The US Presidential election in 2000 took place on the 7th of November. The two main challengers were, of course George W. Bush, and Al Gore.
During the campaign, Bush stated "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." Rather interesting when you consider what followed.
There were various legal battles which followed the election, however, Gore, despite having the popular vote behind him conceded victory to Bush because of a US Supreme Court ruling.
A Washington Post analysis found that Democrats were the hardest hit by "overvotes", and the BBC's Newsnight uncovered some very dodgy goings on in Florida, under Bush's brother, Jeb.
So, despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, and that Database Technologies had wiped thousands of people's names off the Florida voters registers in a rather criminal manner, Bush grabbed the White House, and the Democrats sat back, for the sake of "national unity". Perhaps you'd call it subserviance.
On the 11th of September, 2001, a terrible attack took place, whereby four US commercial airliners were hijacked, two crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, one into the Pentagon, and the other in Pennsylvania.
On that same day, Ari Fleisher, then White House press secretary gave this briefing:
Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?
MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.
Q Does the President...is he concerned about the fact that this attack of this severity happened with no warning?
MR. FLEISCHER: First things first: his concern is with the safety of people who have lost their ? the health and security of the American people and with the families of those who have lost their lives. There will come an appropriate time to do all appropriate look backs. His focus is on events this morning.
No warnings? Liar. How about you Condoleeza, you were a National Security Adviser at the time, you've since been promoted to US secretary of State, did you say there were no warnings as well?
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I see that the preachers of hate come in more than one flavor today.
Dave
2 - Voice 1
I see that faced with the facts, you, Dave cannot answer them, with any sane and reasonable response.
3 - Dave Nalle
Sanity deserves a sane response. Hate just breeds hate. Especially at 4am. If I have time and am not too depressed to wade through every single one of your lengthy spewings of spin, I might do a point by point rebuttal, but virtually every one of your points is either meaningless or has been thoroughly debunked, so I'm not sure it;s even worth my time to rehash it. I mean, come on - bringing up all the old and disproven claims about the 00 and 04 elections? Even you ought to know how bogus those are by now.
Dave
4 - marc
Question: Given all of the above listed "criminal offenses" why hasn't Bush been impeached by the many moonbats that reside in the US House and Senate?
Here's my thinking, because even they have enough active brain cells to realize this post is so full of bullshit the smell of manure emanates through my modem.
5 - Voice 1
What's the matter Marc? You not able to "debunk" all of the above either?
6 - Dave Nalle
Marc, we're just tired of it. We've all been over this a thousand times before. You subscribe to the theory that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth. We're resigned to the fact that for some of your audience that's true, and we've decided they're not worth holding onto if they can't see through such simplistic deceptions.
Dave
7 - Voice 1
Ah, "simplistic deceptions", such as Saddam Hussein poses a "clear and present danger", or "nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale. "?
Only 2 examples there for you Dave. Just the facts, not rhetoric. Many of those quotes coming from the White House's own website, and many easily debunkable.
8 - Nancy
These aren't opinions; they're facts, recorded on tape and available to anyone who wants to read Bush's lying lips, & well known to the 49% of us who were disenfranchised by Bush, the GOP, & the corrupted Supreme Court, which illegally pre-empted the rights of voters and voided the 2000 elections for political payback. The shame is, Gore & the DNC should indeed have fought like hell, instead of supinely accepting this fraud in the name of "National Unity". Such crap. As if we have national unity now. This country would have been far better off going thru a rip-roaring fight to ensure a fair, legal, and uncorrupted election - even if they had to do it all over again - rather than to have accepted ChickenBoy & his corrupt neocon buddies & all the baggage they've subsequently saddled us with, including record deficits, out of control government spending, a war only Bush & the neocons wanted (he so he could be a "War President just like Daddy, they for profits), and the biggest, most intrusive government in history as well. Facts are facts are facts. You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but they won't go away. They're all right there, on tape.
9 - Mihos
ACLU OF LOUISIANA CALLS FOR FAIRNESS IN REDISTRICTING:
Testimony Given in New Orleans to the Subcommittee on Reapportionment of the Committee on House and Governmental Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 25, 2001.
NEW ORLEANSâ€"The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana operates as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. We do not endorse candidates or make political contributions to or become involved in their campaigns. That aside, we have a high degree of interest in voting. Such interest has translated over many years of work to preserve and extend the right to vote, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. We support the concept of "one person, one vote," which flows from the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and we support the Voting Rights Act.
Redistricting does not affect the right to vote, but can, at least in extreme cases, have a profound effect on the significance of a vote. The ACLU believes that, above all, any redistricting plan must be fair.
As you know, Louisiana must comply with both Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The most important concept to remember in compliance with these Sections is that there can be no retrogression, that is, minority voters cannot be worse off after redistricting than before, or the plan is subject to challenge. Under Section 5, the burden is on you to show that the plan does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. Certainly, a plan designed to produce at least a number of minority representatives in proportion to the minority population would go a long way toward showing good faith to remedy past and present discrimination. That would keep faith with the Supreme Court's interpretation of "proportionality" under Section 2.
While some may say that race cannot be the predominate factor in the drawing of districts, the courts have also said that it would be irresponsible for a state to disregard the racial fairness provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Race can be considered in redistricting.
There are many factors other than race which you can take into account in the drawing of districts, but please bear in mind that the results should be fair. A factor often brought up in redistricting, a factor not among the criteria you adopted at your meeting in Baton Rouge, but one which was mentioned there, is the protection of incumbents. On that point, putting two popular and effective incumbents into the same district does not well serve the public interest. Remember, the districts you create will be in place for at least ten years. Unless term limits are repealed, some incumbents cannot continue to represent that district for the next ten years, and sadly, some districts may literally outlive their incumbents. We ask you to consider the future as you make your boundary decisions.
Finally, there is the question of political fairness. At one time, Louisiana was virtually a one party state, and now, it is almost a nonpartisan one in many ways. This committee is a good example. In few other states would a subcommittee on the politically sensitive subject of redistricting be chaired by a member of the minority party. We ask you to make your decisions not without regard to political parties, but with fairness to political parties, just as we ask you to make your decisions not without regard to race, but with racial fairness, until the day of a truly color blind society arrives.