'How They Stole the Mid-Term Election"

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I've noted that the party which hollers the most about its opposite stealing elections is one that actually has proven experience at it--the Dems stole the 1960 election.

(as my source on this is Bro. Joe--an Andhra preacher and my spiritual father--I cannot dismiss it lightly despite of my deep dislike of Nixon).

Yeah and Nixon had the decency to not whine about and cry about it.

Good point (unlike Gore who doesn't even have the decency to admit that he was NOT the internet's inventor, nor of plagiarism--from Farley Mowat--of "Earth in the Balance").

[Heracles 417]

The question I have is, why do some many countries who have nothing to do with the US waste their time 'digging around' or even bothering with US politics? Even though the US is hated by so many, these same countries waste a lot of their precious time bother with the latest on the US..

As someone born overseas, I find it quite odd that the media and government here is so open with everything they do, while you hear next to nothing from so many other countries..

How many people seriously know what is going on with the governments of Iran, NK, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuela etc... The US is scrutinized daily, while other countries keep 99% of their moves hush hush..

This also leads me to Iraq. Whenever a new policy or tactic is undertaken it is almost always openly discussed and published on 1,000 websites and news channels. Therefore the terrorists just work around it.. It would have been like calling the Nazis prior to D-day and telling them that we are about to invade here with x tanks and infantry and use ...... etc

Edited November 7, 2006 by Infidel

[mybackpages 0]

Whenever a new policy or tactic is undertaken it is almost always openly discussed and published on 1,000 websites and news channels. Therefore the terrorists just work around it.. It would have been like calling the Nazis prior to D-day and telling them that we are about to invade here with x tanks and infantry and use ...... etc

It's called the first amendment- freedom of the press clause. The US government can certainly censor but only if they can prove there is a compelling interest to protect the security of the coutnry.

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure". - Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The question I have is, why do some many countries who have nothing to do with the US waste their time 'digging around' or even bothering with US politics? Even though the US is hated by so many, these same countries waste a lot of their precious time bother with the latest on the US..

As someone born overseas, I find it quite odd that the media and government here is so open with everything they do, while you hear next to nothing from so many other countries..

How many people seriously know what is going on with the governments of Iran, NK, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuela etc... The US is scrutinized daily, while other countries keep 99% of their moves hush hush..

This also leads me to Iraq. Whenever a new policy or tactic is undertaken it is almost always openly discussed and published on 1,000 websites and news channels. Therefore the terrorists just work around it.. It would have been like calling the Nazis prior to D-day and telling them that we are about to invade here with x tanks and infantry and use ...... etc

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an example of where the news media has 'tipped off' the enemy about a major offensive. And yes back in WW2, they had a mass media - and no they didn't leak D-Day.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I may not be representative seeing that, while I am an immigrant myself and "only" a naturalized citizen, I can't deny being white - I'm about as white as they come. That said, I've moved from TN to OH and on to FL within the last year and a half or so. And even though both OH and FL have a rather sh!tty reputation in terms of voter registration and such, I haven't had any problems registering to vote in OH or FL - it was a very simple, straightforward process that was essentially done for me when I obtained my state DL in each state. The voter registration card came in the mail within a couple of weeks and I have voted in OH (local elections and replacement of a US Rep in 2005) and FL already without any issues whatsoever. I went to my assigned poll station properly equipped with ID and voter registration card and got to vote.

But then again, I may be the exception. I kind of doubt it, though...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Whenever a new policy or tactic is undertaken it is almost always openly discussed and published on 1,000 websites and news channels. Therefore the terrorists just work around it.. It would have been like calling the Nazis prior to D-day and telling them that we are about to invade here with x tanks and infantry and use ...... etc

It's called the first amendment- freedom of the press clause. The US government can certainly censor but only if they can prove there is a compelling interest to protect the security of the coutnry.

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure". - Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The media has always been intruding in government and military affairs. Case in point: Union Major General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. One of his most famous quotes is the following: "I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."

So as you can see, the media picking up on bits and pieces of information and then running this news out to the public is old hat. That doesn't make it right, and very often, such acts can have terrible consequences for U.S. military forces and government in general.

However, only in very rare cases may the government actually censor the media. That First Amendment right is very strong, and it's something the media grasps with both hands and hangs onto tightly.

Honestly, I'd like to see the media respect the rights (and lives) of the soldiers out in the battlefield, and not report everything that happens, what will happen, and what has happened. If anyone thinks for one moment that the enemy doesn't read our papers, watch our television and listen to our radio, then you're very naive. The enemy will use whatever he can to his advantage, and if our news media is giving this advantage to the enemy, then it should stop. Not because they are forced to do so, but because they want to do so -- because it's the right thing to do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Honestly, I'd like to see the media respect the rights (and lives) of the soldiers out in the battlefield, and not report everything that happens, what will happen, and what has happened. If anyone thinks for one moment that the enemy doesn't read our papers, watch our television and listen to our radio, then you're very naive. The enemy will use whatever he can to his advantage, and if our news media is giving this advantage to the enemy, then it should stop. Not because they are forced to do so, but because they want to do so -- because it's the right thing to do.

Reporters travelling with military units, for example, have their reports edited by military officials to remove anything that even suggests unit location or battle planning. You're even told that in the broadcast. I know a lot of people are generally 'anti-media', but this really seems a bit of a legless argument to me - that the media can be blamed for any military operation that goes tits-up; or worse, for the deaths of military personnel.

[mrc 0]

OMGZ0RZ, THEY'VE UNCOVERED THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT! THOSE FILTHY REPUBLICANS ALWAYS PLAYING TRICKS! THE HONEST DEMOCRATS CAN NEVER EVER WIN AN ELECTION.

ONOES IS THIS HOW CLINTON WON HIS SECOND TERM TOO?

[peejay 327]

I may not be representative seeing that, while I am an immigrant myself and "only" a naturalized citizen, I can't deny being white - I'm about as white as they come. That said, I've moved from TN to OH and on to FL within the last year and a half or so. And even though both OH and FL have a rather sh!tty reputation in terms of voter registration and such, I haven't had any problems registering to vote in OH or FL - it was a very simple, straightforward process that was essentially done for me when I obtained my state DL in each state. The voter registration card came in the mail within a couple of weeks and I have voted in OH (local elections and replacement of a US Rep in 2005) and FL already without any issues whatsoever. I went to my assigned poll station properly equipped with ID and voter registration card and got to vote.

But then again, I may be the exception. I kind of doubt it, though...

I also had no problem voting early (I am out of state for Nov. 7 election). I had my voter registration card, but in Texas they have no requirement for a government issued photo ID or proof of citizenship. They really should.

The fact is...the article posted is kind of lame. With 12 to 20 illegal aliens in America and millions of legal resident foreigners...there should be proof of citizenship to register and a government issued photo ID to vote. I could care less what Party this requirement helps or hurts. It is just common sense that only qualified voters be allowed to vote. That is not Jim Crow!

[dani_christine 0]

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an example of where the news media has 'tipped off' the enemy about a major offensive. And yes back in WW2, they had a mass media - and no they didn't leak D-Day.

hmm...how about this?

Military kicks Geraldo out of Iraq

'He gave away the big picture stuff'

From Chris Plante

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Fox News Channel correspondent Geraldo Rivera is being expelled from Iraq for broadcasting details about future U.S. troop movements in the country, according to the Pentagon.

A primary obligation of the hundreds of reporters traveling with coalition forces in Iraq is to refrain from disclosing sensitive information about military operations.

The veteran correspondent, who was temporarily accompanying the Army's 101st Airborne Division, violated the rule during a live broadcast on Fox television.

"He was with a (U.S.) military unit in the field and the commander felt that he had compromised operational information by reporting the position and movements of troops," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Reuters.

After the disclosure, members of the 101st Airborne were in the process of escorting Rivera out of the combat zone, a Pentagon official told CNN.

"He will be dropped at the Kuwaiti border," the official said.

Fox News in New York had no immediate comment, according to Reuters.

In the broadcast, Rivera instructed his photographer to tilt the camera down to the sand in front of his feet so that he could draw a map.

The Fox correspondent then outlined a map of Iraq, and showed the relative location of Baghdad and his location with the 101st Airborne unit.

Rivera then continued with his sandy diagram to illustrate where the 101st would be going next.

"He went down in the sand and drew where the forces are going," said a stunned senior military official. "He gave away the big picture stuff."

or, hey...do you remember this?

Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

Published: June 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The executive editor of The Times responds to readers concerning the publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records.

Data provided by the program helped identify Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2005, officials said.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

oh, and of course, we can't forget this:

Published on Friday, December 16, 2005 by the New York Times

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau

WASHINGTON - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

like it or not, there is an extreme segment of the liberal left that would like to see the US fail in Iraq...and they will do everything they can to ensure that will happen.

Edited November 7, 2006 by dani_christine

[Marc and Olga 0]

I may not be representative seeing that, while I am an immigrant myself and "only" a naturalized citizen, I can't deny being white - I'm about as white as they come. That said, I've moved from TN to OH and on to FL within the last year and a half or so. And even though both OH and FL have a rather sh!tty reputation in terms of voter registration and such, I haven't had any problems registering to vote in OH or FL - it was a very simple, straightforward process that was essentially done for me when I obtained my state DL in each state. The voter registration card came in the mail within a couple of weeks and I have voted in OH (local elections and replacement of a US Rep in 2005) and FL already without any issues whatsoever. I went to my assigned poll station properly equipped with ID and voter registration card and got to vote.

But then again, I may be the exception. I kind of doubt it, though...

I also had no problem voting early (I am out of state for Nov. 7 election). I had my voter registration card, but in Texas they have no requirement for a government issued photo ID or proof of citizenship. They really should.

The fact is...the article posted is kind of lame. With 12 to 20 illegal aliens in America and millions of legal resident foreigners...there should be proof of citizenship to register and a government issued photo ID to vote. I could care less what Party this requirement helps or hurts. It is just common sense that only qualified voters be allowed to vote. That is not Jim Crow!

I would agree that ONLY those qualified (i.e. citizens (born or naturalized)) should be allowed to vote and I don't think this article is comprehensive (as in, how many Hispanics in California that were turned away were ACTUALLY legal (not EWI) residents of the U.S.A.?).

I voted and 3 things on the Arizona ballot were English as the official Language, people in the USA (I assume Arizona specifically) cannot sue for punitive damages and illegal residences (ewi or overstay) cannot receive state funded assistance (education, college residence benefits ...etc.)

Edited November 7, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[mybackpages 0]

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an example of where the news media has 'tipped off' the enemy about a major offensive. And yes back in WW2, they had a mass media - and no they didn't leak D-Day.

hmm...how about this?

Published on Friday' date=' December 16, 2005 by the New York Times

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau

[b']The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny[/b].

Of course the White House asked for it not to be published. thats their job- to protect thier adgenda. It's not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing. It's a Presidential adminstration thing.

But that's wy we have a free press- one that is not suppose to be beholden to the goals of the government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an example of where the news media has 'tipped off' the enemy about a major offensive. And yes back in WW2, they had a mass media - and no they didn't leak D-Day.

hmm...how about this?

Military kicks Geraldo out of Iraq

'He gave away the big picture stuff'

From Chris Plante

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Fox News Channel correspondent Geraldo Rivera is being expelled from Iraq for broadcasting details about future U.S. troop movements in the country, according to the Pentagon.

A primary obligation of the hundreds of reporters traveling with coalition forces in Iraq is to refrain from disclosing sensitive information about military operations.

The veteran correspondent, who was temporarily accompanying the Army's 101st Airborne Division, violated the rule during a live broadcast on Fox television.

"He was with a (U.S.) military unit in the field and the commander felt that he had compromised operational information by reporting the position and movements of troops," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Reuters.

After the disclosure, members of the 101st Airborne were in the process of escorting Rivera out of the combat zone, a Pentagon official told CNN.

"He will be dropped at the Kuwaiti border," the official said.

Fox News in New York had no immediate comment, according to Reuters.

In the broadcast, Rivera instructed his photographer to tilt the camera down to the sand in front of his feet so that he could draw a map.

The Fox correspondent then outlined a map of Iraq, and showed the relative location of Baghdad and his location with the 101st Airborne unit.

Rivera then continued with his sandy diagram to illustrate where the 101st would be going next.

"He went down in the sand and drew where the forces are going," said a stunned senior military official. "He gave away the big picture stuff."

or, hey...do you remember this?

Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

Published: June 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The executive editor of The Times responds to readers concerning the publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records.

Data provided by the program helped identify Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2005, officials said.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

oh, and of course, we can't forget this:

Published on Friday, December 16, 2005 by the New York Times

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau

WASHINGTON - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

like it or not, there is an extreme segment of the liberal left that would like to see the US fail in Iraq...and they will do everything they can to ensure that will happen.

Only the first of your examples relates directly to what I was talking about – but I would argue it’s rather rare, and relates to bad journalistic standards by individual journalists rather than a concerted and directed strategy. Rivera would have been rightly removed from that situation – I disagree that it is in any way typical of journalists in the field, many of whom put their lives on the line with the soldiers.

The other two stories deal with civil liberties issues that you would be hard pressed to argue that the public do not have an direct interest in (and will likely take into some account when they cast their vote today). In fact, I’d be interested to see you point out the specific passages in the story that contain any direct information that would compromise an ongoing investigation. I don’t believe you will find any.

In any case - see the bolded part above.

[Ban Hammer 13,628]

HOW THEY STOLE THE MID-TERM ELECTION

by Greg Palast

for The Guardian (UK), Comment

Monday November 6, 2006

Here's how the 2006 mid-term election was stolen.

another nutjob brit telling us how to do things, like we don't have enough of those around here