1 IIRAN eleectiions are ffreee of DIEBOLLD and BBUSH

2 More cowbell!

3 Listen up young man, BUSH LIES: you're too felon-like to vote so screw Diebold and your garbage.

4 Do you think the Iranian elections might have had any number of dead people voting or that there could have possibly been voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? NAH! Of course not. It's hard to imagine that you're "forced" to vote and make a decision between the guy who would have you stoned to death or simply cut your hand off. I know it would be a tough decision for me. This is the only way these kooks can justify their ideas. To shout, "See?! They WANT to be oppressed! We're just fighting for their right to be treated like animals." Please.

5 Johnson's writing has seemed almost rabid. He ties everything to Bush. He was supposed to be an analyst - how did he ever manage to provide neutral information when he was working. As far as the elections in Iran go - There was a campaign to boycott all voting. It seems to have worked. That's why a 'not as bad as the Mullah's candidate' hard liner won the election. There is also some doubt as to whether the numbers portrayed as voting is correct. Than heavens Carter wasn't there to give the elections his approval.

6 Johnson's writing has a rabid feel to it. Everything is the Neocons and Bush's fault. Wasn't Johnson an analyst before he retired. How on earth did he manage to provide neutral analyse. There was a boycott of the elections by the opposition parties. It appears to have worked. No good complaining about the result if you boycotted the election. The election was rigged from the start so I have no problem with the boycott. There is some doubt as to whether the vote numbers provided by the government are correct.

7 The only thing left at this point is for Jimmah Cahtah to rush over and certify the fraud. That would be the cherry on top for sure. I wouldn't worry too much about Iran, because the people of Iran have had it with Islamofascism, and will sort things out pretty soon, possibly by the end of the year. I only hope the mullahs get the same treatment they've been dishing out for so long. In spades.

8 Well, your exalted status as a mindless nitwit remains intact. Despite your claim to the contrary I did not "rejoice" in the outcome of the Iranian election. Nor did I insist it was fair or free of fraud. However, with the events in Ohio and Florida we are living in a bit of a glass house when it comes to tossing stones about electoral fraud. Remember genius, it was Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, and Ken Timmerman who have been insisting the "Iranians love us" and it is just a small, radical clerical faction that hates us. Pipes and Ledeen peddled similar nonsense relative to Iraq. My point is simple, before we invade another country let's make sure we understand the tarpit we're jumping into. I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq. And while I'm at it, you must be a yellow elephant. Otherwise, instead of being a tough talking blogger you'd get off your cowardly ass and enlist to go fight in this cause you so desperately believe in. Put your blood where your mouth is boy.

9 (flicking light switch on and off) Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight! Fight for your readers' love!

10 Again, Larry pipes up with generalizations gleaned from sporadic, unproven issues, carefully omits anything more blatantly obvious that detracts from his argument and completely ignores history. Then he jumps on the ill-fated, illogical "why-aren't-you-enlisted" argument. Larry must be an arse .... er, donkey.

11 Why don't you put your blood where your mouth is you yellow donkey dhimmicrat? Don't site there just typing while your Muslim brothers are dying, become a suicide bomber and die like the fanatical fascist you are!

12 Larry, Bitch slap um!

13 Greg, you promised to behave. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. I know you're smarter than these morons, so why do you take company with them?

14 "Nor did I insist it was fair or free of fraud. However, with the events in Ohio and Florida we are living in a bit of a glass house when it comes to tossing stones about electoral fraud." Why mention it to support your case, if you know it's fraudulent? And what electoral fraud in Florida? There were a lot of accusations by a highly partisan commission, but no one was even indicted. Moreover nearly all of the recounts showed that Bush one "fair and square." The fact that you're still whining about this, and using it to justify overlooking the flaws in an election held in a patently totalitarian state is like a red alert signal to anyone who'd take your analysis straight up. Remember genius, it was Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, and Ken Timmerman who have been insisting the "Iranians love us" and it is just a small, radical clerical faction that hates us. Pipes and Ledeen peddled similar nonsense relative to Iraq. My point is simple, before we invade another country let's make sure we understand the tarpit we're jumping into. I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq. That's something of an hysterical revision. Ledeen, Kristol and most of the neocons said repeatedly that the reconstruction would be for more difficult than the actual invasion, though they did say that some elements of the population would give us support (which they have). Pipes has always been a pessimist about the odds of genuine democracy in Iraq. He feels we should aim for a benevolent autocracy there. And speaking of the wages of being a liberator, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more pro-American Iraqis than Frenchmen (just for effect). Regarding Iran, you'll have to show me a quote where Ledeen and Pipes say most Iranians love us. All of the statements I know about are a good deal more measured than that, unless they're just trying to make a comparative point (i.e. campared to the French the Liberians love us, etc.). Here's something he said recently about the Iranian people that seems pretty levelheaded: "The Iranian people have been standing for their own liberty for many years, as demonstrated by the terrible record of carnage they have suffered at the hands of the regime. Hundreds of democracy advocates are being tortured in Iran's prisons. Tens of thousands have been killed in the past six years, beginning with the mass murders of protesters in 1989. Public executions are commonplace, and women are routinely executed by stoning." So, what's your problem with that? Huh? In a recent poll taken in mid-June, 2005 commissioned by the Iran Institute for Democracy 74% of Iranians said they felt the presence of US forces in the Middle East make a democratic regime change in Iran more likely. That doesn't say they love us. It says we give them hope and ambition. Not quite the same thing, and I'm sure most of that 74% are scared to death right now, and I don't imagine your words bolster them much either. [Incidentally, someone turned off html for this blog so here's the URL for the above reference: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44729 ] Interestingly a poll taken earlier showed a similar 70% opposed their own country's nuclear ambitions. Frankly, I think Ledeen has it about right. "Faster, please." "I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq. And while I'm at it, you must be a yellow elephant. Otherwise, instead of being a tough talking blogger you'd get off your cowardly ass and enlist to go fight in this cause you so desperately believe in. Put your blood where your mouth is boy." What the deuce does this tu quocque argument have to do with anything? And how utterly sophomoric to suggest that someone "put their blood where their mouth is" when no mission has even been defined. As though everyone on this blog wouldn't be doing precisely that if they'd been asked, and funded. The Bush administration certainly ought to be asking more Americans to sacrifice something for this cause, including me and especially you... and I've been pretty consistent about that. In a war effort people give what's asked of them. If nothing is asked one might be forgiven for thinking there's no real threat. Forgiven, but not excused.

15 I find it ironic that people who hide behind others are so quick to harangue others into putting themselves in harm's way. Dhimmis are cowards for the most part, and the few that aren't are certainly rare.

16 Why does everyone assume we will "Invade" Iran, just because Iraq was invaded? there are other military actions that don't involved invading a country. If there was any action again Iran, one would hope it would be against their military infrastructure, and nuclear facilities.

17 Dave: http://www.traprockpeace.org/scott_ritter_23june05.html

18 Sorry about the spelling errors in my comment above. I've a bad cold and was a bit distracted, and don't have access to the editing function. No, I don't think the US is going to invade Iran... mainly because all we need to do is sit tight in the area and be prepared to do so if it comes to that. But Bush has promised support to the pro-democracy movement there, so you can bet we have clandestine organizers who are funneling resources to the right people. At some point they could become a genuine insurgency, and that would be something to see. The whole point of maintaining a credible use of force is that you only have to actually use it on a few rare occasions. If, however, you're perceived as using force only very reluctantly you have to prove your will on every occasion. Sort of ironic.

19 There will be no need to invade Iran, because the people of Iran are in open revolt already. There are frequent riots and demonstrations, and now that the mullahs have installed an ultra-hardliner in office, it will only add fuel to the fire. There are over 50 million people under the age of 30 in Iran, and they've had it with old men in robes telling them what to do. They want to drink Coke™ and wear blue jeans and go on dates to the movies, all without some religious fanatics with clubs attacking them for holding hands in public. Of course, none of this is reported by the MSM, or even very many blogs, because the MSM doesn't want it to happen, and the bloggers are mostly distracted by other events, but it is happening, and it will take the whole world by surprise when it goes down. I just hope they have enough rope for all the mullahs.

20 DSM: Scott Ritter, is that who you use to convince me? at best he is inept, at worse a traitor - I was half expecting for his name to show up on Saddams payroll. Take this gem: "Ritter said Iran has a nuclear energy program, not a nuclear weapons program as the administration would like Americans to believe." Iran has refused to stop production of it's heavy water plant, even rejecting offers to convert it to a light water plant, their purchase of centrifuges, development of laser enrichment facilities and their continual attempts at developing long range missles such as the Shahab 4? peaceful? no signs point to peaceful.

21 "Of course, none of this is reported by the MSM, or even very many blogs, because the MSM doesn't want it to happen, and the bloggers are mostly distracted by other events, but it is happening, and it will take the whole world by surprise when it goes down. I just hope they have enough rope for all the mullahs." You do have proof of this, right?