SHALAWN "S PROGRESSIVE NEWS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MIND

Prisoners of Hope

2005-01-14T15:35:00.000-08:00

This essay appeared in "The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear," edited by Paul Rogat Loeb.
"He who has never despaired has no need to have lived." -Goethe
A specter of despair haunts late 20th-century America. The quality of our lives and the integrity of our souls are in jeopardy. Wealth inequality and class polarization are escalating – with ugly consequences for the most vulnerable among us. The lethal power of global corporate elites and national managerial bosses is at an all-time high. Spiritual malnutrition and existential emptiness are rampant. The precious systems of caring and nurturing are eroding. Market moralities and mentalities – fueled by economic imperatives to make a profit at nearly any cost – yield unprecedented levels of loneliness, isolation, and sadness. And our public life lies in shambles, shot through with icy cynicism and paralyzing pessimism.
This bleak portrait is accentuated in black America. The fragile black middle class fights a white backlash. The devastated black working class fears further underemployment or unemployment. And the besieged black poor struggle to survive. Over 30 years after the cowardly murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., black America sits on the brink of collective disaster. Yet most of our fellow citizens deny this black despair, downplay this black rage and blind themselves to the omens in our midst. So now, as in the past, we prisoners of hope in desperate times must try to speak our fallible truths, expose the vicious lies and bear our imperfect witness.
In 1946, when the great Eugene O'Neill's play The Iceman Cometh was produced, he said America was the greatest example of a country that exemplifies the Biblical question, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" Artists like Harry Belafonte and Coltrane and Toni Morrison and others have been asking the same question, as the young people say, "How do we keep it real?" When we look closely at jazz, or the blues, for example, we see a profound sense of the tragic linked to human agency. This music does not wallow in a cynicism or a paralyzing pessimism, but it also is realistic enough not to project excessive utopia. It responds in an improvisational, undogmatic, creative way to circumstances, helping people still survive and thrive. How can we be realistic about what this nation is about and still sustain hope, acknowledging that we're up against so much?
When I talk to young people these days, there's a sense in which they're in an anti-idealist mode and mood. They want to keep it real. And keeping it real means, in fact, understanding that the white supremacy you thought you could push back permeates every nook and cranny of this nation so deeply that you ought to wake up and recognize how deep it is.
That to me is a very serious challenge. If we were to go back to 1965, and, say, put a few black faces in high places, and think that somehow the problem was going to be solved, today's young women and men would say to us, "Don't you realize how naive that is?" They wouldn't say that in the form, "We are victims." They'd be saying, "We're going to get around that some way, but it's not going to be the way you think. We're going to get around it the way most American elites have, by hustling, by stepping outside the law, by shaping the law in our interest, and so forth." And people say, "Oh, but that's rather downbeat talk, isn't it? That's not very hopeful." And the young people say, "Well, the level of hope is based on the reality." Now, what do we say back to them? Part of my response has to do with a certain kind of appeal to their moral sense. Part of it has to do with their connection to a tradition, from grandmother to grandfather to father to mother, that has told them that it is often better to be right and moral as opposed to being simply successful in the cheapest sense.
And yet we all know that there must be some victories, some successes, if we're going to keep alive this tradition and the legacy of King, Harry Belafonte, Paul Robeson and others. To convince them that what we're talking about is real, what do we say? This is what I struggle with every day. I think that rage is an understandable and appropriate response to an absurd situation, namely, black people facing white supremacist power and hegemony. The question becomes, "How do you channel the rage?" Because it's going to come out. It's going to be manifest in some way. Too often it's manifested in cowardly ways not guided by political consciousness, in self-destructive ways, like physical violence. Malcolm's great insight, among many, was that we need to have some moral channels through which this rage can flow. Malcolm wasn't the only one who pointed this out; he learned it from Elijah Muhammad and Marcus Garvey and others. We also get it from other traditions, from King and A. Philip Randolph. This rage needs some targeting and direction. It has to reflect a broad moral vision, a sharp political analysis of wealth and power. Most important, it's got to be backed up with courage and follow-through.
When there's a paucity of courage and follow-through, you can have the broadest vision and the most sophisticated analysis in the world, and it's still sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. It's empty, if you don't have follow-through. Again this is where young people have so much to teach us. Because when they say, "Make it real," in part they're saying they want to see a sermon, not hear one. They want an example. They want to be able to perceive in palpable concrete form how these channels will allow them to vent their rage constructively and make sure that it will have an impact. What Malcolm, I think, was able to perceive is: Look, we're going to have to deal with black rage one way or another. Let's at least try to channel it.
The country is in deep trouble. We've forgotten that a rich life consists fundamentally of serving others, trying to leave the world a little better than you found it. This is true at the personal level. But there's also a political version, which has to do with what you see when you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are simply wasting your time on the planet or spending it in an enriching manner. We need a moral prophetic minority of all colors who muster the courage to question the powers that be, the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people, and the courage to fight for social justice. In many instances we will be stepping out on nothing, hoping to land on something. That's the history of black folks in the past and present, and of those of us who value history and struggle. Our courage rests on a deep democratic vision of a better world that lures us and a blood-drenched hope that sustains us.
This hope is not the same as optimism. Optimism adopts the role of the spectator who surveys the evidence in order to infer that things are going to get better. Yet we know that the evidence does not look good. The dominant tendencies of our day are unregulated global capitalism, racial balkanization, social breakdown, and individual depression. Hope enacts the stance of the participant who actively struggles against the evidence in order to change the deadly tides of wealth inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair. Only a new wave of vision, courage, and hope can keep us sane – and preserve the decency and dignity requisite to revitalize our organizational energy for the work to be done. To live is to wrestle with despair yet never to allow despair to have the last word.
Adapted from Cornel West, Restoring Hope: Conversations on the Future of Black America (Beacon Press, 1997), and from West's comments in bell hooks and Cornel West, Breaking Bread (South End Press 1991). Cornel West's newest book is Democracy Matters (Penguin Books).

The Ever Bolder Republican Plan To Keep Black Ballots Out of the Count

2004-12-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

The Ever Bolder Republican Plan To Keep Black Ballots Out of the Count
Activist and authorTom Grayman III makes it clear in the following exclusive BuzzFlash Guest Contribution, that our recent US elections are just more and more and more of the same. Republican electoral success depends on the disenfranchisement of Democrats -- make that African-American Democrats -- plain and simple. Here and in his new book, Ghosts of Florida, a BuzzFlash premium, he details the who, what, when, where, how and why. As his thoughtful scrutiny of the electoral process reveals, our democracy hangs in the balance.
* * *
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION By Tom Grayman III
As the drama of the Ohio recount rolls out, we would all do well to remember two things:
Half the battle for a fair election is fought before the casting and counting of ballots even begins.
The suppression, disenfranchisement, and disempowerment of African-American voters has been a cornerstone of Republican electoral success for the last 40 years.
On July 2, 1964, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. On July 3, 1964, the racial re-alignment of the two major parties kicked into overdrive. Since then, the African-American community has been the most predictably loyal voting bloc (of substantial size) that the Democratic Party has. Poll after poll shows that most Americans do not agree with the GOP on most key issues. Their continued strength therefore depends on the success of their perpetual search for ways to thwart the true will of American voters each Election Day -- particularly those likeliest to be Democratic voters, which is to say, African-Americans. And so we have the increasingly frequent tales of increasingly bold efforts to strip black Americans of one of their most elemental civil rights. The most popular stunts include:
"Ballot security" programs, in which GOP party operatives pull registration lists and then, focusing primarily or entirely on black neighborhoods, mail postcards to registered voters. Those which are returned by the post office -- maybe for reasons as innocuous as the apartment number is missing from the registration -- are used in an effort to invalidate those voters' registrations.

Challenging the eligibility of black voters at the polling place, which the GOP has learned in recent years is an effective way to dissuade those voters least committed to the act from persevering until their votes are cast.
Misdirectional communications, including flyers, mailings, and phone calls in black neighborhoods announcing the incorrect date for Election Day or stating inaccurate and burdensome requirements for voting eligibility.
Those seeking to limit the black vote had been dabbling with these and other methods throughout the 1970's, 80's and 90's -- particularly in the South -- but on a somewhat ad-hoc and "underground" basis. The presidential election of 2000, on the other hand, was the first time since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that a state government -- in this case, Florida -- had thrown its resources behind a plan to disenfranchise Democratic -- particularly black -- voters. Such efforts included the now-notorious bogus felon purge and the efforts to prevent the full recount of "spoiled" ballots, particularly the nearly 30,000 of Duval County, most of which came from the black neighborhoods of the city of Jacksonville. It was Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s success at foiling efforts to make the true will of her state’s black voters known that helped propel her to her own 2002 congressional election victory.Obviously inspired by Harris, Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell spent the entire second half of 2004 devising schemes to limit and undermine the vote of his state's citizens -- particularly those likeliest to be Democrats, which is to say blacks. Such efforts included:
Reducing the number of voting machines in black urban neighborhoods to levels below the 2000 election and even the 2004 primary elections, leading to lines that were in some cases up to 10 hours long. More than a few voters finding themselves trapped in such lines gave up and left without ever casting their vote.

Attempting to reject registrations that had been filled out on paper that, according to an archaic Ohio law, was not of the right weight -- a blatant attempt to invalidate tens of thousands of new registrations pouring in from voter registration groups who had been signing up predominantly minority and young new voters.
Exploiting the discretion granted to his office in determining which provisional ballots would be counted. One of the great failures of the 2002 Help America Vote Act is that it does not offer guidelines as to which of the provisional ballots mandated to be made available should ultimately be counted, allowing officials like Blackwell the opportunity to screw with the vote with meaningless reasons for rejection like failing to indicate one’s birthday on the application or voting in the right county but wrong precinct.
That Blackwell is an African-American is one of the tragic realities we blacks have had to deal with this election season (actually, he seems not to be patterning himself so much after Harris as after Clarence Thomas -- how can I use my power to make life worse for my own people?) But it also serves to remind us that the motivation for such behavior is rooted in the partisan advantage it confers upon the GOP, and to Blackwell (who has made no secret of his political ambitions), party is thicker than blood -- or conscience.Meanwhile, Florida proved in 2004 that it wasn't quite ready to give up the disenfranchisement crown without a fight. First, the state resurrected its felon purge list, then tried to hide it from the eyes of media investigators. Once they got access to the list, it was instantly clear why the state was being so secretive: the list yet again contained the names of thousands of innocent voters, a disproportionately high number of them African-American and a disproportionately low number Hispanic (who, in Florida, tend to vote Republican). It turns out that Governor Jeb Bush had been warned by a state official before the list was released that it was faulty, but he, not surprisingly, chose to ignore the warning.Then, just days before the election, BBC reporter Greg Palast uncovered what was clearly designed to be a list of predominantly black voters from Jacksonville whose registrations were being challenged in one of those ballot security programs. The list was found in the possession of the state Bush re-election campaign director.Plain and simple, the GOP has declared war on black voters. The bugle has sounded for all of us on the left to join the counteroffensive. Republican hacks shut down the counting of votes in Miami-Dade in 2000 by literally storming the facility. We need to be prepared to act with similar passion in defense of minority voting rights. And we need to press our elected officials to get on the ball and address the serious shortcomings in our elections laws which make the disempowerment of black voters so easy and inviting. (These shortcomings are detailed in my new book, Ghosts of Florida: Making Elections Fair for Blacks).Everyone who is concerned about the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates must concern him/herself with ensuring that African-American voters have full, free, and fair access to the electoral process. The alternative is to risk permanent dominance by the right.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Russia's Putin Calls U.S. Policy 'Dictatorial'

2004-12-03T11:15:00.000-08:00

Russia's Putin Calls U.S. Policy 'Dictatorial'
By Douglas Busvine
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday of pursuing a dictatorial foreign policy and said mounting violence could derail progress toward bringing peace and democracy to Iraq

Putin also criticized the West for setting double-standards on terrorism, pursuing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iraq while giving refuge to "terrorists" demanding Chechnya independence from Russia.
The Kremlin leader's tough remarks came on a visit to former Cold War ally India, where he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a joint call for greater cooperation in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.
Unilateralism increased risks that weapons of mass destruction might fall into the hands of terrorists, and would stoke regional conflicts, Putin said in a hard-hitting speech to an invited audience.
"Even if dictatorship is packaged in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be able to solve systemic problems," Putin said. "It may even make them worse."
Putin did not name the United States, but clearly had the administration of President Bush in mind when he said policies "based on the barrack-room principles of a unipolar world appear to be extremely dangerous."
Russia was a vocal opponent of the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein but has since joined efforts to rebuild Iraq's war-hit infrastructure. Moscow's assent was key to a recent Paris Club deal to write off most of Iraq's foreign debts.
MOUNTING VIOLENCE
Putin said he was worried by mounting violence and loss of life linked to operations by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, and said these may disrupt plans to hold elections now scheduled for Jan. 30, 2005.
Again the Russian leader was not specific, but he appeared to be referring to the U.S. operation to crush die-hard insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
"This may put a question mark over holding of fair and democratic elections in Iraq early next year," he said.
Putin's speech echoed comments he made earlier to an Indian newspaper in which he said the war had turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists.
"As had been the case with Afghanistan, Iraq turned into a major hotbed of a terrorist threat, a firing ground and incubator for militants," he told the Hindu newspaper.
He rounded on Britain for giving asylum to Akhmed Zakayev and the United States for giving refuge to Ilyas Akhmadov, spokesmen for Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov.
"Providing safe haven and support to terrorists, their accomplices and sponsors actually serves as a justification and, indeed, an encouragement of their crimes," Putin said.
Both men deny being terrorists. Maskhadov, regarded in the West as a moderate, led Chechnya to brief de facto independence during the 1990s before Putin ordered Russian troops to retake the turbulent North Caucasus province.
Putin, who backed India's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat, said he had found in India a strong ally against terrorism.
"Terrorists benefit from the conflict of civilizations and religions," he told the hand-picked New Delhi audience. "Let it be known that our multi-confessional and multi-ethnic states will not be broken up."

Bush Heads For The Bunker

2004-12-01T18:42:00.000-08:00

Any hope that Bush & Co. might tack toward the center is gone. All signs points to more extremism in policy, more police-state tactics at home, more death and destruction abroad.On what do I base this gloomy, but - given the atrocious record of the Bush Administration over the past four years - not surprising assessment?

FIRST CLUE: Bush declaring, with a straight face, that the election gave him a "mandate," and that "the American people" gave him a "broad, nationwide victory" and want him to complete the initiatives he begun in his first term. That shouldn't have surprised us. After all, this is the guy who claimed a mandate in 2000, when he lost the popular vote and was installed in the White House by five conservative members of the Supreme Court. This time, Bush claimed his razor-thin popular vote victory of 1% as his "mandate" - even though in the 2004 vote, more people voted against a president than ever before in U.S. history, and even in many of the "red" states that he appears to have won, he barely eked out a majority. In short, the country gives evidence that it remains split right down the middle, mainly along the rural/big cities line. (As I write this, as a result of numerous statistical anomalies, recounts are ongoing in key states, and there are legal challenges to be dealt with.) It's the same old delusion and denial. If Bush told the truth to himself, that half the American population voted against him, he'd have to take them into account when considering policy. But by pretending he has this "mandate" from a "broad, nationwide victory," it's to hell with the losers and full speed ahead.

SECOND CLUE: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Feith are still employed. These, along with Cheney, are the neo-con ideologues driving our foreign/military policy. No matter that virtually every one of their theories has led to disastrous consequences and continues to do injury to the long-term national interests of the United States; those are Bush's boys and he's sticking with them.

THIRD CLUE: Colin Powell is gone, and Bush did not try to dissuade him from leaving. Even though in public Powell permitted himself to be used and abused by the White House, behind the scenes he led the battle against the worst of the neo-con madness. As the closest thing the Bush Administration had to a voice of reality-based moderation, he could have chosen to stay and fight; but, finally, he couldn't take any more, and the Colinectomy was performed.

FOURTH CLUE: Porter Goss, easily rollable by the White House, is the new head of the CIA. This guy's job is to bring the CIA under control and in the hip pocket of Bush & Co. Hence the current purge of those deemed insufficiently supportive of Bush policy, and Goss' demanding of what amounts to 100% loyalty oaths to The Leader from the remaining agents and officers of that agency. If you're not with us, you're against us.

FIFTH CLUE: Alberto Gonzales, a longtime Bush toady, is nominated to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. He's Ashcroft with a more pleasant demeanor, which makes him even more scary. He'll do whatever needs to be done to protect Bush from legal attack, and to expand his powers as close to dictatorship as can be arranged. Gonzales as White House counsel developed the "legal" rationales to justify torture, and assertion of authoritarian powers by the commander in chief during "wartime."

SIXTH CLUE: Condoleezza Rice is nominated to succeed Powell as Secretary of State. Stated as baldly as possible, she's an incompetent as National Security Advisor - apparently in charge of nothing, since she constantly claimed to know nothing about what was going on in various scandal areas - and a liar who may have committed perjury before the 9/11 Commission. As with Gonzales and Goss, she has no independent constituency and owes total fealty to her boss.

SEVENTH CLUE: Stephen Hadley will be taking over Condi's job as National Security Advisor. Hadley, another Bush loyalist, is Rice's deputy, who may have been involved in covering up various scandals, including "Niger uranium," pre-9/11 knowledge, and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

EIGHTH CLUE: House majority leader Tom DeLay, who on Capitol Hill looks after the interests of Bush and his neo-con advisers, is being legally protected in his job should he be indicted by a grand jury for multiple crimes committed in Texas.

NINTH CLUE: With Gonzales moving to the Justice Department, thus protecting Bush & Co. business from that flank, Bush has appointed another Texas friend, Harriet Miers, to take Gonzales' job as White House Counsel, to protect Bush from that redoubt. She is another Bush loyalist, as is Margaret Spellings, another Texas crony who owes her career to Bush.

TENTH CLUE: Though Bush pretended to offer an olive branch of comity to the Democratic opposition ("I will reach out to every one who shares our goals"), what he really said was our way or the highway. The man who once claimed he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider, continues to drive his neo-con juggernaut over any and all those who oppose him. Tight Circle in the Bunker In short, what we have here is a retreat to the family bunker by the co-conspirators who make up Bush & Co.'s power-at-any-price family. Outside his tight inner circle of toadies and fellow delusionists (Rove, Rummy, Wolfy, Perle, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Goss, DeLay, Hadley, et al.), Bush finds the world unfriendly, even hostile.

That's why he was so very uncomfortable during his first debate with Kerry. Bush insulates himself so tightly from the real world - has no curiosity, doesn't read newspapers, surrounds himself with sycophants and yes-men, doesn't want to run into anybody unvetted for loyalty to him - that he appeared stunned, insulted, outraged that somebody had the temerity to attack his policies to his face and point out his gross errors of judgment. So Bush's reshuffling of his Cabinet and top advisors is designed to insulate him even more from reality, and ensure that nobody, NOBODY, will question what is about to come down. And what might that be? Making War on Terror and Citizens There are no real secrets here either. In foreign policy, under the always-useful "war on terrorism" slogan, the neo-cons will re-emerge from the pre-election closet and start moving again to alter the geopolitical map of the oil-rich Middle East, bringing "democracy" and "free market capitalism" to many Arab countries, by suasion if possible (shock & awe threats), but by the bayonet and bomb if necessary. The possibility of re-starting the military draft slots in here.

Iraq will continue to be a running sore, but the Bush & Co. desire is still there to maintain a huge military presence in that country and to control the oil fields as long as possible. Israel/Palestine will get some attention, but a just and lasting peace is doubtful unless Bush were seriously to rein in Ariel Sharon, and that is not going to happen. In domestic policy, under the always-useful "war on terrorism" justification, there will be even more crackdowns on dissent, including on the Internet; moves to gain even tighter control over the judicial system through appointment of more hard-right judges and justices; more giveaways to logging and mining interests over environmental protections; further attempts to eat away at social entitlement programs like Head Start, Social Security, Medicare, by privatizing as much of it as possible, thus aiding corporate benefactors; making permanent the huge tax cuts for the wealthy; paving the way for the utter and complete destruction of the Democrats as a party of true opposition; and continuing to use the corrupted balloting and vote-counting system as a backup.

The aim is at least another decade or two of hard-right, one-party rule. Unless the Democrats can get their political strategy together, and devote the funds and energy necessary to build an infrastructure for success (including more think-tanks, media outlets, training of younger up-and-comers, etc.), there will be little in the way of stopping the Bush forces from those goals. (Unless, of course, Iraq totally collapses, and/or the scandals roiling just below the surface - 9/11 pre-knowledge, CIA agent Valerie Plame's outing, the authorization of torture, Enron/Halliburton, Iraq incompetence, etc. - pop up and bite Bush & Co. in the new year.) The situation can't be any more clear. We are in deep you-know-what and we're not going to be able to climb our way out unless we get ourselves organized properly (including the possible development of a viable, win-oriented third party if the Dems can't do it), come up with the creative tactics and strategies and candidates to create a true and effective opposition, and spend lots of money to build that oppositional infrastructure. In short, how and whether we liberals/progressives/moderate-conservatives survive and grow as an effective opposition is up to us. Each of us.

Copyright 2004, by Bernard Weiner

The Bush delusions: Successful at incompetence'

2004-12-01T11:23:00.000-08:00

Paul Craig Roberts: 'The Bush delusions: Successful at incompetence'Posted on Wednesday, December 01

By Paul Craig Roberts, CounterPunchIs the Bush administration competent? There is enough information at hand on which to base an objective opinion.On the eve of President Bush's second term, the US economy has fewer jobs than when Bush was inaugurated four years ago. During Bush's first term, the US economy was unable to create jobs in both export and import-competitive sectors. The formerly powerful US jobs machine has been allowed to run down to the point that jobs can only be created in nontradable domestic services. The service jobs that have been created are too few in number to offset the loss of manufacturing and knowledge jobs. Unemployed manufacturing workers, US software engineers, computer programers, and IT workers number in the hundreds of thousands.During Bush's first term, the value of the US dollar declined dramatically in relation to other traded currencies. The extraordinary diminution in the dollar's exchange value threatens its role as the world's reserve currency. If the dollar loses its role as reserve currency, there will be catastrophic consequences for US living standards and superpower status.The decline in the dollar's exchange value has failed to reduce the US trade deficit, because the Bush administration permits China to peg its currency to the dollar. As the dollar declines, China's currency declines with it, thus maintaining China's advantage in US markets while China gains greater advantage in all other markets.

Because China pegs its currency to the dollar, the dollar's decline has not reduced the advantage of outsourcing to China.The ink in the federal budget is as red as that in the trade account. A country with a $440 billion budget deficit and a $600 billion trade deficit is not financially positioned to start a war in the Middle East. Instead of dealing with serious economic problems at home, Bush marched off to a gratuitous war.Bush's invasion of Iraq is one of the greatest strategic blunders in history. The Bush administration assumed that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be a "cakewalk," because the indigenous population would welcome and support Americans as liberators. The reality is that all available US troops are tied down by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents who have the support of the Iraqi people. The US is so short of military manpower that it has been forced to call up the reserves and the National Guard, to keep troops deployed who have served their time in uniform, and, now, to call up men in their 50s who have not been in uniform for 20 years.Bush's invasion has turned not only Iraqis but all of the Middle East against the US. Where there were no terrorists and no support for terrorists, there are now tens of thousands of terrorists.

America's puppet regimes in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are endangered by the anti-Americanism that is engulfing the Middle East. Like Hitler at Stalingrad, Bush cannot recognize the danger. Unable to occupy Iraq, Bush plans to expand the war to Iran and Syria. The identical Bush officials who lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons or weapons programs now lie about Iran having nuclear weapons or weapons programs. Immune to evidence, the Bush administration is delusional and capable of horrendous miscalculation. The flowers with which the US Department of Defense said our troops would be greeted in Iraq turned out to be bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, and roadside bombs. On November 22, the US military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, reported that its doctors have treated 20,802 US troops from Iraq. Few of the injured have been able to return to their units. That is twice the casualty figure reported by the Pentagon and comprises 15% of the US army in Iraq. In exchange, since the invasion the US has killed some 100,000 Iraqi civilians and perhaps 2,000 insurgents.

The ultimate test of competence is ability to admit mistakes. This the Bush administration cannot do. Steadfastly denying any mistake, Bush is promoting those responsible for the Iraq carnage to higher office. Will four more years of Bush terminate America's superpower status?When Bush attacked Iraq, he jettisoned a half century of American foreign policy. He unilaterally threw diplomacy and allies out the door to invade a country that had done nothing to the US despite suffering a decade of American bombing and embargoes that, according to the UN, killed 500,000 Iraqi children.Indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians and torture in US military prisons have destroyed the virtuous image that Bush claims for US aggression. Not content to cause turmoil in the Middle East, the Bush administration is arrogantly and foolishly stirring the pot in Ukraine, interfering in an election in Russia's sphere of influence. In just four years, Bush has created a new image of America as a reckless hypocrite that lectures others about democracy, while engaging in electoral fraud in Ohio and Florida and imposing a puppet government on Iraq at the point of bayonets.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.Reprinted from CounterPunch:http://counterpunch.org/roberts11302004.html

Senate GOP set to go 'nuclear' over judges

2004-11-30T08:13:00.000-08:00

judgesPosted on Tuesday, November 30 @ 09:55:59 EST
By Chuck Lindell, Barre Montpelier Times ArgusWASHINGTON — Senate Republicans, boldly confident after their Nov. 2 electoral success, are preparing to end months of frustrating delays over President Bush's judicial picks by hitting Democrats with Republican's ultimate legislative weapon.But the Republican threat to neuter long-cherished filibuster rules by steamrolling Democrats is risky — so potentially destructive that Capitol Hill calls it the "nuclear option." Democratic retaliation would be swift and long-lasting, raising the prospect of escalating clashes in a body that prides itself on gentility and cool judgment.Even so, Republican leaders are signaling their intent to go nuclear in word and deed."We're going to use every tool we possibly can," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who also unveiled a kinder, gentler phrase for the potential rules change: the "constitutional option.""Republicans are loaded for bear, spoiling for a confrontation with Senate Democrats on judicial appointments," said Norm Ornstein, an expert on Congress for the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. "For a lot of conservatives, this has really become an issue that leaves them passionate."Democrats, with a new leader after the election defeat of Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., have yet to form a filibuster strategy for the 109th Congress, which convenes in January. But early indications show continued passion for blocking nominees considered too conservative, including Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen."I think they would be making a huge mistake to try to mess with the rules," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who will replace Daschle as minority leader. "My position is this: 203 federal judges were approved — 203. Ten were turned down. Does that require any kind of a nuclear option? I would certainly think not."Entrenchment by both sides has Ornstein expecting a confrontation exploding in the Senate, especially when two powerful undercurrents are added to the mix — a likely Supreme Court nomination next year, and jockeying for the 2008 presidential primaries.John Pitney Jr., author of "The Art of Political Warfare," notes that a large fraction of senators have run for president or are considering a bid, including Frist, who would need a victory on judges to prove his effectiveness to likely Republican voters.Because all appointments must be resubmitted when a new Congress convenes, the first move will be up to Bush.Based on the president's track record, Ornstein expects to see most of the 10 filibustered judges renominated to the circuit courts of appeal — one step below the Supreme Court. New nominees also will be scrutinized."He can up the ante here or reduce the temperature, which will make a difference in terms of the prominence of the issue," Ornstein said. "I think it's going to be big because I have a hard time imagining Bush not pushing the envelope on these nominees."Even renominated judges must begin the process anew, sitting through grueling hearings before the Judiciary Committee, receiving approval from the panel's Republican majority, then waiting to see whether if Democrats filibuster on the Senate floor. If they do, Republicans likely will counter with two measures before considering the nuclear option.One would mandate a timetable for judicial nominations — probably 30 days to hold a hearing, followed by 30-day deadlines for a committee vote and a floor vote.The second gradually would reduce the number of senators necessary to halt a filibuster with each successive vote, from the current 60-vote threshold to 57, then 54, then a simple majority of 51.Both options were introduced last Congress as resolutions, but Republicans chose not to press forward. Next Congress, however, they'll have a stronger majority with 55 seats, up from 51, improving their odds of success but still not enough to stop Democrats if they choose to filibuster the resolutions.The nuclear option would be a last resort if other measures fail, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who will likely play a central role in the debate as a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution subcommittee.Cornyn argues that judicial filibusters unconstitutionally require a 60-vote supermajority to approve nominees, not the simple majority mandated in the Constitution."Democrats must stop not only for the good of the Senate but out of respect to the president, who received almost 60 million votes on November 2, and out of respect for the Constitution itself," Cornyn said. "No group of senators has the right, no minority has the right to tyrannize the majority of the Senate."The nuclear option would begin with Frist taking the Senate floor to seek a ruling from the presiding officer, likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney in his role as Senate president, to determine whether judicial filibusters violate the Constitution.Cheney's affirmative response would initiate a vote on changing the filibuster rule which also would be subject to a filibuster unless Cheney over- rules the Senate parliamentarian on whether normal debate rules apply. Then, only 51 votes would be needed for approval.Another option includes changing Senate guidelines to disallow judicial filibusters, which also would require the Senate president to declare that normal filibuster rules do not apply, so 51 votes could prevail. Changing Senate rules should occur early in the session to gain legitimacy, some Republicans say, making this option potentially less appealing.Either way, it would be pure power politics, leaving Democrats unable to respond. Other Senate rules, however, would give the minority party plenty of opportunity to express its anger in the months, and years, to follow.The Senate operates on "unanimous consent," meaning that nothing moves forward without approval of all 100 senators, except when party leaders negotiate specific agreements. In effect, each senator has the power to halt or delay movement on bills, resolutions and nominees."You'll get Democrats denying unanimous consent on a great number of things," Ornstein said. "They'll pick and choose those places, so there's a price to be paid."Republicans said they think that voters would turn against Democrats as obstructionist, but those concerned with the breakdown of comity in Congress are watching the unfolding drama with trepidation."The use of the nuclear option would make history, and not very happy history," Pitney said. "As John McCain (R-Ariz.) has already pointed out, someday the Republicans will be in the minority again, and they wouldn't be too happy if Democrats exercised the nuclear option on them."It's too early to tell whether Republicans are trotting out the nuclear option as a bargaining tactic, perhaps to persuade Democrats to release several nominees from their filibuster. It also is unclear whether enough old guard Republicans would join the effort, but Frist improved his odds with at least one longtime senator.Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fighting to become the next Judiciary Committee chairman against vocal opposition from conservative groups, issued a Nov. 18 letter promising full support for Bush's judicial nominees.Opposition to Specter had raged over his postelection comments that appeared to warn Bush against naming anti-abortion judges. The letter, capping a long week of television appearances and private meetings with senators, included an acknowledgement that changing filibuster rules might become necessary.Only then did Frist embrace Specter's bid for chairman.Perhaps more telling of the political climate was a joint statement later issued by Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, that dispensed with the walking-on-eggshells approach that senators typically take when discussing a colleague."We appreciate Sen. Specter's commitment, and we intend to hold him to it," the Texans said of the 24-year senator. "We are determined to end this (filibuster) practice and return the Senate to its traditional roots."© 2004 Times ArgusFrom The Barre Montpelier Times Argus:http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041128/NEWS/411280356/1002/NEWS01

HW tO TAKE TO BACK A STOLEN ELECTION

2004-11-30T08:01:00.000-08:00

How to Take Back a Stolen Election

November 30th, 2004 : Courtesy of CommonDreams.org:
“Never again!” says the slogan in an email I received from an activist friend. “Never again will we allow a stolen election in the USA!”
But how are we going to stop it?
The major American political parties have an answer - it’s already working for them in the Ukraine - but it’s very much a sword that can cut two ways.
Interestingly, it was first used in the US.
On December 4, 2000, in time to change the outcome of the Electoral College vote, Greg Palast published an article in Salon.com, made into a BBC television documentary shortly thereafter, that laid out solid evidence of massive electoral fraud in Florida, perpetrated against the majority-Democratic-voting African American community by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. Without this fraud, Gore would have easily carried the state.
Even more glaring, a consortium of news organizations found and reported on the front page of The New York Times (and other papers) on 12 September 2001, that in Florida “…a statewide recount – could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his [Gore’s] way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.” (The Times apparently chose to bury this fact - that Gore actually won the 2000 election - in the 15th paragraph and behind a misleading headline because the nation had been attacked on 9/11 the day before.)
Not only was the election of 2000 stolen by the Bush brothers, but it was proven by the later statewide recount that - even after Jeb’s knocking thousands of African Americans off the rolls - Gore still would have won Florida had all the votes been counted.
This was outrageous news, enough to bring people into the streets. And there were demonstrations - loud and angry ones. But they were round-the-clock in front of Al Gore’s VP residence in Washington DC (shouting with bullhorns “Get out of Dick Cheney’s house!"), outside (and often within) vote-counting headquarters’ in Florida, and entirely composed of Republicans.
Where were the protesting Democrats? Other than those in a few of Florida’s African American communities and the Congressional Black Caucus, they were largely invisible. If Democrats and progressives had taken to the streets in mass numbers nationwide that November and December, it’s entirely probable that the Supreme Court would have backed off and allowed a statewide recount to continue, and Al Gore would have been president for the past four years, instead of George W. Bush.
Ironically, the Democratic Party knows how to highlight election fraud and start national movements to bring down administrations that try to steal elections. A Party-affiliated group has helped do it four times in the past four years.
But not in Ohio, Florida, or anywhere else in the USA.
Instead, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman) has joined up with a similar organization affiliated with the Republican Party (the International Republican Institute - John McCain, Chairman), other NGOs, and US government agencies to support the use of exit polls and statistical analyses to challenge national elections in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
In three of those four nations they succeeded in not only mounting a national challenge, but in reversing the outcomes of elections.
The election reversals were accomplished by funding local groups - most made up of a core of activists and college students - who worked to topple regimes that had rigged their own re-elections.
As Ian Traynor - one of the finest investigative reporters working in the world today - notes in a 26 November 2004 article in The Guardian titled “US Campaign Behind the Turmoil in Kiev,” “the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes.”
The campaign to unseat corrupt regimes is funded by groups affiliated with both the Democratic and Republican parties, Traynor notes, as well as the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development, and non-governmental organizations including George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the late Eleanor Roosevelt’s organization Freedom House (a group whose board of directors is now chaired by the notorious former CIA director R. James Woolsey).
Woolsey’s participation aside, Traynor’s report implies that this coalition of political, governmental, and philanthropic groups is more interested in promoting the will of the local people than in propping up regimes friendly to the US. One of the four candidates they’ve supported in the past four years was even openly anti-US (Kostunica in Serbia). The common denominator among the nations targeted is that in all four there was widespread evidence the regimes in power were planning to steal the elections.
One of the keys to making the program work is tight organization and planning before the election begins. The resistance movement is carefully branded with a single-phrase slogan such as “He’s Finished” or “High Time,” and an uncomplicated logo is designed - like the fist used in Serbia or the ticking clock used in Ukraine - that’s easily reproduced on posters and stencil-spray-painted in public places.
On Election Day, Traynor reports, the apparatus springs into action. Their main tool is a nationwide set of exit polls along with election observers supplied by credible organizations like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE - which monitored the 2004 US elections and raised questions about non-transparent electronic voting machines). The exit poll results are released to the public before the official results, putting the regime in power in the difficult position of being reactive rather than proactive in declaring victory.
Because in each of these nations the media - radio, TV, and newspapers - are either controlled by, beholden to, or owned by supporters of the regime in power, the disparity between the exit polls and the official election result is trumpeted through non-traditional media like the internet, local activist groups, and mass rallies, until a critical mass is achieved, forcing the mainstream (regime-friendly) media to cover the story.
At the same time, nations who claim the ideal of free, fair, and transparent elections are encouraged to speak out, further inflaming the issue. This is no accident, of course - Traynor reports that the US government itself invested over $44 million in challenging the results of the Serbian election, and is estimated to have put $14 million into supporting groups challenging the recent Ukrainian election.
Thus, we have the irony of US Secretary of State Colin Powell saying of the Ukrainian election: “We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election. … We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results.”
In many ways, such campaigns are exactly what Republicans did in 2000, when they organized an airlift of aides from Tom DeLay’s office in Washington DC to riot in the Florida offices where votes were being recounted. That Ukraine-like guerilla theater led to national media coverage and the intervention of the US Supreme Court. The theater of protest - most Americans thought the angry people banging on the vote-counting windows were Floridians and didn’t realize most had been flown in from Washington DC - became its own story and helped forge public pressure to shut down the Gore campaign’s attempt to determine the real Florida count. It was also so effective at grabbing the headlines that it eclipsed the Greg Palast’s scoop showing criminal and widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida.
Here we are again, in 2004, with another dubious election.
And, although evidence of fraud and vote rigging in the 2004 US election is mounting today, there was no widespread mobilization like the ones we encouraged in other nations or saw in Florida in 2000. Thus, it’s extremely unlikely national institutions like the mainstream media, Congress, or the Supreme Court will seriously challenge or even expose to the general public the many deficiencies of this election.
Because the Democratic party and progressive activists failed to plan a PR response to election-rigging in Florida and Ohio (among other states), such efforts (and some damning and shocking new revelations) are now being carried in “new media” like the internet by folks like Bev Harris, Greg Palast, and Bob Fitrakis, and in foreign media like New Zealand’s “The Scoop", and the BBC.
Many Democrats and progressives believe now is the time for national advocacy groups to organize an effort similar to the one our nation has been promulgating in the former Soviet states and the Republicans used in Florida in 2000. The blueprint is laid out in Ian Traynor’s article in The Guardian at www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360236,00.html, and the template is both simple, straightforward, and already demonstrated to work.
The next national elections will be held in the United States in 2006, and there’s a lesson for us in the 1972 midterm elections.
Although Richard Nixon won a landslide re-election that year, carrying every state except Massachusetts, he was out of office within 18 months because the House and Senate were in Democratic hands and Senator Sam Irvin was able to proceed with an investigation of Nixon’s crimes while in office. Opposition control of Congress is about the only way to hold a president accountable: Republican control of Congress led to the impeachments of Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton. (And when a President appoints his own attorney as the nation’s head prosecutor - Attorney General - it becomes virtually impossible to prosecute the President outside of the House or Senate.)
Thus, the first key to returning America to multiparty rule and re-opening the political process will be in electing progressive Democrats (and Independents like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders) to the US House and Senate in 2006.
But first we must prepare to take on a Republican machine that has already corrupted the electoral process in the past three elections, and knows how to “pull a Ukraine” in any state at any time with single a phone call to Jim Baker or Tom DeLay. In a preemptory move, Republicans are now calling for an end to exit polls in the USA because, as RNC Chairman and former Enron lobbyist Ed Gillespie noted on November 4th, “In 2000 the exit data was wrong on Election Day, in 2002 the exit returns were wrong on Election Day, and in 2004, the exit data were wrong on Election Day - all three times, by the way, in a way that skewed against Republicans and had a dispiriting effect on Republican voters across the country.”
Each of those three “skewed” elections was an opportunity for national mobilization.
In 2000 it could have been to highlight the removal from voting rolls in Florida of tens of thousands of African American Democrats. The 2002 election could have revealed the “trade secret” software running non-paper-trail voting machines in Georgia that defied the polls and threw out Max Cleland (helping establish Republican control of the Senate in 2002). And the 2004 election could have again raised questions about voting machines, Florida purge rolls moving to other states, dirty tricks (phone calls to registered Democrats telling them their polling places had changed, etc.), and, as Fitrakis has documented, disclosed patterns of precinct and machine placements in Ohio (and other states) that caused thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of Ohio Kerry voters to give up and leave 10+ hour lines because they had to go to work or pick kids up from school.
Some will suggest this is a dangerous strategy because Republicans will simply organize their own exit polls, PR machine, and national mobilization. To them, I’d point out that this is already happening.
Republicans are getting ready, and have known since 2000 how well this can work in America. Without a countervailing grass-roots but national response, we’ll continue to move toward a Stalinist type of state, with single-party rule, “purges” of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, increasing limits on civil liberties, and widespread cynicism about politics leading to increasing nonparticipation in the process. .
As generations of activists have taught us, we can’t wait around for politicians to fix a corrupted political system. It’s going to take - as the Ukrainians are now showing us - involved and active citizens to make this happen, and that requires an organizational framework to cut through the political and media fog.
And now is the time to begin.

Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock in Jerusalem

2004-11-29T09:28:00.000-08:00

Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock in Jerusalem The Guardian November 29, 2004

By Chris McGreal Of all the revelations that have rocked the Israeli army over the past week, perhaps none disturbed the public so much as the video footage of soldiers forcing a Palestinian man to play his violin.
The incident was not as shocking as the recording of an Israeli officer pumping the body of a 13-year-old girl full of bullets and then saying he would have shot her even if she had been three years old.
Nor was it as nauseating as the pictures in an Israeli newspaper of ultra-orthodox soldiers mocking Palestinian corpses by impaling a man's head on a pole and sticking a cigarette in his mouth.
But the matter of the violin touched on something deeper about the way Israelis see themselves, and their conflict with the Palestinians.
The violinist, Wissam Tayem, was on his way to a music lesson near Nablus when he said an Israeli officer ordered him to "play something sad" while soldiers made fun of him. After several minutes, he was told he could pass.
It may be that the soldiers wanted Mr Tayem to prove he was indeed a musician walking to a lesson because, as a man under 30, he would not normally have been permitted through the checkpoint.

But after the incident was videotaped by Jewish women peace activists, it prompted revulsion among Israelis not normally perturbed about the treatment of Arabs.
The rightwing Army Radio commentator Uri Orbach found the incident disturbingly reminiscent of Jewish musicians forced to provide background music to mass murder. "What about Majdanek?" he asked, referring to the Nazi extermination camp.
The critics were not drawing a parallel between an Israeli roadblock and a Nazi camp. Their concern was that Jewish suffering had been diminished by the humiliation of Mr Tayem.
Yoram Kaniuk, author of a book about a Jewish violinist forced to play for a concentration camp commander, wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the soldiers responsible should be put on trial "not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust".

"Of all the terrible things done at the roadblocks, this story is one which negates the very possibility of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If [the military] does not put these soldiers on trial we will have no moral right to speak of ourselves as a state that rose from the Holocaust," he wrote.
"If we allow Jewish soldiers to put an Arab violinist at a roadblock and laugh at him, we have succeeded in arriving at the lowest moral point possible. Our entire existence in this Arab region was justified, and is still justified, by our suffering; by Jewish violinists in the camps."
Others took a broader view by drawing a link between the routine dehumanising treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the desecration of dead bodies and what looks very much like the murder of a terrified 13-year-old Palestinian girl by an army officer in Gaza.

Israelis put great store in a belief that their army is "the most moral in the world" because it says it adheres to a code of "the purity of arms". There is rarely much public questioning of the army's routine explanation that Palestinian civilians who have been killed had been "caught in crossfire", or that children are shot because they are used as cover by fighters.
But the public's confidence has been shaken by the revelations of the past week. The audio recording of the shooting of the 13-year-old, Iman al-Hams, prompted much soul searching, although the revulsion appears to be as much at the Israeli officer firing a stream of bullets into her lifeless body as the killing itself. Some soldiers told Israeli papers that their mothers had sought assurances that they did not do that kind of thing.
One Israeli peace group, the Arik Institute, took out large newspaper adverts to plead for "Jewish patriots" to "open your eyes and look around" at the suffering of Palestinians.
The incidents prompted the army to call in all commanders from the rank of lieutenant-colonel to emphasise the importance of maintaining the "purity of arms" code.
The army's critics say the real problem is not the behaviour of soldiers on the ground but the climate of impunity that emanates from the top.

While the officer responsible for killing Iman al-Hams has been charged with relatively minor offences, and the soldiers who forced the violinist to play were ticked off for being "insensitive", the only troops who were swiftly punished for violating regulations last week were some who posed naked in the snow for a photograph. They were dismissed from their unit.
Last week the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem criticised what it described as a "culture of impunity" within the army. The group says at least 1,656 Palestinian non-combatants have been killed during the intifada, including 529 children.
"To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian," it said.
"The combination of rules of engagement that encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers together with the climate of impunity results in a clear and very troubling message about the value the Israeli military places on Palestinian life."

Ex FBI/CIA Agents Ready To Blow Bush 911 Cover Story

2004-11-29T08:47:00.000-08:00

Ex FBI/CIA Agents Ready To Blow Bush 911 Cover StoryA Conservative Christian Republican Says Listen To Whistleblower Sibel D. EdmondsBy Karl W. B. SchwarzOnline Journal Contributing Writer11-21-4

The following is an open letter to Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New York and William Casey, Chief Investigator for the Attorney General?s Office. In fact, this was hand delivered to Mr. Spitzer's office before it was published as was a three-part expose I have written titled Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble. That three-part article will break soon and is in the hands of investigators at this time.

Sibel D. Edmonds was one of the many multilingual translators hired by our FBI to help track down terrorists and anticipate their next moves. At least, that was the plan and the purported "job description."

Once Sibel was working inside the FBI she uncovered something, tried to go public with it when Attorney General John Ashcroft and her FBI superiors would not, and the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft team slapped a gag order on her so you could not hear what this lady has to say. What she has to say directly relates to 9-11 and it totally disputes the Bush Mythology they want Americans to believe.

So listen up, America. Here is what Sibel uncovered - she found "drug trafficking, money laundering, foreign names and American names directly involved in the financing of the 9-11 attacks on WTC (World Trade Center) and the Pentagon." It was not the Saudis, folks. Americans were involved and Bush does not want you to know that. That exposes the Bush Mythology as the lie that it is.

Some of the names on our list are also on the list that Sibel Edmonds knows and found inside the FBI. We came at the problem through telecom fraud, international securities fraud and kept finding trails that led to the Caspian Basin, Pakistan, and former BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce) scam artists. Some of you might remember BCCI and that many called it Bank of Crooks and Criminals International and did so for good cause.

There was something else "odd" about what Sibel Edmonds found. The facts did not surface out of counter-terrorism (Richard Clarke's group); they surfaced out of ongoing investigations by the FBI, some of which date back to 1998.

The following was sent to me and is appearing here with Sibel's permission. As an American citizen, you need to read it carefully, think, and understand that for the past 38 months you have been lied to by the Bush administration, the world has been lied to by the Bush administration, and that 9-11 happened for a reason that will soon be made known.

You also need to understand that the last thing the 9-11 Commission was looking for was The Truth. Eight of the ten 9-11 Commissioners have so many conflicts of interests, are directly or indirectly benefiting from Bush defense, homeland security and energy policies, they should have never been named to the 9-11 Commission. Their specialties on the 9-11 Commission were not the truth; they were "omission by intent" and "whitewashing."

You also need to come to grips with the fact that it is both sides of the aisle in Washington that are perpetuating this myth that they want all Americans and the rest of the world to believe. My next article will expose the conflicts of the eight 9-11 commissioners that should have barred them from even being considered for the job, much less accepting the appointments to be involved in a cover-up.

Here is the letter that Sibel D. Edmonds and 24 other former federal employees signed and are prepared to tell all to a grand jury. I have over 200 former federal employees, with some overlap on the signatories below, also willing to tell all to a grand jury.

Date: September 13, 2004

To The Congress of The United States:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States ended its report stating that "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate." In this spirit, we the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. We thus call upon Congress to refrain from narrow political considerations and to apply brakes to the race to implement the commission recommendations. It is not too late for Congress to break with the practice of limiting testimony to that from politicians and top-layer career bureaucrats-many with personal reputations to defend and institutional equities to protect. Instead, use this unique opportunity to introduce salutary reform, an opportunity that must not be squandered by politically driven haste.

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the Commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. Serious problems and shortcomings within government agencies likewise were reported to the Commission but were not included in the report. The report simply does not get at key problems within the intelligence, aviation security, and law enforcement communities. The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations.

We believe that one of the primary purposes of the Commission was to establish accountability; that to do so is essential to understanding the failures that led to 9/11, and to prescribe needed changes. However, the Commission in its report holds no one accountable, stating instead "our aim has not been to assign individual blame." That is to play the political game, and it shows that the goal of achieving unanimity overrode one of the primary purposes of this Commission's establishment. When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by "lack of imagination" or brought about by ordinary "human error." Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States. The report deliberately ignores officials and civil servants who were, and still are, clearly negligent and/or derelict in their duties to the nation. If these individuals are protected rather than held accountable, the mindset that enabled 9/11 will persist, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy are added, and no matter how much money is poured into the agencies. Character counts. Personal integrity, courage, and professionalism make the difference. Only a commission bent on holding no one responsible and reaching unanimity could have missed that.

We understand, as do most Americans, that one of our greatest strengths in defending against terrorism is the dedication and resourcefulness of those individuals who work on the frontlines. Even before the Commission began its work, many honest and patriotic individuals from various agencies came forward with information and warnings regarding terrorism-related issues and serious problems within our intelligence and aviation security agencies. If it were not for these individuals, much of what we know today of significant issues and facts surrounding 9/11 would have remained in the dark. These "whistleblowers" were able to put the safety of the American people above their own careers and jobs, even though they had reason to suspect that the deck was stacked against them. Sadly, it was. Retaliation took many forms: some were ostracized; others were put under formal or informal gag orders; some were fired. The commission has neither acknowledged their contribution nor faced up to the urgent need to protect such patriots against retaliation by the many bureaucrats who tend to give absolute priority to saving face and protecting their own careers.

The Commission did emphasize that barriers to the flow of information were a primary cause for wasting opportunities to prevent the tragedy. But it skipped a basic truth. Secrecy enforced by repression threatens national security as much as bureaucratic turf fights. It sustains vulnerability to terrorism caused by government breakdowns. Reforms will be paper tigers without a safe channel for whistleblowers to keep them honest in practice. It is unrealistic to expect that government workers will defend the public, if they can't defend themselves. Courage is the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, current whistleblower rights are a cruel trap and magnet for cynicism. The Whistleblower Protection Act has turned into an efficient way to finish whistleblowers off by endorsing termination. No government workers have access to jury trials like Congress enacted for corporate workers after the Enron/MCI debacles. Government workers need genuine, enforceable rights just as much to protect America's families, as corporate workers do to protect America's investments. It will take congressional leadership to fill this hole in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances," intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. While we do not intend to imply that all recommendations of this report are flawed, we assert that the Commission's list of recommendations does not include many urgently needed fixes, and further, we argue that some of their recommendations, such as the creation of an "intelligence czar," and haphazard increases in intelligence budgets, will lead to increases in the complexity and confusion of an already complex and highly bureaucratic system.

Congress has been hearing not only from the commissioners but from a bevy of other career politicians, very few of whom have worked in the intelligence community, and from top-layer bureaucrats, many with vested interests in saving face and avoiding accountability. Congress has not included the voices of the people working within the intelligence and broader national security communities who deal with the real issues and problems day-after-day and who possess the needed expertise and experience-in short, those who not only do the job but are conscientious enough to stick their necks out in pointing to the impediments they experience in trying to do it effectively.

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.

Respectfully,

Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI
Conrad, David "Mark," Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs
Dew, Rosemary N., Former Supervisory Special
Agent, Counterterrorism & Counterintelligence, FBI
Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA
Edmonds, Sibel D., Former Language Specialist, FBI
Elson, Steve, Retired Navy Seal & Former Special Agent, FAA & US Navy
Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt.
Security Analysts, BoydForbes, Inc.,
Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/
Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the
Center for International Policy
Graf, Mark, Former Security Supervisor, Planner,
& Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy
Graham, Gilbert M., Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Kleiman, Diane, Former Special Agent, US Customs
Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DoD
Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operation Officer, CIA
MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA
McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA
Pahle, Theodore J., Retired Senior Intelligence Officer, DIA
Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI
Sullivan, Brian F., Retired Special Agent & Risk Management Specialist, FAA
Tortorich, Larry J., Retired US Naval Officer, US
Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA
Turner, Jane A., Retired Special Agent, FBI
Vincent, John B., Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Whitehurst, Dr. Fred, Retired Supervisory Special
Agent/Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI
Wright, Ann, Col. US Army (ret.); and Former Foreign Service officer
Zipoli, Matthew J., Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE

CC:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman
Pat Roberts & Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Orrin
G. Hatch & Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy
Senate Committee on Armed Services, Chairman John
Warner & Ranking Member Carl Levin
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Chairman Susan Collins & Ranking Member Joseph
Lieberman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Chairman Porter J. Goss & Ranking Member Jane
Harman
House Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. & Ranking Member John
Conyers
House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Duncan
Hunter & Ranking Member Ike Skelton
House Committee on Government Reform, Chairman
Tom Davis & Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman
House Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Chairman Christopher Cox & Ranking Member Jim
Turner
Senator Charles Grassley

For the record, Congress has not made a move to address the foregoing.

As we are all witnessing right now, whistleblowers that would make the system stay honest are being strongly discouraged and even purged from federal employment. In a recent memo by new CIA Director Porter Goss, one of those involved in the 9-11 cover-up and one of the three persons (Senators Graham and Kyl, Congressman Goss) that Pakistan ISI head Lt.Col. Mahmood Ahmed was meeting with in Washington when 9-11 happened, issued this warning to CIA employees. Remember that it was this Pakistani lieutenant colonel that wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta shortly before 9-11.

GOSS MEMO MANDATES CIA EMPLOYEES TO SUPPORT BUSH POLICIES
Tue Nov 16 2004

Porter Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work," a copy of the internal memorandum shows. The NEW YORK TIMES is planning to lead Wednesday's paper with the memo, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is "Controlling the Mythology" and silencing dissent so they can continue to operate our government above the law and in secret.

I do not have subpoena powers, but Eliot Spitzer does and some, if not all, of the above facts and sets of circumstances warrant being looked into. He is welcome to everything we have on 9-11 matters and the RICO investigations that led to the facts that are presented in my book.

The US Government has put their mythology on the table and apparently many (89 percent in the CNN poll) are not buying it. The foregoing has yet to be investigated and how the trails all started converging on 9-11 and NYC without having to guide them that way might be very telling.

Please sign the Justicefor9-11.org petition if you, too, demand the truth and justice regarding September 11, 2001. There is much truth to be found and we have a national capital that is full of people that have an aversion to the truth. It is time that we as American Citizens get to the bottom of what they fear so much and why they fear the truth.

It is time for all Americans to wake up.

Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, AR and is the author of "One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, a Conservative Republican Speaks Out." He is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC and I-nets Security Systems, a designer of intelligence and communications UAV systems. You can email him here.

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Online Journal.
Email editor@onlinejournal.com
Copyright © 1998-2004 Online Journal. All rights reserved.

You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Beware perils of overreaching, GOP is warned

2004-11-29T08:38:00.000-08:00

swiftly to consolidate their control over government in the wake of their big election triumph, President Bush (news - web sites) and Republican leaders in Congress are facing a different kind of threat--themselves.

Political analysts warn that overly aggressive efforts to push a conservative agenda could leave Bush and his allies vulnerable to charges of political overreaching, and ultimately cause a voter backlash.
So far, no such backlash is in sight. But Bush and Republican congressional leaders have wasted no time since the Nov. 2 election to tighten control and lessen dissent in the party ranks as they maneuvered to press the president's agenda, leaving some GOP moderates chafing over how they were treated.
Republican consultant Whit Ayres said Bush has a "significant mandate." However, he added, "obviously everyone involved needs to use good judgment and reflect on how their actions will be perceived by the electorate."
Democrats' hopes
Democrats hope that Bush and congressional Republicans overplay their hand so the Democrats will have a better chance of making a comeback in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Already Democrats are saying that Republicans are emphasizing an ideological rather than a middle-of-the-road approach to governing.
"If you don't think you are going to be accountable and there are no consequences for what you do, it'll lead to overreaching," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record) (D-Ill.). He said voters "want Congress to be a watchdog, not a lapdog."
Bush moved to strengthen his control over the bureaucracy by eliminating pockets of dissent at the State Department and the CIA (news - web sites), and by naming close allies to key Cabinet agencies. He claimed a mandate and said he would proceed with controversial initiatives such as partially privatizing Social Security (news - web sites) and overhauling the tax system.
Presidents who win a second term often get into political trouble by simply going too far. Political analysts cited several examples, including Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to pack the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s entanglement in the Iran-contra affair and Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up.

Congress will take on a decidedly more conservative cast next year, particularly the Senate, where hard-liners are among the expanded GOP majority. Sen.-elect Jim DeMint of South Carolina favors abolishing the income tax. Sen.-elect Tom Coburn of Oklahoma favors the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) served notice that he wants to change filibuster rules so Democrats would have a harder time blocking confirmation of conservative judges. He also secured power to fill key vacancies on major committees.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.) was threatened with losing his chance to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) after saying that anti-abortion judges would have a difficult time getting confirmation. Specter survived, but not without complaints from many conservatives, and the senator is reported to have backed away from his initial statement that got him in trouble with conservatives.

Controversy over DeLay
In the House, where Republicans also increased their majority, the GOP changed its rules so Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) could keep his leadership post even if he is indicted as part of an investigation into alleged campaign finance violations that helped Republicans win legislative races in his home state. Democrats had a field day criticizing the Republican leadership for that step.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called DeLay "not only unethical but delusional." He responded by saying Pelosi had broken campaign finance laws.
These incidents underscore the potential pitfalls of seeming to overreach because they can give the opposition ammunition in the next election. Also, the opposition party has a tendency to gain seats during midterm elections of a president's second four years in office.
Democratic political consultant Jim Duffy said that "when you have complete control, there is a certain arrogance and entitlement. . . . I think they need to be very careful."
He added that Democrats "got completely arrogant" when they controlled the government. There were nearly unbroken Democratic majorities in Congress for 40 years, until 1995.
Duffy said that if Bush succeeds in putting justices on the Supreme Court who vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion nationwide, "I think it would create a huge backlash."

Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth (news - web sites), an environmental group, said he fears that Bush will adopt regulations that weaken the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The environment wasn't a big issue in the campaign, he said, and Bush easily could cause a backlash by easing environmental rules.
Nonetheless, conservatives believe they won a clear mandate in the election and that the next two years will provide a unique opportunity to move their agenda ahead.
"Let them govern," said Merle Black, political science professor at Emory University. "The Democrats won nothing. It's a time for Republicans to push their agenda through, and at that point we'll see whether they have overreached."
Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political scientist, said overreaching "is a problem for all presidents."
In pressing for partial Social Security privatization and overhauling the tax system, Bush is taking a major risk, Baker said. "These are controversial matters that might drive some Republicans to become Democrats."

New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulation

2004-11-29T08:31:00.000-08:00

New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulationby Bob Fitrakis & Harvey WassermanNovember 25, 2004COLUMBUS

-- A floodtide of evidence of questionable practices in the 2004 election is mounting fast against Ohio Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and Republican Franklin County Board of Elections (BOE) Director Matt Damschroder. New transcriptions of sworn voter testimony, presented below for the first time, confirm growing suspicions of widespread use of rigged machines. Voters experienced hostility from poll workers, refusal of Republican election officials to follow the law, and discriminatory manipulation of voting machine placement, driving significant numbers of Democrats away from the polls. The Columbus Dispatch, central Ohio's dominant conservative daily newspaper, which endorsed Bush for the presidency, says Damschroder “has faced criticism locally and across the country from groups that contend an already short supply of voting machines were shifted from Democratic precincts in Columbus to Republican areas outside the city.” Damschroder is the former head of the Franklin County Republican Party. He claims that the 23.4% increase in voter turnout is a success story. He admitted to the Dispatch on Tuesday, November 23, that he had not asked the Franklin County Commissioners for any additional money this year for new machines, despite a 24% increase in voter registration. “If we had 5000 machines we would have put every one of them out there,” Damschroder says. But he also defends his refusal to ask for more in the run-up to the election. In fact, according to the Dispatch, Damschroder's own records show large numbers of voting machines were not deployed on election day despite frantic requests from inner city poll workers. According to the Dispatch, Damschroder's office received 32 calls from precinct judges requesting more machines, not one of which was filled.

Only nine of those calls came from suburban precincts, while 23 came from the Inner City. Overall the board logged 101 calls for voting machine problems this year. In 2000 the number was just 46. Through it all, Damschroder insisted in a Dispatch interview that, “From our perspective, there are (thousands of) stories of people who stood in line and voted.” But many voters had very different views. The Free Press offers the following sworn statements from public hearings held at the Franklin County Courthouse November 15: Janine Smith-White, Youngstown:“I went to my polling place approximately about 9:45 to vote. I waited, I would say, 30 minutes in a line. When I did get to my machine, I pushed John Kerry and my vote immediately jumped up to George Bush. After I started screaming about them cheating again, the aide hurried up and came over and said, oh, that's been happening a lot. Just go ahead and push John Kerry again and I'm saying, you say that's been happening a lot and it hasn't been corrected? Yes, but we can't do anything about it. So I did push John Kerry again and the vote did stay on John Kerry. Even though I completed my voting and after I went over my ballot and I pushed the vote button, I'm still not sure that I voted for John Kerry because, I mean, did my first vote that went to George Bush count or did John Kerry count.” Steven Heyman, Pickerington: “I noticed that one of the big problems was on Molar Road there are two different buildings that you can vote in, 1201 and 1560 Southmore Middle and Bowler School.

People were sometimes confused as to which precinct they were supposed to vote in. I had a listing of all the voters for 51 A and if I could catch them before they went in and [stand] in line for two or three hours, and they were really upset if they were in the wrong precinct and had to go to the other one. We probably lost at least 75 voters during the 12 and a half hours I was there.” Tom Pinnetello: “I need to tell you what happened on my first experience voting in Ohio. On November 2nd, I got to my polling station early, so I got -- I wanted to get there early so I got in the car and I headed over to nearby Livingston School and I signed in and waited about 45 minutes in a line that looked to have about 60 people waiting to vote. Once in the library, we noticed that there were only three voting machines. Once it was my turn, I got inside and looked over the voting machine, and this is one of the electronic voting machines. It consisted of an array of blinking lights urging you to vote for something, and once you did vote for something, the blinking light would go out and a steady red light would appear next to your selection. On the upper left-hand part was the selection for president. I wanted to do this, I wanted to get this out of the way, that's what I came here, to vote, that was my number one priority. So I pushed the button for John Kerry for president of the United States. And the light -- the flashing light went out and the light next to John Kerry's name came on. I then mulled over the rest of the propositions and local races that were taking place, some of which I knew about, some of which I didn't. It took the better part of five minutes or so to get through them all.

Some of the political players locally I don't know about so I just left them blank because I think you should be making an informed decision and not just pressing buttons. Once I was finished, I got down to the lower right-hand corner and the big green vote button was beckoning. I almost pushed it and I said, no, wait a minute, I want to -- I want to proofread what I just did. I want to look over my selections. I looked up into the upper left-hand corner and the area for president of the United States was now flashing again. My vote for John Kerry had been neutralized. It had been reset. Now, you can call this a glitch, you can call this a design flaw, you can call it a bologna sandwich if you want, but whatever you call it, that machine nearly threw out and neutralized my vote for John Kerry.” Jen Miller: “I went ahead and walked in because the lines at that point were four hours long. Again, this used to be my polling location, after the last presidential location it was my polling location and at that time there were two precincts and there were four booths per precinct. This year the first thing I noted that there were three and not one of the precincts had a booth down, so they were operating on two, just 50 percent the amount that they had the election before. The next thing I noted that there were more people in line, probably, at that point than I had probably had ever voted in that precinct. I had voted there for several times. It was just absolute chaos. People were wandering this way and that. The first thing someone said to me is, I don't think they want me here. This is confusing.

I voted here for years and I'm leaving. And I asked him to stay, but he wouldn't.. . . So I would say at least a third of the people that were in line were elderly or had mobility challenges. A lot of those people would be standing in line for one to three hours to then come across some steep steps that would be even challenges for the average able-bodied person. One side of the steps could -- one side of the steps didn't even have a rail to hang onto and there was no one to assist people down, okay.” Cathy Varian:“I was a poll worker at 39B at Creeder Wood School. Quickly, the polls did not open at 7:00. They didn't open until 7:20. We did not sign our tapes like we were supposed to at the beginning. We signed everything at the end and it was very chaotic. The presiding judge was very inexperienced and lacked training. He was very judgmental against a lot of people that came into our poll, one especially that I want to speak out for today. . . . during the day he turned away several people that were in our precinct from work who said they had signed up but they weren't on our books. . . .I wanted to assist him going downtown because I was afraid he was going to open up the provisional ballots and do something with them because I fought so hard and so long all day trying to protect them. And it was a horrible, horrible experience.. . . The police were involved. The police did escort him down to the Board of Elections, but a Democratic representative could not go with the presiding Republican judge in a Democratic precinct, period. . . .Our presiding judge was Republican in a Democratic precinct and they would not let me, the Democratic poll worker accompany him downtown, . . .Only one person went with the ballots and the tapes and I begged and pleaded and called everybody I could. . . .We did not sign the tapes until the end of the evenings.

Signs on how to use the machines weren't posted and people were turned away.” Mark Dunbar, Columbus: “I got off work about 9:30 that morning. I went down and dropped off some ballots down at the Board of Elections. Then I went to my home near Eastgate Elementary. I arrived there at 10:00. I went in. There was no signs as to how to use the voting machines. I heard one of the poll workers tell a guy in one of the booths that he had one minute because he had been in there four minutes. So they were actually rushing people in and out of the polls. The line was about three hours when I got there. There was only three voting booths and I remembered the last time I vote there, we had at least four to five voting booths, so we were down to three. They did allow the people to sit in chairs and move the chairs up and down the line. They did have an elderly woman who was in a wheelchair just sitting there for a couple hours and she was still sitting there when I left. So she didn't get to vote the kind of way she should have. She should have been taken to the front but I didn't see any accessible voting booths and I saw -- I counted at least 27 to 30 people who left while I was there, but I didn't leave. I had to vote.” John Perry, Upper Arlington: “For the record, I did observe, in my voting place, that there was a sticker over the ballot and spot apparently originally intended for Ralph Nader. However, in looking at the machine times from other precincts, I noticed that there were numerous machine votes, not write in votes but machine votes for Nader in other precincts. So apparently if you pushed the button for the Nader spot, it was recorded as a vote for Nader and printed out as such on the tape.” Monica Justo, Columbus: “I ran 6 wards for the Kerry campaign in the Clintonville corridor. At 8:00 -- my precinct location was 19H -- it is run out of the Southwick Funeral Home by Bill Good. Bill Good is a Republican. At 8:00 in the morning, he went out to the people in line. There was already over an hour wait at this time and informed them that they all needed to get out of line and move their cars because he had a funeral coming. . . . According to the Franklin County Board of Elections, it was their fault for not verifying that business was not being held on that day, that they needed to inform them of that.” Michael Greenman, Westerville: “I live in Westerville, voted in precinct 3B. I voted there in the elections for the last five years.

When I went to the precinct this last election, I came in and looked at the list and my name was not on the list. It was a computerized list. My wife's name was on the list. I asked them how this could be. They had no explanation. They were very cooperative, gave me a provisional ballot. I was in and out right quick like. They were very efficient, it was a good precinct. But I cannot imagine how many could have been removed from the list without some active action. I'm a political activist. I'm the head of a political group called Citizens for Democracy and the corporate rule but I don't know why my name was not on the list.MS. TRUITT: [Hearing Examiner] Had you voted within the last five years?MR. GREENMAN: Every year, every time for the last five years at that precinct.” Tom Kessel, Bexley: “. . .in precincts 4 A and 4 C in Bexley. What it was is Republican challengers got there about 7:30 in the morning. Precinct 4 C was going fine, so I watched her. On three different occasions, I caught her sitting at the table with the poll workers. Each time I had to go up there and say, excuse me, you're not allowed here, you know, you're not allowed to be sitting there. She was not challenging it. She was talking and kibitzing and working with the poll workers. I don't know. One time I went outside, I came back in, she was actively going over some sort of computerized list she had with the precinct judge in precinct 4A in Bexley. One of the three machines went down and they were not able to get the tape out of it and the cartridge at the end of the day. Later on, when I got the poll -- data from Franklin County poll workers, that machine which had the lowest numbers of votes had the highest percentage of Bush votes. The other two machines were coming back 30 percent for Bush. This one came back 40 percent for Bush. I don't know. Also, they sealed up their provisional ballots before I had a chance to count them and let them know how much provisional ballots were there. Also, she signed off as an official witness at the end of the day, even though she was a Republican worker. I was met with open hostility from the workers in precinct 4 A in Bexley. They let me know in no uncertain terms that they were Bush people.” --Dr. Bob Fitrakis, JD, moderated the public hearings on voter suppression held in Columbus November 13 and 15. He is publisher of freepress.org, of which Harvey Wasserman is senior editor. Their ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION: VOICES OF THE DISENFRANCHISED, 2004 will soon be available at freepress.org.

Jesse Jackson demands Ohio presidential recount

2004-11-29T08:22:00.000-08:00

Jesse Jackson demands Ohio presidential recount

blasts GOP election officials, and says Kerry supports the processby Bob Fitrakis & Harvey WassermanNovember 29, 2004COLUMBUS--Preaching to a packed, wildly cheering central Ohio citizen congregation, Rev. Jesse Jackson blasted the presidential election back into the national headlines Sunday. Jackson said new findings cast serious doubt on the idea that George W. Bush beat John Kerry in Ohio November 2. A GOP "pattern of intentionality" was behind a suspect outcome, he said. At stake is "the integrity of the vote" for which "too many have died." "We can live with losing an election," he said. "We cannot live with fraud and stealing." Jackson is the first major national figure to come here challenging the idea that Ohio has given George W. Bush a second term in the White House. Jackson emphasized that the vote "has not yet been certified" and demanded the removal of Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell from supervising the recount, which Jackson termed a case of "the fox guarding the chicken house." Blackwell co-chaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio and has been widely criticized for a series of partisan decisions that have thus far indicated Bush carried the state.

Exit polls by Zogby and CNN showed Ohio going for Kerry with 53% and 51% respectively, which would win him presidency in the Electoral College. Blackwell says a complex series of rules allows him to limit a recount to just a few days. He says he may certify the Ohio vote between December 3d and 6th, with any recount due to be completed December 13, when Ohio's electors are scheduled to meet. Jackson has demanded Blackwell recuse himself, saying "the owner of the team can't also be the referee." A broad-based legal team--now including Jackson's PUSH/Rainbow Coalition as Plaintiff--is preparing to file an election challenge asking the election results be overturned. Jackson says computer forensic experts must be given full access to electronic voting machines that have provided no paper trail, but which could be electronically analyzed from within. Jackson said he has spoken with Democratic candidate John Kerry, who indicated his support for the recount process. New findings indicate that Kerry's margins in 37 (of 88) Ohio counties are suspiciously low when compared to those garnered by Judge Ellen Connally, an unsuccessful Democratic Supreme Court candidate. The calculations focus on standardized county-wide ratios between bottom-of-the-ticket tallies won by Judge Connally versus those won by Kerry in heavily Republican, rural counties. According to a wide range of experts, there appears to be a systematic removal of Kerry votes by hackers who overlooked the Connally votes, which now clearly infers something went wrong. "It's simply not credible that a vastly underfunded African-American female candidate at the bottom of the ticket could outpoll John Kerry in Butler County," said Cliff Arneback, a lead attorney for the challenging legal team. Jackson said the situation "does not pass the smell test."

Before some 500 supporters, Jackson preached a litany of doubt surrounding the Ohio outcome, prompting at least 50 congregants to file affidavits documenting their own experiences trying to vote November 2. Several hundred such documents have been filed at a series of hearings in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. According to the sworn testimony, a systematic denial of voting machines to inner city precincts resulted in waits of three, five and even eleven hours for thousands of voters, many of whom left in frustration without casting their ballots. Charges of intimidation, misinformation, faulty registration lists and denial of provisional ballots are listed. So are serious questions about the integrity of touch screen machines, many of which were widely reported to have turned Kerry votes into Bush votes. In Warren County, Homeland Security was inexplicably invoked to bar independent observers and the media, leaving the vote count under control of Republicans. In the Franklin County precinct of Gahanna, 4258 votes were registered for Bush where only 628 people voted. In another county, a GOP election official took voting results to his private home for final, unsupervised reporting. "We need federal supervision of federal elections," said Jackson. "Right now we have 50 separate but unequal ways to vote. There can be no safe harbor for a flawed process that leaves people disenfranchised. "You can't have public elections on privately-owned machines, especially where one of the owners has vowed to deliver the state for George Bush," Jackson added, referring to Wally O'Dell, a major Bush supporter and CEO of Diebold, a leading Ohio-based supplier of electronic voting machines and voting software. "You can hack these machines," Jackson said. "The playing field is uneven. These numbers will not go away. We as Americans should not be begging a Secretary of State for a fair vote count. We cannot be the home of the thief and the land of the slave." "This is not about John Kerry versus George Bush," said Jackson. "This is about Medgar Evers and Fannie Lou Hamer and Viola Liuzzo. About Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner, and twenty-seven years in prison for Nelson Mandela," he said, referring to heroes of the movements for equal rights. "It's about a will to dignity. It's not too much to ask for our vote to count." --Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of the upcoming ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION: VOICES OF THE DISENFRANCHISED, 2004 (freepress.org). Fitrakis is publisher and Wasserman is senior editor of freepress.org. Fitrakis is co-counsel for the Alliance For Democracy which has announced that it will file a lawsuit to ensure a fair recount of the votes in Ohio.

Bush's 'Perception Management' Plan

2004-11-23T14:57:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush has been criticized for disdaining fact in favor of faith in his own instincts. But he is savvy about the dangers that information can present to his authority over the government and the American people.
That is why the first priority of his second term has been the elimination of the few government sources of information that could challenge the images he wants to project to the public. Bush doesn’t want the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency portraying his Iraq and other foreign policies as abject failures or reckless adventures.

So, by attacking these remaining pockets of analytical resistance, Bush is moving to ensure that his administration can keep much of the U.S. population seeing a near-empty cup as almost entirely full, a concept known in the intelligence world as “perception management.”
On a personal level, Bush appears to have found in his electoral victory a validation of his public-relations strategy of casting his foreign policy as a black-and-white war between good and evil. In this tough-talking approach, Bush has been helped immeasurably by the powerful conservative news media, ranging from AM talk radio to Fox News, from right-wing newspaper columnists to Internet bloggers.
Indeed, it is impossible to understand why Americans have grown so detached from reality without appreciating the combined impact of this conservative media – built over the past quarter century – and Bush’s personal insistence on loyalty over almost all other values. These two factors have made the United States a kind of ultimate test for the Orwellian intelligence theories of “perception management.”
Controlling Opinions
“Perception management” – also known as “public diplomacy” – is a propaganda strategy for controlling how a target population views political events. Refined by intelligence services as they tried to manipulate foreign populations, the practice eventually seeped into domestic U.S. politics as a way to manipulate post-Vietnam-War-era public opinion.
In the early 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration saw the “Vietnam Syndrome” – a reluctance to commit military forces abroad – as a strategic threat to robust Cold War policies. So the administration launched an extraordinary effort to influence how the American people perceived overseas events, essentially by exaggerating threats from abroad and demonizing selected foreign leaders.

Psychological warfare experts from the CIA and Army Special Forces played key roles in implementing the strategy, which was carried out from offices in President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council and a “public diplomacy” bureaucracy set up at the State Department.
The strategy, which included bullying the U.S. news media into line over issues such as the conflicts in Central America, proved remarkably successful. [For more on this history, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq or Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press and ‘Project Truth.’]
These lessons were not lost on Dick Cheney and other Republicans who had lived through both the difficult post-Vietnam years and the Reagan-Bush era of the 1980s. With the second Bush administration, these experienced Republicans recognized that controlling the flow of government information – and the public’s perception of overseas reality – would again be vital in implementing their vision of a new American Empire for the 21st Century.
During the buildup to the Iraq War, Cheney even went to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to bang heads with intelligence analysts who doubted White House claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Many of these mid-level bureaucrats acquiesced to Cheney’s demands, but others resisted. After the Iraq invasion failed to find WMD, some of these suppressed CIA doubts began surfacing and causing Bush embarrassment, especially during Campaign 2004.

Four More Years
Now, however, with a fresh lease on four more years, Bush is inflicting payback on the CIA, especially its analytical division and its intelligence-gathering network, and on the State Department, whose analysts also questioned Bush’s Middle East policies.
Acting through new CIA Director Porter Goss, the Bush administration read the riot act to Langley’s intelligence professionals that they must get behind Bush’s policies or get out. The demands have led to an exodus of senior CIA officials, including deputy CIA chief John E. McLaughlin and deputy director of operations Stephen R. Kappes.
Bush then replaced Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was pliable but at least known for protecting the department’s bureaucracy. Powell’s successor is the famously compliant national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s ultimate “yes” woman who is so cozy with her boss that she once slipped up at a dinner party and referred to Bush as “my husb…” before catching herself and replacing that with “President Bush.”
The end result will almost surely be that Bush will hear even fewer contradictions to his judgments, while Congress and the news media will be cut off from internal government sources of information that could be used to question Bush’s decisions.
The powerful conservative news media played an important role, too, in setting the stage for these ongoing purges. Conservative columnists, including Robert Novak and David Brooks, pushed the dubious claim that the CIA’s only rightful role is to serve the president. They accused the CIA of disloyalty in trying to sabotage Bush.

“Now that he’s been returned to office, President Bush is going to have to differentiate between his opponents and his enemies,” wrote Brooks in the New York Times. “His opponents are found in the Democratic Party. His enemies are in certain offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
To Brooks, the justification for Bush going after the CIA was the release of information that made Bush look bad.
“At the height of the campaign, CIA officials, who are supposed to serve the president and stay out of politics and policy, served up leak after leak to discredit the president’s Iraq policy,” Brooks wrote. “In mid-September, somebody leaked a CIA report predicting a gloomy or apocalyptic future for the region. Later that month, a senior CIA official, Paul Pillar, reportedly made comments saying he had long felt the decision to go to war would heighten anti-American animosity in the Arab world.” [NYT, Nov. 13, 2004]

Bush as Victim
In other words, conservative commentators were afraid that plainly accurate analyses by CIA officials represented a threat to Bush’s power and justified his exacting retribution against these out-of-step analysts. It seems that no matter how much power Bush and the Republicans amass, their media apologists always make them out to be the victims.
It’s also a misunderstanding of history to claim that the CIA exists to “serve the president.” While it may be true that the “operations directorate” was created as a secret paramilitary arm for the U.S. executive, the CIA’s analytical division was established to provide unvarnished information to both the president and other parts of the U.S. government, including Congress.
Even at the height of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA’s analytical division took pride in telling presidents what they didn’t want to hear – such as debunking Eisenhower’s “bomber gap” or Kennedy’s “missile gap” or Johnson’s faith in the air war against North Vietnam.

Though never perfectly applied, the ethos of objective analysis continued through the mid-1970s. Then, CIA analysis began to come under sustained attack from conservatives and neoconservatives who insisted that the Soviet Union was a rapidly expanding military menace with its eye on world conquest. The CIA analytical division held a more nuanced view of the Soviet threat, viewing Moscow as a declining superpower struggling to keep pace with the West while coping with fissures inside its own empire.
This CIA analysis was the backdrop for the “détente strategy” followed by President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who sought to negotiate arms control agreements with the Soviet Union.

Reagan’s Emergence
Nixon’s ouster over the Watergate scandal and Ronald Reagan’s entrance on the national stage in 1976, however, altered the political dynamic. Scared by Reagan’s successes in the Republican primaries, President Gerald Ford ordered the word “détente” dropped from the White House lexicon and let then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush open up the CIA’s analytical division to an unprecedented challenge from right-wing intellectuals, known as “Team B.”
The “Team B” assessment, involving a young academic named Paul Wolfowitz, accused the CIA analytical division of systematically underestimating the growing Soviet threat. In late 1976, accommodating this conservative wing of the Republican Party, Bush adopted a more alarmist CIA estimate of Soviet power.
When Reagan became president in 1981, with Bush as his vice president, the assault on the CIA’s analytical division resumed in earnest. Analysts who balked at the new administration’s ideological vision of the Soviet Union as a 10-foot-tall behemoth were shunted aside or forced out of the CIA.
The CIA’s once proud Soviet division took the brunt of the attacks. The surviving analysts began ignoring the mounting evidence of a rapid Soviet decline, so as not to contradict the Reagan-Bush justification for an expanded U.S. military and for bloody interventions in Third World conflicts from Nicaragua to Afghanistan.

‘Perception Management’
Having fitted the CIA with these ideological blinders, the Reagan-Bush administration next turned to whipping the American people into line. There, the magic words were “perception management,” as propagandists developed “themes” to frighten American citizens about threats from leftist-ruled Nicaragua or from peasant rebellions in El Salvador and Guatemala.
Rather than internal civil wars against corrupt oligarchies, these conflicts were pitched as “beachheads” for a Soviet assault on the southern border of the United States.
In reality, Moscow couldn’t even keep control along its own borders. But the Reagan-Bush intimidation of the U.S. intelligence system proved so effective that CIA analysts wouldn’t dare let themselves see the signs of the Soviet crackup.

Ironically, when the Soviet Empire collapsed in the late 1980s, the CIA took the blame for “missing” one of the most important political events of the Twentieth Century. Ironically, too, Reagan, who was most responsible for building up the Soviet straw man, got the most credit when it fell down. [For details on this intelligence failure, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
Since then, I have talked with CIA veterans who acknowledge that they overstated the Soviet threat despite valid intelligence from their own agents inside the Soviet bloc who were describing the internal problems. But this U.S. intelligence failure was not just one of misjudgments; it was one of ideological pressure that distorted the reality that then became the basis for U.S. government policies and was sold to the American people as how they should perceive the world.
That pattern is now recurring. Intelligence is being manipulated to justify policy, rather than letting objective analysis inform policy. Bush makes his decisions based on his “gut” instincts and then the evidence is compiled to justify his decisions.

The next step will be the continued management of the perceptions of the American people. As U.S. intelligence agencies sing along to Bush’s tune, the propaganda will be amplified through the vast conservative media echo chamber. The mainstream press can be counted on to join the chorus.
Reality was on the ballot on Nov. 2. It seems to have lost.

Some Help for The New York Times

2004-11-22T08:38:00.000-08:00

Some Help for The New York Times15 Unanswered Questions about Election 2004Since they can't seem to figure out anything worth investigating on their own.

In this previous piece, I reported on the latest New York Times article which essentially dismisses the very real concerns that millions of Americans have about our electoral system in the light of the 2004 Election results debacle. I suggested that readers send email to The New York Times and let them know how you feel about their disgraceful performance in this regard. Keep those emails going!It occurred to me that since The New York Times can't seem to find anything worth investigating and reporting on for the American people in regards to the way their votes were counted -- or not -- in the 2004 election, that perhaps I'd help them out with a cheat sheet to help them get started. Here's just a few of the many questions concerning this year's election (none of them "conspiracy theories", all of them confirmed by actual election officials and/or reported on by local news outlets -- not just "crazy leftist bloggers" -- in the affected areas) that the "newspaper of record" may wish to consider assigning reporters to investigate and report upon. NOW!:

A UC Berkley study released Thursday of 15 counties in Florida has shown anywhere from 130,000-260,000 unexplained extra votes for George W. Bush in Florida in just three of those counties. The results of the study, which already take into account the widely reported "Dixiecrat Effect" in Florida, has now been duplicated and verified by an MIT professor commissioned by the Oakland Tribune. You have yet to report on the disturbing study at all. How can 130 to 260 thousand extra votes in just three counties in Florida be explained? Don't you think you should find out? And at least report on the study itself?
Incorrect information provided by the UniLect company to an election board in Carteret County, North Carolina resulted in 4,500 votes being entirely lost. The memory chip in one of their voting machines held only 3,005 votes instead of the 10,000 promised by the company. Those votes are now lost. What will be done for the 4,500 voters who had their right to have their vote counted taken away in the process? And perhaps more importantly, what other precincts and counties in the United States used the same type of machine with the same chip but didn't happen to notice that votes were lost? (HINT: Machines from the UniLect company were also in use in Ohio on Election Day, where counties reported many problems with those machines that went unsolved the entire day!)

In Broward County, Florida a "computer programming glitch" on a vote tabulating machine caused the counting of votes to begin going in reverse once the machine reached 32,767 votes. We're told they noticed the software bug in time. What other counties and states in the country use the same model counting machine with the same software error? And did they notice if the same problem occurred? The manufacturer of that counting machine, Electronic Software & Systems, Inc. (ES&S), attempted to discredit the report initially as "user error", but anyone familiar with computer programming recognizes the error that occurred at 32,767 -- it's a very specific number -- and any programmer can tell you why it occurred. HINT: It wasn't user error, it was programming error. And it happened at least twice there that we know about. (If you have trouble getting in touch with ES&S officials, ask Republican Senator Chuck Hagel how to reach them, he used to be their CEO until he retired to run for the Senate. And while you're poking around in Florida, you also may wish to investigate and report upon the tens of thousands of absentee ballots in Florida that went missing, and never made it to voters!)
In the Gahanna 1-B Precinct in Franklin County, Ohio, there were 4,258 votes counted for George W. Bush, yet only 638 total votes were cast in that precinct! How did that "glitch", noticed by citizens on the internet and since then confirmed by election officials, occur? Was it another problem with software? If so, what other precincts, counties and states in America use the same type of machine with the same type of software, but didn't happen to notice the problem? (You may also wish to report for the American people on which other precincts, counties and states used the same equipment and software that caused 33,000 straight-ticket votes to be miscounted as Libertarian votes in Utah!)

Why did Election Officials in Warren County, Ohio -- unlike every other county in Ohio -- lock out all members of the media from witnessing their counting of ballots on Election Night? They had claimed they were given warnings to do so by the FBI and/or Homeland Security Dept., but both the FBI and Homeland Security Dept. have denied having told anything of the sort to anybody in Ohio! Isn't that worth an investigation and a report of some sort? (For background, you may wish to know that Warren County was amongst the last to report it's totals on Election Night and also happened to report the 5th highest voting percentage for George W. Bush in the state and the absolute highest among counties with more than 23,000 voters.)
Why was the entire Auglaize County, Ohio Board of Elections placed on "Adminstrative Oversight" by the Ohio Sec. of State's office after one of their members reported that an unauthorized employee from Election Software & Systems (ES&S) was seen using one of the central tabulating machines just weeks before the election?
Why did elections officials in Volusia County, Florida give incorrect information to a "Freedom of Information Act" request by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org? Why do the numbers she's found seem to indicate inaccuracies in the vote counting there? And why were official election materials found in the dumpster outside the Board of Elections when Harris and her team arrived to pick up such materials?

BlackBoxVoting.org (one of the plaintiffs in a California lawsuit against Diebold Inc. which ended just last week when Diebold agreed to pay some $2.6 million to settle the suit to avoid going to court) has also reported that software used in voting machines in this year's election was not certified and inspected as it was required to have been by law. How could that have happened? And what are some of the consequences of that? Will anybody be held accountable for it? If so, who, when, where and how? (You may also wish to know that last week, the conservative/Republican Washington Times reported on the confirmed security holes in Diebold software. Why haven't you?)
What reason do House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay have for not allowing bills that would have required voter-verified paper trails for all electronic voting machines in the country from ever reaching the light of day in either the U.S. House or U.S. Senate? Why were those bills -- for two years -- never allowed to even come up for a vote? And how much money have those Republican legislators and all the rest received from the makers of electronic voting machines such as Deibold, ES&S and Sequoia?

All over Ohio, voters stood in line, often in the rain, up to 10 or more hours in many precincts -- the majority of them strong Democratic precincts. Yet, the Columbus Free Press has reported that as many as 68 voting machines stayed in storage instead of being deployed on Election Day to such heavily trafficked voting precincts. What explanation does Republican Sec. of State Kenneth Blackwell, in charge of both elections in Ohio and the Bush/Cheney campaign in the state, have to give for this outrage?
Why did Kenneth Blackwell shut down precinct after precinct in Ohio's largest minority areas (and the ones which most heavily vote Democratic) when every indication prior to this election correctly predicted that voter turnout would in fact be way up by huge numbers over the 2000 election?

The margin between Bush & Kerry on Election Night was approximately 136,000 votes. The Sec. of State's office in Ohio reported there were approximately 155,000 provisional votes left to be counted. Have they been counted? What's the new margin of difference now in Ohio?
The Presidential Candidates in the Green and Libertarian parties have joined together to demand a recount in the entire state of Ohio. When will that recount begin? Since 70% of Ohio uses punch-card ballots (as in Florida in 2000) a manual recount of millions of ballots could take quite a while. Reports have said that the recount won't begin until after Dec. 7th, yet the final tally must be ready to send to the U.S. Congress by Dec. 13th. How do they plan on doing a thorough and fair manual recount of all of those ballots in such a short time? Shouldn't the recount begin much sooner than Dec. 2nd as David Cobb, Green Party Presidential candidate has requested? (I'd give you a link to the page on www.VoteCobb.org which expresses this concern, but their site is currently unavailable, likely due to being either over-accessed by Americans attempting to support their efforts or, more likely, they are again under DDoS attack as has my own website been since I began reporting this story...As have other websites who have been attempting to report this story. Anything worth investigating there for you as well, perhaps?)
Why has the FBI raided, confiscated and locked-down computers and files at the CyberNET Group's office in Grand Rapids, MI?

Is it related to information supplied to the FBI by Florida's U.S. Congressional candidate, Jeff Fisher? Has he actually supplied such information to the FBI? And if so, what sort of evidence does he have for the various claims that he's been making about the vote in Florida and elsewhere having been hacked? It's true he tells a strange and complicated story. So was the story of three cuban exiles breaking into the Democratic Headquarters in a Washington D.C. hotel at the order of an ex-CIA agent funded by a multi-millionaire in Florida. You may want to investigate instead of dismiss this report.
In 2000 much was made of the broadcast networks calling Florida for Gore an hour before the polls had closed in the panhandle of Florida, yet this year, when the Fox Network called Ohio for Bush at 12:41am and the Fox News Channel just three minutes later in the early morning hours of Election Night, voters will still lined up in Ohio to vote! The last vote was not made until 3:55am at Kenyon College in Knox County, Ohio (where there were only two voting machines to serve the entire large student population), a full three hours later. What is the Fox Network's explanation for doing precisely what they decried the other networks for doing back in 2000 when the call seemed to work at the time against George W. Bush?I could go on, but that should be enough questions for the NY Times to continue to ignore for quite a while.Please continue to let them know how you feel about their reporting or lack thereof!And send the link to this article to anybody and everybody you can!

]

Who dares call into a TV network to complain about sex? And can they be stopped?

2004-11-22T08:10:00.000-08:00

Monday Night Softcore Who dares call into a TV network to complain about sex? And can they be stopped?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, November 19, 2004 now part of stylesheet -->

Do you know who they are? Do you already have an answer?
Can you say who it is, really, who shrieks and cries and calls into the networks regarding "racy" advertising during macho ultraviolent NFL games, calling it sinful and wrong and hurtful? Can someone tell me? Is it a deep unknowable secret? Is it perhaps the most baffling and exasperating question of our age?
Because we need to know. We need to know because I know no one who does this and you know no one who does this and we all understand that most normal and relatively well-adjusted citizens of this fine and deeply jaded nation don't navigate the world wielding such a shockingly uptight and sexually destitute worldview. At least, not around here they don't.
But here's the problem: These people, these groups, these sects of viciously concerned and violently moral people now appear to be the single most powerful and dangerous and rash-inducing hunk of our society today, and that includes fans of either Paris Hilton or Dave Matthews or Axe male body spray.

Why do we need to know? Because these people, they apparently now have the ear of the FCC and hold in their dry fingers the shriveled testicles of most major media conglomerates and they own the very flop sweat adorning the forehead of pasty demon-god Karl Rove, and they are the drawled barely articulated expression of gratitude muttered under the breath the aww-shucks born-again president of the United States. Is why.
So, who are they? Who are the ones who have no problem watching a Monday Night Football game in which huge sweaty steroid-packed men in cutely homoerotic tights smash each other as hard as possible hoping they break bones and induce aneurysms and draw blood during our most violent and drug-addled and corrupted national televised sporting spectacle, but yet who actually picked up the phone to complain to ABC about that "racy" ad promoting the very mediocre "Desperate Housewives" that led into the game?
Who are they who apparently have no problem having their gladiator-style violence interspersed with all manner of Barbie-doll cheerleaders who giggle and jiggle in a sea of Botox and silicon, but who cannot possibly tolerate the exposed shoulder blades of "Housewives" actress Nicollette Sheridan in a tame promo spot lest they clutch their hearts and call their senators in a seething colon-clenched fury?

Maybe you already know who they are. Maybe you've already guessed that they're probably the very same people Bush's ferret of a campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, the 36-year-old Rove protégeé and glistening demon-in-training who Dubya just named to head the GOP, so intentionally targeted in the flyover states during this last election in a shockingly successful campaign to pummel their fear-torn selves into such a froth over all those hot-button "morality" issues -- namely, gay marriage and abortion rights and stem-cell research and organic tofu but mostly gay marriage -- that they just had to cinch up the housedress and pop an extra Xanax and get out there and vote lest the heathens and whores and sodomites and Vietnam War heroes take over the country. Is that them? You think?
After all, we've had many hints. We have had plenty of warning signs. These people, these groups, these spiteful and often hyperreligious Concerned Parents Councils and Moral Citizens for Righteousness and Morose Adults with Secret Margarine Fetishes, these groups from places like Colorado Springs and Salt Lake City and Orange County and Oklahoma City, they have left a wake, a trail of terror, marked by what appear to be pages of paper torn out of the Coloring-Book Bible and hurled at the world in a bout of confused anger.
They are the same people who complained about the 1.5 seconds of Janet Jackson's nipple and they are the same ones who complain about low-slung jeans on high school girls and teen sex in Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs and who think ribbed condoms are signs of the devil and Astroglide is some sort of dance step and any reference to anal sex means you should be strung up by your eyelids and beaten with Pat Robertson until you look like Mel Gibson's veal-cutlet Jesus.

They are the same people, it appears, who have no problem restricting a woman's right to choose and rejecting the undeniable value of stem-cell research, but who somehow still think fertility clinics are God's gift to unhappily barren Republican parents, clinics where more "unborn" zygotes that fail to stick are tossed into the trash in a day than in any urban abortion clinic in a year. What, too harsh? Hardly.
And, yes, they are the same ones who fear gays with a shocking and truly heartbreaking intensity and truly believe homosexuals want to "recruit" their children into the world of dildos and show tunes and tight tank tops, but couldn't care less about the fact that Massachusetts (a.k.a. gay-marriage central) has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
And they are, finally, the same people who find no moral quandary in how U.S. soldiers have now killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and are themselves being killed by the dozen during this most brutal and useless and unwinnable of BushCo wars, yet find no issue with energy gluttony or U.S.-Iraq arms deals or the false joy of SUVs.
So then. Let this be the rallying cry. These people, they must be outed. They must be brought into the open and shorn of their hollow indignation and held up to the glaring light of truth and sex and conscious culture, dragged like shy recluses into the purview of our utterly baffled universal God, the one who is omnipresent and pansexual and carnivorous and ironic and full of raunchy bliss and deep humor and who isn't perpetually short of cash or firearms or false chastity.

Look. This has nothing to do with the tacky Vegas spectacle that is Monday Night Football. This has nothing to do with how ABC's little PR stunt to promote "Housewives" went off more fabulously than they could've dreamed.
Forget, too, the lockstep moderate Repubs who voted for Dubya out of blind allegiance to a conservative ideal so tarnished and mutilated by this administration that it resembles a genuinely balanced platform about as much as Condi Rice resembles an actual human. These people are not on the radar here. This is about something else entirely.
This is about moral accountability. This is about a call for justice and hope and unity and open-mouthed sex. This is about the deep need for a full and aggressive blasting of the fine fertile grounds of America like Bill Murray exhumes the golf course at the end of "Caddyshack," blasting water through the tunnels and erupting through the holes in order to drive the nasty gophers of intolerance and homophobia and sexlessness and bad hair into the open.
Only then can we see what we are up against. Only then can we see where the tumors lie and see where we must operate and see who really just needs an honest and well-lubed hug to make it all better. Only then, as they say, can the true healing begin. Show yourselves, sad and lost and lonely complainers of America. You know who you are.

The Revised Constitution of God’s United States

2004-11-21T02:13:00.000-08:00

The Revised Constitution of God’s United States
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Excerpted from America 2014: An Orwellian Tale Copyright 2004
The Revised Constitution of God’s United States
A Patriotic Citizens Bill of Rights and Responsibilities
(Passed by Congress and Ratified in 2009)

Preamble: We the people of God’s United States, in order to provide for the common defense, in balance with the blessings of liberty and our position as the Freest Country on Earth ™, do ordain the replacement of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with law, and ratified as per the original, outdated Constitution of the United States, by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, as well as the Legislatures of three fourths of the fifty states, in the year of our Lord 2009, to hereafter be known as The Patriotic Citizen’s Bill of Rights. The full force of the provisions of these Amendments are effective immediately, and the Judicial Branch of the Government of God’s United States is hereby instructed to interpret any disparity between the original Articles of the Constitution and its original Amendments, and this revised and updated Patriotic Citizen’s Constitution, in favor of the latter.

Amendment I: With the exception of the state-sanctioned religion of Christianity, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any other religion or prohibit the private, non-subversive exercise of any religion. Nor shall Congress abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; although the President and his appointed agents may do so, in Time of War, or serious threat of war or terrorism, to protect the Country and its people, as he, in his sole discretion, deems fit in the exercise of his duty as Commander in Chief.

Amendment II: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state of Patriotic Citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless such people are suspected or actual abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists, as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law, as determined by the President and Commander in Chief, and administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
Amendment IV: Except during Time of War, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. During Time of War, as defined by the President and Commander in Chief, representatives of the Department of Homeland Security may take any and all measures necessary to search the homes, effects, electronic communications or records of suspected or actual abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists, and it shall be a federal crime, as prescribed in federal criminal statute 841 (d) 1, as described in Patriot Act V, to inquire about such searches, or to inform the subjects of such searches, or the public, of any actions taken under this statute by representatives of the Department of Homeland Security.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in Time of War or public danger. With the exception of suspected or actual abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists; no Patriotic Citizen shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless deemed necessary by the President and Commander in Chief or the Department of Homeland Security.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions except those involving suspected or actual abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists, Patriotic Citizens accused of crimes shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law which do not involve the Government of God’s United States, Government officials, Party Members or Party Institutions, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required of any Patriotic Citizen, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, with the exception of suspected or actual abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists. Should abortionists, illicit drug users, subversives, terrorists, enemy sympathizers or propagandists be found guilty, by any state or federal court, of any criminal offense, then their voting privileges for any public election shall be permanently revoked.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage such rights to unborn children, from the very moment God Almighty breathes life into their eternal souls. In any and all cases, including rape, incest, and health emergencies, any persons infringing upon the life of the unborn, whether mothers, relatives, health care providers, or their co-conspirators, shall be subject to the full force of state statutes concerning homicide or attempted homicide.

Amendment X: During Time of War the President, Vice President, and all other elected officials who are members of the Nationalist Party, the only Party found by the American people to be a Patriotic Citizens Party, are exempted by federal, state and local term limit legislation, including Amendment XXII of the outdated Constitution of the United States, prescribing a two term limit to the Office of President.
In Time of War, as determined by the President and Commander in Chief, all political parties, with the exception of the Nationalist Party (“The Party”), are suspect and illegal until such Time of War has passed, and it shall be a criminal federal offense to lobby, propagandize, assemble, or vote for any political person or action that is not part of the official Party. It is henceforth the duty of all Patriotic Citizens to vote for and provide support to the Party, until such time as the President, in his sole discretion, determines that God’s United States is no longer at war.
This Patriotic Citizens Constitution expands the rights, and responsibilities of Citizens in the following manner:
All Patriotic Citizens of the United States shall enjoy the right, and responsibility, of receiving and watching Interactive TV. Such responsibilities include an obligation to watch requisite public service announcements, as determined by the President in Time of War. It shall be a federal offense, in Time of War, to tamper with or disable the security delivery or monitoring functions of any Interactive TV device.
Patriotic Citizens are also entitled to an expanded right of Pharmacological Happiness, and all providers of health insurance must fully cover the cost of providing such Pharmacological Happiness. In the event that the Department of Homeland Security establishes, in it sole discretion, that a citizen is psychologically imbalanced, then representatives of the General of Homeland Security shall have the right, in Time of War, to define Pharmacological Happiness within the context of the needs of God’s United States, and to medicate and/or genetically reform law-breaking criminals as they deem necessary.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Excerpted from America 2014: An Orwellian Tale, available from BuzzFlash.com.

Absolute power corrupts: GOP rewrites congressional rules to aid Bush agenda

2004-11-21T02:08:00.000-08:00

Absolute power corrupts: GOP rewrites congressional rules to aid Bush agendaPosted on Saturday, November 20 @ 10:23:14 EST
By Susan Milligan, Boston GlobeWASHINGTON -- With expanded majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican leaders are tightening the circle of power and sending warning signals to moderates and Democrats who might threaten the ambitious legislative agenda of the White House.Combined with President Bush's recent efforts to consolidate more executive-branch power in the hands of key loyalists, the GOP actions set the stage for an efficient legislative operation to process Bush administration objectives through Congress and then on to the White House for Bush's signature, analysts say."There is this kind of effort to convert the key policy-making institutions of government into one assembly line for the president's agenda," said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who specializes in government transitions. "That's very unusual -- it's almost like running a large conglomerate when you have the [president as] CEO and the House and Senate as almost the manufacturing division."Senate Republicans voted this week to give their majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, more authority in naming members of legislative committees, a power that helps Frist impose party discipline by allowing him to pass over veteran senators for some posts.GOP colleagues also forced Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate, to fight for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, a post he is entitled to under Senate traditions rewarding seniority. Specter, who supports abortion rights, effectively sewed up his bid for the job Thursday despite opposition from conservative groups, but only after pledging to his colleagues that he would give all of Bush's nominees "quick committee hearings and committee votes."Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are considering an official challenge to the rules that allow 41 senators to stop a judicial nominee through a filibuster, the tool used by Democrats to block some of the administration's judicial nominees. The proposed challenge would not affect other filibusters.On the House side, Republicans on Wednesday protected their leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, by voting in secret to throw out the rule requiring legislators to step down from their leadership positions if they are indicted. DeLay has not been charged with a crime, but several of his associates have been indicted in an ongoing Texas investigation into corporate donations to Republican state legislative candidates.Michael Franc, a congressional analyst with the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, said Congress is giving its leaders "more tools in the toolbox" to approve the agenda of the Republican majority.But giving GOP leaders more tools does not sit well with Democrats, some moderate Republicans, and some nonpartisan government watchdog groups. They say the moves are part of a pattern of rule changes that stifle dissent and threaten some of the checks and balances on government.Some cited recent votes in the House to limit the kinds of cases federal courts can hear -- for example, blocking consideration of marriage legislation and laws defending the Pledge of Allegiance -- as a different type of assault on the balance of power, weakening the federal judiciary's ability to override the decisions of the president and Congress."I think the kind of breakdown of oversight and checks and balances is a huge issue in the coming year," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which tracks campaign financing and the use of government power. "It certainly does appear that there is both a consolidation of power going on and, in the case of recent actions by House Republicans, a demonstration of hypocrisy and hubris that reflects a circling of the wagons."The minority party over the years typically has protested about abuse by the majority, which sets the schedule for hearings and floor votes on legislation. But the current GOP-dominated government has been effective at coordinating activity among the White House, the House, and the Senate into a "seamless" effort to pass Bush's priorities, said Light, the professor at New York University.Republicans defended their rules changes, saying that the election this month validated their agenda and that Democrats need to be less obstructionist."They ought to try to put good government" first, said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. Brushing aside Democrats' complaints about poor treatment, Lott recalled his days as a member of the House minority: "They treated us like the worst beaten dogs you ever saw. They wouldn't even throw us a bone."Representative Henry Bonilla, a Republican of Texas who initiated the House rules change that could help DeLay maintain power, said the old rule rewarded "partisan" prosecutions and violated the tenet of presumed innocence. Asked what voice Democrats could have in a House tightly controlled by GOP leaders, he said, "We weren't elected by the people in our districts to serve the minority."Dissenting voices in the administration, meanwhile, have been muted, with the scheduled departure of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the personnel housecleaning at the CIA by the agency's new director, former Republican congressman Porter Goss. Bush has appointed to his new Cabinet a series of officials with close personal ties and demonstrated loyalty to the president.But Bush also benefits from an unusually friendly Congress, where Republicans will have expanded, comfortable majorities next year. While previous Congresses have served as political counterweights to the White House, the current Congress rarely challenges the administration, Democratic legislators say.With the exception of the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a panel that the White House initially opposed, Congress has launched no significant probes into the executive branch, said Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Lowell.Meehan is pushing legislation that would put the House Governmental Affairs Committee, which is in charge of government oversight, in the control of whichever political party is not in the White House."Given the arrogance and the one-party rule in Washington, I think this is a recipe for Republicans overreaching," Meehan said. "They will pay a price for it in the midterm elections." © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.Reprinted from The Boston Globe:http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/20/gop_preps_stage_for_bush_agenda

The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascisim

2004-11-21T02:04:00.000-08:00

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence BrittDr.

Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home.

'Does Bush now have political capital to spend?'

2004-11-19T11:33:00.000-08:00

John W. Dean: 'Does Bush now have political capital to spend?'Posted on Friday, November 19 @

A Look at the Historical Record Suggests the Answer Is NoBy John W. Dean, FindLawAt his first post-reelection news conference, President Bush remarked, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Political capital is a vague concept. Yet no one can doubt the gist of the President's meaning. Clearly, he believes he can now get his way politically in Washington. When "capital" is used in the political context, it means an advantage, or an accumulations of favors, or influence, that will give its holder political sway. Bush's 2004 victory, however, has given him only a slight bit of additional political capital. Rhetoric notwithstanding, he is not, politically speaking, a wealthy man. In truth, he was politically bankrupt after 2000, and he is not all that much stronger today.Just check the historical record, if you will. Especially given his claim to be a "wartime" president, Bush's victory rings as hollow as our history has to offer. The mainstream news media has played it as a big win.

In fact, it is nothing of the kind. Puffery, pretension, and propaganda may create the image of political capital but these illusions can vanish quickly. Bush's Nonexistent MandateBy all historical standards for an incumbent president, Bush merely (and barely) retained his job in 2004. He certainly did not receive the mandate some of his supporters have claimed for him. To the contrary, as many of them realize, Bush has almost no mandate whatsoever. Talk of political capital, then, is pure political posturing -- just as it was in 2000, and after the 2002 mid-term elections (where the GOP recaptured the Senate). A political mandate, like a legal mandate, is a clear directive, a command to take a given action. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower received 55.1 percent of the vote, and 353 more electoral college votes more than his opponent. He used this genuine mandate to end American's war in Korea; the issue had been central to his campaign. Similarly, in 1964 Lyndon Johnson (with 61.1 percent of the vote, and 434 more electoral votes than his challenger) obtained a mandate to end racial discrimination in the United States. Race relations had been a central campaign issue, in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, and in the long wake of Brown v. Board of Education. In addition, Johnson was understood as continuing the legacy of John F. Kennedy, who had enabled strong federal enforcement of civil rights in the South.Now compare Bush's claim for a mandate: He received 51% of the popular vote, and only 34 more electoral college vote than his challenger. This tiny edge is no mandate, and underwhelming political capital for an incumbent.To make matters worse, the very issues Bush claims to have a mandate to address -- selecting conservative judges, partially privatizing Social Security, and revising the tax code -- were barely mentioned during the presidential campaign. Bush's Showing Is Especially Weak Given The Advantage of IncumbencyBush's showing was even poorer in light of the fact that he was an incumbent President.

All he did was barely manage to keep his job.If his political capital is viewed in its true historical context, as it should be, Bush accumulated almost none in 2004. Not since his 2000 squeaker has any incumbent president won with so few electors as Bush received in 2004. (In 2000, Bush obtained 271 electoral votes - only one more than is necessary to win, and only five more than his opponent Al Gore, who had 266 and won the popular vote besides.) The historical record makes the point: In 1940, Roosevelt won over Willkie, 449- 99 (garnering 84% of the electoral college vote). In 1944, FDR topped Dewey 432-99 (81%). In 1948, Truman again beat Dewey, 303-189 (57%) -- with Strom Thurmond getting 39 electoral votes. In 1956, Eisenhower beat Stevenson 457-73 (85%). In 1972, Nixon prevailed over McGovern 520-17 (96%). In 1984, Reagan overwhelmed Mondale, 525-13 (97%). In 1996, Clinton beat Dole 379-159 (70%).Now look at 2004's election. Bush beat Kerry only 286-252 (54% of the electoral college). This win is simply dwarfed by those of his predecessor incumbent Presidents.Meanwhile, Bush's popular vote (at this time) shows a mere three percent point win - 51% to Kerry's 48%. Again, no modern incumbent has survived with such a tiny gap between his percentage of the popular vote, and that of his opponent: Clinton had 9%, Reagan 18%, Nixon 23%, LBJ 22%, Truman 4%, and FDR 8%, 10% and 24%.

In sum, Bush's showing was exceptionally weak for a winner, and historically weak for an incumbent. It is fair to say Bush is one of the weakest election victors in our history - again. Bush's Thin Political Capital In The CongressThe 2004 election gave the GOP only a few additional seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A shift of a few seats is far from a national mandate. In addition, since Bush already had a majority in both the House and Senate, he can hardly be said to have gained true political capital in the Congress.In the House, it appears the GOP will add at least five new seats, if not seven. As for the Senate, the Republicans did gain four seats -- giving them 55 senators versus the 44 Democrats plus one independent who votes with the Democrats. But four Republican moderates are returning: Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, along with Maine's Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Also, one of the Democrats who's out -- Zell Miller -- typically voted Republican before his retirement. Republicans have at best a soft majority, but not control of the Senate. To control the Senate requires sufficient votes to stop a filibuster - or 60 votes. And clearly the Senate, with the power to confirm the President's judicial nominations, is seen as vital to the Republicans, who seek to tilt the entire federal judiciary to the right - even if Bush has neither a mandate, nor the political capital, to do so.

Controlling Senate Filibusters In Confirmation ProceedingsIn Washington, there is now serious talk of the GOP majority's "going nuclear," since the President does not have enough votes to control the Senate. As I discussed in a previous column, that means they may make a bid to change the Senate Rules to allow a simple majority to cut off a filibuster regarding judicial confirmation proceedings. Former Majority Leader, and current Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is one who favors the "nuclear" option. His strategy would be to request that the Senate's parliamentarian reject Democratic filibusters regarding judicial confirmations as unconstitutional. Republicans believe the parliamentarian, who works for them, will rule for them - and if he does, their simple majority of 51 would suffice to uphold his ruling. Similarly Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a recent speech to the Federalist Society, complained that Democrats were obstructing the selection of Bush's hard-right conservative and ideological judges, and he was not going to let them continue. Frist accuses the Democrats of unprecedented action in filibustering judicial nominations. But that's nonsense: In 1968, Nixon got Senate Republicans to filibuster and successfully block President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Frist would not have given his speech if he wasn't concerned about his ability to force the President's will on the Senate (and nation). If Bush and the GOP really had a mandate and political capital, they'd be in a position to pack the High Court with conservative ideologues. With court appointments a little-discussed campaign issue, and Senate Republicans far from the magic 60 votes, any claim of a mandate is implausible at best. And if the Republicans do wrest filibuster power away from Democrats to fast-track their nominees into any High Court vacancies, it will merely be a triumph of tricky legal and constitutional strategy - not a triumph of the people's will, as expressed in a mandate.

But this I do know. Going nuclear will cost Bush every bit of political capital he has in the Senate. In fact, the fallout will forever change the Senate -- just as the GOP has, in less than a decade, remade the House of Representatives into a body that resembles the Russian Duma.The Liabilities That Will Predictably Sap Bush's CapitalWhen one turns from Bush's few political assets to his liabilities, the precarious state of his political balance sheet becomes apparent. He has major liabilities. Most are of his own making. None are under his control. First, there is the continuing cost of anti-terrorism measures. In Osama bin Laden's November 1 taped message he explained that Al Qaeda's policy is to "bleed[] America to the point of bankruptcy." That tactic, he noted, was drawn from the 1980s Afghan Mujahedeen, with whom he fought - and who "bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." Bush has offered no rational explanation of how his endless war on terrorism can be won, and has all but admitted it can't be. As long as Bush continues to take this position, continuing anti-terrorism expenses, and companion deficits, will be inevitable.Second, there is the Iraq war: It's killing Americans and further draining our resources, while at the same time, proving to be a recruiting dream for terrorism organizers. The New Republic had it right when it wrote that "[h]onest conservatives, even those who admire President Bush, know he didn't earn a second term. They know he staked his presidency on a catastrophe, and that, by all rights, Iraq should be his political epitaph." Put another way, Bush has yet to pay the piper for his Iraqi war, but sooner or later that debt must be paid.Third, there are the humongous deficits Bush has created.

True conservatives believe Bush's out-of-control deficit spending must be stopped - and some felt so strongly that they even said, pre-election, that he should not be given a second term. Those who held their tongue will speak now, and Bush will pay the cost. Many are determined to halt Bush's programs (further spending and additional tax cuts) if they will further grow the deficits. Fourth, there is the current, deep foreign policy schism within the ranks of the GOP. Traditional conservatives oppose the Administration's neoconservative foreign policy. The title of Pat Buchanan's latest book says it all: Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency. Fifth, and finally, while Bush may have won the election battle, his war with Senator Kerry is anything but over. As The Washington Post reported, Kerry "plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008." Vice President Al Gore faded from public life after Bush defeated him in 2004. Kerry, however, seems to be planning a very different path. Having defeated the President in three presidential debates, garnered the support of almost half of the nation's voters, and made himself nationally known to all, Kerry will be an opponent to contend with, for Bush in the Senate, and for the GOP in 2008, if he chooses to run.
In light of all these realities - all of them liabilities for Bush -- Bush's claim to new political capital is likely to prove to be fool's gold. Indeed, if the GOP should lose control of the Senate in 2006, Bush and Cheney will be in dire straits. They have accumulated a reservoir of ill will that could sink them. This presidency does not -- all claims to the contrary -- have a strong political balance sheet. Bush had best spend cautiously the little capital he possesses.John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.Copyright © 2004 FindLaw

Anonymous: 'Dumb me down'

2004-11-19T11:01:00.000-08:00

Anonymous: 'Dumb me down'Posted on Friday, November 19 @ 10:07:19 EST

By AnonymousWell, I've given myself the requisite two weeks to "calm down" after the election. It hasn't worked.I'm not angry that George W. Bush is president. He was elected, finally, which is what we do in America (if you overlook the fact that literally every irregularity in the voting benefited Bush). I'm scared that he's president, but I am not angry about it, per se.No, my anger is reserved for the half of the voting population of this country which has shut down its thinking to such a degree that such a man could be handed the power of the office of President of the United States. This man had no business being president once, let alone twice.

And that this isn't obvious to 51% of our population is what is disturbing.I imagine how a third grader awarded the starring role as king in the school play would portray that role, and that is what I see when President Bush crosses my television screen. It is manifested in the almost comical faux Reagan power strut, the obsession with might and power, the misuse of our military for personal revenge, corporate gain, and, by his own admission, political capital, and the dictatorial style with which Bush is governing (the latest: the purging of the CIA of anyone who isn't loyal to the president. Yet we are supposed to believe that no pressure was put on these people to provide trumped up evidence to support invading Iraq?).His has been a tenure of relentless grabs, subtle and not so subtle, at more and more concentrated power for himself, of immodest and constant reminders that he is our "leader", of his arrogance in turning a deaf ear to anyone with a difference of opinion or information that does not comport with his agenda, often resulting in the brutal smearing of such people. Since the election, numerous Bush Administration members have given speeches brazenly and without shame chastising anyone who dares to question the president. These are hardly American, let alone Christian, principles. America is not a dictatorship, or at least hasn't been until now. America is about the People, not one man, but I feel that slipping away. However, I do not blame Bush for this. Rove & Co. have shrouded over this obvious decline into dictatorial rule by appealing to what is most base in human beings: fear, hatred, and a false sense of moral superiority; in short, ignorance. Those who support this gang are responsible for allowing it to work.

The division in America is not in fact drawn by moral issues, much as the media would like to cajole us into believing. All human beings struggle with their demons and trip up morally now and then, except for our mistake-less president. (It is indeed ironic that more people should die when a president is so morally perfect as to make virtually no mistakes than when presidential personal transgressions occur). Rather, the lines dividing America are class and intellect.A wave of anti-intellectualism is spreading like an insurgency in a certain Middle Eastern country. But this begs the question, who is really calling who dumb?It is taken for granted that those in the blue states think those in the red states are intellectually inferior. Red staters defiantly lash out at the "liberal elite" in the northeast. They defensively claim that Democrats don't grasp the values of rural America and that until we do, we will be lost in the wilderness of intellect, informed analysis, and sophisticated and contemplative thought. Huh? These are bad things?Despite the pummeling we on the left have taken, by moral, compassionate conservatives who say they want America unified, by being called unpatriotic, immoral, ungodly, un-American, Saddam and Osama lovers (even though it was left-leaning, Kerry-supporting areas of the country that were attacked and we who, by and large, lost relatives, neighbors and friends on 9/11), those who hurl such hateful slurs at us recoil in anger and hurt when they interpret criticism from the left as calling them dumb. They also swear revenge by promising to send the country evermore rightward and dumbward.But one must admit that the "D" word has been tossed about recently, often directed by blue staters at red staters.

But whether red staters are inherently more stupid than blue staters (they aren't) is beside the point. It is illogical to even make such a claim, just as it is illogical to claim that Democrats are more immoral than Republicans. Intelligence, like morality, has nothing to do with political affiliation or philosophy or geography. No, the issue is who is treating the red staters as though they are stupid, and I would argue that no one is doing so more than Karl Rove & Co.Think about it. John Kerry spoke to people as though he was having an actual dialogue with them. He spoke of the complexities of the world. He assumed his audience was smart enough to grasp the things he said, and half of us were, without any problem. He did not dumb down his words. He spoke in complete conceptual terms. He treated the voters as intelligent adults who can think and understand the intent and context of what he said without need for follow-up explanations. Maybe that was because in the "elitist" northeast, where the population is highly educated, they got it on the first shot, and Sen. Kerry took that for granted and treated all Americans in such a manner.President Bush spoke in slogans and clichès and relied heavily on buzzwords. That is treating your audience like they are morons. I can hear Rove now: "Mr. President, just repeat, 'He can run, but he cannot hide' over and over! They'll eat it up! They'll cheer you on, and you will not have actually said anything or need to explain why, after being attacked by religious fundamentalists on 9/11, we have spent 200 billion dollars and 1300 American lives to attack a secular country that had no intention of attacking us and did not attack us and by sheer coincidence you had said in 1999 that you'd like to invade to get political capital and to be seen as a great leader and commander-in-chief!"Or,"Mr. President, go with that 'more liberal than the senior senator from Massachusetts' thing again! They'll be roaring so loud, they will not hear you when you explain to them why it is their incomes are down, their tax burden is up, but millionaires, our friends the Haves and Have-Mores, are making more money and paying fewer taxes!"Sadly, eat it up they did, every time he said it and all his other myriad of tough talk and simplistic slogans.

Why? Because they recognized it; it sounded familiar. It sounded kind of like something Arnold or Clint would say. It hit them in their guts (as opposed to their heads). It demanded no thought or scrutiny. I was waiting at times for Mr. Bush to jiggle his keys at his adoring and pre-screened audiences to send them into a total frenzy of glee (and diversion). How could they stand to be treated this way? It was painful to watch.Forgetting for a bit that he is president of the entire United States, Bush insulted every resident of Massachusetts by pronouncing the name of that state with a disgust usually reserved for Saddam Hussein (but oddly enough, not bin Laden anymore). He slammed not only his opponent, but Senator Kennedy, without whom his No Child Left Behind program never would have passed. True, Sen. Kennedy turned scarily liberal when he expected the president to provide funding for NCLB, but to be so snide about a senior US senator and his state was, at least, unbecoming in a president.Of course, he neglected to remind voters that he got the brunt of his education in Massachusetts and all of it in New England. Never mind that Massachusetts has had a Republican governor for the past umpteen years. In fact, the latest is that Gov. Mitt Romney has been nominated to be vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and there is talk of him running for President in 2008.

Suddenly Massachusetts is looking okay to Republicans. I've got whiplash.I never heard President Clinton insult a state for being conservative, or for any reason for that matter. I never heard him target individual senators, despite being targeted for destruction by his patriotic opponents like no president before him. Bush was clearly appealing to base stereotypes and visceral emotion to get a rise out of his audience. That is treating your constituents like they are not too bright.When Sen. Kerry mentioned the global test, Bush went to town, and Rove must have been foaming at the mouth. Now, one of two things happened here. Either Pres. Bush didn't understand what was obvious to the "elite" half of us, didn't understand what Sen. Kerry was saying, and it is not in any way comforting that our president needs to have pretty simple concepts explained to him (but it might explain why he didn't grasp the Aug. 6th PDB) or Pres. Bush knew his audience well and knew that they would eat up his distortion and, frankly, complete fabrication of what Kerry had said.I think it was the second option. 'Twasn't Sen. Kerry who thought folks were dummies then, it was Rove and Bush. How can anyone in this country get away with winning political elections by attacking our war veterans, esp., attackers who avoided battle? The only way is to know your constituency will buy it if you market it correctly. Sorry, folks.

That is NOT treating your supporters with respect, not to mention your veterans. (Speaking of which, has anyone informed our Iraq War vets that their commander-in-chief considers their service over there fodder for attack 30 years from now should any of them decide to run for political office against a country club brat who supports the war in Iraq but won't go himself?) . The scorecard for this shameful campaign tactic? Republicans 3, Democrats 0, and all three worked, and that is a disgrace. But it also shows incredible disdain for your constituents since it makes clear you think they are folks who are neanderthal enough to applaud the denigration of people who went to war for their country.Bush supporters seem to denigrate their own intelligence. They like Bush because he's "one of them." They like that he governs strictly from instinct. They like that he has no need for contemplation, reading, or getting objective information. They like that he is not an intellect. They like that he comes off as simple. That he'd be fun to have a beer with is sufficient. Nothing like lowering the bar to become President. Do you see something here? THEY admit to their simplicity, to their lack of intellect, and they are determined to bring America down to that level rather than doing the "hard work" of raising themselves up to join the enlightened, the educated, and the informed. Why keep America "elite"? Let's instead try a new, unimproved, regressive America where the uninformed rule.

But then let's complain when liberal elites call us dumb.But let's be honest here for a second. When red staters angrily reject the blue state "elite", what they are rejecting is blue state brains. Calling millions of people elite is the same as saying, "You think you're so great," which is an obvious indication of feelings of inferiority. They do not want complicated thought cluttering up their black-and-white worldview. But why should America be brought down to that level? America should be constantly improving, her population getting smarter, not dumber. We should be way ahead of the Founding Fathers in language, thought, and understanding of American principles. Instead, we are in retrograde. I believe the Founding Fathers, if they could hear us and see us, would cover their eyes and ears and hang their heads in shame and sadness. They gave us the greatest gift of opportunity on earth, and we are systematically destroying that gift by praising the dumbing down of America. Don't we want America to be elite? Don't red staters want to be informed, educated? (Vicariously getting your anger and frustration out by listening to Rush Limbaugh spew vitriol is not getting informed, by the way).

Why do they want America led by a group of bullies who have rejected the "reality based community" in favor of creating their own reality, a bizarre reality which the rest of us have to figure out how to survive despite the pervasive secrecy in this Administration?Blue staters had every hope and belief that red staters would see through Rove's machinations and mistreatment of them. We see it so clearly. No one was more heartbroken than we in the blue states to see red staters acquiesce to Rove's belief that those folks are just dumb enough to be manipulated so cruelly. It was like listening to a battered woman saying he does it because he loves her. But no one was laughing harder at the red staters' expense than were Bush, Rove and Cheney. No one. The sound of high fives at Bush/Rove gatherings on election night no doubt reached the cacophony of a trawler of fish hitting the deck. And sure, a lot were meant for Bush's win, but make no bones about it, a lot were for having successfully exploited the ignorance of so many of their own countrymen.The formula is pretty simple: if you don't want to be called dumb, don't allow yourself to be treated the way the Bush campaign treated you, like you are, well, dumb. But if you must, do not expect the rest of us to join you. Brains are stronger than bullets, the antidote to fear, the fodder for courage, and the best hope to stop all the bloodshed.I am writing this as Anonymous for a couple of reasons. It matters not who I am. The message is all that matters. But mostly, I am sorry to say, I am afraid of this administration. It is shocking that anyone should be afraid, in America, to express him or herself, but afraid I am. I am an American citizen, and I am afraid. That alone shows how far we have fallen in four short years.Anonymous

REVOLUTION IN REVERSE

2004-11-19T10:59:00.000-08:00

Revolution In Reverse
In solidifying its power, the GOP is loosening its ethics.
By E. J. Dionne Jr.Friday, November 19, 2004; Page A29
"And I want to say to you bluntly: You live today with the most corrupt congressional leadership we have seen in the United States in the 20th century. You have to go back to the Gilded Age of the 1870s and 1880s to have anything comparable that we've lived through."
Gosh, those Democrats must be really bitter about this year's elections to say stuff like that. Isn't it time to put aside partisan invective?

But however appropriate that ringing indictment may seem to the moment, it did not issue from any Democrat this week. The words were spoken in February 1992 by a House Republican named Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was then building the momentum that led to the historic Republican takeover of Congress two years later. The GOP modestly called what it was up to a "revolution."
As the old rock song taught us: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
What's surprising is how shameless House Republicans were on Wednesday in casting aside their 11-year-old rule requiring a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if he or she comes under indictment.
The repeal might be called the Tom DeLay Protection Act of 2004. DeLay, the House majority leader, is under investigation by Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Texas's Travis County. Earle, who is a Democrat, is investigating charges that corporate money was used illegally to help Republicans win Texas legislative races in 2002. Republican victories that year paved the way for changes in the state's congressional district lines that helped Republicans win additional U.S. House seats in Texas this year, solidifying their hold on power.
Earle has already obtained indictments against three of DeLay's political associates. The Hammer, as DeLay is known, must be worried.
Recall how Republicans dismissed any and all who charged that the investigations of President Bill Clinton by special prosecutor Ken Starr were politically motivated. Ah, but those were investigations of a shady Democrat by a distinguished Republican. When a Democrat is investigating a Republican, it can only be about politics. Is that clear?
Rep. Henry Bonilla, the Texas Republican who sponsored the resolution to protect DeLay, said it was designed to protect against "crackpot" prosecutors whose indictments might get in the way of the ability of House Republicans to choose their own leaders. Can't let a little thing like an indictment get in the way of the sovereignty of House Republicans, can we?
"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country," said Bonilla. Remember the old days during the Clinton impeachment when Republicans went on and on about the importance of "the rule of law"? Oh well.
DeLay's response to the whole thing came, almost word for word, from Clinton's old talking points. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through. On Wednesday, DeLay said that Democrats "announced years ago that they were going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, and had me as a target." Maybe it's time for Bill and Tom to sit down at that big new library in Little Rock for a friendly drink.
About the only defense Republicans can make for repealing their rule on indicted leaders is that the original motivation for passing it in 1993 was blatantly political. Republicans were trying to make hay over an investigation of Dan Rostenkowski, an Illinois Democrat who was then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Rostenkowski was later convicted of mail fraud. If politics was behind the rule in the first place, why not be political now that the rule is inconvenient? Isn't this a case of admirable consistency?
Some Republicans, at least, remember what they stood for 10 years ago. "We took a strong stand in 1994 to make clear the Republican conference would live by a higher standard than our Democratic colleagues," Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said in a statement. Shays also told reporters: "We won election in '94 because we were going to be different, and what I continue to see is a slow but very consistent erosion in what made us different."
Shays reminds us that when and he and Gingrich were in the opposition, they gave voice to many who worried about the dangers of an entrenched majority that came to assume it had a right to power and could do whatever was necessary to keep it. Gingrich's line about the Gilded Age just may have come 12 years too early. You don't have to be a crackpot to believe that the Gilded Age is now.

Commons motion to impeach Blair gets go-ahead

2004-11-19T10:47:00.000-08:00

Commons motion to impeach Blair gets go-ahead David Hencke, Westminster correspondentFriday November 19, 2004The Guardian The parliamentary motion to impeach Tony Blair for "gross misconduct" over the war against Iraq will be published next Wednesday, the day after the Queen's speech.
It will be the first to be tabled in 198 years, since Lord Melville, a close friend of the then prime minister, William Pitt the younger, faced impeachment for misusing public money in running the Admiralty.
Senior parliamentary officials, including legal advisers to the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, on Wednesday night approved the wording of the text as meeting parliamentary rules, allowing the motion to be tabled on the first day of the new session. The Tory chief whip, David Maclean, has paged every Tory frontbench MP telling them not to sign it.
The Liberal Democrats are divided, with Jenny Tonge, the MP for Richmond, among those supporting the idea and Sir Menzies Campbell, the party's foreign affairs spokesman, strongly opposing it. No Labour MP is expected to sign the motion for fear of losing the party whip for bringing the leader into disrepute.
The motion, which was drawn up by Douglas Hogg, the MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham and son of the former Tory lord chancellor Lord Hailsham, is attracting support among backbench MPs who would not normally support the same cause.
The latest recruits among the 25 backing the call are George Galloway, the deselected Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin, who is suing the Daily Telegraph for libel over allegations he took money from Saddam Hussein, and John Gummer, the former Tory environment secretary and MP for Suffolk Coastal.

Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP who launched the campaign for the motion, said yesterday: "This is the only way left to MPs to call the prime minister to account over his conduct in the war against Iraq."

Full Statement of CIA Director Porteer Goss To

2004-11-19T10:42:00.000-08:00

11/19/2004
Full statement of CIA Director Porter Goss to agency acquired by Raw Story
Filed under:
General— site admin @ 11:20 am Email This
The following is the text of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Porter Goss’s statement to agency staff dated Nov. 15 2004. RAW STORY acquired it from a source who prefers to remain anonymous, but has cross-checked the context of the statement with snippets that were printed in news articles such newspapers as the New York Times to verify its authenticity.
Not long after Director Tenet’s unexpected retirement, President Bush asked me to be the DCI and to take on the challenges identified in the various reviews of 9/11, in the reports about WMD, and in the global wear against terrorism. The President’s direction was very clear - the Intelligence Community must do all it can to keep Americans safe both here and abroad, and to accomplish that mission, the fifteen components of the Community must work more closely as a team.
As the flagship component, CIA has the vital role and the DCI has the direct responsibility and accountability to the President. I, and the DDCI on my behalf, perform that mission with your tremendous help.
CIA is, of course, a part of the Executive Branch primarily as a capabilities component. We do not make policy, though we do inform those who make it. We avoid political involvement especially political partisanship.
We are (emphasis in original) a secret Agency. Of necessity, we must assiduously follow the law to honor the trust placed upon us. We have rules to govern our conduct of business and rules designed to facilitate our mission’s success and to build public confidence.
Since 9/11 everything has changed. The IC and its people have been relentlessly scrutinized and criticized. Intelligence related issues have become the fodder of partisan food fights and turf-power skirmishes. All the while, the demand for our services and products against a ruthless and unconventional enemy has expanded geometrically and we are expected to deliver - instantly. We have reason to be proud of our achievements and we need to be smarter about how we do our work in this “operational climate.”
I want everyone in our workforce to know - I seek to encourage and expect the best from everyone in CIA. Our country demands it, our President needs it, and this institution deserves it. I also intend to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. We support the Administration and its policies in our work. As Agency employees we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the Administration or its policies. We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.
To do so we have a strong organizational framework to support the President and the nation. These roles and responsibilities are well established and I intend to follow them.
- DDCI: The DDCI is my critical partner in the leadership of the CIA and the Intelligence Community. We have been extraordinarily well served by our retiring friend and colleague John McLaughlin. We will all miss his steady thoughtful hand, his wonderful clarity, and his special magic. I wish you all to know that I am working to identify a candidate as my new deputy and take that to the President for his consideration.
- EXDIR: The Executive Director is the chief operating official for the CIA. I have entrusted him with the leadership of our critical functions, and the requirement that Mission comes first.
- The Deputy Directors for Intelligence, Operations, Science & Technology and the MSO Chiefs are the principal leaders of their disciplines, and are fully charged by me to lead their organizations, consistent with my vision and direction.
- Chief of Staff/DCI: The Chief of Staff organizes and manages the duties and priorities of my staff.
- The Directors of OPA, OCA, and OGC lead our Agency with contacts outside of the Agency. These disciplines allow us, as Agency officers to scrupulously honor our secrecy oath. A simple rule of thumb should always apply - all Agency business with the media or Congress should be conducted solely through these elements to ensure that we protect against the release of unauthorized documents, sources or methods. We remain a secret organization.
Through this clear chain of command we are all charged with not only our mission, but also the leadership of our officers with integrity, intelligence, and an unfailing commitment to the work the President has asked of us.
In the days and weeks ahead of us, I will announce a series of changes - some involving procedures, organization, senior personnel, and areas of focus for our action. I am committed to sharing these changes with you as they occur. I do understand it is easy to be distracted by both the nature and pace of change. I am confident, however, that you will remain deeply committed to our mission. The American people, and the President on their behalf, expect nothing less.

New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies

2004-11-17T08:46:00.000-08:00

New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration PoliciesBy DOUGLAS JEHLPublished: November 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."
While his words could be construed as urging analysts to conform with administration policies, Mr. Goss also wrote, "We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.''
The memorandum suggested an effort by Mr. Goss to spell out his thinking as he embarked on what he made clear would be a major overhaul at the agency, with further changes to come. The changes to date, including the ouster of the agency's clandestine service chief, have left current and former intelligence officials angry and unnerved. Some have been outspoken, including those who said Tuesday that they regarded Mr. Goss's warning as part of an effort to suppress dissent within the organization.
In recent weeks, White House officials have complained that some C.I.A. officials have sought to undermine President Bush and his policies.
At a minimum, Mr. Goss's memorandum appeared to be a swipe against an agency decision under George J. Tenet, his predecessor as director of central intelligence, to permit a senior analyst at the agency, Michael Scheuer, to write a book and grant interviews that were critical of the Bush administration's policies on terrorism.
One former intelligence official said he saw nothing inappropriate in Mr. Goss's warning, noting that the C.I.A. had long tried to distance itself and its employees from policy matters.
"Mike exploited a seam in the rules and inappropriately used it to express his own policy views,'' the official said of Mr. Scheuer. "That did serious damage to the agency, because many people, including some in the White House, thought that he was being urged by the agency to take on the president. I know that was not the case.''
But a second former intelligence official said he was concerned that the memorandum and the changes represented an effort by Mr. Goss to stifle independence.
"If Goss is asking people to color their views and be a team player, that's not what people at C.I.A. signed up for,'' said the former intelligence official. The official and others interviewed in recent days spoke on condition that they not be named, saying they did not want to inflame tensions at the agency.
Some of the contents of Mr. Goss's memorandum were first reported by The Washington Post. A complete copy of the document was obtained on Tuesday by The New York Times.
Tensions between the agency's new leadership team, which took over in late September, and senior career officials are more intense than at any time since the late 1970's. The most significant changes so far have been the resignations on Monday of Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy director of operations, and his deputy, Michael Sulick, but Mr. Goss told agency employees in the memorandum that he planned further changes "in the days and weeks ahead of us'' that would involve "procedures, organization, senior personnel and areas of focus for our action.''
"I am committed to sharing these changes with you as they occur,'' Mr. Goss said in the memorandum. "I do understand it is easy to be distracted by both the nature and the pace of change. I am confident, however, that you will remain deeply committed to our mission.''
Mr. Goss's memorandum included a reminder that C.I.A. employees should "scrupulously honor our secrecy oath'' by allowing the agency's public affairs office and its Congressional relations branch to take the lead in all contacts with the media and with Congress. "We remain a secret organization,'' he said.
Among the moves that Mr. Goss said he was weighing was the selection of a candidate to become the agency's No. 2 official, the deputy director of central intelligence. The name being mentioned most often within the C.I.A. as a candidate, intelligence officials said, is Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, the director of the National Security Agency, which is responsible for intercepting electronic communications worldwide. The naming of a deputy director would be made by the White House, in a nomination subject to Senate confirmation.
In interviews this week, members of Congress as well as current and former intelligence officials said one reason the overhaul under way had left them unnerved was that Mr. Goss had not made clear what kind of agency he intended to put in place. But Mr. Goss's memorandum did little to spell out that vision, and it did not make clear why the focus of overhaul efforts to date appeared to be on the operations directorate, which carries out spying and other covert missions around the world.
"It's just very hard to divine what's going on over there,'' said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who said he and other members of the Senate intelligence committee would be seeking answers at closed sessions this week. "But on issue after issue, there's a real question about whether the country and the Congress are going to get an unvarnished picture of our intelligence situation at a critical time.''
Mr. Goss said in the memorandum that he recognized that intelligence officers were operating in an atmosphere of extraordinary pressures, after a series of reports critical of intelligence agencies' performance in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq.
"The I.C. and its people have been relentlessly scrutinized and criticized,'' he said, using an abbreviation for intelligence community. "Intelligence-related issues have become the fodder of partisan food fights and turf-power skirmishes. All the while, the demand for our services and products against a ruthless and unconventional enemy has expanded geometrically and we are expected to deliver - instantly. We have reason to be proud of our achievements and we need to be smarter about how we do our work in this operational climate.''

Broward vote-count glitch a cinch for cyber solvers

2004-11-17T08:40:00.000-08:00

Broward vote-count glitch a cinch for cyber solvers
By John Murawski
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 14, 2004
You can't fool the computer geeks.
When news got out this month that Broward County ballot tabulators were counting backward, it seemed like some kind of black-box mystery of the technological age. The layman would have to take it on faith that the glitch was a fluke that could not happen again, for so declared the experts who possessed the secret to the machine.
More Local News

But in e-mails and chat groups, computer programmers throughout the country instantly figured out the reverse-counting fiasco.
And with the glee of a school math whiz who knows more than the teacher, the programmers mocked the experts as amateurs, rookies and computing greenhorns for selling Broward County computers inadvertently set to count votes backward.
In the end, Broward County caught the problem and counted its ballots correctly. The equipment maker, Elections Systems & Software, says its updated software fixes the problem that, the company says, wasn't a programming error at all but improper use of equipment by Broward elections personnel.
The computer geeks haven't stopped laughing.
"Pure programming incompetence," said Matt Levy, a Washington programmer who did doctoral work in computational complexity theory at the University of Kentucky. "An amateur mistake," Levy said. "We all knew exactly why it happened and we all knew it instantly."
Noted Kevin Cole, who's been programming a quarter-century, and now works for an insurance company in Cincinnati: "It's exactly the same kind of problem as the Y2K problem."
Precinct exceeded size
Conspiracy theorists be forewarned: The Broward County glitch affected old-fashioned paper ballots. Specifically, absentee ballots. This had nothing to do with the touch-screen paperless ballots that were the subject of recent lawsuits.
The ES&S system used by Broward County maxed out at 32,767 votes, a standard default setting. There's a technical reason for that, rooted in binary integers. Suffice to say that one vote over the limit would trip the system and convert the numbers into a negative value and continue counting back to zero: -32,766, -32,765, -32,764, etc. It's counterintuitive to the layman but sound computational logic.
Most precincts have just a few hundred people. ES&S ought to know: The company sells its equipment in 47 states; in Florida, ES&S gear is used in 32 counties.
Palm Beach County's biggest precinct, for example, is home to 3,280 registered voters whose polling place is Independence Middle School in Jupiter.
"Election counts never approach 32,767 votes per precinct," said Ken Carbullido, ES&S's senior vice president for product and software development. "... It's very rare for a precinct to get up to 2,000 people."
This year gave us the oversized precinct that ES&S didn't account for. A surge of people voted by absentee ballot. Broward County elections workers processed the ballots through one tabulator machine: 98,971 ballots pushed into a system that can't handle more than 32,767. Only one page was affected, the one with state constitutional amendments 4 through 8.
Computer programmers have a term for such an unforeseen circumstance: a failure of imagination.
It's the same myopia that couldn't foresee the Y2K problem, when computers were programmed to count years by two digits, as if we would never emerge from the 1900's.
"It should be foolproof," said Skip Scown, a programmer in El Segundo, Calif., at Raytheon, the company that makes the Patriot missile. "There shouldn't be a way that you can use it wrong."
Actually, the same thing happened once before, two years ago — in Broward County, and on ES&S equipment. That problem was caught and fixed and at the time assumed to be an anomaly. ES&S accepted no blame, then as now.
"As long as our customers only use the system within the stated limitations, there's no problem," Carbullido said.
In an elections atmosphere prone to fears of rigged and stolen elections, Broward County's elections chief was quick to point the finger at ES&S.
"The public exposure of this tabulation restriction is a significant detriment to voter confidence," Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes wrote Nov. 8 to the state Division of Elections. "It is therefore essential that this problem be rectified as soon as possible."
Warning system in place
The same problem with tabulating early votes occurred in Guilford County, N.C., again on ES&S equipment. The problem was caught and didn't skew the results, ES&S said.
Now that the impossible has happened — twice, in Broward County — ES&S has introduced tabulators that can count up to 65,336 votes, with a warning system if the limit is approached.
Being sticklers for precision, computer programmers are quick to point out that it's not accurate to say the problem happened twice. Rather, the problem was detected twice.
Cole, the Cincinnati programmer, describes it like this:
"It would be like an odometer maxing out and wrapping around," he said. "You don't know how many times it has wrapped around."

Vote Fraud Found in Florida

2004-11-17T08:21:00.000-08:00

Audio Report Tue10pmUpdateListenmp3 or Dwnload
Vote Fraud Foundin Volusia, Florida BreakForNews.com, 17th Nov 2004by Bev Harris, BlackBoxVoting.orgDueling lawyers, election officials gnashing teeth, Votergate.tv film crew catching it all. Here's what happened so far:Friday: Black Box Voting investigators Andy Stephenson and Kathleen Wynne popped into [Volusia County Dept. of Elections] to ask for some records. They were rebuffed by an elections official named Denise. Bev Harris called on the cell phone from investigations in downstate Florida, and told Volusia County Elections Supervisor Deanie Lowe that Black Box Voting would be in to pick up our Nov. 2 Freedom of Information request, or would file for a hand recount. "No, Bev, please don't do that!" she exclaimed. But this is the way it has to be, folks. We didn't back down.
Monday: Bev, Andy and Kathleen came in with a film crew and asked for the FOIA request. Deanie Lowe gave it to us with a smile, but I noticed that one item, the polling place tapes, were not copies of the real ones, but instead were new printouts, done on Nov. 15, and not signed by anyone.
I asked to see the real ones, and they told us for "privacy" reasons we can't have copies of the signed ones. I insisted on at least viewing them (although refusing to give us copies of the signatures is not legally defensible, according to our attorney). They said the real ones were in the County Elections warehouse. It was quittin' time and we arranged to come back this morning to review them.
[Elections Director] Lana Hires, an employee who gained some notoriety in a Diebold memo, where she asked for an explanation of minus 16,022 votes for Gore, so she wouldn't have to stand there "looking dumb" when the auditor came in, was particularly unhappy about seeing us in the office. She vigorously shook her head when Deanie Lowe suggested we go to the warehouse.
Kathleen Wynne and I showed up at the warehouse at 8:15 this morning. There was Lana Hires looking especially gruff, yet surprised. She ordered us out. Well, we couldn't see why because there she was, with a couple other people, handling the original poll tapes. You know, the ones with the signatures on them. We stepped out and they promptly shut the door behind us.
There was a trash bag on the porch outside the door. I looked into it and what do you know, but there were poll tapes in there. They came out and glared at us. We drove away a small bit, and then videotaped the license plates of the two vehicles marked 'City Council' member. Others came out to glare and soon all doors were slammed.
So, we went and parked behind a bus to see what they would do next. They pulled out some large pylons, which blocked the door. I decided to go look at the garbage some more. Kathleen videotaped this. A man came out and I immediately wrote a public records request for the contents of the garbage bag, which also contained ballots -- real ones, but not filled out.
A brief tug of war occurred, tearing the garbage bag open. We then looked through it, as Pete looked on. He was quite friendly.
We collected various poll tapes and other information and asked if they could copy it for us, for our public records request. "You won't be going anywhere," said Pete. "The deputy is on his way."
Yes, not one but two police cars came up and then two county elections officials, and we all stood around discussing the merits of my public records request.
They finally let us go, about the time our film crew arrived, and we all trooped off to the elections office. There, the plot thickened.
We began to compare the special printouts given to us with the signed polling tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. We also found some that didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an African-American precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and other Republicans.
Hmm. Which was right? Our polling tape, specially printed on Nov. 15, without signatures, or theirs, printed on Nov. 2, with up to 8 signatures per tape?
Well, then it became even more interesting. Lana Hires took it upon herself to box up some items from an office, which appeared to contain -- you guessed it -- polling place tapes. She took them to the back of the building and disappeared.
Then, voting integrity advocates from Volusia and Broward, decided now would be a good time to go through the trash at the elections office. Lo and behold, they found all kinds of memos and some polling place tapes, fresh from Volusia elections office.
So, we compared these with the Nov. 2 signed ones and the "special' ones from Nov. 15 given to us, unsigned, and we found several of the MISSING poll tapes. There they were: In the garbage.
So, Kathleen went to the car and got the polling place tapes we had pulled from the warehouse garbage. My my my. There were not only discrepancies, but a polling place tape that was signed by six officials.
This was a bit disturbing, since the employees there told us that bag was destined for the shredder.
By now, a county lawyer had appeared on the scene, suddenly threatening to charge us extra for the time we took looking at the real stuff they had withheld from us in our FOIA. Other lawyers appeared, phoned, people had meetings, Lana glowered at everyone, and someone shut the door in the office holding the GEMS server.
Andy then went to get the GEMS server locked down. He also got the memory cards locked down and secured, much to the dismay of Lana. They were scattered around unsecured in any way before that.
We then all agreed to convene tomorrow morning, to further audit, discuss the hand count that Black Box Voting will require of Volusia County, and of course, it is time to talk about contesting the election in Volusia.
Bev HarrisExecutive DirectorBlack Box VotingTogether with Andy, and KathleenBreakForNews.com NOTE:Seems Kerry's margin should have been at least 10,000 to 12,000 higher.There was only a 3,500 difference in Repub and Dem votes in 2004.114,986 -- Kerry -- 48.85111,263 -- Bush -- 51.49But there is a 15,000 dif between registered Repubs and Dems. District Age Analysis for Volusia on 11-02-04 under Voter Registration Totals from Volusia County site.126,405 -- DEM’s111,372 -- REP’s2000 Vote Totals - A 15,000 diff in repub and dem votes in 2000
Bush 82,368Gore 97,313Nader 2,910
1996 Totals - A 15,000 diff in repub and dem votes in 1996
Clinton 78,905Dole 63,067Perot 17,319

Google Censors Vote Fraud

2004-11-17T08:10:00.000-08:00

Those who cast the votes decide nothing.Those who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin
Audio Report Thur11 NovVoteFraudLatest Listenmp3 or Dwnload
Google Censors VoteFraud Stories BreakForNews.com, 9th Nov., 2004by Fintan Dunne, EditorSearch engine Google is ignoring thousands of news stories about the alleged theft of the U.S. presidential election.Google's news coverage is driven by a sophisticated search engine, which scans news stories and groups them by content. You can test this system manually by typing search terms into Google News.For example, the keywords "Arafat" and "coma" currently yield just over 7,000 news stories. And the search term "Sunni+election+boycott" shows almost 1,900 stories. The sheer volume of stories on those topics is why the related stories are grouped together on the front page of Google News --right now.However, searching Google News for "presidential+election+fraud" gives over over 10,000 stories! Try it yourself. Then check the Google U.S. News page -where some of the story groupings have a mere 40 or 50 stories. How come these get covered and yet the VoteFraud issue gets no mention --despite 10,000 stories in the super-efficient Google News database?And there are over 5,600 stories for "Florida+election+fraud".And there are over 2,000 stories for "presidential+election+stolen". And there are over 1,000 stories for "presidential+election+rigged". Nevertheless, there has been no coverage of the election fraud issue on the Google News front page or even it's U.S. News page. Google : Working hard to preserve the Status Quo.Just thought you'd like to know.Fintan Dunne BreakForNews.comSee Also: Google Censors Abu Ghraib Images

GOP Moves to Protect Majority Leader DeLay

2004-11-17T08:08:00.000-08:00

GOP Moves to Protect Majority Leader DeLay
By LARRY MARGASAK, AP

AP
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
WASHINGTON (Nov. 17) - Moving to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Republicans want to change party rules to ensure that DeLay retains his post if a Texas grand jury indicts him as it did with three of his political associates.
The House Republican Conference, composed of all GOP members in the chamber, was to vote Wednesday to modify a requirement that would force DeLay to step aside if charged with a felony requiring at least a two-year prison term.
Party rules require leaders to relinquish their posts after a felony indictment, but the change would eliminate the requirement for non-federal indictments.
A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, is investigating alleged irregularities in 2002 state legislative races. Republican victories in those contests enabled DeLay ultimately to win support for a congressional redistricting plan that resulted in the GOP's gain of five House seats in Texas in this month's elections.
There is no indication that DeLay faces charges, but the majority leader has called the investigation - led by a retiring Democratic prosecutor - a partisan attack on him.
House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to federal and state proceedings similar to the current Republican rule, and their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, was highly critical of the GOP proposal.

"If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing," Pelosi said.
The new language was proposed by Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, who was helped by the redistricting. Bonilla was re-elected in 2002 with less than 52 percent of the vote. After the boundaries were changed, he won this month with 69 percent of the vote.
Jessica Boulanger, spokeswoman for third-ranking House Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, said Tuesday her boss supported the proposal.
The majority whip "believes the allegations are baseless, and they were political in nature. So he supports the proposed rules change by Congressman Bonilla."
Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said the proposed change is intended to "prevent political manipulation of the legislative process" and reduce the possibility of "political exploitation and intimidation of House leadership and chairmanship positions."
In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.
DeLay said he was not questioned or subpoenaed as part of the investigation, led by retiring prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
The majority leader said after the indictments, "This has been a dragged-out 500-day investigation, and you do the political math. This is no different than other kinds of partisan attacks that have been leveled against me that are dropped after elections."
In October, the House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for appearing to link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly persuading U.S. aviation authorities to intervene in the Texas redistricting dispute.
Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report

GOP Moves to Protect Majority Leader DeLay

2004-11-17T08:04:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (Nov. 17) - Moving to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Republicans want to change party rules to ensure that DeLay retains his post if a Texas grand jury indicts him as it did with three of his political associates.
The House Republican Conference, composed of all GOP members in the chamber, was to vote Wednesday to modify a requirement that would force DeLay to step aside if charged with a felony requiring at least a two-year prison term.
Party rules require leaders to relinquish their posts after a felony indictment, but the change would eliminate the requirement for non-federal indictments.
A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, is investigating alleged irregularities in 2002 state legislative races. Republican victories in those contests enabled DeLay ultimately to win support for a congressional redistricting plan that resulted in the GOP's gain of five House seats in Texas in this month's elections.
There is no indication that DeLay faces charges, but the majority leader has called the investigation - led by a retiring Democratic prosecutor - a partisan attack on him.
House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to federal and state proceedings similar to the current Republican rule, and their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, was highly critical of the GOP proposal.
"If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing," Pelosi said.
The new language was proposed by Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, who was helped by the redistricting. Bonilla was re-elected in 2002 with less than 52 percent of the vote. After the boundaries were changed, he won this month with 69 percent of the vote.
Jessica Boulanger, spokeswoman for third-ranking House Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, said Tuesday her boss supported the proposal.
The majority whip "believes the allegations are baseless, and they were political in nature. So he supports the proposed rules change by Congressman Bonilla."
Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said the proposed change is intended to "prevent political manipulation of the legislative process" and reduce the possibility of "political exploitation and intimidation of House leadership and chairmanship positions."
In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.
DeLay said he was not questioned or subpoenaed as part of the investigation, led by retiring prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
The majority leader said after the indictments, "This has been a dragged-out 500-day investigation, and you do the political math. This is no different than other kinds of partisan attacks that have been leveled against me that are dropped after elections."
In October, the House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for appearing to link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly persuading U.S. aviation authorities to intervene in the Texas redistricting dispute.
Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report

Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

2004-11-16T14:14:00.000-08:00

Attack on Fallujah can't be justified
By HELEN THOMASHEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Do Americans of good conscience really believe that we are making the United States more secure by bombing and killing the people of Fallujah?
That's the justification President Bush and his hawkish circle have given for their brutal offensive against the Sunni stronghold as they push ahead for the total military occupation of Iraq.
Why are we killing Iraqis in their own country? And why are our forces being killed?
Of course it was convenient and the better part of valor for the president to wait until after the election to start dropping the 500-pound bombs on Fallujah as well as raking the streets with artillery and aircraft firepower.
Bush, who has never been in war, flaunted his commander in chief status during the campaign. But clearly he did not want to put it to the test at Fallujah before Election Day.
Had he done so, the president would have had to explain why he took the United States into Iraq and why he was targeting innocent Iraqis.
From day one, the U.S. government has been hard-pressed to find legal justification for being in Iraq by force. U.S. military moves were contrary to the U.N. Charter and the laws that came from the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II.
Under the U.N. Charter, armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of another state is a violation of international law.
Does anyone believe that hand-picked interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, on the CIA payroll for years, is a free soul? Did we really make war against Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts to ensure free elections for Iraqis?
The silence of the Democrats is playing into the president's hands. As was the case with the original October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war, Democrats are unsure of themselves and therefore unwilling to challenge the president.
Once the offensive was under way, many Americans were appalled to learn that among our first major targets were the hospitals in Fallujah.
By now everyone in this country must know that every reason Bush gave to attack Iraq has turned out to be a false. No weapons of mass destruction were found after two task forces took months and spent millions to hunt for them.
There was no imminent threat by Iraq against the United States. And virtually nothing has been found to connect al-Qaida with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Presidential credibility used to have some meaning in this country. The president visited the soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Hospital Army Medical Center on Tuesday for the first time since March. He told reporters that the U.S. soldiers in Fallujah were doing "the hard work necessary" for a free Iraq to emerge.
And he said the coalition forces were moving into Fallujah "to bring to justice those who are willing to kill the innocent, those who are trying to terrorize the Iraqi people and our coalition (and) those who want to stop democracy."
The Bush administration has no count on civilians who have lost their lives in the current massive assault on Fallujah, but some 900 civilians reportedly died in the fighting last April when the U.S. retreated temporarily from Fallujah.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters he knew of "no specific estimate of civilians" who may have been killed in the recent fighting.
But he added: "I know the military goes out of its way to minimize the loss of civilian life, and what we are working to achieve in Iraq is an important cause that will make America more secure."
Thousands in Fallujah fled their homes and are living in tents, knowing that the U.S. attack was about to begin.
Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers are going from house to house in urban street fighting -- something Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wanted to avoid as a way of reducing the human cost of the first Gulf War. For that reason he resisted going on to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.
To understand the Iraqi resistance, I suggest reading the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott. He wrote: "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said this is mine own my native land."
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers.

THE MISSING VOICES OF OUR WORLD

2004-11-16T14:09:00.000-08:00

The Missing Voices of Our World
by Howard Zinnpublished by Tom Dispatch The Missing Voices of Our WorldWhen I decided, in the late 1970s, to write A People's History of the United States, I had been teaching history for twenty years. Half of that time I was involved in the civil rights movement in the South, when I was teaching at Spelman College, a black women's college in Atlanta, Georgia. And then there were ten years of activity against the war in Vietnam. Those experiences were not a recipe for neutrality in the teaching and writing of history. But my partisanship was undoubtedly shaped even earlier by my upbringing in a family of working-class immigrants in New York, by my three years as a shipyard worker, starting at the age of eighteen, and then by my experience as an Air Force bombardier in World War II, flying out of England and bombing targets in various parts of Europe, including the Atlantic coast of France. After the war I went to college under the GI Bill of Rights. That was a piece of wartime legislation that enabled millions of veterans to go to college without paying any tuition, and so allowed the sons of working-class families who ordinarily would never be able to afford it to get a college education. I received my doctorate in history at Columbia University, but my own experience made me aware that the history I learned in the university omitted crucial elements in the history of the country. From the start of my teaching and writing, I had no illusions about "objectivity," if that meant avoiding a point of view. I knew that a historian (or a journalist, or anyone telling a story) was forced to choose, from an infinite number of facts, what to present, what to omit. And that decision inevitably would reflect, whether consciously or not, the interests of the historian. There is an insistence, among certain educators and politicians in the United States, that students must learn facts. I am reminded of the character in Charles Dickens's book Hard Times, Gradgrind, who admonishes a younger teacher: "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life." But there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world -- by a teacher, a writer, anyone -- is a judgment. The judgment that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts are not important and so they are omitted from the presentation. There were themes of profound importance to me that I found missing in the orthodox histories that dominated American culture. The consequence of these omissions has been not simply to give a distorted view of the past but, more importantly, to mislead us all about the present. For instance, there is the issue of class. The dominant culture in the United States -- in education, among politicians, in the media -- pretends that we live in a classless society with one common interest. The Preamble to the United States Constitution, which declares that "we the people" wrote this document, is a great deception. The Constitution was written in 1787 by fifty-five rich white men -- slave owners, bondholders, merchants -- who established a strong central government that would serve their class interests. That use of government for class purposes, to serve the needs of the wealthy and powerful, has continued throughout American history, down to the present day. It is disguised by language that suggests all of us, rich and poor and middle class, have a common interest. Thus, the state of the nation is described in universal terms. When the president declares happily that "our economy is sound," he will not acknowledge that it is not sound for forty or fifty million people who are struggling to survive, although it may be moderately sound for many in the middle class, and extremely sound for the richest 1% of the nation who own 40% of the nation's wealth. Class interest has always been obscured behind an all-encompassing veil called "the national interest." My own war experience, and the history of all those military interventions in which the United States was engaged, made me skeptical when I heard people in high political office invoke "the national interest" or "national security" to justify their policies. It was with such justifications that Harry Truman initiated a "police action" in Korea that killed several million people, that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon carried out a war in Southeast Asia in which perhaps three million people died, that Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, that the elder Bush attacked Panama and then Iraq, and that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq again and again. The claim made in spring of 2003 by the new Bush that invading and bombing Iraq was in the national interest was particularly absurd, and could only be accepted by people in the United States because of a blanket of lies spread across the country by the government and the major organs of public information -- lies about "weapons of mass destruction," lies about Iraq's connections with Al Qaeda. When I decided to write A People's History of the United States, I decided I wanted to tell the story of the nation's wars not through the eyes of the generals and the political leaders but from the viewpoints of the working-class youngsters who became GIs, or the parents or wives who received the black-bordered telegrams. I wanted to tell the story of the nation's wars from the viewpoint of the enemy: the viewpoint of the Mexicans who were invaded in the Mexican War, the Cubans whose country was taken over by the United States in 1898, the Filipinos who suffered a devastating aggressive war at the beginning of the twentieth century, with perhaps 600,000 people dead as a result of the determination of the U.S. government to conquer the Philippines. What struck me as I began to study history, and what I wanted to convey in my own writing of history, was how nationalist fervor -- inculcated from childhood by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, waving flags, and militaristic rhetoric -- permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wondered how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world, at least in our minds, and thought of children everywhere as our own. Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or cluster bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children. The Spoken Word as a Political Act When I began to write "people's history," I was influenced by my own experience, living in a black community in the South with my family, teaching at a black women's college, and becoming involved in the movement against racial segregation. I became aware of how badly twisted was the teaching and writing of history by its submersion of nonwhite people. Yes, Native Americans were there in the history, but quickly gone. Black people were visible as slaves, then supposedly free, but invisible. It was a white man's history. From elementary school to graduate school, I was given no suggestion that the landing of Christopher Columbus in the New World initiated a genocide in which the indigenous population of Hispaniola was annihilated. Or that this was the first stage of what was presented as a benign expansion of the new nation, but which involved the violent expulsion of Native Americans, accompanied by unspeakable atrocities, from every square mile of the continent, until there was nothing to do but herd them into reservations. Every American schoolchild learns about the Boston Massacre, which preceded the Revolutionary War against England. Five colonists were killed by British troops in 1770. But how many schoolchildren learned about the massacre of six hundred men, women, and children of the Pequot tribe in New England in 1637? Or the massacre, in the midst of the Civil War, of hundreds of Native American families at Sand Creek, Colorado, by U.S. soldiers? Nowhere in my history education did I learn about the massacres of black people that took place again and again, amid the silence of a national government pledged by the Constitution to protect equal rights for all. For instance, in 1917 there occurred in East St. Louis one of the many "race riots" that took place in what our white-oriented history books called the "Progressive Era." White workers, angered by an influx of black workers, killed perhaps two hundred people, provoking an angry article by the African-American writer W. E. B. Du Bois, "The Massacre of East St. Louis," and causing the performing artist Josephine Baker to say: "The very idea of America makes me shake and tremble and gives me nightmares." I wanted, in writing people's history, to awaken a great consciousness of class conflict, racial injustice, sexual inequality, and national arrogance. But I also wanted to bring into the light the hidden resistance of the people against the power of the establishment: the refusal of Native Americans to simply die and disappear; the rebellion of black people in the anti-slavery movement and in the more recent movement against racial segregation; the strikes carried out by working people to improve their lives. When I began work, five years ago, on what would become a companion volume to my People's History, Voices of a People's History of the United States, I wanted the voices of struggle, mostly absent in our history books, to be given the place they deserve. I wanted labor history, which has been the battleground, decade after decade, century after century, of an ongoing fight for human dignity, to come to the fore. And I wanted my readers to experience how at key moments in our history some of the bravest and most effective political acts were the sounds of the human voice itself. When John Brown proclaimed at his trial that his insurrection was "not wrong, but right," when Fannie Lou Hamer testified in 1964 about the dangers to blacks who tried to register to vote, when during the first Gulf War, in 1991, Alex Molnar defied the president on behalf of his son and of all of us, their words influenced and inspired so many people. They were not just words but actions. To omit or to minimize these voices of resistance is to create the idea that power only rests with those who have the guns, who possess the wealth, who own the newspapers and the television stations. I want to point out that people who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women -- once they organize and protest and create movements -- have a voice no government can suppress. America's Missing Voices Readers of my book A People's History of the United States almost always point to the wealth of quoted material in it -- the words of fugitive slaves, Native Americans, farmers and factory workers, dissenters and dissidents of all kinds. These readers are struck, I must reluctantly admit, more by the words of the people I quote than by my own running commentary on the history of the nation. I can't say I blame them. Any historian would have difficulty matching the eloquence of the Native American leader Powhatan, pleading with the white settler in the year 1607: "Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love?"

Or the black scientist Benjamin Banneker, writing to Thomas Jefferson: "I apprehend you will readily embrace every opportunity, to eradicate that train of absurd and false ideas and opinions which so generally prevails with respect to us, and that your Sentiments are concurrent with mine, which are that one universal Father hath given being to us all, and that he hath not only made us all of one flesh, but that he hath also without partiality afforded us all the Same Sensations and [endowed] us all with the same faculties."

Or Sarah Grimké, a white Southern woman and abolitionist, writing: "I ask no favors for my sex. . . . All I ask of our brethren, is that they will take their feet from off our necks, and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God designed us to occupy."

Or Henry David Thoreau, protesting the Mexican War, writing on civil disobedience: "A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart."

Or Jermain Wesley Loguen, escaped slave, speaking in Syracuse on the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850: "I received my freedom from Heaven and with it came the command to defend my title to it. . . . I don't respect this law -- I don't fear it -- I won't obey it! It outlaws me, and I outlaw it."

Or the populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease of Kansas: "Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street."

Or Emma Goldman, speaking to the jury at her trial for opposing World War I: "Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? . . . [A] democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all."
Or Mississippi sharecropper Fannie Lou Hamer, testifying in 1964 about the dangers to blacks who tried to register to vote: "[T]he plantation owner came, and said, 'Fannie Lou. . . . If you don't go down and withdraw your registration, you will have to leave . . . because we are not ready for that in Mississippi.' And I addressed him and told him and said, 'I didn't try to register for you. I tried to register for myself.'"
Or the young black people in McComb, Mississippi, who, learning of a classmate killed in Vietnam, distributed a leaflet: "No Mississippi Negroes should be fighting in Vietnam for the White Man's freedom, until all the Negro People are free in Mississippi."
Or the poet Adrienne Rich, writing in the 1970s: "I know of no woman -- virgin, mother, lesbian, married, celibate -- whether she earns her keep as a housewife, a cocktail waitress, or a scanner of brain waves -- for whom the body is not a fundamental problem: its clouded meanings, its fertility, its desire, its so-called frigidity, its bloody speech, its silences, its changes and mutilations, its rapes and ripenings."
Or Alex Molnar, whose twenty-one-year-old son was a Marine in the Persian Gulf, writing an angry letter to the first President Bush: "Where were you, Mr. President, when Iraq was killing its own people with poison gas? . . . I intend to support my son and his fellow soldiers by doing everything I can to oppose any offensive American military action in the Persian Gulf."

Or Orlando and Phyllis Rodriguez, opposing the idea of retaliation after their son was killed in the Twin Towers: "Our son Greg is among the many missing from the World Trade Center attack. Since we first heard the news, we have shared moments of grief, comfort, hope, despair, fond memories with his wife, the two families, our friends and neighbors, his loving colleagues at Cantor Fitzgerald/ESpeed, and all the grieving families that daily meet at the Pierre Hotel. We see our hurt and anger reflected among everybody we meet. We cannot pay attention to the daily flow of news about this disaster. But we read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go. It will not avenge our son's death. Not in our son's name." What is common to all these voices is that they have mostly been shut out of the orthodox histories, the major media, the standard textbooks, the controlled culture. The result of having our history dominated by presidents and generals and other "important" people is to create a passive citizenry, not knowing its own powers, always waiting for some savior on high -- God or the next president -- to bring peace and justice. History, looked at under the surface, in the streets and on the farms, in GI barracks and trailer camps, in factories and offices, tells a different story. Whenever injustices have been remedied, wars halted, women and blacks and Native Americans given their due, it has been because "unimportant" people spoke up, organized, protested, and brought democracy alive. Howard Zinn is the author with Anthony Arnove of the just published Voices of a People's History of the United States (Seven Stories Press) and of the international best-selling A People's History of the United States. This piece is adapted from the introduction to the new Voices volume. Copyright C2004 Howard Zinn By permission of Seven Stories Press

From Florida to Fallujah: What the News Coverage Covers Up

2004-11-16T14:05:00.000-08:00

From Florida to Fallujah: What the News Coverage Covers Up
by Danny Schecterpublished by MediaCHannel.Org From Florida to Fallujah: What the News Coverage Covers UpOne minute, we are still debating election returns in Ohio and Florida. And then, in a flash, the story largely disappears and the subject changes. Quickly, we have moved on as the news media converges on Fallujah to report on, and in the view of many, support what may be the bloodiest chapter to date of the Iraq war. Media coverage lurches from event to event, and from spectacle to spectacle as a substance deficit disorder hyperactively drives the news agenda. No sooner are we focused on one major story, than another intrudes to change the subject and insure that there is no time for follow-up, much less thoughtful processing. In some cases, this is the natural disorder of news, but in many others, there are hidden hands shifting the agenda in a conscious effort not simply to influence what we think, but control what we think about. The Administration wants to refocus us on the elections to come in Iraq, not likely flaws in the elections that just occurred in America. The coverage of the fight for Fallujah is a case in point, as the US military makes clear that "information control" is its first priority. When US troops seized a hospital there the goal was said to insure that news about civilian casualties in Iraq not infiltrate the news agenda. As I document in my film WMD, US war strategy in Iraq has been run like a political campaign with key message points and "message of the day" perception management techniques underlying a strategy of "information dominance." This invariably relies on deception as a key component of war fighting. There are five elements of this strategy currently in play:

l. Shape a Narrative. In Fallujah the US narrative and key talking point is making Iraq safe for democracy and elections. To achieve this -- or so the storyline goes -- the US must restore "local control," end the insurgency and kill or otherwise neutralize "foreign fighters" from whose ranks the US forces exempt themselves and their "coalition" partners. Little attention is paid to warnings by the UN's Kofi Anan of the head of the EU that this ferocious attack on Fallujah makes fair elections unlikely. And what of the "foreign fighters?" Most journalists and Iraq specialists argue that what the townspeople of Fallujah want is local control, but in their own hands. They insist that much of the "insurgency" that the locals call the resistance or mujahadeen is home grown, not foreign or origin or direction. But why let the facts get in the way of a misleading if marketable narrative?

2. Control Media Access The US military plays the press as a "fourth front," not a traditionally autonomous fourth estate. Suddenly, the embedding program is back in place, with journalists are dependent on US forces for their information and protection. As Madeleine Bunting explains in the Guardian: "It's long since been too dangerous for journalists to move around unless they are embedded with the US forces. There is almost no contact left with civilians still in Fallujah, the only information is from those who have left." The result: largely one sided coverage.

3. Spin the Theme of Iraqi Control To
undercut any suggestion of an foreign occupation running things the official story line has it that it is the Iraqis under the Allawi government -- actually (but rarely mentioned) a temporary, un-elected and unstable entity -- that is in charge with the US troops merely supporting them. Julian Manion of Britain's ITV put the lie to this assertion on the first day of fighting, reporting: "We've had now, this morning, the formality -- some would call it, I'm afraid, the fiction -- that Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of Iraq, has given the official order to commence the operation against Fallujah. Of course in reality it is an American operation." On that same day, November 8, CNN was reporting that the Allawi government was calling the shots.

4. Avoid Historical Parallels While media critics were invoking parallels of towns in Vietnam that were destroyed in order to be saved, there was little perspective offered on the realities of that parallel even as US soldiers invoked it directly. AP reported: "Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent told an assembled group of 2,500 Marines in a 'pep-talk' on November 7: 'You're all in the process of making history. This is another Hue city in the making. I have no doubt, if we do get the word, that each and every one of you is going to do what you have always done -- kick some butt.'" (AP, November 7 2004) Analysts reminded audiences that after U.S. soldiers reoccupied Hue after Vietnamese forces overran it in the Tet Offensive of 1968. Then Under Secretary of the Air Force, Townsend Hoopes, described the results as leaving "a devastated and prostrate city. Eighty per cent of the buildings had been reduced to rubble, and in the smashed ruins lay 2,000 dead civilians... " One reason for the lack of analysis like this is not simply media amnesia. Most TV news reporting follows templates, driving action-oriented and picture driven "breaking news" with little time and fewer resources allocated for background and context.

5. Its All About US The US media focuses on "our boys" and US government agendas, not Iraqi civilians, religious leaders or political representatives. It is always all about us, not Iraq. The death toll is always rationalized afterwards as necessary and unintentional This is a point made with eloquence by The Guardian's Madeleine Bunting, with a perspective conspicuous by its absence in most US reporting: "Assaults on cities serve symbolic purposes: they are set showpieces to demonstrate resolve and inculcate fear," she writes. "To that end, large numbers of casualties are required: they are not an accidental byproduct but the aim. That was the thinking behind 9/11, and Fallujah risks becoming a horrible mirror-image of that atrocity. Only by the shores of that dusty lake in Dreamland would it be possible to believe that the ruination of this city will do anything to enhance the legitimacy of the US occupation and of the Iraqi government it appointed." And so here we are after a debate about the policy and intelligence failures in Iraq repeating them again. And alongside those flaws, a larger media failure is all too tragically on display once again. -- "News Dissector" Danny Schechter, a former ABC and CNN producer, is the executive editor of Mediachannel.org. He directed WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception,) a new film critiquing the media coverage of the Iraq war. (For more information: www.wmdthefilm.com)

Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory

2004-11-16T13:56:00.000-08:00

ROE V. WADE AT CROSSROADS Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory

November 13, 2004

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course.Partisan warfare over the abortion positions of Supreme Court nominees would inflame the country's political division and undermine public confidence in the independence of the judicial system.Bush has the right to nominate people who share his political views. But he should engage Democrats in the process in search of nominees acceptable to both sides. Democrats have blocked 10 of his lower court picks, employing the filibuster as their weapon of choice. But Bush is in the driver's seat. The Senate confirmed more than 200 of his judicial nominees, many of whom share his anti-abortion convictions.Anti-abortion forces won't like a less confrontational approach because they're just one justice away from achieving their objective. Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, commanded a 7 to 2 majority in 1973. More recent abortion decisions have seen that majority slip to 5 to 4. There are no immediate Supreme Court vacancies. There haven't been any for a decade. But the court is aging and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer. There will probably be one or more spots to fill in the next four years.Replacing Rehnquist, a solid vote against abortion rights, isn't likely to alter the court balance. But that balance could tip decisively should any one of the abortion-rights supporters leave the bench. That includes Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as swing voters David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, whose positions on abortion are less black and white.The nation may be approaching a legal sea change that could end or sharply curtail a woman's right to abortion. But change that profound should be approached through reasoned debate, not a political beat-down.

The Ballots at the Back of the Bus

2004-11-16T13:45:00.000-08:00

The Ballots at the Back of the Bus
Most voters in Ohio chose Kerry; here’s how the votes vanished.
By Greg Palast

This past February, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell told the president of the State Senate, “The possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.” Blackwell, co-chair of Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, wasn’t warning his fellow Republican of disaster; he was boasting of an opportunity to deliver Ohio for Team Bush no matter what the voters wanted. And this past Election Day most voters in Ohio wanted JFK, not GWB. But their choice won’t count because their votes won’t be counted.
The ballots that add up to a majority for John Kerry in Ohio are locked up in two Republican hidey-holes: “spoiled” and “provisional.”
Ohio spoiled rotten
In a typical presidential election, 2 million ballots are marked “spoiled” and then chucked in the garbage, uncounted. But a dive into the electoral dumpster reveals something special about these votes. In a precinct-by-precinct analysis of the Florida 2000 race, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission discovered that 54 percent of spoiled ballots were cast by African-Americans. Florida is typical. Nationwide, the number of black votes “disappeared” into the spoiled pile is about 1 million. The other million in the no-count pit come mainly from Hispanic, Native-American and poor white precincts, a decidedly Democratic demographic.
Vote spoilage comes in two flavors. “Overvotes” are where there are too many punches in the cards. And “undervotes” are where the hanging, dimpled and “pregnant” chads created by old punch card machines hang on. Machines can’t these kinds of undervotes, but we humans, who know a hole when we see one, have no problem … if we’re allowed to. This is how Katherine Harris defeated Al Gore: by halting the hand count of the spoiled punch cards not, as is generally believed, by halting a recount.
Federal investigators determined that in the 2000 Florida race black voters’ ballots spoiled 900 percent more often than white voters, mainly due to punch card error. This year, Ohio was the only one of 50 states to refuse to eliminate or fix these vote-eating machines, even in the face of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Apparently, the Ohio Republicans liked what the ACLU found. The civil rights group’s expert testimony concluded that Ohio’s cussed insistence on forcing 73 percent of its electorate to use punch card machines had an overwhelming racial bias, voiding votes mostly in black precincts. Blackwell doesn’t disagree; and he hopes to fix the machinery … after George Bush’s next inauguration. In the meantime, the state’s Attorney General Jim Petro, a Republican, postponed the trial date of the ACLU case until after the election.
Fixing the problem is easy. If Ohio had placed a card-reading machine in each polling station, as Michigan did this year, voters could have ensured their vote would tally. If not, they would have gotten new cards.
Blackwell knows that. He also knows that if those reading machines had been installed, almost all of the 93,000 spoiled votes (from overwhelmingly Democratic areas) would have closed the gap on Bush’s lead of 136,000 votes.
Jim Crow’s provisional ballot
Add to spoiled ballots a second group of uncounted votes, provisional ballots, and the White House would have turned Democrat blue. But that won’t happen because of the peculiar way provisional ballots are counted or, more often, not counted. The provisional ballot, introduced by federal law in 2002, was proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus to save the rights of those wrongly scrubbed from voter rolls. In Republican-controlled swing states, however, these were twisted into back-of-the-bus ballots unlikely to be tallied. These provisional ballots are counted only at the whimsy and rules of a state’s top elections official; and in Ohio, that gives a virtual ballot veto to Bush-Cheney campaign co-chair Blackwell.
In Ohio, more than 155,000 voters were shunted to these second-class ballots. The election-shifting bulge in provisional ballots (more than 3 percent of the electorate) was the direct result of the national Republican strategy that targeted African-American precincts for mass challenges on Election Day.
And Blackwell has a few rules to ensure a large proportion of provisional ballots won’t be counted. For the first time in memory, the secretary of state banned counting ballots cast in the “wrong” precinct, though all neighborhoods shared the same slate of presidential candidates.
This is the first time in four decades that a political party systematically barred tens of thousands of black voters.
While investigating for BBC Television, we obtained three dozen of the Republican Party’s confidential “caging lists,” their title for the spreadsheets that list the names and addresses of Ohio voters they intended to block on any pretext. Every address of the thousands on these Republican hit lists was located in black-majority precincts. You might find that nasty and racist. It may also be a crime.
Before 1965, Jim Crow laws did not bar blacks from voting. Minor technical voting requirements were applied only to African-Americans. That year, Congress voted to make profiling and impeding minority voters a criminal offense under the Voting Rights Act.
But that didn’t stop the Republicans of 2004. Their mass challenge to black voters is not some low-level dirty tricks operation of local party hacks. E-mails show the lists were copied directly to the Republican National Committee’s chief of research and to the director of a state campaign.
Many challenges center on changes of address. On one Republican caging list, 50 addresses changed from Jacksonville to overseas—African-American soldiers shipped “over there.”
Blackwell has said he will count all the “valid” provisional ballots. However, his rigid regulations are rigged to knock out enough voters to keep Bush’s skinny lead alive. Other pre-election maneuvers by Republican officials—late and improbably large purges of voter rolls, rejection of registrations—maximized the use of provisional ballots that will never be counted. For example, a voter wrongly tagged as an ineligible felon voter (and there are plenty in that category, mostly African-Americans), may lose his ballot even though wrongly identified.
Kerry calls the game early
During the campaign it was heartening that John Kerry broke the political omerta that seems to prohibit public mention of the color of votes not counted in America. “Don’t tell us that in the strongest democracy on earth … a million disenfranchised African-Americans is the best we can do.” The Senator promised the NAACP convention, “This November … we’re going to make sure that every single vote is counted.”
But Kerry waited less than 24 hours to abandon more than a quarter million Ohio voters still waiting for their provisional and chad-spoiled ballots to be counted.
While disappointing, I can understand the cold calculus against taking the fight to the end. To count the ballots, Kerry’s lawyers would first have to demand a hand reading of the punch cards. Blackwell, armed with the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore diktat, would undoubtedly pull a “Kate Harris” by halting or restricting a hand count. Most daunting, Kerry’s team also would have to litigate each rejected provisional ballot in court. This would entail locating up to a hundred thousand voters to testify to their right to the vote as Blackwell challenged each. Given the odds and the cost to his political career, Kerry bent, not to the will of the people, but to the willpower of the Ohio Republican machine.
We have yet to total the votes lost in missing absentee ballots, in eyebrow-raising touch screen tallies, in purges of legal voters from registries and other games played in swing states. Undoubtedly, Kerry also took New Mexico. But why dwell on these things? Our betters in the political and media elite have told us to get over it. Move on.
To the victors go the spoils of electoral class war. As Ohio’s politically ambitious secretary of state brags on his own Web site, “Last time I checked, Katherine Harris wasn’t in a soup line, she’s in Congress.”

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

2004-11-16T13:42:00.000-08:00

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is
clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid “socialist” liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance—now Joe gets it, too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because s! ome fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day.He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FOLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he were educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

France's Chirac Says UK Won Nothing from Bush Support

2004-11-16T08:47:00.000-08:00

France's Chirac Says UK Won Nothing from Bush Support
Mon Nov 15, 8:06 PM ET

World - Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac said in a newspaper interview on Tuesday that Britain has gained nothing from its support for the United States-led invasion of Iraq
Chirac said he had urged Britain before the invasion to press President Bush to revive the Middle East peace process in return for London's support.
"Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return," Chirac was quoted as saying in the Times. "I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."
Blair's staunch support for Washington over Iraq led to bitter divisions within his ruling Labor Party and dragged down his public approval ratings.
Chirac, who will hold talks with Blair when he makes a state visit to Britain on Thursday, recalled a Franco-British summit last year when he asked his British counterpart to try to influence U.S. policy on the Middle East.
"I said then to Tony Blair 'We have different positions on Iraq. Your position should at least have some use'. That is to try to obtain in exchange a relaunch of the peace process in the Middle East."
Chirac questioned whether Britain could act as a bridge between the United States and Europe to help heal the rift that developed over the Iraq war. France and Germany were among the most vocal opponents of U.S. military action to oust former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "I am not sure with America as it is these days that it would be easy for someone, even the British, to be an honest broker," Chirac was quoted as saying in the Times.
Blair said on Monday that Europe and the United States should bury their differences over Iraq and focus on global challenges such as lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. "It is not a sensible or intelligent response for us in Europe to ridicule American arguments and parody their political leadership," Blair said in his major foreign policy speech of the year.

Man who lit self on fire was disgrunted terrorism informant

2004-11-16T08:27:00.000-08:00

11/16/2004
Man who lit self on fire was disgrunted terrorism informant

The man who set himself on fire outside the White House Monday was a disgrunted FBI informant on terrorism who had earlier voice his growing despondency over how the FBI manager his case, the (registration-restricted) Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Mohamed Alanssi, 52, approached the northwest guardhouse on Pennsylvania Avenue about 2:05 p.m. and asked the security detail to deliver a note to President Bush. When uniformed Secret Service officers turned him away, he stepped about 15 feet from the guard post and used a lighter to ignite his jacket, according to the U.S. Park Police.
Secret Service officers wrestled him to the ground and doused the flames with fire extinguishers. Alanssi was taken to Washington Hospital Center, where he was listed in critical condition with burns over about 30 percent of his body, authorities said.
Alanssi, who is from Yemen and also uses the name Mohamed Alhadrami, recently discussed his work as a federal informant in a series of interviews with The Washington Post. Yesterday morning, he informed the newspaper by faxed letter and by telephone that he was going to “burn my body at unexpected place.” He also sent a copy of a letter he said he had faxed to the FBI agent in New York who is handling his case. The Post alerted the agent and provided a copy of the letter.
In two telephone conversations yesterday, Alanssi told a Post reporter that he would provide 10 minutes’ notice of his suicide attempt and that only then would he reveal the location. When he called a third time, Alanssi said he had poured gasoline and would be setting himself on fire in two minutes, not 10, and it would take place near the White House. The newspaper informed D.C. police, who notified the special operations unit and the U.S. Park Police, which has jurisdiction over Lafayette Square.
In the recent interviews, Alanssi expressed anguish over not being able to visit his family in Yemen. He said that he suffers from diabetes and heart problems and that his wife is seriously ill with stomach cancer. Alanssi said he could not travel to his native country because he has no money and because the FBI, which is expecting him to testify at a terrorism trial in New York, was keeping his Yemeni passport.
“I must travel to Yemen to see my sick wife (stomac cancer) and my family before I testify at the court or any other places,” Alanssi wrote FBI agent Robert Fuller in New York, according to the copy he provided The Post yesterday. “Why you don’t care about my life and my family’s life? Once I testify my family will be killed in Yemen, me too I will be dead man.”
The FBI declined to comment on Alanssi’s identity or his claims of working with the bureau. The U.S. attorney’s office in the eastern district of New York, which is prosecuting the terrorism-related trial in January, also declined to comment.
Alanssi, who described himself as a once-successful businessman in Yemen, also was upset with the FBI because he said agents had not kept promises they made to secure his cooperation. Those promises included a large, but unspecified, amount of money, eventual U.S. citizenship and protection of his identity, he said.
Alanssi said that he went to the FBI in New York shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and offered information on alleged financers of al Qaeda working in Yemen. He said he quickly became a major informant for the FBI, on occasion traveling to Yemen to gather intelligence.
He volunteered that the FBI paid him $100,000 in 2003. But he said he had been expecting much more because he said some agents told him he would “be a millionaire.” And although he was promised permanent residency in this country, he said, he has not received it.
Alanssi said he did not have enough money to pay his medical bills or buy his prescription drugs. He said he recently underwent an operation at a Fairfax hospital to unclog his arteries.
“It is my big mistake that I have cooperated with FBI,” he said in a recent interview. “The FBI have already destroyed my life and my family’s life and made us in a very danger position . . . I am not crazy to destroy my life and my family’s life to get $100,000,” he said.
Alanssi also alleged that the FBI had failed to adequately protect his role in a sting operation conducted in Germany in January 2003. That led to the arrest of Mohammed Ali Hassan Al Moayad, a Yemeni cleric who is slated to go on trial Jan. 10 in New York on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda.

Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

2004-11-15T14:33:00.000-08:00

Recount in Ohio A Sure ThingGreen Party Campaign Raises $150,000 in 4 Days, Shifts Gears to Phase II

WASHINGTON - November 15 - There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.
On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party’s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.
“Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,” said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.
“The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,” said Bobier.
Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.
The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens’ groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.
A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.

O Canada - Top 10 Reasons the US is no longer the home of the free

2004-11-15T13:21:00.000-08:00

O Canada - Top 10 Reasons the US is no longer the home of the free by Rob in Baltimore

- 11/15/2004 12:41:35 PM So yes, America should be the home of the free, but alas, not for all Americans. If you're still thinking about Canada, here's a good article for you to consider from CNN. Some notable items - there is now a Web site, www.canadianalternative.com that gives, among other things, a Top 10 list as to why Canada rocks:
1. Canada has universal public health care.2. Canada has no troops in Iraq.3. Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol environmental treaty.4. More than half of Canada's provinces allow same-sex marriage.5. The Canadian Senate recommends legalizing marijuana.6. Canada has no law restricting abortion.7. Canada has strict gun laws and relatively little violence.8. The United Nations has ranked Canada the best country to live in for eight consecutive years.9. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976.10. Canada has not run a federal deficit since 1996-97. There are also three seminars scheduled to learn more about the legal implications of bailing up north.
The Vancouver, British Columbia, immigration lawyer plans seminars in three U.S. cities -- Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles -- to tell Americans frustrated with Bush's re-election that the grass is greener north of the border.So, if you're sold, it's time to start learning the national anthem. Lyrics can be found here and you can sing along to the music here. I'm still thinking a merger of Blue States and Canada is a better option. I'd rather be giving my tax dollars to heath care than to teaching creationism.

Green Party raised more than 112,000 toward 150,00 Ohio Recount

2004-11-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

11/11/2004
Green Party has raised more than $112,000 towards estimated $150,000 Ohio recount

By John Byrne RAW STORY Editor
The Green Party in concert with the Libertarian Party has raised more than $112,000 towards an estimated $113,000 filing fee for a recount of Ohio ballots in the presidential election as of 9:00 a.m. Sunday morning, RAW STORY has learned.
The Greens have also raised their collection threshold to $150,000 total, to pay for associated costs.
The party, which posted an appeal and press release at 11 a.m. Thursday, has received a flood of small contributions, according to Green Party Media Coordinator Blair Bobier. Their donation site is available at votecobb.org
“All of it is coming in small donations at this point,” Bobier said. “I think it’s just starting to get traction.”
Ohio has seen a spate of reports of irregularities in the voting system, and one county refused to let bipartisan observers watch the vote. In a Columbus suburb, nearly 4,000 votes were erroneously tallied for Bush, though they were not cast by actual voters.
In Mahoning and Mercer Counties, electronic machines malfunctioned; the machines had to be reset. At one point showed votes of “negative 25 million,” according to the head of the local board of elections.
In Warren County, officials said they had been told of a threat of terrorism, though the FBI denied any such threat.
“The integrity of the voting process is at stake,” Bobier said. “A recount is just part of that. Preferably there should be an investigation.”
“Our country is so concerned about creating democracy in other countries,” he added. “I think we should manufacture it here before we export it elsewhere.”
Asked if he had had any communication with the Democratic Party, Bobier demurred. But he said that rank-and-file Democrats were unhappy with the party for its unwillingness to take seriously the allegations of fraud.
“I think that rank and file Democrats are disgusted with their party leadership,” he said.
Bobier said the Greens had no hard evidence of fraud in Ohio, but were troubled by myriad irregularities in the state.
“We want to see the numbers,” he said.
Bobier noted that the Party had asked Republican Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to step asid, saying that his partisanship was “definitely a problem.” Blackwell was chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
“It seems like there should really be a national standard that would prohibit people having dual roles like that,” he stated.
Bobier, an attorney in Oregon, has a legal background in activism work, election reform and environmental work. He founded the Pacific Green Party of Oregon and has been active in the party since the late 1980s.
The Green Party won less than one percent of the popular vote in the November presidential election.

The Ghost of Arafat

2004-11-13T19:24:00.000-08:00

The Ghost of Arafat
November 12, 2004
Yasser Arafat is crafty ‘til the end. His death could not have come at a worse time for the Bush administration.
It creates a problem for the neocons that they cannot deal with head-on. Tony Blair's Washington visit is critical, because Blair is meeting President Bush face to face, unfiltered by aides, to tell the president that he needs to take the Road Map out of the glove compartment. It’s an issue on which Blair, already facing an increasingly anti-Iraq war public opinion at home, agrees with the Old Europeans. They all believe that it’s time that Ariel Sharon get his comeuppance.
According to the Post, Bush is considering the naming of a Middle East envoy to restart the peace process, an action that would trigger a huge behind-the-scenes struggle to determine who it is and what powers the envoy might have.
It also provides an opportunity for the Republican coalition’s two anti-neocon factions to join hands. The realists, led by Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, et al., and the nativists, led by Pat Buchanan and Co., can be expected to mobilize in support of a major new initiative to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Scowcroft outline the general shape of what an agreement might start with in a Post op-ed today:
The president should add substance to his commitment to an independent Palestinian state. It must include steps to provide security to Israel and to give the Palestinians the ability and means to construct a viable political entity free from the crushing presence of Israeli troops. The United States should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank and mirror its withdrawal from Gaza with the evacuation of the West Bank. In return, the wall and Israeli troops would be replaced by an international force, principally European or perhaps NATO troops.
And the Arabs can be expected to unite in demanding a return to Oslo-style negotiations and the Road Map. Already King Abdullah of Jordan and Jimmy Carter have side-by-side op-eds in the Times trying to push Bush in that direction.
How can the neocons deal with this? I’m sure their strategy will be to delay, counting on the militants of Hamas to bail them out by blowing up buses. Keep your eye on Elliott Abrams, the Middle East chief at the National Security Council.

The Perfect Election Day Crime

2004-11-13T19:10:00.000-08:00

The Perfect Election Day Crime
Steven Rosenfeld
November 12, 2004

In Ohio,questions persist about intentional or accidental voting mishaps. Which voting problem cost Kerry the most votes may never be known. Kerry's fate aside, Air America's Steven Rosenfeld's investigation found the inadequate supply of polling machines in Ohio may constitute a civil rights violation.
Steven Rosenfeld is senior producer of The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio. Previously he was senior editor of TomPaine.com
Americans are learning there are many ways to tilt and take elections.
That’s the only clear conclusion since John Kerry’s concession speech. We now know there are as many ways to manipulate the vote as there are types of voting machines and different communities that can be targeted by those who want to intimidate voters and suppress turnout. But the big unanswered question of Nov. 2, 2004, is which tactic, technical breakdown or error lost the most votes.
On Thursday, Nov. 11, a step was taken toward finding at least part of the answer. Cliff Arnebeck, the Columbus, Ohio-based attorney who is counsel for Common Cause’s Ohio chapter and the Alliance for Democracy, announced that the groups would pursue a recount of the Ohio vote. Arnebeck said the Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates each agreed to file for a recount, providing the $110,000 filing fee could be met. He announced that a fund drive was underway, as was putting pressure on the Kerry campaign to pay for it. In coming days, Ohio’s provisional ballot count is likely to be finished. That starts a five-day clock during which a recount can be formally requested.
But many voters have yet to consider the intricacies of the recount procedure. They're still trying to comprehend what exactly went wrong. By now, many people have heard about discarded or spoiled ballots in Ohio that could have cost Democrats tens of thousands of votes (as claimed by journalist Greg Palast). They’ve heard of the computerized voting machines that caused thousands of votes for Bush to be erroneously added in single precincts. And they’ve heard declarations by BlackBoxVoting.org (Bev Harris and Andy Stephenson) that they’ll make the biggest ever Freedom of Information Act request to get to the bottom of it.
But something else also happened in Ohio’s urban precincts that hurt Democrats as much as these much-publicized snafus—something so simple many election protection observers, and certainly the national press, missed it.
What Wasn't There
Across Ohio’s minority-rich cities, there were fewer voting machines than during past elections, including March’s presidential primary. As the number of voters grew by as much as 50 percent in some precincts, according to pro-Kerry field organizers, the number of voting machines on Election Day shrank by a third. Precincts that usually had five machines only had three.
The lack of voting machines was a disaster.
“I don’t think this story has been told,” said Miles Gerety, a public defender from Bridgeport, Conn., who went to Ohio as a legal observer and discovered this trend by overhearing elderly voters talk about fewer machines. “The press and election protection people weren’t looking for this. They were looking for poll challenges. But this is the perfect way to suppress the vote.”
The shortage of voting machines didn’t just create long lines. It kept thousands of new and longtime voters from casting ballots in the state’s minority communities—the Democratic strongholds. The accounts of people who had to leave the polls for work or family obligations were everywhere. But on Election Day, very few Democrats realized this was happening. They just saw long lines.
"The lack of adequate voting machines helped the GOP in Ohio," said Brian Clark, site coordinator for SierraClubVotes.org in Franklin County, where the city of Columbus is located. He managed a voter contact and get-out-the-vote effort in 43 precincts that reached a third of the county’s 250,000 voters. "There were fewer machines in some inner city precincts than in 2000, despite Board of Elections and secretary of state’s projections of record turnout."
The Long Wait
Franklin County is a good microcosm for understanding what happened in Ohio. In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush there by 4,156 votes. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry there by 41,341 votes, according to the unofficial results on the Ohio secretary of state’s website. Bush’s lead in the county was almost a third of his statewide margin against Kerry, even though, as of last March, according to the state statistics, there were 54,040 new voters in the county. Some of those new voters were Republican. But still, what happened?
"There were widespread anecdotal reports that inner city voters were leaving the polls because of 2-hour plus wait times, " Clark said. "Granted, there were also waits in suburban areas. But the impact on final voter turnout was clearly very different—a lawyer can be late and keep her job, a grocery store clerk can't."
And then there’s the question of how and where voting machines were distributed. Even though Franklin County election officials have their ready defense to deflect charges of intentional voting rights violations, Democratic field organizers said the placement of too-few voting machines at inner city precincts came amid a broader campaign of voter intimidation aimed at Democrats.
Protecting the right to vote is the heart of the federal Voting Rights Act. If fewer voting machines were put in African-American precincts, on a per capita basis, than were placed in the county’s whiter suburbs—and that prevented African-Americans from voting—that would violate the Voting Rights Act.
"If this was planned and systematic and not accidental, it would be a violation," Gerety said. "If this was a means of disenfranchising African-American voters, it’s a clear violation."
Franklin County election officials have said they used the 2000 presidential vote as the basis for allocating voting machines in the 2004 election. They’ve also said that local election boards are bipartisan, so any plan to redistribute voting machines would have been approved by Democrats and Republicans. Common Cause's Arnebeck said that bipartisan explanation makes proving there was an intentional violation difficult. Also, the jurist who would try the voting case—if it was needed in an Ohio recount—is a Republican, the chief justice of Ohio’s Supreme Court.
The Politics Of Recount
The voting rights concerns would be one element of the Ohio vote that could be examined in a recount, Arnebeck said. But all Ohio’s ballots would be recounted, he said, including the provisional ballots, absentee ballots, spoiled ballots and votes by the paperless computer machines. Moreover, during a full statewide recount, any issue relating to voter fraud conceivable could be raised, he said.
This is where the politics could get very intense and possibly reopen the question of who won Ohio. Arnebeck said he had proof that in one rural county there were more votes recorded by computer machines than were actually cast: that’s fraud. Moreover, there are so many instances where newly registered voters “most of whom were presumed to be Democratic—were not treated the same way as the state’s veteran voters." In the county where Cleveland is, people who registered by mail were not notified where their poll was, election protection lawyers said. Other Ohio voters I contacted said they saw new voters being given provisional ballots.
"It’s interesting to note that the inner-city precincts where we spent most of our time working, turnout was about 50 percent higher than it was in 2000," Clark said. "Yet the Franklin County Board of Elections moved voting machines from the inner city precincts out to the suburbs. It was pretty dispiriting to know that we spent months trying to get new voters to the polls and they didn’t even have machines to go to once they got there."
Clark also said the GOP’s much-publicized efforts to challenge new voters only focused on Democratic precincts. "The Republicans only challenged voters in inner-city precincts," he said. "The Columbus Dispatch did an analysis of their challenges. They did not challenge anyone who lived in a Republican-leaning precinct in Franklin County."
The Big Tilt?
The question that emerges from these irregularities— as well as the reports of spoiled and discarded ballots, and computer voting snafus—is which problem affected the most votes 'tilting' the outcome to Bush. That answer isn’t known. So far, computerized voting has gotten the most attention. But the Sierra Club’s Clark said all or some of these tactics could have swayed the election.
"Based on what we were being told by people on the ground, at the door, on the phones as we were doing our get out the vote effort, it was very clear that enough people went out intending to vote to meet the projected turnout by the secretary of state, which was 73 percent," he said. "The final number was about 70 percent of the voting age population actually voted. So I think it’s reasonable to assume that at least 3 percent of the people who went out to vote didn’t get to vote, because of these problems statewide."
Ohio’s 2004 vote has not yet been certified. But in the unofficial results on the secretary of state’s web site, George W. Bush had 51.0 percent, compared to 48.5 percent for John Kerry. That difference is on par with the gap between the secretary of state’s projected turnout and the percentage of people who got to vote. Had all Ohioans who wanted to vote cast their ballots, both Clark and Gerety said Kerry might have won the state and the presidential election.
While there still may be a recount in Ohio—if it will happen, it will be triggered next week—former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Carole Moseley-Braun said all legal remedies must be pursued to understand what happened on Election Day. That means FOIA requests to understand what happened with electronic machines, Voting Rights Act suits for disenfranchised minority voters—and, yes, a statewide recount.
“I come out of Chicago and I am reminded of how the Chicago machine used to operate in the old days,” Braun said. To beat the Republicans, she said her party and its activists had to make a commitment to mastering the intricacies and the details of the election process. "It’s all kinds of things that can be done to keep people’s feet to the fire on the intricacies, the details of the electoral process."
Indeed, only when all these remedies are pursued will Democrats be able to answer the question: What cost John Kerry the most votes in Ohio?

Bush eyes the 'Big Enchilada'

2004-11-13T17:09:00.000-08:00

Bush eyes the 'Big Enchilada' The prospect of winning California in 2008 has Republicans

drooling, writes Philip James Friday November 12, 2004 Bush Sr called it the "Big Enchilada" - the giant, rolled tortilla shaped state on America's left coast that carries a whopping 54 electoral college votes. He was the last Republican president to win California - a state that has gone essentially uncontested in every election since 1988.
This year it stopped Bush Jr from recording an out of sight landslide victory over John Kerry. But Kerry's margin of victory in what both parties have considered safe Democratic territory for well over a decade was uncomfortably thin.
While Clinton and Gore took the state by double digits in their attempts at the presidency, Kerry beat Bush by only nine points, and strategists from both parties are thinking the unthinkable as they plan for 2008: Is the "Big Enchilada" back in play?
The unavoidable answer is yes and it should have Democrats worried, for if California slips back into the Republican column, it would likely thrust the Democratic party back into a wilderness that would make Britain's third placed Liberal Democrats look relevant.
Just two years ago, California Democrats were celebrating a landmark achievement. In the 2002 election they swept all the state-wide elective offices, such as secretary of state. It was the first time the Democrats had achieved such a lockout in more than a century.
This turned out to be the apogee of Democratic power in the Golden State. Three months later, Gray Davis, the governor, was ousted in an unprecedented recall election, and Republicans are on the ascendant.

Voting patterns have been steadily moving California back to the midwest in recent years - a trend that is likely to continue. Democrats can rely on Los Angeles county and the San Francisco Bay area, but these concentrations are now surrounded by Republican territory.
What is more, population growth in counties that voted for Bush - spanning the vast reclaimed desert land of the inner part of the state - is projected to outpace growth in Democratic counties by more than a million people by 2008.
The same cultural conservatism that is reshaping America is also alive and well in California. Sixties-era liberalism may still radiate from the Haight Ashbury district in San Francisco to the Bay area, but today's California is much more a capital for the Christian right than for the progressive left.
In many ways the state has become ground zero for the culture war that is redefining US politics. The Massachusetts supreme court may have launched the row over gay marriage, but it was San Francisco's Democratic mayor, Gary Newsom, who turned it into a cause célèbre.
The flamboyant images of same sex couples getting hitched on the steps of city hall in the gay capital of America galvanised Republicans locally and nationally far more than Democrats.
The reactionary proposal banning gay marriage was a white hot issue in many states, amping up turn-out for Bush, but it was not on the ballot in California - a fact that helped keep the state in the Democratic column this time.
It stayed off the ballot there because California's secretary of state (the state's top election official), who can ease the path of ballot initiatives or throw up hurdles in their way, is a Democrat and he kept it off.
The lesson from California is that state-wide office holders - not just governors but also the unglamourous, but important, secretaries of state in each state - can have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of federal elections.
Of the 11 states that passed initiatives banning gay marriage, all but three (Oklahoma, Oregon and Michigan) have Republican governors and one of those, Michigan, has a Republican secretary of state.
The bottom line is this: state-wide offices matter and they matter more to a party in opposition, particularly one that has been effectively shut out of the three big houses in Washington.
You can bet that Republicans will mount a big push to win as many such offices as possible in California in 2006. Schwarzenegger will likely coast to a second term, but a lot of Republican dollars will be spent to unseat Kevin Shelley as secretary of state.
If they succeed, do not be surprised to find an anti-gay-marriage initiative on the ballot in California in 2008. Republicans would love to keep this wedge issue alive to help to flip the biggest electoral prize in US politics over to their column.
· Philip James is a former Democratic party strategist

None dare call it voter suppression and fraud

2004-11-13T17:04:00.000-08:00

Columns Bob Fitrakis

None dare call it voter suppression and fraudNovember 7, 2004Evidence is mounting that the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio. Emerging revelations of voting irregularities coupled with well-documented Republican efforts at voter suppression prior to the election suggests that in a fair election Kerry would have won Ohio. Democratic hopeful Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts conceded on November 3, based on preliminary postings by the highly partisan Republican Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. These unofficial results showed Bush with 136,483 more votes than Kerry, although 155,428 provisional ballots, 92,672 “spoiled” ballots, additional overseas ballots, and some remaining absentee ballots remained uncounted. The day after his concession, Kerry drew 3,893 votes closer to Bush when a computerized voting machine “glitch” was discovered in an Ohio precinct. A machine in ward 1B in the predominantly Republican Gahanna, Ohio, recorded 4,258 votes for George W. Bush when only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site. Buried on page A6 of the Columbus Dispatch, the story also reported that the voting machine recorded 0 votes in a race between Franklin County Commissioners Arlene Shoemaker and Paula Brooks. Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder told the Dispatch that the voting machine glitches were “why the results on election night are unofficial.” The right-wing New Life Church voting glitch is interesting. Free Press reporter Marley Greiner has been tracking Blackwell’s relationship with far right-wing religious forces like Biblical America and Christian dominionist groups that want to establish theocratic religious rule in America. Blackwell was campaigning around the state with the Reverend Rod Parsley as part of a “Silent No More” tour in support of amending the Ohio Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, on the ballot as Issue One. Many mainstream commentators claim it was the widely popular Issue One amendment campaign that brought out Bush voters in record numbers in rural Ohio. Gay marriage was already outlawed by state statute, and six of the seven Ohio Supreme Court justices are Republicans. The nonpartisan Citizen’s Alliance for Secure Elections (CASE) is investigating various other voting irregularities in Ohio, among them:
In Auglaize County, a letter dated October 21 under the signature of Ken Nuss, the county’s former deputy director, alleges that Joe McGinnis, a former employee of Election Systems & Software (ES&S), violated election protocol with his unauthorized use of the county’s central tabulating computer that creates ballots and compiles election results. Nuss, who resigned on October 21, alleges that McGinnis was improperly granted access to the computer the weekend of October 16.
In Miami County, with 100% of the precincts reporting at 9am EST Wednesday, Nov. 3, Bush had 20,807 votes (65.80%) and Kerry had 10,724 (33.92%). Miami reported 31,620 voters. Inexplicably, nearly 19,000 new ballots were added after all precincts reported, boosting Bush’s vote to 33,039 (65.77%) to Kerry’s 17,039 (33.92%). CASE is investigating why the percentage of the vote stayed exactly the same to three one-hundredths of a percentage point after nearly 19,000 new ballots were added. CASE members speculate that it’s either a long-shot coincidence with the last three digits remaining the same, or that someone had pre-set a database and programmed a voting machine to cough up a pre-set percentage of votes. Miami County uses an easily hackable optical scanner with the central counter provided by the Republican-linked vendor ES&S.
In Warren County, administrators and election officials locked down the county administrative building and prohibited all independent election observers from watching the vote count. County officials cited “homeland security,” according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. WCPO-TV Channel 9 News Director Bob Morford told the Enquirer that he had “never seen anything like it.” Morford asserted that throwing the media and independent observers out of the centralized counting area under the guise of “homeland security” was a “red herring.” He said, “That’s something to put up when you don’t know what else to put up to keep us out.” In Warren County, Bush picked up an additional 12,000 votes over his 2000 election total.
In Franklin County, where Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder is also the former Executive Director of the county’s Republican Party, the county Board of Elections building looked like a bunker. Scores of city buses blocked parking spaces on the street outside, numerous concrete barricades surrounded the parking lot, and a metal detector was stationed at the only entrance. A phalanx of armed deputy sheriffs swarmed the only site where provisional voters could cast a guaranteed ballot. The Columbus Dispatch confirmed an Election Day Free Press story that far fewer voting machines were present in predominantly black Democratic inner-city voting wards than in the recent primary election and the 2000 presidential election, with their lighter turnouts. The reduced number of machines caused voters to wait up to seven hours and wait an average of approximately three hours. One Republican Central Committee member told the Free Press that Damschroder held back as many as 2000 machines and dispersed many of the other machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.
In rural Drake County, Kerry received 78 less votes than Al Gore in 2000, but Bush received 3000 more votes. Drake is the only county in Miami Valley where Kerry’s votes was less than Gore’s and where Bush’s vote rose dramatically. Prior to the discovery of these irregularities, investigative reporter Greg Palast, who exposed the systematic disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in Florida in 2004, wrote an article entitled, “Kerry won.” Palast and numerous other observers point to the fact that the exit polls showed Kerry winning. Palast concludes that the exit polls were correct, but Kerry votes were far more likely to remain uncounted on election night. Unofficial Ohio presidential results provided by the Secretary of State’s Office show 155,428 provisional ballots cast. Blackwell was all over the national news telling everyone who would listen that these ballots were randomly distributed and not disproportionately for Kerry. As former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani raved on national TV demanding Kerry’s concession, a basic analysis of the provisional ballots suggested that they were disproportionately for Kerry. Historically, provisional ballots are far more likely to be cast by poor and minority voters, who live in the urban centers and move more often. Ohio has 88 counties, the vast majority of them rural. Kerry won 15 counties in Ohio, virtually all large urban centers. In those counties, 85,096 provisional ballots remain uncounted. Past elections point to the fact that these provisional ballots are hardly ever cast in the affluent, primarily Republican municipalities, but are overwhelmingly from the central city. Also, an additional 17,038 provisional ballots are from Hamilton County and Wood County. Bush won Hamilton with 53% of the vote and Wood County with 53.5%. Traditionally, the provisional ballots in Hamilton County come from Cincinnati and its poor central city areas. These are areas where John Kerry won handily on Election Day. Thus, 102,134 of the provisional ballots, nearly two-thirds (65.7%) in all probability come from solidly pro-Kerry areas and are most likely cast by pro-Kerry supporters such as African Americans and the poor. These fit the same socio-economic demographics and racial profiles of voters targeted by the GOP for challenges in Ohio. Palast also points to the 92,672 so-called “spoiled” ballots in Ohio that have yet to be counted, and may never be tallied. The most famous spoiled ballots were the 2000 Florida punch cards that could not be machine read, but when looked at manually the voter’s intent could be determined. Expert statisticians who investigated spoilage in the 2000 election in Florida found that 54% of these discarded ballots were cast by blacks. In Ohio, most of the spoiled votes were lost through punch card ballots in 2004. By Blackwell directing county Boards of Elections not to count the provisional ballots for 11 days, it benefited the Bush campaign since an immediate counting would have no doubt made the race tigher between Kerry and Bush, and perhaps prompted Kerry to request a recount. This would have the 92,672 discarded "spoiled" ballots that were also likely to favor Kerry. Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at the Ohio State University College of Law commented: "One other point. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has reportedly said that provisional ballots won't be counted for 11 days. I'm not sure where he's getting this, but he may be relying on ORC 3505.32. This statute provides that the boards of election are to begin canvassing election returns between 11 and 15 days after the election and ‘continue the canvass daily until it is completed.’ Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how this precludes provisional votes from being counted earlier than that, even if the canvass doesn't begin until the 11th day." Spoiled ballots will only be counted if someone with standing, such as five Kerry electors or the Ohio Democratic Party, demands and legally qualifies for a recount. Thus, the exit polls may have been correct. A majority of people voted for Kerry in Ohio; but 250,000 votes were not counted, most favoring Kerry over Bush. If Kerry had won by even one vote in Ohio, he would be the next President of the United States. Irregularities in other key battleground states have prompted three U.S. representatives to urgently request that the Comptroller General of the United States David Walker and the General Accounting Office “immediately undertake an investigation of the efficiency of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election.” Tom Hartmann, in his post election article on CommonDreams.org (“Evidence mounts that the vote was hacked”), reminds readers that Bev Harris, who started blackboxvoting.org, showed Howard Dean how to hack a county “central tabulator” computer in 90 seconds live on CNBC. The Diebold Corporation, which helped count the Ohio vote with e-voting machines and optical scan machines, is run by a notoriously pro-Republican CEO, Wally O’Dell. Last year O’Dell wrote a letter to Ohio Republican donors telling them that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.” O’Dell is a proud member of Bush’s Pioneer and Ranger team of major donors who visit the Crawford ranch. The other major election vote counting firm is ES&S, which is being investigated for allegedly having a machine that subtracted votes when the totals surpassed 32,000. On Election Day, the Election Protection Coalition observers who covered 58 polling places in central Ohio, documented thousands of voter complaints over long lines and recorded numerous people leaving the polls for work or because they were elderly or handicapped and physically unable to wait for hours to vote. Professor James K. Galbraith, of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, wrote the following summary of Election Day in Ohio: “. . . I drove a young African-American voter, a charming business student, seven months pregnant, to her polling place at Finland Elementary School in south Columbus. We arrived in a squalling rain to find voters lined up outside for about a hundred yards. . . . The real problem was a grotesque shortage of voting machines.” Ohio State University Law Professor Edward B. Foley told the New York Times, “When your lines get to two or three hours, it’s system failure.” Other bizarre tactics emerged in the run-up to the election:
Under an archaic Ohio law, both the Republican and Democratic Parties, or any slate of five candidates, may embed official election challengers inside polling places. The New York Times reported on Oct. 23 that the Republican Party intended to place thousands of lawyers and other GOP faithfuls inside the polls to challenge voters. Republican insiders confide here that the key goal was to jam lines and frustrate new voters. After two federal judges rejected the GOP challengers, Republicans got a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit, which allowed them to place challengers in Ohio polling places. Michael Beaver, Deputy State Commander with the Election Protection Coalition says, “We now believe that the challengers were a smokescreen to hide the real plan to orchestrate a machine shortage in Democratic wards.”
The Republican Party sent letters challenging thousands of Franklin County registered voters who requested absentee ballots. Franklin County is home to Columbus, the state's largest city and its capitol. Though it is also home to Ohio State University, thousands of local students go to schools outside the county or state. The GOP targeted young voters for challenges. The GOP pre-challenged an estimated 35,000 voters and rented arenas in Cleveland and Columbus to conduct the challenges. The GOP sent registered letters to registered voters’ addresses and when they failed to pick up a letter from the Republican Party in primarily Democratic areas, they were challenged for fraud. A federal judge disallowed the challenges less than a week before the election.
The Franklin County Board of Elections has called or written an undetermined number of voters who obtained absentee ballots, challenging their addresses. In at least one case, after a series of angry phone calls, the Board admitted there was nothing wrong with the address in question and re-instated voting rights. The voter in question was a registered Democrat. His wife, an independent at the same address, was not challenged. It is unclear how many others have been wrongly knocked out.
Even if they are counted, Franklin County's absentee ballot forms are designed in ways strikingly reminiscent of those notorious butterfly ballots in the Florida 2000 presidential election. On Franklin County absentee ballot forms, Kerry is the third name on the list of presidential candidates on the left side of the ballot. But, the punch card is designed to fit in the middle, so the actual number you punch for Kerry is hole "4." If you mistakenly punch hole "3" you've just voted for Bush.
Damschroder, Franklin County's right-wing Elections Director is insisting on e-voting machines that have malfunctioned in at least two Congressional elections. The machines have no paper trail and one subtracted 3% from former Rep. John Kasich’s and added 3% to Ed Brown, a six-point shift. The November issues of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics Magazines ran the following headlines on their covers, respectively: "E-vote emergency: And you thought dimpled chads were bad'" and "Could hackers tilt the election?" Vigorous protests against the paperless machines have been staged here, but many will be used, rendering a meaningful recount impossible.
Twenty GOP-dominated Ohio counties have given wrong information to former felons about their voter eligibility. In Hamilton County, home of Cincinnati and the Republican Taft family, officials told numerous former felons that a judge had to sign off before they could vote, which is blatantly false.
Franklin County, which normally cancels 2-300 registered voters a year for felony convictions, has sent at least 3,500 cancellation letters to both current felons and ex-felons whose convictions date back to 1998. The list includes numerous citizens who were charged with felonies but convicted only of misdemeanors.
Republican Secretary of State Blackwell reversed a long-standing Ohio practice and is barring voters from casting provisional ballots within their county if they are registered to vote but there's been a mistake about where they are expected to cast their ballot. In this year's spring primaries, Blackwell allowed voters to cast provisional ballots by county, even if they were in the wrong precinct. But this fall, voters had to leave if they were in the wrong precinct and find their way to the right one even though they had waited in line two to three hours. Blackwell hopes to succeed Republican Bob Taft as governor, and has labored hard to install Diebold e-voting machines with no paper trail throughout Ohio. Blackwell is being widely compared to the infamous Katherine Harris, who handed Florida to George W. Bush in 2000 and was rewarded with a safe Congressional seat. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones accused Blackwell of seeking “to disenfranchise the people of the state of Ohio.” Tubbs Jones pointed out that the 2000 census had caused massive redistricting, particularly within inner city precincts, which would lead to many people ending up at the wrong voting site.
The October 22 Columbus Dispatch, which endorsed Bush, and WVKO Radio have both documented phone calls from people impersonating Franklin County Board of Elections workers and directing registered voters to different and incorrect polling sites. One individual was falsely told not to vote at the polling station across the street from his house, but at a "new" site, four miles away. Under Blackwell's new rules, such a vote would not be counted. Nor do the precinct locations make much sense in the inner city. Someone living on the northwest corner of Bryden and Wilson, instead of walking half a block to the polling site at Franklin Alternative School, must vote seven blocks northeast at the Model Neighborhood facility polling site. The previous polling site for the precinct was two blocks west before the Republicans consolidated several inner city polling places in the 1990s.
In Cincinnati, some 105,000 voters were moved from active to inactive status within the last four years for not voting in the last two federal elections. This is not required under Ohio law, but is an option allowed and exercised by the Republican-dominated Hamilton County Board of Elections.
Secretary of State Blackwell ruled that any voter registration form on other than 80-pound weight bond paper would not be accepted. This is an old law left over from pre-scanning days. Many voters who had registered on lighter paper, had their registration returned, even though the forms had been officially sanctioned by local election boards.
On Election Day, fliers littered the inner city telling voters that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. The voting irregularities suggest that Bush is the first Republican President to win the presidency without winning the actual Ohio vote. Kerry won the vote in Ohio. The exit polls are correct. The mainstream media, instead of investigating the massive irregularities, are busy concocting theories as to how all the exit polls, the safeguards for fair elections, were all wrong on election night in the Buckeye State. None dare suggest voter suppression and fraud. -- Bob Fitrakis is a Professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community College. He has a Ph.D in Political Science and a J.D. from The Ohio State University Law School. He is the author of seven books, an investigative reporter, and Editor of the Columbus Free Press (freepress.org). He has won ten major investigative journalism awards including Best Coverage of Politics in Ohio from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists. He served as an international election observer in the 1994 presidential elections in El Salvador and was the co-author and editor of the report to the United Nations. He served as legal advisor for eight polling locations on Columbus' Near East Side for the Election Protection Coalition.

And so the sorting and discarding of Kerry votes begins

2004-11-13T17:03:00.000-08:00

Columns Bob Fitrakis

And so the sorting and discarding of Kerry votes beginsNovember 10, 2004Are the provisional ballots in Ohio being thrown out? A new rule for counting provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was implemented on Tuesday, November 9 at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, according to election observer Victoria Lovegren. The new ruling in Cuyahoga County mandates that provisional ballots in yellow packets must be “Rejected” if there is no “date of birth” on the packet. The Free Press obtained copies of the original “Provisional Verification Procedure” from Cuyahoga County which stated “Date of birth is not mandatory and should not reject a provisional ballot.” The original procedure required the voter’s name, address and a signature that matched the signature in the county’s database. Lovegren described the clerks as “kind of disturbed” after the new ruling came down. She said that one of the clerks told her, “This is new. This just came down. They just changed it in the last thirty minutes.” According to Lovegren, 80 yellow-jacketed provisional ballots piled up in the hour and 45 minutes she observed. By Lovegren’s tally, three provisional ballots were rejected because the registered voters’ registration had been “cancelled.” The rest, she said, were being discarded because of no date of birth. In 2000, an estimated 9% of Ohio’s provisional ballots were rejected and not counted, according to Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Many election observers are predicting the number will be much higher this year due to directives from Blackwell’s office. An earlier analysis in the Free Press of the 155,428 unofficial provisional ballots recorded at the Secretary of State’s website found that a clear majority, 85,096, came from the 15 counties Kerry won. An additional 17,038 came from urban Hamilton County, home of Cincinnati, and Wood County, where Bush won with 53% and 53.5% respectively. Traditionally, Hamilton County’s provisional ballots are disproportionately cast in the African American majority wards of the central city and not in the affluent Republican-dominated suburbs. Thus, nearly two-thirds (65.7%), or 102,134, provisional ballots come from areas where the provisional ballots are likely to be pro-Kerry. The official county-by-county board of elections’ final tally will begin on Saturday, November 13, the 11th day after the election and be completed by the 15th day. Following this canvassing period, 11-15 days after the election, an automatic recount would ensue if the gap between Kerry and Bush narrowed to less than one quarter of one percent, an estimated 16-19,000 votes, depending on how many are actually counted. During the canvassing, Bush will no doubt lose 3,893 votes from the infamous ward 1B in Gahanna, Ohio where a “computer glitch” counted 4,258 votes for Bush from 638 voters. But it is unlikely that Kerry will draw within the needed automatic recount margin. At the end of the canvass, candidates including Kerry have five days to apply for a paid recount, according to election attorney Donald McTigue. McTigue served as U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich’s campaign treasurer during the Democratic presidential primaries. The recount would be held within five days, and gives any candidate who applies, Kerry or others, the right to physically inspect the polling place materials including 92,672 ballots that failed to record a vote for President. Under Ohio law, like Florida law in 2000, the recount can include these ballots, many of them punch cards with the notorious “hanging chads” and optically scanned ballots where marks may have gone slightly astray but a vote for president is clearly evident. Overseas ballots postmarked by Election Day and late absentees just prior to the election also remain to be counted. During a recount, candidates may also inspect authorizations to vote, to make sure that the machine tallies are in line with the actual votes cast. They also may examine voter registration forms to argue for improperly rejected provisional ballots. Local boards of elections may amend election results if obvious mistakes are pointed out. It will cost $10 per precinct in Ohio, or an estimated $120,000, to recount the whole state. The official tallies are due at the Secretary of State’s Office by December 1. The Secretary of State must certify the election under Ohio law by December 3. U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich complained in an article on CommonDreams.org that “Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registrations through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout.” The Free Press, in its November 7 article “None dare call it voter suppression or fraud,” pointed to possible voting anomalies in Miami County, Ohio where nearly 19,000 new ballots appear to have been added after 100% of the precincts had reported. The additional votes were at virtually the exact same ratio as earlier Bush votes, 65.8% for earlier votes and 65.77% for the latter. Kerry’s vote percentage was identical, despite the nearly 19,000 new votes at 33.92%. Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd. told the Free Press, “The report you saw the following morning at 9 a.m. was probably either the 60 or 80 percent report.” Kearney’s company is the reporting company for vote results for Miami County; he claims that the problem was not with his reporting and that the additional 19,000 votes came before 100% of the precincts were in. As for the statistical anomaly that showed virtually identical ratios after the final 20-40% of the vote came in, Kearney offered no explanation and said he merely reports the results given to him. Miami County reports its votes in 20 percent blocks instead of a continuous running tally. “I watch as Steve Quillen, the Board Director, put floppy disks that he had taken from the tabulating computer and put them into the reporting computer. He did this at about 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of the count ... I looked at each of these reports. When the final one came out about midnight, we copied the report file onto my floppy disk. I came home and immediately posted it to the website. The page is still on our website exactly as it was shortly after midnight ... No one had access to this computer but me.” Kearney told the Free Press that the software used at the Miami County Board of Elections for counting the votes is from Elections Systems & Software (ES&S). The strong Republican ties of ES&S are well established in the public record. (See for example, “Diebold’s political machine” at motherjones.com). Such statistical anomalies may be examined if Kerry has the courage to demand a recount, or if other candidates who have legal standing to request a recount are curious. McTigue told a gathering of suburban Democrats that Kerry may recount eight counties of interest, and other candidates may recount the rest of Ohio. Unless the opportunity is seized, more than 100,000 votes will likely go uncounted, and statistical anomalies and “computer glitches” will remain unexamined. --Bob Fitrakis is a Professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community College. He has a Ph.D in Political Science and a J.D. from The Ohio State University Law School. He is the author of seven books, an investigative reporter, and Editor of the Columbus Free Press (freepress.org). He has won ten major investigative journalism awards including Best Coverage of Politics in Ohio from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists. He served as an international election observer in the 1994 presidential elections in El Salvador and was the co-author and editor of the report to the United Nations. He served as legal advisor for eight polling locations on Columbus' Near East Side for the Election Protection Coalition.

G.O.P. Adviser Says Bush's Evangelical Strategy Split Country

2004-11-13T16:53:00.000-08:00

G.O.P. Adviser Says Bush's Evangelical Strategy Split CountryBy MICHAEL
JANOFSKYPublished: November 11, 2004
ASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - Arthur Finkelstein, a Republican consultant known for hard-edged campaigns that helped conservatives in the United States and Israel, has said in an interview published in Israel that President Bush's campaign strategy to court evangelical Christians had divided the country as never before, to the possible detriment of the Republican Party.
"From now on, anyone who belongs to the Republican Party will automatically find himself in the same group as the opponents of abortion, and anyone who supports abortion will automatically be labeled a Democrat," Mr. Finkelstein told Maariv, a daily, in an interview published on Friday. "The political center has disappeared, and the Republican Party has become the party of the Christian right more so than in any other period in modern history."
Advertisement

Mr. Finkelstein, whose clients have included former Senators Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York and Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, suggested that Mr. Bush's strategy could ultimately stunt the presidential aspirations of moderate Republicans like one of his close allies, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York.
"Bush's strategy secures the power of the American Christian right not only for this term," Mr. Finkelstein said in the interview. "In fact, it secures its ability to choose the next Republican president."
Mr. Finkelstein's brother Ron said on Wednesday that he would be unavailable for further comment.
Arthur Finkelstein's thoughts on Mr. Bush's victory - or any victory, for that matter - are notable because of his reclusiveness. He rarely talks to reporters. But Boaz Gaon, a reporter for Maariv based in Tel Aviv, said he spoke with Mr. Finkelstein, who is based in New York, for two and a half hours by telephone last week to review the American elections and discuss the opening of Mr. Finkelstein's consulting office in Tel Aviv.
Mr. Finkelstein told Mr. Gaon that he was troubled by the strategy of dividing the country by "values of religion and culture."
"Bush courted the evangelical vote," he said, "and turned these elections, in fact, into a referendum on the religious and cultural nature of America. This is my problem."
As a result, he said, "it will be difficult for Pataki.''
"Bush's victory strengthens the ability of the Christian right to nominate the next Republican nominee as much as the last one," Mr. Finkelstein said.
A spokesman for Mr. Pataki, Kevin Quinn, said the governor had no response to the comments.
Mr. Finkelstein also criticized the campaign tactics of Mr. Bush's opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, saying he should have responded more aggressively when he was attacked by Vietnam veterans who questioned the details of his military service. Mr. Finkelstein said Mr. Kerry's initial silence was a mistake, adding, "If he had dealt with the crisis differently, he would be president today."
Mr. Finkelstein said he believed that Democrats regarded Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York as the early favorite for the 2008 nomination but that her candidacy would "deepen even more the divisiveness" created this year.
"She will put off Democrats from the center," he said. "In terms of the Republicans, Hillary Clinton is a wonderful candidate for the presidency."

GOP Hypocrite of the Week: The GOP "Moral Values" Voter

2004-11-13T16:40:00.000-08:00

GOP Hypocrite of the Week: The GOP "Moral Values" Voter
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

(Listen to the GOPHOTW HERE)

First of all, lets generally debunk the Rovian/mainstream media spin that there was a surge of "moral values" voters in 2004. The so-called GOP "moral values" Busheviks are pretty much the same Neo-Confederacy religious fundamentalist segment that's been confusing government with religion since the Civil War. In fact, just about the same number of exit poll voters identified jobs and the economy as their major concern in casting a ballot for President.
The "moral values" voter is really heir to the realigned Republican Party that the now repentant Kevin Phillips strategized for Nixon in his landmark book, "The Emerging Republican Majority." Essentially, this was the Southern Strategy, based on the exploitation of race and fundamentalist "Christian" values.
The Nixon strategy, under Rove, has been repackaged to appear "All-American," when it is really the Jesse Helms/Strom Thurmond political appeal with a "compassionate conservative" veneer. It's kind of shocking to BuzzFlash that the mainstream press appears to have forgotten that slave owners were generally devout fundamentalists, justifying slavery with bastardized passages from the Bible. And the Ku Klux Klan didn't pick a cross as its symbol by accident.
The Republican Party, since the post-Eisenhower era, has used religion to exclude Americans who are not devout fundamentalists or "old time religion" Christians. This group of voters is hardly a majority of Americans, but the Republicans have extended this appeal into the Rocky Mountain and Plains states through misinformation and the exploitation of emotional hot buttons to gain the support of people through fear "of the other."
Yes, fear Osama; fear gays; fear abortion doctors; fear people who teach evolution; fear science; fear the poor; fear non-whites; fear uppity women; fear liberals; fear Hollywood; fear everything that is not a matter of Christian faith.
Democratic leaders who have looked at the election results of 2004 (as questionable as they are), and think that they should start appealing to the "moral values" crowd are just being taken for a Rovian ride. The South was beaten in the Civil War and it's not the time to concede a war to Robert E. Lee that he lost nearly 140 years ago.
America was founded as a nation based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom, inclusion and the right of every citizen to participate in the election of our government is the essence of what makes us a great nation.
Those who would have us believe that the role of the government is to impose a set of values upon the nation fundamentally misunderstand the hypocrisy of the GOP and the "moral values" canard. What ever happened to the Republican slogan that the best government is the government that governs least?
We present our BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week to the small minority of Americans who consider themselves both true Americans and "moral values" voters. The reality is that you can't be both.
It is hypocritical to support freedom and democracy, and then go out and vote for a President who wants to assert HIS values on all Americans. That is about as Un-American as you can get.
Anybody in America is free to practice their values within the confines of their family, as long as they cause no criminal or psychological harm to others. But they aren't free to impose their religion or their personal beliefs on their neighbors. That's not democracy. That's hypocrisy and tyranny.
Until next week, just remember our motto at BuzzFlash.com, "So many Republican hypocrites, so little time."
Catch up with you soon.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Answers to Boston Globe's Dismissal of Voter Fraud Story

2004-11-13T15:51:00.000-08:00

Answers to Boston Globe's Dismissal of Voter Fraud StoryPosted on Thursday, November 11 @ 07:56:59 EST by

DavidAdmin The Boston Globe and the Washington Post have run stories dismissing the questions about the legitimacy of the 2004 presidential election as just another Internet hoax. Here, thanks to Washington attorney Cynthia Butler, are six reasons why they are wrong, foremost among them that the journalists are covering this as a rumor rather than analyzing the validity of the central allegation.Journalislt Ron Klein in his front page Boston Globe article in wishfully dismissing the Internet stories of fraud, suppression and chicanery in the foul play of the Election of 2004 totally and completely misses the point and investigates the rumor, not the central allegation. Zogby had it right; Ron Klein did not.Some of his error is found within his own story. First, if Cameron Kerry's law firm email server almost crashed for all the people who for at least two straight days deluged it beyond capacity, of first hand reports of voter fraud and intimidation (because that is what the email called for; if they had facts) that there might be something serious going on worth investigating?Second, the issue with long lines isn't just convenience- it is a suppression issue when people are told (wrongly) that because of heavy turn-out they can come back tomorrow, and a fraud issue when they know that the turn out will be out the door, around the block and down the highway and only put two or three voting booths in minority locations- that is also potentially a Voting Rights Act of 1965 issue.Third, when the computers malfunction to such a statistical percentage that in 12 Counties in Florida and all of Cleveland more voted came in for both Presidential Candidates tallied on election night than showed up at the polls, we know someone is playing fast and loose with basic arithmatic. Fourth, when the statistically improbably if not impossible event occurs where after the numbers started coming in that jumped in five concurrent states at the same time for Bush, we know it is time to call the computer geeks at Stanford, MIT and Microsoft to investigate. Fifth, we know that purging of the rolls was done aggressively, and in many cases improperly (one woman I obtained an Affidavit from in Texas declared under oath that she was told she was purged because she did not show up for jury duty for example.) Sixth, we know that people were often not told of the HAVA law right to obtain a provisional ballot, were actively discouraged from casting them because of statements such as "they are too much paperwork to bother" and "they probably won't count" which when coupled with long lines, people simply left and did not vote while they wanted to. In many places the Republican precinct 'Election Judges" who are neither attorneys nor judges simply advised voters that they ran out of forms -- as early as 11:00 am.As for the person he quotes from the campaign who allegedly organized the campaign election protection effort, he is misinformed. The election protection effort was undertaken by several groups only one of which he supervised. Cam Kerry's letter makes clear that there were 17,000 attorneys doing election protection, not the number Klein quotes.The People for the American Way, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and other attorneys on Get Out the Vote efforts such as myself who are trained election protection attorneys in other venues such as the DCCC performed election protection function.Consequently, for the Boston Globe to publish a letter in which he glibly dismisses the fraud and suppression allegations as not amounting to much is superficial spin, and the easy quote from a Harvard professor who says she never saw anything makes one wonder-- How much was she paying attention and how hard was she looking?

'Bush's risky gamble at Fallujah'

2004-11-12T10:15:00.000-08:00

Patrick Seale: 'Bush's risky gamble at Fallujah'Posted on Friday, November 12 @ 10:22:06 EST

By Patrick Seale, Dar Al-Hayat'There is not a single surgeon in Fallujah. We had one ambulance hit by U.S. fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move. A 13-year old child just died in my hands.'This was the anguished cry this week of an Iraqi doctor, Sami Al Jumaili, who, having managed to escape from his hospital just before an American assault, telephoned the outside world from a private house where he had gone to help the wounded.Viewing the terrible pictures on Arab television screens of the dead and dying in the ravaged city of Fallujah, and of Iraqi prisoners being trussed up, kicked and beaten, many will condemn the American attack as a crime against humanity, a war crime.No one doubts that the U.S. can take Fallujah. Aided, for propaganda purposes, by a few units of the new Iraqi army, they may already have done so by the time this article appears. The insurgents are evidently no match for the aircraft, tanks, artillery, night-vision equipment and other high-tech gadgetry of the American armed forces. In any event, many fighters have already escaped from the city and are reported to be regrouping in Ramadi.But, by what conceivable right is the U.S. emptying a foreign city of most of its inhabitants, smashing it to rubble and killing the survivors? What sort of barbarism is this? How can it possibly serve longer-term U.S. interests? The attack is bound to arouse bitter anti-American hatred and live on in the memory of Iraqis as a savage episode in a modern colonial war, if anything more violent than the one they suffered at British hands in the early 20th century.America's war aimsThe U.S. disclaims any colonial ambitions, but its actions belie its words. President George W Bush says the assault is intended to 'bring to justice… those who want to stop democracy.' His spokesman, Scott McClellan, parrots the official line by saying that 'a free Iraq will help transform a dangerous region and make America more secure.'Such windy rhetoric convinces no one. The argument that you have to destroy a country in order to 'free' it arouses only derision. What, then, are America's true war aims? What does it hope to achieve? What does it think it is doing in Fallujah?One view is that the assault is intended to restore the morale of the U.S. Marine Corps, dented by last April's unsuccessful attempt to take the city.Another, more widely-held opinion, is that the U.S. is anxious to find an exit from the Iraqi quagmire and sees the elections scheduled for next January 27 as its best chance to leave with honor. But for elections to seem legitimate and to include the whole population, the 'Sunni triangle' must be 'pacified', which means that the insurgent strongpoint of Fallujah must first be smashed.If this is indeed U.S. strategy, it suggests that Washington has recognized that the war cannot be won. It, therefore, wants to cut its losses and get out - but must first ensure a minimum of security and institutional stability.There is, however, a third view, which points to a different and more sinister future for Iraq. This argument is that the assault on Fallujah is in line with an American foreign policy now even more aggressive than before, as was perhaps to be expected following Bush's victorious re-election.The influential neo-conservatives in Bush's administration who pressed for war in Iraq and are now expected to dominate his second term have no intention of abandoning their ambitious agenda.This agenda includes 'finishing the job' in Iraq, which is a code for destroying all opposition and turning the oil-rich country into a US client state; 'regime change' in Iran, Syria and North Korea; pursuing the global war on terror and indeed on all manifestations of militant Islam - now labeled 'Islamo-fascism' by the neo-cons; and, above all, ensuring that, in a post-Arafat era, there will be no U.S. pressure on Israel to give up its West Bank conquests or negotiate with the Palestinians, other than on Israeli terms.Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is spending this Thursday and Friday in Washington. It will not be an easy visit. He has repeatedly said that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be an immediate priority, and he is known to believe that military action in Iraq must give way to a political process. But he is unlikely to prevail against the massed ranks of the neo-conservative Likudniks inside and outside the American government, who see him as a threat to their agenda.In today's Washington, Britain has far less influence than Israel and its American friends.Winning the war and losing the peaceThe question is not whether the U.S. can win the military battle, but whether it can hold Fallujah for the next three months, and whether it will not have to deal with similar uprisings in other cities.This is really a question about the nature of the opposition the U.S. is facing and of the sort of war the U.S. is waging. If one takes the view that the opposition consists of a finite number of 'terrorists', then killing or capturing them would seem to be a plausible ambition. If, however, the armed opposition in Fallujah is merely the sharp end of a broad national resistance movement against a brutal foreign occupation and an Iraqi puppet regime, then the American task is far harder and seems bound to fail.By speaking of the need to 'cleanse Iraq of terrorists', Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has made the grave mistake of adopting America's terminology. Kidnappers have seized three members of his extended family and have threatened to kill them if the assault on Fallujah is not stopped. Allawi is therefore under great personal pressure.This is an illustration of the uncomfortable fact that the war in Iraq is not a conventional war, with a clear beginning and an end, in which a defeated enemy can be expected to sign a document of surrender. It is an 'asymmetric' guerrilla campaign which could drag on for years, in which casualties from ambushes, snipers and roadside bombs can be high, in which the enemy refuses to stand and fight but melts away into the civilian population, and in which territory won cannot always be held.It seems highly probable that Saddam Hussein prepared for just such a conflict and distributed arms caches around the country, knowing that his army had no chance in a conventional war against the U.S.Fighting a guerrilla war can be extremely demoralizing for conventional units such as America has deployed in Iraq. Far from defeating the insurgency, a U.S. 'victory' in Fallujah risks mobilizing anti-American militants not only in Iraq but throughout much of the Arab world, where sympathy for the Sunni victims of America's attack is very strong.Bush, Blair and Allawi have been warned. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told them that 'violent military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse.' The interim President of Iraq, the tribal chieftain Ghazi Al Yawer has disassociated himself from Allawi's policies. The main Sunni Arab party has pulled out of Allawi's government. Sunni preachers have called for a campaign of civil disobedience, while some armed militants are reported as saying that 'every Iraqi town shall become a Fallujah!'Writing about a different conflict - that of Algeria's 'dirty war' in the 1990s against Islamic militants - the veteran Kabyle (tribe) leader, Hocine Aït-Ahmad, remarked that 'History teaches us that any war against terrorism turns into state terror when massive casualties are inflicted on a civilian population in the name of the counter-terrorist struggle.'It is a thought that Bush and Blair might ponder this week as they reflect on the bloodstained mess they have created in Iraq.© 2004 Media Communications GroupReprinted from Dar Al Hayat:http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/commentators/11-2004/Article-20041112-29cc33e9-c0a8-10ed-003a-92db4d931e19/story.html

'Washington Post's sloppy voting analysis'

2004-11-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

Sam Parry: 'Washington Post's sloppy voting analysis'Posted on Friday, November 12 @ 10:26:21 EST
By Sam Parry, Consortium NewsThe Washington Post and the big media have spoken: Questions about Nov. 2 voting irregularities and George W. Bush's unusual vote tallies are just the ravings of Internet conspiracy theorists.In a Nov. 11 story on A2, the Post gave the back of its hand to our story about Bush's statistically improbable vote totals in Florida and elsewhere. While agreeing with our analysis that Bush pulled off the difficult task of winning more votes in Florida than the number of registered Republicans, the Post accuses us of overlooking the obvious explanation that many independents, "Dixiecrats" and other Democrats voted for Bush.Mocking us as "spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists," Post reporters Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating signaled their determination to put questions about Bush's victory outside the bounds of responsible debate. Yet, if they hadn't been so set in this agenda, they might have avoided sloppy mistakes and untrue assertions.In an example of their slipshod reporting, Roig-Franzia and Keating state that we focused our data analysis on rural counties in Florida. They suggest that Bush's gains in these rural counties might be explained by the greater appeal of son-of-the-South Al Gore in 2000 than Bostonian John Kerry in 2004.But we didn't focus on rural counties in Florida. Rather we looked at the vote tallies statewide and zeroed in on Bush's performance in the larger, more metropolitan counties of southern and central Florida, where Bush got the vast majority of his new votes over his state totals in 2000.It was in these large counties where Bush's new totals compared most surprisingly with new voter registration because Democrats did a much better job in many of these counties of registering new voters. In other words, Bush outperformed Kerry among a relatively smaller ratio of Republicans to Democrats in many of these counties.Also undermining the Post's claims, Kerry actually improved on Gore's total in the smallest 20 counties in Florida by 5,618 votes -- 50,883 votes for Kerry vs. 45,265 for Gore, a 12.5% increase. So, even the Post's notion that Gore's Southern heritage made him more attractive to rural Floridians doesn't fit with the actual results.Simple QuestionWe began our analysis of the vote totals with one simple question: Where did Bush earn his new votes? Since one of every nine new Bush voters nationwide came from Florida, we thought this battleground state was a good place to examine county-by-county tallies.We also didn't go into the analysis expecting to find statistical oddities. We were open to the possibility that Bush's totals might have fit within statistical norms.What we found, however, led us to report that Bush's vote tallies were statistically improbable - though not impossible. Contrary to the Post's claim, we did take into account the Dixiecrat element, which is why we didn't focus on the Bush totals from Florida's panhandle or the smaller, rural counties.Our analysis found that of the 13 Florida counties where Bush's vote total exceeded the number of registered Republicans for the first time, only two were counties with fewer than 100,000 registered voters. In 2000, Bush's vote total exceeded the number of registered Republicans in 34 counties - not 32 as the Post inaccurately reported - but in 2004, this total shot up to 47 counties.Rather than a rural surge of support, Bush actually earned more than seven out of 10 new votes in the 20 largest counties in Florida. Many of these counties are either Democratic strongholds - such as Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach - or they are swing counties, such as Orange, Hillsborough, and Duval.Many of these large counties saw substantially more newly registered Democrats than Republicans. For example, in Orange County, a swing county home to Orlando, Democrats registered twice as many new voters than Republicans in the years since 2000. In Palm Beach and Broward combined, Democrats registered 111,000 new voters compared with fewer than 20,000 new Republicans.However, in these three counties combined, Bush turned out about 10,000 more new voters than Kerry, a feat made all the more remarkable given that Kerry improved Democratic turnout in these counties by 21 percent.No LandslideHistorically, increases like those Bush registered throughout Florida and across much of the country occur when there are huge swings in voting patterns caused by national landslides.In 1972, for instance, Richard Nixon won millions of votes from Democrats who two elections earlier had supported Lyndon Johnson. But in 2004, the Democratic ticket didn't suffer a hemorrhage of votes, actually turning out about 5 million more voters nationwide than in 2000.Nor was that the case in Florida. In county after county in Florida, Bush achieved statistically stunning gains even as Kerry more than held his own. Bush earned nearly 35 percent more votes statewide than he did in 2000, which was already a huge surge for Bush over Bob Dole's 1996 Florida turnout.Contrary to assertions in the flawed Post article, the most surprising numbers actually don't come from small rural counties in the state, but rather from large counties, including Orange county (mentioned above), Hillsborough (Tampa), Brevard (Cape Canaveral), Duval (Jacksonville), Polk (next to Orange county), and heavily Democratic Leon (Tallahassee) and Alachua (Gainesville). These are not tiny Dixiecrat counties with longtime registered Democrats who haven't voted Democratic in years.Rather, these seven counties have large, diverse populations that collectively saw Bush turn out 1,025,493 votes, exceeding the 946,420 registered Republicans. In these counties, Bush turned out nearly twice as many new votes than the number of newly registered Republicans. In these same counties, Kerry got more than 200,000 new votes, meaning that Bush's tally can't be attributed to crossover Democrats.While Bush's totals are not statistically impossible, they do raise eyebrows. Our question was: where did these gains come from? We are not claiming that the surprising numbers are evidence of fraud, but we do believe the tallies deserve an honest and independent review.It also should be the job of journalists to probe questions as significant as the integrity of the U.S. voting system, not to simply belittle those who raise legitimate questions. The fact that Internet journals and blogs are doing more to examine these concerns than wealthy news organizations like the Washington Post is another indictment of the nation's mainstream press.Reprinted from Consortium News:http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111204.html

'Not 'was it stolen?', But 'was it stealable?

2004-11-12T09:32:00.000-08:00

By Stirling Newberry, The Blogging Of The President

The question that is before the activist part of the party - the part that gets people enthused about acting on Democratic beliefs through the Democratic Party - is one of message. How to put the drive to make people live their political philosophy into words. Very often that message is confused or counterproductive, because it is phrased in terms which make sense to an activist, but do not play on television.At Bopnews, several of us have decided to dig deeper into the election questions of 2004 in a larger context, because there is a larger context. But to put that larger context before the public requires a way of expressing what we are doing. That it is statistically possible should be enough to cause alarm.The question is not "was the election stolen?" but "was it secure"? In this post 911 world, we can easily make the distinction between "nothing went wrong, today" and "something could go wrong". What we will find, regardless of whether there is a way to make it add up to enough votes to swing the results, is to prove that there are pervasive irregularities in the balloting system, that these pervasive irregularities favor the Republican Party consistently, and that the "solutions" proposed often make the situation worse not better.Would you trust your money to a bank that had consistent accounting irregularities? Why trust your vote to a system that does? Unfortunately, the question isn't even asked.[Update: The New York Times Jumis the entire idea. (This is the guy who asserted that Saddam and Osama were connected. He also gave good press to Right wing theories about hunger.)]The investigation into how the Gop (pronounced like "slop") uses dirty tricks both to pad margins, and to shift results will take a great deal of time. The questions about Diebold are probably foremost, since corrupt contracting is a known problem, and a general issue. A party like the Gop which thinks nothing of lying to go to war, covering up pre-911 incompetence and using federal agencies as tools of a re-election campaign is not going to quail at corrupting the balloting system. People who tell us that "Star Wars" is good science because there is mega-profit in it can't be trusted with anything else involving numbers either.The dirty tricks question - voter intimidation and suppression - is important as well. Several elections in the last four years have been decided by a few hundred votes. Herseth of South Dakota is an example - as is Johnson of South Dakota. Even if the 2004 Presidential election is not swayed by what is found, there are many elections which could be swayed.There is also the broken window problem - the introduction of irregularities by the Gop when it is not going to be investigated - because the margin of victory seems so larger - means that they are there, a time bomb, for the day when they might be important.Finally, it is an issue of basic trust - between people and their government. Without that trust, elections become meaningless, because those who disagree can, in their own minds, feel that their consent was not asked for, and therefore has not been given. That 2000 was stolen is a fact, one which is constantly buried and ignored. Laying to rest that demon will require a thorough reform of the voting and vote counting process, and an end to the piecemeal approach which is loaded with local favoritism and corruption.The Federal government had a chance to fix this problem in the wake of 2000, but chose, instead, to create merely another pork barrel which has been used as an avenue by the corrupt and incompetent to shill products which do not address the basic issue of trust, but, instead, slap more layers of mistrust on top of the process. Basic chain of custody is a well understood issue, one that tripped CBS news up this fall, and which will continue to trip up our election system.The question is not "was it stolen?" but "is it safe?" The evidence indicates, particularly in our increasingly polarized politics, that the system we have is not, "close enough for government work".Reprinted from The Blogging Of The President:http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002412.html#2412

'A word from your Commander in Thief

2004-11-12T09:19:00.000-08:00

Chris Elliott: 'A word from your president'Posted on Friday, November 12 @ 10:30:26 EST
By Chris Elliott, Seacoast Online"My fellow Americans, I want to thank you from the top of my heart for electing me to four more years of being your president. I promise you that it will be four more years of the word "insurance" being pronounced with the accent on the first syllable. I think that pronouncing the word like that implies how important it is I feel about it. There will also be four more years of the words "United States" being pronounced with the accent on the first syllable. And that’s how important I think the United States are."There will also be four more years of smirks. And believe me, you can squeeze in a lot of smirks over four years, heh-heh. I did the math, and let me tell you, it’s none of that fuzzy math my opponent was talking about. What? That was Gore? Oh, yeah. For anyone wondering, no, I am not wearing a wireless receiver on my back that is transmitting a UHF signal to a tiny monitor embedded in one of my ears, the left one actually."Anyway, back to smirks. If I am awake 12 hours a day after factoring in all the naps, an average of eight smirks per hour adds up to more than 15,000 smirks over the course of my administration. And that’s not even the tip of the ice cube. My advisers have advised me to advise you that there is a lot to look forward to in the next four years, because as you know, four years is a ton of time."One of the blessings of a second Bush administration is that you all will get to continue with the fifth annual occasion of a popular drinking game in my honor I’ve heard so much about. "Nookyuler" I think it’s called. The way it works is every time I say "Nookyuler" in my State of the Union address, everybody does a shot. Sounds like good times. Jesus. I remember games like that only it had something to do with Bob Newhart. I would kill or die for a drink right now."As is always the case, new livelihoods emerge from any series of blunders such as the ones I have made in Iraq, and that’s making lemons from where there weren’t lemons before. My re-election following my dismissal of the outpouring of global support following September 11 has created four more years of global disdain, a period in which I predict American musicians will thrive. Being reviled abroad has always been a non-incentive for travel, and as such the cruise ship and casino business is expected to have a banner four years. I am for the working musician."I know, the Democrat side is disappointed. It is wounded and suffering for not having prevailed in this election, and I understand that. The party is on the ropes. I sense it. I can feel it. The Democratic party is a fat, bloated Gerry Cooney spurting more blood than a Sam Peckinpaw movie and wheezing like a coal miner. And because of that I want to build fences and mend bridges. I want to reach out to the Democratic party, to seek common ground. I want to celebrate our common purpose, not elevate our differences. Heh-heh ... I almost said that with a straight face! Heh-heh! Heh-heh!"You know what I really want to do. I want to deliver the death blow, and I want to do it now. I want to demolish the American left. This half-assed olive branch rhetoric is something Rove cooked up to temper resistance to our immediate onslaught of ideological legislation."Remember what I said about political capital? Well I got what we in the red states call a signed promissory note, and it’s made out in the sum of Democrat ass, payable upon demand. And guess what? There’s a one and I get to fill out the zeroes. So let’s cut out all of what Kerry calls manure and I call something else, all right? Let’s just get ready for round 15, huh? All you Democrats can go, um, what is it Dick Cheney says to Democrats he disagrees with? Oh, yeah. Now I remember. It’s "Go fuck yourselves." So, here goes: All you Democrats can go fuck yourselves. Heh-heh."Let me take all you Northeast liberals to school fer a minute. America’s best and brightest didn’t elect me. But so what? The folks did. Sure there’s some Ma and Pa Kettle among them folks, but they’re fine folks, too, and if the Democrats don’t know that they’re worse off than I thought."I know these folks, these folks in what y’all call the flyover states. There’s plenty of simple among these folks, but that has pretty much nothing to do with how fine a person they are. The humblest and simplest are as fine as you’d ever want to meet, your human pedigree requirements notwithstanding."There are sophisticated people in those red states as well — intellects, artists, writers, just like you got in your cities. And there are plenty of plain folks who put food on the table against all odds. And yes, there’s evangelical Christians with the accent on the first syllable of "evangelical" if you don’t mind and thank you very much."No matter how stupid you want to think the stupidest of my supporters are, they’re smart enough to know what they want, and not to give you blue bastards the tip of a lifetime, but the quicker you learn that, the quicker you can be rubbing my nose in it instead of the other way around. The evolution of man you espouse is going to have to wait, at least in America."If you drive down any rural street in the Deep South or Plains states, you’ll see an old church with a broken sign that reads "One Way Fellowship of Christ." Two miles later you’ll see another called "Know Him, Know Peace Church," and then another and then another. Each church holds about 20 parishioners and inside looks pretty much the same as another."Dad’s the preacher and Granny’s riding the Wurlitzer with sis on bass and No. 1 son on drums. The first question of course is to wonder what theosophical quibbles could have caused all of these schisms. Heh-heh, I didn’t write that line."Cheney thinks it’s just a case of some parishioner thinking he’s smarter than the pastor, so he decides to get his own tax exemption form. Pretty soon he’s preaching the gospel and passing the collection plate in a shack down the road, and suddenly the old man don’t have to show up to his job no more. Then the same thing happens again and then again."I’m not as cynical as Cheney, but whatever it is that actually divides all these little churches, there’s one thing that unites them, and that’s me. George W. Bush, Mister Democrat, it’s George W. Bush. Whatever saint is on their front page, whatever gospel is their creed, I am their president. The baby Jesus has got my back, and I am the Democrats’ Daddy."With Rehnquist out of the picture, the way is cleared for Scalia’s ascension and another 40-year old conservative ideologue who will be voting a regressive agenda for the next 30 years. It’s second term, baby, and I’m feeling like a cheerleader again. It’s legacy time, and I’m going to leave Roe v. Wade dead in my wake. I am going to pass an amendment to the Constitution that bans gay marriage, and I am going to leave a $3 trillion deficit with an expanded lower middle class paying for everything."Five thousand American soldiers will be killed in Iraq before I am out of office. I feel bad about that. Thirty thousand will be horribly maimed and disfigured. Many will be blind. I feel bad about that. Many will suffer nerve damage that pitches them into violent, unpredictable seizures. I feel bad about that. Many will have been made insane from the things they have seen."But the oil assets will be under firm control, unless of course the terrorists who actually attacked us do it again. I’m betting against it, though. As matter of fact, looking at where all those red states are, you could say I was betting the farm."Chris Elliott can be reached at CDElliott009@aol.com Copyright © 2004 Seacoast Online.Reprinted from Seacoast Online:http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11_9elliott.htm

WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND A RECOUNT IN OHIO, PLEASE SUPPORT BY GIVING TO THIS CAUSE

2004-11-12T08:03:00.000-08:00

Cobb demands recount in Ohio

EUREKA -- Former Green presidential candidate and Eureka resident David Cobb wants a recount of votes cast in Ohio during last week's presidential election.
Ohio went to President Bush, the final state he needed to win enough electoral votes to secure re-election.
In a press release issued Wednesday, Cobb indicated that he and Michael Badnarik, this year's Libertarian presidential candidate intend to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio.
"Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote," the two candidates said in a joint statement. "Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately."

The candidates also demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who chaired the Ohio Bush campaign, recuse himself from the recount process.
The two third-party candidates argue that the Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of voter intimidation, mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters.
A number of citizens' groups and voting rights organizations are reportedly holding hearings this Saturday in Columbus, Ohio, to investigate voting irregularities and voter suppression in the Ohio 2004 general election.
The Cobb and Badnarik campaigns are in the process of raising the required fee, estimated at $110,000, for filing for a complete recount. The campaigns are accepting contributions through their websites. The Cobb-LaMarche website is http://www.votecobb.org/ The Badnarik-Campagna contribution page is https://badnarik.org.

CHAOS AS YASSER ARAFAT IS BURIED

2004-11-12T07:56:00.000-08:00

Chaos as Yasser Arafat is buried

Arafat's body rests in a marble and stone gravePalestinian leader Yasser Arafat has been buried at his battered compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah amid chaotic and emotional scenes.
Mr Arafat's body was lowered into a marble and stone grave as thousands of Palestinians thronged the area.
Mourners fired guns into the air as the coffin arrived on a helicopter following a military funeral in Egypt.
Thousands surged around the helicopter and after some delay, the coffin was carried through the crowds.
Mr Arafat, 75, died in a French military hospital early on Thursday, after suffering multiple-organ failure, but the exact cause of his illness and death is still not clear.
Hospital officials have refused to give details, citing French medical privacy law.
A leading Jordanian doctor, Ashraf al-Kurdi, who regularly examined Mr Arafat, and last saw him two weeks ago, has said poisoning was the "highest" possible cause of death, the Associated Press news agency reports.
"One of the causes of platelet deficiency is poison," he said, calling for an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death.
Mr Arafat had been flown to Paris on 29 October after weeks of mystery stomach pains. He fell into a coma on 3 November and never regained consciousness.
Tumult
The burial took place amid tumultuous scenes as tens of thousands of mourners surged around the coffin.
It took 25 minutes for the coffin to be unloaded from the helicopter because of the huge crowd.
A police jeep had to edge through to clear a space by the helicopter, as Palestinian officials accompanying the body from Egypt pleaded with the crowd to move back and allow them to open the door.

Before the coffin's arrival, mourners had scaled the walls and broke through the gates of Mr Arafat's battered headquarters.
People worked through the night to prepare the grave, under some trees, next to the wreckage of buildings destroyed by the Israeli military.
Mr Arafat was buried using soil from the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, where Palestinians hope Mr Arafat's coffin can one day be taken - a move rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Mr Arafat was confined to his compound by the Israelis for more than two and a half years, until he was flown to France two weeks ago.
Yasser Arafat was the embodiment of the Palestinian struggle
Muhammad Ebeid, Gaza Strip
Arafat's death: Palestinians react
The BBC News website's Martin Asser in Ramallah was told that a former prayer hall of Mr Arafat's - demolished by Israeli forces some time ago - was the site for the burial.
A huge tent has been erected at offices occupied by Mr Arafat before they were destroyed by the Israeli air force in 2002.
Israel did not allow ordinary Palestinians to travel to the West Bank from the Gaza Strip.
Instead, Gaza City has been holding its own symbolic funeral service, with thousands of people taking part, including members of Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Military funeral
On Friday morning, heads of state, prime ministers and foreign ministers attended the military funeral - which was closed to the public - held in the Egyptian capital Cairo.
ARAFAT'S SUCCESSORS

Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei - will take charge of the Palestinian Authority
Mahmoud Abbas - the former prime minister will lead the PLO, the umbrella body bringing together most Palestinian factions
Farouk Kaddoumi - will head the Fatah faction
Who could follow Arafat?
In pictures: Arafat's funeral
Dignitaries included Jordan's King Abdullah II, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and US envoy Williams Burns were also there.
No Israeli officials attended.
Palestinian officials, including Mahmoud Abbas who has taken over leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, greeted dignitaries in a large, carpeted funeral tent at a military club.
The leaders then walked behind Mr Arafat's flag-draped coffin in a short funeral procession, following a horse-drawn gun carriage and a military band down a heavily guarded street to the nearby al-Maza airbase.
Egypt's top Muslim cleric, al-Azhar's Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, led prayers for Mr Arafat.
"He has served his people all his life, until he faced his God, with courage and honesty. Let us pray for his soul," he said.
The Palestinian and Egyptian national anthems were played before the coffin was placed on board a military plane.
Egyptian television showed pictures of a veiled Suha Arafat, the Palestinian leader's widow, and a rare picture of the couple's nine-year-old daughter Zahwa, both in tears at the time.
The Palestinian Authority, as well as camps in Lebanon - home to some 400,000 Palestinian refugees - have declared 40 days of mourning.

Suspicions stir belief that presidential election was hijacked

2004-11-11T20:16:00.000-08:00

Suspicions stir belief that presidential election was hijacked
by Greg Guma Vermont Guardian

BURLINGTON-- Could sophisticated CIA-style "cyber-warfare" have helped George W. Bush change a three percent defeat, as measured by exit polls, into a victory of about the same margin? Yes, at least in theory. But it would require hacking into multiple local computer systems, presumably from a remote location.
There is as yet no solid proof that such a cyber-attack occurred on Nov. 2. But suspicions are mounting that the U.S. presidential election results were manipulated to some extent. Voting analyses of selected precincts in Florida and Ohio have found surprisingly high percentages for Bush, and critics say that spoiled ballots and provisional votes, both disproportionally affecting minorities, made the difference in at least two states.
Into the evening of Election Day, exit polls showed Kerry rolling to a clear victory nationally and carrying most of the battleground states, including Florida and Ohio. Winning either would have ensured his victory in the Electoral College.
Polls also showed Republicans carrying the bulk of the tight Senate races. When the official results were tallied, however, the presidential exit polls proved wrong while the Senate polls were correct.
As suspicions about the integrity of the election grew, Sen. John McCain tried to quell talk of mischief in the Florida and Ohio with a Nov, 4 appearance on the Tonight Show.Exit polling showed Kerry with a 3 percent lead over Bush in Florida and 4 percent edge in Ohio. He ended up losing Florida by 5.2 percent and 2.5 percent in Ohio. That makes the spread between the Florida poll and results 8.2 percent, more than double the standard error rate. In Ohio, the difference is 6.5 percent, also beyond the usual variation.
In Florida's Baker County, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3 percent of them Democrats and 24.3 percent of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry, Hartmann reports.
In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5 percent of them Democrats and a mere 15 percent registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.
The pattern repeated elsewhere, but only in the smaller counties. On Nov. 5, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann took note of the obvious: all the voting machine irregularities being uncovered seemed to favor Bush. But that was the exception. Most media focused instead on why the exit polling system failed.
Skeptics have dismissed the exit polls as flawed, and said that they may have influenced the narrative of election coverage, but couldn’t affect the outcome.
To explain the difference, architects of the exit poll sampling system said Kerry voters were simply more willing to answer the questions. Called the "chattiness thesis," this answer has been ridiculed as a post-facto excuse.
In an article for Tom Paine.com called “Kerry Won,” journalist Greg Palast claims, “Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded.” But Palast thinks the election was decided not by hackers but by "spoilage," the small part of the vote that is voided and thrown away.
In Ohio, as in Florida four years ago, most “spoiled” votes were cast on punch cards. Whose cards were they? Palast writes, “Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks.”
Other factors that may have affected the outcome include the legal challenges brought by Republicans in several states and the large number of provisional ballots. Taken together, they could bring the full count more into line with the exit poll results. Palast has identified similar voting irregularities in New Mexico.
Writing for Common Dreams. Thom Hartmann reports that Jeff Fisher, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District claimed to have solid evidence that the Florida election was manipulated through information warfare.
Since the mid-1990s, "information warfare" has been a hot topic within the U.S. military. The Pentagon has even produced a 13-page booklet, "Information Warfare for Dummies."
Indirectly, the booklet acknowledges secret U.S. capabilities in these areas. It also recognized the sensitivity of the topic. "Due to the moral, ethical and legal questions raised by hacking, the military likes to keep a low profile on this issue," the primer explains.
The booklet says the cyber-war tactics do have advantages over other military operations. "The intrusions can be carried out remotely, transcending the boundaries of time and space," the manual says. "They also offer the prospect of 'plausible deniability' or repudiation.
The CIA has reportedly succeeded in pursuing some aspects of cyber-warfare, including targeting specific bank accounts and shutting down computer systems. But stealing an election is considerably more difficult, requiring the alteration of data in many computers.
According to Robert Parry, writing for Consortium News, ”a preprogrammed ‘kernel of brain’ would have to be inserted into election computers beforehand, or teams of hackers would be needed to penetrate the lightly protected systems, targeting touch-screen systems without a paper backup for verifying the numbers.
Posted November 11, 2004

Excerpts From Gonzales's Legal Writings

2004-11-11T11:51:00.000-08:00

Excerpts From Gonzales's Legal WritingsPublished: November 11, 2004

s a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Alberto R. Gonzales wrote a majority opinion issued on June 22, 2000, in a case in which a minor was seeking to have an abortion without notifying her parents, as state law required. Then as counselor to the president, Mr. Gonzales drafted a memorandum dated Jan. 25, 2002, about the application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (G.P.W.) to the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Following are excerpts from those writings:

An Abortion Ruling
Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended. ... Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy decisions. ...
The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. ... But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. ... Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the right of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.
Prisoner of War Status
As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for G.P.W. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities or war crimes, such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments.
Although some of these provisions do not apply to detainees who are not P.O.W.'s, a determination that G.P.W. does not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determination of P.O.W. status. It also holds open options for the future conflicts in which it may be more difficult to determine whether an enemy force as a whole meets the standard for P.O.W. status.
By concluding that G.P.W. does not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban, we avoid foreclosing options for the future, particularly against nonstate actors.

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS IN HEAVEN AT THE PROSPECT OF REMAKING THE SUPREME COURT.

2004-11-10T15:19:00.000-08:00

Joyful and triumphantThe religious right is in heaven at the prospect of remaking the Supreme Court.
- - - - - - - - - - - -By Michelle Goldberg

Nov. 9, 2004 With the reelection of George Bush, an increase in Senate seats, and a chance to remake the Supreme Court, many Republicans are gearing up for a full-blown culture war. Writing in the National Review on Wednesday, self-appointed culture czar William Bennett proclaimed, "Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ('The Great Relearning,' as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) -- no less in legislation than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason George W. Bush was reelected."
Whether or not a huge turnout of evangelical voters was really the deciding factor in the election, Christian right activists are eager to take credit for the president's reelection, and claim a mandate for remaking American culture. In the past, Republican presidents have pulled a bait and switch on their fundamentalist foot soldiers, granting them favors at the margins but doing little to alter the status quo. This time, though, social conservative leaders won't be satisfied with half-measures. "Evangelical Christians really think they won this election and they want results," says Roger Robins, an assistant professor of political science and history at Marymount College who studies the religious right. "They're already warning Bush that if he doesn't do it there's going to be a price to pay in 2008."

Religious right leaders say they want several things from this administration, including curbs on abortion rights, support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, a change in IRS laws to allow churches to engage in partisan political activity, and increased Justice Department prosecution of pornography. The administration is already sending signals that it plans to comply. On Sunday, Karl Rove told Fox News that Bush would resume the push for the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying, "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman."

Most of all, the religious right and its conservative allies have pinned their hopes on the Supreme Court, which is only one vote away from overturning Roe vs. Wade. "If it were up to the states, not activist judges, abortion would have severe restrictions in the majority of states," says Jayd Henricks, director of congressional relations at the Family Research Council, a major religious right group. Like many conservatives, he insists that there won't be a litmus test for Bush's judicial appointments. In the same breath, though, he says, "Of course we want somebody with a pro-life persuasion, somebody who is willing to challenge Roe v. Wade. They have to be open-minded."
Bush may not even want a wrenching nationwide struggle over abortion. But with several Supreme Court vacancies expected in the next four years, he won't have much choice. When Bush gets the chance to name a new Supreme Court justice, we can expect a "very provocative, confrontational appointment," Robins says. "That forces the Democrats to be in a position where if they oppose it they can be portrayed as obstructionist, which will further energize the core."
Democrats may be able to team up with moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. But the Senate that will convene next year in Washington will be significantly more conservative than the one on Capitol Hill now. There's already a push among conservative Republicans to block Specter's bid to head the Senate Judiciary Committee. James Dobson, head of the right-wing group Focus on the Family, called Specter a "big-time problem" who "must be derailed." Yesterday, incoming Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., suggested on "This Week" that some freshman senators might oppose Specter.
The question, then, might no longer be whether Bush will remake the Supreme Court. It's what the country will look like when he's through.
Next page A realigned Supreme Court

THE MEDIA GIVES BUSH A MANDATE: FALLING TO IT'S KNEES IN RECORD TIME

2004-11-10T15:12:00.000-08:00

The media gives Bush a mandate Falling to its knees in record time, the press predicts the president will be a uniter this time -- really.
- - - - - - - - - - - -By Eric Boehlert

Nov. 10, 2004 With a dead-even race that featured nearly endless possible Electoral College configurations, Election Day promised to bring a certain number of surprises. But perhaps none was as unexpected as the notion that President Bush, the most conservative and polarizing president of his generation, would come through the other side of the campaign as a moderate with a mandate. Yet in the days immediately following the historically close vote, that's how the political press corps often portrayed the president.
Newsweek seemed to be the most optimistic about the chances of a kinder, gentler second term, suggesting, "Bush could bring us together." The magazine's Web site posited, "With nothing left to prove, Bush's second-term presidency could be surprisingly centrist." Further, "there is every possibility that Bush's second term might prove to be different from his first, especially in foreign policy. And it won't be more radical."

That's certainly the image the White House was projecting last week. "I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing," Bush said in his victory speech. Helping the administration's cause, the New York Times on Monday left unquestioned the assertion by a Bush aide that the president's chief domestic goal is to "solve the problems of poverty, the inner city and education," as well as persuade the country that "there really is such a thing as a compassionate conservative." Internationally, "Bush is determined to prove that it is not naive or impossible to try to foster democracy in the Middle East," the Times added.

When not busy describing Bush as a would-be centrist, White House aides were anxious to claim a sweeping mandate from the close election. And as liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting documented, it worked. USA Today headlined a Nov. 4 story "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," which said that Bush "will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first." (The first being when he lost the popular vote to Al Gore.) The Boston Globe asserted that Bush's victory grants him "a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years," while MSNBC's Chris Matthews insisted, "To me the big story is the president's mandate. The president has a mandate."
But as Al Hunt noted in the Wall Street Journal, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916." (Presidential reelections in recent decades have all come with comfortable margins of victory attached.) In fact, Bush's final margin was almost identical to Jimmy Carter's win over Gerald Ford in 1976, when there was very little discussion of a mandate for the Democrat. And it's hard to imagine that if Kerry had bested Bush 51 percent to 48 percent and collected just 15 more electoral votes than needed to win, the press would be so liberal with talk of a mandate.
Some journalists, dwelling too much on 2000's unprecedented election model, seemed to confuse winning an uncontested election with receiving a mandate. "In capturing both an electoral majority and the popular vote, Mr. Bush lays claim to another four years in the White House with a newly minted mandate," the Dallas Morning News wrote, as if winning both the popular and Electoral College vote were somehow unusual in American politics.
In its Nov. 4 editorial, the Columbus Dispatch stated that "President Bush won reelection decisively in the Electoral College tally." Decisively? In the past 80 years, only three times have presidents been elected with fewer than 300 electoral votes. Bush accounts for two of the three anomalies; in 2000 he won 271 electoral votes, and in 2004 he captured 286. (Carter is the third example, with 297.)
The press's timidity toward the Bush White House is nothing new, and for the trend to continue after his victory is not that surprising. But it was hard not to be slightly taken aback while watching CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports" on Nov. 4, when it aired a segment about Bush's controversial call to privatize portions of Social Security savings. Only two experts were interviewed on camera -- one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute and one from the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Both enthusiastically supported Bush's unprecedented plan to move some retirement money into private investment funds.
And the press's now familiar deference toward Bush was on display in the New York Times over the weekend in a news story addressing a confirmed string of serious election mishaps in the crucial state of Ohio. "The way the vote was conducted there, election law specialists say, exposed a number of weak spots in the nation's election system," the Times reported. Yet before stating that fact, in its very first sentence, the Times article made the blunt assessment that "voters in Ohio delivered a second term to President Bush by a decisive margin" (emphasis added). Bush won Ohio by 2 percent. In fact, of the 30 states Bush carried last week, only two were won by slimmer margins than that in Ohio -- Iowa and New Mexico, which Bush won by 1 percent. Yet the Times, in an article documenting the shortcomings in Ohio's voting process, seemed to go out of its way to suggest, erroneously, that the too-close-to-call state voted for Bush by a "decisive margin."

Speaking of timid leads, on Monday the Times wrote: "Now that the election is over, there remains a piece of unfinished business: Whatever was that strange bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket that was visible during the three debates?"
The Times wasn't alone in its odd perspective during the campaign that some pressing stories were better told after voters had cast their ballots. In September, CBS's "60 Minutes" decided to delay until after the election an investigation into the Bush administration's use of forged documents on uranium from Niger in making its case for the Iraq war. A network spokesperson said at the time, "It would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

Meanwhile, press accounts subsequent to the election have been filled with reports about Bush's second term and his "very ambitious agenda," as the Associated Press described it. However, during the campaign very few journalists pressed Bush on his unusual decision as a sitting president not to articulate his vision for the future, beyond stump speech lines about lower taxes and less government. As NBC's David Gregory noted, after the election, "It's the agenda that Bush rarely if ever laid out in detail during the campaign."

For instance, Bush's sudden announcement last week that he planned to move aggressively to privatize Social Security may have caught some voters off guard. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (professors at Yale and the University of California at Berkeley, respectively) noted in the New Republic, "On Social Security, administration officials have had four years to develop specific proposals. They have held back precisely because once an actual proposal is outlined it becomes clear what a dreadful deal it will be for most Americans." (Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose the idea of privatizing Social Security.)
The administration obviously "held back" in blatant ways on other contentious initiatives, and met little or no questioning from the press. Few journalists addressed head-on the decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- a political ally of Bush's -- to issue what now appears to be a deliberately misleading statement about his health, just one week before the election. More important, the all-out assault on Fallujah in Iraq, which some experts believe will include the heaviest fighting U.S. soldiers have faced since Vietnam, was finally launched, less than a week after the election. On the same day, the Iraqi government declared a 60-day state of emergency for most of the country. The two long-pending moves were likely put off until after the election for the simple reason that they could have potentially hurt Bush at the polls.
In fact, since Election Day some journalists have acknowledged that certain sensitive topics were deemed off-limits by the White House, or taken off the table for purely political reasons. "In Iraq, the American forces have been poised to make a major assault on Fallujah. We all anticipate that that could happen at any moment," said NBC's Tom Brokaw on Nov. 4. Addressing Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, Brokaw asked, "What about other strategic and tactical changes in Iraq now that the election is over?" (emphasis added). Miklaszewski confirmed the obvious: "U.S. military officials have said for some time that they were putting off any kind of major offensive operation in [Fallujah] until after the U.S. elections, for obvious political reasons."
Appearing on CNN's "Reliable Sources" over the weekend, former CNN Washington bureau chief Frank Sesno, now a professor at George Mason University in Virginia, talked about Bush's second term: "How is the press corps going to react to the president? Are they going to see the wind at his back and feel all the pressure from conservatives and others, and become a sort of chorus press corps? [Or] are they going to become an attack dog press corps?"
Judging from the very early returns, the White House doesn't have to worry about any pit bulls in the press corps.

U.S. SEEKS ELECTION AFTER ARAFAT'S DEATH

2004-11-10T15:07:00.000-08:00

U.S. seeks election after Arafat's death
- - - - - - - - - - - -By Barry Schweid

Nov. 10, 2004 Washington -- Gearing up for a new Palestinian leadership, the Bush administration has conveyed its strong support for elections within 60 days of Yasser Arafat's death.
The elections, which are called for under Palestinian law, are viewed within the administration as a way of ensuring a legitimate transfer of authority to new leaders with the hope they would take charge of maintaining order and nurturing a nascent Palestinian government.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a telephone call on Tuesday from Mexico City while attending meetings with Mexican government officials, discussed the transition with Nabil Shaath, the de facto Palestinian foreign minister.
"They talked about the situation as it was and what plans were being made," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday.

"Our interest is in seeing smooth arrangements. And they appear to be being made and carried out. And we hope that the calm and the kind of orderly processes prevailing will continue," Boucher said.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his predecessor, Mahmoud Abbas, are expected to play leading post-Arafat roles. Both were undercut by Arafat and did not make big inroads in halting attacks on Israel by militant Palestinian groups.
Powell and Shaath "didn't get into the questions of who might attend whatever ceremonies or funerals there might be," Boucher said. "We really have nothing to say on that at this point."
Plans are being made for a funeral in Cairo and burial in Ramallah, where Arafat made his headquarters.
Edward Abington, a former U.S. consul-general in Jerusalem who advises Arafat and other Palestinian leaders, described Arafat's medical condition as "pretty static." Arafat remained gravely ill in a French hospital.
"People are waiting to see what happens," Abington said.
Abington, in a telephone interview from Ramallah, said the Bush administration has told the Palestinians "strongly" that an election should be held within 60 days of Arafat's death.