Mahmoud muss zuhause bleiben und kriegt noch eins auf die Nase

Mahmoud wollte eigentlich wieder wegfahren. Weil ihn doch zuhause niemand mehr mag. Und wieder und wieder ist er auf der Landkarte die Länder mit dem Finger abgefahren, wo man ihn empfangen könnte. Syrien, sagt er sich, Mist, da war ich doch letzte Woche schon wieder. Auch Mahmoud weiß, daß er selbst die Geduld seiner besten Freunde nicht mehr überstrapazieren darf. Da hat er eine Idee! Als Repräsentant der allerbedeutensten Regionalmacht der Welt und als Führer der künftigen Supermacht Iran könnte er doch mal in Kabul vorbeischauen. Weltpolitik machen, dummes Zeug erzählen und alle im Westen drucken es wieder einmal nach! Er gerät ins Schwärmen….

Press TV: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has postponed a trip to Afghanistan devoted to providing „solutions for settling the problems“ in Iran’s eastern neighbor.
The one-day visit, originally scheduled for Monday, would be the President’s first visit to Afghanistan since both he and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai were re-elected last year.
„President Ahmadinejad won’t be coming to Kabul,“ an informed source at the Karzai’s office told Press TV on condition of anonymity.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the source added, has, however, arrived in Afghanistan on Monday morning on an unannounced visit.

Tja, und was sagt der amerikanische Verteidigungsminister aus Kabul in Richtung des kurzfristig Ausgeladenen:

Karzai Fraud & Washington Accepts the Lie.

The dogged, dangerous diplomat, Peter Galbraith, former deputy of the UN mission in Afghanistan that was in charge of the recent presidential elections, has now launched a frontal assault on the UN, his former boss in Kabul, the Norwegian UN diplomat Kai Eide, and on the US envoy Richard Holbrooke as well, by declaring in copy and on TV in London and Washington that Hamid Karzai stole the election, that the election results are fraudlent, and that the UN, NATO and the US are going…

READ MORE/SEE VIDEO

Wahlen als Ersatz für den Bürgerkrieg? Wohlgemerkt bei uns da drüben…

Amir Taheri bearbeitet diese Frage anschaulich und nennt die Gründe dafür:

… Normally, what counts at the end of an election is what the winner proposes to do with his victory. After all, the winner wins control of the resources of the state plus the right to set the national agenda. However, there are circumstances in which what matters is what the loser intends to do with his defeat.

This was the situation we faced in Iran– last June.

Hours after the voting had ended what mattered most was not what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the officially declared winner, said or did but the attitude of the loser, Mir-Hussein Mousavi.

Mousavi refused to accept his status as loser and used his defeat to anoint himself as the moral winner.

The implicit message was simple: Ahmadinejad may have won physical control of government but it was Mousavi who commanded the true loyalties of a majority of Iranians.