Right? He's threatening "bloodshed" if the protester don't back down, he's in all likelihood just flat-out lying about the vote itself, and I especially like this part from the Times story on his statement:
He instructed dissenters to pursue their complaints about the June 12 ballot through legal channels, insisting that the turnout, which election officials put at 85 percent, proved that it was a reflection of the national will.
What "legal channels" are those exactly? The sit-down-and-shut-the-fuck-up channels?
Khamenei also gets today's irony prize for this doozy, in which he claims that the protestors are leading the country down the path to tyranny: "If we break the law, we will have to do it in every election and no election would be immune. This is wrong. This is the beginning of dictatorship.”
Doesn't look good for the Iranian uprising right now. In the long-term though, if the Iranian people come to see the clerics as utterly illegimate, this crisis could contain the seeds of the regime's downfall. Hopefully, anyway.
Incidentally, the only downside of this noble, nonviolent exercise by the Iranian people is the boost it's given to Twitter. I hate Twitter, I want it to go away, and this whole episode is ensuring it'll take longer for that to happen.
Andrew Sullivan, who remains deep in his green swoon, called the past week Twitter's "finest hour," as if the purpose of Twitter were somehow moral in nature. Look, this is a company that decided it could make money by wagering that Americans are too stupid and attention-deprived to read poorly thought-out blog posts that are several paragraphs in length. What if, they said, we made blog posts that were shorter, dumber and contained far more grammatical errors?
The only real utility Twitter has shown here is that it can serve as an online message board for people who are trying to communicate and organize. That's a nice thing and all but it isn't, say, Doctors Without Borders.