Lessig

I am sure the fact that Summer Redstone, CEO of Viacom, CBS's parent company, is a Bush support, has NOTHING to do with this...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

"But they could only think it inappropriate to run a real and relevant news story if it is as false and ridiculous as the guard story."

Bingo!

If other reports are to be trusted, the story was to be about the apparent use of forged documents by the administration to support the decision to go to war against Iraq. The "16 words" in Bush's speech about Iraq seeking nuclear materials was supposed to be tied to the Niger documents (now thought to be forged by French agents). Except there is a problem in that the speech was mentioning other intelligence from British agents that existed before these forged documents were even known to exist.

"If it is a false story, then they should never run it."

How about a codemnation for the fact that the second story ever got this far based on belief rather than fact (no pun intended).

The ethics of CBS are on full display for anyone willing to look at them. Just the sort of behavior we get when the news is controlled by a few giants who think they are the elite.

The wall has come down and the truth of elitist thinking is laid bare for all too see.

Seth said:
"However, it’s important to know that the bloggers here had the wind at their backs, instead of shouting to the wind."

So what you are saying is that because one side was pushing it that made the facts less true? Or are you arguing that bloggers don't have as much ability to impact the news as this event would seem to indicate?

I want the news to report the truth. Do I think the truth about the war would further weaken the Bush presidency? Yes. Do I want Bush defeated? Absolutely. But it disgusts me that we waste time in this election issues like the issues Rather raised.

I want the news to report the truth.

1. this is not possible with current institutions. the internet is a better forum for truth (or more precisely for weeding out the lies) (e.g. democracynow.org)

2. it is my understanding that any story about the war has to be approved by the military, so it is perfectly appropriate for cbs to decide not to run a story about the war as it is not their choice. (i'm a little embarrased that i don't recall the source of my understanding)

"Your point seems to
say that CBS should keep on providing totally unbalanced
news on Iraq war ..."
I dunno what the crazy-hell you've been watching Riolo,
but CBS is so far from providing "unbalanced news" I shudder to think what you consider balanced. Unless I missed all this suppossed Bush-bashing, besides this ridiculous matter relating to Bushs 'service' record, it's the same drivel you find on any other mainstream news media corporation. Let's not even get into the fact that the content of those false documents are not even being debated, even though it's known to be true at its core. The only thing media covers is that those particular records are faked.
It blows my mind how grey the line has become between the left and the right. It seems the underlying agendas are the same for both : Corporate dominance. When it becomes clear enough that Bush might lose, they will bash him. Until then all they will give us are some cheap shots, perhaps, that ultimately do nothing to expose the war-mongering and fundamentalist christian agenda the current administration maintains. If the reality is that the Iraq invasion is f@cked, are you saying that media should cease reporting the truth because it might make Bush look bad?!? Confusing and scary, pal. Further, if you think CBS, NBC, or any other corporation is giving us accurate coverage of the war, you might want to dig a bit deeper, cause you don't know the friggin half of it.

To rsklnkv,

Here is a question for you to think about: Did
you ever hear any good news from Iraq? If not, why?

(Hint: It is not that good news is scarce.)

To Professor Lessig,

If truth does harm Bush, so be it. If truth will
harm Kerry, will you accept it?

News never reports truth. Most of the time, it reports
only facts and the facts are not equivalent to truth.
Truth is the analytic and synthetic process of putting
the facts in the proper perspective and through all
angles.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Great replies and thanks for your time.
"I don’t think that the situation should be called “f@cked” without noting that the “f@cked situation” only applies to a small portion of the country."
This would be very true if I was referring to other interests besides the invasion. However, I believe the war was the topic at hand, so in my opinion, f@cked is more than an appropriate term. And just for the sake of argument, you quoted something that was not actually a quote : "f@cked situation". Who said dat? I was actually asking a question, but I'll rephrase with (hopefully) a bit more tact. Sorry for the confusion.
If the reality is that the Iraq (specifically, the U.S. led) invasion is a failure, are you saying that media should cease reporting the truth because it might make Bush look bad?
Moving on to your question to me Riolo.
"Here is a question for you to think about: Did
you ever hear any good news from Iraq? If not, why?"
The good news is that the US is losing support world-wide for this war. The good news is that the American public is opening their eyes to the atrocities that are inevitable when invading another country for, shall I say, questionable reasons. The good news is, thanks in part to a new round of media (see : blogs, indy news sources) more and more people are able to educate themselves to world events rather than having to rely on corporations for their lies, er, I mean news.
And I'd love to see some of this good news you speak of if it relates to the U.S occupation of Iraq. Love to.

Does it ever occur to you that the reporters chose
not to report good news and/or TV media chose not
to report good news

All the good news of death, destruction, infrastructure collapse, torture, abuse, and insurgency?

Are you saying a puppy has been saved recently or something?

Please provide sources for all the good news from Iraq you feel the media is ignoring. Hint: saying "I can't because the media doesn't report it" isn't good enough.

1.) Iraq did not pose an imminent danger to us in any way. This was and is an objectively verifiable fact. Saddam was the mortal enemy of the Islamic Jihadists. If Bush was not lying, then he must think the world is flat too.

2.) Everyone said it was going to be a quagmire and theat the Iraqi’s would vigorously fight to keep non-Arabs from occupying the most Arab of Arab nations. Every one included our senior military officers and the entire collective of poly-sci departments from coast to coast.

“since it isn’t clear that Bush knew for a fact that the Iraqis would react violently.” LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“In fact, word is that 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces are not reacting violently, and that much of the terrorism in Baghdad is carried out by non-Iraqis” LOL!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO!!!!

3.) “Yes, much of the evidence Bush cited turned out to be wrong, but the intelligence was gathered by UN weapons inspectors.”

Now you are lying. The UN weapons inspectors made it clear that containment was working and that Saddam couldn’t muster a pack of matches let alone a box of blackjack fireworks.

4.) “Then why wasn’t the issue brought up before the war?” It was brought up before the war and it was responded with a chorus of “if you question the President’s motive for war then you are anti-American.” The entire academic and intelligence community was firm that Saddam did not have WMDs. The very suggestion that the intelligence said otherwise is a bold face lie. Any serious analyst or political scientist found such ridiculousness utterly laughable.

5.) “ Does terrorism count as a democratic vote” It obvious that you do not even know the definition of terrorism is. Don’t feel bad neither do most people. For an act to be terrorism it must be directed at a civilian target. Beheading of journalist and oil workers = terrorism. IEDs and RPGs directed at U.S. Military personnel = combat. Airliner into the Pentagon = combat.

“Bush Doctrine” included the concept that the US would end state-sponsored terrorism” LOLALMMFAO!!!!

Three years ago, after 9/11, President Bush appeared to draw the same line in the sand. Addressing members of the 101st Airborne Division, he declared, “If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.”

While delegates to the GOP convention were congratulating themselves for their candidate’s tough stand against terrorism, the Bush administration was creating an international incident—little publicized in the United States—by harboring a notorious group of international terrorists on U.S. soil.

Earlier this month, three anti-Castro Cuban exiles flew to Miami from Panama after serving four years in prison for “endangering public safety.” They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama.

The Terrorists that Bush is harboring are:
Pedro Rémon, sentenced to seven years for the bomb plot in Panama, pleaded guilty in 1986 to bombing Cuba’s mission to the United Nations and later conspiring to murder its ambassador to the UN. A New York detective also fingered Rémon for the machine-gun murders of two political opponents.
Gaspar Jiménez, sentenced to eight years for the Panama bomb plot and falsifying documents, had previously served time in Mexico for the attempted kidnapping and murder of Cuban diplomats there. He was also indicted in Florida for blowing the legs off a liberal Miami radio talk show host in 1976. (The indictment was eventually dropped for insufficient evidence, even though the main witness passed several lie-detector tests.)
Guillermo Novo, sentenced to 7 years for the Panama terror plot, was arrested in 1964 for firing a bazooka at the United Nations, where Che Guevara was speaking. In 1978, he was convicted of participating in one of the worst acts of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil, the car bombing in Washington, D.C. of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. (The conviction was later overturned on a technicality, though Novo was convicted of perjury.)
A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community.

“I will . . . demand that the United States and Panama explain how Posada Carriles used a false U.S. passport,” declared Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. “How did that airplane leave Panama with Posada Carriles, reach Honduras, and wind up in the United States?”

“We know we’re dealing with important international influences,” the president added. Those influences no doubt include the fact that Posada was trained by the CIA in the 1960s in sabotage techniques, remained on the CIA payroll into the 1970s, and in the mid-1980s (after escaping from a Venezuelan jail) assisted the Reagan administration’s covert supply operation on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras.

Then there’s the undeniable fact that Cuban exile terrorists enjoy strong political support in the swing state of Florida, thanks to organized lobbying by such groups as the Cuban American National Foundation. That explains why President Bush, in 2001, rejected the advice of the FBI and freed from INS custody two convicted colleagues of Guillermo Novo in the Letelier assassination.

“Actually, Bin Laden did not expect to demolish the WTC.” Non-responsive, I never suggested otherwise. Bin Laden predicted that the U.S. was going to invade a Muslim nation and occupy it to get at its oil. This was his mantra and a corner stone of his propaganda. It is mentioned in numerous statements made by Bin Laden before and after 911.

6.) “There’s no need to get nasty.” You should see what I didn’t post.

I hate to dominate the board, so this post will be short:

/* 1.) Iraq did not pose an imminent danger to us in any way. */

I agree, Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, but he was a gathering threat, and it makes sense to stop a gathering threat before it becomes imminent. And Saddam did have support from countries such as Syria because of his funding of Palestinian Jihadist terrorism.

/* 2.) Everyone said it was going to be a quagmire ... Every one included our senior military officers. */

The expected quagmire was supposed to materialize before Saddam was removed from power, and be in opposition to invasion -- not reconstruction.

Interestingly, our senior military officers had talked Clinton out of invading Afghanistan by claiming there would be a quagmire there that could only be handled by sending Too Many Troops. It's covered in the 9/11 Commission's report.

/* “In fact, word is that 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces are not reacting violently, and that much of the terrorism in Baghdad is carried out by non-Iraqis” LOL!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO!!!! */

Sorry, LOL doesn't count as a complete response. And it is well-established that no real terrorism is occuring in much of the country, in particular 14 out of 18 provinces. The Kurdish-controlled north is calm, as are nearly all Shi'ite areas. Terrorism is limited to oil-producing areas, Baghdad, and the Sunni triangle. And a large part of the terrorists are non-Iraqi.

/* The UN weapons inspectors made it clear that containment was working and that Saddam couldn’t muster a pack of matches let alone a box of blackjack fireworks. */

If you follow the link to the President's Cincinati speech (above), you will see a list of things that weapons inspectors had found in the years after Desert Storm (not including Hans Blix's team). Hans Blix may have held the opinion that inspections were working, but his opinion isn't proof of whether war was justified. Even Blix's team found weapons that violated the cease-fire.

/* The entire academic and intelligence community was firm that Saddam did not have WMDs. */

Could you point me to something the academic community said before the invasion that supports this? I remember that the man who refuted Niger's uranium connection to Iraq said he believed the President's State of the Union Address was based on information he had not seen that applied to another west African country. In other words, he believed it was plausible that Iraq would have tried to get uranium from another country. Even when refuting the Niger connection, he did make it clear that the State of the Union speech hadn't raised his eyebrows much.

/* Beheading of journalist and oil workers = terrorism. IEDs and RPGs directed at U.S. Military personnel = combat. */

So does the beheading of civillains and non-combatants, and the car bombings attempting to decapitate the Iraqi government count as democratic votes? Do the military attacks at soldiers count as democratic votes for that matter? If not, what were you referring to in the original post?

/* While delegates to the GOP convention were congratulating themselves for their candidate’s tough stand against terrorism, the Bush administration was creating an international incident—little publicized in the United States—by harboring a notorious group of international terrorists on U.S. soil. */

I agree with you on this count. Terrorism is wrong because it targets non-comabatants, and so I can't imagine many cases where terrorism could be justified. We tried to follow that realpolitik line of thinking with regards to Saddam and others, but it just ended up biting us in the ass. There's no need to re-learn the lesson.

/* Bin Laden predicted that the U.S. was going to invade a Muslim nation and occupy it to get at its oil. This was his mantra and a corner stone of his propaganda. */

And so far we still believe that the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. In any event, Bin Laden used this rhetoric to increase his popularity and power in his sphere of influence, just as he used terrorist attacks that usually paid off in 30 to 200 dead civilians to increase his popularity and power as somebody willing to do something agains the Great Satan.

let us see if the docile establishment media reports this:

The Apple Doesn't Fall far from the Tree

-brentmeister

I am constantly reminded by this administration of the "you can't handle the truth" attitude of Col. Jessup from "A Few Good Men". Just let them do their jobs and everything will be OK, don't be defeatist, don't question authority, and don't ask too closely how the job gets done.

Responding to Raoul:

/* [Me]: “And a large part of the terrorists are non-Iraqi.”

[Raoul]: ... virtually all of the IED attacks, RPG attacks and ambushes are carried out by locals.
*/

This part is correct, but I would like to point out the concrete example of Muqtada Al Sadr. Al Sadr's Mahdi Army (1) appears to be mainly Iraqi, and (2) did carry out attacks targetted at the US military (although Al Sadr's Iraqi supporters also attacked an Iraqi police station, murdered a rival cleric, and took part in a vigilantee system of "justice").

Why did Al Sadr, even with his Iraqi supporters, want to prevent popular elections? It appears to me that Al Sadr has enough weapons to cow the Iraqis into submission, but not enough support to win a fair election. US forces, btw, aren't trying to cow all Iraqis into submission, only the Al Sadrs out there.

/* The result of our invasion will result in a Shia dominated Islamic state that is infinitely more dangerous than the threat posed by the Baathists. */

This will be interesting to watch, because Shia states are no more prone to violence than any other state.

/* The Baathists were our greatest Arab allies ... [a]nd Bush went and attacked them ... [a]n act worthy of a charge of treason. */

Throwing out charges of treason instead of a word like "stupidity," or "short-sightedness," when "treason" means warring with the US, adhering to US enemies, and aiding and abetting US enemies, only serves to cheapen the charge of treason. I know you understand this, because you don't like calling the situation in Iraq a "war," or assymetrical warfare "terrorism."

/* In 1988, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, do you recall what the White House response was? Nothing. ... We currently support numerous sadistic totalitarian regimes in Asia just because they say they are on our side in the war on terror. */

I agree with you. Nixon thought he was the smartest guy around because he followed Kissinger's ideas of realpolitik. For all his failings, Carter did have an ideology that he worked hard to follow.

Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, (and Clinton) have followed Nixon's example of justifying nonsense positions because a perfect world doesn't exist. For instance, Reagan decided to take on the Soviet Union, and I applaud him for it. But he also chose to run in the face of terrorism in Beruit, and to support totalitarian dictators in Latin America.

I would like to see more involvement in Africa (although I would also like the European countries complaining about the African problems to volunteer their own troops, and not ours). In the same vein, targetting only certain terrorists is ridiculus.

/* By the way there is no war. War is a term of art. No declaration of war has been issued ... We are involved in a large scale police raid on a crack house on the other side of the planet. */

This part is true. I know that it isn't technically a war, but I plan on using the term anyway. Just like I will continue to call Korea and Viet Nam "wars," although they were police actions as well.

/* and we are not acting like we are at war. Where is the oil rationing and the scrap drives? */

I didn't realize that sending thousands of soldiers somewhere was less proof of a war than oil rationing.

I understand your point, but "war," as a term of art, doesn't require the mustering of all national resources to fight. Yes, in many cases nations have rationed goods in order to support the troops, and drafted fighters to have soldiers to support, but that isn't (as far as I know) a requirement for a bona fide war.

OTOH, I think that if we were in a WWII world (minting steel pennies so the copper could go into bullet casings, making suits without pocket flaps as a way to save fabric for uniforms, collecting cooking oil for use in bombs, food rationing, victory gardens, etc.), support for the war would be much higher.

/* Whatever happened to Bush’s campaign pledge that we would not engage in nation building? */

Hmm, perhaps Bush made the statement because at the time he had no desire to get involved in more UN-style nation building in places like Bosnia (that is, hampered by several countries who expect to work the situation to their benefit). I think that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are good enough reasons to make an exception to the rule.

/* By the way do you remember Bush’s pledge to have four hour work days. */

No, honestly I don't.

/* The guy was asleep at the wheel when 911 happened and he should be held accountable. ... He is responsible. */

The 9/11 Commission seems to believe that there was enough blame to go around. However, I wonder why, in your opinion, Clinton isn't responsible, since much of the planning and training occurred on Clinton's watch.

For the record, I do give Clinton credit for stopping several attacks. Sometimes he got very lucky (eg., LAX bombing plans), and other times his agencies actually uncovered and prevented attacks before they were carried out.

/* Vladimir Putin’s coup in Russia is a direct result of the “Bush Doctrine” If Bush can take away freedoms and fix elections then why can’t he? His actions are all about oil and energy too. The unintended consequences arising out of Bush’s reckless and lawless actions are going to be staggering. */

Sorry, but something tells me Putin doesn't decide his next domestic move based on what Bush does domestically in America. I also have to note that nearly every word in this paragraph is an attempt to bait a response, and fundamentally wrong regarding the truth on the ground.

For one, regardless of Micahel Moore's opinion, there is no real reason to believe Bush "fixed" the Flroidian election. Yes, some papers conducted their own recount and determined that Gore should have won Florida, but other papers conducted their own recount (under different standards) and determined Bush would have won. The Supreme Court decision simply declared the confusion over which standard to use left it impossible to determine who actually won through manual recounts (suprise!). Hardly a "fixed election."

But, then again, Putin hasn't "fixed" any elections either (at least not in the last month). Yes, Yeltsin resigned so that Putin would be the incumbent for his first election (something Clinton could have done in the face of Lewinsky, but that's another issue), but that isn't the same as ballot-stuffing. Putin has also made schanges to the government so that officials that should be elected will be appointed, but that doesn't fall under fixed elections either.

And, although several people just assume that Bush's actions are based on oil, there hasn't been any decent proof to back the claim up. From now on, I will assume you are motivated by King Tutenkamen and regardless of your actions, I will not be swayed (cf., Bush's opposition to paying for the Iraqi war through oil revenue).

Well, Raoul, you made quite a few points, some I haven't heard (so I will need to do some research and get back to you).

/* I’ll tell you a few anecdotal truths about oilman. Take it for what it’s worth. [snip about gold-fever like oil fever] */

OK, I'll give a small hint about my youth. My first job was at Cinnabon (the hint is that Cinnabon was founded in the late '80s or early '90s -- I can't recall -- either way, my first job couldn't have been earlier than that). After a lot of joking about a "Cinnabon conspiracy," I went to the library to write up a pretty good fabrication. Everything I ran into about conspiracies was that all good ones have no evidence.

JFK was killed be a conspiracy. Where's the proof? He's dead. There was a secret plot to murder Princess Diana. How do I know? She died. Raoul is channeling King Tutenkamen who wishes to come back from the beyond. My hint? Chewbacca is a wookie.

I can't say that there is absolutely no way that Bush is motivated by oil. However, I need more to go on than "Bush once worked for (or owned) an oil exploration company in the '80s."

/* The Sydney Morning Herald said Bob Mathews, described as Australia’s leading expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Howard three days before his announcement that Australia was committing troops to the invasion, that the case for war was based on falsehoods. */

OK, this is something I can use. However, I will need to really look into this, since I haven't heard about it before.

/* William Lind, ... states: “... We’ve passed the tipping point where the principal opponents were the Baathists trying to restore the state. Now we are in a war with people who have nothing to do with the state. ... and we can no longer create a new Iraqi state. ..." */

I'll also need to look further into this. However, I don't see the reasoning, other than if we pulled out today, Iraq would fall into anarchy and no single power would take control.

Except, large portions of the country would handle such a pull-out easily. The best-known example would be the Kurdish-controlled north. In any event, we aren't pulling out right now.

/* As far as Clinton goes ... [he] was a stooge and a sell out. */

I have my own views on the Presidents. I believe Clinton, in his heart, was pretty liberal. However, he knew when to act liberal, and when to disarm the Republicans by agreeing with them. In the end, I believe he deserves a lot of credit, and a lot of blame. But, hey, which President doesn't?

I don't like to bring up Clinton because he is still pretty divisive. I only dragged him into the discussion because he followed the same pragmatic politics that Reagan and George I did, and that George II is willing to follow. Those pragmatic politics didn't stop Bin Laden (although it is clear that Clinton hated Bin Laden).

/* As far as the Florida election goes. His brother Jeb ran the whole show and his current activities indicate he’s up to his old tricks. */

Jeb was reelected while every Democrat in Florida claimed the wounds were still sore after 2000. I think it's pretty clear that Floridians are becoming more conservative. That doesn't count as fixing an election.

Again, however, the only proof trotted out here is "Jeb was governor, there was a close election, Jeb's brother won." That won't cut it.

/* Jimmy Carter just accused Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a Republican, of trying to get the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader included on the state ballot. */

My understanding is that several non-Republicans were also involved in the fight. I'll look into it when I care enough to find out.

/* Carter further stated: “A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.” */

I've lost a lot of respect for Carter because he's shown no trouble getting involved in mudslinging like this. This is nothing more than the same claim Michael Moore tried in Farenheit 9/11. And it was rebutted in the last link on my last post.

To anonymous,

Good news could be anything that shows the improvements
over the life that was under Saddam Hussein's power.
Do the people feel more free to worship, learn, criticize,
conduct business affairs, determine their personal
affairs, and so on? Do they feel more free to set up their
own court systems? Any more genocide? Any more starvation
among infants and children? Do they wish that they want
to return to the life under Saddam Hussein's power? And
so on.

How come that we don't hear any of these good news? As
Max Lybbert said, good news doesn't sell. It is the
bad, negative news that really sells.

With the daily, continuous stream of bad news from TV media,
reporters, and blogs, it will be extremely difficult
to step outside of the box and take a look through
a different angle at the daily life in Iraq.

My last point is that Kerry and his supporters are exploiting
the daily, continuous stream of bad news from Iraq to turn
common people against Bush. This is one of the dirty works
that are expected from political games. It is disheartening
but it is nothing new.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Sorry, but the Anthony Wade piece trying to rebut Koppel falls flat.

• Compare Wade's statements

  Now, being the eternal optimist, I was hoping that Mr. Kopel would have been from the objective, independent thinking line of reviewers. ... Until you actually go to their site and realize that it is nothing more than another conservative think tank

  and
  

  Again, Moore makes no bones about his slant in this film. He is not required to show every opposing view.

  So, is having a slant good or bad?

• What about the passage

The alleged question is asking that even though there are lies in the movie, doesn’t it contain important truths nonetheless? ... The actual question being asked is that even considering the film can be taken as propaganda, ... shouldn’t the truths contained be addressed.

Now, could this quote be applied to Koppel? For instance, I have read Moore's response, and it doesn't address the parts Koppel says it doesn't.

• For that matter, why promote a two hour propaganda film and denounce a thirty second propaganda commercial? Both labeled themselves as propaganda, so that can't be the reason.
• In any event, deceit 4 is the one I was referring to ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.")

Koppel rebuts this by linking to a newspaper article, which Wade makes no serious effort to rebut ("Mr. Kopel, was Katherine Harris in charge of the vote count AND Bush’s Florida campaign co-chair AND did she eventually certify an incomplete vote count? Those are the salient points. The attempts to misdirect by pointing out a number like 1,100, which does not take into account all of the reports of disenfranchisement, is again quite transparent. The number is not 1,100, it is over 200,000. Moore did not say that the purge targeted black felons; the obvious point is that minorities are more likely to be the felons who are being purged."), instead he "attempts to misdirect" by pointing to his own, unsupported (at least in this document) number, and by calling Kathleen Harris's integrity into question. That's it.

Regarding Kathleen Harris, with the legal team Gore put together, do you honestly think there's any chance that a true conflict of interest on this scale would have been overlooked? BTW, this kind of conflict of interest would have been illegal if Harris had some real chance to affect vote counts (but she didn't, her job was much like the State Clerk of Court).

Oh, and he implies that it was wrong to purge felons from the voter list -- even though the purge was required by state law (as stated in Koppel's newspaper article, "State lawmakers decided to weed out felons and other ineligible voters in 1998 after a Miami mayoral election was overturned because votes had been cast by the convicted and the dead.") -- because felons are more often Democratic and more often black. That's his rebuttal, and it falls flat.

That last bit of information is why I think Carter should think about his reputation as an impartial expert in these kind of matters before he spouts off about "attempts" to "illegally" disenfranchise voters.

In a previous post I was a little sloppy in explaining conflicts of interest, so I would like to correc the issue here.

First, a conflict of interest is not automatically illegal. Usually professionals likely to have a conflict of interest (eg., attorneys, accountants, real estate brokers) are required to point it out to their clients. Attorneys have special rules and can be barred from representing somebody due to a potential conflict of interest.

However, government officials (eg., judges, Kathleen Harris) don't really have the ability to "disclose" their conflict of interest, so they are more often required to sit things out. In Harris's case, however, as a public offical, any official act (like certifying an election) would be part of the public record, and reviewable. If she went ahead and certified the election while legally unable to do so, a judge could review the record and overturn the certification. Since Gore's legal team tried some pretty wild legal theories to invalidate the election results (including arguments about the "butterfly ballot" that were laughed out of court), I would expect them to have challenged her certification if it were at all challengeable.

I'm not an attorney, so I'll note that the rest of this post is outside my expertise. However, my understanding of why Harris's certification was legitimate is that she didn't really do anything but sign papers. She didn't actually count the ballots by hand, or run them through a machine in her office, or anything of the sort (ballot counting happened at the precincts where the voting took place, the numbers were sent to her office where they were added up and put on a paper for her to sign).

There is a question of whether it was proper for her to certify the totals while a lawsuit disputed the results, and while some counties had chosen to begin a manual recount that could not be completed before she was required to sign the papers. That is what was disputed, and sent to the Supreme Court. In the end, several judges reviewed Harris's decision and decided that she didn't do anything wrong by signing the papers in question. The Supreme Court has the record online.

Research? No, no let’s not confuse ourselves with the facts.

The Chewbacca defense! Not the dreaded Chewbacca defense. “Why would a seven wookie be on a planet with a bunch of two foot ewoks? It doesn’t make any sense, it’s the Chewbacca defense. Look at the monkey . . look at the monkey.”

FYI, I never suggested anything about a conspiracy about anything. People in certain positions with certain characteristics tend to behave in certain fashions.

“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

The Supreme Court decision was an absolute joke and an example of the quickness with which so called conservatives will trample on states rights when they get find the need. So called conservatives are such the flip flopping judicial activists it almost funny.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

All right, I no longer feel like I'm the only one posting here.

In response to the latest posts:

/* What I (and other people here) are saying is that Katherine Harris used the anti-felon statute as an excuse to conduct widespread purges of a block of citizens she knew to be overwhelmingly minorities, and overwhelmingly Democrats. */

And how could she have defined "convicted felons" to not overwhelmingly include minorities or Democrats? I recognize that there is a huge problem with criminal justice in the US, since there is no reason to believe minorities are any more violent than anybody else, but convicted felons are overwhelmingly minority. How could Kathleen Harris have acted differently?

/* You claim she was only enforcing state law. How is knocking tens of thousands of eligible voters off the rolls “enforcing state laws”? */

You answered this yourself ("The whole anti-felon frenzy in Florida was whipped up over 105 felons who voted in the 1997 Miami mayor’s race. No, they shouldn’t have voted, and yes, the state has an obligation to uphold its laws").

I can't defend the mistake of kicking off eligible voters. But I haven't heard of any way Harris could have avoided making that mistake.

Regarding the Supreme Court's limitation in the Bush v. Gore decision ("Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."), I do think that was a poor choice of words. However, if you read the decision, you will see that it is based entirely on facts likely to be unique to that particular case. Of course, since it is unlikely a similar case will come up based on the same basic facts, it wasn't necessary to write the disclaimer.

That is the same reason I have a problem with a similar disclaimer in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (the Texas sodomy lawsuit recently decided). In that opinion, the Supreme Court said "The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."

For Raoul ("FYI, I never suggested anything about a conspiracy about anything. "), I have to admit that you didn't say "conspiracy." However, if Bush had hidden motives for the Iraqi invasion (such as to get the oil), that would probably fall under the common definition of "conspiracy." The legal definition of "conspiracy" is quite a bit different.

For the record, Raoul simply said that he is familiar with something I would call a "black gold-fever" (my quotes, not his). I assumed that was to imply Bush had hidden motives for invading Iraq. I have heard several people suggest this, but the only proof they advance is "Bush invaded Iraq, therefore he wants Iraq's oil." That isn't proof.

Anonymous made a common mistake when discussing the war and the US attempt to "force democracy on Iraqis":

/* “Do the people feel more free to worship, learn, criticize, conduct business affairs, determine their personal affairs, and so on?” No. Unless they want a 500 pound bomb dropped on their block. */

What proof do you have that US forces are dropping bombs on streets because people are worshipping, learning, criticizing, conducting legitimate business, etc.?

The US isn't fighting with the people who want to vote and make their own choices in a democratic society. The US is fighting with the people (like Muqtada Al Sadr) who are trying to prevent anybody else from making their own choices. That distinction is important. It makes no sense to claim that the US is threatening people and demanding they vote for who they (the Iraqis) want.

Anonymous then tries to change the subject by referring to genocide, and claiming that America "exterminated upwards of 30 million people." Since anonymous doesn't identify those 30 million people, I have to assume he is talking about slaves or American Indians. Deaths of slaves were wrong, without a doubt, and I can't defend the people who caused their deaths. But it is pretty clear that slaves weren't systematically killed (like genocide), since slaveowners knew keeping slaves alive was the only way to get slaves to work in the field. Were slaves taken care of? No, not at all. Slaves were whipped and brutalized, but they weren't systematically killed.

It is true that for several years after slavery was abolished blacks continued to be brutalized and killed. And, again, that was horrible and wrong. But I don't think it could fall under genocide, since the government wasn't coordinating the action (although state governments spent about a hundred years looking the other way). In any event, the US recognized the error, and is still working to repair it.

The American Indian issue is much harder to defend. Government forces did slaughter several Indians (although I've never heard "30 million"). I can't defend those deaths, either. I can say that -- like with the slaves and blacks issue -- the US government recognized the mistake and even today tries to rectify the problem.

Regarding the Ba'athists, US forces aren't killing people for being Ba'athist. US forces are killing Ba'athists who have commited crimes such as large-scale murder. There is a fundamental difference.

And, finally, in response to earlier posts:

(A) I haven't had enough time to actually look into the claim that Australia knew Iraq either did no have WMDs or would not use any WMDs that it had. However, even assuming this is true, there were other reasons to justify the invasion. In fact, as far as I can tell, the WMD issue was used to justify the invasion to the public, and material breaches of the cease fire (including Iraq's failure to actually cease firing) justified the invasion under international law.

(B) I also haven't had a decent chance to look into the quote "We’ve passed the tipping point where the principal opponents were the Baathists trying to restore the state. Now we are in a war with people who have nothing to do with the state. ... [T]his time [we are] not leaving behind triumphant guerrillas like Vietnam and Algeria; [we'll] be leaving behind a destroyed state, and we can no longer create a new Iraqi state." I no longer view it as a complete non-sequitur. The important point will be when the US forces actually leave. If the forces leave too soon, then yes, the new state will probably not be able to defend itself well. However, it seems impossible (to me) to tear this quote apart since Lind does say this situation is entirely new (so there won't be much history to support either side). We really will have to see how things play out.

The difference between the Lawrence disclaimer and the Bush v. Gore disclaimer is that the first limits the decision to a well-defined and reasonable set of conditions -- namely, "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle" -- whereas the latter has a blanket disclaimer. The blanket disclaimer is completely unreasonable; in essense, "this is how you interpret this law, but only this one time, and only because we say so, and you can't use our logic again, even though our whole purpose is to establish precedents on how to interpret law."

An Army Reserve staff sergeant last week wrote a critical analysis of the US prospects in Iraq and now faces disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison.

"I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality," wrote Lorentz, who gives four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of supplies and communication.

"Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry