Watermaelon Wallace is, in his own way, just as much of an idiot as Ahmadinejad.

I'm sure if Mike saw the guy's hand reach for the button, to launch on Israel, he would be filled with pride because he would be able to describe the event (as only a Manhattan elitist could).

Yes, and he would emphasize how much calm thought Ahmadinejad put into the decision (not at all like those excitable Zionists) and how sincere he obviously was.

It's Wallace who isn't rational.

Celebrity interviewers like Wallace or Barbara Walters have a nasty habit of trying to bond with their interviewees as a way to gain and maintain their trust (for future interviews, don't 'cha know). And if the interviewee is an enemy of a Republican administration in power, more the better, so we get fawning comments on Ahmadinejad, in the same way we've gotten fawning comments in the past on folks like Castro, Gorbachev, or even Dan Rather's kissy-face interview with Saddam a few years back.

John, Wallace is able to relate to and bond with Ahmadinejad because they're both despise Israel. Like all good limousine liberals, Wallace is a closet racist and anti-semite. The only difference between Mike Wallace and David Duke is the thread count of their sheets.

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course.

I, on the other hand, find this entirely unsurprising, either about Ahmadinejad or Wallace.

Let me guess: Ahmadinejad teaches rhetoric. Or is it engineering?

I would assume it's not the Introduction to Gay and Lesbian Literature course.

But really, has Mike Wallace ever met a foreign tyrant or thug for whom he hasn't shown the sort of crush that otherwise died out with Beatlemania?

Mike Wallace is a Jew, which greatly complicates your analysis, Robert. I think calling him an antisemite (a meaningless label these days) truly simplistic.

Ed, it's been stated here just recently, but bears repeating. Lefties are lefties first, last and always. Everything else, including their race, religion, or place of national origin is a far second.

Perhaps Wallace isn't an anti-Semite as the word is usually defined, but as a lefty, he would naturally be sympathetic to those who oppose the U.S. and Israel, whom the left see as major obstacles to their world view.

When his son Chris was interviewed prior to joining Fox News, he intimated that his father's mental capacities were diminishing. BTW - I don't mind admitting that I was wrong about Chris. He's turned out to be a fair-and-balanced kind of guy.

Ed,

So are Noam Chomsky and Michael Lerner, have you never heard of the self-hating jew? Like Wallace they're all good liberal Democrats who can't help but think that the jews suffer because somehow they deserve it.

"So are Noam Chomsky and Michael Lerner, have you never heard of the self-hating jew? Like Wallace they're all good liberal Democrats who can't help but think that the jews suffer because somehow they deserve it."

Add Tony Kushner, the co-writer of Steven Spielberg's Munich to the list:

Kushner [is] the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright brought in by Mr. Spielberg to rework the original screenplay by Eric Roth. Mr. Kushner (who, like Mr. Spielberg, is Jewish) believes that the creation of the state of Israel was "a historical, moral, political calamity" for the Jewish people. He believes the policy of the government of Israel has been "a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people." He believes that responsibility for making peace between Israelis and Palestinians lies primarily with the Israelis, "inasmuch as they are far more mighty." He believes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is an "unindicted war criminal."

erp,

You're proving my point.

All best,

Ed

Yes, Robert,

I have heard of self-hating Jews. And self-hating Christians, and self-hating African Americans, usw.

What bothers me is your use of the term antisemitism. The word semitic originated in linguistics to refer to a group of languages that include Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. In the nineteenth century West it was applied to Jews, presumably because they were the only Semitic people dwelling in Europe. Along with Jewish, it is a polite way to avoid using the J word, which most people try to avoid. So I suppose it would be appropriate to refer to the Lakota people as Siouxish.

In today's larger world, antisemitism should properly refer to hatred of Jews and Arabs. That's an absurdity, of course. I wish the word would disappear, although the thing it has come to represent must be remembered.

It's ok to say Jew. I wish more people would.