The Washington Times, in an exclusive report, describes how President Obama sent the Iranian regime a letter offering better relationships before the elections in the expectation that President Ahmadinejad would win a landslide victory. The letter, cited by an Iranian official, contains an offer to settle the nuclear problem with Iran and sheds light on why President Obama was so loathe to offend Khamenei. The Washington Times writes:
Prior to this month’s disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself. Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election. …
An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the topic, said the letter was given to the Iranian Foreign Ministry by a representative of the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Iran in the absence of U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations. The letter was then delivered to the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, he said.
The letter was sent before the election, whose outcome – delivering a supposed landslide to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – has touched off the biggest anti-government protests in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
A landslide did occur in Iran, but not the one that Obama or Ahmadinejad anticipated.
Error: I misunderstood the Politco article. It now turns out the Pitney appered to ignore Obama, but the Huffington Post appeared to have coordinated a question with the President at a Press Conference. It is an interesting exercise in information management. One indication of how badly the administration’s position on Iran has misfired occured when the Huffington Post refused to throw a pre-arranged softball at President Obama during a press conference and pitched him a fastball instead. The Politico reports:
In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.
“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”
Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”
He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”
“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of the — of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”
Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.
CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was “very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about.”
The difference between “we won” and “we won’t” is just two characters. The difference between Iran and I ran is just as space.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
54 Comments
1. PA Cat:when the Huffington Post refused to throw a pre-arranged softball at President Obama during a press conference and pitched him a fastball instead
That’s okay– the Golfer in Chief needs to get in practice for throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star game on July 14. Since it’s Bastille Day, perhaps the fans should storm Busch Stadium in protest.
Jun 23, 2009 - 9:38 pm 2. ambisinistral:If that’s true Obama is going to have serious domestic problems over the letter. Americans by and large loathe the Iranian regime. If the situation continues to unravel in Iran, his non-meddling will end up looking like meddling of the most misguided sort.
It would also shed some light on why Hillary went to ground.
Jun 23, 2009 - 9:46 pm 3. Eggplant:I was expecting the MSM hyenas to turn against the Chosen One but not this soon. I had anticipated that the Messiah’s halo would flicker out after the sucker’s rally collapsed. Instead, the halo is starting to flicker but the rally is only just past peak. The Iranian thing showed Obama to be weaker than realized.
Jun 23, 2009 - 9:55 pm 4. aaron:blood on his hands
Jun 23, 2009 - 10:05 pm 5. john lynch:Uh, the Huffpo blogger said that he was going to ask a question from Iran on his blog, before the press conference. There was plenty of warning if anyone at the White House reads his blog (I read it and expected the question). No coordination was necessary.
Jun 23, 2009 - 10:20 pm 6. Langley:It appears that there was unnecessary coordination.
http://hosted2.ap.org/HIHON/229cea0feec5482f81543bdaad3ec66c/Article_2009-06-23-US-Obama-Online-Question/id-p8c9def70782241a398789689fffb0c2c
White House solicited question on Iran from writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — White House officials phoned a blogger from a popular left-leaning Web site on Monday evening to tell him that President Barack Obama had been impressed with his online reporting about Iran. Could the writer pass along a question from an Iranian during the president’s news conference on Tuesday?
Jun 23, 2009 - 10:44 pm 7. Lifeofthemind:Nothing is real and nothing can be trusted.
Jun 23, 2009 - 11:24 pm 8. Langley:Obama’s testimony in a court should be rejected out of hand if he claimed he witnessed murder in broad daylight. Country folk have a saying about a man. They say “So and so has a Word” It is a possession, a quality, you have it or you don’t. Obama does not have a Word. In the end that is all a man really can have. So he is nothing.
Remember when the media talked about how good Clinton was at “spin?”
Gov. Kerry called him a “Very good liar.”
Now the Washington Post writes in fascination about the Obama Show.
Are these cracks in the facade or a celebration of post-modern reality?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html
Jun 23, 2009 - 11:28 pm 9. 49erDweet:Yes, 4. aaron, and egg on his face. Whatever shall become of the narrative?
Jun 24, 2009 - 12:02 am 10. toad:IMHO it is cracks around the edges. If the ABC,CBS, and to some extent NBC don’t recover the the viewers they lost over the last 30 days over the next 30 days then it is goodbye. They are blaming everything from the switch to digital broadcast to the US open for the loss of viewers. A sly comment here and there in minor media about if a white guy had done the things that Obama had done he’d be in the impeachment process already.
My wonderment is if Obama and the MSM going to share gradual failure or a big catastrophic one with spectacular secondary explosions. The things to watch for are actual defections from the Blue Dogs and adminsitration members talking about “wanting to spend more time with their families” as they strap on the chutes and bail.
Jun 24, 2009 - 12:19 am 11. ADE:To paraphrase Spengler, The Almighty has committed the one sin that is never pardoned in the Middle East – vulnerability. He backed a loser.
ADE
Jun 24, 2009 - 1:04 am 12. Gaffe Prices:All of this puts paid to the hackneyed, anti-american, sometimes american produced or mid-wifed notion that “they [all] hate us”.
The “They” in this case [supposedly] being all the countries ruled by the Iron fist of autocratic, totalitarian, and/or theocratic regimes. and “us” of course being “U.S.”
The people in Iran hate not “us”, nor Gr. Britain, nor “the west”, nor even “the zionist entity’, but the government of Iran: their anger at a regime that won’t permit the people’s participation in the choosing of their leadership, nor the peaceful demonstration of that anger and protest of a rigged election directed at their masters.
The first few days after the Sunday “election” (Mon.-Wed) consist of footage of spontaneous peaceful demonstrations and protests in the streets and bridges of cities all across Iran, (apparently un-anticipated by the government).
By Wednesday, Khameini put out the word that all future demonstrations would be met with violent reprisal. So Iranian people braced themselves for the worst and they got it.
So the first thing to do if you are a responsible president, who is a full grown man with stones of his own is-
1) Issue a statement affirming peoples right to demonstrate and peacefully protest their dissatisfaction with their government: 0bama had three days to do this, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednsday.
2) Warn the Iranian Theocratic regime against the use of violent reprisals to put down the peaceful assembly and demonstrations: He might have been hedging his bets, but very little footage of govt. repression makes it out of these states (think Cuba, China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Myanmar, North Korea, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Zimbabwe)
Then if you’ve done these two, in a timely manner, step (3), i.e. expressions of “outrage”, and “heartbreaking” and “condemnation” are all in order, but only if you’ve done steps 1) and 2) in a timely manner, beforehand.
Instead, 0bama waited, dithered, expressed vague “concern” (for who, exactly?) at the “situation” in Iran, and then finally skipped steps 1) and 2) and went to directly to step (3) [after ten days].
Yeah, 0utrageous and heartbreaking, indeed.
Jun 24, 2009 - 4:18 am 13. plumpplumber:Anyone remember “Jimmy” Carter? How about how the way that the Iranians destroyed him? And, just to make a point, that the hostages were released before Reagan did something about it? Ah, the good old days……when men were men, and people around the world took the presidency seriously once again.
One thing I ‘ve gotta admit, and it’s a plain fact. Obama rolled the media over on it’s back, and has proceeded to ravish them in such a manner that, ahem, well, it’ll be like a young lady leaving a house of ill-repute, walking along, sayin’ to herself, “I’m still a good girl, I’m not a whore”, when her dress is in tatters, and her make up is smeared, and she still smells of cheap sex. ABC will never recover its virtue. Sad to see Gibson reduced to “servicing” Obama in such a manner. The funny thing is that I don’t think he has any respect for such fawning idiots.
Plainly, we no longer have a main stream media that can be trusted.
g
Jun 24, 2009 - 4:26 am 14. davod:“The Washington Times, in an exclusive report, describes how President Obama sent the Iranian regime a letter offering better relationships before the elections in the expectation that President Ahmadinejad would win a landslide victory.”
I wonder if there is a letter out there addressed to Hezzbollah before the election in Lebanon.
Jun 24, 2009 - 5:03 am 15. ADE:Gaffe Prices
I’m afraid you’re wrong. “They” genuinely DO hate US, UK, France… the West.
Why?
Because all of the above have exposed the pathetic nature of their societies.
Fed on a diet of supremacy, they are now exposed as impotent. Seeing, no – begining to sense, the vast gulf between the peaceful passing of power from GWB to a Community Organiser and their pathetic attempt, they are in awe of the US, and feel humbled – yet again. A stone-age culture, albeit with writing, is now becomming increasingly aware of its vulnerability – the one crime that will be punished in the ME. So they lash out at the US, and a forte their Government, and so indirectly, themselves.
So they must punish themselves, and they are, and they hate us for having to do it.
This has a long way to run yet. The ME will be like you and me. Amazingly, we are the future.
We must be polite and clever (a la Cairo), but we must be resolute in our inevitable ascendancy (a la nothing the Chosen One has chosen).
ADE
Jun 24, 2009 - 5:16 am 16. Wadeusaf:It is strange, that president Obama would try anticipate the outcome of the Iranian elections, but considering the elections are known to be rigged perhaps not so strange. What do the Iranian people know that president Obama does not?
It seems strange also that president Obama still views the liberation of Iraq as a horrible mistake. The student leaders male and female, in Iran showed an incredible amount of tenacity and toughness in taking on the Bassiji, in taking on the supreme leaders. I doubt they are done, and they are the future of Iran.
I hope the administration reconsiders which Iranian leaders to engage.
Jun 24, 2009 - 5:25 am 17. A Conservative Teacher:Who voted for Obama? He doesn’t have a clue on anything, is never ahead of the curve, and is reacting to events, not shaping events. That’s not a good executive- he is simply a bad congressman who somehow got elected.
Jun 24, 2009 - 5:46 am 18. Limpet6:Hey, all this worked in Chicago and they never laid a glove on him.
His tactics are simple. Give the press a story a day. Keep the issues domestic because we have the ability to control domestic spin.
Never mention wars. Wars are irrelevent – at least back burner stuff, We are in the post-armed conflict era. Force of arms never resolved anything.
We can control the news. We will reward our followers and punish our enemies.
Palin will be tabloided to death and the unions and Acorn members are set for life.
Let’s see, do I use my middle name “Hussein” today or not?
Jun 24, 2009 - 6:05 am 19. JJredfan:This piece of garbage makes James Earl Carter look like a stinking GENIUS by comparison.
Arr
o
gant
SHALL
O
We
Knee
Brain
Now that they see another demonstration of just how easy it is for things to get out of hand…
Watch for the Punks to begin pushing for federal gun registration, with BIG FELONY PENALTIES for any failure to comply.
The progression after that is fairly easy to predict. We’ve seen the UK disarm its citizens, those Brits who are so well-known for their civility and manners. They ain’t allowed handguns any more. Their own government prosecutes homeowners for resisting home invasions by armed thugs. Their own government!
Meanwhile, criminals are having a FIELD DAY mugging, raping, robbing and murdering, DIS-ARMED regular law-abiding citizens. Forget about the terrorists, the GOVERNMENT OF THE UK has made its own citizens into victims of the criminals, with no defense.
Wretchard can probably tell us how things are in Oz, since most guns have been banned there.
Jun 24, 2009 - 6:12 am 20. Charles:I could easily buy the argument that obama’s letter was taken as a surrender by the incumbents who believed that then therefor it was so important for them to win the election by a sizable margin–so as to increase their bargaining power–that they were willing to stuff the ballots. That inversely — if they did not win the election– then the great victory for them implicit in obama’s letter would be lost by Iranians choosing the other guy. Therefor for Iran’s own good and their hold on power–they would stuff the ballots.
Jun 24, 2009 - 6:22 am 21. Doug:Stay Tuned for More of ‘The Obama Show’
Daytime TV’s newest star is good at staying on script.
By Dana Milbank
In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted “All My Children,” “Days of Our Lives” and “The Young and the Restless.” But the soap viewers shouldn’t have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised.
But yesterday wasn’t so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, “The Obama Show.”
Missed yesterday’s show?
Don’t worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting “Good Morning America” from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), “World News Tonight” from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.
—
Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question’s wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday’s show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.
A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. “Mr. President!” yelled Mike Allen of Politico. “May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Sorry: Those weren’t prearranged.
Jun 24, 2009 - 6:36 am 22. Gordon:#13–Or like the joke where the punchline goes:
SHE: “Wait a minute!! What kind of girl do you think I am?!!”
HE: “We’ve already established that; now we’re only discussing the price.”
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:03 am 23. jimbo:Is it my imagination or has Obama had a difficult time uttering the words
Liberty
Freedom
during this whole Iran episode?
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:26 am 24. Doug:He had trouble feigning that he gave a damn about a beautiful, innocent young lady being gunned down in cold blood on the street.
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:38 am 25. Lifeofthemind:Damned B…. got in the way of his designs to sell Israel down the river.
davod,
Good point but I would think that they might be smart enough to deal with Hezbollah through emissaries. Reagan got burned by delivering a message and a cake to Iran back in Iran-Contra time. The clowns around Obama are to arrogant to learn from history.
What ever you think
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:39 am 26. DP:Don’t say it in Ink
Ink-a-dinka-do
Not a fan of Obama at all. But what if the CIA is neck deep in this uprising? Due to Iran’s massive interference in Iraq it is very plausible there is/was a destabilization OP going on by us. Would obama’s behavior make more sense?
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:57 am 27. always right:20. Charles
Then how can Obama explain during his three-day-late first non-speech about Iran that he is afraid of ‘meddling’ in Iran’s election?
Jun 24, 2009 - 7:58 am 28. Neil Craig:So even western claims that it was expected to be close are proven unture. Dinnerjacket won fair & square. Democracy is not choosing the person the US favours, democracy is choosing who the people favour.
Jun 24, 2009 - 8:24 am 29. Marcus Aurelius:A Nat Geo special the other day reports there have been plenty of contact between the US & Iran over issues of mutual concern (Afghanistan), Iraq (at least at the start), Hostages, and just general covert talks.
The show reported that early in the W administration there was a paper being circulated amongst mid-level State Dept. & Iranian leaders that was characterized by containing 85-90% mutual agreement and when the State officials wanted to send this up the command chain higher ups at State quashed it. No real details on what was in it and what was not or why it was quashed.
The general ugliness of the true leaders of Iran is one thing that must be swept out. Another report on the show was a hostage release the Iranians arranged with a Bush the First official. A quid was expected back from the US but never delivered because Iran was neck deep in foreign embassy bombing & exile assassinations.
Jun 24, 2009 - 8:29 am 30. Anodyne:“Dinnerjacket won fair & square.”
And that’s why folks needed to be gunned down in the streets. Gotcha, Neil.
Jun 24, 2009 - 8:34 am 31. rumcrook:dinner jaket won fair and square? thats ridiculous.
and the chances that the cia was involved and started this is also ridiculous.
a popular uprising doesnt swell out of a secret cia cell. it comes from a people that have started reaching the breaking point.
what would anyone thought of mcain carrying the stuanchest black chicago wards? by over 60%? well thats what were supposed to beleive about dinnerjacket and his opponent.
Jun 24, 2009 - 8:53 am 32. Lifeofthemind:Anodyne,
Just look at Neil Craig’s blog to understand where he is coming from. Links to Lew Rockwell, Slobodon Milosevic and Aids denial, he’s a conspiracy nutter. Conservatives do not need to discredit ourselves with such allies. To be fair he does not parrot the anti-Semitism of many extremists but he does appear erratic and given to fantasies of the future.
Not on this case but usually when I run across such views I tend to suspect the poster is really a left wing agent provocateur, what is called a Moby.
Jun 24, 2009 - 8:55 am 33. Charles:27. always right:
Then how can Obama explain during his three-day-late first non-speech about Iran that he is afraid of ‘meddling’ in Iran’s election?
……….
I don’t think obama would view his letter as meddling–but rather as the height of respect for the sovereignty of Iran. (The Iranian mullahs in charge would have viewed his letter as surrender.)
What we have here are unintended consequences.
Jun 24, 2009 - 9:24 am 34. Neil Craig:Rumcrook I’m sure you believe that the CIA would never dream of hiring rioters in Iran or indee Serbia or Ukraine or anywhere else). I’m sure you also believe babies are brought by storks.
Lifeof since you have actually checked I doubt if you are so niave. Among what I don’t believe in are that we are going to find WMDs in Iraq, that Gore was telling the truth when he said sea level rise had covered south sea islands & that the American media are entirely impartial over Palin/Obama. Unless you know something about hormesis, Milosevic or the world epidemic of AIDS predicted to kill millions in America annually by about 10 years ago (& I very much doubt if you do) I’d say I am batting pretty close to 100.
Jun 24, 2009 - 9:29 am 35. Anodyne:LOM @ 32: Had a look at Mr. Craig’s blog and it is indeed interesting. It’s also quite interesting how the CIA – the same CIA that’s dropped the ball so many times over the past several decades – has suddenly become omnipotent to the point where it could convince so many Iranians (women, especially) to run themselves pointlessly through a meat-grinder to contest a not-rigged election fairly held by a legitimate regime. Simply miraculous.
Jun 24, 2009 - 10:49 am 36. Clioman:The One simply CANNOT publicly support the urge for democratic freedoms in Iran…because to do so would be an open acknowledgement that his precedessor sought to bring just those freedoms to Iraq, and substantially succeeded. It was The Evil Bush, after all, who spoke often and at length of the desires for freedom, for self-expression and self-actualization, that are common to all humanity. And we all certainly know how inarticulate The Evil Bush was…
Jun 24, 2009 - 11:10 am 37. Subotai Bahadur:#36 Clioman
Also, it [a call for democratic freedoms] would create a visible contradiction with his plans domestically. Since the media is losing its grip on that narrative, he does not want to make their inevitable attempts to elide his future actions even more difficult.
Subotai Bahadur
Jun 24, 2009 - 11:46 am 38. whiskey:WHo voted for Obama?
Women. They provided his margin for victory. Anyone who knows women, knows that almost all of them are hard left to the hard left. Everything Obama is doing, particularly the betrayal of the democratic or at least reformist forces in Iran, is very, very popular among Women.
Who love Big Men and HATE HATE HATE flat, non-heirarchical, and reformist policies. At least in the West. Women who actually live under repression hate being the sex toy playthings (or servants) of the Big Men. Who tend towards more of the Saddam/Uday/Qusay model than say, First Rockstar Obama.
Jun 24, 2009 - 5:37 pm 39. CPT. Charles:Oh it gets even better…based on this info, Iran just held a ‘Chicago’-style election; there was to be only ONE result, everything else was pure window dressing.
Here’s the whole stink’n crew, complete with job titles:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/mapping-illegitimate-coup-detat-regimes.html
This comes an Iranian HR activist’s inside source. As I am inclined to believe it’s the real deal, this makes DL an even bigger naif than I previously imagined. At least I hope so.
Even I don’t want to imagine he had even the slightest foreknowledge of this sham. That’s impeachment territory [at a minimum...].
His initial lassitude over the whole sorry affair looks bad enough as it is.
Jun 25, 2009 - 12:39 am 40. Wadeusaf:So even western claims that it was expected to be close are proven untrue. Dinnerjacket won fair & square. Democracy is not choosing the person the US favours, democracy is choosing who the people favour
Reasonable people don’t choose people like Ahmadineajad, period. The people of Iran are for the most part, reasonable people. I cannot see a majority, especially in his own home province which he carried overwhelmingly four years ago, turning out for Ahmadineajad. You have got to be out of your mind to believe the “proof” offered by the Iranian faux government, without a basic understanding of statistical trends and demographics or believe in genies.
That was not democracy making a choice. That was a Khamenei staging a coup, before Moussavi could claim his plurality. The only numbers of and admitted locations of fraud also tell reasonable people that more fraud has not been allowed to surface. Iran’s Islamic revolution has just been declared by Khamenei to be a fraud. Reasonable people understand it is not democracy. Reasonable people understand the controls exercised by the Mullahs. Reasonable people thought that would be enough for supposedly religious men to maintain accountability. The Mullahs especially the Grand leader are also not reasonable people. The Basiji are not reasonable people either. The Bassiji should be brought to justice for their rioting and wanton acts of violence. Their leadership and the people giving orders to them should also be held accountable.
The (Islamic)_revolution is dead, long live the Democratic revolution.
Jun 25, 2009 - 12:49 am 41. CPT. Charles:One other comment.
The implied ‘justification’ for this sham shows that the ‘Twelvers’ are now fully in the driver’s seat, at every level.
…’all swore an oath that for the sake of the preservation of the absolute supreme leadership and the establishment of an Islamic rule, as well as setting the stage for the appearance of the twelfth imam, they will not refuse anything and will willingly pay any price.’
Any ‘meaningful’ dialogue with the current government is now utterly pointless.
Jun 25, 2009 - 1:05 am 42. Neil Craig:Whiskey “Anyone who knows women, knows that almost all of them are hard left to the hard left” should get out more.
If Ah’madinnerjacket won & no evidence from any honest source has been produced that he didn’t then it is simply untrue to say that the rioters are a “democratic” opposition.
It may well be argued that the Iranians were insane to elect him but then did not almost all Americans vote for either Obama or McCain?
Jun 25, 2009 - 2:13 am 43. Wadeusaf:Neil Craig,
If you are referring to Iranian sources, which one do you propose is honest?
The only rioters in Iran are the Bassiji.
Yes most Americans voted for one or the other, and their vote counted. Iranians believed they had a choice. They demonstrated peacefully because they did not.
Jun 25, 2009 - 6:02 am 44. Neil Craig:I referred only to “honest sources” & it is clear you are unable to produce a single one.
The Iranians quite obviously did have a choice & the majority of them chose Dinnerjacket which, in a democracy they are entitled to do.
The rioters are on the other side. If you are in any way honest you will be able to prove your assertion that the ONLY roiters were on dinnerjacket’s side. If you are not wholly & completely dishonest you will be able to provide evidence that the bulk opf them were demonstrating for him. My suspicion is that you aren’t.
If I were similarly dishonest I could say that every single person demonstrating was hired by the CIA.
Have you thought of becoming a journalist?
Jun 25, 2009 - 7:00 am 45. Anodyne:“If Ah’madinnerjacket won & no evidence from any honest source has been produced that he didn’t then it is simply untrue to say that the rioters are a “democratic” opposition.”
You’re implying that those who declared Dinnerjacket the winner did so honestly, when whether or not they did is the very crux of the issue (an issue that folks are spilling blood and dying over). Your smarmy prose hides circular reasoning that “honest” folks find wanting. There are plenty of good books on logic – here’s to hoping that you read one of them.
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:40 am 46. Neil Craig:By that argument we both engaging in circular reasoning. The difference is not only that, for very logical reasons, the onus is on somebody making an allegation to sustain it but that the fact that polls showed he was going to win & as the article starting this thread shows, so did the inteligence sources advising Obama.
My guess Anodyne is that if I were to say the Libertarian Party won the last Presidential election you would insist I produce some evidence.
Now do you have evidence from an honest source that shows otherwise?
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:59 am 47. Mad Fiddler:Neil Craig,
You SERIOUSLY misapprehend the US electoral process to assert that the majority of people voted for Obama.
A plurality is sufficient.
In fact, it is possible with the Electoral College system for a candidate to narrowly lose the popular vote, yet still win election because of the distribution of Electoral votes.
In the 1992 3-way election, only 43 percent of the VOTES CAST were for candidate William Jefferson Clinton. The balance was split unevenly between Bush and H. Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent candidate.
So William Jefferson Clinton, of the untamable willie, was enjoying intern’s cooperation with his presidential staff while on the public payroll, having been chosen by substantially fewer than half of the voters who participated in the ‘92 elections.
When you consider that only a fraction of all citizens eligible to vote bother to register and exercise their franchise, you will see that a very small group can elect a U.S. President, even in the most scrupulously clean elections.
Please cease to lecture us about the absurdity of the Mullahs giving a CRAP about fair elections. They are a bunch of murdering tyrants who came to power as THUGS, breaking international law, shouting about the Shah’s SAVAK secret police, then turning on their own population, rounding up tens of thousands of dissidents and people who they regarded as a threat to their revolution.
Neil Craig, you might want to do a little research on the number of executions by the Iranian Islamic Republic of opponents and critics of the regime, and well, just people it regards as undesirable.
It won’t do much to reassure you that their chief concern is for the fine details of genteel behavior.
Jun 25, 2009 - 10:48 am 48. Anodyne:Neil Craig @28:
“So even western claims that it was expected to be close are proven unture. Dinnerjacket won fair & square. Democracy is not choosing the person the US favours, democracy is choosing who the people favour.”
Iran suddenly becomes a “democracy” because a politician some in the U.S. the do not favor “wins” one of its elections? A startling transformation, isn’t it? And it’s damn near the very definition of a democracy for unarmed folks (women, in particular) protesting the outcome of an election to be beaten, gunned down in cold blood, dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, etc.
Who determined the outcome of Iran’s presidential election? Who counted and validated the votes? Was such a thing done transparently, monitored by (reasonably) disinterested third parties? Was it done by folks with a history of honesty and fair play? Please, Neil, point me to a bona fide honest source who claims (and who can back up that claim with evidence of some sort beyond “He won fair and square”) that Dinnerjacket won, a source other than one associated with those involved in the ongoing repression and slaughter of those who think he did not. Please also point me to a description of the polling (conducted by whom, their methodology, etc.) that indicated that Dinnerjacket was ahead and predicted his “landslide victory” (and not the well-debunked recent bit in the Washington Post). I’m all ears.
Neil Craig @ 46:
“By that argument we both engaging in circular reasoning.”
No, you’re alone on that score. You are claiming that Dinnerjacket won “fair and square” because folks currently cracking heads and much worse (and with a documented history of cracking heads and much worse) claim he won and, additionally, on the basis of intelligence (intel is only flawed when it’s about WMD, right?) you imply the Obama administration (demonstrably not an “honest broker” given their being for some reason hell-bent on negotiations with Dinnerjacket) was privy to. Me, I’m merely acknowledging the reality that a non-negligible number of Iranians feel (to the point of risking their lives) that there was something wrong with the way the vote was tallied. Now perhaps those protesting have employed their conclusions as their premises (”our guy lost, so it had to be fraud”), but then they’d be comrades of yours. Or maybe those protesting have done some valid polling of their own, know the score and are out risking life and limb as a result. Hopefully the true story will emerge before too long.
Neil Craig @46:
“My guess Anodyne is that if I were to say the Libertarian Party won the last Presidential election you would insist I produce some evidence.”
A relatively transparent election in which there was no dispute (at least with regards to the Libertarian Party’s showing) is no analog for an extremely murky one in which there is. And to get even close (but no cigar by a long shot), the Libertarians would have had to dispute the elections and the Democrats in turn beat, kill and imprison them while telling them they just had to “accept” the outcome instead of engaging in a proper, transparent recount/validation.
>Now do you have evidence from an honest source that shows otherwise?
Translation: by default, the historically untrustworthy and brutal people who are killing folks are honest until proven otherwise.
What is your evidence that the vote was tallied correctly? What mechanisms have been employed to reassure the Iranians that their votes did indeed count. We’ll never agree. You give the mullahs the benefit of the doubt and I don’t.
Jun 25, 2009 - 3:59 pm 49. Anodyne:>the onus is on somebody making an allegation to sustain it
The onus on those counting the votes is to do so correctly and to convince the voters of this.
Jun 25, 2009 - 4:45 pm 50. Limpet6:Sadly, practically, Anodyne is wrong. The onus is forever on the voters to insure their votes are tabulated correctly. If they give away even that small bit of authority all is lost.
Two parties watch each other like hawks and have the muscle to cry “foul” very loudly.
In a one party system, or in a de facto dictatorship, the counters chorus, “Who cares?”
Jun 25, 2009 - 4:56 pm 51. Anodyne:“Sadly, practically, Anodyne is wrong. The onus is forever on the voters to insure their votes are tabulated correctly. If they give away even that small bit of authority all is lost.”
Yes, Limpet6, as a practical matter I am dead wrong: nobody cedes their advantage unless convingingly compelled to do so. That is why I do my utmost to support 2nd Amendment rights.
The Iranian regime doesn’t have to do anything but exist to validate (in its and its apologists’ eyes) the recent “election”.
Jun 25, 2009 - 5:20 pm 52. Wadeusaf:Doubt, when reasonable, implies that a result other than the one prescribed is probable and not ruled out by evidence to the contrary or solid fact.
Fact, Mr. Mousavi was expected to win, poles showed more and more Iranians were tired of Ahmadineajad finding him clownish and an economic train wreck. Only 34.2 percent of the population have a firm good feeling about Mr. Ahmadineajad according to the most reliable pre election polls, and the only pole to favor Ahmadineajad in the race was a government sponsored bit of data packing which placed Ahmadinajad ahead and by 16 points at that.
Here is the honest source. Even if the most unlikely scenario did occur Ahmadineajad’s “victory” would not have been anywhere close to the landslide announced two hours after the poles closed. That “victory” depended on over voting in the millions and discrepancies in at least 50 cities. The regime admitted to it. Khamenei said it wasn’t so only after his own people said it was. There is NO way to trust the “official” election results except to trust that they are fraudulent. So tell me again, what is the “honest” source to which you refer?
Yes, peaceful demonstrations were exactly what the opposition was about doing until the Bassiji riot began. Then the opposition became about self defense and defending Iran from bassiji thugs and criminals. You defend that flotsam of mob rule they call the Bassiji?
Having already determined what it is you do, I can only wonder what price you charge for your ahem, “services”?
Jun 25, 2009 - 5:58 pm 53. gumshoe:26. DP:
Not a fan of Obama at all. But what if the CIA is neck deep in this uprising? Due to Iran’s massive interference in Iraq it is very plausible there is/was a destabilization OP going on by us. Would obama’s behavior make more sense?
_______________________
wretchard –
any comments on Webster Tarpley’s views about Obama/Soros/Brezinski and the “color revolutions” i emailed you about a few months ago?
orange revolution
rose revolution
“the people power revolutions”
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_revolutions
the Iranian one has been billed as the “Green” one…what a sad commentary on the confluence of language and thought.
”mohammad’s color’(and Hamas), ‘hope of springtime’,'green envrionmentalism’, or just ‘the next color in the hurricane naming-list’.
i felt
12. Gaffe Prices
‘Yeah, 0utrageous and heartbreaking, indeed.’
and…
17. A Conservative Teacher:
Who voted for Obama? He doesn’t have a clue on anything, is never ahead of the curve,
and is reacting to events, not shaping events. That’s not a good executive-
he is simply a bad congressman who somehow got elected.
and…
18. Limpet6
‘His tactics are simple. Give the press a story a day. Keep the issues domestic because we have the ability to control domestic spin.’
framed events well from my view.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:07 pm 54. Neil Craig:As I said “the onus is on somebody making an allegation to sustain it” & despite all the screaming & hysteria here nobody has made even a perfunctory atte,pt to prove their allegations.
Fiddler your post was informative but clearly does not support any suggestion that the US elections are particularly good examples of democracy. I do not believe the US invited Iranian observers to count their ballots. As I have pointed out in previous posts “observers” from NATO countires have, in previous elections not only engaged in party politics but clearly lied for example saying the 96% in the Georgian election was in no way suspicious.
Whatever one might think of Ah’madinnerjacket his country has no record of participating in that sort of electoral fraud.
Jun 27, 2009 - 2:29 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.