I've found that even if you thought you had read an article, it may have changed since you last read it. I found this to be true with "Ahmadinejad Re-Elected: Protests Flare", New York Times, 2009-06-13 or is it 2009-06-14? The New York Times already has the URL datelined for the Sunday edition.
One of the new to me things I found in edition I read shortly after 1600 was that many moderate clerics supported Moussavi. Many of these apparently think Ahmadinejad is a disgrace to Iran.
Also as you read more, you get certain information refined. Andrew Sullivan gives a more refined chart of the "straight-line" "results" of the Iranian election. See "The Results as They Came In", The Daily Dish. The web page I mentioned in "A winning election formula - Iranian style" used only four data points. The one that Sullivan used has six data points. Still the correlation of the reported data to the formula is still way to close to one for a person to believe the results weren't manufactured. Think how vote totals swing during U.S. elections.
