Slashdot Mirror
Diebold Patch May Be Evidence of '02 Election Tampering
An anonymous reader writes "Stephen Spoonamore, founder of IT security firm Cybrinth and former advisor to John McCain, claims he has new evidence of election tampering by Diebold in the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senate races. A whistleblower gave Spoonamore a patch that was applied to Diebold machines in person by the Diebold CEO. Spoonamore confirmed that the patch did not correct the clock problem it supposedly addressed, but contained two parallel programs. Without access to the hardware, he could not learn more. He reported his findings to the Justice Department, which has not acted."
the worst thing is even if the next election was rigged no body would really do anything.
Honestly? Surprised that there exists interests in changing the outcome of an election in a favourable way?
I think I'll vote via absentee ballot and send it via registered mail. Paranoid? Maybe.
The first flag should've been that it was the CEO who performed the patch. If a CEO _ever_ gets his hands dirty, you can rest assured that there is something illegal going on that needs to be covered up.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
I wonder how many people have stopped to think through the implications of this charge. If it's proven to be true, it could very well mean Diebold's CEO is guilty of treason. In a time of war (which President Bush has repeatedly said is the case), that's a death penalty offense. While I don't favour the death penalty, I think you have to take a very serious look at it for somebody who hasn't just killed people, but who has attempted to kill democracy in an entire nation. This particular incident may have been restricted to one state, but Diebold has been very active in attempting to get its machines and methods protected from legal supervision at the federal level.
By the way, what's their new name? I keep forgetting.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The story says "The computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds."
If that's accurate, that's astonishing to me.
I don't know much about "The Raw Story," which describes itself as an "alternative" news source. If this had appeared in the mainstream media I would regard it as something close to a smoking gun. I hope this isn't the end of the story.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Three problems with your point:
1) The patch was made to certified machines, thus making them non-certified.
2) It was only applied in 2 counties. (*cough*Democratic counties*cough*) Why not the whole state?
3) I'm fairly certain that if *I* merely open the ballot box or machine during the election, that satisfies the requirement for "tampering" regardless of me touching ballots or flipping bits, and I'd be making an extra stop at the local police precinct before going home.
Of course, it all depends on who's prosecuting and how it gets presented.
But if:
1. it doesn't fix the problem it claims to fix
2. it was personnally installed by the CEO of the vendor's firm
3. it was only installed on a subset of machines (and those in democratic strongholds)
alarm bells should be going off all over the place.
If, at my bank, we tried to push a change that hit even one of the above, ten people would be on the phone to in-house lawyers, compliance, management, etc.
Had one of my new guys yesterday wanting to push a change. "I'll tell you what it does," he said. "Don't bother," I said, "if what it's doing is not obvious, it's not going anywhere."
FTA: "...The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich..."
Oops. Bob Urosevich was not and has never been the CEO of Diebold. That seems like a pretty important oversight for a front-page non-fiction piece.
FUD.
The software engineers try to get a handle on how many bugs are left after a certain number have been found, but how do we get a handle on how many events like these might be happening after one has come to light?
It has long been pretty clear that these voting machine vendors, Diebold chief among them, have had something to hide because of how cagy they have been about allowing people to examine their machines. It's very frustrating that their arguments seem to always win out - it makes you wonder how many Secretaries of State (for non-US readers, that is a state-level office that is frequently in charge of elections. Not to be confused with the Federal level Foreign Minister) want to know what is going on, or really d know what is going on, and just want deniability.
The CEO personally getting involved is more suspicious to me.
I mean Deibold is a fairly large company, why is the CEO applying patches to products in person?
And how often does he do this?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
We're talking about McCain's aid and a respected businessman. The allegation is serious enough to warrent an investigation regardless of who reported it - you can figure out what software does impartially. When it's someone from the side that won, there's all the more reason to look. Some people put principles like one man one vote before the good of their party. As politicians are fond of saying, millions of people have died defending those principles.
The only reason to dismiss these charges is if you think Spoonamore has an axe to grind. Chances are, he will soon face smears of that nature but they don't hold up. The Bush adiministration has shown a willingess to punish those who say things that make them look bad. Spoonamore has much to lose and nothing to gain but everyone's freedom. His act is selfless and commendable.
perhaps. However, there are many many many factions there. Do you know and trust all their motivations? Some factions might like the war because it is profitable, or gives them an edge in gang fights.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
The point is not whether those who won the election would have won anyway even without tampering. Obviously, those who perpetrated the alleged act believed that there was a chance there might be an upset, and alleged act itself remains criminal.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
My point is, Obama should feel pretty safe in Iraq.
Not from the Blackwater goons. And he might want to stay away from the showers.
What?
And if the CEO of Diebold was making sure of that, he needs to go to jail. Doesn't matter if the results were actually changed - and there's no way we can know at this point, anyway.
The extremists among the Iraqi insurgency and other terrorist groups are devoted to the idea of pushing the broader Islamic world into open war with the West. They would probably prefer that the winner of the election prolong the occupation so that they can continue to claim to be fighting against Western aggression and collaborators, rather than just killing their own people. The last thing that the kookiest of the terror groups want is a president who is interested in multi-lateral diplomatic settlements to points of conflict between Muslim countries and the US. A diplomatic resolution to conflicts over Iran's nuclear program, for instance, amounts to a disappointing fizzle if you're interested in widening the rift. An invasion and war, on the other hand, would push moderates in Iran into the arms of Islamic radicals that promise to defend them.
It seems there is an allegation of tampering that no one seems to be able to prove or disprove. Regardsless of who won or should have won, that fact alone should give anyone pause when it comes to voting by machine. With hand marked ballots counted by hand, there will be a representative of a party of my own conviction at most polling stations, who can tell me with conviction: "No tampering has taken place here". When votes are counted by hands in the presence of representatives of all partirs, I can be pretty sure that there is no widespread tampering, without having to take any expert's word for it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
why is the CEO applying patches to products in person?
And how often does he do this?
Whenever he needs to get paid
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
Credibility? You want credibility on an anonymous third-hand account of something that allegedly happened six years ago? Get real. There will be many, many claims of fraud, affairs, and other misdeeds against the Republicans in the next four months. To paraphrase Dan Rather "We're sure the story is true, even if the evidence doesn't support it".
I'd really like to hear a Republican explain how the Republican party is "conservative"?
Whether they are or not is largely irrelevant at present. They still claim to be conservative, and conservative voters accept that claim to a such a degree that they vote for them. That's all.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Personally I would like a Republican to explain why the USA now has a King instead of it being a Republic.
For hundreds of years elections have been held using paper and pencil ballots, and fraud was very difficult to get away with. This is because you have to employ large numbers of people to commit it.
Electronic voting can be subverted very simply indeed, just by one person with the right technical knowledge. All electronic voting should be scrapped until a reasonably secure system can be organised, most likely by open source solutions. Even then there's no real reason for it.
And what the hell was the CEO doing installing patches? Sounds highly suspicous to me.
>And I thought Braille on a drive up ATM was pointless.
Because you're not blind, and you've never had to trust a stranger to do an ATM transaction for you,
and you've never done an ATM transaction from the back seat of a taxi.
You are totally insensitive to the struggle of the visually impaired, and your joke is not funny.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Don't be silly. That's exactly the kind of thing they'd want. They can lie through their teeth, extract all kinds of concessions and appeasement, then point to those concessions as proof that the US is weak, immoral and powerless. Then launch an attack against the US but claim that they didn't do it. After the attack, more rounds of diplomacy and concessions, and the loop continues.
Further, they can point to the weakness of the US and tell the people they are oppressing that there is no help coming from the US -- just like Saddam was doing to his people before the war. Saddam used every city government anti-war resolution against us and his own people, repeatedly broadcasting the fact that the US wasn't going to ever do anything because all the people said they weren't. The fact he was wrong didn't stop him from doing it, and he was only wrong because we have a president that knows when enough is enough.
If you don't think this is how the terrorists operate, review the history of Iraq, or North Korea, which got concessions in exchange for nuclear limitations, and went ahead and built their nuke program anyway after they got the concessions.
An invasion and war, on the other hand, would push moderates in Iran into the arms of Islamic radicals that promise to defend them.
Yes, they win by spinning things either way. They lose if we remove them, which will never happen by talking to them. There is nothing we can say that will make them peaceful. They have no interest in compromise with Satan, unlike many of the people in the US.
Go ahead and mod me down, I've got decent karma.
Yeah, bashing Karl Rove will really get you modded down on Slashdot. Who's next, RIAA?
We seem to conveniently forget that extremists are not interested in diplomacy as a solution. Extremists were attacking the West long before the war in Iraq; it is a fallacy to assume they would just revert to killing each other, and leave the West alone.
Iran is case-in-point: The goal of the leadership in Iran has nothing to do with diplomacy; they want their nuclear toys, period, and will risk war to get them. The thought of a peaceful Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran stretches just that little bit past the bounds of reality.
If a person isn't hungry, food is the wrong negotiating tool.
And he might want to stay away from the showers.
He'll be fine, as long as he wears shower shoes and sprays his feet with Tinactin afterwards. Though some of the fungi in military showers can be pretty tough.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
There has to be a line. Yes, bad things happen in the world, and my heart bleeds a little every time I hear about a child starving to death, or the AIDS epidemic, or genocide. But the United States is only so strong, and only capable of dealing with so much.
Would you, personally, by hand, go out and try to feed EVERY homeless person in your city? Not build a shelter and feed the ones that come in. Actually walk the streets with a bag/shopping cart/truckload/whatever of food, and find the homeless, and feed them?
We spread ourselves too thin. We try to do so much good in so many places that all we manage is a barely mediocre achievement anywhere. I believe that isolationist policies are stupid, but we can't be the world's nanny anymore, we can't kiss everyone's boo-boos anymore. Our economy is in bad enough shape. Pouring so much of it into other places, nay, wasting it, is doing NOTHING to help stabilize ourselves. Yeah, it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to say 'My country feeds starving Nigerian babies' but what nobody says is that our aid programs drain public resources that could be put into health care, education, public works, or reducing the national debt.
Think about it. Yeah, it makes you warm and fuzzy to clothes a homeless man, but if you give him the clothes off your back, now, YOU are naked. How much good can we do to third world countries and those in need if we reduce ourselves to third-world status?
Don't be silly, making speeches is lousy theater. Video of anguished families rending their garments over the corpse of their child killed by an American soldier is a lot more effective in recruiting dissatisfied people than giving a powerpoint presentation about the oppressors.
Your enemies will certainly try to spin anything in their favor (what do you think the job of the White House press secretary is?) because nobody is going to hold a press conference to say "wow, we're idiots, it turns out those other guys are really great, look at this awesome aid package they're giving us!"
You have to convince people not to follow crazy leaders, which is difficult (it's taken eight years for us to ignore ours). You can either kill them mercilessly and terrify everyone into not wanting to risk it, you can give them jobs and food so that they're too comfortable to want to upset the status quo, or you can give them an alternate leader who they believe will be more effective (see: political history of Hamas).
As it stands, we're giving them jobs and then shooting them on their way to work, which doesn't make us look either strong or benevolent, it makes us look alternately malicious and idiotic.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
McCain might also have tried to manipulate elections an old fashioned today by commenting on the probable timing of Obama's arrival in Iraq.
In what kind of nutcase fantasy world do you live that you think a stupid comment from one political candidate about another is on the same level as election fraud?
You should change the tag from News for Nerds, the stuff that matters to "irrelevant News for the left that matters to no one "
Although I am not an unconditional fan of open source. I think it has its uses and its non uses. But this is one definite use. It might be the case that as a matter of law right now, what you say is true--it's not evidence. But I actually don't see how we'd be hurt by having a law that makes it into evidence by making it, ipso facto, a crime to apply an undocumented patch at all.
If you're going to have voting machines at all, it seems to me they ought to have open source programs running on them. (I personally don't care if the programs are free in cost, though I imagine they could be. I only care that they are inspectable by anyone and that it is fair use to copy them to other machines for the purpose of verifying their correctness and aherence to advertised and required spec.) I don't see that anyone other than someone doing something illegal is served by keeping the source secret. The data, of course, might be protected. But the program should be auditable by anyone.
And in such a world, I don't see any reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be a crime for there to be any software applied where its entire content and purpose were not carefully documented. Then it wouldn't require any proof other than that it happened in order to detect wrongdoing; and it could be further a crime to phony up a faulty description of what the patch does, so that then it could be audited for validity by anyone who wants to.
The weak link in all this seems to be the hardware. It's quite hard to look at a box and know what's going on inside it. It requires specialized skill. It likely wouldn't be hard to make a machine with a dummy system for show that had the right program on it and another shadow machine tucked away that had the wrong program, with just some subtle wire somewhere leading to one doing the real voting. Call it "democracy theater" if you like, borrowing on the "security theater" moniker used a lot in other venues these days. Such a charade could be hard to notice. Which is why I prefer paper balloting. It means the entire process is exposed.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Probably not me or anyone in my generation; but the amount of time, money and effort wasted in waging these wars [war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on Islamic fundamentalist etc.] could have been well spent on improving the education system her in US which could have resulted in what you wished there.
I wonder every time when people complain here about the student/teacher ratio - I came from a place where we had 120+ students in almost all my grades and still over 60% of the students managed to graduate with excellent grades.
No Sig for you.!
What are you talking about?
No, really: what the heck are you talking about? Are you in the first grade? Do you know what a monarch is? Has the president declared himself a lifetime ruler, appointed by God?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Saddam had basically nothing to do with the war the US started against Iraq. He was just another dictator (hint - Pakistan was just another dictatorship until recently, but we're not going to invade them any time soon, right?). Iraq did not have a nuke program. It didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The reason given for the war was wrong.
Many, many more people have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion than would have died under Saddam's rule. Extremist religious groups are much more powerful now in Iraq than they were under Saddam's rule.
The old Iraqi government has never been meaningfully linked with any acts of terrorism against western nations. They had nothing to do with Al Quaida.
The US/Allied military invasion has killed far more civilians just in Iraq than terrorists have worldwide in the last 10 years.
These are facts... onto subjective opinion.... You are a true moron if you think that all Iranians believe the west "satan". Honestly, I hope you do not believe that Iranians hate the west and want a uniform Islamic world, because that would show absolute ignorance of Iran. The "they" you talk about are essentially a creation - "they" do not exist.
Also, how is North Korea an example of how terrorists operate? I mean, how on earth do you figure out that North Korea is a bastion of terrorism?
Basically, my advice to you is quit being so scared. These places you demonise are not actually inhabited by demons. They're just generally ordinary people.
OT here I come.
Sure, I am in. But frankly I am afraid to use my real name.
See, now you're trying to make sense, which means those on the Right's eyes will glaze over and they'll just skip to the next comment which mentions terrorist fist-bumps and flag lapel pins.
I'm afraid that instead of trying to engage these people (listeners to right-wing radio), we're just going to have to ignore them and do the best we can for this country without their input. It's probably for the best, all around.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why is it that nobody seems to understand that the DoJ is an executive agency, therefore an extension of the President. There is no "politicizing" DoJ. It is inherently a political agency. Its purpose is to carry out the President's policy.
The purpose of the Attorney General under U.S. law is to represent the United States, not the President.
Why does it need to be a (wholly irrelevant) Bush hate-fest?
Because the president of Diebold publicly stated that he would do everything he could to elect Bush president? Because Bush's flunkies have been inappropriately pushing prosecutors to investigate purported election fraud when it benefitted them? Because Bush has created such a culture of cronyism and corruption that's trickled down throughout the entire DOJ has basically become completely unreliable?
I think where we went astray was forcing our aid into places despite the armed opposition of various forces. As soon as the aid truck needs armed guards, a lack of aid is not the real problem and it will not help.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
In America? There is pretty much no excuse for being homeless. You CAN get help if you want it. You CAN find a job. Are you going to get a nice comfy desk job paying middle class wages without putting any effort into it, No. People with disabilities have the oppertunity to get help if they ask and make an effort to better themselves. If you couldn't find a job, we wouldn't be building fences at the Mexican border.
If someone thinks they are too good to flip burgers and would rather live on the street, I feel no sympathy for them. Got a disability? I'm pretty sure Walmart will hire anyone as a greeter.
I'm completely against illegal immigration. However, I do have a problem faulting someone who comes over and takes the shitty jobs, lives 10 people in a 2 bedroom apartment, and doesn't bitch about it because they are willing to do the work. All the while, sending money home to help others have the chance to do the same.
Having visited Mexico in the 80s, those people had it bad, I doubt there are that many Americans alive today that know what 'Bad' or 'Hard Life' is.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You must think Christians are really stupid, huh?
The "Christians" I see on the tee-vee just blame it all on the gays, and insist that I send them money. I haven't seen a "give him the clothes off your back" Christian around these parts since, well, never.
Has the president declared himself a lifetime ruler, appointed by God?
Believes he is appointed by God - check
Believes he is absolute ruler - check
Declares war unanimously - check
Lifetime ruler - no
So no, not a monarchy, more like a theocracy (given the power wielded by various Christian groups in elections), with the trappings of democracy.
Having undergone a brief and unpleasant stint attempting to educate American students, IMO you're dead on - the problem with the American educational system is primarily the lousy uninterested Americans that pass through it, more interested in sports, drugs, sex, and popularity (which is largely a function of the first three items) than in actually learning anything. No amount of money will make these degenerates any more interested in learning, and that's the fundamental problem. To put it plainly, nothing about our educational system will improve unless our culture shifts so that the nerd is socially more respected than the jock.
If we talk while our enemy fights, we lose.
Yep and thus India remains firmly under British control.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I doubt Wallmart would want a greeter with Tourette's Syndrome, or undercontrolled Schizophrenia. Not so coincidentally, a disproportionate number (I've heard upwards of 50%) of the homeless population has mental disabilities. The rest? Yes, some are lazy. Some are young people who escaped abuse in a broken home, took up drugs, and are now essentially unemployable. Some people suffer from chronic pain which prevents them from working. Many are women who have escaped abuse, have young children to look after 24/7, and no marketable skills. Have you ever try applying for a job without an address or a change of clothes? Of course, don't let any of these cases get in the way of your simple and elegant world view.
Jeremy
Kids being disinterested in school is not a problem. It is a good thing. Anyone who believes that school is good for kids is delusional.
Agreed. On the other hand, school should be good for kids. If it's not, we're doing it wrong.
Pirate Party UK
We spread ourselves too thin.
We spent a trillion dollars on the Iraq war and ruined our economy. The majority of our discretionary spending goes to the military. And almost none of that money is actually going to aid.
We're way beyond "spread to thin".
but we can't be the world's nanny anymore
We've never been the world's nanny. Almost everything the US has done internationally has been in the US military and economic interest, including WWI and WWII. The difference between then and now is that (1) past efforts were successful and (2) past efforts were aimed at deriving a benefit for us by helping others. The problem with the current efforts is that they are unsuccessful and that nobody benefits.
Cute very narrow redefinition but I was thinking more in line with something in the dictionary. Thanks for the personal attack too - what are they teaching in those schools there?
It became clear to me when Cheney visited Sydney with ten times the pomp and ceremony of a real Royal visit. We even had to have a special night time sitting of parliment to change a gun law for him the night before the visit. Consider what little the Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court can do if they oppose actions of the Executive now - they can only draft laws that can be ignored or make judgements that will be ignored. Now compare that to the little European Kingdoms of a couple of centuries ago - some of which had elected kings (by the nobles) and sometimes even with limited terms.
NO this not a troll.
This war has been a PR nightmare. They hit the WTC for the symbol it represents as the center of western financial power and the day was picked as 911 is a number for emergency. We are not fight an enemy we are fighting symbols and ideals. As long as we are mired in this suspiciously contrived conflict that is at odds with western ideals we will continue to lost ground.
Iraq is another reason the GOP is bankrupt philosophically. They threw away one of the best weapons we developed in the cold war, that the West was a Shining example of what the world could be. Now we are seen as jackbooted thugs.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Also... Iraq before the war was a country trying to get by under heavy embargo. Sure journalist were not the happiest men on earth, but life was going on. Now all remain is chaos and destruction.
Saddam biggest mistake was to sell his petrol in euro instead of dollars... That was his only weapon of mass destruction...
... is that computers cannot be trusted to process anonymous transactions. Particularly when the stakes are high.
Digital electronic ballots can't be considered real, as they do not leave scads of physical forensic evidence the way a physical ballot would.
Everything else we do with computers involving trust also involves personal identification and verification procedures (logging in, checking a bank statement, etc. for which there are no analogs in voting systems) and even that is problematic enough.
Iran is case-in-point: The goal of the leadership in Iran has nothing to do with diplomacy; they want their nuclear toys, period, and will risk war to get them. The thought of a peaceful Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran stretches just that little bit past the bounds of reality.
Ah! Republican talking points. Also unfounded in reality. You're watching too much Fox (faux) news.
Really? You obviously have no idea what a monarchy is, but a theocracy? Just because religious people vote for another religious person does not make it a theocracy. Is Germany a theocracy? Because they actually have a Christian party, and their leader is the Chancellor of Germany.
He did not declare war unanimously. Only Congress can declare war, and Congress overwhelmingly supported the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The president actually has very little direct power, he's mostly a figurehead. Congress are the people rubber-stamping his policies.
George Bush is an asshole, but please respect the English language and common sense.
And people, get over it! There is absolutely zero hard evidence that the Republicans have stolen any elections. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not small amounts of circumstantial evidence and the ramblings of bloggers. You have to live with the fact that approximately half of the voting public voted for a complete jackass (making the large assumption that Kerry or Gore weren't idiots as well). That's one of the unfortunate things about living in a democracy. But you apparently don't know what that means either.
Saddam had basically nothing to do with the war the US started against Iraq.
You mean, other than completely violating - year after year - the terms of the cease fire following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. Other than regular attacks - with actual anti-aircraft guns and missiles - against the aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that were set up to protect the populations he had been busy slaughtering in the many thousands in the north and south of Iraq. Other than his ongoing program to build and buy long range missiles (lots of business with North Korea on that front), which continued right up through 2003, in violation of his agreement not to, following his lobbing of SCUDs into Israel as he forces were being pushed back from Kuwait and the Saudi border. Other than his continuous shut-down of the UN inspectors and non-stop obfuscation about his weapons programs, including his refusal to come clean on the disposition of tons of VX gas and related hardware that were anything but imaginary (since they were seen and reported by inpsectors in the early rounds following Kuwait, before they were kicked out by Saddam). So, no, Saddam had nothing to do with his own regime being dismantled, other than a non-stop campaign of smuggling, scraping cash meant for his people's food and health so that he could buy military hardware and build palaces, live fire at coalition troops and aircraft on a regular basis, publicized cash payments to families of suicide bombers (remember the $50,000 checks and photo-ops?) to buy favaor with Hamas and Hezbollah, and more. Nah, he was just "trying to get by under an embargo." An embargo that he could have ended in a minute by simply doing what he said he told the UN he would do after being spanked following his violent invasion of Kuwait.
Many, many more people have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion than would have died under Saddam's rule
He buldozed dirt over mass graves - when anyone bothered to try to cover anything up - as part of a sustained effort that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And, do you really count Iran's finance, sponsorship, and direct participation in years of destabilizing bombings in Iraq as being "a result of the invasion?" They just can't stop themselves, can they. They have no choice but to ship high explosives to Iraq, and pay the thugs they station there to strap them to mentally impaired women who are then sent into markets to blow up dozens of women and children at a go... because the invasion made them do it. I see.
It didn't have weapons of mass destruction
Other than the ones they used many times, and other than the large stockpiles observed by UN inspectors, but the disposition of which remained a complete mystery. Saddam's regime wouldn't allow further inspections in the areas where they were previously stockpiled, and wouldn't provide the documentation he agreed to provide showing the nature and timing of any disposal process. So, we know they had them - that is simple fact - and where they got to is not known.
You are a true moron if you think that all Iranians believe the west "satan".
Does it matter if the average Iranian thinks that, when the people who run the place, write the checks to people who DO think that way, and are willing to deploy armed insurgents who operate with that notion in mind? No, it doesn't. Not of the people who do NOT think like that aren't willing to tear that murderous theocracy down. Which they aren't willing to do. They support them, by continuing to give them power.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You've got to be kidding me, this junk gets modded 'insightful'??
"Believes he is appointed by God - check" ... you know, just give me a Bush quote that supports this in any way ...
Cite this
"Believes he is absolute ruler - check"
See above. Also, just what has he ever got done without congress.
"Declares war unanimously - check"
Umm, please read the constitution. Grep 'declare war'. Now look at Iraq like an
adult, rather than a sycophant.
"Lifetime ruler - no"
So. How would have Kerry ( or Obama ) handled Iraq, and how exactly would
that have been better for the US's future? Should we ignore the problem represented
by the *entire* mideast, till someone pops a nuke in an American city? Or
anonymous dirty bombs start getting let off in our cities? Ignore a dictator
who is taking shots at our planes, had agreed to demonstrate he disarmed
himself, the reneged. You think Iraq 1 made Saddam our buddy?
I've usually found ./ to be populated with people who are a step above the median
in intellegence. Why don't we see many people taking the long term view,
looking 20-50 years down the line, and the kind of world we want to live in
then? You think a festering cesspool of little dictators with access to nukes
or radiological bombs would be a bright place to live? If nothing else, Iraq 2
has started to drain the swamp.
Don't be silly. Al Queda was a marginal, regional group of thugs that happened to have some financial backing until we invaded Iraq. Suddenly, they get support across the Arab world and we lose any of the international sympathy that we had after 9/11. Six years and thousands of American dead and wounded later, Al Queda is strengthening in Afghanistan while their preferred candidate, McCain, promises 100 more years of an "infidel" presence in Iraq. That's almost the same complaint, by the way, that motivated Bin Laden in the first place.
So, even if the Iraqi main street is pacified, the extremists will continue to recruit there; stirring passions in the ignorant, insulted, and under-employed and convincing them that the one hope of Heaven is to strap on a belt of explosives. There's a chance, though, that this message can be blunted if the U.S. can advertise our message of economic freedom and good will while pushing the military presence into the background. Unfortunately, McCain is not the guy to walk that walk and the extremists know this.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.