BellaOnline Forums Travel and Culture Polish Culture What do you think were the main reasons that Bush won?

I see that this vote was very much influenced by the values. People who are rather conservative in their values, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, new born Christians and traditional Christians in general. These people feel that their voice is too often not heard in mass media.

I tried to talk to young people in Idaho. There are so many young people from Idaho who are in Iraq! Some of them are saying that they feel that Bush is a commander in chief. People also do not want to change a president in the middle of the war and after 9-11.

One sad part - the democratic party is not any challenger to republicans here in the West, the same in the South. In spite of them trying to organize democratic party at least in the bigger Idaho towns - they are just not a competitor for republicans. We did not even have a challenger to currect Idaho senator! The democratic challenger withdraw, there was one independent but his name was not even posted on my ballot!

So, there is a real problem for a democratic party in the USA to build the base. They rely too much on minorities and poor, they need more of the core people to vote for them!

http://www.radio.com.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=16115


Re-election of G.W.Bush Good News For Poland


White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card says President Bush has a "statistically insurmountable" lead in the key state of Ohio and has won a majority of the popular vote nationwide but will hold off a formal victory declaration to give Democrat John Kerry "time to reflect" on the results.
With 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, Bush had captured 254 electoral votes, according to television projections. Kerry won 252 votes. Observing the results of the presidential elections in the US Polish head of state said Terrorism has to be rejected in today's world and in this respect George Bush is a very decisive leader who is right, simply right. Aleksander Kwasniewski hailed the apparent re-election of George W Bush as "good news for Poland".
The head of the Polish Upper House and an expert on American matters Longin Pastusiak said that US society might have granted support for the present head of state because of a feeling of insecurity while the incumbent president is capable of continuing the fight with terrorism.
Poland's former head of diplomacy Bronislaw Geremek considers that the US should change its foreign policy regardless of who wins the elections. Geremek described the present policy of Washington as arrogant and expressed the hope that a change in foreign policy will bring closer ties with Europe. Europe needs the US said Geremek and it is time the US realised it needs Europe as a partner in global policy.

http://www.radio.com.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=16117

Poland and Russia Sign Economic Deal
03.11.2004

Poland and Russia have signed an economic cooperation accord aimed at resolving problems and boosting trade between both countries after Poland's EU accession. The agreement foresees the establishment of a mixed intergovernmental commission to study problems that arise in relations between both states, said Poland's economy minister Jerzy Hausner. The commission is to hold its first meeting around March .
Economic relations between Poland and Russia are regulated by a global accord signed by Russia and the EU, and the deal signed in Warsaw is a supplementary agreement.

Carl,

thanks for the update about Poland and the USA after the election!

Jaga. Two words: Class and Honesty. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Jaga:

Lily here - the Democrats took a gamble...economy, war, terrorism etc., rather than values, the middle class "little guys."

Abortion, Stem Cell, Euthanasia, Homosexual Union, Coloning...........things the Dem's thought were secondary.....overshadowed the economy. terrorism.

As far as the war, .... this was an issue, and in fact, what I believe the entire election was about.....those who approved of Bush, and those who hated Bush...........Kerry was just the guy elected by the Dem's to carry the ball.

And, with six weeks to go, Kerry still didn't have a vision and started bashing.....and then Bush bashing back...........

For the most part.....it was an election of those who approve of Bush or not.........I don't think Kerry ever presented a vision.....what Kennedy did in those golden years.

Watch the young senator from Illinois......the new "great black hope."

Time is ripe for a third party!!

Lily

The Democrats could learn from the European labour parties, Christian-democrats and liberals who after great loses reorganised themsleves and changed course succesfully, although the decrease of the amount of voters. It could learn from New Labour,
and should study the succes of Roosevelt, JFK and Clinton. A third party will have a hard time building a grassrootsmovement, and the tradition and experiance of the Democrats, Republicans.
A third party will only have a chance if it is a Uniting party, which bring Republicans, Democrats and independant people in one Moderate, pragmatic movement of the Middle (inbetween right and left).

Bush won because he is simple and plain, speaks a language what the rural population understands, and was able to attract Democrats ("Democrats if you find that your party has gone to far to the left, come to my side") and independant people.

The fact that he is a reborn christian and christian values play an essential role in his policy, he gained the vote of the about 80 million Evangelicals.

Third party conflicts with USA electoral college.

Lily, Bush was the populist. Earlier I predicted that Bush would win because most Americans perceive he's a moderate and Kerry, a radical. Analogy LBJ won because he was perceived as a moderate and Goldwater, a radical. Carl

Lily,

I agree I would love to have more influencial parties than just Democrats and Republicans!

As for the values - I am confused. Some people are against abortions but for guns, against guy marriage but for the war with Iraq.
I believer that neither candidate was for abolishing abortion, so this issue did not matter for me that much in spite of the fact that I am also against abortion.

I still do not understand how a person can vote for issues - when neither candidate has all issues straight. Kerry was also against gay marriage.

For me the biggest problems in the USA except economy and war in Iraq is the influence of big corporations into the government.

the main reason bush won? I don't think it boils down to one single reason, but an atmosphere of regular "terror alerts" ever since 9/11 and the convenient reappearance of osama the bogey man on the eve of the election probably helped to swing it for bush - in a "better the devil you know when you're in the middle of a war" kind of way....

Hey Guys:

Lily here...........



Jaga:


Regarding third party.... I don't know if we will ever see this in our life time.....but it jusst seemed, as everyone was killing each other before the election, ........... I was hearing more and more of "I don't like either party - but I'm forced to vote for the lessor of the two evils."
???
Jaga.....you mentioned:
As for the values - I am confused. Some people are against abortions but for guns, against guy marriage but for the war with Iraq.
I believer that neither candidate was for abolishing abortion, so this issue did not matter for me that much in spite of the fact that I am also against abortion.*****Lily here, .... it's interesting to point out, that for me and my family, we really didn't have a choice in what seemed to be secondary issues in this election.
There was no way, we are practicing Roman Catholics, following the teachings of the Catholic Church, and in obiedience to the Polish Pope, .... could have voted any differently on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell, cloning, homosexual etc., You can't........and still be Roman Catholic.

I want to tell you and the others, .... a few weeks ago, my husband and I walked the entire grounds of Auschwitz and Birkenhaus.....from opening to closing (sun down).........and each step of the way, each terrible picture we saw, place we visited, what we heard from our guide, .... all my husband can remember was:
"the entire world knew this was going on, including American and NO ONE DID ANYTHING!!

Immediately, I thought of abortion and the 4000 babies each day....aborted.
I don't know the exact answer Jaga, but I think husband and wives, countries, human creatures have a tendancy to turn the eyes the other way and not stand up and be counted. Plus, society and the media is successful in brainwashing the public.....all one has to do, is go to Warsaw as we did, and see the "change coming".....and it will, within a generation or two.

Jaga:
I still do not understand how a person can vote for issues - when neither candidate has all issues straight. Kerry was also against gay marriage.*****Lily, ... Kerry really never got into his agenda.....he never really did much except tell us what was wrong with Bush, and it became a Bush lovers, vs, Bush haters election. Kerry was very evasive in his total over all plan.

.....Mark my words, as the days go by, you will hear more and more, that the morals and values swung the Latino vote - brought the middle America and rural people out of the closet and into the voting booths. The corportation - war - terrorist - promise you this and promise you that will always be there............but suddently, GOD AND COUNTRY - MORALS AND VALUES - THE THINGS THAT MADE THIS A GREAT NATION FROM DAY ONE, .... came into the picture, and the liberals didn't gamble on that!!

If there is anything I learned in POLAND FROM MY PEOPLE, ..... it's the fact, that morals and family values have kept Poland alive since day one. The desire and willingness to die for independence.....the work ethic to go on with life under all circumstances, the will to survive, etc., ........these principles, coming over to the USA as immigrants, are the reasons this country is so strong.......somehow, we've lost this Jaga.........we've gone from "WE...to ME"......and I didn't sense that in most of Poland.

LOVE YOU GUYS.............LILY

Lily:
>A few weeks ago, my husband and I walked the entire grounds of Auschwitz and Birkenhaus.....from opening to closing (sun down).........and each step of the way, each terrible picture we saw, place we visited, what we heard from our guide, .... all my husband can remember was:
"the entire world knew this was going on, including American and NO ONE DID ANYTHING!!<

They didn't care, and if they knew Hitler was killing both Catholics & Jews, they still wouldn't care because it was happening to the "other guys" on their soil. Today's terrorism has affected Americans on their soil, so they care.

>Mark my words, as the days go by, you will hear more and more, that the morals and values swung the Latino vote - brought the middle America and rural people out of the closet and into the voting booths. The - war - terrorist - promise you this and promise you that will always be there corporation............but suddenly, GOD AND COUNTRY - MORALS AND VALUES - THE THINGS THAT MADE THIS A GREAT NATION FROM DAY ONE, .... came into the picture, and the liberals didn't gamble on that!!

If there is anything I learned in POLAND FROM MY PEOPLE, ..... it's the fact, that morals and family values have kept Poland alive since day one. The desire and willingness to die for independence.....the work ethic to go on with life under all circumstances, the will to survive, etc., ........these principles, coming over to the USA as immigrants, are the reasons this country is so strong.......somehow, we've lost this Jaga.........we've gone from "WE...to ME"......and I didn't sense that in most of Poland.<

Agreed! Bush focused on the need of Americans for self-sacrifice to win the war on terror. Kerry didn't. Bush positioned himself like the actor: Jimmy Stuart-the little guy who'll beat the odds. Kerry positioned himself like the tall Frankenstein monster-growling & bashing Bush.

BTW:

From a dialogue with a Polish-American contact:

>A few weeks ago, my husband and I walked the entire grounds of Auschwitz and Birkenhaus.....from opening to closing (sun down).........and each step of the way, each terrible picture we saw, place we visited, what we heard from our guide, .... all my husband can remember was:
"the entire world knew this was going on, including American and NO ONE DID ANYTHING!!<

They didn't care, and if they knew Hitler was killing both Catholics & Jews, they still wouldn't care because it was happening to the "other guys" on their soil. Today's terrorism has affected Americans on their soil, so they care.

>Mark my words, as the days go by, you will hear more and more, that the morals and values swung the Latino vote - brought the middle America and rural people out of the closet and into the voting booths. The - war - terrorist - promise you this and promise you that will always be there corporation............but suddenly, GOD AND COUNTRY - MORALS AND VALUES - THE THINGS THAT MADE THIS A GREAT NATION FROM DAY ONE, .... came into the picture, and the liberals didn't gamble on that!!

If there is anything I learned in POLAND FROM MY PEOPLE, ..... it's the fact, that morals and family values have kept Poland alive since day one. The desire and willingness to die for independence.....the work ethic to go on with life under all circumstances, the will to survive, etc., ........these principles, coming over to the USA as immigrants, are the reasons this country is so strong.......somehow, we've lost this Jaga.........we've gone from "WE...to ME"......and I didn't sense that in most of Poland.<

Agreed! Bush focused on the need of Americans for self-sacrifice to win the war on terror. Kerry didn't. Bush positioned himself like the actor: Jimmy Stuart-the little guy who'll beat the odds. Kerry positioned himself like the tall Frankenstein monster-growling & bashing Bush.

BTW:

What hurt Bush from getting a clear landslide was his energy policies, his EPA policies and his willingness to cater to cheap immigrant labor, which are his personal commercial interests. He needs to change these.
Carl

President Bush won because he is an honest, classy gentleman, like Bob said. Lily made a great point: "GOD AND COUNTRY - MORALS AND VALUES - THE THINGS THAT MADE THIS A GREAT NATION FROM DAY ONE". We, not just me, Jaga; WE all recognized how important these things are. I am not a born again Christian. I've been a Christian all my life...a Catholic Christian...and I embrace everything President Bush stands for: family, country and God, ten commandments; Yes, one country, under God! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Trish

Bush tried during his first year or so to reach across the isle and find common ground. He allowed *Ted Kennedy* to put together Education Reform (No Child Left Behind). [All the Democrats could do was complain that it was not *completely* funded.] Also, a long-time goal of Democrats, the Prescription Drug program for Medicare, was enacted. But if you listened to the news yesterday, Bush did *nothing* to reach out in his first administration.

You can't sway average people when the opposing party leadership has millions of dollars, a strangle hold on the mainstream media, lots of star power (Michael Moore, etc.), and the NAACP constantly villifying what Bush does, even if it is something they would have thought was great if they had done it.

Kerry received *no* scrutiny in the press this entire election, and no one even pointed this out. They could have picked him to pieces and would have done it, if he were a *Republican* candidate.;>) Terry McAuliffe rules the Democratic Party with an iron fist and doesn't want to "get along." Republican landslides are a thing of the past with the modern press the way it is. The fact that the party won a majority vote is simply amazing and would have been impossible if not for *significant* grassroots efforts .

Significant grassroots efforts is a wonderful way to look at it, Sciwriter! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And how TRUE about how the press did not give Kerry any of the scrutiny they gave the Pres. It's strange that we haven't heard a peep out of any of the star power people either.

Trish

Lily,

I agree that moral values can keep a country together. I agree that Democrats do not have any strong moral core values program. I am against abortion, I believe that abortion should be allowed only when the woman's life is really in danger, no any other exeptions. Although I wish that all these lost women who has nobody to turn to when they are pregnant receive enough help and care and knew that their babies would be taken care of in another families if they don;t want. More real care is needed for the single pregant women.

Again, there is sometimes a discrepancy between words and deeds. Yesterday I saw a boy, one year old Iraq's boy without a leg because of Fallugah bombing. Oficially about 15,000 Iraqis civilians are dead as a result of this war. Was this war really necessary? Could we just IGNORE the deaths of 15,000 Iraqis civilians and over 1,200 coalition soldiers? Is this what we call "colateral damage"?
Saddam did not have WMD, United Nations nor any other country except Israel asked the USA to attack Iraq. Saddam was pretty much confined and not any danger. He was not in a process of any mass killing or anything like that. He did have some political prisoners killed but this was nothing similar to the amount of the casualties we have now!
Soviet Union also invaded other countries in the name of spreading communism... here the words change - this is "spreading democracy" by force.

Please, anybody to explain to me how the moral values of pres Bush match with his foreign policy of invading the other country which is not of any danger for him.
Why he did not let inspectors to do their job?

How many more people have to die because of this?

Is pres. Bush going to ban abortion in the USA? I do not think so.

Kerry is only a senator and pres. Bush was a president during the four years already. He could do much more than Kerry during 20 years in congress. Pres. Bush has both chambers of congress for him. Pres Bush started the war in Iraq, increased the deficit - there was not too much talk about it as like about Clinton affairs.

There was lots of scrutiny given to Clinton in spite of the fact that economy was blooming, like White Water investigation, lots of bad blood, not even mentioning tabloid Lewisnky scandal which did not improve American security.
One could feel that GOP just wanted to get to Clinton as hard as they could!

Jaga, your question is universal, e.g.:
Why did President Wilson get USA involved in WW1?
In 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on USA. He thought strong isolationist sentiment & pro-Nazi CEOs like Henry Ford and those in Dupont, ALCOA & Standard Oil would sue for peace. Why was Hitler wrong?
Why did USA get involved in Vietnam?
The answer to these questions is money. And we must live with that. Carl0

One reason why USA attacked Iraq was to become allied with Iran. I understand a bit of Farsi (Persian), as my paternal grandfather immigrated to USA from Kazakhstan. Recently I listened to a radio broadcast from Iran online directed to Israel. The guy was selling rugs. Some visiting neighbors who don't understand Farsi thought he was a terrorist. Carl

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html

TEHRAN - Speaking of business as unusual. A mere two months ago, the news of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth US$3.5 billion, raised some eyebrows in the world press, some hinting that China's economic foreign policy may be on the verge of a new leap forward. A clue to the fact that such anticipation may have totally understated the case was last week's signing of a mega-gas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100 billion. Billed as the "deal of century" by various commentators, this agreement is likely to increase by another $50 billion to $100 billion, bringing the total close to $200 billion, when a similar oil agreement, currently being negotiated, is inked not too far from now.

The gas deal entails the annual export of some 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a 25-year period, as well as the participation, by China's state oil company, in such projects as exploration and drilling, petrochemical and gas industries, pipelines, services and the like. The export of LNG requires special cargo ships, however, and Iran is currently investing several billion dollars adding to its small LNG-equipped fleet.

Carl,

please, explain what are similarities between WW I and Irag invasion? Iraq did not attack the USA, it was Alqueda from Afghanistan which attacked the USA.

As for money - I do not believe that teh USA got invlved in the world wars in the main part because of money.

Jaga:
>please, explain what are similarities between WWI and Irag invasion? Iraq did not attack the USA, it was Alqueda from Afghanistan which attacked the USA.<

Prior to WW1, Germany didn't significantly attack USA. German U-boat sinking of USA ship was presumed to be provoked. West European banks paid USA to attack Germany & get involved in WW1.

>As for money - I do not believe that teh USA got invlved in the world wars in the main part because of money.<

What is war profiteering & the Military industrial Complex?
Carl

Hey Guys...Lily here...

Not so hard to believe it's money - oil - power - force - etc., at the expense of the innocent, ....God knows it's been that way from the beginning of time and continues even into our homes these days.......when my dad was married, 1 out of 100 marriages ended in divorce....by the time I married, 1 out of 25 and today 1 out of 2...........it's the same old same old. And also, .... does the baby live, or does it die, .... the woman takes the pill to kill the baby, is it her body, .....let's face it guys, it's the same old same old.......and apparently will be till the last day.

On the other hand, often attached to the same old same old, are some humaine things......as in the case of freeing Poland and all the other stories of history - including the freeing the people of Iraq etc., some good comes along with the bad..........and a price needs to be paid.

To wait for that "big day" when we have a world full of leaders that has it all together......I don't think so, ...
You'll have to wait for the last day for that!

I remember back a few weeks ago - Auschwitz, and the guide told us to read a book (I'M SORRY NOW THAT I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN THE NAME - BUT THE AUTHOR IS A FAMOUS ENGLISH WRITER - WELL RESPECTED - HE TEACHES AT OXFORD .... SOME NAME LIKE KEYES OR SOMETHING)....that is starting to circulate, pointing the finger at the Poles.....for having something to do with starting the death camps.
I say to myself, that's ridiculous, and yet, 4000 women a day say "kill the babies" which is also ridiculous..........or the mass murders of Saddam.

I mean if we're going to tear everything apart - to try and find the perfect place.............it's not called Iowa....it's HEAVEN! (maybe Zakopane comes a close second!)

God Bless
lily

I LOVE THIS WEB PAGE!!! xo

Lily, Is it Keynes (an economist}? He's deceased. Carl

Lily, Is it Keynes (an economist}? He's deceased. Carl

Lily,

it is probably Norman Davies. He wrote fantastic books about Poland!

Bush "won" the election because of something called a "GEMS tabulator," which calculates the votes at the county level. Voting fraud or e-vote hacking has occured in at least four states: New Jersey, Ohio, Florida & New Hampshire. Please visit Blackboxvoting.org to learn how this happened, and what you can do to help if you don't want the Bush family killing your kids. A team of computer scientists led by Bev Harris is currently gathering and analyzing election logs and audit tapes, filing FOIA requests and filing lawsuits.

You didn't think we picked Kerry because he was a Vietnam Vet (unlike Bush/Cheney, neither of whom served), did you? We picked him because he was a very effective criminal prosecutor.

And if I were you, I wouldn't bet on Bush being in the White House come February.

Zell Miller and the Republican National Convention and the Swift Boat Liars and Regenery Publishing and Karl Rove and media consolodation all played their part, but think about it. Iraq never attacked us. Osama was never caught. Bush has done nothing for our internal Homeland Security in addition to draining our Treasury, being responsible for more than 1,200 deaths plus the deaths of our allied soldiers.

Johns Hopkins University has determined over 100,000 innocent Iraqi people were killed for the crime of being born in an oil rich land.

Don't expect to see George W. Bush in the White House on Inaguration Day.

Note to Kenneth Starr: Paybacks are hell.

Kerry conceded but nothing is offical until the Electoral College meets.

Expect a few surprises.

Ohio, a state with the highest unemployment in the US, your votes WILL be counted. Florida, your votes WILL be counted.

And America, perhaps we can even help restore democracy to you after this sad legacy of the hypocritical neoconservatives, these "Christians" who allow murder in their names.

Love, "The BLUE STATES."

Does Gen. Wesley Clark plan to conduct a military coup and produce The Blue States of America? (LOL)
Ask some USA soldiers who served under him to tell you about this bloodthirsty sadist.

>Don't expect to see George W. Bush in the White House on Inaguration Day.<

If Bush doesn't appear, there'll be an armed insurrection.

Thank you for responding with a threat of violence-how evolved of you. Touched a nerve? Prepare for law and order & democratic processes to be restored to this country- one person, one vote. That's gonna be A REAL SHOCKER!

I'll take 90s economic prosperity and expansion of the middle class over gay bashing gun toting bible quoting hypocrites who weep and wail about abortion while they tolerate poverty, support robber barons who outsource their jobs, shop at Walmart & wonder what went wrong and actually get heart palpitations every time our "misunderestimated" illiterate child king from Kennebunkport who Karl Rove had to teach to swagger opens his idiot mouth.

The Bible talks about poverty over 200 times. You can talk about family values, or you can value families. Pick one.

Separation of church and state was designed into our Constitution for a reason.

Please don't support the real evildoers. Don't support a government that breaks the Geneva Conventions.

God gave you a brain. Please use it.


http://www.factormyth.com/

HollyC. The Democrats presented thir ideas and hobbies to the American public. They selected a suit with a Poodle haircut to run for President. Their tools were the Hollywood Plastic Bananas and East Coast Air Heads. They used Owellian double-speak for communications. The American public voted and roundly rejected what the Dems/Liberals presented.
Now the blame game begins and it all leads back to those people in Cave A who couldn't understand why the people in Cave B weren't more like them. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Lily,

I want Alawi to win this war. I trust that he is a good man. But, I cannot understand any arguments that this war is something simlar to WW II. Iraq did not need to be liberated, they were not occupied by anybody else. Saddam did lots of stupid things in the past but he was not ready for any other attack, he did not have WMD.

If somebody would ask me like Kerry: "so, would you like to have Saddam in power?" _ I will say, yes. Saddam, although he imprisoned and killed some people was not a mass murderer, at least not in that time. Much more people are dead because of the attack by the USA. Americans did not undertand that spreading democracy by force usually does not work.

Holly,

thanks for your passion. I also heard about votung fraud, I saw some numbers and it is scary - in Florida there are some differences between the voting depending on the type of the machines used. It seems that in some counties all democrats were voting for Bush etc! Unbelievable, I agree:
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

Zen Miller and Swift Boat Veterans are of course my favorites for a good black commedy show
:devil: :devil: :devil:

Jaga,

I think that you forget the thousand of Kurds who were gassed in their villages, the thousands of Southern-Shia muslims who were killed by Sadam in 1991. Later his regime became more mild, because he used the support of the world and old allies.
What I regret is that in the near future Sadams Secular regime will be replaced by a National-Islamist regime.
In the long term Iraq will be a second Vietnam, but worse, because so many foreign extremists are involved in that ongoing (civil) war.
The war in Iraq is becomming more and more a war between Iraqi's. It is very difficult to rebuilt Iraq now.
Again I hope for an enlightend dictatorship with a pragmatic leader, who has the authority and respect of the differant clans, tribes and religions in Iraq.
Iraq has no tradition of Democracy, and democracy will not be accepted,because it is regarded Western and non-Islamic.

I am embarrased, ashamed and very concerned for my country, Jaga. Today my flag is flying upside down to indicate international distress signal. Pirates have boarded our ship of state.

I hope the world forgives us.

Quoted by Jagahost:
>"I agree that moral values can keep a country together. I agree that Democrats do not have any strong moral core values program."<

The American people voted for those moral values. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Majority of Americans are tired of a few minority factions driving their agenda.

Trish

Quote by Lily:

>"The desire and willingness to die for independence.....the work ethic to go on with life under all circumstances, the will to survive, etc., ........these principles, coming over to the USA as immigrants, are the reasons this country is so strong."<

Lily, you are SO right!

Trish

Quoted by HollyC to everyone:
>"And if I were you, I wouldn't bet on Bush being in the White House come February."<

>"Don't expect to see George W. Bush in the White House on Inaguration Day."<

Quoted by HollyC to sciwriter:
>"Thank you for responding with a threat of violence-how evolved of you."<

I felt a sense of threat in YOUR first 2 statements. I am sure others did, too and when the response came back that there could be a civil war if Pres.Bush is not in W.H. on Inaguration day.

>"The Bible talks about poverty over 200 times. You can talk about family values, or you can value families. Pick one."<

Fortunately, HollyC., we don't have to pick one. We can actually have both! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Trish

Quoted by Bob S.:

>" The American public voted and roundly rejected what the Dems/Liberals presented. Now the blame game begins and it all leads back to those people in Cave A who couldn't understand why the people in Cave B weren't more like them ."<

Bob, you are absolutely right! The American people chose Pres.Bush. The Dems lost. They need to get over it!

And HollyC., I'm ashamed that ANY American would fly their flag upside down. So many people died so we could have the freedoms we have and the flag represents our country. Look around. You'll see many, many flags, all being displayed correctly, all over America!

Trish


Trish

My flag will be upside down until we're out of Iraq. You need to do some research on Project for a New American Century. Maybe you will tolerate murder in your name, from an Administration who changed the rational for the war in Iraq & oops forgot to catch Osama, but I won't. I have an uncle who is a quadreplegic from Vietnam. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism when your country has gone astray. I'm sickened to be an American today. The Bush family is killing our kids for oil. 100,000 Iraquis are dead who didn't attack us. Put the puzzle together. You're being gaslight. We all are.

HollyC, what political change do you want for USA? Visit:
http://home.insightbb.com/~armedforcestribute/
Carl

I don't think we are being fooled by anyone, HollyC and I am sorry for your uncle. Unfortunately, men and boys did not have the choice then that they have today. Our family (and many family friends) have men fighting in Iraq right now and we are all VERY proud of them! They decided they wanted a 2nd tour and rejoined just to get away from people like you who are not being patriotic or supportive of our government.

Do you have any idea how the men who are over there feel? Do you personally know ANYone who is fighting? Do you even know why we are in Iraq? You have the freedom to come and go as you choose, say what you want. Consider for a moment all the people in Iraq who don't dare go certain places and certainly don't dare speak about or against all the sins and crimes that are committed on them.

Democracy can not be imposed, but the freedom to choose can be given to every human. THAT is why our men have CHOSEN to go to Iraq and fight. They were NOT drafted like your uncle was. Come on and try to support our troups whether you agree with the war or not. They are there and need our prayers and support! They need to know that we are proud of them for being there giving and defending liberty.

God Bless America!

Trish

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/10-20-2003/vo19no21_betterworld.htm

A Better World
by William Norman Grigg
Founder Robert Welch believed the combination of less government and more
responsibility would bring about a better world � materially, politically,
and spiritually.

As he inaugurated The John Birch Society during its two-day founding
meeting in 1958, Robert Welch sagely warned: "We can never win � unless
both leadership and following have a positive dream which is more
important as a hope than the negative nightmare is as a fear; unless the
promise of what we can build supplies more motivation than the terror of
what we must destroy; and unless this faith in the future is based on a
deeper faith in eternal truths."
In the struggle to preserve freedom, graphic descriptions of past and
ongoing atrocities committed by the Total State have their place, as a
warning of what awaits if we lose. But the freedom fight is not merely an
effort to prevent the worst that can happen; it must also be an active
struggle to achieve the best that we can imagine. This is why, for those
who truly understand and cherish freedom, hope is an even stronger
motivation than fear.
John Adams displayed an understanding of this principle in a letter to his
wife Abigail. Writing after the War for Independence, but before the
constitutional foundations of our republic had been firmly established,
Adams observed: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have
liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons must study
mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval
architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their
children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,
tapestry and porcelain."
Founders vs. Conspiracy
The purpose of politics, Adams understood, was to keep government in its
properly subordinate role, thereby leaving people free to build a better
and more civilized world. And, like the other leading Founding Fathers,
Adams recognized that the liberties he cherished were threatened by a
conspiracy of evil men lusting to control government to enrich themselves
at the expense of human liberty.
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution, Harvard historian Bernard J. Bailyn wrote of the Founders:
"They saw about them, with increasing clarity, not merely mistaken, or
even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested,
but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault
launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in England and
America."
In 1774, as the widespread sentiment favoring American independence began
to coalesce, Adams declared that "the conspiracy was first regularly
formed and begun to be executed in 1763 or 4...." To defeat that
conspiracy, it was necessary for Americans to join in an organized,
principled effort to expose it and defeat it. But it was not enough to
tabulate the offenses wrought by the British Crown, or to offer gruesome
(and plausible) warnings of the fate that would befall Americans were they
to lose their bid for independence.
Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and others of their generation
offered a vision of a better world. The Founders aspired to build a nation
in which government would be limited to its proper role of protecting
rights and property, thereby creating conditions in which freedom would
flourish, innovation and creativity would be unleashed, and human beings
would be able to develop their God-given talents to the benefit of all.
In terms of character, values, and ideals, Robert Welch was a blessed
throwback to our Founding era. "I want for our country enough laws to
restrain me from injuring others, so that these laws will also restrain
others from injuring me," he declared during a 1964 debate with socialist
leader Norman Thomas. "I want enough government, with enough
constitutional safeguards, so that this necessary minimum of laws will be
applied equitably to everybody, and will be binding on the rulers as well
as those ruled."
Building a better world, Mr. Welch declared at the Society�s founding
meeting, inescapably means reducing the size and power of government. From
the Society�s beginnings its motto has called for "less government, more
responsibility, and a better world." Beginning in 1966, this motto was
embellished by explicitly recognizing a point implicit therein: "Less
government, more responsibility, and � with God�s help � a better world."
As Mr. Welch pointed out in 1961, the JBS motto starkly contradicts the
collectivist Conspiracy�s vision of "total government, an absence of all
personal responsibility, and a completely amoral world...."
Morality and Liberty
The effort to preserve traditional morality has always been central to the
program of The John Birch Society, and from the beginning the Society has
earnestly sought � and abundantly received � the participation of
patriotic individuals from many religious backgrounds. The Society
provides them the organized means to work together in the freedom fight,
in defense of all they hold dear including their religious convictions,
without in any way compromising or diluting those convictions. "The whole
key to our working together as one body, for those things which we do all
believe in, is not compromise but tolerance," Robert Welch noted in 1965.
"We seek no doctrinal union � [but rather] simple cooperation and mutual
support, between men and women of good will and conscience, in forwarding
those moral purposes which are held in common by them all," wrote Mr.
Welch in 1961. "We begin our cooperation with a belief in absolutes, and
an eschewal of relativity, as the foundation for morality."
If morality is "relative," how can individual rights be considered as
"self-evident," God-given endowments? In the absence of absolutes, what
can restrain human beings from injuring each other, apart from the brute
force of the state? And with the state able to define its own role, what
would limit its power?
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain
degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in
human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence,"
wrote James Madison in The Federalist, No. 55. "Republican government
presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any
other form."
Preserving those divinely instilled qualities essential to freedom has
always been, and always shall be, a central purpose of The John Birch
Society. In the December 1970 issue of the JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch
summarized the Society�s moral perspective in a list of 20 key principles
he called "The John Birch Resolutions." The list began, appropriately,
with the Golden Rule, and other key tenets of the biblical moral
worldview:
� "I shall always do unto others as I would have them do unto me."
� "I shall always be truthful."
� "I will neither kill nor injure another human being, except in such
circumstances that it is morally justifiable to do so."
� "I shall oppose, in every practicable way that I can, the widespread use
or legalization of abortion, or of euthanasia.... For abortion, in plain
language, is simply murder...."
� "I shall be a good patriot of my country."
� "I shall always participate in charity for the needy, to the full extent
that my resources and my other responsibilities will permit...."
� "I shall not yield to any of the specific forms of immorality which the
enemies of God and man are now trying to get widely practiced and
accepted...."
Were these principles generally practiced today, government would have
relatively little to do � and the amoral Conspiracy for global control
described by Mr. Welch would find little if any social traction.
Too many Americans, anesthetized by consumer comforts and the illusion of
endless material prosperity, assess their situation in terms of what they
are allowed to keep, rather than by what has been stealthily stolen from
them � and by what they and their children stand to lose unless they
organize to defeat those responsible for that larceny. The John Birch
Society understands the enemy and offers a principle-based plan for
defeating it. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that mankind�s hope
for a better world largely depends on the success of this epic
undertaking.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I was told we were going for WMD. If Bush wanted to make a human rights arguement, which is completely different, he certainly failed to do make that argument rather spectacularly. Killing 100,000 plus people who didn't attack us isn't a great place to start, either.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I was told we were going for WMD. If Bush wanted to make a human rights arguement, which is completely different, he certainly failed to do make that argument rather spectacularly. Killing 100,000 plus people who didn't attack us isn't a great place to start, either.

Pieter,

I did not forget about the past, here is what I wrote:
***
Iraq did not need to be liberated, they were not occupied by anybody else. Saddam did lots of stupid things in the past but he was not ready for any other attack, he did not have WMD.
***

so, I think we both agree that Saddam was a crazy guy and because of him many innocent people were kileld (Kurds, Kuweiti, Iraquis and Iranians) but he mellowed with time. So in this very moment there was not any imminent urgency to attack him

I'm not a registered Democrat. John Kerry was not my candidate of choice. But ALL AMERICANS need to be concerned with vote fraud.

blackboxvoting.org

verifiedvoting.org

Guys: Profit, not humanity, is the goal of global corporatism. USA invaded Iraq to play a important role in new strategic energy alliances with Russia, China & Iran. USA picked Iraq because it�s strategically next to Iran. BTW many other Arab rulers are glad to see Saddam deposed. Carl:

http://www.atimes.com

Middle East

TEHRAN - Speaking of business as unusual. A mere two months ago, the news of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth US$3.5 billion, raised some eyebrows in the world press, some hinting that China's economic foreign policy may be on the verge of a new leap forward. A clue to the fact that such anticipation may have totally understated the case was last week's signing of a mega-gas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100 billion. Billed as the "deal of century" by various commentators, this agreement is likely to increase by another $50 billion to $100 billion, bringing the total close to $200 billion, when a similar oil agreement, currently being negotiated, is inked not too far from now.

The gas deal entails the annual export of some 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a 25-year period, as well as the participation, by China's state oil company, in such projects as exploration and drilling, petrochemical and gas industries, pipelines, services and the like. The export of LNG requires special cargo ships, however, and Iran is currently investing several billion dollars adding to its small LNG-equipped fleet.

Still, per the admission of the head of the Iranian Tanker Co, Mohammad Souri, Iran needed to purchase another 87 vessels by 2010, in addition to the 10 already purchased, in order to fulfill the needs of its growing LNG market. Iran has an estimated 26.6-trillion-cubic-meter gas reservoir, the second-largest in the world, about half of which is in offshore zones and the other half onshore.

It is perhaps too early to digest fully the various economic, political and even geostrategic implications of this stunning development, widely considered a major blow to the Bush administration's economic sanctions on Iran and particularly on Iran's energy sector, notwithstanding the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) penalizing foreign companies daring to invest more than $20 million in Iran's oil and gas industry.

While it is unclear what the scope of China's direct investment in Iran's energy sector will turn out to be, it is fairly certain that China's participation in the Yad Avaran field alone will exceed the ILSA's ceiling; this field's oil reservoir is estimated to be 17 billion barrels and is capable of p000000000000000000000000000000roducing 300 to 400 barrels per day. And this is besides the giant South Pars field, which Iran shares with Qatar, alone possessing close to 8% of the world's gas reserves. To open a parenthesis here, until now Tehran has been complaining that Qatar has been outpacing Iran in exploiting its resource 6-1. In fact, Iran's unhappiness over Qatar's unbalanced access to the South Pars led to a discrete warning by Iran's deputy oil minister and, soon thereafter, Qatar complied with Iran's request for a joint "technical committee" that has yet to yield any result.

For a United States increasingly pointing at China as the next biggest challenge to its Pax Americana, the Iran-China energy cooperation cannot but be interpreted as an ominous sign of emerging new trends in an area considered vital to US national interests. But, then again, this cuts both ways, that is, the deal should, logically speaking, stimulate others who may still consider Iran untrustworthy or too radical to enter into big projects on a long term basis. Iran's biggest foreign agreement prior to this gas agreement with China was a long-term $25 billion gas deal with Turkey, which has encountered snags, principally over the price, recently, compared with Iran's various trade agreements with Spain, Italy and others, typically with a life-span of five to seven years.

Thus some Iranian officials are hopeful that the China deal can lead to a fundamental rethinking of the risks of doing business with Iran on the part of European countries, India, Japan, and even Russia. Concerning India, which signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran initially in 1993 for a 2,670-kilometer pipeline, with more than 700km traversing Pakistani territory, the Iran-China deal will undoubtedly give a greater push to New Delhi to follow Beijing's lead and thus make sure that the "peace pipeline" is finally implemented. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Russia, which has as of late been dragging its feet somewhat on Iran's nuclear reactor, bandwagoning with the US and Group of Eight (G8) countries on the thorny issue of Iran's uranium-enrichment program. The Russians must now factor in the possibility of being supplanted by China if they lose the confidence of Tehran and appear willing to trade favors with Washington over Iran. Russia's Gazprom may now finally set aside its stubborn resistance to the idea of entering major joint ventures with Iran.

Iran appears more and more interested to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and form a powerful axis with its twin pillars, China and Russia, as a counterweight to a US power "unchained". The SCO comprises China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

China, Russia and Iran share deep misgivings about the perception of the United States as a "benevolent hegemon" and tend to see a "rogue superpower" instead. Even short of joining forces formally, the main outlines of such an axis can be discerned from their convergence of threat perception due to, among other things, Russia's disquiet over the post-September 11, 2001, US incursions in its traditional Caucasus-Central Asian "turf", and China's continuing unease over the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan; this is not to mention China's fixed gaze at a "new Silk Road" allowing it unfettered access to the Middle East and Eurasia, this as part and parcel of what is often billed as "the new great game" in Eurasia. Indeed, what China's recent deals with both Kazakhstan (pertaining to Caspian energy) and Iran (pertaining to Persian Gulf resources) signifies is that the pundits had gotten it wrong until now: the purview of the new great game is not limited to the Central Asia-Caspian Sea basin, but rather has a broader, more integrated, purview increasingly enveloping even the Persian Gulf. Increasingly, the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a sort of frontline state in a post-Cold War global lineup against US hegemony is becoming prevalent among Chinese and Russian foreign-policy thinkers.

For the moment, however, the Iran-Russia-China axis is more a tissue of think-tanks than full-fledged policy, and the mere trade interdependence of the US and China, as well as Russia's growing energy ties to the US alone, not to mention its weariness over any perceived Chinese "overstretch", militate against a grand alliance pitted against the Western superpower. In fact, the Cold War-type alliances are highly unlikely to be replicated in the current milieu of globalization and complex interdependence; instead, what is likely to emerge in the future are issue-focused or, for the lack of a better word, issue-area alliances whereby, to give an example, the above-said axis may be inspired into existence along geostrategic considerations somewhat apart from purely economic considerations.

Hence what the SCO means on the security front and how significant it will be hinges on a complex, and complicated, set of factors that may eventually culminate in its expansion, from the current group of six, as well as greater, alliance-like, cooperation. It is noteworthy that in Central Asia-Caucasus, the trend is toward security diversification and even multipolarism, reflected in the US and Russian bases not too far from each other. In this multipolar sub-order, neither the US is capable of exerting hegemony, nor is Russia's semi-hegemonic sway without competition. In the Caspian Sea basin, for example, Kazakhstan has opted to take part in several distinct, and contrasting, security networks, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership for Peace program, the Commonwealth of Independent States' Collective Security Organization, the SCO, and membership in OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

Kazakhstan is not, however, an exception, but seemingly indicative of an expanding new rule of the (security and strategic) game played out throughout Central Asia-Caucasus. Economically, both Kazakhstan and Russia are members of the Central Asia Economic Cooperation Organization, and all the Central Asian states are also members of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), which was founded by the trio of Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Certain economic alliances are, henceforth, taking shape, alongside the budding security arrangements, which have their own tempo, rationale and security potential. Concerning the latter, in 1998, the ECO embarked on low security cooperation among its members on drug trafficking and this may soon be expanded to information-sharing on terrorism. Also, Iran has also entered into low security agreements with some of its Persian Gulf neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The SCO initially was established to deal with border disputes and is now well on its way to focusing on (Islamist) terrorism, drug trafficking and regional insecurity. Meanwhile, the US, not to be outdone, has been sowing its own bilateral military and security arrangements with various regional countries such as Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, as well as promoting the Guuam Group, which includes Azerbaijan and Georgia, formed alongside the BTC (Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan) pipeline as a counterweight to Russian influence. Consequently, the overall picture that emerges before us is, as stated above, a unique multi-trend of military and security multipolarism defying the logic of Pax Americana. In this picture, Iran represents one of the poles of attraction, seeking its own sphere of influence by, for instance, entering into a military agreement with Turkmenistan in 1994, and, simultaneously, exploring the larger option of how to coalesce with other powers in order to offset the debilitating consequences of (post-September 11) unbounded Americanization of regional politics.

A glance at Chinese security narratives, and it becomes patently obvious that Beijing shares Iran's deep worries about US unipolarism culminating in, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, unilateral militarism. Various advocates of US preeminence, such as William Kristol, openly write that the US should "work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China". Unhinged from the containment of Soviet power, the roots of US unilateralism, and its military manifestation of "preemption", must be located in the logic of unipolarism, thinly disguised by the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq; the latter is, in fact, as aptly put by various critics of US foreign policy, more like a coalition of the coerced and bribed than anything else.

But, realistically speaking, what are the prospects for any regional and or continental realignment leading to the erasure of US unipolarism, notwithstanding the US military and economic colossus bent on preventing, on a doctrinal level, the emergence of any challenger to its global domination now or in the future? The strategic debates in all three countries, Russia, China and Iran, feature similar concerns and question marks. For one thing, all three have to contend with the difficulty of sorting the disjunctions between the different sets of national interests, above all economic, ideological and strategic interests. This aside, a pertinent question is who will win over Russia, Washington, which pursues a coupling role with Moscow vis-a-vis Beijing, or Beijing, trying to wrest away Moscow from Washington? For now, Russia does not particularly feel compelled to choose between stark options, yet the situation may be altered in China's direction in case the present drift of US power incursions are heightened in the future. The answer to the above question should be delegated to the future. For now, however, the quantum leap of China into the Middle East and Caspian energy markets has become a fait accompli, no matter how disturbed its biggest trade partner, the US, over its geopolitical ramifications.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University.
0

Quite so. We were lied into war for this very reason while our own Homeland Security is neglected here at home.

That was simply ignorant beyond belief.

Holly C...

GO GIRL!!! I'm with ya' all the way!

Dee A.

HollyC, simply stated, USA is in Iraq because Iraq is in a strategic location in relation to Russia, China & Iran. It enables USA to make strategic moves when the latter countries make theirs in the area. Carl

Yes, and this is why people need to become a little less confused about Mr. Bush and his motives.

Jaga,

I think that we aggree on this!
What I regret now is that the infrastructure, economy
and cities (neighbourhoods & public buildings) are
completely destroyed, that crime is widespread due to the chaos and anarchy, because there is lack of lwa and order. That tribal and clans conflicts will be even stronger than under Sadam and during the two Gulf wars. That the only good thing of the Baath regime, equal oportunities for men and women will be set back under an Islamist theocracy or New authoritarian regime. That Iraq will stay a Powder keg for many years
and that only Iraqi's themselves will have the solution for Iraq in the long term. What many Iraqi's want is that all the foreign powers leave, both Western and Islamic.
The foreign Arab extremists and enterpreneurs are as less popular as the Americans, Brits, Poles and Duch.
Now people are forgetting aboutn Sadams crimes and only see that there was law and order under his "terrible regime". Now the only things they have are poverty and dispair, unsafety, widespraid crime and corruption and so chaos and anarchy (as I alraedy said before, above here). Their country is an ongoing nightmare for the Iraqi's. A combination of Vietnam,
Northern-Ireland/Basq country, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kosovo and Afghanistan. All worst elements of war, civil war and terrorism are combined in Iraq.
The Iraqi population must have serious mental and physical health problems. A new young generation (the kids and teenagers of today) must be regarded as lost for Iraq.

I think that you forget the millions of Jews who were gassed in the camps, the millions of Poles, Italians, Russians, Gypsies, etc, who were killed by Hitler between 1939-1945. Later, after perhaps doubling these figures and getting his hands on rockets and other weapons of mass destruction, he would have the support of the rest of the world and old allies.
What I regret is that in the near future Hitlers Nazi regime will be replaced by a Communist regime.

Hmmmmmm, sounds familiar to what I've just read above. Could it be, that like this last election, all the priority issues have become secondary and all the secondary - ........... primary.

Round and round it goes..........
I WILL SAY THIS..........IN ALL THE YEARS OF BEING ON THIS POLISH CULTURE FORUM, I don't think there has ever been a subject, like this one that has received the total involvment of the entire group. God Bless American we can do this, and not be dragged out of our homes and put into camps for expressing our opinions. Many have died before us for this priviledge.

Lily

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lily


I think that you forget the thousand of Kurds who were gassed in their villages, the thousands of Southern-Shia muslims who were killed by Sadam in 1991. Later his regime became more mild, because he used the support of the world and old allies.
What I regret is that in the near future Sadams Secular regime will be replaced by a National-Islamist regime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jaga - saddam was a brutal tyrant - but for a long time he was one that the USA regarded as a strategic asset. he was helped to power by the CIA and America supported him to the hilt during the Iran-Iraq war back when the Iranians were the bogey men of the middle east (just as osama bin laden was america's friend and ally when he was fighting the soviets in afghanistan).

the US was quite happy to supply saddam with any number of weapons and lethal substances - and to turn a blind eye whenever he used them to murder and persecute his own people.

nobody in the American administration gave a damn about saddam's atrocities against the kurds and others back then. just as they don't give a damn about the appalling human rights abuses by their friends in the region today - particularly the saudis and kuwaitis - who are in many ways worse than saddam, especially in the way they treat the 50% of their citizens who happen to be female.

saddam wasn't an islamic fundamentalist - his US-friendly replacement may well be....

I can't believe anybody is seriously sufficiently delusional to think that we invaded iraq to "defend liberty".

dubya's PNAC buddies planned this war long before he even came to power - never mind 9/11. they just needed a "Pearl Harbour" event to justify a domestic clampdown and the "war on terror" - and of course to make billions of dollars out of it themselves....

HollyC - Bev Harris is a true American heroine for what she is doing to try and ensure that US democracy remains a reality not an illusion.

yesterday's update to www.blackboxvoting.org is pretty scary (if you believe in democracy that is) - and it's sad that only a tiny minority of americans seem to care....

I received the following info in an email over the weekend (long but VERY GOOD - although it does indicate that there's not much evidence of vote fraud in Ohio, where electronic voting was not widely used).

it's from: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/4/224812/643

There are two states in which questions of "fraud" have been raised: Ohio, and Florida. Close counts are also present in Iowa and New Mexico; quite frankly, however, without OH or FL those results are largely meaningless. First off, a summary of where we are in Ohio.

Ohio

The Ohio numbers are regarded by many with great suspicion because the GOP launched, in the weeks before the election, an organized effort to intimidate minority voters, fund push-polls and other robocalls, and generally depress turnout in Democratic precincts. Anecdotal evidence is that it did not work -- turnout was high, and there were very few reports on election day of Republican intimidation at the polls.

Set aside the possibility of fraud, for the moment. We will return to it.

Currently, the margin of difference between Kerry and Bush is 136,483 votes.

The provisional ballots are being counted now. "Provisional" ballots are ballots cast by people who the polling officials couldn't find on the voting rolls, or who had some other reason why they were denied the right to vote along with the rest of the populous. We can expect 90% or more of these votes to be valid, but it takes a long time -- up to ten days -- to correctly validate each and every one to determine that the voter is indeed eligible to vote.

There are 155,337 provisional ballots. These ballots are going to be counted, whether Kerry asks for it

or not. They are legally (potential) votes, and Ohio is counting them now.

Assume they break 80% for Kerry, which is being very generous -- but we'll know the precise numbers soon, no matter what. That means Kerry gains an additional 124,269 votes, and Bush gains 31,067 -- so Kerry gains +93,200 votes.

Repeating, these votes will be counted. We will know the totals soon. But note that that still isn't enough, best case scenario, to gain a Kerry victory. Again, the margin of difference is currently 136,483 votes: shrinking that by 93,000 "gained" Kerry votes from provisional ballots means that a recount would have to net Kerry over +43,200 votes in order to actually affect the election.

Ohio primarily uses punchcard voting. Right now, with a difference of over 130,000 votes between Kerry and Bush, nobody wants to touch a hand-recount of those ballots with a ten-foot pole. Memories of Florida are still omnipresent, and the national Democrats aren't going to go down that road unless it would credibly make a difference. When you are down by more than a hundred thousand votes, and you only have 92,000 "spoiled" ballots, there is no possible way that it would make a difference. However, it is likely that a recount would favor Kerry, because poor/minority areas historically have a greater rate of

"spoiled" ballots -- ballots which cannot be read by the machine -- than other areas.

According to MyDD, there are 92,672 ballots in which no vote for president was recorded. Even assuming that these ballots leaned 70% for Kerry, which is a very, very remote best-case scenario, that's 64,870 for Kerry, and 27,801 for Bush -- gaining +37,000 votes for Kerry, if all the planets lined up precisely right.

If the margin between Bush and Kerry after counting the provisional ballots is greater than 40,000, there simply isn't any credible way those votes will make the difference. In reality, it is unlikely that Kerry would gain more than 10k-20k votes from it.

If it would potentially make a difference -- that is, if Kerry gained so many provisional ballots as to be within striking range, Ohio law allows for a recount of the ballots. It is a decidedly better system than in Florida 2000.

Only after the provisional and absentee/military votes have been completely counted, election officials will "certify" the results of the election. The candidate (or his electors, or the voters -- it is unclear, but certainly at minimum, the candidate) may contest the results of the election (e.g. ask for a recount) at any point within five days from the day of the election, or at any point until the official "certification" of the results. Note that this means there is at least an eleven-day window here, and possibly more, depending on how "certification" works in Ohio. Note also that this would be a
full "hanging-chad" manual recount -- the standards for what is and isn't a vote in Ohio, chad-wise, are spelled out clearly, and so Bush v. Gore wouldn't enter into it.

Also, Kerry "conceding" doesn't enter into it. "Conceding" is a political concept, not a legal one. If Ohio looked like it had some possibility of turning blue, you can bet that Kerry would "un-concede" pretty damn quickly.

Issues of Fraud?

The possibility of fraud has been raised primarily because the results from Ohio are not what people were expecting to see.
Republican turnout was very large, and Democrats seemed to vote for Bush in surprising numbers. That is indeed curious, and needs to be analyzed.

Note, however, that it may be entirely explainable. It is entirely probable that Republicans came out in record numbers; it is also not outside the realm of logic that many Midwestern Democrats, swayed by the We Hate Gays initiative on the Ohio ballot or by "values" or "terrorism" or other factors, really did vote for Bush in surprising numbers. It is possible. Keep in mind that rural Democrats and urban Democrats are, in some ways, not exactly the same species -- we tend to forget that, sometimes.

Again, to repeat: unusual numbers in individual counties in Florida and Ohio are potentially explainable by demographic and other factors; they do not, in and of themselves, constitute "proof" of fraud.

But it is also possible to explain the discrepancies from fraud or error. Intentional fraud, or unintentional error, would in this case consist of misreporting of the numbers from each precinct. Note that few of these Ohio precincts use anything other than the punch-card systems; fraud would be present in the central machines that sum the votes, not from in-precinct shenanigans. Nationwide, these machines are manufactured by Diebold and other vendors; longtime readers will remember Diebold as the heavily-Republican-leaning company (Diebold executives are heavy Bush contributers) whose chief officer announced in a Republican fund-raising letter that the company was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Bad f*cking move, Walden. Really, really bad.

Let's explain what these "central vote-counting" machines are. Basically, it's a machine running Microsoft Windows with a Microsoft Access database attached. (Note to the computer-savvy among you: Yes, I [censored] you not. MS Access. Jeez.) The database keeps track of the votes in each precinct, county, etc., much like an Excel spreadsheet. The software is deemed secret and proprietary; previous lawsuits to examine the code that tabulates the votes have been denied.

Sizable mistakes have been found before in Diebold-run elections. More notably, the machines are easily hacked in such a way as to change the vote totals in not-readily-detectable ways. There is a "second set of books" built in to Diebold machines, which can be accessed remotely if necessary. Note that there is some evidence that this has actually happened:


MONDAY Nov 1 2004: New information indicates that hackers may be targeting the central computers counting our votes tomorrow. All county elections officials who use modems to transfer votes from polling places to the central vote-counting server should disconnect the modems now. There is no down side to removing the modems. Simply drive the vote cartridges from each polling place in to the central vote-counting location by car, instead of transmitting by modem. "Turning off" the modems may not be sufficient. Disconnect the central vote counting server from all modems, INCLUDING PHONE LINES, not just Internet. In

a very large county, this will add at most one hour to the vote-counting time, while offering significant protection from outside intrusion.


It appears that such an attack may already have taken place, in a primary election 6 weeks ago in King County, Washington -- a large jurisdiction with over one million registered voters. Documents, including internal audit logs for the central vote-counting computer, along with modem "trouble slips" consistent with hacker activity, show that the system may have been hacked on Sept. 14, 2004. Three hours is now missing from the vote-counting computer's "audit log," an automatically generated record, similar to the black box in an airplane, which registers certain kinds of events.

Voting "solutions" by other companies have similar reported problems; look at blackboxvoting.org for horror stories about known miscounted election results in actual elections across the country. These machines, both touchscreen and optical-scan, are already proven [PDF] to be prone to errors:

In the 2002 general election, a computer miscount overturned the House District 11 result in Wayne County, North Carolina. Incorrect programming caused machines to skip several thousand partyline votes, both Republican and Democratic. Fixing the error turned up 5,500 more votes and reversed the election for state representative....

Voting machines failed to tally "yes" votes on the 2002 school bond issue in Gretna, Nebraska. This error gave the false impression that the measure had failed miserably, but it actually passed by a 2 to 1 margin. Responsibility for the errors was attributed to ES&S, the Omaha company that had provided the ballots and the machines....

An Orange County, California, election computer made a 100 percent error during the April 1998 school bond referendum. The Registrar of Voters Office initially announced that the bond issue had lost by a wide margin; in fact, it was supported by a majority of the ballots cast. The error was attributed to a programmer's reversing the "yes" and "no" answers in the software used to count the votes....

Software programming errors, sorry. Oh, and reverse that election, we announced the wrong winner.

In the 2002 Clay County, Kansas, commissioner primary, voting machines said Jerry Mayo ran a close race but lost, garnering 48 percent of the vote, but a hand recount revealed Mayo had won by a landslide, receiving 76 percent of the vote....

In the November 2002 general election in Scurry County, Texas, poll workers got suspicious about a landslide victory for two Republican commissioner candidates. Told that a "bad chip" was to blame, they had a new computer chip flown in and also counted the votes by hand -- and found out that Democrats actually had won by wide margins, overturning the election....

In 1986 the wrong candidate was declared the winner in Georgia. Incumbent Democrat Donn Peevy was running for state senator in District 48. The machines said he lost the election. After an investigation revealed that a Republican elections official had kept uncounted ballots in the trunk of his car, officials also admitted that a computerized voting program had miscounted. Peevy insisted on a recount. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "When the count finished around 1 a.m., they [the elections board] walked into a room and shut the door," recalls Peevy. "When they came out, they said, `Mr. Peevy, you won.' That was it. They never apologized. They never explained."...

A software programming error gave the election to the wrong candidate in November 1999 in Onondaga County, New York. Bob Faulkner, a political newcomer, went to bed on election night confident he had helped complete a Republican sweep of three open council seats. But after Onondaga County Board of Elections staffers rechecked the totals, Faulkner had lost to Democratic incumbent Elaine Lytel. Just a few hours later, election officials discovered that a software programming error had given too many absentee ballot votes to Lytel. Faulkner took the lead....

In a 1998 Salt Lake City election, 1,413 votes never showed up in the total. A programming error caused a batch of ballots not to count, though they had been run through the machine like all the others. When the 1,413 missing votes were counted, they reversed the election.


So the question of whether the machines in Ohio are working properly is hardly a "tinfoil-hat" concern. It is a legitimate question. Note, however, that as of yet evidence of miscounts or tampering is speculative; the only available evidence is statistical analysis of the counties which points to "unusual" results in certain precincts and counties.

Florida, perhaps, is the bigger question. Voting there is almost entirely electronic now, through a combination of touchscreen and optical-scan systems. And, to be quite honest, the vote totals there are far more suspicious than in Ohio. While both states are exhibiting results that are reasonable, they are also exhibiting, in some counties, results that are highly unusual, though not outside the realms of possibility, compared to past elections.

Bottom Line

So the question becomes, are the curious numbers in Ohio (and Florida) due to the way the electorate voted, or due to the way those votes were summed up in the central office? It is entirely possible that errors might exist which do not affect the outcome of the election, but which are still serious enough to require a serious review.

This is why I, for one believe it is our national interests to have a manual recount of some of the Ohio counties with the most unusual results. But this is not a Kerry issue; this is a democracy issue. Can these machines be trusted? Recounts in selected counties would resolve this: it needs to be done.

Bev Harris and other activists are filing Freedom of Information Act requests and taking other steps to start analyzing the data. What we can do is put weight behind their efforts, without looking like tinfoil-hat loonies. We have to understand, the possibility that a miscount, even if discovered, will be great enough to change the outcome of the election is remote. These FOIA requests and other investigations are happening so that these machines can be validated, not because any of the parties have any actual evidence of willful fraud.

Conspiracies, conspiracies,conspiracies. B.O.H.I.C.A. Earth has been invaded by aliens from a federation of undiscovered planets far, far away. The government of America has been taken over by one group of aliens and another group has taken over Europe. We now have groups of little green people, disguised as humans, running the affairs of the world.
Another group of warrior aliens took over the Middle East, Iraq was their base of operations. Our Service People are now in Iraq battling those invasion forces from outer space.
OIL? oil? Do you think that it is the control of oil that we are fighting over? Actually it is the control of SAND that is most important to the aliens. The economy and life of those undiscovered planets are based on Silicon.
What a wonderful way to take over a world. Just let the inhabitants quarrel and fight with each other. The little green people can take over that which is left over. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mars attacks III <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

the emperor is naked - but how can you see it if you've buried your head in the sand?

funny....

http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html

not so funny....

http://www.ericblumrich.com/irak.html

Don't forget those aliens from another galaxy. They are about to invade the Far East. :beamedup:

Raytan,

if we would exclude any voting fraud in Florida - Bush had quite a chance to win there this year because of the involvement after tornadoes. He promised some big money for Florida rebuilding. There was a discussion in American congress, some congressman from other states - mainly agricultural and GOP oriented were upset because the money who were going to help farmers to cope with longlasting draught were withdraw from these agricultural states and all pomped to Florida. Why? Partly because Bush wanted to win Florida and he knew that he would have the other states (farming, agriculture) anyways.

AFTER THE ELECTION: I tried to tell you . . .
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom
Zell Miller - For the Journal-Constitution
Thursday, November 4, 2004

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.
This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.
This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints --- bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices --- amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.
But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are --- both real and fabricated --- Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.
Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.
Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.
A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.
When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation --- that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.
The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.
To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.
When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.
And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.
And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.
And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.
Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free --- honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."
George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" --- free men."
Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.
http://www.ajc.com/thursday/content/epaper/edit

........
"nobody in the American administration gave a damn about saddam's atrocities against the kurds and others back then. just as they don't give a damn about the appalling human rights abuses by their friends in the region today - particularly the saudis and kuwaitis - who are in many ways worse than saddam, especially in the way they treat the 50% of their citizens who happen to be female."

Lily here.......above is the same scenario as "nobody in the American, British, rest of the world scenario" - gave a damn about Auschwitz and Bikenhaus either......from 1940 to 45 everyone in this ole world knew what was happening, and turned their heads the other way.

Same old - same ole!!

He who ignores history..........will have to live through it again.............and we haven't learned history my friends!!

God Bless

Lily