Via Lt. Smash, I see that Iranians simply decided to ignore the rigged elections.
Good for them, I guess. At least it doesn’t validate the fraud.
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs
Via Lt. Smash, I see that Iranians simply decided to ignore the rigged elections.
Good for them, I guess. At least it doesn’t validate the fraud.
Comments are closed.
Anderson
Interesting if true, but see also Hilzoy’s take on this report:
“Until recently, voter apathy and a lackluster campaign had threatened to deliver the poorest turnout in an Iranian presidential election since Islamic clerics came to power in 1979. With increasing pressure from the West over its nuclear program and a flagging economy that has angered Iranians, a marginal turnout could have undermined the legitimacy of the government.
But harsh statements by President Bush on Thursday, denouncing Iran’s elections as a sham because unelected clerics would continue to wield most of the power, allowed them to go on the offensive.
Iran’s television and radio networks, run by the conservative leaders, repeatedly broadcast the U.S. pronouncements and urged voters to strike out at Bush by going to the polls.
Nearly two-thirds of the eligible 46.8 million voters responded, giving the clerics the public affirmation they sought. Interior Ministry spokesman Johanbaksh Khanjani told reporters that turnout in some provinces was higher than 80 percent.
“You… through your wise and large presence made Bush’s insults backfire and showed your firm interest in the country’s independence, defense of Islam, and Islamic democracy,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said in a statement carried by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.” * * *
” “I say to Bush: `Thank you,'” quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi.”
—It *could* indeed be faked, with the “thanks, Bush” tacked on for cover. But Hilzoy’s full post should be considered.
p.lukasiak
anyone here want to place a bet on whether the right wing media gives more coverage to allegations of election fraud and tampering in Iraq than it did to similar allegations in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000?
Hell, I’ve even give you favorable odds…..
p.lukasiak
oops, the “Iraq” in the above should read “Iran”
hilzoy
In my post, I wasn’t trying to argue for or against any turnout figures; just that I thought that it was counterproductive of Bush to weigh in the day before the election.
Fwiw, I don’t trust Michael Ledeen. But maybe that’s just me not having fully gotten over Iran/Contra after all these years. (McFarlane? Going to Iran with a cake and a Bible, to sell arms? To them? It bugs me almost as much as our contemporaneous behavior towards Iraq.) Maybe, on the other hand, it’s because I think he has a track record of being untrustworthy, and besides has a fairly serious desire for one particular outcome.
M. Scott Eiland
Gee, the mullahs fix an election in Iran and the usual suspects on the left are using it to bash GWB over the head with–the only thing that’s missing is for President Jimmuh to start trolling for his second Peace Prize by wandering over to kiss the mullahs’ asses and declare the elections free and fair while condemning the Great Satan Dubya.
Rick
….-the only thing that’s missing is for President Jimmuh to start trolling for his second Peace Prize by wandering over to kiss the mullahs’ asses and declare the elections free and fair while condemning the Great Satan Dubya.
M.Scott,
Well, it’s still early.
“Allegations in Ohio!” “Right wing media!” Oh, my aching sides.
Cordially…