Are "Zionist-run
news media" unfairly covering the results of the Iranian election?
According to this editorial from the Islamic Republic's conservative,
state-controlled Kayhan newspaper, "the
illegal demonstrators, foreign spies and terrorists are wasting their time trying
to overturn the will of the majority."
Zionist-run news media continue to take sides, favoring the
defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi and the illegal demonstrators who are destroying
public and private property. And they are doing so under the pretext of
protesting the official presidential election results that show Mousavi losing
to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by a 2-to-1 margin.
For example, New York
Times editors and other Western commentators are adopting Mousavi's ill-tempered
position of rejecting the notion of a partial vote recount by the Guardian
Council, which oversees elections under the Iranian Constitution. Instead, the
Mousavi camp is demanding an entirely new election! “Even a full recount would
be suspect,” The New York Timesclaimed in an
editorial. “How could anyone be sure that the ballots were valid?”
Funny how the very same editorial and many others go on to
state that the resistance of Mousavi and his backers to a partial or complete
recount suggests something else: they fear that a recount would show President
Ahmadinejad winning.
Despite the vehemence of Mousavi’s supporters regarding what
they claim is his rightful victory, they have good reason to question their
certainty. Certain electoral complaints, already legend, quickly crack under
objective scrutiny.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
For instance, the complaint about a hasty claim of an
Ahmadinejad victory ignores the fact that Mousavi was out with a declaration of
his own victory shortly after the polls closed and hours before Ahmadinejad’s
announcement! Hours later, partial results showed Ahmadinejad in the lead.
Another favorite notion - that Ahmadinejad couldn't have
carried Azari-dominated districts because Mousavi was an Azari - is countered
by findings of an extensive nationwide poll conducted by American experts in
mid-May, which showed Azaris favoring Ahmadinejad by about 2-to-1. The poll - described
in a Washington Post op-ed by two
of its reporters, Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty, also noted that high-tech
methods of communication so central to the illegal demonstrations in Tehran
aren't widespread throughout country, with only 1 in 3 Iranians having access
to the Internet.
Ballen and Doherty also discovered that, contrary to widespread
Western impressions, “Iranian youth overwhelmingly favored Ahmadinejad and that
of all age groups, the 18-to-24-year-olds comprised Ahmadinejad's strongest
voting bloc.”
Mousavi's support was concentrated among the urban middle
class, while Ahmadinejad was more a candidate of the poor who have benefited
from government support and other development programs.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
In summation, the majority of the Iranian nation really did
vote for Ahmadinejad. As confessed by many independent American experts and
organizations, the illegal demonstrators, foreign spies and terrorists are
wasting their time trying to overturn the will of the majority. Under the
circumstances, The New York Times, The Times and all other Western news
media are better off - and could save face - by supporting the constructive
efforts of the Guardian Council to get at the facts, rather than taking sides
and questioning the effectiveness of Iran's
religious democracy.
