Play the George W Bush ‘Stay The Course‘ Bike Riding Game.
It is here.
Mark Fiore’s new animation on Bush, King of OppositeLand, is here.
Bush’s false justifications for the Iraq war: here.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
*Back to Ohio: Prosecutor says 2004 recount was “rigged”*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:11 pm (PST)
This may come as a shock to those who didn’t pay attention, but it is
now certain that Bush stole the 2004 election by rigging just enough
Ohio votes to give him the state’s electoral votes and the presidency.
Bush is a Republican and all Republicans and rightwingers who support
him are as evil as he is.
The Secretary of State in Ohio at the time of the 2004 election, Kenneth
Blackwell, was also Bush’s Ohio campaign chairman. Blackwell, a
Republican, pulled every slimy trick he could to suppress and depress
the Democratic vote (including sending too few voting machines to known
Democratic precincts) and everything he could to enhance and overcount
Republican votes. Even at that Bush squeaked by in Ohio with a margin of
only about 118,000 votes.
———————————————————-
*Back to Ohio: Prosecutor says 2004 recount was “rigged”*
by Tim Grieve
Salon.com
Jan. 18, 2007
In a Cleveland courtroom this morning, a prosecutor is arguing that
three Cuyahoga County election workers “rigged” a preliminary recount of
ballots cast in the 2004 presidential election that sent George W. Bush
back to the White House.
As the Associated Press explains, Ohio law requires each county
participating in an election recount to choose 3 percent of its ballots
at RANDOM and then count them by hand. If the hand counts match
machine counts, the county is allowed to carry out the rest of the
recount using machines. If there are discrepancies between the counts,
workers are to try the RANDOM -sample test AGAIN. If a second test
still shows discrepancies, they MUST recount ALL ballots by hand.
Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter says three Cuyahoga County election
workers short-circuited that process by conducting a SECRET PRE-COUNT
to FIND precincts where the hand count would match the original machine
counts. They then used those precincts for the 3 percent sample test,
freeing the county from the risk of a second test or, possibly, a hand
recount of all of the ballots cast.
“The evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for
political reasons, but rigged nonetheless,” Baxter said today. “They did
this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months” on the
recount, he said.
The Cuyahoga County elections board has said that its employees did
nothing wrong. A lawyer for one of the workers says his client was just
following long-established procedures. The three workers — the county’s
elections coordinator, a manager and an assistant manager — are charged
with a variety of election-related offenses, the most serious of which
comes with a sentence of up to 18 months in prison.
Read this at:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/18/ohio/index.html
Read the Associated Press article at:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16486387.htm
LikeLike
CAN Congress stop the war?
Posted by: “G. Myrick” garymyrick@sbcglobal.net garymyrick
Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:39 am (PST)
Respected constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley clears up the issue of whether Congress can STOP the stupid tragedy known as Bush’s War.
In fact, they CAN…and SHOULD.
———————————————————-
CAN CONGRESS STOP THE WAR?
By Jonathan Turley
January 17, 2007
USA Today
Over the next week, Congress will vote on a non-binding resolution denouncing President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq. Many people have already noted that with thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars lost, Congress might be able to manage more than a legislative “Dear John” letter. Yet, if you listen to the president and some Democratic leaders, Congress can do little to stop the hemorrhaging of lives and treasure.
The truth is that there is a lot that Congress could do. Among other things, it could stop the war. But neither the president nor many Democrats want to publicly entertain such a possibility. Indeed, the president has insisted, again, that he alone makes such decisions. When asked about what Congress can do if it opposes his build-up, Bush was dismissive and said, “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.” Of course, the president acknowledged, “They could try to stop me from doing it . but I made my decision, and we’re going forward.”
Democratic leaders seem to be encouraging the same view of an unchecked executive. The new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and other members suggested last week that it may be unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds for an escalation.
Power of the purse
All of this would have come as a great surprise to the framers. Far from being some type of constitutional eunuchs, legislators hold the very power that determines whether a war will continue, expand or end: the power of the purse. The framers specifically justified this congressional power as a check on the president’s ability to entangle the nation in disastrous foreign adventures.
Congress has historically used its power of the purse to deter, limit or end armed conflicts. During the Mexican and Civil wars, Congress used its appropriations to influence or restrict the conduct of the wars. During the Vietnam War, Congress not only repealed its authorization for the war, but it set a date to cut off funds for combat operations – forcing the war to an end.
Congress has also acted to restrict past presidents in other ways. Congress barred the use of funds by President Ford for any intervention in Angola and barred such funds by President Reagan to support the contras in Nicaragua. President Clinton was limited in his use of troops in Somalia and Bosnia.
After campaigning on the war, Democrats are struggling to lower the expectations that they created. Yet, two out of three Americans oppose the president’s plan for escalation. More than 60% believe the president was wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. Worse still, recent polls in Iraq show that not only do 70% of Iraqis want us out within a matter of months, but more than 60% actually support the killing of our troops.
With all of its power, Congress’ use of a non-binding resolution is akin to a surgeon trying to shout out a malignant tumor. Congress has the means; it is only a question of its will.
For his part, Bush is playing a dangerous game of chicken by moving to send troops to Iraq before any authorization of funds is made. Bush knows that Congress is unlikely to have the courage to pull funds once troops are in place.
The use of military personnel as hostages in a fight with Congress is not new. Teddy Roosevelt had many fights with Congress over the composition and use of the military. One such dispute occurred over Roosevelt’s desire to send his “Great White Fleet” around the world to show the American flag – an enterprise viewed by many as an expensive vanity. When Congress balked in appropriating funds for fuel and support, Roosevelt used what fuel he had to send the fleet halfway around the world. He then informed Congress that if it wanted its new fleet back, it would be wise to send the fuel.
Mounting costs
It is not clear how long Congress will wait before using its authority. As Democrats look for a personally convenient moment to act and the president tries to spend himself to victory, the country continues to pay a dear price. If it takes a projected $500 billion and nearly 26,000 dead or wounded soldiers to get Congress to the point of a non-binding resolution, one can only imagine what it would take to cut off funds. Yet, rest assured: When members finally feel comfortable with acting to end this war, they will find all the authority they need in the Constitution and all the reasons they need in Iraq.
///
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
Read this at http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-01-17-turley-edit_x.htm
LikeLike
Pingback: New York Times defends Saudi killer regime | Dear Kitty. Some blog