w/ Brad & Desi
NATIONWIDE STUDY FINDS ALMOST NO VOTER FRAUD
Just 10 cases of in-person impersonation in all 50 states since 2000...
VIDEO: 'Rise of the Tea Bags'
Brad interviews American patriots...
'Democracy's Gold Standard'
Hand-marked, hand-counted ballots...
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|MORE BRAD BLOG 'SPECIAL COVERAGE' PAGES...|
READER COMMENTS ON
"The Open Thread That Should Have Been Here Hours Ago..."
(105 Responses so far...)
You're an angel and have no need to apologize. We "cats" make do and survive. But PLEASE come back to us as an investigator. No one is doing that any more, unless it's polically neutral. (I except Raw Story; but GG is easily buried AND WILL BE. It's too close to home).
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
... Steve said on 4/25/2005 @ 10:33 pm PT...
Just curious. Is there anyone out there who still subscribes to a MSM newspaper? Is there any MSM newspaper out there worth subscribing to? I finally cancelled mine (the LA Times) even though it is considered to be pretty liberal, it's really no better than any of the rest. Nothing about Voting Reform, Election Fraud, Gannon-Guckert or the like. Even the commentary section is pretty useless and having to frequently see Michael Ramirez's relentlessly neocon biased political cartoons is enough to make you lose your breakfast. Where did they get that guy from (and why?)? Is he syndicated in any other papers? Whose paper (if you still get one) has a good political cartoonist?
The Democrats are negotiating to let some of Bush's illegitimate appointments through in exchange for the Bushists not going nuclear.
In honor of the Democrats, I would like to quote the excuses given by Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain at the beginning of World War II. The debate in Parliament went like this:
The Prime Minister:
Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those terms are being considered. The first is this: We did not go there to decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already. Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory. The second point to remember is that time was one of the essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organised forces. Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. . . .
. . . To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.
Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy.
[Hon. Members: Shame.]
I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss.
Mr. Bellenger: It is an insult to say it.
The Prime Minister: I say in the name of this House and of the people of this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.
The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. . . .
I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.
In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.
Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.
From Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)
The following statement is attributed to Winston Churchill:
"Britain and France had a choice between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war."
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
... MMIIXX said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:00 pm PT...
NEW YORK The reporter/blogger formerly known as James D. Guckert, who had pretty much escaped the public eye this month, staged a dramatic comeback on Sunday, re-appearing in Doonesbury and making news as Secret Service documents concerning his White House visits were released.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
... Teresa said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:17 pm PT...
Thank you Chemo electric trashman #3. I never knew this.
I have been watching with great interest this judicial nominee issue. The only plus I can find is that these monsters die, while this filibuster has been in place for 200 years. I am looking for courage in someone. I never give up.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
... Bob Bilse said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:19 pm PT...
Continue the GREAT work, Brad. As Al Davis said to the Oakland Raiders, "Just win, Baby. Just win!"
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
... Brad said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:36 pm PT...
Peg C - "come back to us as an investigator"?
I haven't gone anywhere! Plenty is afoot. But I'm just one guy, one busy guy apparently these days, and siren-worthy breakers can't just be pulled outta thin-air ya know...All in continuing good time, my dear
And yes, unfortunately, I will have to tend to some personal obligations over the next week or so just to make things tougher. But onward we go and other than that, I haven't gone, and ain't going anywhere!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
... PetGoat said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:39 pm PT...
We should be preparing to bring pressure against the voting
machine manufacturers who have refused to adhere to the
I have found some relevant news. Diebold is involved in a new
$10 million contract to provide a security systems to Volvo.
This is to Val, in the previous thread:
One of my all-time favorite songs, by Robert Louis Stevenson:
Dark brown is the river,
Golden is the sand.
It moves along forever
With trees on either hand.
Green leaves a-floating,
Castles of the foam;
Boats of mine a-boating -
Where will all come home?
On goes the river,
Out past the mill,
Away down the valley.
Away down the hill:
Away down the river,
A hundred miles or more,
Other little children
Will bring my boats ashore.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/25/2005 @ 11:55 pm PT...
Hey folks! I turned on A & E a couple of nights ago & nearly fell out of my chair when The Nation's commercial came on. Is it the only Leftist commercial on TV? Sad, isn't it.
I haven't taken a paper in many years. I hardly watch TV and can't stomach any TV news. I can't stand the lies or the half-truths.
David Horsey is a good cartoonist with the Seattle Post Intelligencer (see link.)
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 1:33 am PT...
Diebold Election Systems Inc appear to be in the process of negotiating a secret deal with LA's InkaVote system, tied to a Malaysian gambling outfit.
This large and complex investigative piece by Black Box Voting here.
Bev's been a busy girl!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/26/2005 @ 1:54 am PT...
For Steve: I still have the New York Times delivered. It doesn't do cartoons, but otherwise is just like your description of the L.A. Times. Left of center, but essentially very establishment; loath to go anywhere near election fraud issues for fear of offending stockholders and advertisers, and acutely concerned with its own image. It drives me nuts, but I need it for book reviews, international news coverage, sports, etc. etc.
Examples: Paul Krugman is probably the Times' most liberal columnist. Yesterday he detailed Bush administration failings under the rubric of W. "being out of touch with most people's concerns." True enough, but he added, "It makes you wonder how these people came to power."
I sent him a scathing e-mail, asking whom he meant by "you" in that sentence. It wasn't "me," I said, because I know fully well how they came to power...by stealing two elections! The point is, as much as Krugman dislikes Bush, he can't bring himself to say (or even think, apparently) that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. I did tell Krugman it was crystal clear that the Times has thrown a blanket of silence over election fraud, except for covering the Ukraine story in detail and not recognizing its tacit hypocrisy in doing so.
Last week the Times printed one of my letters to the editor. I had written to question whether the new pope was too much of an authoritarian patriarch for the third millennium, and in the process I criticized Maureen Dowd for writing that Benedict had been called "God's Rottweiler" and referred to his membership in the Hitler Youth.
I said Dowd had "crossed the line" and was "unfair" in her characterizations of Ratzinger/Benedict. Pretty mild reproaches, I'd say...but the Times killed them both, changing the wording to "Although I'm disappointed Maureen Dowd chose to...etc." I almost told them to print it as written or kill it.
In other words, one cannot say anything critical of any New York Times person at any time. Likewise, one cannot suggest the United States of America is unable to conduct honest elections. In either case (forgive me), it's like a Catholic criticizing the pope. It was a clear window into how the mainstream media operate, not that we need one at this point.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:47 am PT...
THE WASHINGTON POST 24/04/2005
"Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility
Study Gets Blog Love, But Comes Short of Proof".
By Terry M. Neal
Neal in his fairly detailed look at the US Count Votes Exit Poll study remains sceptical of systematic electoral fraud, but hey! it's a start, right? a MSM journalist is actually using the "F" word!
I believe Neal needs a bit of help with joining the dots, and I have no doubt that 6 or 7 from here will be only too happy to lend him a hand ...and some pencils!
NEAL'S STORY IS SCREAMING OUT FOR A VERY COMPREHENSIVE "RIGHT OF REPLY" FROM BRAD FRIEDMAN! IMO
N-E-V-E-R G-I-V-E U-P
The most important value my Mother ever taught me.
Public property, especially voting machines, must have american ownership and paper trails. The source code should also be public.
Anything else is madness. What LA is doing in this instance is madness. Good for Black Box Voting dot org for bringing it out.
Thanks for the post.
Interesting that the newspapers operate like some scripting operation in a movie making outfit.
They have a world view and everything must be poked, cut, massaged, and reformed to fit the world view they are promoting.
Their way is disastrous to honesty, the free press, and the truth.
But we still have the blogosphere, and somewhere here is where the "RAW STORY" ... the unmassaged fact stream ... flows.
Thanks for sharing that window into the MSM world.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/26/2005 @ 5:34 am PT...
I don't know if Neal is being disingenuous, or simply doesn't get it, when he talks about the lack of proof of election fraud. But it does show us how much more work we have to do in educating people like Neal...who at least was willing to speak to the issue.
FOR ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HASN'T HEARD: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE FRAUD IF THE SOURCE CODE INSIDE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES AND VOTE TABULATORS REMAINS PROPIETARY TO THE COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE THE MACHINES...ALL OF WHICH, BY AMAZING COINCIDENCE, HAVE TIES TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
It's like saying "Prove that the tree that fell in the forest was hit by lightning," just because nobody was in the forest at the time...even though there had been an electric storm that night, other trees were felled by lightning, and the tree that fell had a three-foot thick trunk. When a voting machine can be programmed IN ADVANCE to flip votes from one candidate to another, then obviously, nobody is going to qualify as a witness when it happens.
For the time being, we have the anecdotal evidence of vote-flipping reports (one of which I personally witnessed in Florida). We have impossible discrepancies between exit polls and tabulated votes. We have thousands of ballots where no vote was cast for president, even though the voter had stood on line for hours in order to cast the ballot. We have anomalies such as the fact that a judge from Cleveland with no money and no name recognition outpolled Kerry on the Democrat line in SOUTHERN Ohio. We have the Curtis affidavit, and the fact that he passed a lie-detector test. We have John Conyers' 102-page document.
We have a lot. We just have to make sure millions of new people see what we have. Just as in Watergate, when the heat builds and builds, somebody will break and the truth will come out.
I noticed that they have closed shop on the search for WMD in Iraq (link here).
None were found but "who cares" that WMD was the buzz word the admin used to invade Iraq.
Doesn't fit someone's world view so cut and paste to form pathological lies that the invasion was about bringing voting machines to the needy.
Also the rhetoric of "we love the troops" is exposed by the admin for fighting against soldiers who were tortured in Iraq (link here).
They had won a billion dollars in a trial against Iraq, and after the trial the Bush admin stepped in and asked the courts to dismiss the case and give them nothing.
That is what happened ... the admin took the money back and ran leaving them with their wounds and pain ... and wondering what is wrong with this frame in someone's world view ...
Bushw@cker #15, RLM #19
Neal's world view does not allow the concept of vote fraud to exist. Right off the bat he tells everyone where his world view comes from "I'm not a conspiracy theorist".
I guess this mantra Neal says over and over means conspiracies cannot exist?
Why are there thousands of laws and convictions for conspiracies of most any sort one can imagine?
Neal ... check your world view. It is a fantasy ... conspiracies exist and are proven in courts each and every day.
It would crush Neal to know that he believes a fantasy, a lie. He fancies himself being too smart to believe lies and fantasy and you better not mess with his world view.
After all, he is a member in good standing with the press, the venerable MSM.
Notice how also, right off the bat, he sets the standard of what is proof - to save himself by preserving his world view.
And his standard is that it (the F word) can't be so because it would have involved a lot ("thousands") of people. Wrong. That fantasy has also been debunked.
The bottom line is that people are desperate for their world view which is that the US is the source and bastion of all things good and it eschews all things bad. Voting fraud is very bad and so it does not exist here.
End of story and you can take your boxes of evidence with you thanks. I got a paper to run here.
But come check us out when you want to open up one of those windows into reality. It ain't pretty but it is the real deal Neal.
Its like when mommy and daddy fight. Not pretty but it does happen in the real deal world Neal.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 6:18 am PT...
Re: my #15 post, before 6 or 7 of my friends here set me straight!
Neal DOES NOT use the "F" word himself, but quotes others such as Mitteldorf who use it... maybe I've tied myself in a semantic knot? Help!
I guess the mere fact of the "F" word appearing in a MSM piece, will cause some to begin to question whether their vote was actually counted. PHEW!!
...from the article
Warren Mitofsky said. "I know they're very serious about believing that there was fraud, but I don't happen to share their view. I find myself in the awkward position of having to argue that the exit polls were wrong.
"This is not the first election with errors --- and the simplest explanation is probably the right one. I think fraud on a massive scale that their conclusion essentially requires is totally implausible. TO MAKE IT PLAUSIBLE, IT WOULD HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER*, and you know from being in the news business how hard it is to keep something secret. I just think their whole explanation is implausible."
*No Warren, NOT LOTS OF PEOPLE, just a few networked tabulating machines and e-voting terminals running secret code, in a few Swing States, controlled by a couple Republican Supporting Electronic Voting Machine Manufacturers and Hey Presto!
I called [Joshua] Mitteldorf for an explanation, and he said he only knows the "what," not the "why." The "what" is that the unprecedented discrepancy between exit poll and vote counts cannot be explained merely by statistical error. It is possible though, he said, that there was widespread fraud --- particularly in key battleground states --- without a conspiracy.
And I believe Mitteldorf demolishes the straw man of a massive electoral conspiracy so effectively in the following quote:
"It doesn't necessarily take a conspiracy," he said. "It could just be that there was an atmosphere [from Republican leaders] of 'Hey, we really need to win this election, wink, wink. Whatever you do, we'll stand behind you. There will be no investigation because Republicans control the courts and everything, especially in places like Ohio.'
Warren mitofsky is contactable at:
Joshua Mitteldorf is contactable at:
Couldn't find Terry Neal's addy,
So here's Bob Woodward's firstname.lastname@example.org
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
... Im with Rosey said on 4/26/2005 @ 6:58 am PT...
So there are 2 of us in O.C.? Hard to believe! I too remember Dornan, his surly self is etched in my brain :angry:. It is HARD WORK trying to get people to see the truth, the one positive is my high school jr. is amoung many in her peer group also trying to get the word out. There is hope!
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:01 am PT...
FROM DREDD POST
uh ... er ... Gannon ...
Has anyone seen any reporting about the story this thread mentions in the MSM?
I mailed it to my list ...
Just gone out on AP
Records: Writer at White House 196 Times
Mon Apr 25, 8:21 PM ET White House - AP
WASHINGTON - A conservative writer who quit his job covering President Bush amid criticism for his pointedly political questions visited the White House 196 times in two years, the Secret Service has disclosed.
James D. Guckert, who wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, was Washington bureau chief for Talon News, a conservative online news outlet associated with another Web site, GOPUSA. Guckert posed questions with conservative overtones, attracting scrutiny from liberal bloggers who linked Guckert with online domain addresses suggestive of gay pornography. Guckert resigned in February.
Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and John Conyers of Michigan filed a freedom of information request and were given Secret Service records of Guckert's visits to the White House.
MICHAEL MOORE'S GOT IT LINKED FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS !@!!ING HELL !!!
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
... Im with Rosey said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:05 am PT...
Forgot to shout out to Brad, thanks for all you do. Without all your HARD WORK many of us wouldn't be aware of the truth. I don't often write, but I DO read constantly and continue to pass the word. Keep it up Brad, don't forget to watch your back!
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:07 am PT...
LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THOSE BIG NEWS DAYS,
BUT IT'S BEDTIMES FOR AUSSIES DOWNUNDER!
RAW STORY BREAKING.........
AFTER REQUESTS FROM ACTIVIST BLOGGER, FBI RELEASES SLIM FILE ON PRESIDENT BUSH... DEVELOPING...
.....then again, there's too much going on for bed yet! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
... Miss Persistent said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:13 am PT...
I have had an idea brewing that I'm hoping some of you eloquent writers and historians can run with.
I was thinking we need an essay - an awesome essay - a ground breaking essay - addressing the idea that liberals "hate" America.
My idea is...which America do we hate - the old or the new?
The basic thesis is the notion that politicians of today are in fact NOT acting in fair and competitive ways (e.g., vote rigging, money under the table, fake newsmercials, etc.). I think this is similar to "price fixing" but is really "thought fixing." It is un-American. I also think all these mergers are a means of "price fixing."
These trends could possibly ruin the name and entire fate of capitalism. Capitalism, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, etc. should be the basic component of politics as well as economy.
If someone likes the idea, go with it. Submit it to the op-eds of all major newspapers and see who prints it and who doesn't.
If you look at what those who, because of fear of what would happen to their world view, are dismissing the F world as impossible, you see an irrational thought process live and in real time.
"I am not a conspiracy theorist" is a pre-determined, biased, not fact based, dogma based, and close minded mental state. It is a fad, the thing to do says my hero and my mentor, a faith, and is anything but an objective view.
"it would take thousands of people" is likewise dismissive, a conclusion of ultimate fact, and forcefully declares the way it is period, no ifs ands or buts about it, and is out of touch with the technology involved.
From that platform Neal pontificates, and condescends to those he considers to be of feeble minds ... those who could even listen to evidence.
And the only context in which he will allow his ears to pass on the words about exit poll discrepancy in a major election, is in the context of the big nice guy who has Neal's world view. Has Neal's world view laying on a soft pillow eating delicacies.
But all of it starts with what everyone agrees to: the exit poll data is radically at odds with the election results.
So is that because democrats are more bashful than republicans or is it because republicans are more bashful than democrats ... or is that a bunch of rubbish covered in caviar so as to be palatable and preserve the desperately needed world view?
The people who criticized Mitofsky for his conclusion that the election exit polls were so off cause republicans are shy are Phd experts in the field.
They qualify to testify in court as experts about elections and the exit poll science.
Mitofsky's ad hominem attacks against them is not science - it is evidence of someone with bankrupt ideology. Someone who cannot scientifically explain the discrepancy except to postulate, without evidence, that republicans are too shy to talk to exit polsters (er ... uh ... this year).
Bushw@cker #24 Far Out!!! ... and g'day ...
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:30 am PT...
GUCKERT'S HIT THE AP FAN !!!!!
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:32 am PT...
Not much happening in your patch of the world eh?
But I still need to get some BLOODY SLEEP!!!
Bushw@cker #31 sleep well ... I wish I was in the land down under!
Here is another example of someone doing a report that challenges the admin's world view.
The reporter looses his job because his report is critical of the admin (link here).
I don't think it is a republican platform plank that the government should pay reporters to report what the administration wants reported ... nor to fire reporters for not reporting what the government wants reported.
But it is a neocon platform plank. I wonder when the republicans are going to jettison the neocons?
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 7:43 am PT...
DO THAT TO 196 TIMES
ONCE IS NEVER ENOUGH
WITH A MAN LIKE YOU!
Apologies to the Captain & Tennille
GUCKERT / GANNON 196 TIMES STORY OUT ON AP
GUARDIAN UNLIMITED UK
MIAMI HERALD FL
KANSAS CITY STAR
Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA
San Francisco Chronicle, CA
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 8:12 am PT...
WELL DONE GUYS - THE POWER OF BLOG EH?
AS RAW STORY'S GANNON / GUCKERT 196 TIMES IN THE WHITE HOUSE SCOOP IS
FINALLY PICKED UP BY ASSOCIATED PRESS AND FED TO THE MSM RIGHT ACCROSS AMERICA AND AROUND THE WORLD!
STAND BY FOR WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE,
MINUS JEFF GANNON / GUCKERT IN THE THIRD ROW!
The tide is turning my friends!
Jeffy "Dahling Bulldong" Gannon fights back and explains that he was "So feared by the Left it had to take me down"
Uh ... jeffy ... it was the Rover who took you "down" ...
woof woof goes Rover and fetch fetch goes Bulldog ...
to "top" it off ... all the way ... all the way to the white room with black curtains at the station ...
all the way at the white house ...
the whore house where doggy bytes "git r done" ...
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
... davek said on 4/26/2005 @ 8:40 am PT...
Brad: We all hope you are off to do something really good, wheter it is for your self (you could use some R&R I am sure) or maybe for a 60 Minutes story, so keep us in the loop Brad.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 8:44 am PT...
Isn't there a room in the White house called the Situation Room?
I reckon they're all bunkered down there right know, wondering what the Guck they're going to do next!
You talk to the Media Scotty, no, why don't you say something Turd Blossom?
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
... cheryl said on 4/26/2005 @ 9:10 am PT...
Just a quick hello. Campaign's really heating up. I love this!!! We have the power to change the world one event at a time!
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
... GETPLANING said on 4/26/2005 @ 9:17 am PT...
I just recieved an e-mail from Blackboxvoting.org concerning the expansion of "Inka-Vote" electronic voting systems into the State of Illinois. InkaVote systems were used in Los Angeles County in 2004 and representatives from this company are trying to expand it's deployment across the United States.
InkaVote is a Malaysian owned company that uses software developed by a gambling company ownwd by businessmen from China tied to a human rights abusing strongman prime minister.
That's all we need- having our election managed by a Malaysian gambling company- as bad as having it managed by Republicans, or worse, I don't know.
The speed with which this country is being privatized and then sold off is astonishing. but that's how markets move, the insiders are already home having a scotch by the time the rest of
America realise what just happened. Don't let them get away with it this time.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
... Steve said on 4/26/2005 @ 9:39 am PT...
Bushwacker #'s 15, 22; RLM #19; Dredd #'s 21,28- I read the Neal article and had to laugh at several quotes: "Polling, Mitosfky argues, is not Mitteldorf's area of expertise. He and others have taken the USCV statisticians to task for shoddy work." No mention of what was shotty about the USCV analysis or that the whole point of USCV's analysis was to explain why Mitosfky's analysis (of why the exit polls were wrong) was shoddy itself and that that shoddy analysis was given by Mitosfky to explain why he was concluding that his exit polls were shoddy. And then "Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal" bends logic into pretzels that GW would choke on to explain why "interviewer characteristics" are "an underlying factor that we cannot measure" and that are "not considered" by USCV while Neal, Mitosfky and Blumenthal all ignore the elephant in the room: apparently, interviewer characteristics were only relevant where votes were electronically tabulated but not when hand-counted paper ballots were used. But then, that would throw a monkey wrench in their "world view" and we wouldn't want that.
Rosey #23- good to hear of another non-conservative in Orange Co. There are a few of us. I also have a daughter who is a freshman in highschool who has some liberal friends and is politically savvy and not afraid to push the message. Why is it not surprising that she and most of these friends are also part of the "clique" that is looked upon by other students as the egghead or brainy group.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
... Peggy said on 4/26/2005 @ 9:59 am PT...
Neal's article is "drivel". Did he actually get paid for that opinion piece?
I think Americans should join with Nader and and the Greens and remove BOTH the Republicans and Democrats from government.
I don't care for Hillary Clinton any more. Americans should not settle for anything but the best: and the best is get BOTH D&R parties out of government. It's been too long and too disgusting. Time for radical change.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
... Miss Persistent said on 4/26/2005 @ 10:02 am PT...
From the Nashua Advocate:
"Did President Bush Violate the U.S. Constitution in Designating His Private Property in Texas the Seat of the Executive Branch of U.S. Government?"
"Scandal Involving the So-Called "Western White House" Far From Trivial, Implicating Both the Events of September the 11th, 2001, The President's Ongoing Penchant for Propaganda, and His Historic Disregard for the Constitutionally-Mandated Separation of Powers"
By ADVOCATE STAFF
Anyone who still wonders whether the exit polls were flawed should read the analysis published on NewsclipAutopsy back in January. Yeah, I know it's old news to many of you, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, please click here.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
... Harvey said on 4/26/2005 @ 10:28 am PT...
BUSHW@CKER COMMENT #33
Main stream media picked up the story but left out the meat. No mention of the fact that he did not always check out and that many of his visits did not coincide with press conferences.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
... Miss Persistent said on 4/26/2005 @ 10:51 am PT...
And so, the question is, is the Crawford Ranch - which is a private ranch on private property - the proper place for making oil deals that affect the nation? Or is it the proper place to conduct oil business for those who reside at Crawford Ranch?
If national business was conducted there, would it be valid business? Would making a private side-deal be legal since it was conducted on his private property?
The visit of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to President Bush's Crawford Ranch is a problem.
For more on the consitutionality of moving the people's White House to Crawford - See Nashua Advocate's article referenced in post #42.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:01 pm PT...
Dredd. the Mitosky rationale (Bush voters were more reluctant to talk to exit pollsters than Kerry voters) can be debunked in two paragraphs.
In paper ballot states, whether red or blue, the exit polls tracked the tabulated vote very closely. All the discrepencies occurred in swing states using electronic voting. Thus, Mitofsky would have us believe that in electronic voting states, Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters, but in paper ballot states they were not. That's just ludicrous.
In Florida, the exit polls matched the tabulated vote within a fraction of a point in the Senate race, but Bush's tabulated vote ran over three percentage points ahead of his exit poll total. Thus, Mitofsky would have us believe that the same interviewees lied to exit pollsters about their presidential choice, but told the truth about their Senate choice. That's even more ludicrous.
This is too much for Neal to absorb, evidently.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
... Val said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:02 pm PT...
Peg C #9
Those are beautiful words and so close to expressing what I know (at my age) to be true.
Many of the boats I've set afloat on this river will be brought home by others, probably by some of those here on BradBlog.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
... VeryWorried said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:03 pm PT...
Peggy #41: Hear, hear! More parties in government means less underhand deals to push through underhand legislation etc.
There were no WMDs. Bush lied when he said he had proof to the contrary to activate the Congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq is illegal, and the American people should not have to pay for it.
Shouldn't it be possible for American citizens to file a class action lawsuit against the Bush Administration for squandering tax payers' money? Money that should have been spent on domestic needs instead of creating more terrorists and aggravating their fury over American global agression.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
... VeryWorried said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:06 pm PT...
...and on the subject of money, who is footing the bill for this slick expensive propaganda government operated "news" station?
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
... Cole... said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:29 pm PT...
I gave up on the LA Times and Ramirez was a part of that decission, he is syndicated but why?? If you want political cartoons via E mail entry try
Hope that is right.
Or Cagle's political cartoons on Slate----for world 'round cartoons of the day.
And I am quite happy to have Dornan 'out and gone'--but like Newt he rears up now and then with higher ambitions.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
... Steve said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:35 pm PT...
MMIIXX- Thanks for the link. Doonesbury is carried by the LA Times, so I guess I was wrong in my post #2. They do cover the Gannon-Guckert story- in the comics section!
Kira- Thanks also for your post and the link- very funny!
I was in Seattle a couple of months ago and read the Seattle Post Intelligencer. I don't know if it's any better than the rest (even if it's cartoonist is) but I did find Seattle to be a pretty progressive place if I can make that generalization. Of course, I live in Orange County, CA!!!!!
Teresa- did you catch my post #65 on the "Gannon-Guckert/Secret Service Docs Reveal Odd White House Comings and Goings..." thread?
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:40 pm PT...
RLM #14 -
The Times changed the wording of a sentence where you stated your personal belief about Maureen Dowd's column?
They changed the wording of what you said you believe and printed what THEY believe instead? Is THAT LEGAL?
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
... Steve said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:42 pm PT...
Addendum: For any of you out there who are not familiar with Orange County, it is a hot bed of conservativism in the blue state of Calif. Home of former congressman B-1 Bob Dornan. Wouldn't it be fun to still have that guy in this Congress??!! (now some of you are probably wondering who the h--- is Bob Dornan)
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
... Torqued said on 4/26/2005 @ 12:48 pm PT...
Roll up your sleeves -
REAL ID ACT CANNOT PASS: URGENT
I wasn't aware this was on the house floor today but too late now... or is it?
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
... Cole... said on 4/26/2005 @ 1:08 pm PT...
Good rebut of the often misused and overused escape hatch (as used by Neal) "I'm not a conspiracy theorist".
To my way of thinking a lone gunman is a rarity so aside from that a 'conspiracy' is a fact and the question should be 'how wide spread?'
These neocons when exposed take advantage of the following choices: ignore the subject, change the wording (as you pointed out in their WMD
run-about), paint it as a "conspiracy theory" and thereby descredit it. Or, as in 9/11 use all three at the same time--the mess media will oblige and edit to help.
What happened to building 7? Ignored.
Where is the 757 parts and why is the hole so small at the Pentagon? Ignored.
A 9/11 commission? Ignored.
Then effected with a very limited mission and no one should be named or blamed. Word(s) change.
How did the government fail? "Conspiracy theory".
Case closed. And the mess media is so helpful.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:15 pm PT...
Re: HARVEY #44
Main stream media picked up the story but left out the meat. No mention of the fact that he did not always check out and that many of his visits did not coincide with press conferences.
Harvey, your right about AP leaving out the meat!
It will be very interesting to see if this provokes any further interest by the MSM in the details of the case!
MSM = Mangling Stories Mercifully?
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:29 pm PT...
I just wrote a longass response to Mr. Neal & his article. Not sure if I should send it via email or snailmail,,,don't know either address at this point.
I just want to know if it's pointless.....should I even bother?
Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Dear Mr. Neal,
I have just read your Washington Post article of 4/24/05, entitled "Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility: Study Gets Blog Love, But Comes Short of Proof". While I am pleased to see an article dealing with the election issue in the mainstream press, I must say that your piece disappoints me.
Right off the bat, you offer in your sub-title a variation of one of the oft-repeated right-wing mantras of the time, the "lack of proof". I put it to you that when a serious allegation is made, one would normally expect a serious investigation to follow. This is exactly the very reasonable conclusion to which the authors of the USVC study come. You quote them as saying
"We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded or counted cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation". The authors had just made the point that the Edison/Mitofsky poll report had taken one hypothesis (inaccurate exit polls) and run with it, while apparently discounting & never addressing the second hypothesis (inaccurate election results) at all.
Allow me, if you would, the conceit of quoting myself. This is from a letter sent last week to Dr. Robert Pastor, executive director of the recently formed Election Reform Committee:
"I remember that one of the things I heard more than once as repudiation of these allegations
was "Where's the proof?" It was outrageous that these leftist conspiracy-theorists were making
these absurd allegations without any proof!
Well, let me ask you a question, Dr. Pastor: if someone told you their wife or child had been
assaulted would you scoff at them and say "Assaulted? How absurd! Show me your proof!"?
Or would you---being, presumably, a reasonably rational person---realize that assaults do un-
fortunately happen in this world, and go to the proper authorities and demand that they in-
vestigate? Perhaps an assault actually took place; perhaps not. But, normally, the proof is
found AFTER YOU INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS, not before! Normally, people do not
fall all over themselves to discount such serious matters as soon as they come to light. Unless
the purpose is to distort, obfuscate, whitewash, cover-up."
You say in your piece that the authors of the study in question
"...seem to be playing a game....because the study clearly leaves the impression that the authors believe there was wholesale fraud in the 2004 presidential election."
I might ask: how is the authors' coming to a conclusion based on the evidence "playing a game"? But you misrepresent their actual conclusion here, which was, as I said & as you quoted, that the ignored hypothesis "needs further investigation".
Further in your article you write that
"...Such a conspiracy would have had to cross state lines, involve hundreds or thousands of people and trickle down from the heights of power to the lowest precinct worker."
This seems to be an example of you, yourself, coming to a conclusion (an erroneous one, I believe, and I will explain why*) based on the evidence. Would you not object to the suggestion that you are therefore "playing a game"?
Again I quote from your article:
"...The bigger question to me is what Democrats have to gain from focusing on the past."
This is a very interesting sentence. It is misleading in two ways:
Firstly, you imply that only Democrats are concerned with the possibility that an election may have been stolen. Not at all true, and it is interesting to note that elsewhere in your article you point out that it is not just Republicans who have questioned the veracity of the USVC report. Curious that you were able to find non-partisan accounts supporting one side, but not the other.
Secondly, you imply that concern over the election issue is merely "focusing on the past".
I beg to differ. This issue concerns our future as a democracy. It concerns every citizen---Democrat, Republican, third party, any party. We IGNORE the past at our peril.
Speaking of concerned Republicans, I refer you to Mr. Chuck Herrin (chuckherrin.com), to name just one. Mr Herrin is a member of American Mensa and, according to his website, a systems engineer for Microsoft. He has written extensively on these issues and he appears to know whereof he speaks on the subject of computer hacking.
(I highly recommend you take a look at his site.)
*To return to your statement that manipulating the vote would have to "involve hundreds or thousands of people..."
I have read much that debunks this assumption (all this information is easily findable, Mr. Neal. We're not in the fifties anymore) but I will quote from Mr. Herrin's FAQ page. His reply is in answer to this question:
"Do you think it would take lots of people [to "hack" the vote]?" Mr Herrin's reply:
"No, it probably wouldn't take that many, which is one reason why GEMS is so dangerous and why I focus on it more than the individual DREs and touchscreens. (See the hackthevoteFAQ for more, if you haven't already)....
....One thing we do in large penetration tests for really big clients is gather a group of 2-8 hackers in a "war room", all with specific objectives. I have worked mostly on teams of 2-4 people, and we have hacked (with permission, of course) into some of the biggest banks and insurance companies in the world. One of our customers had over 70 people in their Information Security department, and a budget of over $50 Million, and we still got in and quickly took control. By contrast, our voting system security looks like it was designed by some part-timer at Best Buy."
"I'm pretty sure that a small group in one to a few locations could have pulled it off, ***especially*** had they designed and built the systems. If you design and build the systems, you can just automate the whole thing with a few scripts and call it a night. It's documented that the GEMS software 'calls home', but Diebold refuses to say what for. Bev Harris demonstrated that a 5-line VB script can change the votes and then delete itself. The possibilities are nearly endless when you build it yourself and keep it under wraps."....
"...If one were to compromise the individual terminals, they would only be able to influence a few hundred to maybe a couple of thousand votes. These factors create a very poor risk/reward ratio, which is a key factor in determining which systems it makes sense to attack.
...On the other hand, the Central Vote Tabulation systems are a very inviting target – by simply compromising one Windows desktop, you could potentially influence tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, with only one attack to execute and only one attack to erase your tracks after. This makes for an extremely attractive target, particularly when one realizes that by compromising these machines you can affect the votes that people cast not only by the new touch screen systems, but also voters using traditional methods, such as optical scanning systems and absentee ballots, since the tallies from all of these systems are brought together for Centralized Tabulation."
Fascinating, huh? One more little bit from Mr. Herrin:
"....Not to insult those of you who are just finding out about this, but this isn't really news - it's been known for quite some time, and a mix of computer types and social activists have been trying to tell you that it's coming."
You quote Mitofsky a couple of times in your article (I guess Freeman and the other professors, mathematicians & statisticians who authored the study were not available). Of the USVC study he says:
"The trouble is they make their case very passionately and not very scholarly", and I find that statement very odd indeed. I have read the report in its entirety and, while I cannot claim to understand it in its every detail, it certainly seems to be eminently scholarly as well as remarkably DISpassionate. Curiouser & curiouser.
Then there's this quote:
"I think fraud on a massive scale that their conclusion essentially requires is totally implausible", which nicely reinforces the 'this-couldn't possibly-happen-it's-just-so-ridiculous' viewpoint, while again misrepresenting the authors' actual conclusion: that there needs to be an investigation.
With all due respect, Mr. Neal, there seems to me to be a mountain of credible evidence suggesting the possibility that our election process was compromised, and I find it far beyond astonishing that this possibility, which constitutes a superlatively serious threat to the foundations of our democracy, has not been front-page news for the last six months.
But I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
... mmiixx said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:41 pm PT...
It would not even require "thousands" of "characters” of (computer)code to falsify the results of an electronic election ,a well engineered “Trojan” could “boot up” at say 8.00pm Nov 2nd ,alter the results to a pre-determined “percentage” then delete all traces of it self and its “handy work”.
If results are “transmitted” via the internet it could be altered “on the fly” at a “server/node” level , mid transmission at any “hop”, if result “files” had/have a common naming protocol intercepting and altering wouldn’t be impossible.
One thing that seems to have been overlooked after the Nov2 ERECTION was that during the "paid for" recounts (which were not random as the LAW states) was that only the Presidential Race was re-counted and not the whole ballot . This is a crime in its self as the “other races” verify the accuracy of the whole re-count process. Surely under consumer law if you don’t get “what you paid for” you have a right to demand reimbursement /compensation or the original service preformed correctly and accurately.
Consumer law can apply penalties for failure to perform contracted services.
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
... Torqued said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:50 pm PT...
Joan #55 --
Very good! I don't know the email address for Mr. Neal but I would urge you to send it one way or another.
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 4/26/2005 @ 3:59 pm PT...
Thank you, Torqued. I'd kind of prefer snailmail...guess I could find a WP address...
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 4:24 pm PT...
Re-post from other thread
I wonder If Brad may be successful in seeking a right of reply on behalf of all those "wide-eyed Bloggers", to Neal's piece?
If the 6 or 7 here support your sending your letter,
I'd cc to Bob as well.
Assistant managing editor, reporter
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/26/2005 @ 5:24 pm PT...
For Kira: Before publishing a letter, the Times contacts the writer. If they propose changes, they do require the writer's approval. I hesitated, but approved the changes. So nothing illegal happened.
But the incident speaks volumes about how the Times operates. I would add that my conversation with their representative was very one-sided. She made me call her (long distance), then began the conversation by saying, "I want to know that you haven't submitted this letter elsewhere." I said, "I haven't sent it to any other paper," at which point she interrupted with, "That isn't what I asked you!"
I meant, of course, that any individual person I had copied on the letter might conceivably have sent it to a newspaper without telling me, but that I hadn't done this myself. She wasn't interested. Totally arrogant. You'd think the Times were doing me a huge favor by printing a letter FREE OF CHARGE (I'm a professional writer).
Her attitude perfectly reflects that of the mainstream media generally. To them, we're a collection of stiffs they have to put up with.
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
... BUSHW@CKER said on 4/26/2005 @ 9:22 pm PT...
Just for fun, lets all compose a list of famous conspiracy theorists! [IN OUR SPARE TIME!]
Here's an obvious couple to get the ball rolling.
Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein for their Watergate conspiracy.
Joan #55 you go girl!
RLM #46 right on!
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/26/2005 @ 10:36 pm PT...
Gee - I don't have any time lately! I can't keep up. There's so much info here and your letters are really great! Very powerful letter Joan. SEND it!
Here's something you'll all enjoy, from Left Coast radio:
"Dr. Yoshi Tsurumi on George W. Bush, his student at Harvard Business School some thirty years ago. Dr. Tsurumi, now teaching International Business and Marketing at Baruch College (City University of New York), recalls Bush as a chronic liar, someone who despised FDR and the New Deal, who rejected the Securities Exchange Commission, had no concern for the poor, supported the Vietnam war, but was happy to avoid it through his father's connections. Tsurumi also asserts that Bush personifies a pirate MBA capitalism with no social conscience or sense of responsibility. Bush, he says, is trying to "destroy" not "reform" Social Security and return the U.S. to the days of the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons. "The Bush we see today is the same Bush I saw thirty years ago." Bush is a liar and a fraud and totally unfit to hold public office, says Tsurumi in this powerful and revealing interview."
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/27/2005 @ 6:32 am PT...
Here are several thousand more people for the "conspiracy theorist" archive. I don't know their names, but let's just call them EVERY ENRON EMPLOYEE WHOSE RETIREMENT BENEFITS WENT DOWN THE DRAIN.
Here are a few more: The 1978 Congressional committee that finally agreed, fifteen years after JFK's murder, than a conspiracy "probably did occur."
The only senator to vote against the patriot act, Russ Feingold, is running for president, according to one journalist (link here).
Bushw@cker #61, RLM #66 Good ones. People forget that the official JFK story, revisited because of the public knowledge that it was a conspiracy, is that it was a conspiracy.
The "conspiracy theorists" finally won out and the congress paid heed to their theories and agreed.
The authors of The Federalist Papers, which the neocons like to quote so much, firmly believed in conspiracy theories.
Some quotes from those papers concerning conspiracy theories are available (link here).
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 4/27/2005 @ 8:02 am PT...
Thanks, Dredd & Kira! I really appreciate your input....sent it this morning....
I dunno...good for old Russ, I guess...I'd prefer Conyers, really...but I can't get excited about anybody running for anything when we're going to vote for them on our tainted, hacked, twisted goddamn Satan-machines!
sorry..."for a minute there...I lost myself..."
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
... Peggy said on 4/27/2005 @ 8:47 am PT...
Joan, great letter. Will you permit 6 or 7 to copy it and send it?
Teresa - re deer in the headlights - very scary. Also interesting about the taser and left arm bruise. Makes me think about Lemme. So they injected him with truth serum to find out what he knew - but he died - bad heart...
If there is a God in the heavens, the GOOD PEOPLE AND INNOCENT PEOPLE on earth need him now!
The good people and innocent people ARE God. And yes...we need each other to survive this.
Kira #64 One must be careful about what is said about the president. Air America is under investigation for federal crime for using gunshot sounds while talking about a "spoiled child" (link here).
I have gotten into some slight flame wars here because I caution everyone about condoning violence. The records of what we say here become part of a government file somewhere.
Nevertheless we must preserve free speech by using it a lot. We must not fear speaking out.
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
... Paul said on 4/27/2005 @ 11:21 am PT...
The Right never did or say stuff about Clinton like the ridiculous stuff the Left has said about Bush.
It has always been illegal to make a threat!!!!!!!
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
... Torqued said on 4/27/2005 @ 12:05 pm PT...
Dr. Yoshi is my kinda professor but he's been shuffled away to the archives already. Thanks for the link Kira!
Now how about a little John Kaminski:
Deer in the headlights --- Searching for the truth is ugly, frightening and dangerous
and the only worthwhile choice.
Paul #73 What has not always been the same is the definition of "threat".
The right has made recent statements that could lead to violence and has later apologized for making such statements. Like "judges will pay" and "who cares if the top ten floors get blown away".
Your selective memory is still ... er ... uh ... "working" Paul.
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
... Peggy said on 4/27/2005 @ 1:24 pm PT...
Bush is an @#*&% CREEP. I hope he gets charged and imprisoned for the illegal war for oil in Iraq. I hope the Iraqis one day sue him for every cent he has in him name. @#%^&* Bush. Did you hear that, Creepo George?
Are you satisfied, Paul????
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/27/2005 @ 1:56 pm PT...
Not only did the conspiracy theorists win out regarding JFK's murder, it threw the establishment into a snit fit. Suddenly Gerald Posner comes out with "Case Closed" and people who should know better are back defending the Warren Commission. Oh, my great-aunt Myrtle!
Folks, it takes exactly one look at the Zapruder film, one look for a few seconds, to see JFK's brain matter fly from a 2 o'clock position to an 8 o'clock position (relative to the Book Depository). If that wound was caused by a shot from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, then the laws of physics have been repealed and Isaac Newton was a quack.
The Zapruder film doesn't prove Oswald didn't fire A SHOT, but it proves conclusively that he didn't fire THAT SHOT. How intelligent people could possibly argue otherwise is past me. Then again, a lot of people think Bush won fair and square.
Politicians lie. Witnesses lie. Photos don't lie, nor to the laws of physics and mathematics.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
... Torqued said on 4/27/2005 @ 2:53 pm PT...
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
... Teresa said on 4/27/2005 @ 3:02 pm PT...
Way to go, Peggy! #75
As I said on a pevious thread: George Bush is a sick fucking shell of a man.
Please do not be afraid to say anything you want. Most of this bullshit is bluff. You will feel foolish later on if you fall for it.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/27/2005 @ 4:21 pm PT...
Here's a threat for you, Paul. Before this year is out, we will have unearthed enough ugly truths to force George W. Bush from office.
Now, go ahead...send the F.B.I. to interrogate me.
re #76: Robert, you make a good point, but I have to nit-pick just a bit. [I can't help it: you've steered an open thread toward my favorite "tangent".]
Pictures may not lie, but the Zapruder film tells a very tall tale. It's been doctored --- it was in the CIA's most sophisticated photo lab on weekend of November 22-24, 1963 and as evidence its value is severely compromised. Some frames have been removed, and many have been altered. For example, there's at least one frame which shows Jackie's face --- with no eyes or nose. There are a lot of other anomalies, too. And yet ... and yet ... it still refutes the entire Warrren Report.
Good sources for the doctoring of the Zapruder film include David S. Lifton's superb Best Evidence and James Fetzer's Assassination Science.
Fetzer, by the way, has done some great investigative work on the murder of Paul Wellstone and his family. He's not a great writer but he's an excellent thinker. His website is not especially user-friendly but there's a ton of good reading: start here or here if you're interested.
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
... Peggy said on 4/27/2005 @ 6:51 pm PT...
Right on, Robert. If only the FBI WOULD interrogate everyone of us. We would provide them with every bit of information and evidence available on the planet on the "State of the Union"; and then ask THEM a few hard hitting questions!! Aren't their salaries paid for by the American people??
"Scoop" from Tom Flocco via "Scoop" of New Zealand: links between laundered drug money , 9/11, and the campaign warchests of D.C. pols.
Forgot to mention: this is why Sibel Edmonds' hearings are "closed."
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/27/2005 @ 10:25 pm PT...
I don't quite understand your comment to my #64 in that - well - what violence is condoned in the quote by Tsurumi?
Did I miss something?
Kira #84 -
I don't see any reference to your post in #72. I think Dredd is being, perhaps understandably, paranoid. Criticism is NOT violent threat; although "violent" reflexes do suggest themselves when Tsurumi's testimony is absorbed. As in "violent revulsion" and "moral revolt."
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/27/2005 @ 11:04 pm PT...
By the way --- I have never suggested violence as a means to rectify this political problem. I am against the violence of war because it's not a solution. I sincerely believe violence begets violence.
When I was growing up everyone I knew, at times, used the expression "I could just kill you." No one really meant it. It was an expression most people used - not only in little fits of anger but also when kidding someone. I haven't used that expression in many, many years, but I remember it well.
There's a real problem when people lose the ability to express their feelings with words or art or music. What is left?
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/27/2005 @ 11:07 pm PT...
Haha Peg C. #85 Also violent retching!
Tiptoing carefully into the *violence* discussion again.........I don't see anything in Kira's post that suggests in any way that violence be visited on Bush. As far as Air America is concerned, they seem divided there about how to react to being questioned by the Secret Service. Randi Rhodes thought it necesarry to apologize all day while others said F-em if they can't take a joke.
The most disgusting and twisted display I have ever witnessed by a President was the tape that Bush did of him looking under desks and behind curtains for WMD while our young women and men wre simultaneously dieing very violent *rea* deaths in Iraq. Where was the outrage then? It was Bush who sent them to their deaths so he could add a few more millimeters to his tool, if you know what I mean. What a malevolent, twisted piece of shit he is.
There will be a reckoning for him and his, be it by God, Buddha, The Great Spirit, Allah, or some bent and equally twisted mind who decides that enough is enough. In saying this, am I advocating violence against him? No. Do I hope that he gets the same justice that he saw fit to deliver to our soldiers while he joked about WMD's? Yeah. Will I keep my mouth shut while atrocities are being commited in my name? Never.
Will I be frightened and cowed into silence by the tyrannical threats of a megolomaniac? FUCK NO!
It's well known that what goes around, comes around.
should be: *real* deaths
Kira #84 I did not intend to infer you advocated violence at all. Sorry for the inarticulate use of language. I was trying to use one example to enhance another situation and didn't do it very artfully.
I went to the streets yesterday! Myself and more than a hundred other folks took signs and songs and marched downtown and protested by the federal building.
We were protesting the republican threat to do away with the Senate filibuster. It isn't always so, but the Senate today has an interesting characteristic. The minority democrats, in terms of senate votes, represent the majority of the american people.
I mean that by adding up the populations of the states the democratic senators represent, the population is greater than the populations of the states represented by the republican senators.
So the filibuster in the Senate, when done by the minority, actually represents more of the population than the majority does. (I read this somewhere a day or so ago ... can't remember exactly where ... but I posted it here in another thread I can't find at this moment).
Plus, it is a safety valve.
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
... Miss Persistent said on 4/28/2005 @ 7:28 am PT...
A good Washington Post article Al Gore speaks very very well to this issue:
Gore Cautions on Ending Filibusters
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A04
“Former vice president Al Gore warned yesterday that ending Senate filibusters for judicial nominations would "undermine the rule of law," and charged that Republicans backing the change are in the grip of "an aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry."
Into the streets.......that's awesome, Thanks
COMMENT #93 [Permalink]
... Cole... said on 4/28/2005 @ 10:33 am PT...
P # 73's
Complaint of the Left saying 'rediculous stuff about bush' is inaccurate, P could easily verify that the Left is actually quoting bush saying 'rediculous stuff'.
Why are so many of the 'right' so busy excusing or editing bush to make his transgressions look reasonable?
As an example of the 'excusing' I can cite the bush "Looking high and low and under for the missing WMD--not here, nope not here". Words and acts laughed at and even cheered by loyal rightests and even supported by the Mess Media as an example of bush's self-depricating humor. It would only be self-depricating if bush himself was personally damaged, it is an affront to those who were sent to war based on lies and killed or maimed (physically or mentally). And an affront to the rest of us even if you do not recognize it.
So P, take off your fuzzy glasses and take a clear look at your AWOL hero. Let us know why you are such a suck up.
It was great fun. This is a red state and so we were a minority view, however that is what the dems are in the senate, so it was the real deal.
There were some rude people yelling at us "Bush is good", "Go home", and one guy gave us the finger.
But most waved, honked, or said nothing.
We got their attention for sure, and the police were very cool about it. There were children, wheelchair people, young and old in the march.
There was a speech by a judge and one by a professor who teaches "Separation of Church and State" at a local university.
All in all it was a rewarding experience. And it was a timely protest (link to lookup here).
Big Brother is watching more and more according to this article.
Watch these if you can:
Friday, April 29: PBS "NOW" at 8:30 pm ET and again Sunday at 11:00 pm ET and Sunday, May 1: CBS "60 Minutes" at 7:00 pm ET (check local listings)
COMMENT #96 [Permalink]
... kansasblue said on 4/28/2005 @ 9:43 pm PT...
a brave protest! spread the word!
The Official Frist Filibuster Webcam
@ Princeton University
I almost wish I was in a red state so my "blue-ness" would have a little more shock value. Kinda like when I moved to Maryland (close to DC) where my wife is from, and used to love being the only nut with a NY Giants jersey on in a sea of Wash. _edskins colors.
Out here on the east end of Long Island though, there are a lot of Conservatives and New England type moderate Republicans who are ripe for shockin! I guess going against the grain has become a way of life for me.
COMMENT #98 [Permalink]
... Kira said on 4/29/2005 @ 12:33 pm PT...
Thanks for clarifying, Dredd. My paranoia showing? I just wanted it to be known what my position is.
Yup - I've been watching Big Bro. for some 30 or so years.
COMMENT #99 [Permalink]
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 4/30/2005 @ 1:23 pm PT...
To Winter Patriot: I can't refute your statement that the Zapruder film was doctored by someone. But it seems to me that if they meant to show that Oswald fired all the shots, they did a pretty awful job of doctoring. The film I looked at (I've seen it at least 50 times on TV, never in person) clearly shows JFK's brain matter flying to his left, and spraying Jackie.
At the time that shot struck JFK, the limousine was exactly in a 12 o'clock position relative to the Book Depository at 6 o'clock (not to mention the fact that Oswald would have been firing through trees at that point). Whether the film was doctored or not, for a shot from the Book Depository AT THAT MOMENT to have caused JFK's brains to splatter all over Jackie, seated to his left, means Newton's laws of motion are no longer in effect. A projectile cannot make a 90-degree turn in mid-air.
Unless I'm missing something. If so, please help me know what it is.
COMMENT #100 [Permalink]
... Miss Persistent said on 4/30/2005 @ 8:31 pm PT...
Supersoling, my Gosh! I was practically raised at RFK! The only think I hated about sitting near a Giants fan was the fact that they were always so freaking nice.
Ah, the memories. I went to those games with my dad and Grandma - who packed homemade fried chicken sandwiches, crackerjacks, and always bought peanuts on the way in. My dad would always hand me some heavy little bag when we were just about to go through the gate
"Break his legs!" my sweet little old Grandma would yell, cow bell in hand. But that was only for Dallas. Boy, I ate my chicken sandwich, my crackerjacks, some peanuts, and listened to Grandma and her best friend Cordelia yelling indecencies to the opposing team. Best of times. She loved her Skins. But that was back in the day where you didn't have to have a fistfull of money to go experience some "community glue" and speak out no matter what it meant or didn't mean for real.
Today, I take my son to Keys games (farm team) so we can be really close no matter where we sit, see the sweat, watch the game full stage, get a beer without losing sight of your seat (oh, and popcorn for the kid and...enjoy that hot summer sun...
COMMENT #101 [Permalink]
... molly said on 5/1/2005 @ 4:42 pm PT...
Jessee Helms said, prior to clinton going to N.C., he better take body guards. Nobody but nobody was up in arms about Clinton's life being in danger. We live in a violent society. Face it. How many times have you read or thought Jeff Gannon's life is in danger. Same goes for anybody who is a threat to the republican war machine. Bad luck with private planes and lone gunmen.
re #99. No, they didn't do a good job on the Z-film at all, Robert. But then again they didn't have much time. Those who have seen the original say it is far more convincing in its refutation of the Warren Report than the film you have seen on TV.
My point in mentioning all this is not to pick an argument with you, Robert --- or anything even remotely similar. I mostly want to remind everyone [even myself] to take everything with a grain of salt. On many levels.
Watch Jurassic Park --- don't those dinosaurs look real? We know they're not ... but now go watch some TV news --- don't those clips look real too? But are they? We really don't know, do we?
My main point [if any] would run something like this: Sometimes, when the truth is really really big, there's no way to remove it [the big truth] from the historical record, without leaving evidence that the historical record itself has been altered. And this peculiarity == holy shit, batman! the log files have been FORGED!! == shows the nature of the crime as clearly as if the truth had been left there --- as long as you know how to spot it.
In particular, the fact that the Zapruder film has been altered proves in and of itself that the JFK assassination was not what it appeared to be. Even if the alterations had been much "better" --- even if the film appeared to show Kennedy's body falling forward, with blood splattered on the inside of the windshield, rather than on Jackie, or whatever --- if it could be proven that the film had been altered then the very existence of an altered film, regardless of its contents, would be undeniable evidence of a conspiracy. Maybe not a conspiracy to commit the crime but certainly a conspiracy to cover it up.
I'm sorry if this rambling comment seems a bit disjointed but I'm working up to a point. I don't have time to say it all in one post but what the heck this is an open thread anyway isn't it?
More later. Adios, amigos!
re #102 OK Here's some more.
David S. Lifton points out in his excellent book "Best Evidence" that it takes two conspiracies to get away with a presidential assassination. It takes one conspiracy to commit the crime and a second conspiracy to cover it up. And these two conspiracies are very different. The first one doesn't need to be very big. And the second one doesn't need to know anything about the first one.
He makes another good point, too: Those involved in a conspiracy --- especially a conspiracy to cover up a crime --- need not know of their involvement.
Especially when a conspiracy involves an authority hierarchy --- where people are used to following orders and not used to questioning them --- people can be used in a conspiracy not only against their will but also without their knowledge.
There is some evidence that this sort of thing happened in the JFK case. There is a telling episode in the story about how his body was moved from Dallas [where he was killed] to Bethesda naval base [where the autopsy was performed]. All sorts of shenanigans went on, under the guise of "security", and in many cases the individuals involved had no idea that they were doing anything wrong. They were just following orders. Those who gave the orders may not have known that anything was amiss either. They were just following orders, too.
There is substantial evidence that the "Lee Harvey Oswald, One Lone Nut With A Gun" story was spread by people who knew it wasn't true but who nevertheless meant well --- and who had no idea that they were part of any conspiracy at all. They were told stories like "Oswald did it, see, and he had accomplices and they were Communists, see, and if this ever gets out there will be a nuclear war, see, so we have to keep all this commie stuff as quiet as possible, see?"
And so they went to their studios and and their typewriters and they blasted out the story of how "Lee Harvey Oswald, One Lone Nut With A Gun" killed the president of the United States. They were covering up murder and probably treason, too, but they thought they were doing a noble and patriotic duty by steering their country away from war.
In some ways the media scene after JFK's assassination was similar to the media scene on and after 9/11. Everything single bit of media was doing 24 hours a day nonstop tragedy and grief and everybody was saying the same thing over and over and over and over with no room for question or debate or anything else that could be branded anti-American.
In both cases, when the grief-a-thon finally ended there was something very different about the nation, and something missing from the hearts and minds of its people, and I'm still working up to something but you can probably see where I'm going, can't you?
COMMENT #104 [Permalink]
... Teresa said on 5/4/2005 @ 4:56 am PT...
Exactly, Winter P. That's when they implanted the Bin Laden, Al Qaida, terrorist conspiracy. When the public was so scared and vulnerable.
re #104: OK, well, kinda... You're way ahead of me, Teresa, but then again what else is new? ...
A Few Great Blogs
· Baghdad Burning
· Brilliant at Breakfast
· Crooks and Liars
· Dan Froomkin
· Fired Up! Missouri
· Freedom's Phoenix
· Freeway Blogger
· Glenn Greenwald
· Huffington Post
· Jesus' General
· Juan Cole
· Washington Monthly
· Media Matters
· Nashua Advocate
· Oliver Willis
· RAW STORY
· Sanoma State's
Project Censored Sites:
· Daily Censored
· Media Freedom
· Project Censored
· Scholars & Rogues
· Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
· Talking Points Memo
· Think Progress
· Tom Tomorrow
· TV Newser
· Ben Sargent
· Bill Deore
· Bob Gorrell
· Cagle's Index
· Chan Lowe
· Don Wright
· Doug Marlette
· Glenn McCoy
· Jeff Danziger
· Joel Pett
· Mike Luckovich
· Non Sequitur
· Not Banned Yet
· Pat Oliphant
· Paul Conrad
· Ted Rall
· This Modern World
· Thomas Burns
· Tom Toles
· Tony Auth
· Stuart Carlson
Or by Snail Mail
Make check out to...
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028