On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, ken hanly wrote:
> You don't address the argument at all.
Because it's not a serious argument. It doesn't address any of the serious evidence that there was widespread fraud. Like the Chatham House study, for example:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
AFAIK, none of you people do. Am I missing something?
Weisbrot's argument is fundamentally the same as Khamenei's: we could understand a cry of fraud if it was 51%. But how could we fake 63%?
It's beyond a weak argument; it's mock-worthy. You mistake Doug's restraint. He was being a gentlemen. It's exactly the opposite of an ad hominem argument. He respects Mark Weisbrot and was being nice to him.
Michael