This is a very interesting matter I’ve heard very little about. In the first Gulf War (Daddy’s War), Americans were caught and tortured. In the last 10 years, those victims won a court judgement granting them millions of Iraqi dollars for pain and suffering. Duhbya will make sure they get none of it. Just another example of his lip-service to the military or thoroughly consistent with a view that citizens should not be allow to use courts to collect high dollar damages? mjh

U.S. Opposes Money for Troops Jailed in Iraq

The Bush administration is seeking to block a group of American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 from collecting any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets they won last summer in a federal court ruling against the government of Saddam Hussein.

In a court challenge that the administration is winning so far but is not eager to publicize, administration lawyers have argued that Iraqi assets frozen in bank accounts in the United States are needed for Iraqi reconstruction and that the judgment won by the 17 former American prisoners should be overturned. …

[A] former prisoner, David Eberly, a retired Air Force colonel whose F-15 fighter was shot down over northwest Iraq and who said his interrogators repeatedly pointed a gun at his head and pulled the trigger on an empty chamber, said he was surprised by the administration’s eagerness to overturn the judgment.

”The administration wants $87 billion for Iraq,” he said. ”The money in our case is just a drop of blood in the bucket.”

A Manufactured Crisis on Judges

Lost amid the grandstanding about a ”crisis” in judicial nominations are the facts: 168 Bush nominees have been confirmed and only four rejected, a far better percentage than for President Bill Clinton.

Bush administration nominees have been moving through the Senate at a rapid clip: in his first three years in office, President Bush has gotten more judges confirmed than President Ronald Reagan did in his first four. When Republicans controlled the Senate, more than 60 Clinton administration judicial candidates were blocked.

Don’t fret, Democrats: Bush policy still con job by Matthew Miller

Democrats need to make next year’s debate turn on rival visions for America, not near-term economic bumps. Democrats need to expose Bush’s ”compassion” hoax for what it is — a rhetorical trick to con independent voters into believing that Bush isn’t a Neanderthal like Newt.

But three years into his term, we can see President Bush’s domestic vision all too clearly. …

Bush will try to disguise this vision — who wouldn’t? — but Democrats must expose it, in all its unsavory detail.

Democrats have a different vision, and this clash has to be the central domestic choice put to voters in 2004. Richard Gephardt puts it nicely: “We’re all in this together,” he says, “whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not. What happens to some of us eventually affects all of us.”

It’s this conviction, this view of the world, that underlies deep commitments to student aid, to Social Security and more. For all his pretty speeches, Bush’s choices reveal his party thinks we’re more or less on our own.

This Bush ethic — that it’s every man for himself (championed ironically by the antithesis of the self-made man) — is reflected in the shocking greed and corruption that continues to be exposed at the highest levels of business. …

The Democratic notion that we’re in this together, and need to protect ordinary Americans against the rot at the top, resonates today because it’s so true.

The Fruits of Secrecy

[Bush administration] policies that broadly favor industry — including big campaign contributors — at the expense of the environment and public health.

That unfortunate bias was demonstrated anew this week when the Environmental Protection Agency decided to drop investigations into more than 140 power plants, refineries and other industrial sites suspected of violating the Clean Air Act. The winner is industry; the loser, the public. …

The administration swore to Congress months ago that this would not happen, that all the old investigations would be aggressively pursued under the old rules. So in addition to another rollback of environmental law, we have here another depressing example of official mendacity.

Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004 Reception

Terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got. …

See, they know that the advance of freedom in Iraq would be a major defeat in the cause of terror. …

We will win this essential victory in the war on terror.

The Unibomber and the Oklahoma City Bombers are terrorists.

Terror is not a political movement or a philosophy. Terror is a tool or technique that can be used by anyone of any political view. We are at war with people who use terror; we need to think about why they use terror.

I cannot read about “The War On Terror” without remembering the “War on Poverty” and the “War on Drugs” — neither of which has been effective.

I would feel more comfortable with a President who is capable of understanding what we are fighting. Our cold-war military-industrial complex cannot defeat “terrorists”. mjh

CNN.com – Poll: Majority of voters would not re-elect Bush – Nov. 8, 2003

A poll released Saturday finds that more registered voters want to see President Bush voted out than kept in office in the next election….

In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do. …

51 percent of the respondents said they disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq — the highest Newsweek’s polls have ever shown — while 42 percent said they approve. …

Forty-four percent said they approve of the way Bush is handling the economy — up six points from the magazine’s previous poll a month ago. Forty-eight percent said they disapprove.

Poll shows independents leaning against Bush re-election

A majority of independents, 53 percent, said they oppose Bush’s re-election, while 40 percent favor it, according to the Newsweek poll. Republicans favor his re-election by an 86-10 margin, while Democrats oppose it by the same amount.

File Sharing Pits Copyright Against Free Speech

Diebold Election Systems, which makes voting machines, is waging legal war against grass-roots advocates, including dozens of college students, who are posting on the Internet copies of the company’s internal communications about its electronic voting machines. …

Diebold has become a favorite target of advocates who accuse it of partisanship: company executives have made large contributions to the Republican Party and the chief executive, Walden W. O’Dell, said in an invitation to a fund-raiser that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.’’ …

“Are these companies staffed by folks completely ignorant of computer security,” she said, “or are they just blatantly flaunting that they can breach every possible rule of protocol and still sell voting machines everywhere with impunity?” …

“It’s very different from the way that Diebold has been doing things.” Mr. Rubin, who has received a cease-and-desist notice from Diebold because of his research, said, “The solution is to stop selling insecure voting machines and not to continue threatening students who are only trying to protect our democracy.”

From one of the internal memos:

“I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here “looking dumb”.” [source: http://chroot.net/s/lists/support.w3archive/200101/msg00068.html ]

Memo Excerpts

Here is another memo excerpt (and link to them all):

Re: jresult doubles the votes – in 1-17-7-3

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 [mjh: two weeks before Bush v Gore]

We ran central count totals of 134 ballots and it shows as 268 votes on the Jview.exe.
Continue reading Can we trust electronic voting machines? →