U.S. contradictory on foreign elections - critics

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The hostile U.S. reaction to the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's next president opens President Bush to the charge he supports elections only when they produce winners he likes, analysts critical of the administration said on Monday.

"The Bush administration's democracy policy is rife with contradictions and double standards and that undercuts its credibility in the Middle East and the world," said Thomas Carothers, head of the democracy and rule of law projection for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"Clearly one could legitimately criticize some of the democratic procedures in Iran. But the administration has just sounded snarly and dismissive," Carothers said.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Bush said, "It's never free and fair when a group of people, unelected people, get to decide who's on the ballot."

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iran_usa_democracy_dc_1

[justinsb]

1. I still haven't seen a single credible source

critisizing the Iranian elections. Bush, Rich and the guy who lost have all be crying foul but none of the international monitoring agencies have said anything yet.

[StevieM]

4. These elections in Iran were not free and fair.....

The Mullas picked the candidates allowed to run. And there was massive vote tampering in the first round.

I agree that the U.S. has a history of only encouraging democracy when we like the person who wins. We've even had coups against democracies: Iran, Chile, Nicaragua. And Bush didn't like the Palestinians selection of Arafat so he stopped working with him, demanded he appoint a prime minister, and then declared Arafat "the former leader" of the P.A.

And, of course, in Iraq all candidates must be approved by us. So we're no innocent in this regards.

But let's not let Iran use those facts to cover the truth about their own country. The people hate the regime, they couldn't win an election to save their lives and they got their asses kicked in repeated elections, only to refuse to allow the reformist agenda to go through.

Steve

[justinsb]

5. All I'm saying is

That I'd like to see an independent report. The opinion of the losing candidate is of limited value and the opinion of Rice and Bush is worth squat.

[patdem]

7. Yes, in Iran it is the Mullas, in America it is the corporations...HOWEVER

if Frist wins the republican nomination AND the presidency..then it will be the America Mullas vs the Iranian Mullas...see what I mean?

[LynnTheDem]

8. Like Haiti? Where bush was involved in regime-changing a democratically

elected leader?

[StevieM]

10. ICAM about Haiti, we overthrew a democratically elected leader...

I just forgot to include that one on my list, along with the three other countries I mentioned. It was definitely a reprehensible thing that Bush did.

Steve

[K-W]

6. Dont misunderstand, Iran's elections were intensly flawed.

But the point is that all elections are flawed to some extent and the Bush administration takes advantage of this fact to blanketly condemn Iranian elections while praising equally or more flawed elections elsewhere because they show signs of democracy.

[VegasWolf]

2. "It's never free and fair when a group of people, unelected people,

get to decide" He must be talking about the US Supreme Court.

[gratuitous]

3. What? Mr. Steely-Eyed Steady and Sure endorsing contradictory positions?

What, oh what will we tell the children? How can I explain to my children (if any there be) that the President takes different positions on elections depending on whether the election produces a winner he likes or not?

[Supersedeas]

9. Venezula Iran Spain - democracy can be so damned inconvenient