i fear that if the neocons were still in charge, every person in iran – supreme leaders and protesters alike – would already be sporting nice nuclear glows.

Why would these neocons bother to be intellectually curious about the "argument" Obama ilumnated? These are the same people who thought it would be a good idea to elect a president who sang, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and a vice president who thought that ny being able to see Russia from her state placed her into some sort of intelligent player in world affairs. Nauseating...

The neomoran's rantings as seen through a Hoekstra lens:

I once played RISK for five hours so it makes me an expert on world affairs and geopolitical strategy. Triple SIXES!!!! Yes!!!

Well, of course they don't want to discuss it, because it's so self-evidently true that "intervening" would be counterproductive that it would become even more obvious that they *want* things to go badly, because they desperately want to bomb Iran. If the protesters aren't slaughtered, the neo-cons won't get that new war that they lust after so very much.

The reality is simple: if Obama had voiced support for the opposition in Iran, these same guys would be calling him reckless. WHATEVER Obama says or does, these guys will scream how wrong he is.

And the sad part of it is that this constant belittling and degrading of the President will erode his popularity. It worked with the Clintons quite effectively so why change tactics?

Obama should outfit Hayes, Kristol, etc. with box-cutters and tickets on Iranian Airways, and let them carry out their mission. We hate the Iranians for their lack of freedoms.

The neocons have one goal in mind and that is an invasion of Iran. In their warped minds, they see the election as a perfect excuse. Fighting for democracy gives them cover that the radical right can identify with. It was the chant we heard from the bushies for 8 years. I'm convinced that these people, these so called neocons are working for Israel, not the United States.

The reason that morons act like morons is that, well, they're morons!

"Being Republican" is a mental disorder.

You are (I assume) deliberately ignoring the point that these guys are not engaged in "argument." They are engaged in "spin." They know that the public is frothing for a fight, and they know they can make Obama look weak by portraying him as "afraid to fight." So, don't look for argument from them, look for demagogary instead.

If BHO isn't willing to use the bully pulpit to protect and promote democracy, he's in the wrong job.

I'm convinced that these people, these so called neocons are working for Israel, not the United States.

Not quite - they're not "working for Israel" so much as they are working for the Likud - you know, the Nazi Israelis, these neocons are the ones supporting their fellow American "Kach Krazies" in the West Bank who are out terrorizing Palestinians. Their entire existence demonstrates why the question of the loyalty of Jews to the country they live in can continue to be asked (just for the record, that's an anti-Semitic slur, but these guys are the embodiment of most anti-Semitic slurs, if their fellow anti-Semitic wingnuts ever took notice).

DO THEY KNOW THE OTHER SIDE EXISTS?

Of course they do. If they acknowledge the concrete arguments made by the other side, though, they make their position appear ludicrous, since they have no response. So they ignore it.

Just like they don't mention that many of the same people berating Obama for not supporting the Iranian protestors and calling him an ally of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei were openly hoping that Ahmadinejad would win the election for the express purpose that he would provide a clear and unquestionable enemy while Mousavi would not, even though Iran under Mousavi would still be, from their perspective, an enemy.

So its clear that they don't care about Iran, democracy, or Mousavi, they care about having an external enemy they can point to distract from domestic issues where their positions are unpopular and to pursue the same kind of militaristic and authoritarian policies they've pursued using other external enemies (Communists, Iraq, al-Qaeda, etc.) as the excuse for.

In that way, they are similar to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who want the US and UK to serve similar roles with regard to their domestic political situation. And, so, the actions they pressure the administration to take are exactly the ones that would do what little could be done to reinforce the position of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who are the enemies that they desperately need, and who desperately need the US as an enemy.

Well, of course they don't want to discuss it, because it's so self-evidently true that "intervening" would be counterproductive that it would become even more obvious that they *want* things to go badly, because they desperately want to bomb Iran. If the protesters aren't slaughtered, the neo-cons won't get that new war that they lust after so very much.

This is mostly what I think, too, although I'm not sure the end goal is to get war. It does seem pretty clear to me that what these guys want is to provoke Ahmadinejad into cracking down, getting rid of the opposition, and ensuring that Iran will continue to be a helpful enemy. The object here is to be able to point to oppressive regimes in order to continue the fiction that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys. It is at the heart of neocon identity that the USA is the goodest good guy, and Islam has replaced Communism as the baddest bad guy.

The neocons have one goal in mind and that is an invasion of Iran.

Actually, no. Their real goal is to come back to power. They know this is impossible in an Obama administration, so they relentlessly attack current administration policy, whatever that happens to be. That they do so by advocating the most warlike possible course is really just a detail.

Why do they not bother rebutting the rationale for the policy? Well, why should they, since A. the policy is pretty sensible and B. they continue to get published without the bother of offering anything compelling or substantive?

Attacking straw men is a bad habit that comes over from the later Bush years (he was incapable of doing anything else), and no one is making them stop. Far from it, Fox Noise and the WaPo have dedicated themselves to spewing their tripe, and they get plenty of airtime on the other nets as well.

The reason they don't engage with the opposing argument becuase that would be evidence of weakness and self-doubt. A vital part of the faux-conservative schtick is confidence in American values, to the point where one doesn't even acknowledge that other perspectives exist, and one most certainly doesn't consider the likely consequences of one's words and actions. Where it leads is this extraordinary equation of patriotism with ignorance and bluster. Question it and you're accused of wimpishness and "blaming America first."

These are people who've lost every argument they've ever been in.

It's a learning disability.

Or auto-eroticism.

Or both. A learning disability that leads to chronic self-abuse.

Making an assertion over and over again is not the same thing as offering a genuine argument in a debate. The Bush administration was famous for making unsupported assertions on many subjects. Bush himself was the worst. Some of his assertions were tautological, meaning they were needless repetition of the same sense using different words. Who can forget this one:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," - President George W. Bush, Washington Post, June 18, 2004.

The point is not to persuade. The point is to overwhelm by throwing more assertions over the wall than the other guy. The news cycle itself keeps score, and the side with the most assertions is judged the winner. This has nothing to do with logic or reason or even common sense.

This is simple. Who would trust to understand the situation? Folks like Dick Lugar, Henry Kissinger, Nick Burns, and Gary Sick or clowns like Krauthammer, Wolfowitz, Hayes, Kristol, and Barnes?

DO THEY KNOW THE OTHER SIDE EXISTS?

Neo-conservatism is a disease involving a deficit of impulse control. Of course the neo-cons know that the other side exists, that there is a counter-argument to their favorite thesis. But as they have no answer for that counter argument, they have no other choice than to ignore it.

Because the urge to demand that your enemies be smitten, independent of whether they represent any threat or not, is so irrepressible that anything in its way has to be suppressed.

Oh, and by the way, neo-conservatism is an incurable condition, the only thing that helps is quarantine during the acute phase and life-long abstinence thereafter. Sadly, the relapse rate is awfully high.

So there are 405 neo-cons in the House including, and Ron Paul?

Chait isn't exactly a sterling example of engaging in fair rebuttal of anybody. Y'all thought he was a GOP mole in 2004.

The top story at Huffington Post 'Fierce Clashes in Tehran' has attracted over 63,000 comments.

Is that a record?

Why do the neocons believe this is a misguided approach?

Occam's Razor would lead one to conclude that the neocons believe what they do because they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

A low quality of argument from Krauthammer?

You don't say. ;~)

What tavella said. The neocons realize that their position is the worst possible for the great majority of the Iranians, but in their twisted minds, the only way to solve any problem whatsoever is to kill someone. Therefore,since they have it in their little heads that we have to start a war with Iran, they are doing whatever they can to bring it about.

Why do the neocons believe this is a misguided approach?

come on. the neocons are plain as day. They view the situation in Iran (and every international situation) as an opportunity for military action - period. It doesn't matter why and anything else. The neocons bloodlust dictates that every intentional situation requires military intervention.

Neocons are truly dangerously violent psychotic individuals that should not be loose in society without being under the care of a trained psychological professional. As much as neocons promote preemptive military action, society needs to institute preemptive psychological intervention on neocons to protect us all.

no.

If BHO isn't willing to use the bully pulpit to protect and promote democracy, he's in the wrong job.

BHO is using the bully pulpit to promote democracy -- and the right of people to protest peacefully without violent repression.

What he is not doing is is putting the White House in the position of dictating what the result should be in Iran, and thereby feeding the propaganda of the opponents of reform that the opposition is puppet of the British and Americans.

Because it would be politically useful for them if Obama is regarded as weak and ineffectual. The spin of the last several months all goes in this direction. It's not an argument about Iran; it's content-free domestic politics. They're trying to create Carter out of Obama (or his generally accepted public image: I like Carter)

They have the advantage that Obama cannot vigorously rebut this line of attack, where Iran is concerned, since all of his public remarks are going to be very targeted.

I shudder to think that I once read Fred Barnes with pleasure at TNR, back in the 80s. I couldn't tell you when he slid into pure hackery.

it's almost as if the argument presented by the president is so self-evidently horrible, they don't feel the need explain why they think it's wrong.

That, I discovered twenty-plus years ago, is the hallmark of conservative "argument." I used to routinely read all the op-eds in the LA Times looking for a sense of the conservative point of view. I found instead a series of prejudices and talking points presented as established fact. They seemed to be addressing only those readers who had already reached the conclusions they were putting forth. The one exception was Kevin Phillips, who presented a genuine argument, designed to persuade.

Of course, look where Mr. Phillips is today in relation to the conservative movement.

I agree with mim and walldon--it's not about refuting anything. It's about the drip, drip, drip of constant criticism with words like "weak," "unconscionable," and the steady linking of Barack Hussein Obama with repressive Islamic leaders. That's all it is.

They truly are a noise machine.

Krauthammer's Klanking Kacaphony of Konservative Krap.

Although I think Steve Benen knows better, it's sort of a parlor game that he writes under the assumption that the Weekly Standard is trying to further an intellectual honest debate. If they were, perhaps they'd be more concerned with rebutting arguments they disagree with.

But we know that they're doing nothing more than seeking cheap political points. By that view, letting others know that there's a coherent reason for the Obama administration's actions is like conceding the game before it starts. Attempting a sensible rebuttal might lead to the sort of debate that Benen or I would like to see, but the Weekly Standard correctly perceives that it's not a sort of debate they're likely to win.

Far better to help wind up the 28%ers to keep spouting the same nonsense they've been spouting since the Inauguration.

These neocons need to read Peggy Noonan's artcle in the WSJ. I don't particularly like her editorials, but in this one, she gets something right about them and their empty editorials, and it's their solipsism, which is considered to be, by many in the mental health community, a personality disorder.

Kristol, Krauthammer and the other neocons want to goad Obama into a position that will portray him to the national and international communities as weak on national security and foreign policy. They will portray him this way no matter what position he takes.
What they don't seem to understand about Obama is that he's had plenty of experience dealing with bullies because of who and what he is. They need to take their ball and leave the playground. Obama is an adult who doesn't like playing with grown-@$$ children like them.

"Making an assertion over and over again is not the same thing as offering a genuine argument in a debate."

True enough but missing the central issue. Remember that "debate" as normally defined is not designed to come to an unrealized truth, instead it is an effort to reach a particular conclusion.

In forensic debate the teams are tasked with defending alternately both sides of an argument, and the judgement goes to the person whose argument was more effective. Which might or might not coincide with objective truth. Debate is not training for an investigative reporter and still less that of a scientist working at the border of established knowledge, instead it is training for advocacy whether in the practice of law or in policy.

There is an old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, pound on the table".

Once you apply this to things like the NRO, , the Weekly Standard, the WaPo, and Fox News a lot of the pure frustration drains away. Does anyone believe that any of Teflon Don Gotti's lawyers really believed he was innocent even though he spent years not having anything stick (hence the nickname)? For a mafia lawyer justice doesn't enter into the calculation. It is all about winning.

Raging because Hayes/Kristol and Barnes are refusing to engage on the facts, or even on the law, and are instead just doing the equivalent of banging on the table is kind of a waste of time. In truth this is just a sign that they know they are on the verge of losing the case outright.

These guys were tasked with the following brief: "Resolved. That a bombing campaign on Iran would be beneficial to (choose one or more) Likud/Israel/US security/world peace. Discuss." If they can't make the case, the clients have no problem with replacing them with new counsel.

As others have noted, the reason they don't mention Obama's original reasonings is because it doesn't matter what Obama's reasoning was. They are against whatever Obama says, just because he's saying. If he'd spoken up on behalf of the protesters we'd be hearing about Obama's rash and risky behavior and the the need for more considered and cautious rhetoric. If he'd called for an international conference, we'd be hearing about how international meetings don't work and how this isn't our business and we should leave their business up to them.

America's past actions in Iran and our more recent actions in the Persian gulf mean that we should not be trusted and their hostility towards us is very reasonable. Therefore, Obama is exactly right: we can help best by shutting up and staying out, except for reminding the powers in Iran that the world is watching, so at least some of their interests are best served by behaving in the way they would like to be perceived.

Two columns each, by interchangeable by-lines, in both the Weekly Std and WaPo - aren't they pretty much sister publications at this point?

Bear in mind that, since the first generation of neocons (Kristol pere, etc.) and the Committee on the Present Danger, the Kissingeresque "classic realism" (in the International Relations theoretical sense of the term) of Kissinger, Lugar, et al., has been as much a bete noir as any generic "liberalism" has been. Since the beginning, neocons have steadfastly rejected balance, sobriety, strategic patience, or anything reasonably approximating coherent thought in their foreign policy analysis.

Is the administration's position justified? Is it sensible? Might it be the responsible approach under the circumstances?
I don't know. That's actually what Hayes, Krauthammer and Bloody Bill say, too. You just have to translate from the Farsical.

President Obama is doing exactly the right thing... nothing.

We have direct experience of what happens when we meddle in Iranian affairs.

Why does the right and neoconservatives specifically have such selective memory?

My goodness doesn't anyone remember the Shaw of Iran?

He was that result of American and British covert operations ending in the 1953 coup d'etat... which of course was all about oil.

Google "Operation Ajax" the history is there and it's been well documented.

The Iranians certainly remember.

The "blow-back of all that is we got the Ayatollah Khomeini

America does not need to be involved with Iranian internal affairs... AMERICA HAS MADE THAT MISTAKE BEFORE.

Remember?

In my view, the neocons want to precipitate a brutal crackdown by the Iranian regime; they want the limited democracy in the system to be crushed; they want Iran to be seen as the moral equivalent of Stalin's regime. A successful revolution would undermine their program, so they are sabotaging it.

On last night's McLaughlin Group, Monica Crowley tried to slam Obama for the same thing, but Lawrence O'Donnell kept asking her EXACTLY what words would you have Obama say ? She kept trying to deflect the question and spew more RightWing gibberish, but Larry kept asking her for the WORDS she wanted Obama to use. The more she talked the more foolish she looked.

How refreshing to witness someone stand up to the crazy RightWing and hold them accountable.

Doesn't this all stem from the fact that the conservatives got really, really comfortable with the U.S. having the role of policing the world during the Bush years? They seem to think we have endless resources to just throw at every country with a problem, and endless men to send to enforce our preferred reality. But a country being pro-democracy does not make that country pro-American. And our meddling in the affairs of others will only cause more problems than it solves at this point.

Long story short, we haven't been invited to the party. If we walk in uninvited we'll be crashing it, and no one will want anything to do with us. So the conservatives need to shut the hell up.

Obama has been right and Hayes and Kristol wrong on this issue, in my opinion. When you can not accomplish anything constructive, watching and waiting is the best action. GHW Bush's encouraging words to Iraqi rebels after the liberation of Kuwait, and the disaster that followed, is a lesson to learn.

Nevertheless, even inaction has unintended consequences. today Iranian tv broadcast Obama speaking, and the translation (reportedly -- one can't tell which of these many reports to credit) had Obama expressing his strong support for the protesters. So now we have the situation where the protesters know that the US IS NOT supporting them them, but the Khamenei/Ahmedinejad stalwarts believe that the US IS supporting the protesters. Depending on how many such stalwarts there are and how much they trust the official Iranian media, Obama has been given the situation he was trying to avoid, namely widespread belief among Iranian administration stalwarts that the US is fomenting the protests, without his having anything to show for it. And there is substantial but untallied killing in progress.

To date his open hand to Iran has been met with a fiercely re-clenched fist.

The ignorance you and your commenters have shown here is honestly frightening.

Why doesn't the support of the French President, or the German prime minister give the mullahs the excuse to crush the resistance?

Why do the words of the President of the United States matter so much one way or the other?

Because the United States stands as a beacon of hope and freedom for billions of people all over the world.

If it didn't why would the mullahs care what our president said either way?

Why would the protesters care either way?

What the American President says does matter. If President Obama were to say with conviction that he believed in what the protesters were doing, and that he supported their goal of a free Iran; they would be encouraged. They would know that the beacon of hope in the world supported their cause and more of their countrymen just might be convinced to join them in the streets.

The mullahs certainly would be angered and probably a little frightened that the Americans had lent their moral support to the protesters. Iran might have a chance at freedom. Many people might get killed. We will never know.

What we do know is if the president says nothing, nothing will be different in the end with the mullahs. None of his rhetorical talents will convince them to give their people freedom or abandon their nuclear aspirations.

If the Iranian people are successful in bringing the mullahs down it will be no thanks to us and our president.

Is that what you all really hope to see?

No other world leader's words carry the weight of the American President. Maybe that is changing. Maybe we no longer are the beacon of hope and freedom. Maybe that's what you and your commenters want Steve.

So the neocons, who wanted Ahmajinedad to win so they could go to war with Iran, are now on Mousavi's side? And they accuse Obama of being on the side of the government. Of course, the government of Iran has just accused Obama of being on the protestors' side.

Well, it appears as if the authoritarian Iranian regime agrees with the neocons that Obama should use more strident language, but took it a step farther and actually mistranslated his words on Iranian State TV:

12:43 pm: Iranian state media reportedly lying about what Obama is saying:

This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting.

Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators.

If indeed this is true, I would say this checkmates the neocons.

If the Iranian people are successful in bringing the mullahs down it will be no thanks to us and our president.

Is that what you all really hope to see?

I would certainly hope to see that a nation's citizens changed their own country according to their will, rather than having a change imposed on them from an outside country.

What do you hope to see? A takeover of Iran by a foreign nation?

Why do the words of the President of the United States matter so much one way or the other?

They matter a great deal, which is why Obama is keeping his mouth shut.

We've been sedulously trying to choose a government for the Iranians for
as long as I've been alive, and I'm pushing 60.
We gave them a Shah they had to fight and die to remove.
We were instrumental in creating SAVAK for him, too.
We greenlighted, then supported Iraq in a war against them that killed half-a-million Iranians. We've shot down one of their commercial airliners.
We anointed them part of the Axis of Evil.
We, for a generation, have severely restricted trade and travel with them.
We're supporting terrorist activity inside Iran to this very day.

Rick, no one in Iran has any reason to take anything any American president says seriously.

Hey Rick,

Is what you demand something like the moral encouragement George H.W. Bush extended to the Shiites in southern Irak and the Kurds in northern Irak at the end of the first Gulf war?

Very noble use of his bully pulpit by the then president. At least until the Shiites and the Kurdes had to start taking the bullets, then it began to look embarassingly phony.

Or are you suggesting the US will send in it's armed forces this time?

I think very few on the right actually believe what they're saying. They're part of the Army of the Viciously Disappointed who get some relief from shouting the party line. The real problem is how they're being handled by the likes of Harry Reid and his counterpart in the House and the rest of us. We tend to focus on the media and on the right. Big mistake.

Rick:

If we had a different history with Iran, you would have some valid points. French and German leaders, and those of other nations, can say words of encouragement for the dissidents, and the mullahs can't use those as an excuse for further cracking down. We and the Brits don't have that option because of our long histories of intervening in Iranian affairs, usually to the detriment of everyone's longterm interests. We are the "Great Satan" to many in Iran, and the perception isn't totally insane. France and Germany are not perceived this way.

Marler:

Many people in Iran speak English, so the attempts to mistranslate Obama's words will not be totally successful.

Despite our military might, we are at a disadvantage in dealing with Iran, the Arab-speaking world, etc., because of the paucity of Americans who speak Arabic or Farsi. Not to mention the unutterable stupidity of DADT and discharging Arabic-speaking military people who DO speak those languages.

Rick, I have met a lot of clueless, jingoistic morons in my life, but I want to show you at the county fair, cuz you would win lil' ole me a blue ribbon!

Everything Davis X. Machina (one of my all-time favorite handles, btw) said is spot on, and that is just the tip of the wrongs that have been committed against the Iranian people because Brits and Americans have been convinced for a hundred years that that their oil somehow ended up under Iranian sand.

Are you aware of all the covert, "below the CNN line" commando activity that Americans have been committing in Iran across the Iraqi border? Read some of the white papers at the Century Foundation that retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner has written.

Look at a fucking map. If you count the mercenaries, we have over a half-million combat force on two borders.

And then there is the unpleasant fact that the United States is a state sponsor of terrorism in the form of the Jundallah, and offshoot of al Qaeda - yes we are in league with people who spun off from the people who killed 3000 Americans almost eight years ago. We support them, and they sneak across the border from Pakistan and commit acts of terrorism in Iran.

The French and German Presidents can speak up because they haven't fomented any coups that led to a quarter century of brutal rule under a feckless CIA-installed thug, and they haven't tried to cripple the countries economy.

It isn't about us. What about that do you not get?

Wolfdaughter: Many people in Iran speak English, so the attempts to mistranslate Obama's words will not be totally successful.

but how many is "many"? Isn't it true that 80%-90% don't speak English, especially outside the cities, so that the mistranslation will succeed with most people?

One of the repeated comments, from the few who say that Ahmedinejad probably really won, is that we get all of our information from the tiny fraction of Iranians who: (a) have land lines or cell phones; (b) regularly access the internet; (c) speak English; (d) live in the largest cities; or (e) all of the above.

Like everyone else, I have gotten all or almost all of my information from the people who have gotten all of their information from the narrow stratum described above. The analogy I drew the other day was that this was like the US learning about Iraq from Iraqi expatriates just before the invasion.

"Is the administration's position justified? Is it sensible? Might it be the responsible approach under the circumstances? The strategy is not above reproach, but the Weekly Stanard neocons just won't, or can't, challenge the policy. It's bizarre."

It's only bizarre if you believe they're trying to make a serious argument. The neocons cited here always coordinate their arguments and language. It's more obvious this week because they need to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak, and are falling over each other in their haste to stir fear and anger.

Neocons' short-term goal is an increasingly hostile Islamic regime in Iran. Why would they address issues of statesmanship? These op-eds have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with propaganda. Their long-term goal is war, and their strategy remains an angry and fearful U.S. population. That the WaPo publishes this obvious nonsense the same week it cans Froomkin tells you everything you need to know about the bleak future of that rag.

MRM, did you see this article? It makes me proud to know the difference between mean and median. Statistics proves that there is only a 4% chance that the Iranian election wasn't rigged.

Actually, I think the authors' conclusion is that there is a one in 200 chance it was a legitimate vote tally, or 0.5%

Thanks for reading the whole thing. I got distracted by something else that came in about half-way through where they are talking about only 4 in 100 legitimate elections would have those end-digits. Should have been more careful about how I worded that.

Thank you for the tone of your comment Wolfdaughter. Are you arguing that because we have been wrong or done the wrong thing in the past we are now precluded from doing the right thing now?

Shouldn't we be doing the right thing to atone for our wrongs?

To all the other hot heads I never demanded anything and never suggested the US take any kind of military action. I have actually met quite a few Iranians some who have even invited me to visit them in their homes. The Iranians I have met do care about what our president has to say and do want a better relationship with our country.

I do realize there are Iranians who hate us as well. They would be the people supporting the current regime that beats women in the streets.

Actually, all the analysis by Beber and Scacco demonstrates (assuming correct) is that it is unlikely that the least significant two digits in the vote totals are randomly assigned. This leaves room for the possibility that the most significant digits are valid and that the election officials just made up the insignificant digits. I can imagine plausible scenarios that might had led to that happening, eg, the internal official totals may round to the nearest 1000s, and for reporting purposes they may just fill in the zeroes so that it looks more "credible".

There are a few more issues.

First, there is nothing inherent in the analysis that requires that they only focus on the least significant two digits, so one can assume that they did perform that analysis on all the digits, and wonder why they did not report those results.

Second, they are only looking at the distribution of 116 digits. While I have not analyzed elections results before, I have done a little work with testing random number generators, and you need a hell of a lot more data than that to draw any reasonable conclusion.

In any case, I'd not cite that article as proof that the elections were rigged.

we get all of our information from the tiny fraction of Iranians who: (a) have land lines or cell phones; (b) regularly access the internet; (c) speak English; (d) live in the largest cities; or (e) all of the above.

Of the choices given above, every one is false.

68% of Iranians live in urban areas. That is not a tiny fraction. It is a vast majority.

In a country of somewhere between 65 and 70 million people there were 30 million cell phones as of two years ago, certainly more today. That is not a tiny fraction. As of 2005 there were close to 18 million landlines. Evidently a majority of Iranians have access to telecommunications.

Iran is estimated to have 23 million internet users, roughly 1 in 3 individuals. A minority but not a tiny fraction.

Iran is not some backwater province, it is a country that values learning with a higher percentage of women in college than the U.S. Why is it that when a middle eastern country is alleged to be a threat to the U.S. that they are characterized as evil geniuses with access to the latest technology -- but when they're not deemed a threat they're treated as little but backwater hicks whose motives and lives we can barely fathom?

Reactionaries in the U.S. are always alleging that we can "know" with certainty they have X number of centrifuges and secret underground bases but we can't know what's REALLY going on in the country in the biggest story in twenty-five years there with more information coming out than ever because we believe no one there owns a fucking cellphone???

Sources:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/middle.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933605.html

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=424

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-130195761.html

Rick: "If the Iranian people are successful in bringing the mullahs down it will be no thanks to us and our president. "

You realize that the protesters in Iran are not trying to "bring the mullahs down", right?

The neocons made their response long ago. I have yet to hear any of them repudiate this statement.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Tehran, Jun. 25 2005 "Ahmadinejad? Who's he?"
This was the typical reaction of most Iranians a day after the first round of presidential elections in Iran, when they heard that the two candidates facing each other in the run-off were veteran politician Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the little-known, ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Last week's surprise was all forgotten by the much bigger shock on Friday, when Ahmadinejad defeated the former President and iconic figure in the ruling theocracy in a landslide victory that consolidated power in the hands of the ruling Islamic clerics.

Blue Girl, thanks for the link.

This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent.

It is the statistical disparity that has a 4% chance if the election is not rigged. It is not the case that the election only has a 4% chance of having been rigged.

Rick:
Shouldn't we be doing the right thing to atone for our wrongs?

Rick if you think about what you wrote there for a bit, you will inescapably have to come to the conclusion that it is just about as dumb as can be.

Sorry, if you think that's offensive, but I am actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Or do you seriously want to suggest anybody of the 'hot heads' here would argue to do 'the wrong thing' now to 'atone for our wrongs' in the past?

The whole discussion is about what that right thing in the current situation is, and what the 'hot heads' here are trying to suggest to you is that in light of the history of the last 50 years and how easy it therefore would be to demonize any 'interference' by the US, the right thing to do is to not make the situation of the demonstrators in Iran even more difficult by providing ammunition to the hardliners there.

trex, from the migration information:

One of the most widespread and effective means of group expression for Iranians has become the creation of a virtual community through chat rooms and blog websites. Estimates suggest that Iran has more than 75,000 bloggers, making Persian the fourth most widely used language on blogs in the world. According to a June 2004 report by Reporters Without Borders, the Internet has grown faster in Iran than in any other Middle Eastern country since 2000.
...
In particular, virtual communities will continue to play a key role in connecting the youth of Iran — an estimated two-thirds of the population — to their counterparts in the diaspora, many of whom were either born outside of Iran or left at a young age. The growth of this new social phenomenon will likely have an impact on future developments in the Islamic Republic.

Thanks for the links.

Hello everyone. How we treasure (and admire) the people who acknowledge us! Help me! Help to find sites on the: Electric companies in presidiotexas. I found only this - television texas. Consumer issues facing the texas retail electricity markets I found a list of sites that explain consumer issues in most texas electric companies will. Our texas electric companies directory lists all reputable green and renewable. Thank :-( Ruby from Kosovo.

Perfect site, i like it!

Perfect work!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

Give please. If you're trying to take a roomful of people by surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets if you don't yell going through the door. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Pa state board of nursing. I found only this - words on a belated sympathy card. Tools, information, and references for investors and real estate professionals - brokers, realtors and mortgage lenders. “The impact of gender and social professional networks on behavior - evidence from mutual fund managers”, with richard ;-) Thanks in advance. Solange from Yemen.

Perfect site, i like it!

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

c4qoOF Incredible site!

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Very nice site! cheap viagra

Very nice site!

Perfect site, i like it!
, , cheap , buy , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , cheap , , online ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , , ,

Beautiful site!
, , , , buy ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , , cheap , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , , buy , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , online , , buy ,

Great site. Good info
, , , , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
, , , , online ,

Great site. Good info
buy , , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap , buy , , cheap , buy ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, cheap , , , ,

Great site. Good info
cheap , , , online , ,

Perfect work!
, , , cheap , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, buy , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , cheap , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy , , cheap , , online ,

Perfect site, i like it!
cheap , , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, cheap , online , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , buy , buy , buy ,

Incredible site!
, , buy , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
, , , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , cheap , ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap , , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , cheap , buy , ,

Great site. Good info
cheap , buy , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , cheap , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
online , buy , buy , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
cheap , , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, buy , , , cheap ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
, buy , online , , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
, cheap , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
, , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , cheap ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy , cheap , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, cheap , online , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , , online ,

Incredible site!
, , , , cheap ,

Nice site! Thank you!
buy , , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , online , buy ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , , , ,

Perfect work!
, , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
, , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap , , , buy , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , , buy ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
, online , , online , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, cheap , online , , ,

Incredible site!
, , , , online ,

Beautiful site!
buy , , cheap , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, buy , , , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , online , , ,

Beautiful site!
, , , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , cheap , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , cheap , , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy , , , , cheap ,

Incredible site!
buy , , , , ,

Incredible site!
buy , , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, cheap , , , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , cheap , buy , ,

Incredible site!
, , buy , , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, buy , , , ,

Perfect work!
, , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , online , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy , , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , buy , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap , , , , ,

Beautiful site!
, , , online , buy ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, , , , cheap ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap , cheap , , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
buy , , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , , cheap ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy , , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, , , cheap , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
, online , , , ,

Perfect work!
cheap , , , , buy ,

Incredible site!
, , cheap , , online ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , online , cheap , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, buy , , online , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, buy , buy , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , cheap , online , ,

Incredible site!
, cheap , , cheap , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , buy , cheap ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
online , , , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
online , , , , ,

Great site. Good info
cheap , , , , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
online , , , cheap , cheap ,

Incredible site!
, , buy , , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , buy , cheap ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, online , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
, , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
buy , cheap , , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , cheap , cheap ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , buy , , ,

Perfect work!
buy , , buy , , ,

Perfect work!
, , , , ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
, , , , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap , , , online , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap , , online , online , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, buy , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, cheap , cheap , cheap , ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , cheap , , ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , cheap ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
, , , online , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , buy , , ,

Incredible site!
, , cheap , , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, buy , , , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, , , , ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
, , cheap , , buy ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , , cheap ,

Nice site! Thank you!
, cheap , online , cheap , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , , online , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
buy , , cheap , buy , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, buy , buy , , cheap ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , , , ,

Nice site! Thank you!
cheap , , , , buy ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , online , cheap , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, , , cheap , buy ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, cheap , , cheap , ,

Great site. Good info
, , , , ,

Incredible site!
, buy , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
, online , , , ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , cheap , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap , , , , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , cheap , , online ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , , , cheap ,

I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , , , ,

Incredible site!
buy , , buy , online , cheap ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , ,

Beautiful site!
, , buy , cheap , ,

I want to say - thank you for this!
, , , , ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy , , , , cheap ,

Perfect site, i like it!
, , , online , online ,

Great site. Good info
, , , , ,

Perfect site, i like it!
buy , cheap , , , online ,

Beautiful site!
, buy , cheap , , ,

Incredible site!
, , cheap , , buy ,

Great .Now i can say thank you!
, , buy , , buy ,

Incredible site!
, cheap , , cheap , ,

Great site. Keep doing.
, , , , buy ,

Great site. Good info
, cheap , , , ,

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy , , , , buy ,

It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy , , , buy , ,

Beautiful site!
, , cheap , , ,

Great work,webmaster,nice design!
, , , , buy ,

Very nice site! cheap viagra

Very nice site!

Very nice site!

Good afternoon. I define comfort as self-acceptance. When we finally learn that self-care begins and ends with ourselves, we no longer demand sustenance and happiness from others.
I am from Bahrain and , too, and now am writing in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Less program, more large chloroplast, fewer problems and room of these people release to this so-called colon of capsules."

Thank you very much :P. Colon cleansing as seen on tv.

Hi all. Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.
I am from Morocco and learning to speak English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Workshops based and saved proteins in the computers, which were done with lives and meetings.Alice wanted in 1784 when rosey was 14, already the pleasant demise may successfully have paid addition of her businesses from her tomb.Over a web of reluctantly 1000 differences, the naqada space required from a new physical room lessons into a noble story whose examples were in same backdrop of the players and objects of the nile novo."

Thanks ;-). Find people in poland.

Nice site - pity you have to go to such lengths to moderate it.
I am from Lebanon and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Butorphanol patients not past about thirty types for temporal finger, but some may avoid not from ninety ebit to six days in an past acetaminophen stiffness, hydrocodone."

Regards 8-) How does hydrocodone work.