Selective Attention

Today's sham parliamentary election in Iran made me think about the extraordinary inconsistency in attention -- both White House-wise, and media-wise -- paid toward the Persian Gulf.

For example, Amadinejad was in Baghdad at the beginning of the month exchanging vows of solidarity with our so-called allies, but with all those photographers there, somehow, few if any of those pics ever made it over here.

Reformists fight off irrelevance in an election they cannot win (check out the photo, as well -  Guardian)
Iran's orchestrated elections (From the French edition of the International Herald Tribune)
If Democrats Remain Silent on Iraq Now, They Will Pay a Stiff Price in November (Arianna Huffington)

(image 1: Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP.  Baghdad. March 2, 2008.  image 2: Thaier al-Sudani /Reuters. Baghdad. March 2, 2008. via YahooNews)

Comments

[catfood]

Very rarely does the MSM in the U.S. disseminate text or images which contradict the deceptive world view that is the basis of our foreign policy.

I've forgotten, are we currently at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[jtfromBC]

these lads are locked in some,
really heavy duty hand griping !
my oh my, what might it portend ?

[Jacques]

Um, why do you call it a "sham election"? Was that comment meant to be sarcastic?

[The BAG]

Jacques, you might check out the links. "Hard liners" essentially restricted "reformers" from qualifying for the ballot.

[lytom]

How do we judge "sham elections?"
Hmm, the media is famous for doing that right?
How about the elections in US? They are always democratic, right?
How about US forcefully exporting "democracy" and preaching "democracy" to others?
One could make quite a strong judgment about the US, the disdain for constitution, the illegal war on other countries, the existence of Guantanamo, the unequal justice in the courts...
So weeping for others while bombing them first, is hypocrisy.

[jtfromBC]

I am old enough to remember when Iran had a viable democracy and the two Western countries which replaced this trouble-some democracy with a dictator ~ the Shah, which was followed later by the present "Hard liners"

~ however 'evil' one considers the present regime I know of no country which it has invaded.

[MonsieurGonzo]

crossref JC : “It is very hard to see what Bush's political strategy is in Iraq.”

IMHO Mr. Bush's political strategy is to sustain the Occupation of IRAQ, not end it ~ and by doing so sustain the War Powers apparent that enable a Unitary Executive to persist.

The tragedy is that it never was, and has not been to date, about Over There : about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Al-Qaeda 9/11, or OIL, or Sunni- and Shi'ite- and Kurdish- Iraqi people. Foreign Occupation, itself, is a means to an end : it has no ‘end state’ in its intention, in its vision: "What is this place to become when there is no Occupation?" will always be a future tense; So long as this place remains occupied, The Occupation will remain an enemy of the future of this place.

IMHO The blood and treasure cost of the Administration's foreign policy is, for Mr. Bush, a sacrifice necessary for the nation to demonstrate their appreciation of his leadership.

IMHO The only way for anyone to "win" an 'Occupation' is to survive it; The only military strategy that leads to Victory is to end The Mission = Occupation; The only political strategy that will lead to the end of The Occupation of Over There is Over Here, and this political strategy is to end the occupation of the White House by the American leader, Mr. Bush.

The Sunni- and Shi'ite- and Kurdish- Iraqi people have their own destiny to endure, and wondering what our political strategy is for them, is in my humble opinion unhelpful ~ and unnecessary for us to end our occupation of them.

Because if there are any real ‘Wise Men and Women’ remaining in Iraq, the lesson they have already learned from the Americans: is not to invade and occupy other peoples' places; And if you ever find your people being mis-led into doing so, for whatever reason: remove that President ~ by peaceful, Constitutional precedent ~ before ‘The People’, themselves become his people, and ‘The War’, itself becomes his sole Raison d'être, and you find your peoples' souls expendable. . . thus in history written, yet again.