June 15, 2009, - 12:12 pm

Much Ado About Nothing in Iran

By Debbie Schlussel
The most outrageous comment I’ve heard yet about the Iranian elections is one uttered by Michigan’s Communist U.S. Senator Carl Levin on a Detroit radio station, this morning.

Well, more people voted in the Iranian elections than in the U.S. elections. They had a higher turn out in Iran. 80%.

HUH? HUH?! HUH????!!!!
This U.S. Senator is comparing the United States with a totalitarian regime and somehow implying that they are better, more democratic, more committed to free elections. . . because they had a higher percentage of turnout (a forced-by-the-totalitarian-state turnout) at the polls of a fake election run and orchestrated by a theocracy? Absurd. Ludicrous. Ridiculous.



Say Nice Things About Senator Carl Levin & Mir Hossein Moussavi

The whole Iranian election scene is a farce. Even more of a farce is the pandering by all of the cable news networks–CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc.–to the supporters of this radical Mir Hossein Mousavi who lost, as if they are some sort of liberty and freedom movement, some semblance of moderation. They are anything but.
On the other hand, the news coverage–on the left AND on the right and all over the mainstream media–pandering to these Iranian supporters of Moussavi is incredibly, jaw-droppingly ignorant–acting as though, if Moussavi had “won,” it would somehow be a legit election and somehow this guy would actually be the “moderate” they pretend that he is, but isn’t.
Moussavi is every bit as committed to development of Iran’s nukes–a program HE started–as Ahmadinejad. He is every bit as anti-Israel and committed to attacking Israel as Ahmadinejad. And, like Ahmadinejad, he was picked as a candidate for this election by the Ayatollahs who run Iran and who would run Iran no matter what. And only an ignoramus would ignore the fact that Moussavi was part of the Iranian “revolution,” which brought the Ayatollah Khomeini back to power from exile in France and which brought our embassies and plenty of Americans to a hostage situation consisting of over a year in captivity.
Any protest or outrage over the victory or loss of either Ahmadinejad or Moussavi on the part of the West is like America being upset that one HAMAS candidate lost to another HAMAS candidate who has Tourette’s Syndrome.
Calling Moussavi a “reformer” or “moderate” reminds me of when, about a decade ago, a cornucopia of “learned,” “astute” (but actually completely clueless and ignorant, per usual) American political analysts called then-Iranian President (and now “Supreme Leader” and Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei a “moderate” and a “reformer,” but he never turned out to be that. And they said the same about Iranian ex-President Mohammad Khatami. In fact, both turned out to be radicals with a nice smile, which anyone could have figured out, since they were installed by the Ayatollahs.
While most of CNN’s reporting predictably didn’t recognize the truth about Moussavi and his “reformer” followers (who are anything but), at least CNN’s website does:

He also was a hard-liner whom the Economist described as a “firm radical.”
He, like most Iranians in power, does not believe in the existence of Israel. He defended the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979, which led to the break in ties between the countries.
He was part of a regime that regularly executed dissidents and backed the fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie.
And as late as April, he opposed suspending the country’s nuclear-enrichment program but said it would not be diverted to weapons use.
“I wouldn’t go as far as (call it) a ‘Velvet Revolution,'” Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said of the phrase many are using to describe the rallies in Iran.
“At the end of the day, Moussavi has been more involved and been there from the very beginning of the revolution in a way that Ahmadinejad never was,” Parsi told “CNN Newsroom” on Sunday. “Moussavi was one of the founders of the revolution.”

And while an Iran with Moussavi atop of it, would be no different than an Iran with Ahmadinejad at the top in terms of policy and radicalism, it might have been more dangerous. That’s because Moussavi thinks all of the same things as Ahamadinejad, but he’s not prone to stating these nutty views out in the open. We would be stuck negotiating with a kinder, gentler face of a man who is, privately, every bit as committed to the idea of Holocaust denial and Holocaust cartoons.
So, I don’t really care what happened over the weekend in the fake Iranian elections. To me, it’s the equivalent of two competing ants pissing. I couldn’t care less.
If anything, I’m glad the guy with the perpetual truth serum–who tells us exactly what they’re thinking about the Jews, Israel, nukes, and America–is the guy that’s still in there.
He’ll make it much tougher–and far less palatable to the American and Western public–for Barack Hussein Obama to sit at the table with him.

19 Responses

80 percent voter turnout in Iran! Big deal. Saddam Hussein had, what was it, 95 or was it 99 percent turnout? Remember that? Voter turnout means nothing in a fascist or totalitarian state.

norman on June 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Thank you, Debbie, for slapping us back to reality.

arius on June 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm

But massive protests are a good thing.

sandy on June 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Here it is and I thought they were rioting after the Lakers Championship. I thought LakerNation went global.
If they cant replace their Muslim leader, they can have ours.

californiascreaming on June 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm

I agree with your comments about Moussavi. However, this was an IRG “coup”, no doubt about it. The mullahs are no longer in charge. For quite some time, the IRG has been infiltrating key bureaucracies, in a sort of slow motion coup Khamenei’s post-election statement was likely written by Dinnerjacket. Make no mistake, Dinner and top IRG generals now run Iran.
The question is now, will Obama allow Iran to take over the ME, which is clearly the intent. If so, Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco will likely become Iranian vassals. Is the incipient Turkish/Iranian alliance aimed at Europe? Will Obama defend Europe against Russia and Turkey/Iran, or will Europe become subservient to Eastern Powers as well.
Meanwhile, LatAm is falling apart. Will Obama let hostile powers carve up the world bit by bit?

sonomaca on June 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm

I agree 150% with you this one Debbie, another family the Levin’s screwing the tax payers every chance they get and yet this gut could not run a lemonade stand. When will real people get to run for office and do the right thing? We need to stop anyone who wants to run from office from spending their own money. They should be given the same amount of money and they are not allowed to use their own money or other money and may the best person win. This would stop the franchise of political hack families like the Kennedyís the Levinís the Bushís and so forth and so on. Itís time to cleanse the political landscape!

ohboyohboy on June 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm

The was no real difference between the Islamist candidates in Iran. But it says something about the nature of the regime that it had to steal the election for its favored candidate who was expected to win any way. The Iranian regime isn’t bothered to observe its own constitution and laws; why would any one in the world think they would have scruples towards Israel? Tehran’s brazen behavior is a wake-up call to a clueless and indiffident West.

NormanF on June 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Agree & Thanks Debbie. It sure seems seems little matter if it is crazy mullahs or IRG running Iran with crazy monster#1 or crazy monster#2. I am glad to see i am not the only one calling him “dinnerjacket” i use his full title: “Eichman-in-a-dinner-jacket”

crazycatkids on June 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm

A civil war in Iran would sure be useful though.
Anything unfortunate happening to the leadership would be welcome news as well.

akak on June 15, 2009 at 4:07 pm

It is amazing that the Iranian regime had to steal an election away from one of its own handpicked candidates. This was a very foolish move in that it was done so crudely. As for Carl Levin, it is long past time for the people of Michigan to retire this guy. Why does Michigan keep inflicting this mountebank on the country? 🙂

Worry01 on June 15, 2009 at 4:58 pm

I plead ignorance but in the WALL STREET JOURNAL FRIDAY THEY WERE COMPARING THE CANDITATES and this is what was said in terms of the economy between the two canditates.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL compared the two canditates the mad man Ahmadinejad and his opponent Mousavi. It is on page A7 of Friday June 12th’s WSJ. They compared each on the economy and this is each views.
Ahmadeinejad: Promises to share Iran’s oil wealth with poorer Iranians and launch gov’t backed programs to stimulate the economy.(pure marxism hiding behind the poor for his own power)
Mousavi: Says he won’t follow a ‘charity policy.’ Favors more private entreprise and using oil revenues to draw investments. (sounds reasonable to me although is this just talk I don’t know.
So it Mousavi making this up. Also Ahmadeinejad rhetoric is likely more extreme then most antisemites who wouldn’t go so far to deny the holocaust. I would think anyone would be better then Ahmadeinejad and from reading the article in the wall street Journal on Friday it sounded like they did have some differences and he may not be AS BAD AS AHMADEINEJAD. Could you comment on the article in the Wall Street Journal Friday comparing the canditates.

adam6275 on June 15, 2009 at 7:08 pm

As i blogged today, i tend to disagree!!!
OF COURSE IT WAS FIXED…and as Obama slowly becomes GW Jr, like Iran there is no REAL changing of the guard…but there is A CHANGING OF ATTITUDES!
Thanks to the internet, we’re truly becoming a global village, and the coverage by the “news” channels of this historic event was PATHETIC.

EminemsRevenge on June 15, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Obama has become the anti-Reagan. No more “tear down this wall” rhetoric. This is a potentially historic moment, when this fanatical regime could be toppled, and the US gives absolutely no assist. It’s shameful and pathetic that America no longer seeks to help free enslaved peoples. This could have been Obama’s defining moment, and he blew it.

sonomaca on June 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Actually, sonomaca, BHO didn’t “blow it,” he bit down hard on the hook the Iranians offered him (i.e., he took the bait) and flopped his worthless self on stage to talk about how there was the possibility of “change” going on in Iran with this “election,” that he was responsible (thanks to his pathetic little apology/speech in Cairo, Egypt) and that we (the USA) were ready to sit down and talk with whomever “won” the “election.”
Sucker!!! BHO apparently believed that the “election” might swing the way of the “moderate,” whom he might presumably sway more easily than the hard-liner, Accccchhhhhhma-whatever. In fact, the mullahs fooled him (a willing fool, if there ever was one!), he “bit,” and the rest, as they say, is history. Sorry, Barry, but the little midget dictator was going to triumph all along (the mullahocracy said so)!
As for that piece of human debris, Sen. (so-called) Carl Levin: remember, Senator, Joe Stalin got 99.99% of the “vote,” something you’ll never see; indeed, we can only hope that you get something like 5% of the vote in your next re-election, lest you and the rest of the idiots in this Congress utterly destroy the greatest nation on Earth (for how much longer, who can say? But it doesn’t look too good right now).

theendisnear on June 15, 2009 at 10:10 pm

This is exactly the sort of foolish pandering, an engagement with the “lesser evil” that has wrought havoc upon the civilized peoples of the world. First, America encouraged the Islamists in an anxious desire to fight Communists, then we engaged with the so-called Moderates (Fatah, Musharraf, Iraqi Shias, the “moderate Taliban,” etc), to fend off the Extremists. This disease is not that new, it started with the British encouraging “Arab Nationalism” to destroy the Turks (See Lawrence of Arabia), and the forces of Muslim Separatism in India to keep the India’s Hindu Nationalists at bay.
It’s the same old failure to understand: Our enemy’s enemy is still an enemy; the lesser evil is still an evil.
This constant misguided attempt to “understand and tolerate” the so-called religion of piece-meal expansionism, will be bane of future societies.

sharmajee on June 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Debbie, Rachel Maddow did a segment on Iran and got all worried about the election fraud. Maybe he thinks the new guy would hang homosexuals from a lower platform. He also had Howard Dean on to denounce Obama’s support of DOMA, during which Dick Cheney finally got some positive spin on account of his gay daughter angle. What I really want to know is who would name ther son Rachel.

Anonymous1 on June 15, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Miss Schlussel:
That photograph of the dog with the revolver aimed at his head is hilarious!
It’s the look on the dog’s face that cracks me up.
Where can I get a copy?
Is that from a movie?
Thank you.
John Robert Mallernee
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Washington, D.C. 20011-8400

writesong on June 16, 2009 at 3:37 am

I also read on that, Moussavi was also a founder of Hizbullah

Also, not only are you right about Ali Khamenei, but remember, when Ahmadinejad first ran against Rafsanjani, the latter was held up as a moderate, despite the fact that he was speaker of the Iranian majlis under AYATOLLAH KHOMENEI. Somehow, even Osama will be a moderate w/ these guys if it happens one day that there is a split between him and Zawahiri, and the latter happens to be more extreme

Infidel Pride on June 15, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Debbie is, of course, correct. It did not matter who won. I did not know this, but I have recently read where Moussavi had a hand informing Hizbullah. More importantly, the most “moderate” President Iran has ever had blew up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina (and if I am not mistaken there is still an international arrest warrant out for him because of that).
Because of all this I believe something smells here (besides a fraudulent election). I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something going on that everyone is missing. The only thing I can think of is that everything going on (including the protests) was pre-planned by the Mullahs. I don’t know why, and it is very possible that I am wrong. However, something is definitely being manipulated here (beyond the election itself). I wonder what it is.

i_am_me on June 16, 2009 at 9:08 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field