As expected (see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow ?"), Supreme Leader Khamenei ends up badly exposed in the front line after taking too carelessly sides in utterly controversial elections.
Khamenei eventually conceded a recount and theoretically, Guardian Council won't change the story. Except this is Khamenei's last chance to save face : at this stage, he can still dump his joker (Ahmadinejad). Unless he prefers to share his fate.
Either way, the system failed :
=> The official story doesn't stand mathematically or rather, appears too outstandingly perfect. Beyond the elements in the equation already mentioned earlier, some pointed out the fact that when you compared votes for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the six official partial results released over election day drew too perfect a line. Farideh Farhi (University of Hawaii) nails the result as "pulled out of a hat"*.
=> A different story would mean a failure in the election process, ricocheting on the country's ruling class.
And either way, the Supreme Leader failed in his judgement and sense of timing. His supporters, but furthermore the people of influence who owe him their powers, must have taken notice. Khamenei caused a disruption that could prove fatal for the unity of Iran as a people as well as a political system.
Even Mousavi would have some trouble playing the Obama role, bringing back all parties together...
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
* see "Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far" (Christian Science Monitor 20090617).
20090617
20090614
Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow
Iran reformers were denied their "Yes We Can" moment or at least, a second round against the incumbent at the Presidential elections.
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
20090611
Intelligence Supremacy
Yesterday, an 88 year old unrepented White Supremacist, James W. von Brunn, murdered a black guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Earlier this month, a "pro-life" fanatic murdered a doctor at his church (see '"Pro Life" Murderers').
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
20090605
State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine
Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
20090604
"Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama
Osama Bin Laden has got a sick sense of humor : Barack Obama would be "antagonizing Muslims"... that's according to a man who killed much more Muslims than non-Muslims.
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
20090601
"Pro Life" Murderers
George Tiller was murdered on Sunday. Just outside the church where he served as an usher, in Wichita, KS. Back in the nineties, this physician already survided one bombing and one shooting.
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Somebody tell me why this "pro-life" President, so much eager to protect life in the form of embryos, is the biggest supporter of death penalty and holds the record for executions in the US.He did. But American voters redeemed themselves last year.
Somebody tell me why this man, who says every tiny cell counts, doesn't show any remorse when soldiers die because of his failures or kids are slaughtered during his massive bombings to smoke Zarkawi out before November the 2nd.
Somebody tell me why this imposteur, who dares say he defends the values that built America, should even have the slightest chance of fooling the electors once more.
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
20090530
A Yellow Sea For Roh
Downtown submerged by a tsunami of yellow ribbons, arm bands, hair pins, hats, and balloons.
Not at the Gyeongbokgung today : the color of Roh Moo-hyun's campaigns was strictly forbidden at the site of the official ceremony.
Also forbidden : Kim Dae-jung's eulogy for his successor. This request from the family was turned down by his successor's successor... a measure of respect to other former Presidents according to Lee Myung-bak, a setback for democracy according to the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Also forbidden : Seoul Plaza, closed to mourners until today, for fear of a remake of last year's massive demonstrations. Roh sympathizers improvised the first altar just across the street, in front of Deoksugung's gate, the very morning when he died*. Local and foreign V.I.P.s waited for a more exclusive altar to be opened, a few days later, at the Seoul Museum of History. Both sites felt silent, but one did sound a little more sincere than the other.
Above, the head of the convoy on Sejongno, as it leaves Gyeongbokgung for Seoul Plaza and Roh Moo-hyun's Yellow Sea of supporters.
Right, Roh's collaborators, following the deceased and singing the song that cemented their cause for democracy.
* See "Roh Moo-hyun follows Pierre Beregovoy".
---
initially published on SeoulVillage.
20090523
Roh Moo-hyun follows Pierre Beregovoy
When I read this morning about the tragic fate of former President Roh Moo-hyun, I thought about Pierre Beregovoy, Francois Mitterrand's last prime minister who supposedly committed suicide while under investigation for corruption.
Suicide or not suicide, this not the issue here. Both Beregovoy and Roh came from modest backgrounds, succeeded in politics as outsiders, and ended up in a tragic fate, soon after leaving the top, their main asset, the positive image on which they built their successes, shattered to pieces.
This morning, I made this stupid dream* that Roh's final bow could wake up Korea, help it reconsider politics, put down the guns, and start a vast operation of transparence. To help talents truly motivated by change emerge from the crowd, but also to protect them as they climb to the top of this beautiful yet slippery mountain.
* see the blogule : "Roh Moo-hyun, le promeneur du champ de mai"
Suicide or not suicide, this not the issue here. Both Beregovoy and Roh came from modest backgrounds, succeeded in politics as outsiders, and ended up in a tragic fate, soon after leaving the top, their main asset, the positive image on which they built their successes, shattered to pieces.
This morning, I made this stupid dream* that Roh's final bow could wake up Korea, help it reconsider politics, put down the guns, and start a vast operation of transparence. To help talents truly motivated by change emerge from the crowd, but also to protect them as they climb to the top of this beautiful yet slippery mountain.
* see the blogule : "Roh Moo-hyun, le promeneur du champ de mai"
20090522
Memo : the case is about abuses in Gitmo, not about closing Gitmo
In an unsigned tribune ("Bush's Gitmo Vindication" - 20090522), the Wall Street Journal accuses President Obama of vindication against President Bush's Pristine Heritage in his great speech delivered yesterday. According to the unknown author, closing Guantanamo was a mistake.
"Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go".
=> Well. After seven years of outrages, Guantanamo still hasn't said whether detainees were terrorists or not. Obama just took office a few months ago, remember ?
To Jim Webb, who said "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law", the courageous author adds "That was the Bush Administration's point all along."
=> First, a reminder : Bush's Amerika spent hundreds of billions of dollars building an inappropriate war in favor of terror instead of an appropriate war on terror.
=> Second, what Obama and the World point all along is this : of course terrorists are against international law ! But Gitmo abuses were against international law, the Bush Administration was against international law, Bush's Amerika was against international law. The case is not about closing Guantanamo but about what went wrong there.
"Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers".
=> It's like the economy, stupid. You need to stop the wrongs but it's not that easy because the mess is really deep and nasty. What did you expect Obama to say in front of the collapse of the World economies last autumn ? "Good job ! Keep Going" ? Same here : we first say this must stop, and then we work on a solution.
=> "Haphazard design" is not deciding to close Guantanamo. "Haphazard design" is deciding to promote torture, committing Abu Ghraib abuses, and giving a boost to worldwide terror in the process.
"Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
=> my pleasure, dear unknown fascist coward : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
"Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go".
=> Well. After seven years of outrages, Guantanamo still hasn't said whether detainees were terrorists or not. Obama just took office a few months ago, remember ?
To Jim Webb, who said "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law", the courageous author adds "That was the Bush Administration's point all along."
=> First, a reminder : Bush's Amerika spent hundreds of billions of dollars building an inappropriate war in favor of terror instead of an appropriate war on terror.
=> Second, what Obama and the World point all along is this : of course terrorists are against international law ! But Gitmo abuses were against international law, the Bush Administration was against international law, Bush's Amerika was against international law. The case is not about closing Guantanamo but about what went wrong there.
"Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers".
=> It's like the economy, stupid. You need to stop the wrongs but it's not that easy because the mess is really deep and nasty. What did you expect Obama to say in front of the collapse of the World economies last autumn ? "Good job ! Keep Going" ? Same here : we first say this must stop, and then we work on a solution.
=> "Haphazard design" is not deciding to close Guantanamo. "Haphazard design" is deciding to promote torture, committing Abu Ghraib abuses, and giving a boost to worldwide terror in the process.
"Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
=> my pleasure, dear unknown fascist coward : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
20090521
Open Season for Yosemite Sam
The Congress voted 279-147 to allow guns in national parks.
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
