Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

feces

OMG, that word is just sickening. It sounds so disgusting (although not as offensive as the word Falwell). It's too clinical. Just like vagina. Ugh.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

While all of that may be true:

1. Why has the national press not picked up on it

I am truly disappointed that I spent time researching this and you dismissed it out of hand without reading any of the articles I posted. To answer your question:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/op...dc6c11&ei=5070
How America Doesn't Vote

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AB0894DC404482
Editorial Observer; The Results Are in and the Winner Is . . . or Maybe Not

Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2004 Sunday, Home Edition, CALIFORNIA; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 1, 1513 words, A Bad Run for Elections Firm; Diebold was on track to capitalize on electronic balloting. But March primary woes and civil, criminal probes have put its prospects at risk., Stuart Pfeifer, Times Staff Writer

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), May 9, 2004 Sunday, FIVE STAR EDITION, Pg.A-10, 669 words, DOUBTS ON ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES; MANY OFFICIALS PULL BACK AFTER HEARING OF GLITCHES AND GOOFS, KAVAN PETERSON, STATELINE.ORG

The Denver Post, May 6, 2004 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. B-01, 484 words, State no closer to election safeguards "We can't trust results," critic says But Secretary of State Donetta Davidson says officials have no reason to doubt the security of electronic equipment., Susan Greene , Denver Post Staff Writer

The International Herald Tribune, May 5, 2004 Wednesday, FINANCE; Pg. 13, 824 words, A professor's pastime: hacking the voting system; Computer expert is Diebold's worst enemy, John Schwartz, BALTIMORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/12/10/h...nes/index.html
E-voting: Yes or no?
High-tech methods examined at national conference
By Daniel Sieberg
CNN Headline News
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Posted: 10:19 AM EST (1519 GMT)
Some benefits of high-tech voting are that it's easier for people with disabilities, potentially more cost-effective and there's minimization of errors.

(CNN) -- "The U.S. presidential election is less than a year away, but some tech experts have lingering and deep-rooted concerns about the way electronic voting is being handled.

In 2000, several counties used high-tech machines for the first time, such as touch screens, though most places still relied on punch card or paper ballots. During the 2002 election, an increasing number of counties deployed the automated machines, partly in response to the hanging chad debacle in Florida. For example, the entire state of Georgia used machines from a company called Diebold."

The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), February 9, 2004 Monday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS,, Pg. A01, 576 words, VOTERS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MACHINES GEORGIA OFFICIALS CONSIDER GETTING SECURITY UPGRADE, Heidi Coryell Williams< Staff Writer

Palm Beach Post (Florida), January 22, 2004 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 19A, 181 words, APOLOGIST FOR (AND OFFICER OF) DIEBOLD UNTRUSTWORTHY

The Seattle Times, December 30, 2003, Tuesday, Fourth Edition, ROP ZONE; Business;, Pg. C1, 484 words, Electronic-voting firm reveals hacker break-in, Monica Soto Ouchi; Seattle Times technology reporter

Austin American-Statesman (Texas), December 7, 2003, Sunday, News; Pg. A1, 1141 words, Fears hang like a chad over electronic voting systems, Scott Shepard, WASHINGTON BUREAU

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), November 5, 2003 Wednesday 4X EDITION, D; Pg. 1, 768 words, Diebold's machines embattled; Restraining order sought against firm. Calif. panel isn't giving certification, By Erika D. Smith; Beacon Journal staff writer

The Washington Post, September 28, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, METRO; Pg. C08, 509 words, Ehrlich Seeks Probe Over Ballot Machines; Contractor, Reviewer Used Same Lobbyist, Ovetta Wiggins, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/05/13/d....ap/index.html
Voting machine business stormy for Diebold

Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), August 20, 2003 Wednesday, Final / ALL, BUSINESS; Pg. C1, 281 words, Voting-software analyzer may have been biased, Alison Grant, Plain Dealer Reporter

Virginian-Pilot, August 18, 2003, Monday, VP-VOTING-MACHINES, 1148 words, Touch-Screen Voting Machines Criticized by Computer Scientists, By Christina Nuckols

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), August 15, 2003 Friday 4X EDITION, D; BRIEF; Pg. 1, 1815 words, E-voting becomes touchy topic; Concerns over security of Diebold system prompt legislators to take 2nd look, By Erika D. Smith; Beacon Journal staff writer

The Baltimore Sun, July 25, 2003 Friday, FINAL Edition, Pg. 1A, 1136 words, Defects reported in voting machines; Hopkins researchers say Md.'s electronic terminals are vulnerable to hackers, Michael Stroh

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

When did you tell me the voting machines could be hacked


While Larry F. has indeed and the Diebold machines may be awful, Chambliss and Perdue's wins in GA were valid. Again, the exit polls correlate with the them.

Like the exit polls in Florida called it for Gore?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BTW - if we went there solely for oil, why did we give, not loan, Iraq billions of dollars. Hmm France and Russia loaned them the money.

Becasue it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the boys and their constituents are making off of Haliburton, Kellog Brown & Root, et al. Now we're running out of bullets. Someone will get paid a fortune to produce those in a hurry.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Becasue it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the boys and their constituents are making off of Haliburton, Kellog Brown & Root, et al. Now we're running out of bullets. Someone will get paid a fortune to produce those in a hurry.

Does anoyne here actually believe that ChimpCO and all the other war profiteers care what happens to the money that they use? I think not. They aren't the ones who are going to suffer the after effects of a huge deficit. Only us little peons will.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Does anoyne here actually believe that ChimpCO and all the other war profiteers care what happens to the money that they use? I think not. They aren't the ones who are going to suffer the after effects of a huge deficit. Only us little peons will.

Cheney made more money from Haliburton last year than his vice presidential salary. His tax cut alone was half my yearly earnings. Think about that for a minute.

[strandinthewind]

I did read those articles. My point was if it is so easy to prove that it happened, why has it not been proven? In other words, why has the State Attorney General of GA not investigated this. The State Attorney General of GA is a Democrat who has openly and with valour bucked our R govenor (who he apparently cannot stand) before and fought a law suit to resist the R Gov.'s pressure to drop and bring suits - his position Iwhich I think is correct)is he is an elected official and his office is indep. of the Gov - he does not take orders from the gov. like the appointed Ashcroft does from W. So, I just do not get that a provable conspiracy/malfeasance exists - I think he would have relished in finding and exposing it. Again, I think it is horrible that we are going paperless.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

who advocated the war and said we did the right thing when interviewed by Congress after the initial invasion because SH had plants and other facilities that could have converted in a hurry to produce WMD. Next

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in596595.shtml

Kay: 'We Were Almost All Wrong'

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2004

Kay: Saddam Had No Weapons


(CBS/AP) Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told members of the Senate Wednesday that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus.

"We've had a number of surprises," Kay told reporters after meeting behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It's quite clear we need capabilities that we do not have with regard to intelligence."

Later, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "we were almost all wrong — and I certainly include myself here," in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

[Vianna]

a) I wish I thought Kerry could be elected. Unfortunately I perceive him as not being different enough from Bush to win. I'm really bummed about that. Bush is a disaster for this nation in more ways than one.

b) as to the current warning: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling !!!" as someone has already said. They keep "crying wolf" and nobody will believe it when the real thing does happen-if it does. It just makes sense to be concerned about huge public events such as the political conventions. No need to raise a big stir about it.

c)Bush lied about the WMD. Many people believed him because they did not use logic in evaluating the comment that SH had the weapons. Where would he get them, for instance? At one time the Russians were giving him stuff but that's was a long time ago, and I don't think they've given him anything since the first Gulf war. How would he make more if he used them, if, indeed, he had any? He doesn't have the technology to make them.

d) My theory on why he invaded Iraq? Poor Bushie was frustrated. He can't seem to find Osama so he invents this other thing so he can attack somebody, anybody, so he can get it out of his system. He probably did think SH encouraged terrorism. He's not known for his use of logic either.

e)Bush's support of these right wing born again Christian political groups scares me even more than the Iraq thing. These people are fanatics. I've nothing against born again Christians as people, I just don't think any religion should be mixed up in politics the way they are.

f) Iraq? We need to get out of there, as fast as we can. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Vianna

f) Iraq? We need to get out of there, as fast as we can. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Vianna, I agree with just about everything you said. But I differ on one point: I don't believe going into Iraq was out of frustration. Rather, it was a calculated move by this administration, which was just waiting for an excuse to invade, and that is why they made a sloppy connection to the 9/11 attacks and conjured up fantasies about WMDs and cynical ploys to install democracy in a country where democracy is not likely to work any time soon.

Why invade Iraq? We can talk around it all we want, and there will always be apologists who claim it ain't true, but it's very clear: It's about the oil. By taking control of those oil fields and installing a puppet democracy, the neocons in government thought they would secure a relatively large supply of oil for years to come. This way, the companies whose main business revolves around oil wouldn't have to flip over backwards trying to figure out alternatives to oil. Let's keep in mind that oil isn't just used for heating and gasoline. It also is the basis for a mindboggling amount of products, particularly polymer-based products. Which, as an aside, always gives me a a bit of a chuckle. You know all those animal-rights people who think wearing leather is bad? Well, the subsitutes for leather are almost invariable made with oil products.

The fact is oil is a finite resource and no one knows how long it will last. Some scientists predict that the resource will peak in about 10 years, with a downward supply curve to follow. Some of the direst predictions have the supplies lasting not much more than another 70 years. Demand for oil in the US, meanwhile, is expected to double in years to come if we keep buying up SUVs and other low-MPG vehicles and relying so much on polymer-based products. Meanwhile in China, they are adding hundreds of thousands of cars yearly to their roads as that country hastens to catch up with "first world" economies.

These guys that got us into the Iraq war knew all this. How could they not? They were cynical and sinister in getting us into this misadventure. The problem is that their plan has not worked because they just assumed the Iraqis would roll over and die as we took control of their country--this despite all the warnings that what has actually been occurring would happen. They were too shortsighted and singular-minded to truly consider all the possibilities. They forgot the lessons of Vietnam, the British empire and countless other colonial adventures throughout history. Their recklessness is truly mindboggling at this point.

They are sinister bastards, it's true.

But what excuses John Kerry's support for the war and his subsequent insistence that we stay the course? At least I can understand the neocons' greed and shortsightedness. But Kerry? Really, the only explanation I can think of is that he and and rest of the Democratic establishment were playing politics during and after the Iraq war started. To be sure, that shouldn't be shocking. But it is disturbing. Disturbing because the Democrats and the Republicans are playing a game, a game so dangerous with such huge, complex implications that no one really wants to address but instead would rather totter around them and focus on the circus atmosphere of the here and now of presidential elections every four years.

I know people are going to jump to respond how Kerry is not as bad as Bush and we'll be better off, and Iraq will be handled better, and so forth. Maybe so. But there's absolutely no way that I will ever believe that Kerry's recipe for staying the course and bringing in the UN will work, especially since his approach to the Palestine issue at times seems to the right of Bush's. The road to Baghdad leads through Jerusalem. Muslim extremists are going to continue to opportunistically use our biased support of Israel against us. John Kerry is wrong about Palestine and he is wrong about Iraq. And next to the environment, I can't think of any other issue about which being wrong is more dangerous at this juncture. Some might say the economy is just as important, and that's correct to some extent. But the economy is intricately tied in with these issues and, therefore, whatever we do in these areas is also going to have a huge impact on the economy.

But as I've been saying lately, while we distract ourselves with the wars on the terrorism, the real and the fictional one, Mother Nature is gunninng for us. Some experts predict that within a decade or two there will be such fundamental climate changes that everything else we've been worrying about will pale in comparison.

Have a good day.

[Vianna]

My question then becomes, why has this misadventure in Iraq not gotten us cheaper oil? If the invasion was to make our oil supply secure, why are gas prices what they are-it's insane down here in DC what those prices are. I am assuming OPEC is holding out on us, but I read somewhere-Time maybe or Newsweek that our conquering Iraq makes us sort of honorary memebers of OPEC-is there any truth in this? Why can't we bring down the price of crude oil over there if we are in charge? I really don't get it...

[CarneVaca]

That's a good question. I'm sure there is an explanation specific to the Iraq situation and the unrest must play a significant part.

But, overall, cheap oil seems to be coming to an end. Part of it is that oil gets harder to find. For instance, in Canada, they have found immense fields, but the oil has to be extracted from a sandy substance through a very expensive process. It also carries a steep environmental cost. In the Gulf of Mexico, BP is drilling for oil in a recently discovered field. But the oil field is something like 4,000 to 5,000 miles below sea level. It's amazing they can get to it, but that's technology for you. Still, drilling for these very deep fields without completely ruining the Gulf of Mexico, then transporting and processing the oil is all very expensive. Siberia and a couple of the former Soviet Republics also have some large fields, as do a handful of African countries. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's supply has been tapped quite extensively, and some experts are predicting that the supply from there may already have peaked.

So if I understand it correctly, and I'm no expert, the oil gets harder and more expensive to extract and process. Paying $2 to $3 a gallon is probably going to become the norm. Don't expect prices to drop that much unless the Russians start to produce like crazy, triggering a price war with OPEC. But even that would be shortsighted because it is a finite resource.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Vianna

My question then becomes, why has this misadventure in Iraq not gotten us cheaper oil? If the invasion was to make our oil supply secure, why are gas prices what they are-it's insane down here in DC what those prices are. I am assuming OPEC is holding out on us, but I read somewhere-Time maybe or Newsweek that our conquering Iraq makes us sort of honorary memebers of OPEC-is there any truth in this? Why can't we bring down the price of crude oil over there if we are in charge? I really don't get it...

That is because, with respect, you are incorrect is assuming that is the sole reason we went to Iraq, just ask Bill Clinton and John Kerry

Seriously, China is consuming more oil that expected right now and for the foreseeable future. The demand is exceeding the supply. SO, the prices are going up. And - its not just oil, it is many other commercial commodities.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

But as I've been saying lately, while we distract ourselves with the wars on the terrorism, the real and the fictional one, Mother Nature is gunninng for us. Some experts predict that within a decade or two there will be such fundamental climate changes that everything else we've been worrying about will pale in comparison.

Silly man... that wasn't an actual news report on climate changes you were watching, it was an extended trailer for 'The Day After Tomorrow.'