Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 16, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Ahmadinejad Wins Dubious Election

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 13, 2009
AP photo / Iranian Students News Agency / Arash Khamushi

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greets supporters before casting his ballot in Friday’s presidential elections.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been re-elected president of Iran by a surprisingly wide majority, according to the country’s electoral commission. But his main rival also claimed victory and said, “I will not surrender to this dangerous charade.” The BBC reports that official figures show Ahmadinejad winning even in his opponent’s territory and among reformist voters.

BBC:

The BBC’s Jon Leyne, in Tehran, says the result has been greeted with surprise and with deep scepticism by many Iranians.

The figures, if they are to be believed, show Mr Ahmedinejad winning strongly even in the heartland of Mr Mousavi, the main opposition contender.

The scale of Mr Ahmadinejad’s win means that many people who voted for a reformist candidate in the previous presidential election four years ago have apparently switched their votes to Mr Ahmadinejad, he adds.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Sepharad, June 17, 2009 at 12:44 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, How do you figure Zionists, America media and Obama are somehow not understanding what is going on in Iran? I’m a Zionist, and it’s been clear to me that Ahmadinejad might well have won the election, give his support from the rural, poor, conservative, pious segments which probably outnumber the well-off students and others in Tehran. It’s clear to me that Moussavi is different in style but not substance from Ahmadinejad—nobody runs for office in Iran without approval of the Guardian Council.

What we’re seeing on videos coming out of Iran are demonstraters clashing with police and militia, being fired on, which is not surprising in a cleric-run society. I don’t know but suspect that what they are rioting for is a freer, more open society. One student said he wanted more social freedom, a friendly country, and a country not reviled by the world.

And Obama, though pressured by his liberal base to say something dramatic or supportive to Moussavi, is very sensibly equivocating, waiting to see what the recount shows.

Or have I missed something?

Report this

By Folktruther, June 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

There appears to be a break in the Zionist American media and the Washington Post acutally printed the commnents of two pollsters, Ballen of Terror Free Now and Dohertiy of American Nation foundation.  they did a poll a few weeks before the election in all thirty provinces of Iran and the Iranians favored Ahmadinejad by MORE than the final election outcome. 

The age group favoring him most was 18 to 24. The ajeris, the ethnicity of the opposition candidate, went for Ahmidinejad two to one.  It was a class election, the peasants and workers going for the winner and the Educated Elite for the loser.

but the truth will probably not make any difference to the media.  they continue to say that he denied the Holocaust and stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map even though it isn’t ture and has been pointed out many times.  The Zionists want war with Iran, and they don’t care what scientific pollsters say any more than the care what the US intelligence agencies say when they say that Iran isn’t constructing a nuclear bomb. 

It is a good example of how the Zionist media deludes the American people.  When you identify with oppression, as Zionists do, you have to lie about it.  And censor the truth as best you can.  this is just another Zionist deceit, but one that can easily be checked by non-Zionists.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

CJ and nefesh, good posts. (Except, CJ, I may be naive but I think Obama is hanging in there for a public plan. He’d better do at least ONE thing he promised. The reason I didn’t vote for him in the primaries was that Hilary and Edwards were both pushing mandated public plans, and Paul Krugman said that without “mandated” it wouldn’t happen.)

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 15, 2009 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

I’m with you, Folktruther, its the “progressive truthers” that are the most dangerous, by far.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 15, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

The Zionist New YorkTimes editorial today essential states that there is no evidence for massive fraud in Iran but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. The US media attempt to discredit the election of a popular incumbant has implications far beyond who is president of Iran. 

It indicates that Obama is going to follow Bushite policies against Iran and, incredibly, may increase the war against them.  US special troops are already in Iran, terror squads trying to stir up Iran’s many minorities.  The systematic discrediting of Ahmedinejad’s landslide victory, with deliberate deceit going far beyond misquoting him to make Iran appear the aggressor, indicates that Obama is following the Zionist policy of a strategy of tension which may lead to massive war.

Obama’s militarism has been called by Tom Engglheart the Irafpak war (my spelling) the war against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is an enormous expansion of the Bushite wars, following the Dem presidents in the first half of the 20th century, who campaigned on peace and then went to war.  this is an endless war and implies a terror foreign policy, and eventually a terror domestic policy.  Zionist attempts to implement the thought control bill, and the Hate Crimes bill, indicate their attempt to turn the US into a postmodern police state.  This US media election coverage, and blatant and unashamed deceit, does not portend well for the US domestically.

And it must be understood that progressives are being deceived by leading PROGRESSIVE truthers. It is not only the NYTimes, an CNN but truthers like Juan Cole and Zunes and their Progressive organs that are leading progressives to accept war and a police state.  The US top heavy military economy is the result of massive and increasing economic inequality, supported not only by the ruling class, but by the professional-managerial class as well.  And it can only be sustained by war abroad and a police state at home and the US rapidly loses world power.

And this includes the massive deceit that tries to conceal, disguise and justify the massive oppression.  That it is so open and blatant as in this election means that we are already being ruled by the Nefeshes, Inherits and Sepharads, with the support of the US ruling class.  And I have no doubt it is quite effective, most Americans supporting the Patriotic blatant American lies.

Americans need their own truth media to counter this kind of thing, which is getting worse and worse.  The question is how to get it.

Report this
CJ's avatar

By CJ, June 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

Iran is that rare nation-state whereat a right-wing (bizarro) revolution happened. Ever since ruled by Mullahs. Not by any president who serves merely as front man. Not all that different from the way our own pols serve as front-people for America’s business class. Biz being our own principle religion.

Bush launched war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Obama’s carrying on. (While Iraq supposedly winds down. Just wait—‘til 2012, nine years after Shock & Awe, and just in time for Obama’s reelection.)

Any who thinks that Zionists are in charge of American or any other but Israeli foreign policy needs to reacquaint themselves with reality. Fascists: Robertson, Dobson, Perkins, et al., notwithstanding. None of them dictates U.S. policy in the slightest. (Cheney was never so stupid.)

Iran is an economic disaster, same as is the U.S. and most everywhere else. If Iran’s lower classes voted for dope, Ahmedinejad, then they did no more than did American labor when it turned for Reagan-Bushes. While Mexican labor—apparently—did the same for Calderon.

Not that all these pols aren’t people with mobster mentalities. All are. By definition. Which is how they get to be pols in the first place. Loyalty to bosses/sponsors. Their eternal problem is one involves a balancing act: Keeping down any who might rise up at the same as seeing to sponsors’ demands. Machiavelli’s “Prince” is nothing more nor less than a long essay on how pols might resolve this eternal problem, which seems forever to plague ruling elements as they’ve presented in various forms—from tribal leaders to clergy, to monarchs, aristocrats and plutocrats. Or some combination of same. Current “debate” concerning healthcare in the U.S. is case exactly on point. Exactly why Obama can say he’s for single-payer at the same time he doesn’t have to come through, as he also contends that single-payer can’t be had—for political reasons.)

Americans would do better to pay more attention to pols at home. None of whom is less bent than Ahmadinejad, no matter mainstream media’s propagandizing.

Maybe Gore would not have attacked Iraq, or maybe he would have. Or maybe he’d have attacked elsewhere? Venezuela? We’ll never know. He certainly would have attacked Afghanistan, same as Bush/Cheney did.

Whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi hardly matters, when Iran is ruled by Machiavellian Islamic clergy. Any more than it likely much mattered whether Calderon “won” over Lopez Obrador, when Mexico is ruled by drug-cartel billionaires. (That election too was likely fraudulent, assuming Mexican working class knew what it was doing.) Or when Bush stole from Gore, both candidates of one of two factions of grand business party.

Unless anyone out there really thinks that Obama is about to tell insurance companies to dismantle? That the long EXCELLENT DEAL is over? For AMA too. Ahmadinejad will no more represent the interests of Iran’s broke than would have Mousavi. Because, as Machiavelli noted, doing so would not be in either sponsors’ best interest. Which doesn’t mean all don’t have to put on appearances, by now via big media, to get themselves elected. Lest people figure out wassup and then vote for likes of, say, Evo Morales.

One can only imagine how America’s ruling class (and big media) would have reacted had we elected, say, Ralph Nader. Who’d not have been allowed to “win.” By our own Mullah types.

Obama would do better to consult, if not Chavez, then Morales and/or Correa as to how it’s done beyond Machiavelli. As opposed to adhering to Machiavelli a al Ahmandinejad, or rather, Iranian mullahs, and then Mubarek, Assad, Netanyahu, Abdullah, et al. Our pols ain’t all that different from theirs after blown smoke is blown away.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 14, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

June 14 at 2:55 pm Folktruther wrote:

“The relevant facts are not disputed…...
Both the British papers and Juan Cole have stated there does not seem to be many protesters in the steets.”


Oh really? Have a look at this video from Teheran - how many protesters can you count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ

And this one….as far as the eye can see, taking over the streets, masses of protesters…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48tw60UFlIU

And this one - how many protesters can you see here?
Probably tens of thousands marching en masse against the repressive theocratic Islamist regime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ

‘Folktruther’ - your first mistake was citing Juan Cole. Even that despicable character won’t pretend there weren’t huge masses of protesters. You haven’t provided any link to where he says there weren’t. And for you to ignore the obvious is laughable.

Your second is ignoring the raw footage, with thousands of Farsi-speaking protesters, and babbling on about Zionist media fabrications. Please, enough already.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 14, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

Right on target, Brewerstroupe, as you generally are.  The New American Foundation, one of the organizations in the poll, is an establishment center-right think tank, who knew a month ahead of time that the election would be a landslide, Ahmindinejad being a popular right wing populist.

So the American, Zionist media, which was touting a Reform regime change, KNEW that there was not chance of it!  so what’s the point of it?  Regime change.

The US has used elections to polarize the population and to intimidate the power structure to install a Moderate, ie, a figure that supports US imperialism.  this occured in Venzuluela in the coup against Chavez, and, more violently, in the coup in Chile.  And many other countries.  Including, previously, Iran.

Obama sent a vidio with the Israeli president, Obama calling for negoitions, the Israeli president for regime change.  This has become the Obama trademark, talking change, continuing Bushite policies.  The issue is still not concluded but apparently not many of the Reformers went into the street. 

However the Zionists DID come out of wordwork supporting the US media’s position with rhetoric, no facts.  Zunes, an academic and honcho at Policy Focus, and self-proclaimned Zionist,  stated on Alternet;

“There should be NO DENIAL (my emphsasis) that the Iran election involved fraud on a massive scale.”

Zionists don’t believe in evidence and don’t need it.
Of course all these elections are rigged in the same way the US elections are, by the ruling class preselecting all the major candidates.  but it is obvious now that Ahmadinejad was by far the most populr candidate in the election, and the fraud is the media, including the fake Progressive media, claiming he wasn’t.

Report this
brewerstroupe's avatar

By brewerstroupe, June 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

“Most of the Western media were predicting a close race, and some were even suggesting that a landslide for Mousavi might be possible. But the actual results were presaged by those of the telephone survey of Iranian voters conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, the New America Foundation, and KA Europe SPRL about a month before election day.”

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=620687

Report this

By Bill Jones, June 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The most compelling evidence that this was a fair election is that all the Corporate Media Whores are saying that it wasn’t.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 14, 2009 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

This episode offers a good example of how the American people are systematiclly deluded by the mainstream media.  An anti-American leader is elected to office, and he is portrayed in the American media as being a Terrorist, like Hamas, or a Dictator, as in Venzeula, or a landslide is portrayed as fraud, as here.  Since the people are not given the relevant facts, which are beried in verbiage, and, the leader has been made unpopular initiatly by the media, people go by their feelings rather than by reason and evidence.

The relevant facts are not disputed.

1.  there was an enormous outpouring of people in the election.

2. AhmedineJad’s support is overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, who increase their electoral strength disporportnately when they turn out to large numbers.

3.  Both the British papers and Juan Cole have stated there does not seem to be many protesters in the steets.

4. Sepharad has seen films which indicate that protestors are mostly from the more Educated classes, who are much less numerous than the working population.

For unknown reasons, the most likely explantion is that the poor voted in vast numbers for Ahmadinejad.  The NewYorkTimes now features the headline “FRAUD OR LANDSLIDE”  but the initial impression of fraud has been implanted in the American mind.  And Zionists like Nefesh produce the usual Zionist drivel supporting the fraud, which mostly likely has been perpetrated on the American people by the media. 

Possibly the difiance of US bullying has enormously increased his popularity with the Iranian people.  Possibly it is something else.  What is not possible is that the media will tell us the truth, since it is now committed, on almost no evidence, to the fraud explanation.  This is such a clear example of the media’s and fake Progressives deceit because the Amereican mainstream media is so influenced by Zionism.  One would expect the other Zionist lemmings to come out of the woodwork with the usual drivel.

Report this

By rbrooks, June 14, 2009 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This has the same flavor as the 2000 election: in your face - we don’t care how this looks, because we don’t have to care.

And probably involves some of the same pervy neocon thugs as consultants. Here’s how you do it: ignore the election and tell the people to go to hell. The message: that you are so powerful and secure that you don’t have to care. That will be evidence that there is nothing to be gained by trying to fight you, and the majority of people who briefly thought they had held an election will bitch for a few days and go back to whatever distracts and entertains them. Works every time.

Who’s looking good now? The people who want a new start with Iran? Well, that sure didn’t last long.

Who benefits if Ahmadinejad pulls off a really nasty coup and ratchets up the belligerence? Israeli hardliners, the neocons, the military industry’s perpetual-war freaks.

Report this

By urszulat, June 14, 2009 at 5:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It wasn’t the election that was dubious, it was the result.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 14, 2009 at 4:27 am Link to this comment

When the people lose their fear of the theocratic regime’s tools of repression (Revolutionary Guards) is when the regime will crumble. We’ve seen that in Romania, Poland, the old Soviet Union, and other places in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately for most Iranians, there is no organized opposition to take advantage of the young and mostly college-educated people who turned out by the thousands in protest. And the Revolutionary Guard will probably slaughter insurrectionists by the tens of thousands. Perhaps the regular army can be co-opted. It’s a tough problem for us in the west - how to help bring the regime down without manipulating events. After all, this is a Persian historical drama unfolding, and its their destiny to create.
==========================
link to protest videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7zTF1isERI

Listen to the crowd - sounds like the beginnings of the end for the “Islamic Republic”. It may take another generation or may happen much sooner than that.
=============================
Here’s a good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnVdIihkQXU

Police beating protesters, protesters chanting “Death To The Regime” instead of the boilerplate “Death To America” and “Death To Israel”.
=============================
This lifts my spirits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2V-GyRYvc

We should be so lucky to witness similar scenes throughout the despotic Arab world as well.

Report this

By Dave, June 14, 2009 at 2:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

LostHills wrote:
“Ahmedinejad is Bush without constitutional restraints. Certainly the election was rigged, and the outcome will bring more tribulations to a world that needs some peace…..”

When did Bush give a f*** about constitutional restraints? How do you know the election was rigged?
When was the last time Iran attacked some other nation?
When was the last time IAEA found some evidence that Iran would be building nuclear weapon?
When was the last time Ahmedinejad said they are building a nuclear weapon?
If you are referring to Ahmedinejads speeches that support Palestitians as “tribulations against world peace” I don’t undestand. He seems to be the only leader that has the courage to say loudly that Israel is an apartheid coutry and that US is led by bunch of militant zionists thrirsty for oil.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 13, 2009 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

xypher, as you say, at least many Iranians rioted in the streets instead of simply sighing and going about their business as most Americans did after Bush’s stolen elections. The NYTimes Lede blog carried many communications from Iranians living abroad as well as in Iran, mostly through media and some intrepid bloggers. Al Jazeera featured the rioting in the streets aspect, along with accusations of fraud. There are also many videos of the protests in Tehran, but watching them I did notice that the streets were beautiful, leafy trees shading them, and the pro-Moussavi demonstrators appeared to be modern, healthy, pretty affluent 20-40-somethings, though they threw themselves at the metal rod-armed police as energetically as any student rioters in the past have done from the Sorbonne to Berkeley to Kent State. It occurred to me that Ahmadinejad’s supporters were less public, more shy, less vocal and live in much poorer sections of the country than do Moussavi supporters. Ahmadinejad probably has support from the rural poor and the pious, perhaps in numbers not so obvious in the coffee houses and shops of Tehran. Without wanting to be flippant, the video images of Moussavi supporters of Tehran struck me as a very upscale version of Tianamen Square.

The courage to run into police batons is inspiring, but where are these children of privilege going, and what can they and Moussavi do in the long run? Their country is run by Islamist theocrats and still would be even if Moussavi or anyone else were elected.  Iranians who went through the ‘79 revolution are once more sold out. Their protests, if ineffectual, are brave, and remind those of us outside Iran there are many Iranians with a wide range of opinions on how to live. This vast diversity is another reaon why we have to remember, when we’re talking to a seemingly dictatorial Ahmadinejad, that we’re not addressing all the people of Iran. It’s very hard to confront government policy yet remember that the people of the country in question have their separate dignity and wishes.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 13, 2009 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

I’m with xypher, what a bunch of hypocritical crap this “ear to the ground” piece is

(yeah right, I know exactly where THIS “ear” came from, and it wasn’t on from the “ground”)

stop with the warmongering, Truthdig!

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, June 13, 2009 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

Ahmedinejad is Bush without constitutional restraints. Certainly the election was rigged, and the outcome will bring more tribulations to a world that needs some peace…..

Report this

By Thomas Mc, June 13, 2009 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

He didn’t win the election, he stole it, just like Bush did, twice. At least the Iranians had the guts to stand up and protest, unlike the spineless Americans.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 13, 2009 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

The US has special troops in Iran, trying to stir up the many minorities, and engaging in murder and terrerism as US troops and clients did in Latin America. It’s supporters engaged in riots in a number of the flower Revolutions, and the CIA backed Tibet revolt began with Tibetan monks beating and killing native Chinese in the streets.  The British paper reported that there were only three thousand people in the streets, but they can create a lot of havoc if properly led and directed.

the US favors the richer classes, more secular, moe socially progressive, and more favorable to US imperialism, just as both the Dems and Gops favor professionals who are financial conservative but differ on social issues.  They are like Inherit, against tax increases which would just be wasted on the population.

Ahmidinejad is supported by the poor, and vastly more numerous portion of hte population, the working class, more traditional on social issues, who apparently came out in unexpected numbers.  The numbers of two of the opposition dwindled away before the elections, a usual thing when the caniddate can’t win, as Nader experienced and commented on.  But the main opposition candidate, whose support was more cosmopolitan and centered in the capital, apparently did not expect the overwhelming loss, two to one. This is not unprecidented against a popular incombant.  His complaints about his supporters being harassed and places closed are probably quite true, but had a marginal effect on the outcome.

The US and zionism must have miscalculated in some major way, possibly not polling adequately the rurual areas.  Since the US and Zionist media has lied routinely about Iran and Ahmedinejad, the huge support for him must be hard to take.  But you would think that they could just lie some more since the media is so corrupt they will say anything. 

I confess I don’t fully understand the public relations problem, since most Americans couldn’t care less, and probably think Iran is barbaric anyway.  the reactionary part of the election is continuing the oppression of women, where the opposition candidate was genuinely better.

Report this

By freedom loving american, June 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Well put Folkthruther:  Besides bush stole two elections in the US. But in the US we have no right to protest…and no media outlet will tell the truth..it would be nice to live in a country that had the freedom to protest…

Report this

By John Ken, June 13, 2009 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Democracy means one may win one may loose. So simple.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, I already commented re election on another thread but would like to suggest its contents as another way you can look at the election.

It’s quite possible that Ahmadinejad stole the election (as his Interior Ministry runs it), but Moussavi’s differences are probably as much style as substance. Probably more style, considering that no on can run for election in Iran without being approved by the mullahs. I liked Moussavi because his wife campaigned beside him and the crowds he drew in Tehran were made up of women, intellectuals, students, people who would prefer a more moderate lifestyle. But apparently the rural poor prefer Ahmadinejad for his populist gestures (distributing potatos etc) and perhaps for his conservatism, which would also attract the extreme conservative vote. Moussavi is not exactly a liberal, but he is more tactful, less confrontational to the West. As both men answer to the same mullah/s, a difference in style might be more pleasant to deal with and talk to, but if Ahmadinejad wins then the West will have to act like grownups and translate what he says into what he means. This will be easier for Obama’s people than for Netanyahu, but everyone has to grow up sometime.

Report this

By Bilejones, June 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

and all the corporate media whores start smearing the election process.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Bill Keller, the NYTimes Editor himself wrote a front page piece obfucating the Iran election.  Although it begins that it is impossible to know for sure what happened, it is the standard Zionist power bullshit.  this is a big setback, apparently, for Zionism and Obama, given that the Iranian people isn’t buying the pro-Muslim bullshit of Obama’s speech that apparetnly influenced to some extent the Lebanon election,although the American media lied about that one as well.

Zionism and the American ruling class wanted tension and possibly a war with Iran to disguise and divert attention from the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.  But the massive support for Ahmindinejad, partialy for his resistence to Western pressure, subverts the American-Israeli narrative. 

The US-Israeli media can lie about what he says about the Holicaust, or claim he is for wiping Israel off the map, but the election is as big a setback to the offical story as when previously,  the American intelligence agencies stated that Iran is not now engaged in producing a nuclear weapon.  The American media got around that, and now is in the process of obfuscating this electoral setback.

When the NYTimes supported the Bushite invasion of Iraq, it had Judith Miller among others writing front page articles on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.  Now apparently Bill Keller himself is doing the deception on this one. 

It makes one proud that one lives in a country where one can be lied to by the Editor himself of America’s greatest newspaper.  The American media truth conensus may be totally corrupt and morally depraved, but it is in the hands and heads of our most highly paide professionals.  The Western tradition can go down the historical toilet proudly knowing that our chief newmen are at the helm, and lying about it every second of the way.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther,

Well said.

One must always be mindful of who the US “backs” and treat it with great suspicion.

Every interview I’ve heard with Ahmedinejad has provided a thoughtful presentation. His words are without rancor and he is not bellicose nor a grand orator - he does love to pontificate; but he is thoughtful in a professorial way at times.

We know for a fact he never said “Israel should be wipped off the map”. That lie has actually increased his credibility. He does not argue the point, he is very clear and precise in explaining what he thinks about Zionism and the state of Israel which is an invader “state” occupying the lands of a mixed Palestinian people - including Muslims, Christians and Jews and nonsecular Arabs.

It is not that he is a particular good leader, but that there seems no evil in his intentions, nor in the overall intentions of the state of Iran.

This is not the case with Israel as demonstrated regularly by their behavior.

Report this

By anaman, June 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A thief is a thief is a thief. Anyone getting a touch of Deja vu?

Report this

By Folktruther, June 13, 2009 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

At first glance, the elections don’t appear rigged to me.  Ahmedeinead appears to have won an overwhelming victory, almost two to one, over his Elite based rival, because of the heavy turnout of the Iranian population.  Ahmerad’s positions have been systematically distorted in the Western, American and Zionist press and it is an an enormous defeat for them, which results in the usual fraudulent news when an anti-imperialist is elected, as Hamas was, as in Venzuela, and now, apparently, in Iran.

Ahmedinejad is a populist, in favor of increasing the money going to the vast majority of the population.  He is also a social conservative, as are most of the poor.  What the Western media calls a ‘Reformist’ is a supporter of Western class inequality, and genuinely democractic values, held by Democratic professionals in this country, who support women, gays, etc while being financially consevertive and therefore supporting the enormous and increasing class inequality.

I would quess that Ahmedinejad’s opponest was financed by the Western powers, much as the Dalai Lama is on the CIA payroll and the Tibet uprising was orchestrated by the CIA to mar the Chinese olympics.  And the Flower revolutions as well, putting in American puppets through fraudulent elections, who are now comming to grief in Georgia and Ukraine as well as elsewhere.

The political depravity of the US and Isreal has apparently reached the point where the usual fraudulent techniques no longer work in emperialized countries, although they still seem effective in the US.

Report this

By tommym, June 13, 2009 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

Iran is a theocracy, they cant have any elections without them being rigged, furthermore even if Mousavi won, the leader of thier country would still be the same religious dictator thats been in power for years. The whole election was just a mockery of our political system to make them seem less barbaric.  The only good thing about Iran holding elections at all, is that the more they wave the fake flag of democracy in the noses of thier people, the more chance there is the people of Iran will have another revolution, this time with results that arent so ignorant.

Report this

By xypher, June 13, 2009 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

Eh, so what…like Inherit said, George W. Bush stole two elections what difference does it make for this two-bit tyrant? The world put up with our three-bit tyrant for 8 years. The only difference here is…the Iranian people may riot in the streets while Americans just sat back and allowed our democracy to be overrun by zealots (from a man not so different than Ahmedinejad).

Elections Schmlections, People deserve whomever they allow to remain in power under election fraud.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2009 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

Ahmedinejad is no idiot even though he presents himself as a clown.  He clearly has learned from George W. Bush how to steal presidential elections.

But he hasn’t figured out that you can’t win by 90% margins in districts where 90% of the voters support your opponent without being found out.

Iran HAD run fairly fair elections, but now they’ve sunk even lower than our 2000 disgrace.  Welcome to the bottom of the barrel, where Ahmedinejad can now reside with Bush, Putin and Mugabe.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.