"Boy the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those Were The Days" AmericaBlog An email making the rounds
REMEMBER
WHEN you displayed your flag on the front porch on the 4th of July, and
you didn't have to worry about whether it would be misinterpreted as
support for a corrupt president and his administration?
REMEMBER
WHEN'Support the Troops' meant equipping our military with everything
necessary for battle, instead of just being a catchy phrase that looked
good on a bumper-sticker?
REMEMBER WHEN your tax dollars paid
for things like improved education and social programs, instead of
making Halliburton shareholders millionaires?
REMEMBER WHEN you
watched movies about WWII, and it was the enemy who tortured captured
American soldiers, instead of American soldiers torturing the people
they'd allegedly 'liberated'?
REMEMBER WHEN you heard something
on the TV news or read something in a newspaper, and you didn't have to
go to the internet to find out just how much of it was fact, and how
much of it was 'spin'?
REMEMBER WHEN a politician was caught
with his hand in the cookie jar and he resigned in disgrace, instead of
excusing his own behaviour by claiming that his political opponents
were equally as guilty of wrongdoing?
REMEMBER WHEN 'Made in the USA' labels on products were the norm, and not a total oddity?
REMEMBER
WHEN you hitchhiked through Europe as a teenager, and you DIDN'T have
to replace the American flag on your knapsack with a Canadian flag in
order to be a welcomed guest in a foreign country?
REMEMBER
WHEN organized crime figures had to make phone calls from the corner
phone booth, because they were the only people who had to worry about
wire-taps?
REMEMBER WHEN telling a fellow politician on the
floor of the Senate to 'go f*ck himself' was considered behaviour
unbecoming an elected official, instead of being accepted as the way a
Vice President behaves himself?
REMEMBER WHEN you could pretty
well count on the fact that if the president said it, it was based on
sound intelligence and was probably true?
REMEMBER WHEN you
could rely on your elected representatives to put your interests ahead
of the corporations that filled their campaign coffers, or the
lobbyists who gave them great basketball tickets?
REMEMBER WHEN
you didn't even KNOW what religion the people you voted for were,
because it didn't really matter? Remember when you didn't know what
party your neighbour belonged to, because that didn't really matter
either?
REMEMBER WHEN the pension you’d worked for your whole
life wasn’t in danger of being wiped out by corrupt CEOs, assisted by
respected accounting firms that made that corruption almost impossible
to detect?
REMEMBER WHEN you could brag that as an American, you
were guaranteed things like free speech and due process of law, without
checking the nightly news to see whether those rights were still in
effect?
REMEMBER WHEN the president upheld the law of the land,
instead of coming up with 'legal loopholes' to support the idea that
he's above the law?
REMEMBER WHEN you could say, "I'm a proud
American," without qualifying it with a list of all of the things your
government is doing that you’re not exactly proud of?
REMEMBER WHEN you actually thought that the people in charge of running your country were smarter than you were?
REMEMBER
WHEN your parents worked all their lives to ensure you a better life,
instead of worrying about how bad the life they'd be leaving their
children might be?
REMEMBER
WHEN'patriotism' was judged by your words and actions, and not by
whether you were a member of the party currently in power?
REMEMBER WHEN the 'American Dream' was attainable through diligence and hard work, and not the luck of the 'outsourcing' draw?
REMEMBER
WHEN the election of a president was considered the result of democracy
in action, and not the result of Diebold executives doing the job they
were expected to do?
REMEMBER WHEN you sang 'God Bless America'
as a kid, and never thought you'd grow up to wonder if, in view of your
country's actions, asking God's blessing was asking a bit too much?
I
REMEMBER WHEN … and I wonder if these ideas will become ancient history
by the time those of us old enough to recall them are dead and gone.
JFK's death changed everything. The beginning of the end.
The sad thing about that post is that it could go on and on.
This movie needs a cameo from Harrison Ford. Just a quick shot of a man
in an airplane seat shaking his head and saying, "Snakes. Why does it
always have to be snakes?"
Who needs advertising when you've got a really dumb title for your movie? Snakes on a Plane is still five months from takeoff but has already been declared the "worst film of 2006" by Wired magazine, according to a Wikipedia entry, anyway. Think that will hurt its opening-weekend box office? Not a chance.
As the hot topic in online movie circles, Snakes (or SOAP) is inspiring the blogosphere to create freelance movie trailers, posters and story lines. In online vernacular, it's one of the hotest memes since TheBlair Witch Project. Star Samuel L. Jackson, who threatened to quit when someone proposed changing the name of the movie to Pacific Air Flight 121,
signed up for the project based on the name alone.
I just hope no snakes were harmed in the making of this film. And maybe
a William Castle touch would be nice: "In Viper-Vision with
Cobra-Rama!!" People can read comments and blogs all over the internet about this fabulous
movie and they will make you laugh SOOO much . Anyone know what
rating it will be? You need to see this movie.
Plot Outline: On board a flight over the Pacific
Ocean, an assassin, bent on killing a passenger who's a witness in
protective custody, lets loose a crate full of deadly snakes.
For the posters to
come, may we suggest this headline: "You've read the title. Why see the
movie?"
BAGHDAD Kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill
Carroll has been released after nearly three months in captivity, Iraq
police and the leader of the Islamic Party said Thursday. She was
reported in good condition.
She told a Washington Post reporter: "I was never hurt, ever hit...I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."
Carroll, a freelance reporter for The Christian
Science Monitor, was kidnapped on Jan. 7, in Baghdad's western Adil
neighborhood while going to interview Sunni Arab politician Adnan
al-Dulaimi. Her translator was killed in the attack about 300 yards
from al-Dulaimi's office.
"She was released this morning, she's talked to her
father and she's fine," said David Cook, Washington bureau chief of The
Christian Science Monitor.
[The news came shortly before 7 a.m., Eastern Time.
The Monitor at 7:03 a.m. posted this on its Web site: "After being held
hostage for nearly three months, Jill Carroll is free. More details
shortly."]
Police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said was handed
over to the Iraqi Islamic Party office in Amiriya, western Baghdad, by
an unknown group. She was later turned over to the Americans and was
believed to be in the heavily fortified Green Zone, he said.
Her captors, calling themselves the Revenge Brigades,
had demanded the release of all women detainees in Iraq by Feb. 26 and
said Carroll would be killed if that didn't happen. The date came and
went with no word about her welfare.
The United States Embassy in Baghdad said it could not confirm Carroll's release.
On Feb. 28, Iraq's Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said
Carroll was being held by the Islamic Army in Iraq, the insurgent group
that freed two French journalists in 2004 after four months in
captivity.
Jabr said then that he believed the 28-year-old was
still alive, although the deadline set by her captors for the U.S. to
meet their demands had expired.
She was last seen in a videotape broadcast Feb. 9 by
the private Kuwaiti television station Al-Rai. Her twin sister Katie
issued a plea for her release on Al-Arabiya television late Wednesday
night.
Carroll went to the Middle East in 2002 after being laid off from a newspaper job. She had long dreamed of covering a war.
UPDATE: Podhoretz, according to Judd Legum, wrote:
It's
wonderful that she's free, but after watching someone who was a hostage
for three months say on television she was well-treated because she
wasn't beaten or killed "while being dressed in the garb of a modest
Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is" I
expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days.
I guess he would have been happier if she had allowed herself to be martyred for the cause. What a moron!
Mr.
Podhoretz, she was on Iraqi TV after having been released near an
office of the Islamic Party. Could it be that she was respecting
someone's culture and not necessarily pulling a Patty Hearst? Or is
this just the muddled thinking of a numbskull who can't separate the
entire religion of Islam from terrorism from resistance...
Regardless of John Podhoretz's insensitivity, naivete and ignorance, there is photographic proof that she has been treated better than civilians (or civilians) who were taken captive by the United States.
You can stop squinting now, your eyes aren’t deceiving you—we really
did post a photo of a dog wearing a thong. But not just any dog thong!
No, the Dogone thong is the "comfortable and least intrusive means for
deodorizing gassy discharges", and you know you can trust it because it
comes from the #1 name in flatulence odor control products.
Uses our
famous activated charcoal cloth (washable and reusable)! A starter hole
is placed in the cloth in order to help you locate the suggested tail
hole. Carefully measure tail and cut-out hole to proper size. Elastic
straps are used for flexibility. Suspender clips are used to make the
garment totally adjustable. They also provide quick release for
allowing the dog out to do his business.
You can get the Dogone in any of three sizes and they’re each
$19.99, but if you buy them you’ll need very expensive headphones to
keep from hearing the neighbors making fun of you and your poor pooch.
CAUTION: OBJECTS IN THE MIRROR MAY APPEAR TO BE LARGER THAN THEY REALLY ARE.
Bild is a (tabloid) newspaper in germany. They have come up with an
interesting guerilla campaign in men’s bathrooms. The line says:
“Nothing is harder than the truth”. Now we see that the newspaper Bild
has installed tilted mirrors above urinals in Germany, more or less
forcing men to contemplate their masculinity while taking a leak.
The
headline on the mirrors delivers the newspaper’s brand message while at
the same time insulting the viewer (or at least the less-endowed
viewer): “Nothing is harder than the truth.”
“Nothing is harder than the truth” In german hard doesnt have anything to do with an erection, to clear the misunderstandings.
I don’t think that it’s such a bad idea. the advertising aspect is a
little bizarre, but I’ve seen wierder. In a texas “steak hous styled”
resturant, there are pictures of suggestive women in “cowboy” gear above
the urinals. That’s a little too much. it’s a tough enough challenge to
“go” with somone else standing next to you, do you need the added
pressure of sexy images while you are holding your stuff?
Actually, coming up with urinal advertising that doesn’t have an
element of grossness might be harder, but there you go. Link via Advertising/Design Goodness.
"[President Bush's] claim that during wartime he possesses special
powers really gets me. Special powers? He can't even ride a bicycle
without falling off. How come reason isn't one of his special powers?
If he's got special powers, what's his Kryptonite: logic?"
As a child, Chimpy was put into the "special" classes, so why shouldn't he have "special" powers?
Mr. Bush has made several interesting
assertions.First, he claims that the executive of the U.S. is granted
special and exceptional powers at wartime under the constitution.
Second, he asserts executive right to detain and deny due process to a
special category of citizen, a citizen "enemy combatant", who has taken
up arms against the people of his own nation, or otherwise provides "aid and comfort" to "terrorists" and "enemies of the U.S." during "a
time of war" and to engage in warentless searches (eavesdropping) of
U.S. citizens, further bypassing due process "during a time of war". He
further claims that the conditions of and threats we face in these
times were never considered when the constitution was drafted.
I
decided it was time to see for myself what the constitution might say
or not say on these topics, and therefore directly test Mr. Bush's
assertions.I
did not need to go further than article III before I got a rather clear
and unambiguous answer to all of the questions Mr. Bush poses. In the
few short sentences of section 3, Article III, I think we find all of
these questions answered. We can read it together if you like.
The
first thing I found in this rather remarkable and I suspect seldom read
article is that indeed our forefather's certainly did consider the
question of what to do about a citizen "enemy combatant", as in a
citizen who chooses to take up arms against the military forces of our
nation or otherwise provides aid and comfort to an enemy power at a
time of war. The charge is called "treason", and this is how the
constitution describes it:
"Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering
to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
While the
supreme court had chosen to limit the definition of "enemy combatant"
only to someone "carrying a weapon against American troops on a foreign
battlefield" in the Hamdi case, according to the Defense Department,
and as argued in the Padilla case, an enemy combatant includes anyone "part of or supporting Taliban or Al Qaeda forces or associated
forces." Both the narrow definition of the Supreme Court, and even the
broader definition of the executive branch, fall well within the
circumstances and definition offered in Article 3 Section 3 for "Treason". I think even a strict constructionist cannot ignore this rather inescapable conclusion.
But, there is more:
"No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court."
This I think says two important
things. First, those "enemy combatants" must have a trial, and the due
process and full involvement of the judicial branch that this directly
implies. Further, it suggests, given the gravity of the crime and
possibility for it's misapplication, the burden of proof required to
sustain, and rights granted to a potential defendant, of a charge of
treason may well be greater than those offered other classes of
defendants. Finally, section 3/3 concludes with
"The
Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attained."
What is entirely absent in 3/3 is any mention
whatsoever of the executive. This is clearly because the executive
branch has no special role or special powers whatsoever in the handling
of "enemy combatants" as envisioned by our forefathers and as written
in the constitution, and this is rather logical, for they understood
that the greatest danger to the U.S. constitution was not a foreign
enemy, but rather an executive asserting arbitrary dictatorial powers.
This especially clear in reading the federalist papers, though it's
conclusion is found in 3/3 as well as in many other parts of the
constitution.
If the president has no special role
whatsoever for the handling of enemy combatants, then clearly he has no
special powers to discard their legal rights or remove their 4th
amendment protections. Ergo, there are no special powers for
wiretapping. Indeed, I think 3/3 makes it very clear, that even at a
time of war, due process must exist and cannot be suspended.
Interesting
enough, while the president can claim to be the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. armed forces, these same forces swear no oath of loyalty to
him. Rather every commissioned officer in the U.S. military swears an
oath to "defend and protect the United States Constitution, against ALL
enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC", much like the president himself. To
this we can add the "Nuremburg Principle", which introduces the idea
that a commisioned officer or soldier can and should be able to
disregard an "unlawful" order.
A little further we find
Article II, Section 2, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal
Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating
to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,
except in Cases of Impeachment."
Here we find something of
executive war powers.Clearly, the president has the power to "pardon"
Pedilla, but lacking is any statement whatsoever of special "war
powers" or the ability to set aside due process in any form.Nor,
incidentally, does congress seem to have these magical powers either,
so certainly they cannot grant them to the president even if they wish
to. But let's go a little further, where did the specific idea of
executive war powers come from anyway?
"The
President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the
same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much
inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first
General and admiral of the Confederacy."
Clearly, what war powers
that may exist in the executive branch and offered to the president
were meant to be rather nominal, and only those minimum powers needed
to direct and command the armed forces of the United States. To this
mix we add the war powers act of 1973.
These powers and this
act in fact further diminishes the authority of the executive.
Certainly it deals with the mechanics of when and where the executive
may introduce the U.S. military and hence is directly related to his
role of commander-in-chief as well as being consistent with what the
federalist papers further clarify in regard to this very limited role,
being limited solely to the mechanics and use of the U.S. military.
Next,
we can go to case law, to see how past cases involving war powers were
decided. Most relevant, I think, is Ex Parte Milligan;
In 1866, the
supreme court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial
by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana Lawyer
accused of supporting the Confederacy. The court ruled clearly that
citizens must be tried in civilian courts, even during war. The sole
exception they recognized was if civilian courts are neither open or
operating. The same court, incidently, also found that Lincoln lacked
authority to declare martial law in Indiana. I guess that kills the
idea of staging martial law to then round up and shoot your dissenters
in military tribunals because the courts would be effectivily "closed."
Again,
in all these things, I fail to find anything that supports any of the
assertions of Mr. Bush, and many that clearly and directly refutes all
of them. Is there some part of the constitution I had missed, or did
Mr. Bush simply make it all up as he went along?
In public
appearances this week, Bush defended his program of domestic spying
without court approval, citing the inherent war powers of the
presidency under the U.S. Constitution. The
president points to his status as commander-in-chief and the resolution "approved by Congress three days after the 9/11 attacks" authorizing
him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the
terrorists.
It all smacks of France's Louis XIV's famous dictum: "L'etat, c'est moi" - "I am the state." We are now learning what President Bush considers to be the limits of his power - NOTHING.
At 40 bucks a bottle, I'm sure I'll be stocking up by the case.
It seemed like the perfect gimmick: a celebrity porn star would launch her own wine, with her alluring picture on the label.
Savanna Samson did just that. But when the wine received a score of 90
to 91 out of 100 from guru Robert Parker, the project became serious.
It turns out Samson, the star of "The New Devil in Miss Jones," has
produced an exceptional wine, becoming the toast of two industries:
wine-making and pornography.
The seriousness of the idea was lining up a respected wine maker. So
she convinced Italy's Robert Cipresso -- also a vintner to the Vatican
-- to join the project.
Samson went to Tuscany and tasted dozens of Cipresso's Italian-grown
varieties, then she selected a mix of 70 percent Cesanese, 20 percent
Sangiovese and 10 percent Montepulciano. She ordered over 400 cases.
"I knew I wanted Roberto to make my wine -- I just love his passion for wine," said Samson.
The result is Sogno Uno, a 2004 vintage of an Italian red wine packaged
under the Savanna name with a label of Samson in a see-through gown. It
was launched last month.
Parker has been called the most influential wine critic in the world,
and a score of 90 to 95 denotes "an outstanding wine of exceptional
complexity and character."
"Trust me, I didn't add any points for Ms. Samson's personal presentation," Parker wrote in his review.
Samson is one of the biggest names in pornography, having won best
actress in the Adult Video News Awards, the pornographic equivalent of
the Oscars, and another AVN Award for a scene she shared with Jenna
Jameson in last year's "The Masseuse." She has made two dozen porn
flicks.
The wine "really represents who I am," said Samson.
"There's spiciness -- the Cesanese has the naughty side of me. And yet
it's an elegant wine. I love the opera, and I'm a classically trained
ballet dancer. And there is some chocolate undertone, which I just
love. There's a little bit of sweetness. Like, 10 percent of the time
I'm sweet," she said.
She is working on a white wine -- Sogno Due -- that could be out later
this year, and also has ideas of expanding into champagne, ice wine and
grappa.
Samson, who was raised Catholic in upstate New York, said it was pure
coincidence that Cipresso also sells wines to the Vatican. She met him
through her husband, a wine merchant.
"My priest said in Mass once, 'Violence or pleasures of the flesh. What
is the greater of two evils?' I think we all know the answer. I felt
like he was saying that toward me," she said.
Still, she never had her parent's blessing for her career choice as an
adult movie star. "They were so devastated. They were terribly,
terribly upset."
But while she will continue her film career, wine-making may offer some
redemption. "I wanted to do something that my parents could be proud
of," she said.
The IRS Wants To Help Make Your Tax Returns Public
The government that wants no transparency in its governing wants complete transparency in the private affairs of its citizens. The America we once knew is soon to be no more.
Consumer groups and privacy advocates are attacking proposed Internal
Revenue Service rules that would spell out how tax-return preparers may
legally sell financial information and other data from their clients'
returns.
The IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable
privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and
other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from
individual returns — or even entire returns — to marketers and data
brokers.
....Critics call the changes a dangerous breach in personal and
financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would
prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly
reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.
"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax
preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer
Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes.
"They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely
on them.' "
The IRS was unable to explain why this
regulation had suddenly been proposed. Their spokesman just shrugged
and suggested it was routine housekeeping to keep up with the
electronic revolution. Sure it was. H&R Block, unsurprisingly, "did
not respond to requests for comment."
Fine that you do your own taxes. But if you send them electronically. They go
through H&R Block, with TaxCut or Intuit with TurboTax. That gives them the right to
sell my info. Or yours. This will also give Intuit a new revenue
stream.
This probably applies to all the methods offered by the IRS, since those use contractors. Which makes a good protest to be mailing in paper tax returns. That
is a lot less efficient for the IRS. All electronic tax returns go
through civilian contractors who will get revenue from this rule
proposal.
Only the taxpayers (required by law to file) will lose here.
Welcome to George Bush's IRS. Your whole life is now for sale as
long as it benefits someone who's a Republican campaign contributor.
Just a reminder of the climate we lived in. The Dixie Chicks "controversy" was caused by this comment made at a London concert:
Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.
That was it. That was all it took.
GREAT new song. You can hear it for free on their home page, just turn up your speakers, it plays automatically - lyrics are there too.
From the band that Christopher Hitchens called "fucking fat slags." Hitch must have thought the band was called "The Delirium Tremens". No wonder he hated them!
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger And how in the world can the words that I said Send somebody so over the edge That they’d write me a letter Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing Or my life will be over
It's easier to rig an electronic
voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of
Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman. That's because Vegas
slots are better monitored and regulated than America's voting
machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other
things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote
count. We'll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that.
But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect
their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he
presented at an October meeting of the American Statistical Association
in Philadelphia.
Pointing to a little-noticed "Cyber Security Alert"
issued by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
(US-CERT), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the
source inside Diebold -- who "for the time being" is requesting
anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company
-- is charging that Diebold's technicians, including at least one of
its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company
instructed them to keep quiet about it.
"Diebold threatened violators with immediate dismissal," the insider, who we'll call DIEB-THROAT, explained recently to The BRAD BLOG
via email. "In 2005, after one newly hired member of Diebold's
technical staff pointed out the security flaw, he was criticized and
isolated."
In phone interviews, DIEB-THROAT confirmed that the
matters were well known within the company, but that a "culture of
fear" had been developed to assure that employees, including
technicians, vendors and programmers kept those issues to themselves.
The "Cyber Security Alert" from US-CERT was issued in late August of 2004 and is still available online via the US-CERT website. The alert warns that "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could [sic: allow] a local or remote authenticated malicious user [sic: to] modify votes."
The
alert, assessed to be of "MEDIUM" risk on the US-CERT security
bulletin, goes on to add that there is "No workaround or patch
available at time of publishing."
Right after the November 2003 elections I saw some stories on voting
results compared to exit polls. Exit polls were everywhere reliable,
except for three(?) big states where the actual outcome of the
elections differed approximately 5% from the exit polls and this was
every time favorable for Bush. In all of the three states voting
machines without paper trail from Diebold were used.
There hasn't been any follow up on this story. Now, I don't know if it wasn't a hoax, but it makes one suspicious. Might the back door have been used already?
You've heard the reports of the new Diebold touch-screen voting
machines which have recently been updated to include a so-called
"voter-verified paper trail."
You may also have heard how the
printers they've added to produce these "paper trails" on their
previously-paperless touch-screen voting machines are reported to jam
up in test after test -- like the one last summer in California [PDF] where some 33% of such machines failed due to screen freezes, software failures and paper jams.
These "afterthought" printer modules, and the "paper trails" they
produce -- which are largely uncountable and uncounted by election
officials not to mention unreadable by mere human mortals -- have
failed in all sorts of test situations.
Most states require no
actual counting or meaningful audit or even cursory review of these
toilet-paper "paper trails" (distinct from a countable paper ballot.) Some states (hello, Florida!) even disallow the hand-counting of such "paper trails" by law! So how well the printing modules actually work, is almost
beside the point. Their main purpose seems largely to be instilling a
false sense of security in the voter that their vote will actually be
counted and counted accurately.
To be clear: These devices provide no assurance that ones votes will actually be counted accurately -- or even at all. You
may have heard that Diebold actually includes a magnifying glass with
each machine to help voters see these tiny, virtually unreadable "paper
trails."
There's an opaque brown door that can be swung down over the
"Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail" rendering it completely invisible!
As
March wrote, "If the county elections people want to cheat, just swing
this door down and most voters won't know to swing it up!!!"
Could
that little brown door be the reason why all of those "voter-verified
paper trail" rolls on the busiest Diebold Accu-Vote machines in Toledo,
OH in November 2005 turned up completely blank at the end of the day?
Is that why nobody even noticed that voters weren't voter-verifying their "paper trails" throughout the entire Election Day there? Just a guess.
RememberYOU don't count because Diebold doesn't count!
Bush & Cheney Have (FIB) Trouble With Early Iraq Statements
Time for another AA meeting. Subject: lost memory.
I know it's hard to believe Mr. President,
but they have these things know that actually record what you say and
are able to play back what they record. Even after a long period of
time. Keith Olbermann and Countdown supply the evidence.
Bush: "First-just if I might correct a
misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say
that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam
Hussein."
In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:
Bush: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
Now-anyone listening and watching his speech back
then would make that connection easily enough since al-Qaeda was
responsible for 9/11-don't you think? Keith analyzes it very nicely.
Olbermann: "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the
same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam
Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words. In a moment Craig
Crawford joins me to discuss the fundamental remaining question. Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?
Now let see how many other times he connected Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda..
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq."- George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"We
know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a
decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These
include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment
in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for
chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al
Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"I
think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And
as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war
on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I
also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror.
And he must disarm."- President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"This
is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist
network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a
Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his
enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."- Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"He's
a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I
reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that
an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack
America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov
"He's
had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type
organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place
to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates
to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
FACT:According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to
be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to
battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence
challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation
between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT:
"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials
in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had
rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with
Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence
and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda
was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key
intelligence agencies." [National Journal, 8/9/03]
On Face the Nation Sunday, Dick Cheney had
a few very interesting things to say. Using a phrase borrowed from a
formerly disgraced WH press reporter-they might even be characterized
as being "divorced from reality."
SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, all
along the government has been very optimistic. You remain optimistic.
But I remember when you were saying we'd be greeted as liberators, you
played down the insurgency ten months ago. You said it was in its last
throes. Do you believe that these optimistic statements may be one of
the reasons that people seem to be more skeptical in this country about
whether we ought to be in Iraq?
CHENEY: No, I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality,
than it does the fact that there is a constant sort of perception if
you will that's created because what is newsworthy is the carbomb in
Baghdad, it’s not all the work that went on that day in 15 other
provinces in terms of making progress in rebuilding Iraq.(transcript via TP)
OK, which part of his early ruminations on MTP in the run up to the war have ever proven correct? Have a field day.
NOTHING he has stated about this war has turned out to be true. NOTHING!
"Vice
President Cheney has been consistently wrong about the war in Iraq.
He's called the shots on a dangerously incompetent strategy," said
Kennedy. "He was wrong about the link betw
Who needs advertising when you've got a really dumb title for your movie? 
BAGHDAD 
Pointing to 
On Face the Nation Sunday, Dick Cheney had
a few very interesting things to say. Using a phrase borrowed from a
formerly disgraced WH press reporter-they might even be characterized
as being