Friday, October 03, 2003
Ouch!
I think I was a little naive in my letter to J concerning the "war" between the White House and the CIA:
CIA officers are career people, and there is a lot of pride in their work. They are not political appointees, advancing certain ideology.
Of course they are advancing ideology. Unfortunately, the CIA and the Executive Branch have come to be fed from the same river: distortion for the sake of success in advancing their beliefs, only, the CIA is the "victim" this time. There is no room for honesty, for the most part, in any branch of government, as long as there is perceived ideological territory to be lost and protected.
CIA officers are career people, and there is a lot of pride in their work. They are not political appointees, advancing certain ideology.
Of course they are advancing ideology. Unfortunately, the CIA and the Executive Branch have come to be fed from the same river: distortion for the sake of success in advancing their beliefs, only, the CIA is the "victim" this time. There is no room for honesty, for the most part, in any branch of government, as long as there is perceived ideological territory to be lost and protected.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:46 PM |
We find ourselves in An Unenviable Situation.
Damn if I can find anyone with a point of view quite like An Unenviable Situation. I get a head lift when I read him. Not sure what that means, but that's what I feel:
It's not as if Valerie Plame went around the world calling herself 'Mildred Natwick.' She used her maiden name, and is listed in "Who's Who" as both Plame and Wilson. If that's deep cover, it's amateurish. And I'm more than a little uncomfortable with anyone yelling treason!, whomever they're accusing. Am I really supposed to make a principled defense of the CIA? I'd be happier defending the Catholic Church.
All that we need to do is to continue pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican right; there's there's no need to wrap ourselves in the flag while we're at it. It's stupid, and it's risky.
The above refers more to the take at Buzzflash and The Horse, than it does to Mark Kleiman who's less partisan, and more interested in principle (though not ones I share.) Still, he links to an article in the NY Daily News that has some new information on Plame's job, without even mentioning the absurd context: "She's the perfect spy Outed CIA agent had glamour job & looks to match."
I glad -I'm relieved- all this is happening, and I take it all very seriously. But that doesn't mean I have to take the people involved very seriously.
Sometimes I feel optimistic. But then I think it's probably just despair.
It's not as if Valerie Plame went around the world calling herself 'Mildred Natwick.' She used her maiden name, and is listed in "Who's Who" as both Plame and Wilson. If that's deep cover, it's amateurish. And I'm more than a little uncomfortable with anyone yelling treason!, whomever they're accusing. Am I really supposed to make a principled defense of the CIA? I'd be happier defending the Catholic Church.
All that we need to do is to continue pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican right; there's there's no need to wrap ourselves in the flag while we're at it. It's stupid, and it's risky.
The above refers more to the take at Buzzflash and The Horse, than it does to Mark Kleiman who's less partisan, and more interested in principle (though not ones I share.) Still, he links to an article in the NY Daily News that has some new information on Plame's job, without even mentioning the absurd context: "She's the perfect spy Outed CIA agent had glamour job & looks to match."
I glad -I'm relieved- all this is happening, and I take it all very seriously. But that doesn't mean I have to take the people involved very seriously.
Sometimes I feel optimistic. But then I think it's probably just despair.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:36 PM |
Thursday, October 02, 2003
The "War" Between the White House and the CIA
I posted this letter to a friend. The only thing I would add, is that the "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, by someone in the White House was the final humiliation for the CIA. Number one, it shows such a lack of respect for that agency, and the almost complete contempt the White House shows for the CIA. It did no good for the CIA to bend over in order to manipulate intelligence so that the White House could have its war in Iraq. Valerie Plame and interagency operations are the ones who paid for it.
The White House would have never had the balls to out a CIA operative, if the CIA had stood firm in its intelligence reports. Screw you, you don't get your war, in other words. But the CIA did not stand firm, and the White House, in thanks, pissed on them again by outing Plame.
The CIA is growing its balls back, and look out. Here is my letter:
J,
I think the CIA was pressured to comform to the war wishes of this administration, as evidenced in this Walter Pincus article in the Wash. Post. CIA officers are career people, and there is a lot of pride in their work. They are not political appointees, advancing certain ideology. But what you have under Bush is ideology colliding with actual intelligence gathered by the CIA. What won out, is ideology, for now.
There is also this story, published in the Nation way back on October 10, 2002, detailing the schizoid split, if you will, within the CIA. I think they were being pulled in one direction by the idealogues, while their intelligence actually supported another direction. The final humiliation was the attempt to blame Tenet for the 16 words uttered in the State of the Union Speech. That's when Tenet, according to 'C' on Daily Kos, took off the gloves.
Other articles of note: one by KAREN KWIATOWSKI , a retired Air Force colonel, who in her last three years, worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defence's Under-Secretariat for Policy. She said:
3. Groupthink. Defined as "reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view," groupthink was, and probably remains, the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted fact, and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view. Groupthink leading to invasion and occupation of Iraq will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress.
Based on groupthink, actual intelligence was subverted, and the CIA intelligence officers were swept along in this, much to their dismay. Now the CIA is finding a way to weild its power in the Plame Affair.
Also a hint of things to come was this letter to the White House from retired CIA officers, who called themselves the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, letter dated May 1:
On October 4, 2002, a week before Congress voted on the war resolution, the National Intelligence Council, an interagency body under the CIA Director as head of the entire Intelligence Community, published an unclassified version of a memorandum that had been briefed to Congressmen and Senators over the previous weeks.
Among the key judgments: “Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
The clumsy clause conceals a crass cave-in. The preponderant view, then as now, among nuclear scientists and engineers of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Energy’s national laboratories is that Iraq had not been able to reconstitute in any significant way the nuclear development program dismantled by UN inspectors prior to 1998. The conclusions of the vast majority of analysts dovetailed with the findings repeatedly presented to the UN by International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors after their inspection work at the turn of the year; i. e., that Iraq had no nuclear program worthy of the name.
It's my view 'J', that we aren't the only ones who desire a regime change at home. I'm betting that the CIA resents how it was manipulated to back the invasion of Iraq, and now they are beginning to weild their political muscle. Good for them.
Elizabeth
The White House would have never had the balls to out a CIA operative, if the CIA had stood firm in its intelligence reports. Screw you, you don't get your war, in other words. But the CIA did not stand firm, and the White House, in thanks, pissed on them again by outing Plame.
The CIA is growing its balls back, and look out. Here is my letter:
J,
I think the CIA was pressured to comform to the war wishes of this administration, as evidenced in this Walter Pincus article in the Wash. Post. CIA officers are career people, and there is a lot of pride in their work. They are not political appointees, advancing certain ideology. But what you have under Bush is ideology colliding with actual intelligence gathered by the CIA. What won out, is ideology, for now.
There is also this story, published in the Nation way back on October 10, 2002, detailing the schizoid split, if you will, within the CIA. I think they were being pulled in one direction by the idealogues, while their intelligence actually supported another direction. The final humiliation was the attempt to blame Tenet for the 16 words uttered in the State of the Union Speech. That's when Tenet, according to 'C' on Daily Kos, took off the gloves.
Other articles of note: one by KAREN KWIATOWSKI , a retired Air Force colonel, who in her last three years, worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defence's Under-Secretariat for Policy. She said:
3. Groupthink. Defined as "reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view," groupthink was, and probably remains, the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted fact, and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view. Groupthink leading to invasion and occupation of Iraq will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress.
Based on groupthink, actual intelligence was subverted, and the CIA intelligence officers were swept along in this, much to their dismay. Now the CIA is finding a way to weild its power in the Plame Affair.
Also a hint of things to come was this letter to the White House from retired CIA officers, who called themselves the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, letter dated May 1:
On October 4, 2002, a week before Congress voted on the war resolution, the National Intelligence Council, an interagency body under the CIA Director as head of the entire Intelligence Community, published an unclassified version of a memorandum that had been briefed to Congressmen and Senators over the previous weeks.
Among the key judgments: “Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
The clumsy clause conceals a crass cave-in. The preponderant view, then as now, among nuclear scientists and engineers of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Energy’s national laboratories is that Iraq had not been able to reconstitute in any significant way the nuclear development program dismantled by UN inspectors prior to 1998. The conclusions of the vast majority of analysts dovetailed with the findings repeatedly presented to the UN by International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors after their inspection work at the turn of the year; i. e., that Iraq had no nuclear program worthy of the name.
It's my view 'J', that we aren't the only ones who desire a regime change at home. I'm betting that the CIA resents how it was manipulated to back the invasion of Iraq, and now they are beginning to weild their political muscle. Good for them.
Elizabeth
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:40 AM |
Monday, September 29, 2003
Cheney lies.
Remember that poll that proved Iraqis believe they are better off with the U.S. as occupier? The debunking begins:
That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.
That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.
# posted by scorpiorising : 3:26 PM |
Wesley Clark in Rolling Stone, Kucinich in Denver, and Dean...
Kucinich in Denver today:
"It's only when the very narrow interest of certain economic groups masquerade as national interest does war become part of the discussion," Kucinich said. "We need to begin the work to make war archaic."
Wesley Clark is in this week's issue of Rolling Stone:
People are going to look back in 100 years and ask, "What did you leave behind in this country?" We will leave two legacies. The first is the Constitution, which implements the will of the majority while protecting the minority. The second is the environment. And if you want to protect it, you've got to start now. Unfortunately, this administration has rolled back the legacy we will leave for our children and our grandchildren. I believe in clean air. They believe in letting power plants modernize without pollution controls. I believe in clean water and preserving wetlands. They believe "shit happens." I don't believe in opening up old-growth forests for logging in the name of fire prevention. How would you decrease our reliance on oil imported from the Middle East?
The easy, conventional way is to raise the price of gasoline. But I don't want that. That's a regressive tax -- the people who pay it the most are the people who can afford it the least. There's people in my part of the country, in Arkansas, who are traveling sixty miles a day for a minimum-wage job. If you raise the price of gas to three dollars a gallon, they can't pay that. They're trying to save everything they can right now. The president talks a lot about hydrogen being the fuel of the future, but where are you going to get your hydrogen from? You're probably going to get it out of natural gas -- and a lot of that natural gas is going to come from the Middle East. So I'd raise average-mileage performance on automobiles. That's something we can do right now that will decrease our oil dependence - but it's something the administration has dragged its feet on.
And Howard Dean is, well, attacking Clark:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean accused some party insiders on Sunday of desperation politics in backing Democratic presidential rival Wesley Clark, a retired general who voted Republican in the past.
Dean, who has campaigned as a Washington outsider, said members of the establishment embraced the former NATO commander after White House bids of others in their circle sputtered.
"I think that Wes Clark is, first of all, a good guy," Dean told CBS's "Face the Nation." But Dean added, "I think what you see in the Wes Clark candidacy is a somewhat of a desperation by inside-the-Beltway politicians."
"You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a Republican until 25 days ago," said Dean.
I don't have to point out the one who sounds desperate.
"It's only when the very narrow interest of certain economic groups masquerade as national interest does war become part of the discussion," Kucinich said. "We need to begin the work to make war archaic."
Wesley Clark is in this week's issue of Rolling Stone:
People are going to look back in 100 years and ask, "What did you leave behind in this country?" We will leave two legacies. The first is the Constitution, which implements the will of the majority while protecting the minority. The second is the environment. And if you want to protect it, you've got to start now. Unfortunately, this administration has rolled back the legacy we will leave for our children and our grandchildren. I believe in clean air. They believe in letting power plants modernize without pollution controls. I believe in clean water and preserving wetlands. They believe "shit happens." I don't believe in opening up old-growth forests for logging in the name of fire prevention. How would you decrease our reliance on oil imported from the Middle East?
The easy, conventional way is to raise the price of gasoline. But I don't want that. That's a regressive tax -- the people who pay it the most are the people who can afford it the least. There's people in my part of the country, in Arkansas, who are traveling sixty miles a day for a minimum-wage job. If you raise the price of gas to three dollars a gallon, they can't pay that. They're trying to save everything they can right now. The president talks a lot about hydrogen being the fuel of the future, but where are you going to get your hydrogen from? You're probably going to get it out of natural gas -- and a lot of that natural gas is going to come from the Middle East. So I'd raise average-mileage performance on automobiles. That's something we can do right now that will decrease our oil dependence - but it's something the administration has dragged its feet on.
And Howard Dean is, well, attacking Clark:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean accused some party insiders on Sunday of desperation politics in backing Democratic presidential rival Wesley Clark, a retired general who voted Republican in the past.
Dean, who has campaigned as a Washington outsider, said members of the establishment embraced the former NATO commander after White House bids of others in their circle sputtered.
"I think that Wes Clark is, first of all, a good guy," Dean told CBS's "Face the Nation." But Dean added, "I think what you see in the Wes Clark candidacy is a somewhat of a desperation by inside-the-Beltway politicians."
"You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a Republican until 25 days ago," said Dean.
I don't have to point out the one who sounds desperate.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:32 PM |
Can the election be stolen?
Buzzflash today is posting an interview with Bev Harris:
Bev Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century has provided numerous articles on voting machine ownership, errors and security to news publications worldwide. In writing Black Box Voting, she spent over two thousand hours researching voting machines, and interviewed dozens of witnesses including many election officials and even voting machine programmers who work directly for the firms that build these machines. Harris owns Talion.com, a publicity firm, and has been writing professionally for 10 years. She is also the author of "How to Embezzle a Fortune", tips on how to identify accounting fraud and recover embezzled funds.
Here is an excerpt from the interview:
1. Secrecy: What has always been a transparent process, subjected to many eyes and belonging to all of us, has very recently become secretive and proprietary. This happened when voting systems, which should be considered part of the "public commons" were turned over to private companies. These companies now assert that the process underlying the vote must be held secret from the voters.
2. Ownership: When a system that belongs to the public becomes secret, it becomes doubly important to make sure we can completely trust those who run it. Voting machine companies are not required to tell us who owns them. Two of the top six firms have been foreign-owned: Election.com, owned by the Saudis until an acquisition by Accenture recently, and Sequoia, now owned by DeLaRue (Great Britain). Three of the top six firms have owners and/or directors who represent vested interests:
-- Election Systems & Software, the largest company. Main owner is a company owned by Senator Chuck Hagel's campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy. Hagel has owned shares in both the voting company itself and in the parent company run by his campaign finance director, and Hagel was the CEO and Chairman of the voting machine company while it built the machines that counted his votes.
-- Diebold, the second largest voting machine company. CEO is Wally O'Dell, who recently visited George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch along with an elite group of Bush supporters called the "Rangers" and "Pioneers.” Days later, he penned a letter to Ohio Republicans promising to help "deliver the votes" for Bush. O'Dell sponsored a $600,000 fund raiser for Dick Cheney in July. Diebold director W.H. Timken is also a Bush Pioneer.
-- VoteHere, the company striving to get its cryptography software into all the other companies' machines (already has a contract with Sequoia), has as its Chairman a close Cheney supporter and member of the Defense Policy Board, Admiral Bill Owens. Former CIA director Robert Gates, who heads the George Bush School of Business, is also a director.
-- Voting companies also have a somewhat incestuous group of key players -- Todd Urosevich and Bob Urosevich founded ES&S, but Todd now is an executive with ES&S while Bob is president of Diebold Election Systems. Sequoia and ES&S share software and optical scan machines.
Bev Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century has provided numerous articles on voting machine ownership, errors and security to news publications worldwide. In writing Black Box Voting, she spent over two thousand hours researching voting machines, and interviewed dozens of witnesses including many election officials and even voting machine programmers who work directly for the firms that build these machines. Harris owns Talion.com, a publicity firm, and has been writing professionally for 10 years. She is also the author of "How to Embezzle a Fortune", tips on how to identify accounting fraud and recover embezzled funds.
Here is an excerpt from the interview:
1. Secrecy: What has always been a transparent process, subjected to many eyes and belonging to all of us, has very recently become secretive and proprietary. This happened when voting systems, which should be considered part of the "public commons" were turned over to private companies. These companies now assert that the process underlying the vote must be held secret from the voters.
2. Ownership: When a system that belongs to the public becomes secret, it becomes doubly important to make sure we can completely trust those who run it. Voting machine companies are not required to tell us who owns them. Two of the top six firms have been foreign-owned: Election.com, owned by the Saudis until an acquisition by Accenture recently, and Sequoia, now owned by DeLaRue (Great Britain). Three of the top six firms have owners and/or directors who represent vested interests:
-- Election Systems & Software, the largest company. Main owner is a company owned by Senator Chuck Hagel's campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy. Hagel has owned shares in both the voting company itself and in the parent company run by his campaign finance director, and Hagel was the CEO and Chairman of the voting machine company while it built the machines that counted his votes.
-- Diebold, the second largest voting machine company. CEO is Wally O'Dell, who recently visited George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch along with an elite group of Bush supporters called the "Rangers" and "Pioneers.” Days later, he penned a letter to Ohio Republicans promising to help "deliver the votes" for Bush. O'Dell sponsored a $600,000 fund raiser for Dick Cheney in July. Diebold director W.H. Timken is also a Bush Pioneer.
-- VoteHere, the company striving to get its cryptography software into all the other companies' machines (already has a contract with Sequoia), has as its Chairman a close Cheney supporter and member of the Defense Policy Board, Admiral Bill Owens. Former CIA director Robert Gates, who heads the George Bush School of Business, is also a director.
-- Voting companies also have a somewhat incestuous group of key players -- Todd Urosevich and Bob Urosevich founded ES&S, but Todd now is an executive with ES&S while Bob is president of Diebold Election Systems. Sequoia and ES&S share software and optical scan machines.
# posted by scorpiorising : 10:31 AM |
Link to USA products.
I'm going to start listing sites that link to products made in the USA. Warning: some of the sites are supported by freepers. Nevertheless, it is important to buy American, if possible.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:48 AM |
What a waste.
I just posted on Daily kos as to the electability of Dean versus Clark versus Kucinich. What a waste of time though. It's about as good as masturbating. Better to spend my time helping to expose and discuss the lies and crimes against humanity of the Bush administration. Billmon and Atrios are doing a good job of this, and staying above the "who is electable" bullshit. I wish them all the best of luck, except for Leiberman.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:36 AM |
Sunday, September 28, 2003
On the Waterfront, revisited.
I just watched Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront again, for the umpteenth time. It's one of the greatest black and whites ever made, I should say, black and gray, there isn't much white, with the exception of the Eva Marie Saint's slip in one scene. Brando as the embattled Terry Malloy is at his most pure and brilliant. The last scene, when Brando as Malloy takes the Christ walk through the waterfront gates, to lead the way for the men, to crack the corrupt union leaders, is a walk we all have to take right now. Perhaps not bruised and bloodied, unless you can bloody and bruise a psyche. We're all walking around hurt and sore, and sometimes we don't know it. We're been beaten down by the president and his brown shirts, and all he wants us to do is take more crap, and drink the poison in the form of $87 billion.
He and his thugs Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, are like the corrupt union bosses of old, conducting shakedowns if someone steps out of line, like the exposure of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.
Who is going to expose these thugs, to a largely complacent and passive American population? It is going to be you and I. We are the modern day Terry Malloys.
We were willing to ride the market and good times under Bill Clinton, as long as things went our way. The corruption simmering beneath has bubbled up though, and this brew is poisonous. Don't look for Clinton to save us. We have to save ourselves.
Howard Dean is faulted for his anger, but let me tell you, right now he is carrying our anger for us. As is the other "angry" candidate, Kucinich. To varying degrees, all of the candidates have expressed very "appropriate" anger.
Maybe it's we who are not angry enough. If Bush is re-elected, I'll know we're not angry enough. Maybe we need to be as angry as Terry Malloy, when he said he was going down to the waterfront to "take his rights". We have our rights to take back, and we ought to be on it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We ought to fight the good fight, even if we lose, because then we'll have to fight even harder. But, we'll be used to it by then.
He and his thugs Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, are like the corrupt union bosses of old, conducting shakedowns if someone steps out of line, like the exposure of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.
Who is going to expose these thugs, to a largely complacent and passive American population? It is going to be you and I. We are the modern day Terry Malloys.
We were willing to ride the market and good times under Bill Clinton, as long as things went our way. The corruption simmering beneath has bubbled up though, and this brew is poisonous. Don't look for Clinton to save us. We have to save ourselves.
Howard Dean is faulted for his anger, but let me tell you, right now he is carrying our anger for us. As is the other "angry" candidate, Kucinich. To varying degrees, all of the candidates have expressed very "appropriate" anger.
Maybe it's we who are not angry enough. If Bush is re-elected, I'll know we're not angry enough. Maybe we need to be as angry as Terry Malloy, when he said he was going down to the waterfront to "take his rights". We have our rights to take back, and we ought to be on it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We ought to fight the good fight, even if we lose, because then we'll have to fight even harder. But, we'll be used to it by then.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:41 PM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005