Tuesday
Jun092009
Lebanon and Iran Elections: It's All About (The) US
Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 15:57
Related Post: Lebanon’s Elections - From Global “Showdown” to Local Reality
This piece started as an update on our main analysis of the results of Lebanon's elections, but with the US and British media's misreading, simplifications, and exaggerations spreading like kudzu, a separate entry is needed.
For Michael Slackman of The New York Times, it's not just a question of Washington shaping the Lebanese outcome: "Political analysts...attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world." You can slap the Obama model on top of any election to get the right result: "Lebanon’s election could be a harbinger of Friday’s presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi."
Simon Tisdall, normally a shrewd observer of international affairs, trots out the same simplicities in The Guardian of London: "It's possible that watching Iranians will be encouraged in their turn to go out and vote for reformist, west-friendly candidates in Friday's presidential election. Lebanon may be just the beginning of the 'Obama effect'."
Juan Cole has posted a more thoughtful assessment, even as he opens with the reductionist and sensationalist declaration, "President Obama's hopes for progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process would have been sunk if Hezbollah had won the Lebanese elections." And Howard Schneider of The Washington Post, although premature in his anointing of Saad Hariri as Lebanon's next and primary leader (setting aside not only President Suleiman but also presuming that Hariri will be chosen as PM), sets out "the choice...between a showdown with his supporters, a showdown with Hezbollah or -- the more likely outcome -- a continued stalemate over the very issues voters hoped they were addressing in Sunday's balloting".
But if there is to be a simplification, in light of the internal political issues that follow the election, I would like it to come from Robert Fisk in The Independent of London:
This piece started as an update on our main analysis of the results of Lebanon's elections, but with the US and British media's misreading, simplifications, and exaggerations spreading like kudzu, a separate entry is needed.For Michael Slackman of The New York Times, it's not just a question of Washington shaping the Lebanese outcome: "Political analysts...attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world." You can slap the Obama model on top of any election to get the right result: "Lebanon’s election could be a harbinger of Friday’s presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi."
Simon Tisdall, normally a shrewd observer of international affairs, trots out the same simplicities in The Guardian of London: "It's possible that watching Iranians will be encouraged in their turn to go out and vote for reformist, west-friendly candidates in Friday's presidential election. Lebanon may be just the beginning of the 'Obama effect'."
Juan Cole has posted a more thoughtful assessment, even as he opens with the reductionist and sensationalist declaration, "President Obama's hopes for progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process would have been sunk if Hezbollah had won the Lebanese elections." And Howard Schneider of The Washington Post, although premature in his anointing of Saad Hariri as Lebanon's next and primary leader (setting aside not only President Suleiman but also presuming that Hariri will be chosen as PM), sets out "the choice...between a showdown with his supporters, a showdown with Hezbollah or -- the more likely outcome -- a continued stalemate over the very issues voters hoped they were addressing in Sunday's balloting".
But if there is to be a simplification, in light of the internal political issues that follow the election, I would like it to come from Robert Fisk in The Independent of London:
What stands out internationally is that the Lebanese still believe in parliamentary democracy and President Obama, so soon after his Cairo lecture, will recognise that this tiny country still believes in free speech and free elections. Another victory for Lebanon, in other words, beneath the swords of its neighbours.
Reader Comments (3)
I am consistently amazed at how the left, or properly the Obama coalition, always manages to f**k everything up. Are we retarded?
A week ago these same folks were blasting Obama for "only" using the Israeli settlements as a variable in the middle east peace process. (ONLY starting with one of the most important aspects of the Israeli occupation - what an asshole! He should be more like Bush and Zawahiri and demand all or destruction!) And yet here they are ready to give Obama credit for "winning" the Lebanon elections. Idiots!
This "pro-west" garbage doesn't even make sense! Hizb'allah and Aoun aren't against blue jeans and habeas corpus or anything else "Western," they're against the policies. They must be confusing Hizb'allah for someone who really is Anti-West, like say Baitullah Mehsud or y'know... the Dalai Llama.
Juan Cole here is especially outrageous with his suggestion that a Hizb'allah victory would completely derail Obama's prospects for peace. Notice he doesn't bother backing that up with anything, as even attempting an explanation would serve only to make him look more ridiculous.
The simplest rule of governance is that power corrupts, so obviously giving extremists like Hizb'allah more power would corrupt them, only in this sense corruption to our favor. Corruption in this case refers not to criminality, but rather to presenting them with new and difficult decisions that may run directly counter to their ideology. We call this pragmatism. Could Hizb'allah afford to lob rockets at Israel if they had a seat at the negotiating table? Could Nasrallah continue to be such an anti-semitic little hategoblin if he were forced to represent the totality of Lebanese cosmopolitanism? Highly unlikely. Yet according to Cole, Hizb'allah is much more likely to become peaceful and constructive as a desperate and well armed sideline opposition force. Brilliant Juan, that worked great in Iraq...right??
But back to the "Obama effect." Let's take this theory and go all the way with it. What if it's all true? What if every single March 14 voter really was secretly voting for Obama's peace plan? What does that actually mean? Obama goes to the heart of the Arab world and demands an end to the Israeli occupation and legitimacy for the Palestinian resistance and all he gets in return is...what? A handful of douchebag technocrats in the Lebanese parliament? AWESOME! USA! USA!
Barack Obama is quite possibly the single most powerful force ever realized by the left for accomplishing their vision of the United States...and yet we're wildly abusing and misfiring him all over the place. He is praised for "doing something about the economy" by giving billions to robberbarons, yet excused from moving on civil rights, a policy that could be implemented in a pen stroke, because it wouldn't be politically viable. He's blasted for not doing enough in the middle east even though he directly confronts Israeli colonialism, yet they're happy to crown him godking of Lebanon.
What the hell is going on? We'll go to the mat for Obama on the stupidest issues ever, only to abandon him on the most difficult problems we face because we're "disillusioned". We have got to get real about Obama or we're doomed. Otherwise we're going to break him, just like we did with Clinton. And look where that got us...
The American people trust that Barack Obama will conscientiously address issues related to Lebanon/Iran.
_______________
SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!
EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!
George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her.
“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (blog of drizzten).
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010)).
Leola McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Margie Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder.
BEWARE: If the president of the United States hates one—for whatever reasons—he can continuously criminally stalk one to the point that one cannot get away from it, and one ultimately commits suicide in desperation to escape—he can murder people in this way.
Bush is getting away with his murder of Margie Schoedinger—with no sheriff, prosecutor, or court willing to uphold the rule of law.
Bush’s method of murdering Margie Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.
Bush should confess, come out with the names of all of the people whom he murdered in the disgusting way he murdered Margie Schoedinger, undergo execution, and accordingly find himself at the intersection where he would be free.
(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. It exists very extensively in all major search engines. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her,” hit “Enter,” and find innumerable results.)
_______________
Andrew Y. Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, PA
Lower Merion High School, PA, 1993
Andrew,
Here's the information you're looking for.
http://bit.ly/c47do
The rest will be broadcast directly to the microchip in your brain. Stand by to receive...