|
Bush "Pioneer" run electronic voting machine companies worked in concert with Tom DeLay to prevent a paper trail, open source code and any kind of accountability. I therefore presume they had plenty of time to think of the political implications of losing the popular vote but "winning" the Electoral Vote as happened in '00, decided that would be unacceptable politically, and furthermore wanted to claim a "mandate." And why shouldn't they have everything they wanted? It was like stealing candy from a baby. There was little or no risk.
They knew they had trained the Democrats to be "election fraud" averse ('00: "sour grapes," "get over it"), and that the odd truth seeker here and there might well crunch the numbers and figure it out, but who would listen to them? They had also trained the corporate media not to attack Bush Inc., or they’d get “Dan Rathered.” The risk factor all comes down to political calculation--especially after '00 (who would have ever thought this country would accept the Supreme Court appointing the president while inventing its own election law and stopping the counting of the votes?).
I must say, you really have to wonder about the Democratic leadership's seeming total lack of curiosity about whether or not they have been "Bush (W) Hacked" again. You'd think they would've been all over this. In fact, you'd think they would've been all over Wally O'Dell & buddies owning the election system in the first place.
My kindest guess about the former--their seeming lack of curiosity now--is that they are embarrassed about the latter--their failure to achieve a transparent election system, or to at least to scream bloody murder when this unbelievably non-transparent system got set up. But in saying this, I do feel it's a bit like blaming the victim of abuse rather than the abuser. (Why didn't she object to her husband beating the crap out of her every week? It's really HER fault!).
It's too easy to blame the victims--the Democrats and the sleepy American electorate (who in fact woke up for once, and took action to throw the bums out, but then were lulled back to sleep, most of them, when it appeared that they had failed). Is it THEIR fault that a fascist cabal has figured out how to manipulate them, steal all their money and send their children to their bloody deaths to grab the last oil reserves on earth? Is it the Democrats' fault for being the compromising, fiefdom-protecting, Vichy collaborators that they are?
Fault all around, I guess. But the focus of blame and accountability really should be placed where it belongs: on the perps.
Also, it would seem to me to REDUCE the risk of detection to spread the vote-stealing around to many states. The EV of course was critically important (and they took no chances with it--massive election fraud of every description in OH and FLA), but the pop. majority was very high in importance as well, and, given the ease with which votes could be manufactured or stolen--why not have both? To get the pop. majority only in OH, PA & FLA would have been far riskier (even with cowed Democrats and media)--although there is evidence they went too far in FLA (100,000 to 300,000 phantom votes for Bush, or votes stolen from Kerry, in just three, largely Democratic counties in FLA, according to the Berkeley study).
My working hypothesis of the Election Fraud Plan is that they had to:
1. Tweak several "red" states that were threatening to turn "blue" at the time of the election, to keep Bush competitive in the Electoral Vote, wherever detection had been minimized (i.e., no paper trail);
2. Grab %'s here and there all over the map, to manufacture and pad a popular majority--not too big, just enough--even in big Kerry states (and big Kerry counties--as the Berkeley study showed in FLA);
3. Turn OH and FLA with heavy duty vote suppression and vote stealing, to secure the EV (using highly partisan pro-Bush election officials, including in OH the head of the Bush campaign as Sec’y of State!);
4. Make it all SEEM to come down to Ohio (or FLA) and the counting of a relatively few provisional ballots; and
5. Public perception of a Bush win (hiding Kerry's numbers in the Exit Polls by feeding the Diebolded electronic results into the Exit Poll data on everybody's TVs on Nov. 2--I'm not sure who exactly made this decision, but it was too important a component of a phony Bush "win" to ignore the probability that it was part of the plan).
If you were Karl Rove, and had received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson and Triad, and had their vote tabulation secret source code in your back pocket, and no paper trail in a third of the country, and unlimited funds for whatever you needed to do, and if you had many other powers, such as calling on Homeland Security for a terrorist "lockdown" on the vote counting wherever needed, and if you were a real "Machiavellian" snake in the grass, isn't this what you would have done?
A whole lot of evidence supports this hypothesis, with more evidence emerging every day (including, most recently, evidence in Ohio of tampering with the voting machines to remove the evidence, and obstruction and resistance on evidence requests and recounts).
Then there is one’s instincts, one’s gut feeling--an important part of any working hypothesis. Given this unconscionable amount of power (secret source code, no paper trail, and so much more), WOULD Bush Inc. use it? My answer is absolutely yes. It wouldn’t occur to them not to. They’d set it up this way. There was absolutely nothing, by way ethics, or conscience, or a vigilant press corps, or a clean-handed opposition, to stop them. Their only problem might be a Ukraine-type uprising, 1) easily taken care of in the name of anti-terrorist “security,” and 2) the TV networks made that kind of mess unnecessary, by hiding Kerry’s lead in the Exit Polls.
On another topic: Could the Exit Polls have been hacked? Yes, of course--any computerized information can be hacked. But why look there--when you have a growing mountain of evidence of all kinds, not just Exit Polls, of Bush Inc. election fraud, including anomalous numbers with impossible odds in several different kinds of data, over a range of states (up to 20 or so), voluminous evidence of outright criminal vote suppression in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and "means, motive and opportunity" for a major crime.
If there were no other evidence or reason to suspect Bush Inc. (for instance, a history of baldfaced lying, and a previous stolen election), and if there were no other indicators of a Kerry win (huge voter reg and GOTV campaign, featuring Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen and thousands of highly motivated volunteers; huge unvetted crowds cheering Kerry on; all sorts of anecdotal information showing a shift to Kerry--peoples' rightwing uncles turning against Bush, etc.; pre-election polls showing Kerry climbing to a tie just before the election, momentum all on his side; Bush's approval ratings in the toilet) then you might have a puzzle, and a suspicion that something is wrong with the Exit Polls.
But the Exit Polls occurred in the CONTEXT of all of the above. They were one more confirmation that things had turned against Bush. They were not standing alone in opposition to all other information. In fact, the ONLY information against a Kerry win are the Bush Inc.-controlled "official" results.
As it is, you don't have much reason to look at Exit Poll hacking as the source of the discrepancy. Although every factor should be considered to some extent, suggesting that the Exit Polls were hacked (with no evidence at all in that direction) reminds me of Bush Inc.'s ever-changing story on Iraq WMDs--first they were definitely, without question, in Iraq, with a "mushroom" cloud imminent over the US of A; then they would surely be found, once we invaded; then, phony reports, big headlines, traces of this and that found (retracted days later in the back pages); then, well, they most certainly, definitely had "weapons of mass destruction program capability"; then, Zarqawi and Al Q were the real enemy and the reason we invaded (followed by convenient head whackings).
Any excuse. Any plausible-sounding BS, to cover up the real intentions of theft and domination.
Also, looking at Mifosky's company itself--non-partisan polling with years of experience--and looking at who hired them (ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, Fox News et al)--and looking at the use of such non-partisan exit polls worldwide to verify elections and detect fraud, an insider job to favor Kerry doesn't make sense. The news organizations (with the exception of CBS) strongly favored Bush in every way. And Mifosky's reputation was on the line (no motive for having his Exit Polls out of whack--just the opposite).
If there was any fault in the Exit Poll consortium, it was in polluting the Exit Poll data with the Diebolded "official" tally, without disclosing that to the people watching their TV screens on Nov. 2. THAT was foul play! --a journalistic crime for which they should never be forgiven.
And Mifosky is certainly at fault for not releasing all the Exit Poll data now. Everything should be open and aboveboard and transparent, and recountable and auditable--and nothing is! Least of all our goddamned votes!
Finally, if the Democrats (or any pro-Kerry operatives) had gotten a hacking capability together, why didn't they hack the Election instead of the Exit Polls? And IF they had hacked the Exit Polls in Kerry's favor, why aren't they taking advantage of it now--and screaming about a stolen election? They're doing just the opposite--heads in the sand (most of them). Was their intention to do a fundraiser for the Green Party?
So, you see how this suggestion (that the Exit Polls were hacked) strikes me. It's too much like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Bush, and their echo chamber (our soiled news media), and the kinds of things they throw out--somewhat plausible sounding things with no evidence whatsoever to back them up--to sow confusion and cover their nefarious deeds. Classic disinformation right out of the corporate P.R. consultants' office.
The overwhelming evidence is that they hacked, and stole and manufactured votes, and stopped Democrats from voting, going east to west on election day, with the west turning bright "blue" (CA, WA, ORE, in a big way, and with NMex, Nev and CO and a few others edging to Kerry). And they cashed in every chip they had to do it--whether it was lever counters in NY, or Triad punch card counters and a "shortage" of voting machines in black precincts in Ohio, or Jeb Bush nixing a paper trail and "disappearing" 60,000 absentee ballots in FLA.
Maybe this Election Fraud Plan saved us a nuclear incident in California, or Cheney's plane missing over the Pacific coming back from Hawaii (why did he go to Hawaii? why? it's driving me nuts). That is, maybe it saved us from Plan B.
Plan A: Build up enough of a cushion on the east coast to "win," then anything that comes of efforts in the west (Sproul; hacking a few counties like San Bernardino and Riverside, whatever) is all gravy towards a "mandate."
Plan B: ????
Wayne Madsen had one Plan B scenario that I saw before the election (on election day: a big phony "terrorist alert" tying up the L.A. freeways--if the hackers failed in the east); and now he seems to have hold of the tail of another (Saudi money funneled to CIA/FBI operatives using anti-terrorist credentials to hack OH, FLA, TX and CA).
But the promised magic of the proprietary programming worked as advertised--as did all their other work to suppress the Democratic vote. No need to nuke California (or fake it).
Really, this is where I'm at about all this. I think it's absolutely absurd to suggest that the Democrats hacked the Exit Polls, when it's so bloody obvious what these criminals have been up to for the last four years: setting this up.
It also reminds me of how the timber corporation "scientists" cast doubt upon the studies of independent scientists' , say, with regard to the extirpation of the coho salmon in redwood forests, after 60 years of rapacious logging and heavy pesticide use. It could be “overfishing”; or, it could be "ocean currents," or it could be “previous bad logging practices”, or, the evidence of former abundance is anecdotal. Anything plausible to point the finger the other way--even though it's blatantly obvious that removing and poisoning the forest destroys the life within the forest, starting with the most sensitive species (common sense--backed by voluminous independent expert studies).
And guess what? If you can make a case for "overfishing," or "ocean currents," or bad previous practices, and you've got species near extinction because of it, what are you doing LOGGING IT SOME MORE, and muddying the streams SOME MORE, and pouring MORE pesticides into the system?
Oh, you're NOW going to do it SUSTAINABLY! Ah!
I read this kind of crap all the time. The purpose of it is to squeeze every last dime out of the forest, no matter what, and when the land is utterly depleted, sell it for real estate development. So the so-called "scientists" for the corporation (and their brothers in government) try to cast whatever doubt they can on the blatant facts with plausible sounding blarney, to snow whatever judges the public might appeal to (who aren't really fooled--they're just going along, too--and well paid for it), to accomplish the real purpose of all this: vast profits from multiple turnovers of the land, until it’s no longer “productive,” no matter the cost to the local environment or the planet.
When I read maybe the Exit Polls were hacked, I hear a whore "scientist" defending pesticides and clear-cutting, because you really can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that pesticides and clear-cutting killed THIS fish or THAT bird, or an entire species. You can't prove that logging has killed them off just because they're NOT THERE! (...and now, course, we're hearing, "They were never there.") (As Kurt Vonnegut said, "So it goes.")
But it probably really comes down to, whom do you trust (after a whole lot of experience of this sort of lying)?
Do you trust the non-partisan Exit Polls and all the years that have gone into improving them, and the high respect in which they are held worldwide, and all the information from '04 that corroborates them--or Bush "Pioneer" controlled vote tabulation?
"But you can't prove it hurt THAT FISH!"
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
