I stand with the majority of Iranians today. The election looks rigged and anything but democratic.
Freedom is not free. God Bless the brave souls standing up to power in Iran.
cufford
· 6 months ago
U.S. monitoring possible "election irregularities" in Iran.
Does anyone else see the irony in this?
BARB
· 6 months ago
Considering the last questionable election results here...it is hypocritical for the US to disparage the results of any elections...in any country. Pls go to NoQuarter and see if you can find the articles by Dr. Lynette Long on how Hillary supporters were screwed in the last election. Obama was "selected", not elected.
cufford
· 6 months ago
Well, I would have pointed out the more significant questionable elections of 2000 and 2004.
Bush was, quite literally, "selected" by a Republican majority Court, despite the clear and convincing evidence of election fraud in Florida by a Republican Secretary of State. That one's not even a question.
And in 04, it's also clear that Kerry was headed to a victory until a Republican Secretary of State and Election Machine company in Ohio declared otherwise.
But really, the point is simply the irony and the obvious reason for it. Our government is filled with those elected through election fraud, and they of course say "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
But when someone else does it, oh we take the high ground?
Butch1
· 6 months ago
He will not have the support of the majority of the people and the police will be looked upon as the enemy. That can't be a great feeling. This will be interesting to watch.
Jophus
· 6 months ago
Have you seen this yet? Ahmadinejad: No guarantee of rival's safety.
If you like this please hit like, to put and keep it at the top of the thread.
Butch1
· 6 months ago
He knows that he stole the election and he can not stand having his competition around. If he can not guarantee the safety of his apponent, then, who is running the police? The orders either come from him or the or the religious leader. What type of religious leader would sanction a killing? ( silly me . . . these are the same religious nuts that sanction killing innocent gays, what was I thinking?! )
Jophus
· 6 months ago
You think if he keeps the office that the Israeli deal is finished before it even started? I don't understand why John isn't really covering Iran. There are tons of video's and pictures out there. Is he on a sort of fast where he isn't writing about anything except gay issues? B/c I could support that actually. :-)
Cyrus
· 6 months ago
You know, I hate to be so cynical; but I think the only people happy about Ahmadinejad's hold on power in Iran now (beside the theo-cons in Iran) are the neocons and Netanyahu. On Friday, Rachel Maddow showed this republican character (whose name escapes me) telling the Heritage Foundation that he wished Ahmadinejad would win in Iran!!! Rachel then asked sarcastically: "Yeah, I mean if he loses, then whom are we going to go to war with next?"
Jophus
· 6 months ago
I love Rachel. Cut through all the bullshit, and show it like it really is.
Cyrus
· 6 months ago
I agree; I absolutely adore her too. I just hope she and Keith commit large parts of their programs tomorrow to this DOJ defense of DOMA debacle. Reading that brief was just such a kick in the stomach... (Let's hope Keith will have a special commentary)
Jophus
· 6 months ago
I know this is odd on this site, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose international force to remove him. It would take a long time to convince me, but I can see myself getting there. This would be spreading democracy.
Butch1
· 6 months ago
It certainly puts a stalemate on it until we have new blood in Iran. There is no dealing with an hard-head, but if the elections can be proved to have been corrupted, there still may be a chance for a more - moderate president to strike up dialogue.
Isadore
· 6 months ago
Perhaps Diebold is in Iran.
Father_Time
· 6 months ago
I agree, DEATH to the dictatorship in Iran.
The sooner the better.
PrahaPartizan
· 6 months ago
Well, I suppose that we should look on the bright side. Ahmadinejad's and the ayatollahs' response to the election simply makes it very clear that they can't be truly trusted. Any deal negotiated with them regarding the Iranian nuclear program must be accompanied by a very robust inspection regime. We can agree with them that they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons but also insist that the world would like to make sure that no rogue elements inside Iran might have different ideas. We just want to make sure the Iranian government achieves the policy goal they've set for themselves.
Bubbles
· 6 months ago
There is bubbling irony emerging.
If you have a chance, video-google Rick Steves Iran.
In 2008, via the UN, Steves was invited to do a travel segment on Iran. Self admitting he knew nothing on Iran, he agreed to do it - so that, at the very least, if it came to war, American's could see what the faces of collateral damage looked like - something he regretted not being able to do before we bombed Iraq.
Turns out, the Iranian people are nice, kind, polite, joyful, and... THEY LOVE US.
So now here comes the irony. If Obama plays his cards right, and 'engages' the Iranian people, that is, subtly go over the government's head, with a little luck, Obama could end up with more moral authority and esteem than the Supreme Leader.
Long term, this kind of situation could change the alchemy of Middle Eastern politics.
Look at the trends that might be emerging: A speech in Cairo, a victory for moderates in Lebanon, de-legitimization of the clique that runs Iran, and perhaps now, Bibi in Israel starting to walk back on his positions.
Imagine, if you will the possibility of everything the Neocons thought they could achieve by warfare, Obama achieving by diplomacy.
It's not out side the realm of possibilities.
Think of it in these terms. We elected the most gifted natural politician since Lincoln and/or FDR. With a guy like that in office for 8 years, something is going to happen that no one else could have achieved. Something or somethings. Presumably great. What - I don't know, but eventually, something(s) are going to happen, and some of them are going to be great. A wave of political reform across the middle east might be one of those things.
Of course, then again, nothing might happen (disclaimer).
Jophus
· 6 months ago
Wow we are on the same wavelength. Check out my comment just beneath yours in order of popularity. I wish I had read your post before I wrote mine.
Bubbles
· 6 months ago
Actually I feel a tad out of step on this one anyway. A few hours ago, I thought the regime and Amadinajad (spell?) would survive this but with only marginal legitimacy. I've since checked out some other sites, and realized that the election outcome was an obvious lie.
A history of Iranian politics suggest that they can quite easily over spill emotionally. How this ends up, though is anyone's guess. They could end up right where they started or at any point on the compass. Most likely they'll end up with a liberalized society to some extent. All the pre-election rallies had enormous percentages of Women - and they are the ones who are suppressed the most. It's going to be interesting how this comes out.
Farther afield, is also interesting. 2009 could be 1848 - the year revolutions swepped across Europe. It began in January, and affected just about every nation at one point or another everywhere in Europe. The courage these people are showing will inspire other people in other places, maybe as remote from Iran as China.
On a side note, People won't believe this, but Iranians are related to the Irish. The Irish word for Irish is Eirean - the same as the Iranian word for Iranian. In English, it's Aryan (yes that Aryan) which is also what we call "Indo-European". Every nationality in Europe is Indo-European, save the Basque, but the fact is the Aryan's lived north of the Black and Caspian Sea - it's why European stock are referred to as Caucassians - some migrated west, some migrate East then Southwest to Iran, East then South to Afghanistan, and East then South East to India. One complexity to the Middle East is the three racial groups there: Turks from North East Asia, Indo-Europeans from Black-Caspian seas, and the Semetic peoples.
The Irish and the Iranians retain the closest names to the original groups. But culturally, they are both a very passionate people and both are a nation of poets - So I've always thought of them as related. Of course, there are considerable differences. The Irish always lose and the last thing they'd ever give up is the right to have a drink.
The Neocons who still hold office in Israel, I think, like Neocons everywhere, have shown what imbeciles they are and have painted themselves into corners. Unfortunately a cornered animal is a very dangerous thing. But we may just get lucky out of this after all. Nothing happens in isolation. An election in Lebanon, a revolution in Iran, an American President forcefully pushing for a two state solution, everyone everywhere sick of the on going wars - fatigue has often been the source of peace throughout history - the fact that Jews are now a minority in greater Palestine and the desperate and inhumane conditions of the Palestinian people all point to the logic of a two state solution. As I said, there may be a waive of reform across the entire middle east.
Revolutionary years are helped along by events: The Depression and Obama's election are both huge events that are rooted in the U.S. but have big impacts outside the U.S. I just hope it all works out for the sake of peace and prosperity. In the past we've done some awful things related to the cause of private business interest in foreign countries. Hopefully we can all give peace and democracy a chance, and we'll get some prosperity from it too.
Jophus
· 6 months ago
I don't know how I missed this response. Thanks. What a substantial comment. Do you have any links to translated poetry from Iranians? That sounds very interesting.
Bubbles
· 6 months ago
No, Just a bunch of cultural sites I've been to bring up the legacy of Persian Poets. That, I've heard before long ago back when I studied the middle east in college. Even the Rick Steves travel piece brings it up. Andrew Sullivan's site, the Daily Dish, which is covering things in Iran like white on rice, has posted some Iranian poetry. The only quote I remember: If there not be an Iran, then I not be.
Anyway, Iranians, seem very proud and very moved by their legacy of poetry.
Of course, we've always known the Irish were a nation of poets. It's why they never win wars. That and Guinness.
Jophus
· 6 months ago
Given the recent events in Iran and it's political chaos with the right wing stealing the government, is anyone else worried about how Israel is going to react? It seems like with Ahmadinejad in power and the right wing in power in Israel, that peace negotiations will me more difficult than ever. ESPECIALLY given that Iran qualifies it's nuclear testing on the fact that they need to arm themselves about an increasingly dangerous and possibly nuclear North Korea? ANYONE?
If I ruled the news world, this would be the number 1 story. Granted I'm not missing something huge right now.
John
· 6 months ago
Rumor has it, and what coming out of Iran isn't a rumor these days with the communications black out, that a sympathetic official at the Interior Ministry has informed Mousavi that they did not manipulate the ballots or voting process in any way. They merely flipped the numbers around when the raw count came in from the thousands and thousands individual "precincts" (which in Iran are all the mosques). If true, this means that Ahmedinejad actually got Mousavi's votes and vice versa.
This actually makes a lot of sense. It would require a much larger number of conspirators to actually fool around with the ballots, intimidate voters, and what not. More than are probably willing to go along with it. So, the Interior Ministry simply reported the wrong numbers.
Oval12345678
· 6 months ago
When tyrants "count the vote," tyrants "win" the elections. As Ahmad in Iran in 2009; as Bush in USA in 2000; as Bush in USA in 2004 and as Calderon in Mexico in 2006 (his brother-in-law ran the software that "counted the votes" in the Mexican Presidential Election). Hail to the tyrants.
Oval12345678
· 6 months ago
It seems that some right-wing GOP neo-cons are trying to point their vile little fingers and blame the "victory" of Ahmad on President Obama.
Wrong.
If any fingers should be pointed, they should aim at the CIA under President Eisenhower who in 1953 helped with the overthrow of the Iranian democracy and its replacement with the dictator shah. The CIA went on to teach the Shah's secret police how to torture. The Shah's police tortured and murdered thousands of Iranians.
The only serious resistance to the dictator Shah were the right-wing traditional religious muslims and they finally overthrew the Shah in 1979. Naturally, they set up a religious government to their liking. So basically, our busybodying back in 1953 gave rise to the present mess in Iran. Heck of a job, imperial interveors (R-oil).
Is Moussavi the better choice or is it just the lesser of 2 evils?
He, like most Iranians in power, does not believe in the existence of Israel. He defended the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979, which led to the break in ties between the countries.
He was part of a regime that regularly executed (thousands) of dissidents and backed the fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie.
And as late as April, he opposed suspending the country's nuclear-enrichment program but said it would not be diverted to weapons use.
Moussavi was named prime minister in 1980. A year earlier, Iran had become an Islamic republic after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was forced into exile.
The same year, a group of students in support of the Islamic revolution took 52 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days.
In an interview with The New York Times in 1981, Moussavi defended the hostage-taking as the beginning of "second stage of our revolution."
"It was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity," he said.
The incident, Moussavi added, ended the "problem of pro-American circles and their following in Iran.
"After this, we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years."
In 1988, author Salman Rushdie released his fourth novel, 'The Satanic Verses,' which Iran said insulted Islam. The country's supreme leader called for the death of Rushdie. And Moussavi, in a radio broadcast, said the order would be carried out.
All Comments
Freedom is not free. God Bless the brave souls standing up to power in Iran.
Does anyone else see the irony in this?
Bush was, quite literally, "selected" by a Republican majority Court, despite the clear and convincing evidence of election fraud in Florida by a Republican Secretary of State. That one's not even a question.
And in 04, it's also clear that Kerry was headed to a victory until a Republican Secretary of State and Election Machine company in Ohio declared otherwise.
But really, the point is simply the irony and the obvious reason for it. Our government is filled with those elected through election fraud, and they of course say "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
But when someone else does it, oh we take the high ground?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/14/iran....
If you like this please hit like, to put and keep it at the top of the thread.
I just hope she and Keith commit large parts of their programs tomorrow to this DOJ defense of DOMA debacle. Reading that brief was just such a kick in the stomach... (Let's hope Keith will have a special commentary)
The sooner the better.
If you have a chance, video-google Rick Steves Iran.
In 2008, via the UN, Steves was invited to do a travel segment on Iran. Self admitting he knew nothing on Iran, he agreed to do it - so that, at the very least, if it came to war, American's could see what the faces of collateral damage looked like - something he regretted not being able to do before we bombed Iraq.
Turns out, the Iranian people are nice, kind, polite, joyful, and... THEY LOVE US.
So now here comes the irony. If Obama plays his cards right, and 'engages' the Iranian people, that is, subtly go over the government's head, with a little luck, Obama could end up with more moral authority and esteem than the Supreme Leader.
Long term, this kind of situation could change the alchemy of Middle Eastern politics.
Look at the trends that might be emerging: A speech in Cairo, a victory for moderates in Lebanon, de-legitimization of the clique that runs Iran, and perhaps now, Bibi in Israel starting to walk back on his positions.
Imagine, if you will the possibility of everything the Neocons thought they could achieve by warfare, Obama achieving by diplomacy.
It's not out side the realm of possibilities.
Think of it in these terms. We elected the most gifted natural politician since Lincoln and/or FDR. With a guy like that in office for 8 years, something is going to happen that no one else could have achieved. Something or somethings. Presumably great. What - I don't know, but eventually, something(s) are going to happen, and some of them are going to be great. A wave of political reform across the middle east might be one of those things.
Of course, then again, nothing might happen (disclaimer).
A history of Iranian politics suggest that they can quite easily over spill emotionally. How this ends up, though is anyone's guess. They could end up right where they started or at any point on the compass. Most likely they'll end up with a liberalized society to some extent. All the pre-election rallies had enormous percentages of Women - and they are the ones who are suppressed the most. It's going to be interesting how this comes out.
Farther afield, is also interesting. 2009 could be 1848 - the year revolutions swepped across Europe. It began in January, and affected just about every nation at one point or another everywhere in Europe. The courage these people are showing will inspire other people in other places, maybe as remote from Iran as China.
On a side note, People won't believe this, but Iranians are related to the Irish. The Irish word for Irish is Eirean - the same as the Iranian word for Iranian. In English, it's Aryan (yes that Aryan) which is also what we call "Indo-European". Every nationality in Europe is Indo-European, save the Basque, but the fact is the Aryan's lived north of the Black and Caspian Sea - it's why European stock are referred to as Caucassians - some migrated west, some migrate East then Southwest to Iran, East then South to Afghanistan, and East then South East to India. One complexity to the Middle East is the three racial groups there: Turks from North East Asia, Indo-Europeans from Black-Caspian seas, and the Semetic peoples.
The Irish and the Iranians retain the closest names to the original groups. But culturally, they are both a very passionate people and both are a nation of poets - So I've always thought of them as related. Of course, there are considerable differences. The Irish always lose and the last thing they'd ever give up is the right to have a drink.
The Neocons who still hold office in Israel, I think, like Neocons everywhere, have shown what imbeciles they are and have painted themselves into corners. Unfortunately a cornered animal is a very dangerous thing. But we may just get lucky out of this after all. Nothing happens in isolation. An election in Lebanon, a revolution in Iran, an American President forcefully pushing for a two state solution, everyone everywhere sick of the on going wars - fatigue has often been the source of peace throughout history - the fact that Jews are now a minority in greater Palestine and the desperate and inhumane conditions of the Palestinian people all point to the logic of a two state solution. As I said, there may be a waive of reform across the entire middle east.
Revolutionary years are helped along by events: The Depression and Obama's election are both huge events that are rooted in the U.S. but have big impacts outside the U.S. I just hope it all works out for the sake of peace and prosperity. In the past we've done some awful things related to the cause of private business interest in foreign countries. Hopefully we can all give peace and democracy a chance, and we'll get some prosperity from it too.
Persian Poets. That, I've heard before long ago back when I studied the
middle east in college. Even the Rick Steves travel piece brings it up.
Andrew Sullivan's site, the Daily Dish, which is covering things in Iran
like white on rice, has posted some Iranian poetry. The only quote I
remember: If there not be an Iran, then I not be.
Anyway, Iranians, seem very proud and very moved by their legacy of poetry.
Of course, we've always known the Irish were a nation of poets. It's why
they never win wars. That and Guinness.
If I ruled the news world, this would be the number 1 story. Granted I'm not missing something huge right now.
This actually makes a lot of sense. It would require a much larger number of conspirators to actually fool around with the ballots, intimidate voters, and what not. More than are probably willing to go along with it. So, the Interior Ministry simply reported the wrong numbers.
As Ahmad in Iran in 2009; as Bush in USA in 2000; as Bush in USA in 2004 and as Calderon in Mexico in 2006 (his brother-in-law ran the software that "counted the votes" in the Mexican Presidential Election). Hail to the tyrants.
Wrong.
If any fingers should be pointed, they should aim at the CIA under President Eisenhower who in 1953 helped with the overthrow of the Iranian democracy and its replacement with the dictator shah. The CIA went on to teach the Shah's secret police how to torture. The Shah's police tortured and murdered thousands of Iranians.
The only serious resistance to the dictator Shah were the right-wing traditional religious muslims and they finally overthrew the Shah in 1979. Naturally, they set up a religious government to their liking. So basically, our busybodying back in 1953 gave rise to the present mess in Iran. Heck of a job, imperial interveors (R-oil).
Is Moussavi the better choice or is it just the lesser of 2 evils?
He, like most Iranians in power, does not believe in the existence of Israel. He defended the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979, which led to the break in ties between the countries.
He was part of a regime that regularly executed (thousands) of dissidents and backed the fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie.
And as late as April, he opposed suspending the country's nuclear-enrichment program but said it would not be diverted to weapons use.
Moussavi was named prime minister in 1980. A year earlier, Iran had become an Islamic republic after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was forced into exile.
The same year, a group of students in support of the Islamic revolution took 52 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days.
In an interview with The New York Times in 1981, Moussavi defended the hostage-taking as the beginning of "second stage of our revolution."
"It was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity," he said.
The incident, Moussavi added, ended the "problem of pro-American circles and their following in Iran.
"After this, we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years."
In 1988, author Salman Rushdie released his fourth novel, 'The Satanic Verses,' which Iran said insulted Islam. The country's supreme leader called for the death of Rushdie. And Moussavi, in a radio broadcast, said the order would be carried out.