"zootwoman" wrote:
If someone in authority told you that someone was going to blow you up
soon with a nuclear bomb and that we had to stop them, you'd say,
"Sure thing, stop em." Then if you found out that the whole thing was
made up in order to get your permission to go on an oil hunt. You'd
get pretty ****ed off about it. You might even want to run for office
against the asshole that pulled this dirty trick.

That's the sticking point. The entire premise for invading Iraw is a
lie and now Bush and Co are trying to back pedal and sell the story,
well, Saddam wanted to have a bomb. Well, ummm... if we believe THAT
premise, we'd have to invade every non nuclear country on earth cause
they all wish they had a bomb. Why do they want a bomb? For the same
reason we want ALL the bombs.

Actually, I'd say, "Hey, show me what evidence you have for this."

Or, are you saying that the entire congress just blindly trusted the
administration, that no one made their decision (to authorize force) on
anything other than the President's word that Saddam was a threat?

If that's the case, then you need to check your facts--the congress gets the
exact same intelligence information the president does. They relied on the
intelligence they had, not just what the president chose to tell them. They
voted based on that intelligence, not based on Bush's word. Bush could
scream that Panama has developed a mind-control device based on designs
given to them by aliens, but the congress would not believe him until solid
evidence was provided by our intelligence agencies.

This entire "Bush lied" canard is ridiculous. If he lied, how stupid must
our congressmen (including Edwards and Kerry) have been to fall for it,
given that they had access to all of the intelligence themselves?

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
And of course, it wasn't necessary. Bush lied to us, or was incompetent
and didn't know Saddam didn't have WMD. Either should disqualify him
from
being president.

Or, potentially, becoming president does not, in fact, make one
super-human.

It should make him responsible.

Perhaps Bush looked at the exact same intelligence the congress looked at,
and made the decision that,
given:
a) Saddam is known to have had WMDs;
b) Saddam has not shown that he has destroyed said WMDs, despite repeated
demands by the UN that he do so;
c) Saddam celebrated the 9/11 attack on the US by terrorists;


So Bush was that easily duped?

therefore,
d) Saddam may want to help terrorists attack the US.
e) He may not have destroyed his WMDs.
f) He may, in fact, be funneling them to terrorists right now.

and, since,
g) terrorists were able to dramatically kill over 3,000 Americans in one
morning with a few box cutters.

well,
h) terrorists with WMDs would be a Really, Really, Really Bad Thing,

and so, especially because of b) (above),
i) Saddam is a clear threat to the continuing safety not only of the US,
but
also the world.


Gee, based on those arguments, you could say Mother Theresa was a threat.

According to :

Confiscating cannon in town squares is a LOT like the idiotically
useless strategy of sending troops to invade a country that had nothing
to do with our horror story.

Similarly, you must sleep well at night knowing that they "got"
the writer of "Peace Train".
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Ian St. John :
Sorry, loser, but with age comes wisdom and a resistance to endless U.S.
propaganda stories. Some of it is starting to be as ridiculed as Pravda was
in Russian and probably should be renamed 'Truth".

A retired Russian admiral once said "The only difference between Soviet
and American propaganda is that the Soviet propaganda is much more
obvious".
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Ian St. John" wrote:
David Gale wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"David Gale" wrote:
Read the question that I was answering. He asked who, besides Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed Saddam to be a threat.
I pointed out that most of the high-profile Democrats are on record
declaring him to be a threat. Your claim that this is invalid
because the Democratic party doesn't have its own intelligence
agency is a complete non-sequitor, as well as irrelevant. Or would
you claim that Powell has his own intelligence agency? Rumsfeld?

They work for Bush. They said what Bush wanted them to say.

Which is why Powell, Rumsfeld, etc. have all said things that were
rather damaging to the president's image. Of course! It's all clear
now!

It is impossible to even try to spin the truth about Bushes actions
without
bringing to like some facts that are damaging. The problem is not in their
intent but the **** they have to work with..

Wow, this has *got* to be some of the best tin-foil-beanie thinking I've
ever seen. Bush is so conniving, he's surrounded himself with people who
are so extremely loyal to him that they'll lie for him, except they're
incompetent enough at it that they can't do it well, except they did it so
well that they convinced the vast majority of congressmen to ignore the
intelligence they had access to and vote to authorize the use of force, as
well as convincing many countries around the world to ignore *their*
intelligence agencies and come fight with us.

So, are they really good liars who suck at lying, or terrible liars who are
great at it?

wrote:
"David Gale" wrote:

If I know I have a million dollars in my bank account, and then my
next statement indicates that I don't, and the bank doesn't have any
documentation about a withdrawal of funds, am I wrong, or the bank?

Oh, that's easy: you're delusional. Or crooked. Or both. So, that's what
Bush did, eh? Nah, stealing and lying about a million would be chump
change to him.

Let me clarify: by "I know", I meant that I have previous bank statements
showing my million-dollar ballance. Complete with a record of deposit.

So, I know I'm neither delusional or crooked, since I have documented
evidence showing my million-dollar ballance. The bank, however, claims that
I no longer have that ballance, despite their being able to show how the
money left my account. Who is wrong, and whose responsibility is it to
document where the money went?

(If you're willing to accept the bank's position here, man, I wish I were
your banker.)

"Ian St. John" wrote:
Kevin Singleton wrote:
Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that
make them?

No. They were told by Bush that the threat was continuing. Too bad they
believed his horsepuckey.


....instead of actually looking at the intelligence reports they all had
access to, and trying to base their decision on the facts as we knew them at
the time.


Oh, wait, that's what they did.

Congressmen have direct access to intelligence reports. To claim that they
ignored these and relied solely on the word of the president is ludicrous,
at best.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:38 -0400, "Kevin Singleton"
wrote:

the left's attempts to defend their foolish congressmen by
saying they were tricked by George Bush! That makes 99 senators
more stupid than Bush,

Hmm. Are we know sure of that? According to conventional Bush
doctrine, the experience has made them wiser.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably
in Tennessee ... that says, fool me once ......... shame .. on
......... shame on you? ............... You fool me, you can't get
fooled again." -- Bush, Tennessee, Sep. 17, 2002

(Chris Lewis) wrote in message ...
According to Ian St. John :
Sorry, loser, but with age comes wisdom and a resistance to endless U.S.
propaganda stories. Some of it is starting to be as ridiculed as Pravda was
in Russian and probably should be renamed 'Truth".

A retired Russian admiral once said "The only difference between Soviet
and American propaganda is that the Soviet propaganda is much more
obvious".

another different is that Soviets suppressed artistic expression
because it was seen as powerful, being able to carry great and hidden
meaning and was therefore dangerous in the wrong hands. America
doesn't have to do that because it sees no meaning whatsoever in
artistic expression and/or corporate control strips out any subversive
tendencies until Ashcroft came to power - then we got drapes over
classic greek boobs and anything the NEA does is deemed dangerous to
the ideology of the extreme right should be a warning signal to those
who believe in independant thought and expression Liberal or
Conservative.

In alt.home.repair Kevin Singleton wrote:
Just because a couple of Costa Ricans had to get back to the banana farm
doesn't mean that the coalition has collapsed. Far from it, as the Poles
and Australians have proven.

You mean the Australia that has a whopping 300 troops there, and the Poland
whose prime-minister has said they were "taken for a ride" by the US and
are pulling out next year? Are those really the countries you want to use
to illustrate the coalition building skills of the Bush administration?

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
As you said, it was with the UN.

The UN (actually, I believe it was Russia) brokered a cessation of
hostilities, contingent on Hussein complying with certain resolutions. He
didn't, so hostilities were resumed with the authority granted by the US
Congress. It's pretty simple, when you read the documents.

Not under international law. There has to be more than a whim.

Nope. There hasn't. It's a perk of being a superpower.

That's what Hitler said about Poland.

He had it, too, until he decided to continue on. Remember the policy of
"appeasement". We don't do that, no more.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...

You mean the Australia that has a whopping 300 troops there, and the
Poland
whose prime-minister has said they were "taken for a ride" by the US and
are pulling out next year? Are those really the countries you want to use
to illustrate the coalition building skills of the Bush administration?

A friend is a friend. I don't expect every dinky little third-world nation
to contribute on the same level as the US.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

In alt.home.repair Kevin Singleton wrote:
You mean the Australia that has a whopping 300 troops there, and the
Poland
whose prime-minister has said they were "taken for a ride" by the US and
are pulling out next year? Are those really the countries you want to use
to illustrate the coalition building skills of the Bush administration?

A friend is a friend. I don't expect every dinky little third-world nation
to contribute on the same level as the US.

You weren't talking about third world countries, you were talking about
Poland and Australia, when Poland has said they were deceived by the US
(Now would a friend say that? And would the US deceive its friends?),
and Australia is only the 12th largest contributor of troops. If those
are the best examples you could come up with, that either says something
about you or about the coalition. In either case, it's not good.

wrote in message
...

You weren't talking about third world countries, you were talking about
Poland and Australia, when Poland has said they were deceived by the US
(Now would a friend say that? And would the US deceive its friends?),
and Australia is only the 12th largest contributor of troops. If those
are the best examples you could come up with, that either says something
about you or about the coalition. In either case, it's not good.

I still don't expect every nation to contribute on the same level as the US.
Poland has committed to keeping 60% of their current contingency through
2005. That hardly sounds like a nation that believes they were deceived. I
didn't invoke the listed nations, so you'll have to contact the original
poster to confirm what it means to pull those nations out in the middle of a
discussion. I'm simply saying that our friends have come on board and
contributed. And, we appreciate their contributions. I think it's good,
all the way 'round.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

I'm not blaming them. I'm asking you if two men who were so easily tricked
by President Bush are any more qualified than he to be president. I submit
that they are not.

In which case, Bush should surrender his office to Clinton.

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

So, you're willing to accept that 99 of America's most distinguished were
stupid enough to be duped by George Bush, but you'd still accept two of them
to run the country

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country."

--General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party,
Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946. (This quote
is said to have been made during the Nuremburg Trials, but in fact,
while during the time of the trials, was made in private to an Allied
intelligence officer, later published in the book, Nuremburg Diary.)

wrote in message
...

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country."

--General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party,
Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946. (This quote
is said to have been made during the Nuremburg Trials, but in fact,
while during the time of the trials, was made in private to an Allied
intelligence officer, later published in the book, Nuremburg Diary.)

I suppose you're trying to make a point. I've no idea what it is, though.
The question remains, are you willing to replace President Bush with a
couple of senators who have, by your own admission, proven less intelligent
than the president?

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...

In which case, Bush should surrender his office to Clinton.

Perhaps you've heard of the 22nd Amendment? Well, perhaps not.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

I suppose you're trying to make a point. I've no idea what it is, though.

Of course not. I don't expect you to get it. I'm posting for to help
others see through you and your ilk.

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush,
Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

This is what the British government reported. If it's a lie, it's not from
President Bush.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already
knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by
some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had
been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was
no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the
story is ****ed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told
the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive
about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

The major event was when we kicked his ass.

At what cost, Kevin? At what cost to the nation? To the families of the
dead? To America's standing in the world? To what end? What benefit was
derived? How did we profit?

"We kicked his ass" makes a lousy epitaph.

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Ok. You claim it's a lie. Go ahead. Prove it's a lie. I'll wait here.

What? I don't have to prove anything to abstain from war. You need to
prove it is so.

That's not a failure of the Bush administration, bud.

Its use in Bush propaganda to immerse this nation in a bankrupting war
most certainly is.

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

wrote in message
...

In which case, Bush should surrender his office to Clinton.

Perhaps you've heard of the 22nd Amendment? Well, perhaps not.

Hey, you are the one implying that the President should be a good liar.
Bush and his people suck at it. At least Clinton was a smart crook.

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

The major event was when we kicked his ass.

At what cost, Kevin? At what cost to the nation? To the families of the
dead? To America's standing in the world? To what end? What benefit was
derived? How did we profit?

"We kicked his ass" makes a lousy epitaph.

Hey, "if it saves one life", right? The cost is miniscule, compared to the
cost of not taking action. Keep your blinders on. The rest of us will
continue to drag your frightened, lazy, whining ass along towards the
ultimate goal, which is to eradicate terrorism, and spread the blessings of
liberty.

How did we profit? We've liberated an entire nation, at minimal cost in
American lives, and created a foundation for democracy and liberty in the
Middle East. We've established a base of operations for ensuring stability
of governments and Middle Eastern oil supplies, and constructed a basis for
another nation in the region that's friendly to Western policy. We
exercised our military might, and put the fear of God into Syria and Lybia,
and given the North Koreans and Iranians a couple of things to consider. We
did what we said we'd do, which is something that hadn't happened in the
prior administration, and shown the world that we're willing to take an
unpopular stance to enhance the security of our nation. We've produced an
environment in which terrorists can, and will, raise their heads, so that we
can more readily indentify and eradicate their organizations. We've created
alliances with former enemies, and exposed corruption in the UN.

I don't see a down side, except, perhaps, that my son has to spend more time
in Qatar than he used to.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

I suppose you're trying to make a point. I've no idea what it is,
though.

Of course not. I don't expect you to get it. I'm posting for to help
others see through you and your ilk.

Best of luck to you.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Ok. You claim it's a lie. Go ahead. Prove it's a lie. I'll wait here.

What? I don't have to prove anything to abstain from war. You need to
prove it is so.

I didn't make the assertion, and your refusal to support your allegation
indicates that you are incapable of doing so.

That's not a failure of the Bush administration, bud.

Its use in Bush propaganda to immerse this nation in a bankrupting war
most certainly is.

Continue to ignore the facts. Bush didn't start the war, but we'll happily
keep dragging your sorry carcass along behind us, as we advance towards a
more secure future.

Party on.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

wrote in message
...

In which case, Bush should surrender his office to Clinton.

Perhaps you've heard of the 22nd Amendment? Well, perhaps not.

Hey, you are the one implying that the President should be a good liar.
Bush and his people suck at it. At least Clinton was a smart crook.

I'm not the one suggesting we should subvert the law in order to reinstate a
president who has served his maximum term. Clinton wasn't so smart. He
couldn't even get Arkansas trailer trash to lay down for him.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

I'm not blaming them. I'm asking you if two men who were so easily
tricked
by President Bush are any more qualified than he to be president. I
submit
that they are not.

In which case, Bush should surrender his office to Clinton.

You mean to the guy who actually had the most votes - Gore.

wrote in message
...

********. After Nazi Germany was defeated, there was no resistance to
speak of,
certainly not 1.5 years after the "end of major combat". The two don't
compare
at all, and if you knew anything about history or had any actual knowledge
of
what is going on outside your borders, you would know that. You need to
stop
watching FOX and find out what's really going on.

You're not even paying attention to what's being posted.

In fact, genius, I don't watch Fox, and I do know what's going on.

Thanks for playing.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

The cost is miniscule, compared to the cost of not taking action

$140,000,000,000 is MINISCULE?

A dead son, father, brother, friend, is MINISCULE?

As to the "cost of not taking action", your carnakian powers are
considerably less than impressive, to say the least. I personally would
have been much more likely to support your prognostication--and that of
your boy, Bush--if you and/or he had been able to forsee the 9/11 attack
as well as you seem to think you are able predict Saddam Hussein's
future behavior.

But that's how all the decisions are made in your world, right? Out of
whole cloth, just like I said in one of my first posts in this thread.

How long before Bush decides to take pre-emptive action against
Americans like me who disagree with what he does?

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

We've liberated an entire nation, at minimal cost in American lives,
and created a foundation for democracy and liberty in the Middle
East.

Show me the money.

We've established a base of operations for ensuring stability of
governments and Middle Eastern oil supplies, and constructed a basis
for another nation in the region that's friendly to Western policy.

Show me the money, or STFU.

We exercised our military might, and put the fear of God into Syria
and Lybia, and given the North Koreans and Iranians a couple of
things to consider.

Show me the friggin' money.

further ignoRANT bullyboy blowhard BS snipped

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

I don't see a down side, except, perhaps, that my son has to spend more time
in Qatar than he used to.

Let us know when you go to your son's funeral. Don't forget: "We kicked
ass" makes a lousy epitaph.

In article ,
Some cross-posting asshole calling itself snivelled:

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

The cost is miniscule, compared to the cost of not taking action

$140,000,000,000 is MINISCULE?

A dead son, father, brother, friend, is MINISCULE?

As to the "cost of not taking action", your carnakian powers are
considerably less than impressive, to say the least. I personally would
have been much more likely to support your prognostication--and that of
your boy, Bush--if you and/or he had been able to forsee the 9/11 attack
as well as you seem to think you are able predict Saddam Hussein's
future behavior.

But that's how all the decisions are made in your world, right? Out of
whole cloth, just like I said in one of my first posts in this thread.

How long before Bush decides to take pre-emptive action against
Americans like me who disagree with what he does?

Actually, it is long overdue. Perhaps they're waiting till after
the pending election victory.

The pens in the desert are built and waiting.

The black helicopters are spinning up.

You better hide


Claude

wrote in message
...
$140,000,000,000 is MINISCULE?

Compared to the cost of another attack like that suffered on September 11,
2001, it is a pittance.

A dead son, father, brother, friend, is MINISCULE?

Compared to the number of lives lost on September 11, 2001, or the lives
lost in another other major military undertaking, it is as nothing.

As to the "cost of not taking action", your carnakian powers are
considerably less than impressive, to say the least. I personally would
have been much more likely to support your prognostication--and that of
your boy, Bush--if you and/or he had been able to forsee the 9/11 attack
as well as you seem to think you are able predict Saddam Hussein's
future behavior.

Bush is not my boy. My boy is an airman in Qatar. Bush is my president.
It's not necessary to predict Hussein's future behavior. It is necessary to
prevent the possibility that Hussein would transfer WMD to terrorists to be
used against US interests, at home, or abroad. Hussein's past behavior is
adequate indication of his future behavior.

But that's how all the decisions are made in your world, right? Out of
whole cloth, just like I said in one of my first posts in this thread.

I'm sure I don't recall your earlier posts. I've already scraped them off
my shoe. We are at war, and I'm much happier to see Saddam Hussein deposed
and incarcerated than I would be to see another US landmark crumbling and
thousands more Americans dead. You don't seem to share that sentiment.

How long before Bush decides to take pre-emptive action against
Americans like me who disagree with what he does?

Perhaps you'd better watch what you say. ;)
--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
Show me the money.
Show me the money, or STFU.
Show me the friggin' money.

It's pretty clear that you've exhausted your intellectual argument.
--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
Let us know when you go to your son's funeral. Don't forget: "We kicked
ass" makes a lousy epitaph.

When you say "us", who, exactly, do you mean? I expect it's gonna be a
while. He's an electronics technician on a C-130 wing, so he doesn't get
very close to the action. He spends most of his time swapping parts, and
flying back to Gitmo with a load of terrorists covered in their own feces.
Ugh. It's like sitting next to a liberal in coach.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

wrote in message
...
How about taking this thread to alt.politics. I came to
alt.home.repair to get away from politics. If that is too much
effort, maybe your ISP can provide you with the rules of Usenet, or
simply cut your internet service.


You should check the rules of usenet, before you go preaching to others,
fella.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

Kevin Singleton wrote:

He had it, too, until he decided to continue on. Remember the
policy of
"appeasement". We don't do that, no more.

Yes, by God, we had to stop Saddam before he conquered *all* of the
middle east and them set his sights on Europe.

"claudel" wrote in message
...


Actually, it is long overdue. Perhaps they're waiting till
after
the pending election victory.

Victory????

Bob

Bob wrote:
"claudel" wrote in message
...


Actually, it is long overdue. Perhaps they're waiting till after
the pending election victory.

Victory????

In a manner of speaking. Depends on whether you expect elections to be fair
and accurate or just a means of 'legiimizing' a dictatorship.

First, you force everyone to adopt bad technology under deadlines to make
sure it comes in before the election..
http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

Note: Make sure that it is developed by loyal republican companies and that
the election oversight commitees have NO rights to view ( proprietary ) code
that they then 'certify'. And make sure that local 'audits' at the polling
station will not show up a discrepancy.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml

And
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20052/
"Danciu sued for access to the Sequoia source code to see if it was flawed.
He was told that the source code was considered a trade secret under Florida
law, and that even LePore and her staff ( the election officials) were *not
authorised to examine it*, on pain of criminal prosecution. "

Make sure that no state can institute a paper trail to ensure a post
election check..
couldn't find my reference to this but it is true

And make sure that you cannot have an avalance of paper 'advance votes' by
people that know damn well that the button they push may not actually
register a vote for the candidate they choose.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item...r%20Rep orted

Then you can rig the election to give yourself a victory.
http://www.alternet.org/story/16474
The Theft of Your Vote Is Just a Chip Away


Rigging elections, by the way, is hardly even a 'conspiracy theory' in the
U.S. where it has a LONG tradition.

See http://wheresthepaper.org/ below for a nice illustration of the new
RepubliCON election strategy.. but you may have to wait till late at night
because either the Republicons are blocking it or it is way overloaded with
people discovering for themselves how easy it is to rig an election that is
entirely electronic and with no backup record to ensure against tampering.
However, the alternet reference should also illustrate the issue.

also
http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00156.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm#votes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

About 30% of the voters will be using video terminals and have no
record of who they really voted for. I mean Diebolt manufactures ATM
machines and how hard is it to get a receipt from your atm??? And Bush
pushed the "Help America Vote Act" which *mandates" video voting by 2008 and
pays for the machines ( made by their republican buddies). He wasn't going
to chance obvious vote tampering. High tech vote tampering is the way to
go.. Then they went back and mandated video voting by 2004 elections!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.2239: Sec 5a..

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ey/6791541.htm
Only California has really confronted the issue.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dr...rs/decert1.pdf


Voter tampering doesn't even have to be by corrupt officials!
http://cryptome.org/hack-vote.htm "They were disturbingly successful. It was
an "easy matter," they reported, to reprogram the access cards used by
voters and vote multiple times. They were able to attach a keyboard to a
voting terminal and change its vote count. And by exploiting a software flaw
and using a modem, they were able to change votes from a remote location."
And note that most video terminals are now equipped with modems because of
'errors' in election officials unable to bring in the electronic recording
chip that didn't require online access. The fraud is easier to detect if you
need to attach a keyboard to the machine itself.

Note that the effort to make the vote 'uncountable' by the republicans is
another clue. It ensures that the output of the code *proprietary to and
only examined by the three republican companies that make the voting
machines* will be the 'last word' not matter how egregious the tampering.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...printstory.jsp
and hand in hand with this legislation, the voting machine manufacturers (
all republican owned) plan to harass any state that tries to provide a paper
trail.
http://www.coastalpost.com/04/01/01a.htm

And how this affects the voting can be easily demonstrated..
http://wheresthepaper.org/
Can you elect John Doe?


And other games can be played such as offering alternative 'paper ballots'
and then invalidating the votes by claiming error..
http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...rticleid=28812

But the most telling point will be that, rather than eliminating fraud and
vote tampering, the video voting terminals will undoubtably increase both
the conflicts and the inabilty to resolve them.

"1/13/04 Sun Sentinel, FL: the consequences of no paper audit trail -
"Bogdanoff's closest competitor, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea Mayor Oliver Parker,
told Broward elections officials that the results of the election wouldn't
be legal until they counted all the undervotes by hand. And since machine
ballots can't be counted by hand, Parker said the voting machines in South
Florida are illegal. Broward County Canvassing Board Attorney Ed Dion
dismissed the claim, saying the voting machines had been approved by state
officials. A letter Monday from the office of state Secretary Glenda Hood,
Florida's top election official, left the decision of how to perform the
manual recount up to the local officials. The letter said state law was
unclear on how to resolve the Broward dilemma, adding that state recount
rules were currently being revised. Parker conceded after Broward's
canvassing board chose to manually recount only the five invalid paper
ballots cast by absentee -- and not revisit machine-cast ballots."

Bob