Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGunfire, tear gas, and water cannons used by baton-wielding security forces in Iran have forced an uneasy calm on Tehran and other cities, but Mir Hossein Mousavi isn't backing down. And the next explosion could come when the Guardian Council, the twelve-member clerical body assigned the task of reviewing the results of the June 12 election releases its report. By all accounts, the Council -- half of whose members are appointed by, and loyal to, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the other half is nominated by Iran's Parliament and approved by Khamenei -- will ratify President Ahmadinejad's reelection.
In today's post I want to focus on the election itself. A newly released statistical study of the rigged election by Chatham House raises enormous questions about the validity of the Interior Ministry's reported vote totals. And Mousavi himself is making the point, in detailed fashion, that the vote was bogus.
The Chatham House analysis, while wonky and full of detailed charts, provides the clearest evidence yet that Ahmadinejad and Co. rigged the vote.
It shows, for instance, that in at least ten provinces, in order to have amassed the vote totals given to him, Ahmadinejad would have had to have won all the voters who backed him in 2005, all of the voters who, last time, voted for the centrist candidacy of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, all of the voters who, last time, sat out the election and didn't vote at all, and -- on top of that -- up to 44 percent of the voters who, in 2005, backed the reformist slate!
Example: Ahmadinejad won 765,000 votes in Hamedan province. In 2005, he received 195,000. To win the additional 570,000 votes, Ahmadinejad would have to have won all 218,000 voters who didn't vote in 2005, all 175,000 Rafsanjani voters, and nearly a quarter of the 322,000 voters who cast their ballots for the reformists. Keep in mind that most, if not all, of the non-voters in 2005 would be people disgusted with and cynical about voting at all, the vast majority of whom would probably have cast their ballots for Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, or Mohsen Rezai this time, if they voted at all.
In province after province, the data hold.
The Chatham House data also show, conclusively, that rural voters do not support Ahmadinejad, contrary to the oft-repeated myth in the media and among many analysts. In 2005, for instance, the report shows a perfect correlation: the more rural the province, the lower Ahmadinejad's vote in 2005. Why? "Much of Iran's rural population is comprised of ethnic minorities: Lors, Baluch, Kurdish, and Arab amongst others. These ethnic minorities have a history of voting Reformist," says the report. In 2005, they voted overwhelmingly for Karroubi and for Mostafa Moin, not Ahmadinejad. The report, backed by detailed statistical analysis, shows that to have won the support he claims to have achieved in rural areas, Ahmadinejad would have to have won fully half of the reformist vote, a notion that the report calls "highly implausible."
It also notes, wryly, that "in two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100 percent was recorded." (The Guardian Council, in preliminary findings about the election, announced on Monday that in some cases vote totals around the country did exceed the total number of registered voters, but that this happened in "only 50 cities.")
Rather stunningly, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani -- a fiercely conservative partisan who, nonetheless, was a backer of Ahmadinejad's conservative opponent in the June 12 election, Mohsen Rezai -- has declared that the vote may be suspect. Here's what he said:
"The Guardian Council should use every possible means to build trust and convince the protestors that their complaints will be thoroughly looked into. A majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election result is different from what was officially announced. The opinion should be respected and a line should be drawn between them and the rioters and miscreants. ... Although the Guardian Council is made up of religious individuals, I wish certain members would not side with a certain presidential candidate."
By "certain presidential candidate," of course, Larijani means Ahmadinejad.
Mousavi himself isn't pulling punches. He said that "disgusting measures" were used to fix the election, adding, in a letter to the mullahs of the Guardian Council:
"All these counts of irregularities plus many others that were mentioned in previous letters . . . are reasons to cancel the election nationwide. ... The result was reversed. ... The number of mobile ballot boxes was increased significantly, and there were no monitors present at those stations. Our representatives were not allowed to be present at the mobile ballot boxes during transportation. Considering the fact that there were 14,000 of those, that gave them the ability to carry out any violation of any sort. The ballot boxes were sealed before we could verify that they were not filled up before election day.""There were 45.2 million eligible voters, and 59.6 million voting slips with serial numbers were printed. A day before the elections, there were millions more printed without serial numbers. The fact that there were so many extra voting slips itself is questionable. There is no way we could have run out of voting slips so early into the elections."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Looks like Iran's Supreme Court may be as bought-and-paid-for as ours.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/21/2009 @ 12:33pm
I'll repeat a key issue here; how could almost 40 million votes be counted in just over 12 hours? Not possible. There were also people allegedly still waiting to vote when the polls were shut down. Also (allegedly) there were more than 10 million extra ballots printed without serial numbers when there wasn't a shortage expected..
At odds with the story above are the articles which state that Ahmadinejad has more support among poor rural voters, so that needs to be cleared up. I've read at least four articles which offer conflicting data on this point.
"Ahmadinejad, who has significant support among the poor and in the countryside, said Sunday that the vote was "real and free" and insisted the results were fair and legitimate." (Bellingham Herald)
Ahmadinejad may have won. But they seemed to be taking no chances. It seems that by rigging the vote they have threatened the stability of the country unnecessarily and, as a result, raised the level of paranoia in Israel as well.
Posted by ficheye at 06/21/2009 @ 12:45pm
Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole believe Ahmadinejad probably did win, just not by the large amount the government is trying to claim. They probably wanted to avoid a run off. I would recommend people also read Robert Fisk's excellent dispatches from inside Iran.
I wonder if Ahmadinejad will eventually unleash his supporters on the opposition in a Mao-style, Cultural Revolution scenario. From Dreyfuss's dispatches on the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies, it does look like a possibility.
Posted by Communard115 at 06/21/2009 @ 3:31pm
<i>Posted by Communard115 at 06/21/2009 @ 3:31pm </i>
So he did cheat. First off, this is problematic regardless of whether it absolutely determined the outcome. Second, wanting to avoid a runoff is just another translation of rigging the election. Why? Because the only reason to avoid a runoff is because the other guy just might get elected.
Imagine you're an MLB team. You're in the final game of the season, and you know that if you lose this game, you'll face a much harder team than if you win it. You're not too sure you can win this game, so you have your pitchers use a little pine tar or something, just to make sure you clinch this game. Maybe you would have won regardless, and maybe you still could have beaten that harder team. It's irrelevant; you still cheated.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 3:59pm
While the situation in Iran is terrible, the US should not even appear to attempt to interefere or intervene. For one thing the US has a bad history and relationship with Iran which needs to improve. For another thing, if a country were to attempt to interefere with our domestic poltics, we wod hardly welcome it.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/21/2009 @ 4:17pm
Thanks Dreyfuss.
The we're just as bad stuff is getting tired. We have considerably more "moral authority" now then we did when we had legal apartheid. It's relative.
Obama isn't handling this terribly. He's proceeding very cautiously, as he should.
Posted by gangpapist at 06/21/2009 @ 9:02pm
For another thing, if a country were to attempt to interefere with our domestic poltics, we wod hardly welcome it.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/21/2009 @ 4:17pm
actually, you've been buying it at wal-mart.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/21/2009 @ 10:03pm
Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:33:38 GMT
Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.
The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/21/2009 @ 10:11pm
Like I said the Obamanation that makes desolation doesn't understand that his tour of apologetics was only humiliating for this nation! Now he reaps what he has sown!
"Ayatollah Khamenei said Obama's "agents" had been behind the protests: "They started to cause riots in the street, they caused destruction, they burnt houses." But that wasn't all the Great Satin did. "What is the worst thing to me in all this," sighed the supreme leader, "are comments made in the name of human rights and freedom and liberty by American officials . . . What? Are you serious? Do you know what human rights are?"
And then he got into specifics: "During the time of the Democrats, the time of Clinton, 80 people were burned alive in Waco. Now you are talking about human rights?"
It's unclear whether the "Death to the U.K." chanters switched at this point to "Democrats lied, people fried." But you get the gist. The President of the United States can make nice to His Hunkalicious Munificence the Supremely Supreme Leader of Leaders (Peace Be Upon Him) all he wants, but it isn't going to be reciprocated.
There's a very basic lesson here: For great powers, studied neutrality isn't an option."
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:49pm
And how about what the opposition says about him?
"Author and foreign policy expert Michael Ledeen has published a letter reportedly from the office of Mir Hossein Mousavi, in which the Iranian opposition leader criticizes President Barack Obama for saying Mousavi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are "two of a kind."
The letter, addressed to Obama, takes the president to task for the remark, calling it "a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.
"It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.
"Your statement misled the people of the world."
Wow!!! Way to go Obamanation that makes desolation, it looks like your masterful foriegn policy is raking in its JUST dividends! What was that old saying about "sending a boy to do a man's job"? (I'm sure leftist fools will somehow idiotically assume the use of boy is racist)
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:50pm
BigPasture:
Michael Ledeen? Guess what? When Ledeen was leading the "Axis of Evil" charge against Iran a few years ago, the president of Iran was the REFORM candidate Katami. Now Ledeen is smacking Obama for not backing the reform candidate?
What a f***ing hypocrite.
Posted by Broken at 06/21/2009 @ 11:18pm
What a f***ing hypocrite. Posted by Broken at 06/21/2009 @ 11:18pm
Leave BigPustule alone!
I know it's hard to tell just what he's talking about, but just pretend it's static, just an annoying background noise. The regular broadcast will come on soon and he can go back to practicing tying his shoes.
He holds his gun in one hand, his penis in the other, and types with his nose while listening to Billy Cunningham. Quite a feat, actually.
Posted by ficheye at 06/22/2009 @ 12:29am
It's unclear whether the "Death to the U.K." chanters switched at this point to "Democrats lied, people fried." But you get the gist. The President of the United States can make nice to His Hunkalicious Munificence the Supremely Supreme Leader of Leaders (Peace Be Upon Him) all he wants, but it isn't going to be reciprocated.
There's a very basic lesson here: For great powers, studied neutrality isn't an option."
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:49pm
Nice ramble.
Posted by koroviev at 06/22/2009 @ 12:49am
There's a very basic lesson here: For great powers, studied neutrality isn't an option.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:49pm
There IS a very basic lesson here. Children, grown up and otherwise, should not be allowed to play with matches and acoholics shoud not be give the keys to the liquor cabinet.
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 05:35am
"Author and foreign policy expert Michael Ledeen has published a letter reportedly from the office of Mir Hossein Mousavi, in which the Iranian opposition leader criticizes President Barack Obama for saying Mousavi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are "two of a kind." Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:50pm
Thanks for demonsatrting what constitutes your reading diet BigPasture
What else do you expect from, Michael "faster please" Ledeen, Iran-Contra criminal who on 3 sperate occasions reported that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was dead.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2007/01/im_enjoying_thi.html
Some foreign policy expert he turned out to be. Too funny.
Then again, considering what we had during the Bush years, he was an expert of sorts, though probably not in foreign policy.
So pooor Mousavi's feelings are hurt. Awe shucks. I wonder how he felt about his entire country being labelled the axis of evil?
It looks like Mousavi has proven Obama's point about him and Ahmadenijad being "two of a kind." After all, both of them seem to have mastered the capacity to defacate out of every orifice.
Thansk for the laughs BigPasture !!
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 05:47am
He holds his gun in one hand, his penis in the other, and types with his nose while listening to Billy Cunningham. Quite a feat, actually.
Posted by ficheye at 06/22/2009 @ 12:29am
He probabyl has one of those leftover cadboard cutouts of Bush from Ted Haggart's Jesus Camp, and lies there in bed alone at night crying to himself, "awe Dubya, I wish I could just quit you".
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 05:52am
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 05:52am
Posted by ficheye at 06/22/2009 @ 12:29am
Word.
I have spent years trying to get BIG_PILE_OF_SHIT_ON_THE_PASTURE to denounce WARREN JEFFS and the very idea of pedophilia. He won't do it. Just will not. Across at least a dozen efforts, "BIG" has never once put his foot down and said a peep that is critical of either the figure of WARREN JEFFS or the practice of pedophilia in the fundy compound (or anywhere else).
So, here is the latest in a long series of efforts.
"BIG", please fill in the blank from the options below with the most appropriate response(s) that represent(s) your deeply held convictions. Read carefully.
I, "BIG", ______________ Warren Jeffs.
A. ...love & adore...
B. ...worship...
C. ...work tirelessly on a campaign to free the victim par excellance of political correctness...
C. ...consider my personal "Thomas Jefferson" to be...
D. ... have a "jones" for...
E. ...desire nothing more in this world than to be permamantly installed in the compound of...
F. ...applaud the fundementalist purity of...
G. ...regularly do the "'Larry Craig Has Come to Court You' Tap Dance" in the men's room in the vain hope that the person in the next stall is...
H. ...have constructed a backyard shrine to...
I. All of the Above
J. None of the Above.
Which is it, "BIG"? Fess up. Tell the unvarnished truth about your rightwing obsessions. Get off your rectum and stand up for your rightwing dogmas before the blue-haired and body peirced ACORN corps of "activists" descend from the black helicopters that have circled endlessly above since January and hose down your brain in an idelogical cleansing...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/22/2009 @ 08:08am
Don't be alarmed children.....the final disproof of evolution theory is that for the lower animals, when there are feelings of threat, their only capacity for response is simply flinging their feces as a reaction to fear or discomfort, lacking reasoning capacity.....
Posted by BigPasture at 06/22/2009 @ 08:16am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/22/2009 @ 08:16am
"Don't be alarmed children....."
Once again, "BIG" quotes without attribution. In this case, "BIG" is quoting from his Supreme Maxiumum Leader: WARREN JEFFS as he patrols the compound and re-assures his "subjects".
"the final disproof of evolution theory..."
Speaks for itself.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/22/2009 @ 08:26am
Big Pustule is simply bursting with communicable winger sap. Sadly for him, the overwhelmingly majority of us are impervious to his congenital affliction.
The best he can do is to threaten with popping his foul zit like a sociopathic high school freshman in a crowded classroom.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/22/2009 @ 10:19am
Really, Phil, snow, Sorelish....you guys need to calm down.
Keep in mind, guys like RIO/Big Posture....is now about all the Republican Party has left.
Hell, on Obama and Iran, they've even lost guys like Pat Buchanan, George Will, and Joe Scarborough.
At this rate, the Convention in 2012 might look like a "pro-Palin/anti-Letterman" "rally"....(35 in attendence, plus one staffer from Letterman..LOL)
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 10:51am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/22/2009 @ 10:49a
Yes, seems that neo-cons want the reformers to know that unlike the White House & Congress, they are 100% behind regime change.
Right down to taking out the nuke facilities & saving Iran from annihilation due to improvident potential bomb building behavior.
Capturing hearts & minds.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/22/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:50pm
Note the date...
By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service. Posted May 8, 2003.
Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East, it will be largely due to his inspiration.
Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.
Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."
Posted by Extraneous at 06/22/2009 @ 11:59am
And everyone here scoffs at the claims by the Supreme leader and Ahmadinejad of mettling by the west and US? Maybe they are dead on... and we have folks like Ledeen to thank.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/22/2009 @ 12:02pm
Things will have to settle down quite a bit before any negotiations take place. No one likes what is going on over there, but, China became a major trading partner after Tiananmen Square. The purpose of negotiations is to resolve conflicts and stabilize the region.
Posted by pjcasey at 06/22/2009 @ 12:20pm
Communard or anyone else, doesn't Robert Fisk write for THE INDEPENDENT anymore? Where can I find his dispatches? He, along with Patrick Cockburn are perhaps among the most most trustworthy writers conerning that part of the world.
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/22/2009 @ 1:08pm
I want to point the lack of coverage in the mainstream media over what is now being called by some foreign reports as the "Tiananmen Square of the Amazons" and the post-election turmoil in Iran. Reports have circulated of over 60 dead among the protesting Indians in Peru. The conservative gov of Alan Garcia puts it at half or less. Yet since this ocurred back on the 5th, coverage has been scant to say the least. I know THE NATION touched on it, but even so, scant coverage. But of course, since Peru doesn't carry the same geo-political weight as China or Iran--at least currently--then we put it on the backburner.
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/22/2009 @ 1:14pm
Interesting study.
Do you think there is enough here DREYFUSS to cast doubt on the victor or just evidence of an effort to avoid a run-off?
It is not entirely clear that Mousavi would have won had there not been any irregularities, or that he would win a run-off in a fair election monitored by the international community.
It is much easier to mobilize the international community when the WRONG GUY won. If the RIGHT GUY won - the candidate who has the most votes and the popular support of those governed - then I don't see how one can convince the international community (or Obama) to step in.
For example, I think Bush cheated in Ohio in 2004, but would that have made a difference in the national outcome? Probably not.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/22/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/22/2009 @ 1:14pm
CHIMI???
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 1:37pm
Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East, it will be largely due to his inspiration.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/22/2009 @ 11:59am
Extraneous,
The only groups inspired by Michael Ledeen are those ultra Zionist Neocons who worked closely with Dubya and Cheney to deceive America to the Iraq war. Ledeen was the Zionist forger of the infamous Rome document which falsely claimed that Iraq was buying Uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb. This forged document was utilized by W. Bush when he to uttered his 16 deceptive words to justify invading Iraq.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
Ledeen, like his Neocon cohorts, is driven by a single eternal cause which is to do anything to serve the Zionist agenda. Ledeen's Machiavellian views are formulated to do what is good for Israel, regardless of the consequences. Ledeen's deception caused ten of thousand of Americans to get killed and wounded in Iraq. However, American death can be justified by such Machiavellian animal, so long as, it serves the Israeli interest.
Before we get too exited about the Iranian election, it behooves us to express some indignation about election frauds at home. The fraudulent election in Florida which deceptively anointed Bush in 2000 was well documented; the remaining question is: where is the American outrage? The only war which is worth fighting is to hold those like Michael Ledeen and his Neocon accomplices accountable for exploiting American blood to serve their secret agenda.
Posted by CripThink at 06/22/2009 @ 3:22pm
Here is the best article I've read that presents an intelligent analysis of the Iranian election results:
http://counterpunch.com/amin06222009.html
Posted by lingum at 06/22/2009 @ 4:01pm
.....the final disproof of evolution theory is that for the lower animals, when there are feelings of threat, their only capacity for response is simply flinging their feces as a reaction to fear or discomfort, lacking reasoning capacity.....
Posted by BigPasture at 06/22/2009
How does that disprove Evolution?
Clearly, you are not one who concerns himself with empirical evidence. Why else would you regard someone who on 3 occasions reported that MKameni is dead, as a foreign affairs expert?
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 5:43pm
Here is the best article I've read that presents an intelligent analysis of the Iranian election results:
http://counterpunch.com/amin06222009.html
Posted by lingum at 06/22/2009 @ 4:01pm
Lingum,
It is an excellent article indeed, but the "Go after Iran at any cost" crowed don't read objective articles. The Neocons and Israeli sympathizers want to demonize Iran as justification for the US to attack Iran. These are the same people who set the stage for our attack on Iraq and now they smell blood in Iran. These people take their marching orders from Israel and are glad to use America to do the Israeli dirty bidding.
Posted by CripThink at 06/22/2009 @ 6:04pm
It is an excellent article indeed, but the "Go after Iran at any cost" crowed don't read objective articles. The Neocons and Israeli sympathizers want to demonize Iran as justification for the US to attack Iran. These are the same people who set the stage for our attack on Iraq and now they smell blood in Iran. These people take their marching orders from Israel and are glad to use America to do the Israeli dirty bidding.
Posted by CripThink at 06/22/2009 @ 6:04pm
Shouldn't have any worries until your Congress passes an Iran Liberation Act 2xxx.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/22/2009 @ 10:03pm
Ledeen was the Zionist forger of the infamous Rome document which falsely claimed that Iraq was buying Uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb. This forged document was utilized by W. Bush when he to uttered his 16 deceptive words to justify invading Iraq.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
Posted by CripThink at 06/22/2009 @ 3:22pm
Wrong..Bush did not use the Rome letter.
<The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.>
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
<Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous "16 words" in President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.> http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html#
But it must all be a "Zionist" coverup, right Cripthink?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/22/2009 @ 10:53pm
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Posted by antisocialist at 06/22/2009 @ 10:53pm
Rubbish, but a nice revisionist piece from factcheck.org.
What factcheck.org has deliberately ignored is that prior to the State of the Union Address, October 7, 2002, Bush gave a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center in which he outlines the threat of Iraq. Following advice from CIA Director George Tenet, a reference to Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Niger was removed from the speech.
No new evidence was forthcoming between October 2002 and the SOTRU speech on January 28, 2003.. During his WMD presentation to the UN.
On February 5, 2003, a week later, Colin Powell made no references whatsoever to the uranium claims during his presentation to the UN.
Now if as Butler reported, all of this was supported by British intelligence, why did the Bush administration stop referring to this transaction?
Why do you even bother with your BS antisocialist?
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 11:13pm
Why do you even bother with your BS antisocialist?
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 11:13pm
No BS. The left continually lies about the Niger yellow cake.
The facts are that:
Bush never used the Rome letter in any way to justify the war.
Wilson's trip proved according to the CIA and the 9/11 Commission that Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger.
The Butler Report confirmed the British intel on Iraq and yellow cake.
The yellow cake evidence was of very little consequence in the decision to resume hostilities against Iraq
After the invasion, we found a large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq and it was shipped back to the US
<Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq
Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
updated 3:57 p.m. PT, Sat., July 5, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Posted by antisocialist at 06/23/2009 @ 01:52am
What about the emphasis on class disparities, or, dare I say, on class warfare? How can all of this mayhem be blamed solely upon differing election results? Surely there must be some other, deeper explanation, one that explains this profound mutual hatred between those who suppoart the "victors" and those who support the "opposition"? I place these terms in quotes because I am skeptical about any of the terms used thus far that have been bandied about. Who gains to win from this conflict? Why such intense rivalry, and even hatred, between these contending groups? Your article explains none of this, I am sorry to say. Is there class warfare here, or is it merely a fight between relatively moderate conservatives and "hardline" fundamentalists? Does the so-called West gain from supporting either view? I read that the US President had said that there was really no signicant difference between the respective groups. Is this true?
Best, Matt
Posted by Matt458 at 06/23/2009 @ 02:04am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/23/2009 @ 01:52am
Your pathetic efforts and too almost too easy to debunk.
1. The White House admitted the claim that that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa was a falsehood. http://tinyurl.com/67xe9d 2. It doesn't matter that Bush never used the Rome letter. Bush cited the Brits, which insisted that it's information was based on sources besides the forged letters. The trouble with that story is that none of this informtion was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech. http://tinyurl.com/gd7w 3. While the Butler conclusion is rubbish is undermined by the fact that the US already dismissed that intel and declared it too weak to include in the SOTU. By citing the British, Bush knew the British were not obliged to release the "evidence" to Congress. 4. The yellow cake story was sufficient to convince the public that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Cheney would later add to that lie by stating that Iraq had reconstituted it's nuclear weapons. 5. CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. "The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned." http://tinyurl.com/ggiu 6. The yellowcake found in Iraq was already accounted for and had nothing to do with the 16 words in the SOTU. You will notice that your link makes no mention of this yellow cake being linked to the 16 word lie.
Again I ask. Why do you even bother with your BS antisocialist?
Posted by Shingo at 06/23/2009 @ 02:52am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/23/2009 @ 01:52am
Your pathetic efforts and too almost too easy to debunk.
1. The White House admitted the claim that that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa was a falsehood. http://tinyurl.com/67xe9d
2. It doesn't matter that Bush never used the Rome letter. Bush cited the Brits, which insisted that it's information was based on sources besides the forged letters. The trouble with that story is that none of this informtion was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech. http://tinyurl.com/gd7w
3. While the Butler conclusion is rubbish is undermined by the fact that the US already dismissed that intel and declared it too weak to include in the SOTU. By citing the British, Bush knew the British were not obliged to release the "evidence" to Congress.
4. The yellow cake story was sufficient to convince the public that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Cheney would later add to that lie by stating that Iraq had reconstituted it's nuclear weapons.
5. CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. "The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned." http://tinyurl.com/ggiu
6. The yellowcake found in Iraq was already accounted for and had nothing to do with the 16 words in the SOTU. You will notice that your link makes no mention of this yellow cake being linked to the 16 word lie.
Again I ask. Why do you even bother with your BS antisocialist?
Posted by Shingo at 06/23/2009 @ 02:59am
Your boy lost. Get over it. We'll just have to pay for the oil.
Posted by nhyuijn at 06/23/2009 @ 08:51am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/23/2009 @ 03:36am
Ilya, again, how is it that Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri Turkic, who had just visited Tabriz, an ethnic Azeri city, and garnered huge supportive crowds there...
LOST Tabriz to Ahmadinejad???
That would be like Obama losing Illinois to McCain!
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/23/2009 @ 11:07am
You would, if the US like Iran had a distinct relationship of politics to tribal/regional ethnicity...which we don't.
Or if you were oddly desperate to prove Ahmadinejad popular even in areas that traditionally were not supporters for him?
BTW, might I venture a guess as to this bizarre Hard Left (even Fringe Left) attempt to turn "Dubya in 2000" into "Reagan in 1984" for Ahmadinejad?
And it would start with the word...."Israel"...and end with "conspiracy"?
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 1:12pm
The so called Iranian "democracy" is a FAKE! The problem won't be solved 'while that Medieval theocracy remains in Iran.
Israel and Iran both are confessional states. That explains why they are the most problematic states in that region right now...
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
IlyaKuryakin: I think you should be careful when you talk about Iran, specially because YOU ARE NOT IRANIAN.
Listen what the ordinary Iranian people want to say, not only their government...
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/23/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
So basically..."yes, you're right", when I wrote-
"And it would start with the word...."Israel"...and end with "conspiracy"?"----Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 1:12pm"
See, you didn't take much to figure out. Knee-jerk "anything bad about a non-Western world has GOT to be Western imperialism at work" and the tried-n-true "ISRAEL is behind it!!!!"
No chance Iranians REALLY don't like the election "result" or their Government....no. It's ALWAYS "America and Israel are behind it" and anything contrary is "Mainstream AIPAC-controlled Media lies and propaganda".....right?
I mean, there's NO possibility you are wrong...at all, is there?
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 2:52pm
To understand the revolutionary movement that is growing now in Iran, we should start by reading the article "Stolen Kisses: Iran's Sexual Revolutions", by Laura Secor, that appeared in the December 15, 2008 edition of The Nation.
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/23/2009 @ 3:41pm
BTW, might I venture a guess as to this bizarre Hard Left (even Fringe Left) attempt to turn... And it would start with the word...."Israel"...and end with "conspiracy"? Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 1:12pm
Mask,
Stop hiding behind the BS of (fringe left and hard left….) and stick to facts.
1. Iran has elected moderates and reformist candidates before more than one time. Among them were allies of the current reformist candidate Mousavi. Mohammed Khatami, Mousavi's main supporter and a reformist, was elected and re-elected to a second term (1997-05). Rafsanjani, another Mousavi Supporter and a reformist, was elected as president twice (1989-97. Can you explain how the hardliners allowed this to happen?
2. Tens of polls were conducted by different organizations prior to the election showed Ahmadinejad leading by an average of 21 points.
3. The Azeri Mousavi lost his native Tabriz to Ahmadinejad. You have to explain how George McGovern lost his native South Dakota to Nixon in 1972, or Carter losing Georgia to Regan in 1980 and Gore losing native Tennessee to Bush in 2000?
Set the Israeli obsession with Iran and Ahmadinejad aside, and our mainstream media would have given a hoot about the Iranian election. Matter of fact, the media rarely focuses on our government support of thugs and dictators around the world even when they patently forge and steal elections. The media obsession with the Iranian election exceeded by far its coverage of our own fraudulent election in Florida in 2000, or when the CIA aborted the first Iranian democratic election in 1953. Had Ahmadinejad turned to an Israeli ally and opened an Iranian embassy in Tehran, do you think that our media would have given a shit about his victory?
Posted by CripThink at 06/23/2009 @ 4:48pm
Set the Israeli obsession with Iran and Ahmadinejad aside, and our mainstream media would have given a hoot about the Iranian election. Posted by CripThink at 06/23/2009 @ 4:48pm
Good point.
Two weeks ago, MSM on Iran---NUKES!!! Bomb them!
This week--REGIME CHANGE! Save them!
It really starts to look bogus, folks…
Posted by Shingo at 06/23/2009 @ 6:53pm
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/22/2009 @ 1:14pm
CHIMI???
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 1:37pm
Nah, needs about twenty more levels of arrogance and condescension.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/23/2009 @ 7:00pm
IlyaKuryakin; Don't underestimate the rol of sexuality in the revolutions. Remember May 68, probably the most human revolution that we have seen during the last 100 years, and don't forget than more than 50% of the population in Iran are less than 30 years old. I'm sure that for the majority of them, the sexual Islamic moral impossed by that Medieval regime is like living in a nightmare.
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/23/2009 @ 8:19pm
And calm down! If you would read carefully what other people write here, you would see that no one supports Israeli or right wing policies...
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/23/2009 @ 8:25pm
It's quite weird. It sounds to me as if you were talking about Fox News...
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/24/2009 @ 12:58am
There were undoubtedly serious voting irregularities. Even the Supreme Leader acknowledged that indirectly. But his not unreasonable point was that Ahmedinejad's 11 million vote lead was so substantial that even significant fraud would not invalidate his victory.
Moreover, Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty from the New America Foundation took a Rockefeller funded survey via phone from a neighboring country, three weeks before the elections. Their poll found that Iranians favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Elections irregularities are not unknown even in the US. In Illinois JFK won by 9,000 votes out of 4.5 million cast, after Mayor Daley held back the Cook County totals until he knew how many Republican ballots from southern Illinois he had to beat. From one house address 56 dead people voted. In Texas, Fannin County had only 5,000 registered voters, yet 6,000 votes were cast. In Angelina County more people voted for Kennedy than were registered. And what was Watergate but tampering with an election.
Nowadays we are seeing popular discontent with clerical rule, among a segment of Iran's more sophisticated city folks. They are flourishing these voting irregularities as an excuse, as justification for railing against the regime.
Let's wish them well, but let's not forget,this is a relatively small segment of the population whose real problem is not with the elections but with the regime.
And that bunch are tough mullahs who are not going to be scared out of town. They have a mission from God and will fight tenaciously to preserve their power and for the chance to achieve their goals, which includes acquiring a nuclear arsenal, dominating the region, punishing the US, and erasing Israel.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/24/2009 @ 11:36pm