Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities

If Obama can end this cycle of meddling I may gain an ounce of respect for him--but that won't happen.

Why are you blaming the Jews for everything?

"Why are you blaming the Jews for everything?"
Well, isn't it obvious?

Because anti-Semitism is part and parcel of the Liberal agenda. All evil starts and ends with Jews, and Bush.

You may be offended by that, but all you have to do is remember that Obama's reverend Wright is an anti-Semite, as is Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, etc. etc.

So next time you Libs talk about how "socialism is not a bad thing", remember that Stalin, Hitler were socialists. Mussolini started as a socialist.

Anti-Semitism runs deep within your ranks.

And I bet you all still don't see it, can't see it. I read these comments to revel at how much you people just love to talk. Talk about yourselves; the people you like to fashion as gods; your meaningless politics.

You blame Bush/neo-cons/Jews (cuz you know fuck all about history). Then some jerk comes and blames Obama and evil socialist Liberals...Some will come and blame Zionist influence and another calls out antisemitism (who got the answer right on the wrong question, and LOL@ reverend Wright, awesomely random name drop!))...All just to have a say. All while these people are busy as all hell trying not to get played.

just what I'd expect from a undereduacated racist person what makes you any better then the jews or us americans

and of course, the review of said votes is given to one group within the regime which happens to be led by hardliners and is not open to review.

yep

That is not true. Sorry, but that does not follow the international standard for election observation.

I suggest you go to the IDEA site http://www.idea.int/
and read about the international standards for what constitutes "election fraud" or "massive election fraud".

I doubt there has EVER been a National election without having at least one instance of fraud. What observers look for is 1) was it actually fraud, or a mistake? 2) if it was fraud, was it part of an organized attempt to commit fraud, or the act of an individual or small group of individuals? 3) if it was an organized act of fraud, is there clear evidence that the government was involved, and 4) was it significant enough to alter the election results?

In other words, the standard is SO HIGH that observers will RARELY declare that an election was invalidated. In most cases, since international observers are only in the country at the behest of, or with the tolerance of, the ruling regime, they are rarely given the kind of transparent view into the tabulation of votes, and their investigations are often blocked.

Venezuelan elections, for example, have had consistent and repeated reports that the government funneled tens of millions of $$$ illegally into the pro-government party campaign, hired criminals to harass and intimidate opposition, government laws gave the President the opportunity to block all opposition advertisements and let the president talk for HOURS for free (an advantage not compensated for the opposition), close down "opposition" media, fire voting poll workers who had previously voted against the government and staff the polls ONLY with pro-government workers, grant immediate citizenship and voting rights to hundreds of thousands of foreigners who were given money, land etc. in return for a vote, use government funds to create massive convoys of buses carrying 'voters' to voting centers (and these convoys were seen going from one center to another to another and then another--in other words, they 'voters' were voting multiple times around the country), and in MANY areas the number of votes cast was greater than the number of eligible voters--in some towns, the number of votes was greater than the number of inhabitants!

AND yet, with all that evidence, the Carter Center would not declare that fraud had taken place.

Of course, who do you think it was that invited the Carter Center to the country and PAID them for their services?

The same government they were observing. Curious, ain't it?

But my point is, while you should expect that an election would be scrapped because of one or two instances of fraud, there has to be a logical threshold applied consistently, and the observers sure as hell should NOT be in bed with the government they are sent to observe.

That was enlightening, thanks.

What does that have to do with Iran?

I was.

It has EVERYTHING to do with principle and the hypocrisy of those doing nothing but becoming outraged over something you would let slide in your own country. Got it yet?

I'm with you, JanForGore.

You could just as easily put that on us than Kerry.

Not many people vote, and of those very fewer care enough to insist upon verifying the results.

If the citizens of Ohio were marching in the street, I'm betting Kerry would have asked for a recount.

OK, that's just silly.

No one was stopping any vote count: the vast majority of votes were already in and counted. Most districts in the USA have ELECTRONIC voting systems, allowing for very accurate count very quickly. The system errors tend to be much less than 1/2 of 1%, more likely in the .001 range.

There was no indication of widespread fraud of any kind, no military involvment, no organized group of thugs roaming around intimidating voters, no indication that the electoral system had been compromised by government, or that government money had been used to give an unfair advantage to Bush.

Kerry LOST. Which is why he did the right thing and conceded. That's what happens in Democracies when there is no indication of fraud and the vote is not even really close.

Compare that to the 2000 election, where there were SOME irregularities, although they appeared to be isolated, and the election came down to a razon thin difference in one or two Florida counties, where it was most heavily contested. Democrats (I was a Florida Democrat at the time) decried what they saw as a flawed election, and especially in Palm Beach, and while they screamed that it might be 'rigged'...post election analysis by several organizations, including news papers, found that Bush had won.

Former Pres Carter loudly protested that "every vote should be counted." I had no problem with that, I think it's a good idea in a close election to count and recount until you're sure it's right.

Funny, that a few years later, when I was an observer for the Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela, the evidence for a massive fraud was everywhere, and was ALMOST IDENTICAL to what we're seeing in Iran. Yet Carter then rushed (in less than 24 hours he declared Chavez the winner and that it was a fair and transparent election), and contradicted his previous stance that votes should be counted.

Here we have an identical situation (the reported irregularities are almost 100% the same), and Democrats are again hesitating to call for investigations, and won't make any supportive statement.

Could it be that they know that with ACORN we'll be seeing a lot more of this in our own future and they don't wany any intervention?

Apologies, my point wasn't "There was fraud in Ohio!", it was that Americans, in general, DGAS enough to do anything about it.

Both candidates in the scandals involving America's voting system conceded the election.The constant comparison of those elections to what's happening in Iran doesn't make any sense. It's not simply the election fraud that is outrageous, it's the violence, the media blackout and journalists disappearing, the people being shot in their streets by the Basij, the historic stand against Iran's supreme leader, and many other factors to take into account. There is no hypocrisy in being interested in what is going on there and drawing attention to the violence and suffering other people are experiencing.