Democrats BETRAYING America's rank-and-file Democratic voters: first the TORTURE-12, now more 'Dems' for Lieberman....

TRAITOR Joe Lieberman is doing pretty well on his "Zell Miller of 2006.. WRECK the Democrat Party" campaign, just as he TREACHEROUSLY betrayed those MILLIONS of voters who voted for the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000 by (let us count the ways) #1. polishing Dick Cheney's apple in the one VP debate, Lieberman GIVING CHENEY a FREE PASS for Cheney's SELLING OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT, as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton, to IRAQ all the way up to late 1999 (in violation of the US-enforced UN embargo on that nation); #2. refusing to do the general attack-work that any good VP candidate should do, freeing up the pres. candidate to appear above the fray; #3. refusing to drop his senate reelection race, demonstrating a lack of faith in his own VP candidacy! #4. SELLING DISENFRANCHISED AMERICAN VOTERS DOWN_THE_RIVER by REFUSING to SIGN_ON_TO the Black Congressional Caucus' demands for a Congressional Investigation into SYSTEMATIC VOTE FRAUD by Republican authorities in Florida in that 2000 campaign.

AS A RESULT of Lieberman's CALLOW and TREACHEROUS VP campaign of 2000, Democrats, EVEN TODAY, face the prospect of REPUBLICANS shouting "DEMOCRATIC VOTE FRAUD!" in each and every election, despite the fact that it is REPUBLICANS who have almost certainly manipulated crucial votes. (See Robert Kennedy's article posted here at C-dems.)

THIS is the leadership that THESE TREACHEROUS "Democrats" SUPPORT...

... Just as JOE LIEBERMAN is the TOP OF OUR LIST for the "TRAITOR-TORTURE-TWELVE.'

COWARDLY Senate "DEMOCRATS" who voted for Bush's STALINIST-GESTAPO TORTURE BILL:
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) * * * Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD) * * * Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Thomas Carper (D-DE) * * * Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ
Bill Nelson (D-FL * * * Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR) * * * Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO) * * * Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Cowardly "Demorats" who SUPPORT TREACHEROUS JOE LIEBERMAN, Karl Rove RETHUGLICAN in all but name:

David Boren, John Breaux, Richard Bryan, Dennis DeConcini, J. Bennett Johnston, Bob Kerrey.

[Note: Bob Kerrey was a principle of the 9-11 Commission WHITEWASH, the one that DID NOT FIND FAULT WITH ONE SINGLE SUPERVISOR, ranking member, or cabinet official for the 9-11 terror attacks debacle.]

============================================

Lieberman Won't Forget
[To HELL with you, Joe!]
September 30, 2006
By Mark Pazniokas, The Hartford Courant

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is willing to forgive but not forget Chris Dodd and others who abandoned him after he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont and became a petitioning candidate.
[WE HOPE THAT MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, and ALL of Connecticut's Democratic voters, DO NOT FORGIVE Joe Lieberman for his TREACHEROUS 2000 VP campaign.]

In an online interview this week with PajamasMedia, conducted by novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon, Lieberman was asked about the break with his old allies.
"I'm talking specifically about Chris Dodd, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, people like that, none of whom are supporting your campaign," Simon asked. "How do you feel about that? And will you be able to forgive them?
"Oh, I'll forgive them. I probably won't forget, to tell you the truth," Lieberman replied. "And, you know, this is politics. And it's been disappointing."

A Little Help From Their Friends
Meanwhile, Lieberman campaign aides announced that their guy is getting some love from Democrats, albeit mainly from a list of people who used to hold office.

"Dems for Joe" includes a slew of former Clinton administration officials, ex-House members and a half-dozen former Senate colleagues: David Boren of Oklahoma, John Breaux of Louisiana, Richard Bryan of Nevada, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.

Lamont is being helped this week by two "formers" who are potential presidential candidates, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and retired Gen. Wesley Clark. The two moderates - a group Lamont needs to win - are firing off e-mails urging folks to support Lamont.

Lamont Calls For End To `Earmarks'

On Friday, Lamont called for lobbying reforms, including a ban on gifts, in a conference call with reporters. Lieberman once voted against a gift ban.

Lamont apparently was inspired by a new congressional report exposing stronger links between the White House and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Lamont also said Congress should end the practice of anonymously inserting appropriations known as "earmarks" into the budget, saying it invites mischief - such as favors for contributors.

He pledged he would use earmarks for legitimate projects in Connecticut until the rules are changed and the practice is banned.

Lamont also has promised to accept no special-interest money, but Lieberman's spokesman, Dan Gerstein, said the incumbent has a "stellar record" on reform and need not apologize for taking PAC money.

"The fact is, many national Democrats accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in PAC money, including many of Ned Lamont's supporters like John Kerry and Mark Warner," Gerstein said.

It's All About The Give And Take

With today marking the end of the quarterly financial reporting period, the candidates are doing their Jerry Lewis telethon host impressions, urging one last donation to put them over the top.

Diane Farrell, the Democrat running in the 4th Congressional District, urged anyone interested in her $1,000 event with Sen. Hillary Clinton to contribute now and not wait until the Oct. 8 party.

Lamont and Lieberman also are among those making late appeals.

Ad Maker's Work A Bit Racier In Bay State

The handiwork of Lamont's ad guy, Bill Hillsman, is featured on Lieberman's campaign website. The commercial is a spot Hillsman did for Christy Mihos, an independent candidate for governor in Massachusetts.

"Now, we have nothing against Bill Hillsman personally. He's one of the most creative political ad makers around," Lieberman's campaign said on its blog. "But we do think it's worth noting that the Lamont campaign, which along with its friends in the blogosphere have been mercilessly attacking Joe Lieberman for running as an independent candidate, is using a media strategist with a long history of promoting - you guessed it - independent candidates."

The Lamontistas, however, seem most critical of Lieberman's going third-party after losing the primary. A glance at Hillsman's list of third-party and independent candidates does not turn up anyone who jumped ship after losing a primary.

Incidentally, the commercial is a tad edgier than anything Hillsman has aired in Connecticut. It is a cartoon in which Mihos approaches a group of engineers and politicians and asks them about the problem-plagued Big Dig project.

Their response is to bend over in an anatomically impossible manner and stick their heads up their, uh, well ...

Cowardly Democrats who SIGN OFF ON Bush's insane TORTURE bill...

All we can say is "Wow."

Joe Lieberman (D-CT) * * * Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD) * * * Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Thomas Carper (D-DE) * * * Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ
Bill Nelson (D-FL * * * Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR) * * * Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO) * * * Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

When we read in WWII about "the screams and cries coming from __xx__ prison" we could rest assured that the description was almost certainly of victims of the Nazi Gestapo in Europe, or of the Japanese bayonetting prisoners in WWII. Although no one was under any illusions that Stalin's KGB wasn't using the same brutal, murderous methods for most of that war, the captured prisoners were invaders from a brutal army, so there wasn't much we could do about it anyways.

BUT NOW, George W. Bush WANTS TO MAKE AMERICA SYNONYMOUS with TORTURE and the humiliation, degradation, and DEHUMANIZATION that we saw in photos released from Abu Ghraib. So, just to make it easy, we set up a website, "TortureBush.blogspot.com" where you can see the results and consequences of Mr. Bush's lust for torture.

And those two female, volunteer Army privates - Lynddie England and Sabrina Samson - who are STILL rotting in a US military prison somewhere, after their convictions in military courts, for FOLLOWING Mr. Bush's orders, as these COWARDLY Democrats SIGN ON TO A BILL that RETROACTIVELY ALLOWS BUSH to TORTURE prisoners. Such RETROACTIVE permission WILL NOT be extended to the privates and NCO's CONVICTED earlier for following Mr. Bush's orders, no doubt.

Because, frankly, these Cowardly Senate Democrats don't give a damn about US men and women caught up in the Iraq war, all they care about is being portrayed as "WEAK ON TERROR!" by Karl Rove's fax machine and his legions of screaming monkeys.

=========================================


Most Democrats Voting For Bush Torture Bill Silent About It
Bob Geiger
09.30.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/most-democrats-voting-for_b_30618.html


As someone who spends a lot of time on the official web sites of our U.S. Senators, I can tell you without hesitation that if one of them casts a vote they are proud of, a press release will be up faster than George Felix Allen can spit out a racial slur.

Yet the 12 Democrats who checked their consciences at the Senate cloakroom and voted in favor of the Bush Administration's torture bill this week, have almost nothing to say about their votes. In case you haven't seen the roster of who voted with Republicans on this, here they are:

Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Of these, only four have issued press releases commenting on their vote and, amazingly, those who are talking spend most of the time sounding apologetic for a vote they obviously know they should not have cast.
"I think there are some unknown constitutional issues and it may take a review by the Supreme Court before we really know whether this approach has towed the line in terms of protecting the civil-liberties of American citizens or whether it has gone over the line," said Tim Johnson (D-SD), in a brief statement that can only leave us wondering why the hell he voted for it then.

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) expresses a whole bunch of concerns as well and yet voted to make Bush Torturer-in-Chief anyway.

"The bill I voted for today was the best bill we could reasonably expect in this highly charged political environment," said Salazar. "Due to the many controversial and far-reaching implications of this bill, I believe it would be appropriate to force Congressional review of this bill in five years. I have concerns with this bill, but on balance it meets my personal view of what America needs to get the job done."

But some things never change, and here was the biggest DINO (Democrat in name only) in the Senate, Nebraska's Ben Nelson crowing about what a wonderful vote he cast and making this strange statement: "This compromise goes a long way in protecting the principles of the Geneva Conventions and establishes a standard of treatment that the world will follow."

Yeah, I'm sure most other countries are gathering right now to rewrite their laws to follow our sterling example.

Finally, we have Joe Lieberman, who has a press release announcing his vote and setting the bar awfully low for what it takes for him to follow George W. Bush.

"I voted for this bill because I believe it is better than the Administration's original proposal to respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision," said Lieberman. "I would have much preferred the bill we reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I supported amendments to this bill because they addressed concerns I had. I regret that they were rejected by the Senate."

But Joe clearly did not regret it enough to vote the right way on the torture bill.

There's currently a big argument going on in the Progressive community on the tension between calling Democrats on stances that are so antithetical to what being a Democrat is supposed to mean and making Republicans positively gleeful by bashing our own side six weeks before a crucial election.

That's a tough call to make. But it seems reasonable to question why, on a vote that is such a bellwether on where American democracy stands in 2006, these 12 Senators cast deciding votes that they were unsure about or that, deep down, they flat-out knew were wrong.

Democratic primary voters will certainly ask that question when these Senators' terms have expired.

Cowardly Democrats SIGN OFF on Bush's insane LUST for TORTURE....

Is it necessary to add an article, link, or the names of the Cowardly Democrats who SIGNED ON to the insane, cowardly, BUSH_TORTURE bill?

What's the matter, Mr. President... would we, the United States of America, have WON the VIETNAM WAR, if you had bothered to get out of your Texas/Alabama gravy ANG assignments (which you didn't even bother to fulfill) and ACTUALLY GONE to SERVE in Vietnam?

HOW DARE your Republican supporters shout out "Bill Clinton was a DRAFT DODGER!" in 1992 (and ever since), while neither YOU nor ANY of your three brothers saw duty in the Vietnam war... A WAR YOU *CLAIMED* TO SUPPORT.

As so many have pointed out, we Americans WON World War II, WWI, the Civil War, and the American Revolution WITHOUT RESORTING TO TORTURE.

The Southern economic system, on the other hand, of plantation agriculture and CHATTEL SLAVERY, DEPENDEND ON PROXY WARS (the slave raids to round up human chattel, often estimated as killing TWO persons for every slave delivered to buyers, a 66.6% mortality rate) and TERRORIZATION and the TORTURE of those slaves, so to intimidate them to prevent them from running away or 'inciting insurrection."

You, Mr. President, with your insane lust for TORTURE and INDISCRIMINATE ARREST POWERS, are a throwback to the SLAVERY ERA in American history. While Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other US presidents either owned slaves or were part of expanding the America's (de facto) slave empire, they did not have the luxury of hiding behind America's multi-billion dollar defense and national security complexes as you do.

And they certainly did not run KANGAROO COURTS to CONVICT low-level, volunteer, female privates FOR FOLLOWING their torture orders.... *YOUR* TORTURE ORDERS... as you have done.

- (Joan Baez documents the Gestapo-esque excesses of the Bush torture/rendition gulag.)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torture/

DIEBOLD voting machines STOLE Max Cleland's Senate victory and Roy Barnes Gov. re-election victory in Georgia in 2002... Robert Kennedy Jr.

[Editor's note: While writing this post at about 3;30 am, clearing and reinstalling software on another computer, we accidentally wrote "2004" for the election that Max Cleland "lost" to right-wing "Christ-ian" Saxby Chambliss. The correct year is 2002, or just two years after the Bush-Rove-Cheney team stole election 2000 from a clueless Al Gore and treacherously unimpassioned Joe Lieberman. (Who, given the singular HONOR of running for Vice President of America, refused to end his senate campaign, which, had he and Gore won presidential election, would have led Connecticut's Republican governor to appoint a REPUBLICAN senator to fill Lieberman's vacated seat.) In 2002, the Bush-Rove team took the millions of dollars of corporate donations they had to work with, from outside of the US government in 2000, and added to those donations the power and influence that control over the entire federal government, the ability to dispense tens of millions upon billions of federal (taxpayer) dollars to friendly corporations and connected contractors.

While we apologize for our error in initially writing "2004" instead of the correct year "2002," the greater truth is, it hardly matters WHAT year in involved.... 2000, 2002, 2004, and now 2006..... EVERY election, the Democrats hunker down in their trenches, as Karl Rove and the White House plan NEW, MORE EXTREME methods to DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS and STEAL elections, and thereby control over the entire US government.

Below, the post as it was originally written, except that the year "2004" is now correctly written as 2002.]
-----------------------------------------

By illegally inserting a "SOFTWARE PATCH" on their company's voting machines in the hours before Georgia's 2002 general election, DIEBOLD executives were able to RIG the system to SWITCH VOTES to Republican candidates.

Using libel and slander laws, Diebold executives may SUE critics (such as this site) which make this claim, but the FAR GREATER CRIME is that tens of millions of Americans have NO, ZERO, ZILCH assuarance that our votes are being counted correctly. This may be the end of American Democracy, or at least a reversion to the ONE PARTY RULE of the SLAVERY/SEGREGATION South.


<< It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent. >>


<< The voting-machine companies bear heavy blame for the 2000 presidential-election disaster. Fox News' fateful decision to call Florida for Bush - followed minutes later by CBS and NBC - came after electronic machines in Volusia County erroneously subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore's total. Later, after an internal investigation, CBS described the mistake as 'critical' in the network's decision. Seeing what was an apparent spike for Bush, Gore conceded the election - then reversed his decision after a campaign staffer investigated and discovered that Gore was actually ahead in Volusia by 13,000 votes. >>


RFK, JR: HACKING THE NEXT ELECTION
http://www.americasdemocrats.org/straighttalk.cfm

In a major article in Rolling Stone magazine, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., warns that the democracy may very soon go out the window altogether.

He writes:


"The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation's election systems - with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts. But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election - and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries. In Tarrant County, Texas, electronic machines counted some ballots as many as six times, recording 100,000 more votes than were actually cast. In San Diego, poll workers took machines home for unsupervised 'sleepovers' before the vote, leaving the equipment vulnerable to tampering. And in Ohio - where, as I recently reported in 'Was the 2004 Election Stolen?' [RS 1002], dirty tricks may have cost John Kerry the presidency - a government report uncovered large and unexplained discrepancies in vote totals recorded by machines in Cuyahoga County.

Even worse, many electronic machines don't produce a paper record that can be recounted when equipment malfunctions - an omission that practically invites malicious tampering. 'Every board of election has staff members with the technological ability to fix an election,' Ion Sancho, an election supervisor in Leon County, Florida, told me. 'Even one corrupt staffer can throw an election. Without paper records, it could happen under my nose and there is no way I'd ever find out about it. With a few key people in the right places, it would be possible to throw a presidential election.'

Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox's office signed a contract with Diebold - paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta's Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm's CEO, Walden O'Dell, checking Diebold's stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.

Hood wondered why Diebold, the world's third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.

'The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award,' Hood recalls, 'and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest' about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company.

The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a 'very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment,' Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. 'It was pretty much an impossible task,' Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if 'the vendor had control over the entire environment.' That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. 'We ran the election,' says Hood. 'We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it.'

Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a 'patch,' a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. 'We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do,' Hood says. 'The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done.'

Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. 'It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state,' Hood told me. 'We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level.'

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds.

To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. 'We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11,' Hood says. 'There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way.' Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

The patch comes on a memory card that is inserted into a machine.Eventually, all the memory cards end up on a server that tabulates the votes- where the patch can be programmed to alter the outcome of an election.'There could be a hidden program on a memory card that adjusts everything to the preferred election results,' Hood says. 'Your program says, "I want my candidate to stay ahead by three or four percent or whatever." Those programs can include a built-in delete that erases itself after it's done.' It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.

Diebold insists that the patch was installed 'with the approval and oversight of the state.' But after the election, the Georgia secretary of state's office submitted a 'punch list' to Bob Urosevich of 'issues and concerns related to the statewide voting system that we would like Diebold to address.' One of the items referenced was 'Application/Implication of "0808" Patch.' The state was seeking confirmation that the patch did not require that the system 'be recertified at national and state level' as well as 'verifiable analysis of overall impact of patch to the voting system.' In a separate letter, Secretary Cox asked Urosevich about Diebold's use of substitute memory cards and defective equipment as well as widespread problems that caused machines to freeze up and improperly record votes. The state threatened to delay further payments to Diebold until 'these punch list items will be corrected and completed.'

Diebold's response has not been made public - but its machines remain in place for Georgia's election this fall. Hood says it was 'common knowledge' within the company that Diebold also illegally installed uncertified software in machines used in the 2004 presidential primaries - a charge the company denies. Disturbed to see the promise of electronic machines subverted by private companies, Hood left the election consulting business and became a whistle-blower. 'What I saw,' he says, 'was basically a corporate takeover of our voting system.' The United States is one of only a handful of major democracies that allow private, partisan companies to secretly count and tabulate votes using their own proprietary software. Today, eighty percent of all the ballots in America are tallied by four companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. In 2004, 36 million votes were cast on their touch-screen systems, and millions more were recorded by optical-scan machines owned by the same companies that use electronic technology to tabulate paper ballots. The simple fact is, these machines not only break down with regularity, they are easily compromised - by people inside, and outside, the companies.

Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004. That year, Diebold would count the votes in half of Ohio's counties.

The voting-machine companies bear heavy blame for the 2000 presidential-election disaster. Fox News' fateful decision to call Florida for Bush - followed minutes later by CBS and NBC - came after electronic machines in Volusia County erroneously subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore's total. Later, after an internal investigation, CBS described the mistake as 'critical' in the network's decision. Seeing what was an apparent spike for Bush, Gore conceded the election - then reversed his decision after a campaign staffer investigated and discovered that Gore was actually ahead in Volusia by 13,000 votes.

Investigators traced the mistake to Global Election Systems, the firm later acquired by Diebold. Two months after the election, an internal memo from Talbot Iredale, the company's master programmer, blamed the problem on a memory card that had been improperly - and unnecessarily - uploaded. 'There is always the possibility,' Iredale conceded, 'that the "second memory card" or "second upload" came from an unauthorized source.'"

Read the full article in the October 5, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11717105/robert_f_kennedy_jr__will_the_next_election_be_hacked

America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and Defense of the Reich, of course.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Sad to say, our post from earlier this week is well worth re-posting, along with a citation from a new op-ed from the LA Times, just to mark how callow and pathetic has the discourse in America become, with both "opposition party" Demorats and "the major media" subscribing to the notion that prisoners in US custody tortured and/or murdered are deserving of no more attention or mention than the Orwellian label "DETAINEES."

Here's how LA Times editorialist Bruce Ackerman calls it:

<< This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize ANYBODY who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president ENORMOUS POWER OVER CITIZENS and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison. >>

The above is NOT hypothetical conjecture, indeed, "it" - the ability of the president and federal government to accuse someone of links to terror organizations - HAS ALREADY led to an increase in the Republican senate majority. In 2004, Republican senate candidate MEL MARTINEZ *RELENTLESSLY* campaigned on largely a single issue, that his opponent, Democratic candidate BETTY CASTOR, was "SOFT ON TERRORISM" because Castor had been President of the University of South Florida, at the time the Feds accused University of South Florida Arab-American professor Sami al Arian of "raising funds for the Hezbollah terrorist organization."

Here is the NEWSMAX right-wing spin on the whole bloody debacle:

<< According to a Mason-Dixon poll released on Thursday, "Martinez leads 46 percent to 41 percent among likely voters after exploiting liberal Democrat Betty Castor's chief weakness: her failure to strongly denounce or fire a suspected terrorist when she was president of the University of South Florida." >>
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/10/115040.shtml

What is important is that, under the "old" rules, Al Arian was arrested and tried and found NOT GUILTY, yet because his University Professor would not denounce him quickly enough, she (Democratic Senate candidate Betty Castor) lost a close election. Under "the NEW rules," NOT ONLY COULD Al Arian BE HELD *INDEFINITELY* - AND TORTURED to provide a FALSE CONFESSION! - but so too, theoretically, could ANYONE ELSE even REMOTELY linked to Al Arian... including his University's president!

THIS is America's new Naziesque take for the War On Terror, at least as far as the occupant of the White House, George W. Bush is concerned. Mr. Bush, we might recall, only 'won' his office by stealing the election from disenfranchised American voterss in 2000 general election ("disenfranchising" legal voters is akin to DEFRAUDING them of their votes), and almost certainly only "won" the 2004 election courtesy the "Surrender First!" campaign of his fellow Skull & Bones Yale fraternity member, Mass. Senator John Kerry, and yet MORE massive, systematic DISENFRANCHISEMENT of legal voters in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, and other states in 2004, this time in all probability with Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia no-audit, no-oversight, no-verification voting machines. "TRUST, BUT VERIFY!" was President Reagan's mantra during negotiations on missile treaties during the Cold War. "TRUST US - YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!" is the gleeful mantra of today's Republican vote-counters, voting machine companies, and office holders throughout the nation.

Well, now that we have arrived at Mr. Bush's precious "DETAINEE" bill, WHAT exactly does it mean for America's security?

Answer: NOT_MUCH. The ANTHRAX TERRORIST, 5 years after his murderous terror letters were mailed here in America in September of 2001, is still as FREE TO ROAM AMERICA as Osama bin Laden is FREE TO ROAM Jihadistan. And the president STILL prefers to dole out PORK to his connected contractors and Red-State voters, than to provide funding for PORT SECURITY or CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY or for NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION or any of the other items that earned "D" and "F" **FAILING** grades from the 9-11 Commission Final Report - including SLASHING funding for New York, Washington DC, and other front-line, first line defenses!
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/911reportcard.pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

And over in IRAQ, over 60% of Iraqis now believe it is justified to try to kill Americans, and of that number, many thousands are willing to risk their lives to take a shot at it. [BBC video of a convoy shot-up after taking a turn into a dead-end]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_5390000/newsid_5390300/nb_rm_5390306.stm

From the video, we can see that "an ambush" is no more than locals - "Injuns" - running out to throw a IED (improvised bomb) and AK fire in front of an American Halliburton convoy that has wandered into a bad neighborhood. They must certainly know that in a few hours US firepower will level their homes and kill them or their neighbors.

THAT is the legacy of George W. Bush's TWO STOLEN ELECTIONS here in America.

============================================

(repost:)

America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and the Reich, of course.
We suppose it was inevitable. The Right-WIng NARRATIVE, unopposed by any REAL 'OPPOSITION' party or vocal, confrontational 'major media,' has prevailed.

Under the post-9/11 "PATRIOT" laws, and now the new "KGB/Gestapo TORTURE" law, American military and secret police officials are now free to operate as... the KGB and Gestapo once did, with blanket, total state immunity for all torture and murders resulting from torture or, whoops! premeditated executions.

We do have the small consolation that none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the "AIPAC media" and the AIPAC "Democrats" - institutions like the Sulzberger owned New York Times, and people like Joe Lieberman and Harvard University Professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ. Alan Dershowitz once made a name for himself as a Human Rights advocate and defendant's rights defense counsel, but, blinded by the temptation of a "Greater Israel" or however the neo-cons define their goals, now subscribes to a human rights agenda that is just about indistinguishable from that once advocated by the KGB or Gestapo. IF that is a little too dramatic a comparison, how about the Russians operating during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Remember, we Americans were ON THE SIDE of the "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" back then.

And make no mistake about it: for "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" to go up against Red Army firepower was very often a suicidal proposition, just as suicide bombers are today.

"Detainees killed under interrogation" is the new American euphamism for the old Nazi standby, "Jewish terrorists shot while trying to escape."

And, of course, the much LARGER portion of that propaganda picture was (is) those tortured/murdered WHO DON'T EVEN MAKE the 'NEWS'.

We have no illusions as to the cruelty of men in combat, including American soldiers in 'modern' wars. The WWII testimonial book, "Another Battle, Another Town" documents that in close, brutal infantry combat, neither side (Americans nor Germans) was predisposed to take prisoners after seeing their own comrades brutally killed in close combat. A similar theme was portrayed in the movies "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers," with surrendering soldiers often shot down before they are taken in. And make no mistake, TORTURE was a huge part of the Vietnam war, as documented in countless books, articles, and movie dramas. TORTURE can be administered as easily as placing a gun barrel close to a prisoners head, and allowing the muzzle blast to rupture the prisoner's eardrums. Literally, even a child could administer this type of torture (especially with a modern low-recoil weapon like the M-16) without significant effort, without leaving a mark. The same with 'waterboarding' (using a see-saw like plank on a pivot to dunk a strapped-down prisoner's head under water) - almost effortless, leaves no mark - and other ingenious TORTURES.

BUT WILL BESTOWING BLANKET KGB/GESTAPO TORTURE POWERS on American servicemen and CIA agents IMPROVE their "intel" gathering ability? We doubt it. People in an occupied land tend to understand who is funding and commissioning TORTURE and imprisonment, and tend to resent or despise those distant taskmasters. And with the increasing ability of fundamentalist sects to to create distinct, isolated CELLS, no individual terrorist will know much that good, basic detective-work Intel couldn't gather without torture. During the Vietnam war, some US groups well knew that a large VC operation was 'in the air," but higher command refused to take heed of good local intelligence. (For anyone wanting to have a lick of familiarity with counter-terror ops, Seal Team Six's founder Richard Marcinko's book, "Rogue Warrior," details these and 1,000 other command failures.)

And finally, a government and regime (the US administration) that LUSTS after TORTURE powers, has demonstrated that it has hardly any committment to enhancing our foreign language translation capacity, is indeed predisposed TO IGNORE good local 'intel.'

And don't forget, the brutal regime (Bush White House) that sneers at those who oppose the "KGB TORTURE BILL," is also the regime that has been TOTALLY INCOMPETENT at bringing THE ANTHRAX TERRORIST to justice. And some editorial commentators have written that IT WAS THE FEAR of the ANTHRAX ATTACKS, on top of the 9-11 attacks, that drove Congress over the edge to passing the "PATRIOT" unlimited arrest- and detention-powers bill.

Well, CHATTLE SLAVERY in the United States was quite impossible without PROXY WARS (the slave raids necessary to capture slaves), TORTURE (the terrorization and punishment of slaves), and the wholesale denial of any legal rights to an entire category of people, so Mr. Bush and his apologists (including, as we have just said, so many former "liberals" and "human rights advocates") aren't really breaking new ground on their precious "DETAINEES" bill, they have simply managed to take America's 150 years back to the era of state-sanctioned TORTURE.... Just as Osama bin Laden and the Islamist radicals seek to take the entire world back to over a millennium ago.

[note the typical New York Times template: the article is NOT about "AMERICA AUTHORIZES TORTURE" but is instead about a "he said, she said" political horserace. Joseph Goebbels might be jealous, but he would grudginly approve.]


=======================================

Detainee Bill Closer to Passage After House Vote

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/wire-detain.html

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the administration authority to INTERROGATE and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.

Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For nearly two weeks the GOP have been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.

''Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?'' he asked just before members cast their ballots.

Democrats opposed the bill by about a five-to-one margin, with many wanting to tone down the powers it would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects' abilities to defend themselves during trials.

Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: ''This bill is everything we don't believe in.''

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling last June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

With elections just weeks away, the debate over the legal handling of terrorists was often partisan with some Democrats contending the bill would approve torture.

''All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,'' said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.

Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.

The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.

''It gives too much leeway to the president,'' said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. ''And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.''

Republicans defended the measure as sound.

''Is it perfect? No,'' said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. ''Do we have an obligation to pass it? Yes.''

Republicans said time was critical so that terrorists could be brought to justice.

Lawmakers shrugged off multiple disruptions from citizens watching the floor debate from inside the Capitol.

New Hope for Democrats in Bid for Senate?

WOW.. an informative and well-written NEW YORK TIMES article? As they say, even a dead clock has the correct time twice a day.

What is important in all of this is the need to DEFINE THE NARRATIVE. Voters want to, WOULD LIKE TO BE PROUD of the votes they cast.... Not just pushing the button for the "least bad" candidate.

Democrats need to show that they CAN LEAD, that they CAN STAND UP FOR SOMETHING, and that they WILL FIGHT for American citizens, both at home (domestic policy and issues) and abroad (war v terror).

"FIGHTING" means 'using the filibuster' or "holding ENRON accountable for defrauding American investors and rate-payers"; or "Holding President Bush ACCOUNTABLE for the reconstuction boondoggle of post-flooding New Orleans"; or "HOLDING DICK CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE for OWNING HALLIBURTON STOCK WHILE HE AWARDS NO-BID, NO-OVERSIGHT, LOOT-ALL-YOU-WANT contracts to HALLIBURTON, both in Iraq, in the Gulf Coast, and elsewhere.

(Hell, Dick Cheney has YET to face the music for having Halliburton, WHILE HE WAS CHAIRMAN and CEO of that company, SELL OILFIELD EQUIPMENT to Saddam's Iraq just shortly before entering the White House and formulating plans (BEFORE 9-11) to go to war against that very same country! Mr. Cheney is as treacherous a double-dealer as ever came down the pike, and Democrats GIVE HIM A FREE PASS year after year!)


========================================


New Hope for Democrats in bid for Senate?
By Robin Toner
28 Sept. 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28senate.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1159416000&en=582f125a7c4abeb0&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin


WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — Six weeks before Election Day, the Democrats suddenly face a map with unexpected opportunities in their battle for control of the Senate.

President Bush was in Memphis Wednesday to raise money for the Republican, Bob Corker, former mayor of Chattanooga.
In Virginia, a state that few expected to be seriously competitive, Senator George Allen looks newly vulnerable after a series of controversies over charges of racial insensitivity, strategists in both parties say. In Tennessee, another Southern state long considered safely red, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., a Democrat, has run a strong campaign that has kept that state in contention.

Elsewhere, Democratic challengers are either ahead or close in races in five states held by the Republicans: Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, according to political strategists in both parties and the latest polls.

All of these races could shift direction in a matter of days, let alone six weeks, and Republicans are counting on their superior finances and large blocks of television advertising to hold the line. Democrats also have their own vulnerabilities, particularly in New Jersey, where Senator Robert Menendez is in a tight race with his Republican challenger, State Senator Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to recent polls.

Democrats must win six Republican seats to regain a Senate majority, meaning they would have to win nearly every close race. Even the most optimistic Democrats acknowledge that such a feat would require a big anti-Republican wave, a lot of money and a lot of luck.

Still, a shift in the Senate was always considered a long shot this year. Some analysts now say, however, that there are enough Republican seats facing serious challenges to make it at least plausible.

“There’s a big difference in talking about six seats in play and not five,” said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst.

In Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, has been lagging behind Bob Casey, the state treasurer, for months. In Rhode Island, Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, overcame his primary challenge, but remains locked in a tight race with Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrat and former state attorney general.

Senator Mike Dewine, Republican of Ohio, is fighting an unhappy political mood in his state, stoked by local Republican scandals and economic unease.. Independent polls suggest Mr. Dewine remains in a tight race with his Democratic challenger, Representative Sherrod Brown.

In Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, the Republican, has been considered vulnerable for months to his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, a farmer and state senator. And any route to a majority for the Democrats would have to include Missouri, where Senator Jim Talent, the Republican, is being challenged by Claire McCaskill, the state auditor.

Republicans’ hopes for a pickup look strongest, at the moment, in New Jersey. But another target is the open Democratic seat in Maryland, where Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is running against Representative Benjamin L. Cardin, a Democrat still trying to unify his party after a competitive primary campaign.

Republican strategists acknowledge the intensely competitive map but say they are ready for it.

“Anybody who says there’s no way the Democrats could regain control of the Senate, that’s just wishful thinking,” said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster active in numerous House and Senate races. “But there’s a long way between could and would, and the Republican resource advantage is just now coming to bear.”

Democrats are upbeat but wary.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said: “We will pick up seats. And if the stars continue to align, we can take back the Senate.”

Republicans say they have the money not only to defend their seats, but also to put Democrats on the defensive in Maryland, New Jersey and elsewhere.

“We obviously knew all along many of our Republicans were going to have difficult races, and they’ve known that as well, which is why they have more resources than their counterparts and are able to push back,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Republican Senate candidates are getting a major boost from the Republican National Committee, which is financing an advertising campaign so far focused largely on Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. This is widely viewed as a firewall strategy: If Republicans hold onto even one of those seats, it stymies the Democrats’ hopes of regaining a majority.

Mr. Schumer said, “The 800-pound gorilla is the money the R.N.C. is pouring into those races.”

Republicans also argue that six weeks out, many voters are only beginning to pay attention. In Tennessee, for example, Ben Mitchell, campaign manager for the Republican Senate candidate, former Mayor Bob Corker of Chattanooga, said voters would reject Mr. Ford when they learned about his voting record, which Republicans assert is at odds with his centrist image.

Pete Brodnitz, a pollster for Mr. Ford, countered that Tennessee voters had a “big appetite for change.”

Perhaps the most unexpected development this year is the competition in two Southern states. Democrats have fared poorly in the South in recent years, which has accounted, in large part, for their difficulty in gaining a Senate majority.

Tennessee, where the seat is held by the retiring majority leader, Bill Frist, is drawing intense interest from national Republicans. President Bush was in Memphis on Wednesday to raise money for Mr. Corker.

The Virginia race — between Mr. Allen and Jim Webb, the Democrat — looked safe for the Republicans until Mr. Allen made a demeaning reference to a young American man of Indian descent — a Webb campaign worker — at a rally in August. Then, last week, Mr. Allen reacted angrily to a reporter’s question about whether his mother had been born Jewish, which began another distracting episode for his campaign.

This week, he has faced accusations that he used racist slurs in the 1970’s and 1980’s — allegations that Mr. Allen has flatly denied.

This week, Mr. Allen’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, described the race as “competitive,” but asserted that would change as it became clear that Mr. Webb “stands with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.”

Steve Jarding, an adviser to Mr. Webb, described the race as a dead heat, and said that while Mr. Allen retained a financial advantage, Mr. Webb’s fund-raising had soared of late.

Both parties are watching to see if Mr. Webb can take advantage of his new opening.

Analysts say the level of Senate competition should come as no surprise; Senate races are more likely to reflect national trends, they say, whereas most House districts are so carefully drawn on partisan lines that “they are safe against anything but a hurricane,” said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

web feature:
2006 Senate Calculator
With the 2006 Election Guide, you can paint the Senate map yourself and share your predictions with other users.
Go to the Calculator
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html?currentDataSet=senCALCULATOR

Farewell, Senator Jeffords

Just to remind us of how LAME the damn Democrats are, along comes this news tidbit all but ignored by even the good 'liberal' web sites, the retirement good-byes of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords.

A SALUTE TO YOU, SENATOR JEFFORDS! Your courageous choice TO QUIT the Republican Party in opposition to the policies of the Bush White House in will leave a HISTORICAL MARKER of "what COULD-HAVE-BEEN" had the Democratic leadership had only one-tenth of your committment, come hell or high water.

You quit, or "defected," from the Republican Party because you were disgusted with the Bush White House's "My Way, or the Highway!" version of "bipartisan democracy."

Your switch GAVE THE Senate MAJORITY *BACK* to the Democrats, then led by South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle.

Tom Daschle, a Vietnam veteran and tireless campaigner with a winning personality, SHOULD have been a great majority leader. But instead Daschle was CO-OPTED (not to say "corrupted") by the Inside-the-Beltway Establishment. Not only was Daschle's wife a highly paid corporate lobbyist, but Daschle COULD NEVER formulate a winning, fighting strategy against the GOP's "divide, sow fear, and conquer" strategy, the ability of the Republican Party to use divisive, identity-politics issues to get "heartland" voters TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC SELF-INTEREST. That is, Tom Daschle, despite being a personable leader from a "heartland" state, and despite monstrous influence (as Senate leader) OVER THE ENTIRE US BUDGET PROCESS, couldn't even articulate the "WHAT's the MATTER WITH KANSAS" issues, much less win them. In short, Daschle was NO MATCH for the Karl Rove Republican Smear-n'-Slime machine, and Daschle went down to ignominious defeat, despite the advantages of not only his incumbency, but despite his ability as Senate Leader to bring (literally) billions of dollars worth of government "pork" to his constituents... a relatively small number of constituents from a small, rural state at that.

Thus the 'leadership' of TOM DASCHLE and other Senate Democrats NEGATED the courageous switch of Vermont Senator Jeffords.

By switching from the Republican Party, Jeffords HANDED THE SENATE MAJORITY on a silver platter to the Democrats in early 20022, GIVING the Democrats AN OPPORTUNITY to DEFINE THE ISSUES and orchestrate SOME MEANINGFUL, COORDINATED *opposition* to the Bush administration's RADICAL agenda that Senator Jeffords so dramatically rejected.

WHAT was the Democrat's RESPONSE to this OPPORTUNITY ??

answer: NOTHING!

Senator Joe Lieberman was RESTORED to his Chairmanship of the Sen. Governmental Affairs Committee, and Daschle and other Dem 'leaders' decided that the ENRON investigation would be handled by Lieberman's committee.

THAT was a monstrous, black-hole DEAD END to the Senate's ENRON investigation, for Lieberman all but threw a wet blanket on an aggressive and thorough investigation.

ENRON got off SCOTT FREE in Lieberman's 2002 committee while mid-term Democratic candidates WERE ROBBED of their BEST mid-term election issue, the chance to TIE the Bush-Cheney administration to relentless, systematic ENRON FRAUD.

And the Democrat meltdown would not end with the Democrats LOSING the Senate Majority in that 2002 midterm (with Senator MAX CLELAND going down to a Karl Rove smear campaign WITH ZERO HELP from the DC Democrats), because, let OFF THE HOOK by the Daschle/Lieberman/Democrat senate, the Bush White House was once again FREE TO RUN INTERFERENCE for ENRON CORRUPTION, (much as President George H. W. Bush stayed a federal banking audit of CHARLES KEATING's Lincoln Savings and Loan, thereby allowing Keating to run up ANOTHER one billion in taxpayer-subsidized losses before Lincoln was finally shut down a year later), and in California ENRON looted consumers and rate-payers of BILLIONS of dollars with rigged bids and coordinated powerplant and grid shutdowns. For THAT dismal failure (to PROTECT California consumers from ENRON EXTORTION) the Democrats also LOST THE California GOVERNOR's MANSION.

Today, the IRAQ WAR is only a SUBSET of the larger problem, the ARROGANCE and CORRUPTION of the Bush-Cheney-Republican administration. The fact that Democrats can NOT find their voice to criticize the Iraq war, or traction "in the heartland" is understandable, if you realize that Democrats are incapable of DEFENDING American citizens and consumers FROM REPUBLICAN CRIMES and CORRUPTION.

IF Democrats can't defend American citizens here at home from white-collar crimes, fraud, and corruption, how the hell are they going to defend America from internationally financed terrorists?

================================

Goodbye, Washington
Washington, D.C. - September 27, 2006
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=5465269&nav=menu183_2_9_3


Senator Jim Jeffords bid farewell to the U.S. Senate Tuesday. He made his final address on the Senate floor after 18 years of service.

During his 32-year tenure, which included a stint in the House of Representatives, Jeffords helped bring Amtrak back to Vermont, fought for environmental causes and helped win passage of the Northeast Dairy Compact, boosting prices for struggling farmers.

But the Independent will most likely be remembered for leaving the Republican Party because of disagreements with the Bush administration.

Jeffords announced last year he would not seek a fourth term due to his declining healt

America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and the Reich, of course.

We suppose it was inevitable. The Right-WIng NARRATIVE, unopposed by any REAL 'OPPOSITION' party or vocal, confrontational 'major media,' has prevailed.

Under the post-9/11 "PATRIOT" laws, and now the new "KGB/Gestapo TORTURE" law, American military and secret police officials are now free to operate as... the KGB and Gestapo once did, with blanket, total state immunity for all torture and murders resulting from torture or, whoops! premeditated executions.

We do have the small consolation that none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the "AIPAC media" and the AIPAC "Democrats" - institutions like the Sulzberger owned New York Times, and people like Joe Lieberman and Harvard University Professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ, who once made a name for himself as a Human Rights advocate and defense counsel, but, blinded by the temptation of a "Greater Israel" or however the neo-cons define their goals, now subscribes to a human rights agenda that is just about indistinguishable from that once advocated by the KGB or Gestapo. IF that is a little too dramatic a comparison, how about the Russians operating during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Remember, we Americans were ON THE SIDE of the "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" back then.

And make no mistake about it: for "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" to go up against Red Army firepower was very often a suicidal proposition, just as suicide bombers are today.

"Detainees killed under interrogation" is the new American euphamism for the old Nazi standby, "Jewish terrorists shot while trying to escape."

And, of course, the much LARGER portion of that propaganda picture was (is) those tortured/murdered WHO DON'T EVEN MAKE the 'NEWS'.

We have no illusions as to the cruelty of men in combat, including American soldiers in 'modern' wars. The WWII testimonial book, "Another Battle, Another Town" documents that in close, brutal infantry combat, neither side (Americans nor Germans) was predisposed to take prisoners after seeing their own comrades brutally killed in close combat. A similar theme was portrayed in the movies "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers," with surrendering soldiers often shot before they are taken in. And make no mistake, TORTURE was a huge part of the Vietnam war, as documented in countless books, articles, and movie dramas. TORTURE can be administered as easily as placing a gun barrel close to a prisoners head, and allowing the muzzle blast to rupture the prisoner's eardrums. Literally, even a child could administer this type of torture (especially with a modern low-recoil weapon like the M-16) without significant effort, without leaving a mark.

BUT WILL BESTOWING BLANKET KGB/GESTAPO TORTURE POWERS on American servicemen and CIA agents IMPROVE their "intel" gathering ability? We doubt it. People in an occupied land tend to understand who is funding and commissioning TORTURE and imprisonment, and tend to resent or despise those distant taskmasters. And with the increasing ability of fundamentalist sects to to create distinct, isolated CELLS, no individual terrorist will know much that good, basic detective-work Intel couldn't gather. And finally, a government and regime (the US administration) that LUSTS after TORTURE powers, has demonstrated that it has hardly any committment to enhancing our foreign language translation capacity.

And don't forget, the brutal regime (Bush White House) that sneers at those who oppose the "KGB TORTURE BILL," is also the regime that has been TOTALLY INCOMPETENT at bringing THE ANTHRAX TERRORIST to justice. And some editorial commentators have said IT WAS THE FEAR of the ANTHRAX ATTACKS, on top of the 9-11 attacks, that drove Congress over the edge to passing the "PATRIOT" unlimited arrest- and detention-powers bill.

Well, CHATTLE SLAVERY in the United States was quite impossible without PROXY WARS (the slave raids necessary to capture slaves), TORTURE (the terrorization and punishment of slaves), and the wholesale denial of any legal rights to an entire category of people, so Mr. Bush and his apologists (including, as we have just said, so many former "liberals" and "human rights advocates") aren't really breaking new ground on their precious "DETAINEES" bill, they have simply managed to take America's 150 years back to the era of state-sanctioned TORTURE; just as Osama bin Laden and the Islamist radicals seek to take the entire world back to over a millennium ago.

[note the typical New York Times template: the article is NOT about "AMERICA AUTHORIZES TORTURE" but is instead about a "he said, she said" political horserace. Joseph Goebbels might be jealous, but he would grudginly approve.]


=======================================

Detainee Bill Closer to Passage After House Vote

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/wire-detain.html

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the administration authority to INTERROGATE and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.

Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For nearly two weeks the GOP have been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.

''Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?'' he asked just before members cast their ballots.

Democrats opposed the bill by about a five-to-one margin, with many wanting to tone down the powers it would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects' abilities to defend themselves during trials.

Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: ''This bill is everything we don't believe in.''

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling last June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

With elections just weeks away, the debate over the legal handling of terrorists was often partisan with some Democrats contending the bill would approve torture.

''All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,'' said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.

Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.

The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.

''It gives too much leeway to the president,'' said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. ''And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.''

Republicans defended the measure as sound.

''Is it perfect? No,'' said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. ''Do we have an obligation to pass it? Yes.''

Republicans said time was critical so that terrorists could be brought to justice.

Lawmakers shrugged off multiple disruptions from citizens watching the floor debate from inside the Capitol.

BRAVO! "Liberal" Senators LEAD the way... to restore good ol' American DEMOCRACY, with VERIFIABLE voting!

Why is it that only "the most liberal" of the Democrat Senators- Barbara Boxer, Russel Feingold, and Senator Dodd... are the sponsors of this bill?

SHOULDN'T THE *ENTIRE* Senate Democratic caucus be behind the bill, ESPECIALLY JOHN KERRY, who in all probability 'lost' the popular vote in Ohio, ONLY due to Republican disenfranchisement tactics and systematic VOTE FRAUD?

FOR SHAME, Senator Kerry... you are as AWOL for sticking up for American voters, as you were, in 2004, at portraying Mr. Bush as the liar and fraud that he is.... (and that he and Karl Rove and their echo-chamber handmaids accused YOU of being.)

=============================================


Senators Propose Funds for Paper Ballots to Back Up Electronic Ones
By IAN URBINA
September 26, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26cnd-ballots.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Three Senate Democrats proposed emergency legislation today to reimburse states for printing paper ballots that can be ready at polling places in case of problems with electronic voting machines on Nov. 7.

The proposal is a response to grass-roots pressure and growing concern by local and state officials about touch-screen machines. An estimated 40 percent of voters will use those machines in the election.

“If someone asks for a paper ballot they ought to be able to have it,” said Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a co-sponsor of the measure with Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconson.

Republican leadership aides were skeptical about the prospects for the measure. It would have to advance without opposition from any senator and then make it through the House in the short time available before Election Day.

Dozens of states are using optical-scan and touch-screen machines to comply with federal laws intended to phase out lever and punch-card machines after the hanging-chads confusion of the 2000 presidential election. Widespread problems were reported with the new technology and among poll workers using the machines this year in primaries in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio and elsewhere.

Local and state officials have expressed concern that the new systems might not be ready to handle increased turnouts. Election experts fear that the lack of a paper trail with most touch-screen machines will leave no way to verify votes in case of fraud or computer failure.

Last week, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland, a Republican, joined the skeptics, saying he lacked confidence in his state’s new $106 million electronic system and suggesting that state officials offer all voters paper ballots as an alternative.

The proposed federal bill would provide 75 cents for each backup paper ballot that local officials print. If ballots are printed for half the 27 million voters expected to use touch-screen machines, Ms. Boxer said, her bill would cost Washington no more than $10.1 million.

Barbara Burt, vice president and director of election reform programs at Common Cause, a good-governance advocacy group, said that the bill would have been stronger if it had required precincts to provide paper ballots in federal elections, but that it was a step in the right direction.

“Lack of funding has been the main excuse that local election officials have used to avoid implementing paper precautions,” Ms. Burt said. “This takes that excuse away from them entirely.”

Ms. Boxer said ordering paper ballots in all elections would have been impractical.

“I think Big Brother dictating something to local jurisdictions is a big mistake, because they will balk at it,” she said. “What we’re saying here is that you run your own elections, and we are going to help you run it properly. If local officials don’t take advantage of the option to take precautions, then they’re the ones on the line.”

Brad Friedman, a liberal blogger and longtime critic of electronic voting, said that incentives to print paper ballots would help, but that without a federal mandate some voters would still have no choice but to use touch-screens.

“In the case of many states, such as Florida, there is simply nothing in the state code that allows election directors to provide emergency ballot in the event of machine failure,” he said.

On Thursday, the Committee on House Administration, which has a role in overseeing election procedures, will hold a hearing on whether to require that all voting equipment produce a paper record that lets voters verify how they voted.

Carl Hulse contributed reporting to this article.

Alec Baldwin LISTS the LIES and GROSS OUTRAGES of Bush admin... that Democrats REFUSE TO or CANNOT make an issue of!

Alec Baldwin compiles and lists only SOME of the OUTRAGES and lies and gross incompetence and in-your-face CORRUPTIONS of the Bush White House... and Democrats are in a state of wonder about what to run on this September 2006?

MESSAGE TO DEMOCRATS: Republicans have 'won' ABSOLUTE, DICTATORIAL, ONE-PARTY control over THE ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT.... (House, Senate, White House, Supreme Court and federal judiciary, executive agencies that are nominally 'non-partisan'; and of course Republicans have 'won' absolute, abject control of 'the 4'th Estate' press/media) BY RELENTLESSLY **GOING ON THE ATTACK** against Democratic candidates and Democratic leaders.

Republicans CAN TURN non-events INTO SCANDALS ("White House travel office," "The Lincoln Bedroom"), and even a whiff of scandal, no matter how undocumented or unsupported, turns INTO ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT under the Republican media blitz and right-wing echo chamber sound-bite machine: Vince Foster suicide turned into "a murder conspiracy;" "White House TRASHING of federal property!" accusations relentlessly splayed across the screaming headlines of the Washington Post and New York Times, and leading newtwork news casts, WITHOUT ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH of proof or evidence!

IF Republicans can CONSTANTLY throw charges of CRIMINAL CONDUCT against Democrats WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE, and if Democrats CAN NOT HOLD REPUBLICANS TO ACCOUNT for GENUINE cases of CORRUPTION, FRAUD, and other illegal activities, THEN WE functionally DO NOT HAVE A representative, opposition-party DEMOCRACY.

========================================

So Many GOP Blunders, So Few Weeks till Midterms
By Alec Baldwin at HuffingtonPost.com
09.25.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/so-many-gop-blunders-so-_b_30232.html

I can't remember which upset me more....the stolen election in 2000 or the war in Iraq. Or was it when they outed Valerie Plame, a woman working in the service of her country's intelligence apparatus who had the "misfortune" of being married to a government official who dared to contradict this White House's right-wing-nut-bag agenda in Baghdad?

Or was it that the withering Republican stooge, Robert Novak, made it all seem so business-as-usual? Or was it when scientists, on the government's payroll and otherwise, were being told to shut up about global warming? It might have been when they actually started editing government reports to suit their pro-business purposes. I can't recall. Maybe it was when I read that David Addington really runs the government. Never heard of him? Oh.

It might have been when Secretary Rice, like any good secretary covering up for her boss, smirked her way through the 9/11 hearings and never seemed to flinch in the face of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US." Then again, I could be wrong. It might have been when I read in the New York Times of March 3, 2006, that Jason Peltier, a former agricultural lobbyist in California's San Joaquin Valley, had gone to work in the Bush Interior Department and was responsible for awarding government water contracts to his former employers. Actually, on second thought, I might be confusing the Peltier issue with the revelations about Jack Abramoff and the Interior Trust scandals. Or the Klamath Basin questions in 2003. Or the Interior Department's own Inspector General who said last week that the place is rife with "cronyism and cover-ups."

There were back-to-back reports of Bush Administration malfeasance in this past Friday's and Saturday's papers. In Friday's Times, HUD Secretary Alphonso R. Jackson was busy regretting that he said his agency should award contracts based on the political leanings of contractors. The next day, the Times reported that the Department of Education's Reading First program, which has spent a total of $4.8 billion dollars during Bush's term in office, had a similar political litmus test. The article comes down hard on the program's director, Chris Doherty, who was caught red-handed in e-mail correspondences ordering that grants be extended to politically favored publishers and that the review boards that make the grants be stacked with ideologically compatible, conservative thinkers.

Gosh, I just can't make up my mind as to which one is the main reason why, once again, I won't be switching my party affiliation to the GOP this Fall. I had given it serious thought. What with men like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld giving it all they've got to fight terrorism. I just couldn't seem to get all of this other stuff out of my mind. And with Frist and Hastert taking naps for the past six years, I wondered who is going to look after our interests. I want to register and vote Republican. It seems to make everything so easy, the way they have everything ready to serve up, all predigested. No self-criticism for the country to go through. No doubts. Can anyone out there help me figure this out? I mean, Republicans in Congress spent tens of millions trying to nail Clinton, and came up empty-handed. They had nothing. What are we supposed to do about all that is going on now? And that is only what we know of without any Congressional oversight or subpoena power. You wouldn't suggest that we just let it all go, would you?

Iraq War "AMPLIFIES TERROR THREAT" - US intel agencies

The war that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, and dozens of other Republican officials in government and Congress have unleashed on Iraq "AMPLIFIES THE TERROR THREAT to America," according to the headlines as The Toronto Daily News saw fit to report 'em.

The Bush-Republican Party is synonymous with corruption and arrogance... and lies. They came into office in 2001 (after 'winning' that election by disenfranchising thousands of legal American voters) PROMISING us that TAX CUTS for the wealthy would continue to create a BUDGET SURPLUS as the Clinton administration had left America.... yet today, those same Bush/Republicans care not a whit about America's monstrous debt, deficits, and balance-of-trade deficits, or the massive, taxpayer subsidized JOB-OUTSOURCING that creates more of those deficits.

Mr. Bush PLEDGED to "get Osama binLaden dead or alive..." then in his greed and lust for a war against Iraq, not only did Mr. Bush ALLOW Osama bin Laden to ESCAPE from the mountains of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, but then Mr. Bush had the arrogance and audacity to state "Osama bin Laden DOESN'T CONCERN ME THAT MUCH ANY MORE"....even as the Al Qaida leader continued to plot on how best to kill American soldiers and citizens, and even as Mr. Bush had the gall to say on national TV that his opponent in the 2004 election (Senator John Kerry) was "A FLIP-FLOPPER"!

Mr. Bush and his flacks tell us that he needs unbridled TORTURE powers to win the war on terror.. but he can't even begin the search for bin Laden, and Mr. Bush has long ago DISBANDED the CIA/Dept. of Defense unit tasked with finding bin Laden!!

- As singer Neil Young asks (in his song, "Let's Impeach the President") "What," Mr. President, "IF Al QAIDA HAD BLOWN THE [New Orleans] LEVEES.... WOULD WE BE SAFER THEN?"

In the case of leading America in the "War on Terror," not only is Mr. Bush a gross failure, but HE_IS_A_THREAT to America's well being and security.

As this should-be-infamous final report of the 9-11 Commission so coldly documents>

Bush Adminisration/US government GIVEN "D" and "F" FAILING GRADES, by the 9-11 Commission Final Report,
Steps NOT_TAKEN to provide post-9/11 Security for America
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf

==========================================

War in Iraq Amplifies Terror Threat
Iraq war gave rise to a new wave of extremism, new report suggests.
http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/WorldNews/2006092410iraq-terror

A new report states that Iraq war has increased the overall terror threat by giving rise to a new wave of extremism, according to a leaked US intelligence report.

The Iraq war has made the threat from terrorism greater, report says. Instead of contributing to eventual victory in the war on terror, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported, based on government sources.

The 30-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" is the first formal assessment of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence since the Iraq war began in 2003.

The report represents a consensus view of the 16 different intelligence services.

The conclusions of the NIE appeared to contradict repeated claims by US president George W. Bush claimed to have made the country safer. They also contradict President's recent statement, on the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks, that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had been vital to win the "war on terror".

The document said the overall terror threat has increased since the 9/11 attacks but made no predictions whether the next attack may occur. The report also said that the military conflict in Iraq, in which almost 2,700 US soldiers and nearly 50,000 Iraqis have died, has helped inspire a spread of radical Islamic ideology around the globe.

In a statement, Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and opponent of the Iraq war, said that the National Intelligence Estimate should "put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war".

Dems to Hold OVERSIGHT hearings on conduct of Iraq war...!

<< Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) chairs a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing on the planning and conduct in the War in Iraq. Major General John R.S. Batiste, U.S. Army (Ret.) and other former military officers are scheduled to testify on lessons learned and corrections that should be made going forward. >>

What is important in all this is not just that Democrats catalogue mistakes that have been made, and possible solutions to those failures, BUT THAT DEMOCRATS MASTER the political NARRATIVE... the MESSAGE that Americans keep with them as they read and watch news and make their decisions on whom to vote for in the upcoming election.

It must be said that the Republicans, led from the White House by Karl Rove's "evil genius" fax machine, are doing a MASTERFUL JOB of HIDING the real issues this election.

- They have BROUGHT DOWN FUEL PRICES a full 50 cents a gallon, leading to a sigh of relief from not just motorists but consumers nationwide alike.

- They have PUSHED bad news from Iraq off of the front pages, now casualty counts and other bad news from Iraq is usually buried deep in the A-section, or only briefly mentioned on TV.

- To CONTINUE the occupation of Iraq DEMANDS a military draft, but the Bush White House has thus far AVOIDED this "we own your butt!" issue, an issue that is at the core of Republican/Bush arrogance that THEY know what is best for us, even if "best" entails getting you drafted and shipped of to a foreign war where you may be killed.

- And, in the very best GOEBBELS/STALIN tradition, the Bush-Rove-Republicans were able to transmute the TORTURE issue from an issue about "torture" to an issue on politics and "the handling of detainees," - America's current euphemism for KGB/Gestapoesque torture that not only can (and does) result in dead "DETAINEES," but as in the Nazi or Soviet totalitarian regimes, WE ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO ASK who has been tortured, murdered, arrested, or imprisoned, nor on what charges and evidence!


THOSE are the current "MEDIA NARRATIVES" played out by the US press & media this season - torture victims as "detainees," the Iraq war in a psuedo 'calming phase' even as violence there ratchets up and the Bush White House seeks MORE life-and-death powers over American citizens; and falling gas prices leading to a sense of economic relief - THOSE are the REAL issues the Democrats face this November, and holding hearings into the failures and incompetence of the Iraq war are only the most important part of the Bush White House's gross mismanagement and deceptions.

Will the Democratic leadership be able to COORDINATE their hearings, and CONTROL the message, with even 1/5'th of the efficiency of Karl Rove's evil "White House Command Fax Central"?

As our previous post sought to detail, in the case of Senator Chris Dodd you can be right (as in, "correct") about describing Bush administration failures and policy debacles, and STILL sound apologetic or restrained in offering Democratic leadership as an alternative.

Hopefully, the Dem's war OVERSIGHT HEARINGS will uncover some genuine truths, and the Democrats will make a determined effort to CONTROL THE MEDIA NARRATIVE.

<<“Because we have one-party control, there’s been virtually no oversight,”Dorgan said. [Senator Byron Dorgan, D-ND] “This Republican-led Congress has been AWOL when it comes to the war in Iraq.” >>

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

Dems to spotlight Iraq
By Jonathan Allen
25 Sept. 2006
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092106/iraq.html

Congressional Democrats plan to hold Iraq war hearings on Capitol Hill and around the country, turning an election spotlight on an issue much as the GOP did with immigration during the summer recess.

The Democrats’ will highlight the fact that they intend to go toe-to-toe with Republicans on the issue of national security, believing that this election cycle it can play to their advantage rather than to their detriment as it has in elections past.

And Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), a leading House critic of the war, indicated yesterday that he would give the hearings a degree of bipartisan cover by attending them when he can.

“Any [hearings] up here that I can get to, I’ll attend,” said Jones, who voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq but has since pressed to bring American troops home. “I wish it was my party, the committees in the House, doing the same thing. The American people want answers.”

Jones said he would try to attend the Senate Democratic Policy Committee’s (DPC) first planned hearing on Monday, provided he can make the five-hour drive from his district in time.

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) also said he would consider taking part in the hearings, which Democrats say will be open to Republican lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol.

“I might take them up on it,” Gutknecht said. “I would certainly consider sending them some written testimony.”

The hearing on Monday, featuring military officers who served in Iraq, will delve into “the policy decisions that led to the current situation in Iraq,” according to Barry Piatt, spokesman for DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.).

Democrats said they will follow up that hearing with field hearings around the country at least through November. They argue that Republicans have neglected to provide proper oversight of the war in a number of areas, including postwar planning, troop readiness and care for troops and veterans.

“At no time is congressional oversight more important than when the men and women of our armed forces are engaged in combat to defend our freedom,” Dorgan and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in which the Democrats invited Senate Republicans to attend their hearings.

“We all understand how important the war on terror is, especially the ongoing fighting in Iraq. These issues have been addressed on the floor of the Senate and will continue to be addressed,” Frist spokeswoman Carolyn Weforth said. “It’s no surprise, however, that on the day after a national poll showed improving American attitudes toward the liberation of Iraq, that the Democrat leadership would want to change the subject.”...

Dorgan has held numerous hearings on Iraq contracting and the government’s handling of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Like Leach, he has called for the establishment of a commission, modeled after a committee run by then-Sen. Harry Truman (D-Mo.) during World War II, that would investigate allegations of contracting abuses....

“Because we have one-party control, there’s been virtually no oversight,” Dorgan said. “This Republican-led Congress has been AWOL when it comes to the war in Iraq.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Democrats plan hearings that focus on hiring in Iraq
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
September 22, 2006
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/sep/22/566672129.html


WASHINGTON - After failing to persuade the Republican-led Congress to investigate problems with the war in Iraq, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats have arrived at an unorthodox strategy: They will hold their own hearings around the country.

Democrats have been calling for great congressional oversight of the war for many months, but their push intensified this week after reading a story in the Washington Post on Sunday. The newspaper reported that the Pentagon screened candidates who applied for work rebuilding Iraq by asking them about their loyalty to Republicans and the party's ideals, even to the point of asking their views on Roe v. Wade.

"This cries out for attention," Reid told reporters this week. "We've asked. We've asked. They refuse to hold hearings."

Republican Senate leaders scoffed that the move was a political ploy. House leadership called it "hollow and absurd."

So Reid announced that starting Monday, Senate Democrats will launch a series of hearings via their party's policy committee. The proceedings will touch on all aspects of the war, including post-war planning, military strategy and the reconstruction issues raised by the Post.

The first hearing will be Monday, in Washington, followed by several more around the country in the weeks ahead. Nevada is a possible site for a hearing.... [continued]

Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

Dems Damning Dems with faint praise... at NH kickoff, Sen. Dodd seems APOLOGETIC about Dem leadership for national security and foreign affairs....

(unable to link to Senator Dodd's (D-NH) comments on C-SPAN at New Hampshire Democratic kickoff.)

We are unable to link directly to Conn. Senator CHRIS DODD's comments at the New Hampshire Democratic kickoff last week, but viewing the CSPAN video of Dodd's speech there, we couldn't help but take away the vision of Senator Dodd saying "Give us Democrats a chance in leading the nation on national security and foreign policy... We can't be any worse than the Bush Republicans!"

Now we will admit that the above is not an exact transcript of the Senator's comments.

And we have to say that, according to Wikipedia's entry for Senator Dodd, he SHOULD be our kind of Senator.
<< Senator Dodd is considered left of center with respect to Latin America. His record especially with regard to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the Farabundo Martí rebels in El Salvador has led to conflict with Republican Administrations. He is highly critical of the embargo and restrictions the U.S. has towards the country of Cuba. He favors more lenient immigration laws. >>

To begin with, "left of center" is a misnomer: the Republicans have been able to push America so FAR to the RIGHT of center through relentless demagoging in partisan politics and the press/media echo chamber, that Republicans have managed to convince millions of Americans that (small 'd') DEMOCRACY in Central and South America is A THREAT to the United States; just as Right-Wing Republicans were foaming at the mouth that the Panama Canal Treaty was "A GIVEAWAY" to that nation.

But unfortunately, butting heads with Right-Wing Republicans over the years has made even a fighter like Senator Dodd circumspect, and in his New Hampshire speech Sen. Dodd seemed more apologetic for the Democrats than condemnatory or outraged at the Republican misrule and gross corruption that we document daily here.

Indeed, "CIRCUMSPECT" seems to be word that defines Democrats theses past few years.

The problem isn't entirely due to Democratic leaders and senators, of course - Right-Wing front groups and wealthy donors such as the Coors foundation, the Olin foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato institute, the Mellon-Scaife newspapers, and dozens of other Right-Wing organizations will BLAST Democratic and 'left-of-center' policies from here to Kingdom Come, regardless of what Democratic leaders do and say, and over the past dozen years, these well funded Righty groups have asserted almost complete MASTERY over the entire US "major media." On any given night on CSPAN, you will see 'experts' at AEI, Cato, and other pro-Republican organizations droning on and on about how taxation and federal programs will be the death of America, never mind that New Orleans gives a text book demonstration of what happens when the federal government DOES NOT do its job, of building safe and effective dikes, or providing speedy and efficient rescue relief in a disaster region.

But in the case of LEADERSHIP FAILURES as GLARING as the Bush administration has inflicted on America, Iraq, and elsewhere - from stolen elections and Diebold voting, to 9-11 gross incompetence and negligence, to Iraq WMD lies to torture to the botched occupation there; to the gross mismanagement and CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE of New Orleans flooding, reconstruction, and Katrina disaster preparations... on these and dozens of other critical issues, the Democrats wield a foam cheering stick, while the Republicans wield baseball bats and steel rods in their brutal political 'knee-caping" demagoging, intimidation, and party-line enforcement, in the media and in the corridors of power.

Bush's WAR in Iraq WORSENS the TERROR threat to America. Democrats don't mind, as long as they get THEIR slice of those campaign donations....

By now, EVERYONE should know that not only was George W. Bush determined to do everything exactly THE OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, President Bill Clinton would do, but that Mr. Bush also had severe personality conflicts - contempt or scorn - with the record of his own father; former CIA director, Republican Party leader, ambassador to China, Vice President, and President George H. W. Bush.

George H.W. Bush (Sr.) was at the very heart and soul of America's two or three decade effort to maintain a BALANCE OF POWER between SUNNI Muslims and SHIA (or "Shiite") Muslims in the Mideast. After the Iranian revolution saw Shiite Ayatollahs sieze dictatorial powers in Iran, all those CBS 60 minutes scare-videos of Iraq's mighty, Soviet supplied military switched off, and suddenly the Reagan-Bush White House started SUPPLYING, SUPPORTING, and encouraging the Sunni-dominated military of Saddam's Iraq. Even though Iraq was (and is) a Shiite dominated population. Saddam's SECULAR, socialist-based regime (the Baathist Party) was able, through fear, intimidation, and propaganda, able to get Arab nationalism to trump Iraq's Shiite majority's ties to Iran's Shiite fundamentalist theocracy. Vice President George H. W. Bush was probably far more involved in this secretive, covert policy of playing Sunnis vs Shittes than President Reagan was, although President Reagan did play host to Saudi King Fahd, who, according to reports, literally had aides dump BAGS OF MONEY on President Reagan's White House desk, money intended to fund the 'anti-communist' CONTRA army in Nicaragua and Central America, armies and supplies that then violated legislation that had been signed into law to prohibit such illegal wars and proxy armies. (So much for hypocritical NYT r-w demagogue William Safire's ranting editorials about a $10,000 political donation by a China-connected company being "above the pale" of proper, moral American politics.)

DONALD RUMSFELD shaking hands with Saddam Hussein
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
during Rumsfeld's "special envoy" mission to Saddam's Iraq in 1983 is only the tip of the iceberg of America' ruthless, murderous, Machiavellian double-dealings in the Mideast, for under the Bush and Reagan administrations, America would actually supply WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY (WMD tech) to Saddam's Iraq, including NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, and CHEMICAL equipment and know-how! (See "Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq" and other sources.)
http://www.amazon.com/Spiders-Web-Alan-Friedman/dp/0553096508

To put it mildly, the ammoral post-9/11 war plans of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush UPSET THAT Balance-of-Power applecart with their grossly mis-managed invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.. which brings us to the present, with America's troops being used as war-of-attrition canon-fodder as the embattled Sunnis in Iraq battle to keep some shred of their former rule, and as Saudi royalty quakes at the prospect of Shia unfettered domination in Iraq. (It is almost certain that the Saudis are supporting their Sunni brethren's guerrilla insurgency across the border in Iraq in a big way - Bush administration lies and propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Just as the Saudi-financed Al Qaida acted as ideological leaders and shock-troops for Afghanistan's Taliban rule.)

SO, WHERE are the Democrats in all this, as AMORAL Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Jr. continue to push the balance-of-power rule in Iraq to "ethnic cleansing" limits that inadvertently EMPOWER America's enemy from the 1980s, the Iraq and Iranian Shiite majority?

answer- OF COURSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWOL, MISSING from the leadership and policy discussion forum, because the Democrats have become SO COWED by the Right-Wing smear machine (and big-media and think-tank echo chamber), and so CO-OPTED by the AIPAC neo-con agenda (if Joe Biden is the Senator from DuPont and the credit industry, and if Joe Lieberman is the Senator from the insurance lobby, then Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Diane Feinstein are no doubt the Senators from AIPAC), that they PREFER SILENCE on the <> issue, to publicly rebuking the FAILURE of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove White House to counter this growing nightmare.

======================================

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI
September 24, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html


WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”