Iranian leaders say they have obtained confessions from top reformist officials that they plotted to bring down the government with a “velvet” revolution. Such confessions, almost always extracted under duress, are part of an effort to recast the civil unrest set off by Iran’s disputed presidential election as a conspiracy orchestrated by foreign nations, human rights groups say.
One of the reasons President Obama was correct to make measured public statements that condemned the violence against and suppression of dissenting points of view.
In 2007, Iran produced a pseudo-documentary called “In the Name of Democracy,” which served as a vehicle to highlight what it called confessions of three academic researchers charged with trying to overthrow the state. “They don’t like new ideas to get to Iran,” said a researcher once investigated about his work, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “They don’t like social and cultural figures in Iranian society to become very popular.”
Amazing how much the Iranian hardliner propaganda sounds something out of the Bush-Rove playbook.
In the continuing saga of the Big Librul media myth, the NYT in that very good story about the retaliation against Iranian moderates, does not hesitate to use the word torture to describe Iranian government behavior, but hesitates to do so when describing the same behavior of the Bush administration.
This morning’s Wall Street Journal opinion section contains a lot of what one expects to see. There’s an opinion piece making a big fuss over the fake scandal at the EPA. There’s an editorial claiming that the latest job figures prove the failure of Obama’s economic plan — something I dealt with in the Times. All of this follows on yesterday’s editorial asserting that the Minnesota senatorial election was stolen.
All of this is par for the course; the WSJ editorial page has been like this for 35 years. Nonetheless, it got me wondering: what do these people really believe?
I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth.
There is a lot of interesting speculation, ranging from good snark to the more thoughtful, here. There are probably multiple answers to the question of what is it exactly the constant stream of lies is about and what that says about modern conservatism’s belief system, but one attitude that seems ubiquitous is summed up by the character Rankin Fitch in John Grisham’s Runaway Jury, “Gentlemen, trials are too important to be left up to juries.” Juries, ideally are supposed to be in objective mode, listening to and carefully weighing the evidence. One aspect of a healthy democracy is listening to the evidence about the issues – global warming, health-care, national security, quality education, etc and making the best judgment. What are all the right-wing radio hate mongers, Fox, the editorial page of the WSJ, the Heritage Foundation and far right organizations like the Family Research Council about. Manipulating the jury: they believe America and its institutions are too important to be trusted to genuine democracy. Presenting evidence made out of hot air by the noise machine ( when they’re not hiding evidence) because they’re afraid that given the truth and facts, then trusting the jury, the jury will find against the Right.
Calmer but no less nasty was the assessment of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which insisted that the Democrat had somehow hijacked the Senate seat from the rightful Republican victor. “Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election,” said the editorial, without deigning to mention that Republicans in Minnesota, including the governor, had effectively vetted the recount and canvassing from Election Day forward, up to the final Supreme Court decision.
[ ]…In fact, Franken is considerably brighter and far more stable than his enemies, a group whose public behavior and personal conduct are replete with embarrassment, not to mention disgrace. Unlike many of them, he has a solid marriage and raised two outstanding children who adore him — a personal accomplishment that belies the ugly nonsense about his “anger” and “bitterness.” It is the Fox loudmouths who are bitter, no doubt remembering the day their company’s stupid lawsuit against Franken was laughed out of court…
The deeply bizarre notion that Franken somehow stole the election is like the Right’s obsession over Obama’s birth certificate. Its a way for them to rationalize away the fact that more people liked the moderate candidate over the erratic behavior and empty suit syndrome of their guy. Reality continues to be a sore point for many Republicans.