U.S. Building Massive Embassy in Baghdad

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your tax dollars at work, bush supporters...

U.S. Building Biggest Embassy *in the world* in Baghdad

Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion — the actual embassy offices.

Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies.



U.S. Building Massive Embassy in Baghdad

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial.

..."Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall.

...It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

...Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.

...Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/..._new_embassy_2

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

- George W. Bush, one day before the Nov. 7, 2000 election

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1710.htm

[Spider]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

- George W. Bush, one day before the Nov. 7, 2000 election

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1710.htm

I remember him saying that .........

[ColoradoDarin]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I remember him saying that .........

Yes, and I look at the date, it was before 9/11/2001. I seem to remember something happening on that date. I remember people saying things like "9/11 changed everything."

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by ColoradoDarin

Yes, and I look at the date, it was before 9/11/2001. I seem to remember something happening on that date. I remember people saying things like "9/11 changed everything."

9/11, the day Bush got his wish and a bucket of fairy dust! The rest of the country was filled with sorrow, but that sorry SOB was celebrating his own little victory!

[loborugger]

I have been to the US Embassy in Bogota. It was designed & built in the 90s when guys like Pablo Escobar were running around Colombia unchecked doing things like blowing justice buildings and taking the supreme court of the nation hostage. Therefore, you can see the atmosphere of the time in the design of the embassy building. It is not a regal, statuesque building, nor is it inviting. It is a compound located away from any major throughfares. The walls are imposing, and once you get over the walls, there are large, open fields that are void of even trees. In other words, it would be hard for a large, armed group to approach the embassy quickly. Then, the walls are difficult to breach. Finally, if you get over the wall, the Marines defending the buildings have a large field of fire to cut you down in.

In much the same mindset, the new US Embassy in Iraq is being built. It is first a defensible position and secondly an embassy. Noteably, it has its own water facility and its own water treatment sites. In other words, it can stand on its own.

It sounds like it is being designed to withstand an assault by an force that is not armed with modern armor or air support (I doubt any fixed compound could survive an army with tanks, helos, and jets). Furthermore, with its own supplies of things like water, electricity, etc, it can withstand a long term seige by a hostile forces. It can hold out for a long time until either help arrives or the compound can be evacuated.

One of the most enduring images of the Nam was the over-running of the US Embassy in Siagon by the VC during the Tet offensive. And while they only held the embassy for a short period time, it had a definite effect on US morale and the image of the war. Also, one of the most enduring images of the 70s was the US embassy in Tehran being overrun by Iranians and the embassy staff being taken hostage.

Therefore, I think this new compound is being designed with the realization that Iraq will probably not be a friendly place for a long time and we therefore need to defend our interests. The last thing we need is another embassy debacle in the Middle East that will only encourage our enemies while embarrassing ourselves.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by loborugger

Therefore, I think this new compound is being designed with the realization that Iraq will probably not be a friendly place for a long time and we therefore need to defend our interests.

What "interests" are those?

According to BushCo, our only "interests" in the region are "spreading democracy and freedom."

We've all seen how that turned out.

And what does the fact that BushCo is building the biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad say about an exit strategy?

[broncocalijohn]

Do we need to quote a few good men about walls here for ya LABF? Regardless if we leave our military in the next few years, we will still have an interest in Iraq as an ally, a member of the UN and therefore we have a right to have a embassy in IRAQ. Do you think everyone will just love us and welcome all americans? Do u remember the embassies being blown up in Africa? Let us not experience that again. LABF, you look at everything that comes out of this adminastration and slam it regardless if it is right or wrong. If Bush has his name on it, it must be bad according to you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Do we need to quote a few good men about walls here for ya LABF?

Do we need to remind you what happened to Jack's character in the film?

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Regardless if we leave our military in the next few years, we will still have an interest in Iraq as an ally, a member of the UN and therefore we have a right to have a embassy in IRAQ.

What makes you so sure Iraq is going to be our "ally" in a few years?

Wishful thinking on your part (just like every other conservative who has supported meddling and nation building in the Middle East.)

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

LABF, you look at everything that comes out of this adminastration and slam it regardless if it is right or wrong.

Ha ha ha!

That's about like saying "You only focus on the negative side of Ted Bundy; You never acknowledge the nice things he did during his life."

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

If Bush has his name on it, it must be bad according to you.

Bush is not a legitimately elected president.

He is an illegal usurper.

We shouldn't even have to be discussing his raggedy ass right now.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Do we need to remind you what happened to Jack's character in the film?

I know this might come as a crazy input but i was referring to the quote in few good men about walls. LABF, it was a movie. Who cares what happened to Jack. It had nothing to do with the reference.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

What makes you so sure Iraq is going to be our "ally" in a few years?

Wishful thinking on your part (just like every other conservative who has supported meddling and nation building in the Middle East.)

and if we arent an "ally", you couldnt answer the 2nd part of having a right to have an embassy and well protected at that!



Ha ha ha!

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

That's about like saying "You only focus on the negative side of Ted Bundy; You never acknowledge the nice things he did during his life."

I figured you personally knew that murderer. Now the pieces fit.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Bush is not a legitimately elected president.

Tuff to realize those ballots in 2000 were brought to the citizens by Democrats. And dont forget the chance everyone had to get rid of Bush in 2004 (including myself). Seems he won that one w/o any mishaps (oh here comes the crazy ballot box /Ohio bs youll give us ) You have a few more years to get your guy/b**** running. Enjoy the economy at least.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

I know this might come as a crazy input but i was referring to the quote in few good men about walls. LABF, it was a movie. Who cares what happened to Jack. It had nothing to do with the reference.

Just like your reference had little to do with the thread topic.

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

and if we arent an "ally", you couldnt answer the 2nd part of having a right to have an embassy and well protected at that!

Where does this alleged "right" come from?

Bush invaded a sovereign nation on pretenses that were lies.

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Tuff to realize those ballots in 2000 were brought to the citizens by Democrats.

Who said anything about those ballots?

I'll spot you those ballots, and Gore still wins.

Here are the facts:

Recount proved Gore won under all scenarios

"In the review of all the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide"

- Associated Press

It's time to refresh everyone's memory of the NORC recount of the Florida 2000 vote. This recount, the only one ever completed, proved a Gore victory under all scenarios for a state-wide recount.

Note that under this recount Gore won even if you include Republican fraud such as the late absentee votes (which were only accepted in Republican counties), the thousands of votes lost to illegal disenfranchisement when people were falsely accused of being felons, and the curious "Jews for Buchanan" phenomenon with the butterfly ballot. If you count the votes, Gore won. If you don't count the votes, Bush won. It's that simple.

What does this mean? It means Gore won both the electoral college and the popular vote. It means the man currently in the oval office is a not a legitimate president. It means democracy was defeated in the year 2000. It means Americans are now living under a coup. Never lose sight of these facts.

Here follows the results in full of the NORC recount. Six different standards for hanging chads and such were considered. All six scenarios resulted in a Gore victory.

-PREVAILING STANDARD: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes if required to do a recount and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. In punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes. In optical scan counties, where voters are required to fill in blanks on a paper ballot -- like on a standardized test -- ballots with any affirmative marks counted. That means a vote counted even if the oval was not completely filled in or a candidate's name was circled or underlined; so did ballots on which a voter correctly filled in the oval and also wrote the same candidate's name in the space for write-ins.

Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.

-TWO-CORNER STANDARD: At least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as a vote, a position that had been argued, at times, by Bush supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.

-MOST INCLUSIVE: Ballots with dimpled chads count as votes, an argument often made by Gore supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 107 votes.

-LEAST INCLUSIVE: Only cleanly punched chads count as valid votes. For optical scan, only fully filled ovals and those ballots on which a voter filled in the oval and wrote in the candidate's name, too.

Result: Gore ahead by 115 votes.

-COUNTY-by-COUNTY: Drawn from the county election officials. It accepts results from Broward and Volusia counties because those counties completed hand counts that were included in state-certified election totals. For those counties that said they would not count overvotes, relies on prevailing standard.

Result: Gore ahead by 171 votes.

-PALM BEACH STANDARD: Based on a standard Palm Beach election officials briefly used, this counts dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 42 votes.

Media reaction

A close examination of the ballots suggests that more Floridians attempted to choose Gore over Bush. -- Chicago Tribune

Gore would have won most recount scenarios that included "overvotes," ballots that showed votes for more than one candidate. Democrats long have contended that a plurality of Florida voters intended to cast their ballots for Gore but that thousands spoiled their votes because of confusing instructions, badly designed ballots or other obstacles. The study adds evidence to bolster that case. -- LA Times

One of the most compelling questions since the election has been: Who would have won if all the uncounted ballots were hand-counted using the same standards? If that had happened using the counting methods most widely used in the state, the
study shows, Bush would have gotten an extra 3,607 votes, Gore an extra 4,204 -- giving Gore the state by a scant 60-vote margin. -- Orlando Sentinel

But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots,
or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins. -- Washington Post

Translation from Washington Post whorespeak to English: The study showed the majority of Floridians voted for Gore.

The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes -- CNN

Translation from CNN whorespeak to English: The study showed the majority of Floridians voted for Gore.

The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes." -- NY Times

Translation from NY Times whorespeak to English: The study showed the majority of Floridians voted for Gore.

A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election commissioned by the nation's main media outlets shows Al Gore edged ahead of George W. Bush "under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide," the Drudge Report has learned. -- Matt Drudge

Don't ever let anyone tell you to "get over" this, folks. You don't get over the subversion of democracy in the most powerful nation on the planet. You don't get over an illegal coup. Don't let the Republicans get away with the most monumental theft in history. You owe a debt to your ancestors as well as your children to ensure that this crime is never forgotten.

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Do we need to quote a few good men about walls here for ya LABF? Regardless if we leave our military in the next few years, we will still have an interest in Iraq as an ally, a member of the UN and therefore we have a right to have a embassy in IRAQ. Do you think everyone will just love us and welcome all americans? Do u remember the embassies being blown up in Africa? Let us not experience that again. LABF, you look at everything that comes out of this adminastration and slam it regardless if it is right or wrong. If Bush has his name on it, it must be bad according to you.

Ummm yes that's all he does.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronx33

Ummm yes that's all he does.

Whereas all you do is cover Bush's flank on virtually every fraud, felony, and screw-up and start 10 new threads per day filled with jingoistic, right-wing hate-mongering and disinfo.

[RaiderH8r]

This also demonstrates a long term commitment to the region. Hopefully other nations will follow suit opening up their own embassies and keeping post reconstruction Iraq engaged in global diplomacy. I don't like the price tag though, but I didn't see how many years the cost would be spread over.

[bendog]

shhhhh, it's really the Boy Warrior King's Presidential Library.

[defenseman]

I would hate to be in charge of security there...dman

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by defenseman

I would hate to be in charge of security there...dman

A nightmare but i will tell you our peeps are doing a great job under the circumstances IMO.

[defenseman]

Roger that...dman

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Roger that...dman

My cousin just finished his four years and two of those were in iraq with 1/7/Alpha, he was on the run up the middle all the way from kiwait which ended in bagdad. I have heard the stories/truth that some around here simply have an opinion on and really have no clue what they are saying or trash talking about, iam also really disapointed in the media through all of this, it's a ****** disgrace.

[Bronx33]

I wish all reporters were like michael yon.


http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...ity-delays.htm

Mosul, Iraq
During radio interviews, listeners sometimes call in with questions for me. People who follow the war closely and read my dispatches might ask about events covered by mainstream news but about which I’ve posted few details, if any. Thousands of emails pour in.

“Did you know about the letter to Zarqawi?” (Yes, I was in the Deuce Four daily briefing when it was first displayed and read, about a week before the media learned about it. The letter was captured minutes down the road from here.)

“Did you know about the Chemical Weapons Plant?” (Yes, and probably more than most readers care to know. Turned out to be nothing of consequence. The “Plant” was minutes down the road from here.)

“Did you know about the ’super secret spy plane’ that crashed in Mosul?” (Yes, I was on a mission in Mosul at the time. It was flying over Mosul in support of operations.)

“There was a report that three terrorists were shot down in Mosul the other day. Did you know about that?” (Yes, I was in the TOC when the blood first started pumping through their skulls. Credit was given to the Iraqi police, but American forces actually conducted the ambush minutes down the road from here.)

Then comes the question: “Why didn’t you write about that?”

The answer is simple. Often I am asked to withhold information due to the immediate sensitivity. And so, I never release the slightest hint. But then somebody in Baghdad - three steps removed from the action here in Mosul - releases it to CNN and the rest of the world. What is seen on television and in the papers is practically always inaccurate, or is at least poorly framed. But I rarely waste a breath trying to correct the information. It’s too late. Life is busy here.

The greatest paradox I have seen in this war results from “proximity delay.” The proximity delay for me is caused by being embedded so closely with Deuce Four soldiers that I often see things unfolding before they happen, and then I am in the thick of events as they occur. But then I am asked not to write about events.

Much of the censorship is self-imposed because I will not write anything that jeopardizes US, Iraqi or Coalition forces or civilians. This is not a game of who gets the scoop; I am not per se a journalist. On some missions I’ve been the first to spot the enemy. On others, I’ve been so close to the action, my face gets smacked by flying shell casings. I come away with information and details no other writer could possibly have.

I’ve refused to write about incidents countless times, even when soldiers have asked me to publish the details. My time traveling the world, following scent trails and navigating on snippets of information has taught me that a person with a seasoned imagination can coax a great deal of information from seemingly innocuous tidbits. This enemy is smart and also reads the news.

Just why the military considers some information “classified” while other information gets the “go ahead, write it” shrug, is not based on logic, science, or even one of those absurd but ironclad rules that codify so much of the military. Many explanations for the military’s requests not to publish certain information, do not hold up well to scrutiny.

For example, our soldiers capture or kill top terror figures in Mosul routinely. Sometimes in stunning operations that display split-second timing. The “higher ups” often say, almost reflexively, that they don’t want the enemy to know about these kills or captures.

Sounds reasonable. But whether soldiers sleek through dark allies with silenced weapons, slipping over walls with padded ladders, snatching sleeping terrorists from their beds before they can fully waken; or, whether they engage in a gunfight at a busy intersection and drag terrorists from behind the wheels of their cars - these are not anonymous men. Families notice when daddy’s gone missing.

If we aren’t keeping it secret from the enemy - and we can’t keep it secret from them - who do we protect by keeping quiet? These are not illegal operations. These are examples of the effectiveness of our forces. In Mosul alone there are daily events where the Coalition gets things right, that I never write about.

The “proximity delay” seems to be bi-directional. The higher-ups also seem to have a disconnect with what the media eventually does with Coalition successes. I kept silent for days on the Zarqawi-letter dispatch, ready to post what was probably the single most important piece of insider information to drop into our hands in quite some time. I requested clearance several times per day, each time being asked to hold back. I complied.

But then, without even giving the leaders at Deuce Four a heads-up, a typically enthralling military press release went out to major, mainstream, media outlets. We all learned of it on CNN. The Zarqawi-letter story was almost unrecognizable. Because, in the hands of a network that hasn’t had a body in the field in Mosul long enough to get their bearings, the best the media could do is paraphrase the military press release. So what should have been a front page banner headline story ended up buried on page 6.

Even CNN couldn’t grasp the importance of the letter. They ended up giving more coverage to the impending E-Bay auction of Jennifer Aniston’s old love letters than to the missive in which the top Al-Qaeda leader in Mosul writes to the second most wanted man in the world, and describes in amazing detail the weaknesses and impending collapse of the terrorist network in Mosul and surrounds. Only then did the military ask if I wanted to write about the letter.

Everyone, even a “higher up” deserves the benefit of the doubt, and should be entitled to one mistake. But how many times, and how many major stories have to be mangled into meaninglessness before someone connects the cables and lets the information flow in a direction other than down the mainstream media drain?

Meanwhile, by the time you read this, the US Army and the ISF will have launched offensive operations in Mosul and I will be in the middle of it. Maybe this time I will be able to write about matters while they still matter.

—————
Post Script: The operation has begun. The Commander of Deuce Four, LTC Erik Kurilla, was shot three times in combat yesterday in front of my eyes. Despite being seriously wounded, LTC Kurilla immediately rejoined the intense and close-quarter fight that ended in hand-to-hand combat. LTC Kurilla continued to direct his men until a medic gave him morphine and the men took him away. I was right there. When I returned to base, I was actually “ordered” not to write about the fighting until given clearance, and was told that my phones could be confiscated. I will ignore such “orders” at my own discretion. I am preparing a dispatch now.

[clarker]

If 9-11 was Bush's gift that keeps on giving, then the 2000 election was LABF's. But I have to say that even as a Republican I think there will be some legit questions about that election until we are all dead and gone. Especially with Bush's less than honest behavior.

This is where it will be LABF's gift that keeps on giving. No matter how honest it appears to everyone else on the planet, if a Republican wins in '08 he will claim they stole the election.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by clarker

This is where it will be LABF's gift that keeps on giving. No matter how honest it appears to everyone else on the planet, if a Republican wins in '08 he will claim they stole the election.

And no matter how many facts are presented to support the charge that the election was stolen, Clarker will ignore them.

GAO report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the General Accounting Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its through, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, thus making it possible to alter them without detection." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It is easy to alter a file defining how a ballot appears, making it possible for someone to vote for one candidate and actually be recorded as voting for an entirely different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards" can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that "access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network." This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access "to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords," says the GAO. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. "The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy," says the GAO, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. "One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail," says the GAO, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. "GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel," confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

• The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

• A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

• Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

• A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

• In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

• In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

• In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

• In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

• Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

• In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

• In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

• In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened.

© 2005 The Columbus Free Press

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1529

[clarker]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And no matter how many facts are presented to support the charge that the election was stolen, Clarker will ignore them.

GAO report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the General Accounting Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its through, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, thus making it possible to alter them without detection." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It is easy to alter a file defining how a ballot appears, making it possible for someone to vote for one candidate and actually be recorded as voting for an entirely different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards" can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that "access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network." This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access "to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords," says the GAO. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. "The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy," says the GAO, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. "One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail," says the GAO, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. "GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel," confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

• The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

• A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

• Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

• A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

• In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

• In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

• In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

• In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

• Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

• In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

• In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

• In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened.

© 2005 The Columbus Free Press

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1529

Do you even read people's posts before you reply? Like this part of my post...


But I have to say that even as a Republican I think there will be some legit questions about that election until we are all dead and gone. Especially with Bush's less than honest behavior.


I said right there that the election was f.cked. That at the very least the're some ligit questions about the 2000 election, especially with Bush's being less than honest.

My point is that in your mind the f.cked 2000 election will give you the excuse to say that any republican elected to be President stole the election. My post did not say that Bush won the election of 2000 fair and square. Not once in that post.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by clarker

My point is that in your mind the f.cked 2000 election will give you the excuse to say that any republican elected to be President stole the election. My post did not say that Bush won the election of 2000 fair and square. Not once in that post.

Yeah - I got that.

The point is that if you admit that there were plenty of fishy things about the 2K and '04 elections, then you have to admit that suspicion/skepticism re: future elections is justified - at least until some meaningful election reform takes place, that is.

And if, in the future, people suspect that a repub has stolen an election, then the repubs have only themselves to blame for their lack of credibility and for suspicion on the part of the American public.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Yeah - I got that.

The point is that if you admit that there were plenty of fishy things about the 2K and '04 elections, then you have to admit that suspicion/skepticism re: future elections is justified - at least until some meaningful election reform takes place, that is.

And if, in the future, people suspect that a repub has stolen an election, then the repubs have only themselves to blame for their lack of credibility and for suspicion on the part of the American public.

Well that I agree with you on that. But mark my words even the election is gone over with fine tooth comb by every mainstream reporter and blogger on Earth and nothing comes up. Some Dem will take advantage of the last two election and still claim it was. I hope you are not one of them.

BTW every election is going to have questions about it. To much power is at stake so we should be careful no matter who is elected. As far as real meaningful election reform... I told Baja that I'm a glass half full guy(or at least I try to be) but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think the people in power in both parties like it just the way it is. I mean I think the're a few honest ones on both parties who really believe the country needs it, but sadly I think they are out numbered.