SH: So you don't think he's an anti-Semite?
MW: He himself, an anti-Semite, an anti-Jew...anti-Jew?
MW: No, I don't.
I cannot quite fathom how Wallace can think Ahmadinejad isn't an anti-Semite. By just casually following the news, one would know that Ahmadinejad's own words have displayed his anti-Semitism. It is tough to call for the anhiliation of the entire nation of Israel and not be an anti-Semite. Perhaps senility is setting in for Wallace.
I mean, we were having a discussion. And he was infinitely more rational than I had expected him to be.
Wallace is making a mistake in judgement here. Crazed individuals are not incapable of rationality, especially those who ascend to the leadership of nations. In fact, many of them appear to be incredibly rational. The problem is that they are masterful at bending rationality to meet their needs. In other words, Ahmadinejad may be able able to make rational arguments or statements, but his ultimate goal, the elimination of Israel, is the pinnacle of irrationality.
(MW on Ahmadinejad's belief that Israel should be in Germany) Where did the Holocaust take place? Did it take place in an Arab neighborhood? Did it take place in Jerusalem? No. It took place in Germany. Then it seems to me, under those circumstances, take Israel, the Zionist entity, he called it, move it to Germany. Move it to Europe. That's where it happened.
SH: Do you agree with him?
MW: Move it to the United States.
Well, at least we know where Wallace is coming from now. He clearly views Israel as illegitimate.
MW: Khamenei, who is the supreme leader, really, in Iran, if there's one man to whom this man, Ahma...you pronounce his name better than I do...that the president of Iran defers to...
The important part of this is that Wallace cannot even pronounce Ahmadinejad's name. Now granted, it isn't an easy name, but if you are a serious TV or radio journalist, then you are paid to pronounce. If Wallace couldn't even take the time to learn how to pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, how am I, as a listener to this interview, supposed to take Wallace's perceptions seriously. How am I, as a likely viewer of the Ahmadinejad interview, supposed to even take Wallace's piece seriously?
27 years ago, I went to the holy city of Qum to talk to Khomenei, which is one of the reasons, I'm sure, that they decided that they were going to let me talk, or he was going to let me talk. I know that I am making him sound more human, more surely than I expected, and by all means, more human than you feel that he is.
Or perhaps they let Wallace talk because they knew he could be a useful idiot for them.