Anyone who calls for new elections is a fucking moron. There is NO WAY that they are gonna do new elections - no fucking way. There is no more obvious statement that your election was fraudulent than allowing for new elections. Thus, the Iranian government would never ever ever never do it. And to call for new elections means that YOU are a clueless butthead - McCain certain is that.

What if in 2000, Al Gore had called for a new election in Florida? There were HUNDREDS of defective ballots in Palm Beach county. He would have lost all legitimacy immediately. Norm Coleman a loser moron called for a new election, thus signalling, again, that he is entirely illegitimate.

POed Lib, I moved to Florida just before the 2000 election. The people I knew and interacted with were furious at how the state's votes were counted. You may not remember, but there were thousands of ballots (not hundreds) with every candidate marked except for Bush (i.e. 'Anyone but Bush' votes).

Let's not even get into the "butterfly ballots" of Palm Beach County.

In other words, there were valid reasons for calling for a new vote. Florida's 2000 election was rigged to swing to Bush, if you were a Democratic or Independent voter at that time. Personally, I thought Florida's vote, which was questionably legal, should have been nullified and taken out of the electoral equation.

I don't see how Iran's election could reasonably be viewed any other way. I was not there, I'm not familiar with their voting process or balloting. If the majority of people in Iran want a new election, they should be able to have one. At least, they deserve an open and impartial ballot count, which I don't think Ahmenijad's current cabal would provide.

Artfully done, those remarks. You Americans are luckier in your current choice of president than many of you seem to know or understand.

"And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."

that's rich, coming from a man in charge of a military in ongoing conflict in three countries with civilians dropping left and right.

End the wars!

Imagine that the election had irregularities, and without the rigging would have given the spot to Mousavi. I don't think it is absolutely clear that such an outcome automatically justifies all acts of protest.

Would it be appropriate to shut down every major city? (Not that that is happening in Iran necessarily).

The point is that not EVERY act of injustice justifies every subsequent act of resistance.

In this case, I don't think the difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad justifies shutting down cities with protests. Of course, if the regime of Ahmadinejad were crazy oppressive (the friends I have met from Iran - admittedly an elite non-representative sample - didn't have any big complaints about life in Tehran).

Ahmadinejad's Iran isn't like Saddam's Iraq.

What if China locked up a dissident, and students started destructive riots that lasted weeks? It is not obvious that such riots would be justified. Order is necessary for life to go on. Is Iran so oppressive that a revolution, with the attendant bloodshed and damage, is called for?

Obama has a perfectly good explanation to push back against criticism that he "wouldn't do anything, and finally changed his fickle amateurish mind": First, it would have been presumptuous to proclaim a stolen election when it is still controversial just what the suspicious features mean (e.g., A-jad may still have gotten the most votes but cheated to get a better margin, as Newsweek suggests.) Also, too much support for one *side* per se would suggest US meddling and provide propaganda to the establishment against Mousavi supporters.

But now that the Iranian government is cracking down, deaths occurring, etc., Obama is stimulated by basic human rights considerations to condemn that in principle. There is no contradiction, and it was the right way to handle the developments. Pass it on.

tyrannogenius

flubber: "Order is necessary for life to go on. Is Iran so oppressive that a revolution, with the attendant bloodshed and damage, is called for?"

That's for the Iranians to decide, not us. You're talking about their lives and their country. There is no way we possibly know even as well as they do, let alone better, whether or not this is appropriate.

Whether rattling sabers in their support, as the neo-cons want Obama to do, or lecturing them over how wrong this is, as you are perilously close to doing, it comes down to the same arrogant presumption that we know better. We don't. Our job is to get out of their way, keep our idiot mouths shut, and let them deal with this on their own.

One point about the Republicans wanting to saber-rattle - as the neo-cons did wrt Iraq in 1991, if you encourage a potential rebellion, you must be prepared to back up the rebellion with arms, and intervene with military force, if necessary. If anyone understands this, it should be the neo-cons - you don't saber-rattle if you're not prepared to go all the way. As in the case with Iraq, GHB encouraged the Iraqis to rise up, and then subsequently watched Iraqis get slaughtered, setting in motion the plan that became the lie about 9-11 to invade Iraq. You gotta think things through - which, apparently, many Republicans don't.

"John McCain's suggestion that the U.S. should call for new elections hasn't gained traction"

As POed Lib notes, a rather stupid thing to ask for, considering that in Iran's 'managed' democracy the Mullahs and Ayatolas control who is allowed to run for office. We don't want another election under their system, even if it was run fairly.

Mousavi is no more pro-Western than Ahmadinejad. He might not embarrass that country with Holocust denials that me them all look like idiots, but he would probably continue most of the policies we deplore, including intervention in Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon and continuing to pursue Uranian enrichment for power generation in such a manner as to continue to scare the s**t out of the likes of chicken hawks such as Dick Cheney.

If this movement gets out of Rafsinjani's (the power behind Mousavi) hands then there is a possibility of the overthrow of the clerical regime, which won't establish a pro-Western government but at least it might be one that is not reflexively anti-Western and it MIGHT be one where they focus on their own problems rather then wasting their time distracting their populace with us.

What Mogwai said.
There is no way anyone should consider legitimate the commentaries of the leader of a country with assassination teams in Iran itself which openly wars upon civilians in a number of countries : Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Afghanistan are being destroyed while their local governments, having withdrawn into a protective mode of rejecting Western influences rife with sex, racism, offensive religious conversions and violence, are constantly vilified in a monopoly press which then describes itself as free.
Americans know the dignity of their country has been stripped bare by refusal to enforce Due Process. Things are at a pretty bad pass when even a farce of protocol is not achievable regarding accused.
Not that my country's leader is any better. Harper and his supposed representatives of Canadians abroad won't even mildly ask their master if they may now take custody of their grown-up in torture accused child soldier.

What can he say without looking hypocritical? Getting set to rig elections here by politicizing the census and giving the millions of illegal aliens a path to voting Democratic, Obama is hardly in a position to criticize the mullahs on democracy.