« | »

‘Guardians’ To Recount 10% Iran Vote

From Iran’s Press TV:

Council ready to recount 10% of votes

Sat, 20 Jun 2009

Iran’s Guardian Council says it is ready to recount a random 10 percent of the ballot boxes in the last Friday’s presidential election.

"Although the Guardian Council is not legally obliged … we are ready to recount 10 percent of the (ballot) boxes randomly in the presence of representatives of the candidates," the electoral watchdog’s spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodayi said on Saturday.

Kadkhodayi was scheduled to hold a meeting with the three defeated candidates in the presidential election — Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaei and Mehdi Karroubi. However, only Rezaei attended the meeting.

The body, tasked with overseeing the electoral process, has said it received more than 600 complaints of irregularities from the three candidates.

Mousavi and Karroubi have rejected the June 12 election as fraudulent and demanded a re-run.

And exactly what will this accomplish? Especially when Mr. Ahmadinejhad purportedly won by 60% or more?

The body, tasked with overseeing the electoral process, has said it received more than 600 complaints of irregularities from the three candidates.

Somehow we get the impression that the Council just makes up numbers.

Which, of course, will come in handy.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, June 20th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

17 Responses to “‘Guardians’ To Recount 10% Iran Vote”

  1. neocon mom says:

    How generous of them.

  2. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    Where does the Guardian get it’s authority, or better yet, it’s credibility to conduct this recount?

    • beautyofreason says:

      A convenient excuse in the Iranian theocracy: It’s Allah’s will. So says the Supreme Leader when referring to the stolen votes.

      As for credibility, they have none. And most of the world knows it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      The Guardian Council is half elected (so 6 members are typically lawyers) and half-appointed by the Judiciary Council, which itself is appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei. So at best the GC represents 50% the people’s will and 50% Khamenei’s, however take your guess of who’s afraid to speak out against who.

      Nevertheless there’s friction up and down the Theocracy which IS the reason why these protests are so huge. This isn’t a small, US influenced minority fighting for their freedom; this is a large, widely spread political base that – while they may have there differences – solely do NOT accept Ahmadinejad/Khamenei’s radical isolated course of action for Iran.

      Reuters/AP favor developments and press releases from the regime and Obama responds to matters from this perspective as well. The entire process has been entirely too slow and is why these protesters are fatigued after 7 days of America letting Khamenei-sponsored terrorists harass, arrest, and brutalize them.

      The evidence this election had been stolen was overwhelming from day one. In fact, the reason we here didn’t find these elections of much interest at first was because we knew they were illegitimate and believe(d) Mousavi to be too.

      So before we do end up with another Tienanmen here, let me say this:

      This is not June 1989, China; this is June 2009, Iran. This is a small, weak regime that is internationally recognized as a danger to world peace, supports terrorism, and now is openly shown to destroy the free voice of its people. Even if George W. Bush were still president with a 28% approval rating and he came to the free world with such a case for intervention, it couldn’t be denied. It is absolutely astounding (but not surprising) that President Obama will stray so far to work with radical Islam and it’s downright depressing that the discussion will never take on this tone or tenor.

      But then I think it shouldn’t, because calling out one evil can detract the world forum from the ever-more-present evil by threatening to divide an otherwise united front. I digress..

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      “Even if George W. Bush were still president with a 28% approval rating and he came to the free world with such a case for intervention, it couldn’t be denied. It is absolutely astounding (but not surprising) that President Obama will stray so far to work with radical Islam and it’s downright depressing that the discussion will never take on this tone or tenor.

      But then I think it shouldn’t, because calling out one evil can detract the world forum from the ever-more-present evil by threatening to divide an otherwise united front. I digress..”

      Tranquil Night, I’m fascinated with what you’re saying. Could you explain more? I didn’t catch the implication of the last few sentences.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Absolutely Professor, thank you. I’m trying to tie these events to a foreign policy perspective as well. A popular quote I’ve seen going around twitter lately is that “President Reagan said ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’ not ‘Mr. Gorbachev, it’s none of our business.'” President Obama has put himself clearly at odds with ideology and approach that even Liberals begrudgingly have admitted won us the Cold War. Iran supports militant Islam in the Middle East, has usurped our efforts in Iraq, and is most likely involved in deals with North Korea. History can sometimes be defined by moments that never happen, and today the United States has a chance to to rally the international community against one of the powers of the axis of evil and save potentially countless lives. A courageous president would strong-arm a coalition force together and dare China and Russia to speak out against them.

      This brings me back to my last point. It’s hard to frame events in this perspective for the world forum. To even do so would create an unnecessary partisan diversion from the much needed focus on the unfolding events themselves. If the speed with which this is happening continues, there may never be a point to correctly analyze Obama’s deafening silence.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Thanks, Tranquil Night. Yes, you have definitely made me think very hard about these events. I am so unsure about what to infer — I think a lot of Americans feel the way I do, we just don’t know what to think. So our gut is to try to understand it through the lens of the way it affects us. Right now I guess a lot of Americans need simply to listen and try to piece the facts together.

      About Obama’s approach, I thought it was smart at the beginning, but it is starting to look like he miscalculated. I have a nagging fear that the US military will get dragged into an intervention in Iran, which would be potentially catastrophic. But Obama threw the gauntlet down too late, after the mullahs inferred that Obama wasn’t going to do anything. Now that Obama’s thrown down the gauntlet, the only leverage we have with Iran is to intervene militarily. Maybe Iran will be Obama’s war…. We have to wait.

      By the way, please don’t call me professor. Call me “Senator Boxer, ma’am.” No, just kidding. call me Bobby.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Haha! Well you bring up a good point Bobby – by the way, I’m Matt! With all the emotion surrounding this, it’s important to assess what this means for America going forward. The Khamenei/Ahmadi regime is a financial and geographical stronghold for many of enemies abroad; taking this fight to their home won’t be pretty. Although sects of the police and Revoutionary Guard are trying to protect the opposition they already reported that they don’t have the strength. There is an amateur student National Iranian Resistance force but they are underarmed and untrained. To bring righteousness to Iran would mean American coalition forces. That would be disastrous for Obama.

      I can’t offer anything more really except that I believe, from my point of view, that the cause is worthy and necessary. I would serve Obama-in-chief to further it. I again lament his slow response though. The communications crackdown started last Sunday with many confirmed videos of violence, brutality, death, and unlawful arrests. Bam got in the game only after the house resolution. I agree, his ‘no meddle’ tactic made logical sense, but it gave no credence to the facts that were coming out from the country at the time: first, that the protesters weren’t backing down; second, that the regime wasn’t backing down; third, that the world population watching wasn’t going to let the media back down from covering it.

      Meanwhile, things just get worse and the Iranians show us only more everyday that what they stand for is the only thing real right now. It’s going to come to a choice, eventually. Obama had more options early on. Now, we’ll see!

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Yes, Matt, we will have to wait and see. Unless something unusual happens, I am probably going to get sworn in as 2nd lieutenant in the Army. I signed the contract for 8 years, but I’m still waiting for the last national board review to stamp my file and give me a training date; the one thing that might derail it is the age waiver (I’m 38). So if Iran escalates, it might become my war. I agree with you, I will gladly serve Obama as C-in-C if it means intervening in Iran. But I have fears about how the rest of America would react to such a costly military venture — and I doubt the country could weather the sacrifices for long. I would hate to get sent there and have the kind of support Americans showed the servicemen in Iraq.

  3. Confucius says:

    Sounds like Minnesota’s senate race.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Al’s still got spare boxes of ballots. Maybe he could help them out. He’s thinkin’ he doesn’t need anymore spares.

  4. beautyofreason says:

    Tyrants and dictators have the funniest ways of giving the people the illusion of participation within their government.

    In his heyday of gassing Kurds in masses, Saddam Hussein also had the people vote for President – where they elected Hussein by overwhelmingly margins.

    Though Kim Jong II enjoys putting 1 out of every 100 North Korean citizens into labor (concentration camps) where many die, for crimes as petty as humming tunes from South Korea – he stages elections and wins every time.

    China has local elections where other members of the communist party toe the same party lines and the people elect them. Democracy? As if.

    Iran has elections for the position of President, who has only about 20% of the political power of Iran. The Supreme leader is supreme court justice and dictator rolled into one, his Islamic views dictate to everyone, and he is not electable. And all the women running, as well as anyone not toeing the Islamic line (most pesky reformists) are disqualified before the election even takes place.

    The fact that Iran even had to rig this sham election between one insane stooge and a “reformist” who is not much different from Ahmadinejad (Moussavi created the terrorist group Hezbollah) is just another prime example of the fact that Iran’s dictatorship will not tolerate dissent in any form, even when the people want it. They are too close to nuclear weapons to let a Khatami into office, or anyone who would negotiate with Western governments over the nuke program.

    Live free or die. We’ll see another Tiananmen Square massacre, perhaps with less blood as the internet is watching, but still as brutal as any other. And Obama, with his America-is-bad, Western-society-is-imperialistic reservations, won’t usher a peep about it, even when all hope is lost among the protesters. Iran will accuse us of meddling regardless.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      beauty of reason, you’re probably right, but I wish — oh how I wish — you were wrong. For some reason I am hopeful about this one, and I was speaking with my wife, who is a citizen of South Korea and fought in the uprisings of the late 1980s to overthrow that country’s corrupt dictatorship (it was a pro-US dictatorship, and the issue was a rigged election as well.) My wife and I have very different political views (she’s pro-Obama, I’m clearly not), but we both have the same sense about these uprisings in Iran. Something is going to change in Iran; it may not be an overnight democracy, but it will change, and these protestors haven’t wasted the risk they’ve taken.

      Also, I am wondering if maybe the key was having Bush in office for 8 years, then Obama for half a year. Bush believed in Mideast democracy and fought hard for it, so he planted the seed. But then Obama’s approach took away from the mullahs their usual excuse that the US is out to get Iran. I oppose a lot of Obama’s policies, obviously, but I am thinking that maybe these Iranian protestors benefited from the unique combination of a Bush Era and an Age of Obama.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You’ve hit something there. Bush and Obama – polar opposites in flare – providing the perfect storm of world events and perspective to spawn a truly sentimental Iranian Freedom Movement. I know I’m going to sound overly optimistic on this, but I can’t discount divinity. When a whole nation rattles at night with the calling of “God is Great,” you really can’t discount divinity.

  5. MinnesotaRush says:

    o-blah-blah to Emmanuel: “So Rahm .. I gotta great idea. We change ACORN’s name to the Guardian Council. It’s got a milder ring to it and they do the same stuff.”

  6. Reality Bytes says:

    From an Acorn a mighty Oaf did grow. We call him Obama.

  7. Helena says:

    The big Zero has shown that he’s no economist, now he’s proved he’s no statesman either. The tepid statements from the White House are shameful.

    BTW – It seems that the example of Iraq AND Afghanistan having had successful, free elections recently – thanks to American military intervention (George Bush) – has been a powerful lesson to their neighbors. The fact of it is much more effective than mere rhetoric. The young people of Iran want that, too. It’s sort of the domino effect in reverse.

    And guess what? Iran had local elections in 2006 – Ahmedinejad’s party was trounced. So all this talk about how the vote isn’t rigged is a lot of camel apples. Why would the people of Iran suddenly vote overwhelmingly FOR a party they voted AGAINST just two years ago?

    Ahmadinejad’s Party Goes Down In Iran Elections | Sweetness & Light

« Front Page | To Top
« | »