Michael Collins
06-20-2009, 04:38 AM
So I log on to OpEdNews today for a glance and see that Paleocon, ex Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and Olin foundation supported Paul Craig Roberts has written an article saying people who see Iran as election fraud are fools. Roberts has been an apostate for several years writing the very worst things about neocons and George W. Bush...for various "leftist" publications. It's cool, in a side show sort of way, and gratifying to see a Reaganite rip the Republicans a new one.
So I write a well mannered reply.
Agreed except on Iran's elections Michael Collins responding to Paul Craig Roberts article on OpEdNews ( http://tinyurl.com/msl4d2 )
I followed and appreciated your analyses and invectives over the past years. I agree that the power of media control is a central feature of the maintenance of decadent power and crony capitalism.
I take exception with just one of your examples. The Iranian election is not driven by US intelligence. Their role is no more than parallel play in relationship to the events in Tehran. The election was fixed. The first expression of outrage was appropriate by the people. They knew the presidency had been stolen. It wasn't just the intimidation at the polls and the corrupt nature of the regime. It wasn't just reporting results in two hours when three days is the norm. This is not a <fill in color> revolution. I've written critically about those.
It was fraud:
"In addition to a flawed comparison to U.S. election reporting, Silver ignored the electoral success of reform movement candidate Mohammad Khatami in 1997 (70% share/80% turnout) and 2001 (78% share/70% turnout). Reform movement ally Rafsanjani won the two presidential elections before that in 1989 and 1993. Ahmadinejad's 2005 victory was a fluke due to a boycott by reformers after their candidates were by the guardian's council. Turnout was only 48%. Clearly, reformers are the dominant vote getters in open Iranian elections
'With a history of reform candidate dominance in high turnout elections, we're supposed to believe that a 75% to 80% turnout in 2009 produced a lopsided victory for the radical Islamic candidate with failed economic policies.
"Then there are the striking similarities between the Iranian election and the 2006 Mexican presidential election. There was massive evidence of fraud from the destruction of ballots to phased election reports that were so perfect statistically that it appeared to be the product of computer generated program."
Iranian Election Fraud 2009: Who Was the Real Target... and Why?
In the four years of Ahmadinejad rule the economy is in the doldrums and Iran has no friends in the region.
The notion that solid reformer wins in four straight elections, wins relying on the under 30 segment of the population has now turned into an endorsement of reactionary failure.
This isn't what happened. The election results were fabricated to protect the guilty as much as the Wall Street bailouts were created to protect the complicit executives and save their jobs.
This is a case where democracy is defended not by the religious paramilitary groups, the outside intelligence agencies or other big power schemes. It's an express of simple outrage -- you stole it, we're done with this. The Iranian people, as opposed to the warring factions, have their own mind and notion of equity and fair play.
Ironically, the neocon lite New America Foundation, which created a poll showing a likely Ahmadinejad win, had internal contractions in the poll that showed Iran to be strongly trending toward a secular society open to the world. Another poll conducted at the same time showed a large Mousavi win.
Mousavi is a symbol of anti fascist sentiment just as Obama was. The people voted for that symbol. Now they're taking things to a level that we should have taken them to after 2000 and 2004, manifest thefts.
We should support the Iranian people while keeping a sharp eye on actions by our own government that are not at our request or in our interests.
by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM
Recommend Reject (0+, 0-)
Reply To This
I object to just one of his points and look what happens.I'm "certifiable" and "blind" too! At least he didn't call me a 'blind pig' (although I would have been honored.
paul roberts
Reply: The waning power of truth (and fact)
Michael Collins expresses his idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, despite two years to do its dirty work, somehow had no effect on what clearly are orchestrated elements in the Terhan protests.
Note, also, that it was the "reformer" Mousavi who DECLARED HIS VICTORY SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED. This is classic CIA destabilization
designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote; otherwise, results issued three days (with a full vote count) after the challenger has declared victory are discredited with the argument that the authorities spent three days fixing the vote.
It is amazing that people can't see through this trick.
As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.
There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs' lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad's attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the Ayatollahs.
As I have said in many of my articles, people are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there is impeccable evidence that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government. The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine.
It requires total blindness not to see this.
Paul Craig Roberts
by paul roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:47:06 AM
Recommend Reject (0+, 0-)
Lard, the man has no sense of humor or tact. Or maybe he was angry at being floored by my superior argument;) So I said this.
Michael Collins
Reply: Ignoring the numbers and electoral history.
Mr. Roberts, I did not respond based on &
quot;delusions, illusions, and emotions," although I did accuse Ahmadinejad of being clinically delusional for his obsessive holocaust denial.
In the article linked above, I provided facts that showed a trend in reformer majorities in the last four elections and a direct association between reformer wins and very high turnout. You offered no response above to those numeric and historical facts. Nevertheless, they're compelling.
Why on earth would the same faction that provided a string of votes against the fascist mullahs suddenly respond to the past four years of misrule and isolation by endorsing the author of those failures?
It isn't always about US. Sometimes things happen in the world despite our waning influence. Were the color (orange, rose, etc.) revolutions backed, planned, and implemented with strong U.S. influence. I'm on record as agreeing with that interpretation. But when a "Green" revolution takes place in Iran, does the use of that color in front of "revolution" make it a U.S. fabrication. I seriously doubt it.
The forces within our government that feel compelled to constantly meddle in everything and achieve little positive are probably meddling in Iran but with little effect.
You can't pay large numbers of citizens to hit the streets when the outcome may well be an encounter with the Revolutionary Guard and other well armed fascist paramilitary organizations. And large numbers will not demonstrate today after a direct threat of violence by the supreme leader simply because someone was paid off to tell them so (presuming that's the case). One key feature to this remarkable event is the power struggle that you described. That was a key focus of my article on the conflict: Iranian Election Fraud 2009 - Who was the Real Target and Why?
The other focus was on a highly educated, frustrated, plurality of 20 somethings who are sick and tired of being ruled by fools. With no prospect of change for four more years, that's a cause worth the risk of demonstrating.
It's not about U.S. all the time. Sometimes, it's about the will of the people. In this case it is the citizens of Iran who are now standing up to tyranny. They deserve our support.
by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:12:45 AM
I liked the criticism of my arguments & article here because it was well stated and sans name calling. But this guy needs to do some time with Emily Post. Parry and the other liberals lining up with the fascists and claiming their electoral victory have yet to respond to my comments.
So I write a well mannered reply.
Agreed except on Iran's elections Michael Collins responding to Paul Craig Roberts article on OpEdNews ( http://tinyurl.com/msl4d2 )
I followed and appreciated your analyses and invectives over the past years. I agree that the power of media control is a central feature of the maintenance of decadent power and crony capitalism.
I take exception with just one of your examples. The Iranian election is not driven by US intelligence. Their role is no more than parallel play in relationship to the events in Tehran. The election was fixed. The first expression of outrage was appropriate by the people. They knew the presidency had been stolen. It wasn't just the intimidation at the polls and the corrupt nature of the regime. It wasn't just reporting results in two hours when three days is the norm. This is not a <fill in color> revolution. I've written critically about those.
It was fraud:
"In addition to a flawed comparison to U.S. election reporting, Silver ignored the electoral success of reform movement candidate Mohammad Khatami in 1997 (70% share/80% turnout) and 2001 (78% share/70% turnout). Reform movement ally Rafsanjani won the two presidential elections before that in 1989 and 1993. Ahmadinejad's 2005 victory was a fluke due to a boycott by reformers after their candidates were by the guardian's council. Turnout was only 48%. Clearly, reformers are the dominant vote getters in open Iranian elections
'With a history of reform candidate dominance in high turnout elections, we're supposed to believe that a 75% to 80% turnout in 2009 produced a lopsided victory for the radical Islamic candidate with failed economic policies.
"Then there are the striking similarities between the Iranian election and the 2006 Mexican presidential election. There was massive evidence of fraud from the destruction of ballots to phased election reports that were so perfect statistically that it appeared to be the product of computer generated program."
Iranian Election Fraud 2009: Who Was the Real Target... and Why?
In the four years of Ahmadinejad rule the economy is in the doldrums and Iran has no friends in the region.
The notion that solid reformer wins in four straight elections, wins relying on the under 30 segment of the population has now turned into an endorsement of reactionary failure.
This isn't what happened. The election results were fabricated to protect the guilty as much as the Wall Street bailouts were created to protect the complicit executives and save their jobs.
This is a case where democracy is defended not by the religious paramilitary groups, the outside intelligence agencies or other big power schemes. It's an express of simple outrage -- you stole it, we're done with this. The Iranian people, as opposed to the warring factions, have their own mind and notion of equity and fair play.
Ironically, the neocon lite New America Foundation, which created a poll showing a likely Ahmadinejad win, had internal contractions in the poll that showed Iran to be strongly trending toward a secular society open to the world. Another poll conducted at the same time showed a large Mousavi win.
Mousavi is a symbol of anti fascist sentiment just as Obama was. The people voted for that symbol. Now they're taking things to a level that we should have taken them to after 2000 and 2004, manifest thefts.
We should support the Iranian people while keeping a sharp eye on actions by our own government that are not at our request or in our interests.
by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM
Recommend Reject (0+, 0-)
Reply To This
I object to just one of his points and look what happens.I'm "certifiable" and "blind" too! At least he didn't call me a 'blind pig' (although I would have been honored.
paul roberts
Reply: The waning power of truth (and fact)
Michael Collins expresses his idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, despite two years to do its dirty work, somehow had no effect on what clearly are orchestrated elements in the Terhan protests.
Note, also, that it was the "reformer" Mousavi who DECLARED HIS VICTORY SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED. This is classic CIA destabilization
designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote; otherwise, results issued three days (with a full vote count) after the challenger has declared victory are discredited with the argument that the authorities spent three days fixing the vote.
It is amazing that people can't see through this trick.
As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.
There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs' lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad's attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the Ayatollahs.
As I have said in many of my articles, people are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there is impeccable evidence that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government. The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine.
It requires total blindness not to see this.
Paul Craig Roberts
by paul roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:47:06 AM
Recommend Reject (0+, 0-)
Lard, the man has no sense of humor or tact. Or maybe he was angry at being floored by my superior argument;) So I said this.
Michael Collins
Reply: Ignoring the numbers and electoral history.
Mr. Roberts, I did not respond based on &
quot;delusions, illusions, and emotions," although I did accuse Ahmadinejad of being clinically delusional for his obsessive holocaust denial.
In the article linked above, I provided facts that showed a trend in reformer majorities in the last four elections and a direct association between reformer wins and very high turnout. You offered no response above to those numeric and historical facts. Nevertheless, they're compelling.
Why on earth would the same faction that provided a string of votes against the fascist mullahs suddenly respond to the past four years of misrule and isolation by endorsing the author of those failures?
It isn't always about US. Sometimes things happen in the world despite our waning influence. Were the color (orange, rose, etc.) revolutions backed, planned, and implemented with strong U.S. influence. I'm on record as agreeing with that interpretation. But when a "Green" revolution takes place in Iran, does the use of that color in front of "revolution" make it a U.S. fabrication. I seriously doubt it.
The forces within our government that feel compelled to constantly meddle in everything and achieve little positive are probably meddling in Iran but with little effect.
You can't pay large numbers of citizens to hit the streets when the outcome may well be an encounter with the Revolutionary Guard and other well armed fascist paramilitary organizations. And large numbers will not demonstrate today after a direct threat of violence by the supreme leader simply because someone was paid off to tell them so (presuming that's the case). One key feature to this remarkable event is the power struggle that you described. That was a key focus of my article on the conflict: Iranian Election Fraud 2009 - Who was the Real Target and Why?
The other focus was on a highly educated, frustrated, plurality of 20 somethings who are sick and tired of being ruled by fools. With no prospect of change for four more years, that's a cause worth the risk of demonstrating.
It's not about U.S. all the time. Sometimes, it's about the will of the people. In this case it is the citizens of Iran who are now standing up to tyranny. They deserve our support.
by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:12:45 AM
I liked the criticism of my arguments & article here because it was well stated and sans name calling. But this guy needs to do some time with Emily Post. Parry and the other liberals lining up with the fascists and claiming their electoral victory have yet to respond to my comments.