Leak Of Count of Iranian Votes Has Ahmadi-nejad In THIRD PLACE

[WeDidIt]

Unofficial news - reports leaked results from Interior Ministry:
Eligible voters: 49,322,412
Votes cast: 42,026,078
Spoilt votes: 38,716
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karoubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad (incumbent): 5,698,417
Mohsen Rezaei (conservative candidate): 3,754,218

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/14/742253/-Early-Report-Day-Two:-Media-Police-Run,-Protestors-Trapped-by-Police,-Ayatollahs-Daughter-Arrested.

IF true, this would explain why Ayatollah Khamene'i was so eager to validate the results where Ahmadi-nejad got 62% of the vote because it would have put two of his biggest critics and rivals in a runoff next Friday.

In all 9 of the prior elections for president of Iran, the Ayatollah did not validate the vote counts for three days.

[Oregone]

1. Who are "inside Government Officials"?

Why are people so tin-foily to believe in this whole rigged deal, even over the concept that the "rigged" perception isn't what is being engineered? THere is a lot of benefit of the doubt being given here, as well as blind belief. No one knows what the fuck happened there, much less here.

[WeDidIt]

4. Because this has gone counter to all prior Iranian presidential elections

The Ayatollah has never before validated the votes on the night of the election. In all prior elections, the Ayatollah waits three days to validate the votes.

Add that to the fact that two of the reformists are critical of Khamene'i and are supported by his rivals.

The facts add up to a most likely scenario of a coup having taken place.

[Oregone]

7. "The Ayatollah has never before validated the votes on the night of the election"

Riots and naysayers may be necessitating the speed of officiating results.

"most likely scenario of a coup"

Its as likely as a revolutionary proxy war being engineered to start a coup in my opinion. The fact that the Western world is so obesessed over the results of this election suggests they have a vested interest. Im not holding my breath any which way.

[dysfunctional press]

13. is it a "coup" when the person/party already in charge fixes an election...?

generally, a coup results in a change of management.

[BeFree]

6. Eh?

We pretty much know what happened here. Check out the Election Reform Forum.

And in 2000 the news called the election for Bush early that night before the votes were even counted. We know what happened here. And you can bet the Iranians took notes.

[Oregone]

8. "We pretty much know"

No you don't. No one knows anything (there and most certainly here).

[BeFree]

10. Go. Read.

The facts have been established over the last eight years. Just because you haven't read the facts is no refute.

Here's a fact:
The elected congress, controlled by republicans, spent almost $4 B on electronic voting machines for the 2004 election.

By 2008, almost all those counting machines used in 2004 were outlawed by the states.

[Oregone]

11. yawn

The facts this, the facts that. Im talking about the election in Iran. You are all over the map bub.

We don't know shit. Im not jumping on anyone's banwagon, especially if I don't know yet who the driver is.

[BeFree]

12. Heh

You said we didn't know what went on here. You are wrong. Some of us do, because, instead of yawning, we read up and studied the problem.

And we helped to get the machines outlawed.

Iran: what facts do you have that the elected didn't use their power to get re-elected, just like they did here? You have no facts, you're just talking....

[Oregone]

14. No, what I meant is...

That people there probably don't know what is exactly happening with results/opinion/etc. We here are so far removed we don't have a fucking clue. Yeah, I didn't state that well.

"You have no facts, you're just talking."

You too. I choose to not leap off any cliff of belief though. I have no clue what is going on there, and will at least admit it.

[BeFree]

15. Well

You are in Canada, why should you know about America's voting system, like I, and a whole lot of other American Patriots?

[Oregone]

16. I know enough about it to leave the country

:)

And again, Im not talking about America. Im talking about Iran. Feel free to discount my lack of belief, if you find my American Patriotism lacking in itself.

[BeFree]

17. So

Lets see your facts that the Iranian election was not stolen.

You are not an election researcher, even tho DU has lots of material that DUers searched for and posted. I have a feeling that anything you say is just talk.

[Oregone]

18. "Lets see your facts that the Iranian election was not stolen"

Im not claiming it was not. But, Im also not claiming it was. I am professing my ignorance as an uninformed Westerner. Too bad most refuse to do the same.

"You are not an election researcher"

This is how you make your living, or are you just a fly by night hobbyist. Yawn.

"DU has lots of material"

Du only has ancedotal posts on the IRANIAN ELECTION.

"I have a feeling that anything you say is just talk."

Ditto. Put your fucking tin foil hat aside and take a breather in the mean time. What a joke.

I think that back when you tried to undermine an American for not being enough of an American Patriot to understand election fraud, you solidified your idiocy.

[BeFree]

19. Eh?

Unfounded personal attacks are how you argue?

You are not an election researcher... you 'yawn' at the facts presented.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about any election?

Why?

[Oregone]

20. "Unfounded personal attacks are how you argue?"

"why should you know about America's voting system, like I, and a whole lot of other American Patriots?"

Yawn.

Why should *anyone* listen to *anyone* about the Iranian election right now? They shouldn't. Pipe down and Ill do the same. No one knows shit, despite what you believe.

[angstlessk]

21. ya know, if it was JUST people here stating it was a 'coup' I would agree

but the problem is seen worldwide from ALL perspectives...Al Arabia was shut down in Iran, so it just ain't the west decrying fraud!

[Oregone]

22. But the problem is that is not empirical evidence of fraud...

The fact of the matter is, empirical evidence probably cannot be generated at this point. You are speculating and extrapolating from suspicious activity. It may be suspicious (I admit that, but I do not know anything).

[Juche]

29. exit polling

An exit poll showed Mousavi with 60% of the vote. The official result has him at 33%. Exit polls are a good way to detect fraud.

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/print/?nid=33002

Khatami, who was president for 2 terms starting in the 90s (and who was a liberal reformist) won 70% of the vote in both elections. Khatami and Mousavi are helping each other (Mousavi helped Khatami in the 90s to get elected, Khatami supported Mousavi in this election). Iranian youth make up 1/3 of the electorate and tend to be more liberal and reformist. Iran is a heavily urban nation now.

All in all, it doesn't add up that Ahmadinejad would get 62% of the vote because the country has a variety of domestic problems, the population has strongly supported liberal candidates in the past and the exit polls don't match.

[Oregone]

30. "Exit polls are a good way to detect fraud."

They are also a good way to engineer the perception of fraud.


"why do you have to call people who point this stuff out 'tin foilers'"

Because they are affixing belief without empiracal evidence, and getting quite emotional about it in the meantime. Damn. Who the hell knows?

[angstlessk]

37. Is that you, Ahmadinejad, seems the only people who are claiming no fraud

is Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and of course Hammas.

[Oregone]

38. Strawman. Im not claiming there is no fraud.

Im claiming that you and I do not know, either way, as of now

[northernlights]

46. nobody "knows" for sure, but the empirical evidence points to fraud

* the numbers don't make sense. Statistically, if not impossible, then highly, highly improbable.

* the sequence of events suggests they "knew" the results before the counting began. They started turning off electronic communications either before or immediately after polls closed...long before results were in.

* the "unofficial" notification of Moussavi early on, and the sudden about face

Individual pieces are open to multiple interpretations, but when you look at the body of evidence -- which includes a lot more than what I'm remembering off the top of my head above -- it points to election fraud.

[Doremus]

34. "Biden has doubts about Iran's presidential election."

Vice President Joe Biden says he has doubts about whether Iran's presidential election was free and fair, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims from his landslide victory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8470313

Ya think the VPOTUS might have a little more information available to him than you or I?

[Oregone]

36. Haha

Breaking: Biden's mouth Becomes Canonized Objective Fact

[Doremus]

39. Breaking: Oregone considers Ahmadinejad and the Clerics more credible than the vice president.

Then Oregone wonders why people consider him incredible.

:shrug:

[Oregone]

41. I dont consider anyone talking about this thing as credible

Im not sure why that is so damn tough to wrap your head around.

Their president is a piece of shit as far as Im concerned. But my opinion of him isn't the basis of how Im affixing belief, which I am refraining from doing at the moment.

[Doremus]

54. Oops, someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about. A senator this time.

"Through intimidation, violence, manipulation, and outright fraud, the Iranian regime has once again made a mockery of democracy, and confirmed its repressive and dictatorial character."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html


You just can't put stock in vice presidents and senators and such having background info on stuff like this, can ya Oregone? :eyes:

Now come back and tell us how you are the superior arbiter on what's true or isn't. Here's your cue.

[Oregone]

56. Fallacy: Argument from Authority

Conviction is a greater enemy to truth than lies - Nietzsche

[jberryhill]

59. Always fascinating the way some folks feel the need to mischaracterize

I read Oregone as saying "we don't know".

A-jad's position is "I won".

Those two opinions are not in agreement with each other.

[Oregone]

60. Huh?

The question is not who "won" officially. It is if it was rigged. "We don't know" if it was rigged. How is that stance in conflict with anything?

[angstlessk]

40. YOU clearly have a stake in the outcome of this election..you got money on the

vote results? You have posted more than any other person here and yet all you claim is no evidence...that can be done with one post..to continue to claim the same thing over and over and over and..ad nauseatum makes one wonder what your interest really is?

[Oregone]

42. I took all my money out of Google, Inc to bet on the Iranian election.

I didn't vote for any candiate, but rather, that the results remain ambiguous forever. Thats what I am pushing for!!! Soon, I will be a billionaire with my 500:1 odds!

I am Kimmy of North Korea, supporting my best friend!

Yawn. This is getting fucking silly.

[angstlessk]

43. as with the ilk of folks just like you...you cannot leave unless you have the last word. n/t

[Oregone]

44. My "ilk" doesn't like being accused falsely of having a conflict of interest,

or even being characterized as "ilk".

But, yeah, ditto.

[chrisa]

33. Worse than what Bush did.

The Bush crew saw an opportunity in 2000 and ran with it. This Iranian election was an outright sham and middle finger to Iran's people.

[scarletwoman]

45. Thank you for being a voice of reason on this thread.

"Blind belief" is exactly right.

A large part of what I'm seeing is the blind American arrogance that if we can't imagine wanting to re-elect Ahmedinejad, than obviously the Iranians didn't want to either.

I think the Iranians DID want to re-elect him, and for very logical and coherent reasons consistent with their own political situtation and perceptions --of which no one here crying "fraud!" has any first-hand knowledge whatsoever.

The more I've read, the more the whole Moussavi thing looks to me like a textbook CIA/NED "color revolution" op. For instance, how many self-described progressives are aware that Moussavi is "Free Trade" and privitazation advocate? My abject apologies in advance for being unable to provide a link to that bit of information. I read so many articles and blogs and comments on blogs yesterday that I simply can't find where that was posted.

In any case, it was in fact sourced, and when put together with the "color revolution" aspect of his campaign -- as one Sic Semper Tryannis commenter put it:

- insertion of operatives (check)
- "color" (check)
- facebook, cellphone, fax, email, students (check)
- NGO's (check)
- polarization (check)
- street protest (check)

I am much more inclined to believe that the Iranian people successfully asserted their national will against Western covert interference trying to foment regime change.

If liberals/progressives aren't careful about their insistence that the Iran election was fraudulent, they will find themselves playing right into the hands of warmongers who will be happy to use Ahmendinejad's supposedly "illegitimate" re-election to start dropping bombs.

sw

[Oregone]

47. "I think the Iranians DID want to re-elect him"

I honestly don't know. Most, if not all, the Iranians I talk to in person on the streets hate this man. BUT, these are also Iranian immigrants to Canada who left their country (a few through refugee laws). The oppressive regime has created a natural "brain drain" among the progressive elites that have the resources to leave, so Im honestly not sure what the hell is left there. There is an active intellectual community for reform there that remains, which has been vocal, but their size is not entirely clear.

But I do agree the early assumptions do have something to do with arrogance.

[northernlights]

50. and how about the mullahs who have resigned in protest

are their early assumptions of election fraud to do with arrogance? Or do they have a clue what is going on among their own?

[Oregone]

52. And the ones who haven't?

Now you are back at square one

[scarletwoman]

55. There are factions among the ruling clerics and power struggles going on that NO ONE here

can possibly have any clue about.

Rafsanjani and his sons are under investigation for corruption. His ass is probably grass, no matter what.

I haven't seen the list of other clerics who've resigned. It seems likely to me that it could just as well be due to having backed the wrong (losing) horse and recognizing that their faction lost their piece of the power struggle.

I don't have definitive answers -- but neither does anyone else.

sw

[scarletwoman]

53. I think the Iranian ex-pats you talk to are in much the same position as the Venezuelan ex-pats

who hate Hugo Chavez. Chavez consistently wins re-election by around 60% of the vote. The wealthy elite hate him, but they are outnumbered by the common people who continue to support him.

I don't see why this wouldn't hold just as true for Iran. Ahmedinejad won his first election by running as a populist, he is still seen that way by the same portion of the electorate who voted him in the first time.

The wealthy and the educated don't buy it, of course, but they are outnumbered. From a longtime and knowledgeable commenter at Sic Semper Tryannis:

All:

For the past four years of his presidency, Mr. Ahmadinejad had been criss-crossing Iran together with his cabinet ministers. He has visited every single Iranian province during the last 4 years and held meetings with the locals and conducted state business at provincial cities together with his cabinet. He has been doling out money and investments in the provinces. In effect, he had been campaigning for the last 4 years.

He also had consistently positioned himself as a humble, corruption-fighting man-servant of the Iranian people.

That he has been re-elected in a landslide is quite plausible given the activities I mentioned above.

I seriously doubt the allegations of wide-spread fraud and clearly Mr. Mousavi has a very respectable showing at 13 million votes.

I caution you all that Northern Tehran does not speak for Iran.

Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 June 2009 at 03:25 PM

Mostly what I'm saying is that no one here actually knows what's really going on in the hearts and minds of the entire Iranian electorate. It's ridiculous to assume that Ahmedinejad "couldn't" have won re-election.

sw

[northernlights]

48. as we the people learned back in '04

We the people are *far* better at subtly skewing election results than happened here.

Why would the CIA need to foment riots in the streets when, by running a bit of interference, they could skew Iran's election results for a more believable moderate win?

And how do you account for the statistically impossible election results? In a real election, as each count is reported, leads widen or shrink, it is the final tally that shows the percentage of the win. One candidate does not maintain a consistent, exact percentage lead over another each each tally of each geographic area.

[Oregone]

49. But considering the "impossible election results" alone...

The Supreme Leader has the constitutional authority to over-rule the election results (which would piss off the people). Why would they "steal" it in a manner so blatant that the people were pissed off anyway, when they could just overturn them with tanks ready on the streets? This doesn't quite add up to me. The absurdity of the disparity between voting results and pre/exit polls is so large that it is beyond suspicious (why wouldn't they of rigged a win more, as you say, "subtly"). At this point, not only do you have to question the results, but also the polls, and the entire movement on both sides in reaction to the results. Its almost as if the disparity was expected and people were pre-organized to protest.

I don't think anyone is going to have a clue for some time here (if not decades) about what is really going down. Putting together A and B isn't going to help anyone, right now, arrive at C. A lot of jumping to conclusions everywhere.

[scarletwoman]

57. From one of the comments on Juan Cole's site:

At 3:04 PM, Tosk said...
The Terror Free Tomorrow foundation did an opinion poll prior to the election. Now granted it is just one data ;point. However they had two results:

a. Ahemadinejad led Moussavi by a margin of 2.4:1
b) Among Azeris Ahmedinajad led Moussavi 2:1

Sort of clouds the two propositions that Ahmedinajad's margin is prima facie evidence of fraud, as well as that Ahmedinajad beating Moussavi in Azeri locations also is some sort of "proof"...

Any thoughts?

At url below:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf

I haven't read the pdf myself, they tend to make my computer crash. However, when people start talking about polling disparities, the first question that should come up, is where did these polls come from? Which polls should be believed and which should be disbelieved?

Finally, I really wish people would start asking themselves, "Who's catapaulting the propaganda about a 'stolen election' and what do they have to gain?"

sw

[scarletwoman]

51. Who decides what's "stastically impossible"? If you look at a graph of the Obama election results,

you'll see much the same pattern.

People are throwing around all kinds of assertions as "proof" when the fact is they know nothing about Iran's electoral system, they have no hard evidence, they are assuming "leaks" reported on a blog must be true, etc.

It's absurd. Worse, it's simplistic one-dimensional thinking.

As for the CIA et al, what better way to gin up a renewed push for an attack on Iran than to get all the U.S. "liberals" in high dugeon over this supposed fraudulent election? How utterly delicious if the Left starts pushing Obama toward taking a "regime change" stance on Iran.

There's a big game afoot and I think y'all are being played.

sw

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. That looks really unlikely to me

Far more so than Ahmadinejad winning with 63%. Because no-one was talking about Karoubi. Why should someone suddenly rocket into 2nd place, when there was a well-known non-incumbent candidate that people could go for?

I note the Kos diarist gives no source for that at all.

[Oregone]

9. Oh come on! "Inside government officials" wouldn't lie

:)

[angstlessk]

24. you mean like the 'winner' (have no idea how to spell Amaj..)is not lying you just assume the person

who would be arrested and thrown in jail is being secretive just because he is lying and showing something that PROVES fraud that EVERYONE who has a brain believes was perpetrated...that liar?

[Oregone]

25. I "assume" nothing

I leave belief and assumption for religion fanatics and the tin foil crew.

[angstlessk]

26. You certainly would not make a good investigator...since you reqire empirical

evidence before you would even consider that a crime or fraud was perpetrated...you DO assume, you assume firsly that we have no business discussing this, since we have no empirical evidence of a problem..that, my friend, is an assumption.

[Oregone]

27. Everyone can discuss whatever they want

But when you discuss it with unfounded beliefs guiding your responses, you look like an idiot. Thats a choice everyone gets to make for themselves.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

32. Yeah, how about that, eh?

I get riled up when people jump to conclusions. People get riled up when you call em out on it.

[malaise]

3. Yep and Iraq had WMDs n/t

[janx]

5. scratch this.

[HarvardMed]

23. That looks even more surreal than the official results

It has been speculated and almost proven that the real race was between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, therefore it is very highly unlikely that Karoubi would come out second - it is almost like publishing a new study of the US presidential elections of 2000 and showing that Ralph Nader actually came out second.

[anigbrowl]

58. Good point, but recall...

Karoubi got about 18% of the vote in the first round of the last election. A 35-30-25-10 split (with Ahmedinejad at 25%) is not inconceivable - this is just an example, with numbers rounded to the nearest 5%. Given Ahmedinejad's falling popularity, it seems more plausible that Karoubi increased his first-round share of the vote, rather than dropping to 1-2%.

I can't make up my mind, but the official result seems extremely fishy...I find it hard to believe that Ahmedinejad, whose popularity was fading even if you discount the more anti-Iranian western news reports, suddenly turned around and won by a mile.

[Joanne98]

28. This is exactly what Bush did in 2000. Ahmadi-nejad must have studied Florida.

He copied everything including the early call of victory. I'm surprised he didn't ask FOX News to help!

[tjwash]

35. Oh, is that our boogie man this week?

I rarely check in to DU anymore, so don't get the memos on who we are supposed to all be afraid of.