Should Large States Be Broken Up?

After the recent election, I began wondering how the US can allow someone to be elected with less than half of the popular vote. It comes down to the US constitution and how the electoral college was set up. Each state gets one elector for each representative and one for each senator. The representatives are allocated according to population based on a decennial census, but each state automatically gets two senators. This gives more weight to small and rural states.

In the 2016 election, New York and California voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, but much of the midwest went tepidly for Trump. The apportionment of electors among the states meant that Trump won all the electors in states that voted for him. Most of those states were smaller and more rural than New York and California, so were weighted more heavily in the electoral college.

I have been thinking about how to change the apportionment of electors. One obvious way is to apportion part of them according to congressional district and the remaining two by the entire state. This is the way that Maine and Nebraska apportion theirs. The problem with that is gerrymandering. If one party controls the state legislature, they get to determine how congressional districts are drawn. For example, in North Carolina, Democrats control 3 districts out of 13 (23%) in the114th Congress, but 44% of voters voted for a Democrat. The solution here would be to pass laws outlawing gerrymandering, if it could only be defined. There are practical solutions to reduce the problem. One is to have a non-partisan, elected commission draw congressional district boundaries. California, Arizona, Idaho, and New Jersey have these.

The more interesting option for making the electoral college more in line with the popular vote would be to break up the states. If the system has a bias against large states, then maybe we should break them up into smaller states. California has 55 electoral votes, Texas has 38, while Alaska and Wyoming have three. If we take a rough limit and say that each state should have about 10 electoral votes, then California gets broken into 6 states and Texas into 4. The interesting thing is that the law that brought Texas into the union provided for breaking it into 5 states, though that law is likely null and void.

I have been working on dividing the largest states into smaller states of about 6 million people each, each getting about 10 electoral votes. I will post my results when done and take a look at what it means for the 2012 and 2016 elections. I can't go back to 2008 because the apportionment of electors was different before the 2010 census. This is what I have so far. I will probably redo these and work on New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois.

I was in the Neokeboi when Strago killed The Lion. Of course, this was no ordinary lion; The Lion was a man. He was a man that many looked up to for leadership. Some said he was a criminal, but not many in the Neokeboi said it. Crime in the Neokeboi was what the Doradoi lords prohibited. The Allyrians that settled the Neokeboi since the end of the wars had their own rules and their own leaders.

The Lion was one of those. He fought the Mervoringian Whitecloaks during the wars. We would have won and kept our homes if the Doradoi in Sinnak had had the will to fight. At the time back here in Sinnak, it was a forgotten war. Nobody paid much attention to it until we lost. When we lost, we lost our lands and our homes and most of the survivors resettled here on the outskirts of Sinnak, the capital city of the empire. Now they call us criminals. No lands, no work, not future.

The Lion was one of the men who led us out of Allyrion to Sinnak. He was able to secure a grant from the Emperor for us to settle the Neokeboi, just south of the city. He reestablished churches for us, mainly dedicated to Joshu, who was favored by the Allyrians. He provided protection from unscrupulous merchants so that Allyrian merchants could get established. He helped rebuild the Allyrian community in our new home. Now he’s dead. He died because of a gambling dispute and the man who killed him still walks the streets of the Neokeboi a free man.

Nobody can touch Strago. He is one of the New Men of the Neokeboi. He never fought in the wars or resettled. He and the other New Men were born in the Neokeboi. He is one of the reasons the Doradoi call us criminals. He doesn’t care about the community or our heritage. He only cares about money and power. He and his men have curried favor with the Red faction in the Imperial Palace. The Reds opposed the war in Allyrion when we were fighting for our lives. They advocated for a peace treaty with the Mervoringians that would have sold us out to them. The Lion has always supported the Blues because they supported us during the war. They legislated for more money and troops to fight the war. The reds wanted a tighter grip on the imperial purse strings. The power merchants in the party felt that the Emperor was spending too much and borrowing all the available cash the moneylenders had available, making it hard for anyone else to borrow money. In the end, the Red faction won. The Emperor signed a peace treaty and the Whitecloaks came and threw us out of our homes. Now, with a new Emperor, the Reds are ascendant and the Blues have little power. So when Strago killed The Lion, there was nobody who could bring him to justice.

It all started over a gambling dispute. Even in his older age, The Lion still loved games. A natural competitor, he would fight or play with all the passion in his heart, which was a great deal. A little wager on a game made it all the more interesting.

The game of grips is a simple one. Each player is dealt five cards, four in hand and one face up. In addition, there is one card laid in the middle of the table that all the players can play as well. The players begin to bet based on the initial deal, then on the second time around, they lay down another card and increase the bet or fold. When the last players remaining lay down their final cards, the one with the most points showing wins the game. It is scored one point for each minor card in a run of at least three and two points for each major card in a run. In addition, one point is scored for each card in a suit of at least three and two points for each major card. Each player can use the central card to add points if it gives him a run or suit.

Strago normally plays at the Golden Chalice, a club run and frequented by followers of Joshu and one of the more elite establishments in the Neokeboi. A great deal of money changes hands at the tables in the Golden Chalice, much of it ending up in Strago’s pockets. It is customary for winners at the tables to donate a portion of their winnings to the house, which then goes to supporting the less well off in the community through the charities of Joshu. Strago rarely followed this custom and came to the notice of The Lion, who is an elder in the Church.

It is said that The Lion sat at Strago’s table that night intending to teach him a lesson in
customs and the virtue of supporting the community. Others say it was to recover the Helm of Donys, which Donys’ son had lost to Strago weeks earlier in a game. Such is the desperation of men these days that they will wager the treasures of the community for their livelihood. Unscrupulous men like Strago have no qualms about taking advantage of that. Donys’ Helm is one such treasure. It was worn by Donys in battle against the Mervoringians. The Lion fought beside Donys when he fell. The Lion survived and brought Donys’ helm back from the battlefield where he had buried Donys and gave the helm to Donys’ family. Since the building of the Neokeboi, the helm has been displayed at the Golden Chalice as a reminder to the community of what was lost when we lost Allyrion.

Strago makes no secret of his contempt for our own history and our leaders. This night was no different. The Lion approached Strago’s table after one of Strago’s opponents stepped away, probably after losing his fortune and owing an onerous debt to Strago. The Lion politely requested the seat at the table. Strago acceded to his request, though it is not clear whether he did so because he relished a chance to vanquish The Lion at cards or simply did not wish to appear rude by refusing him in any case, The Lion sat and was dealt into the game.

The first few hands were uneventful. Both Strago and The Lion played conservatively, testing each other’s style and limits. As the game progressed, other players came and went as the winnings slowly accumulated in front of both Strago and The Lion. Over time, more players left the table than sat down as the stakes rose between the adversaries. Opening bets prevented other players from starting in the game and pushed others out. Soon, it was just the two sitting at the table and it was becoming clear that The Lion was gaining on Strago.

The fateful hand came after three hours of play. By then, everyone in the club had lost interest in playing their own games and all attention was focused on Strago and the Lion. People throughout the neighborhood had been filtering in to see the game, even children and women. The room was crowded and tension ran high. The crowd seemed evenly divided, half supporting Strago and half supporting The Lion.

At the opening of the hand, the card in the middle was the Fool. This increased the uncertainly greatly. In his hand, a player can use the fool to become any card he wants. To have it as the middle card meant that it would be useful to each player, but it was uncertain how until all the cards were played. To open, each player laid down a Hierophant, which is good luck. The Lion laid down the Hierophant of Joshu and Strago laid down the Hierophant of Bodhi. A Hierophant in one’s hand can break ties, but with both players playing a hierophant, ties became more problematic. Both of the players bet one thousand gold. At the next round, Strago laid down a nine of swords. Swords follow suit with Bodhi, so it appeared Strago had the beginning of a possible flush for three points. Strago bet two thousand gold. The Lion laid down an eight of shields. Shields follow suit with Joshu, so three possible points for The Lion. He met Strago’s bet for another two thousand gold.

As the cards were laid down, the bets increased accordingly until the players had one card left. The Lion showed a split run of an eight and nine of shields and the paladin and hierophant of Joshu. He could use the Fool as a witch of Joshu to make a suit run for twelve points. He would still need the rogue of Joshu to make any more points. Strago already showed the nine of swords and a rogue, paladin and hierophant of Bodhi. With the Fool substituting for the witch of Bodhi, Strago had a grand run for eighteen. The odds of The Lion holding the rogue of Joshu was very low. If he did, he would win with twenty.

The final bet came and The Lion made a grand move. He bet everything. The crowd was stunned. Apparently, so was Strago. Was it a bluff or did The Lion hold the witch or the rogue of Joshu? Strago stared at his cards and at his money. He did not have enough to match the bet. He took off a ring and threw it in the pot. The Lion refused it.

“I can’t accept jewelry without a proper appraisal and no reputable appraiser would give an honest opinion in the dead of night.”

“I’ll write a letter of credit for the difference,” Strago announced.

“I don’t take the debt of gamblers,” The Lion refused again. “But we all know the worth of the Helm of Donys. I’ll accept that as your wager.”

In fact, the Helm had little monetary value. Strago took it from Donys’ son because it was all he had left to give. He kept it because it provided a certain level of respect among his peers, though none of them appreciated the full moral value of it. If he lost, it would limit his losses, but he could still play and there was a good chance he could win the pot, which was substantial. But his calculation was for naught.

“Bring the helm down,” he called to the bartender.

The bartender took the helm down from its position above the bar and brought it to the table. He laid it on top of the pot of money.

The Lion laid down his last card. It was the rogue of Joshu. The Lion held a grand run! Strago laid down the eight of swords and both held a grand run of eight through hierophant for twenty points each. It was a draw, but no player had anything left to play another round.

“It is simple,” The Lion announced. “Hierophants break ties and the Hierophant of Joshu rules the house of Joshu. The Golden Chalice being a house of Joshu, my hand prevails. The Helm of Donys is mine."

“There is no such rule. Bodhi comes before Joshu. My hierophant breaks the tie!”

“It is an old rule that rarely comes into play. As often as you gamble, you should have heard of it!”

In fact, there was such a house rule. I had forgotten it, but The Lion jogged my memory. That is, in cases of exact ties, if players cannot play another hand, the hand with the higher suit wins. The highest suit is always the suit of the house. They then cycle through the others from Moshu, Bodhi, Joshu, and Momadu. In the house of Joshu, it cycles from Joshu to Momadu, then Moshu and Bodhi.

“You can’t make up rules on the spot just to get a tin pot back,” accused Strago. “I own the Helm.” He picked up the helm and began to put it on.

“Put the helm down! You have no right to wear the helm of a warrior many times your better. You aren’t even worthy of tightening his bootstrap!”

“You are a liar and a cheat!”

“No one calls The Lion a cheat to his face!” The Lion reached for the helm as Strago was putting it on. Whether The Lion intended to knock the helm out of his hands or grab it for himself is unclear. In any case, the helm fell out of Strago’s hands and hit him in the face, cutting a gash across his nose. Enraged, Strago pulled a knife and stabbed The Lion in the heart. The room erupted. The tension behind the dam was released. Knives and swords appeared from beneath cloaks. The defenseless ran and many were trampled in the stampede.

The Lion’s supporters surged forward to help him but Strago’s followers cut them down as they were distracted. The Lion’s supporters put up a valiant fight, but The Lion had fallen and could not lead. Too many died early and the remainder could not hold against Strago’s more numerous survivors. The Lion’s men broke and ran.

The rest of the night was a bloody one in the Neokeboi as Strago’s men went house to house looking for The Lion’s men, knowing they could not unite to defend themselves. Their houses were burned and families put to the sword. The next day was a somber one. Strago’s followers ruled the settlements and few would speak out against them.

The bodies of the dead were piled in a mass grave on the site of The Lions burned home. Nobody has built on it since. Some followers of Strago have tried, but construction was difficult because too many accidents happened on the site. Some blame the ghosts of the dead. A few among us call it Lion’s Square, but not too loudly.

An imperial magistrate came a few days after the massacre to investigate, but found nothing. Strago’s ties to the palace are too strong for him to be brought to justice. Now, the Reds can depend on Allyrian support. Strago makes sure they get it. Anybody who professes any support for the Blues is swiftly dealt with and never speaks up again, if he speaks at all.

I tell you this story now because I am old and do not fear for my life. Please remember the lion; he should not be forgotten.

An interesting quote I ran into in the Washington Post:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' " Abraham Lincoln February 1848 explaining his opposition to the Mexican-American War.

I found it in a guest editorial by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. about George W. Bush's war power. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042301014.html

Here is a post by Juan Cole, one of the better bloggers on Iraq and Middle Eastern issues in general. It is a damning indictment. Read more by Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com/

1. Bush vastly exaggerates al-Qaeda's size, sweep and importance, while failing to invest in genuine counterterrorist measures such as port security or security for US nuclear plants.

2. Bush could have eradicated the core al-Qaeda group by putting resources into the effort in 2002. He did not, leaving al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden to taunt us, inspire our enemies and organize for years after the Taliban were defeated. It would be as though Truman had allowed Hitler to broadcast calls for terrorism against the US from some hiding place as late as 1949.

3. Bush opened a second front against Iraq before he had put Afghanistan on a sound footing.

4. Bush gutted the US constitution, tossing out the Fourth Amendment, by assiduously spying on Americans without warrants. None of those spying efforts has been shown to have resulted in any security benefits for the United States. Bush says that he wants to watch anyone who calls the phone numbers associated with al-Qaeda. But some of those phone numbers were for food delivery or laundry. We want a judge to sign off on a wire tap so that innocent Americans are not spied on by the government.

5. Bush attempted to associate the threat from al-Qaeda with Iran and Syria. Iran is a fundamentalist Shiite country that hates al-Qaeda. Syria is a secular Arab nationalist country that hates al-Qaeda. Indeed, Syria tortured al-Qaeda operatives for Bush, until Bush decided to get Syria itself. Bush and Cheney have cynically used a national tragedy to further their aggressive policies of Great Power domination.

6. Bush by invading Iraq pushed the Iraqi Sunni Arabs to desert secular Arab nationalism. Four fifths of the Sunni Arab vote in the recent election went to hard line Sunni fundamentalist parties. This development is unprecedented in Iraqi history. Iraqi Sunni Arabs are nationalists, whether secular or religious, and there is no real danger of most of them joining al-Qaeda. But Bush has spread political Islam and has strengthened its influence.

7. Bush diverted at least one trillion dollars in US security spending from the counter-terrorism struggle against al-Qaeda to the Iraq debacle, at the same time that he has run up half a trillion dollar annual deficits, contributing to a spike in inflation, harming the US economy, and making the US less effective in counterterrorism.

8. Counterterrorism requires friendly allies and close cooperation. The Bush administration alienated France, Germany and Spain, along with many Middle Eastern nations that had long waged struggles of their own against terrorist groups. Bush is widely despised and has left America isolated in the world. Virtually all the publics of all major nations hate US policy. One poll showed that in secular Turkey where Muslim extremism is widely reviled and Bin Laden is generally disliked, the public preferred Bin Laden to Bush. Bush is widely seen as more dangerous than al-Qaeda. This image is bad for US counterterrorism efforts.

9. Bush transported detainees to torture sites in Eastern Europe. Under European Union laws, both torture and involvement in torture are illegal,and European officials can be tried for these crimes. HOw many European counterterrorism officials will want to work closely with the Americans if, for all they know, this association could end in jail time? Indeed, in Washington it is said that a lot of our best CIA officers are leaving, afraid that they are being ordered to do things that are illegal, and for which they could be tried once another administration comes to power in Washington.

10. Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri allows them to continue to grandstand, to continue to frighten the public, to continue to affect financial markets, and to continue to plot. Al-Zawahiri almost certainly plotted the 7/7 London subway bombings himself, and gloated about it when he issued Muhammad Siddique Khan's suicide statement. Misplaced Bush priorities are getting our allies hit. The CIA is reduced to firing predators at villages because our counterterrorism efforts have been starved for funds by the Iraq quagmire. If al-Qaeda does pull off another American operation, it may well give Bush and Cheney an opportunity to destroy the US constitution altogether, finally giving Bin Laden his long-sought revenge on Americans for the way he believes they have forced Palestinians and other Muslims to live under lawless foreign domination or local tyranny.

Since Bush has gone on the offensive in defending his decision to go to war, I have been skeptical of what he has been saying. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of many of the points he has been making (edited). For the complete article, go to: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm

ASSERTION: In a Veterans Day speech last Friday, Bush said that Iraq war "critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that a commission found no evidence of "politicization" of the intelligence. But neither that report nor others looked at how the White House characterized the intelligence. That's supposed to be the topic of a second phase of study by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
CONTEXT: This isn't true. The Congress didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief. As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren't available to lawmakers. Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts. Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization. All of the exiles' claims turned out to be bogus or remain unproven. War hawks at the Pentagon also created a special unit that produced a prewar report not shared with Congress. After the report was leaked in November 2003 to a conservative magazine, the Pentagon disowned it.

ASSERTION: In his Veterans Day address, Bush said that "intelligence agencies around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies, particularly in Europe, believed that Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass destruction capabilities - not necessarily weapons. But they didn't agree with other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain, argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, or that it had any link to Islamic terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks. France, backed by several other nations, argued that much more time and effort should have been given to weapons inspections in Iraq before war was launched.

ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush administration.
CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq. But it didn't authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.
Clinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq's refusal to comply with weapons inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Has the veil been lifted from the eyes of the American people? Probably not, but there are more that are seeing the light. It turns out that George Bush isn't the person so many thought he would be. The events in New Orleans exposed many of the patterns of the Bush administration. Some of the patterns: appointing cronies to jobs for which they are not qualified. Reacting to problem situations with press releases and photo ops instead of fixing the problem. Denying that anything bad is happening or that anybody on his watch did anything wrong.

From memory (except lines 3&4 of the second stanza)

The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68.
He told me that romantics all meet the same fate
Someday; cynical and drunk and boring someone in a dark cafe.
You laugh, he said. You think you're immune."
Go look in your eyes; they're full of moon.
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you all those pretty lies.
Pretty lies, when you going to realize they're only pretty lies?

Richard went up to the Wurlitzer
And pushed three buttons and the thing began to whirr.
And a barmaid came by in fishnet stockings and a bowtie
And said drink up now; it's getting on time to close.
Richard, you haven't really changed, I said.
It's just that now you're romanticizing some pain that's in your head.
You've got tombs in your eyes, but the songs you punched are dreaming.
Listen, they sing of love so sweet. When you going to get yourself back on you feet?
Love can be so sweet.

Richard got married to a figure skater
And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolater.
He drinks at home most nights with the TV on and all the house lights left up bright.
I'm going to blow this damned candle out; I got nothing to talk to anyone about.
All good dreamers pass this way someday. Hiding behind bottles in dark cafes.
When am I going to get my gorgeous wings and fly away?
Only a phase, these dark cafe days.

-Joni Mitchell

From memory (except lines 3&4 of the second stanza)

The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68.
He told me that romantics all meet the same fate
Someday; cynical and drunk and boring someone in a dark cafe.
You laugh, he said. You think you're immune."
Go look in your eyes; they're full of moon.
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you all those pretty lies.
Pretty lies, when you going to realize they're only pretty lies?

Richard went up to the Wurlitzer
And pushed three buttons and the thing began to whirr.
And a barmaid came by in fishnet stockings and a bowtie
And said drink up now; it's getting on time to close.
Richard, you haven't really changed, I said.
It's just that now you're romanticizing some pain that's in your head.
You've got tombs in your eyes, but the songs you punched are dreaming.
Listen, they sing of love so sweet. When you going to get yourself back on you feet?
Love can be so sweet.

Richard got married to a figure skater
And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolater.
He drinks at home most nights with the TV on and all the house lights left up bright.
I'm going to blow this damned candle out; I got nothing to talk to anyone about.
All good dreamers pass this way someday. Hiding behind bottles in dark cafes.
When am I going to get my gorgeous wings and fly away?
Only a phase, these dark cafe days.

-Joni Mitchell

There are a few really big issues facing America these days with the new Bush administration. Iraq still looms large. The situation is still not settled there, even with elections coming up on January 30. The elections will bring a new government with legitimacy in at least the Shi'ite and Kurdish areas of Iraq, but the instability is really based in the Sunni areas. It is likely that the insurgency will continue for years to come, new government or no.

If Iraq remains unstable, it is possible that it can spiral out of control and a warlord could emerge there that will destabilize the entire region. Of course, the Bush administration is hoping for exactly the opposite, that elections will install a legitimate government in Iraq that provides an inspiration for democrats throughout the region. One can only hope that he is right. Even if this proves to be the case, the region will see instability for some time, though the instability will be more related to social change and upheaval rather than insurgent movements. And one should not assume that a democratic Arab state would be a pro-American Arab state.

Another big issue coming up is Social Security reform. I have not paid as close attention to this issue as I should have. It is very important. Democrats are accusing the Republicans of wanting to dismantle the most effective poverty-ending program in US history. Republicans want to allow workers more control over their Social Security taxes. In order to get some momentum behind the call for reform, the Bush administration is manufacturing a crisis in the same way it manufactured a crisis in the run-up to the Iraq war. It will repeatedly tell people the worst news, shouting down dissenters, avoiding the good news. They have said that the system is heading for bankruptcy and trillions in deficit. What they have not said is, but others have, is that the system is projected to remain solvent for the next 40 years (well into my retirement) and that the trillions projected are over a period of infinity. The solution they are putting forward is that we must allow people to take their contributions out of the system and invest it in the stock market. (Preferably in stocks of companies owned by Republicans.) Talk about counter-intuitive. We have to fix the system to prevent massive deficits by taking revenue out of the system?

One other issue that usually gets short shrift because it is less than glamorous is election reform. More and more, states and counties are moving to electronic voting systems because it is cheaper and faster to get elections processed. But is it safe? Many determined high-schoolers can hack into very secure computer systems. Many of the nation's election offices are run by small counties whose elections officers also run the computer systems. Do they all have the wherewithall to prevent security breaches, especially given the vulnerabilities built into the system? Here is an e-mail I received recently summarizing some of the problems with electronic voting:

Did you know....
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be Chairman of ES&S. He became Senator in a surprise upset, with votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html

8. Kenneth Blackwell co-chaired George Bush's Ohio election campaign. As Ohio's Secretary of State, he left no stone unturned to surpress the democratic vote.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/113004Y.shtml#1
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/894
http://67.15.90.110/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/1414219

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11. Exit polls are usually excellent predictors of election results. Reputable analyses could not find an explanation of the discrepancy between exit polls and results of the 2004 presidential election.
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Unexplained_exit_poll_discrep_v00l.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/international/europe/23ukraine.html?ex=1102245800&ei=1&en=3a3c24b7e64fe49

12. A Diebold subsidiary employed five convicted felons as senior managers and developers. These people helped write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13. Jeff Dean, senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14. Jeff Dean served jail time for planting back doors in his client's accounting software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, hacking was easily accomplished. (See the movie here with the chimp <http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .)
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17. ALL -- not some -- but ALL of the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

18. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush– have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.htmlhttp://uscountvotes.org/

Based on a list compiled by Angry Girl - http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

It might be time now to really do some thinking about the past year’s election, now that the anger has subsided a bit. What was really going on in the election was a conflict between two differing views of reality. Many pundits said that George W. Bush got elected on moral values. This is a part of the truth. In fact, this nation is divided between two differing camps, each with a differing set of values, visions and assumptions about how the world works.

Having read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance years ago, I was trying to explain to a friend today what it was about. I realized that I didn’t remember it very clearly and finding it on my bookshelf today, I decided to read it again. Some books are worth reading more than once. This one is worth rereading repeatedly. Over ten years ago, I loaned my first copy to someone and never got it back, so I went and bought another just to have it on my bookshelf. I began reading this new copy for the first time.

I came across a passage in it that is relevant today as it was when it was written. It is about conflicting visions of reality, one of which was based in the sixties hippie movement. Here it is:

"That’s the dimension [John]’s in. The groovy dimension. I’m being awfully square talking about all this mechanical stuff all the time. It’s all just parts and relationships and analyses and syntheses and figuring things out and it isn’t really here. It’s somewhere else, which thinks it’s here but’s a million miles away. This is what it’s all about. He’s on this dimensional difference which underlay much of the cultural changes of the sixties, I think, and is still in the process of reshaping our whole national outlook on things. The names "beat" and "hip" grew out of it. Now it’s become apparent that this dimension isn’t a fad that’s going to go away next year or the year after. It’s here to stay because it’s a very serious and important way of looking at things that looks incompatible with reason and order and responsibility but actually is not. Now we are down to the root of things."

"What we have here is a conflict of visions of reality. … That’s really why [John] got upset that day when he couldn’t get his engine started. It was an intrusion on his reality. It just blew a hole right through his whole groovy way of looking at things and he would not face up to it because it seemed to threaten his whole life style." Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig, pp. 53-54.

While the conflicting visions of reality described by Pirsig in the book are different from those espoused by the Democrats and Republicans in the election over the last year, they are related and the conflict is similar. Pirsig says that the cultural changes of the sixties were here to stay. In fact, since he wrote the book, those cultural changes have become the culture for half of America. It has been a growing cultural perspective for the last 40 years and has permeated American society, mostly in urban areas and among the educated middle and upper classes. Much of the growth of conservatism over the past twenty years can be explained as a reaction among rural and traditional Americans to the growth of this new cultural perspective, not as the remnants of the old conservatism that the hippies protested against.

Aside from how these differing views came to be, the important thing to realize is that they are conflicting views of reality and seem to have little common ground. This is a dangerous and unfortunate situation for American society. Because the one’s vision of reality is an intrusion on the other’s reality, they each seem to threaten the other’s whole life style.

We need to get past this illusion and find the common ground between the red camp and the blue camp. As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. America has some profound challenges ahead of it and must face the challenges united, not as a slim majority ruling over an equally sized minority.

This and the next three posts are from a friend of mine. I have always respected his thoughtful approach to issues and his compassion for others and society as a whole. While this essay is long, it is well researched and well-thought out. It is worth the read. It reminds me of the quote by Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. "

Griff originally wrote it with all sorts of formatting that helps reading, but blogger doesn't work very well on internet explorer on a macintosh, so I cannot add back all his formatting. I wanted to get this out before the election so people could see it.


Hello fellow voter. My name is Griff, and I live in Portland, Oregon, though I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, and have lived in Virginia and Michigan along the way.

I am writing to try to help make some sense of some things regarding the election next week, both for myself and maybe for somebody else. I should say from the start that I strongly oppose the reelection of George Bush. I have my reservations about John Kerry, but those don't hold a candle to what I feel is the appalling and frightening record of the Bush Administration. I have come to where my objections to the current administration are so wide and numerous that I can hardly even keep track of them in my own head anymore.

Thus I decided to try to organize my thoughts. At the same time, with family and friends in both Ohio and Florida (the two states that may well decide this election) I thought I could help the cause by giving some other fellow voters something to chew on.

In Oregon we vote by mail exclusively, and we have a robust intitiative process, so we get huge books of material to read for every election, and i value those dearly. i feel best when i have read the opinions of those both for and against every measure and candidate ... those I agree with and those I don't.

In that spirit, I hope you will be willing to forward this to others that might find it helpful, whether you agree with me or not. I have tried to be as honest and fair as possible, and to write and research with integrity, though I have no intention of being "impartial."

I believe that the Bush Campaign relies on so much smokescreen that they think no one can ever find their way through it. As I have tried to see through the smoke & deception, I have been staggered by the depth of it all. I think the best I've been able to do is construct representative examples of the administration's methods and strategies. i hope this is helpful.

__________________________


Dear Mr. Bush & Co.

I strongly oppose your reelection for three primary reasons:

1) I believe you have proven yourselves the most deceitful, dishonest, and disingenuous administration I've ever seen.

2) I believe you are jeopardizing our safety and security with a clumsy, belligerent, and inept foreign policy that does not respect statesmanship, international law, or the vital support of allies.

3) Your reckless fiscal policy has erased over a decade of very difficult and bipartisan work to overcome the federal deficit. This is an irresponsible course that we will pay for for decades or generations to come.


Below I will address the first two of these only.


A) HONESTY, DISCLOSURE AND INTEGRITY.

You have built nearly an entire presidency of one simple idea: "if we say it enough, and stand by it with conviction, then it will be true."

but many of us beg to differ.


The Scientific Community Calls You Out

Please recall the days when scientists were censored and punished for proposing the earth is round. This suppression was based on religious grounds, as the flat earth model was central to the theology of the time, and the church and state were inextricably intertwined. Now, certainly, no one today would propose that belief in a spherical earth is heretical. No, the science was not the problem, but rather, the dogmatic religious conservatism, unwilling to seek, face, and embrace a richer understanding of God's creation with honesty.

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed [a public statement] voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration.

This statement came from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-partisan group representing esteemed scientists from many disciplines.

The UCS states "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. - From Union of Concerned Scientists statement. 2/18/04

According to CNN on 2/19/04:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

"We're not taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies," said the group's president, Kurt Gottfried.

I want to reiterate that point ... this group is not "taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies."

In other words, these distinguished scientists are not objecting because they have different opinions about what policy choices we should make. They are objecting to dishonesty and manipulation in the decision making process itself. It would be very different if the administration was approaching the issues with integrity and genuine concern for relevant evidence, and if they were candid about the process. Then some scientists might agree with the decisions and others might not (and the same for the larger public), ... that's part of Democracy ... we have honest debate and then those empowered to do so make policy choices based on the information gleaned from that debate. But that's not what's happening here.

How does this work? There are many ways. This statement from the UCS gives some examples, including federal advisory committees being stacked with unqualified representatives from regulated industries, and suppression of studies that do not support administration policies.

According to the UCS, for instance, in November 2002, an advisory committee of the Center for disease Control ("CDC") was considering whether to make federal standards for lead poisoning more stringent, a move opposed by various affected industries. A few weeks before the scheduled meeting, the Bush administration stacked the committee with members opposed to the change in standards. Now in order to do that, the administration had to dump or turn away highly qualified experts that were recommended by the CDC, according to standard procedure. The move included dismissing a leading expert and researcher who had been on the committee for four years, as well as rejecting the recommendations of the CDC staff. "According to Dr. Susan Cummins, who chaired the CDC’s lead advisory committee from 1995 to 2000, this was the first time an HHS secretary had ever rejected nominations by the committee or CDC staff." The replacement members included two appointees with financial ties to the lead industry, including at least one that other experts describe as holding a "'fringe' view in his field (far from even the normal extremities of mainstream expert scientific discourse)." "As one medical researcher explains it, Banner’s position either ignores or willfully misreads some four decades’ worth of accumulating data on lead exposure in children." But the one clear commonality among the "replacement appointees" was that the administration was certain they would oppose the changes in standards. It didn't really matter to the administration whether they were actually qualified or not, or whether they had a conflict of interest or not ... it only mattered that they would support the administration's position.

Science cannot effectively operate under such conditions.

Now, the UCS acknowledges that, "researchers may well reasonably debate whether the government should tighten its standard for lead poisoning. The public needs and deserves such an informed debate. In this case, however, the Bush administration effectively denied the public an informed policy recommendation by tampering with the integrity of the advisory panel nominating process."

This approach flies in the face of scientific integrity, and even political integrity. In the end, science is only one factor in making policy decisions, to be weighed along with many others, including economic impacts, ethics, etc. But while it is perfectly legitimate to consider the impacts of environmental policy on industry, for instance, it is not legitimate not try to distort the scientific information that is designed to inform that policy decision with the best information available.

As George Bush Sr. has said, "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." - President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

But with the current administration "we’ve seen a consistent pattern of putting people in who will ensure that the administration hears what it wants to hear," says Dr. David Michaels, a research professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and former assistant secretary for environment, safety and health at the DOE during the Clinton administration. "That doesn’t help science, and it doesn’t help the country."

As Russell Train, former EPA Administrator laments, "In all my time as EPA administrator, under both Nixon and Ford, I do not recall ever receiving even a suggestion, let alone an order from the Whitehouse as to how I should make a regulatory decision. How times have changed." (quoted from a 2/18/04 National Public Radio ("NPR") story on the UCS statement).

You can check out this whole UCS statement, the signees, and other examples at:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320.


For a related story:

Tue Jun 22, 9:40 AM - Chicago Tribune


By Jill Zuckman Tribune national correspondent

Forty-eight Nobel laureates denounced President Bush on Monday for "compromising our future" when it comes to scientific research and the environment, and said Sen. John Kerry "will restore science to its appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House."

The star-studded scientific endorsement for Kerry came on a day when the presumptive Democratic nominee stood in Civic Center Park and told several hundred rain-soaked voters that the way to build the economy is to invest in science, technology and higher education.

"We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," said Kerry, vowing not to let "ideology and fear stand in the way."

Many scientists have complained that the Bush administration has filled science advisory panels with conservative ideologues rather than individuals with sterling scientific credentials.

In an open letter to the American public, Nobel Prize winners including Caltech President David Baltimore and cancer researcher Harold Varmus said "the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

__________

Now Mr. Bush, the reason I've started out talking about science is that it is an ideal illustration of the willingness of your administration to distort facts for political ends. While you seem willing to do this on any and all fronts, it is most clear and apparent in the realm of science, specifically because of the stark contrast with the scientists' dedication to actual facts, research, and evidence. We all know that we can find an "expert" to say anything we want to support, but that doesn't make it a legitimate or realistic debate. As your administration has systematically positioned itself against mainstream science, substituting "fringe" opinions, in so many areas (climate change, forest management, endangered species, clean air, mercury emissions, health education, mining, breast cancer, etc. etc.) it becomes ever clearer that you are really not concerned with facts, research, or science, but driven only by half informed ideological dogma.

B) Iraq: Misleading a Nation to War

In the build-up to your invasion of Iraq, we can see so many examples of this same sort of strategy that it's nearly impossible to even catalog them all. But since we were talking about science, let's just start there.

Many citizens and, especially, Senators have indicated that the potential threat of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program was the most significant factor in their reluctant support for the "preemptive" invasion of Iraq. So what evidence did you offer of that nuclear program to convince the American people of the threat?

The single most persuasive piece of evidence you offered at the time was the purchase by Iraq of some unique aluminum tubes. You explained to us that these tubes were secured by Iraq to use for centrifuges in their nuclear weapons program. However, as we have since learned, there was actually a substantial debate among government experts as to what these tubes were really for. There were CIA analysts who believed the tubes were for centrifuges. However, there were also experts at the Energy Department, in fact the most knowledgeable experts in the country, who believed the tubes were unsuited for centrifuges, but rather, were likely for combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency had examined tubes of identical specifications in Iraq in 1996 that were actually being used as conventional rocket launchers. Based on their analysis, "the Energy Department experts ... concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges 'is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.' "Yes, it was theoretically possible [to use the tubes for centrifuges], but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to 'turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.''' Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body."

Now this point was very important to your case for an Iraqi threat that would justify an invasion. It was clear to you and everyone else that support for the war was reluctant and that you would have to have a viable and convincing case to get support from Congress and the American People. Furthermore, as Dr. David A. Kay, the chief American arms inspector after the war said, "remember ... the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons programs that [you] had.''

Now this sounds a lot like some of the scientific issues we looked at before. You have a specific agenda, and the science does not really back up your agenda. So what do you do? Well you ignore, or even bury the science that doesn't support you, of course, and focus only on those opinions that bolster your position.

So, more than a year after the department of Energy started telling your administration that it was unlikely these tubes were for a nuclear program, you stood before the U.N. and said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." Now I can see how you might have still thought this was a debatable issue. But you didn't say that. You just said it was true, even though the best science at the time said otherwise. In other words you selectively chose to go with science that you wanted to be true, rather that being honest about finding out what was actually true.

What Condoleeza Rice said, though is even more deceptive. A few days before you spoke to the U.N., she actually said, "We do know that there have been shipments going into iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to ... high quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs; centrifuge programs. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. " -Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor, September 2002

It's hard to even believe that! She actually said these tubes were "only really suited for ... centrifuge programs." Even though the Energy Department experts; the best experts in the country, had been saying for over a year that the tubes were not suited for centrifuges, but were well suited for conventional rocket launchers! Still she said otherwise.

Of course, this is not just a matter of opinion ... as to which theory was better. It's not a subjective matter like which are better ... peas or carrots? that's a matter of taste. The question of the aluminum tubes is much more objective than that. Now, of course, we know that those tubes were NOT for a nuclear program, never were, and in fact, Iraq had had no nuclear program for over ten years. Indeed, the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers, just like they said.

That's the problem when you disregard, ignore, or bury to best evidence, of course, ... is that you're unlikely to have your view born out when the facts come in. Now even the best scientific theories may be disproven, but you're really on thin ice when you just try to ignore the evidence and make up what you want.

Again, remember what those scientists were saying. We may or may not agree as to the ultimate policy choices, but that's not even what we're talking about. This is about refusing to even enter into an honest debate ... or to be truthful or accurate in your representation of information. If you had wanted to be honest, you would have thoroughly investigated and apprised yourself of the various theories on these aluminum tubes, then told the public "there is some debate about what these tubes are for." You could have said, "some believe they are for (permissible) conventional rocket launchers, but others fear they may indicate an ongoing nuclear program." You could even have said, "we don't feel like we can take the chance that they might be part of a nuclear weapons program, and believe we must err on the safe side." Now all that would have been truthful and honest. Then the American people would have had accurate information and perspective on which to base our opinions, as would the Congress. But that's not what happened. Instead you chose to present a one sided distortion of the information, because you feared that a truthful disclosure would have weakened the case you wanted to make.

But the American people deserve more respect than this. We are not stupid. We are perfectly capable of "handling truth" ... even when it's a little complicated. It's not your job to pursue your own agenda, and release information only as it will mold our opinions in support of that agenda. No! It's your responsibility to be straight with us ... to lead us, not to lie to us. Misleading is not the same as leading. When others see the wisdom in your approach to problems and circumstances, and come to trust you and follow you with confidence, you are "leading." When you misrepresent the problems and circumstances to convince others of the wisdom of your approach, you are not leading but "misleading." In this way you have indeed proven yourself a great national misleader.

Now that we've got many more facts, and we've learned that those aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges or any nuclear program at all, now that we've gone ahead and invaded a sovereign nation and started a war that has cost over 10,000 lives based on misinformation, now Condoleeza is backtracking. Now, regarding her earlier statement, she says, ""The intelligence community assessment as a whole was that these were likely, and certainly suitable for and likely for his nuclear weapons program." - From ABC's This Week - 10/3/04. Now even this is debatable ... considering the Energy Department analysts, some of whom had been building and working on centrifuges for decades, were clearly indicating to the contrary. But, even if we give the benefit of the doubt, and say Condi weighed all the opinions and analysis, and came to buy into the centrifuge theory as the most credible, that's still a long way from saying the tubes are "only really suited" to nuclear weapons programs. Either she was "telling tales" or she didn't know what the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Energy Department knew.

And this brings me to another, larger point. Frankly, I don't care a whole lot whether Condoleeza Rice was outright lying, was creatively deceiving by half-truths and ommission, or was actually completely in the dark. I mean, she is the National Security Advisor for Pete's sake! It's her job to know these things. If she's going to go on National Television and tell the American people that Iraq is buying aluminum tubes that are "only suitable" for development of nuclear weapons, then surely she has the responsibility to check the story out first. That doesn't just mean asking the first person who will say what she or the President wants him to say. That means actually asking questions, hearing dissent, digging under the surface, and challenging the analysis she receives. The excuse of "bad intelligence" just doesn't fly here. It wasn't bad intelligence at all, it was a question of the analysis of perfectly good intelligence (in fact we had actually captured a shipment of the aluminum tubes and had the opportunity to study them extensively).

I mean this was not a small issue. This was, perhaps, the single most important issue of "National Security" at the time. This analysis was to be the central justification for an unprecedented unprovoked invasion of another sovereign nation. It was the basis for estimating whether an declared enemy might have nuclear capabilities. You'd think that she could actually check it out ... thoroughly! You'd also hope that she would represent it truthfully to the American people.

But as far as I can tell, one of three things happened here ... either:

1) Condoleeza Rice understood the debate between the CIA analysis and the Energy Department Analysis and willfully and blatantly misrepresented the information to the American people or

2) She assessed the analysis by the Energy Department to be so unlikely that it was not even worth considering (in spite of the facts that it was proffered by the leading experts in the field, and that this analysis is the one that was actually most accurate), or

2) The National Security Advisor was oblivious to vital and pivotal information on the most important issue of National Security facing the country, in spite of the efforts of those trying to communicate that information to her.

I'm not sure which of these is more frightening.

If she lied outright, then we must remove her immediately, as anyone that would so boldly lie to the nation about such a grave and monumental concern certainly cannot be trusted as a servant of the people.

If she assessed the most accurate analysis of this vital issue, as well as the opinions of the most expert analysts, and assessed them to be inconsequential, then her judgment is so horrible and lacking, then she certainly cannot be trusted with our national security, and she must be removed.

If she was oblivious to the most relevant analysis of this most vital situation, then she is utterly irresponsible and incompetent to protect our national security, and must be removed.

This is a conclusion I come to often when trying to understand how this situation, and this war developed. I feel like the administration is playing a shell game with us ... and it can be a very effective distraction, until I realize that ALL THE SHELLS ARE EMPTY!


_______________

I should mention that you actually gave two pieces of "supporting evidence" for Saddam's nuclear program. The other clue was the uranium Iraq supposedly tried to buy from Niger. Of course this story has been completely debunked even more emphatically than the lies about the aluminum tubes ... to the point where the CIA was actually telling you this story was make believe - and you included it in the state of the union anyway!!! ... but i think that's been examined and exposed enough.

(check out: NY Times
July 6, 2003
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Ultimately, what is most important is that you convinced enough people to believe in a non-existent Iraqi nuclear program to get the support you wanted ... and that's what you were after. As usual, the actual truth of the situation just didn't seems to matter.


More War Stories

In the last several months, reports from two very important investigations have been completed, and released. The first was the report from the 9/11 Commission (Officially the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States"), and the second was the Duelfer Report, released in early October.

The 9/11 Commission, "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." It's process and results have been widely praised as a triumph of genuine inquiry and non-partisan cooperation, and the commission released it's unanimous report in July of 2004.

The Duelfer Report is the culmination of approximately 17 months of investigation led by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. Duelfer was appointed by the President to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, and this "investigation represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war," according to the Washington Post (U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons, Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01.)

The report had many striking conclusions. It said, for instance, that Saddam Hussein was extremely focused on getting the international sanctions that had saddled Iraq since 1991 lifted. To that end, the report paints a picture of back room wheeling, dealing, and influence peddling with a network of businesses and nations around the world to illegally bypass the sanctions, secure banned goods, and also to get the sanctions officially softened. It also indicated that Hussein still had a strong wish and intent to restart at least some of his WMD programs if the sanctions were lifted, and that this was a major motivation for his wanting to get out from under the sanctions.

On the other hand, The Duelfer Report concluded that within a couple years of the first Gulf war (1991), Iraq has dismantled most or all of its WMD ("Weapons of Mass Destruction") programs. By the time the U.S invaded Iraq, stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons were destroyed and there were no mechanisms in place to rebuild or restock them. There had been no nuclear weapons program for some years, and there were no specific plans to restart one. Apparently, the sanctions that had been in place since 1991 were effective in shutting down Hussein's WMD programs, while also crippling Iraq's economy.

Meanwhile, (a few months earlier) - the 9/11 Commission Report had also had some significant findings. Here is an Excerpt:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi Intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United


They way I read it, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama Bin Ladin was living first in Sudan then in Aghanistan when he had contact with Iraqi officials. For a while Bin Ladin was actually helping out some forces opposing Saddam, presumably because Bin Ladin fundamentally opposes secular regimes, but Sudan convinced him to cut that out. At some later point officials from Sudan set Bin Ladin up to meet with Iraqis, and they met once. Bin Ladin asked them for some favors, and they didn't respond, and they didn't call him back. Later, there are some reports of contact between Iraq and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it's not clear what those were about. However, the Commission's summary of this line of evidence is that there's nothing to show that al Qaeda and Iraq ever had a cooperative relationship.

Of course the 9/11 Commission is an extensive report, dealing with many many subjects and issues, and this examination of the ties between Iraq and Bin Ladin is but a small fraction of the very grand whole. However, I am highlighting this area because my focus is on the lack of veracity, integrity, and competence we find in the statements and manners of the Bush Administration as they tried to sell the war against Iraq.

So what I'm seeing here is that these two reports are looking hard at all the evidence they can find, including both what the administration knew when and before they invaded Iraq, as well as much more that has come to light or been clarified since. Of course it is only natural to compare what we've learned with the representations the Administration made when they were in sole control of the intelligence.

Needless to say, I, personally, see a great chasm between the evidence we have now and the legitimacy of the representations by the Administration. It seems to me that the Bush Adminstration approached this policy as it approaches most policies. They had an agenda or a plan already, and they set about to shape the perceptions of the facts to support their agenda. Well of course ... that's part of democracy. Everyone tries to appeal to others' perceptions of facts.

However, if you are in control of nearly all the intelligence, and you are unscrupulous, then you can do a lot more than just "shape the perceptions of the facts." You can actually change the facts ... and get away with it. It only takes very subtle changes in detail to have huge impacts on perceptions. As outlined previously, the Bush Administration has consistently shown themselves more than willing to bend, change, distort, and suppress relevant information in the service of their own ends.

So when they wanted to sell us the war, they took what information they had and bent and exaggerated and omitted as necessary to make their case. At the time many many many many people believed, and said (and screamed) that the Administration's cast was lying. Since then, I have seen much to reinforce that belief, but almost nothing to diminish it.

Once more I must say that if they had been truthful and candid ... if they had adequately questioned one sided intelligence and reported to us as accurately as they could ... and they had still garnered sufficient support to go to war, then I might have still oppose the war as a policy choice, but I could still have respected the process ... that's democracy. But that's not what happened.


Here's an exercise that I'm hardly the first to do, ... but it's interesting ...

... talk talk talk ...

On The Subject of al Qaeda/Iraq Ties:


What they Said:

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (Washington Post) (That's right ... he said if we beat Iraq, we will be hitting the "heart of the base" of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11!!! This is the same guy that, during the VP debate stated, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11")

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." (Washington Post)



The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002


So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002

Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002

We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002

He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002


We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002


He's got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002


We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002

He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002

And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002


AND ... FROM THE STARTE OF THE UNION ADDRESS on 1/28/2003 ...
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President



What We Found Out:

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)



this is interesting, too, and shows what a good job they do at shaping the (mis)perceptions.

According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." (Washington Post)

and why do you suppose that is?? ... Why do you think so many thoughtful Americans believed something that just wasn't true? Could it be because that's what you told them??

Well of course they believed this, ... after the drone from the administration suggesting that "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," (George W.) and "Iraq . . . [is] the heart of the base ... of the terrorists who had us under assault ... on 9/11." (Cheney):


On the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

What they Said:

In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
(who's misleading the world?!)

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
("there can be no doubt" about what turns out to be untrue??!! what am I supposed to make of this?)

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
(but that's exactly what they apparently had done! so why are we "facing the crisis that we now have before us"?!)

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
(... again "no doubt" ... really??!!)

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
(oh this is rich ... "we know where they are" he says!)


We simply cannot live in fear of a ruthless dictator, aggressor and terrorist such as Saddam Hussein, who possesses the world’s most deadly weapons. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Speech to American Israel Political Action Committee
3/31/2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
(oh ... maybe we didn't "exactly" know when I said so before ... )

I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country. Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ``Oh, well, there's actually another site,'' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Fox New
4/13/2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
5/26/2003

No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
(see Rumsfield above ... maybe not "all of them" ... maybe just some?)

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003


DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003

What We've Found Out:

After 16 months of invesigation Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. - from report on Duelfer's Senate report on NPR.

The Iraqi's were actually farther from having nuclear weapons than they were in the early 1990s.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Unidentifed, Senior Administration Official
New York Times Article
7/8/2003

Hans Blix (Former UN Chief weapons Inspector): Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq. 4/23/03 from The Guardian.



Now, yet again I must say ... things could have been different. The Administration and their supporters are focusing now on the findings of the Duelfer report that Saddam Hussein had an intense "intent" to regain WMD capability, and would have as soon as he had the chance. I think that's important, and I don't want to belittle those findings.

But if the Administration had said, "as of now we do not have conclusive evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but we strongly suspect that Saddam will restart those programs as soon as sanctions are eased," then they would have been truthful." Then we could have had an honest debate. If they had said "experts from around the world believe that Saddam is concealing weapons and weapons programs, but we cannot establish that for certain," then, as a nation, we would have had to wrestle with whether that was enough justification for war. That would have been honest democracy. But that's not what happened. There is an extensive list above of statements from the administration that are all, ... each and every one of them ... false. The administration chose to present the false case that we were certain there were WMD (and even that "we know where they are."). How could we be certain of something that wasn't true?

This again brings me back to the possibilities I faced in trying to make sense of the misrepresentation of the aluminum tubes... either they:

1) were outright lying, or

2) they were completely negligent in actually gathering sufficient intelligence (and didn't realize that), or

2) they so completely misjudged the evidence and misinterpreted the intelligence as to be "absolutely sure" with "absolute confidence" and "no doubt" of something that is apparently untrue.

Again, I'm not sure which of these circumstances is more frightening, but all of them lead me to conclude that the Administration cannot be trusted to execute monumental issues of national security with competence and good faith.


_____________

Mr President ...

Again, just 'cause you say it ... just 'cause you look into the camera with resolve and say it ... doesn't make it true. often your entire strategy seems based on the tenet that if you show enough resolve, that's good enough ... even when you are completely wrong!! Now you might convince people this way, but that doesn't change the facts.

If this isn't the perfect example, I can't imagine what would be: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." W. speaking at press conference 6/17/2004

... that's right, you're doing great ... just say it over and over ... and we should believe it just because you say so!

too often you confuse stubborness for conviction, self righteousness for inspiration, and and might for wisdom. you seem to do your very best to confuse us about these things as well.

well you just can't fool us all the time. it's not working anymore, and the many times you've tried to pull the wool over our eyes are now catching up to you. so go ahead ... try to dance. try to trick and shimmer your way out of it ... it just won't work. you've dug your hole too deep - and you're dragging us down with you. but, ultimately, i have more faith than that in my own people. i believe that no matter how tricky you are enough people can still see through it and we can start repairing some of the horrible damage you have done to us, our nation, and our respected place as a world leader.