...shouldn't throw stones. Regarding President Obama's careful wording when commenting on the Iranian Elections (and the criticism he is taking for not being more outspoken with condemnation), I was prompted to remember the controversy of the U.S. election results of Year 2000. I went to YouTube to refresh the memories of interested readers, and discovered this very interesting analysis entitled "How George Bush Stole the 2000 Election." It is quite interesting presentation by Greg Palast (not Michael Moore's outrageously slanted style...strictly a careful factual analysis.) I encourage you to watch the two part lecture: Click HERE for Part 1 and HERE for Part 2.
I am by no means advocating one thing or another regarding the Iranian Elections. I just think we should not be overly critical of the possibility of corrupt elections elsewhere until/unless we can prove otherwise about the 2000 elections here in the U.S. I can't help but add that the winner of the 2000 Election, George W. Bush, was the president who decided we, the United States, should invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. The quality of Hussein's leadership is perhaps less important than the fact that, by taking out the SUNNI leader of Iraq, we totally disrupted the fragile balance of power in the middle east. The anti-Sunni SHI'ITE leadership of IRAN was now left unchecked by the regional power groups. So why should we be surprised or shocked at the outcome of the elections there? And why should we be horrified by the possibility of corrupt elections?
Yes, it would be nice if the people of Iran would elect into power a less antagonistic leader. But we in the U.S. should indeed carefully word our criticsm of the Iranian elections. Not only did we (perhaps ignorantly) contribute to empowering the existing Iranian ruler by invading Iraq, we have our own dirty election laundry. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Comments