Analysis: Something’s fishy in Iran

By Jennifer J. Foster

In a previous post, I asked:

It is astounding that the president and his administration have taken such a cautionary stance on this issue. (Reformist challenger Hossein) Moussavi was widely expected to perform well, and perhaps even beat, (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad; instead, the official results returned a 2 to 1 victory for Ahmadinejad. What’s wrong with this picture?

Well, a British political think tank has done some analysis on the returns from the Iranian presidential election, and they have some answers for us.

The Associated Press reports that the analysis “highlights profound differences between voting patterns in Iran’s recent election and hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s first victory in 2005, casting doubt on whether they could have occurred without manipulation.“

In other words, if we’re comparing 2005 apples to 2009 apples:

The official results showed that Ahmadinejad received 13 million more votes than he and other conservatives got in the 2005 election, according to the Chatham House report, which was released Sunday.

The results would have required him to receive support in a third of the provinces from all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, all new voters and almost half of all former reformist voters.

Umm ... only one problem:

Discontent with Ahmadinejad was running high among reformists and even some conservatives unhappy with his handling of the economy and his antagonistic stance toward the international community.

But you know Ahmadinejad. This is a guy who insists that there are no gay people in the entire country of Iran. He’s not going to let a little thing like reality disturb his warped fantasy world.

To read the full Chatham House report, click here.

To the Iranian people, I say: Keep up the good fight. Freedom is not far away.

Speaking of Sue ...

By Jennifer J. Foster

(... or does she go by Sue Bell?)

Anyway, as I mentioned in the previous post, Alabama Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb is looking at pursuing the Democratic gubernatorial nomination against Artur Davis and Ron Sparks.

Cobb is reportedly being encouraged along this line by Alabama Education Association uberlobbyist/political superpowerbroker/would-be-governor Paul Hubbert, who, for whatever reason, doesn’t exactly flip over the prospect of Davis or Sparks as his party’s nominee.

Perhaps it’s because when Hubbert says “Jump!“, Davis and Sparks don’t ask, “How high?“ But I digress.

Hubbert wants Cobb to run.

But super-plaintiff lawyer and political powerbroker Jere Beasley, who spent a lot of time and effort getting Cobb elected as chief justice, would prefer that she stays put, for obvious reasons—and not the least of which is that she is the last remaining Democrat on the Supreme Court.

The continuing speculation surrounding Cobb and her prospective candidacy may be what spurred Beasley on to announce this week that he will chair Davis’s campaign.

And there’s another wrinkle to consider here, too. Alabama Circuit Judge Charles Price of Montgomery told the Associated Press yesterday that he recently received a visit from “members of the black wing of the state Democratic Party, the Alabama Democratic Conference, encouraging him to consider the Democratic race for governor.“

The Alabama Democratic Conference seeking another candidate to run against Artur Davis, who happens to be ... black. Interesting.

Anyway, it appears that the race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination is shaping up to be a bruising one. So the question becomes: If Cobb and Price both get in (which seems unlikely, but go with it, for the sake of argument), who swings the biggest political stick—Hubbert, Beasley or the ADC?

Incidentally, such a scenario could prove especially problematic for Joe Reed. Reed chairs the ADC, but as associate executive director of the AEA, he is also Hubbert’s right-hand man.

Ah, never mind. What am I thinking? The guy who could solve Alabama’s we’re-paying-thousands-of-dollars-to-a-convicted-felon-who-is-about-to-earn-pension problems with a mere stroke of a pen—but won’t tell anyone how—is surely able to handle a nasty, tangled mess of a gubernatorial primary with ease.

One more thing: Does it strike anyone else as ironic, or at least mildly funny, that Alabama could end up with a double-name governor? “Gov. Sue Bell Cobb.“ I just think that’s funny.

Martin headed out

By Jennifer J. Foster

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who has led Alabama’s Northern District office for the past eight years, is headed for the door. The Birmingham News reports that she informed her staff Tuesday and will leave the post Friday.

Martin’s departure makes way for Joyce Vance, President Obama’s pick to replace her. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on Vance’s nomination on Thursday. The vote is not expected to be controversial; both of Alabama’s senators support her nomination.

As the News explains, the 93 U.S. attorneys across the country serve at the pleasure of the president. It is normal for most or all of them to be replaced by a new administration, especially one of a different political party.

But political appointment or not, Vance will have large shoes to fill. From the News:

Martin successfully prosecuted some of the biggest public corruption cases in Alabama history. The federal criminal investigation she led of the state’s two-year college system has produced more than a dozen guilty pleas, convictions and indictments.

She also led the prosecution of the $2.6 billion HealthSouth fraud cases. CEO Richard Scrushy was found not guilty, but 17 officials pleaded guilty for their roles.

Since 2005, four former Jefferson County commissioners—Mary Buckelew, Jeff Germany, Chris McNair and Gary White—have been prosecuted for crimes while in office. Most of the cases related to a federal probe of the county’s sewer bond and construction deals.

Germany was convicted in a separate case that involved misuse of taxpayer money for personal gain. White’s conviction has been thrown out and he is awaiting a new trial.

Martin also prosecuted Eric Robert Rudolph, who pleaded guilty to bombing a Birmingham abortion clinic.

In lower-profile cases, Martin and her team won hundreds of drug and gun cases each year.

There is no mention here of Martin’s prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, but she won a corruption conviction against him, too. Siegelman claims it was all politics, but the Justice Department has so far declined to join in his chorus, even though it admitted wrongdoing in the corruption case against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Make of that what you will ... everyone else is.

So the question becomes, what does Martin do next? Well, if Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb decides to challenge Artur Davis and Ron Sparks for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, it’s hard to believe that Martin wouldn’t lead the pack of prominent Republicans who might seek the seat.

Coup d’état in Iran?

By Jennifer J. Foster

CNN has a story up with now titled, “Iranian-Americans say history is at hand.“ It talks about how, even if Iranian Presidnet Mahmoud Ahmadenijad is able to withstand the reformists’ challenge of his leadership and the questions shrouding the presidential election last week, Iran will never be the same.

It appears that history may be closer at hand than the CNN editors knew when they wrote that headline.

Anchors on a television newscast (see it on YouTube) have announced the following about Ahmadenijad challenger Hossein Moussavi:

Ladies and gentlemen, Friday, 12th of June; late night in Tehran: The Committee of Elections told Mr. Moussavi that he was elected with the majority of the votes, and so he should write his speech.

In other words: Moussavi wins. Ahmadinejad loses.

The announcers report that government agents loyal to Ahmadinejad then stormed the building serving as the headquarters of the opposition and declared that they would not allow this revolution to happen, in effect staging a coup d’état. In addition, she says, the Ahmadinejad regime has “completely forbidden” the gathering of any more than four people in Iran.

The announcer goes on to make an impassioned plea to the international community to not recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s purported re-election. The Iranian people, she says, do not want nuclear weapons; they want peace, and they are ready for democracy. They have demonstrated these desires through their votes, she says, but their voices have not been heard. They are being stifled and smothered by the ruling regime.

The announcer bottom-lines this situation for members of the international community who may be waffling on their reactions to the goings-on in Iran (read: The Obama Administration): Recognition of Ahmadinejad and his re-election constitutes the rejection of the expressed desire of the Iranian people.

Is that clear enough for you, President Obama?

It is astounding that the president and his administration have taken such a cautionary stance on this issue. Moussavi was widely expected to perform well, and perhaps even beat, Ahmadinejad; instead, the official results returned a 2 to 1 victory for Ahmadinejad. What’s wrong with this picture?

Americans, take note of the latest demonstration of the power of democracy, and why we cannot take it for granted in our country. View the photo at 2:27 in the YouTube clip if you are a visual person and need a reminder.

President Obama, walk the democratic walk. Support the reformists in Iran.

That’s classified

By Jennifer J. Foster

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) believes that the release of those controversial detainee-abuse photos is a settled issue.

Failing congressional action to protect them from release, Graham said today, President Obama is prepared to do whatever it takes to keep them under wraps.

From CNN:

Earlier Wednesday, Graham said at a Judiciary Committee hearing that he had received assurance from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “that the president will not let these photos see the light of day.“

... Hundreds of photos allegedly depict explosive images of prisoner abuse—images U.S. military leaders believe would fuel anger in the war regions and endanger U.S. troops.

After receiving the White House promise, Graham agreed to release a “hold” on key legislation, including the $106 billion war funding measure.

Before the Senate vote, Graham told his colleagues from the Senate floor that President Obama “would sign ... an executive order” classifying the photographs unless Congress acted to prevent their release.

It took him a little while to come around, but he did, and President Obama is now providing strong, decisive leadership on this issue.

Good.

Better late to the party than to miss it completely.

See also:

“This Obama flip-flop in best interest of American people,“ my May 16 column on Obama’s decision to not release the photos