Crying Scott Pelley

Scott Pelley sobs when he argues he’s just like U.S. troops because both go to war to serve the country and might even be more important because “there is no democracy without journalism”…

“Don’t care about the country? [CRYING] I’ve never worn the uniform, but I’ve been in… pic.twitter.com/omB9uteXFq

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 7, 2026

Good grief. Scott Pelley is a complete fraud. He's a Democrat hack.

He may have done some journalism at one point in his career, but he's no journalist now. And Pelley was NEVER in combat for the country.

You haven't been "in combat for this country" you total fraud @ScottPelley. Like countless other journalists I also have been to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan on assignment and never in a million years would I pretend that was "combat".
Talk about stolen valor. https://t.co/0kU9lczmZQ

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) June 7, 2026

The arrogance of this guy...

Lulu Garcia-Navarro: “But, Scott, in a meeting, you accused Bari Weiss, the head of the network of wanting to murder the show, of coming into 60 Minutes with the agenda to dismantle the institution. And you did not think that that was going to have… pic.twitter.com/ZCiPXY1cyW

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 7, 2026

Scott Pelley Fired

🚨 NEW: Fox’s @BritHume CALLS OUT fired CBS host Scott Pelley: “I’ve worked in this TV news business for more than half a century and I’ve worked for many different bosses, many I liked and admired, and a few I did not. But I’ve always found a way to work with every one of them… pic.twitter.com/6PZLcnq0hS

— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) June 3, 2026

🚨 NEW: Greg Gutfeld SLAMS fired CBS host Scott Pelley as a “self-serious weasel,” adding “every time he speaks it’s as though it has some ‘historical urgency’.”

“60 Minutes doesn’t exist as some lone bright beacon in the wilderness. A 24 year-old guy named Nick Shirley ran 100… pic.twitter.com/bDYrlDkv81

— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) June 3, 2026

'60 Minutes' - Reza Pahlavi

“[President Trump] will go down in the annals of Iranian history as the most-celebrated foreign leader that changed the ballgame and changed the world as a result,” says Reza Pahlavi, a leader of the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic. https://t.co/XmfcU4VAhc pic.twitter.com/rmo7i6K02T

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 2, 2026

High praise for President Trump.

Sorry, Scott Pelley. Sorry, 60 Minutes.

Scott Pelley at Wake Forest - Deranged

🚨CBS/60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley raged at Trump in angry, unhinged commencement address at Wake Forest:

"In this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack."

"And… pic.twitter.com/v8hagfQjbT

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 26, 2025

Scott Pelley delivered an absolutely horrendous address. He is completely out of touch with reality. He needs help. He's pathetic.

Scott Pelley Spews More Anti-Trump Propaganda

.@60Minutes slammed Pete Hegseth tonight for having “no government experience”

NEWSFLASH: The Pentagon is full of people with decades of “government experience” and they just failed their 7th audit in a row.

The American people re-elected President Trump with a resounding… https://t.co/EFcgIPBzIB

— Karoline Leavitt (@karolineleavitt) November 18, 2024

Scott Pelley is clueless.

Americans voted to drain the Swamp. Duh.

Scott Pelley Confused by Americans

Wow, Scott Pelley doesn’t live in the same world as the average American. He can’t get over that a democrat voted for Trump.

“Inflation is down. Wages are up. You don’t feel it?”

“Everybody I talk to, nobody’s wages went up.” pic.twitter.com/uz82fnkIVj

— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) November 11, 2024

Inflation is not down, @ScottPelley. The rate at which inflation continues to rise is down, but inflation itself is still going up.

Even IF people's wages were going up (they're not), they'd still effectively be going down because inflation is still going up.

This isn't hard. https://t.co/izNIIkDhQj

— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) November 11, 2024

Scott Pelley is clueless. Democrats are clueless.

The "inflation is down" narrative from the Democrats/Marxists/Leftists is BS.

Prices are still going up, maybe at a slower rate, but they are still going up.

Why is this so difficult for the Democrat hacks to understand?

Pelley types believe Americans just don't get how great the economy is. It's a messaging problem. That's crap.

Democrats are so out of touch. They won't win elections if they continue to disrespect the forgotten men and women of America. Duh.

Andrew McCabe Fired for Lying

No rewriting reality.

That would have been an excellent reason to be fired, admittedly, but he was actually fired for repeatedly lying to federal investigators about his rampant leaking. https://t.co/j5TvwdOzSA

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 18, 2019

Andrew McCabe is either lying to Scott Pelley or he's lying to himself.

McCabe is quite a liar.

That's why he was fired, for repeatedly lying to federal investigators, not for opening a case against the president of the United States.

Silent Coup - Left's War Against Trump

Disgraced Andrew McCabe, the fired FBI Deputy Director, was interviewed by Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes last night.

I did not watch.

I braved the snow and was out shopping.

As unpleasant as that was, it was much more pleasant than watching McCabe prattle on about President Trump would have been.

The FIRST to pull the alarm about a silent coup https://t.co/NYSyNOjrqj

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) February 18, 2019

Obama and Social Security Checks

In addition to playing class warfare politics, Obama is playing on the fears of people dependent on Social Security as well as other federal programs.

He's lying to the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and federal employees - the politics of fear.



From CNSNews:

President Barack Obama told CBS News today that there may not be enough money in the U.S. Treasury to cover Social Security checks after Aug. 3 if Congress does not agree to lift the legal limit on the federal debt and allow his administration to borrow more money.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama told CBS News anchor Scott Pelley in an interview.

However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

Specifically, according to the Daily Treasury Statements, as of the close of business on May 16, the federal government had taken in $1.333454 trillion in tax revenues since the beginning of fiscal 2011. By the close of business on July 7, tax revenues for fiscal 2011 had grown to $1.629630 trillion. Therefore, between May 16 and July 7 the federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue.

In that same time period, total interest payments on the national debt equaled $14.632 billion.

Thus, the new tax revenue of $296.176 billion the federal government took in between May 16 and July 7 was enough to pay the federal government’s $14.632 billion in interest obligations during that period 20 times over.

Is Obama unaware of this reality?

Has he simply been listening to advisers, accepting what they feed him, and lacking the intellectual curiosity to question them?

Obama is either clueless or a shameless liar when it comes to threatening to withhold checks.

That's not smart politics. It's stupid. It's cruel.

John McCain on 60 Minutes

Sunday on 60 Minutes, John McCain finally got some airtime.

Scott Pelley did the interview. The tone was much different from the puff pieces 60 Minutes has done on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. There was no fawning, no joking.

Did Pelley even crack a smile? I know McCain did.

The beginning angle of the story was that McCain is a phoenix, that his campaign was broke and he rose from the ashes to win the Republican nomination.

Pelley did a bit on McCain's time as a P.O.W.

It was a perfect way for Pelley to get McCain to say that the U.S. has been torturing prisoners by waterboarding them.

Pelley pointed out that this election is going to be about the economy, stupid; yet McCain focuses on the war and national security issues.

Pelley didn't say that McCain was out of touch. He didn't have to say it.

He pointed out that McCain had originally voted against the Bush tax cuts but now he supports them.

On health care, Pelley suggested that the Democrats believe universal health care is a moral responsibility, insinuating that McCain is immoral because he has a different plan when it comes to health care.

Pelley's interview was a lightning round, moving from issue to issue.

On immigration, he says that the borders should be secured first but, despite criticism from conservatives, he told 60 Minutes this about illegal immigrants: "If they complied with some very stringent and rigid requirements, they could find themselves on a path to citizenship."

This was a pattern throughout the interview. It seemed Pelley took every opportunity to highlight the "criticism from conservatives" point.

Pelley said that on Capitol Hill, McCain reaches out across the aisle. Here's the 60 Minutes spin on that:

On Capitol Hill he gets credit for reaching out to Democrats on big issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. But his fellow politicians are critical of his high minded condemnation of money in politics.

Again and again, Pelley drew attention to members of McCain's party being against him.

Pelley suggested hypocrisy on McCain's part. He accuses other lawmakers of corruption when McCain has taken money from lobbyists. McCain denied any wrongdoing or impropriety.

Pelley pressed McCain on his health and asked when he's going to release his medical records. (Has Bill Clinton ever released his medical records?)

Viewers were reminded that the "elderly" McCain's health is an issue. Pelley said in 2002 he was diagnosed with the "most lethal form" of skin cancer.

Pelley wanted McCain to say that he has had no recurrence of the disease. He said he hadn't.

Pelley then said that McCain has had a recurring problem with his temper.

Naturally, a bit of that stupid tape of McCain answering the lame questions of New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller was shown as an example.

It was positively loony. That was no display of temper.

60 Minutes saw it again on the day of our interview, when he became annoyed with a reporter's questions.

"Some people say you have a short fuse," Pelley remarked. "You acknowledge that?"

"I get angry when I see things go wrong. I've never been elected Ms. Congeniality. But I do believe that I can unite this party. And I think the American people support somebody who still has the capacity, maybe, to get angry from time to time when we see something wrong," McCain said.

Now, eight months before Election Day, McCain is running a close race. He’s behind in fundraising, but he has a head start on November as the Democrats battle on.

Asked what he says to those who say he can't beat a Democrat in November, McCain said, "I say 'I know that I can.' But I also believe that America is a right-of-center nation. And I think that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, with all due respect, are liberal Democrats. And I'm a conservative Republican. So I believe I can make a better case to the American people."

I suppose this is what 60 Minutes considers to be fair and balanced treatment of a Republican candidate.

At least there were no fake documents used in the piece.

Of course, it's way too early for measures like that. Wait until September or October.

Patriot Bruce Springsteen, the Bill of Rights, and BS

Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the eve of his address at Columbia University. It was part of the Iranian president's media blitz.

Scott Pelley, the go-to guy on 60 Minutes, did the sit down with Ahmadinejad.

This Sunday, Pelley has another high profile interview -- Bruce Springsteen.



For Ahmadinejad, his few minutes with Pelley in the 60 Minutes sun served as an opportunity for him to try to get the American people to buy the notion that he's really a "Mr. Nice Guy" rather than a self-absorbed, Israel-hating, nuke-chasing, liar madman.

For Springsteen, the interview is part of a media blitz as well. However, unlike Ahmadinejad, this interview isn't only about winning converts or defending his cause. It is also about making money.

Springsteen is hawking his latest release, Magic.

From Drudge:

BRUCE UNDER FIRE? ROCKER SPRINGSTEEN CLAIMS UNNAMED CRITICS CALLING HIM 'UNPATRIOTIC'; SAYS U.S. COURSE OVER LAST 6 YEARS 'ANTI-AMERICAN'
Thu Sept 20 2007 16:11:22 ET

Rocker Bruce Springsteen answers critics who call his anti-war sentiments unpatriotic by saying the real sin against patriotism is saying nothing while your country is being harmed. Springsteen discusses this and other topics, including why he's still writing songs and performing, in an interview with Scott Pelley to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 7 (7:30-9:00 PM, ET, 7:00-9:00 PM, PT) on the CBS Television Network.

When reminded that his anti-war views, prominent on his new album, "Magic," will cause people to say he is unpatriotic -- as his critic have charged before -- Springsteen says "That's just the language of the day... the modus operandi for anybody who doesn't like somebody... criticizing where we've been or where we're going," he tells Pelley. "I believe every citizen has a stake in the course, direction of their country. That's why we vote... It's unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly and that has given me so much," says the 58-year-old musician.

In the interview, Springsteen points out the direction in which the U.S. is going, by his estimation. "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States," says Springsteen. "When people think of the Unites States' identity, they don't think of torture. They don't think of illegal wiretapping. They don't think of voter suppression," he tells Pelley. "They don't think of no habeas corpus," he says, referring to the people being held by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"Those are things that are anti-American," Springsteen says. "There's been a whole series of things that... I never thought I'd ever see in America," he tells Pelley.

Now, the story is up on the CBS 60 Minutes Web site, including a 51 second video tease.

It appears that Springsteen reiterates the little speech he prepared for his concert performance on Today, September 28.

When introducing a new song, "Livin' in the Future," he said:

This is a song called "Livin' in the Future" but it's really about what's happening now, right now. It's kind of about how... the things that we love about America - cheeseburgers, french fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston, the Bill of Rights, V-twin motorcyles, Tim Russert's haircut, transfat, and the Jersey shore. We love all those things, and that the way the women folk love on Matt Lauer. That's right.

But over the past 6 years we've had to add to the American picture rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, to the neglect of our great city of New Orleans and her people, an attack on the Constitution, and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war. This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. And so right now we plan to do something about it. We plan to sing about it. I know it's early, but it's late. So come and join us.

Notice that he uses much of the same phrasing in the 60 Minutes interview, not the Matt Lauer or Tim Russert shtick, but the hot button issue stuff.

I think it's sort of funny for Springsteen to claim that America during the George W. Bush era is experiencing unprecedented attacks on civil rights.

He tells Pelley: "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States."

He cites "no habeas corpus."

Someone should give Springsteen a history lesson. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln.

During World War II, habeas corpus was tossed out while liberal saint President Franklin Roosevelt was in office.

FDR ordered tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans and resident aliens, including children, into internment camps.

Read FDR's Executive Order 9066.

Springsteen complains about torture. He should talk to his boy Bill Clinton about torture. Bill admits that there might be instances when torture has its place.

As a matter of fact, Bill was just discussing the matter of torture with Tim Russert only last weekend on Meet the Press.

Russert showed a clip from Bill Clinton's appearance on MTP, September 24, 2006.

MR. CLINTON: Every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days, and we know this guy knows where it is, know we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him.

They could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing post-facto to the intelligence court just like we do now with the wiretaps.

In response, Clinton goes on and on about the fictional Jack Bauer and 24, trying to back step, yet citing the reality of a need to make exceptions when it comes to torture.

CLINTON: You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t.

When Springsteen talks about voter suppression, I wonder if he's thinking about what Democrats did to keep Republican voters from the polls in Wisconsin.

Here more here.

What's the point of all this? I'm illustrating that Springsteen is spewing anti-Bush propaganda while pushing an incomplete reality. He's being dishonest in terms of the nation's history and mischaracterizing the Bush administration.

I have difficulty listening to Springsteen talk about his "critics" and the charges that he's unpatriotic. Actually, I think he's proud, wearing the criticism as a badge of honor.

I think Columbia and Sony BMG see that supposed victim status as an opportunity to boost his sales -- True patriot Springsteen in the role of freedom fighter, being the voice of the downtrodden.

Particularly disturbing to me is when he talks about how Bush has trampled on the Bill of Rights, tossed out the Constitution, and basically stripped America of its identity as a beacon of freedom in the world.

The Lefties, Springsteen included, consider themselves to be the champions of liberty and free speech.

BS.

I know the truth.

Springsteen's official Web site used to have a forum for discussions. It was shut down close to two years ago.

In addition to talk about music and concerts, there was a forum to discuss politics.

As is typical with the supposed anonymity of the Internet, it was often really ugly and abusive, sometimes shockingly. Conservative participants were routinely harassed. There were orchestrated efforts to silence their voices.

I don't know if Springsteen knew what sort of trash was on his site; but given the fact that the utterly uncivil exchanges were taking place on his forum under his name, it certainly stood as a very poor reflection on him.

Springsteen may have been clueless, but Sony BMG was not.

How did Sony BMG respond to the abuses?

With violations of policy, and ultimately, ineffectual threats and intimidation.

In my opinion, that was kind of "anti-American," the stuff Springsteen supposedly abhors.

Keep that in mind if you watch the 60 Minutes interview with Bruce Springsteen, the champion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, the concerned patriot.

I Take Back What I Said About Scott Pelley

I was so wrong about Scott Pelley.

I gave him way too much credit for the way he handled his 60 Minutes interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I thought he did a significantly better job than the fawning Mike Wallace did in August of 2006. I stand by that.

I also thought that Pelley didn't seem to find Ahmadinejad as beguiling as Wallace did, that he recognized him to be the nutjob that he is.

WRONG.

From NewBusters, Kyle Drennen writes:

Scott Pelley conducted a very tough interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which aired on Sunday's 60 Minutes, but on Monday’s Early Show Pelley was very generous in his personal assessment of the man. Host Harry Smith and Pelley agreed that Ahmadinejad is "crazy like a fox" while Pelley also hailed Ahmadinejad as "incorruptible" and "modest." Pelley contended the dictator, who denies the Holocaust, wants Israel destroyed and is causing the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, is a lot smarter than Westerners believe and is even a "friendly" guy.

What was I thinking?

How I could be so naive to think that someone involved with CBS News, especially 60 Minutes, wouldn't be a Leftist loon?

Transcript excerpt

Smith: What are we to take away from this? Because this country is so close to Iraq, it has so much influence over so much of the Iraqi government, as we know it right now. We look at this interview, what are we to take away from -- what are we to understand who this man is?

Pelley: The important thing, I think, Harry, to understand, he's described in the West as a madman, crazy, that's not the case. I found him to be as many politicians are, very engaging, very friendly, he's clearly not mad, he's sane. In fact, he's very wily I would tell you-

Smith: Crazy like a fox.

Pelley: Crazy like a fox perhaps. But he's a very, very wily character. Fascinating man in background. He is genuinely religious, genuinely humble, there are no fancy clothes, fancy cars, he lives with his wife and his three children. They live in an apartment in Tehran. He is a very modest man and said to be absolutely incorruptible as well, he's a fascinating character.

Smith: Dangerous?

Pelley: The policies of Iran are dangerous and I think he's capable of pursuing those policies.

Unbelievable.

Pelley is just as bad as Mike Wallace. An argument could be made that he's worse. After all, Pelley isn't pushing 90.

Rest easy, libs. The next generation at 60 Minutes is just as far Left and deranged as its founding fathers.

60 Minutes: Liar Ahmadinejad

Scott Pelley did a much better job interviewing Iranian president terrorist supporter Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than the fawning Mike Wallace did in August of 2006.

Pelley didn't seem to find Ahmadinejad as beguiling as Wallace did.

He was tougher; not hostile, but tougher.

Ahmadinejad smiled through most of the interview. It was weird, the smile of a madman.

Responding to a question, Ahmadinejad said, "I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie."

LIAR!!!

So much of what he said was lies.

Pelley started things off with the Ground Zero controversy.

When Pelley said that it would be an insult to Americans to have Ahmadinejad go there, he started talking about what a peace-loving man he is.

Ahmadinejad claimed, "We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations."

LIAR!!!

This from the man who gets up every morning thinking up new ways to say he wants to destroy Israel.

Moving on to Iran's role in Iraq--


PELLEY: It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on his hands. Why?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, this is what the American officials are saying. Again, American officials wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others. I'm very sorry that because of their wrong decisions taken by American officials Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers. It's very regrettable.

PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq.... There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir.

AHMADINEJAD: If I may, are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? This is what the American officials are claiming. If they accuse us 1000 times, the truth will not change.

PELLEY: Are you saying that it is not the policy of Iran to send weapons into Iraq. Sir, forgive me, you're smiling, but this is a very serious matter to America.

AHMADINEJAD: It is very serious for us as well. I dare say it's serious for everyone. It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help.

And the reason that I'm smiling, again, it's because that the picture is so clear, but American officials refuse to see it.

This guy is all lies. It's nauseating.
_________________________

Video and transcript here.

60 Minutes: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Scott Pelley

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is making another appearance on 60 Minutes.

I guess since they can't get away with using forged documents to support trumped up stories, producers take solace in airing an interview with a sponsor of terrorism, a Holocaust denier, and a liar.

It was just over a year ago when Mike Wallace interviewed Ahmadinejad. Of course, Wallace was used by Ahmadinejad as a propaganda tool.

This time around, Scott Pelley will be doing the interview.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not press his plan -- just denied by New York City police for security reasons -- to visit ground zero in New York City, he tells 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley in an exclusive interview conducted Thursday in Iran.

The Iranian leader says he's skeptical that most Americans view his visit there as insulting as his intention was only to show respect. The interview will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

...Asked if he intends to press his request to visit the site, Ahmadinejad tells Pelley, "Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that."

"But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?" Pelley asks.

"Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist," the president replies.

"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.

"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.

"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley replies.

Ahmadinejad says: "Well, I wouldn't say that what American government says is a-- is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations. Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And-- also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."

"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."

"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."

It's interesting that Ahmadinejad believes that he has plenty of supporters in America, in spite of what Pelley had to say.

Why would he think that? Why would he think that Americans are on his side?

He most likely gets that impression from the Democrats. They're on the same page when it comes to Iraq and President Bush.

Naturally, he thinks Americans support him. Some do.

He has an invitation to speak at the prestigious Columbia University on Monday.

Not everyone is happy about that.

From the New York Times:

The university, while standing behind its invitation, came under harsh criticism yesterday from presidential candidates, the New York City Council, Jewish organizations and others for giving Mr. Ahmadinejad a public stage.

...Columbia officials faced harsh criticism yesterday from two Republican presidential hopefuls, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn urged the university to withdraw the invitation, saying that Mr. Ahmadinejad was “here for one reason: to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage.”

But William V. Campbell, chairman of the Columbia board of trustees, defended the decision to have the Iranian president appear. “The freedom of our deans and faculty to create challenging and even controversial programs for our students is essential and sets a powerful example to the world about the strength of American universities and society,” he said.

...The only doubts about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s scheduled appearance at Columbia came yesterday from his government. Mohammad Mohammadi, a spokesman for the Iranian mission to the United Nations, said that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s schedule in New York was “still under discussion” and that his appearance at the Columbia forum could be canceled.

Columbia said yesterday that it was expecting a full house of 600 for the Monday forum, and was looking for ways to accommodate a larger audience.

Columbia said Lee C. Bollinger, its president, would introduce the event, which is part of the university’s World Leaders Forum, and challenge some of the Iranian president’s statements, including his call for the destruction of the state of Israel.

I know it's not certain, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that Ahmadinejad does speak at Columbia.

Will there be an opportunity for members of the audience to ask questions?

If so, will Andrew Meyer be there?

60 Minutes Bush Interview

Scott Pelley's interview with President Bush on 60 Minutes tonight didn't reveal anything that I didn't already know.

Pelley wasn't a creepy, wild-eyed attack dog, like Tim Russert, but he was tough.

There were the petty lib jibes.

For example, some of the interview took place at Camp David. Pelley noted that it was Bush's 365th day at Camp David, a full year of his presidency.

How lame!

Pelley made it sound like he was vacationing there.

Really, really lame!

Most likely, Bush did the interview to help sell his Iraq plan to the American people, a prime time chance to connect.

I don't know how many Americans actually bothered to watch it. I suppose that 60 Minutes may lose to FOX's new season of 24. That's tough competition. Whatever.

As I said before, the interview didn't tell me anything I didn't already know; but it did clarify something.

I know what Bush's presidential legacy is.

The Bush legacy is an important one. It's a characteristic that all true leaders should have.

Bush's legacy is that he really doesn't care about his legacy.

He said that he didn't want others blaming the military for things not going well in Iraq. He said that if someone is looking for a scapegoat, he's willing to play the part.

He sincerely doesn't care about his place in history. I believe that he cares about the country and our future. I believe the deaths of Americans in Iraq as a front in the War on Terror, both civilian and military, pain him deeply.

But after 9/11, one thing mattered -- to protect the American people, to take action against an enemy willing to kill thousands on our soil.

He's done that.

In hindsight, it's easy to see that mistakes were made. But given what he and those in his administration believed at the time, given what the world believed to be the case, given what the Clinton administration and the Dems believed about Iraq, there's little to regret.

Now, it's important to go forward and quit all the finger-pointing.

We know where Bush stands.

The question is: What do the Dems and the American people want?

Victory or defeat?

I know what the Dems want, but I'm not convinced yet that the American people want defeat.