Ten Years Later: Yup, It Was Torture

It certainly took long enough. The new 577-page torture report from The Constitution Project’s bipartisan commission concluded (emphasis added):

The question as to whether U.S. forces and agents engaged in torture has been complicated by the existence of two vocal camps in the public debate. This has been particularly vexing for traditional journalists who are trained and accustomed to recording the arguments of both sides in a dispute without declaring one right and the other wrong. The public may simply perceive that there is no right side, as there are two equally fervent views held views on a subject, with substantially credentialed people on both sides. In this case, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that among those who insist that the United States did not engage in torture are figures who served at the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

But this Task Force is not bound by this convention.

The members, coming from a wide political spectrum, believe that arguments that the nation did not engage in torture and that much of what occurred should be defined as something less than torture are not credible.

Robert Parry:

Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do.

The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

Interestingly enough, Section 3286 of the USA PATRIOT Act effectively abolished the statute of limitations for torture.

The U.N. Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan in 1988, compels all signatories who discover credible allegations that government officials have participated or been complicit in torture to “submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution” (Art. 7(1)).

Glenn Greenwald:

The disgrace of the American torture regime falls on Bush officials and secondarily the media and political institutions that acquiesced to it, but the full-scale protection of those war crimes (and the denial of justice to their victims) falls squarely on the Obama administration.

UPDATE: George W. Bush Library Opens, Amnesia Ensues

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2013 - 7:23 pm

    Interestingly enough, Section 3286 of the USA PATRIOT Act effectively abolished the statute of limitations for torture.

    But there is that little problem with precedence called, “retroactive immunity” – for some of us.

    Besides, they were all just college pranks anyway.

    • #2 by Glenden Brown on April 23, 2013 - 10:04 pm

      So I’m still working my way through the report but I am proud to point out that one of the authors, David Irvine, is both a Utahn and my second cousin.

      The summary of findings in the first chapter is a depressing litany of every criticism of the Bush administration’s policies and some acute ones of the Obama administration’s policies. I found it concerning to read all the ways in which our nation went wrong in the last twelve years.

  2. #3 by cav on April 23, 2013 - 7:42 pm

    Every time either GWB or Darth opened their yaps, it was torture!

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2013 - 10:50 pm

    I would actually go back 13 years, to the theft of the 2000 election, but that;s just me.

    Nobody here ever seems to make a connection with election theft and disaster.

    Corporate voting machines matter. Yes they do!

    What’s the saying? (paraphrasing) Fool me once – fool, fool – Won’t get fooled again!

  4. #5 by brewski on April 23, 2013 - 11:23 pm

    “After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

    Is that supposed to be a joke?

    If it were true then a few of Obama’s bundlers and closest advisors would be in jail now for all of their crimes.

    • #6 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2013 - 8:45 am

      The point being they agree in principle, but not in practice. Not a joke, you just didn’t understand.

      • #7 by brewski on April 24, 2013 - 9:08 am

        Principle without practice is either hypocrisy or deceit.

        • #8 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2013 - 9:10 am

          Which again is the point here. You’re agreeing with me.

          • #9 by brewski on April 24, 2013 - 9:35 am

            I am still trying to get a handle on this sentence:

            “everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

            I mean, there is the mindset among the Oligarchy Class that the rules don’t really apply to them. You know, you can intentionally cheat on your taxes and still become Secretary of the Treasury and everyone else in the Oligarchy Class will defend you.

            So they may say something at a cocktail party or at a fundraiser to the plebes about how “no man is above the law”, but they really don’t believe it.

  5. #10 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2013 - 11:37 pm

    Can we talk about whether Bush or Cheney tortured innocent people here?

    After that, we can move on to Obama.

    Deal?

  6. #11 by brewski on April 24, 2013 - 7:18 am

    No deal.

  7. #12 by Cliff on April 24, 2013 - 1:40 pm

    Larry both Bush elections were stolen. A sick and sorry fact.

    The subsequent lies, war crimes, torture, massive deficit and global economic collapse, all at the hands of Republicans, forces us, for the first time in our lives, to consider that anyone still affiliated with the GOP is not only a danger to the country and world, but also a form of putrid scum deserving of nothing if not secret FEMA camp labor/detention for life.

    • #13 by cav on April 24, 2013 - 11:26 pm

      But, chads were hanging!

  8. #14 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2013 - 3:33 pm

    Reagan’s administration started the downslide, but the stolen election, 911, and the second stolen election definitely sealed the fate of this country. Not a thing has been done about ensuring fair elections yet.

    Take a look at this.

    Click on the “shopped” image to blow it up. Are we supposed to think those white women are twins. Just bizarre.

  9. #15 by brewski on April 25, 2013 - 7:55 am

    The main reason to not vote for any Democrats is to make sure that Authoritarians like Cliff never are in charge of us. I’d vote for a potted plant before I’d let someone who poisons children for a living run my country.

  10. #16 by Richard Warnick on April 25, 2013 - 10:42 am

    Barbara Bush Says “We’ve Had Enough Bushes” As President

    In an interview Thursday with NBC‘s Today show, she was asked if her son Jeb should run for President in 2016. “He’s by far the most qualified man,” she said. “But no.” And she didn’t stop there. “I think it’s a great country,” she continued. “There are a lot of great families, and it’s not just four families or whatever. There are other people out there that are very qualified. We’ve had enough Bushes.” To top it off she added, “He’ll get all our enemies and half our friends.”

    She could have gone on to say that not only has the Bush family worn out its welcome, but the Republican Party has too.

  11. #17 by Richard Warnick on April 25, 2013 - 1:46 pm

    Worst President Ever. 50 reasons why.

  12. #18 by brewski on April 25, 2013 - 4:30 pm

    Well that was easy to skewer:
    From your source, #1 is not true:
    “Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore….
    Gore followed a legal strategy that would have led to his defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to one interpretation set for publication.”

  13. #19 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2013 - 8:47 pm

    Brewski:

    You probably think the 2004 election wasn’t rigged too.

    You really need to read up on Greg Palast, who usually doesn’t even get into the voting machines because there’s no way to know what really went on inside those things. That’s why we’re using them.

  14. #20 by brewski on April 25, 2013 - 10:58 pm

    Larry,
    I am sorry the evidence is that Gore lost in the way that Gore asked for a partial recount. Every lawsuit needs a plaintiff and he was the plaintiff and if he had won the suit he would have lost the election. Richard’s source says so.

    As for 2004. W won because of Michael Moore and Gavin Newsome. Blame them. They handed it to W.

    • #21 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2013 - 11:42 pm

      You must be getting your elections mixed up. Are you talking about Moore’s and Newsome’s support of Ralph Nader in the 2000 race?

      You mean Richard’s source which said:

      A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election commissioned by the nation’s main media outlets shows Al Gore edged ahead of George W. Bush “under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide,”

      Al Gore DID ask for a statewide recount later on. Wouldn’t you say that the republicans sending fake rioters in to Florida to stop a hand recount was election theft?

      None of your talking points takes into account the votes stolen from people who had names that were similar to felons names and a plethora of other vote stealing methods that were used right out in the open during the 2012 election.

      Concerning the 2004 “election”, I guess you’ve never heard of Kenneth Blackwell.

      • #22 by brewski on April 26, 2013 - 9:09 am

        Gore, as plaintiff, did not ask for a ballot by ballot state recount. As plaintiff in the suit be asked for a partial recount. As Richard’s source says, if he had been granted the partial recount that he asked for, Gore would have lost. I am sorry for you that the facts don’t support your assertion.

        No, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 released in 2004 and Gavin Newsome’s unilateral decision to start marrying gay couples in San Francisco only rather than going through the channels of the courts or the voters created a backlash which caused W to win the 2004 election by 3 million votes. I am sorry for you that the facts don’t support your assertion.

        • #23 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2013 - 11:28 pm

          You’re wrong. Gore did ask for an entire state recount, which the “news” papers said would be close under any scenario. That’s ridiculous. The so called, liberal, media did NOTHING to inform us of the myriad of election fraud techniques being used by the republicans which, if exposed, would have have forced a statewide recount, as Gore requested.

          Voter caging, not providing enough machines in poor counties, fake felony classifications of black people, black people being told to vote on the wrong day, on site intimidation of blacks, ect, ect , ect.

          The damn race was never even close.

          Michael Moore’s most popular documentary ever, caused the election to be lost? I thought it was the soccer moms.

          I have to admit brewski, you and your people at Free Republic are wearing me out. In fact, you can HAVE this mess.

          • #24 by brewski on April 29, 2013 - 8:02 am

            Then Richard’s source must be wrong.
            Larry, show me your source that Gore asked for in his suit a full ballot by ballot recount.

          • #25 by Larry Bergan on April 29, 2013 - 8:16 pm

            brewski says:

            Then Richard’s source must be wrong.
            Larry, show me your source that Gore asked for in his suit a full ballot by ballot recount.

            Gore never had to file a suit. Florida law required an automatic HAND recount in that close of an election. Bush was the only one who filed a suit.

  15. #26 by cav on April 25, 2013 - 11:46 pm

    Ten years later, and many have yet to discover the underlying logic seems to have been that invading Iraq on false pretenses and killing hundreds of thousands of its residents – not to mention thousands of the invaders, is not what was wrong with the invasion of Iraq. What was wrong with it is that we didn’t “win”.

    So, as this logic goes, increasing troop levels enough to damp down the civil war we caused just enough so we could get out is the kind of achievement that the following President seems to have been sainted for. It’s like saying that someone getting half of his firefighters out of a burning building alive is a major accomplishment, without mentioning that Bush was the one who intentionally set the building on fire. And it was the wrong building. Of course, none of it would have been possible without the rest of the PNAC Mafiosi.

    After that, even as the withdrawal is all something of a subterfuge, as opposed to the promised transparency, many, newer crimes appear acceptable because they’re done by a Nominal Democrat.

    • #27 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2013 - 11:52 pm

      To steal a line from the movie “A Fish Called Wanda”:

      We didn’t lose the Vietnam, (Iraq) war! It was a tie!

  16. #28 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2013 - 11:47 pm

    Yeah, Bush won in 2000 and 2004, but only if you believe waterboarding isn’t torture and the water isn’t wet.

    Give it up. The fight for the truth is over for the liars without names. The younger generation knows what happened and they’re not going away.

  17. #29 by cav on April 26, 2013 - 8:20 am

    I think we all knew that Obama had only the briefest window of opportunity to start any reversal of the calamities of the Bush years. It was a little startling how quickly he pissed the opportunity away. It almost seems as if that was really his intent.

    Too many brunches with former presidents (orientation sessions for the newbs) will instill a different perspective in the minds of our chosen representatives.

    • #30 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2013 - 8:48 am

      I suppose President Obama realized that if he set out to reverse all of Bush’s malfeasance, nothing else could be on the agenda. OTOH it was what he was elected to do.

      • #31 by brewski on April 26, 2013 - 9:11 am

        Like closing GITMO?

        How did that go for him?

        • #32 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2013 - 9:35 am

          President Bush, February 2009: “I very much would like to end Guantanamo.”

          But Republicans abruptly reversed their position as soon as President Obama suggested the same thing. That’s how it went.

          The situation now:

          There are still 166 men there — virtually all of them held without charges, some for more than a decade. More than half have been cleared for release but are still imprisoned…

          Only six are facing active charges. Nearly 50 more are deemed too dangerous for release but not suitable for trial because they are not linked to any specific attack or because the evidence against them is tainted by torture.

          Torture continues, as 93 detainees on hunger strike are subjected to force-feeding.

          • #33 by brewski on April 26, 2013 - 9:45 am

            Please tell me you are joking that in 2009 when Obama was commander in chief and Bush was playing golf in Dallas that you are blaming Gitmo not closing on the GOP. Who cares what the GOP did or didn’t do in 2009. Obama is Commander in Chief. He is the Chief Executive. He doesn’t need Congress at all or the GOP at all to close the detention center at Gitmo. Your argument is vacuous low budget partisan spin.

    • #34 by brewski on April 29, 2013 - 8:04 am

      Obama pissed it away the opportunity before he took office. He packed his team with a bunch of insiders and cronyists who had no intention of changing anything. It was all about power and not about change.

  18. #35 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2013 - 10:01 am

    If I were commander-in-chief, I would have put the Guantanamo detainees on a plane on Day 1. But Obama didn’t do that, and Congress has used its spending oversight authority to prevent executive action.

    In a strange twist of history, Congress, through its control of government funds, is now imposing curbs on the very executive powers that the Bush administration invoked to establish the camps at Guantánamo in the first place. Much of its intransigence is driven by the politics of fear: What if, for example, a captive is acquitted in a civilian trial because the judge bars evidence obtained by the military without benefit of counsel? When will another freed Guantánamo detainee attack a U.S. target or interest, such as when Abdullah al Ajami, who was transferred to Kuwait in 2005, blew himself up in a truck bomb attack in Iraq in 2008?

  19. #36 by brewski on April 26, 2013 - 11:11 am

    “over the past couple years a powerful al Qaida offshoot has taken hold in Yemen, the very country where the Obama administration had planned to transfer many detainees. Sending dozens of suspected terrorists back to a country besieged by a growing terrorist threat is hardly good politics or security policy.”

    Oops.

    • #37 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2013 - 11:27 am

      And why is there growing hostility to the USA in Yemen?

      This Yemeni Man Loves America, Hates al-Qaeda, and Says Drone Strikes Make Them Stronger

      Yemenis imprisoned unjustly in Guantanamo are probably not happy with the USA either. So we ought to what, keep them in prison for the rest of their lives without charges?

      Our politicians know most Americans have little knowledge of other countries, and foreign policy is way down on their list of concerns. But that’s no excuse for engaging in irresponsible, even illegal, acts. If somebody from Yemen attacks us to get even, then our clueless media will go into “Why do they hate us?” mode as if we never killed any Yemenis.

  20. #38 by cav on April 26, 2013 - 1:49 pm

    Blow-back isn’t something the media grasps too well.

  21. #39 by brewski on April 26, 2013 - 2:25 pm

    Who are you asking? I didn’t say there is growing hostility to the USA in Yemen.

    I though Obama “reset” our foreign relations and with the middle east in particular in 2009. So with all of Obama’s new openness and understanding of the Muslim world then why would there be growing hostility? Isn’t that what the “reset” was all about? No more colonialism. No more imperialism. No more use of the phrase “Muslim Terrorist” since it might hurt someone’s feelings.

    • #40 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2013 - 3:10 pm

      Thanks for giving us the Faux News Channel version. In reality, the Obama administration is hammering little villages from the air much more than Bush ever did: 379 drone strikes — nearly eight times more than the Bush administration. Of those attacks, 72 occurred in Yemen.

      Imagine if somebody was doing this to Americans. We would of course label it “terrorism” and go to war against our attackers.

      Experts: Obama’s drone strike policy pushes legal boundaries

  22. #41 by brewski on April 30, 2013 - 10:02 am

    Larry,
    “Florida’s election laws allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade, which are counties that traditionally vote Democratic and would be expected to garner more votes for Gore. Gore did not, however, request any recounts in counties that traditionally vote Republican.”

    • #42 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2013 - 6:11 pm

      So what if Gore originally requested counting those counties. What would have stopped Bush from calling for a statewide hand recount instead of having a bunch of fake rioter thugs from making sure Gore didn’t get ahead before the thugs in the national supreme court could violate states rights – something which Sandra Day O’Connor recently said left a stain on the court.

      Bush wasn’t going to ask for a hand recount because he knew he lost. The only thing to do was to cheat.

      • #43 by brewski on April 30, 2013 - 7:26 pm

        So you admit your statement was false. Thank you.

        • #44 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2013 - 7:28 pm

          Just what statement was that?

  23. #45 by brewski on April 30, 2013 - 9:12 pm

    That Gore asked for a full statewide ballot by ballot hand recount.

    He didn’t.

  24. #46 by brewski on April 30, 2013 - 9:16 pm

    Besides, would you really want Al Gore given his scandal-plagued career as your President? He makes W look like Mother Theresa. The scandals that Gore has been involved in are numerous and seedy. How could you possibly support him?

    • #47 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2013 - 10:11 pm

      It doesn’t matter how many times you say it brewski, Gore DID ask for a statewide recount. He may not have used the words, “ballot by ballot”, and he didn’t need to. It was the law to do a hand recount, and that’s exactly what they were doing before the fake rioters showed up. I never said Gore didn’t originally ask for a limited recount and that was a mistake, but he DID ask for a statewide recount later on. Bush never did because he had the Supreme Court, as you know.

      Fake – Brook’s Brothers – rioters and Sandra Day O’Conner’s 180 don’t show up on your radar, because YOU must be a fake. Start making sense and prove me wrong.

      • #48 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 7:43 am

        Source please.

        • #49 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2013 - 6:11 pm

          Sandra Day O’Connor statement.

          Fake rioters in Florida who shut down the hand count and the great jobs they got in the government for doing so. The Washington Post story shows a blank square where THIS picture used to be:

          • #50 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 9:51 pm

            I meant show me the source which shows that it is false that “Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade, which are counties that traditionally vote Democratic and would be expected to garner more votes for Gore. Gore did not, however, request any recounts in counties that traditionally vote Republican.”

            You keeo repeating in a Goebbelian way that Gore asked for a statewide recount. He did not. He asked for four Dem counties only. Period. You lied. He lost.

            As for your picture, so what? I am sure you could do the same thing with any picture from Madison and find all the paid union operatives and Guido thugs.

  25. #51 by cav on April 30, 2013 - 10:01 pm

    I supported Mother Theresa.

  26. #52 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2013 - 10:20 pm

    Yeah, Al Gore makes Stalin look like Jesus. :)

    I have noticed that NOBODY is attacking his new book. Gee, I wonder why?

    • #53 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 9:52 pm

      Jesus has a new book?

  27. #54 by cav on April 30, 2013 - 10:31 pm

    It wasn’t that we didn’t locate all of the WMD in Iraq that we unleashed the US military combat beast of war over.

    It wasn’t that we found only 25% of the WMD we were looking for.

    We found nothing.

    By ‘we’ I mean W.

    We didn’t deserve this shit, and would have been better off had Al Gore not been gyped by the likes of the not-so-supreme court.

    • #55 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2013 - 10:58 pm

      If there’s one thing we can take to our grave, it’s the fact that Al Gore is the most scandal-plagued politician in all human history.

      His wife wanted to censor music, AND, he promoted the internet!!! :)

  28. #56 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 8:46 am

    1. Al Gore was on the Board of Directors and on its Compensation Committee when Apple violated the law and backdated its executive stock options
    “Boards of directors with audit and compen­sation committees are supposed to prevent this by representing our interests. We rely on them to keep those keys locked up. They failed. At Apple, none other than Al Gore is on the board’s compensation committee. He and fellow director Jerome York were all too happy to clear Steve Jobs of wrongdoing.”

    2. Al Gore sells Current TV to global warmers the Qatar royal family
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/22334/an-inconvenient-truth-al-gore-sells-current-tv-to-the-emir-of-fossil-fuels

    3. Gore attends an event at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles that nets the Democratic National Committee close to $65,000 from donors. In September 1997, a trio of Buddhist nuns from the temple admit in Senate testimony that the temple illegally reimbursed guests for their donations. Gore later denies knowing the gathering at the temple was a fundraiser, describing the event as “community outreach.”

    4. Al Gore sexually assaults massage therapist. “The Washington Post reported last week that Hagerty wanted $1 million for the story. According to police transcripts, the masseuse — who said she voted for Gore in the 2000 presidential race — said Gore called her to a downtown hotel room where he made unwanted sexual advances and acted like a “crazed sex poodle.” “

    • #57 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2013 - 5:52 pm

      Is that all you got?

      There are stories out there about the absolute corruption of Jimmy Carter too, but I’m not buying.

      • #58 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 9:54 pm

        You can vote for the corporatist global warming 1-percenter plutocrat. I won’t.

  29. #59 by cav on May 1, 2013 - 9:11 am

    I’m not going to throw a tit for brew’s tat, but somewhere in all of this corruption the deaths of perhaps a million innocents ought to weigh in.

    But even with that heinous dimension removed, I wouldn’t dare suppose the Bush Admin would be free of shadowy executive stock options, sexy White House visitors (I mean, Karl Rove himself was an irresistible ‘magnet’), attempts to sell off shipping port security and operations to his friends in the Middle East, or the like.

    What I’d like to bring into question, is why exactly, whoever might have been elected or appointed to the presidency, there seems to be an un-elected plutocracy that unquestionably pulls the strings. And, how do we alter this unseemly, self defeating, arrangement?

  30. #60 by cav on May 1, 2013 - 10:26 am

    Happy 10th Birthday to:

    “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”

  31. #61 by cav on May 1, 2013 - 12:21 pm

    Speaking from the Milkin Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills yesterday, Al Gore told Bloomberg News that he helped prevent a “violent revolution” by accepting the Supreme Court’s verdict in Bush v. Gore.

    • #62 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 12:55 pm

      Milken, as in convicted felon Milken. Nuff said.

    • #63 by Richard Warnick on May 1, 2013 - 1:00 pm

      I hope he was joking. Gore 2000 had negative charisma, so it’s quite a stretch to think anybody would take up arms to make him President. Or did he mean the righties would revolt if the Dems didn’t surrender?

      • #64 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2013 - 5:56 pm

        Things probably weren’t bad enough for most Americans in 2000 to predict a violent revolution, but if Social Security goes away or these austerity programs and climate change ignorance start to leave younger people helpless, who knows?

        • #65 by brewski on May 1, 2013 - 9:56 pm

          Social Security will go away. It’s arithmetic.

          • #66 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2013 - 11:03 pm

            brewski:

            You said it. I didn’t.

            The youth in this country are not going to college because, no-matter how much they make – unless their parents are extravagantly rich – are NOT going to college.

          • #67 by brewski on May 2, 2013 - 8:41 am

            The youth of this country are going to college and getting watered down fake educations where the students post reviews of their professors saying how you can get an A without doing any reading or actual work.

  32. #68 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2013 - 5:48 pm

    If Gore had won the federal Supreme Court case, the next plan the Republicans had was to simply take the election using electors. The effort was to be lead by Tom Feeney, the man who tried to commission Clint Curtis to write vote stealing software which would switch the votes.

    Even though Clint Curtis is on video, in court and under oath stating that truth, it has NEVER been reported by the “liberal” media. But why WOULD they report on it? Time after time, they have hidden their own exit polls when the voting machine totals get switched at midnight after each election.

    • #69 by Richard Warnick on May 2, 2013 - 9:13 am

      Exit polls are routinely used overseas to monitor the honest counting of votes in elections. So it bothers me that they are kept under wraps in America.

      I seem to recall Chris Matthews spilled the beans on-air one time.

      • #70 by brewski on May 2, 2013 - 9:23 am

        I look forward to the Democratic President ordering an investigation on this.

        • #71 by cav on May 2, 2013 - 9:49 am

          Every thumb must must be dipped in purple dye at least once every four years. Every!

      • #72 by Richard Warnick on May 2, 2013 - 10:13 am

        This is the story I remembered. Matthews wasn’t supposed to tell us the exit poll results.

        Chris Matthews: Raw Exit Poll Data ‘Indicated Significant Victory’ for Obama in NH

        • #73 by cav on May 2, 2013 - 10:19 am

          “If the exit polls got the results wrong, why do we think they got the real ballot count right?”

          My twisted emphasis and typo fix.

          Good article Richard.

      • #74 by Larry Bergan on May 2, 2013 - 4:59 pm

        Another very good question is why “BradBlog” has been practically the only outlet gathering information about election fraud in America.

        And now, for the next outrage!

        Are you kidding me? Kerry cares about elections in Venezuela, but not his own?

        Also the United States spent millions to ensure there were reliable exit polls in Kiev Russia years ago. This is mind bending stuff.

  33. #75 by Larry Bergan on May 2, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Listen up Brewski:

    I already said above that I knew Gore had originally asked for a four county recount. I guess you intentionally missed it.

    Here is Al Gore on the Diane Rehm Show recently [emphasis mine]:

    REHM

    All right. I want to ask you a question I’ve wanted to ask you ever since the 2000 election. And that is, considering that it was so close and considering that some on your team were urging you to stay in the fight and have a recount of the total state of Florida, which could have made the difference, why did you decide not to do that?

    GORE

    Well, there’s a lot of mythology woven through the memories of those events. I actually did exactly that and asked for a full recount of the entire state. And it was rejected.

    I saw him ask for it with my own eyes when he did it. It was never rebroadcast by the “liberal” media.

  34. #76 by brewski on May 3, 2013 - 11:14 am

    A quote from Gore is not evidence.

    • #77 by Larry Bergan on May 3, 2013 - 8:43 pm

      I said I saw Gore ask for the entire state recount with my own eyes.

      What’s the use. You’re too dense.

      • #78 by brewski on May 3, 2013 - 9:59 pm

        Where and when?

        • #79 by Larry Bergan on May 3, 2013 - 10:57 pm

          You’re too dense right here and right now.

          If you stop reading the junk you’re reading or watching, there’s a chance for you, but you’re probably going to have to start working for a living.

          • #80 by brewski on May 4, 2013 - 9:11 am

            I see no evidence that Gore asked for a statewide recount at the time.

            I have read several different summaries of the case and they all say Gore only requested recounts in selected counties. Gore saying on TV something different just goes to what sort of a person he is.

          • #81 by Larry Bergan on May 4, 2013 - 11:14 am

            There’s no changing your mind.

            I give!

  35. #82 by cav on May 3, 2013 - 11:46 am

    Albert lied…people died! Er, oh, wait…

  36. #83 by brewski on May 4, 2013 - 12:35 pm

    I change my mind with evidence. Not because someone said so. Please try evidence and telling me that someone said so is not evidence.

    • #84 by Larry Bergan on May 4, 2013 - 2:36 pm

      Like I said [sort of; but I'll lay it out here]:

      If you don’t know by now that our elections are being stolen, you don’t believe in a democracy or a democratic republic.

      In other words:

      KEEP VOTING!

      MAKE them steal it!

      • #85 by brewski on May 4, 2013 - 2:56 pm

        I am waiting for the FBI investigation led by Eric Holder.

        • #86 by Larry Bergan on May 4, 2013 - 4:12 pm

          Brew-who:

          Don’t hold your breath’

          Keep voting for Republican asswipes on the machines!

          • #87 by brewski on May 4, 2013 - 4:40 pm

            Oh so Holder is in on it too?

            You must be a racist.

        • #88 by cav on May 4, 2013 - 5:38 pm

          You’ll never know til it either falls from the sky or whaps you up side the head. Or both!

          Holder, awright!

  37. #89 by Larry Bergan on May 4, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    It was good to see Jeb get whaped upside by his own mother last week, but I don’t think it sunk in.

    Thick heads abound!

    Eisenhower put it best: ‘stupid Texas oilmen’.

  38. #90 by brewski on May 4, 2013 - 10:57 pm

    I can’t stand Jeb.

    • #91 by cav on May 4, 2013 - 11:59 pm

      You’re not alone in that. In fact, the whole Bush clan is deserving of disdain, some of them even prison time.

    • #92 by Larry Bergan on May 5, 2013 - 7:52 pm

      I gotta hear this.

      What do you hate about Jeb?

      • #93 by brewski on May 5, 2013 - 10:15 pm

        He’s into open borders, lowering wages for the working class, telling us we better learn Spanish.

        • #94 by Larry Bergan on May 5, 2013 - 10:38 pm

          Well I guess that’s a fair reply.

          How did Jebs plan differ from W’s, whom you defend?

  39. #95 by brewski on May 6, 2013 - 7:38 am

    Since when did I defend W?

    W’s is all about open borders and cheap labor too.

    The whole illegal immigration issue is not left vs right or Republican vs Democrat. It is elite vs working class. The elites on both the left and right want more immigrants. The Democratic elites want them for the votes, the Republican elites want them for cheap labor. If you are a working class person of either stripe you should be against this as it will lower your wage and be a burden on local services.

    My proposal would be that every Congressman, Senator and President who is in favor of this amnesty bullshit has to send their kids to school where more than 75% of the other students don’t speak English.

  40. #96 by cav on May 6, 2013 - 8:38 am

    We should pay congress critters and the presidency by how much sane legislation and moves toward peace they are able to put together (IOW piece-work). We’d save billions.

  41. #97 by brewski on May 6, 2013 - 9:10 am

    1. Send their kids to schools where 75% of their classmates don’t speak English

    2. They can only fly commercial and coach and no separate security line or preference.

    3. No pension – they can save on their own

    4. No health care plan – they can go buy it on their own

    5. They have to prepare their own taxes by hand

    6. All of the above for their staff as well

    7. No pay at all without a balanced budget on time.

  42. #98 by cav on May 6, 2013 - 10:15 am

    8. Furlough 10% of em.

    9. If any of their spawn flounder in their education, reduce further any rewards they might be due.

    10. Piss in cup.

    Airport screening, etc.

  43. #99 by Larry Bergan on May 6, 2013 - 6:26 pm

    Dennis Kucinich was trying to start a Department of Peace. What a crazy concept.

    The Department of Defense should definitely be called The Department of War, as it started.

  44. #100 by Larry Bergan on May 6, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    How about getting rid of cheap labor by raising the minimum wage for everybody, including me.

    • #101 by brewski on May 6, 2013 - 9:01 pm

      I’d rather raise demand and lower the supply for labor than dictate a price. Dictating a wage doesn’t change the supply and demand forces.

      • #102 by Larry Bergan on May 6, 2013 - 11:54 pm

        I don’t know what you just said, but you said it yourself.

        Hopefully, this blog will cast in in concrete.

        But, then you haven’t a name.

        You win!

  45. #103 by cav on May 7, 2013 - 8:07 am

    Larry, brewski responded similarly with ‘supply and demand’ adjustments on The Rodney Boyer’ Opinion thread. But, I believe he wrote there about adjusting (downward, I suppose) the supply of Labor.

    To my way of thinking that is sort of contrary to the need of jobs jobs jobs that we all know would satisfy Main Street’s econ woes.

    Now the ‘labor’ where the laborer is quite fungible, expendable, like soldiering, always seems to be in the money flow. US Africa Command (AFRICOM), according to the paper, “supports military-to-military relationships with 54 African nations.”

    Solar, wind, and the like, not so much.

    There’s something about our real moral compass they’re not telling us.

    • #104 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 5:30 pm

      If I had any money to spare, oh, say if they raised my wages or something I could participate in this supply and demand thing I keep hearing about.

      I would love to have enough money to buy every solar panel that’s being made and put them on every home I could find. If I did that, I’d probably get kicked out of the billionaires club and that would be fine with me. I’d have a bunch of new friends who cared about the world.

      Nice to dream.

      • #105 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 8:33 pm

        Wouldn’t you like to have more demand for your labor driving up your wage?

        The Democrats just want to lower it.

  46. #106 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 8:52 am

    Flooding the labor market with millions of low skilled, non English speaking, uneducated illegal immigrants does not help Main Street as much as it helps Calle Mayor.

    • #107 by Richard Warnick on May 7, 2013 - 9:54 am

      Studies show that a 10 percent share increase of immigrant labor results in roughly a 1 percent reduction in native wages-a very minor effect… [C]ritics of this type of insourcing worry that jobs are being taken away from native-born Americans in favor of low-wage foreigners. Recent data suggest that these fears are overblown.”

      “The Real Problem with Immigration… and the Real Solution”
      By Tim Kane, Ph.D. and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
      The Heritage Foundation

  47. #108 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 12:06 pm

    Bullshit:

    “”This would really cripple the system,” said William Heffernan, professor of rural sociology at the University of Missouri who has studied immigrant labor. ”In the communities where these plants are located there isn’t an alternative work force. They’d have to raise wages and improve the conditions.”

    Until 15 or 20 years ago, meatpacking plants in the United States were staffed by highly paid, unionized employees who earned about $18 an hour, adjusted for inflation. Today, the processing and packing plants are largely staffed by low-paid non-union workers from places like Mexico and Guatemala. Many of them start at $6 an hour.”

    New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

  48. #109 by cav on May 7, 2013 - 4:07 pm

    “They’d have to raise wages and improve the conditions.”

    Spoken as if it was a bad thing.

  49. #110 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 5:06 pm

    In other words, with the availability of all of these illegal immigrants, they get to make wages lower and have crappy conditions. But it’s not like we need to take the word for it from the professor. He must be a racist.

    QED

  50. #111 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 9:05 pm

    I’m a little bit too young to be a actual “hippie/communist”, but I still want everything to be happy.

    I’m not a killjoy.

    I don’t mind seeing others who are happier then me because it makes me happier.

    Billionaires don’t seem to be that happy. They’re fighting all the time, trying to climb over each other.

    This seems crazy to me.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: