BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Current Events George Bush is a great president

Wasn't that the unaccepted Nuremberg defense?

People make choices and should be held responsible for the consequences of those choices. The consequences of Bush's decisions have been horrendous.

DJC

Donald Rumsfeld is the strongest Secretary of Defense in the history of the United States. Our country can use more men like him. That article in the Army Times was written by malcontent Democrats.

Republicans will keep America safe and bring terrorists to justice.

Sure, Jim. Generals shouldn't judge such things. Nor should SOD's be judged on the the basis of results in the fights they choose.

Wait. They should.

DJC in Norwich

BBC news report on the military times editorial:



It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's military leaders start to break publicly with defence secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The editorial writers said they were voicing the views of a silent section of senior military leaders whose "deep sense of honour" prevented them from going public with their criticisms.

They summed up the current situation in blunt language: "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large.

"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. Donald Rumsfeld must go."

I'm sorry this is so long, but everyone needs to read this!



>JOHN GLENN SAID
>
>Things that make you think a little:
>
>There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
>In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
>month of January. That's just one American city,
>about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .
>
>When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
>have started this war, state the following:
>
>a. FDR led us into World War II.
>
>b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 112,500 per year.
>
>c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
>North Korea never attacked us .
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 18,334 per year.
>
>d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
>Vietnam never attacked us
>
>e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost .
>an average of 5,800 per year.
>
>f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
>Bosnia never attacked us .
>He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
>times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
>multiple occasions.
>
>g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
>has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
>al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North
>Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
>slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
>
>The Democrats are complaining
>about how long the war is taking.
>But
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
>to take the Branch Davidian comp ound.
>That was a 51-day operation.
>
>We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
>in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
>the Rose Law Firm billing records.
>
>It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
>Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
>than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
>Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
>
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took
>to count the votes in Florida !!!!
>
>Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
>The Military morale is high!
>
>The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
>to realize the facts
>
>But Wait .
>There's more!
>
>JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
>Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
>
>Some people still don't understand why military personnel
>do what they do for a living. This exchange between
>Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
>is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
>impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
>man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
>services do what they do for a living.
>
>This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
>some who have never served think of the military.
>
>Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
>"How can you run for Senate
>when you've never held a real job?" < BR>
>Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
>"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
>I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
>My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
>occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
>checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
>not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
>daily cash receipts to the bank."
>
>"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...
>to a veteran's hospital and look those men ..
>with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
>they didn't hold a job!
>
>You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
>and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
>of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
>and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
>that their DADS didn't hold a job.
>
>You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
>Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
>buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
>those waving flags.
>
>You stand there, and you think about this nation,
>and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
>
>What about you?"
>
>For those who don't remember ..
>During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
>representing the Communist Party in the USA
>
>Now he's a Senator!
>
>If you can read this, thank a teacher.
>If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

AND JUST TO BALANCE THINGS UP:

IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH - !!

The Record of George W. Bush
Since this April, the evidence supporting the case for impeachment has only grown. Books by former administration officials, investigative journalists, and the 9/11 Commission's Report all provide more evidence supporting the impeachment of the President and Vice President. As addressed by a March report from the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform, Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq, the blitz of unsupported and inflammatory claims emanating from from the uppermost seats of executive power, touting the unequivocal urgency for a US invasion of Iraqi territory, are too numerous and systemically corrupt to be ignored any longer by the United States Congress and its duties under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State ColinPowell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading in that they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.

There is something fundamentally unsound at work if the legislative branch of the federal government sees fit to file articles of impeachment against one President for his sexual indiscretions and stands idly by as his successor peddles blatant falsehoods in the service of implementing an unprecedented brand of war-mongering, warfare, casualties, and endangerment of the United States in the world. The time for Congress to act with respect to this question is now.

Two Potential Articles of Impeachment
1. The Unconstitutional War in Iraq
The United States Constitution�s War Powers Act (Article 1, Section 8) vests the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the hands of the United States Congress. This apportionment of authority could only be changed by a constitutional amendment. "Our founders had seen what could occur when the power to declare war was vested in one person, a King or a Queen, so they took clear and deliberate steps to ensure no one person in the White House could declare war for the United States. As James Madison wrote: 'In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department,�� notes Nader.

The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Congress voted for a resolution in October of 2002, which transferred to the President the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq�a violation of the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by the Congress.

2. Five Falsehoods that Led to the Iraq Quagmire
It is now evident that the Bush Regime knowingly put forward falsehoods in order to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. This necessitated the manipulation and deliberate misuse of security intelligence data. Under the Constitution's impeachment clause, such acts would be �a high crime.� As Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides: �The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.�

Five Falsehoods That Led to the Iraq Quagmire
I. Weapons of Mass Destruction

The central justification for the invasion of Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons capability. No trace of these weapons has yet been found after the efforts of 1,500 U.S. inspectors (and the expenditure of $500 million) directed by David Kay. The evidence has mounted that the Bush Regime was well aware that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In his 2003 State of the Union address, in which President Bush began to make his case for going to war with Iraq, he made numerous false claims and exaggerations throughout the speech.1 Among them, he claimed:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax�enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn�t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Bush relied on estimates produced by the United Nations Special Commission report to the UN Security Council(UNSCOM). UNSCOM never made the claim Bush attributes to it� his argument could only be justified by turning estimates into definites and then making dubious assumptions on top of that. In another example of his administration's proclivity for pro-war spinning, Bush claimed:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
While there were reports along these lines in the early 1990's, by 1998 the IAEA, responsible for reporting on and monitoring the proliferation of nuclear weapons, was confident that Iraq�s nuclear program had been ineffective. The head of IAEA�s Iraq inspection team, Gary B. Dillon, reported that as of 1998,

There were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material of any practical significance.2
An update by the IAEA in 2003 reached the same conclusions. Yet two days before the critical vote in the United Nations on the Iraq war, President Bush told an audience in Ohio:

...the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen"�his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists. ...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof�the smoking gun�that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.3
However, the White House had intelligence calling these assertions into question. In February of 2001, the CIA had delivered a report to the White House that stated: �We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.�4 In 1996, the IAEA reported there was no indication that Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.5

This lack of evidence had once resulted in a clear statement from Secretary of State Colin Powell in February of 2001�notably prior to the events of September 11th�that Saddam Hussein �[had] not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.�6

In what is perhaps remembered of the more outlandish claims the of his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush put forth carefully phrased claims about nuclear weapons programs in Iraq that avoided any true reliance on US intelligence estimates: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� Why couldn�t the President rely on US intelligence?�because in the fall of 2002, the CIA had urged administration officials not to refer to British intelligence reports suggesting Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from connection in the African country of Niger, sending two memos to that effect to the White House. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials and implored them not to use the claim. Indeed, Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley acknowledged to the media that he received both the aforementioned memoranda from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet raising objections to the integrity of the claims.7

The controversy over this issue precipitated an explosive article by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV (in the July 6th, 2003 edition of the New York Times), making plain that he had uncovered no evidence of an Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger. The underhanded response of the Bush administration was to expose Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA agent.

In a radio address to the nation in September 2002, President Bush told the American public that Iraq �could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.�8 He repeated these claims in the aforementioned Ohio speech, highlighting �manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.� However, the White House had been informed by the Pentagon that it was highly disputed that these Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were designed as attack weapons. Indeed, the Air Force�s National Air and Space Intelligence Center showed the drones were too heavy to be used to carry weapons-spray devices. Additionally, the President had been told that these assertions were unfounded by the Defense Intelligence Agency who asserted that no reliable information existed showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or had established chemical agent production facilities.9

The CIA never "categorically" declared that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. All claims made in that regard used words like �might� and �could��the case was always circumstantial with equivocations.10 Yet claims by the President and Vice President were definitive. Vice President Cheney asserted on August 26th of 2002: �Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,� President Bush said in September of that same year: �The Iraq regime possess biological and chemical weapons.�11

As Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader emphasized,

Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government�s anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush later accused him of having.
Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. Upon his return from Iraq, President Bush�s favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, having led a large team of WMD inspectors and having spent nearly half-a-billion dollars, told the President: "We were wrong.�12

II. Ties Between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Iraq has been a fixation for the Bush administration from the outset. The record indicates that 9/11 quickly become an excuse to attack Iraq�despite the lack of any evidence concerning any relationship between Iraq or its leader Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. Former Bush counter-terrorism director Richard Clarke described how, just after the attack, President Bush pressured him to find an Iraqi connection, despite Clarke's insistence that there was no evidence of such a connection. Clarke told Leslie Stahl on CBS' 60 Minutes of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

The President dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." Now he never said, "Make it up." But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. I said, "Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection." He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection." And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.
Clarke continues:

It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, "Will you sign this report?" They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, "Wrong answer. ... Do it again."13
Vice President Cheney also pushed to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Prior to Secretary of State Colin Powell�s testimony before the U.N., Powell urged him to �look carefully at the terrorism case� connecting the two. Powell was concerned by the four meetings supposedly held between Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks, with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. However, the intelligence community had doubts about whether these meetings even took place:

...the CIA had evidence of two meetings perhaps, and that there was no certainty about what Atta had been doing in Prague or whether he had met with the Iraqi official.14
Powell�s reaction �This was more than ridiculous.� Bob Woodward reports:

Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The vice president and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Saddam and 9/11. It was a separate little government that was out there�Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, and Feith�s �Gestapo office,� as Powell privately called it. He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first Gulf War just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to al Qaeda and trying to nail the connection with Iraq. He would have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. It was about the worse charge that Powell could make about the Vice President. But there it was. Cheney would take an intercept and say it shows something was happening. No, no, no, Powell or another would say, it shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that INTO A �WE KNOW.� Well, Powell concluded, we didn�t know. No one knew.15
The White House persisted in making claims of a tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that no such tie ever existed. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were mortal enemies�one secular, the other fundamentalist.

III. Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States

Unadulterated by the interpretive bias of the hawks in the Department of Defense, the evidence consistently suggested Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had long been tottering. Not far from Hussein's palaces in the heart of the Sunni triangle, his antiquated command over a crumbling army stood ever at the mercy of Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South. The success of year upon year of American bombing runs in destroying Saddam Hussein's weapons capability was a direct result of Hussein's inability to control the air space over most of his country. The top-secret, 92-page National Intelligence Estimate said in October of 2003 that �We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam�s regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory.�

This begs the question of how Saddam Hussein might have even been capable of undertaking an attack against the United States in the absence of any genuine delivery capability. Accepting that the myths touting Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction are wholly unfounded and that Hussein never considered reaching out to Al Qaeda, it becomes very difficult to imagine how Hussein would manage to pose a threat to U.S. soil. The tactics employed by Bush administration in arguing the existence of an imminent threat to the United States went relied on the horrific images straight out of macabre science fiction rather than on objective assessments of well-informed intelligence. The Bush administration went so far as to perpetuate the language of nuclear attack from Hussein even as stories of Kim Jong Il's nuclear capability were being verified by intelligence footage coming out of North Korea.

IV. Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors

Among the most passionate arguments brought to bear by the Bush administration in the course of its pro-war politicking was the assertion that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an immediate threat to the stability of the Middle East. Some four months after the invasion, with no sign having yet appeared of weapons of mass destruction and the economic and political stability of the country already showing clear signs of potential collapse as a direct result of the invasion and ensuing occupation, President Bush could still be heard asserting "The rise of a free and peaceful Iraq is critical to the stability of the Middle East."

And little wonder. Ever since the close of the First Gulf War, Iraq had been under constant economic, political, and military pressure from the United States and the greater global community. In the march to Baghdad, it was not uncommon for embedded reporters to comment on the limited extent to which the regular army was capable of mounting resistance to the well-oiled push of the �Coalition of the Willing.� True, rumors swirled on the subject of an organized uprising from the ranks of Hussein's Republican Guard, but the taking of Baghdad went off virtually without a hitch.

In sermonizing the immediate threat that the Hussein regime posed to Middle Eastern stability, the Bush Administration carefully neglected to mention that Iraq had been the object of numerous bombing runs from American forces, dating back to the Clinton administration. The Iraqi army, depleted both of military resources, spare parts and morale, was barely capable of mounting an effective defense of its own border, much less undertaking offensive military operation in a region with more powerful neighbors like Iran, Israel, and Turkey.

As a regional military player, Iraq was small potatoes, surrounded by countries with far superior military forces, all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator. There has long been little doubt that Israel possesses many nuclear weapons. The Turkish military constitutes NATO's second-largest land army.

V. The Liberation of the Iraqi People

Sadly, brutal dictatorships exist throughout the world, whose people need �liberation� from their leaders. Many of these brutal regimes, Iraq included, have been supported over the years by Washington administrations spanning both sides of the mainstream partisan aisle. One need look no further than the terror experienced in countries throughout Central America under the Reagan administration for examples of brutal military dictatorships being privy to the ear and pocketbook of the United States. You don�t liberate a country by putting in place a corporate and military occupation with a puppet government.

There was little evidence of American concern for the welfare of Iraq's citizens in the period between the First Gulf War and the invasion undertaken by George W. Bush. There can be no denying that the brunt of the hardship�faced as a result of crippling economic sanctions handed down by the United Nations at the insistence of the U.S. government�was borne by the Iraqi people�resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Today, Iraq is more of a hotbed for civil strife than it ever was under Saddam Hussein, the atrocities of his regime notwithstanding. The Iraqi invasion was always about oil plus dollops of messianic militarism and the influence of neoconservatives in the executive branch. As the death toll of Iraqi civilians (now well over 10,000) continues to mount, it is increasingly evident that the military and corporate occupation of Iraq by the United States and its willing accomplices is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy, and insurrection.

In fact, we have not liberated the Iraqi people. We continue to occupy Iraq with over 135,000 soldiers. We have sought an international costume for continued occupation. The UN resolution put forward by the United States and its loyal ally, Great Britain, in order to provide cover for the dual corporate and military occupation of Iraq does not provide �liberation� for the Iraqi people. The Resolution while mentioning �sovereignty� 12 times, and referring to the �territorial integrity of Iraq,� and even the �end of the occupation� is in truth designed to legitimize the continued occupation of Iraq, allow the U.S. to continue its plans to build over a dozen military bases throughout the country and for US corporations to expand deep reaches into Iraqi resources and the Iraqi economy. Double talk.

One clause of the UN Resolution in particular demonstrates the obvious position of the Bush Administration�that the U.S. continues to be able to use its military force as it sees fit. The resolution says the U.S. controlled military�160,000 troops�has the �authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq.� The power of the US military is unabridged and the occupation of Iraq by the US-commanded force has no end in sight. Indeed, the US rejected proposals by France, Germany and others that Iraq have the final say in controlling the military presence in its country. Together with scores of decrees by the US overseer, Paul Bremer, including continuing Saddam�s ban on labor unions, this condition does not assure many mainstream Iraqis to distance themselves from the resistance.

The Resolution does not specify what powers the Interim Government will be allowed. Earlier the US administration stated that the Interim Government would not have the authority to overrule existing laws promulgated and enforced by Paul Bremer. The US-UK Resolution does not spell out such a limitation, but neither does it specify what actual powers would be held by the Interim Government.

Another controversial area where the Resolution is silent is on the issue of U.S. military prisons. Eight thousand Iraqis are currently jailed in those prisons. What did the U.S. say it would do with those prisoners? Secretary of State Colin Powell in a side letter attached to the Resolution said internment would continue but only �where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security.� A majority of Iraqi�s imprisoned were not accused of any wrongdoing, according to US military officials, which is why hundreds have been released in the last fortnight.

And how about the interim Iraqi government? Its leader�who some might call the lead servant�is Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a longtime ally of and connector for U.S. government agencies. He immediately announced that Iraq would need US troops to continue to fight the guerrillas after the US-led occupation formally ended on June 30, 2004. During the heady years of European imperialism, this Iraqi situation would have been called a protectorate or a colony.

Conclusion
Nader/Camejo 2004 urges Congress to investigate the illegal nature of the Iraqi invasion, and address particularly these five falsehoods, that became part of the Bush Administration�s drum beat for war, with a formal Inquiry of Impeachment.

Of everything that was written, Alexandra, the conclusion was the most important point for me because it was dated 2004!

It is outdated.

It matters not when it was written. There is no statute of limitations on treason.

Also, please see the most recent ways in which peoples votes have been taken from them just in the past few days, almost exclusively to the benefit of Republican candidates.

The perpetrators of these acts, and those that do not act to prevent such acts as is a part of their governmental responsibility, should be fully investigated and prosecuted to the limit of the law.

http://www.votersunite.org/electionprobl...lectproblemtype

DJC in Norwich, UK

Some people wish to waste money on investigations, that never prove anything, instead of moving forward. Live with the majority and quit believing that there is some kind of hidden agenda that makes YOU an outsider. That is pure paranoia, something that was rampant during the Nixon yeears! We don't need to bring it back now!

Trish