Bush had stolen the Elections in Many Ways

If you don't believe #1 helped Bush steal the election, then you might want to look at items 2 through 4.

1. Diebold voting machines

2. Voter terrorizing - "If you don't vote for us, we'll get attacked again" - Dick Cheney

3. Swift Liars

4. The Christian Right

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

US Should “Stand Down” in Criticism of Ukraine Elections
-American election system has deeper problems
(SEATTLE) 11/24/04 - While there has been widespread criticism of recent elections in Ukraine, where Putin’s central power system may have unfairly trounced the pro-western candidate favored in election exit polls, far less attention has been given to similar (and perhaps worse) problems in US elections.

Like the Ukraine, exit polls in the US predicted a different winner than the winner claimed after the polls closed. Like the Ukraine, the most politically powerful candidate may (or may not) have used underhanded means to achieve victory.

However, unlike the Ukraine 2004 election—which is getting world-wide media attention, the chronic and widespread problem of non-enforcement of election law in US states has gotten little media attention. To wit, the US relies on the supposed enforcement of the rule of law by individual states, and the US Justice department—but that enforcement is therefore entrusted to partisan officials in the executive branch at both the federal and state level. So guess what? The rule of law is never enforced. When is the last time you heard about an enforcement action involving US Secretaries of State, US voting equipment, or the companies that make equipment?

For example, with regard to the infamous election 2000, despite that at the time, Florida law clearly required punch-card machines that were certified and tested so that they left no chads…nevertheless, that equipment never met the law, as evidenced by so many “hanging chad” stories in the media afterwards.

In fact in election 2004, the very same root problems of 2000 were again manifest, as (incredibly) Florida and other states relied on the very same regulatory system and standards that led to the 2000 debacle. Indeed, both the 2000 and 2004 elections relied on the very same book--the 1990 voting equipment standards. Standards that, it turns out, are enforced far less often than, let’s say, financial accounting standards in the 1990s…or more recently, FDA standards. In short, the rule of law in US elections relies on a book that is never read, much less applied.

Yet this time around, in 2004, with the more widespread use of electronic machines that don’t produce a paper ballot, problems were less obvious. So it has taken longer for warning signals to emerge. However, scientists and activists had found serious statistical anomalies with results, such as in the State of Florida. And most recently, voting investigator Bev Harris discovered (no kidding) “mysterious” brown garbage bags containing alternate copies of electronic machine receipts in a Florida county, even while other counties refuse to produce evidence that elections were carried out under the rule of law. Which means they probably weren’t. In fact, US election problems are so bad, even the US General Accounting Office knows election law isn’t enforced. After complaints about the recent 2004 election, the GAO warned nothing could be done by them to insure election law is met.

So the US should stand down in criticism of Ukraine elections, because its own elections aren’t carried out under the rule of law. Moreover, the current administration claiming victory is under one and possibly two criminal investigations, which weren’t adequately covered due to problems in the US media. Ultimately, the US has little, if any, democratic or moral high ground to stand on and criticize others—such is best left to more established democracies such as France, Germany, and others.

Provide only 1 machine per 1000 voters and you pretty much assure that several hundred will never cast their ballots. :grr: