I like reading Hitchens. But he makes too light of the protest against the "elections." These clerical sacntioned events still allow the Iranian people to choose - albeit a choice limited to candidates approved by the mullahs. The problem, however, as the mullahs are now discovering, is that people actually value the freedom to choose the Iranian President. Therefore the step between Iranians critiquing Ahmannidejad for stealing the "election" and critiquing the clerics for allowing the theft is a small one indeed. Hence, within this "election" and the Iranians response to the theft are the beginnings of the challenge to the mullahdom itself. The Supreme Ayatollah backpedalling to authorize the investigation of the election after first claiming its "divine" sanction is itself a clear indication that the ayatollahs are aware even at the risk of offending the "divine" power, whatever that might be, that their earthly interest are best assured by moving to mollify the disaffected masses right here on earth - well in Iran. All of this seems to indicate to me that these staged elections which were designed to reaffirm and reinforce the power of the mullahs may in fact have the quite unintended effect of planting the seeds of subversion of Iran's theocracy. Only time will tell how they will grow. But there is now an increasing likelihood that in the future, the elections will be fairly counted even if the winner is not the first choice of the mullahs. And that is a good thing indeed.

Sounds like what Obama wants do do by throwing out the 2nd Amendment. The reason the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is right after the right to Free Speech is in order for the people to rise up against a situation like Iran and a dozen other crap holes in the world.

We'll be discussing situations like this while drinking tea and frappachinos at outdoor cafes, as the jackboots drive by in hummers if we let the people who are afraid to fight for their lives run the country.