Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

[madmatt]

I think it does, so I've got mixed feelings. Obviously good news for many reasons (especially the American soldiers who have died in imho useless war).

But, aside from possible Bush reelection (that's dom politics, heck, our votes will decide that, and people have a right to vote for him), does the capture mean Iraq II was successful, setting precedent for preemptive wars?

Waddyall think?

[Guest]

I think it would only mean his re-election if it happenned a few days before the election, and that in addition to the economy playing a role, how the next few months go in Iraq will have a large role to play in the election.
Basically i worry that though Saddam's capture will mean a lessening in the coordination of the opposition, that opposition will not only not go away due to his capture, in some ways it may become worse, especially if a trial of Saddam is seen as a kangaroo court or a public shaming.

[madmatt]

Agreed, the B admin tries to put the resistance on Saddam supporters, but that's off I think. It's a general desire to not be occupied by a foreign army. We probably would resist it too, even if it were "for our own good."

Example, if the European Union would invade the U.S. to depose (the not democratically elected) Bush, even people like me, who would want Bush gone, would resist another country determining our domestic affairs.

[diane o'thirst]

I think it would only mean his re-election if it happened a few days before the election, and that in addition to the economy playing a role, how the next few months go in Iraq will have a large role to play in the election.

Ay, therein lies the rub. And then there's still that little matter of catching Bin Laden and his buddy Mullah Omar. Do that, improve the economy here, <b><u>fuckin' defenestrate</b></u> Ashcroft, and <i>maybe</i> I won't argue if Georgie gets re-elected. Maybe.

Basically i worry that though Saddam's capture will mean a lessening in the coordination of the opposition,

One hopes — let's watch and see.

that opposition will not only not go away due to his capture, in some ways it may become worse, especially if a trial of Saddam is seen as a kangaroo court or a public shaming.

I don't think that's gonna happen, with Amnesty International calling for him to be treated as a POW. There's part of me that's saying, "Fuck it! He has no honour, why should he be treated with honour? Run him up a flagpole and see who salutes." But there's another, more mature voice that says, "Look, they got him, he ain't getting away, he profoundly deserves whatever happens to him and it's coming up. A fair trial never hurt anyone." I know that sounds like "You'll get a fair trial and then we'll wax your ass anyway" but there it is. Backhanded justice, but better than no justice. No Peace Without Justice.
I'm still playing a "watch-and-see" game. All in all I'm not sorry. As another post on this board said, a dictator's regime is <b>OVER</b> and there's no bad news there.

[madmatt]

I'm no fan of the Iraq war, CERTAINLY NOT of Bush, but there's a lot to be said for making a giant public gesture to the world, especially to muslims, of fair play on our part with a trial and all.

Also, it's certain that Sadam knows lots of juicy tidbits we'd love to get our hands on.

There's nothing anyone could ever do to him that could ever avenge the huge number of terrible things he's done, so we have to sort of move beyond that and try to think of how we can best use him/the situation specifically and generally.

[diane o'thirst]

it's certain that Sadam knows lots of juicy tidbits we'd love to get our hands on.

This is assuming he'll actually be forthcoming and tell the truth. WMD's aside, remember that he swore up and down that there were never any human rights violations in his country and the people in the mass graves were "thieves."

I get the feeling it would <b>take</b> a trial and force of oath to get to the bottom of the barrel, as Hans Blix said.

There's nothing anyone could ever do to him that could ever avenge the huge number of terrible things he's done, so we have to sort of move beyond that and try to think of how we can best use him/the situation specifically and generally.

That is so very true, hence my unreserved comment that he thoroughly deserves whatever happens to him — fair trial and execution by firing squad, blunt force dismemberment at the hands of his erstwhile victims, wind up hanging on the wall of a fellow inmate's cell somewhere, ripped to shreds by rabid Red Talons, spend the rest of eternity melting in Tiamat's belly, it's all one to me.

As for the people, I know from personal experience that the best revenge is living well. As it stands, the Iraqi representative to the Arab League is the only seat that's been duly elected by the people of the country, the rest are monarchies, theocrasies and dictatorships. So let's finish rounding up Saddam's thugs, make sure the Iraqi governing council is up and running, and blow that popsicle stand. We had better things to do, we <i>HAVE</i> better things to do, let's get on with it.

All I want for Christmas is a Portuguese bridle for my horse and all I want for my birthday is news that they caught Bin Laden...

[Bob]

Two days ago, Bush's people were as capable of an election win v. Jesus Christ as the Democrats were of losing to Satan. What's changed?

[Lilly Flower]

Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

I think it does, so I've got mixed feelings. Obviously good news for many reasons (especially the American soldiers who have died in imho useless war).

Unfortunately I too think so. Dispite other factors that are going to be ignored in the process, such as, will Kenneth Lay ever be charged, convicted and jailed for defrauding all those poor people? Will Congress ever follow through with the suit they filed in federal court challenging Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to hand over documents related to national energy policy?
Will anyone still be concerned with Attorney general Ashcroft and the results of possible use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists?
In addition, the "PATRIOT Act II" and what happens to everyones civil liberties.
etc...

But, aside from possible Bush reelection (that's dom politics, heck, our votes will decide that, and people have a right to vote for him

Not to mention the new receiptless voting machines and how vunderable they are to various types of manipulations.

does the capture mean Iraq II was successful, setting precedent for preemptive wars?
Waddyall think?

Waddy I think? I think all of these crooks will get away with whatever they place in the media for all to belive.

Somtimes I feel just so hopeless, but I am going to vote anyway.

[aforceforgood]

There's nothing anyone could ever do to him that could ever avenge the huge number of terrible things he's done, so we have to sort of move beyond that and try to think of how we can best use him/the situation specifically and generally.

I don't know about that- I think Saddam would make an excellent first star of my previously suggested TTC- the Terrorist Torture Channel, where those who kill innocent people would be chained to a wall, and the families and friends of their victims would get medievil on their asses to their hearts content, and televise that to the entire world for free.

THAT, IMO, would be a deterrent.

As for those electric voting machines, I agree with you lilly, I mean, what the fuck, you think they can't Onstar your vote? When we live in a time where someone can push a button and unlock your car from potentially anywhere on earth (or even from off of it if you really let your imagination run wild, no reason that satellites control signal has to come from the ground), what assurance do we have that those electronic voting machines will remain sacrosanct, uncontrolled by either hackers or even more sinister forces...

OTOH, with the likelihood that both the dem and rep candidates will be handpicked by the powers that be, what difference does it make who wins anyway?

[joel the ornery]

Isn't nice to live in a country where public discourse on a subject can range from frivolous to factual... and nobody kicks in your door, rapes your wife and daughter, shoots your sons in the head and marches you off to war against your neighboring countries because of your opinions.

May I suggest "participate, don't spectate" as a course of action for living in this grand democratic republic of ours.

It does not matter who resides in the White House as long as the process as described by law is followed... and yes, Virginia, that means the Electoral College too.

Have a nice day.

[Niacin]

It'll be real interesting watching how the spin changes accomplishment of one of the objectives of the war into de facto (oh, I kid!) approval of the reasons for going to war.

Should be a good lesson in propaganda.

[Cariapata]

Until they capture Osama, none of the hijinks with Saddam means a thing. Osama is our main threat, Saddam was just a sideshow.

[Rob the Wop]

As for those electric voting machines, I agree with you lilly, I mean, what the fuck, you think they can't Onstar your vote? When we live in a time where someone can push a button and unlock your car from potentially anywhere on earth (or even from off of it if you really let your imagination run wild, no reason that satellites control signal has to come from the ground), what assurance do we have that those electronic voting machines will remain sacrosanct, uncontrolled by either hackers or even more sinister forces.

Which is far more effective that visiting graveyards for "voters", replacing paper "votes" with yours, or rigging the counting system. If you want to rig an election, you can do it. There are accurate and secure ways of using electronic voting. And let's face it- if you ever wanted to change the way the president is elected (electorial college vs. popular vote), you would NEED an electronic system.

I did research into the very topic two years ago and determined that, if properly implemented, an electronic voting system is far more secure than a paper one. Wouldn't it be neat to have a reciept with a large alpha-numeric string on it that- combined with your access key and a password- would prove who you voted for, when you voted, and where you voted? A system where the polling booth operators could not know who an individual voted for- just the tally? Where you can have proof far too difficult to fake with current technology, that a group voted in a certain way? Just have em bring back in their receipts and retally. I can provide you with cites if need be, but a simple Google search will dump dozens of solutions in your lap.

[Cariapata]

And wouldn't such a ticket be nice to have should the unthinkable happen, the constitution gets suspended and all of a sudden they can go back and track who you voted for, when, and where? And then all of the nightmare scenarios listed above happens here?

I prefer a secret ballot, and I mean fully secret. I want nobody to have the ability whatsoever to track anything I do in the voting booth. Remember, the impossible does become possible and on a routine basis. Examples include the fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of the USSR, Saddam being forced from power, and I could dig up more examples of sea change.

Never say never....

[madmatt]

We could always do what we (the western countries) do in developing countries, post multi-national UN observers at polls to ensure everything's on the up n up.

Oh wait, W said the UN was irrelevant, forget it.

[Bob]

http://www.google.com/search?q=hacking+ ... achines%22
Results 1 - 100 of about 4,760. Search took 0.79 seconds.

Of course, I don't believe those results either.

From http://www.blackboxvoting.com:

• E-voting runs into bumps in East Bay
  Oakland Tribune
  Thousands of Alameda County voters cast ballots Tuesday on computer software that state and county elections officials say was never certified for a California election. The same problem existed for last month's recall election. State and county officials were dismayed last week to learn that Diebold Elections Systems Inc. altered the software running in Alameda County's touchscreen voting machines yet neither submitted it for state testing nor even notified state authorities of the change. "We were upset to say the least," said Elaine Ginnold, the county's assistant elections registrar.
  ....
  "It's like a financial institution that doesn't keep records. You can't audit it and tell whether there's been embezzlement," Dill said. But elections officials and manufacturers of voting machines have resisted the idea, arguing that touchscreen machines are proven in rigorous software testing by federal and state governments. That argument took a blow last week as Diebold officials privately conceded to state and county elections officials that while a federal contract lab had certified its software changes, the state itself had never seen them.
  ....
  Diebold has moved aggressively to address criticism. It sent threatening letters to students and Internet service providers who posted internal Diebold e-mails that pointed up software security problems. The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Diebold to stop the letters, alleging they infringed on the students' First Amendment rights.
  Meanwhile, Alameda County said Diebold claimed its software changes were not subject to California testing requirements, a confusion that may have arisen because of uncertain state practices. "They're not consistent from vendor to vendor or from year to year. They're trying to work it out now," the county's Ginnold said. But Diebold faces a clear requirement in California law to at least notify state government of those changes, state officials said. Meanwhile, Alameda County officials say that next time Diebold says its software is certified, they're not going to operate on trust and the promises in their $12.7 million contract with the voting machine company.

Diebold et al cannot "properly implement" democracy -- the People do, at many levels other than the vote tallying process itself. Diebold's mission is to bid on and win public contracts as defined by state governments and thereby make a profit -- not democracy.

Given the most foolproof, bugproof, patchproof, wormproof, etcproof vote tallying system, a properly configured Democratic or Republican Party can and will find ways to gerrymander, gravedig, and otherwise cheat their way around it. The public attention, and public-official hand-waving, diverted to replacing arguably bad, worn-out, obsolete systems masks such things as the process by which the Republican Party has already engineered an election turnover in California. No question that really bad systems should be replaced, and I'm not saying all the money involved is entirely wasted, but no computerized system completely removes intentional or unintentional human bungling, voter apathy, the (allegedly-)Green Party, media suppression of fringe candidates and non-mainstream viewpoints in or out of the major parties, databases outside the vote tallying system that erroneously identify eligible voters as ineligible felons, using war to win election or reelection, etc.

[Niacin]

My vote should be counted secretly, but the method by which my vote is counted should be open to scrutiny by anyone.

Cheers,
Max

[Rob the Wop]

all of a sudden they can go back and track who you voted for, when, and where?

Are you familiar with public/private key encryption? You CAN'T use the public key to crack the message. And that is the essential basis for "certificates" and PGP Email strategies. And the basis for most of the electronic voting schemes. Your information is private. Your vote flips a bit with your name on it once you prove your identity. The other "public" portion is the actual vote.

But but but... a supercomputer can crack it...[\i]

Well, yes it can- those algorithms are known. It just takes time. 128-bit too easy to crack? Screw it, let's just bump the encryption up to 4kb. What the hell, it's easy enough- just bit space. Now the time required to crack the code becomes centuries with current technology. The pace now becomes ridiculous to keep up with. Just add more bits.

Now tie up this computer with a billion votes (instances). Good luck.

Previously the cryptology race was for cracking a code. Now we have the way to do it- it just takes time. So you bump up the time it takes until it's not worth cracking the code.

It would be FAR easier to simply point a visual spying device on you and take a picture of you voting. And a "secret" paper ballot technique would be far less secure that you inventing a password and semi-random (you create) private key to encrypt the private portion of your vote. Then you could vote from any Internet ready device. When pulling government conspiracies out of the air, try and remember the core of Occam's Razor. If it takes phenomenal effort on the part of a government, and there is an easier route- guess which one will be taken?

[blyslv]

Until they capture Osama, none of the hijinks with Saddam means a thing. Osama is our main threat, Saddam was just a sideshow.

I would posit that Osama is very happy that Saddam is gone. Osama thought Saddam was just as much a godless heathen as he thought Americans were.

[aforceforgood]

I can't argue with the point that the sociopaths who occupy government offices will screw with any system ever devised, I'm just saying lets not make their jobs easier. Electronic voting machines enable them to change the election with the touch of a button instead of having to buy off those counting the ballots, gravedig, render eligible voters ineligible, suppress media investigation of election strangeness, etc, etc, etc.

Or we can let them push a button. Which sounds better to you?

Or try this comparison on for size- the in your face mugger who has to go to a specific place, expose himself to capture, risk even death to get a few hundred dollars from you against the computer hacker who electronically breaks into a bank and steals millions just be using his keyboard from anywhere on earth. How do we track a shadow government that can direct the government via radio waves beamed from anywhere? Is the anonymity of computers what makes electronic voting machines desirable?

Let's face it, electronic voting machines are a fuckup waiting to happen.

BTW, excellent post Bob, I've been looking for info like that, thanks! I can only hope everyone clicks through to those links.

In fact, I'm going to repost them so they don't get buried.

http://www.google.com/search?q=hacking+ ... achines%22

From http://www.blackboxvoting.com:

[madmatt]

Until they capture Osama, none of the hijinks with Saddam means a thing...

...Osama thought Saddam was just as much a godless heathen as he thought Americans were.

Exactly, but...just becuase we can find faults of logic in the reasoning of Islamic Extremists, doesn't mean that they don't act opportunistically and pragmatically to accomplish certain goals, for example buying WMDs from someone they are ideologically opposed to. It was never at issue that that Iraq had WMDs or sold WMDs to Al Qaeda, but (and I agree with the reasoning) the fact that Iraq & Al Qaeda had overlapping interests (common enemy) plus the reality shock that Al Qaeda was capable of coordinating an attack as big & complex as 911...that made even the chance that Iraq & Al Qaeda might find each other too great a risk for security policy people. (slim chance, but big consequences)

[aforceforgood]

Until they capture Osama, none of the hijinks with Saddam means a thing. Osama is our main threat, Saddam was just a sideshow.

I would posit that it means a lot to the families and friends of the dead and tortured, and for those living in Iraq that there is less likelihood of his government regaining power.

And viewing Osama as our main threat is outdated thinking- the threat is randomly scattered, not consolidated in one place like an army that used to march in neat rows letting their brethren get picked off until they were close enough to fire accurately. We're fighting a media war (I could have said propaganda, but wanted to avoid the innate negative connotation that word has) to win hearts and minds as it were. We will only change things long term by getting some education going in countries that have been force-fed their leaders' propoganda.

Please note, I am not excluding America from that list. A varied information diet is the most healthy one for democracy and freedom...

[aforceforgood]

Here's a great idea for a dual-message PSA (public service announcement). It starts with an image of a middle eastern person shooting rounds into the air to celebrate Saddam's capture, then cuts to a rabid Detroit Lions fan doing the same thing when their team won the superbowl, and then the message; we're more alike than we think- stop racism. And don't fire your gun into the air, it kills people.

Just goes to show ya, there's knuckleheads in both our cultures.

[Rob the Wop]

Electronic voting machines enable them to change the election with the touch of a button instead of having to buy off those counting the ballots, gravedig, render eligible voters ineligible, suppress media investigation of election strangeness, etc, etc, etc.

Or we can let them push a button. Which sounds better to you?

Nice magic button you have there. Glad no one will notice millions of votes changing while pressing the button. Especially since there will be local and individual proof of votes. Please post a detailed map of:
a) where this magic button is located (physical map is useless, a logical diagram of where in the network you'll place it and what it will SPECIFICALLY do)
This is the important part. Anyone can say, "The government will have a magic doodah that does X." Very, very few people who say these things can explain how they work to a competant engineer.
b) how it will brainwash the people that voted so they toss their receipts
c) how it will destroy the county collected voting tally backups

Please do your research. It's obvious that you haven't even tried to see what electronic elections entail. Besides, if I'm not mistaken- the presidential vote eventually gets put into a computer system for the grand tally. Though I admit to not knowing exactly on that one.

Or try this comparison on for size- the in your face mugger who has to go to a specific place, expose himself to capture, risk even death to get a few hundred dollars from you against the computer hacker who electronically breaks into a bank and steals millions just be using his keyboard from anywhere on earth. How do we track a shadow government that can direct the government via radio waves beamed from anywhere? Is the anonymity of computers what makes electronic voting machines desirable?

Try this comparison on for size.
How many people get mugged every year in the US?
How many people steal a million dollars electronically per year in the US?

Wonder why? Hmmmm....
Maybe, it's like... a lot harder to do?

Throw away all your credit cards, debit cards, and checks- they all have an electronic basis. Maybe just carry all your cash you have with you. While you're at it, stay away from banks entirely. They have an electronic basis too.

Evil electronics. Naughty naughty naughty electronics. Bad.

Anyone can forge a check if they have your account number.
But you need their PIN number to access their bank account via ATM.

Anyone can forge a bunch of ballot cards.
It gets harder when passwords and privately created access keys come into the picture. At this point you can PROVE that a group voted they way they did.

Try dropping the psychotic conspiracy theories and actually research the electronic voting methods available.

Let's face it, electronic voting machines are a fuckup waiting to happen.

Right.
Computers bad. Beware the witch doctor.
Our economy is based upon electronic information transfer.
So is almost all of our communication medium.
Where do you live?

Again, I implore you to please actually try reading about what is available. All the weird conspiracy theory crap you keep spouting has been taken into account. If the governement controlled everything and rigged every election, it wouldn't matter what the hell type of voting methods were used. Electronic would simply make it easier to prove that the election was rigged.

[Rob the Wop]

And as to Bob's post, notice I said properly implemented.
How many years have we had to iron out paper ballot systems?
How many years have we had to iron out electronic voting systems?

These are simply two methods to input data on election results. One relies on trusting an unsigned, piece of paper with holes in it. The other relies on trusting an electronic copy of a voter's input to a computer.

The first can be scewed by switching the boxes of ballots or scewing the counting.
The second scewed by modifying the software involved.

The first cannot prove a vote one way or another if the ballots are suspect. The second can definitively prove a vote one way or another by getting the alpha-numeric reciept strings from the group voting. You can run an error checking algorithm on the voting stations to prove whether they have been tampered with. You have to get everyone in an area to vote again to prove ballot tampering.

[III]

>properly implemented

most of my information on this comes from rebecca mercuri, who's kind of the guardian angel of technology in elections.

she seems to think that it is indeed possible, maybe. the problem is in th eproperly implemented part - the things i see missing so far are:

1) verifiable record of voting (what you mentioned)
2) a verifiable audit trail
3) open source code and a published interface.

without 3, especially, a high school kid should be able to write something that tells you you voted for who you want, tells you the same thing when you verify, but actually registers the vote for someone else. even with all of those things, you need diligent oversight to ensure honesty, and given our legislators rush to approve the currently used systems without any of the above mentioned features, adequate oversight is going to be a long time coming.

here's a sample of the state of the art:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.03.html#subj3

[Bob]

By no means am I saying that good voting-booth interfaces and good vote-tallying systems can't be developed.

Actual vote-rigging aside, nothing is perfect, and there's the Murphy's Law factor -- eg a December runoff election in, say, San Francisco, in stormy weather that cuts the power to a remote precinct that already lacks enough computer-type ballot forms for the number of people who showed up. Believe I heard this on the news, but I think the power came back up, and it happened at a time before closing when they could still fetch more ballots. Would the power shutdown have affected the storage unit? Who knows... I suppose they'd still have a partial paper trail from the voter signup sheets. The city department that oversees elections has been on the hotseat after boxes of ballots were found floating in the bay just a few years ago.

My other point was that the overall democratic process of representational democracy in US usage involves many other factors than the voting hardware & software, that might tend to be overlooked as blatantly obsolete systems are replaced with arguably better, but perhaps not perfect, systems sold to us in a lowest-bidder government contracting scenario by Republican party hacks who happen to be in the business of computerized vote counting.

[blyslv]

for example buying WMDs from someone they are ideologically opposed to.

Yeah, if al-Quaida was really smart they'd buy directly from us and eliminate the middle man. Instead, we sold them to Saddam, Saddam sold them to unidentified 3rd parties and some Saudis hijacked jetplanes.

It's my tea party and I'll hallucinate if I want to.

Actaully we sold Saddam WMD and Stingers to the Taliban.

[blyslv]

And viewing Osama as our main threat is outdated thinking- the threat is randomly scattered, not consolidated in one place like an army that used to march in neat rows letting their brethren get picked off until they were close enough to fire accurately. We're fighting a media war (I could have said propaganda, but wanted to avoid the innate negative connotation that word has) to win hearts and minds as it were. We will only change things long term by getting some education going in countries that have been force-fed their leaders' propoganda.

And setting up false dichotomies is silly. A low intensity guerrilla war is different from Redcoats marching in a line, just like killing a known radical with familial ties to the House of Saud is different from killing a tyranical sadistic dictator with a blue collar background.

Glad to hear it's a media war. Plase inform the combatants in Iraq and Afhganistan. I support our troops -- bring 'em home for xmas!

[aforceforgood]

I guess gerrymandering is just some psychotic conspiracy theory too. Or the Bush-Gore "election" debacle.

Or maybe you have the utmost faith that this time, somehow, some way, just the fact that we have these snazzy new expensive gadgets that basically do the same thing as we did with a much more reliable old piece of paper and a punch or pencil will deter corrupt people from trying to steal elections.

The phrase "if properly implemented" is the massive trapdoor in the argument for electronic voting. There are already numerous documented instances of inaccuracy that show that electronic voting is not ready for general use, even if they do print out a receipt for you. You get a receipt when you vote now, so how exactly does that help you ascertain whether or not the election's rigged, sans a massive recount, which will not make use of your little reciept anyway?

And that's without outside tampering. Does anyone here honestly believe that there will be no electronic crime next year? How about the year after that? Our country has a long tradition of rigging elections, so the question we have to be asking is, do we really trust a system that makes the voting process LESS TRANSPARENT, and LESS ACCOUNTABLE?

Or let me put it another way- why do you lock your door? Because it lessens the chance that someone will come in and steal your stuff. Make it easy for someone to steal without getting caught, and the instances of theft will increase correspondingly.

As for your challenge to explain where exactly this "magic button" would be located, I'm not going to rise to that troll, you know as well as I do that if a radio signal can unlock one specific car, it's a simple enough matter to broadcast a radio signal to a voting machine telling it to change enough votes to rig an election.

And what exactly would we be noticing when these votes change? Are you that sensitive to radio waves? Because I'm not. Are the receipts from these electronic voting machines going to be hand counted and compared to the electronic tally? Yeah right. And if the machine doesn't print out a receipt, or does but that receipt doesn't show how the person voted as it is now, how will you double-check the counting process that occurs entirely within the machine?

Why don't you do some reading and find out about the problems that are already occurring with these machines? Am I so out of line to suggest that we consider what we already know, namely, that computers, while they're amazing things, are fraught with bugs still, and insecurities even though they've been around for over twenty years.

Am I so out of line to suggest that we stick with a system that leaves physical evidence that can be tracked and is operable by nearly everyone rather than one that is insecure, highly technical, opaque in its operation, susceptible to errors sometimes as high as 100%, more expensive, and just plain unnecessary.

We're supposed to just trust the programmers and technicians that everything's working right because why exactly?