The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney

mr. destro

Guest
props to seanoc for spotting this one, absolutely nauseating stuff about the bush admin. and its cronies. deserves its own topic:

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney
By Greg Palast, AlterNet
Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Have you heard about Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman?

According to those quoted on National Public Radio, McKinney’s “a loose cannon” (media expert) who “the people of Atlanta are embarrassed and disgusted” (politician) by, and she is also “loony” and “dangerous” (senator from her own party).

Yow! And why is McKinney dangerous/loony/disgusting? According to NPR, “McKinney implied that the [Bush] Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.”

The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”

That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

Problem is, McKinney never said it.

That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.

Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening – it’s about Cynthia McKinney – it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .

Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?

Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.

I’ve heard that statement – it was all over the place.

I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?

Yeah....

[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]

And did you confirm this with McKinney?

Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?

So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?

I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?

Yes. Did you check that?

Of course.

You did check it?

[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]

I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.

Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies – everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.

Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:

“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”

Oh.

And I should say former Congresswoman McKinney.

She was beaten in the August 2002 Democratic primary. More precisely, she was beaten to death, politically, by the fabricated quote.

Months before the 2000 presidential elections, the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 90,000 citizens from the voter rolls because they were convicted felons . . . and felons can’t vote in Florida. There was one problem: 97 percent of those on the list were, in fact, innocent.

They weren’t felons, but they were guilty . . . of not being white. Over half the list contained names of non-whites. I’m not guessing: I have the list from out of the computers of Katherine Harris’ office – and the “scrubbed” voter’s race is listed with each name.

And that’s how our President was elected: by illegally removing tens of thousands of legal African American voters before the race.

But you knew that . . . at least you did if you read the British papers – I reported this discovery for the Guardian of London. And I reported again on the nightly news. You saw that . . . if you live in Europe or Canada or South America.

In the USA, the story ran on page zero. Well, let me correct that a bit. The Washington Post did run the story on the fake felon list that selected our President – even with a comment under my byline. I wrote the story within weeks of the election, while Al Gore was still in the race. The Post courageously ran it . . . seven months after the election.

The New York Times ran it . . . well, never, even after Katherine Harris confessed the scam to a Florida court after she and the state were successfully sued by the NAACP.

So, I can’t say the New York Times always makes up the news. Sometimes the news just doesn’t make it.

At BBC Television, we had Florida’s computer files and documents, marked “confidential” – stone-cold evidence showing how the vote fix was deliberately crafted by Republican officials. Not a single major U.S. paper asked for the documents – not from the state of Florida nor from the BBC. Only one U.S. Congressperson asked for the evidence and made it public: Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta.

That was her mistake.

The company that came up with the faux felon list that determined the presidency: a Republican-tied database company named “ChoicePoint,” one of the richest, most powerful companies in Atlanta.

Before I started with the BBC in London, I took a one-day television training course with the Washington correspondent for Fox News.

We filmed Al Gore. Specifically, we filmed the eleven seconds of Gore’s impromptu remarks . . . which we’d been given two hours earlier by his advance ladies. They wore blue suits.

The man for the Associated Press wrote a lead paragraph of Gore’s impromptu remarks one hour before Al walked in and said them. The network reporter copied down the AP lead line. I copied down the AP lead line.

After we got Al Gore’s eleven seconds and footage of someone in the crowd saying, “Wow, Al Gore really talked different from the way Al Gore usually talks,” we set up in front of the hotel where Al Gore talked. The important network reporter looked sternly into the camera and spoke in a very important voice. I squinted into the camera and spoke in a very important voice.

I can’t remember what I said.

He can’t remember what he said.

No one can remember what we said.

No one should.

Did I mention to you that (ex-)Congresswoman McKinney is black? And not just any kind of black. She’s the uppity kind of black.
What I mean by uppity is this:

After George Bush Senior left the White House, he became an advisor and lobbyist for a Canadian gold-mining company, Barrick Gold. Hey, a guy’s got to work. But there were a couple of questions about Barrick, to say the least. For example, was Barrick’s Congo gold mine funding both sides of a civil war and perpetuating that bloody conflict? Only one Congressperson demanded hearings on the matter.

You’ve guessed: Cynthia McKinney.

That was covered in the . . . well, it wasn’t covered at all in the U.S. press.

McKinney contacted me at the BBC. She asked if I’d heard of Barrick. Indeed, I had. Top human rights investigators had evidence that a mine that Barrick bought in 1999 had, in clearing their Tanzanian properties three years earlier, bulldozed mine shafts . . . burying about 50 miners alive.

I certainly knew Barrick: They’d sued the Guardian for daring to run a story I’d written about the allegations of the killings. Barrick never sued an American paper for daring to run the story, because no American paper dared.

The primary source for my story, an internationally famous lawyer named Tundu Lissu, was charged by the Tanzanian police with sedition, and arrested, for calling for an investigation. McKinney has been trying to save his life with an international campaign aimed at Barrick.

That was another of her mistakes.

The New York Times wrote about McKinney that Atlanta’s “prominent Black leaders – including Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP and former Mayor Maynard Jackson – who had supported Ms. McKinney in the past – distanced themselves from her this time.”

Really? Atlanta has four internationally recognized black leaders. Martin Luther King III did not abandon McKinney. I checked with him. Nor did Julian Bond (the Times ran a rare retraction on their website at Bond’s request). But that left Atlanta’s two other notables: Vernon Jordan and Andrew Young. Here, the Times had it right; no question that these two black faces of the Atlanta Establishment let McKinney twist slowly in the wind – because, the Times implied, of her alleged looniness.

But maybe there was another reason Young and Jordan let McKinney swing. Remember Barrick? George Bush’s former gold-mining company, the target of McKinney’s investigations? Did I mention to you that Andy Young and Vernon Jordan are both on Barrick’s payroll? Well, I just did.

Did the Times mention it? I guess that wasn’t fit to print.

I suppose it’s my fault, McKinney’s electronic lynching. Unlike other politicians, McKinney, who’s earning her doctorate at Princeton’s Fletcher School of Diplomacy, enjoys doing her own research, not relying on staff memos. She’s long been a reader of my reports from Britain, including transcripts of BBC Television investigations. On November 6, 2001, BBC Newsnight ran this report with a follow-up story in the Guardian the next day:

Wednesday, November 7, 2001
Probes Before 11 September

Officials Told to 'Back Off' on Saudis Before September 11.

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11. US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, with which they were linked.

And so on. There was not one word in there that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance. It was about a horrific intelligence failure. This was the result, FBI and CIA/DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) insiders told us at BBC, of a block placed on investigations of Saudi Arabian financing of terror. We even showed on-screen a copy of a top-secret document passed to us by disgruntled FBI agents, directing that the agency would not investigate a “suspected terrorist organization” headed in the US by a member of the bin Laden family. The FBI knew about these guys before September 11 (with their office down the street from the hijackers’ address).

The CIA also knew about a meeting in Paris, prior to September 11, involving a Saudi prince, arms dealers, and al Qaeda. Although the information was in hand, the investigation was stymied by Bush’s intelligence chiefs. This is what McKinney wanted investigated.

Why were the Saudis, the bin Ladens (except Osama), and this organization (the World Assembly of Muslim Youth) off the investigation list prior to September 11, despite evidence that they were reasonable targets for inquiry? The BBC thought it worth asking; the Guardian thought it worth asking – and so did Congresswoman McKinney. Why no pre-September 11 investigations of these characters?

And what was the reason for the block? According to the experts we broadcast on British television, it was the Bush Administration’s fanatic desire to protect their relations with Saudi Arabia – a deadly policy prejudice which, according to the respected Center for Public Integrity of Washington, DC, seems influenced by the Bush family ties, and Republican donors’ ties, to Saudi royalty. McKinney, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, thought the BBC/Guardian/Observer investigation worth a follow-up Congressional review.

According to NPR, her “loony” statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it’s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can’t be found.

What can be read is her call for a follow-up on the revelations from the BBC and USA Today on the information about a growing terror threat ignored by Bush . . . and whether the policy response – war, war, war – was protecting America or simply enriching Bush’s big arms industry donors and business partners. Fair questions. But asking them is dangerous . . . to one’s political career.

The BBC report which got McKinney in hot water mentioned the Bush Administration’s reluctance to investigate associates of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the FBI secret document termed “a suspected terrorist organization.” They may be. They may not be. McKinney’s question was only, Why no investigation?

Just after McKinney’s defeat, the courier of Osama bin Laden's latest alleged taped threat against the United States was busted in Africa: He was on the staff of WAMY. Shortly thereafter, Prince Abdullah, the Saudi dictator, invited WAMY leaders to his palace and told them, “There is no extremism in the defending of the faith.”

So if you listen to U.S. radio and read U.S. papers, you are told this: Abdullah’s protector and godfather, George W. Bush, is sane and patriotic, and McKinney, who wants to investigate these guys, is a loony and a traitor. Got it?

Ted Koppel’s Nightline did a kind of follow-up to the BBC elections story. Our BBC team discovered that of the 180,000 votes never counted in the Florida 2000 presidential race, a sickeningly disproportionate number came from black counties. In Gadsden County, where more than half the population is black, one in eight ballots was marked "spoiled" and, thus, never counted.

Koppel’s team got on the case, flying down to Florida to find out why thousands of black votes were never counted. They talked to experts, they talked to important white people, and Koppel reported this: Many blacks are new to voting and, with limited education, have a difficult time with marking the sophisticated ballots. In other words, ABC concluded, African Americans are too fecking dumb to figure out how to vote.

Hey, if true, then you have to report it. But it wasn’t. It was a fib, a tall tale, made-for-TV mendacity, polite liberal electronic cross-burning intellectual eugenics.

Here’s the real scoop: All races of voters make errors on paper ballots. But in white counties like Leon (Tallahassee), if you make a stray mark or other error, the vote machine rejects your ballot, and you get another ballot to vote again. But in black counties like Gadsden, you make a mistake and the machine quietly accepts and voids your ballot.

In other words, it wasn’t that African Americans are too dumb to vote but that European American reporters are too dumb to ask, too lazy to bother, too gutless to tell officialdom to stop lying into the cameras.

Back in the edit room with Mr. Washington Network TV Reporter, we were ready to bake the cake, the Gore story. We had all the ingredients.

“Take out your watch,” said the Fox man.

“You get 90 seconds,” he said. “That’s what you get. You got an intro, 40 seconds of narration, two sound bites, and end with a stand-up to camera.”

I repeated, “Forty seconds narrate, two sound bites, stand-up.”

He said, “Two sound bites and a stand-up. Every story. Every time.”

He said, “What do you think?”

I said, “I think I’m leaving the country.”

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter for BBC television and author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” (Penguin/Plume 2003). This article is based on his contribution to the compendium, "Abuse Your Illusions," released this month by Disinformation Press. Oliver Shykles, Fredda Weinberg, Ina Howard, and Phil Tanfield contributed research for this report.
 
Having followed the McKinney saga for some time, I'm weary of it. The story may have some good points, but it also takes some unnecessary and erroneous detours by going into the Florida recount BS yet again. Big mistake. Makes the rest of the article lose its wind...and its credibility imo.
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Having followed the McKinney saga for some time, I'm weary of it. The story may have some good points, but it also takes some unnecessary and erroneous detours by going into the Florida recount BS yet again. Big mistake. Makes the rest of the article lose its wind...and its credibility imo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He might have gone off topic but why do you regard the Florida recount story as BS and not credible, given the NAACP sucessfully sued Catherine Harris, most arguments about it sound solid to me.
 
Raoul, I apologise but can you rebut the above story with backed -up facts rather than dismissing it just because you don't like it - don't expect that sort of reaction from you! ;)
 
Don't worry, Raoul will come back soon with how he has a black Iraqi grandfather who knows the story intimately, how he has lived and worked in Florida, spent his gap year in the very same office, is being posted back there next week and has shady contacts that know the whole story and have told him the inside gen. So don't go there.

;)
 
Originally posted by kkcbl:
<strong>Raoul, I apologise but can you rebut the above story with backed -up facts rather than dismissing it just because you don't like it - don't expect that sort of reaction from you! ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Firstly, you're wrong to assume that the above story is true since you have to way to corroborate the information. I followed McKinney's situation as well as Bob Barr's. She may have well been run out of office due to some daft comments she made (not the ones disputed above). Republicans in her district (who don't normally vote in democratic primaries) deliberately went out and voted for her democratic challenger, which eventually got her booted. Barr (from Atlanta) essentially got run out because of his high profile role in the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Both situations were probably wrong imo.

As for the Florida recount, there were numerous mistakes made in the political chess match that ensued leading up to and after the election.

Gore lost alot of votes because of the Palm Beach County "Butterfly Ballot". The ballot was created by a democratic palm beach county elections commisioner in the hopes of simplfying the ballot. Even so, the democrats screwed themselves by creating the ballot. I have no doubt that alot of people in Palm Beach (many elderly Jews) voted for Buchanan that day. Still that wasn't Bush's fault. Had Teresa LaPure (sp?) simply left the Ballots alone, they would've done their job.

Bush probably lost more votes than Gore when the media erroneously (and rather gleefully) reported that Gore was the projected winner in Florida. Word quickly spread that Gore won FL even though hundreds of thousands of voters in the panhandle (most of which is in the central time zone) had just gotten off work or were waiting in line at the polls. Many people turned around and walked away dejected that their votes wouldn't make a difference.

I don't believe the stories of racial discrimination. IMO, if there even a shred of evidence to back this up, the liberal press in the US would be all over it. News sells papers and tv time, so there's no reason for me to believe that they would've backed away from such a diabolical blockbuster of a story.

Ultimately, the Gore campaign lost an election that it should've won irrespective of the Florida debacle. Gore was working off of one of the more prosperous times in American history and he has no one other than himself to blame for not getting elected. Blunder after political blunder did him in.
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>I followed McKinney's situation as well as Bob Barr's. She may have well been run out of office due to some daft comments she made (not the ones disputed above). Republicans in her district (who don't normally vote in democratic primaries) deliberately went out and voted for her democratic challenger, which eventually got her booted.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I thought she got herself in trouble for some comments about Israel?
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

I don't believe the stories of racial discrimination. IMO, if there even a shred of evidence to back this up, the liberal press in the US would be all over it. News sells papers and tv time, so there's no reason for me to believe that they would've backed away from such a diabolical blockbuster of a story.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

"PATRIOTISM" sells news more than anything these days, not some 'uppity black woman' ruffling a few feathers with probing and righteous questions. what about the naacp and its successful lawsuit, do you not believe that as well?
 
Originally posted by mr. destro:
<strong>What about the naacp and its successful lawsuit, do you not believe that as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Florida was a complete debacle on all sides. The reason Democrats are so up in arms is that they lost, so they commit more time trying to prove that they should have won. Its really as simple as that. I am sure Republicans could find similar shit in the state as well. They simply choose to move on (obviously because they won). The Democrats would be wise to do the same thing.
 
Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Florida was a complete debacle on all sides. The reason Democrats are so up in arms is that they lost, so they commit more time trying to prove that they should have won. Its really as simple as that. I am sure Republicans could find similar shit in the state as well. They simply choose to move on (obviously because they won). The Democrats would be wise to do the same thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

can't answer the question can ye!
 
Originally posted by mr. destro:
<strong>

can't answer the question can ye!</strong><hr></blockquote>

About the lawsuit and the alleged disenfranchisement of thousands of people?

I think the entire election down there was a debacle. You simply choose to pick (and bring to the fore) the part of the debacle that suits your interests.
 
Originally posted by mr. destro:
<strong>

"PATRIOTISM" sells news more than anything these days, not some 'uppity black woman' ruffling a few feathers with probing and righteous questions. what about the naacp and its successful lawsuit, do you not believe that as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Patriotism sells for the right and questioning all things American sells for the left. Unfortunately that's what its been reduced to. There aren't many media organizations who are in it for the sheer love of journalism these days.
 
Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

About the lawsuit and the alleged disenfranchisement of thousands of people?

..the part of the debacle that suits your interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>

should be in everyone's feckin interest, jaysis
 
Putting forth an NAACP lawsuit as evidence of discrimination is a bit of a straw clutch isn't it. The bigger issue should be the lawsuit that decided it all - Gore v Bush in the Supreme Court. That's where the true tragedy occured.
 
Originally posted by 2Bullish:
<strong>Don't worry, Raoul will come back soon with how he has a black Iraqi grandfather who knows the story intimately, how he has lived and worked in Florida, spent his gap year in the very same office, is being posted back there next week and has shady contacts that know the whole story and have told him the inside gen. So don't go there.

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
 
McKinney has made plenty of statements like the one in question attributed to her. But the quote itself may be inaccurate as the two assertions in the sentence may not have been made in one sentence, but several.

According to the Washington Post, in an interview with a Berkeley radio station Ms. McKinney said that the Bush administration knew about the September 11 attacks but did nothing to stop them:

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

She's basically saying that the Bush administration knew these people were going to be murdered and they did nothing about it. She then adds that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." If you put the two thoughts together, she more or less says that the Bush administration is guilty of aiding and abetting the mass murder of American citizens for profit.

Of course it's always wrong to misquote somebody. But in this case, although the quote itself may be erroneous, the sentiments expressed are pretty accurate. It's really far fetched IMO. It's unfathomable that Bush had specific knowlege that The WTC would be attacked and do nothing aboput it. IMO, it's much more reasonable to believe that they may have known about a pending attack, but had no info about the specific target and therefore no way to warn the innocent NY people.

I fully support the investigation that she recommends, but to me her statements were just self-serving political grandstanding. It seems like a lot of the voters agreed with that.
 
Thankfully the people in her district did not fall for her shit this time around. She was defeated in a run-off a few weeks ago. One less racist in office. I heard the Jews comment on tv. Was quite ludicrous.


McKinney finished first in the July 18, 2006 Democratic primary, edging DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson 47.1% to 44.4%, with a third candidate receiving 8.5%.[37]. However, since McKinney had failed to get at least 50% of the vote, she and Johnson were forced into a run-off. McKinney had been heavily favored to win, so her narrow margin surprised observers. Johnson picked up support because he seemed to have a real possibility of winning.

In the runoff of August 8, 2006, although there were about 8,000 more voters than in the primary, McKinney received about the same number of votes as in July. Johnson won with 41,178 votes (59%) to McKinney's 28,832 (41%).[38] During her concession speech, McKinney praised Leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela,[39] and blamed the media and electronic voting machines for her defeat.[40] One of her supporters also called her Black Democratic opponent an "Uncle Tom," and blamed "Jews" for her defeat.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney
 
kennyj said:
McKinney has made plenty of statements like the one in question attributed to her. But the quote itself may be inaccurate as the two assertions in the sentence may not have been made in one sentence, but several.

According to the Washington Post, in an interview with a Berkeley radio station Ms. McKinney said that the Bush administration knew about the September 11 attacks but did nothing to stop them:

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

She's basically saying that the Bush administration knew these people were going to be murdered and they did nothing about it. She then adds that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." If you put the two thoughts together, she more or less says that the Bush administration is guilty of aiding and abetting the mass murder of American citizens for profit.

Of course it's always wrong to misquote somebody. But in this case, although the quote itself may be erroneous, the sentiments expressed are pretty accurate. It's really far fetched IMO. It's unfathomable that Bush had specific knowlege that The WTC would be attacked and do nothing aboput it. IMO, it's much more reasonable to believe that they may have known about a pending attack, but had no info about the specific target and therefore no way to warn the innocent NY people.

I fully support the investigation that she recommends, but to me her statements were just self-serving political grandstanding. It seems like a lot of the voters agreed with that.
My worry here would be that if there really was a credible primary source for her 9/11 remarks then why were so many people who ran the story actually unaware of its provenance. It would appear from the various organizations quoted that the remarks arose in 3 different places - yet in 2 of those this assertion is unfounded. So it would be interesting to know if the Washington Post actually got the source and the text correct here, was it spoken by her or reported, etc?
 
Raoul said:
Ultimately, the Gore campaign lost an election that it should've won irrespective of the Florida debacle. Gore was working off of one of the more prosperous times in American history and he has no one other than himself to blame for not getting elected. Blunder after political blunder did him in.
Whilst I'd tend to agree with this as the main factor - it does not detract from the fact that we can all be rightfully concerned if gerrymandering and effective bias of possible vote recording did take place.
 
No count ever done under any standard has ever given Al Gore the win - these horribly biased pro-Bush people doing the post-hoc counting included those infamous ultra-right wing papers The Palm Beach Post and the New York Times.

Individual counties report votes, and Gore sued for recounts in Democratic Counties. If anyone did biased vote recording, then it must have been those evil Pro-Bush Democrats in West Palm Beach.

State law required the votes be reported by a certain time - and did allow for hand-recounts, which were done.

What was illegal and immoral was the attempt to do multiple hand recounts using multiple standards in Democratic Counties (all different from the previous statewide voting standards) in an attempt to manipulate the vote.

No credible claim of illegal disenfranchisement was found by the Justice Departments of two administrations.

George Bush won Florida.

If you don't like it, tough luck
 
jasonrh said:
No count ever done under any standard has ever given Al Gore the win - these horribly biased pro-Bush people doing the post-hoc counting included those infamous ultra-right wing papers The Palm Beach Post and the New York Times.

Individual counties report votes, and Gore sued for recounts in Democratic Counties. If anyone did biased vote recording, then it must have been those evil Pro-Bush Democrats in West Palm Beach.

State law required the votes be reported by a certain time - and did allow for hand-recounts, which were done.

What was illegal and immoral was the attempt to do multiple hand recounts using multiple standards in Democratic Counties (all different from the previous statewide voting standards) in an attempt to manipulate the vote.

No credible claim of illegal disenfranchisement was found by the Justice Departments of two administrations.

George Bush won Florida.

If you don't like it, tough luck
Nope, what was illegal and immoral was the steps taken to ensure that numerous votes which might have been anticipated to be anti-Bush would not be counted.

For example the list of fallacious felons which denied voting rights to an almost exclusively black group of innocent people.

Also, from the initial article,
All races of voters make errors on paper ballots. But in white counties like Leon (Tallahassee), if you make a stray mark or other error, the vote machine rejects your ballot, and you get another ballot to vote again. But in black counties like Gadsden, you make a mistake and the machine quietly accepts and voids your ballot.

It's the attempts themselves that concern me here tbh. That and the connections between the Republicans and the manufacturers of new voting machines.
 
On March 25 McKinney was interviewed by telephone on Flashpoints, an independent radio program produced and hosted by Dennis Bernstein and broadcast on Pacifica station KPFA in Berkeley , Calif. The congresswoman read a roughly 10-minute statement, then answered questions and chatted with Bernstein for another 16 or so minutes. A ma j or portion of McKinney 's statement concerned U.S. actions in Africa , and contained stinging attacks of the Clinton administration, particularly former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She also discussed the high incarceration rate of blacks, their treatment by the police, and the actual mechanics of the massive voter fraud in Florida that benefited George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential election. Rep. McKinney also pointed out how the current administration has created a climate in which elected officials need to censor themselves lest their patriotism be questioned. Only a few sentences in the almost 30-minute segment were her comments about the need for an investigation into what the Bush Administration knew prior to the events of 9-11.

Two-and-a-half weeks later on April 12, an article appeared in the Washington Post about McKinney 's appearance on Flashpoints. The article was written by Juliet Eilperin, a Post staff writer who says a colleague received the show's transcript in an anonymous e-mail, and passed it along to her. Eilperin's article was headlined, "Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot."

What McKinney actually said was the American people deserve a full, complete and no-holds-barred investigation of the events involving 9-11, and what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it. Every single question McKinney raised was based on information readily available from mainstream media sources. Among the issues McKinney raised regarding 9-11 were:

- The warnings from several foreign governments to the highest levels of the U.S. government that were ignored;

- The huge profits made in sophisticated stock transactions involving several airlines, brokerages and insurance firms whose stock prices were affected dramatically by 9-11;

- The relationship between the oil company Unocal and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan ;

- The relationship between the administration and the Carlyle Group, an investment firm with ma j or defense holdings for whom the president's father works;

- The requests by both the president and vice president that any congressional investigations into 9-11 not be particularly intense or lengthy;

- The huge profits persons close to the administration will make thanks to increased defense spending.

Let the games begin

Almost immediately after the Washington Post article, the administration, the mainstream media and its pundits shifted into overdrive, floored the pedal, and wound the smear engine right to the redline.


http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...nthia+mckinney+radio&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3

What looks like an accurate transcript occurs here:

http://www.rise4news.net/McKinney.html

I base that judgement on the faults in grammar, changes in sentence direction (consistent with live speech) and the fact it sports an audio link. It is worth noting that the remarks about Bush's intelligence are in fact spread out rather than forming a concentrated attack. The text also provides the opportunity for both sides to read into it what they will.

One side will see a general question about warnings issued regarding some forthcoming attacks and a desire to know how much detail arrived and at what times. The other side will see only an implication that Bush et al knew all about what was going to happen. The worry is that the latter reaction helped obscure the necesssary call for more information about the intelligence that arrived, to whom, and when.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Nope, what was illegal and immoral was the steps taken to ensure that numerous votes which might have been anticipated to be anti-Bush would not be counted.

For example the list of fallacious felons which denied voting rights to an almost exclusively black group of innocent people.

Also, from the initial article,
All races of voters make errors on paper ballots. But in white counties like Leon (Tallahassee), if you make a stray mark or other error, the vote machine rejects your ballot, and you get another ballot to vote again. But in black counties like Gadsden, you make a mistake and the machine quietly accepts and voids your ballot.

It's the attempts themselves that concern me here tbh. That and the connections between the Republicans and the manufacturers of new voting machines.

All those evil Republicans in Leon County. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Felons aren't allowed to vote in Florida. The number of people mistakenly added to the list is comparable to every election year. No one is perfect.

As for your voting machine conspiracy theory, it is beyond pathetic the depths the left will go to in order to refuse to accept reality.

Cue an article from the ubiased Guardian about how evil George Bush is secretly supplying baby's blood to his Neo-Con (JEW!) friends.
 
jasonrh said:
As for your voting machine conspiracy theory, it is beyond pathetic the depths the left will go to in order to refuse to accept reality.
Actually, I don't necessarily maintain that the Democrat's REALLY won Florida as you seem to imply - in that sense I am fully aware of the 'realities' of the situation.

However, there are recorded irregularities - these can be seen as indicative of a definite attempt to cheat (whether necessary or not) - you choose to put an innocent interpretation upon those events, yet other interpretations are both possible and reasonably valid.

Given the reasonable possibility that there was some vote-rigging going on the possible lack of an audit trail on future elections, it is reasonable to be concerned about the political connections of the makers of the forthcoming machines.

The idea that large quantities of black voters are 'mistakenly' disenfranchised 'every election' doesn't really seem to strengthen your case btw.
 
MrMarcello said:
How someone can attempt to defend this racist person is beyond explanation. The woman is insane and plays the race card often.
I'm analysing what she actually said versus what she was claimed to have said - not defending everything she has ever said.

I was wondering which particular remarks have worried you in the past, since I have been looking only at the Bush-admin-allegations.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
I'm analysing what she actually said versus what she was claimed to have said - not defending everything she has ever said.

I was wondering which particular remarks have worried you in the past, since I have been looking only at the Bush-admin-allegations.

I don't pay mind to her off-the-wall remarks about 9/11. Only a collection of her supporters believe it. I only wish that she'd stop playing the race card on everything that goes against her. If she were white, she'd be labeled a racist by the likes of Jesse Jackson and ilk. There would have been protests outside her (former) office.
 
MrMarcello said:
I don't pay mind to her off-the-wall remarks about 9/11. Only a collection of her supporters believe it. I only wish that she'd stop playing the race card on everything that goes against her. If she were white, she'd be labeled a racist by the likes of Jesse Jackson and ilk. There would have been protests outside her (former) office.
Ah! So her protests about racist discrimination against her make her a racist in your book?