Although I really wanted him to win, I'm kind of surprised that he did not concede given the tone he had taken in the Time interview. Does anyone know if there is any legitimacy behind the claims of fraud?

Just think of how much better our country would be today if Americans hadn't been so fat and complacent during the Florida debacle back in 2000.

The Iranians have more guts and concern for their nation's future and the honesty of elections, then their spineless and complacent American counterparts (re 2000 and 2004).

Elbows: yes. "Elbows" is what Mousavi and his supporters are jabbing around, good for them.

That's what happens when you try to steal an election. Is it possible that Ahmadinejad won the election. Certainly. But I don't think too many people find it credible that he won by over 30 percent and that Moussavi got only a third of the votes. The fact that the state-run media is reporting a blow-out and declared Ahmadinejad the winner so quickly is a clear indiciator that something fishy is going on.

Compare Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a message on state-run media, urging Iranians to rally behind Ahmadinejad. Khamenei described the election results a "divine assessment." with from downblog:
* James Dobson chatted this week with Tim Goeglein, a former special assistant to President Bush before he resigned in disgrace following a plagiarism controversy, about the former president's legacy. Goeglein told Dobson that George W. Bush "was was the instrument in God's hand as the leader of the free world."

Same kind of arrogant, impudent, vulgar, false-hero-worshiping theocrats. What a disgrace. (But note the different response from the affected populations ...)

Meanwhile, K-Lo at the National Review Online and other stellar minds of the right have been rooting for Ahmadinejad, lest a Mousavi victor give Obama the impression that diplomacy is good.

Think about that. The American right blogosphere is convinced that Iran under Ahmadinejad will destroy Israel. That's fine with them as long as Obama isn't validated in any way.

I once read/heard that autocratic regimes ironically face the greatest danger not when they crack down, but rather when they take steps toward liberalization. While I am not sure we are now in a position to lecture other countries on fair elections, I think it is still safe to say that giving people a taste of democracy and then snatching it away is a big mistake.

It will be interesting to see if the Iranian government emulates the Chinese government's response to T Square (ruthlessly crush all opposition), or tries to placate the protestors. Unfortunately, from the standpoint of autocratic regimes, the Chinese approach tends to work best!

i just heard from jonah -- yep, straight outta the whale's mouth -- that Mousavi is just a liberal fascist stirring up trouble.

You know, there isn't even any evidence of fraud, let alone proof. Everyone knew that pre-election polls were likely to have massively undercounted rural voters, and just because a bunch of rich college kids in Tehran came out to march doesn't mean their counterparts in the slums and in the country agreed with them.

These reults track perfectly with what you would expect when one candidate is an extremely popular, and populist, leader and the other candidate is viewed as a narrow tool of the west. Like it or not, thats the framework most Iranians went to the polls with. This result isn't shocking. 3 months ago, this would be the result everyone expected. Mousavi is very right-wing economically in a country that is very socialist.

Obviously, the Iranians give a shit about their elections. As opposed to the Amerikan sheeple who let George Bush steal two elections.

In 2000, Al Gore actually won Florida. The corporate media did an excellent job for their masters of making sure the Amerikan sheeple did not learn the truth.

In 2004, the election was decided by the Ohio vote. The corporate media did an excellent job for their masters of making sure that the election fraud in Ohio went unnoticed by the masses of the Amerikan sheeple.

Seriously, you folks seem to know absolutely nothing about this situation outside what you heard on CNN. If you think the American media is an accurate reflection of Iranian public sentiment, you're probably fairly clueless.

The overwhelming liklihood is that these results are a fairly accurate reflection of the Iranian electorate. All those protesters were likely the majority of Mousavi's supporters.

Why all of a sudden is the liberal/left so concerned with the technicalities of elections? They supported Fidel Castro and still support the Cuban Stalinist regime the way they have since 1960 without a thought about the formality of free elections. And what do liberals think of when a radical fanatic islamic state shows its true colors? Why, they think of their "own" country. Liberals act like angry juveniles rebelling against mommy and daddy.

Ahmadinejad gave 22 million poor Iranians healthcare. He raised wages and pensions for state workers. He campaigns for economic justice.

There's a reason why the poor came out to overwhelmingly support him. All of this was predictable. Those 'green protests' in Tehran probably sparked a fairly massive backlash against the idea that the economic elite were trying to kill the gains the poor and middle classes had made under Ahmadinejad.

You people really are clueless.

Wasn't Ali Khamenei one of the young Mullahs Ronald Reagan sold arms to back in the 1980's, with the help of Ollie North?

Hell, you all supported a right-wing corporatist out of some bizarre belief he was a neoliberal democrat. You guys got had by the American media. Again.

I'm not even sure where you all got the idea that Mousavi had a chance. He was always WAY behind in the polls up until some very recent, extremely questionable ones.

Now you all insist this had to be electoral fraud because someone on TV told you it had to be electoral fraud. When has the American media EVER been realistic or honest when it comes to Tehran?

Andrew Sullivan has a telling graph of the voting reports:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-results-as-they-came-in.html

That is what fraud looks like.

Inflation is "officially" 24% in Iran and probably much worse, so the idea that the average person is better off thanks to Ahmadinejad's policies is just plain wrong.

i love it when loaferlite says "probably"

(and, of course, "you people")

Wasn't the Ukrainian election just like this?

'divine assessment' is what we would call 'divine intervention'.

Oh, and you want more evidence of vouting shenanigans?

" Ahmadinejad had apparently taken the northwestern city of Tabriz with some ease.

Tabriz is the heart of East Azerbaijan, and Azeris are among the tightest ethnic groups in the country, unfailingly voting along ethnic lines.

In the 2005 presidential election, Mohsen Mehralizadeh was a largely unknown and wholly unsuccessful candidate. He came in seventh and last, and yet he still won the Azeri vote in the Azerbaijani provinces. Mir Hossein Mousavi is an Azeri from Tabriz."

source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961391719990152.html

Inept execution. Ahmadinejad should have picked a smaller fraudulent winning percentage.

You are 'You People'. You're basically calling for a lot of kids to die in an unpopular revolt. You're ignoring certain facts about the Iranian political system. Winning percentages are almost always inflated after the fact. I suppose the fact that Ronald Reagan took NY in 1984 proves he rigged that election. I mean, fuck. A republican taking NY?

Things change. Even people change. You need actual proof, not 'OMG those people didn't vote like they always did!!!'. Did Obama rig the vote in Indiana? I can guarantee anyone from that region would assume he would have had to. That's got a lot to do with racial lines as well.

Thats not even getting into the iranian tradition of inflating the winnin margins of elections.

You need someone to come forward and admit to being a party to this conspiracy. You can fake narrow wins by cheating around the edges. To fake an electoral landslide requires a truly massive number of participants across the entire country. All we see are some Mousavi supporters in Tehran protesting. Where are all the others you allege got ripped off?

There are thousands of elections held across the world every year. There is a limited number of vote distributions. It is inevitable that elections will occur where the distribution of votes remains stable across every sampled selection of votes. Indeed, it is inevitable that an election will eventuall occur, if it has not already, where the distribution of votes remains completely the same regardless of which sample is taken.

This is basic logic. Given a limited number of outcomes and and a large numbe of elections conducted, every distribution will eventually be represented. You can't point to a single peculair occurance, especially one that will eventually occur naturally, and declare it proof of 'divine intervention'. Thats BS, and you know it.

I can not yet tell if Ahmadinejad actually won that large or it was fraud. Mousavi's people have not given much concrete detail, but the voting from Mousavi's homebase going for Ahmadinejad simply defies all belief. If he did win, there would be some interesting parallels with Thailand.
On the other hand, the intensity of the support for Ahmadinejad from American conservatives is fascinating. Perhaps the dimension of cosmopolitans for change Vs. traditionalists is becoming so important that traditionalists root for each other even when their traditions consist of fighting with each other (for example, American Christians traditionalists and Iranian Muslim traditionalists).

Soullite, your prolific post have me wondering: you wouldn't happen to have a flat in Tehran, would you?

Considering that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the official winner within two hours after the polls closed, that Iran is a very large country, and that ballots were paper ballots...yes, I'd say the vote was stolen. And considering the strong desire of the populace for reform, to countenance that Ahmajinedad won with 62% of the vote is laughable.

And considering that 59 million ballots were printed when there are only 46 million registered voters...

Its obviously Obama's fault.

This result was easily foreseeable to anyone who wasn't looking at the thuggish regime in Iran through rose-colored glasses. There was no way the mullahs were going to allow the hard-liners to lose. Wake up, Obama kids! And by the way, an Isreali attack on Iran is now almost certain. Count on it, Obama kids.

On the other hand, the intensity of the support for Ahmadinejad from American conservatives is fascinating.

No it isn't. It's perfectly predictable -- he's their best hope for a war. It would be more convenient, if, say, Mexico were to invade, but hey, you can't have everything.

How reminiscent this is of the reelection of President Chavez in Venezuela.

Both the American government and American media referred to him as a "dictator" even though he was democratically elected.

The American government signaled it's support for the opposing candidate who represented the wealthy class, who were upset with the incumbent's policies favoring the Poor and Working Class.

He was reelected by a wide margin when the Poor and Working Class came out in droves to vote for him.

The American government and American media claimed the election was fraudulent.

"...and the backlash against the illegitimacy of the process seems to be severe..."-Benen

You assume a lot by this statement. I'm as willing as anyone to want to believe this but so far there is no real evidence to support this assumption.
I'm inclined to believe that which ever side actually won the other side would be shouting fraud. In fact this could have been predicted more accurately than who actually won.

One thing 'seems' evident...the country is divided. That'
s a good thing...right?

The American government and American media claimed the election was fraudulent.

I don't remember either the American Govt or the mainstream American media declaring fraud in the Chavez election. Not saying it didn't happen but do you have a cite?

There is significant evidence of fraud. Juan Cole of Informed Consent gives six reasons for concern.

1. The Azeri capital Tabriz went 57% for Ahmadinejad even though Mousavi is himself an Azeri as more popular in cities generally thn Ahmadinejad.

2. Ahmadinejad took Tehran by over 50% although he is not popular there even among the poor.

3. The pre-election #3 candidate Karoubi ended up a distant fourth with 0.85% of the vote even though he polled 17% last time. And although a Lur did as poorly in Luristan as everywhere else.

4. The pre-election #4 Rezaie who polled badly performed badly but still got twice as many votes as Karoubi.

5. Ahmadinejads returns were remarkably even across Iraq provinces, quite a departure from past results which showed more ethnic and tribal effects.

6. And most telling to me, although the Electorial Commission is supposed to take three days to certify the vote, they rushed the process into a single day and had Khamenei immediately approve it.

The above paraphrased from Prof Cole.
http://www.juancole.com/

My take below:

Look this has all the earmarks of all old-style Chicago election, the Machine/Regime candidate was going down or at least to a run-off and the bosses pulled the levers. There is every reason to be suspicious of this result, which is maybe why there are riots and fires going on in Tehran right now.

brent,

"I don't remember either the American Govt or the mainstream American media declaring fraud in the Chavez election."

They refer to him as a "dictator".

Does that have a different meaning to you ?

Israel cannot bomb Iran without the explicit authorization of either Turkey, the United States or Saudi Arabia or perhaps all three. Buy an atlas.

Conceivably they could get their bombers in but they would not be able to get them out unless the US explicitly protected their aerial re-fueling planes from Iranian counterattack. That Israel was able to perform a mock exercise over the same distances but to the west over the Med doesn't mean they can do the same thing going East.

If Obama doesn't green light it an Isreali bombing won't occur, if he does the Iranians will logically and legally regard it as an act of war by the United States.

There may be some fanatics out there that would risk having a dozen divisions of Revolutionary Guards plus tens of thousands of Iranian suicide bombers come across the Iraqi border from Iran to attack American troops and having the Straits of Hormuz shut down and with it much of the world's oil traffic so that Israel gets some temporary security. Personally I don't see it.

In light of the exposure of most of the U.S. combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iranian attack greenlighting an Israeli bombing campaign would represent an act of treason against the United States.

I do not believe the Turks will allow Isreali overflights and they have US supplied air capabilities that would allow them to prevent it. Likewise the Saudis, equally well equipped with advanced air defences have no incentive to allow their air-space to be allowed to attack Shi'ite Iran. Not only do they have substantial restive Shi'ite popluations of their own, their economic lifeline depends almost entirely on the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And while as a practical matter the Iraqi leadership cannot prevent the US allowing Israel to use Iraqi air-space I don't think the Maliki government would last five minutes if it was seen to be complicit with an attack on Iran, which after all is the patron of many of the parties that comprise this government.

Opinions differ I guess, but I have no appetite for seeing a few tens of thousands of US troops beseiged by waves of Iraqi and Iranian suicide bombers. Some of the Fighting Keyboardists need to sit back and think about what the real world consequences of any bombing would be. This is the kind of ass clownery that got people to believe we would be out of Iraq by November 2003 and that the only risk was a stray rose thorn mixed with the petals being thrown at our troops.

Piece of Cake(walk) anyone?

I'll have to give Mitra a call on this one. Otherwise, it's Bush's fault.

Bruce,

"There is every reason to be suspicious of this result, which is maybe why there are riots and fires going on in Tehran right now."

I'd say the "riots and fires going on in Tehran right now" are intended to attempt to make one "suspicious of this result".

Remember the orchestrated protests in the streets in Venezuela ? Were they representative of the vast majority as the American media made it seem ?

Posted by: Bruce Webb on June 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Thanks Mr. Webb. Nice and neat. Well done.

It's a triumph for the godly -- and under-represented in the polls -- voters of flyover country, the pure people of the heartland, untainted by urbanism and free-thinking.

No wonder McCain actually won.

Wait, we're talking about Iran?....

Appears my post in response to Soullite was eaten...

By your logic, Soullite, a murder could not be convicted unless he confessed. Sorry, doesn't happen. Evidence builds in a case, and their needn't be an admission of wrong-doing by the guilty party. There's plenty of evidence surfacing that the election is fraudulent.

As to you Texas Jew, the glee in your post would be surprising if it weren't so disgusting. And if you were in fact informed, you'd know that there are many clerics opposed to Ahmadinejad.

They refer to him as a "dictator".

Does that have a different meaning to you ?

Do you mean to say that that is the basis of your claim? The answer to your question then is yes, theat does have a different meaning to me. Referring to Chavez as a dictator is not equivalent to a specific claim that his election was fraudulent, which is what you asserted was claimed by the Government and the Media. Both are false and one may be implied by the other but not necessarily so because they are not the same claim. Again, I am not saying it didn't happen but I have no memory of our government making a direct assertion that the Venezualan elections were fraudulent. That would be a really big deal.

What is the best outcome if you were a neo-con/liberal hawk pundit (Weekly Standard, TNR, NYT, Washington Post)? What is the best outcome if you are say, an intelligence agency that would like to bomb Iran?

(1) You want Ahmadinejad to win - a lot has already been invested in his demonization (even liberals will reflexively believe anything negative asserted about him). A reformer who might rachet down tensions with the West might preclude bombing Iran. These forces do not want peace in that way.

(2) But you want him to win with the stink of illegitimacy. (It greases the skids for subsequent military action, if you choose). So you float some stories, you pay some people to organize some protests.

I don't know if there was fraud or not, but I do know not to believe what I hear on the television.

Why should this result be any more surprising than Chavez in the Venezuela or Thaksin in Thailand? The international media tends to underestimate the popularity of politicians who redistribute revenue to the poor and promote traditional morality.

This underestimation is the result of associational bias. The opponents of these populist and traditionalist politicians tend to be urbane, wealthy and internationally educated. The were often educated in the West and have extensive contacts here. They are familiar with western customs and are good interviewees. They know how to sing from the liberal-internationalist-free trade hymnbook. Their claims of popular support are comforting to western liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives (and business-oriented liberals) are assured by their pro-market credentials. For liberals they present a comforting sense of commonality - the sense that the average Iranian doesn't approve of stoning homosexuals or subjecting female runaways to virginity tests.

Remember all the tributes to Benazir Bhutto from prominent US journalists - many of whom knew her from college and projected all sorts of feminist and liberal fantasies onto her? Everyone seemed to forget the tribal nature of her support and how stunningly corrupt she was.

It's kind of like how so many Europeans were shocked when Bush was re-elected in 2004. Because all of their friends in New York had assured them that Bush would never get re-elected.

brent,

"Do you mean to say that that is the basis of your claim?"

Nope.

However, it is evidentiary.

"The answer to your question then is yes, theat does have a different meaning to me."

Fascinating.

And, by the way, Ahmedinejad is also a raving anti-Semite who seeks to popularize the notions of holocaust deniers. As to why anyone would root for an Ahmedinejad victory is beyond me.

What Ahmadinejad seeks to popularize is the (correct) notion that the Holocaust has been used and defiled by raving Zionists as justification for carving the European colony known as Israel out of the flesh of middle eastern Muslims, Christians, and (yes) Jews.

I do applaud Arthur for being the first person on this thread to be honest about his neocon anti-Ahmadinejad insanity.

If we can clean up Ohio election fraud, it should help clean it up across the nation, and possibly around the world.

If we can remove the massive cover-up of election fraud blanketing Ohio by the Ohio Attorney Generals office, the Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and staff, Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis... both on record as attorneys for the plaintiffs in the King Lincoln v Blackwell case. Yet in so many legal writings spend their time defending SOS Brunner... and doing nothing to catch the election criminals, which makes them actually more like just additional attorneys for the defendants, of which Brunner and Ken Blackwell both are.

So far, not one person has been held accountable for election violations, and for the destruction of the ballots and other election records by 58 of Ohio's 88 Counties. Eight members of the Ohio Election Justice Campaign are working to intervene in the King Lincoln v Blackwell case, about the 2004 election and its records. We have requested a special grand jury, an investigation, a report, and the court order of a fourth degree felony and contempt charges to be enforced against the election officials in the 58 out of 88 Ohio counties that deliberatly destroyed the ballots, which are evidence.

Iran and the world need all of us in the United States to clean up our own mess, that it may help spare others the pain of such despicable actions in their lives.

Request that US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice help the OEJC resolve this, and the massive cover-up. Do it for yourself, for your family, and for Iran too. No one should have to experiande election fraud.

For lots more information on Ohio and this: www.electiondefensealliance.org/OEJC

So do you deny the fact that Ahmedinejad is giving a platform to Holocaust deniers? Come on.

Fascinating.

Cryptic.