Even if the remaining states all cast their votes for Obama, he can't win without the supes. And if Clinton is counting on the supes elected so far to switch, then why should she quit after all the votes have been cast? Just because they got elected doesn't mean that she feels bound to defer to that.
You left out Bush & Co's bankers. There is no way in Hell that they are doing all this just for political gain. It's monetary gain that really gets the heart racing.
If they are siphoning off money from the two wars, from bribes and payoffs, from hidden investments and war profiteering, then it is being sheltered somewhere. And they have to have bankers to take care of it all.
Why am I so certain that they have stolen millions, if not billions? Because his two daughters act like they are literal royalty. They have no inclination to get a job, develop a career, or even be polite to people. That sort of entitlement only comes to children who know that they never, ever, ever have to work a day in their lives or count on anyone for anything.
And don't forget Murray Waas's American Prospect piece of 3/8/04:
Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
What "conservative interest groups" were doing Rove's bidding? "Talking points" were distributed - to whom? Might Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly be listed as those "allies of the administration"? If they leaked this to Novak, what other journalists are on their "go-to" lists? And this doesn't sound like a new situation for the White House - what other disinformation/destruction campaigns have they run?
And who is getting the payoffs from Rove? Novak wouldn't run with this stuff just because he likes the Bushevekis. They are paying for public opinion - those are the names that also need to emerge.
Because if Rove, Bush, Cheney, Abrams, Bolton and all this crew are going to be revealed and jailed, their waterbearers on conservative radio and cable need to go, too.
That's Krugman's advice to Kerry. Dismantle and eradicate the Bush machine. They never extended a hand to us, unless it had an axe in it. They used 9/11 as a pure political hatchet. They would happily destroy democracy if it meant they were the sole party in power forever.
These guys get no quarter. They go to jail for voter suppression, for kickbacks, payoffs, and Treasury raping. For war crimes. For treason.
And the Cultists of Bush? They are either deprogrammed or shunned.
If there are sensible, patriotic Republicans, such as McCain, let them formally denounce the Bushies. Otherwise, they too must be bypassed on the way to create the America that America has always dreamt of being: just, fair, open, and progressive.
Of course, just because the American public and press don't seem to care doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't care. Why shouldn't Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld end up in a special court in the Hague?
And if Bushco get back into the Oval Office, I'm sure that the EU, Japan, and most nations in the world are going to be extremely concerned that a rogue nation, acting above the law, has its hand on the world's largest military power and the attitude that anything goes. When do we start seeing sanctions and economic boycotts of the States?
It's so much about the "cheerleader effect" as it is about creating an alibi. The potential is very real here that Kerry will win, clearly and decisively. He's got Pennsylvania and he's now got Ohio. He will win the Electoral College and probably the popular vote.
But Rove's team is setting up a scenario where they will claim "election fraud" and "stealing the election." "How can Kerry have won so decisively, when the polls showed that it was too close to call? This is clear evidence of voter fraud!"
And of course, since exit polling has been eliminated, there are no corroborating independent organizations reporting on the voters' choice.
The RNC is already preparing its base for the legal challenges that they are going to issue. Kerry will win but they are going to try to beat him down in court.
But that's why it's so telling that Kerry's campaign song is Springsteen's "No Surrender". This is a man who has actually killed people that were threatening him. Who's the last President that did that?
If Kerry wins, we will all pick up our metaphoric guns and follow him to defend this election and this country. And that's what real leadership is.
... which is, of course, 9/11 and LIHOP. The PNAC piece that you cite is very frank in its assessment that a new Pearl Harbor would be the best way to get the American Public behind the Project.
You can be sure that when Bush states something over and over again, it is a Big Lie that he wants you to believe. 9/11 didn't "change everything" - for them, it changed NOTHING. This was the plan all along.
You don't think that they would willingly sacrifice a few thousand Blue-staters and immigrants to carry out their huge history-making scheme? They probably quote Stalin's bon mot about eggs and omelettes to each other.
The October issue of Harper's has a valuable article on the whitewash delivered by the 9/11 report. The sense one gets is that even the members of the Committee didn't want to face the possibility that the Administration knew it was going to occur and let it happen. The Committee members obviously felt that the general public couldn't handle such a revelation - or even the implication of such perfidy on the part of the President.
Bush made it very plain, for those who wished to listen, what he was going to do. Plenty of people were counting off the days until the Iraqi invasion after Bush was inaugurated. Even the Onion expected it.
What you have to listen to is what Bush is planning to do for his second term, when he claims both the will of the people and God have put him in his position.
I don't think the rest of the world, though, wants Bush to carry out God's plan. We may get into a shooting war with the European Union before this is all over.
GWHB - along with Bill Casey - actually flew to Paris and met with representatives of the Iranian government. The deal was that the Iranians would hold onto the American hostages until after Reagan was in office, and Americans under Reagan would find a way to get them a good deal on arms.supply them with arms.
Ari Ben-Menashe, former Mossad agent, gives more detail in his book "Profits of War" (1991). Ben-Menashe says he was part of a team which worked with the French to arrange secret meetings between George Bush, William Casey, and the Iranians. At one particular meeting in Paris, on October 19, 1980, a final agreement allegedly was concluded: In exchange for a $40 million bribe and future arms shipments, the Iranians agreed not to release the American hostages until the January 1981 Presidential inauguration. This, in fact, did happen; the 52 hostages were released on January 20, 1981. The Iran-Contra setup was a direct result.
Robert Parry over at Consortium News has done the most extensive research on this issue. Kevin Phillips also discusses it in his book "American Dynasty".
For a bit of the feeling of those days, take a watch of the debate between John Kerry and John O'Neill on The Dick Cavett Show of Jun 30 1971. What's astonishing is how much the arguments that Kerry makes against the present war are the same as the ones that he made against the Vietnam War. (It must be very unpleasant deja vu, especially with John O'Neill popping up again.)