Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00646)

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> > Perhaps the fact that he was legally elected has something to do
> with
> > it.
> 
> Well, it is true that he was elected by the Supreme Court and it is
> also true that the votes of the justices (there are only nine) were
> fairly counted. I admired Jeb Bush for recusing himself from the
> process in the interest of government integrity. There are others
> who should have done the same.

The popular votes were counted. Bush won. The votes were recounted.
Bush won. The popular votes were recounted a third time. Bush won. The
nationally mandated deadline was looming, and, if Florida didn't choose
electors within a couple of days, Florida wouldn't have any electors.
The Supreme Court decided that three recounts were enough, and that
there was not sufficient time for a 4th. When newspapers, using the
Freedom of Information Act, recounted the votes themselves, Bush won.
The only way that Bush could have lost is to take all the ballots where
people voted for more than one candidate, and assume that they were all
for Al Gore. All three conservatives, all three swings, and one liberal
on the SCOTUS overruled the SCOFLA; the 5-4 vote was that there was not
sufficient time to do another recount. The Chief Justice of the SCOFLA,
well-known to be a liberal, stated that the SCOFLA was illegally
creating ex post facto laws from the bench.

> > Strangely enough, those people who scoff at the concept are the same
> > people who were screaming, a few months back, "The government had
> > evidence that 9/11 might happen before the event. Why didn't they DO
> > anything?" Now you know why they didn't do anything.
> 
> I am missing something somewhere. Thet were unable to sort out the
> signal from all the noise, but that has happened before, notably at
> Pearl Harbor. Another problem was that the most vital intelligence
> was in the hands of domestic law enforcement organizations which were
> loath to share it. What does that have to do with the impending oil
> war?

It is an attempt to stop terrorist activity BEFORE it takes place.
During the Afghan action, virtually every military analyst stated that
the next biggest danger was Iraq.

> > Colombia and Venezuela do not have the world's foremost experts on
> > biological warfare working for them.
> 
> Neither did Iraq until we sold them the bio agents which were the
> basis for their program. All the administration has to do is sell
> the same agents to those two countries and voila! A new
> oil "problem."

There are accusations, but not evidence that the U.S. sold the bio
agents to Iraq. 

Of course, there is a secondary question. Let's say I am wrong, and you
are right. A good chunk of the world's oil supply is in the hands of a
man who claims to hate the United States (although I personally believe
that he is in favor of whatever will keep him in power, and against
anything that might take him out of power). The United States is heavily
dependent on foreign oil, largely because of movements in the United
States heavily funded by oil money (such as the anti-nuclear power
movement). Is it wrong for the United States to protect itself against
blackmail? 

Bart Lidofsky

Bart