Replies: 40 Comments

Comment #1: wallen said on 7/8/06 @ 10:02pm ET...

The Gap Between Reality-Based America and Bush's Fantasy Island Grows Greater! But the Democratic Leaders on Capitol Hill are Captives on the Island.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Yes, the gap between what is really happening in the United States and the world as compared to the Hollywood style narrative peddled by the Rovian propaganda machine grows greater.

As many critics have noted, what the Republican Party does best is sell a story about America by playing on images and themes with deep emotional resonance to a large segment of the nation. This story is no truer in terms of facts and what is happening than an episode of "The Brady Bunch" is to real life in American families.
click here

Comment #2: Nolip said on 7/8/06 @ 10:32pm ET...

A movie worth watching which suggests a closer link between the White House and what happened on 9/11...

http://www.loosechange911.com/

you can watch it online free ( 80 minutes) order the DVD or both...

some suggest that 9/11 is this generations Kennedy assasination...the movie makes some great points...

Comment #3: Truth_in_action said on 7/8/06 @ 11:05pm ET...

Why the citizens of this country don't rise up as a body in protest of the stealing of our last two presidential elections, I haven't a clue. How many ways can one derail an election? Ask a Rethuglican. How these people sleep at night is beyond me.

On another very important and little-discussed topic, it appears that the North American Union is slotted to be underway by 2007. Has Congress approved this yet? Will they?

Doubt it.

This website's article has numerous links to supporting documentation.

Call me crazy, but it appears that worrying about illegal immigration is just going to be damned moot.

Bush is just playing with us on this topic till the Union sets in.

Read this article and tell me what you think. The Cancun Summit Mandated the North American Union by 2007 - Goodbye Constitution, hello, North American Union. The article also thinks we'll be seeing some pretty dire events that might lead to marshall law in order to help slide this baby on through. They suggest buying gold. I think they are uninformed, however, about setting it aside in a safety deposit box. It appears banks are already advising their staff to inform patrons about the property in their safety deposit boxes in an emergency - i.e., you can have the documents, sucker - the rest stays here! I'm on a laptop I can't seem to bring up a separate window for, but if I get a chance, I'll find those articles.

Oh, and by the way, try on this kick in the head: Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil. I'll bet Congress hasn't a clue about this little beauty, either. Will it take Lou Dobbs to call it to their attention for five minutes?

America for sale - who wants a piece?

Comment #4: unspun said on 7/8/06 @ 11:08pm ET...

I too wish that our democracy were functioning as it should. The past six years have taught us that most of the time in these cases, justice is not served. When it is, it is too long delayed to make much difference. In the America that I used to know, the name of a covert agent working for America would not have been leaked for political purposes. If this had been done by any other administration but the present one, there would have been an outcry from the people and swift justice for all involved. The Democrats can hope that the Justice Department, Congress and the Courts would do their jobs and ensure fair and valid elections. Unfortunately, hoping won’t make it so; if they do intervene as necessary when illegal tactics are used, great. But if they don’t do so, the Democrats should have a backup plan.

I wonder if Democratic candidates and/or the Democratic Party have come up with an action plan to counter the rovian tactics they know will be used? They’ve certainly had enough time to learn Rovesputin’s MO. Rovesputin’s minions will certainly be prepped and ready to follow his orders. It would seem to me to be relatively simple for the Democrats to anticipate their probable actions based on their history. I would think the Democrats would have a strategy and staff in place whose sole duty would be to deal with the dirty tricks morons, immediately and with forcefulness. The response staff could include—but not be limited to--lawyers, investigators (to quickly determine the source of smear tactics), and media liaisons to counter disinformation and outright lies with the truth—point by point.

I don’t know if such strategies by the Democrats would work to limit Rovesputin’s effectiveness, I just know that if everyone continues to repeat the same tactics they previously used, they will get the same results.

Comment #5: MAX 1 said on 7/9/06 @ 12:21am ET...

SORRY Off topic...

EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY

09/11/01
This was a publicized event. In fact, it was a big deal in Florida. The press had been invited to Emma Booker Elementary to watch the President and the kids read. It was announced almost a week prior. In fact, the White House had a press engagement already scheduled to occur at 9:30am that Tuesday from the school. Scheduled the day prior to be broadcast live, across the Nation.

IF we are to believe the reports of that day, and really who doesn't, the President was aware of the first plane strike BEFORE he went to the children. The second plane strike minutes later after sitting with the children. Andy Card's own report says he said to the President that, "America was under attack." Shortly after, the President prepared a statement for the public. Bush delivered, on time (9:30am) his address to the Nation, "America was under attack." His motorcade left Emma Booker Elementary at 9:34am, the Pentagon was struck minutes later.

THE DOG DID NOT BARK

The guard dog of the President is the Secret Service. Their roll is to guard and protect the President at all costs. To ensure that ALL locations are secure both prior to arrival and during. The S.S. ARE the first line of defense for the President during times of immediate and imminent crisis, like an attack on the Nation.

IF we are to believe the events of that day, then we are to believe that the S.S. had the interests of the Nation in hand and were acting to protect the President, at all costs. However, the S.S. did know prior to Bush finishing the reading session, that multiple planes may have been hijacked, and the President was informed shortly there after.

IF there was a suspicion of multiple planes being hijacked, one of which was not responding to Air Traffic Control:

HOW DID THE S.S. KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAFE IN HIS PRESENT LOCATION?

WHY DID THE S.S. FEEL THAT LEAVING THE PRESIDENT IN A PUBLICIZED LOCATION WAS THE BEST SAFETY MANEUVER?

HOW WAS THE S.S. TO GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF THE PRESIDENT KNOWING THAT MULTIPLE PLANES HAD BEEN HIJACKED BY DOING NOTHING?

THE DOG, IT DID NOT BARK

Many people point out that maybe they didn't want to frighten the children.
THEN WHY PROP THEM UP AS THE BACKDROP TO THIS GRAVE ANNOUNCEMENT, SCHEDULED LIVE, ON NATIONAL TEE VEE?(see video at end)

Impact, perhaps?

This is why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why our civil Liberties are being taken away instead of being protected. This is why we have a war on a tactic and an ideal instead of a REAL enemy.

We live in Orwellian times, NO?
Where up is down, in is fashionably out, A rubber stamp yes means no to Constitutional principles, Leftist Liberal news agencies are criminal terrorists and where the right, the GOP, acts like the Reich-Wing.

I do not lie. The President claims war IS peace, to have freedom in the 21st Century we must give up to the State our Liberties, and putting our faith in the State controlled Corporate media, is a double plus good. Just ask anyone on Fox News. They'll tell ya when you're right and when to shut up.

Orwellian principles are not American values. They are principles found in fiction and should be left to fiction.

To the Children, Bush describes peace as war.

We now live in a country where basic principles are given away so to preserve them. GIVEN AWAY by the GOP controlled Capital Hill. While people like Specter and recently Hoekstra may huff and puff about the big bad wolf in the White House, the refuse to smoke him out. COMPLICITY. SHEER COMPLICITY.

Isn't that what the terrorists want?
Isn't that what the GOP gives them while taking it from us?

Sorry, continue on shopping, "showing it to the terrorists" that Americans can still spend money EVEN in the face of danger....
While visiting Target and Wall Mart, keep this in the back of your mind...

This collection of data is the seed of DARPA. This seed was planted long ago. Before there were terrorists attacking our soil. And while you contemplate this remember, the REASONS given are because of the terror attacks of 9/11. ON OUR SOIL. And to prevent further attacks, therefore making us more secure.

Rationalize it in your mind, if you will. Collection of data PRE-9/11, justification of data POST-9/11. PRE-9/11 there was no REASON, and with no reason for the vast collection data, people might get worried. POST-9/11, the Government gives Americans a reason to worry - TERRORISTS - and look, people willingly give up information, securities, and Liberties through their blind faith and trust in a system that has them by the balls.

Video diary of 9/11 ~ Emma E. Booker Elementary

AND YES, THE TEACHERS AND STUDENTS WERE BESIDES THEMSELVES, and ALL OF AMERICA WAS TOO.

Stunned, in disbelief, ignorant to the idea that by NOT evacuating the school, not only was the President in danger, so too were the hundreds of children, teachers and parents. America fell into a trance of mis-belief that some how, the S.S. knew that everyone WAS going to be O.K.

Somehow, I don't feel safer now.

Comment #6: MAX 1 said on 7/9/06 @ 12:30am ET...

Now back on topic...

Fascist regimes do what Fascist Regimes do...

They concentrate POWER into the few, the State, so as to control the many.

14 signs of Fascism

Comment #7: Truth_in_action said on 7/9/06 @ 12:39am ET...

#5 MAX 1 - I hear you loud and clear and could not agree more. To me it is the ultimate sign of some kind of involvement. The whispering in the President's ear and his deadened, guilty reaction in the library are utterly telling. No secret service in their right mind would let the pResident sit there when the country is under attack.

Comment #8: cali said on 7/9/06 @ 1:00am ET...

FL Vote-Rigging Whistleblower Clint Curtis Invoked in Mexican Election!
Video of BRAD BLOG's Vote-Rigging Whistleblower Shown by Presidential Candidate's Advisor to Suggest 'Cyberfraud Possible' in Recently Disputed Election
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3044

Comment #9: wallen said on 7/9/06 @ 6:33am ET...

July 7/8, 2006 -- SPECIAL REPORT. Those who claim the Bush administration is a Nazi regime are not far from the truth. This story is a special investigation of Bush family slush funds, smuggling, and secret money conduits from and to various right-wing causes, including some that are extremely violent. The New York Times is running a story today about the U.S. military recruiting Aryan Nation, neo-Nazi, and other white supremacists into its ranks. The Times' report states that Neo-Nazi graffiti has sprung up in Baghdad, in quoting from a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The involvement of white supremacy and neo-Nazi groups with the Pentagon began in earnest during the administrations of Reagan and Bush I. According to informed sources who have tracked the neo-Nazis since the Reagan era, the surge in extreme right-wing elements in the Federal government was spurred on by the network of Nicaraguan Contra support activities created to facilitate going around the prohibitions enacted by the Congress. A key member of that strategy was Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, who was with the CIA, the Iran-Contra Committee in Congress, and then signed on as senior Vice President for the American Trucking Associations (ATA). WMR reported yesterday on the involvement of a foundation set up by McLean Trucking Co., a member of the ATA, with covert Contra support.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Comment #10: wallen said on 7/9/06 @ 7:19am ET...

JC:
Has there been a CIA damage assessment from the outing and subsequent demise of the CIA front company Brewster Jennings? As I understand it, they, along with Valerie Plame, were working on the proliferation of not only WMD, but nuclear WMD throughout the world, specifically
in Iran.

I haven't see this angle covered in the media much, but if Bush,
Rove, Cheney, et al., are willing to end the hunt for Usama bin
Laden, destroy Brewster Jennings, lose ground in Afghanistan and
Iraq, not protect our borders or ports, etc., just what is it they
are doing to protect the USA? I guess I just answered my own
question, nothing.

What's next, more fear mongering, another 9/11 type attack, the
cancellation of elections and a declaration of Marshall Law, with
Bush subsequently made President for Life? Scary.

In any event, if you know of any damage assessment, or can write
about what you think the repercussions were/are, please do so. This
is big news, and yet no one wants to talk about it.

Comment #11: stoufi1 said on 7/9/06 @ 10:01am ET...

From previous thread.

Other than correctly identifying the Mossedegh assassination as a CIA job, the rest is a wonderful display of revisionist history. Not identifying Lincoln as a Republican in the comment following mine, which he was, is the beginning of tales that would only be found in the "fiction" section of libraries and book stores.

And noboby answered my question regarding FDR who, in my opinion, was a great wartime President: what was his plan during WWII?

Comment #12: Nolip said on 7/9/06 @ 10:54am ET...

And the phone jammers are connected to the White House, the White House is connected to 9/11 and 9/11 is connected to the mess in Iraq because the White House continues to tell the American public that lie...

What civil war?

'One of the biggest massacres of Sunnis'

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said."

Gunmen kill 40 Sunnis in rampage

Comment #13: Nolip said on 7/9/06 @ 11:04am ET...

Bush and Cheney pranced around the known universe proclaiming that they were the biggest, baddest mofo's on the planet...nobody is denying that and just to prove it the world upped the anti on the boys and called their bluff telling them, "We can see the whites of yo' eyes and there's a missile (roadside bomb, suicidal bomber...fill in the blank) aimed right atcha! With no troops to back up this ballsy policy because any sane officer in the armed forces knows the commander in thief has no working knowledge of how to run a military, much less a war, both Big Dick and Dubya have had to redefine their bravado. So, this headline comes as no surprise...

"President George W. Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years. After Sept. 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it, TIME reports. They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. “The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words,” Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.

The swaggering Commander in Chief who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies “dead or alive,” conceding, “in certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted.” Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action-or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls “doctrinal flameout.” Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP."

Time: "The End Of Cowboy Diplomacy"...

Comment #14: Ohiodem1 said on 7/9/06 @ 2:28pm ET...

Stoufi1 #11 - I'm back, sort of.

What was FDR's plan?

First, he let the Generals and Admirals be Generals and Admirals. Ike set the time and place for D-Day, the African Campaign, the taking of Italy. He let the 10th Mountain Division do its job in Italy, unlike the Bush Administration intervention which prohibited the 10th Mountain Division from capturing and killing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora.

He let MacArthur and Nimitz run the war in the Pacific.

He asked for all Americans to sacrifice for the good of the country, unlike the Nixon and Bush 43 plans which only demanded sacrifice from only those who are not rich.

What sacrifices? Service from all strata of society. Ted Williams, Joe Louis, Glenn Miller, Joseph Kennedy. Ted from around the corner, Joe your nephew, Glenn the plumber, and Joseph the preist. He asked individuals at home to serve in Civil Defense, to plant Victory Gardens, he rationed gasoline to keep the planes flying and to keep the cost reasonable. He rationed meat, flour, potatos (not the Quayle spelling) and other foodstuffs so that the soldiers and the allied soldiers had enough to eat.

His plan put millions of Americans to work producing war material. Rosie the Riveter in the shipyards and aircraft plants. My grandfather, who served in WWI, worked on the Norton Bomb Sight during WWII. 4F men and women served by building items necessary in the war effort. They served as nurses, provided entertainment for the troops in USO's. They bought War Bonds. FDR asked for the total committment of the American people and people around the world, and he got it.

Harry Truman helped make it a crime to be a War Profiteer, and to take excess profits from the war effort. He helped make the war profiteer law make it stick.

FDR and the Allies instituted benevolent (except the Soviet) occupations with security for the vanquished enemies. They planned for peace after the war. They actually had competent administrators to provide assistance in the real reconstruction of Europe and Japan.

President Truman put the Marshall Plan together. I belive he started NATO.

The FDR/Truman administation got the GI Bill of Rights enacted, put millions of American Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors in colleges and created a massive educated population which created the economic boom for the next two generations.

President Eisenhower worked to end the Korean War. Then he feared a second postwar depression, and led Congress to create the Interstate Defense Highway System, which to this day was and is the greatest public works program in the history of the world. Over 40,000 miles of divided highways with clipped lawns, the need for continuing improvement and repair. The Interstate Highway System created a social change unlike any other in our history. It created the suburbs, moved millions from the farm to the city and many other societal changes.

Ike believed in Peace through strength, not war for Peace. Eisenhower had seen war in all its destruction of both men, cities, and farms. He worked to avoid war by the use of effective diplomacy, a showing of force, without needing to use the force. The threat of force with the effective use of diplomacy was good enough for Ike. Why doesn't Bush 43 give it a try?

So, FDR's plan created the conditions for a generation of Peace, and it was carried out by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

Let me turn the question around Stoufi1. What is George W. Bush's plan?

Comment #15: Ohiodem1 said on 7/9/06 @ 2:51pm ET...

Stoufi1 #11 - Concerning Lincoln and him not being a Republican.

Prior to the 1864 Election, President Lincoln formed the National Union Party, and received that party's nomination for President at a convention in Baltimore, Maryland. The party was centrist in its platform and policy-making. The Republican Party was Radical, just as they are now.

Google Abraham Lincoln National Union Party. President Abraham Lincoln LEFT the radical Republican Party, because he felt he would lose the election if he stayed in it. President Lincoln was a member of the National Union Party when he was assassinated. Therefore, he left the Republican Party and never returned to it.

From News Abraham Lincoln was completing his first term as president. He hoped to lead the nation for another four years. He wanted to win the war between the states. He wanted to re-build the Union.

Lincoln's Republican Party was divided. Moderate Republicans wanted to re-build the Union as soon as the war ended. They believed southern states should be welcomed back with full rights. Radical Republicans disagreed strongly. They demanded severe punishment for the southern rebels.

VOICE ONE:

For many months, President Lincoln worked to build a political majority. He formed a new group called the National Union Party. It included moderate Republicans and some Democrats.

Lincoln succeeded in gaining the support of state and local political leaders. It soon became clear that Lincoln would be the party's presidential candidate in the election.

VOICE TWO:

Several hundred radical Republicans held their own convention in Cleveland, Ohio. They formed a new political party called the Radical Democracy. They nominated explorer John Fremont as their candidate for the national election. Fremont had been the Republican presidential candidate eight years earlier.

Most of the radical Republicans in Congress did not take part in the convention in Cleveland. They refused to support Fremont. They felt he had no chance to win the election.

VOICE ONE:

President Lincoln's new National Union Party held its convention in Baltimore, Maryland. Convention delegates quickly approved a party statement. The statement supported the Union and the war. It opposed slavery.

Delegates then were ready to nominate their candidates for president and vice president. On the first ballot, they chose Lincoln to run again. And they chose Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee to run as vice president. From NewsVOA.com:

(snip)

"Abraham Lincoln was completing his first term as president. He hoped to lead the nation for another four years. He wanted to win the war between the states. He wanted to re-build the Union.

Lincoln's Republican Party was divided. Moderate Republicans wanted to re-build the Union as soon as the war ended. They believed southern states should be welcomed back with full rights. Radical Republicans disagreed strongly. They demanded severe punishment for the southern rebels.

VOICE ONE:

For many months, President Lincoln worked to build a political majority. He formed a new group called the National Union Party. It included moderate Republicans and some Democrats.

Lincoln succeeded in gaining the support of state and local political leaders. It soon became clear that Lincoln would be the party's presidential candidate in the election.

VOICE TWO:

Several hundred radical Republicans held their own convention in Cleveland, Ohio. They formed a new political party called the Radical Democracy. They nominated explorer John Fremont as their candidate for the national election. Fremont had been the Republican presidential candidate eight years earlier.

Most of the radical Republicans in Congress did not take part in the convention in Cleveland. They refused to support Fremont. They felt he had no chance to win the election.

VOICE ONE:

President Lincoln's new National Union Party held its convention in Baltimore, Maryland. Convention delegates quickly approved a party statement. The statement supported the Union and the war. It opposed slavery.

Delegates then were ready to nominate their candidates for president and vice president. On the first ballot, they chose Lincoln to run again. And they chose Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee to run as vice president."

(snip)

Here is the link quoted above:

One of many links to Lincoln's membership in the National Union Party

Comment #16: ljm said on 7/9/06 @ 3:18pm ET...

Seems like just about everything nefarious leads to the WH these days.

Comment #17: unspun said on 7/9/06 @ 3:42pm ET...

Back to the topic, it seems that at least Jim Webb is taking direct action against his opponents' smear tactics. The Dems should watch and learn. Webb Campaign Blasts Allen Campaign

Boy, it's hard to concentrate when the resident paid political operative hijacks the post.

Comment #18: Vyan said on 7/9/06 @ 4:05pm ET...

NSA and Data-mining program could be used to purge Voter Roles?

Yeah, I know full well how much the idea seems to be full on tin foil hattery, and tiring it can be for the left to constantly be crying foul everytime they lose an election.

What a bunch of crybabies!

Maybe if they actually had some ideas, people might vote for them.

Yeah, I get that. But hold your disbelief for a moment and read, really read what Greg Palast has to say in the Guardian.

There's something rotten in Mexico. And it smells like Florida. The ruling party, the Washington-friendly National Action Party (Pan), proclaimed yesterday their victory in the presidential race, albeit tortilla thin, was Mexico's first "clean" election. But that requires we close our eyes to some very dodgy doings in the vote count that are far too reminiscent of the games played in Florida in 2000 by the Bush family. And indeed, evidence suggests that Team Bush had a hand in what may be another presidential election heist.

Just before the 2000 balloting in Florida, I reported in the Guardian that its governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered the removal of tens of thousands of black citizens from the state's voter rolls. He called them "felons", but our investigation discovered their only crime was Voting While Black. And that little scrub of the voter rolls gave the White House to his brother George.Jeb's winning scrub list was the creation of a private firm, ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. Now, it seems, ChoicePoint is back in the voter list business - in Mexico - at the direction of the Bush government.

Over 900 provisional ballots may have been wrongfully rejected because of database problems alone. Between 624 and 938 rejected provisional ballots, mostly classified as “not registered”, were apparently mistakenly purged from the registration lists, or involved other clerical errors in searching or entering data. Since this error was detected by only one type of search, which did not detect other voters who reported similar errors, the true number of provisional ballots wrongfully rejected is likely to be higher. We estimate that 2 out of every 5 provisional ballots that were rejected should have been accepted as legitimate. If we combine incorrectly purged provisional votes, projected votes rejected because of initial registration errors, provisional ballots lost through polling place misinformation and innocent errors filling out the provisional application, it appears that over 41% of rejected provisional ballots (or 14% of all provisional votes) may have been unnecessarily rejected. We estimate that simply changing residence exposes voters to a 6% chance of being disenfranchised. Youth, the poor, and minorities are disproportionately affected. In fact, with respect to just provisional ballots, we found a two-fold increase in rejection rate in predominantly African-American compared to predominantly Caucasian precincts.

As we found in Florida in 2000, my investigations team on the ground in Mexico City this week found voters in poor neighbourhoods, the left's turf, complaining that their names were "disappeared" from the voter rolls. ChoicePoint can't know what use the Bush crew makes of its lists. But erased registrations require us to ask, before this vote is certified, was there a purge as there was in Florida?

Notably, ruling party operatives carried registration lists normally in the hands of elections officials only. (In Venezuela in 2004, during the special election to recall President Hugo Chavez, I saw his opponents consulting laptops with voter lists. Were these the purloined FBI files? The Chavez government suspects so but, victorious, won't press the case.)

Comment #19: Ohiodem1 said on 7/9/06 @ 4:51pm ET...

Vyan #18 - If you believe, like I do, that if the validity of a Provisional or Absentee ballot is challenged or is being prepared to be thrown out by the vote counters, then the voter has the RIGHT to challenge those who challenges his or her right to vote.

I propose that if a provisional or absentee voter is challenged on this basis, then while the identity of the voter is still available, and the vote inside is still secret, the Board of Elections in the county involved should be REQUIRED by legislation to publish the names, in the newspaper of record in the county, of all who are challenged.

The challenged voter, whose franchise, the most precious right of an American would then have the right to a PUBLIC hearing on why their vote should not be counted. If the challenge is sustained, the ballot is to be thrown away. If it proves to be unsustainable, and is shown to be a legal vote, it should then be thrown into the hopper, with the identifying information removed, for counting.

In 2004, hundreds of thousands of Provisional ballots were thrown away on challenges, and the affected voters had no knowledge of who they were, and had no recouse if the ballot was thrown out. I do not care who wins the election, I just want all the legal votes counted. There was no way in the last election to determine the validity or non validty of the ballots that were thrown out. This seems to be an equitable approach, and if the election officials who raised these challenges are held to account in a public forum, then the mass volume of challenged ballots will go down.

Comment #20: stoufi1 said on 7/9/06 @ 5:48pm ET...

#14 OD1

"First, he let the Generals and Admirals be Generals and Admirals. Ike set the time and place for D-Day, the African Campaign, the taking of Italy. He let the 10th Mountain Division do its job in Italy, unlike the Bush Administration intervention which prohibited the 10th Mountain Division from capturing and killing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora."

He let them set the details, but it was FDR and Churchill who set the grand strategy. Churchill insisted on the Allies going into Italy, saying it was the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Even with a full commitment by the Allies, the Germans held them up and inflicted numerous casualties. If we apply today's standards, it was a quagmire.

As far as D-Day, Operation Overlord wasn't authorized by FDR until the Teheran Conference that took place in late 1943. Ike didn't begin planning in earnest until 1944. Yes, FDR stayed out of the way of the battle planning, but he still had to give the go-ahead.

And your 10th Mountain Division analogy is apples and oranges.

You still did't give the plan. Why? Because there was no overall plan. There can't be one during a war. The only thing you can do is set goals, and FDR's goals were victory through the unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan (also set at the Teheran Conference). All plans were geared towards that goal. But the planning had to recognize changes on the battlefield and be flexible when these changes came up.

"He asked for all Americans to sacrifice for the good of the country, unlike the Nixon and Bush 43 plans which only demanded sacrifice from only those who are not rich."

Nixon had to deal with a draft, as did FDR (and I'm sure plenty of rich folks got deferments in WWII). But that "working class hero" crap regarding this President Bush is crap and you know it. All are volunteers, and there is plenty of representation from all strata of American society. You know it's true, Conyers knows it's true, everybody knows it's true.

As far as your paragraphs on sacrificing, yes, Bush 43 has done an awful, awful job of getting the people involved since 9/11. Huge mistake, but neither Truman, Eisenhower (as President), LBJ, or Nixon did much to get all of the people involved in Korea or Vietnam. The difference is that they had the draft to draw on for the military, something Bush doesn't have (or want). But, I agree, in principle, with what you say.

"FDR and the Allies instituted benevolent (except the Soviet) occupations with security for the vanquished enemies. They planned for peace after the war. They actually had competent administrators to provide assistance in the real reconstruction of Europe and Japan."

Re-read your history regarding Europe. Reconstruction in Europe was going at a snail's pace for the first two years after the surrender and much of western Europe was in the grip of major economic hardship due to incompetent governments and the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan didn't start until 1948 when the US Congress authorized Truman to use massive amounts of money to pick up the pace of reconstructing Europe. Then it lasted three years.

"Ike believed in Peace through strength, not war for Peace. Eisenhower had seen war in all its destruction of both men, cities, and farms. He worked to avoid war by the use of effective diplomacy, a showing of force, without needing to use the force. The threat of force with the effective use of diplomacy was good enough for Ike. Why doesn't Bush 43 give it a try?"

What about Iran and North Korea? Sy Hersch's piece is nothing but an attempt to spread fear of Bush launching missiles on Iran. My guess is that his "sources" aren't as high up in the government food chain as he states (and maybe believes). What we've seen from Bush so far is diplomacy with regards to Iran and North Korea. Hell, it was Clintonistas in the last few weeks that said Bush should try to blow up NoKo's missiles on the ground, something Clinton never did (to North Korea).

"Let me turn the question around Stoufi1. What is George W. Bush's plan?"

Remember, not a plan, goals. First, defeat and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This was done in a month. Then, put in place a government that can stand on its own; let's call it reconstruction. The difference between FDR (and Truman) and Bush 43 is that they didn't have to deal with an enemy who refuses to surrender and work on trying to put a government in place for the people after the main military action ended, not to mention the jihadists that were already in Iraq and protected by Saddam (they were there, and there is proof of it). Who could say if the reconstruction would have occurred if there was a guerilla war going on in Germany after the official surrender?

Were there mistakes by Bush in helping get this Iraqi government formed? No doubt about it. But, if you factor the conventional fight, the guerilla war, and the reconstruction of Iraq, it has been a little more than three years since the start, and almost 5 years for the defeat of the Taliban and the reconstruction of Afghanistan (and there's still a guerilla war going on with jihadists; and the Taliban never surrendered either). It took 9 years, from the beginning of military operations to the end of the Marshall Plan in 1951 before western Europe could truly stand on its own.

Comment #21: stoufi1 said on 7/9/06 @ 6:08pm ET...

#15 OD1

Yeah. Keep believing that. The Radical Republicans came back into the fold, even before the 1864 election. To say Lincoln wasn't still a Republican is an error in logic.

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine, in bold):

"War Democrats were those who broke with the majority of the Democratic Party and supported the military policies of President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War of 1861-1865. To accommodate them the Republicans used the name "Union Party" in the 1864 elections. Lincoln appointed many to high civil and military offices to win over some Democratic votes. Some joined the Republican party, while others remained Democrats."

Comment #22: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 6:28pm ET...

Well, well, I have been lurking on here and the trolls return. Hey Stupid1, shouldn't you be on the Free Republic instead of here?

Comment #23: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 6:29pm ET...

I am the same person, but shortend by name such that I do not have both my last adn first name on here so peopel cannot find where I live and such.

I'M BAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!

Comment #24: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 6:32pm ET...

Damn, I missed the meeting in the lockeroom, as I do every week. Keep me updated, as I do get the newsletters as well in my inbox.

Comment #25: Genghis Khan said on 7/9/06 @ 6:45pm ET...

Revisionist, eh?

That history is well-supported by statements from the players involved in creating it, one of whom told me personally.

I'll stand on my sources.

You?

Comment #26: feline said on 7/9/06 @ 7:41pm ET...

#18 Vyan, thank you for the excellent post and links!

Ohiodem1, thank you for the info on Lincoln, I learn here every day!

Comment #27: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 8:05pm ET...

And no one noticed my triumphant return to this blog? Just kidding. Everyone, especially TIA, Patriot, Rusty and GK, you guys have been doing awesome work. All of you here deserve a HUGE round of applause.

It is good to be back with old friends.

Comment #28: Patriot said on 7/9/06 @ 8:13pm ET...

#27 Neerav - Welcome back. Yes, we're working away. Getting a lot accomplished!

Comment #29: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 8:39pm ET...

Thanks...........I am glad to be back.

Comment #30: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 9:37pm ET...

Does anyone know when Mr. Conyer's book will be shipped out? i am still anxiously waiting to get it so I can read that and yet another book that I need to read between now and January 2007, "IF" the Democrats take back Congress this year. Thanks.

Comment #31: Rusty said on 7/9/06 @ 9:40pm ET...

If Bush had been president in World War II . . .

1) In the days after Pearl Harbor, Bush would have secretly flown hundreds of Japanese out of the U.S. because Hirohito asked him to.

2) To demonstrate America's resolve to prevail over the vicious enemies of freedom, Bush would have told us all to go shopping.

3) Bush would have trotted Condi Rice out to explain that "no one could have foreseen using airplanes to drop bombs on ships."

4) Bush would have hired German and Japanese companies to handle our port security.

5) Bush would have said, "Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about Adolf Hitler, I really don't think about him very much."

6) Bush would have called the Bataan Death March a catastrophic success, and told MacArthur, "You're doing a heckuva job, Dougie."

7) Bush would have fired General Eisenhower if Ike had asked for more than 130,000 troops.

8) Bush would have told the Nazi SS executioners in the Holocaust death camps to "Bring it on!"

9) Bush would have destroyed an American OSS network working to prevent the Nazis from getting the atomic bomb in order to "get the facts out" about Argentina's fiendish plot to import gunpowder from Niger.

10) Bush would have landed on an aircraft carrier in February 1942, announced the end of major U.S. combat operations, and declared "Mission Accomplished."

11) Bush would have prosecuted the New York Times for reporting that the FBI was keeping an eye on Nazi spies.

12) Bush would have fought the Battle of the Atlantic by sending the National Guard out in rowboats to sink Nazi U-boats with World War One army surplus grenades.

13) On D-Day, Bush would have kept our troops back in England and hired French drug smugglers to invade Normandy.

14) Bush would have captured a German clerk in Paraguay and announced that he'd crippled the Whermacht's operational capacity.

15) Bush would have berated Ernie Pyle for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by reporting that GI's actually got killed sometimes.

16) To get reelected in 1944, Bush would have unleashed the Polio Veterans for Truth against FDR, who had ambitiously injected himself with polio so he could run for president someday.

17) Bush would have condemned the media for not reporting enough good news about Auschwitz.

18) Bush would have invited Stalin to Crawford, looked into his eyes, and assured us, "we can trust this man, I've seen into his soul."

19) Bush would have cancelled the Manhattan Project and given Al Capone a no-bid contract to develop America's atomic bomb.

20) Bush would have had to invade Japan (see #19) which wouldn't have gone well because our 130,000 troops would still have been sitting in England waiting for the French drug smugglers still pinned down on Omaha Beach to capture Hitler for us. Unleashing Elvis on Japan would not have been an option either, because he was only ten years old, so Bush would have been fresh out of war plans.

Bush's defeat in World War II would have been all Woodrow Wilson's fault, of course, because that damn leftist America hater cut and ran in 1918 and did nothing while Hitler and Hirohito met in Prague to plot America's destruction.


(Cross-posted on Daily Kos)

Comment #32: Alma said on 7/9/06 @ 9:42pm ET...

#30 Neerav,

All I know is that the book is supposed to be ready in July. So it should be within the next few weeks.

Comment #33: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 9:44pm ET...

Thanks Alma.......it is so good to hear from and see you again!

Good points Rusty in post #31. Not even freepers like Stupid1 and Pointless Disorder can refute them.

Comment #34: Vyan said on 7/9/06 @ 9:56pm ET...

Ohiodem #19 - Under HAVA voters given a Provisional Ballot also have to be provided a receipt and a number to call to determine if their vote was actually counted or not. A grievance or dispute procedure for those votesr is not currently available that I know of.

I would suggest that a procedure like this also be established for electronic voters including a receipt documenting what they actually voted for, and the option for them to verify and dispute discrepancies in the final tally.

Vyan

Comment #35: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 9:58pm ET...

Comment #34: Vyan said on 7/9/06 @ 9:56pm ET...

Ohiodem #19 - Under HAVA voters given a Provisional Ballot also have to be provided a receipt and a number to call to determine if their vote was actually counted or not. A grievance or dispute procedure for those votesr is not currently available that I know of.

I would suggest that a procedure like this also be established for electronic voters including a receipt documenting what they actually voted for, and the option for them to verify and dispute discrepancies in the final tally.

Vyan

-----------------------------------
I agree, as this must be used to ensure that every vote is tallied correctly and to aviod election scandals such as Ohio and Florida.

Comment #36: Rusty said on 7/9/06 @ 10:06pm ET...

Hi Neerav, welcome home!

Comment #37: Alma said on 7/9/06 @ 10:13pm ET...

Nice to see you back here too Neerav. Now you'll have us all speculating on what name you were using to post.

Never hurts to keep people guessing.

Comment #38: Ohiodem1 said on 7/9/06 @ 10:32pm ET...

Stoufi1 #20 - Ask Bob Dole if he would have let the 10th Mountain Division follow Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora.

"He let them set the details, but it was FDR and Churchill who set the grand strategy. Churchill insisted on the Allies going into Italy, saying it was the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Even with a full commitment by the Allies, the Germans held them up and inflicted numerous casualties. If we apply today's standards, it was a quagmire."

Just a note about fighting the Germans anywhere during WWII. The Germans were superbly trained, led and armed. They always fought hard and well. Of course the national leadership had something to say about the strategy for the war. The Civilian leadership always is superior to the military leadership in our Consitutional system. We had a Secretary of War, the Brits, Russians and French also had similar organizations. These civilian organizations provide necessary guidance to our national leadership, and the national leadership in turn set the policy. Remember that MacArthur was smited by Truman, not for his acumen in battle, but because he was trying to set policy by announcing that he intended to go into China, which the Civilian leadership did not advocate or allow.

Let me define quagmire. A quagmire is allowing American troops to be drawn into a civil war and effectively being forced to take one side or the other, and having headstrong leaders not get the message that it is time to get out. In Vietnam, it was Johnson and MacNamara, who finally decided to start drawing troops down in 1968, and Nixon did not finish the job until 1973, with minimal support for the government in the South until their final defeat in 1975. Just for the record, in 1971 when John Kerry testified to the Fullbright Commission, the American troop presence was drawn down to approximately 140,000. Between that date and 1973 when the shooting stopped 17,000 American soldiers, or over 10 per cent of those left in 1971 gave their lives for a lost cause, and it all hinged on the Nixon administration fighting over contract terms. Contract terms cost 17,000 American boys and girls their lives. That's a quagmire.

I can tell you that the pilots and airmen on my ship which was on a WESPAC cruise off Vietnam in 1972 did not want to die for what they knew was a lost cause.

Another quagmire is what we have going on in Iraq. There is a civil war raging between Shia and Sunni Moslems. We effectively are on the side of the Shia, who are somewhat aligned with the ayatollahs in Tehran. You may say insurgency, I say civil war. American boys and girls are not the primary targets now. It is Sunni vs Shia now. They are primarily homegrown. Read the papers. 40 killed on Saturday, 60 today. Death squads kill Sunnis, Sunnis blow up a mosque, kill 17 Shia. Our boys and girls still are being killed every day, despite not being the prime targets any more. Our soldiers are targeted however. Witness last week's capture and murder of two soldiers. That's a quagmire. Your implied comparison of Iraq vs Italy during WWII is what is really apples and oranges. The standard in WWII was total war against industrialized nations bent on world domination. The standard in Vietnam and Iraq is taking sides in a civil war. Hardly the same.

"Re-read your history regarding Europe. Reconstruction in Europe was going at a snail's pace for the first two years after the surrender and much of western Europe was in the grip of major economic hardship due to incompetent governments and the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan didn't start until 1948 when the US Congress authorized Truman to use massive amounts of money to pick up the pace of reconstructing Europe. Then it lasted three years."

Europe post WWII was blessed with an educated and willing workforce who was strongly motivated to rebuild their cities, dams, highways and infrastructure. There was no insurgency, no civil war.

Iraq is blessed with a population with a median age of about 14 years, and despite what we hear about Iraq having an educated populace, I have seen little to back that claim.

Three years of sustained effort and investment in the economy of battle torn Europe was the hand up that they needed. The Europeans did not need perpetual shoring up of their economy. In many respects their economy is stonger than our own because of the massive shrinking of our industrial base and capabilities.

At the rate Iraq and Afghanistan are going, particularly Iraq, they have a chance to recover in 50 years, not the 6 years after hostilities stopped that you alluded to in Europe after two total wars in 31 years. Do you propose that we take the side of one of the civil war combatants for the next 45 years? Is that the Bush "goal"? Maybe he should get a plan.

Comment #39: Neerav said on 7/9/06 @ 10:38pm ET...

Comment #37: Alma said on 7/9/06 @ 10:13pm ET...

Nice to see you back here too Neerav. Now you'll have us all speculating on what name you were using to post.

Never hurts to keep people guessing.

-----------------------------------
I will be using this name from now on, as it is dangerous to use yoru full "real" name on this forum (as I did before), as someone can Google yoru name and find where you live and God knows what goes on from there, especially with these crazy RW facist freepers.

But thank you, Alma and Rusty, for th kind welcome back. :)

Comment #40: Truth_in_action said on 7/10/06 @ 12:18am ET...

Welcome back to our island in a sea of chaos, Neerav. Good to see you again. Thanks for the very kind words, although I do not feel worthy of them. You put me in very good company with some very hard workin folk.