GAO WHO HAD FOUND EVIDENCE OF ELECTION SNAFFUS IN 2000 SAID THE PROBLEMS WEREN’T FIXED IN TIME FOR 2004.
Yeah, right, so what else is new? Without meaning to insult those who did the study, why did it take years, not weeks or months, after the fact, to reveal the obvious? DUH!? What the hell do you dudes/dudettes do when you go to “work” everyday? You sure as hell aren’t very productive. Most of us in the private sector would be fired or outsourced for such ineffectiveness. LS
Found on Yahoo News.com via Buzz Flash.com
GAO ADMITS THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH OUR ELECTIONS
WATCH DOG GROUP REJECTS ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA. ASKS FOR HAND COUNT.
The GOP stealth election thieves are at it again.
Do you care? LS
Another great find on Buzz Flash.com
The Eureka Reporter: “WATCHDOG GROUP REJECTS ELECTION RESULTS, CALLS FOR HAND COUNT”
EIGHT COUNTIES IN ARKANSAS DITCH ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES JUST PRIOR TO ELECTION. Found on Brad Blog.com
Some voters/officials do care. LS
MOVING ON TO OTHER GOP DARK AND UN-REPORTED NEWS
This is yet another incredible and well-documented piece written by Mr. Greg Palast. He reveals why General Garner, who was initially sent to Iraq to oversee the transitional government, was fired almost immediately upon arrival.
We had no business going to war with Iraq in the first place, but the hideous deed could have been somewhat salvaged, at least by a nano modicum of decency, by the goals, experience and sensitivity of a General who had the interest and well-being of the Iraqi people at heart. General Garner worked hard at bringing the various religious and cultural factions together in order to achieve at least a dialogue. After a lot of hard work, tough discussions and deep reflection, a very fragile compromise was about to be reached.
But of course, the dicey part of the compromise was the plan to divide up the wealth, i.e. the spoils of war. And the oil, of course, among the various factions.
Alas, General Garner was replaced by a neocon ideologue whose mission was to make sure the Iraqi spoils of war flow straight into the pockets of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld families, friends, donors, and of course to their hacks who do their bidding. Worse, when Garner left and Bremer arrived with his neocon sledgehammer, the delicately held together factions blew apart and the insurgency began. We know the rest of the story. Mr. Palast's article is yet more proof that the Bush GOP stands for nothing but greed, power and money. Any words spewed from their collective mouths about democracy, peace, border security, the economy, immigration or any issue that has nothing to do with greed, power and money, is pure hogwash. LS
"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections." But elections were not in The Plan.
The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" - and Iraq, that's just about everything - "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.
There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements - copyright and tax code changes - was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)S
But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."
In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.
TRUTHOUT.ORG “Unreported: The Zarqawi Invitation
DEMOCRACY CORPS MANUAL ON HOW TO GET RID OF THE GOP IN 2006 AND 2008
The sooner the better.....LS
Ken sent this fascinating information this morning. Below are Ken's summary, the links and excerpts from the study and analysis.
Democracy Corps has an important new study directed to Democratic congressional candidates challenging GOP incumbents. Democracy Corp’s survey and Greenberg and Carville’s analysis can be found below.
Carville and Greenberg say their survey numbers indicate that Democrats must nationalize the election to recapture the House or the Senate.
Disillusionment with Bush has grown so strong that our tests show that a Democrat who runs against Bush and the Republicans performs better than one who runs only against the Republican incumbent.
They stress the importance of Democratic challengers stating clear, strong positions in confronting GOP wedge issues, such as immigration, national security and Iraq, while advocating equally lucid policy alternatives regarding energy, American jobs, drug prices and congressional pay raises. The D Corps survey also shows that proposals to make college tuition tax deductible and to inspect 100 percent of containers coming into the U.S. also inspire broad support. They urge Democratic challengers to reassure voters that they oppose precipitous withdrawal from Iraq (to avoid GOP cut and run accusations), and articulate instead a more credible option, such as a phased redeployment over the next 12 months.
Greenberg and Carville urge challengers to make a strong effort to engage and turn out African American and Latino voters, and especially unmarried women who tend to support Democratic congressional candidates by a large margin (29 percent in the survey), but who also have an unusually low turnout rate. There are many other interesting recommendations in the DCorps study, backed up by solid opinion research.
DEMOCRACY CORPS SURVEY AND GREENBERG CARVILLE ANALYSIS HERE
BUSH THE DECIDER IS ALSO A CHICKEN
Email to Brown shows Bush is happy that Brownie was beaten up over Katrina instead of him. LS From CNN.com
E-mail shows Bush glad FEMA took Katrina flak
BUSHITES TALK THE TALK BUT SHIRK THE WALK
Below are astute and reflective observations from Steve, the husband of a friend and colleague. Steve expresses some of his political views by writing electronic letters to his “Dear Lovely Wife.” Fortunately for her friends, his lovely wife, Vickie, shares his letters. Below is one of Steve’s jewels. LS
In some ways, the Bushites remind me of our cat Monster. He thinks he's a lion, and king of the forest, but in reality he is just an itty-bitty cat. The Bushites are like that, but when it comes right down to it, they are all about denying responsibility. The main reason the Bush White House is the most secretive since the Nixon Administration is that they are busy covering up dumb decisions.
"National security" is a thinly veiled cover for "don't look at the incompetence and pandering that is really going on." For example, they are trying to avoid explaining the data mining of American phone records by claiming it would endanger national security; beyond the violation of civil rights, it is probably a bad idea because it is a high investment-low return project - there's no bang for the taxpayers' bucks.
The Bushites don't want to explain that aspect (in addition to the lack of judicial authorization), and their cronies in the Congress (and possibly their appointees in the courts) don't want that issue to come up, either. Another example of their evasion of responsibility is the refusal of Dick Cheney to even name the people who were on his energy advisory task force (and didn't they do a fine job!). After all, someone who writes a letter to the editor takes enough responsibility for his idea to sign his name and give his address; Dick Cheney's advisors were unwilling to do even that. That's really standing up for your ideas! (Unmentioned is the probability that they really didn't want anybody to know what they REALLY thought, anyway.) "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The Republicans in Congress follow the same pattern. When William Jefferson, the Democratic congressman from New Orleans, was caught taking an alleged bribe, the Republicans all jumped on that and said, "See? See? We're not the only ones who are corrupt!" This overlooks that the argument that "the other guy did it, too" is an admission of guilt; you're just angling for a lighter punishment. I don't think anyone is making the argument that Jefferson should be defended because he is a Democrat; if he's guilty, he should go to jail. (Notice that the Republicans took the automatic assumption that someone from the same party should be expected to argue for special treatment for their partisans.)
In spite of asking other people to be responsible for themselves (to lessen the burden on rich taxpayers) and their actions, the Bushites and their friends in Congress are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. They think they are tough, smart folks who shouldn't have to answer for their actions to people "who don't get it;" but when their critics actually point out that their judgment might be flawed and their leadership suspect, they come up with excuses, and bury the evidence under a "national security" blanket. ( Ken Lay is probably sorry he couldn't use that excuse.)
The difference between their self-image and their actual ability to govern is very much like Monster, and they are extremely paranoid about someone actually finding out. They seem to be testing the truth of Abraham Lincoln's dictum that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time (so who are those people they can fool all of the time?); I really don't need to add that the Bush skeptics are the folk that can't be fooled all of the time.