When George W. Bush won a disputed and controversial election in 2000, many on the left were quick to throw around words like "stolen," "rigged," and "illegitimate." Despite the fact that a media recount showed Bush widening his vote lead in Florida, to this day liberals feel no qualms about claiming that Bush stole the election and shredded the Constitution.
Contrast that with the hesitance of many of those same individuals to refer to the election in Iran with the same terminology. They caution that we should not jump to conclusions or make hasty statements. We should refrain from rhetoric that would make the situation worse. Why does this situation call for patience and understanding, while the other demanded the toughest of words?
How can you refuse to accept an election in one of the freest nations in the history of civilization, yet be somewhat trusting a murderous, racist, terror-supporting, theocratic dictator would participate in a fair election. It strikes me as odd, and a bit troubling, that so many in our country are more accepting of votes in states with dictators (Iran, Venezuela, Saddam's Iraq, etc.) than they are of America's elections.
