The Ayatollah Throws Down the Gauntlet

posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 06/19/2009 @ 09:54am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (59)

Subscribe Now

Speaking to a government-organized throng bused in from around Tehran and as far away as Qom, Iran's religious capital, and other cities -- a crowd, no doubt, vastly inflated by dutiful members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the fascist, mosque-based Basij thugs -- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threw down the gauntlet against the Green Wave.

He said:

"Nothing can be changed. It's finished, the Presidential campaign."

He added, as if we didn't know, that he's on the side of President Ahmadinejad. "The President was closest to my point of view," huffed the Leader. And he issued not-so-veiled warnings to Iranian citizens to behave, to "be careful how they are acting, careful what they are saying."

The election he said, was "a sign from God." And in case people didn't get God's message, he warned of "bloodshed and chaos" if the street protests continue. "Street challenge is not acceptable," he said.

Make no mistake: it's by far the most serious, even existential crisis for the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. By blatantly rigging the vote, and by their heavy-handed crackdown in the wake of the travesty, the regime has shattered its legitimacy. Its leadership, including Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, are isolated from virtually every important segment of Iranian society -- students, workers, intellectuals, the business class, and even the very clergy that is at the heart of the system -- and they stand revealed as a repressive, reactionary military dictatorship.

What remains to be seen is whether the opposition will back down in the face of that repressive power.

We'll know soon. The real explosion could some within a few days, when the so-called Guardian Council -- a group of twelve bearded old clerics slavishly loyal to Khamenei -- confirms the bogus election results. If they do, as expected, sometime mid-week, it's possible that the sustained street protests could become a revolution.

From an Iranian source, it appears that for Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Medhi Karroubi, and other leaders of the movement, there's no backing down. Here's what he said:

"Mousavi and the others cannot compromise. They know that if Ahmadinejad remains in power, he will try to eliminate all of them. All of them. And it will be violent.

"The Ahmadinejad people are trying to weaken and destroy the 'republic' part of 'Islamic republic.' They dislike democracy, they dislike elections, they dislike accountability. What they want is to establish a regime with an unelected Islamic leader, something like a caliph, who has absolute, unchallenged authority."

On the other hand, although many of the protestors -- including Mousavi and Rafanjani, the wily wheeler-dealer -- have impeccable establishment credentials, it's increasingly clear that most if not all of the opposition leaders want a fundamental change in the way Iran is organized.

That, highly informed Iranian sources say, would include replacing Khamenei with a council of leaders, radically reinterpreting the Constitutional requirement for a Leader, or rahbar, who represents the velayat-e faqih principle ("rule of the jurisprudent") with a far more flexible, collegial body. Were this to happen, it wouldn't mean the fall of the Islamic Republic, but it would represent a huge step toward eliminating its worst features.

Many supporters of the opposition -- as I learned during nearly two weeks in Iran -- don't want the clergy to rule at all. "The mullahs are like idols," one government official told me. "They must be broken."

Rafsanjani is a two-term president (1989-1997), an extremely well-connected, wealthy power broker, and chairman of the Expediency Council. Back in the 1980s, he helped to elevate Khamenei, who was president of Iran from 1981 to 1989, to the post of Leader -- succeeding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder -- in exchange for Khamenei's support for Rafsanjani becoming president. Since then he's shuttled back and forth between the hardline camp and the reformist camp, while maintaining a pragmatic (opportunist) stance. Now it seems he's irrevocably thrown his lot in with the reformists, including Mousavi and former President Khatami. And it's Rafsanjani who, if he chose to, might be able to manipulate the levers of power in Iran to oust Khamenei as Leader.

So far, it's still unlikely. The ruling clique has the army, the Guard, the intelligence service, and courts, the police, the media, and its street thugs to support them -- and, according to some reports, Rafsanjani is under house arrest. But the opposition has the streets.

Comments (59)

Can you believe it?

ANOTHER of these Left-wing Hopehead Obama-loving media types actually ENDORSING his lackluster response to the events in Iran!?!?!?!?

Pat Buchanan?!?!!??!?!?!

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The Obama policy of extending an open hand to Iran is working and ought not be abandoned because of the grim events in Tehran.

For the Iranian theocracy has just administered a body blow to its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people and the world.

Before Saturday, the regime could credibly posture as defender of the nation, defiant in the face of the threats from Israel, faithful to the cause of the Palestinians, standing firm for Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear power.

http://buchanan.org/blog/

Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 10:11am
"All it takes, is time and pressure. Time, and pressure."

Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption

Posted by Benchrest at 06/19/2009 @ 10:29am
"they got the guns, but we've got the numbers". J. Morrison

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 10:42am
I can't wait to hear from Ilya and how great a "patriot" Ahmadinejad is in the light of Iran's clearly authoritarian response to election protests.

Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 11:21am
"Blood makes poor mortar" The Ten Commandments

Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2009 @ 11:34am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 06/19/2009 @ 09:54am

If opposition to the results of a presidential election in the US reached the levels of armed violence in the streets we've already seen proof of in Iran, the US political leadership would do exactly what Khomeini did, which is bring closure by fiat to the election and threaten crowds with police response. Our closest call to what Iran is experiencing was brought to close by Bush v. Gore and Al Gore backing down, and the illegitimate first term of George Bush. In this view, the view that the Iranian political leadership will prioritize basic stability over democratic purity just as our leadership has, it is not shocking that Khomeini is attempting to close the matter of the election down.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 11:49am
Also DREFYUSS - you wrote:

" ... By blatantly rigging the vote, and by their heavy-handed crackdown in the wake of the travesty, the regime has shattered its legitimacy ..."

While I believe it is probably true that there was election fraud - when you claim that the vote was "blatantly" rigged, you imply that the rigging is obviously provable. But, besides the outcome of the vote itself, what evidence can you cite, in summary, that the entire election was rigged?

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 11:53am
While the Opposition in Iran are not a pawns of the West, bellicose statements by the EU, Gordon Brown, and the U.S. Congress has allowed the the present government of Iran to frame an internal dispute as a confrontation between the East and West. Everybody's big mouth may provide an excuse for a blood bath in Iran. These idiots do not have a clue about governance, foreign policy, economics, and need help crossing the road!

Posted by pjcasey at 06/19/2009 @ 12:12pm
Dreyfuss get a job, at Human Events Magazine.

Posted by Anti-imperialist at 06/19/2009 @ 12:19pm
>>>That, highly informed Iranian sources say, would include replacing Khamenei with a council of leaders, radically reinterpreting the Constitutional requirement for a Leader, or rahbar, who represents the velayat-e faqih principle ("rule of the jurisprudent") with a far more flexible, collegial body. Were this to happen, it wouldn't mean the fall of the Islamic Republic, but it would represent a huge step toward eliminating its worst features. <<<

I don't know if this is REALLY a step forward - who would be the Council of Leaders that would replace the Supreme Leader, and how would these leaders be selected?

This could be just a "cosmetic" reform to placate reformist while continuing business as usual.

Like I said in your previous thread, Mousavi has ALWAYS been with the conservatives in his political life, was "approved" by the Supreme Leader to run for president, was prime minister during the Iraq/Iran war, and was one of the key forces behind Iran pursuing a nuclear program.

Mousavi's "sudden" conversion to the reform cause sounds a lot like John Edward's sudden conversion to the progressive cause when he thought the race would just be between him and Hillary Clinton the centrist.

As a serious student of politics, my best guess is Mousavi is playing the reformers to get power (just like John Edwards), and if he succeeds, he will only push for cosmetic changes that will have absolutely no effect on Iran's nuclear ambitions or its relationship with the rest of the world.

Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2009 @ 12:23pm
Dreyfuss again with his biased, inaccurate reporting. Rafsanjani attended the Supreme Leader's speech and was even praised by Khamenei. I doubt Mousavi will now turn himself into a full revolutionary, especially since the downfall of the Islamic Republic would mean the downfall of his own position or even career. I used to admire Dreyfuss's articles and enjoyed his book "The Devil's Game." But I think his Iran reporting has been the worst body of work the man has ever done.

Posted by Communard115 at 06/19/2009 @ 12:37pm
"Blood makes poor mortar" The Ten Commandments Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

democracy is always won by blood, it is never given.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 12:44pm
But, besides the outcome of the vote itself, what evidence can you cite, in summary, that the entire election was rigged? Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

a million Iranians in the streets?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 12:46pm
Amazing, isn't it, the power that a bunch of cross-dressing old men in funny hats, have on the political fate of a nation.

I sure that bunch of crossing-dressing old men in funny hats in the Vatican wish they still had temporal power like this.

Isn't it time the world threw off the power of all cross-dressing old men in funny hats?

Posted by ETSpoon at 06/19/2009 @ 12:46pm
and if he succeeds, he will only push for cosmetic changes

Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2009 @ 12:23pm

just like john edwards:

"Hair salons closed across Tehran in latest moral campaign

Police in Tehran have closed two dozen barbers and hairdressers in a moral crackdown aimed at enforcing Islamic dress codes among young Iranians."

source:sketchy...

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 12:51pm
Unfortunately, it seems that the Clergy and their supporters will continue to rule. It is obviously over for now, however, the seeds of the coming revolution have been sown. It may take till the next election in 4 years but come it will and go 'they' will.

If one wishes to see pure EVIL, look into the eyes of their 'elected' president.

Posted by usheryel at 06/19/2009 @ 1:04pm
I'm glad to see that there are still some liberals on the left. The moral relativist "Bush did it" crap is tired. JFK/Bush style election funk is not the same thing. Sorry.

For some on the the left, the darker hued people on the planet only exist to confirm your own righteous hatred of your inner cowboys. They are the antidote to the uncool side of you that must be repressed. When they forget that, they must be put in their place.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/19/2009 @ 1:10pm
This is the best analysis I have read of the situation now ongoing. Essentially, it seems, we are witnessing either an enormous reform episode in the government system of Iran, or a terrible tragedy in the making. With the crowds still quietly filling the streets tomorrow, in the wake of Khamenei's warning today, it seems almost inevitable that the tyrant will unleash his thugs on the people. Then, blood will run in the gutters, and hordes of innocents will add to the already large number in prison. In that very sad case, the usual abuse, torture, and executions will ensue. I find it painful to read the pious pronouncements of the despotic Khamenei, knowing as we all do what crimes against his people he will commit to stay in power.

Posted by CHForbesSr at 06/19/2009 @ 1:14pm
I, for one, Remember when TheNation was in Full Support of the Iraq Genocide, the Afghan Genocide, the absurd GWOT, Israel's numerous War Crimes. Wake up, before it's too late.----Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/19/2009 @ 12:56pm

You remember Christopher Hitchens maybe...who left this magazine over his support of the Iraq War. The rest you are selectively editing.

BTW, how is it Ahmadinejad won in Tabriz?

A city that is ethnically Azeri Turkic...and Mousavi is an ethnic Azeri Turkic and had just been there to throngs of supporters?

It's like claiming that McCain beat Obama...in Illinois.

Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 1:46pm
It's like claiming that McCain beat Obama...in Illinois.

Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 1:46pm

bush woulda....

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 2:09pm
For some on the the left, the darker hued people on the planet only exist to confirm your own righteous hatred of your inner cowboys. They are the antidote to the uncool side of you that must be repressed. When they forget that, they must be put in their place.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/19/2009 @ 1:10pm

that's profound...

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 2:10pm
I'm an ayatolla, he's an ayatolla, wouldn't you like to be an ayatolla too

actually Bush2, is responsible, in part, for this humanitarian tragedy.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 2:10pm

thanks frost, profundity is my niche.

Ya, bush did this. look, the salt-of-the-earth, off-whites, let's call them the salties, of the world just don't up and have an idea on their own. We know that!

Seriously, some of you guys have absolutely no use for the salties other than as vindicators for your hate-objects. After all, it's only the vigilance of the left making loud proclamations in bars that has saved them from the evil texans. They owe you their lives, so if they can't handle a little repression (that's called paying the piper), f*** em.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/19/2009 @ 2:55pm
I'm an ayatolla, he's an ayatolla, wouldn't you like to be an ayatolla too

actually Bush2, is responsible, in part, for this humanitarian tragedy.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 2:32pm

Don't tease us JR. I'd love to hear your rationale for that comment.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:10pm
"democracy is always won by blood, it is never given(emile duBois)

How noble for you to sit in your sitting room and shed the blood of others. Yours is exactly what the US is NOT calling for: Meddling.You would be wise not to interphere.

Posted by mystic at 06/19/2009 @ 4:54pm
mystic

hey nutjob, I made a general statement. I did not interphere, well interfere, anyway. in the meantime, verreck

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:18pm
Gotta love that Pat Buchanan! (OMG!)

Anyway, I just hope for less bloodshed in Iran, not more. However, if the Iranian people want freedom and democracy and a way to get out from under theocracy, they will have to do it by themselves. We can provide them with moral support, as I believe Obama has done, but unfortunately, that's about all we can do...right now.

No army is unbeatable. Not the Revolutionary Guard, not the British back in the American Revolution, not the Soviets in Afghanistan, not America in Vietnam (and yes, I am aware of the numerous differences in the listed wars, so please don't point them out to me). If the people of Iran want the ayatollahs gone, they will achieve it. After all, the ayatollahs managed to get the previous rulers kicked out or killed. And they used student muscle to do it. Now the students are against them, and they are scared.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 6:52pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 6:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

You know that the three armies you cite as examples that were beaten (the royal British army, the Soviet army, and the US army) were all beaten on ground foreign to them, whereas the Revolutionary Guard, Iranian military and police, militias, etc., are all actually in Iran, right?

The biggest reason the British lost is that it took weeks or months to get even basic information to the US and back to Britain. It's probably an extra-bad example.

I for one hope that there is no bloody civil war in Iran. That would be horrifying. A lot of people would die.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 6:58pm
"Blood makes poor mortar" The Ten Commandments

Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2009 @ 11:34am

Perhaps.

What if I am building your prison or mausoleum?

Posted by Malcontent at 06/19/2009 @ 7:07pm
the reason the Brits lost the revolutionary war is because they were engaged in a global conflict with France and others, where the fight in america was only one part. they were fighting in the caribbean, in India, and elsewhere. the american colonies were just not that important.

I don't think it was the line of communication with the home office. that line was stretched even further in India, and they won that conflict.

I think in the russian afghanistan war and Vietnam for that matter, the home population lost confidence in the war. and of course because the adversary was fighting in their ground, AND was willing to tolerate great losses. the Viet minh for example had been fighting the french, the japanese and the french again. they would be fighting still if america had not thrown in the towel.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:15pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

if you disagree that the distance involved from Britain to the US was immaterial you probably haven't thought things through - there were months of turnaround time on suppressing a bloody revolution being led by British-trained military officers such as George Washington. But that wasn't my point - my point is that I don't think anyone should be suggesting casually - and citing really bad examples for support - that the subset of the Iranian people who voted for Mousavi and may not in numbers like having Ayatollahs should try to take on the Iranian military and government forces to create a state more to their liking. That would be a really sad, and bloody confrontation, quite likely to fail.

The entire situation in Iran is terribly sad right now. People have died in city streets as a consequence of a dispute over who gets to be the second-in-command in Iran.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 7:33pm
One of the things I notice about the comments sections on this web site is that they seem to be over-utilized (that's an understatement) by a few people who really don't know very much about what they're writing comments about, but who apparently believe they do.

A lot less babbling and a lot more listening would help some people out here. Putting up 250 comments a day probably won't teach you anything new and is probably an unhealthy habit as well.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 7:37pm
syfriendly if you disagree that the distance involved from Britain to the US was immaterial you probably haven't thought things through - there were months of turnaround time on suppressing a bloody revolution being led by British-trained military officers such as George Washington.

this is not a coherent sentence, the double negative is the problem

as I pointed out, the line was stretched even further to India, yet the brits won that conflict. a fascinating story by the way.

one thing many historians agree on is that the leaders of both armies were not great generals.

it was the entry of France in the american war that made the victory possible. no France, no victory.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:53pm
you probably haven't thought things through -

why you arrogant...

I am widely read on these matters, AND I have thought things through.

you on the other hand have nothing to offer in rebuttal except a personal slur.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:59pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

You forgot to pay attention to the part where I wrote: 'but that wasn't my point, my point was ...' in other words in rush to quibble over quaint and irrelevant trivia, you forgot to pay attention to the point of it all. Let's leave off; I've added enough comments to this silly thread, and it's Friday evening.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 8:00pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Try not to get your panties all in a bunch, Emile. Now good night -

Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 8:00pm
The biggest reason the British lost is that it took weeks or months to get even basic information to the US and back to Britain. It's probably an extra-bad example.

you made this point.

and I disagreed.

then you became disagreeable.mildly.

I offer you the citation from Goethe's Götz von Berlichen.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:09pm
Götz von Berlichingen

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:19pm
I don't think anybody here wants blood to flow. We all know though, that if the people of Iran want freedom badly enough, they will have to be willing to die for it. Doesn't come cheap.

And most of us here pretty much root for freedom.

One thing that most don't consider, though, is the secret police.

If widespread clandestine roundups are not continuing (some, I understand, have already occurred), they are planned and they will be massive. I have no doubt that direct military confrontation is a loser's game for the establishment - they don't want to create martyrs. But when people simply disappear, it's a lot harder to get other people as excited about avenging them. The secret police can sap the leadership and possibly the will of the insurgents with those tactics.

Another comment mentioned that the Brits had logistical problems in the Revolutionary war, whereas the Iranian military was right there - as if this was an overwhelming advantage - impossible to overcome.

The exact reverse is true. They will be killing their countrymen - and they will be aware of possible consequences if their countrymen wind up on top of the heap. They may tire quickly of shedding Muslim blood. If it comes to that, I think they will.

So, in my mind, it all rests on the street thugs and the secret police.

Wouldn't it be nice if it turned out that we (5 years from now) have gained a real friend in that part of the world? Odds are long against that, but it is premature to dismiss that as a possibility.

Posted by UnEasyOne at 06/19/2009 @ 8:26pm
The Obamanation that makes desolation aka "The Apologist in Chief" can't seem to find his voice and make a foriegn policy decision about what is going on in Iran! Maybe it is better he just keeps quiet for once?

"Ahmadinejad is going to blame the U.S. whatever it does. He rightly sized up the new administration and realized there is now an American government that will apologize for the CIA's actions in 1953, but not ask Iran to apologize for its deplorable record in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. So it is a one-way street with Iran, and it's better to be damned for voicing criticism than for being afraid to voice criticism.

The Iranian theocrats are realists par excellence; they do not give a damn about ideals or morality, and will deal with us in the future on their perception of their own self-interest: whether or not we "meddle" now, if they find it useful to talk in the future, they will; if they find it of no value to talk in the future, they won't."

It is very clear that the apologist in chief cares not what dictatorship or form of fascist regime he bargins with just like when he was campaigning!

Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:21am
The Obamanation that makes desolation aka "The Apologist in Chief" can't seem to find his voice and make a foriegn policy decision about what is going on in Iran!

Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009

That's because even the reformers have told the US to stay the hell away. Of course, the knuckle dragging one trick ponys Repugs like McCain are always looking for an excuse for war.

Yes, Ahmadinejad is going to blame the U.S. whatever it does, just like Bush and Cheney would blame Al Qaeda or Iran for everything that went wrong in Iraq.

Obama was right ot apologize for the CIA's actions in 1953. What the US did was a illegal and immoral.

Iran has nothing to apologize for what it has done in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. After all, Tehran supports the same government that Washington does becasue the Malaki goervment is in the pocket of the Iranians anyway.

let's not forge that we have yet to aplogise for supporting Saddam in his war against Iran, that killed a million people, or for shooting down the Iranian airliner in Iranian air space (killng 290 on baord) in 1988. So not, it's hardly one-way street with Iran.

And let's not forgot that we have been supporting terrorist groups like the MEK(listed by the State Dept as terrorists) , and Jundullah (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang) as they set of bpmbs in Tehran.

The Iranian are not dealistic or immoral than our governent. Mind you, they haven't sent terrosits to atatck the US.

It's very clear that the wingnuts have no idea what to think. Their old policies have been a tragic failure, and while they can criticise Obama, they have no idea what to suggest.

Posted by Shingo at 06/20/2009 @ 07:19am
TTT (Things Take Time) - Piet Hein

Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/20/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/20/2009 @ 03:41am 

How about this one? The Washington Post just published an editorial (titled "The Devil is in the Digits") arguing that statistical evidence casts serious doubt on Iran's results. Though your intuitive response seems to be "Washington Post? Imperialist!", I'd ask you to at least read the article and the ensuing argument. Here's the conclusion, but I'll have to let you read the salacious details:

<<The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot. >>

That, btw, is in addition to all the prima facie reasons for suspicion: Ahmadinejad winning big in areas conservatives had a lot of trouble with, getting a lot of consistency across provinces when there shouldn't have been, etc.

Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 09:33am
Dreyfus: 2 questions:

1. Which EVIDENCE other than your own bias do you have to affirm the poll results're rigged?

2. (if any) Such evidence amounts a 11 million difference?

Posted by rio4tense at 06/20/2009 @ 10:39am
...the reason the Brits lost the revolutionary war is because they were engaged in a global conflict with France and others, where the fight in america was only one part.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

That, and the fact they insisted on those silly bright red uniforms.

Looked great, though.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/20/2009 @ 11:29am
Brown was the first official color for Continental uniforms, and was adopted by the Continental Congress on November 4, 1775, after consultation with Washington and the New England governors. Regiments were to be distinguished by facings of different colors. (Journals of the Continental Congress, Ford, ed., III, 323.) This recommendation, however, was not completely carried out, and the troops were never all in brown, because some of the early organizations had already chosen other combinations, and regiments consulted their own preferences in choosing uniforms. Early in the war, blue was the officers' favorite color for their own dress, and by the end of 1778, blue was the color preferred by the men, as was shown by the attitude toward a shipment of blue and brown coats from France. (Letters of Henry Burbeck, New York Herald, June 15, 1913; Fitzpatrick, Spirit of the Revolution, 130.) A good example of a blue officer's coat is that of Colonel Peter Gansevoort, of New York, preserved in the National Museum at Washington, D. C. It is faced with red and lined with white. Dark blue faced with scarlet was the recognized uniform of the Continental Artillery as early as March, 1777. ([Boston] Continental Journal, March 13, 1777.)

Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:35am
For artillery and artillery artificer regiments, the uniform was ordered to be blue, faced and lined with scarlet, with yellow buttons, the coats to be edged, and the buttonholes to be bound, with narrow lace or tape. The light dragoons were to wear blue faced and lined with white, with white buttons. The blue coats of the infantry regiments were all to be lined with white, and have white buttons, and states were distinguished by different colored facings, as follows: the New England states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, white facings; New York and New Jersey, buff facings; Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, red facings; North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, blue facings and buttonholes edged with narrow white tape. (Varick Transcripts of Washington's General Orders, Library of Congress.)

Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by rio4tense at 06/20/2009 @ 10:39am 

You can't even use exit polling as an absolute standard for an election, much less polling that's completely removed from the time of voting.

Moreover, if you want evidence from the vote itself...my previous post sought to supplement the reasons for suspicion that have already been given.

Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:06pm
If our government is worse, and the overwhelming majority of Americans have a low opinion of the hero Ahmadinejad, why don't comrades Ilya and ilk go and join the basij.

Perhaps you could take part in raping some teenage girls. Little western-loving sluts deserve it don't they?

For once in your sad lives do something with your righteous anger. Kill somebody. So many deserve to die.

Rape, why not? Torture, Bush did it. Kill them. They kill abortion doctors. Every single one of them has killed an abortion doctor. Gas them with carbon dioxide. They love their carbon don't they?

Wipe out the Jews. Who are the Jews? All of them are Jews. All the little hitlers are jews. Hitler was a Jew. Jews are Hitlers. You are the anti-hitler Hitler. Ever hitler from here forward is a hitler born of necessity to defeat the mini-hitlers spawned in response to the last big hitler.

Mutilate, why not? Can a vagina be used as a weapon? Could the cowboys deploy an arsenal of vaginas? Of course they could. Mutilate them.

Save your beer money. Ride your bicycle to work. Fly coach. Be somebody.

You are the love Hitler. You are the green Saladin. You are the Hidden Imam. The time for mercy has passed. They need your fury. Give it to them.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/20/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by gangpapist

maybe a tad overwrought.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:34pm
Mehdi Khazali, the son of the conservative Ayatollah Khazali, has written on his personal website that he recently learned that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has Jewish roots.

it's always the tschudden.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:38pm
Suspect election in Iran? Solution; have results verified by old pal Jimmy Carter... ;^) -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

Posted by reg373 at 06/20/2009 @ 1:42pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:34pm

I think so.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/20/2009 @ 1:47pm
Amazing how the Nation with one stroke of the pen joined the neocon cabal. Robert Dreyfuss has now seamlessly assumed the mantle of his hero, Bush and his luggage. No wonder stolen elections ( and I don't subscribe to the garbage that the one in Iran was) happen only if you have a morally less credible Suprem Council( if it is non Western of course) than say a non idiologicaly bent Supreme Council (shall we call it Court) lead by a great Ayatolah named Scalia.

Posted by tecle at 06/20/2009 @ 1:50pm
gangpapist

still, colorful and not uninteresting

Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:55pm
And now the Ayatollah Scalia has chosen Obama.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/20/2009 @ 1:59pm
'm glad to see that there are still some liberals on the left.

Posted by gangpapist at 06/19/2009 @ 1:10pm

I'm glad that you're glad, becasue the right have beecome the irrelevant fringe.

After all, the GOP is less popular in this country than Russia and Venezuela.

Of couse, your post is a case of projection. The right's relatively recent infatuation with Israel is only because they hate Arabs and Muslims more than they hate Jews.

Posted by Shingo at 06/20/2009 @ 6:59pm
You have to hand it to the little Eigchman's like gangpapist and their inverted logic.

He recommends saving people by killing them.

He talks abotu wiping out Jews while Jews are the most protected people in the world.

Laments vaginal mutilation, whileobbviusly trtilled to bits with the hundreds fo thousands of vaginas connected to the women that were killed as a result of our Iraq invasion.

He accuses the left of loving Hitler, when Bush;s own grad danddy was a Hitler supporter, as were many on the right. Was Saladin a lefty or just an Republican in disguise, wanting to shape the Middel East to his ideas?

Posted by Shingo at 06/20/2009 @ 7:06pm
Ahmadinejad and his ally thugs try to enforce an islamic fascism in Iran based on the lunatic theological theories of Mesbah Yazdi, which is the most conservative Mullah on this planet. If this happens, we will have a Nazi-Regime, which could be a threat for the whole world and would also have in its agenda: to kill the masses, which are against them. I dont want to draw a horror scenario, but an internal change in Iran towards freedom and democracy means also Peace for the rest of the world. That is why western powerful countries should cope with this task VERY seriously

Posted by Gaiaschild at 06/23/2009 @ 08:52am