Thursday, February 17, 2005

Bush Stole the Election – Part III

Regular readers of this blog know that I am firmly in the tinfoil hat brigrade when it comes to believing that the last presidential election was stolen by the Bushites. There are many reasons why I believe this is the case, but as usual I seem to see things that others don’t. My main reason has to do with the extreme discrepancy between the exit polls done on the day of the election and the actual vote count.

In general, in the main stream media, there has been a predictable silence about this issue. However, Christopher Hitchens, a Bush supporter, has written a good summary of the reason why to believe the vote was hacked, at least in Ohio, in this month’s Vanity Fair. To read this I actually bought the magazine and here is some of what he says:



I would myself tend to discount most of the above [evidence of voter suppression and vote rigging], since an ogliarchy bent on stealing an election would probably not announce itself so brashly as to fit into a Michael Moore script...

However, there is one soothing explanation that I don't trust anymore. It was often said, in reply to charges of vote tampering, that it would have had to be a "conspiracy so immense" as to involve a dangerously large number of people. Indeed, some Ohio Democrats themselves laughed off some of the charges, saying that they too would have had to be part of the plan. The stakes are very high: one defector or turncoat with hard evidence could send the principals to jail forever and permanently discredit the party that had engaged in fraud.

I had the chance to spend quality time with someone who came to me well recommended, who did not believe that fraud had yet actually been demonstrated, whose background was in the manufacture of the machines, and who wanted to be anonymous. It certainly could be done, she said, and only a very, very few people, would have to be "in on it."


I would myself tend to discount most of the above [evidence of voter suppression and vote rigging], since an ogliarchy bent on stealing an election would probably not announce itself so brashly as to fit into a Michael Moore script...

However, there is one soothing explanation that I don't trust anymore. It was often said, in reply to charges of vote tampering, that it would have had to be a "conspiracy so immense" as to involve a dangerously large number of people. Indeed, some Ohio Democrats themselves laughed off some of the charges, saying that they too would have had to be part of the plan. The stakes are very high: one defector or turncoat with hard evidence could send the principals to jail forever and permanently discredit the party that had engaged in fraud.

I had the chance to spend quality time with someone who came to me well recommended, who did not believe that fraud had yet actually been demonstrated, whose background was in the manufacture of the machines, and who wanted to be anonymous. It certainly could be done, she said, and only a very, very few people, would have to be "in on it.


I started typing a lot of the specifics from the article and realized that I would have to reproduce it all to provide the full weight of the evidence - from voter suppression to statistical anomaly after statistical anomaly - all in Bush's favor. Go buy the magazine and read the article. Then spit in the direction of Ohio.

Other things to read on this issue

|