RSS FeedBack to Centennial Institute Home >>

'Axis of Evil' having their way with USA

Wednesday, 24 June 2009 10:39 by Bill Moloney

(Boston) While the world watched the fraudulent Iranian elections by chance I found myself here in the historic capital of American election fraud.
 
Just a few steps from Boston’s City Hall the Union Oyster House has been a favored haunt of local politicians since Colonial times.  As we sampled the culinary  delights of this Beantown landmark my companion- a wryly self-described “humble servant of the people”- noted that two centuries earlier Governor Elbridge Gerry had enjoyed similar fare here.  It was he who invented “gerrymandering”, a method of redistricting now institutionalized in every state as the most successful form of election fraud in American history.
 
Through the years Boston continued to invent, refine and export to grateful imitators nationwide many new breakthroughs in election fraud.  One of the most productive was  creating the key patronage post of Cemetery Commissioner said official being responsible not just for mowing the grass above the graves but much more importantly insuring that those loyal Democrats beneath the grass were not deprived of their right to vote “early and often” every election day.
 
While stealing votes outright was more cost effective sometimes it was necessary to buy them.  Even then these thrifty New Englanders deplored wasteful spending.  Jack Kennedy’s grandfather Boston Mayor “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald insisted that the “Machine never bought more votes than actually required”.  In another context his son-in-law Joe Kennedy sternly told a Chicago alderman that he “wasn’t paying for a landslide”.
 
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ignored these counsels of moderation, apparently being quite willing to pay for a landslide and/or steal more votes than actually required.
 
The initial U.S. response to this self-evident fraud was somewhere between an embarrassment and a disgrace (when you sound less tough than the Europeans you know you’ve dropped the ball badly).  Waffling between saying it didn’t matter who won the election and being fearful of accusations of “meddling” Obama and company demonstrated once again why foreign and national security policy has been the Achilles Heel of the Democratic party for over forty years.
 
In its obsequiousness Obama’s expression of gratitude to “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khamenei for his willingness to look into irregularities in a few precincts rivaled the notorious bow to the King of Saudi Arabia.
 
Amazingly none of this qualified as the week’s top example of U.S. spinelessness.  After North Korea’s “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-IL defiantly announced that he was (A) weaponizing his nuclear stockpile, (B) conducting further tests of his Hiroshima sized bomb, and (C) scheduling tests of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the U.S., the Obama Administration announced it would adhere to a new “get tough” policy proposed by Chinese and Russians at the United Nations.
 
The heart of the policy involves intercepting North Korean vessels suspected of carrying nuclear presents to friends like Syria or Iran and asking permission to board and search;  however if they say no, that’s O.K. too.
 
When loony right-wingers in Congress questioned the adequacy of this response the Administration gave further evidence of its resolve by announcing that if North Korea persists in its’ nuclear naughtiness in next year’s  budget we may refuse to make further cuts to Missile Defense spending beyond these already included in this year’s budget.
 
Right now, if you’re keeping score the old “axis of Evil” – Syria, Iran, and North Korea-is definitely ahead on points.  Obama’s much hyped but pathetic speech in Cairo (“America is one of the largest Muslim nations; my daddy was a Muslim”) clearly signaled he isn’t going to fuss too much when Iran inevitably gains full nuclear power status.  As noted above he’s O.K. with letting Russia and China via the UN set the limits of  U.S. toughness with North Korea.
 
The only member of the “Axis” who’s even been scored upon in this contest is Syria and that only because the Israelis who know a threat when they see one helpfully bombed that country’s rising nuclear facility flat.
 The  Boston Globe  (owned by the N.Y. times since 1994 and hopefully soon going bankrupt) was “deeply troubled by this unilateral Israeli action” and this week even had the effrontery to editorially call on Obama to “oblige Netanyahu to rearrange his governing coalition to be more in accord with U.S.. policy toward the Palestinians”.
 
What’s wrong with this picture?  A lot, and the price of folly may be exacted sooner than we think.

William Moloney is a former Colorado Education Commissioner and now a Centennial Institute Fellow.  His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.
 

Comments (2) -

September 7. 2009 08:35

USA economic now is going on his foot

VIAGRA USA

September 29. 2009 23:54

Trevor Simmons writes:

Mr. Moloney: First, let me say that I agree with your basic argument that the United States needs to stand firm against its threats.  With that said, I want to suggest that Obama's curiously ambivalent stance on the Iranian elections last summer should be interpreted as a cautious and prudent policy -- not the embarrassing "disgrace" that you describe.

Why?  First, every good politician knows that meddling in the domestic affairs of another country is a poor way to ingratiate himself with the very leaders with whom he may one day need to negotiate.  Secondly -- and this is the crucial point -- Iranians hold a deep suspicion of foreign meddling, and any statement made by Obama against the administration of Ahmadinejad could be twisted by Iranian propaganda to suggest that the United States again interfered with Iran's affairs.



It is of great significance to Iranian politics that twice in the last century an Iranian democratic government was overthrown by the leading nations of the West.  The first occurred when Britain derailed the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906-9 by signing the "Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907."  The move cut Iran into spheres of influence and effectively pushed Iranian politics into a period of chaos, which allowed for the rise of the first Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist until his German ties induced the Allies to depose him in the 1940s.  The second, more well known, event occurred in 1953, when Britain colluded with the CIA to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq.  Both of these events remain firmly lodged in the Iranian mind, and they add to an already long list of foreign meddling, involving everything from the Great Game, to one-sided oil concessions, to the infamous Reuter Concession, which George Curzon, a dedicated imperialist himself, called “the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has probably ever been dreamt of, much less accomplished, in history.”  This deep-rooted suspicion of foreigners helps to explain why Iranians would call the (former) American Embassy a “nest of spies,” and why, more recently, British diplomats and journalists – not to mention BBC Persia – were accused of instigating opposition to Ahmadinejad during the election controversy.  



Clearly, in light of Iranians’ strong suspicion of foreign interference, it would not be wise for Mr. Obama to make any statement or take any action on the election that could feed the Iranian propaganda machine that already operates on half-truths and lies.


Trevor Simmons
Ph.D. Candidate in History, University of Texas at Austin
trevor.m.simmons@gmail.com

John Andrews

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Add comment




  Country flag
biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading