# Fraudulent Elections in Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671 "2009-06-13T16:22:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/141 "2009-06-17T03:53:23Z")
Foreign media are now banned from covering illegal rallies in Tehran and from moving freely about the city. There are no restrictions, however, on what they say in their reporting, so the BBC correspondent is still giving some interestsing coverage. Amateur videos are making their way out of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/142 "2009-06-17T04:09:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well if people wouldn’t have taken it on a dishonest tangent I wouldn’t have had to respond. Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining. > > But in the future here’s a good tactic. Don’t tell me to shut up and challenge me if you don’t want me to respond. In otherwords if you don’t want me to talk about it then don’t say something about the topic. Pretty simple right? Notice how the last few responses where people asked me to shut up were what I responded to? And if they hadn’t told me to shut up I wouldn’t have continued that line of discussion? Funny how that works right? > > So don’t try to lie to me, and I won’t call out the lies. The context was very specific, he made a comparison, and that was that. I didn’t misinterpret it at all. It’s just a cognitive bias issue where people are personally attacking me because they don’t like what I am saying. He responded directly in context. Any other conclusion is well simply…dishonest. If I am talking about a particular subject and someone directly responds to it with a tangent, don’t tell me the original subject is not part of it. > > So let’s go with YOU shut up. If YOU shut up, I will have nothing to respond to. _I_ am not the one who keeps carrying it in this thread, and _I_ have no reason to deal with your BBQ Pit rude bullshit here, I’m sorry if you have a problem with it, you’ll notice that _I_ am the one who started a separate thread. So _YOU_ need to take it to the other thread. > > Insult me to my face and try to tell me something that isn’t true is, and I will respond every time. So here’s your chance to shut up. All this meandering rubbish of prose just to beat your chest some more. No one is impressed. Your claims are sufficiently ridiculous, you really do not need to add pointless verbosity to them. > [@](#): > > from [http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting\_the\_ayatollahs](http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting_the_ayatollahs) > > What should we do now? Wait for the dust to settle. I must to point out that what he is advocating is nothing but the well-established default position of common sense. Not that he is wrong, but he is simply adding his voice to the chorus rather than coming up with anything new or substantive. He is repeating the sage advice already provided by others in this thread and elsewhere: non-interference. What Buchanan seems to skip is this: over the last 40 years, while administrations in the US and other democratic countries have come and gone, the Ayatollahs in Iran have been in power. Same thing with the Communist Party in China, the Junta in Burma, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and other objectionable regimes that have a habit of substantially outlasting democratically elected governments and doing precisely as they like. In the current fracas the Guardians are playing their own positioning game, being ready to cut loose the populist Ahmedinejad if it becomes necessary when/if voter fraud is uncovered or becomes too blatant to cover up. They can then position themselves as enablers of the people’s democratic wishes, and help the nation appoint another Iranian President - which will be nothing more than a figurehead for their despicable regime. Most people alive in Iran today have only ever known the Ayatollahs and their oppressive, xenophobic, misogynistic, and paranoid regime. The state’s propaganda may not have worked on the entire population, but it has instilled a deeply Islamist and often fanatical reverence that will not go away even if the government should fall (which is unlikely). Ahmedinejad is the smallest problem in the Iran equation. The real problem is the theocracy itself, and if history is any judge that theocracy may well outlast all currently active democratic leaders. The war hawks, as Buchanan notes, should not be heeded - but that is also the standard common sense position. Unfortunately if there is one thing that does change regimes, it is war. Outlasting a regime is a much chancier proposition. It worked well with the USSR - at a huge cost of course - but there are many more less promising examples to consider as well (and for the last decade Putin’s Russia has emulated several of the characteristics that made the USSR undesirable). Countries are generally keeping fingers crossed while peering through the smoke. I think a lot of people are expecting the revolt (driven by “fast” new media like Twitter, blogs, SMS, etc.) to burn itself out as we have seen other grassroots revolts do in recent history. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/143 "2009-06-17T05:08:36Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > All this meandering rubbish of prose just to beat your chest some more. No one is impressed. Your claims are sufficiently ridiculous, you really do not need to add pointless verbosity to them. There is nothing ridiculous about the claim that he was responding directly to a context regarding the success of Iraq as a Democracy. That’s a fact. Other than that I am not making any claims. So the one claim that is 100% factually correct cannot be argued with except with lies that are transparent because anyone can scroll up and see that it was a direct reply within that context. So it can only lead me to believe that people are stupidly ganging up on me over something incredibly trivial. Or just that you wanted me to continue to respond. What’s the word for that again? I forget. Why is it that you claim that you want me to shut up and yet you are trying to get a rise out of me? ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/144 "2009-06-17T07:44:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > There is nothing ridiculous about the claim that he was responding directly to a context regarding the success of Iraq as a Democracy. That’s a fact. Other than that I am not making any claims. So the one claim that is 100% factually correct cannot be argued with except with lies that are transparent because anyone can scroll up and see that it was a direct reply within that context. So it can only lead me to believe that people are stupidly ganging up on me over something incredibly trivial. Or just that you wanted me to continue to respond. What’s the word for that again? I forget. > > Why is it that you claim that you want me to shut up and yet you are trying to get a rise out of me? Since you ask. You misread a comment about George III and the American colonies, and proceeded to decry criticism (you allege) of Bush, an entirely different person than the one named. Other posters explained you were wrong and your reaction was a series of attempts to erect a Reality Distortion Field: - hand-waving about subtext, and other unverifiable allusions - claims that what the poster wrote was in fact something else, for which you provided no evidence other than your say-so - obvious lack of understanding of the original point by the poster (which could even be read as encouraging in the long-term as regards the adventures of Bush & Co.) - claims of board martyrdom for “continuing the line of discussion” when you repeatedly asserted that the poster had meant something he had not in fact written, and that only you on this board detected - suggesting that the poster in question was “very clever” to covertly orchestrate a hijack that \*\*you \*\*initiated entirely on your own by misinterpreting and reacting to an apropos observation and refusing to admit you were incorrect - accusations, in a roundabout manner, of trolling when asked to cease this sort of nonsense And then we have such claims as Iraq being a “stunning success” and how “amazing” it is that people do not realize it. You have made claims about the pre-war existence of “distinct” goals for Iraq when the main characteristics of the Iraq adventure were wishful thinking, poor planning, deplorable intelligence, inability to listen to experienced and authoritative advice, and no thought given to how to secure and rebuild until after the country was already wrecked. No RDF is good enough to withstand these claims. These are the kind of claims I would like to stop hearing in this thread, which is about the current Iranian elections and resulting crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/145 "2009-06-17T09:13:54Z")
I provide this to contrast the circumstantial arguments provided earlier which analyzed election results and concluded that fraud was probably involved. Obviously I do not know one way or another. Although we can be tempted to suspect fraud, it’s important to consider (rather than assume) the facts, so here is the opposite point of view. > [@](#): > > from [Politico](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html) > > **Ahmadinejad won. Get over it** > > Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and “Iran experts” have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud. > > They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. > > \ > > Like much of the Western media, most American “Iran experts” overstated Mir Hossein Mousavi’s “surge” over the campaign’s final weeks. More important, they were oblivious — as in 2005 — to Ahmadinejad’s effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi. > > \ > > More fundamentally, American “Iran experts” consistently underestimated Ahmadinejad’s base of support. Polling in Iran is notoriously difficult; most polls there are less than fully professional and, hence, produce results of questionable validity. But the one poll conducted before Friday’s election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology — a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow from May 11 to 20 — found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly. > > American “Iran experts” assumed that “disastrous” economic conditions in Iran would undermine Ahmadinejad’s reelection prospects. But the International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession). A significant number of Iranians — including the religiously pious, lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners — appear to believe that Ahmadinejad’s policies have benefited them. Plenty more [at the link](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html). I am unfamiliar with the writers and I think they undermine themselves by using so much mockery (phrases like “Iran experts” always in quotations; the low-brow title of the piece), however they appear to make a supported argument. They note that no one expected Iranian elections to be completely free and fair but, as far as they can see, the conclusion that Ahmadinejad won a fraudulent victory remains to be proven. The one trying to steal this election, they claim on the basis of their analysis, is in fact Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mousavi. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/146 "2009-06-17T09:28:42Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Overthrow the current regime? Absolutely not. It’d just end up a big mess like Iraq was. No more nation building! The United States has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle Eastern countries for far too long. Unless Iran is attempting to exterminate its citizenry or create a nuclear weapon, the U.S should not get involved in Iran’s political affairs. My feelings, exactly. The people of Iran should decide who will govern them. Any meddling on our part will undermine not only the rights and actions of the Iranian citizens, but it will also perpetuate our bad reputation in the Middle East. We elected a guy who is trying to fix the mess we’ve created. If we wanted more of the same, the Wrinkly Old Dude would be in the White House fucking things up. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/147 "2009-06-17T10:38:40Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > My feelings, exactly. The people of Iran should decide who will govern them. Any meddling on our part will undermine not only the rights and actions of the Iranian citizens, but it will also perpetuate our bad reputation in the Middle East. We elected a guy who is trying to fix the mess we’ve created. If we wanted more of the same, the Wrinkly Old Dude would be in the White House fucking things up. Not only that, but Obama is well aware of history. In general, he is aware of how people in the Middle East have felt let down by previous US administrations, who either meddled in the affairs of other countries, or promised assistance that was never delivered. In more specific terms, Obama knows that becoming involved might scuttle whatever possibility of change there is in Iran. Think back to the election unrest in Iran in the summers of 1999 and 2003. Thousands of Iranian who felt deeply disappointed with election results marched in protest and engaged in street battles with the authorities and the supporters of the opposition. Back then the US administration openly (and unwisely) provided moral support to the reformists who squared off against the Iranian government, with the result that the Iranians who wanted to bring about change had to distance themselves from American support for fear of being seen as traitors. Fortunately the current administration remembers the blunders of Bush and his gang of idiots and is walking much more softly. The landscape of this revolt looks nothing like previous ones, which tended to be neatly divided between hardline and fanatic conservatives versus reformists. The previous revolts were dramatic but resulted in nothing. This time, there are many more people involved and there is a clearer organization aided by lightning-fast new media. There are a number of corrupt figures in Iranian politics that bear much of the focus of this revolt. In addition to them there is Ahmadinejad, who more or less controls the Revolutionary Guards and the volunteer military force, and who for this reason is being suspected of arranging a coup. He has significant support among the poor and lower classes, who often (but not uniformly) see him as sympathetic to their problems (there is a chance his election success is genuine). Ahmadinejad is, however, anathema to the centrists and reformists and in general people with good education, including of course students. Trying to wrest some power from the current chaos is Mousavi, joined by ex-President Rafsanjani (a conservative), ex-President Khatami (a reformist), and a host of interesting personages including a former head of the Revolutionary Guards as well as other presidential candidates, high level clerics and officials, all of whom are making a substantial gamble by claiming election fraud. While this chaos erupts all over the country, supreme Ayatollah Khameini advises the council of Guardians to examine the problem very carefully and study the election appeals for validity for a period of 10 days, which will allow the grassroots to exhaust themselves. The cleric-in-chief and highest authority in Iran is not asserting his power in any direct manner, but instead is advising thought and analysis rather than action. He could emerge from this situation looking fairly good, as the only one who wisely kept his cool and counseled thought rather than action based on unclear evidence or mob mentality. Obama and other leaders are smart to avoid interference. There is no way of predicting this chaotic situation and even a gentle nudge might have undesirable consequences, as we have seen in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/148 "2009-06-18T11:24:04Z")
**Abe** ’s Politico article makes some interesting points, and it really is true that we don’t know as much about what’s happening in Iran as we like to think. A lot of assumptions have been made, like the language and ethnic issues, and allegations of fraud made based on events that ran contrary to those assumptions. _However_, this line is bullshit: > [@](#): > > They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejad got 61.69 percent of the vote in the _runoff election_, in a one-on-one contest against Rafsanjani. The article doesn’t see fit to bring this up. In the first round of voting, he didn’t do nearly as well, although since he was not the incumbent at that time there is less of a comparison. It’s somewhat surprising that he did better this year against a field of four candidates than he did in 2005 against only one candidate. Perhaps he benefited from the increased turnout? I don’t know who stayed home last time and who didn’t, but participation was up from 2005, and especially it was well up from the 2005 runoff. Nate Silver at 538 is questioning the idea that Ahmadinejad draws his support from rural voters, as he did better in the cities in 2005, but appears to have gained more rural support _this time_. He’s always had a reputation for being a populist, so maybe he did pick up votes there and maybe he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/149 "2009-06-18T15:30:51Z")
[More compelling analysis toward widespread fraud.](http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_moderately_strong_suppo.php) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/150 "2009-06-18T19:54:48Z")
bI find compelling is that they announced the results very soon after the polls closed. Many of them were paper ballots. Many were in the country. Yet they announced the winner quite quickly. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/151 "2009-06-18T20:04:47Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Since you ask. You misread a comment about George III and the American colonies, and proceeded to decry criticism (you allege) of Bush, an entirely different person than the one named. Other posters explained you were wrong and your reaction was a series of attempts to erect a Reality Distortion Field: I didn’t misread it. You can stop with your strange pathological need to get a rise out of me. For those with piss poor reading comprehension I invite them to reread the post where Elucidator responds DIRECTLY to a comment about George W. Bush with a comment about George III. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11243028&postcount=72](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11243028&postcount=72) So Abe, I’m willing to chalk it up to an inability to read what was written, if you continue to respond I am going to think you have some weird agenda to try and get me to believe something that’s just not true. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/152 "2009-06-18T21:19:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You can stop with your strange pathological need to get a rise out of me. You’re so cute with your persecution complex. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/153 "2009-06-18T21:26:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > You’re so cute with your persecution complex. Well it’s a bit strange that someone is obsessively trying to lie to me when the truth is so obvious. It’s just really really really bizarre. And my persecution complex isn’t in general. There’s a particular aspect that I only get from atheists and only on this particular message board. That’s why I know it’s not me, because I don’t have this problem on other message boards. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/154 "2009-06-18T21:30:51Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > bI find compelling is that they announced the results very soon after the polls closed. Many of them were paper ballots. Many were in the country. Yet they announced the winner quite quickly. One theory is that they are deliberately and blatantly rigging the election in order to provoke dissent which they can violently crack down on. And if no one dissents then chances are no one will dissent when they rig elections in the future, it’s win win. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/155 "2009-06-19T03:01:13Z")
Here’s some additional information other than the Politico piece for you folks to consider that flies in the face of the some of the assumptions made in this thread: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html) > [@](#): > > The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi. > > Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups. > > The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html) > [@](#): > > More fundamentally, American “Iran experts” consistently underestimated Ahmadinejad’s base of support. Polling in Iran is notoriously difficult; most polls there are less than fully professional and, hence, produce results of questionable validity. But the one poll conducted before Friday’s election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology — a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow from May 11 to 20 — found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html#ixzz0IqDb221b&D](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html#ixzz0IqDb221b&D) Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, the authors of the [politico.com](http://politico.com) article are both former US national security staff members, and Flynt used to work as an analyst for the CIA. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/156 "2009-06-19T09:01:54Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t misread it. > > You can stop with your strange pathological need to get a rise out of me. > > For those with piss poor reading comprehension I invite them to reread the post where Elucidator responds DIRECTLY to a comment about George W. Bush with a comment about George III. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11243028&postcount=72](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11243028&postcount=72) > > So Abe, I’m willing to chalk it up to an inability to read what was written, if you continue to respond I am going to think you have some weird agenda to try and get me to believe something that’s just not true. Clearly referring to G111. Only a blow on the head or a congenital impairment could make it read any other way. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/157 "2009-06-19T14:41:10Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Clearly referring to G111. Only a blow on the head or a congenital impairment could make it read any other way. Umm, I never said it WASN’T. It’s amazing how persistent this straw man is. He responded DIRECTLY to a comment about Bush. He even QUOTED what he was responding to. I mean Jesus this is pretty weird that several people are arguing this. So please point out where I said he wasn’t talking about George the III. I’d like to see this mythical post you all are harping on. All I did was talk about the comparison he made. You guys really should read what’s in the quote box. I mean really. Do you dispute that he made a comment about George III in direct response to a comment about George W. Bush? If not then WTF ARE YOU PEOPLE ON ABOUT? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/158 "2009-06-19T14:56:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Umm, I never said it WASN’T. > > It’s amazing how persistent this straw man is. > > He responded DIRECTLY to a comment about Bush. He even QUOTED what he was responding to. > > I mean Jesus this is pretty weird that several people are arguing this. > > So please point out where I said he wasn’t talking about George the III. I’d like to see this mythical post you all are harping on. > > All I did was talk about the comparison he made. > > You guys really should read what’s in the quote box. I mean really. > > Do you dispute that he made a comment about George III in direct response to a comment about George W. Bush? If not then WTF ARE YOU PEOPLE ON ABOUT? Hey. You’re the one who got ‘Iraq’ and ‘stunning success’ into the same sentence with a straight face. all he did, by analogy, is point out that even if it were the case that Iraq was not a Failed State destined to lurch into a 3 way civil war, Bush has no more claim on credit than G3 could. Quite frankly as you believe Iraq is a stunning success you are so far divorced from reality there’s not really any common factual or even linguistic grounds to engage in debate. You’re coming over as particularly hysterical even by your own well-established low standards. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/159 "2009-06-19T15:26:49Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Hey. You’re the one who got ‘Iraq’ and ‘stunning success’ into the same sentence with a straight face. all he did, by analogy, is point out that even if it were the case that Iraq was not a Failed State destined to lurch into a 3 way civil war, Bush has no more claim on credit than G3 could. Yeah, I got all that. I disagree with it, because Bush was the catalyst, without Bush’s actions, it never would have occurred. George III is not instrumental in the same way because there was already an American colony before he was born. > [@](#): > > Quite frankly as you believe Iraq is a stunning success you are so far divorced from reality there’s not really any common factual or even linguistic grounds to engage in debate. I don’t believe it’s a stunning success. I believe that if it forms a stable and functioning Democracy, that it will be. And if you are going to try and go with the intellectual high ground it helps not to use ad hominems. What I said about Iraq has no relevance to what we are talking about. He responded to a comment about George W Bush with one about George III, if you agree that this is so, then we are not in disagreement. > [@](#): > > You’re coming over as particularly hysterical even by your own well-established low standards. I have people actively arguing something simple and trivial against me for no apparent reason. It’s truly bizarre. I cannot fathom what their motivation is to tell me that something that is true, isn’t. If you had several different people advocating a lie to you all at once you might find it’s pretty damn bizarre. That and my standards are not actually low at all. They’re pretty high, I am just susceptible to trolls. I need to not respond to trolls as much, because I get successfully trolled all the time and let them hijack the discussions, and then 100 posts later the people who agreed with me have left and I am only talking to the idiots who have a beef with me. As I said, it doesn’t happen on other message boards the way it does here. Sure, I can be bombastic and brash and get annoyed easily on other boards, but this weird trolling thing that people like to do here just doesn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671/160 "2009-06-19T16:43:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I mean Jesus this is pretty weird that several people are arguing this. > > So please point out where I said he wasn’t talking about George the III. I’d like to see this mythical post you all are harping on. > > All I did was talk about the comparison he made. Seems pretty clear to me and to everybody else except you, who has a vested interest in maintaining the contrary. > [@elucidator](#): > > Another example is how people say that George III policy for the Colonies was a failure, yet here is America, which he made possible by his prescient blundering and visionary stupidity. [QUOTE=mswas] _shrugs_ I don’t know whether you have read my posts over the past several months or not, but I don’t think that every political opinion needs to be a referendum on George W. Bush. Yes, his blundering was idiotic, but that doesn’t mean it will be a failure. Arguing because/despite might serve a partisan gestalt but at the end of the day it misleads us from reality. If it is successful it will be partly because of Bush and partly despite him. [/quote] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fraudulent-elections-in-iran/499671.md?page=9)