Distressed American Viewer Mail

Have a comment, complaint or thought? 

Please Contact me!

A Sad and Moving Reminder What This War Is Costing Us

This isn't really viewer mail.  Found the site in question on a blog and wanted to pass it along.  Besides, who's here to stop me?


In the post election period there is a lot of talk of reconciling the nation etc.  Often heard is the cry "Bush won. Get over it!" This site features a MUST BE SEEN reminder why it is not as easy as that.  It features a short video segment reminding us of the cost of this ongoing war and any new ones on the drawing board. CLICK HERE


Please take a little time and check it out.  You'll be glad you did.

To date we have lost 1414 men and women from this so called "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.  The wounded number in the tens of thousands.  No one knows for sure how many Iraqi's have been killed but estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 yet an estimated 20,000 insurgents remain.  This situation is untenable.  Rather than bring stability our continued presence creates instability.  For what?

For more details please check out: http://icasualties.org/oif/


I've received several interesting quotes from folks of late.  Here's one of the most thought provoking.  There is a reason that the Founding Fathers (most of whom where profoundly religious men) clearly established a secular state...


An Earlier Christian Mandate

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on
which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to
Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today
Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture
again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent
immoral developments in literature,  in the theatre,  and in the press ...
in short,  we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered
into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the
past few years."

From The Speeches of Adolph Hitler,  1922-1939,  Vol. 1,  pg. 871-872
(London,  Oxford University Press,  1942.)

This technically qualifies as mail since it came in that way (mass mailing sort of thing).  It is from Harry Shearer,  satirist extraordinaire.  Do your self a favor and check out his radio show Le Show at his site link below.  It is hysterical.  I'm listening right now!


Leblast Has Values,  Too

Were the 22% of the voters who said "values" were important to them in that overquoted exit poll talking about morals,  or were they just looking forward to the discounts on the day after Thanksgiving?  We'll never know.  What we do know is that the media,  as desperate to prove themselves wrong after the election as they would have been to prove themselves right had Kerry won,  flocked to that dubious factoid in a way that had lemmings hiding their faces in shame (do lemmings have faces?).  Aside from the absurdity of using exit poll results to prove anything in a year when the early exit polls pointed towards President Kerry,  the pundits ignore the doubly high number of voters who cited either the war in Iraq or the war on terror as their primary concern (note that the pollsters,  unlike the President,  refused to conflate the two wars).  So the networks,  and the advertisers,  now run towards the Next New Thing: values,  a word that,  like "quality",  has been stripped of the adjectives that might make it actually mean something.  Why wouldn't the Christian conservatives,  so emblodened by an exit poll,  try to press their momentary advantage?  Meanwhile,  the Hollywood cynics say it's hypocrisy,  since the red states have made "Desperate Housewives" #1 in the ratings.  Maybe,  if people say they're concerned about "values" while watching downmarket crap,  maybe they're concerned that they're weak humans who will fall for exploitative entertainment,  and they resent those who know them well enough to exploit that weakness,  and they yearn for someone to protect them from themselves.  Watch Michael Powell take advantage of that.

Dates of interest:
Judith Owen (with Harry Shearer) on the "Christmas in July" tour:
Monday Nov. 29,  8 p.m.,  Le Chat Noir,  New Orleans
Wednesday,  Dec. 1,  9 p.m.,  Eddie's Attic,  Atlanta
Sunday,  Dec 5,  8 p.m.,  Continental Club,  Houston
Monday,  Dec 6,  8 p.m.,  The Saxon Pub,  Austin,  Tx.

More dates to come in the frigid zone....

Lot's of folks are coming around to this same conclusion, that the election was in fact stolen by electronic polling corporations with well documented Republican leanings.  I leave it up to you to decide...



Rampant Voter Fraud and a 2004 Rigged Election

WOW!  A friend (a research scientist) put this together,  but not being a conspiracy theorist,  I found these astounding statstics interesting but not credible enough to pass it on.  Then this morning,  I received a message from Lester Brown,  perhaps the world' foremost environmentalist,  founder and director of the Earth Policy Institute and former founder and director of the World Watch Institute endorsing many of these findings.  He has to be especially careful of his claims,  all of which must be based on sound science.  His stature has raised the credibility threshold for me,  but you decide for yourselves.  The electoral college casts their votes on Dec. 13th,  so there is still time to raise a stink.  Please pass this on and call congressmen,  senators,  et al. asking for an invesigation.

                                                           ------------- Original Message -------------

November 20,  2004

Despite corporate media attempts to kill or ridicule away the story,  Talk Radio and the Internet are abuzz with considerable evidence that John Kerry was elected president on November 2,  but that Republican election officials made it difficult for millions of Democrats to vote while employees of four secretive,  GOP-bankrolling corporations rigged electronic voting machines and then hacked central tabulating computers to steal the election for George W. Bush.

Florida's 2000 election problems votes spoiled by chads,  overvotes,  undervotes,  exclusion of minority voters,  etc. were never repaired and both worsened and spread to many other states,  exacerbated by new and more devious abuses. The Bush administration's "fix" of the 2000 debacle (the Help America Vote Act) made crooked elections considerably easier,  by foisting paperless electronic voting on states before the bugs had been worked out or meaningful safeguards could be installed. In 2004,  employees of the four Republican-connected firms that dominate the business allegedly hacked electronic machines and the op-scan tabulating computers that count votes from paper ballots to steal the election by adding GOP votes and reducing Democratic tallies.

The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that: "Verified Voting,  a group formed by a Stanford University professor to assess electronic voting,  has collected 31, 000 reports of election fraud and other problems. AP/ABC observes that some of the first 1100 problem machines were taken off-line”but many others were not.

University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Steven Freeman,  in his November 2004 paper The Unexplained Election Poll Discrepancy,  concludes: "The odds of the discrepancies between predicted [exit poll] results and actual vote counts in Ohio,  Florida and Pennsylvania could have been due to chance or random error are 250 million to 1,  so the unavoidable hypothesis is that they were caused by systematic fraud or manipulation."

Here's a shocking fact. The reason it was so easy to steal this election is that,  unlike the situation in Europe,  where citizens count the ballots,  employees of a highly secretive Republican-leaning company,  ES&S,  totally managed every aspect of the 2004 U.S. election. That included everything from voter registration,  printing of ballots,  the programming of the voting machines,  tabulation of votes (often with armed guards keeping the media and members of the public who wished to witness the count at bay) and the first reporting of the results for 60 million voters in 47 states according to Christopher Bollyn,  writing in American Free Press. Most other votes were counted by three other firms that are snugly in bed with the GOP. Any actual counting of votes by citizens is very rare in the U.S.,  except for a few counties in Montana and other states,  where paper ballots are still hand-counted,  Bollyn explains.

The below mountain of evidence will demonstrate that the 2004 election fiasco had way too many "irregularities" for the late-Tuesday shift from Kerry (seen winning by 3 percent and more in exit polls and many other data) to Bush to possibly be an innocent coincidence.

This election is not the first to be hacked. In November 2002,  Georgia Democratic Governor Roy Barnes led by 11 percent and Democratic Senator Max Clelland was in front by 5 percent just before the election, the first ever conducted entirely on touch-screen electronic machines,  and counted entirely by company employees,  rather than public officials but mysterious election day swings of 16 percent and 12 percent defeated both of these popular incumbents. In Minnesota,  Democrat Walter Mondale (replacing beloved Senator Paul Wellstone,  who died in a plane crash),  lost in an amazing last moment 11 percent vote swing recorded on electronic machines. Convenient glitches in Florida aided Jeb Bush in the general election and defeated Janet Reno in the primary election. There is also reason to believe that North Carolina's Senate race may have been hacked.

Then,  in 2003,  what's known as "black box voting" helped Arnold Schwarzenegger,  who had deeply offended female,  Latino and Jewish voters,  defeat a popular Latino Democrat who substantially led in polls a week before the election in strongly Democratic California.

Actually,  the first example of electronic machine fraud was probably recorded in 1996,  when Nebraska Republican Chuck Hegel was CEO of ES&S whose voting machines recorded his long-shot first US Senate victory and then his re-election in 2002.

The Smell of a Rat

Realizing that the 2004 election results are highly questionable,  many prominent people and groups have begun to demand action. Recently,  six important congressmen,  including three on the House Judiciary Committee Nadler (NY),  Wexler (FL),  Conyers (MI),  Holt (NJ),  Scott (VA) and Watt (NC) asked the U.S. comptroller general to investigate the efficacy of new electronic voting devices,  because of numerous reports of lost votes across the country.

Black Box Voting (BBV)the nonprofit group which spearheaded much of the pre-election testing (and subsequent criticism) of electronic machines that found them hackable in 90 seconds is filing the largest Freedom of Information Act inquiry in U.S. history. The organization's Bev Harris claims,  "Fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines. We base this on hard evidence,  documents,  inside information and other data indicative of manipulation of electronic voting systems."

In Volusia County,  Florida,  BBV has already discovered two sets of voting total tapes: the first being much more favorable to Kerry.

Florida Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Fisher charged that he has and will show the FBI evidence that Florida results were hacked; he claims to also have knowledge of who hacked them in 2004 and in the 2002 Democratic primary (so Jeb Bush would not have to run against popular Janet Reno). Fisher also believes that most Democratic candidates nationwide were harmed by GOP hacking and other dirty tactics particularly in swing states.

Citizens for Legitimate Government recently called for an investigation of discrepancies in the 2004 election and may demand prosecution of those who carried out the second bloodless American coup dâ etat in four years.

On November 18,  a New Hampshire recount requested by Ralph Nader began. If it finds the totals were altered,  recounts requests in Florida and Ohio are certain to follow. The Green and Libertarian parties have already requested an Ohio recount,  because of voting fraud,  suppression and disenfranchisement. Recounts are also being sought in Nevada and Washington.

Greens 2004 presidential candidate David Cobb charged,  "It's Florida all over again. Except this time it's Ohio,  where the person responsible for counting the votes is chair of the state Bush campaign. Once again there are widespread reports of intimidation,  mismarked ballots and targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. It's very possible the election has been stolen for the second time in a row. Again Democrats have conceded,  rather than standing up for the right for people's votes to count."

The Indiana Recount Commission impounded election materials for a recount in the 9th District,  where three-term incumbent Democratic Congressman Baron Hill lost by 1, 485 votes and machines were suspected of misrecording votes. In nearby Franklin County,  a recount proved that a tabulation error had given 600 straight-Democratic party votes to the Libertarian party.

Leading academics have also joined the fray,  calling for widespread investigations. NYU Professor Troy Duster called for a full-scale probe,  because "the data suggest that even if Bush won,  he didn't win by the kind of margins that are out there. We have a crisis here of potential legitimacy,  and the way to deal with it is to do the research."

Media Muzzled

Although the Internet is chock-a-block with stories of election fraud and there are numerous stories about this crime in England,  Canada and elsewhere,  it is virtually nonexistent in the major U.S. media. Bev Harris reveals,  I have been told by sources that are fairly high up in the media particularly TV that there is now a lockdown on this story. It's officially "lets move on time. I am very concerned about that,  because it looks like were going to have to go to places like BBC to get the real story out." So far,  the only mainstream media outlet has been Keith Olbermann's November 5 MSNBC Countdown show.

On November 6,  Project-Censored Award-winning author Thom Hartman said,  "So far,  the only national "mainstream" media outlet to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann,  when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seemed to favor Bush. In the meantime,  the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed."

The 2004 Election Fraud: Its Scope and Nature

In May 2004,  Johns Hopkins researchers performed a detailed analysis of the major types of electronic voting machines. They concluded: "The voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems,  including . . . vulnerabilities to network threats. We show that voters,  without any insider privileges,  can cast unlimited votes without being detected. Furthermore,  we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been . . . executed without access to the source code. Worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election."

Votes collected by electronic machines (and by optical-scan equipment that reads traditional paper ballots) are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer which counts the votes on Windows Software. Therefore,  anyone who knows how to operate an Excel spreadsheet and who is given access to the central tabulation machine can make wholesale changes to election totals without being found out.

On a CNBC cable TV program,  Black Box Voting executive Bev Harris showed guest host Howard Dean how to alter vote totals within 90 seconds. "By entering a two-digit code in a hidden location,  a second set of votes can replace the original totals in a matter of seconds, " Harris explains. Harris declared at a late-September press conference,  "We are able to use a hidden program for vote manipulation ,  which resides on Diebold's election software. It is enabled by a two-digit trigger. This is not a "bug" or accidental oversight; it is there on purpose."

Some wonder why Democrats weren't bright enough to hack the election for Kerry. Well,  it has been recently learned that at least one of the four firms slyly utilized an old source code rather than its current code to escape donkey party detection.

The Felonious Four

More than 35 Ohio counties used electronic voting machines from Diebold,  whose CEO Warren O'Dell declared in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president (Bush)" in 2004. Up to 50, 000 Diebold touch-screen machines and 20, 000 scanners of paper ballots were used in 38 states during the November 2004 election.

Four major companies control the U.S. vote count: Diebold,  ES&S,  Sequoia and SAIC. All of them are hard-wired into the Bush campaign and power structure. The Bush government gave them millions to roll out computerized voting machines. Diebold chief O'Dell is a top Bush fundraiser. Diebold's Election division is headed by Bob Urosevich,  whose brother Todd is a top exec at "rival" ESS. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson,  bagman for the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement,  which advocates the theocratic takeover of American government. Sequoia is owned by a partner member of the Carlyle Group,  which has dictated foreign policy in both Bush administrations and which had employed former President Bush for quite a while. The State of California recently received a settlement of $2.6 million in its lawsuit against Diebold for lying about the security of its voting machines in Alameda County.

Wayne Madsen,  a Washington-based investigative reported,  recently wrote,  "There has to be a way . . . to sue Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell and Diebold board member W.R. Timken for conspiring to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush. O'Dell and Timken are top fund raisers for Bush,  so-called "Pioneers." They should be the subjects of criminal investigations." Diebold gave at least $195, 000 to the GOP between 2000 and 2002.

All Early Tuesday Indicators Predicted a Kerry Landslide

Zogby International (which predicted the 2000 outcome more accurately than any national pollster) did exit polling which predicted a 100 electoral vote triumph for Kerry. He saw Kerry winning crucial Ohio by 4 percent.

Princeton Prof. Sam Wang,  whose meta-analysis had shown the election to be close in the week before the election,  began coming up with dramatic numbers for Kerry in the day before and day of the election. At noon,  Eastern Standard Time,  on Monday,  Nov. 1,  he predicted a Kerry win by a 108-vote margin. In the 23 closest states,  Wang predicted Kerry's win chances in the following states to be: Florida 90 percent,  Ohio 95 percent,  Pennsylvania 100 percent,  Hawaii 99 percent,  Iowa 96 percent,  Wisconsin 91 percent,  Nevada 72 percent,  Maine 100 percent,  Michigan 100 percent,  Minnesota,  100 percent,  Oregon 100 percent,  Washington 100 percent,  Wisconsin 91 percent,  New Mexico 60 percent,  Arkansas 48 percent,  Colorado 47 percent,  Missouri 34 percent,  New Mexico 20 percent,  West Virginia 13 percent,  Virginia 12 percent,  Arizona 10 percent,  Tennessee 8 percent and North Carolina 1 percent.

In the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM),  where "investors" put their money where their mouths are and wager real moolah on election outcome "contracts, " Bush led consistently for months before the election,  often by as much as 60 percent to 39 percent. At 1 p.m. CST on Election Day,  however,  before vote counting began anywhere,  IEM had 51.9 percent of investors putting their money on a Bush win. Then something extraordinary happened: over the next six hours there was suddenly a massive shift to Kerry. At 3 p.m. CST,  Kerry shot into the lead,  with 60 percent of the hour's investors banking on his victory. At 5 p.m. a mind-blowing 79.5 percent were betting on Kerry. And when the final sale was made,  at 7 p.m.,  76.6 percent of the last hour's traders had gone to Kerry,  with only 20.1 percent plunking their bucks down on Bush. These people knew something.

As the first election returns came in,  broadcasters were shocked to see that seemingly safe Bush states like Virginia,  Kentucky and North Carolina were being judged by the National Election Pool (NEP) as "too close too call." Then,  at 7:28 EST,  before the Ohio and Florida results were hacked,  networks broadcast that both states favored Kerry by 51 percent to 49 percent.

All Exit Polls Showed Kerry Won,  Until They Were Altered

In his research paper,  Steven Freeman reports,  "Exit polls showed Kerry had been elected. He was leading in nearly every battleground state,  in many cases,  by sizable margins. But later,  in 10 of 11 battleground states,  the tallied margins differed from the predicted margins,  and in every one the shift favored Bush."

In 10 states where there were verifiable paper trails or no electronic machines the final results hardly differed from the initial exit polls. Exit polls and final counts in Missouri,  Louisiana,  Maine and Utah,  for instance,  varied by 1 percent or less. In non-paper-trail states,  however,  there were significant differences. Florida saw a shift from Kerry +1 percent in the exit polls to Bush +5 percent at evening's end. In Ohio,  Kerry went from +3 percent to -3 percent. Other big discrepancies in key states were: Minnesota (from +10 percent to +4 percent),  New Mexico (+4 to -1),  Nevada (+1 to -3),  Wisconsin (+7 to +0.4),  Colorado (-2 to -5),  North Carolina (-4 to -13),  Iowa (+1 to -1),  New Hampshire (+14 to +1) and Pennsylvania (+8 to +2). Exit polls also had Kerry winning the national popular vote by 3 percent.

In close Senate races,  changes between the exit poll results and the fiddled final tallies cost Democrats anticipated seats in Kentucky (a 13 percent swing to the GOP),  Alaska (9 percent),  North Carolina (9 percent),  Florida,  Oklahoma,  South Dakota and possibly Pennsylvania,  as well as enough House seats to retake control of the chamber.

Republican consultant and Fox News regular Dick Morris wrote after the election,  "Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots . . . and by substituting actual observation from guesswork. According to ABC-TV's exit polls,  Kerry was slated to win Florida,  Ohio,  New Mexico,  Colorado,  Nevada and Iowa, all of which Bush ultimately carried."

Center for Research on Globalization's Michael Keefer (a Professor at the University of Guelph) states,  "The National Election Pool's own data, as transmitted by CNN on the evening of November 2 and the morning of November 3, suggest that the results of the exit polls were themselves fiddled late on November 2,  in order to make their numbers conform with the tabulated vote tallies. At 8:50 p.m. EST,  CNN showed Bush leading by a massive 11-point margin and by 9:06 p.m.,  the incumbent had a 9 percent lead. However,  at 9:06 p.m.,  exit polls showed Kerry leading by nearly 3 percent."

This 12 percent gap caused embarrassment at NEP, the six broadcast networks' official polling,  counting and reporting entity. Keefer continues: "One can surmise that instructions of two sorts were issued. The election-massagers working for Diebold,  ES&S and the other suppliers of black box voting machines may have been told to go easy on their manipulations of back-door 'Democrat-delete' software. And the number crunchers at NEP may have been asked to fix up those awkward exit polls. Fix them they did. When the national exit polls were last updated at 1:36 a.m. EST,  there was a 5 percent swing to Bush."

How do we know the fix was in? Keefer explains,  "Because the total number of respondents at 9 p.m. was well over 13, 000 and at 1:36 a.m. it had risen less than 3 percent, to

13, 531 total respondents. Given the small increase in respondents,  this 5 percent swing to Bush is mathematically impossible."

Keefer adds: "In Florida,  the exit polls appear to have been tampered with in a similar manner. At 8:40 p.m.,  exit polls showed a near dead heat but the final exit poll update at 1:01 a.m. gave Bush a 4 percent lead." Again,  the number of respondents made this swing mathematically impossible, because there were only 16 more respondents in the final tally than in the earlier one. The major TV networks glibly blamed the discrepancies between the original (untampered) exit poll results and the final official tallies on faulty exit polls.

Election Fraud Came in Many Flavors

Spoilage. Investigative journalist Greg Palast,  writing in the United Kingdom's Guardian,  said,  "The election in Ohio was decided . . . by spoilage. Typically,  in the U.S.,  about 3 percent of the vote is voided. Most of these votes,  say every official report,  [are] in African American and minority precincts. In Florida in 2000,  Katherine Harris excluded 179, 855 spoiled votes. Most 'lost' votes in Florida then and Ohio now were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely,  leaving a ‘hanging chad.' The majority of the two million votes tossed out in Tuesday's election will be cast by minority citizens."

Challenges. Palast continues: "First and foremost,  Kerry was had by chads. But there were also the 'challenges, ', the Ohio,  Wisconsin and Florida Republican parties' Supreme-Court supported use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique to block voters of color from voting."

Provisional ballots that may or not be counted. In New Mexico,  according to Albuquerque journalist Renee Blakely,  "They were handing provisional ballots out like candy." About 20, 000 iffy provisional ballots were given out,  mostly to Native Americans and Latinos,  who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Santiago Juarez,  who runs the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese of New Mexico,  reported that his poor Hispanic voters were given provisional rather than countable ballots "almost religiously, " as they were questioned about their identification. Juarez added that some Hispanics were simply turned away. This activity was carried out in numerous minority communities across the country.

Florida Fiasco

Kathy Dopp's eye-opening examination of the State of Florida's county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered,  by party affiliation,  reveals systematic and widespread election fraud (in 47 of the state's 67 counties). Interestingly,  this did not occur so much in the touch-screen counties,  where public scrutiny would naturally be focused,  but in counties where optically screened paper ballots were fed into a central tabulator PC,  which is highly vulnerable to hacking. In these counties,  had G.O.P. registrants voted Republican,  Democratic registrants gone for the Kerry and everyone registered showed up to vote,  Bush would have received 1, 337, 242 votes in the op-scan counties. Instead,  his reported vote total there was 1, 950, 213! That discrepancy (612, 971) is nearly double Bush's winning margin in the state (380, 952).

In Baker,  Bradford,  Calhoun,  Dixie,  Franklin and 16 other counties, where 60 percent to 88 percent of voters registered Democratic,  Bush won the reported vote. The Texan also won in 21 other op-scan counties where Democrats had a majority or plurality of registered voters. In Franklin County,  77.3 percent registered Democratic,  but 58.5 percent of voters went for Bush. In Holmes County,  the 72.7 percent Democratic voters went 77.3 percent for Bush. Bradford County had 61.4 percent Democratic registration but voted 69.6 percent for Bush; Calhoun County had 82.4 percent Democratic registration,  but voted 63.4 percent for Bush. One egregious example: in Polk county,  42.6 percent registered as Democrats and 39 percent registered as Republicans. Yet the final vote count was: Bush 129, 487 to Kerry's 85, 923. It has been suggested,  that in some counties,  the presidential candidates' vote totals may simply have been switched.

Colin Shea of Zogby International analyzed and double-checked Dopp's figures and confirmed that op-scan counties gave Bush 16 percent more votes than he should have. "This would have not been strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly, " Shea explains,  "but it is not. In 11 different counties,  the 'actual' Bush tallies were 50-100 percent higher than expected. In one country,  where 88 percent of voters are registered Democrats,  Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote, three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties,  more than 50 percent of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result; in four counties at least 70 percent would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely."

Interestingly,  eight of the 15 touch-screen counties showed voters moving toward Kerry and away from Bush (as compared to the numbers of registered Democrats and Republicans),  which indicates that an honest statewide count would have shown a Kerry win,  rather than the stunning 5 percent Bush victory.

In 47 of 67 Florida counties,  the number of presidential votes exceeded the number of registered voters. Palm Beach County recorded 90, 774 more votes than voters and Miami Dade had 51, 979 more,  while relatively honest Orange County had only 1, 648 more votes than voters. Overall,  Florida reported 237, 522 more presidential votes (7.59 million) than citizens who turned out to cast ballots (7.35 million).

The number and range of election complaints in Florida are mind-boggling. Here are but a few instances. Broward Country electronic voting machines counted up to 32, 500 and then started counting backwards. The problem which existed in the 2002 election,  but which was never fixed,  overturned the exit-poll predicted results of a gambling referendum. In several Florida counties,  early morning voters reported ballot boxes that already had an unusually large quantity of ballots in them. Throughout Florida,  as in most tossup states,  poll monitors saw prospective voters leaving because of long lines. There were numerous reports of sub-par facilities and faulty equipment in minority neighborhoods.

According to Canada's November 3 Globe and Mail newspaper,  "several dozen voters in six states, particularly Democrats in Florida, said the wrong candidate appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen (i.e. they voted one way and the result which appeared was the opposite).

Despite the registration of 20 times more Democratic new voters in Florida than Republican new voters (and 10 times as many in Ohio, as reported in The New York Times),  final voting totals nationwide indicated that Bush must have gained 9 million new voters in 2004, to Kerry's 4 million. One million of those alleged new GOP voter were reported to be in Florida, a highly dubious prospect.

Republicans have argued that the Florida counties which had majority Democratic registration but voted overwhelmingly for Bush were all "Dixiecrat" bastions in Northern Florida that are traditionally very conservative, and that all the reported votes were accurate. The facts do not bear this assumption out. Keith Olbermann illustrated on MSNBC's Countdown program that many of these crossover states were voting Republican for the first time. Olbermann poked another hole in the Dixicrat theory when he said,  "On the same Florida Democratic ballots where Bush scored big,  people supported highly Democratic measures, such as raising the state minimum wage $1 above the federal level. This indicates that only the presidential voting was rigged; they didn't rig the rest of the voting form." The final stake in the heart of the Dixiecrat theory,  however,  is that 18 switchover counties were not in the panhandle or near the Georgia border,  but were scattered throughout the state. For instance,  voters in Glades County (Everglades region) registered 64.8 percent Republican but cast 38.3 percent more votes for Bush than for Kerry. Hardee County (between Bradenton and Sebring) registered 63.8 percent Democratic but officially gave Bush 135 percent more votes than Kerry, a ludicrous result.

The Ohio Outrage

A court decision allowed Republican intimidators to trash tens of thousands of Ohio votes and force hundreds of thousands of other voters to cast provisional ballots that may or may not be counted. In Gahana,  Ohio,  Bush was caught with a reported 4, 258 votes . . . from only 638 voters. The two top election officials in quiet,  rural Warren County lied to the press,  claiming the FBI and Homeland Security Department told them they had a high terrorism risk,  which made theirs the only Ohio county to bar media and other observers from the vote counting process. Staunchly Republican chief elections official J. Kenneth Blackwell arranged for ample voting booths in G.O.P. areas and a shortage in liberal college towns and minority precincts that caused hours-long lines in the pouring rain (and a consequent loss of many discouraged voters). Despite the huge increase in new voter registration (91 percent of which was Democratic),  Blackwell provided fewer total voting machines than were used in 2000. A Toledo precinct opened 40 minutes late (causing 50 prosepective voters to leave) and then halted voting later because it had "run out of pencils" (causing another 100 departures).

Lawyer Ray Beckerman reported,  "Hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised in Ohio. People waited in line for as long as 10 hours, but only in Democratic precincts. All day long,  touch-screen voting machines in Youngstown registered 'George W. Bush' when voters pressed 'John F. Kerry', despite complaints to police throughout the day. Countless other frauds occurred,  such as postcards advising people of incorrect polling places,  registered Democrats not receiving requested absentee ballots,  duly registered young voters being forced to cast provisional ballots and many bad-faith challenges in Democratic precincts."

In 29 Cayuhoga County (Cleveland) precincts,  there were 93, 136 more votes recorded than there were registered voters (at a time when minority voters were consistently harassed and many others were discouraged by 5-10 hour voting lines). One Cayuhoga precinct with only 1, 000 registered voters cast 4, 000 ballots for Bush. Lake County voters received bogus letters on official letterhead telling them they could not vote.

As in Florida,  fraud is obvious because in many cases Kerry votes were mysteriously switched to Bush,  while votes on other Democratic issues and candidates remained intact.

Officially,  Kerry was trailing by 136, 483 votes,  before between 155, 000 and 500, 000 provisional ballots were examined and some overseas absentee ballots were to be examined and possibly counted.

Election Fraud in 39 States and Israel

Voters Unite! details 202 specific election problems (recorded through November 11) in 39 states and Israel. These include 84 complaints of machine malfunctions in 22 states,  24 cases of registration fraud in 14 states,  20 abusive voter challenge situations in 10 states,  U.S. voters in 18 states and Israel experiencing absentee ballot difficulties,  10 states with provisional ballot woes,  22 cases of malfeasance in 13 states,  10 charges of voter intimidation in seven states,  seven states where votes were suppressed,  seven states witnessing outbreaks of animosity at the polls,  six states suffering from ballot printing errors and seven outrages in four states where votes were changed onscreen. In addition,  the Voters Unite! site cites four states with early voting troubles,  three states undergoing ballot programming errors,  three states demonstrating ballot secrecy violations,  bogus ballot fraud in New Mexico,  cases of double-voting for Bush in Texas and 15 states victimized by a range of miscellaneous voting problems. And this list does not count the millions of votes that were hacked in more than half the states.

On November 10,  Keith Olbermann reported that computerized balloting in North Carolina was so thoroughly messed up that all statewide voting may have to be recounted. A Craven County,  NC,  district recorded 11, 283 more votes than there were voters,  overturning the results of a regional race.

In Chicago,  journalist Christopher Bollyn discovered stacks of boxes containing "pre-punched ballots, " printed by ES&S,  for the different precincts in Cook County.

The Election Was Clearly Stolen

It is not credible that Bush could have legitimately won the 2004 election. Kerry's victory was predicted by previously extremely accurate Harris and Zogby exit polls,  by the formerly infallible 50 Percent Rule (an incumbent with less than 50 percent in the exit polls always loses, Bush had 47 percent,  requiring him to capture and improbable 80 percent of the undecideds to win) and by the Incumbent Rule (undecideds break for the challenger,  as exit polls showed they did by a large margin this time). Nor is it credible that: the surge in new young voters (who were witnessed standing in lines for hours on campuses nationwide) miraculously didn't appear in the final totals; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost support and that exit polls were highly accurate wherever there was a paper trail and grossly underestimated Bush's appeal wherever there was no such guarantee of accurate recounts. Statisticians point out that Bush beat 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

Zogby pollster Colin Shea,  after thoroughly testing the discrepancies among total registration,  turnout,  party registration and the official tallies in Florida and Ohio,  concluded,  "The facts defy all logical explanations save one: massive and systematic voter fraud. We cannot accept the result of the 2004 presidential election as legitimate until these discrepancies are rigorously and completely explained. Until then,  George Bush's shameful legacy will have been that of seizing power through two illegitimate elections conducted on his brother's watch,  and engineering a fundamental corruption at the heart of the greatest democracy the world has known."

Election results are not final until electors vote on Dec. 13. There is still time to investigate,  to find the truth and to swear in legitimately elected President John F. Kerry.

Alan Waldman is a multiple-award-winning Los Angeles journalist and blogger.

Neo-Cons Aplenty

Distressed American,
Thanks for posting my letter. Obviously,  it was not intended to be posted (more of a personal response than if I'd have known it would be posted)...I do like that essay by Cobb that my e-mail references and that was probably my main reason for sending the e-mail. If it directs people to read that essay,  then it is worth posting. Or you can just say to everyone "Hey,  someone referred me to this essay and it is really good,  so check it out!"
If your website were intended to persuade Bush supporters to turn their views around,  then the critic of your "Intelligence Failure" graphic has a good point. I don't see your website as a vehicle for convincing Bush supporters to change,  though. So the point about you needing to tone down your messages misses the point of having the website. I see the website as a humorous release of distress! It is something to be shared with others who are feeling the same feelings about this administration. We are offended by what this administration is doing. I don't knock Bush personally - I just have a major disagreement with the neo-conservative agenda! I am so disappointed with Bush for buying into their agenda that I am - DISTRESSED like you! One of numerous "intelligence failures" was that of not recognizing that his own father was correct in his assessment that moving on to Baghdad and toppling Hussein's regime would put the United States in a situation beyond what it could handle and still remain the beacon of the free world. Even Secretary of State,  Dick Cheney,  arrived at the conclusion that it would not be wise for our country to topple Hussein. Why did he change his mind? Why didn't Kerry make that "flip-flop" by Cheney stick?
We know that the neo-conservatives had planned on beginning the expansion of democracy in the Middle East with Iraq and that these plans were laid out well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They used the "war on terror" as an excuse to begin executing their plan. I think that this is so well documented that no debate is necessary. It is really a matter of whether or not the citizens of this country agree with this political strategy. Of course,  numb-nuts Kerry failed to make this a centerpiece for debate. He debated the war on Iraq without clearly putting it in the context of the broader neo-conservative agenda that is behind the war. Maybe he thought that being opposed to spreading democracy would not be very popular - or that the Bush political machine would make him look unpatriotic if he opposed their method of spreading democracy. I think,  though,  that most people do not believe that it is the role of our country to force its form of government on foreign countries. Many (most?) conservative Republicans do not support this philosophy! Why couldn't Kerry make it clear that the military policy makers are succumbing to a neo-conservative movement that reeks of imperialism and even fascism? And that this is a highly UN-American political strategy to attempt gain domination over the world? Why couldn't this be made clear?
Most people that I spoke with during the campaign had never heard of "neo-conservatives",  but they "knew" that Kerry was going to take away their pick-up trucks and their guns and allow babies to be slaughtered for stem-cells and force men to marry sheep! (There I go taking liberties with the truth!). I'm just saying that the Bush message was simple and the message Kerry had to put out to the public was complex and required that most of us become educated about things that we were not aware of - one of these being the role of the neo-conservatives in shaping our foreign policy. Most of the general public (me included,  I'm sorry to say) couldn't even tell you who these people are! Our country is so ill-informed and,  yes,  I will start with myself in who I point that comment to. I've only read enough about the neo-conservative to know that I smell a rat! I'm just another dumb American! At least I recognize my limitations,  though. Socrates said that it was a good thing to know this about oneself - I'll take his word for it.
A civil debate is possible at your website. Perhaps the viewer mail format can provide this. Your replies to your critic are a good start. Speaking for myself,  though,  my energy goes into so many non-political things in my life that I don't know that I can make the time to get into a thorough and well-researched debate. Rather than to make direct replies to someone's criticisms,  I'm more inclined to take a topic that is a bit more broad and write essays or poetry to express my observations and feelings about what is going on  - although,  I can attempt to write something creative as a direct response to an e-mail,  I suppose. My point is that once you begin replying to specific e-mails,  your creative energy can be taken away. Like when Lenny Bruce stopped creating comedy and began going onstage with newspaper articles about his arrests and legal arguments about free speech. You wouldn't want your website to lose it's creative edge...
Something to consider...
Love you!


Dear DJM,

    You could not be more correct about the neocon agenda.  In the interest of knowing your enemy,  I wanted to offer up some info on these folks in their own words and identify for folks who don't know which of these guys currently sits in a key policy position within the administration.  The best web resource to learn about what these guys have publicly stated to be their beliefs since the mid to late 1990's is the website http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Run by one of the neocon right's biggest brains William Kristol. 

As I see it,  their agenda basically boils down to a few basic tenets: 1) As the lone superpower,  we have a unique opportunity to use America's military and economic power to spread American style democracy throughout the Middle East.  2) Our biggest and far most important ally in the region is Israel and much of our foreign policy efforts (in Iraq and elsewhere are aimed at increasing their security). 3)America must greatly increase our military superiority to maintain our unchallenged role as lone (gunman) superpower.  Essentially an economic and military imperialism.

The group's agenda is well documented.  Here are a few PDF files of some of their writings and the group's 1997 Statement of Principles.  Signed onto this Statement of Principles are the likes of William Bennett,  Jeb Bush (a frequently overlooked but influential member of the neocon revolution),  Dick Cheney,  our old friend Dan Quayle,  Donald Rumsfeld,  and Paul Wolfowitz.  YOUR GOVERNMENT! They were well on the record with their desire to invade Iraq to secure Israel years before they came to power.  Yet,  as you rightly point out many people do now know who they are or where they stand.  Please take some time and read through these documents (many other policy papers,  articles and books can be found at their website). 

A great site has come into being that stands in open opposition to these policies.  Please visit it:  http://www.oldamericancentury.org/


A few PDF's from The Project For The New American Century:

The Classic Manifesto From The Group  Lists among the military's top 4 duties "Perform the "constabulary duties" associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."  The best euphamism for becoming the world police I have ever read!

Intelligence Reform





Statement of Principles

June 3,  1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close,  the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War,  America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending,  inattention to the tools of statecraft,  and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence,  we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course,  the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe,  Asia,  and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities,  we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge,  and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security,  our prosperity,  and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer    William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan
   Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle
   Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld
   Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz


Distressed American, 

I found my information from other sources,  but it is good to know that - based on the information that you have provided - I probably would have scored very high on a multiple choice quiz. So,  I guess I understand the policy and I am familiar with the names - they just are not all committed to memory,  nor can I recite the positions that each one holds in our government. That kind of knowledge is not necessary in order to know that these power mongers have a heavy hand in our foriegn policy.

I'm encouraged that in today's local newspaper - the conservative Omaha World-Herald - most of the letters to the editor were from people who are opposed to our foregn policy! It was encouraging to read these and to know that there are a lot of people who do understand what is going on. We may not be experts on neo-cons,  but we know enough to form an intellegent opinion about what these power mongers are up to - and what it means to America.

The neo-con agenda is insane! THAT is why headlines read (to paraphrase) "How can 52 million voters be so STUPID?" I've heard a lot of negative reactions to that headline and I don't agree that it is rude or condesending. I thought Americans were opposed to Hitleresque political strategies to gain control over the world. I cannot imagine anyone supporting what we are doing in the Middle East unless their minds are brainwashed by right-wing radio propaganda!

Give me a break! There is little reason not to call those voters out for what they did. They put a rubber stamp on a very dangerous foriegn policy! That is,  in essence,  STUPID!




By Hubert Wilson



For more of Hubert Wilson's poetry check out www.ilovepoetry.com and do a search for his work.

Distressed American

Still Working

Hi Brad!

I guess we should have nominated Jesus for President. Only that wouldn't have worked either because he wouldn't have gotten any right wing support. Check out this essay from a real Christian http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1025-25.htm.
We'd love to join forces with you. Karen protested Bush when he came to Council Bluffs a couple of weeks ago. It was a small rally (about 30 people),  but Bush and all of his supporters did get to witness their message on their way to the convention center. I want to photograph her with her signs and send you the pictures. We have a news segment about the rally recorded on tape,  but no pictures of the rally itself (darn!). I did volunteer work as a Precinct Captain for my precinct to attempt to get Kerry elected. We got the vote out,  but unfortunately so did the Republicans. According to this link,  Kerry won http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm.
We don't want to just cry about the rigging of an election. Karen and I look to be active in taking the country back from the fascists who crawled out of the woodwork this time around. I guess right wing radio and evangelical television should have been countered more vigorously in the past decade or so. They have effectively infested the brains of millions. I don't know that we can make these people sane again,  but I'm pondering the possibility of using the powers that be (aka. the Democratic party) as a starting point by,  first,  defining their agenda in no uncertain moral terms (if the public wants morality,  we'll give them genuine morality) and then executing a plan using their money and power to enter the mass media markets that the conservatives have taken over in order to counteract them directly. I would even like to infiltrate their churches and begin preaching real Christianity to them.
I know I'm dreaming...but the idea of not letting the Republicans define the Democrats is where I'm coming from...
In some ways we'd just like to drop out of the Democratic party and start a new one - but we'd have no real clout to accomplish anything,  would we?
Of course,  Karen and I have also considered the idea that it is too late to get America back to being America and that Canada looks to be a whole lot more American these days. Perhaps we will move there. But then I feel that we'd only be sitting ducks for what would become the inevitable destruction of the planet. It may be too premature to think that we cannot move this country to be what it can be. There are a lot of people under the age of fifty who've just been sitting on their asses wallowing in their comfort zones their whole life,  allowing the politically active right to achieve its objective. It is time for those on the left and in the middle to do something about this before it really is too late. One more decade of right wing infiltration into the minds of our citizens and we will be doomed for good.
Of course,  it may already be too late...
I have to go now,  but we plan on keeping in touch.
Dan (and Karen)

Intelligence Eagle

Having your own opinion is one thing,  but a week or so ago I saw posters all around that stated "intelligence failure." You,  and your crowd,  know NOTHING of the world of intelligence,  and have only created more hatred for yourselves and your cause. The News-Media coined the term intelligence failure,  when in actuality it was intelligence doing what it does best,  questioning the truth and making plausible courses of action that could happen. Granted Bush touted WMD yes,  that was HIM,  we told him there were,  and in fact there were. They were old rotted out artillery shells and some illegally ranged MRBM that have been all over the news. You have to understand the regime had an excellent capability to cover up its real assets and make other nations (like Iran,  Israel,  Saudi Arabia,  Kuwait) think they were much stronger than they really are. We just so happened to believe it because it seemed so true. And remember the slogan "A nation united." Most Americans favored the war until we didn't find any Russian made nuclear weapons like all of you thought. 


Striking a bad nerve with the president and his cabinet is one thing,  but when you strike at your fellow American citizens who not only are giving their lives to protect YOUR right to be a dissident,  but are doing their Absolute best day in and day out to make sure we aren't attacked from behind again. Unless you yourself are a member of the intelligence world,  and you have the government clearance and understand how it all works,  you should issue an apology IMMEDIATELY via your website and clarify your meaning of that cartoon. People are furious over your comments. If you want more to join your movement and cause you should be a bit more tactful in your messages. If you are going to make any more posters in such a manner I suggest make your images with a clearer point. I'm sure you get a lot of hate mail,  which this is not,  you have your right to be opinionated,  but you stepped on the toes of people you could only wish to be like.... please correct your wrong 

Thank you


Well Eagle, 

No,  I really don't get much hate mail.  On campus most folks that disagree with me express it by shouting "Commie" at me,  trying to spit on me,  or ripping down the offending poster as if people can't make up their own minds on the issue.  So,  thanks for writing.  Very civilized.

As to the issue of intelligence failures,  what I have to say is this.  The Bush administration has presided over the two greatest failures of American History,  9/11 and the invasion of a major sovereign nation in the heat of the middle east based on "faulty intelligence about WMD".  I am the first to admit that Clinton wasn't doing any better.  He bears much of the blame as well.  However,  read the 9/11 commission report and you see that the administration received through Condi Rice,  repeated warnings from the FBI and CIA about the unprecedented level of threat information.  Among those warnings were numerous indications that the attack may involve hijacking aircraft.  Yet the administration for 7 months,  didn't take ANY (I REPEAT - ANY!) action.  They did not hold a single high level meeting on the issue,  they didn't even send out a memo to the FAA suggesting possible hijacking threat.  Nothing.  What's more,  (more importantly in my opinion) the administration has not taken steps to correct  the failings.  NO ONE has been fired in connection with either of the failings.  Heads rolled after Pearl Harbor.  Bush refuses to take action because he sees doing so as showing weakness.  What it shows is a willingness to risk further lives just to avoid admitting failures on his watch.  He makes no one safer.

That brings me to the Iraq issue.  The Bush doctrine of preemption says that we reserve the right to that action for nations who are an immanent threat.  The utter failure of our intelligence services to understand the capabilities of Saddam's army,  calls into question whether we we can ever know if we are facing a threat or not.  The world community will never trust us in the future as REAL threats arise because George Bush is the BOY WHO CRIED WOLF to the entire world!  The mistrust that this administration has created will be with us for many years and will limit our effectiveness in the war on terror.  That makes us demonstrably less safe.   There was a great deal of information coming in that suggested that as claimed Saddam HAD really destroyed his weapons.  That information was immediately deemed incredible and removed from the information that then was given to congress the UN and others.  The preexisting mindset precluded their ability to accept what ultimately proved to be true.  As a result we are the jackasses of the world and we are hated around the globe.  Again,  please show me what measures have been taken to correct the intelligence services that are now trying to tell us what is in North Korea,  Iran Syria,  etc.  It is all the same folks.  I ask you how can they be trusted?

As to the President's personal intelligence,  You need a B average to get into most grad schools.  This guy averaged C's in college.  The presidency is not a job for a man of ordinary average intelligence.  It demands excellence.  I don't think the guy needs to be in special ed classes.  He'd make a find gas station attendant,  fry cook,  maybe even TV evangelist.  However,  he has been a miserable failure as a president.

As to your suggestion that I apologize,  I find that laughable.  If you disagree set up your own website,  post your own flyers.  I will however,  set up a new page for posting e-mails in the next day or two and I'll post your message there with this reply and we'll let the country decide.

Distressed American

P.S. I'm guessing if your are that offended by what I have to say,  you were voting Bush anyway.  Thanks for the advice. But,  On our campus a VERY small minority is offended.  Most know that Bush is a looser.  You should wake up and smell the coffee before you find you blaming yourself for what this guy does in a second term.


I think youre failing to see my reason for asking for an apology. Just from your response i can tell you have never set foot into the world of intelligence. What i am saying is dont knock it untill youve tried it basically. If you dont understand how it works,  dont tear it down thinking you know better. You dont. We dont. Its a guessing game and were right most of the time,  but the few times we arent are when you hear about it. I find it amazing how you competly beat around the bush with what i said,  typical. Youve added fuel to the fire,  and by the way,  there are more young republicans than democrats nowawdays... Look it up,  its all over the news. But untill you can completly understand anything i said to you,  which from your email i can tell you dont because youve formed your own opinions already,  i would appreciate if you chose your words more carefully for your posters so as to not offend citizens as well as the administration. There arent many of us,  and we do our jobs as best as we can. All im asking is that you be more considerate to your fellow citizens in your comments,  is that so hard to ask?  I dont know what job you do but im sure you can relate to me saying "the adult talking badly about the kid working in the retail store"    or  "the customer giving the attendant at mcdonalds are hard time for where he works".... thats just how it comes across,  an outsider giving us a hard time when he isnt inside working the issues and doing it everyday. Please,  put some thought into what im saying and if you still feel it "laughable" thats fine,  at least ill have the privelage of knowing i tried to stand up for my group when noone else seemed to.


Again,  I appreciate your message.  Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I assume from your messages that you DO work these issues in some way.  That is what you imply.  Let me make myself clear,  I have no problem with the ground level analysts doing the job.  I assume and hope that they are all doing their jobs as patriots under difficult conditions.  My complaint is with the administration that directs lower level work.  It is just like criticizing the war planning but not criticizing the troops that are doing a great job under the orders they have.  If you are in the job,  I congratulate you on your many (I'm sure poorly understood) successes.  Must suck never to get the props and always face the heat.  I feel your pain.

On the other hand.  The two failures I pointed out in my last message are historic in their proportions.  Yet the administration continues to drag its feet giving those of you doing the actual work what you need.  You say that there are not many of you doing the job.  Isn't that a failure of the administration to provide you and your colleagues the resources you need to do your job.

Additionally,  there is nothing in the graphic in question that criticized you or others in what I presume is your line of work.  It is a photo of bush on a background of the Whitehouse with two words "Intelligence Failure".  It seems like you may be a bit sensitive about the criticism that your profession has been exposed to.  Sorry I hit a nerve. Never meant to criticize YOU per se.  Really just wanted to call the guy dumb (which I agree is an exaggeration,  satirical license).  Good example of how everyone reads whatever they want into art.

I also apologize for my laughable comment.  It was a bit out of line.  However,  your suggestion that I should not offend the administration does make me chuckle a bit.  First of all it ascribes to me more influence that I have.  I'm just a guy with a website,  inkjet printer and a stapler.  Second,  If the administration gets wind of my criticisms all the freaking better.  Their policies offend ME everyday. From the numerous comments I have received while placing the flyers on campus (including the graphic in question),  it obvious that many other folks find him as offensive as I do.  Other citizens will have to take their chances.  Nothing in the first amendment about not offending those who disagree with you.

If you do have some special insight from the inside you would like to share,  I'm all ears/eyes.  Maybe I AM missing something.  You have said I shouldn't criticize what I don't understand.  Educate me.


Return to Distressed American Main Page