Why would he. He bought and paid for ACORN to do the same, just like he's purchasasing loyalty today through Craig's List, much akin to Ahmadinejad.
On Aug 27, 11:37 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > Washington’s double standard: The elections in Iran and Afghanistan > 28 August 2009 > Despite the increasing evidence of systematic and massive vote fraud, > the Obama administration and the American media are still seeking to > sustain the pretense that Afghanistan’s August 20 presidential > election was a basically democratic affair. > > The Electoral Complaints Commission, a United Nations-backed oversight > group, said that it had received more than 800 charges of > irregularities, with 50 of them so serious that they could potentially > alter the result of the vote. > > A half dozen candidates who opposed incumbent president Hamid Karzai, > including his leading challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah > Abdullah, have charged the government with falsifying the vote. > Abdullah’s campaign released video footage Tuesday showing Karzai > campaign supporters and election officials marking blank ballots for > Karzai and threatening voters at the polls. Another candidate, Mirwais > Yasini, produced bags full of ballots he said were cast for him in > Kandahar but dumped by election officials and recovered by his > campaign. > > In the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, the site of > some of the bloodiest fighting between the US-NATO occupation force > and Afghan guerrillas, foreign election observers estimated turnout to > be only 5 to 10 percent. The Karzai regime claimed a 40 percent > turnout, giving ample margin for systematic ballot-stuffing. > > While the American press reported the charges of fraud and the > indications of low turnout, the official US position remains one of > endorsing the election as an expression of the popular will and a > victory, albeit limited, for “democracy” over “terrorism”—i.e., the > Taliban-linked insurgents. > > President Obama hailed the election in a statement issued August 21, > declaring, “This was an important step forward in the Afghan people’s > effort to take control of their future...” > > Top US officials on the spot, including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, > General Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander, and Richard > Holbrooke, chief US envoy to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, all > chimed in with endorsements of the basic legitimacy of the vote, > suggesting the widespread reports of irregularities were merely the > growing pains of democracy. > > No such forgiving approach was taken to the election in Iran two > months before. The American media denounced the presidential vote in > Iran as fraudulent almost as soon as the polls closed June 12. Both > the Obama administration and the European powers called into question > the legitimacy of the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. > > As opposed to Afghanistan, however, neither the Iranian opposition nor > its American backers could produce any significant evidence of vote > fraud. There were no videos of ballot-stuffing, no boxes of ballots > marked in advance for Ahmadinejad. This in a country where the > opposition had a significant presence in all parts of the country, and > where the technical resources to publicize election irregularities— > using cell phone photos and videos, text-messaging, and so on—are far > greater than in Afghanistan. > > There is a clear political explanation for the double standard. The > decision to charge vote fraud in Iran, and to downplay the obvious > ballot-rigging in Afghanistan, is driven by the foreign policy > interests of American imperialism, not the supposed devotion of > Washington and the American media to democratic principles. > > The charge of ballot fraud was employed to destabilize the Ahmadinejad > government, which Washington regards as an obstacle to its plans to > strengthen its control over the oil and gas resources of the Persian > Gulf and Central Asia. > > The calculated nature of the provocation was made clear when the > leading Iranian opposition candidate, Mirhossein Mousavi, declared > himself the winner of the vote even before the polls had closed, in > order to discredit the official results in advance. > > The contrast with Afghanistan is instructive. When the Karzai and > Abdullah camps each issued claims of victory shortly after the polls > closed, Holbrooke met with both candidates and gave them their > marching orders: No claims of victory should be made until after the > bulk of the votes have been officially certified in Kabul. > > Holbrooke told reporters, “Ten percent of the vote is in. Imagine an > American election with 10 percent in. You don’t call it with 10 > percent.” His audience obligingly did not ask him why the US-backed > candidate in Iran had called the election with zero percent of the > votes counted, or why the State Department had not objected. > > The Obama administration’s policy in relation to the Afghanistan vote > is complicated by its contentious relationship with President Karzai, > widely regarded by his American patrons as weak, corrupt and > incompetent. Washington appears to favor pushing Karzai into more of a > ceremonial role while other US stooges, including Abdullah and former > finance minister Ashraf Ghani, are brought into top government > positions. > > This means limiting the ballot-rigging so that Karzai does not receive > the 50 percent required to win the election outright, thus forcing him > into a runoff with Abdullah and dealing a significant blow to his > political standing. The maneuver is quite dangerous, however, since it > threatens to touch off ethnic tensions within the US-backed regime, > particularly between the Tajik minority, which backed Abdullah > overwhelmingly, and the larger Pushtun population, where Karzai’s main > support lies. > > There is yet another contrast between the US approach to the Iranian > election and its response in Afghanistan. The American media cited the > timing of the Iranian government declaration that Ahmadinejad had won > reelection with a two-thirds majority, which came only a few hours > after the polls had closed—albeit hours after Mousavi’s claim of > victory. > > But a top Karzai aide, Finance Minister Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal, made a > similar declaration in Afghanistan, which was given little attention > by the American media. Zakhilwal spoke to the media on August 23, less > than three days after the polls had closed, and said that Karzai had > won 68 percent of the vote. He gave relatively precise totals, saying > that Karzai had received more than 3 million votes, Abdullah 1.5 > million votes, and the other candidates much lesser amounts. Five > million votes had been cast, and only 450,000 still remained to be > counted. > > There was no American media barrage citing the preposterous character > of the minister’s claim, although a day later, the Independent > Election Commission had tallied votes from only 500 of the more than > 6,000 polling stations throughout the country. > > In Iran, the declaration of victory by Ahmadinejad was treated as > evidence of a major vote-rigging effort. A similar declaration in > Afghanistan is dismissed as insignificant. > > The comparison of the two elections demonstrates the fraud of the US > posture of defending democracy and popular sovereignty. One election > is praised and the other damned, without regard to evidence, in order > to further the interests of the imperialist power which seeks to > dominate both countries. > > Patrick Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
