On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> [Interesting comment from Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy <www.justforeignpolicy.org
> >. --CGE]
>
Ah, the fetish of "polling!" Naiman could write this nonsense about a *telephone* poll in a police state where no telephone can be presumed untapped and no "pollster" presumed not to be a police spy.
Will someone of the mullah-apologists on this list please explain how more than 35 million paper ballots can be hand counted--right down to the last vote-- in a few hours.
>
> Judging from commentary in the blogosphere, many Americans are already
> convinced by suggestions that have been carried in the media that the
> Presidential election in Iran was stolen. [Some press reports have
> been a bit more careful: the lead paragraph of the front page story in
> Sunday's New York Times says that "it is impossible to know for sure"
> if the result reflects the popular will.]
>
> But the evidence that has been presented so far that the election was
> stolen has not been convincing.
>
> Iran does not allow independent international election observers, and
> there is a scarcity of independent, systematic data.
>
> But shortly before the election, Terror Free Tomorrow and the New
> America Foundation published a poll that was financed by the
> Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Based on this poll, the official
> result - a victory for Ahmadinejad in the first round - was entirely
> predictable. "Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential
> Elections," the poll reported.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos