The most recent post over at "Ramblings" helps confirm that Fran doesn't have more than a rudimentary clue about the oil economy. Big oil company profits when the price of oil spikes supposedly indicates that the war in Iraq was the idea of the oil companies. I wonder how the face of the nation would change if voters had to get a passing grade on an oil economy test? Could Dennis Kucinich get a single vote?
The bad content remains the secondary issue with this blog, however. The outstanding problem remains the nutty handling of commentary. I think I've figured out what it takes to have a comment stick, however, by using a carefully graduated string of responses. Red will indicate that the post was removed. Green will indicate apparent acceptance of the comment.
I remain curious about tension between letting the Iraqis settle things themselves and sending in foreign peacekeepers who are not us (U.S.).I'm also sincerely interested in any plausible evidence that apologizing is a useful foreign policy technique. (screenshot of the post before it was removed)
Apparently too inflammatory, so I went for something shorter more along the lines of objective reporting the next time.
Democrats in Congress would have tabled Kucinich's bill if not for Republican support. (screenshot of the post before it was removed)
Not the kind of truth Fran wants in front of the eyes of her readers, evidently. I decided to drift to the other side of neutrality.
What a nice post. (screenshot taken shortly after posting)
Bingo! It's been up ever since (and remains as of this writing).
I didn't sink to facetiousness, either. Fran's post was a respectful and relatively even-handed entry about a war memorial. Unfortunately the blog remains crap, on balance.
Maybe it'll improve with time (cue Wayne Campbell's infamous phrase).
Fran offered another example of her zeal to suppress. This one is especially funny.
Fran and company wonder how vets can warrant arrest for disrupting a veterans' ceremony. I supplied the answer with an explanation rooted in legal precedent.
But by the next day the information was gone. Can't have people knowing what the law says about it, can we?
The last post (as of this moment) by "Spadoman" allowed this to tumble from both sides of his mouth:
It is wrong to disallow a faction, especially Veterans on Veterans Day, because they carry a message different than the organizers intended. On the other hand, what did the organizers intend? I believe the Veterans for Peace also have the right to organize a parade. Getting permits would be the problem.
Maybe they're close to figuring it out on their own, now (assuming they're not pretending to have it figured out based on what I already told them!
Let's say they organize a World Peace parade and one of the factions in favor of World Peace wants peace via military jihad? And they stand in front of the podium while the event organizers are trying to do their thing?
Of course my favorite part is host Fran asking "No dissent allowed?" right before she quashes ... well, not dissent exactly. She just quashes the voice she doesn't want to hear, apparently irrespective of content.
I've visited some appallingly bad blogs over the years. Perhaps only the sands of time protect some of them from BBB induction. But this morning's induction stands as perhaps the saddest thus far. While visiting the blog "Ramblings" as hosted by "Fran" I experienced craven commentary management that I haven't seen since the Amanda Marcotte moment.
Not that the regulation of commentary is the only weakness of this blog. The opinions, protected from intellectual insight just as effectively as they are protected from outside criticism, represent the type of thing that results in the worst liberal stereotypes.
But the screening of commentary does serve as the overriding reason for BBB induction.
A blogger who won't tolerate a one-sentence statement of fact (with accompanying URL) is pathetic in a sobering way. No fanfare. This one calls for a dirge.
BBB welcomes Ramblings to its blogroll of dishonor.
Read the history here and here if you're interested.
This post fulfills the goal of documenting 16 flops in the "Counterspin" attempt of the Project for the Old American Century.
I got through 15 flubs going more-or-less in order (which became tricky after I took a hiatus from the project and the page was rearranged). I took my time choosing the final entry. Many of the remaining "Counterspin" attempts concerned alleged talking points that weren't worth defending, and the justifications looked like they'd be at least ball-park accurate. If the author (T. J. Templeton, as I understand it) sticks with the type of material represented by most of the recent additions, it will count as an improvement.
But on to business.
The alleged talking point:
The use of white phosphorous in Fallujah doesn't count as a chemical weapons attack
Well, it can definitely be used as a weapon, and it's definitely a chemical ... but so is lead, depending on the definition we use.
The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons." (ThinkProgress)
This citation ultimately bases its case on an internal Pentagon paper. I'll get to that at the end.
In short, the Pentagon statement is exactly right, and the internal paper is irrelevant.
A Bit of History:
The attack in Fallujah, in this case, occurred in November of 2004. The stink at the time was an allegation from an Italian journalist that white phosphorus had been used to target civilians in Fallujah. How one can make that claim when insurgents wear civilian clothing and commonly use civilians as shields in order to wage media war ... is a good question.
One particularly important thing to remember is that military forces circled Fallujah before attacking, and allowed substantial time for civilians to leave the city.
The assault on Fallujah that was to occur in November 2004 was among the most widely telegraphed attacks in American military history. The US and Iraqi forces had no chance of executing any major surprise, though, as you will see, they did achieve some surprise. For its part, the enemy since April had the time to regroup, reorganize, dig in, resupply, reinforce and prepare. Debriefing reports from our troops and embedded reporters reflect that the enemy did all of that, and did it very well. As you will see, the Americans had time to prepare a very detailed plan of attack, and had the time to acquire intelligence that would hold US forces in good stead when the time came to attack.
Official estimates, confirmed by many Iraqis who remained in the city, were that about 75 percent of the population had left, heeding the American and Iraqi government warnings of impending doom (some say as many as 90 percent left; hard to tell). If you accept a population figure of 300,000, and the 75 percent evacuation figure, that would leave something on the order of 75,000 people left in the city. (talkingproud.us)
In short, considerable pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Surprise was forsaken for the sake of civilians.
It should not surprise if the insurgents deliberately kept civilians near their positions in order to wage media war.
But then POAC isn't really concerned about that aspect of the attack. Templeton is apparently convinced that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Here's what the BBC reported:
WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Article 1 Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. 2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. 3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
First, note that the United States has never ratified Protocol III (objecting that it is overbroad to the point of potentially forcing the military in some instances to allow greater civilian casualities because of its prohibitions).
Second, note that the U.S. arguably stayed within the bounds of the treaty anyway. The white phosphorus used in Fallujah was used primarily for screening, and secondarily to flush insurgents out of hiding. Both are permissible uses under the CCCW.
And, obviously, white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon according to the laws of war, or else it would not be covered under the CCCW.
So, what about this Pentagon paper? Well, it was an "information report." In essence, some guy phoned his "brother" in Iraq and the guy told him that "phosphorus chemical weapons" had been used in Iraq following the Gulf War.
The term is apparently not a Pentagon designation, but the terminology chosen by the source of the information. The term did end up in the summary title of the report.
In any case, the Pentagon doesn't decide what is and what isn't a chemical weapon according to the laws of war.
***
Now for another Pentagon document, courtesy of the second URL. This one is apparently based at least in part on the document we just considered.
Templeton thinks that sections IIc and TAB A show that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Soon after the cease-fire, US forces began to receive reports from Shiia refugees that described Iraqi government attacks on their cities. Some reports indicated that the government used mustard (a blister agent), as well as napalm and white phosphorus against the Shiias.[9]Other reports denied that government forces had used chemical warfare agents against their city, but claimed they had used weapons containing napalm and white phosphorus.[10]One refugee report provides a compilation of accounts from 150 Shiia refugees and alleges the use of all these substances, as well as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid.[11]Unfortunately, none of the refugees provided a technical or otherwise accurate identification of the weapons that were used by the Iraqi government, whether they contained a chemical warfare agent or not. In addition, many of the refugees had no training or technical understanding of weapons. As the compilation report indicates, these refugees generally categorized the weapons as "chemical."[12]This fact, coupled with the difficulty of accurately translating these reports, complicated our attempts to determine the accuracy of the allegations of chemical warfare agent use by the Iraqi government. (IIc)
There's nothing there that enables a logical conclusion that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Read it 20 times and that won't change--unless you're hallucinating by that point.
Well, how about TAB A?
This tab provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations found in this report. Additionally, the glossary section provides definitions for selected technical terms that are not found in common usage.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CIA
Central Intelligence Agency
CW
chemical warfare
CWA
chemical warfare agent
DIA
Defense Intelligence Agency
MASH
mobile army surgical hospital
NBC
nuclear, biological, and chemical
SITREP
situation report
US
United States
USAMRICD
US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense
A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.[48]
Blood agent
A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.[49]
Chemical warfare agent
A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.[50]
Conventional weapon
A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.[51]
Mustard
A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.[52]
Nerve agents
Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.[54]
Riot control agent
A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.[55]
White Phosphorus
White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.[56]
The first thing to notice is the definition of "Chemical Warfare Agent." The definition gives us no reason to include white phosphorus--but it could be argued that it provides no strong reason to exclude it, either. The definition does specify the inclusion "blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents" but one might argue that the list does not exclude additional categories.
On the other hand, "Blister Agent," "Blood Agent," "Mustard" and "Nerve Agent" are all specifically defined as chemical warfare agents. The "White Phosphorus" entry includes no such distinction.
There is no reasonable evidence in this document that white phosphorus is considered a chemical warfare agent by the Pentagon, even if we were to suppose that the Pentagon had some role in defining the term for purposes of the international laws of war. ***
Congratulations, Project for the Old American Century. You're on the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.
Eighteenth in a continuing series on the "Counterspin" page at People for the Old American Century. One more clunker and POAC is inducted into the Bad Blog's Blood blogroll of bad blogs.
It's not this one, however. POAC wisely punted to Snopes.com which, along with Annenberg Political Fact Check (FactCheck.org), is where anyone with good sense would go to resolve questions about these issues rather than going to POAC Counterspin.
I think that Snopes.com misses the mark by a bit on this one, however, since referring to Gore's Internet claim was primarily a case of hyperbole used to highlight Gore's tendency toward self-aggrandizement. Snopes.com did make note of it, but probably underemphasized it in their answer: "... although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving) ...").
Snopes.com accurately notes that the hyperbole is misleading; and I would add for those unaware of Gore's pattern of exaggerating aspects of his career. For that reason, use of the claim as hyperbole should be adequately clear in the context that it is used.
Seventeenth in a continuing series, peeling away the spin of the "Counterspin" page at the Project for the Old American Century.
The supposed talking point:
It was the Democrats who stopped the vote count in 2000
Really? Which vote count?
T. J. Templeton, who has admitted being the author of POAC's Counterspin entries, has this habit of using unattributed "talking points," so it is often hard to tell what the original claim is supposed to have meant.
Just from memory, I recall a number of separate vote counts in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election. I seem to recall that the Broward County vote count was stopped temporarily because of uncertainty about the legalities, and some of that probably stemmed from Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' determination that certain counties were proceeding with inappropriate vote counts.
Harris made that determination on the advice of a law group dominated by Democrats, I will add.
How pervasive was this talking point? I searched for the exact phrase with Google and got one hit. That hit was--you guessed it!--POAC Counterspin.
So how does Templeton debunk this mysterious talking point? Perhaps we may obtain a clue as to what the talking point is simply by considering the response.
Three URLs this time. As usual, I'll treat the URLs in order of occurrence.
The new White House policy chief, who is filling Karl Rove’s shoes in that post, took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000, in which GOP operatives, dressed as protesters, tried to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount. (Via Truthout.)
(Truthdig)
If you're wondering how Joe Kaplan taking part in the "infamous 'Brooks Brothers Riot'" amounts to a falsification of a claim that the Democrats stopped the vote count in Florida, then I'm with you.
Well, let's follow the links and see if we accomplish anything other than chasing a wild goose.
What about that "infamous" riot, anyway?
That's when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort. (TPMMuckraker)
So far nothing about who stopped a vote count, though perhaps the intent is to show that Republicans were responsible for intimidating the people (Democrats?) who stopped the vote count temporarily.
How did they pose as outraged Floridians, I wonder? Was the chant more involved than Muckraker presented it, something more like "We're outraged Floridians and we want you to stop the fraud!"? Or did they just rent cars with Florida license plates (oh, the deviousness of that!)?
Well, maybe it was the pounding on the windows that stopped the vote count.
article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)
That trail ends with a broken link.
I suppose I'm left to my own devices.
Aired November 22, 2000 - 1:27 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Miami-Dade County's canvassing board has just voted 3-0 to stop all recounts after a contentious morning there. And we'll continue to talk with our correspondent about those developments. But that perhaps puts all the focus on Palm Beach County and Broward County and the question surrounding those absentee ballots.
(CNN)
And from a little later in the same transcript:
CHRIS BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Frank, the Gore campaign officials that I've been able to reach are just stunned by this setback, the decision from the Miami-Dade officials. They say they believe that the Miami-Dade County officials have been intimidated by the Republicans, that there was a near-riot this morning at the courthouse where they were trying to count those ballots. And they believe that there's no question there's a relationship between that near-riot this morning and this decision. They say this is part of a pattern of Republican obstructionist tactics, and this is one of their greatest concerns the Republicans will try to slow down if not stop this count before the deadline on Sunday -- Frank.
(ibid)
OK, so Gore team officials thought that the riot definitely influenced the Miami-Dade decision. What did the county canvassing board say?
JIM LEHRER: There were several major developments today in the Presidential recount in Florida. In Miami-Dade County, election officials halted their hand counting. They said they could not finish by Sunday. Vice President Gore's campaign appealed that decision. Last night, the Florida Supreme Court ruled hand counts must be included in the state's final tally, if completed by Sunday.
(PBS)
The Miami-Dade canvassing board halted its manual recount because it looked like it would be a waste of money, in other words. Was the GOP riot team just concerned about the manual recount?
This section of the same PBS transcript encapsulates that aspect of the story:
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But today in south Florida, partisan fighting escalated after the Miami-Dade canvassing board said it didn't have time to recount of all its 650,000 ballots. Instead, the Democratically controlled board decided to hand count just those ballots not counted by the machines, a move denounced by Republican leaders.
Florida election law in 2000 allowed no provision in the protest of election return procedure for a county canvassing board to only canvass undervotes.
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.
(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.
The PBS reporting also provides a hint or two that the Miami-Dade recount was not open to the public (note the clamoring by the protesters that they be permitted to witness the recount).
***
We move to the second URL.
"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
We appear to have left Miami-Dade County without ever establishing that the three Democrats who made up the canvassing board were not the ones who decided not to proceed with the manual recount. We're now in Leon County, dealing with a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.Well, then again, there's this:
It was there that he personally shut down the review of ballots from Miami-Dade County, a populous and particularly contested county where independent reviews would later reveal that hundreds of ballots that could reasonably have been counted for Gore were instead discarded.
(ibid)
The writer appears to have lost his hold on objectivity, if not reality. It's absurd to suggest that Bolton "personally" shut down that count because the canvassing board appears primarily responsible, and even if the protest is blamed (a protest which appeared to have legitimate grounds--see above) for influencing the board's decision it's hard to see how it could in turn be associated directly with Bolton.
[Note: Contrary to my initial impression, the passage above still refers to the count of Miami-Dade ballots in Leon County. Thus, the writer is suggesting that Bolton was "personally responsible" for causing the vote count to stop even though it was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States--a position no less absurd than the other]
Again, there's nothing here that appears to contradict the claim that the Miami-Dade canvassing board ended its own manual recount.
It was [Bolton's] role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time. (Knight-Ridder Newspapers, via extralove.com)
The lead of the story makes it look like Bolton's just trying to intimidate the poor innocent poll workers. Seems like bringing news of a U.S. Supreme Court stay would give some legitimacy to his intent to stop the recount.
The Knight-Ridder story had a fascinating amount of spin to it. The writer repeatedly sheds the practices of objective writing: ("bursting into"--no attribution, "supposedly spontaneous"--no attribution, "helped persuade"--no attribution) in favor of editorializing. Summary: Another POAC flop. Miami-Dade Democrats decided to halt their manual recount because they could not complete it by the deadline, and probably because they were embarrassed about trying to conduct an improper recount limited to undervotes while barring the count from public observation.
To help underscore that last point, here's a Youtube video of the protest.
The video is a piece of liberal propaganda, to be sure, but it's valuable because it has audio of the protest: "Let us in." Listen for it, starting around the 2:00 mark (it was counting down when I previewed it).
One might wonder why the news reports have the protesters chanting "Stop the fraud!" while the audio has them chanting "Let us in!"
I guess the reporter chooses which chant is most relevant to his version of the story.
The "I can't believe I missed this the first time" file (Sept. 15, 2010 Update)
The Truthout/Truthdig account of the Brooks Brothers riot says that the group was "dressed as protesters."
Like there's some required uniform or appearance code for protesting?
The name "Brooks Brothers riot" came from the description of one of the GOP participants in defense of the group's actions. The media portrayed them as a mob. The "Brooks Brothers" comment emphasized that it was a nicely dressed group (formal attire expected of all protesters!)--not the sort of attire one would ordinarily expect of a mob unless it was during Prohibition and they carried submachine guns.
Sixteenth in a continuing series on the "Project for the Old American Century" Counterspin page.
The talking point this time:
Valerie Plame was not deep undercover
Though it's hard to understand why Patrick Fitzgerald would be permitted to pursue the investigation if Valerie Plame were not a covert agent, it took a surprisingly long time for any official statement on the matter. This "counterspin" entry apparently predates the official statement.
Two URLs, and we'll take them one at a time, as usual.
The first is from a New York Times story by Elizabeth Bumiller. If you haven't subscribed to the Times (or are not willing to do what it takes to access the story) then you're not going to find any backup for the POAC claim here. It may appear on the POAC site eventually, since they seem to have little regard for copyright other than establishing a rule that copyrighted material may not be posted in the message board area (a rule that is commonly broken as regulars there post entire articles from copyrighted sources).
I think this is the most relevant passage:
But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ''nonofficial cover,'' and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs. (New York Times, Oct 5, 2003)
The claim is that Plame was a "noc," but the claim is not sourced to a named individual. Apparently Bumiller did talk to sources within the CIA, but for some reason they would not identify themselves. If you're sufficiently liberal, go ahead and imagine that they feared recriminations from the White House for flatly stating that Plame was undercover. Or maybe it was still a secret even after the Wilsons were talking about it.
Here's the type of sourcing we get from Bumiller on this one:
As required by law, the agency notified the Justice Department in late July that there had been a release of classified information; it is a felony for any official with access to such information to disclose the identity of a covert American officer. It is unclear when Mr. Tenet became aware of the referral, but when he did, he supported it, the C.I.A. official said, even though it was clearly going to cause problems for the White House. ''I don't think he lost any sleep over it,'' the official said.
Why didn't the CIA make any official announcement? If it's a secret, then shouldn't those who gave the information without identifying themselves also, by law, have their actions reported to the Justice Department? Not to digress, but if it's required by law for the Justice Department to be notified when there is a release of classified information, then why did the Justice Department fail to follow up two well-known leaks of classified information to the New York Times (the asset-tracking story, and the NSA program story)?
The first citation is not a firm rebuttal of the notion that Plame did not maintain covert status. If the report to the Justice Department was made according to a legal requirement and the report itself was public knowledge, then nothing should stop the CIA from making a statement on the matter. Statements were made by sources speaking not-for-attribution. That is fishy, on its face.
***
Second URL.
The second link is broken as of this writing.
My research indicates that POAC probably referred to this taped report by David Shuster, which aired on "Hardball With Chris Mathews" on May 1, 2006.
In any case, as prosecutor Fitzgerald considers whether to charge Karl Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice or worse, MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks. Intelligence sources says Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. (MSNBC)
Again, note that even in 2006 when the case has progressed substantially there is no official word of Plame's covert status ("Intelligence sources").
Yes, unidentified sources provide some evidence that Plame was covert, but they hardly settle the matter unequivocally. The best evidence for Plame's covert status did not come out until around the Libby trial sentencing phase.
A newly disclosed court filing from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson was indeed a covert agent who had traveled overseas undercover when her identity was revealed by columnist Bob Novak. (The Raw Story)
Raw Story thought the fact that this "newly disclosed filing" confirming Plame's covert status was newsworthy (it went in the lead). Now, why would they think that if it had been confirmed earlier? Answer: It hadn't been confirmed sufficiently for responsible reporters to make the claim.
As for writers and pundits who claimed that Plame wasn't undercover--there was some evidence to cast doubt on her status, but not enough to claim that she was not undercover.
Evidently she was covert in the eyes of the CIA, and they did a poor job of keeping her that way aside from the actions of Armitage, Libby, and Rove.
POAC again did an inept job of substantiating its claim, but that's understandable considering how little there was to go on until recently. The POAC zeal exceeded journalistic good sense, but at this point we at least have some official claim to Plame's covert status.
T. J. Templeton claims credit for the "Counterspin" entries, so I'll start giving credit where it's due.
Fifteenth in a continuing series putting a stop to the spin at the POAC (Project for the Old American Century) counterspin page.
Cheney has severed his ties to Halliburton
That refers to the reported arrangement whereby Cheney continues to receive benefits from his former employment at Halliburton, where Cheney gains nothing if Halliburton prospers and loses nothing if Halliburton falters. More on this later.
(CBS/AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.
The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company. (CBS)
Lautenberg is a noted objective observer ... no wait, he's a Democratic Senator from New Jersey. The Congressional Research Service is Laughtenberg's authority for asserting ties, but before we move on to that, what exactly is Laughtenberg trying to say? That Cheney is unduly influenced in the office of vice president by Halliburton?
Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.
But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.
Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.
Fine work at FactCheck.org. Worth reading in its entirety.
In summary, the so-called "ties" between Cheney and Halliburton do not appear to constitute any legal or ethical problem. The POAC spin intimates otherwise.
This one, at first blush, looks like it will make up for the aberrant relative coherence of POAC XIII.
POAC, for those keeping track, is the Project for an Old American Century. The name is a play on words poking fun at the Project for a New American Century--a conservative group.
Somebody at POAC wastes his or her time writing nonsense political apologetics.
Here's the supposed talking point:
Social Security is going to collapse and republicans will save it by privatizing it.
Bush's Social Security reform plan wasn't a privatization plan. The Bush plan proposed placing a small portion of workers' payroll deductions in a "private" account belonging to the individual. The money would still go to the government, which would in turn invest the funds according to a number of options. The plan was not presented as an idea to save Social Security per se, but as a big step in the right direction. The idea was a forced investment/savings plan. As for the collapse of Social Security, it's an inevitability given the structure of the system. The population is graying, and the workforce is not going to keep pace even with illegal immigration (Poor immigrants place a drain on the system they might otherwise benefit).
The collapse of the system is not imminent, but the rampant growth of other entitlement programs may speed Social Security's demise. Social Security will be forced to cut benefits, or the government will have to cut other services to provide for retirement benefits.
But let's not get too far diverted from POAC's attempt to show that Social Security isn't in trouble.
Two URLs. I'll take them in order, as is the custom at BBB.
1/11/05 - The Iceberg Cometh
By PAUL KRUGMAN New York Times
[L]ast week someone leaked a memo written by Peter Wehner, an aide to Karl Rove, about how to sell Social Security privatization. The public, says Mr. Wehner, must be convinced that "the current system is heading for an iceberg."
It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want. "For the first time in six decades," the memo says, "the Social Security battle is one we can win." One thing I haven't seen pointed out, however, is the extent to which the White House expects the public and the media to believe two contradictory things.
The administration expects us to believe that drastic change is needed, and needed right away, because of the looming cost of paying for the baby boomers' retirement.
The administration expects us not to notice, however, that the supposed solution would do nothing to reduce that cost. Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved.
Ah, the inimitable Paul Krugman. Professor of Economics at Princeton and all-around shill for the Democrats.
Krugman worked from a document commonly known as the Wehner memo. The Wehner memo was written as "not for attribution" but the press doesn't pay attention to stuff like that if they get the memo from somebody other than the one who wrote it. Thus, there was plenty of attribution. Krugman used a single quotation in the memo, referring to the administration representing Social Security as "heading for an iceberg." Krugman tells the reader that the administration's plan is to present an "imminent" problem with Social Security. In other words, the administration wants to fool people and thus trick them into supporting Social Security reform. But how does the memo actually read?
We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform. (Wehner memo, at "The Dubya Report")
If you think that the memo makes sense, you're right. But maybe if we just use the "heading for an iceberg" part and imply that Wehner was intimating that Social Security was headed for an imminent collapse we can gin up some opposition to the plan ... Back to Krugman.
Krugman asserts that the private accounts under Bush's plan would require the government to borrow money.
That's partly true. The money that workers put in their own accounts would not go directly to Social Security beneficiaries and into the Federal Government's slush fund--the government spends Social Security deductions just like any other tax, promising to pay it back later; that was why Al Gore when he ran for president in 2000 was promising to put Social Security in a "lock box" so that the federal government couldn't touch the funds.
Since the federal government wouldn't be able to borrow as much from Social Security, it would have to borrow from somewhere else.
Krugman's shorthand turns that into "borrowing for privatization."
But Krugman's obfuscation aside, the big problem with his column is that it doesn't present any sort of alternative for addressing Social Security's problems. And the Congressional Budget Office unquestionably recognized problems.
In the coming decades, society's changing demographics and the accompanying demands for goods and services are likely to create a significant economic challenge. However, there is not a lot of time to prepare.
They almost make it sound like we're headed for an iceberg.
Changes to the Social Security and Medicare programs would be best accomplished sooner rather than later because future beneficiaries would have longer to prepare, because those changes could be less drastic, and because they could enhance economic growth. (CBO)
Donald Luskin, writing for National Review, pointed out that Krugman expected an iceberg of sorts in 2010:
This burst of economic optimism is all the more surprising considering that Krugman himself, in the past, has argued — in his typically shrill style — that the Social Security system is in crisis. For example, he wrote in the New York Times in 1996,
Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that’s where … In 2010 … the boomers will begin to retire. Every year thereafter, for the next quarter-century, several million 65-year-olds will leave the rolls of taxpayers and begin claiming their benefits. The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension.
A successful reform of social security will enable the system to accomplish its fundamental goals while stimulating the economy enough to sustain the needed benefit levels. The Bush plan began to address the problem in a sensible manner. The Democrats shot it down for the sake of politics.
Not to oversimplify the problem. The Social Security problem doesn't really have an easy fix.
So, summarizing the first URL provided by POAC, Krugman's case against the Bush plan was flawed and insincere with respect to its denial of a big problem with the program--at least if Krugman was serious about what he wrote back in 1996 (yes, Social Security was "fixed" under Clinton in 1999, but without addressing the system's fundamental flaws).
URL #2.
We're sent to Snopes.com (a good source, for once), with an affirmation that President Eisenhower said that a political move to eliminate Social Security would be stupid and result in bad times for a political party that favored the move.
This URL is irrelevant--a shockingly frequent occurrence at POAC. The Bush privatization plan did not remotely approach a call for the end of Social Security. It did try to encourage individuals to take an active part in retirement planning by making voluntary private accounts a part of the existing system. Not doing anything to fix Social Security before it can't keep it's commitments would be truly stupid.
Remember the congressional Democrats giving themselves rich applause for maintaining the status quo on Social Security during Bush's 2006 State of the Union address?
Final summary: An incoherent stinker by the POAC crew.
LA Governor didn't take the steps necessary to request emergency and major disaster declarations:
So far as I have been aware, the criticisms of Gov. Blanco have focused on her failures to organize reponse at the state level (such as ordering evacuation of the city--something Bush had no power to do), along with her reluctance to allow National Guard assistance from other states under presidential authority (commander-in-chief, don't you know).
It's really a pity that POAC customarily avoids pointing to some source for the alleged talking points. Though maybe that would prove just as much an embarrassment as their attempts to debunk the talking points ...
These sources are likely to confirm that Blanco asked for assistance MOL appropriately, but as noted Blanco's critics accused her of failing in state preparations--nothing to do with FEMA. Plus I found this aspect of the .pdf interesting:
As reflected in the attachments you provided with your letter, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested, by letter dated August 27, 2005, addressed to the President of the United States, through the Regional Director of FEMA Region VI, that the President declare an emergency for the state of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005, and continuing, pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.{{5121-5206, and implemented by 44 C.F.R. {{ 206.35. (the red bits indicate where my keyboard did not have a symbol used in the report)
The letter is dated after the beginning of the duration of the aid requested. Now, for all I know that's standard operating procedure in the land of government documents--but it struck me as funny.
Here's an MSNBC rundown on Blanco's mistakes.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — It was Gov. Blanco's first big disaster — and less than 48 hours before Katrina hit, she reassured the state.
"I believe we are prepared," she said in Jefferson Parish on Aug. 27. "That's the one thing that I've always been able to brag about."
Though experts had warned it would take 48 hours to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco did not order a mandatory evacuation that Saturday. (read it all)
I did find a Snopes.com entry on a circulating e-mail that blamed Blanco for not asking for assistance early enough. Mainly, however, one is struck by the vast difference between the effectiveness of the Snopes entry compared to what POAC produced.
I won't count this one as an abject POAC failure, however. Though their treatment was amateurish (and probably needless), it was accurate in essence.
One can have a big disaster without failed levees. Looks like we'll have to go in deeper to find the antidote to the so-called "talking point."
Turns out there only two mentions of the levee system in the whole story. Here's one:
New Orleans is essentially a bowl ringed by levees that protect the city from the Mississippi River to its south and Lake Pontchartrain to the north. The bottom of the bowl is 14 feet below sea level, and efforts to keep it dry are only digging a deeper hole. During routine rainfalls the city's dozens of pumps push water uphill into the lake. This, in turn, draws water from the ground, further drying the ground and sinking it deeper, a problem known as subsidence. This problem also faces Houston as water wells have sucked the ground dry. Houston's solution is a plan to convert to surface drinking water. For New Orleans, eliminating pumping during a rainfall is not an option, so the city continues to sink. A big storm, scientists said, would likely block four of five evacuation routes long before it hit. Those left behind would have no power or transportation, and little food or medicine, and no prospects for a return to normal any time soon. "The bowl would be full," Levitan said. "There's simply no place for the water to drain." (Houston Chronicle, LSU site)
And here's the other:
University of New Orleans researchers studied the impact of Breaux Act projects on the vanishing wetlands and estimated that only 2 percent of the loss has been averted. Clearly, Bahr said, there is a need for something much bigger. There is some evidence this finally may be happening. A consortium of local, state and federal agencies is studying a $2 billion to $3 billion plan to divert sediment from the Mississippi River back into the delta. Because the river is leveed all the way to the Gulf, where sediment is dumped into deep water, nothing is left to replenish the receding delta. Other possible projects include restoration of barrier reefs and perhaps a large gate to prevent Lake Pontchartrain from overflowing and drowning the city. All are multibillion-dollar projects. (ibid)
Sorry, POAC. That's not how you establish that nobody thought that the levees would fail. Unless you're an idiot.
This entry by itself makes POAC worthy of induction to the BBB Blogroll. But I'll stick to the plan.
Addendum: I originally expected the levee issue to center on the difference between the levees being breached and the levees being overtopped. The "gotcha" quote from Bush concerns the break in the levee that flooded sections of the city after Katrina. The mainstream press promptly took that to mean that nobody expected the levees to be overtopped by the storm surge--the reporting on that point was pretty consistently inept in the mainstream press.
It occurred to me that the confusion on that point might make it appear that POAC did a better job making their point than I have judged.
The talking point concerns a break in the levees. The Houston Chronicle article concerns water overtopping the levees. The article assumes that the levees will not give way, or at least makes no mention of it.
This is a rather pointless entry by the POAC folks, in my opinion.
I think I've heard Rush Limbaugh question peak oil, but I'm not sure on what planet it's supposed to be a GOP "talking point." My Internet survey found that manyof thesitesquestioningpeak oilwere by anti-capitalists and/or conspiracy theorists who are convinced that oil companies are using "peak oil" as a strategy to maximize profits (among other anti-Peak Oil theories).
Hey, if the Saudis admit it, then it must be true.
OPEC, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, will be unable to meet projected western oil demand in 10 to 15 years, Saudi officials have warned.
At today's prices, the world will need the cartel to boost its production from 30m to 50m barrels a day by 2020 to meet rapidly rising demand, according to the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based energy watchdog. (finfacts.com)
Peak Oil, as I understand it, is the proposition that oil production will hit a peak, after which it will begin an inevitable decline. Regardless of whether or not Peak Oil is true, the cited article doesn't support it. The article clearly cites "rapidly rising demand," so the problem described in the story seems to be a failure to keep pace with demand, not a drop in production. Look in the rest of the story for the Saudi confirmation of "Peak Oil"--you won't find it.
An extra-embarrassing one for the good folks at POAC. It will be a pleasure adding them to the BBB Blogroll.
Electronic voting machines are secure and there is no evidence to suspect rigged elections
There's no such thing as secure voting, but electronic voting is relatively secure in principle. I can't imagine what conservatives would laud electronic voting as a "talking point," but I'll be glad to take a look to see what I can find.
My brief survey indicated that conservatives mostly defended specific elections against allegations of fraud, and questioned studies that purported to demonstrate some type of conservative conspiracy. I'll pick up with this stuff after we see the damning counterspin to the so-called talking point.
A government watchdog group is investigating allegations made by a Florida programmer that are whipping up a frenzy among bloggers and people who believe Republicans stole the recent election.
Programmer Clint Curtis claims that four years ago Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) asked his then-employer to write software to alter votes on electronic voting machines in Florida.
He said his employer told him the code would be used "to control the vote" in West Palm Beach, Florida. But a fellow employee disputed the programmer's claims and said the meetings he described never took place. (Wired)
The "Clint Curtis sez"approach.
Curtis gives the impression of an earnest enough guy. If he's a liar he's not of the Clinton style where the lies are couched in the cleverness of fine print. Here's a YouTube video of Curtis speaking before a House investigating committee.
The funniest thing about the video is how the Democratic reps keep trying to get Curtis to comment on the Ohio results in 2004. To Curtis' credit, he resists, but they eventually get him to make a comment outside his area of expertise when he suggests that a failure of the results to match exit polling shows that the (Ohio) election was probably rigged.
I have no idea to what degree Curtis' allegations are true (whether in his mind or in reality). What I do know is that nothing came of the investigation, and that the reporting about the story on the Internet may have come straight from Curtis' testimony rather than from corroborating sources. The reports read like amateur journalism where Curtis' statements are reported as though they are verified facts. BBB inductee Brad Friedman (THE BRAD BLOG), unshockingly, is involved.
I also know that Curtis opposed Feeney in the 2006 election cycle, running against Feeney in that congressional district. When Curtis lost (by a bunch), he contested the results because (he said) polling showed that he should have done better, and he took the bizarre route of canvassing neighborhoods and collecting affidavits. He took the results of his canvassing effort before Congress and asked them to accept his results as evidence that he should have won the election (one Florida news outlet called this "solid" evidence).
That's a little bit nuts, as was Curtis' election verification idea that had voters go to a Web site to register their votes.
Summary: Evidence of voter fraud? Well, yes--but not very good evidence of voter fraud, and the allegation has already been investigated (coming to nothing). ***
Next.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
That's how the link leads off. From there it goes to an extensive list of links to various allegations. I'll survey the first three (they wouldn't want to lead with bad examples).
First up is a Free Press story.
As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.
The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage. Click here for GAO Report
The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House. (Free Press)
The first paragraph tells you that this publication places no value on journalistic objectivity. Which is not to say that what they report is automatically wrong. That we judge on a case by case basis. For all its bombast, the rest of the article is just a spin job on the GAO report. Check late in the story for the numbered points. Pay attention to the actual quotations from the report. Each simply underscores potential vulnerabilities of electronic voting. The report does not approach the suggestion that any of the potential vulnerabilities were actualities in Ohio. "Ohio" is only mentioned once in the report: An annex that simply states that observers from OSCE were present in Ohio for the 2004 election.
In short, the report does not concur with any particular allegations in Ohio. All it does is provide a basis for saying that such allegations are plausible in principle ("They flipped my vote"=>vote flipping is possible, but no judgment of the truth of the allegation stems from that possibility).
About the authors (found at the bottom of the Free Press story):
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008
You don't say?
We're skipping John Conyers interviewing Clint Curtis, because the link is broken and we've probably already seen it (see Youtube window above).
Second Up:
An international election observer mission - from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe - released a preliminary report on Monday declaring that the election did not meet democratic standards. The observers' findings were seconded by Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Citing the disturbing fact that official results diverged sharply from a range of surveys of voters at polling places, Lugar said, "A concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of governmental authorities." (GregPalast.com)
Greg Palast is Brad Friedman with twice the notoriety. I supplied the link since the original was broken.
There's a huge problem with this citation. It's not talking about United States elections, but elections in Ukraine. The placement of the citation seems designed to foster the impression that the report concerns U.S. elections.
Palast did find his way to mentioning U.S. elections in the story, however:
Eastern bloc observers noted that balloting in Ohio, New Mexico and Florida did not meet Ukrainian standards, but applauded America’s attempt to restore democratic institutions after the overthrow of elected government in 2000.
Methinks I detect reporter bias in the paraphrase. Unless maybe we're still talking about an overthrow of elected government in 2000 in the Ukraine.
Nothing in this one that seriously relates to U.S. elections.
It's a blog (Crooks and Liars.com), "Guest blogged by Logan Murphy." Must be a fairly recent addition, what with the April 1, 2007 date appended.
It's a gigantic leap to take the replacement of 8 federal attorneys as a move to suppress voting rights. The story accompanying the blog, published by the LA Times and authored by former DOJ official Joseph D. Rich, takes a much wider swipe at the Bush administration.
Here's Rich's take, in part:
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats. (LA Times)
Why would federal prosecutors refuse to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats? That sentence points up the problem with the sweep of Rich's complaint. There seems to be a left tilt in the Department of Justice among career staffers. Past administrations were okay because they did not try to bring the DOJ to heel--they allowed the innate partisanship to stand. Bush apparently departed from that by failing to do things the way his employees wanted them done.
Doesn't it somewhat turn the concept of justice on its head to suppose that emphasizing the prosecution of voter fraud cases amounts to a shirking "its legal responsibility to protect voting rights"? Apparently the right way to do that is to give voter fraud cases lower priority than voter discrimination cases. It's almost like it never occurs to Rich that voter fraud devalues votes.
Summary: If we judge from these first three (or four) entries, this site isn't going to give us the type of evidence that POAC is claiming ("Evidence of rigged elections in the U.S."). Some of it is evidence that electronic voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. But Democrat lawmakers seemed as enthusiastic as anybody else about introducing electronic voting. It's not like California is a traditional Republican stronghold, for example. And the push for a change in the voting system in Florida came from Democrats following the 2000 election. Electronic voting was never perfect since there is no perfect voting system.
