Posts
THE DECIDER
The illustration is a reprint Bush after he pronounced himself "The Decider." Shelley Berman did a great take off on that as a Judge in Boston Legal.
Obama is intelligent, smooth, has a sharp sense of humor, comes across as being on the "right side." After eight long years of seeing the cowboy and Dr. Strangelove run our country into the ground and humiliating the entire country with his buffonery, Obama can not help but to look good.
However, for awhile now I've become more and more irritated at his continuing so many of the same policies that Georgie Boy praised. Obama is, of course, better, but he needs to be pushed. As John Pilger points out, he is to the right of about 80% of the population of the United States, and that is not very encouraging. I have another transcript of a speech by Noam Chomsky that will make the point more definitively.
But first let's let Pilger talk.
AMY GOODMAN: From the events in Honduras, we step back to reflect how the media’s been covering the coup in that country. Last week, award-winning investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger was visiting the United States. He was born in Australia but has lived in London since the 1960’s and began his career as a hard- hitting war reporter covering the Vietnam War. He has written close to a dozen books and made over 50 documentaries on subjects ranging from struggles around the world for a more just and peaceful society and against western military and economic intervention, films on East Timor, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and the United States.
Well, last week I had a wide- ranging conversation with John Pilger on Honduras, Iran, Gaza, the media, healthcare and Obama’s wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I began by asking John Pilger to comment on the current mainstream media and how it shapes our perceptions and priorities.
JOHN PILGER: I don’t believe anything as changed. If it is one to change in the middle east as other parts of the world, I think one of the really significant and building areas of discussion- and data has been building for the last few years—is just the kind of information we get through the so- called mainstream. We have many alternative sources of information now, not least of all your own program. though I wouldn’t call that alternative.
But for most people, the primary source of their information is the mainstream. It is mainly television. Even the internet for all its subversiveness has still a very large component of the mainstream. And that means we’re getting still either its this singular message about wars, about the economy, about all those things that touch our lives. All we are getting is what I would call is a contrived silence, a censorship by a mission. I think this is almost the principal issue of today because without information, we cannot possibly begin to influence government. We cannot possibly begin to end the wars.
All of this, it seams to me, has come together in the presidency of Barack Obama who is almost a creation of this media world. He promised some things, although most of them were more for us, and has delivered virtually the opposite. He started his own war in Pakistan. We see the events in Iran and Honduras in quiet subtlety, but very directly influenced in the time-honored way by the Obama administration. And yet the Obama administration is still given this extraordinary benefit of the doubt by people, who in my view are influenced by the mainstream media. It is a time when I think, where either we are going to begin to understand how the media really works, or we’re going to let that opportunity pass. Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information.
AMY GOODMAN: John, talk about the contrast between the media coverage of the Iranian elections and the Honduran coup, and the response to it on the ground.
JOHN PILGER: Well, you know, you take the New York Times. The New York Times basically has said, in so many words, that the Iranian protests represent a mass movement, embracing the majority in the country. Now there is no doubt that among the people protesting, the many people protesting in the streets of Iran, are those who want another Iran, those who want greater freedoms, we have heard from that in the past, but without any smoking gun, without any credible information, without any evidence that that election in Iran was rigged. Rigged to get rid of something like 10 million votes. I mean, I don’t think anyone does in an election like in Iran or in the United States, there is a fraud. In most elections, there are. They may well have been extensive fraud in the Iranian elections. But the way our perception of those events in Iran has been manipulated is to suggest that this was a revolution that was said to overthrow the Islamic revolution of 1979. That is simply just not true. That has preoccupied the mainstream media. It has been on the front pages, and the top of the news and the networks.
Contrast that with Honduras, yes, it has been a news item, way at the end of Michael Jackson. As a main component of this news item has been the Obama administration’s alleged condemnation of the Honduran coup. But if you look at the condemnation, which is built on the fact they said, well they’ve tried to sway the Honduran military from staging the coup, and I have to say Hiliary Clinton does not want to call it a coup because she does so, the Foreign Assistance Act would kick in and she would have to withdraw all the military support to the 600 US military personal who are based in Honduras. But she said and administration officials have said, “Look, we tried to persuade the Honduran military from going ahead with this.” Well, you turn that around, and that means they knew that a coup was coming. And just beggars belief that they did not play a major role in the events–that may well have gone out of their control, they may well have not wanted the coup in its present form, in its present crude form to happen-but they knew about it.
It is so parallels the 2002 coup against Chavez. Now that story, what really is the kernel of that news story, it is really what really matters in that story, what did the U.S. play its traditional role or not, and why has the elected president of Honduras been kicked out of this country? That has been relegated. So, you have two news stories. You have the Iranian story of protests for freedom, that’s approved, thats a worthy story. You have the Honduras story of our friends in the south just getting a little bit of control, that is an unworthy story. Two different perceptions in two very, very important areas.
AMY GOODMAN:I want to play for you a clip of David Gregory on NBC. He replaced Tim Russert as the moderator of Meet The Press. And he was interviewing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the midst of the crackdown on the protest in Iran.
DAVID GREGORY: Does the United States have unique role to play here in continuing to support this freedom movement as you call it in Iran? An obligation to support the protesters to really give them moral support at the very least?
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think it is clear that the United States, the people of the United States, the president of the United States, free people everywhere, decent people everywhere, are amazed at the desire of the people there—and their willingness to come to stand up for their rights. I cannot, as I said, tell you what is going to happen. I can tell you what I would do, what we all would do in the face of demonstrations. As we speak, there is a demonstration right now outside my window, outside my office. Well, democracies acted differently. They do not send an armed agents of the regime to brutally mowed down the demonstrators. I called in these demonstrators that happen to be representative of a non-Jewish minority in Israel, the Druze community, they have certain protests about the financing of their municipalities. I called their leaders in. I talked to them and said, ‘How can I help you?” That is what democratic leaders and democratic countries do.
AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Gregory didn’t ask him about, did not push him on this point of how the Israeli military deals with protests. But what’s your response to this, John Pilger?
JOHN PILGER: But no one ever presses an Israeli leader. Netanyahu or Olmert or any of them. There are given, Israeli leaders were given a legitimacy during what was unconditionally a massacre in December-January of this year. And the sum of that was to suggest, number one, that there was a war between Israel and Gaza and there wasn’t. There was an assault on Gaza that was aimed at civilians, on a defenseless country, a helpless country, a trapped people. And the second impression was that, yes, Israel is a democracy. And we will discuss this on television with you, we will discuss the finer points.
The way Israel is reported in the United States is media manipulation as almost as high art form. When people like Netanyahu whose very utterances and his background would suggest somebody, I think safe to say not credible, but somebody of well, those of us who would say somebody would be a prima facie war criminal, is given this kind of legitimacy. Not even questioned, not even challenged about the events in this country and his own extreme utterances. Yes, we have cartoon figures like Lieberman who is—as foreign minister very important, but rather grotesque character in a sense.
AMY GOODMAN: Avigdor Liberman
JOHN PILGER: He can be made perhaps or drawn out as the sort of strange that bad apple in the barrel. I think it is that legitimacy the mainstream media gives one side. And the sum of that, as far as Palestine is concerned is that there is no illegitimate occupation. There is no illegality. There is sum illegality as Obama referred to in his Cairo speech about the continuing building of settlements, but there is no suggestion that this is the longest, most brutal, illegal military occupation in our lifetime.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just go to that for one minute. President Obama in Cairo giving his address in the Middle East, talking specifically about the settlements.
BARACK OBAMA: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama in Cairo in his heralded address to the Muslim world. John Pilger, he says the continued expansion of settlements has to stop, your response? And an overall to his entire address?
JOHN PILGER: He says the continuing response, but what about all the settlements, the so-called settlements, colonies, that have so honeycombed the Occupied Territories over almost two decades? I thought the most significant aspect of that statement was he referred to the continuing settlements, leave the ones that have already been built. Let’s stop building them now. Of course, the Israelis, ever resourceful in this area, got around this very quickly. by issuing building licenses to those settlements that were about to be built and hadn’t been built as if they had been built so they would not fall into President Obama’s category.
I didn’t think President Obama’s Cairo speech added up to anything. Yes, it had different language. It did not use Bush’s aggressive “you’re with us or against us”. It was very soothing. I read one commentators rather apt description of Obama’s words as supplying a kind of mood music to the Middle East. But in the end, what did he offer? Did you talk about the law? The whole issue of Palestine is really about a respect for law. Did he go back to the 1976 resolution? There it is, it calls on the Palestine state. Did he reach out to the government in Gaza, which in spite of the media distortion, has time and again called for a two-state agreement in the Middle East? Did he make any move that would begin to resolve this injustice? Did he paint it as an injustice? Because that is what it is, in injustice on the scale that none of us in our own countries and in our own lives would tolerate. The answer is, no, he didn’t. This is not to suggest that there will be some helpful window dressing here and there, I don’t know. But, it seems to me that the pressure on Obama over the Middle East as in so many other issues, has been so minimal that he can simply perform as Bush-light.
AMY GOODMAN:He did however I believe for the first time for president admit the U.S.’s involvement in the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected leader, and what was in Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq.
JOHN PILGER: But what a concession, Amy. We get 1953, you know, 56 years ago. That is easy. That is easy, but it is what has happened since then, the demonizing of Iran goes on, the lecturing of Iran, which is extremely political complex society, goes on. And the policy is unchanged. The crime always is independence. Iran is an independent state and has almost miraculously maintained itself in forms that we might not approve of, certainly, but it has maintained itself as an independent, major state in the Middle East. That is absolutely intolerable to the U.S. State.
And Obama has not shifted from that at all. He has made a number of patronizing appeals to the Iranians, but now, as he is in effect saying, the protesters should be allowed to control the streets of Tehran. Turn that around. What if it was suggested that protesters should be allowed to control the streets of Washington? But that of course is another side of double standards. I don’t believe anything has changed. If it is going to change in the Middle East as in other parts of the world, there has to be greater pressure from within the anti-war movements, within the peace movement, within all those groups that have allied themselves with the Democrats.
AMY GOODMAN: Renowned filmmaker John Pilger. We will continue with my interview with him in a minute. [Music Break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is “Democracy now!,” Democracynow.org, The War and Peace report. I’m Amy Goodman. We return to my interview with the Emmy-award winning filmmaker John Pilger.
John Pilger you’re not an American citizen, but I’d like you to comment on American politics. With the election certification of Al Franken to be the 60th Democrat in the Senate, the Democrats have a super majority, a filibuster-proof majority. They can pass anything they want. The question is from foreign policy to domestic policy, what exactly President Obama will do with this. Primary on his domestic agenda is health care. You come from Britain, though born in Australia. What are your comments on how this debate is being carried out in the United States? More than 70% of Americans say they want a public plan, but it’s pretty clear that even people within president Obama’s own party are terrified, or least getting millions of dollars from the health insurance and health-care industry. Explain your system in Britain.
JOHN PILGER: Amy, my impression gained over many years, and I do not think that I’d call myself honorary citizen, but I have certainly come to this country and lived in it for many years. My impression is that ordinary Americans are so far ahead of their politicians, so far ahead of their media, and so far ahead of all those who claim to be their betters and bestow on them stereotypes, that are almost contemptuous. Indeed you can go back to Madison, when he described he American public as at best meddlesome. I think if you look the credible polls, say those done by the Pew organization, then you will see the majority of the people of Americana are very dangerously subversive. I would say they may even be left-wing. This is a very worrying situation, of course. But the majority of them want the decency as you suggested, they want universal health care system. Now I am talking about two-thirds. I think the figure I saw was 70, 74%.
They want their country out of the colonial wars that they are fighting. The various wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. They want the government to take responsibility for those who cannot care for themselves. They want the “banks and the banksters”, as Franklin Roosevelt called them, brought to account. They have decent – I hesitate to call them radical views. They’re not radical, they are just the views of decency, but they are views at huge odds with their government, be it a Bush government or an Obama government, and their views are at odds with the media that claim to represent them, to be their agents as it were. And to watch the so-called debate, it is not a debate, Amy, its a farce.
What Obama is moving towards is what Hillary Clinton tried to before she allied herself with some of the worst elements in the health insurance business. What he is moving toward is a very messy version of the old system that will allow the old pirates still to run it, that certain insurance will be guaranteed, yes, on a Medicare basis. But it will be a mess.
AMY GOODMAN: Could you explain, because it is so unusual to hear about what other systems are without them just been described as socialist, and so you ended the discussion. Interestingly, Single-payer in the United States, most popular option and yet it is almost never mentioned in the media except by those who attack it. Canada has a system where the government pays for health care. In Britain, the doctors are employees of the state. Can you explain how the British medical system works and if it works?
JOHN PILGER: I have lived in the U.K. for most of my life and I have used the National Health Service and regard it as a treasure. I regard it as— I have had some of the best care for not particularly serious ailments, but I have had the best care that I could possibly have. What happens is, you go to a G.P., a general practitioner—and you can choose which one you want to go to in your area – you sign nothing. They simply have your name and address, and you are seen by that doctor. If there’s something that is required, you’re referred to a specialist. Where I live in London, I’m surrounded by five of the world’s major teaching hospitals. All of them run by the National Health Service.
The way the National Health Service is represented in the United States is truly scandalous. That word “socialist” is pulled out. It is kind of infantile almost. Yes it is socialist, if socialist is caring for the majority of the people and taking away the fear of being denied health care that so many millions of Americans have, they have this fear. Then yes, it’s a vast community operation that is highly imperfect, doesn’t provide enough care for the mentally ill, doesn’t provide enough care for the aged. In some parts of Britain, outside the major urban centers, it is not as good as it is if you say go to London and are near great teaching hospital as I am. But it is bereft of the kind of bureaucracy that means-test anyone coming into it. I don’t sign anything when I go into a hospital. I do sign when the doctors want to do something you have to sign a waiver, you know saying you understand it, and all that, but that’s it.
It’s so much part of people’s lives that one of the most conservative medical organizations, or at least it was in the world, British Medical Association, are the greatest champions of the national health service. Most of the research is done within the National Health Service. Why can’t there be something like this, not exactly the same, in fact, it could improve on it. France has the same. Italy has the same. Holland has the same. What is it about U.S. legislators that they appear to be so in bed with such powerful interest such as the insurance companies that they cannot represent their own people’s needs, their own people’s basic human rights? And that is what it is. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, actually. It is a human right to have this kind of medical care. It’s to take away fear. And all of us have experienced the fear of possible ill health. And I’ve interviewed so many people in the United States that I see them crippled, both by what is medically wrong with them, but by this terrible insecurity that takes over their lives, and the poverty that then consumes them as they try to pay for their medical care, its primitive.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, how you see especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan where President Obama says he is expanding the war, how you see it ending? You’ve done more than 50 documentaries, many of them about wars around the world. Also, the response of the British people, how you see what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
JOHN PILGER: Obama has begun a new war. There is in Obama war and that is Pakistan. The shaking of the hornets’ nest, if you like, in Pakistan, which this administration has done willfully, is a historic disaster. The creation of up to 2 million refugees in Northwestern Pakistan caused by the attacks by the Pakistanis government, egged on and paid for by the Obama administration, the use of electronic battlefield weapons such as drones and other unmanned vehicles. Drones have killed according to the Pakistanis authorities, American drones launched from I believe near Las Vegas have killed something like 700 civilians since the inauguration of president Obama. So there is a new war. It is a war in Pakistan. I believe there is a new jargon term in Washington called “Afpak”, which is, well almost beyond commenting on.
The Afghanistan War, so called, is really about building as Gates, Robert Gates the Secretary has said, has virtually admitted, is about building a number of secured permanent bases throughout that country and reinforcing the major facility at Bagram. The United States has no intention of getting out of Afghanistan. It is building one of its fortress embassies in Kabul, just as it is building a $1 billion embassy in Islamabad, just as it has built an enormous fortress in Baghdad. Whatever happens to American ground troops who eventually, yes, will be withdrawn, will make no difference to the significance of the American presence, the American, the violent American presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in Iraq. These are seen as places where the United States will have a permanent presence to be able to—a strategic position—where it will be able to monitor, and perhaps influence, and perhaps control the influences of its imperial rivals. Bagram is being extended. It probably has the worst record, if that is possible, then Guantanamo in terms of its human-rights abuses.
So what we will see as Obama has said, we will see American ground troops gradually withdrawn. But as they do so, the use of electronic weaponry and bombing will increase. Unless there is an understanding of this in this country, unless people stopped taking the pronouncements of governments at their word. When Obama went to Annapolis and said we’re getting out of Iraq and appeared to be giving a timetable, within a matter of weeks, I believe, General Casey contradicted him and said—we will probably be there for another 10 years. And other Pentagon generals put it even higher, 15 years.
No mention is made of the enormous American army of mercenaries who are in all those theaters of war, and Special Forces. No mention is made of the special forces operation inside Iraq come inside—I beg your pardon, inside Iran. $400 million was allotted to that particular secret war by Bush, in one of his signing decrees, which money has gone to both the Kurdish and Baluchi separatist movements. The whole region is being crafted, if you like, for a very, very long American colonial presence. Eventually, it will not need a standing army there. That is the future in that part of the world, as I say, unless people become aware of that and start to bang on the doors of government, of Congress, and of power in this country to expose it.
AMY GOODMAN: Award-winning filmmaker John Pilger. You can get a copy of the show at Democracynow.org. Late breaking news, Robert McNamara died in his sleep this morning in Washington, D.C.
73 comments
I don't really understand how you constructed this curve, there is really no basis for postulating a maximum, or even that there is a single maximum.
It seems totally pointless to me to assume any curve shape whatsoever.
I would think the curve depend not on the actual vote, but on the difference between the commonly expected results and the reported results.
The Iranian election seemed to be on the order of a 30-40 points net swing compared to what most people expected. That's probably outside the sweet spot.
Well, Nate, why don't you go over to Iran and speak with Khamenei or Ahmadinejad face to face? Present your case to them face to face and explain to them how the election seems fishy on this side of the world based on empirical evidence. I'm sure you'll be received well.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
What about the perception, apparently held by both Iranians and the Western media, that this was going to be a close election?
Your curve is probably only accurate if there is little or no reliable data (polling). Otherwise, the "sweet spot" (ie, believable results) is probably going to be within a fairly narrow range of what is expected.
One can't go back and rerun historical experiments, but it does seem like a result of, say, 55-40 may not have generated such an overwhelming backlash.
The point isn't that the 11 million margin means the totals weren't fabricated, it's that the 11 million margin means new anecdotes about broken seals on ballot boxes and running out of ballots aren't sufficient to account for the swing.
I also don't know the details, but Mousavi did have monitors in polling places to some extent. Here's an article from the day of the election in which Mousavi himself talks about difficulties faces by his monitors: http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=1&id=11221
The problem is that Mousavi's original claim was that he really won 2/3 of the votes (stated before the polls closed) and that the announced result was a fabrication. As analysis here has pointed out, there's no concrete evidence of fabrication in the numbers. Now we're hearing claims of broken ballot boxes, etc.
Of course none of this means the announced results are actually legitimate.
Absolutely! Thanks Nate!
I remember hearing the other day they had decided to recount one region. Was there ever a result of this recount?
Jack Kennedy once quoted his father as saying "Don't buy one more vote than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."
Some connections.
I think it's clear that the numbers were fudged. It's definitely easier to make the election a landslide victory than to 'keep it close,' especially if Mousavi really did win by such a big margin. In other words, it would be really hard to make the numbers work out if they wanted to keep the vote close, and it would open up the recount challenge as a real means to getting into office.
Close elections aren't as suspicious even with fraud and intimidation, e.g. 2000 Bush v. Gore, than a landslide victory in an oppressive state with a now dead official claiming a vastly different vote tally.
The best evidence of fraud appears to be circumstantial.
First, the speed with which millions of paper ballots were "counted." (Sure, there was only the one name on there, but the ballots were flimsy pieces of folded paper rather than stiff cardboard, and merely opening them and recording the votes should have taken a couple of days.)
Second, the speed with which the alleged final vote count was certified. It's supposed to take 3 days. Here it was done in 1, reminiscent of the fraudsters getting out of Dodge right after they got the sucker's money.
The Repuboican response, by the way, remains pathetic. If Obama had done what they propose -- before they proposed it -- they would have slammed him for inserting the U.S. into a foreign election and jeopardizing the lives of the protestors, as well as the possible success of the protestors.
My gut tells me that Khamenei didn't want to leave anything to chance, so he doubled up on the process -- getting locals (officials, mullahs) to steer voters toward Ahmadinejad, getting "favorable" counts at the municipal level, making additional "unintentional errors" as the municipal votes were tallied at the next level.
The evidence by Mebane in particular for a fairly massive "non-natural" factor in the vote outcome is quite persuasive, even if he himself hasn't declared with certainty that the outcome is a fraud.
@Stepper
I don't get the "speed of the count" critique. The vote came in at a slower pace than many American states, and the ballot was far simpler. A single person can count several hundred votes an hour. Unless we learn more about how votes are (or are claimed to be) counted, this seems premature.
Of course, there's the separate fact that the announcement of the victor came after only a fraction of the vote totals were in. This might've made sense statistically base on early returns or something, but it's undoubtedly fishy.
@Walker I think everyone knows that the republican strategy right now is to harp on the needs of Americans for INSTANT GRATIFICATION. The GOP is just Grazing Onthe Pasture.
Keep trying, but while you are trolling the interwebs, try to make a comment that is remotely relevant to the topic, e.g. Obama is tip-toeing on this issue and therefore will give in to Iran's whims-- which he won't.
I'd like to see the US like France during the American Revolution. Once it's remotely viable and the people are fighting against tyranny, we will assist. Of course, I don't think that logic applies in this world.
If anything (and fearfully, nothing), we'll see Obama work the UN for a coalition.
The protests aren't about the election anymore, they have broadened into a general sense of having had enough oppression, and wanting the kinds of freedoms that much if the rest of the world has. The vote margin has nothing to do with the protests today, tomorrow, and in the coming weeks.
Nate said:
<< But this is simply not the case in Iran. All votes are counted are reported by the Interior Ministry. There is no other source of information. There are no election monitors. Nor does the fraud alleged involve any sort of physical process (e.g. stuffing ballot boxes). It is simply a matter of changing numbers on a spreadsheet. Under these conditions, it is essentially no more difficult to steal a thousand votes than one, a million than a thousand, or 11 million than one million. >>
Are these claims true? the SUBSTANCE of how the vote could have been stolen have not been reported by the press. Let's examine your claims:
-- "All votes are counted and reported by the interior ministry. There is no other source of information. There are no election monitors."
At some level, this is misinformed. Rasfanjani was boasting before the election of the monitoring system he had set up. This was covered extensively in the Western press. Moussavi's people have complained about some of their monitors being interfered with.
-- "Nor does the fraud alleged involve any sort of physical process (e.g. stuffing ballot boxes)."
Stuffing of ballot boxes was the main accusation of fraud in 2005.
-- "It is simply a matter of changing numbers on a spreadsheet."
Is there a paper trail? How does the Guardian Council do a "selected" recount with no paper trail? If there is a paper trail, how is it a matter of simply "changing numbers on a spreadsheet"?
In fact, I don't think we know very much at this point about how Iranian elections are conducted, which is amazing. The press should look into these real questions, and determine whether or not Ayatollah Khamanie has a good point (it seems to me he does, but what do I know?):
-- can independent observers from the various candidates check to see if the ballot boxes are empty when they arrive at the polling places?
-- are voters checked off some list as they arrive? can observers from the candidates verify this process?
-- what is the process for "closing the polls" (i.e. opening the ballot boxes)? what happens to the ballots then?
-- when are the ballots at each opf the 45,000 polling places actually first counted? are they shipped before counting?
-- how is the count from each polling place reported and recorded?
There are more questions to be asked. Let's ask REAL questions, Nate, instead of drawing out-of-your-head curves with no actual numbers.
7:30am eastern time tomorrow will be a telling moment when the scheduled Mousavi rally was scheduled to take place. I have not heard of Mousavi telling his supporters to not show up yet.
Zach
The votes were on a single piece of paper, folder in half (or quartered). This paper is not conducive to an easy or quick count. What kind of a paper ballot is used in the States? It's generally a piece of stiff or cardboard type paper, which is much easier to handle.
I wouldn't compare the ease with which precincts in the United States can count their paper ballots with the way the folded piece of paper is counted in Iran.
While there were other reported deficiencies (including Mousavi's election monitors being sent home), it appears the ballots were all sent to a central location to be *cough, cough* counted. And that they were then counted at a record speed. About as long as it took to create the phony numbers supporting the little Hitler's landslide.
I like the nuts and bolts questions from bruce b as this election in another country is a black box to us. Perhaps it is also to those in Iran.
The video clips, what few I saw, showed what looked like chaotic polling places. Not the staid, organized American type election where the blue-haired ladies take over the gym of the local school for a 12 hour voting period.
Nate, I must quibble about that graph because the Y axis should point the other direction. The protest risk should increase as one moves further away from the axis. Alternatively, you could keep the same shape of curve and label it "chance of getting away with stealing the election"
@STepper
How long did it take to count and certify votes in previous elections?
My problem with the graph is that it seems to presuppose a two-horse race. Most people were not expecting any candidate to obtain a clear majority of votes.
@Stepper
Regardless of how the votes are counted, a person can count hundreds within an hour at a (very reasonable) 10 seconds per vote. A two person team could unfold votes a couple seconds per vote and then tally them at about the same rate. This is a reasonable estimate. According to an AP article on Monday, the votes were tallied in 12 hours. At 360 votes/counter/hour (10 seconds/vote) it would require 10,000 counters to tally these votes in that amount of time.
When you say, "It appears that the ballots were all sent to a central location," what are you basing this on? If, indeed, the ballots from across a gigantic country were brought to a single, central location before counting, the announced totals are obviously absurd. I don't know that this is the case, and very much doubt that this is the case. According to the AP article, this election was fully counted in about half the time it took in previous elections. It's suspicious, but really compelling evidence of fraud.
Above, I'm assuming votes weren't counted until after polls closed. If counting was going on throughout the day, it's very reasonable to count 40e6 votes within 12 hours of poll closing with counters numbering a tiny fraction of the total population.
The counting process is simplified as there was only one question on the ballot, as I understand it: who do you want as President? So "counting" consists of putting the ballots in one of 4 piles (5 piles, I guess, one for blank/ indetermined). It is then very easy to count each pile.
Is the graph based on research by a political scientist? Or is it just a best guess way of graphically illustrating the concept of a fraud sweet spot. (ie POOMA data)
It's my hunch that the most likely elections to trigger protests would be where a majority opinion in a highly contentious election loses due to weird events. For example, the failure of mainstream parties to form electoral coalitions, thereby splitting the mainstream vote in a crowded field and allowing a far fringe party to gain power, with a minority of the vote. Losing the usual way is one thing, but the public does not respond well to Black Swan events. (imperfect example, but the US Presidential Election, 1860, in which Lincoln only got 39% of the popular vote, but a solid majority in the electoral college)
I think the second most likely elections to lead to unrest would be very closely contested ones, such as Florida 2000, in which the inherent MoE in elections, which most people aren't even aware of, becomes apparent to the general public.
These two instances are exactly why many election rules require a run-off in case no one gets an absolute majority.
Intuitively, I would think that of all the elections run in the world, or in that region, that the least likely ones to trigger riots would be results over 90%. By the time a state has those sorts of results either the election draws little notice from the public because the opposition failed to field a candidate (eg GOP primaries for state offices in the Deep South, circa 1920) or the authorities are so iron-fisted that voting for the opposition and demonstrating in the streets are equally unthinkable (eg North Korea, 2009).
So, I doubt the chart illustrating risk of protests is likely to be of a bell shape at all. It should start very low, showing a high risk of protests at low winner's shares of the vote. Then the line would rise steadily, showing less risk of protests (please, god, next time flip your Y-axis, Nate, this is too confusing. lol) as it passes through 30%, 40%, 50%. After about 55% or 65% the line should shoot through the roof, indicating little or no chance of protests.
Now all this goes out the window if the electoral process itself is in serious doubt as it seems to be in Iran, but that would be a whole other chart, with two variables: degree of confidence in the electoral process' ability to accurately express the preference of potential protesters (not all voters, the winner's supporters don't figure in this, they won't protest) and the resulting likelihood of protests. The final election returns on that chart would be immaterial. If a candidate manages to win with 10%, 50% or 90% of the vote, but the public agrees that it was an accurate reflection of the will of those who voted (even if the will was coerced, you can get lots of votes by saying, "Vote for me, or I'll send you to the gulag."), then no protests. But if a candidate wins with 10%, 50% or 90% of the vote, and the public believes the election did not properly reflect popular will due to fraud, machine failure, restrictive registration rules or coercion, there will then likely be protests, except of course in authoritarian regimes. But those protests are not about the election results, they are about the supposed corruption of the electoral system itself.
Nate, is this piece lacking a final conclusion? - one that would go like this: "What the alleged 63% victory indicates is that if it was indeed invented, then the figure was created precisely with the above graph in mind. I.e. it potentially served, according to the logic of the regime, as the most believable result that could be created. Not too close to undemine the regime, and yet not so sweeping as to arouse too much suspicion. If one were trying to simply steal an election, then the results wouldn't matter, but the veneer of believability is optimally served by the 63% figure, and that in itself makes 63% a suspiciously perfect number."
First, I have to agree with interstices' critique of the graph. The Y-axis needs to be fixed.
The bigger flaw with this curve is that is it overestimates the danger to Ahmadinejad of a close race. If, as this post speculates, Ahmadinejad could set the vote totals as he wanted, he would be able to control both his own and his opponents' totals. Not only that, but the Guardian Council would be much more justified in denying a recount if the results were more plausible. In any case, he cannot lose. The only threat to him, then, is of suspicion; the higher the suspicion, the more danger to him.
Just as in any form of cheating, the optimal result is the closest result that can ensure a win. And if one knows one's opponent's hand, that makes it all the easier. If I am stacking a deck and know that you will hold two pair, I should arrange a set for myself. Any higher hand only increases the risk of suspicion with no payoff.
@Richard "Just as in any form of cheating, the optimal result is the closest result that can ensure a win."
That may be true for card games where slight of hand is key, but in elections, close elections arose much more scrutiny. Also, it would not give the cheater much clout.
If you are going to steal an election, you go big.
BTW, I think there's a big difference between cheating in an election and stealing the election.
We should be careful about the difference. For example, IMO Repubs cheated in 2000 and 2004, but it was a close election... so heads or tails.
Also, consider that if the number was grabbed out of thin air, it was likely picked to almost exactly match Ahmadinejad's haul in the 2005 run-off. Iranians were given a choice between a hardliner and a relative moderate in 2005 and 62% of them chose Ahmadinejad. Unless that result was also fabricated, it's difficult to buy that this result is unbelievable. Do we have the run-off results by province yet?
It's looking more and more like Nate is just making up shit as he goes on this Iran deal.
How appropriate is it that my word verification is 'prove'? As in, Nate, can you prove any of this mularkey that you suggest or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
It's more correct to talk about the "Supreme Leader" of Iran rather than the "Ayatollah", because he is not the only one.
@beatingredlights
I am not saying that there cannot be other reasons for wanting a wide margin. As you imply, the most likely of these would seem to be sending a message of power to the opposition and avoiding close scrutiny or a recount.
What I am saying is that risk of protest is not one of those reasons for wanting a wide margin. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
@Richard
OK. Then we agree on that point.
Interesting Op-Ed in the TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19shane.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Something else to consider:
It's one thing to have more voters than ballots available (the 'shortage of ballots at a precinct' that almost every election has faced somewhere).
It's an entirely different thing to have more votes that voters registered to vote in a particular area.
Rachel Maddow reported Thursday night (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31435624) that according to the Aiyanda (sp?) Iranian News web site, at least 30 Iranian towns reported turnout of voters to be more than 100% of the number of people registered to vote, and three towns were mentioned in particular:
Chadegan had a turnout of 120%
Kohrang had a turnout of 132%
Taft had a turnout of 141%
Notational errors on the tally sheets? Double voting? Double counting?
Who knows, but it is a good indication that something was rather amiss in several locations. And who's to say that the opposite did not happen in other locations, where 90% of the registered persons voted, but only 75% of the votes actually cast were counted?
In any event, as much as I dislike Ahmadinejad, is Mousavi that much better? After all, he was one of the leaders of the Iranian Revolution; and as Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989 worked with many of the current leaders of the Iranian government. For instance, (current) Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Khamenei was President of Iran while Mousavi was Prime Minister.
In my mind, I view it as similar to a choice between Hitler and Mussolini. If just those two were on a ballot and you had to choose between one or the other, most would prefer Mussolini, But in reality, most (especially those outside the 'election territory') would prefer neither.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I think that many of the speculations here pre-suppose that the Supreme Leader had a diabolically keen mind in the way he fixed the election. "Ah, 63% is the perfect number to properly stage a riot-proof result." But everything about this event shows massive incompetence in perpetrating this fraud. If he had announced the winner 3 or 4 days after the vote (what was his hurry?), and it had been a closer 53% to 46% win (why did he need to make an 11M vote landslide when he could have made it a very solid 2M margin?), and Ahmedinejad hadn't dominated the cities and Mousavi's home town (the only result GUARANTEED to arouse suspicion),and the country had not instantly shut down all communication lines and thrown out all journalists, would we all have concluded that the election must have been fixed? It would have been disappointing to those of us rooting for the slightly less evil maniac (for a position with virtually no power anyway), but we and most Iranians would have accepted the result, just as outraged Californians do not think the Prop 8 vote was "rigged" even though they are saddened by it. All of this leads me to believe that, while the stated results may or may not adhere to a logical graph of an adeptly stolen election, Khamenei is too stupid to have been thinking about any logical, shrewd plan. It is as though he wrote the "give me all of the bank's money" note on his own personal stationery and then tried to escape on foot with wet paint on the bottom of his shoes.
Maybe the protests for change are simply a demographic imperative. It could just be that a segment of the Iranian people were ready and primed for unrest, and waiting for a precipitating event. Had the election looked more fair, they would eventually have protested over inflation or women's rights or an accidental killing by the police or whatever. Even if Mousavi had been declared the winner, there would still be an un-democratic Grand Council and Supreme Leader holding the real power and the morality police would still be the regime's thugs in the streets.
The country has a very young population with easy access to more liberal ideas, but a minority of the population are older people who fought the previous armed ideological struggle, and hold strict hardline beliefs in opposition to the views of the youth. Inflation is high, after a period of relative prosperity. Social and cultural change has been moving forward quickly for a segment of the population, while another segment clings to the stagnant lifestyles of the past. There is a large, well-educated class of urbanites living under a government which is perceived as undemocratic, arrogant, staid, out of touch and needlessly confrontational in foreign affairs. (I mean Tehran in 2009, not the US in 1968. It would be easy to be confused.)
With or without a suspicious election, was there any possible outcome other than protests and unrest?
Obama it seems cannot make up hi mind on freedom and individual liberty. Whether it be in Iran or here in America.
Could it be he truly is not a democrat?
It has been well-chronicled how he has given the back of his hand to the Gay Rights movement and it is equally apparent that he will appoint ideologues to high office like Sibelius who recieved tens of thousands of support from murdered baby-killer "doctor" Tiller and like Sonia Sotomayor who is a blatant racist with demonstrated animus agains white males.
Sotomayor is obviously biased in favor of woman's rights as illustrated by her memebership in an exclusionary, radical feminist group from which she has just been pressured to resign.
http://tinyurl.com/q9t7f4
It seems curious, therefore, that Obama would seek to put a radical feminsit on the highest Court but is utterly lukewarm in his support for woman's rights within the Arab world.
Most striking about the opposition is Iran today is its focus on woman's rights and the oppression females face within Iran. Yet Obama has virtually abandoned women in Iran and is implicitly condoning the repression of spontaneous outpouring of a desire for freedom.
You can draw a straight line from this to Obama's support of the marital rape law in Afghanistan, codifying Sharia law and permitting the opression of women and girls by males within their households.
It is an illusion to think that Obama is for freedom. He is not.
Obama is an authoritarian who wishes to imposes his vision of society on the rest of us. Where his notion of liberty facilitates that, fine. Where it does not, it must be abandoned to the greater good.
Just as Obama has turned his back on America's long history of support for indigenous freedom movements in the world (more of the "old ways"?), he is beginning to take away our domestic freedom of choice using his expanding control of the economy and our incomes as the way to force us to conform to conduct that he wishes to enforce.
This is a budding and insidious dictatorship. And should scare us all.
petekent01 (on twitter)
PK,
Those are just Limbaugh talking points.
But I shall only pick you up on one thing, as its really at the nub of your wrong headedness on all of this
'Just as Obama has turned his back on America's long history of support for indigenous freedom movements in the world'.
You what? What record is this? Sure Wilson spoke of 'self determination of nations' but his view of international relations was pretty much put into the garbage as soon as he had a stroke, and then the Dems lost the 1920 election. Nothing in the Cold War comes close to support for indigenous nations. Take The Vietnam War as an example. The main reason the US got involved was a fear of a popular revolution putting Vietnam in the hands of communists. (That is to say that the US went into Vietnam to support a corrupt regime against the popular will of the people.)
Its actually quite pathetic the way that the right are overstating there case against Obama. Maybe the left were guilty of the same thing vs Bush, but seriously, PK read your last post again, and ask yourself if you aren't coming off as a paranoid freak?
Markymark,
You have quite a selective memory.
If Obama were Prez, as a single example, his leadership would have ensured the continued enslavement of 100s of millions behind the iron curtain and would have propped up our number one enemy, the Soviet Union.
Now his ambilvalence about supporting a freedom movement in Iran, branding it as "meddling", serves only to prop up our number one enemy today, radical Islam.
The people of Iran and many others in the Islamic world long to throw of the medieval shackles of their oppressors. Freedom comes from self-interest.
America has always stood for the promotion of freedom and democracy.
You may think me paranoid, but that does not mean Obama does not have malicious intentions and that he is an authoritarian.
Other than on Fox no one is questioning this man and exploring his motives and the logical conclusion of his policies: enhanced state control over our lives. That only feeds on the paranoia.
Your knee jerk support of him is part of the problem and could likely help to assure our repression.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Breaking News: Protestors have just bombed the Ayatollah's tomb in Tehran. Obama issues call for "calm" and urges protestors to return to their homes and pray from the "Holy Koran".
I detect a shift in coverage that bodes ill for Obama.
This struggle in Iran is now being perceived as fundamentally a women's movement This is Obama's soft underbelly.
Happening in Iran a few minutes ago, lots of shooting. Possible bomb placed at Khomeini shrine (Al Jazeera reports it was government placed)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090620_og_tehran_shooting.shtml
PK, BO has done more for Iran than anyone else, without a war, just a great speech in Cairo.
Bush spends a trillion, BO gives a speech and does more.
If there is the slightest whiff of foreign meddling in Iranian affairs, the movement now afoot in Iran will fail. Why? Oh, I dunno....
1901: A British national buys up Iran's oil exploration rights, a deal in which Perisans would receive only 16% of the profits from their own oil.
1914: Persia, neutral during WWI, is invaded by British and Russian forces. The country is occupied until the end of the war.
1921: Britain supports a military coup d'etat in Persia.
1941: Iran, this time more literally neutral, is invaded by Britain and the Soviets to secure the oil fields and the rail link between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. They depose the ruler, Reza Shah Pahlavi and place his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, on the peacock throne. (The guy we usually think of as "the shah" today.)
1943: In peace agreements that ended the war, all parties agreed that Iran should return to independence without outside interference. The Societ Union, after agreeing to this, did not remove their troops from northwestern Iran, instead establishing puppet soviet republics.
1946: The Soviets finally agree to withdraw from Iran in exchange for major oil concessions. They withdraw, the puppet states are overthrown and Iran cancels the oil deal with the Soviets.
1951: In the weak office of PM, in a constitutional monarchy, Mossadeq pushes for and wins a vote granting him more power. His government cancels the oil deal with the British and nationalizes Iran's oil.
1951: Mosaddeq is elected PM and recognizing his popularity, the Shah also names his Premier under Iran's constitutional monarchy. After attempts at renogotiation fail, Mosaddeq cancels the oil deal with British early and nationalizes Iran's oil.
1953: Mosaddeq wins a referendum granting the PM broader powers. The Americans, French, are Dutch are offered a share of the British oil monopoly if the nationalization was overturned and Mosaddegh was ousted. The CIA and MI6 achieve this through Operation Ajax, in which they openly orchestrated a coup. They placed the Shah back in full control. Madeline Albright has commented, "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. ... But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
1960's and 1970's: The Shah insituted a program of westernization, but coupled it with quashing of internal dissent. His brutal internal enforcers is called SAVAK. Norman Schwarzkopf has said, " [the CIA operatives] trained virtually all of the first generation of SAVAK personnel."
1975: The Shah's political party, Rastakhiz, is founded with explicit support by the US. All Iranians are required by law to join the party and pay dues.
1979: Islamic Revolution.. we all know about this.
2007: US Presidential candidate McCain sings a song to supporters calling for the bombing of Iran, a country with which the US is not at war. A country which considers Al Qaeda a mortal enemy.
2009: The US Senate and House pass a resolution supporting massive demonstrations against the government in Iran.
Now, given the century of foreign invasion, meddling, coup d'etats, and economic exploitation, what exactly would our interference in Iranian affairs, even just a strong statement of support, achieve other than giving both governments a talking point to rile up their most conservative citizens?
The flaw in Nate's argument is the supposition that there is some entity Iranians can appeal to in the face of irregularities or discontent. There is no such apparatus in Iran. The government is essentially the Supreme Leader—when he gets cranky enough, he turns the dogs loose, much as the Shah did. So Khamenei can make all sorts of silly, specious remarks in his speeches, and for him there will be no consequences, unless Hashemi Rafsanjani manages to persuade the Assembly of Experts (which he heads) that it's time to replace Khamenei with someone whose brainwaves aren't quite so brittle. This is highly unlikely, since Khamenei is regarded as one of the "three pillars" of the Islamic revolution of 1980. It would be like kicking Thomas Jefferson off Mt. Rushmore—not gonna happen.
My guess is that the protests will flare some today, a little less tomorrow, then go back underground. There is not enough impetus in Iran today for a major political upheaval.
PK Everything you "detect" bodes ill for Obama. I think your detector is on the fritz, the controls stuck on "Wishful Thinking".
This struggle in Iran is now being perceived as fundamentally a women's movement. This is Obama's soft underbelly.
Mainstream feminists have long resented Obama because he displaced their best shot of putting a woman in the WH. He could have waited. Upstart.
The "tell" came right after his NATO summit press conference during his Euro trip at which he supported temporizing for victory in Afghanistan over the protection of woman's rights as a matter of law in that country
He essentially allowed the Afghani government freedom to enact any aspect of Sharia law, stating that he was in Afghanistan not to change that society, but to defeat Al Qaeda and all else was secondary. Never mind that pesky mindset and mind control of the Taliban that lead to the Fall of the Towers.
It was a breathtakingly ruthless statement of policy, worthy of Dick Chaney: Screw the women and girls, they can be raped and enslaved by their husband's and fathers, as long as we get to kick some Al Qaeda ass.
It would be a brilliant strategy of all anti-government forces in Iran coalesce around the issue of women's rights. Framed as a woman's movement how could Obama continue to take his ambivalent, measured tone, acting impotent and defeated by his nation's history? If he did, what a weenie he would be! A real wet noodle.
The Republicans would be wise to create its own feminist perspective. It should start by calling out the hypocrisy of Obama supporting women's rights in the US but not in the rest of the world. The validity of the principal rests in its universal application.
They should showcase Sarah Palin, the ultimate victim of the Fascist Left, a woman who rose to success based not on birth, or her marriage but on her own qualities and still fulfilling the role of wife and mother.
America loves a comeback story. Feminism needs a makeover and "reparations" must be paid to its victims. Sarah Palin can make good her claim of victim hood and demand an airing of her grievances. The Left has invested great power in this woman. She is now self-sustaining.
How and when she chooses to use her power is up to her. And versus Letterman you had to give the round to Palin. Letterman may have gotten his ratings, but at the cost of his likeability and at the exposure of his bias. Palin received the deserved apology but kept the issue focused on the general implications for the perception and treatment of women and girls in our society.
Again, the silence of the Left was deafening and I think defeating.
Command and control. Feminism, equal rights, are by-products, not goals in themselves of Obama's authoritarian vision. The bureaucratic state, carefully measuring with statistics must assure the greatest good for the people, as determined by a proportionate formula that is also subject to the bureaucratic processes.
Equality of Results.
I prefer Equality of Opportunity. The results always seem to follow that. It is the history of Republican postwar economic policy.
When government gets involved in economic allocations, the market reacts predictably and correctly to attempt to thwart them to the extent that the cost of evasion does not exceed the benefit. The net of all this are economies that are focused more on evasion of government regulation than on innovation and productivity, neither of which can flower in an economy that would tax them at first blush.
It seems we have come full circle.
The GOP economic argument is nearly flawless. Their problem is on the social issues. Our party must start with Feminism. The difference now is that the Republicans can find its feminist voice centered perhaps on respect for mother and family. It must expose the hypocrisy of Obama and the Left on the issue. Take control of feminism as a freedom issue and take it away from the "movement". Theirs is the hypocrisy that must be exposed.
Petekent01 (on twitter)
Good piece with insight and thoughtful expression.
Thanks Nate!
And . . .
"The GOP economic argument is nearly flawless."
ROFLMFAO!
Thanks - a GREAT way to start the day is with a good laugh!
lolololololo
So, is Obama still waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before finally do the right thing and strongly expressing support for fairness and liberty? His continuing equivocation is feckless.
What you and your master Limbaugh fail to realize is exactly what Nosimplehiway posted.
If it looks like the protesters are being supported by the US or any other country, they and the movement are dead.
For the time being, this will have to play out as it will.
It is a simple concept, even your tiny mind should be able to grasp it. Well, once Limbaugh figures it out, you will miraculously figure it out also.
Rudy-
Iranians are still very sensitive to America telling them what to do after the Shah. Even what Obama has done so far is being used in country to support Khameini.
Obama is playing Iran perfectly.
Purported video of ballot box stuffing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS6pbUDHjks
@PeteKent:
Your new-found concern for the hungry, gays, and feminists is truly touching. I find it interesting that your concern for feminism has to do with motherhood and family, not the workplace.
The only time you should go near a "wedge issue" is on a golf course! Better stay out of the rough, PK!
From Washington Post web-site
Obama to Iran: 'Stop All Violent and Unjust Actions'
Updated 2:51 p.m.
By Glenn Kessler
President Obama reacted to the unfolding events in Iran by issuing a statement calling on the government of Iran to "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."
The White House said the president had been monitoring the situation during the day, meeting repeatedly with senior advisers. But the statement largely echoed the president's measured response since the election crisis began a week ago.
"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching," the president's statement said. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."
The president has not yet said whether he thinks the election was stolen but he hinted at that with a reference to "truth" in the later part of his statement.
"Martin Luther King once said -- 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness," the president said.
The president also linked the response of the Iranian government to this crisis to its desire for a greater role in the region. "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion," the president said.
@PeteKent:
The above statement seems pretty clear to me. What else would you have the President do? Send the Marines? Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran?
@Pete Kent:
Anticipating your argument that the President should have said this a week ago:
(1) One week ago, there hadn't been any violence yet.
(2) If you can stand it, read nosimplehiway's post at 10:52 AM concerning the history of Western interference in Iran's affairs. Facts. History. Like spinach, they're good for you PK. Try some. Iran's experience with "The West" (and the Soviets) requires restraint in dealing with Iran now.
(3) If, indeed, it becomes necessary to go to war with Iran, restraint now will make it easier to justify such a step and gather allies in such an effort, should it come to pass.
Ahmad didn't steel or not steel the election. The Supreme Leader did.
I mean "steal." Jeez.
Jason_M said...
Ahmad didn't steel or not steel the election. The Supreme Leader did.
The Supreme Leader stole it FOR Ahmadinejad, which in effect, means that Ahmadinejad DID steal the election.
Same as 2000 in the US - little shrub didn't directly steal the Florida vote. It was a combination of Katherine Harris, and when that wasn't enough, the Supreme Court finished off the deal.
In the end, who was the beneficiary? In Iran in 2009, it was Ahmadinejad; in the US in 2000, it was little shrub.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
My understanding; every voting precinct voted roughly the same, @63%- making the mockery obvious.
Nosimplehiway : Yes, any US interference will make any movement in Iran illegitimate.
.
Latest videos from Iran: Protests continue despite police assaults, woman killed.
.
Nate,
What you say about the "counting" and not having monitors etc is simply not factual.
bruce b's questions about the tallying process in iran is really important.
They way it works is that the administrator of the election (the one that is in charge of the logistics, etc) is the interior ministry but the guardian council has --I think at least two-- representatives at each station.
also, each candidate can have a monitor at each station, and in the centers where votes are added up and spreadsheets are made.
Most importantly, the guardian council gathers the results and does the tallying for itself in Tehran. In fact, in 2005 when khatami's government was in place much of the quibble after the election was that the results were sneaked out of the guaradian council and announced in the state media before the "official result" was announced by the interior ministry!
So when Mousavi's (main?) argument is that a few of the stations were so and so, or that some of his monitors were not allowed, what the ayatullah says makes clear sense.
of course there are people who think that the guardian council and their local trustees are all ahmadinejad's friends or that they are acting as they are because they are held at gunpoint by the forces of the coup etc...
oh, and there is physical trail of everything with the signatures of the observers at every step in the election day and they are in one word quite anal about it.
Finally,
To the ignorants who are certain that the "boxes are gathered at one place and counted there": get a life."
j
Face it,everybody who is quibbling about monitors,counters,folded or unfolded ballots,no ballots,early announcements,etc.,etc.,etc.
IF THIS ELECTION WEREN"T RIGGED,THE SUPREME LEADER WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE AN IMMEDIATE RECOUNT IN ORDER TO LAMBAST "THE GREAT SATAN AND ITS LACKEY STATES GREAT BRITAIN AND ISRAEL"!
But of course,as the election was rigged he can't possibly allow a recount.Case closed!
June 21, 2009 4:01 AM
So, BehSal, if everything is on the up and up, how do you explain the reports of at least 30 municipalities of more than 100% of the registered voters voting (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31435624)?
Or is the concept of "one person, one vote" not in vogue in Iran and certain other parts of the world?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
PK,
Let me state here and now, that when Obama does something of which I dissaprove, I will state it here on this blog. You say I have 'knee jerk support of Obama' well you have a far more knee jerk opposition to him.
And to assume that American Policies freed Eastern Europeans from Soviet control is the most dodgy arguments you have ever made on this site. What exactly did any American President do to bring down the Iron Curtain??
And 'radical islam' in Iran? There has never been any evidence that Al Qaeda has any kind of serious foothold in Iran, as far as I can remember, if there is point me in its direction. Just because someone is Islamic and we don't like them does not make them a threat to the west. Again I am not aware of Ahmedinejad making any threats to the West at all. (With the possible exception of Israel). Its the 'them and us' mentality iof US foreign policy that is the biggest threat to the US, and thats what Obama's Cairo speech was about ending.
Chatham House, an independent UK think tank has posted their review of election results, including provincial cross-tabs from the 2005 election.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
One of their surprising findings -- 2005 Ahmadinjihad support did NOT come from rural areas -- but urban and suburban districts.
Also, voter turnout numbers are suspicious (duh), and Ahmadinjihad would have had to win almost all non-voters plus switch a significant portion of support from one of the Reform or Moderate candidates.
It. Does. Not. Make. Sense.
PeteKent,
In one of your posts, you seemed to imply that, had Obama been president at the time, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed... You state that this is an "example", yet you not only fail to give any proof, you don't even offer an EXPLANATION of this very strong statement.
BTW, your usage of the phrase "knee-jerk" to describe an opinion that doesn't match your own isn't fair... you don't agree with a pro-Obama stance, and so you take the low road and simply declare that it's solely based on some unconsidered and thoughtless instinct.
These underhanded (and transparent) arguing tactics are all well and good for an incendiary radio host who only needs to focus on preaching to the choir while remaining controversial enough to keep people's interest, but they don't play very well in a forum that emphasizes rational and reasoned debate.
As to those claiming that Nate's chart lacks scientific basis, only one of you was really justified in pointing that out... I'm referring, of course, to Nate himself, who's usage of the phrase "But one can posit a curve that looks something like this" made it pretty clear that this chart was purely theoretical.
"America loves a comeback story. Feminism needs a makeover and "reparations" must be paid to its victims. Sarah Palin can make good her claim of victim hood and demand an airing of her grievances. The Left has invested great power in this woman. She is now self-sustaining"
Sarah Palin didn't lose because of some left-wing conspiracy. She lost because she alienated most reasonable women (who her viewpoints do NOT coincide with), made an embarrasing fool of HERSELF on TV (say what you will about media being biased, I don't think that asking her about her favored newspaper is an unfair or at all difficult question), and by bringing nothing of any intellectual merit to the table (her debates consisted of ignoring the questions asked in favor of regurgitating McCain's talking points).
Self-sustaining? In case you hadn't noticed, her ratings, even in Alaska, plummeted during and after the national campaign. Even those Alaskans who were previously enamored with her realized she utterly failed the greater test that the national stage presented her with.
IMO, Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing in regards to Iran. Any direct involvement of the US would only give legitimacy to claims that the protests were engineered by the US. This is a fight of the Iranian people against their own government. If the US sent troops, then it would be an all-out war between two governments, with the people of Iran stuck in the middle. Many more would die, and all the ideals they are giving their lives for now would be tarnished.
Credit Where Credit is Due
This is now an indigenous internal uprising that has everything to do with the aspiration for freedom in Iran and little to do with world politics.
The flowering of this movement can be credited in part to both Presidents Obama and Bush.
Bush has created a democratic and stable Iraq that has largely abandoned its ambitions for more territory. The stability of Iraq and its reduced threat to Iran has allowed the people of Iran to think inwardly rather than outwardly as to where the threat lies.
Obama by his passivity has assured that this is not being seen as a pro-US movement or one being backed or instigated by us, thus disarming the foes of freedom from one of their greatest counter-arguments.
Still Obama's muted response seems oddly behind the curve and it would behoove him as leader of the free world to stand for those fighting for freedom while making clear that this is an issue of self-determination for the Iranians.
You would think with all his rhetorical strength he would be able to thread that needle.
Obama, it seems, is hamstrung by his own sense of unworthiness, his view of America as being part of the problem, not the solution.
Our leader had better develop some more self-confidence or he will risk becoming an irrelevance, contesting with the Jonas brothers for attention, but becoming less and less an influential figure in the world.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Bush has created a democratic and stable Iraq
More LIES from PK.
Truck Bomb Kills Dozens in Northern Iraq (Actually it was at least 70 killed per the AP)
New York Times - Jun 20, 2009
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html?ref=middleeast)
Military deaths (Five US deaths in the last week)
Kansas City Star - Jun. 20, 2009
(http://www.kansascity.com)/news/nation/story/1264098.html)
Round-up of Daily Violence in Iraq
McClatchy Washington Bureau - Jun 20, 2009
(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq-daily-violence/story/70422.html)
Two British hostages die in Iraq
Times Online - Jun 21, 2009
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6544245.ece)
And that's just from the first page of a Google news search, using 'bomb Iraq' for the search criteria, for the period May 22 to June 21, 2009.
"A stable Iraq" ??????????????????
What liquids or drugs have you ingested, PK ??????? They are certainly powerful stuff if you believe that Iraq is stable, let alone 'democratic'.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965