A lot of Kerry questions here today: Iraq, election fraud, running mate

So here are my questions:


Would Kerry/anybody but Edwards ticket been able overcome election fraud?

Or is it that Kerry/ABE would have won because the election was not stolen?

And if the election wasn't stolen should Mark Crispin Miller stop saying that it was?

And if Miller has proof that the election was stolen, when will he share it with the rest of the country, or at least the courts, or better yet Conyers, so that he can initiate the appropriate steps to remove Bush from office?

On Iraq, who missed the following points during the debate?

snip...

KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

snip...

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html


Tommy Franks didn't. He shot off the following rebuttal (guess Kerry hit a nerve):

War of Words
By TOMMY FRANKS

Published: October 19, 2004

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe849b12233309f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

"Now, one of the reasons that Democrats refuse to look at this, or read the evidence, or listen to it, is just corruption. Because a lot of democrats are in fact republicans."

Does Miller have evidence that any of the Democrats below are corrupt and that a lot in fact are Republican?

Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI)
Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
Biden, Joseph - (D - DE)
Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
Byrd, Robert - (D - WV)
Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
Carper, Thomas - (D - DE)
Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY)
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ)
Dayton, Mark - (D - MN)
Dodd, Christopher - (D – CT)
Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND)
Durbin, Richard - (D - IL)
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI)
Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)
Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI)
Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
Kennedy, Edward - (D - MA)
Kerry, John - (D - MA)
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank - (D – NJ)
Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT)
Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT)
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD)
Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)
Obama, Barack - (D - IL)
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
Rockefeller, John - (D - WV)
Salazar, Ken - (D - CO)
Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD)
Schumer, Charles - (D - NY)
Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)


Another thing: Why aren't the Democrats who aren't corrupt doing anything about it? Maybe because there don't have the evidence or they don't believe it? What about Conyers? He looked into it and issued a very long report that still doesn't say the election was stolen. If Conyers had evidence the election was stolen, that a law was broken, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, he would have had no problem raising the question of impeachment.

his 3 bills sets up the start of the process - if the GOP really want to clean things up.

But the media will not give him, or the question of impeachment, print/air time until the GOP gives permission.

There are any number of Dems in GA (Kathy Cox?, the SofS anyway) who are either on the take from Diebold or being used (along w/ Zell Miller I believe Miller has remarked). There are also a number of Dems in CA that are complicit with Diebold and the privatizing of the vote counting.

Also, it seems to me MCM's whole book is chock-full of "evidence" of fraud. Just because the Dems are too dim-witted or maybe just shell-shocked to respond doesn't change that fact.

I think anybody that looks at the evidence in an objective way comes away convinced that 04 was stolen, along with 02 (in GA, MN, and CO most probably, as well as many other places).

At the very least, to suggest that a country in which the votes are counted by private, highly partisan corporations w/o being audited (w/o even the possibility of auditing in many cases), where the source code of the machines used is not open to the elections officials, and where the exit poll and pre-election poll vs "actual results" discrepancies are as obviously impossible as they are in election after election (and always in the favor of Repubs), to suggest that this country is a democracy is perhaps not an accurate representation of reality.

If his book is "chock-full of 'evidence' of fraud," why does he need the "dim-witted" Democrats.

Miller can take his evidence to Bob Fitrakis or Cliff Arnebeck and all the lawyers that have spent or are spending time and money looking into election fraud, and they can take the evidence they have to court.

The 2000 election was stolen, maybe everyone should have addressed the problem after that episode in American voting history.

As for 2004, here is the problem: Conyers' report (with numbers, details, testimony, documentation) is mind-blowing, as is the GAO's. The information strings together a lot of reports, facts, and interviews. Miller's, like the rest it's still a report, and how do you go from a report to court unless you keep trying to turn up that piece of evidence that does this:

There are a lot of lawyers, journalist and other very smart people who believe the election was stolen, and have the resources to pursue the evidence. And I understand many are doing so. That one thing required to prove this seems to be elusive at the moment: a witness (since, it's been stated that the physical evidence from the machines doesn't exist?). Remember that Clint Curtis (name?) fellow who claimed to have created the program? It wouldn't even have to be to that level, but somebody with inside knowledge.

Every bit of investigative reporting, as Miller has done, is extremely valuable in potentially forcing that person out into the open (who knows a piece of tangible evidence may yet turn up).

Until then, no one has solid evidence and without it, no one is going to definitively say in any official capacity that the election was stolen. Conyers didn't and wouldn't.


As for Miller's assertion that the Democrats are doing nothing, that's false.

but then math is my playground.

Our media types are afraid of math. Our media types are told to see both sides - so by definition nothing is ever proven without a Court case. The editors for the reporters will not pursue a story that scares them - and stolen election scares them.

Our politicians are taught to never go out on a limb - if they are Dems -because they must be even handed. The GOP has a POV - but DEMS must look like wimps asking for permission to be the leader.

Mark Crispin Miller is a hero - but the media is ignoring him.

There is no one we could send out there, and there os no set of facts or demonstrations available, that will meet the media's bar on Stolen election stories.

With our whore media, we are no longer a democracy.

As you point out, there must be evidence.

I know there are lawsuits proceeding that address some of the more obvious things, like the misallocation of voting machines that caused precincts of certain demographics (read: Democratic voters) to have to wait hours and hours in line, while other precincts (read: Republican voters) moved right through in 20 - 40 minutes. What is frustrating is that we SAW this on the television. There are MILLIONS of witnesses. Yet, even that lawsuit proceeds at the glacial pace of the US justice system.

And what else could have been done about all those lost votes, from people who could not stand in line for hours to vote? You can't recount votes that were never cast. And a very large part of the (provable) problem in 2004 was exactly that - voter suppression. Votes that were never cast, and so could not be part of any "recount" in our current system.

This is where I get a little frustrated with Miller and his ilk. They should be pushing for electoral reforms, yet for all his agitating these bills in the Senate are still without significant cosponsorship (yet note that Kerry has cosponsored all of them):

but that still wasn't good enough. Something more is needed to get past Diebold and the "librul media"...(but nobody knows what it is just yet)

Reading Miller's NEW account of his conversation with Kerry it is CLEAR that Kerry NEVER said to him that he believed the election was stolen. I think the work he's trying to do is noble, but he's lost a bit of respect upon changing his tune. He allowed Kerry to be smeared and called JK a liar, only to tell his own story "differently" weeks later. I don't get it?

I stopped paying attention to MCM after he as called JK a liar, so I didn't hear that he changed his story. I don't think the flap got beyond the blogs though, so if he straightened up maybe I should give him another chance.

But then, if he is still accusing "many Dems are really Republicans", then no, I shouldn't.

Sigh.