Sunday, April 09, 2006

Wag the Dog - War Criminals XVII

I cancelled my subscription to every American news feed about a year ago. (Likely about the time mainstream media buried Gannongate).

Nothing is more disgusting than watching American after American selling out to greed and covering for this corrupt corporate coup.

If reporters like Mathews or Scarborough REALLY supported the troops they would not want them in harms way under a bogus war for the greed of Carlyle, Halliburton, and Bechtel (the tip of the iceberg).

I guess WORLD history is not taught in American schools - otherwise the American populace would have noticed the DIRECT parallel in propagating THE BIG LIE
used by both Goebbels and Rove.

The truth is an anomaly with this sick administration. How sad is that?

Ah and the Gannongate affair that stretches back to Franklingate. Pedophilia, highest members of the govt and clergy involved and mainstream media doesn't cover it.

Wow - welcome to the Totalitarian Toadies La La Land.

Indeed, the first thing Ashcroft did was to DRAPE the statues of justice because he feared the impact of the naked human body. Couldn't HE turn his head?
The sheer tunnel vision of that decision is emblematic of this entire administration.

STATUES of JUSTICE were draped because a fundamentalist evangelical found the human body (in God's image) so ugly it has to be draped.

HIS religion was imposed on the entire populace - and from there it all went downhill.

Along with all the anger, disappointment and rage most human beings have for George Bush, there is this incredible sense of outrage with the media. WHERE WERE YOU?


None Dare Call It Stolen:Ohio, the Election, and America's Servile Press

MARK CRISPIN MILLER / Harper's Magazine v.311, n.1863 1aug2005
[Comments to the editor on this article below]

Mark Crispin Miller is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon and, most recently, Cruel and Unusual. His next book, Fooled Again, will he published this fall by Basic Books.

Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even it you did not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year's presidential race was if nothing else pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped the subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have "moved on." Yet this contest may have been the most unusual in U.S. history; it was certainly among those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised yourself. The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified—Ralph Nader garnered only about 0.18 percent of the national vote—while the Republicans were split, with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr of Georgia; Ike's son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe Jr.; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime "Veteran for Bush" General Merrill "Tony" McPeak; founding neo-con Francis Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances of military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American Conservative, co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president, including both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out for Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. And on Election Day, twenty-six state exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so colossal and unprecedented that the odds against its happening, according to a report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5 million to 1. Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly alI the world against himself this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes.

.... How did he do it? To that most important question the commentariat, briskly prompted by Republicans, supplied an answer. Americans of faith a silent majority heretofore unmoved by any other politician had poured forth by the millions to vote "Yes!" for Jesus' buddy in the White House. Bush's 51 percent, according to this thesis, were roused primarily by "family values." Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called gay marriage "the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."

The pundits eagerly pronounced their amens—"Moral values," Tucker Carlson said on CNN, "drove President Bush and other Republican candidates to victory this week"—although it is not clear why. The primary evidence of our Great Awakening was a post-election poll by the Pew Research Center in which 27 percent of the respondents, when asked which issue "mattered most" to them in the election, selected something called "moral values." This slight plurality of impulse becomes still less impressive when we note that, as the pollsters went to great pains to make clear, "the relative importance of moral values depends greatly on how the question is framed." In fact, when voters were asked to "name in their own words the most important factor in their vote," only 14 percent managed to come up with "moral values." Strangely, this detail went little mentioned in the post-electoral commentary.1

The press has had little to say about most of the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This animus appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of caustic articles dismissing any critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation: "Election paranoia surfaces: Conspiracy theorists call results rigged," chuckled the Baltimore Sun on November 5. "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud Is Dismissed," proclaimed the Boston Globe on November 10. "Latest Conspiracy Theory—Kerry Won Hits the Ether," the Washington Post chortled on November 11. The New York Times weighed in with "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried"—making mock not only of the "post-election theorizing" but of cyberspace itself, the fons et origo of all such loony tunes, according to the Times.

On January 5, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. The report was the result of a five-week investigation by the committee's Democrats, who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or incompetence surrounding the election in Ohio, and further thousands of complaints that poured in by phone and email as word of the inquiry spread. The congressional researchers were assisted by volunteers in Ohio who held public hearings in Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati, and questioned more than two hundred witnesses. (Although they were invited, Republicans chose not to join in the inquiry.)

1Another poll, by Zogby International, showed that 33 percent of voters deemed "greed and materialism" the most pressing moral problems in America. Only 12 percent of those polled cited gay marriage.

2 Keith Olbermann (thanks Keith!), on MSNBC, stood out as an heroic exception, devoting many segments of his nightly program Countdown to the myriad signs of electoral mischief, particularly in Ohio.

3 The full report can he downloaded from the Judiciary Committee's website at democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf [Local copy of the report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio - Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff 5jan2005 (3.13 MB PDF)] and is also, as of May, available as a trade paperback, entitled What Went Wrong in Ohio. I should note here that, in a victory for family values, the publishers of that paperback are my parents, Jordan and Anita Miller.
Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The wrongs exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily for those) but specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act. Although Conyers trod carefully when the report came out, insisting that the crimes did not affect the outcome of the race (a point he had to make, he told me, "just to get a hearing"), his report does "raise grave doubts regarding whether it can he said that the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone Federal requirements and constitutional standards." The report cites "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies" throughout the state—wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. "In many cases," the report says, "these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio."

So along with the criminally negligent behavior associated with 9/11 and Katrina, the directed contracts to companies making huge profits on the war, and the paid off news media anything is possible - just watch to see who they start blaming next and know that whatever they are accusing the other party of doing - they are doing themselves.


Post a Comment

<< Home