It doesn't matter who votes that counts.It's who counts the votes

Ohio Voting Machines Contained Programming Error That Dropped Votes

[...]
The problem was identified after complaints from Ohio elections officials following the March primary there, but the logic error that is the root of the problem has been part of the software for 10 years, said Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier Election Solutions, formerly known as Diebold.

Well, if Diebold say it's true it must be true.

But wait, if you call now there's more!

Sarasota told of new voting machine glitch

Sarasota County’s new voting machines have a programming glitch that could cause votes to be lost on Election Day, the company [Diebold] that makes the system says.

So Diebold admitted the problem has been happening for 10 years.

Hmm, Florida, Ohio, what do those states have in common? ... ... ... Oh yeah, I remember, they decided the last 2 elections for the pResident!

And if you act now Bushco will also certify elections in countries we occupy!

Iraqi elections official fears fair vote in jeopardy

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

You can go your own way, don't go away

With no irony whatsoever, they condemn the aggression:

Dick Cheney, the hawkish US vice-president, told President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States."

John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, issued a robust attack on the Kremlin.

"Russian president Medvedev and prime minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the US and Europe," he said.

"In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia - and the survival of its democratically-elected government - are at stake ... Russia is using violence against Georgia to intimidate other neighbours, such as Ukraine, for choosing to associate with the west and adhering to western political and economic values."

But the best, the most rich comes from Emperor Caligula himself:

I am deeply concerned by reports that Russian troops have moved beyond the zone of conflict, attacked the Georgian town of Gori, and are threatening the Georgia's -- Georgia's capital of Tbilisi. There's evidence that Russian forces may soon begin bombing the civilian airport in the capital city.

. . . Russia's government must respect Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on, and accept this peace agreement as a first step toward resolving this conflict.

Russia's actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region. These actions have substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russians' relations -- Russia's relations with the United States and Europe. It is time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis.

How proper, how just, how measured the words. Makes me yearn for a simpler time:

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.

. . . Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy. We'll make sure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people.

Yep. Funny thing about attacking sovereign nations. Why, John McCain wouldn't do it:

John McCain pledged during the Republican primary to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell. But he told Larry King on Monday that he won't go after bin Laden in his new sanctuary in northwestern Pakistan:

MCCAIN: Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself.

But I want to assure you I will get Osama bin Laden as president of the United States and I will bring him to justice no matter what it takes.

So we'll get Bin Laden, as long as he's staying at an Embassy Suites in D.C. But none of this invading a "sovereign nation" crap.

No self-respecting President would invade a "sovereign nation":

George Bush's infamous glimpse into Putin's soul failed to recognise what nostalgic cold warriors have always insisted was pinned to his sleeve: a heart that beats for lost imperial glory, and a ruthless ambition to match.

The last linked article continues:

The real wake-up call placed by the Russo-Georgian conflict is not a clarion to a new cold war, but a head check for pro-democracy ideologues – whose idealism has ratified a style of sloppy thinking and rote sloganeering that actually threatens the durability of representative government around the world.

Might as well have been looking in a mirror, George.

Doesn't anyone in the White House communications department realize how stupid this makes their boss look?

If ever I would leave you....

How could it be in spring-time?
Knowing how in spring I'm bewitched by you so?
Oh, no! not in spring-time!
Summer, winter or fall!
No, never could I leave you at all!



crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

The Real 'Surge'

While most of us have a sense that things are not going well in Afghanistan the following puts it in a little more sobering perspective:

There have been 556 Americans killed in Afghanistan since 2001. 64 of them--nearly 12 percent--have been killed in the last six weeks.

'Bring it on Bush' is spilling the blood of our men and women needlessly. He needs to be impeached and imprisoned for lying to the American people, killing Americans in a useless war and ignoring the real threat posed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. His incompetence has allowed them to rebuild and his ill advised 'surge' in Iraq is resulting in a real 'surge' of dead American soldiers in Afghanistan.


crossposted at Fallenmonk

I am the slime oozin' out from your TV set

I guess one could hardly expect the departure of Karl Rove from the Bush machine to mark any departure from his slimey, skewed take on issues. In an appearance on Hannity and Colmes the other night, Karl showed off his skill as a spin-meister and overall sack of shit as he held the BushCo party line on the Iraq war and twisting Barack Obama's words into meanings that obviously weren't there.

In one segment Rove attempted to show how Obama's clear denunciation of Louis Farrakhan's anti-semetic statements and views wasn't "really" a denunciation because he didn't go far enough by merely saying he denounced him instead of that he "disavowed" him. I'm sure Obama would sigh at the same word games he accused Senator Clinton of using on the same subject and would use a similar reply of "But if the word 'disavow' Karl Rove feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point. And I would disavow and denounce," as the audience would laugh at Karl's pettiness.

Another point where it seemed Karl was stretching things was:

ROVE: Look, after 9/11, when he said true patriotism did not consist of wearing a lapel pin - - an American flag lapel pin on your lapel, but instead speaking out on the issues, he was basically, with the back of his hand, being very dismissive to millions of Americans who thought it was a patriotic act to put a flag pin on their lapel.
COLMES: Does he lack patriotism because he does not wear a lapel pin? Is he basically saying, patriotism isn't about a pin? That is his point of view.
ROVE: Alan, I didn't say that. What he said was that people -- he was implicating that people who did wear a flag on the lapel were not true patriots. My point is not -- in America, you get to decide whether you want to wear a flag lapel pin or not. What he did though was say, it was true patriotism to speak out on the issue, not to wear a flag lapel pin. He was the one questioning the patriotism of people with flags on their lapels.
COLMES: I didn't get that from what he said. What I got --
ROVE: Read the statement carefully. He said, true patriotism -- quote, true patriotism consisted of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin.
COLMES: He wasn't questioning people who wore it. He was questioning the war.
ROVE: No, he was questioning the patriotism of those who did put a flag on their lapel. Admit it. I'm not questioning his patriotism. But he certainly questioned the patriotism of millions of people who felt the simple gesture of putting the flag on their lapel was a patriotic act, and it was.

Wow, he sure worked hard at twisting that one, didn't he? For me (and probably everyone else with a brain) it is obvious that Obama wasn't saying that people who put on flag lapel pins are not patriotic. He simply was saying - correctly - that being patriotic to this country is more than just the gesture of wearing a pin on a lapel. Or waving a flag. Or singing "I'm Proud to be an American", for that matter. It's getting involved in the issues that effect our country. It's not just blindly saying "America - love it or leave it" and letting the government do whatever it wants without question. It's realizing that democracy means debate and discussion over the right course the country should be taking. To just put a flag pin on a lapel and then say "well, I did my part" isn't the true meaning of patriotism. But I guess it is in the Rove vision of the current government where secrecy rules the day and the less questions asked about what BushCo is up to behind closed doors, the better.

Then there was his response to the videotape of Barack's response to John McCain:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn, then he would send military troops back if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq. I have some news; al Qaeda is in Iraq.
OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLMES: That was Barack Obama and John McCain gearing for what many are expecting to be a general election dog fight. We now continue with former Bush adviser Karl Rove. Does Obama not have a point? Iraq is now invaded by al Qaeda because the borders were porous. We didn't protect the borders when we went in there. And the al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same that was in Afghanistan, but re-branded itself that way to align itself with that al Qaeda?
ROVE: Alan, you are wrong. Al Qaeda in Iraq was organized by Zarqawi, one of the top deputies of Osama bin Laden, who was sent from Afghanistan in the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban to Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq pledges its allegiance to Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri his number two. And the operational control, day to day, is in Iraq, but the strategic control and the big decisions are by their top leadership. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. They came there because they understand the importance of defeating the west in Iraq and stopping the formation of a Democratic Iraq that would be an ally in the war on terror.
COLMES: It has been reported that they took that name because they wanted the association. But also, how did they get in there? Did we not do a good enough job protecting the borders to allow al Qaeda to invade or get into the country after we went and did an occupation?
ROVE: It has very porous borders. As you know, at least two of the borders with Syria and Iran are borders with enemies, or adversaries of the United States, who are encouraging the threat to the United States in Iraq. Now you can be critical of the ability of the Iraqis and the Americans and our coalition partners to secure the border, but that adds to the necessity of us defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, not add to the argument that Senator Obama was making, which was, as long as al Qaeda is there, get out.

[....]
COLMES: As long as you are bringing that up, let me just ask you, McCain said the other day, he has to defend the war and the Bush policies to get elected. How is that going to sit with the American people who pretty much don't agree with that?
ROVE: The question is do the American people want to win or do they want to lose?

Oh yes. It's as simple as that. Just keep throwing billions and billions of dollars into Iraq and victory is assured. Though it would seem that "victory" is in the eye of the beholder, and in the eyes of this administration it has more to do with self interest than what the Iraqi people may or may not want. All we have to do is keep using general buzzwords like "freedom" and "support the troops" and "war on terror" and stay away from talking about how Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMDs, and how poorly things were handled after the fall of Saddam. No one thought about guarding against looting or even guarding massive stockpiles of ammunition (of which the insurgents are still using against our troops, thank you very much), and the borders were left unprotected which is what allowed in the stampede of outside insurgents. Rove points to the border as being porous, but all those folks didn't come rolling on into Iraq until AFTER we invaded, so if it was porous, it was our poor planning that made it so.

The game they all play is to attack others for being against fixing the mess in Iraq and bypassing talking about how this administration MADE it a mess in the first place.

To me, the whole Iraq fiasco is like someone setting a house on fire and when someone else speaks out against that they counter with "My god, man, this house is on FIRE! We have to stay to put it out. Are you in favor of it burning down?" Completely sidestepping the point that the only reason that house is on fire is because that someone set it on fire in the first place.

And in the case of Iraq, Bush/Rove/Cheney/Ashcroft et al foolishly put the match to it, and left the collective fingers of America burned as a result.

Breaking the law, breaking the law

Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act

January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008.
[...]
Previous presidents occasionally used the [signing statements], but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.

He's not just breaking the law, he's once again violating the Constitution:

Bush Plan for Iraq Would Be a First
No OK From Congress Seen; Constitutional Issues Raised

WASHINGTON - President Bush’s plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq’s security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.

Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution states "He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

BTW, the headline is wrong, this wasn't a "plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government." It wasn't agreed to by the Iraqi government and it wasn't agreed to by the US government. It was a plan agreed to by Bush and Bush's lapdog Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, against the wishes of their governments.




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Only 935?

(Graphic by Dancin' Dave)

Ohhhh, this is just counting the lies about Iraq, not about all the other stuff.

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

[snip]

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

The question we should really be asking is .... just exactly when did this administration ever tell the truth?
crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

When you decide to torture your enemy

You've already lost the war.

Going through some of my posts, I came across this excellent article by Vladimir Bukovsky for the Washington Post. It bears repeating:

Apart from sheer frustration and other adrenaline-related emotions, investigators and detectives in hot pursuit have enormous temptation to use force to break the will of their prey because they believe that, metaphorically speaking, they have a "ticking bomb" case on their hands. But, much as a good hunter trains his hounds to bring the game to him rather than eating it, a good ruler has to restrain his henchmen from devouring the prey lest he be left empty-handed. Investigation is a subtle process, requiring patience and fine analytical ability, as well as a skill in cultivating one's sources. When torture is condoned, these rare talented people leave the service, having been outstripped by less gifted colleagues with their quick-fix methods, and the service itself degenerates into a playground for sadists. Thus, in its heyday, Joseph Stalin's notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes. And once the NKVD went into high gear, not even Stalin could stop it at will. He finally succeeded only by turning the fury of the NKVD against itself; he ordered his chief NKVD henchman, Nikolai Yezhov (Beria's predecessor), to be arrested together with his closest aides.

So, why would democratically elected leaders of the United States ever want to legalize what a succession of Russian monarchs strove to abolish? Why run the risk of unleashing a fury that even Stalin had problems controlling? Why would anyone try to "improve intelligence-gathering capability" by destroying what was left of it? Frustration? Ineptitude? Ignorance? Or, has their friendship with a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel, V. Putin, rubbed off on the American leaders? I have no answer to these questions, but I do know that if Vice President Cheney is right and that some "cruel, inhumane or degrading" (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.

Vladimir Bukovsky knows what he is talking about:

Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities, is the author of several books, including "To Build a Castle" and "Judgment in Moscow." Now 63, he has lived primarily in Cambridge, England, since 1976.

But everything is okay, because we've changed the meaning of the word torture from brutalizing someone by waterboarding them to giving them a mild bath with soap suds....

(Cross-posted at Rants from the Rookery)

From a heart of darkness came a twisted faith, Reaching to the far east with a burning hate

Military Evangelism Deeper, Wider Than First Thought

For US Army soldiers entering basic training at Fort Jackson Army base in Columbia, South Carolina, accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior appears to be as much a part of the nine-week regimen as the vigorous physical and mental exercises the troops must endure.
[...]
Frank Bussey, director of Military Ministry at Fort Jackson, has been telling soldiers at Fort Jackson that "government authorities, police and the military = God's Ministers,"

Bussey's teachings from the "God's Basic Training" Bible study guide he authored says US troops have "two primary responsibilities": "to praise those who do right" and "to punish those who do evil - "God's servant, an angel of wrath." Bussey's teachings directed at Fort Jackson soldiers were housed on the Military Ministry at Fort Jackson web site. Late Wednesday, the web site was taken down without explanation. Bussey did not return calls for comment. The web site text, however, can still be viewed in an archived format.

These religious extremists are not only targeting boot camps, they are in the military Academies:

Evangelist Video Shot at Air Force Academy Exposed

A video made by a Christian ministry group shows Air Force Academy cadets being pressured to become “government paid missionaries when they leave” the academy, according to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which released the video this week.

And in the Pentagon:

Inquiry Sought Over Evangelical Video
Defense Department Asked to Examine Officers' Acts Supporting Christian Group

A military watchdog group is asking the Defense Department to investigate whether seven Army and Air Force officers violated regulations by appearing in uniform in a promotional video for an evangelical Christian organization.

In the video, much of which was filmed inside the Pentagon, four generals and three colonels praise the Christian Embassy, a group that evangelizes among military leaders, politicians and diplomats in Washington. Some of the officers describe their efforts to spread their faith within the military.
[...]
Pete Geren, a former acting secretary of the Air Force who oversaw the service's response in 2005 to accusations that evangelical Christians were pressuring cadets at the Air Force Academy, also appears in the video.

If you have a rifle in one hand and a bible in the other you should be made to disassemble one because you're dissembling with the other.

BTW, my friend and co-blogger Bill Arnett at VidiotSpeak, who has been there and done that, is an atheist. He has more agape in his heart than any of these so called christians.

You've Come A Long Way Baby

Iraqi policewomen are told to surrender their weapons
The move is a sign of the religious and cultural conservatism that has taken hold since Hussein's ouster.

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government has ordered all policewomen to hand in their guns for redistribution to men or face having their pay withheld, thwarting a U.S. initiative to bring women into the nation's police force.

The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, issued the order late last month, according to ministry documents, U.S. officials and several of the women. It affects all officers who have earned the title "policewoman" by graduating from the police academy. It does not apply to men in the same type of jobs.

Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since Saddam Hussein's ouster ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims.
[...]
The ministry has been "whittling away step by step" at the initiative launched by U.S. troops in late 2003, Phillips said.
[...]
The impact of the growing religious influence on Iraqi women has manifested itself in other ways as well. In the southern city of Basra, police say religious militants this year have killed dozens of women who did not cover their hair or dress modestly.

Hey, anyone else remember this Shining moment where the bushies used an Iraqi woman (and illegally used US troops in uniform) to propagandize the freedoms they've wrought on Iraq?I'm thinking Safir raised the wrong finger for bush.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Nuke Heads on the Block

Stop me if you've heard this one; Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld conspire to trash the reputation of a CIA specialist in WMDs, while breaking American and international law. Sound familiar? But I'm not talking about Valerie Plame, she was just the latest episode ... that we know about.

I'm referring to Rich Barlow, a former covert CIA operative, analyst, WMD specialist, and Pentagon WMD specialist who has been trying to clear his name for almost 20 years.

In the late 80s, in the course of tracking down smugglers of WMD components, Barlow uncovered reams of material that related to Pakistan. It was known the Islamic Republic had been covertly striving to acquire nuclear weapons since India's explosion of a device in 1974 and the prospect terrified the west - especially given the instability of a nation that had had three military coups in less than 30 years . [...]
He soon discovered, however, that senior officials in government were taking quite the opposite view: they were breaking US and international non-proliferation protocols to shelter Pakistan's ambitions and even sell it banned WMD technology.
[...]
Next he discovered that the Pentagon was preparing to sell Pakistan jet fighters that could be used to drop a nuclear bomb.
[...]
the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and North Korea - which British and American intelligence now acknowledge were all secretly enabled by Pakistan - would never have got off the ground. "None of this need have happened," Robert Gallucci, special adviser on WMD to both Clinton and George W Bush, told us.
[...]
As the first Gulf war came to an end with no regime change in Iraq, a group of neoconservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Donald Rumsfeld were already lobbying to finish what that campaign had started and dislodge Saddam. Even as the CIA amassed evidence showing that Pakistan, a state that sponsored Islamist terrorism and made its money by selling proscribed WMD technology, was the number one threat, they earmarked Iraq as the chief target.

There's so much more I encourage you to read the whole thing.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

One more problem puzzles me; Pardon my strange whim

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Henry Waxman, that's who:

State Dept. Official Accused of Blocking Inquiry

A top House Democrat began an inquiry on Tuesday into accusations that the State Department's inspector general repeatedly interfered with investigations into fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including security defects at the new United States Embassy in Baghdad.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent the inspector general, Howard J. Krongard, a 14-page letter spelling out accusations made by several current and former employees of Mr. Krongard's office who documented their charges with e-mail messages.

Some of the accusers have sought whistle-blower status, which protects government employees from being punished for reporting possible malfeasance, Mr. Waxman said.

"One consistent element in these allegations is that you believe your foremost mission is to support the Bush administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud and abuse on behalf of U.S. taxpayers," Mr. Waxman wrote. He invited Mr. Krongard to respond to the accusations at a committee hearing on Oct. 16.
[...]
Last year, when Republicans still controlled Congress, they tried to do away with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which had uncovered numerous construction abuses and contract violations.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

faith bleeding eyes conjure pain distant do distant blood life take away

[Condoleezza Rice] has accepted that Iraq is a stain that she probably cannot remove before she leaves office.

Imagine how the Iraqis feel.

Pictured below is that 'stain' that Lady McDeath cannot remove.




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

I'm a travelin' man, I've made a lot of stops all over the world

[graphic by Dancin' Dave]