberal in the first place.
Ooo, touche'
August 2, 2008 - 12:16 ET by balboaOoo, touche'
Some may say, and they may
August 1, 2008 - 12:18 ET by benrandSome may say, and they may very well know, and some would argue, some more in charge than he is, that this guy is one of the biggest Himbos to ever be on the boob tube.
"And he may very well know that the religious folks who, some would
argue, more in charge than he is..."
A walking cliche-spouting machine, flinging them off like boogers.
What an IDIOT.
Don't forget that Brain is
August 1, 2008 - 12:24 ET by benrandDon't forget that Brain is a big, big, big, NASCR fan.
A real salt of the earth man-of-the-people with a spray on tan and racoon eyes from the little sunglasses you wear in the tanning bed.
I used to not care that much about this ahole, but he is really getting on my nerves with all his anti-Americanism.
Take it easy everyone
August 1, 2008 - 12:28 ET by dvdaughtryThis is just a comedy show. There is nothing more to this than humor.
</sarc>
Did I do the right "sarc" code? Anyway, will someone explain to me how the Islamic Theocracy of Iran has a "base".
It's either your on "base" or picked off in the Mid East.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I don't think anywhere in
August 1, 2008 - 12:43 ET by balboaI don't think anywhere in this discussion does Brian Williams give the impression that we don't have to worry about Iran.
Balboa: STEWART: Are we
August 1, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Mark FinkelsteinBalboa:
STEWART: Are we misinterpreting their belligerence, and thinking it's baiting us into a war, when it's just a way to stay in power?
WILLIAMS: Well, that's exactly what it is.
Yes, I know, but that isn't
August 1, 2008 - 12:58 ET by balboaYes, I know, but that isn't followed by "These guys are harmless! They're puppy dogs!"
He's saying that the bark is worse than the bite. It doesn't mean the bite isn't worth paying attention to.
Balboa: Williams agreed that
August 1, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Mark FinkelsteinBalboa: Williams agreed that the belligerence was "just" a way to stay in power. "Just" means "exclusively," for gosh sakes!
Again, that doesn't mean he
August 1, 2008 - 13:25 ET by balboaAgain, that doesn't mean he doesn't think Iran's dangerous.
come on balboa
August 1, 2008 - 13:11 ET by candanceThis is the same thing we've seen hundreds of times in history. Dangerous people are always met with "he's just playing to the crowd" or "he's just pandering to the extreme voters." It reminds me of a little trip Chamberlain took in which he said "all they want is Checkoslovakia."
To make any excuse for Ahmadenijad is to tolerate his behavior.
Didn't you read the
August 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by benrandDidn't you read the transcript? He was suckling on the Mahmoud ass as hard as he could, the symp.
Balboa et al
August 1, 2008 - 13:26 ET by EireNuaI agree with Balboa, I think that Williams response was slightly more nuanced. I think that the thrust of the debate should be we do not want to mess this one up, what is the play? The parallel between Hitler and Mahmud falls flat in that we are not engaging in appeasement, unless you follow the doctrine of neoconservativism with regard to eliminating threats and you believe that allowing him to enrich uranium is a form of appeasement(anyone who believes this should read Thucydides account of the Pelop. War, specifically his account of the Athenian pre-emption of Syracuse...here's a hint...bad idea). So basically, I think that the issue is not simply black and white, it's much more complex than that.
Democratic Peace Theory
August 1, 2008 - 13:36 ET by EireNuaI also wonder if the doctrine of the Democratic Peace Theory (Kant) would hold up with Iran. So far, there is no documented example of Democracies going to war with eachother. (And no, Germany was not a democracy under Hitler, he was democratically elected however it was clearly a fascist state by 1939). I'm not sure how Iran qualifies as a democracy, but it would be interesting to hear thoughts about this. Do the theocratic elements of Iran trump this theory? Iran engages in some forms of capitalism/transnational commerce, which Kant believes breeds peace? I don't know, but it's interesting nonetheless.
eire
August 1, 2008 - 13:36 ET by candanceI respectfully disagree. This is a man who routinely threatens to attack Israel the second he's capable. Many of the terrorists in Iraq right now have been linked back to Tehran.
He's not enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. And he's not saying "the day is almost here for Israel to disappear" because it's all just peaceful wishful thinking.
And while our government is not practicing appeasement straight out, giving him prime time interviews and inviting him to speak at our universities sure makes him feel like our culture is appeasing him.
Candance
August 1, 2008 - 13:46 ET by EireNuaDo you think that he means that Iran will attack Israel? With a nuke? I don't know, all conventional theory goes against the notion of state nuclear warfare. Our secured second strike capabilities (and I believe Israel has subs too, but I'm not 100% sure) render an offensive nuclear operation an act of state suicide. I think I probably agree with you with regard to NGOs being the real threat from a country like Iran. However, those interpretations are exceptionally vulnerable to error, and I guess that I'm just wary of getting this one wrong. The linking of terrorists (NGOs) to Iran is difficult because by definition NGOs operate in the shadows of blessings from states. I would like to know what is going on in Iran, but that is wishful thinking. I don't know, I'm just looking for some answers I guess. I do not know what the best method of combating cell proliferation is, but what history has told us time and time again is that it's not by conventional war (I'm from N. Ireland, and we could not combat the IRA with our conventional military...they stuck us, retreated into a mass and we were hamstringed). I think the answer might lie in money, and lots of it.
bah
August 1, 2008 - 14:20 ET by candanceMy reply disappeared when they cleaned up the thread.
Ta beagan Gaeilge agam.
EireNua
August 1, 2008 - 14:29 ET by bassndudeIf you dont think Iran would nuke Israel, your badly mistaken. Irans sole purpose is to bring back an Iman at the end of the world to establish a world muslim goverment. Conventional Theory is out the window here. Iran is not a member of the conventional thinking nations.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, You are 100%
August 1, 2008 - 17:02 ET by stratmanBass,
You are 100% correct. Iran is the Joker and the Wild Card that will do whatever is in it's best interest, even if it is suicidal. Iran does NOT follow the same guidelines as most every other nation state. Think of the schizophrenic that does not follow societal rules and has irrational fantastical thinking when off their meds, although anti-social personality disorder may fit better -they know what they are doing but don't care.
The crux of this matter may best be understood in studying Ayatollah Khomeni's word's and deeds, the man islamofascist Iranians most admire and emulate. Khomeni espoused the fact that Islam was NOT a passive religion and that non-believer's should be killed or subjugated. There is no end to this process until the entire planet is under Islamic rule.
More importantly, and to the point of this thread, Khomeni believed his (and all Muslims) allegiance was first and foremost with Allah, NOT the Iranian people. If Iranians must die to fullfill Allah's wishes/proclamations, then so be it.
Khomeni would blissfully nuke Israel because he believed that was what Allah wished, even if it meant a nuclear holocaust for Iran itself. Besides, all good Muslims go to heaven with the virgins, or whatever, so no need to fear death.
In today's world, Amerdinnerjacket also thinks like Khomeni, at least it must be assumed given his rhetoric. Therefore, one should NEVER trust what he says when it comes to agreements like nuclear proliferation/experimentation. Member's Only jacket boy will lie through his teeth all the while ramping up nuclear development and plans to wipe out Israel. The Koran even gives special dispensation to lie to your enemies, even claiming you are not a Muslim, in order to save yourself so as to be able to kill the non-believer's in the future.
Lastly, Brian Williams is nothing more than a turd that floats to the top of the MSM cesspool. What an incredibly arrogant dumbass to first interview Amerdinnerjacket (NEVER give these despots validity and publicity!), to not even realize he was deeply insulted Iranian-style by monkey-boy (said in flattering yet obviously mocking tones to anyone familiar with native Iranians), and that he is an apologist for the tinpot despot's rhetoric even today (it's only campaign bluster... NOT).
RRAM Tough!
On that list of things
August 1, 2008 - 12:49 ET by suzycreamcheeseOn that list of things Mahmoud is, Brian Williams forgot to mention that he is a verified kidnapper.
http://www.mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/098882.php
STEWART: What? They have a death ray? What do you mean the atomic bomb is --
WILLIAMS: I don't know what. It does beg the question: what do you guys got?
That's an understatement if ever I heard one.
WILLIAMS: I don't know
August 1, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Jack BauerGosh, he has a masterful command of English grammar.
He's a Ph.D. He's the
August 1, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Jack BauerWow, with those credentials he's a shoe-in for Obama's VP pick. He's got more foreign policy experience that Kaine.
And Obama's base will LOVE him. Apart from the whole hanging teenage homosexuals thing. But no ones' perfect. Well, apart from the Obama One.
Oh Brian.. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
Don't worry. He's only playing to his base.
A top network anchor
August 1, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Chris NormanA top network anchor appearing on a (purported) comedy show to bandy around about what is arguably one of the most dangerous countries on earth. We truly are living in a new world...
McNotObama '08
Brain is an easily manipsinated lad
August 1, 2008 - 13:29 ET by SickofLibsWilliams: "We have very little human intelligence in Iran."
So the CIA's Spy-Goat Program is NOT working out, then?
The USSR couldn't build a light bulb? Maybe not, but they managed to build 45,000 of those pesky nuclear warhead thingies, many of them pointed... guess where? And they weren't painted gold.
Rapprochement Indeed
August 1, 2008 - 13:38 ET by Lakewood BobFirst of all, Ahmadinejad is just a puppet of the controlling Mullahs, and I don't think he has much of a base. It is my understanding that about 70 percent of the Iranian people are opposed to their administration. The Iranian rulers have never shown any indication of trying to "restore harmony and friendly relations" with anyone in the free world!
I also have a prediction. With the continued success of the people and their government in Iraq, the people of Iran will become even more inspired to rebel against their rulers.
It looks like Brian Williams is vying to become the new Walter Duranty.
Lakewood Bob
August 1, 2008 - 14:03 ET by EireNuaBob,
I agree with you. I posted at the top of this page that Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of Iranians and his biggest threat lies within (especially with University students), not without. It has been my understanding that Iranian people do not want war; they just want to live and make money, and he is a major roadblock to those goals. I think they will take care of him for us. Cheers.
Do we not learn from history?
August 1, 2008 - 15:49 ET by general companySeems we thought the same thing about Saddam, unfortunately we also forgot that Saddam had all of the weapons and the military to wield them. So I would not hold my breath waiting for the people in Iran to rise up.
How many of the good people of Iran did this scumbag publicly hang last week? But I am sure he was just playing to his base?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Wake up, Brian!!!
August 1, 2008 - 14:04 ET by whatajoyBrian Williams comes across as an idiot in this interview. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what is really going on over there. How Brian Williams is famous is beyond me. I just don't get it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
Because he's good at what
August 1, 2008 - 14:06 ET by balboaBecause he's good at what he does? Because he's personable and able to laugh at himself and the news industry? Because he's a nice guy?
Who is Brian Williams? Famous? Nope...
August 2, 2008 - 04:20 ET by Army BratGood at what he does... Well...lemme see. He's quite good at making an ass of himself so I guess that must be what you're referencing about being good at what he does.
Personable? Can't say. Never heard/saw him speak. Only read the words that he spoke. They spoke volumes about his Obama like, naievete concerning the world around him.
A nice guy? That's what Ted Turner said about Kim Il Jong...so..."nice guy", can mean vastly different things to different people.
Happy Trails...
Stewart-Williams
August 1, 2008 - 18:32 ET by GoodieDon't look now but there is a Mini Nuke Warhead on the way to your studio(s). What a couple of over paid self serving losers, however I do wish I had their 401K(s).
So, Williams was in Iran for
August 1, 2008 - 21:33 ET by d1carterSo, Williams was in Iran for two days and he gathered all this information in that time and made his pronouncements. There's no need for much human intelligence there as long as we have NBC and Brian Williams.
You enter that country and you see what sanctions do.
August 2, 2008 - 04:11 ET by Army BratWrong...you enter the country and see what Islam can do for you.
Happy Trails...
Try telling the families...
August 2, 2008 - 09:11 ET by inmypajamas...of our service members who have died in Iraq because of Iranian-supplied IEDs and Iranian-trained insurgents that Iran is no direct threat to the US.
Brian Williams' interview was about as valuable as Dan Rather's of Saddam. He is just a message-boy, as he freely admits to Stewart. "You enter [Iran] and you see what sanctions do." Williams complains that his hotel "used to be a Hilton until the revolution, and it has just gone to hell." Of course, the country's economic woes are all due to the horrible, icky sanctions and nothing to do with the incompetent mullahs in charge since the revolution.
I thought Stewart was mocking Williams and his pompous attitude quite a bit. I laughed when he said, "You must be very special." Stewart is a liberal but I think he sees Williams' interview for just what it was - a propaganda coup for Iran and an ego stroker for Williams.