Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez

by Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka
$18.45

more items

 
Report

Learning to Live With the Devil We Know

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 16, 2009
AP photo / Ben Curtis

Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad react as he speaks at a rally in Vali Asr Square in Tehran on Sunday.

By Scott Ritter

(Page 2)

Was there fraud involved in Iran’s presidential election? Almost certainly. One might argue that the heavy-handed involvement of unelected clerics in determining who gets to run for office in and of itself makes a fraud of the democratic process. A similar argument, however, could be made about the exclusivity of the two-party system in the United States today, and yet very few media pundits question the viability of America’s democratic system of government. The Western media, inflamed by sentiment and prejudice coming from the politically disaffected in northern Tehran, have underscored the fact that Iran’s Ministry of Interior is run by a close ally of Ahmadinejad. Given the blatant political partisanship and cronyism which have been witnessed in every major election in the United States, such observations coming out of Iran should carry little weight. We like to judge nations like Iran, especially when their elections don’t go the way we or our political allies desire, while turning a blind eye to the corruption and other manifestations of human imperfection in the American political system. The U.S. is a country, after all, where it costs a billion dollars to become president.

The undisputable fact remains that in the lead-up to Friday’s controversial presidential elections, scientific polling conducted by Western organizations such as the New America Foundation showed Ahmadinejad with a comfortable lead over Mousavi in all 30 of Iran’s provinces. Mousavi appeared to have captured the imagination of the Western press and punditry. But it is increasingly clear that, unless findings to the contrary are brought forward, he did not capture the votes of the majority of the Iranian people. The presence of tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters in the streets of Tehran does nothing to change this reality. The Western media’s repeated citation of unnamed sources claiming a Mousavi victory represents shoddy journalism and wishful thinking, nothing more.

The world needs to collectively move past the controversy of the Iranian elections and accept the reality that, like him or not, President Ahmadinejad will be the “democratically elected” face of Iran for the next four years. Regardless, the fact remains that there are two other individuals in Iran who hold real power, and with whom the West must engage if progress on the serious issues of Iran’s nuclear program, as well as peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be had. These are the speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Ali Larijani, and the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both of these men possess more constitutional power than does the Iranian president, and as such both are far more important and influential when it comes to impacting the critical issues which define Iran’s relationship with the West, Iran’s nuclear program first and foremost. America and the West need to learn to live with the devil we know—Ahmadinejad—all the while recognizing that the Iranian president, while a nuisance, does not hold the key to improved relations. Western media ought to spend more time focusing on the realities of Iran’s political system and less time facilitating the spread of increasingly partisan gossip.

The Iranian presidential election will continue to dominate the imagination—and headlines—of the Western media for the next few weeks. But unless some dramatic new information emerges which proves widespread election fraud, the reality is that the Guardian Council will, in the next 10 days, certify Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the legally elected president of Iran. After this happens, life in Iran will gradually return to normal, and the political protests so earnestly covered by the West will take on the character of a tempest in a teapot. Mir Hossein Mousavi will disappear from the front pages of the leading newspapers, replaced by far more important subjects, such as Iran’s nuclear program. The sooner this happens, the better, because from the standpoint of international peace and security, how the world manages Iran’s nuclear ambition is far more important than who claims the title of president of Iran.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and military intelligence officer. He is the author of numerous books, including “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change.” This week, Ritter’s “Dinner With Ahmed” was recognized by the Los Angeles Press Club as the best online article of the year.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Chris Dornan, June 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am coming a little late, but it looks as if Scott may have been a little early!  I was quite prepared to take exactly the line of this article but all the evidence points to the fact that they didn’t even bother to count the vote—the numbers are totally incredible.

In any case, we should be striving to make a constructive contribution, and engage with whoever ends up in charge!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 20, 2009 at 5:39 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 19 at 11:49 pm #

ITW writes: “The fact that the CIA worked closely with SAVAK is a sad fact of our history, not “proof” that I “hate the USA”. “

But that your insistence on blaming the CIA entirely (because you refuse to admit saintly Israel’s substantial role) shows where your loyalty really lies.
*****************************

It shows nothing of the sort. I WANT my nation to clean up its act.  I want the Nixonian and Reagan and Cheney eras where violations of human rights were considered valid to be ended forever.

It is valid to criticize the faults of America. It is not valid to assume everything bad in the world must come from the United States or Israel.

By your definition, Pete Seeger, as patriot and as critical as an American can be, is a traitor too.

The Nixonian CIA engaged in many illegal acts, like overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile and training the Junta under Pinochet in torture techniques.  Cheney is the direct descendant of that mindset.  It is a cancer on our nation’s soul.

Do we blame the body for the cancer?

You are a deliberate liar, EH, and you know it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the violent suppression of the protests are about to begin.  DESPITE EH and FT asserting it’s all US and Israel fomented, the Mayor of Teheran estimated Monday’s demonstration by the opposition at 3 million!  NO demonstration in the US since before WWII ever came close to that.  The leaders are terrified and are planning to use bullets to stop it, as I have said they would.

Yet the apologists who claim the election was “fair” seem to think the US and Israel could have fomented that….despite how illogical that assertion is.

Report this

By Shingo, June 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges,

While Israel’s hands are not entirely clean, anyone could have been asked to train the Savak, so in that reagrd, Israel were contracted to do it.  Mind you, one could argue that the reason Israel were given the job to do it was becasue they are experts in Getspo tactics.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

ITW writes: “The fact that the CIA worked closely with SAVAK is a sad fact of our history, not “proof” that I “hate the USA”. “

But that your insistence on blaming the CIA entirely (because you refuse to admit saintly Israel’s substantial role) shows where your loyalty really lies.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2009 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

Harges, now you are flat-out resorting to lying and you know it.  And your side-kick is helping you out with it.

The fact that the CIA worked closely with SAVAK is a sad fact of our history, not “proof” that I “hate the USA”. 

You are such a dogmatic and didactic anti-semitic asshole who is so narrow-minded you can look through a keyhole with both eyes.  You and your ditto-head.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Virginia777, June 19 at 5:46 pm:

Virginia and Robert: agreed. It’s impressive the way the Iranians are not standing for it. And think about this: it looks like Ahmadinejad’s cheating didn’t even change the outcome —  it only widened the official margin of his victory. And yet this is enough to get the Iranian people hopping mad. Contrast this with the US: the GOP’s cheating actually stole the election, but there was barely a peep of unrest from the American sheeple.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 19, 2009 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

“But over and over again, ITW shows himself willing to ascribe the origin of evil to the US”

I’ve noticed other Zionist trolls doing this as well. Its all a part of their destructive intent.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

and Robert, I’m green with envy too!

Americans sat on their ass and let a far worse, far more destructive dictator run their country into the ground with his gang of thieves, George W. Bush!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

ITW writes:

” already addressed the issue that “The Contingent” “knows” to be true, blaming Israel (as usual) for SAVAK, rather than the CIA.”

This illustrates so much about ITW, it really does.

(1) First of all, I never blamed Israel entirely for the SAVAK. I said that Israel’s Mossad was deeply involved in training the Savak, and it certainly was, beginning in the early 1960s. The CIA was also involved, especially earlier. The US and Israel (and Britain, by the way) share the blame for the Shah’s terrible reign. So ITW’s tendency to presume is on display here.

(2) But notice that ITW shifts the blame ENTIRELY to the US. This is particularly amusing, because ITW is fond of calling me “hostile to the US”. He’s fond of accusing me, for example, of harboring affection for Ahmadinejad, solely because the latter is “hostile to the US”. But over and over again, ITW shows himself willing to ascribe the origin of evil to the US, to an extent that not even I can endorse, especially when it’s convenient for deflecting blame from dear little Israel.

ITW, you are more “hostile to the US” than I. It shows, for example, in your “lazy WASP” stereotyping, and in your tired, hackneyed, highly selective Jewish liberalism which is grounded not in a real appreciation for universal human rights (a concept that directly contradicts your Zionism), but rather in traditional Jewish hostility and resentment against the so-called WASPs. You never wanted real justice; what you wanted was to change places with the hated elite and be the elite yourselves.

Drop the pretense, ITW, and please leave actual, principled, liberalism to those of us who are not warped by your ulterior motives.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 19, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

you got that right, Ed Harges, they are trying as hard as they can to make Iran their next military crusade.

(trolls included, although I think they might want to think about retiring ITW).

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

Ed Head:

I already addressed the issue that “The Contingent” “knows” to be true, blaming Israel (as usual) for SAVAK, rather than the CIA.  It’s so nice and convenient even though it just doesn’t fit facts…but that shouldn’t bother you.  “Facts” are no more or less than what you say they are, but I’m tired of having to repeat myself.  One simple sentence: The chronology doesn’t fit.

BTW, Ed, despite your obvious bias toward the opposite, Israel did NOT set off the Tsunami a couple of years ago that hit South East Asia.  Nor did Israel trigger Hurricane Katrina, has as it may be for you to believe….

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Here’s what it looks like happened in Iran: it looks like Ahmadinejad really did cheat AND he really did win.

It looks like he and some of his supporters lost perspective, got caught up in the flashy Mousavi hype (generated both locally and internationally with lots of lavish, hi-tech connivance and espionage by Israel and the US), began to fear that Ahmadinejad might lose, and cheated on his behalf. The richest, most internet-connected, media-savvy voters, with the loudest megaphones, favored Mousavi. They made themselves seem like an overwhelming wave of change. But then a funny thing happened: Ahmadinejad - who was always likely to win anyway, according to scientific pre-election polls - actually DID win, but the cheating bumped his margin of victory up to a level that made the whole thing look fishy and provoked mass protests.

This was not the minimalist election-stealing of the GOP in Florida 2000 - just enough to put their guy over the top, in an election that was clearly very close. This was crude cheating on behalf of a candidate who was probably going to win big anyway.

There is much reason to consider Ahmadinejad’s win to be legitimate or at least plausible. Besides the scientific pre-election poll, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, that showed Ahmadinejad with a better than 2-to-1 advantage, there are lots of other reasons to consider his victory plausible. An Iranian friend explains to journalist Robert Fisk:

“The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad.” …

“You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad’s supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 19, 2009 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Gideon Levy on demonstrations there, silence here

The unrest in Iran makes me green with envy

06.18.2009 | Haaretz

By Gideon Levy


“It’s true, there is liberty in Israel, but only for us, the Jews. We have a regime that is no less tyrannical than the ayatollahs’ regime: the regime of the officers and the settlers in the territories. But what do we have to do with any of this? In Iran, police disperse demonstrations with violence, they shoot and kill. And what do we do?

When you get a chance, go on Friday to Na’alin or Bil’in and see what happens there. Demonstrators are killed here with similar brutality, but in Iran the crowd is standing up to a tyrannical regime, while here only a handful of brave people stand up to the Border Police, who are firing weapons. Moreover, we hardly write anything about the protest being silenced with bullets. It interests no one, and this, too, is called democracy.

A democracy is not tested only with elections. A democracy is measured in everyday life. National aims are not achieved only through power hungry politicians; the street must also speak. In the latest polls, 64 percent of Israelis say they support a two-state solution. Great. But when Israel moves steadily away from such a solution, when the prime minister takes a small step forward but then raises more and more impossible obstacles, no one thinks to do anything. Have you heard a single political conversation recently? Nothing.

One can only imagine what would have happened if the day after Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, that same silent and paralyzed majority that allegedly wants two states had taken to the streets to demand an end to the occupation. Or if they demanded that we say yes to the Arab peace initiative. What a boost that would have been, a genuine wind of change on whose strength Barack Obama, Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and Bashar Assad could move forward together.

But when the street is silent, only the leaders are left, and their survival drives them.

Israel is now at a fateful crossroads, no less than Iran. An opportunity lies before it that will not be seen again, one that affects the future of all its people no less than the election results in Iran affect the Iranians’ fate. Missing the opportunity here will be just as decisive as four more years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power. But look what is happening in totalitarian Iran and what is happening here, the sole democracy in the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.”


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/gideon-levy-on-demonstrations-there-silence-here/

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

re: By Inherit The Wind, June 19 at 9:09 am :

My dear Mr. Inherently Windy, you totally failed to address the substance of my post. You were claiming that the Shah was kinder to dissenters than the current government of Iran, and I called you on that, because it’s a complete lie. The Shah’s regime was at least as brutal as (and far more undemocratic than) the current government of Iran.

And furthermore, your precious “light unto the nations” Israel was deeply involved in helping the US-installed Shah to terrorize his own people. As I said (and you ignored), Israel’s Mossad was deeply involved in “training” the Savak, the Shah’s ubiquitous, vicious, torturing secret police.

Report this

By Jason!!, June 19, 2009 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Word to Obama: The political unrest in Iran does not represent a dilemma: it presents an opportunity.


Thats right. Obama’s Phony Iran Dilemma:


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32361

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2009 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 19 at 8:40 am #

ITW writes:

  “But then the dictatorship will rear its ugly Tienanmen Square head and, unlike the Shah, unleash murderous fire on its own people.”

Oh, don’t make me laugh, ITW. The Shah’s dictatorship [which was more truly a dictatorship than Iran’s current government] “unleashed murderous fire on its own people” aplenty, for example in the form of mass imprisonments and routine, baroque tortures — and Israel’s Mossad was deeply involved in “training” the Savak, the Shah’s vicious secret police.
**************************************

There’s nothing funny about it.  Khamanei is already issuing threats against the protesters. The Basij, his equivalent of Nazi Brownshirts are already identifying protesters during the day and murdering them at night.  They are starting to act as strike-breakers to end demonstrations, provoking violence in advance of the police, an old tactic.

I expect within days he’s going to move tanks in and have them fire on the protesters, like the Chinese did (I’ll bet YOU think the Chinese government was justified in THAT too!)  I also expect protesters will start wearing masks to prevent the Basij ID’ing them.

Either that or the clerics will back the demonstrations and Khamanei will be history—they already hate him and think he’s unqualified to speak with God’s Voice for the Shi’ia.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2009 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

ITW writes:

“But then the dictatorship will rear its ugly Tienanmen Square head and, unlike the Shah, unleash murderous fire on its own people.”

Oh, don’t make me laugh, ITW. The Shah’s dictatorship [which was more truly a dictatorship than Iran’s current government] “unleashed murderous fire on its own people” aplenty, for example in the form of mass imprisonments and routine, baroque tortures — and Israel’s Mossad was deeply involved in “training” the Savak, the Shah’s vicious secret police.

Report this

By omop, June 19, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

CJ.

Spot on commentary.

Report this
CJ's avatar

By CJ, June 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Ritter—as usual—is the one who’s got it right. Though for the U.S. to continue to even consider attempting to thwart nuke ambitions on the part of other states is more a little hypocritical. Trouble with opening Pandora’s Box is opening Pandora’s Box. Which Manhattan Project did. True, if not that project then whatever Hitler called his. Coulda been any state with the science and scientists and the funds. There’s history, as usual denied. Soviets in 1949 sought agreement to no nukes, but U.S. Gub—led by Truman—replied with, no…blah, blah.

Practically, there’s no way the U.S., with or without assistance from other nuke states, can prevent currently non-nuke states from developing nuclear weapons. Not without nuking suspects back to Stone Age. To which even U.S. Government isn’t likely to stoop.

Meanwhile, American mega-media has been “covering” Iranian protests like proverbial “white on rice.” Not very subtly disguising cheerleading on behalf of Mousavi. There’s been mention of Obama’s reticence, for which he deserves credit. After rightly observing that we been there before. (Obama, I believe, the first U.S. President ever to openly acknowledge American participation in, if not downright instigation of, disposal of Mossadegh.)

Same mega-media that sat on its collective hands while our own presidency was hi-jacked, and which otherwise never covers for more than 30 seconds now and then Americans who protest anything. Unless slightly scandalous, as recently when Code Pink went after Rumsfeld. For media, that was occasion to put up nut-jobs (as “buffoons,” as Maher rightly put it to Blitzer a day or two ago). There followed no “strategy session” starring Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett, or whomever know-nothings. As to whether or not Rumsfeld is, in fact, a “war criminal.”

As a general rule, scandalous is acceptable (desirable, actually), while domestic political dissent is held in contempt. But when political dissent happen in states officially regarded as “enemies,” wall-to-wall “coverage” ensues. (I noted piece here regarding what the NSA was designed to do—spy on domestic subjects. I’ve heard nothing about that in mainstream media. Not even from Olbermann/Maddow.) Protests against the war on Iraq were never so covered by big media as current events in Iran.

But Iran is and will remain a theocracy either way. It’s very difficult to see how that might change in any fundamental way. Whether Khamenei or some other supreme ignoramus.

Unless Iranians decide on secular, and then democratic, revolution. Which would be ugly business. (And, no, Mousavi is not Gandhi. Not even Gandhi would be Gandhi under such circumstances. That was India under British rule, not potential civil war in Iran. Gandhi was great, but not outside history, as subsequent events in India proved.)
Media’s backing Mousavi—for no good reason given. Other than vague belief he’d be some kind of “reformer.” Contest appears to be between Iran’s urban and rural. Rural believed mostly to be backers of Ahmadinejad. Thirty-eight percent of Iranians are deemed “rural.” I’m guessing most have not been able to make it to Tehran or Isfahan to protest.

I do greatly admire protestors as they put their bodies out there. Something we didn’t do when and while candidates and their lawyers, and two sets of Supremes, fiddled over Bush v. Gore.  (Perhaps we didn’t really believe there was much difference.)

In any event, mega-media here is outta line, as usual. Reporting on Iran is one thing, promotion of protests for Mousavi another thing. To which I’d not really object so much were our mega-media to make up its collective mind. Objective or advocate?

So long as not prop pap.

Recall Seattle when mega-media portrayed protesters as hardly more than vandals/thugs. How dared protesters then?

Here’s real-deal Ritter in objective mode. Mega-media never heard of him. Not then and not now.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 18 at 10:16 pm #

re:By Virginia777, June 18 at 9:39 pm:

Virginia,  I knew this was fishy, but your research really nails it. This is an Israel propaganda campaign, in English, obviously aimed at Americans. Object: to egg us on to the next military crusade: we must destroy Iran in order to save it. God, Israel is such an evil parasitic piece of sht.
*************************************

While you live in your racist, anti-semitic fantasy world where the President of Iran was re-elected in a landslide, in REALITY the people of Iran are about to throw the crook and his fellow crooks out. Even the “Supreme Leader” is finding his position in danger.  Not since the Shah fell has there been such a popular movement for change in Iran.

But then the dictatorship will rear its ugly Tienanmen Square head and, unlike the Shah, unleash murderous fire on its own people.

And EH will explain to us that it’s not happening. It’s all the corrupt media and Israel…“Ignore that man behind the curtain!”

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2009 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

re:By Virginia777, June 18 at 9:39 pm:

Virginia,  I knew this was fishy, but your research really nails it. This is an Israel propaganda campaign, in English, obviously aimed at Americans. Object: to egg us on to the next military crusade: we must destroy Iran in order to save it. God, Israel is such an evil parasitic piece of sht.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2009 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

The really tragic thing is that the history of US-Israeli interference in Iran, including support of the brutal Shah and then later support of violent terrorism in Iran (by the MEK, for example), helps to perpetuate in the minds of less sophisticated Iranian citizens that there is some kind of necessary equation of “western values” (like equality for women) with evil. As Ritter points out, Ahmadinejad probably did win the vote. And that’s in part because the evil empire of USrael continues to give “Western values” a bad name.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 18, 2009 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Well put! although I confess to be something of an Obama “cheerleader”, but I agree with the essence of what you say.

Here are two great articles on the Iran protests, the first one says that Twitter was intentionally used to destabilize Iran (which I suspected all along):

“Why were these tweets in English? Why were all of these profiles OBSESSED with Iran? It became obvious that this was the work of a team of people with an interest in destabilizing Iran. The profiles are phonies and were created with the sole intention of destabilizing Iran and effecting public opinion as to the legitimacy of Iran’s election.”
http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter/

The second is about the two divisive sections of Iran’s contemporary society:

“as these two segments of society have matured over the last three decades, they have entirely ignored one another. Living in separate sections of the cities and working and socialising among their own, they have thus come to understand themselves and Iran in entirely different trajectories. Thirty years of mutual distaste has now burst forth upon the streets in the form of an election contest.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/iran-elections-identity-crisis

Report this

By Max, June 18, 2009 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/1623413,w-iran-vote-count-fraud-061509.article

“Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, said a major rigging process would require the involvement of powerful advisory bodies, including those in which one of the other candidates and a key Mousavi backer are prominent figures.

“Given that Mohsen Rezaei, one of the other presidential candidates, is the head of the powerful Expediency Council, for instance, it is highly unlikely that he wouldn’t have received any information of such a strategic plan to hijack the election,” Adib-Moghaddam said.”

Report this

By Folktruther, June 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Virgina, people tend to identify with power rather than the people ruled by power.  It may be US power, Israeli power, Jewish power, Dem party power, Devine power, etc.  And you are right, they stick to it fanatically despite the contrary reality-based truth.  The major problem is not intellectual ignorance, but emotional denial of this truth. It is hard for people to see contradictions in the the worldviews that they cherish.

Nevertheless, over time people DO change their worldview, as the truth consensus of a grouping of people changes.  The truthdig commenters, for example, are further left from the when I joined them, the Obama cheerleaders tending to drift away.  Who may still identify with Obama power, but as Obama continues his Change rhetoric and his Bush policies, even the cheerleaders put away their pompoms.

And Zionists are now more defenseive with the comment of Robert, Brewerstoupe, wadusy, etc.  Changing a truth consensus is like punching a pillow, but over time an indentation occurss.  some of the pseudo-progressive truthers are starting to warn about US manipulation in Iran, which did not occur previously.  If this continues, it will make war with Iran less likely.  So a change in a truth conensus is a power change, and affects the policies of power structures.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 18, 2009 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

I’m not so sure about that, Folktruther, I think we just have a lot of sold-out “liberals” running around who have found it pays a lot better to join the mainstream, i.e. right-leaning.

Once they join, forget about it!! They are the least flexible and will hold on the tightest, and most righteously, to absurd logic.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

I’m with you, Ed, all the phony propaganda is pointed in one direction, and one direction only - at Iran’s throat.

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

ThatDeborahGirl, June 18 at 10:55 am #

I wish to commend you on a “classic” post. I loved every syllable and hope you continue in
this vein.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2009 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 18 at 12:26 pm #

Re:By Inherit The Wind, June 18 at 11:59 am:

So you’re saying that because Ahmadinejad was voicing fear that US-raeli meddling might cost him the election, you think you KNOW that this American poll must be a complete fraud, released just this week to benefit the Iranian regime. God, you are such a deranged conspiracy theorist, there’s no help for you.

You think that the Washington Post, which loudly supported the Iraq war and rabidly supports your precious sweet Israel, would publish this piece on its op-ed page if the article were completely phony propaganda concocted and timed to serve the Iranian regime?

The polling, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, was carried out for two American nonprofit organizations by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received Emmy awards. All these organizations, and the Washington Post, are working for Iran?

Like I said, ITW, you are such a deranged conspiracy theorist, you might as well pull the Protocols of the Elders of Persia from your big fat asinine assumption depository.
************************************

What’s the matter, Ed? You keep saying the same stupid shit, I keep saying I don’t buy it because it’s stupid shit, and you get all pissy and whiny and bitchy, and start stamping your feet and calling names.  Just like my 5 year old spoiled brat niece.

First you accuse ME of knowing what Ahmedinejad was thinking.  Now YOU know what he was thinking.

You are just a hypocrite who can’t take the idea that maybe, maybe he’s wrong.

Meanwhile Iran is seeing the largest and longest demonstrations since 1979—that’s 30 years, Ed, and they are ALL in protest of this fixed election.

As for FT, he has his vision of the world and he ignores and changes facts to fit his vision.  It’s the one thing he does consistently—bend, twist and change facts.

It comes down this: Ahmedinejad knew he was going to lose.  Now, afterwards, magically it seems there was this poll that predicted EXACTLY what the results would be….exactly to the % and Ahmedinejad has to THEN be an idiot.

It amazes me how you boys of “The Contingent” crash and burn on facts all the time and INEVITABLY respond with a torrent of abuse, insults and name-calling.

I guess whenever you bozos heap abuse on me I’ll have that as an added confirmation that I’m right (as usual) and you are wrong (and all is right with the world).  That’s why I like Shingo: He can be a pain in my neck but he’s right frequently enough that I cannot discount him.

IOW, he’s a helluva lot smarter than you guys.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 18, 2009 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

It’s good, Ed, that you have more patience than I do.  When the discourse falls below a certain level, as is common with Zionists, I just lose interest.  But now the mainstream Prgressives are backing away from the Big Lie that the Iranian landslide was actually a stolen election, so it is a question of waiting for their next disinformation campaign.

The reason that the deceit of the mainstream Progressives and Conservatives are merging, although separated by different styles, is because the the two parties have always had a bipartisan foreign policy.  As world events assume a greater importance for domestic policy, they each back US foreign policy, far to the right of the population consensus.  Since US foreign policy is violent, barbaric and deceitful, it must be disguised by disinformation.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2009 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Re:By Inherit The Wind, June 18 at 11:59 am:

So you’re saying that because Ahmadinejad was voicing fear that US-raeli meddling might cost him the election, you think you KNOW that this American poll must be a complete fraud, released just this week to benefit the Iranian regime. God, you are such a deranged conspiracy theorist, there’s no help for you.

You think that the Washington Post, which loudly supported the Iraq war and rabidly supports your precious sweet Israel, would publish this piece on its op-ed page if the article were completely phony propaganda concocted and timed to serve the Iranian regime?

The polling, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, was carried out for two American nonprofit organizations by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received Emmy awards. All these organizations, and the Washington Post, are working for Iran?

Like I said, ITW, you are such a deranged conspiracy theorist, you might as well pull the Protocols of the Elders of Persia from your big fat asinine assumption depository.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 18, 2009 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

The US media disinformation campaign on the Iran election under Obama is in some ways WORSE than the disinformation under Bush of the Iraq ‘weapons of mass destruction.’  In Iran the election landslide is in plain sight and the media has denied the obvious with no evidence whatever, while poll indications that it would be a landslide are available, and with the background of foreign comment that Iran has honest vote counting.  Calling a landslide a ‘stolen election’ is an indiction that the media is getting WORSE under Obama.

this includes the pseudo-Progressive media, not only the zionist NYTimes but the internet blogs and newsletters, which were in the forefront of de-legitimating an apparently honest election. with the understanding that ALL elections are dishonest, given the customary rigging of all elections by pre-selecting the candidates. But Iran vote counting has been honest in the past, unlike some countries. Consequently the Big Lie apprach to current political events might make Goebbels flinch.

The basic reason for the continued sinking of the US media into corruption and dishonesty is that the US power system is having greater difficulty in facing its insoluable problems as it continues to lose world power.  this includes losing the Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palistine war, the Irafpakpal war, which is the low intensity violent war of the endless War on Terrorism. A Terrorist being anyone who opposes US imperialism,including Americans.

As violence and oppression increases, the lies have to get bigger to conceal, disguise or justify them.  the US orchestration of the demonstrations in Iran, demanding the canceling of a landslide election, appears to be more about oil than zionism.  The corrupt billionaire family of Rafsanjani, who was the chief backer of the ‘Reformist’ Moussavi, has a history of dealing with the US, notably in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.  In the Iran-Iraq war the US supported both sides to bleed them both, causing over a million casualties.

Obama is continuing the customary tactics of US imperalism, with soaring rhetoric and clever perception management.  But the US historical problems are worse, so the lies are bigger and more obvious, with pseudo-prgressives often taking the lead.  We can expect more of them as the Irafpakpal war drags on.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2009 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 18 at 8:27 am #

ITW writes:

“BTW, it’s AMAZING how this magical poll that showed Ahmedinejad winning by a landslide didn’t show up until AFTER Khamenei ordered the vote review.”

Where do you see that the poll was released only after Khamenei ordered the vote review? The poll I’m talking about was done by an American non-profit group, not by the Iranian government. You appear to be assuming that since the op-ed appeared in this past Monday’s Wash. Post, the poll itself was only released this week. Do you realize that this is an asinine assumption, ITW?

The article itself does not say when the poll was released. You are assuming it has only been released this week. That appears to be merely another asinine assumption that you have pulled out of your big fat asinine assumption holder.

... the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articl e/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html
************************************************

Your cognitive dissonance keeps getting in your way…Why didn’t Ahmedinejad see this poll?  Why did he make a loser’s accusations and excuses?

It doesn’t parse.  But you’ll never see that.

Report this

By omop, June 18, 2009 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Mir Hossein Mousavi served as Prime Minister of Iran during the Reagan-Iran-Contra years. During that time he became acquainted with Michael A. Ledeen, a founding member of JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) along with Richard Perle, John Bolton, Dick cheney, and Douglas Feith.

One can conjecture after watching both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden promise the Lebanese before their election all sorts of goodies ( a country of around 5 million people) how many more millions of dollars were offered the 70 million Iranians.

Some of which must have been spent to make the “Where is my vote signs?” (in English no less) carried on CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. A reality that Americans must accept is that Iran is not Lebanon or Israel and the days when the US could influence domestic policies of nations around the world are over.

Speaking of “learning of how to live with the devil we know”, the US managed that for many years with the USSR, North Korea and lesser others.

The proposals of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the “Clean Break” report, which was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel. And explained how a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on ” basically cutting up Muslim/Arab nations into smaller entities as well as promoting socalled “regime change” are as the Italians would say are “FINITO”.

Get over it people.

Report this

By ThatDeborahGirl, June 18, 2009 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Ed Harges, June 18 at 12:29 am #

...scientific pre-election polls indicated that a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad was likely anyway.

I know this combination of facts may be beyond your narrow Zionist grasp. Try to keep up.

********************
Wow. OK. This has gone too far, starting with my initial rant (I’m lmao, right now believe me.) I

See, this is how pointless rhetoric gets started. No one has ever accused me of having a “narrow Zionist grasp” before. Best odd slant of me ever! I’m going to frame a screenshot of that and hang it on my wall. “Narrow grasp” - I’ll grant you that. But Zionist? Hmmm…I think you may be using “Zionist” the way conservatives in my neck of the woods use the word “liberal” as though it were an insult. Ah yes, like <a >this</a>.

But honey, for the record, I’m an American, with the stereotypical lazy American’s knowledge of history and world events. You may find it a little sad that I’m getting my definition of Zionism from Wikipedia but here goes:

“Zionism is the international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine.”

Uh, I don’t have a solid POV on this. I know that my country does and that they spend a lot of money to help Israel accomplish this. I know that Israel is to Palestinians what white folks are to black folks circa 1950 only worse with their giant wall and pushing people out of whole towns and barely letting them work or eat. However, get a little further down the page, and it says Zionists patently fight antisemitism and I have to say, I’m all for people NOT hating folks simply ‘cuz they’re Jewish. So my feelings toward Israel are ambivalent at best and at worst, gasp, unformed? I mean, everyone needs a place to stay and I get that these folks want what they see as their “homeland” back - but damn, do the other folks who are there always have to be killed off to make room for them, much like white folks devastation of the American Indian tribes? Like Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Alas, the answer is no. But I think you gave far too much credence to my mindset and that I have some underlying issue regarding Israel cuz I don’t (and yes, I know what Ahmadinejad has to say about Israel and it ain’t pretty).

So, back to the election.

Now I thought, I guess wrongly, that I was simply talking about what I felt was another stolen national election. Granted in a country different from my own and with people far more willing to protest than my own. But it seems to me that Ahmadinejad has taken a leaf out of the GOP playbook: Stack the deck in your favor in regards to politicians, judges, those who count the votes, the media, etc., etc.- and if anyone calls foul then humiliate, bully, arrest and if necessary kill to shut them up.

I guess what I didn’t understand is how so many here seem willing to swallow - no questions asked, hook line & sinker - that Ahmadinejad won - despite massive evidence to the contrary. It strongly brought to mind our casual acceptance of the hideous Bush Administration, mainly because we were to cowed to call him out for the fraud he was. Call me narrow-minded if you will, but that’s how I see things. Ahmadinejad may have gotten the most votes. I’m willing to concede it’s possible. I just don’t think that really happened. I’m entitled to my opinion and a mini-rant now and again.

But sweetie, that’s the extent of my “Zionist” view. Being a loud-mouth American who believes that elections get stolen sometimes.

So sorry to disappoint.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, June 18, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Learning to live with devil you know! Interesting proposition; however, the devil I know is the political-military-media complex of America!

Hardly two weeks after Obama’s talk to the Muslim world from Cairo, appealing for common understanding, America- political, military and media- is escalating its different wars on several fronts of that Muslim world. From Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ending in Palestine, political-military-media America continues to practice acts or words of wars and hostility against large populations of the Muslim world. And there are still those who keep stupidly wondering, “Why they hate us?”

Below are few links to articles, which as usual never published in the main-manipulated and controlled MSM! That no-change you can always count on!
==========================================
Beating And Torturing Palestinian Children
By Jonathan Cook

http://www.countercurrents.org/cook170609.htm

“The rights of Palestinian children are routinely violated by Israel’s security forces, according to a new report that says beatings and torture are common. In addition, hundreds of Palestinian minors are prosecuted by Israel each year without a proper trial and are denied family visits…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Afghanistan’s Operation Phoenix
By Stephen Lendman

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman170609.htm

“The recently appointed chief of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a hired gun, an assassin, a man known for committing war crime atrocities as head of the Pentagon’s infamous Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) - established in 1980 and comprised of the Army’s Delta Force and Navy Seals, de facto death squads writer Seymour Hersh described post-9/11 as an “executive assassination wing” operating out of Dick Cheney’s office…”
++++++++++++++++++++

A Civil War : Obama’s Gift to Pakistan
By Liaquat Ali Khan

http://www.countercurrents.org/alikhan170609.htm

“A civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Thanks to President Barack Obama, who is shifting the American war from Iraq to “the real enemies” operating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cash-strapped Pakistan could not defy Obama persuasion and decided to wage a war against its own people, the Pashtuns inhabiting the Northern Province and the tribal areas of Waziristan…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?
By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts170609.htm

“Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised…”

Report this

By Folktruther, June 18, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

It’s beginning to look like this Iranian election episode is not primarily about Zionism; it’s about oil.  The business class there dislikes the sanctions imposed by the US and dispises Ahmadinejad for giving money to the poor.  they are led by the corrupt Rafsnjani family, who are billionaires, and have had dealings with the US in the past, particularly Reagan during the Iran-contra conspiracy.  He is the chief supporter for Mousavi, who appears something of a political lightweight.

This is apparently a replay of the 1953 ‘revolution’ when the US put the shah in power.  The military chief of Pakistan, Mirza Beig, who announced that they have documents stating that the CIA poured 4 hundred billion dollars into the election, did not say what the money was used for; it is way too much for this kind of an election.  But in 1953 the US bribed power figures and paid demonstraters to go into the streets, a standard tactic of ‘color’ revolutions, which would take a lot of money.

So the US simply declared a electoral landslide a ‘stolen election’ and used it to try to get more neoliberals in power in Iran. which would give the US more control over Irani oil.  And used the Zionists and the Zionist media to deceive the American population.

But does it deceive the Iranian population?  One would think not, but who knows?  the unfortunate part of this confrontation is that the progressive approach to the women question is on the side of the capitalist “Reformers.”  If the women win something, some good will have come from it.  but the US usually supports the oppression of women, as in Saudi Arabia, and now in Afghanistan, so this may not happen.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2009 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

ITW writes:

“BTW, it’s AMAZING how this magical poll that showed Ahmedinejad winning by a landslide didn’t show up until AFTER Khamenei ordered the vote review.”

Where do you see that the poll was released only after Khamenei ordered the vote review? The poll I’m talking about was done by an American non-profit group, not by the Iranian government. You appear to be assuming that since the op-ed appeared in this past Monday’s Wash. Post, the poll itself was only released this week. Do you realize that this is an asinine assumption, ITW?

The article itself does not say when the poll was released. You are assuming it has only been released this week. That appears to be merely another asinine assumption that you have pulled out of your big fat asinine assumption holder.

... the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2009 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 18 at 12:21 am #

The education-proof Inherit The Wind writes:

“4) IF the election was valid, the polls would have INDICATED a potential for a landslide, definitely would have indicated an unstoppable win for Ahmedinejad.”

But the polls DID indicate a potential for a landslide for Ahmedinejad. Why can you not get that through your bullet-proof IDF bulldozer of a brain, ITW?
**********************************************

Because unlike a dogmatic ideologue like yourself I refuse to ignore inconvenient facts that contradict that conclusion.

And the fact YOU cannot and will not address is why Ahmedinejad acted like a loser if he had access to that poll.

Why are guys like you and FT cheerleaders for every tin-pot dictator as long as he opposes the US?  You’ll make ANY excuse for guys like Ahmedinejad, even claiming it’s a “conspiracy” when he says something really vile and it’s reported.

What’s going on in Iran, despite the apologist web sites you follow, is that the PEOPLE, the same PEOPLE who overthrew the Shah, don’t believe the election was legitimate.  Even the sleeping dragon, the body of the clerics that can oust Khamanei is waking up and showing its dissatisfaction.

However, it is important that the US stay out and let the Iranians work it out for themselves.

BTW, it’s AMAZING how this magical poll that showed Ahmedinejad winning by a landslide didn’t show up until AFTER Khamenei ordered the vote review.

Again, as long as the US is “agin” someone, you are for him.  Tell me, are you for Mugabe in Zimbabwe as well?  Are you going to make excuses for him, too?

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2009 at 3:19 am Link to this comment

PaiaGirl, June 18 at 2:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The New America Foundation is just a rehash of the neocon Project for a New America.
........................
....A blanket condemnation that offers no concrete evidence in support of your claim. Perhaps you are correct, I do not know, but below is the bio of its current president and CEO that sounds rather atypical of the members of PNAC…..Perhaps you might provide rebuttal?


Steve Coll
President, New America Foundation

Steve Coll


Steve Coll is president of New America Foundation, and a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine. Previously he spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent and senior editor at The Washington Post, serving as the paper’s managing editor from 1998 to 2004. He is the author of six books, including The Deal of the Century: The Break Up of AT&T (1986); The Taking of Getty Oil (1987); Eagle on the Street, based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning account of the SEC’s battle with Wall Street (with David A. Vise, 1991); On the Grand Trunk Road: A Journey into South Asia (1994), Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (2004); and The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century (2008).

Mr. Coll’s professional awards include two Pulitzer Prizes. He won the first of these, for explanatory journalism, in 1990, for his series, with David A. Vise, about the SEC. His second was awarded in 2005, for his book, Ghost Wars, which also won the Council on Foreign Relations’ Arthur Ross award; the Overseas Press Club award and the Lionel Gelber Prize for the best book published on international affairs during 2004. Other awards include the 1992 Livingston Award for outstanding foreign reporting; the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Award for his coverage of the civil war in Sierra Leone; and a second Overseas Press Club Award for international magazine writing. Mr. Coll graduated Phi Beta Kappa, Cum Laude, from Occidental College in 1980 with a degree in English and history. He lives in Washington, D.C.

Report this

By PaiaGirl, June 17, 2009 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The New America Foundation is just a rehash of the neocon Project for a New America.

I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of that neocon factory.

They have their own agenda going and it has nothing to do with Iran’s wellbeing.

Report this

By Daniel Freeman, June 17, 2009 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good article by Ritter!  Shouldn’t one be more than a bit suspicious when the Obama regime (with circumspection) and the “liberal” establishment NY Times, et al, and the “left” Obama regime sugarcoaters , the Nation, etc., jump on the Massouvi bandwagon?  But why not—amidst all the argument about “rigged”, not rigged, etc.—these left apologists don’t look at what the two sides represent.  It’s a split amongst the elite—purely tactical differences as how best to maintain the Iraninan form of “Islamic” capitalism.  To support Mousavi and the upper middle class forces he represents—as I’m sure many well intentioned and aggrieved sutudents and intelligentsia misguidedly do—is a dead end.  Of course, the State Dept/CIA/Federal Reserve Bank shadow government and the coalition in power in Congress and the White House now would likely rather do business with the “reformers” who are also strong advocates of an “Islamic” version (naturally) of free-market economics and hostility to the masses.  This phony color revolution—green in this case—is a fruadulent creation of the liberal estalishment here and its media mouthpieces.  It can no more bring about a progressive solution than its exemplars from the former Soviet Union.  That avenue, just as that of Ahmadinejad’s right-wing populist demagogy is a bankrupt dead-end and gives aid and comfort to American Imperilaism and militarism.  Surely some of you folks out there consider yourslves socialists—as I do.  Skeptical as you may be, an international socialist perspective is the only way for the Iranian people in alliance with their bothers in the mid-east to overcome the depredations of the global capitalist market.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Deborah writes:

“Uh, yeah sweetie. Because it’s so easy to count 40 million votes in 1 day and it’s just a coincidence that they announced the winner before the polls even closed that day…

Dear Deborah (or is it Debka?), honey:

It does look like the Iranian government announced before the vote count was finished, and it was wrong for them to do so.

However, that does not change the fact that scientific pre-election polls indicated that a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad was likely anyway.

I know this combination of facts may be beyond your narrow Zionist grasp. Try to keep up.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

The education-proof Inherit The Wind writes:

“4) IF the election was valid, the polls would have INDICATED a potential for a landslide, definitely would have indicated an unstoppable win for Ahmedinejad.”

But the polls DID indicate a potential for a landslide for Ahmedinejad. Why can you not get that through your bullet-proof IDF bulldozer of a brain, ITW?

...our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

...Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents’ reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians—including most Ahmadinejad supporters—said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly “politically correct” responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society….

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups’ May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this

By Shingo, June 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

ThatDeborahGirl,

I am with you but it’s not unusual to announced a winner before the polls even close.  It happens in all election.  Obama was declared the winner as California started voting.

Report this

By ThatDeborahGirl, June 17, 2009 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Ed Harges, June 17 at 12:28 pm #
re: By ThatDeborahGirl, June 17 at 2:31 am:
The evidence indicates that Ahmadinejad probably did really and truly win the vote, so your rant is kind of pointless or at least highly presumptive.


***************
Uh, yeah sweetie. Because it’s so easy to count 40 million votes in 1 day and it’s just a coincidence that they announced the winner before the polls even closed that day.

Not to mention the thousands of people protesting the vote who obviously didn’t vote for Dictator A, but hey, who’s counting them right?

I still stand by my original comment hon.

Report this

By smitty8, June 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Scott Ritter’s comments are both cogent and reasonable. Regarding Iran’s “nuclear ambitions,” I wonder why Iran hasn’t simply offered to abide by the same limits and with the same inspections as Israel.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 17, 2009 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

freedom loving american, June 17 at 9:04 pm #

Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country that had the freedom to protest?  Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country where one political candidate might actually be allowed the freedom to make positive changes benefiting the majority of the people not just the wealthiest?  Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country that supported governments that promoted policies that benefited the majority of the people not just a few large multinational corporations?

O well, we have McDonalds, Coke, and Exxon what more could we want?
***********************************

Pizza Hut and Budweiser?

Report this

By freedom loving american, June 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country that had the freedom to protest?  Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country where one political candidate might actually be allowed the freedom to make positive changes benefiting the majority of the people not just the wealthiest?  Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country that supported governments that promoted policies that benefited the majority of the people not just a few large multinational corporations?

O well, we have McDonalds, Coke, and Exxon what more could we want?

Report this

By Ed, June 17, 2009 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to Scott: Five million (5,000.000) votes in paper were, where the name of the candidate was written, counted in less than 3 hours. OK, do the Iranians have developed to a new system that allows those 5 million pieces of paper be read in less than 3 hours? If that is the case, I would suggest that Scott show the rest of us how is that humanly possible? These were not computer-generated votes, nor even ballots where the names of the candidates were pre-printed. These 5 million pieces of paper were hand written by the voters. Again, if Scott can tell us how that happened in less than 3 hours he is a genius. Otherwise, he is an idiot.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

This is a good teaching point for the American people, indicating clearly how the US imposes Freedom and Democracy. And how the American mass media deludes the American population to lead them into war. Here is an overwhelming mandate for a leader unpopular in the US, and the US deliberately manipulating the mass media to cancel and put in the losing leader. 

The State department openly told Twitter not to stop reporting in Iran, and probably the other media outlets and Western truthers as well.
If they can instigate a massacre like the Chinese one, it will be easier for the Zionists to manipulate the US into a mass bombing.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Despite the usual abuse from EH and FT, I STILL can’t get my head around Ahmedinejad bitching and moaning BEFORE the polls opened that he was sabotaged by Jews and Hitler if he didn’t think he was on the brink of losing.

You two apologists couldn’t find your asses with both hands!  IOW, you can’t see the obvious.

1) Ahmedinejad is President of one of the most important nations on earth.
2) Ahmedinejad HAD to have access to the best polling info available.
3) Today’s sampling theory, at least on national scales, is deadly accurate.
4) IF the election was valid, the polls would have INDICATED a potential for a landslide, definitely would have indicated an unstoppable win for Ahmedinejad.
5) Ahmedinejad wouldn’t have been making losers’ accusations and excuses if he knew he was going to win in a landslide, or even solidly.
6) Ahmedinejad DID make those excuses and accusations.

Conclusion #1: Ahmedinejad THOUGHT he was going to lose, even KNEW he was going to lose—that’s the only logical explanation of his pre-voting outbursts.

Conclusion #2: The voting was rigged, and far more clumsily than the 2000 Florida vote, which was also rigged.

You two ought to have remembered your High School geometry with its fundamental introduction to logic.

I spelled it out so even YOU guys could follow it, but I expect your joint cognitive dissonance will prevent you processing it correctly, and will jumble it all up for you.

Report this

By Jason!!, June 17, 2009 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

At least two free nations are standing with the Iranian democracy protesters…

Yesterday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Iran’s election result a fraud and stated that, “The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction.”

Today Canada joined him.

Report this

By GoyToy, June 17, 2009 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nefesh: If Amir Taheri is someone you cite to further your point, you’re in deep doo-doo. Taheri IS in bed with the Zionists (e.g. Daniel Pipes). And by the way, it’s no longer Persia (hasn’t been that way for many centuries), it’s Iran.

Report this

By freedom loving american, June 17, 2009 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Man the title confused me I thought this article would be about the bush,cheney, and the republican party…who knew

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

re: By Jason!!, June 17 at 12:44 pm:

Jason, the best evidence indicates that Ahmadinejad probably did really and truly win the vote, so your rant is kind of pointless or at least highly presumptuous. See this article in the Washington Post by a couple of public opinion experts who exhaustively, scientifically surveyed the Iranian electorate and found that Ahmadinejad was overwhelmingly likely to win the election:

The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

...Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents’ reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians—including most Ahmadinejad supporters—said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly “politically correct” responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society….

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups’ May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articl e/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this

By Jason!!, June 17, 2009 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

this is sick. Ritter, you are way over the top here and no - we should not turn away from the people standing up for basic human freedoms. In any context!

Would you have the courage to look in the eyes of Mousavi’s supporters and say this to him / her? I doubt it.

As you acknowledge, this regime is full of propaganda and lies. See HBO’s Spotlight On Iran “Letters to the President” for a small glimmer. Pay particular attention to those who do not support him and the rhetoric / lies he says about us.

Of course we should stand and support those fighting this flawed election. There should be no question about this. US / International acknowledgment of Ahmadinejad is abandonment of the oppressed.  Simple choice. You failed.

Report this

By Jason!!, June 17, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

this is sick. Ritter, you are way over the top here and no - we should not turn away from the people standing up for basic human freedoms. In any context.

Would you have the courage to look in the eyes of Mousavi’s supporters and say this to him / her? I doubt it.

As you acknowledge, this regime is full of propaganda and lies. See HBO’s Spotlight On Iran “Letters to the President” for a small glimmer. Pay particular attention to those who do not support him and the rhetoric / lies he says about us.

Of course we should stand and support those fighting this flawed election. There should be no question about this. US / International acknowledgment of Ahmadinejad is abandonment of the oppressed.  Simple choice. You failed.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

re: By ThatDeborahGirl, June 17 at 2:31 am:

The evidence indicates that Ahmadinejad probably did really and truly win the vote, so your rant is kind of pointless or at least highly presumptive. See this article in the Washington Post by a couple of public opinion experts who exhaustively, scientifically surveyed the Iranian electorate and found that Ahmadinejad was overwhelmingly likely to win the election:

The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

...Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents’ reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians—including most Ahmadinejad supporters—said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly “politically correct” responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society….

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups’ May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 17, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

and you got it right, Folktruther, people like/need to be deceived, when the deception suits their prejudices.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 17, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

Yes, its the manipulation of our Press in a bias against Iran that has been going on for years now. Its been nothing less than a propaganda war,

which, obviously, continues and is accelerating.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 17, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Ritter is honest within his Patriotic perspective, which disntuishes him from most Progressive commentators.  But he does not discuss US manipulation and intervention in Iran, which would subvert his Patroitic bias.  Nevertheless his honesty is sorely needed when the American media is so influenced by Zionism and is so corrupt and depraved.

Inherit, it occurs to me that you probably have talents of various kinds, most people do, but political analysis isn’t one of them.  Ahmendinejad probably WAS surprised by the his margin in winning, since no one expected that enormous number of people voting.  So what?  If you win an election, you win it even if you thought that you were going to lose, which is very doubtful Ahmedinejad did. But you are certain that you know what he was thinking, so I’ll just leave that.

Consider the other Zionists views.  Sepharad has stated that there is a possiblity that Ahmedinejad won, and she is a real professional, so good she could have been on Goebbels staff.  Nefesh states the whole episoide isn’t about the election and never was, which, as far as Zionists are concerned, is probably true. He is an ardent proponent for Freedom and Democracy.  And war with Iran.

The Reforms are demanding the canceling of an overwhelming electoral mandate of Ahmedinejad and putting their their own leaders.  Egged on by the West in general and the US-Isreal in particular.  To set up the military action to impose Freedom and Democracy as occurred in Iraq.  Which you will say you oppose having supported all the actions that led to it.

But to a large extent I think you are sincere. You’re just confusted and dumb, having been Educated on an American and Zionist truth tradition that is not only cynical and corrupt, it is so restricted that you can’t think in a world historical way.

you have made me change my mind about power delusions.  Not only does power need to delude the population to rule, the people want to be deluded.  As Freud says about religious illusions in FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, people have a childish wish to believe in untruth.  I find that understandable, much less evil than the cynicism of Sepharad and Nefesh.  But it may be a more devastating force in world history.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

re: By Inherit The Wind, June 17 at 10:23 am:

Really, ITW, you are getting worse.

Here is some sweet , cool reason that may lower your fever:

The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

...Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents’ reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians—including most Ahmadinejad supporters—said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly “politically correct” responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society….

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups’ May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 17, 2009 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

By Ed Harges, June 17 at 9:34 am #

re: By Inherit The Wind, June 17 at 8:29 am:

ITW writes: “Ahmadinejad thought he was going to lose.”

Maybe Ahmadinejad didn’t think that he was going to lose the actual vote. Maybe he was confident that he would get enough votes to win, but was upset because it looked like a huge propaganda campaign was underway (surely at least partly generated or supported by the US and Israel) to create a false impression (both to the Iranian public and to the rest of the world) that he had stolen the election.

Maybe Ahmadinejad thought he was going to win the vote, but that a massive disinformation campaign would be able to delegitimize his victory. And that is perhaps what’s happening.
******************************************

Hey! Look! Two pigs!

One is singing

and the other is flying!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, June 17, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

In the United States news there is a tendency to reduce events into a movie western. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is portrayed as the villian, while Mir Hossein Mousavi is scene as the guy with the white beard to match his white hat. But hold on there six gun, did you know that Mr. Mousavi favors Iran going forward with nuclear development, feeling that it is his nation’s right? But perhaps the neoliberal globalists in the west favor his candidacy because he believes in private ownership of television stations? Perhaps young people in Iran think of Mousavi as “really cool” with his Facebook account. Perhaps much of this is about those with technological savvy just wanting the government to bugger off when it comes to the Internet and broadband mobile. I mean who really wants the brain police?
Mir Hossein Mousavi is a much more aesthetically pleasing candidate. He is not a holocaust denier dingbat, but he is not on the same page with what the US demands. He is an Iranian politician embroiled in an Iranian power struggle. Before all the so-called progressives get all misty about intervention in Iran’s “democracy struggle”, they might remember it is their country, not ours.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

re: By Inherit The Wind, June 17 at 8:29 am:

ITW writes: “Ahmadinejad thought he was going to lose.”

Maybe Ahmadinejad didn’t think that he was going to lose the actual vote. Maybe he was confident that he would get enough votes to win, but was upset because it looked like a huge propaganda campaign was underway (surely at least partly generated or supported by the US and Israel) to create a false impression (both to the Iranian public and to the rest of the world) that he had stolen the election.

Maybe Ahmadinejad thought he was going to win the vote, but that a massive disinformation campaign would be able to delegitimize his victory. And that is perhaps what’s happening.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2009 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

re: By nefesh, June 16 at 11:09 pm:

Nefesh, you give no evidence that the Washington Post’s piece is “specious”. Also: while the WP’s own editorials tend to be reflexively pro-Israel and pro-war, the paper is not entirely monolithic. For example, in the run-up to the Iraq war, the Post editorial page (but not always the op-ed page) loudly parroted the neocon, pro-Israel, pro-war line. But on the news pages, the paper published important articles which sharply weakened the case for war (notably by Dana Priest, for example). Also, the WP, has always (for whatever reason) from time to time let op-ed pieces appear which deviate from the AIPAC party line. But in this case, notice that they gave the piece the bland title, “The Iranian People Speak” —  whereas a more apt title would have been something like, “Ahmadinejad Probably Did Win”.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 17, 2009 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

One thing I do not understand and I keep asking this and nobody seems to want to address it:

If Ahmadinejad had such a commanding lead in the polls and nobody should be surprised, then why, before the election actually occurred, was he complaining bitterly about Jews and Hitler undermining him?
Why was he sounding like a man already defeated?  Had HE seen these polls, wouldn’t he have been saying that the will of the Iranian people would overwhelm a loud and vocal minority.

Before the vote counts were in, Ahmadinejad was sounding like loser, making excuses and accusations for his loss.  Even HE seemed surprised by his landslide victory.

How does this inconvenient truth fit into Ritter’s and the Ahmadinejad apolgists’ theory?

As Einstein once said, you can show a theory works a thousand times, but just one failure disproves it.

So all the loud accusations of the Western Media, the Obama administration, and anyone to the right of Ralph Nader that this is a slander of a legitimate election crash and burn on this one fact:

Ahmadinejad thought he was going to lose.

(see the Ear to The Ground thread on this).

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, June 17, 2009 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

I stand by my earlier assertion that President Ahmadinejad has many things in common with Gov. Sarah Palin. Both reside over oil rich property that they can and do use for political advantage, both flaunt their ignorance with rhetorical bombast, and both champion themselves as the people’s candidates.
But it does not stop there. Palin and Ahmadinejad want to enforce their cultural view of family values. Both do not like homosexuality, although the Governor of Alaska says she has some gay friends, for Mahmoud the question is moot, because according to him, gays do not exist in Iran. Both the Governor and the Iranian President like information technology, as long as it does not promote anything detrimental about them. Both of these ‘leaders’ can appear at times, as crazy as a rodent in a lavatory, boring us to tears with their fully charged jingoistic nonsense, that their supporters perceive as patriotic.
Both are said to have “the common touch”.

Report this

By Howard, June 17, 2009 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

One big thing that sticks out, is that these votes were ’ paper ’ ballots and the many millions of these votes were counted and announced within 2 hours by the Khomeni bosses. Impossible to believe That !

Just as hard to stomach that by the Iranians is the fact that in the opposition hometown and district areas showed the same false winning margins by the current wacko president.

Report this

By ThatDeborahGirl, June 16, 2009 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What kind of bullshit is this? Accept Ahmadinejad and move on? Have you lost your damned mind?

Just because the American people rolled over and took the non-election of George Bush up the ass, don’t expect the rest of the world to follow our ignorant lazy example.

An Ahmadinejad administration is not what’s in the best interest of Iran or the world. The people have voted, protested, texted, tweeted and DIED and are still going strong. LISTEN TO THEM!

WTF is wrong with us in America that we no longer understand that democracy and significant change will not be handed to us in the quiet idiocy that is our media/corporate run regime change every four years?

What a gutless and ridiculously dismissive article that completely disregards the will and the struggle of an entire nation of people who have proven that they are more than willing to fight and die for real freedom.

Would that the same could be said of us in this day and age!

Report this

By Shingo, June 16, 2009 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

By FLYNT LEVERETT AND HILLARY MANN LEVERETT | 6/15/09

Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and “Iran experts” have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud.

They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election
, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking.

Report this

By Shingo, June 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Nefesh,

While there are millions of Iranians protesting the election results, there are also million protesting in support.

None of us are happy with the outcome of the election, but if the results are legitimate, then it frankly is none of our business.  Looking at facts does not make one a tool of the ayatollahs.
Now for your right wing talking points.

1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader

Answer: If that were the case, no leader in the world would remain in power.
  2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts
Answer: What illegal acts

  3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader
Answer: According to what law?

  4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President
Answer: Before or after a recount, or have you already decided that for the Iranians?

  5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution
Answer: Was revising the Constitution part of this vote?
  6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners
Answer: You mean like Israel?

  7. Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret
Answer: Again, what about Israel?

“Um, how exactly would Israel, a nation of only 7 million people and one of the smallest in area (about the size of New Jersey), invade Iran”

Maybe not invade but they have threatened to attack countless times.  It was even revealed the Bush had to knock down a request from Israel to attack last year. 

“As if that’s absurd enough, consider that Israel is about 2000km removed from Iran, and doesn’t even have neighboring countries who share a border with Iran. “

Yet Israel keeps insisting that Iran be kept on a tight leash, even though Iran is no threat to Israel.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 16 at 10:58 pm wrote:

Nefesh resorts to vacuous insults because he is totally unable to address this fact: scientific polling confirms that Ahamadinejad very probably won the election fair and square

Millions of protesting Iranian citizens are now risking their lives telling their repressive fascist regime not only what they think of the election results, but are speaking truth to power in the most elemental way. That fact speaks louder to me than a specious Washington Post article. But go on - keep defending the tool of the ayatollahs. It makes you look real good.

I’ll say it again, Eddy: it’s funny how you find it convenient to rely on the word of the Zionist media tool you have made a Truthdig career out of discrediting as a Jew-mouthpiece. If you are going to stake out a position, no matter how odious, at least have the integrity to stick with it.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 16 at 10:58 pm wrote:

Nefesh resorts to vacuous insults because he is totally unable to address this fact: scientific polling confirms that Ahamadinejad very probably won the election fair and square

Millions of protesting Iranian citizens are now risking their lives telling their repressive fascist regime not only what they think of the election results, but are speaking truth to power inthe most elemental way. That fact speaks louder to me than a specious Washington Post article. But go on - keep defending the tool of the ayatollahs. It makes you look real good.

I’ll say it again, Eddy: it’s funny how you find it convenient to rely on the word of the Zionist media tool you have made a Truthdig career out of discrediting as a Jew-mouthpiece. If you are going to stake out a position, no matter how odious, at least have the integrity to stick with it.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2009 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

Re: By nefesh, June 16 at 10:47 pm:

Nefesh resorts to vacuous insults because he is totally unable to address this fact: scientific polling confirms that Ahamadinejad very probably won the election fair and square, just as Ritter reports:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 16 at 10:19 pm wrote:

Americans are being fed a load of propaganda crap by the Israel lobby and its handmaidens. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Ahmadinejad won the Iranian election legitimately.

I call bullshit. You see a Jew and Zionist behind everything. Yawn.
==========================

The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit organization, conducted a scientific poll, showing Ahmadinejad well ahead. Read the director’s op-ed in the Washington Post, detailing why the poll is credible:

Ooooh, scientific. Isn’t that the same Washington Post you have labeled a Zionist media tool about a million times already? I call bullshit again.
==================================

I assume that KDelphia was talking about Israel’s threat to bomb Iran, not to “invade” it in the classical sense of sending in a large army.

Then he should have said so. But why let accuracy get in the way of a good smear? That’s something you can teach us all about, Jew-dude. And by the way, Iran is due for a few thousand tons of air-delivered Jewish ordnance, given the tens of thousands of tons of Iranian-supplied rocket and mortar rounds fired at Israeli civilians over the last 5 years.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2009 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Oops — I wrote: “by a 2-to-1 margin, in fact, which is less than his official margin of victory in the election itself.”

Obviously I meant “greater,” not “less”. He won the election by a margin that was less than what this scientific poll was predicting.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

Americans are being fed a load of propaganda crap by the Israel lobby and its handmaidens. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Ahmadinejad won the Iranian election legitimately.

As Ritter points out, credible pre-election polling showed Ahmadinejad far ahead - by a 2-to-1 margin, in fact, which is less than his official margin of victory in the election itself.

The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit organization, conducted a scientific poll, showing Ahmadinejad well ahead. Read the director’s op-ed in the Washington Post, detailing why the poll is credible:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

[Oh, and a note to Nefez: I assume that KDelphia was talking about Israel’s threat to bomb Iran, not to “invade” it in the classical sense of sending in a large army.]

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, June 16 at 7:22 pm wrote:

We need to stop trying to play World Police…we dont have the blood nor treasure to spare, and mostly, it does not work! We do not understand the culture, and, no one knows how to text in Arabic here (j/k—I know that its not a funny situation)

Do you actually believe the US is actively intervening in the proto-revolution in Iran right now? There are hundreds of thousands of Iranian ex-pats living in the US who have and impart a great deal of in-depth knowledge of Iran. Go read some Amir Taheri, for starters. Finally, and just FYI, do not insult Persians by suggesting their native language is Arabic. It is not. It is Farsi.
==========================================

The US needs to beware of any attempts by this govt to expand the US “war” in the Middle East! If we want to “help” Iran, the uS should insist that Israel make a commitment not to invade Iran…

Um, how exactly would Israel, a nation of only 7 million people and one of the smallest in area (about the size of New Jersey), invade Iran - a nation with a vastly larger land area - the 18th largest country in the world in terms of area at 1,648,195 km², and populated with over 70 million?
As if that’s absurd enough, consider that Israel is about 2000km removed from Iran, and doesn’t even have neighboring countries who share a border with Iran.

The ignorance of basic facts about the region never seems to stop people from making absurd claims, assumptions, and assertions.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

I, like ardee, do not have extensive knowledge about Iran.

But, does anyone sense a “Curveball” coming?

I think that a “helping hand” by the US is exactly what Iran does not need.

We need to stop trying to play World Police…we dont have the blood nor treasure to spare, and mostly, it does not work! We do not understand the culture, and, no one knows how to text in Arabic here (j/k—I know that its not a funny situation)

The cry for intervention seems to be coming mainly from those who wouldve liked to have seen the uS intervene in Iranian affairs, long before this election.

The US needs to beware of any attempts by this govt to expand the US “war” in the Middle East! If we want to “help” Iran, the uS should insist that Israel make a commitment not to invade Iran…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns 

Paul Craig Roberts of Counterpunch:

“With the help of Moussavi, the U.S. government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American lives and money to liberate.  Has Moussavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran? 

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.
That is the script.  You are watching it every minute on U.S. television.”

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Soheil Moughadam - stick around and read all the apologists, appeasers, and outright supporters of the ayatollahs’ regime. This is the sickness of the so-called ‘Progressives’ and what’s left of the Left.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

I would surmise that Ritter has a greater depth of knowledge regarding the political situation in Iran than do I.Thus I accept his opinion that Mousavi’s hopes were a pipe dream. His call for opening lines of communication with Iran seems , not futile, but questionable. It certainly hinges upon how successful Obama will be in reigning in Netanyahu and the bluster about attacking Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

I wish someone would settle the argument as to what Iran is building there. I hear from that govt about a nuclear generating plant that would produce electricity thus husbanding the oil production for export. Russian technicians are involved in the construction and are supplying the materials, including the radioactive stuff. Of course our relations with Russia are in the dumper too…..

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Ritter’s screed will be a moot point if what we see in the streets of Shiraz now is a glimpse of things to come in every city in Iran; those who insist the Iranian uprising is only taking place in the liberal middle class enclaves of Tehran may want to watch this video from Shiraz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTLmTDH4RIM&feature=player_embedded

Meanwhile, demonstrators in distributed seven demands in print yesterday:

  1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader
  2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts
  3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader
  4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President
  5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution
  6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners
  7. Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

The moderate cleric Ayatollah Montazeri, whom the Iranian opposition wants to install as a temporary “Supreme Guide” until a new constitution is drafted, issued a statement today. It said in part:

 

The distinction of a powerful government - Islamic or non-Islamic - is its ability to heed both similar and opposing views and, with religious compassion, which is a prerequisite of government, allow all the strata of society, whatever their political beliefs, to participate in the running of the country, instead of totally alienating them and constantly increasing their [the dissidents] number. Since this government is known as a religious government, I fear that the conduct and actions of the officials may ultimately harm the religion and undermine the people’s beliefs.

http://raymankojast.blogspot.com/2009/06/grand-ayatollah-montazeri-issues.html

Tyranny never seemed so vulnerable in Iran since the last days of the Shah, and the current regime should fall as hard as did the Pahlavis.

Report this

By Soheil Moughadam, June 16, 2009 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Scott is missing the point here. In the ‘west’ when one party wins elections and the others lose, the opposition takes it on the chin and life goes on. Here, in Iran, you have a different situation altogether. The opposition is not just a party that will be out of power for the next four, eight…years. The opposition are the united masses of disaffected people sick and tired of the islamic regime. They have gathered around Mousavi as a temporary center - before the elections they chose the lesser of evils. Now they just want change and it is exactly now that the outside world should lend them support and a helping hand (contrary to Medvedev’s embrace of Ahmadinejad on his visit to Russia).

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.