I read the report. The commission did not see any evidence that supported that conclusion- that is why the dissenting opinion was so strong. Like I said before, they didn't hear from a single voter that was prevented from voting. Instead they relied on a misleading statistical interpretation that was thrashed in the dissent.
There is one majority conclusion that I did agree with, though.
The report does not find that the highest officials of the state conspired to disenfranchise voters. Moreover, even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred
Palast is an *investigative reporter*. He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.
No, no, no. Palast is a rabid Republican hater (or maybe just a Bush hater), and he searches for information to justify that preconceived opinion while ignoring anything that doesn't support it. His claims regarding the 2000 election in Florida have been thoroughly and completely debunked.
The list was 95% false positives, heavily leaning black and Democrat.
Untrue. According to the USCCR, there were ~4000 incorrect names on the list of 57,770 felons, or less than 7%. Whats more, the error rate of white people on the list was double the error rate of black people on the list.
Secondly, Choicepoint warned the Secratary of State, in writing, that there would be a large number of false positives. The Govenor's office wrote back with instructions to proceed saying they wanted it to be broad.
Right. That was the whole point of the 1998 law that commissioned the felon list (which was passed before Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush were in office, btw). The list was intended to "cast a wide net" and give the list of names to the individual county election supervisors. The county election supervisors were required to verify the names before they took any action. 22 counties didn't even use the list at all, which led the Miami Herald to conclude that the biggest problem with the list was that it ended up allowing 6,500 felons to vote.
The 2000 election was stolen. Greg Palast's evidence has been corraborated by two investigations.
No it hasn't. In fact, the USCCR didn't even hear from a single witness that was disenfranchised because they were incorrectly put on the felons list. Palast's writings most resemble the rantings of a blind partisan, not an "investigative reporter".
People should have gone to jail over the 2000 election
You should try reading Palast's _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy_. He dissected that "felon list", and documents how something like 90+% of its names were wrongly listed. And how the Florida election board, run by Republican Katherine Harris (cochair of Bush's Florida campaign, and Secretary of State to Bush's brother, Governor Jeb), disqualified voters with any similarity to the listed names, including crossing gender lines, matching only initials, etc. The list was so bad that several counties refused to use it, but not enough.
And yet, interestingly enough, when the USCCR held hearings, they were unable to find a single person that would testify that they were actually incorrectly prevented from voting because of the felon list.
Yes, the felon list had mistakes (nowhere near 90%, though). But the law was designed for that! The county election supervisors were responsible to verify the names as actual felons before any action was taken. If somebody was disenfranchised, the blame lies solely on the Election Supervisor of the county that he/she lives in.
Typing that post that you just typed does not-- technically-- make you retarded. Your 21st chromosome is still the same as before you typed it. But in practice, you are as retarded as this guy.
That is untrue. For example, in September of 2003, Dick Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
You know, context is important when you are quoting people. Here is the whole transcript:
If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
I think it is very clear what Cheney was saying- a free and democratic Iraq will transform the entire middle east, a place that has been the base of most terrorist activity against us. He was NOT saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11- especially considering they covered that exact topic in direct questions earlier in the interview.
I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move. He wasn't 'projecting calm' to the kids in the room- they had no reason to be scared. But the thousands of people that had just seen 2 planes fly into buildings did have a reason to be scared.
BUSH: I was thinking America was under attack, I was collecting my thoughts, and I wasn't about to panic a bunch of kids. And the program was winding down, I waited for the end of the program, I excused myself and I went to action. And what the American people will judge me on is whether or not I handled that crisis, in a way that lets them know that, that I'll lead in this war on terror, that's what they need to look at, and I think they are looking at it that way.
So I guess he was thinking about the kids in that room. Oh well.
You're taking off-the-cuff examples that I gave and trying to pick them apart.
No, I was trying to convey that the experts at the various agencies handle most of the operational decisions. The bigger decisions, like authorization to shoot down a commercial aircraft, or grounding all air traffic in the US, are made by the President, and on 9/11 he made those decisions.
It was very clearly a wrong decision.
It would have been a wrong decision if acting differently in those 7 minutes could have significantly changed the outcome. The 9/11 Commission doesn't think he could have. Do you disagree with that?
Why did he decide that 'projecting calm' to a room full of perfectly calm elementary school children was more important than gathering information, making decisions, and making the tough calls when presented with conflicting reports from senior staff, the media, and government agencies?
I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move. He wasn't 'projecting calm' to the kids in the room- they had no reason to be scared. But the thousands of people that had just seen 2 planes fly into buildings did have a reason to be scared.
In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House
The President's new mode of transportation: a black hole between Florida and DC...
He should have then exited the school and then been briefed as he returned to the White House. In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House, he should have been making decisions (scramble fighters? divert aircraft en-route to DC and New York? dismiss government employees from potential non-military targets like the Treasury?) and issuing appropriate orders.
He was available to make the necessary decisions. You see, we have agencies and people and plans in place to react without the President micro-managing the operations. For example, the order to scramble jets was first given at 8:37, almost 10 minutes before the first plane hit the tower and long before the President knew anything was happening. The FAA has plans in place of what they will do in case of a hijacking, and they have the experts to carry out those plans. They don't need the President to tell them how to control air traffic.
When the President was informed of the second plane hitting, he sat there knowing that these agencies and plans were in full swing, and there was little he could do at that point. He told the 9/11 Commission that he decided that it would be best for him to project calm and allow these people to do their jobs and collect the information that he would need later. I don't know if that was the best solution, but it certainly wasn't a wrong one.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore.
So that is one of his complaints- that Nader is on the ballot. I was not trying to flamebait. That comes directly from Carter.
First of all, a surplus is not a good thing. It means that the government took too much of your money. Deficits aren't that great either, but Bush's deficits are inline with historical averages, and they are due as much to the inherited economic slowdown as they are to anything Bush did.
and tax the middle class
Uh, Bush didn't start taxing the middle class. They have been taxed for most of this century. On the contrary, Bush gave them a tax cut.
while giving all my rich buddies a free ride on their illegal doings
Who exactly are you referring to? Enron? Nope, they got busted. Halliburton? They haven't done anything illegal.
and also give them a tax cut
Yes, when EVERYBODY gets a tax cut, the rich people get tax cuts too.
and claim that the war is going great
Well, it is going great by any measure. We have accomplished some pretty darn amazing things over there in the past year and a half.
and the economy is great
It isn't the best, but it is doing well.
but my opponent isn't really a war hero
Bush has gone out of his way to thank Kerry for his military service.
and I served my country honorably
You don't think that the National Guard is honorable? Do you realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people you just insulted by saying that?
Well, some people from Saudi Arabia were involved, but unless you have some top secret evidence proving otherwise, the Saudi Arabian government had nothing to do with it. A New Yorker blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, but that doesn't mean that New York was involved in the bombing.
I swear- you lefties are some of the most pessimistic people around. Not only to you expect us to fail, it sometimes looks like you actually hope we fail so you can feel good about yourself.
Cut Your Premiums John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.
Uh, how?
Cover All Americans With Quality Care The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.
Uh, how?
Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.
Re-importing drugs from Canada is not a long term solution to reduce drug prices. It can help a few people now, but it is not scaleable at all.
Cut Waste And Inefficiency Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.
Uh, how? I guess just getting Edwards to stop practicing law will cut some costs, but thats not really a plan...
The two-party system is a big source of stability here, and it is one of the greatest strengths of our country. If you cannot agree with either party, then you are so far out of the mainstream that it is good that you are throwing your vote away.
There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further.
No there aren't. In the 1980's, we gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, and they decided how to apportion the aid among resistance groups. The mujahadeen != Al Qaeda. And we did this to help in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion.
Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it
More left-wing distortions. We did not supply him with his WMDs. In fact, the chemical weapons that he used were definitely not from the United States, and the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports between 1973 and 1990 (the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all exported more arms to Iraq than we did).
And no, we did not reward or protect him. We sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to personally caution Saddam against using chemical weapons, and we voted for 5 UN resolutions condemning Iraq for their chemical weapon use.
And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?
Kerry might have voted for the war when he was fooled by the Bush&Co that Saddam has anything to do with terrorism.
Wake up. Iraq has openly supported terrorism for decades. They have been on the State Departments list of terror sponsoring states since 1979. This is not new information.
So where's the proof that any of these other organizations were plotting with Saddam against the US? You have none
Uh, he has been trying to attack us since the first Gulf War. We have foiled numerous Iraqi terror plots against us, including an attack on Radio Free Europe in Prague, and an assassination attempt of a former President. He has been working with some of the most notorious terrorists in the world in this campaign, including Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal. Our intelligence showed that Iraq was plotting more attacks against us, and this was corroborrated by other countries. What more proof do you want? Iraqi suicide bombers in New York?
And your argument doesn't even make any sense. You cannot fight a war on terrorism while ignoring one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
My argument is that the administration built its case for war on the false premises that there was a collaborative link between Iraq and al Qaida (including hinting that Iraq had something to do with 9-11) and that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had stockpiles of WMDs. Neither of these is true, so now you and the administration look stupid.
Your argument is wrong. The Bush Administration said that Iraq supported terrorists. There is no way you can deny that. Iraq wanted to attack us. There is no way you can deny that either. He had active WMD programs and infrastructure. Again, you cannot deny that. If you do not see that as a threat to us, then I am very glad that you are not in charge of our national security.
Which happen to be the counties where the voting equipement is by far the most defective, which is odd, until you realize that the brother of the other candidate is governor
Where are you getting this stuff? The Governor does not buy the voting equipment. He doesn't even determine how much funds go to voting equipment. 99% of these decisions are made at the county level.
not to mention Black voters illegally and unjustly barred to vote "by mistake".
I assume you are referring to the felon scrub list. I'll just ignore your obvious racism by equating black voters to convicted felons and address the allegation: the decision of whether to remove a voter from the voter registration rests solely on the county election supervisors. They were required by law to verify the names on the felon scrub list before taking any action. If somebody was incorrectly prevented from voting, it is the county election supervisor's fault, and not Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris or the evil Republicans. Got it? Now, most counties decided to not even use the scrub list at all. When the USCCR held hearings on the election, they were only able to identify one person that was incorrectly prevented from voted because of the scrub list. On the other hand, the Miami Herald concluded that the biggest problem with the list is that it allowed too many felons to vote.
but total recount would
No it wouldn't. There were a few scenarios of counting overvotes for Gore that would have given him a lead, but they were not legal under any interpretation of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one majority conclusion that I did agree with, though.
Palast is an *investigative reporter*. He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.
No, no, no. Palast is a rabid Republican hater (or maybe just a Bush hater), and he searches for information to justify that preconceived opinion while ignoring anything that doesn't support it. His claims regarding the 2000 election in Florida have been thoroughly and completely debunked.
The list was 95% false positives, heavily leaning black and Democrat.
Untrue. According to the USCCR, there were ~4000 incorrect names on the list of 57,770 felons, or less than 7%. Whats more, the error rate of white people on the list was double the error rate of black people on the list.
Secondly, Choicepoint warned the Secratary of State, in writing, that there would be a large number of false positives. The Govenor's office wrote back with instructions to proceed saying they wanted it to be broad.
Right. That was the whole point of the 1998 law that commissioned the felon list (which was passed before Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush were in office, btw). The list was intended to "cast a wide net" and give the list of names to the individual county election supervisors. The county election supervisors were required to verify the names before they took any action. 22 counties didn't even use the list at all, which led the Miami Herald to conclude that the biggest problem with the list was that it ended up allowing 6,500 felons to vote.
The 2000 election was stolen. Greg Palast's evidence has been corraborated by two investigations.
No it hasn't. In fact, the USCCR didn't even hear from a single witness that was disenfranchised because they were incorrectly put on the felons list. Palast's writings most resemble the rantings of a blind partisan, not an "investigative reporter".
People should have gone to jail over the 2000 election
Why? For enforcing the law? Good luck with that.
You should try reading Palast's _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy_. He dissected that "felon list", and documents how something like 90+% of its names were wrongly listed. And how the Florida election board, run by Republican Katherine Harris (cochair of Bush's Florida campaign, and Secretary of State to Bush's brother, Governor Jeb), disqualified voters with any similarity to the listed names, including crossing gender lines, matching only initials, etc. The list was so bad that several counties refused to use it, but not enough.
And yet, interestingly enough, when the USCCR held hearings, they were unable to find a single person that would testify that they were actually incorrectly prevented from voting because of the felon list.
Yes, the felon list had mistakes (nowhere near 90%, though). But the law was designed for that! The county election supervisors were responsible to verify the names as actual felons before any action was taken. If somebody was disenfranchised, the blame lies solely on the Election Supervisor of the county that he/she lives in.
Actually, my speed tests have been about 9Mbps down/18Mbps up. Not sure why my upload is so big, but its still cool.
Typing that post that you just typed does not-- technically-- make you retarded. Your 21st chromosome is still the same as before you typed it. But in practice, you are as retarded as this guy.
This should be from the "Who-Gives-A-Crap" Department.
There is no such right. There cannot be, because it is impossible to provide it
You don't provide rights- you defend them.
You know, context is important when you are quoting people. Here is the whole transcript:I think it is very clear what Cheney was saying- a free and democratic Iraq will transform the entire middle east, a place that has been the base of most terrorist activity against us. He was NOT saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11- especially considering they covered that exact topic in direct questions earlier in the interview.
You're taking off-the-cuff examples that I gave and trying to pick them apart.
No, I was trying to convey that the experts at the various agencies handle most of the operational decisions. The bigger decisions, like authorization to shoot down a commercial aircraft, or grounding all air traffic in the US, are made by the President, and on 9/11 he made those decisions.
It was very clearly a wrong decision.
It would have been a wrong decision if acting differently in those 7 minutes could have significantly changed the outcome. The 9/11 Commission doesn't think he could have. Do you disagree with that?
Why did he decide that 'projecting calm' to a room full of perfectly calm elementary school children was more important than gathering information, making decisions, and making the tough calls when presented with conflicting reports from senior staff, the media, and government agencies?
I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move. He wasn't 'projecting calm' to the kids in the room- they had no reason to be scared. But the thousands of people that had just seen 2 planes fly into buildings did have a reason to be scared.
I think it's scary when someone can't see the value in something as clear, coherent, and well-written as the post I commended.
Ah- then you should love this post. It is clear, coherent, well-written, and it has the added bonus of being based on the truth!
In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House
The President's new mode of transportation: a black hole between Florida and DC...
He should have then exited the school and then been briefed as he returned to the White House. In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House, he should have been making decisions (scramble fighters? divert aircraft en-route to DC and New York? dismiss government employees from potential non-military targets like the Treasury?) and issuing appropriate orders.
He was available to make the necessary decisions. You see, we have agencies and people and plans in place to react without the President micro-managing the operations. For example, the order to scramble jets was first given at 8:37, almost 10 minutes before the first plane hit the tower and long before the President knew anything was happening. The FAA has plans in place of what they will do in case of a hijacking, and they have the experts to carry out those plans. They don't need the President to tell them how to control air traffic.
When the President was informed of the second plane hitting, he sat there knowing that these agencies and plans were in full swing, and there was little he could do at that point. He told the 9/11 Commission that he decided that it would be best for him to project calm and allow these people to do their jobs and collect the information that he would need later. I don't know if that was the best solution, but it certainly wasn't a wrong one.
You think it is scary that somebody disagrees with you? I guess humility isn't one of your strengths.
Thats funny. I was thinking the exact opposite.
So that is one of his complaints- that Nader is on the ballot. I was not trying to flamebait. That comes directly from Carter.
How could we ever think there can be a fair election if Nader is on the ballot!
This will be fun.
I will squander a record surplus
First of all, a surplus is not a good thing. It means that the government took too much of your money. Deficits aren't that great either, but Bush's deficits are inline with historical averages, and they are due as much to the inherited economic slowdown as they are to anything Bush did.
and tax the middle class
Uh, Bush didn't start taxing the middle class. They have been taxed for most of this century. On the contrary, Bush gave them a tax cut.
while giving all my rich buddies a free ride on their illegal doings
Who exactly are you referring to? Enron? Nope, they got busted. Halliburton? They haven't done anything illegal.
and also give them a tax cut
Yes, when EVERYBODY gets a tax cut, the rich people get tax cuts too.
and claim that the war is going great
Well, it is going great by any measure. We have accomplished some pretty darn amazing things over there in the past year and a half.
and the economy is great
It isn't the best, but it is doing well.
but my opponent isn't really a war hero
Bush has gone out of his way to thank Kerry for his military service.
and I served my country honorably
You don't think that the National Guard is honorable? Do you realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people you just insulted by saying that?
and the Iraqis love our troops
Many Iraqi's do love our troops.
and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/11
Well, some people from Saudi Arabia were involved, but unless you have some top secret evidence proving otherwise, the Saudi Arabian government had nothing to do with it. A New Yorker blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, but that doesn't mean that New York was involved in the bombing.
I swear- you lefties are some of the most pessimistic people around. Not only to you expect us to fail, it sometimes looks like you actually hope we fail so you can feel good about yourself.
Ok, lets do some digging. Here is an example of his health care "plan":
Uh, how?
Uh, how?
Re-importing drugs from Canada is not a long term solution to reduce drug prices. It can help a few people now, but it is not scaleable at all.
Uh, how? I guess just getting Edwards to stop practicing law will cut some costs, but thats not really a plan...
Ahem
The two-party system is a big source of stability here, and it is one of the greatest strengths of our country. If you cannot agree with either party, then you are so far out of the mainstream that it is good that you are throwing your vote away.
There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further.
No there aren't. In the 1980's, we gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, and they decided how to apportion the aid among resistance groups. The mujahadeen != Al Qaeda. And we did this to help in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion.
Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it
More left-wing distortions. We did not supply him with his WMDs. In fact, the chemical weapons that he used were definitely not from the United States, and the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports between 1973 and 1990 (the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all exported more arms to Iraq than we did).
And no, we did not reward or protect him. We sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to personally caution Saddam against using chemical weapons, and we voted for 5 UN resolutions condemning Iraq for their chemical weapon use.
And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?
Blue light special on tin-foil hats, aisle 3!
Kerry might have voted for the war when he was fooled by the Bush&Co that Saddam has anything to do with terrorism.
Wake up. Iraq has openly supported terrorism for decades. They have been on the State Departments list of terror sponsoring states since 1979. This is not new information.
So where's the proof that any of these other organizations were plotting with Saddam against the US? You have none
Uh, he has been trying to attack us since the first Gulf War. We have foiled numerous Iraqi terror plots against us, including an attack on Radio Free Europe in Prague, and an assassination attempt of a former President. He has been working with some of the most notorious terrorists in the world in this campaign, including Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal. Our intelligence showed that Iraq was plotting more attacks against us, and this was corroborrated by other countries. What more proof do you want? Iraqi suicide bombers in New York?
And your argument doesn't even make any sense. You cannot fight a war on terrorism while ignoring one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
My argument is that the administration built its case for war on the false premises that there was a collaborative link between Iraq and al Qaida (including hinting that Iraq had something to do with 9-11) and that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had stockpiles of WMDs. Neither of these is true, so now you and the administration look stupid.
Your argument is wrong. The Bush Administration said that Iraq supported terrorists. There is no way you can deny that. Iraq wanted to attack us. There is no way you can deny that either. He had active WMD programs and infrastructure. Again, you cannot deny that. If you do not see that as a threat to us, then I am very glad that you are not in charge of our national security.
Which happen to be the counties where the voting equipement is by far the most defective, which is odd, until you realize that the brother of the other candidate is governor
Where are you getting this stuff? The Governor does not buy the voting equipment. He doesn't even determine how much funds go to voting equipment. 99% of these decisions are made at the county level.
not to mention Black voters illegally and unjustly barred to vote "by mistake".
I assume you are referring to the felon scrub list. I'll just ignore your obvious racism by equating black voters to convicted felons and address the allegation: the decision of whether to remove a voter from the voter registration rests solely on the county election supervisors. They were required by law to verify the names on the felon scrub list before taking any action. If somebody was incorrectly prevented from voting, it is the county election supervisor's fault, and not Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris or the evil Republicans. Got it? Now, most counties decided to not even use the scrub list at all. When the USCCR held hearings on the election, they were only able to identify one person that was incorrectly prevented from voted because of the scrub list. On the other hand, the Miami Herald concluded that the biggest problem with the list is that it allowed too many felons to vote.
but total recount would
No it wouldn't. There were a few scenarios of counting overvotes for Gore that would have given him a lead, but they were not legal under any interpretation of the law.