Lose your house, lose your vote

By Eartha Jane Melzer | 09.10.08 | 6:42 am

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.”

The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”

One expert questioned the legality of the tactic.

“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”

As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.”

GOP ties to state’s largest foreclosure law firm

The Macomb GOP’s plans are another indication of how John McCain’s campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain’s regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm’s founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee.

The Macomb County party’s plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans — the most likely kind of loan to go into default — were made to African-Americans in Michigan, according to a report issued last year by the state’s Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

Challenges to would-be voters

Statewide, the Republican Party is gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge campaign, according to Denise Graves, party chair for Republicans in Genessee County, which encompasses Flint. The party is creating a spreadsheet of election challenger volunteers and expects to coordinate a training with the regional McCain campaign, Graves said in an interview with Michigan Messenger.

Whether the Republicans will challenge voters with foreclosed homes elsewhere in the state is not known.

Kelly Harrigan, deputy director of the GOP’s voter programs, confirmed that she is coordinating the group’s “election integrity” program. Harrigan said the effort includes putting in place a legal team, as well as training election challengers. She said the challenges to voters were procedural rather than personal. She referred inquiries about the vote challenge program to communications director Bill Nowling, who promised information but did not return calls.

Party chairman Carabelli said that the Republican Party is training election challengers to “make sure that [voters] are who they say who they are.”

When asked for further details on how Republicans are compiling challenge lists, he said, “I would rather not tell you all the things we are doing.”

Vote suppression: Not an isolated effort

The issue of voter challenges is arising around the country. In Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch, in an July 6 article titled “Foreclosed-on voters using old addresses could snag election,” reported that Doug Preisse, a member of the board of elections in Franklin County and the chair of the local GOP, said he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election.

Hebert, the voting-rights lawyer, sees a pattern.

“At a minimum what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systematic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote,” he said. “Nobody is contending that these people are not legally registered to vote.

“When you are comprehensively challenging people to vote,” Hebert went on, “your goals are two-fold: One is you are trying to knock people out from casting ballots; the other is to create a slowdown that will discourage others,” who see a long line and realize they can’t afford to stay and wait.

Challenging all voters registered to foreclosed homes could disrupt some polling places, especially in the Detroit metropolitan area. According to the real estate Web site RealtyTrac, one in every 176 households in Wayne County, metropolitan Detroit, received a foreclosure filing during the month of July. In Macomb County, the figure was one household in every 285, meaning that 1,834 homeowners received the bad news in just one month. The Macomb County foreclosure rate puts it in the top three percent of all U.S. counties in the number of distressed homeowners.

Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent and Genessee counties were — in that order — the counties with the most homeowners facing foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac. As of July, there were more than 62,000 foreclosure filings in the entire state.

Joe Rozell, director of elections for Oakland County in suburban Detroit, acknowledged that challenges such as those described by Carabelli are allowed by law but said they have the potential to create long lines and disrupt the voting process. With 890,000 potential voters closely divided between Democratic and Republican, Oakland County is a key swing county of this swing state.

According to voter challenge directives handed down by Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, voter challenges need only be “based on information obtained through a reliable source or means.”

“But poll workers are not allowed to ask the reason” for the challenges, Rozell said. In other words, Republican vote challengers are free to use foreclosure lists as a basis for disqualifying otherwise eligible voters.

David Lagstein, head organizer with the Michigan Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), described the plans of the Macomb GOP as “crazy.”

“You would think they would think, ‘This is going to look too heartless,’” said Lagstein, whose group has registered 200,000 new voters statewide this year and also runs a foreclosure avoidance program. “The Republican-led state Senate has not moved on the anti-predatory lending bill for over a year and yet [Republicans] have time to prey on those who have fallen victim to foreclosure to suppress the vote.”

—-

Correction: This article has been amended to reflect the fact that Doug Preisse informed Michigan Messenger that he did not “state or imply” that he had not ruled out challenges “due to foreclosure related address issues,” as originally reported.

Comments

Pingback: Conyers Calls Out McCain Over Voter Suppression « The Central Tabulator
Pingback: Michigan GOP Targets Foreclosure Victims for Election Day Dirty Tricks
Pingback: Michigan GOP: Kickin’ ‘Em While They’re Down : The New Argument
TiredofFoolishness

As I've been reading various blogs (without comment until now) the one thing that is painfully apparent is the total absence of objectivity. We all tend to surround ourselves in personal ideologies and point out the “gross” injustices of those who do not think as we. Obama is a terrorist and baby-killer, Bush is a liar and war criminal (and McCain is just like Bush).

Every good lie (and every good joke) has SOME truth in it and most of what I read (from both sides of the coin) are lies . This nation is polarized and it is not Bush's, Clinton's, Obama's, or McCain's fault… it is our fault. To take one source and ignore any opposing views is narrow-minded and short-sighted. Democrats read and observe liberal news and Republicans do the same with conservative views. As I read the comments in this thread, I mostly hear hatred and blame.

There is some truth in all the points listed. I'm sure there is some truth (maybe a lot of truth) in the article being discussed. What is our individual responsibility to ensure everyone with the right to vote has opportunity to excercise that right? What is our responsibility to ensure those who do not have the right to vote do not cast a vote? That would be a more productive discussion. We can't just start fighting for everyone to vote (regardless of legality) and we can't start fighting for no one to vote.

I believe with all my heart we should look for the balance and then excercise our right to vote for others looking for balance. Both parties have good and bad but neither party seems to accept the good in the other and both parties ignore the bad within their group.

As (admittedly) difficult as it is for me at times, I'm going to research the possibilities of voter disenfranchisment and voter fraud… and I will go and vote for the person I believe has the best plan.

Peace…
Pingback: No Vote For You
chetlyzarko

The correction above, while it is welcome and should be accepted in some spirit of good will, forces one to doubt the other “legs” of this story. The carelessness of conflating Doug Preisse's statement with foreclosure challenges forces one to question how accurately Melzer quoted Carabelli. The sensational-ness of the headline calls for a high-burden of evidence to make this a valuable story – if that burden had been met, the story could have been valuable. As is, we're left with a he-said, she-said battle.

First, this whole “Republicans are trying to intimidate black or poor voters” is part of a 30-year old “script” we hear in every election. Does that mean the author, Ms. Melzer, is part of a “conspiracy”? No, absolutely not. She's investigating leads based on a script she's been conditioned to accept. Does it mean that Republicans are completely guiltless throughout time and space? No, certainly there have been “incidents” where overactive individual partisans thought they were helping the cause and probably became too zealous (I'd note that those incidents occur on the left too, with different types of “voter fraud,” as the historically-infamous political machines of Chicago, LBJ, and even here in Detroit often prove). Here, we know part of Ms. Melzer's “script” came from the July 6 Columbus Dispatch, which she misquotes. That's a human error, as would be asking “leading questions” (Carabelli in his Beckman interview claims), so Carabelli's story that he didn't say it the way Melzer said he did is plausible. I have a hard time believing Melzer would “fabricate” the quote out of whole cloth a la Jayson Blair, but its not a hard step to take to believe that she'd ask a leading question, get an ambiguous answer, and take the notes down wrong in some way.

Ms. Melzer interviewed me twice on this subject while I was in Arizona (by phone) during the course of this story, trying to find out if I knew of some “foreclosure list”. I told her I was unaware of such a list, although I wasn't in “the loop” for such things, I do deal with voter information regularly and that it struck me as unlikely, and frankly not very valuable if it was the plan, that Republicans would use foreclosure lists. Not valuable because such lists aren't accurate as to whether the voter is in the home, or even if not in the home legally entitled to vote (a recent foreclosure would not necessarily change the residence as Hebert points out). We agreed that “returned mail” would be more valuable and easier to list, although I don't know that the Party uses it since I don't the Republican Party. I spoke of Democrat list broker Mark Grebner, and some of the tricks he's (and accurate points) he's been involved with, and suggested that both sides were likely to use sophisticated mail lists for their purposes in challenges (indeed, Grebner actively sought to disenfranchise petition signers in 2006's Proposal 2, and Drolet's 2008 Dillon recall (on the basis of residency)). She asked if an inefficient tactic might be used just to delay voters and decrease turnout – I disagreed because deploying such a tactic is time and resource consuming to have any meaningful numerical effect, and that it was unlikely to be a good way to change an election outcome (traditional message is just plain more efficient), if it didn't in fact backfire. I told Melzer my experience with the relevant players lead me to disbelieve the foreclosure idea would be used as a tactic. In a second interview, she asked why Carabelli would lie and retract his quote – I told her at that early time (there was no lawsuit by the DNC and the story just broke) I didn't necessarily believe anyone was lying, that I couldn't speak for Carabelli, and that it was possible there was a mis-communication and that she should place herself in the shoes of her interviewee. This perspective was not quoted in the article, and while I understand that to be within reasonable editorial discretion particularly given the length of the article as is, it might have given the article some perspective.

Some stories are so good they penetrate through the “script”. There's a “smoking gun,” or chain of logic that is impenetrable. Here, you have one quote stretched to the conclusion with one of the supporting background quotes being retracted. This story doesn't have either, unless there is some future break that breaks the log-jam of “he-said, she said.” Certainly, if proven true this story would be important, but the more sensational the truth, the higher the burden in proving it. If this story proved its case, I'd stand behind the author in a bi-partisan way, but I just don't see it. The truth is likely somewhere in between – I suspect Carabelli answered a question about foreclosures, and it was either leading and he wasn't precise or the answer misunderstood or notated. I doubt Melzer intended to fabricate a quote, but to make this one stick she's needs more.

Rayne1

Chetly — can you tell us right now that you are not receiving any monies from conservative candidates for services that include making them look good?

You've left another comment here without disclosing that you, as owner and operator of Zarko Research and Consulting, provide multiple services for conservatives and their political campaigns. You have a vested interest in making a case against progressives, and the mere act of leaving a comment here in thread may be part of your paid services. Our readers have a right to know that they may be reading commercial services provided on behalf of your conservative clients.

We are a progressive website; we are not partisans, running a broad spectrum in our philosophies from Green to Libertarian and everything in between, which includes fiscal conservatives/social liberals to social conservatives/fiscal liberals. We often don't agree, and we have to find common ground in our work. We have a perspective colored by this range of philosophies, and it's ultimately progressive.

What I want to know is why is this different and unacceptable when mainstream, corporate-owned media outlets actively use their bias as product differentiation. FOX News, for example, is hardly a neutral outlet, and they make no bones about being conservative. They make of point of targeting a conservative audience as part of their marketing strategy.

I also want to know why you have such doubts about this one piece of Melzer's work in particular, that you've had to invest more than 800 words in this thread alone; you have not been commenting at this site for quite some time, and it's only now since publication of Melzer's investigative work on “voter foreclosure” that you've returned. Are you investing similar amounts of effort elsewhere in the blogosphere?

Or only on issues that impact Republicans in Macomb and Oakland County, Michigan?

chetlyzarko

Rayne, you are absolutely hilarious. I sign my responses with my full name without using any means of obscuring my identity. My identity on the internet is an open book, quickly learned from Google, etc. You know who I am. This is a response area to a blog (or at least on blog software if you don't admit to that title), not a place where I do original investigative publication or work where I'd feel that necessary. It's for feedback to you – you know who I am. The idea that I would identify the nature of my business in every blog post is funny.

But I'll entertain you somewhat. I openly admit to running a business focused on “conservative and moderate” clients (when the clients are political), although at least one of my political clients was liberal (Christine Barry, FOIA) and I'm sure some of my business clients are or have been liberal. My comments here are, however, unsolicited and do not have any direct bearing to my business, and indeed, in expressing my belief Ms. Melzer wouldn't wholly “fabricate” the quotes could theoretically damage my business (at least, its not the “Party-line”, literally). Regardless, no one is compensating me for commenting here – my primary motive for commenting was that I am actually part of the story in that I was interviewed and had some insight into the story as such. While “designing literature” or building a website may make candidates “look good”, I'd hardly call it justification for me to waste time here, particularly when none of my active clients have any direct stake in this story (and by the way, I've never had a client from Macomb County, and don't ever recall meeting Mr. Carabelli, although I'm sure we've crossed paths). My lack of commenting MM over the last many months has more to do with being busy (primarily during Primary season) and the obvious nature of MM's product compared to my interests. You'll note my comments in other parts of blogosphere are quite sporadic and haphazard – similar I'd say to here. When a topic interests me, involves me, or simply floats my boat, I invest similar amounts of time — but on the whole, including even my own sites (which are a priority), its between a few minutes a day and less than an hour. Here, I was called twice by your reporter – I have a somewhat different motivation than almost all your readers for being involved.

I have no problem with you admitting that you are a progressive source. Indeed, that's (part of) what I ask for and hold myself to (just as Frank Beckman's point drives home). But the crux of the contradiction is that you criticize me for being a conservative source, and say that it invalidates a priori the credibility of my **arguments.** On the flip side, you expect your arguments to be taken seriously when you admit to being “progressively” biased but simultaneously attack others solely for being allegedly conservatively biased. The bottom line has to do with our arguments and their quality – and you make no effort to address the substance of my argument that this story isn't persuasive because 1) it miss-paraphrased a key second-example from Ohio, calling into question the accuracy of the whole article 2) there is no pattern beyond Carabelli, and the “script” of the story is an ongoing “progressive script” where even subconscious bias could have lead to “leading questions,” and a misinterpretation somehow of his words.

I've posted a well-thought out, moderate interpretation of events, and all I get is you trying to shut-down debate with irrelevant points outside of the merits of my argument. Conservatives and progressive/liberals can actually reasonably debate, but it can only be measured (perhaps by moderates persuaded) without regard to anything but the argument itself. The labels are quite irrelevant. In that sense, its ironic the Republicans are pointing out your progressive biases, but it hoists you on your own petard and is an unfortunate part of any “he-said, she-said” type of battle.

Rayne1

Chetly —

1) This isn't your first internet rodeo; you know that the majority of readers do not run checks on usernames, especially if they believe they may have been spoofed. Just because you sign in here with what you know to be your real name does not mean that our readers do.

2) The problem is not that you are conservative. It's that your comments here may constitute work product, not merely somebody throwing out an opinion, and you regularly fail to disclose your conflict of interest.

3) I note that you did not answer the question as to whether you now or in the past have represented anybody in Oakland County.

4) Based on the estimated 1500 words you've written in this thread, you can hardly say anybody here has shut down debate. We should take bets on how many words you'll use in your next missive here.

5) You want to avoid labels? Here it is, the crux of this entire sitution: Did Carabelli disclose to Melzer the use of foreclosure lists? Did he disclose there was more being done besides the use of foreclosure lists? You've already got Melzer's reporting on this. And you can listen to Carabelli's reply on Frank Beckman's program, just as other readers can.

We hope and trust the readers can sort their way through the static that began once the lawyers and PR firms began defensive moves. That includes reading carefully the clarification regarding Priesse's comments.

rev_linda

RE: The Foreclosure Baiout and loosing votes hit more than the upper middle class

Recently, newspaper headlines have debated the pros and cons of a government mortgage/ foreclosure bailout which of course would be financed at tax payer’s expense. I have read article after article, opinion after opinion, yet I have not seen or heard anyone ask the following question: why should the tax payer’s bailout mortgage foreclosures while it allows governmental entities to foreclose on homes of low-income Americans for back property taxes? Why is it that the government’s concern lies with those persons whose homes are values at approximately $300,000+, while Americans on Social Security and/or Social Security Disability loose their homes while they struggle to make ends meet on an average of $600.00 a month? Could it be that these same politicians who have been elected due to their religious/moral ethics, the politicians who claim to be Christians ignore low-income families because as a general rule, this class of people is not known to vote?
Why should I, as a tax payer, be forced to continuously pay taxes to help the upper middle class while at the same time no one cares that I could become homeless? For all of our Christian leaders, does Proverbs 21:13 not state “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.” Maybe, those who elect politicians because of their morality are no better than what Matthew 6:5 quotes: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”
I would like to know who amongst your readers will happily pay taxes to better the life style of the upper middle-class and/or the wealthy while the lower middle-class and the country’s poor are continuously allowed to suffer. Should this country truly be looking to bail out those who have made bad decision while they allow those who have found themselves with little choice to suffer?

Heartfelt Empathy;
Linda Munro

johndowd

Like your scripture references, but we need to really get an understanding of what's really going on, along with that biblical wisdom, all of these “crisis” is happening at the end of the Bush term, all these people who have been floating high throughout these last 8 years are bailing out, they don't know what is going to happen, this wouldn't be happening if the Republicans weren't worried…I don't understand how the Christians seem to think that all Christians are Republican…I do believe that there are some Christian Democrats too…The Christians have allowed being labeled as a Republican help cause this “great divide” in our country…the Christians knew that Obama deserved their vote, a long time ago, but they could not get past their prejudice, everyone knows that our nation gets away with being prejudice at least one and a half hours every Sunday morning, doing the last election, TBN and other were pounding vote your conscience, the the African-American had to vote for Bush, and it was never verified that he was “really” a “church-going” Christian, we, Christians just got a few unverified stories about Bush, not like what we got during Obama's inital campaign, we learned that he has served God as a Christian, for at least 20-years, no matter how we tried to dig up a different God….we tried to side with the world and blamed our reason for not voting for Obama on his Pastor, when we ALL know that we don't have control of what our Pastor says, he has the microphone, we may say something to him or eachother but we don't leave. And when Palin came on the scene, she was like the “great white hope”, we could all breathe a “sigh of relief”, because we now had someone WHITE to vote for, we knew we couldn't vote for McCain, it didn't matter that Palin didn't have any experience, we are willing to overlook all ot the requirements that we put on any of the other candidate. It would have been easier to have Romney, but we will take Palin over…. I heard my pastor say Palin from the pullpit Sunday….he was comparing this unknown to something good…suddenly we can talk about politics in our church…. Really, as a Christian the more I hear about Palin the more I like her, but I just can't get past those 5 children, and I wonder where was she while daughter was getting pregnant? I know that I was always in my three teenage children's business to avoid those types of things, I know that things still happen but the chances are less, when you take an ACTIVE role in the CHILDREN'S lives. As a Christian, with radical teaching like Palin, I also thought about the “familiar spirit” thing, generational curse thing, with her getting pregnant before marriage like her parents…but that make me think even more that she should have been in her daughter's face, and in her leadership position, she should have been more attentive…what about the parents that are on their children's skirt tails, what does this say to them? I know that everyone agreed that the children are off limits, but would everyone had agreed had it been the otherway around, I think not. But let's just let the children be off limits, what about what the scripture says, it clearly says that if a person cannot rule their own house, they should not be in charge…in leadership…but then I think of the future, what is that little girl who chased her mother all around that stage when she was nominated going to say to us, years from now, when we have taken her mother away from her. Like I said, I really believe that a “Palin-type” would be good for our country, I think she is gutsy enough to handle business, I have no problems with her wanting to fire her brother-in-law, the guy has been married about 4 times, something is wrong with him…not her. How many times have you felt like if it were in “your power” you would handle a matter…okay it was in her power, and she handled the matter.
Anyway, we all have opinions, but I would like to share mine, as a Chrisitan, we are always harpening on how this country was started on Chrisitan values, well let's elect people of “like faith”, and create the Obama/Palin Ticket. We certainly would have a real team of “prayers”, Christians know that where there is two or more of us gathered, you know the scripture, we would bring God in our mist! Mist of our country's affairs…one thing, we wouldn't have to worry about praying openingly, we already know that they are long-time Chrisitans, so no one would be shocked at them leading the nation in prayer. Neither one of them have denied their faith, and that brings blessings too, Jesus says if you acknowledge me before men, that He, Jesus will acknowledge you before His, my our father, we all know that Obama did that, on television more than once, and now it's coming out that so did Palin….haven't heard anything from Biden, but WE ALL KNOW THAT MCCAIN has kicked several Christian leaders to the curb, openingly and defiantly…now he wants our vote..,and he only gets the Christian vote because of Palin…SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THAT…once in office he can easily squash her or control her, because she's VICE President….but with Obama and Palin, we can't loose! “OPT” out!!! Another OPTion, “OBAMA/PALIN TICKET!!!!! And if they don't know how to do something, they will do like every other Christian and pray!!!!

Pingback: Your Last Day to Register to Vote: October 6! | Detroit Metblogs
Pingback: Vote for Change « Kasalina’s Weblog
acaru

“More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans — the most likely kind of loan to go into default — were made to African-Americans in Michigan”
Yes thats a great point, but lets not forget the african american population in ALL of Macomb county is 2.71 percent as of the 2000 census. Dont get me wrong- every vote counts- but as a resident of macomb county I can attest to this demographic. It also doesnt mean that what is being done is right, it just puts your point a little more into perspective.

Angel101

Point taken.

Pingback: ImpeachmentWatch Day 103 (2008-09-20) « Impeachmentwatch
Pingback: (Continued) Quickies: Daily Reason to Volunteer and Vote for Union Endorsed Candidates « Jenniferbadgley’s Weblog
Pingback: David Kahane: Slayer of Funny « The United States of Jamerica
Pingback: Episode 105 - 09.22.08 : ( ( (( Nervous Teeth )) ) )
albaby

So the Clinton administrations pressure to force financial firms into making sub-prime loans in decaying areas and to pepole with poor work histories and inadequate income had nothing to do with the foreclosures, right?

[EDITORIAL NOTE: Perhaps it's a better question to ask why any sound business would extend credit to people who do not meet traditional standards of credit-worthiness? Loan sharks don't worry about collaterialization, but that's not a legal or sound business, is it? And perhaps albaby can point to where in Clinton Administration the president alone created a climate of subprime lending that later made loans during the Bush Administration?]

Angel101

That's right. Because where ever you are getting your “facts”, they are feeding you a load of bullsh1t. The Clintons have been out of office for EIGHT YEARS! That excuse is getting old and tired. Take responsability for your own sh1t and stop trying to blame it on the Clintons.

albaby

So you think this just happened overnight! LOL

Rayne1

Actually, it took since 1999 when McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm rammed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation through, gutting the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill was veto proof, making it impossible for Clinton to do anything but sign it.

albaby

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.a…
Rayne1

With that article we can say you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.
chetlyzarko

Rayne, a “veto proof” bill does not make “impossible for Clinton” to do anything but sign legislation. The President is under no obligation to sign any legislation – it simply becomes law without Presidential veto if the requisite number of Senators and Representatives vote for it to override a veto. Get your Constitutional facts straight.
Rayne1

Do you seriously think that Clinton politically had any other choice in 1999? How old were you then — do you remember what was going on at that point in time?

Get your history straight.
chetlyzarko

How old were you? What a ridiculous question.

Since I was an adult them, I remember. If you look at my comment closely, I took no position on the cause(s) of the crisis or link to Clinton – merely on your assertion of constitutional facts about veto-proof votes.

I actually think its unfair to criticize Clinton significantly for that legislation (both parties got involved in that one), or to pin the whole blame for today on the legislation. Similarly though, it was part of the problem, and its unfair to blame Bush entirely or any President for large economic forces that are difficult to predict. Indeed, I'd give them little credit for growth, either. Enron, for example, was largely belly-flop from the over-exuberant 90s (and Greenspan predicted it in outline even in the 90s although he didn't know WHICH companies would be the ones) – the irony is that much of the blame for even obviously 90s bubble bursts transferred to Bush.

And how ridiculous it is to suggest a President doesn't have any other choice “politically” — we hire Presidents to make tough political choices sometimes despite the consequences. You're saying Clinton was a follower – not a leader. I don't know whether he's that simple of a figure – but it is the logical conclusion of your defense.

albaby

Hey messenger, why don't you publish where your money comes from. It may help explain why you “mis-stated” the GOP on the foreclosure/voting issue. Sure glad to see the Dems spring into action based on your “misstatement”. LOL

[EDITORIAL NOTE: Readers are welcome to check out the source of our parent organization's funding at the link provided at the bottom of our home page. Nonprofit organizations like the Center for Independent Media also file Form 990's that are available to the public. Perhaps albaby needs to spend a little more time researching rather than reacting.]

Angel101

Hey stupid. “Mis-quoted or not, this article isn't going to polling places and trying to dis-enfranchise people. I bet you don't even know what that means. Moron.

Rayne1

Ad hominem comments are not compliant with the site's comment policy.

HAs

Albaby,

Do you have evidence that is contrary to what “Messenger has published? If so, please state the evidence here for everyone to read. You cannot just call a man a thief without telling us what he has stolen. “Messenger” stated that the GOP Operatives plan to use the list of homeowners who had lost their homes due to foreclosure proceedings from a donor who is a strong supporter of GOP and who owns a company processing foreclosed homes. If your evidence is contrary to this, please let the world know about it. Please I am waiting to read your refuting evidence. Please make no mistake, I am not a Democrat. Thanks.

albaby

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.s…

Rayne1

You have posted a broken link twice. Please make sure the next one works or it and these other two broken links will be removed as clutter.

albaby

the links work. What are you talking about? Is it just that you don't want peopleto see the article?
Rayne1

Actually, they don't. The two links above take people to a list of links at MLive.com, a default page.
albaby

I tried them for the fourth time and they worked just fine. Here is the headline iof the article you can't seem to find.

Mich. Messenger agrees it misstated GOP comments
albaby

Your response in the Messenger is hilarious.

Messenger clarifies Ohio official’s remark LOL
So the Messenger clarified HIS remarks, not it's misrepresentation of his remarks-nice spin! LOL
Rayne1

Did you happen to notice that there was NO RETRACTION of any of the reporter's work in regards to Macomb County GOP Chair's comments?

So far your ability to read is highly selective.
chetlyzarko

And so is yours, including 1) your violation of your own policy against ad homimen (“your ability to read”) 2) it seems to me that albaby is suggesting that if you had the need to “clarify” or whatever euphemism you prefer one portion of an article, the other portions credibility is cast into doubt. This is not a suggestion of intentional misconduct by the author – just evidence supporting a pattern of misunderstanding by the author and perhaps subconscious bias.

Since MM admits to “not being an MSM site” and admits to advocacy journalism, it admits to having biases. Since you admit through your attacks on my own (admitted) bias that bias removes the credibility of my writing, you are by a logical application of consistency admitting that MM has no credibility.
Rayne1

albaby is the newest spam-troll at this site, and their efforts will be addressed as we deemed fit.

Would you like us to come and tell you how to run your sites, Zarko?
chetlyzarko

I have no idea who albaby is, but I suspect its someone who has taken interest in the story because its become so overblown and that they don't believe the hype. I would suggest its unfair to label albaby a troll just because of a few comments, unless he's being uncivil and then I'd agree with you.

And you are welcome to comment on my sites as long as you maintain civil discourse. I'm not telling you how to run your site – that is almost entirely at your speech and property rights discretion – I'm just pointing discrepancies in how you advertise your product with what it really is. And I'm hardly here often enough to truly bother you. I'll leave it at that.

albaby

Sorry, here's page 1. Also note that it is an Associated Press article.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.s…

Rayne1

You can find a list of our donors in the footer of this page, at the link labeld “Our Funding”.

There was no misstatement of the Macomb County Republican Party Chair's statement regarding the use of foreclosure lists, nor any misstatement about other methods being employed by the GOP that the chair did not want to disclose. You may wish re-read the article to acquaint yourself with those quotes.

albaby

You may wish to retry the links I posted-the ones you claim are broken. And yes, I did read the list of donors-such as George Soro/s Open Society, Rockefeller foundation etc . All far to the left.

Rayne1

In your opinion, of course. I'm sure the Rockefeller Foundation's and Open Society's and other donors' money didn't fall from the clouds like manna from heaven. There was probably some good old fashioned smarts and labor along with conservation of resources that eventually became capital — unless, of course, you have a problem with smarts, labor and careful investment of capital, and the free choice to apply them as individuals see fit.

Pingback: ImpeachmentWatch Day 104 (2008-09-21) - Sunday Funnies « Impeachmentwatch
Annette Higdon

This is another attempt to undermine the black vote. If the GOP were not so afraid that a black man could win, they would not be playing this dirty game. The GOP is using a families mishap due to the way the economy to discourage voters. It is sad that there is so much racism in this country. God is showing the world that he is in control and pleading with us as human beings to humble ourselves so that he can heal this land and we still refuse to see it because of color. If I were a republican, I would switch sides because I would hate to represent a party as hateful as this one. The GOP has truly showed their true colors in this election. You should sincerely think about who you are voting for. God meant what he said about the bottom being on top and the top being on the bottom. I pray for all of you.
Pingback: EMERGING STORY: Community Organizers protest Michigan Republicans’ “Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote” voter challenge strategy : Star City Harbinger
Pingback: Michigan (EE.UU): "Pierdes tu casa, pierdes tu voto". (ING)
Pingback: GOP dirty tricks in the swing states
Pingback: Suit Charges Absentee Voter Applications Denied « The Baumgarten Report
Pingback: ImpeachmentWatch Day 106 (2008-09-23) « Impeachmentwatch
Pingback: ImpeachmentWatch Day 105 (2008-09-22) « Impeachmentwatch
johndowd

Sounds bogus, like something to motivate people, BUT if they can get away with it, they will. Personnally, I would like to OPT out of this election…”OPT” is an Obama/Palin Ticket…one clean sweep would satisfy everyone, they would balance every concern out, the only arguement is “experience” but then that is the “blessing” of electing these two. An OPT would give our nation a chance to really start all over again, without all the residue from the previous administrations, the only person not covered in this equation is “the man”…and it's time to shake things up…In this equation women, blacks, children's health and education, earth concerns, every kind of rights group, every form of finances, fairness, greed (they would balance each other out in this area, and we can get real solutions to the energy crisis), lying (they both answer to a higher calling), adultery (they both have one spouse), religion (they both openingly worship something), handicap people…all our nations ills would all be erased, satisfied, considered…just like that!!!! (Clinton, McCain, nor Biden could do this, they have been in this corrupt system too long, they are a part of it)…Let's get the word out, OUT NATION WANTS AND NEEDS THE “OPT” OUT (OBAMA AND PALIN TICKET)!!!! Let's start a revolution and revise our country's purpose, goal, and clean up our mess!!!! Make Shirts!!!!
johndowd

I have been involved in a foreclosure since 2006, from mistakes made 2-years before that, 2004, by one of the mortgage-servicing-company that we hear about in the news…hint, they were the first ones that got the bail out… on a Sunday…my 750 credit score has been completely destroyed…and I don't believe that I can recover…but who cares, I'm just a “peeon”! Why has this matter dragged out so long….the mortgage company knows that they screwed up but they don't want to pay for damages, and my legal expenses…they are just letting the debt mount, and says they are using my credit as “leverage” against me…it is not right…and it's an abuse of power….you better believe I have suffered greatly during this time in more ways than one, as I waiting for them to finish this matter….if this huge mortgage company has handled other clients as poorly as they have handled mine, no wonder our nation is in a mortgage crisis…I did do some research and there are others who have complained about this mortgage-servicing company on death ears, like blogs too…I have boxes of proof that this mortgage company shows a total disrespect for the customer….the mistakes are clear and proven, yet it drags on year by year, out of my control… I am a victum of their mistake…So does this mean that I may loose my right to vote while this thing is in litigation….it's bad enough that the last 4-years of my life has been on hold!!!!! while they get RICHER!!!!
Pingback: Haven't these people suffered enough? |
Pingback: Another Republican Attempt to Supress Voting « The Political Thinker
russtic

I'm begining to understand Timothy McVeigh.

Rayne1

We'll take this reference to be meant kiddingly.

Future references to violence may be in violation of the site's comment policy.

Pingback: City Barbs » Bailout Thread
Pingback: Voting Gets Trickier - An Obama Affair « all black affair
Pingback: ImpeachmentWatch Day 107 (2008-09-24) « Impeachmentwatch
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

Rayne, a “veto proof” bill does not make “impossible for Clinton” to do anything but sign legislation. The President is under no obligation to sign any legislation – it simply becomes law without Presidential veto if the requisite number of Senators and Representatives vote for it to override a veto. Get your Constitutional facts straight.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

And so is yours, including 1) your violation of your own policy against ad homimen (“your ability to read”) 2) it seems to me that albaby is suggesting that if you had the need to “clarify” or whatever euphemism you prefer one portion of an article, the other portions credibility is cast into doubt. This is not a suggestion of intentional misconduct by the author – just evidence supporting a pattern of misunderstanding by the author and perhaps subconscious bias.

Since MM admits to “not being an MSM site” and admits to advocacy journalism, it admits to having biases. Since you admit through your attacks on my own (admitted) bias that bias removes the credibility of my writing, you are by a logical application of consistency admitting that MM has no credibility.
Rayne1

albaby is the newest spam-troll at this site, and their efforts will be addressed as we deem fit.

Would you like us to come and tell you how to run your sites, Zarko?
Rayne1

Do you seriously think that Clinton politically had any other choice in 1999? How old were you then — do you remember what was going on at that point in time?

Get your history straight.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

I have no idea who albaby is, but I suspect its someone who has taken interest in the story because its become so overblown and that they don't believe the hype. I would suggest its unfair to label albaby a troll just because of a few comments, unless he's being uncivil and then I'd agree with you.

And you are welcome to comment on my sites as long as you maintain civil discourse. I'm not telling you how to run your site – that is almost entirely at your speech and property rights discretion – I'm just pointing discrepancies in how you advertise your product with what it really is. And I'm hardly here often enough to truly bother you. I'll leave it at that.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

How old were you? What a ridiculous question.

Since I was an adult them, I remember. If you look at my comment closely, I took no position on the cause(s) of the crisis or link to Clinton – merely on your assertion of constitutional facts about veto-proof votes.

I actually think its unfair to criticize Clinton significantly for that legislation (both parties got involved in that one), or to pin the whole blame for today on the legislation. Similarly though, it was part of the problem, and its unfair to blame Bush entirely or any President for large economic forces that are difficult to predict. Indeed, I'd give them little credit for growth, either. Enron, for example, was largely belly-flop from the over-exuberant 90s (and Greenspan predicted it in outline even in the 90s although he didn't know WHICH companies would be the ones) – the irony is that much of the blame for even obviously 90s bubble bursts transferred to Bush.

And how ridiculous it is to suggest a President doesn't have any other choice “politically” — we hire Presidents to make tough political choices sometimes despite the consequences. You're saying Clinton was a follower – not a leader. I don't know whether he's that simple of a figure – but it is the logical conclusion of your defense.
Rayne1

Did you happen to notice that there was NO RETRACTION of any of the reporter's work in regards to Macomb County GOP Chair's comments?

So far your ability to read is highly selective.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

Rayne, a “veto proof” bill does not make “impossible for Clinton” to do anything but sign legislation. The President is under no obligation to sign any legislation – it simply becomes law without Presidential veto if the requisite number of Senators and Representatives vote for it to override a veto. Get your Constitutional facts straight.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

And so is yours, including 1) your violation of your own policy against ad homimen (“your ability to read”) 2) it seems to me that albaby is suggesting that if you had the need to “clarify” or whatever euphemism you prefer one portion of an article, the other portions credibility is cast into doubt. This is not a suggestion of intentional misconduct by the author – just evidence supporting a pattern of misunderstanding by the author and perhaps subconscious bias.

Since MM admits to “not being an MSM site” and admits to advocacy journalism, it admits to having biases. Since you admit through your attacks on my own (admitted) bias that bias removes the credibility of my writing, you are by a logical application of consistency admitting that MM has no credibility.
Rayne1

albaby is the newest spam-troll at this site, and their efforts will be addressed as we deem fit.

Would you like us to come and tell you how to run your sites, Zarko?
Rayne1

Do you seriously think that Clinton politically had any other choice in 1999? How old were you then — do you remember what was going on at that point in time?

Get your history straight.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

I have no idea who albaby is, but I suspect its someone who has taken interest in the story because its become so overblown and that they don't believe the hype. I would suggest its unfair to label albaby a troll just because of a few comments, unless he's being uncivil and then I'd agree with you.

And you are welcome to comment on my sites as long as you maintain civil discourse. I'm not telling you how to run your site – that is almost entirely at your speech and property rights discretion – I'm just pointing discrepancies in how you advertise your product with what it really is. And I'm hardly here often enough to truly bother you. I'll leave it at that.
http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

How old were you? What a ridiculous question.

Since I was an adult them, I remember. If you look at my comment closely, I took no position on the cause(s) of the crisis or link to Clinton – merely on your assertion of constitutional facts about veto-proof votes.

I actually think its unfair to criticize Clinton significantly for that legislation (both parties got involved in that one), or to pin the whole blame for today on the legislation. Similarly though, it was part of the problem, and its unfair to blame Bush entirely or any President for large economic forces that are difficult to predict. Indeed, I'd give them little credit for growth, either. Enron, for example, was largely belly-flop from the over-exuberant 90s (and Greenspan predicted it in outline even in the 90s although he didn't know WHICH companies would be the ones) – the irony is that much of the blame for even obviously 90s bubble bursts transferred to Bush.

And how ridiculous it is to suggest a President doesn't have any other choice “politically” — we hire Presidents to make tough political choices sometimes despite the consequences. You're saying Clinton was a follower – not a leader. I don't know whether he's that simple of a figure – but it is the logical conclusion of your defense.
Anonymous

Thanks for sharing this great article from Amazon blog. I always read these blogs and send them to my friends.
________________

Vang
ninaki2000

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

Because you refuse to admit the truth does not obviate the truth.

The Iraq war is the perfect example of the failure of “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war. Each and every excuse given for going to war was proven to be false and it has cost the US over 4,000 lives, over 2 trillion dollars, the respect and trust of the world and the opportunity to turn all of the good will of 9-11 into a world changing event.

John McCain with all of his military experience, with all of his training, with all of his political experince could have stopped this war. Single handedly. He could have said “NO” and the congress would have gone with him but for all of his military experience, for all of his training, for all of his “foreign relations” experience, he blew the call. Absolutely blew it. He does not deserve the chance to blow it again.

“It is
ninaki2000

“So it appears that the WMD argument to spank Sadam was valid.”

Funny, the Iraq Study Group disagrees with you. “Regarding Iraq, the Commission concluded that the Intelligence Community was “dead wrong” in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that this constituted a major intelligence failure. The Commission's report described in great detail the systemic analytical, collection, and dissemination flaws that led to the Community's erroneous assessments about Iraq's alleged WMD programs. Chief among these flaws were failures by certain agencies to gather all relevant information and analyze fully information on purported centrifuge tubes, insufficient vetting of key sources, particularly the source “Curveball,” and somewhat overheated presentation of data to policymakers”

In other words, Bush lied, servicemen died now McCain wants those same lies to make him president. I'd call that more of the same.

“(C)ost the US over 4,000 lives”
Under no circumstances can this be deemed a policy failure. Heck people in the country do not really care about military deaths.”

That is a typical Bushist line. The military serve. They promise to give their lives, if need be in the defense of their country. To dishonor that sacrifice by using under false pretenses, using lies and deceit, to achieve purely political goals stains the memory of every serviceman killed or wounded in Bush' Iraqi adventure. Military people are expected to die. That means the commander in chief carries a special responsiblity to exercise wisdom and caution with their sacrifice. Bush didn't, McCain won't.

“2 trillion dollars”
Is also a poor standard to measure policy success or
failure. Are you standing in line to get a loaf of bread?
Is you daily needs rationed?
More to the point where is the money going?”

Gee, let's see. 2 trillion dollars, Let's see. $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Let's see, where is it going? In the toilet, that's where it went. Not to our defensee. not toward achiving energy independence, not to rebuilding our infrastructure. Just in the toilet. And McCain wants more of the same.

“(R)espect and trust of the world and the opportunity
to turn all of the good will of 9-11 into a world changing
event.”
Respect and trust are by their nature very amorphous.”

No, respect and trust are why we're supposed to vote for John McCain aren't they? Isn't that what his leadership is supposed to be all about? We respect his leadership and trust his jusgement? Money, power, and governments can be lost. Respect, honor and dignity can only be given away. George Bush with his dishonesty, with his boorishness, with his arrogance, with his ignorance, gave away our honor, took away our respect, and threw away our dignity. John McCain was there, helping, every step of the way.

“Single handedly. He could have said “NO”
and the congress would
have gone with him”
Bit arrogant don't you think? “

No, I don't think. There were two men in the congress who could have done this. John Warner and John McCain such was the respect they carried inside and outside congress and across party lines. If either of them had gone to the floor of the Senate and said, “NO” Bush' AUF would have evaporated. But, they didn't. Take your pick, McCain put his party before his country or he's too incompetent to be president. There is no middle ground.

President is not earned because you've been in a POW camp or spent the last quarter century pandering to lobbyists in DC. Dumping your first wife for a younger, prettier, richer model who can help your political ambitions is not the stuff of presidents. Crashing 4 navy jets is not the judgement of presidents. Pulling strings with federal regulators to stop an investigation of a banker with whom your wife is involved in several questionable real estate deals is not the stuff of presidents. Failure to recognize the real threats facing this nation and placing the desires of your party over the needs of your nation is not the stuff of presidents but, it is the stuff of McCain.

Turning down high six figure jobs so you can work to help people make their lives better, working to convince people they can be better, inspriring people to work for a better America, inspring people to believe in themselves and their nation, that is the stiff of presidents and that is the stuff of Obama.
ninaki2000

You're kidding right? No really, you gotta be joking.

THIS

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy…

Is your source to “prove” Bush' justification for his stupid war?

THIS

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy…

Trumps

The Iraq Study Group
Wall St. Journal
LA Times
Atlanta JC
Washington times
NY Times
Newsweek
Time
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
and the dozens of books written on the subject

THIS

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy…

And I suppose you think Fox news really is “Fair and Balanced”?

I have rational discussions with rational people. The proof of Bush-McCain's failures are there for those who care to open their eyes and look.

More?

September 2002 to January 2003 Bush declares on many occassions Iraq to be an “Imminent” threat and yet, for six months did nothing. If he really thought Iraq was a threat he would have attacked immediately. He knew there was no threat and the only threat to his plans were the UN Weapons Inspectors.

October 2004 debate. The moderator asked Bush “given what we know now, …” would he still have invaded Iraq. Bush said yes. He did not try to correct the moderator. Just said yes, even given perfect knowledge he would still have invaded. This, whether you admit it or not, is an acknowledgement that the reasons given for the invasion were false. I knew this in 2002, Russ Fiengold knew this in 2002, Ron Paul knew it in 2002.

McCain either didn't know it or chose, like you, to make believe. In either case, when the time came to lead, McCain failed. He does not deserve the chance to fail again.
ninaki2000

You really need to get more sources of information than Fox News and your own blog.

Rather than take a quote from a third party, an inspiring quote I might add, and try to use it as “proof” against Obama, try actually reading his books. Try educating yourself.

I will not change your mind. You are the type of voter the Bush-Mccain people depend on. Afraid. Ignorant. Angry. Hateful. They prey on your weaknesses, your fears, to get you to vote against your own self interest and in theirs.

I was a McCain supporter in 2000. In 2002 when he climbed on Bush's war bandwagon he lost my vote. In 2008 when the “Straight Talk Express” turned into the “Can't Lie Fast Enough Express”, when he not only embraced Karl Rove's campaign tactics but the people who executed them against him in 2000, as he and Palin rail against earmarks while Alaska and Arizona split nearly 3/4 billion dollars in earmarks, while he talks about financial reforms while Phil Graham, the architect of the deregulation that made it all possible is his top economic advisor. He proved my misgivings correct.

There are no good reasons to vote for McCain. You can vote for him because you're a Republican and no matter how stupid the choice is you will vote Republican. You can vote for him because you're a victim of his campaign tactics. But, on the issues, the only sane vote is for Obama.
ninaki2000

sonny, sonny, sonny. That uranium was no secret stash. The IAEC and Weapons Inspectors had that stuff under lock and key since 1997. That's why this “news story” upon which you hang your hat is nothing more than a footnote. Even Bush didn't claim this “find” justified his war. Why? Because, sonny, it is so easily disproven, except to the fooled.

From YOUR article….

Did you read the AP article?

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddams nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

A child molester “justifes his crime by saying “the child wanted me to”.
A thief rationalizes his crime by saying “they didn't need it anyway.”

Don't try to rationalize Bush's crime in Iraq or McCain's complicity in it.
ninaki2000

I saw that all your comments were removed, I don't know why, but maybe you could trying telling the truth, maybe the administrator of the site doesn't want you to spread your lies.
ninaki2000

“Found buried and preserved – mobile chemical labsFound”
Turned out to be weather research stations

“Sarin artillery shellsFound Mustard Gas Artillery”
Over 20 years old and rusted out and unusable

Found MIGS preserved and buried
Not preserved, buried in the sand in the desert by Iraq's military to keep the US from bombing

Found SCUDS trailered and hidden in civilian locations
Perfectly permissable under the UN cease fire agreement

And on and on and on……

In every instance the “proof” claimed by the Bushists turned out to be more lies.

None of the “justifications” you present, even if they were true and even if Bush had knowledge of them before the war, meet the criteria laid out by Bush for his decision to go to war and justify his deception of the American people.

Remember “Imminent Threat”, “Clear and Present Danger”

None of what you present meet that test, while most of if, like 20 year old artillery shells rusted out and buried in the desert, were both unkown at the time of the invasion and presented no danger at all except to the poor unfortunates who found them, that would be US soldiers. Even using what Bush did not know to justify his actions, even in the face of the undeniable fact that what he claimed to know was lies, STILL fails to meet any reasoned test of “imminent threat” or “clear and present danger.”

The story you referenced as your ULTIMATE proof was true. Your interpretation on the lies you and the rest of the Bushists add are what is false. It took about 90 seconds to disprove your lie. But, as always, these lies are not aimed at me, a person willing to look and understand and research. These lies are aimed at the ignorant, at those who are afraid, at the lazy.

If you are not a liar you are then ignorant, afraid, or lazy. There is no middle ground.
ninaki2000

“The people may have a right to know but that does not mean
they need to know right this instant.”

Tell that to the parents of the 4100 US service personnel who've died in Bush's war.

I understand. I've understood from day 1 that this war was never about WMD. This war was never about terrorists. This war was never about Iraqi freedom. This war was always about one thing and one thing only. Projecting American military power in the oil producing regions of the Middle East.

The single object of Bush's war in Iraq was the overthrowing of the legitimate government of Iraq and the insertion of a puppet government obedient to current US desires. The objective was faulty, the execution flawed, and the goals will never be met.

Occam's Razor. To accept yours, and Bush's explanation I have to believe that all of the intelligence was just wrong, that all of the nations advising the US of the folly of the war were just wrong, that all of the reasons given for the war were true, despite all of the information to the contrary. Sorry, the pieces of your puzzle do not fit properly and the simplest answer is almost always the correct answer. The simplest answer? Bush lied and McCain helped.
ninaki2000

“That is little more than a low blow. You know full well what kinds of things should not be made available to the public just because you can.”

If you are going to kill an American serviceman he, and his family, have the right to know that the cause is just. That the cause is honorable. That the justifications are true. None of those things can be said of Bush' s war.

“The Brits, Italians, French, and Russians, to name a few, all were of the opinion that WMD programs in Iraq were viable and extent.”

And yet none of them supported Bush's war. Actions speak louder than words. OBVIOUSLY, the French, Germans, Russians, countries with an active presence did not consider Iraq a threat.

“Just which nations were those, prior to 2003?”
Germany, France, Russia, to name a few.

“All the so-called info to the contrary came out after the
fact. That sounds a bit like hindsight (always 20/20)”

Yet another Bushist lie. The Weapons Inspectors found no justification for the Bush allegations. Joe Wilson spoke to the lie about purchasing uranium. Yes, there was intel supporting Bush' s position. There was at least as much intel opposing his position. If you're going to kill a US Serviceman, be right because he won't get another chance.

“June 2000 Saddam gave a speech in where he said Iraq would
not disarm…”

In 2002 Saddam released a report to the UN detailing the absence of WMD and weapons programs. What? Was he honest and believable in 2000 but a liar in 2002? The CIA's own evaluation said that Iraq was unlikely to use WMD unless they were attacked. Was Bush trying to get Iraq to use WMD? No, he didn't believe they existed. The lies he told were for people like you.

“That reconstitution is why I believe those “weather stations” were hidden.”
Belief is not truth. Belief is not fact. The facts are that absolutely none of the reasons given for Bush' s war in Iraq were true. The facts are that had Bush not intended to invade and overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq so that he could then, with the agreement of Iraq's new government, use Iraq as a military base, he would not have cherry picked that information to produce a false threat. A threat that never existed. And, most important,

It is a fact that John McCain had access to all of that information and either failed to realize the truth or was complicent in the lies. In either case, McCain does not deserve another chance to fail his nation.
Anonymous
Anonymous

The Michigan Messenger

Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

Active Conversations

Lose your house, lose your vote

Comments

Trending Now

AINN Affiliates

The American Independent News Network:

American Independent

Colorado Independent

Florida Independent

Iowa Independent

Minnesota Independent

New Mexico Independent

Texas Independent