Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000

Lest we forget the other toll of this ridiculous war. I guess it's not so ridiculous when 100,00 innocent people die, is it? Get this, some older woman for the Bush campaign just knocked on our door about 15 mins. ago and my brother answered it. She let him know why she was there are for what campaign with a friendly demeanor. As soon as my brother said "we already voted and we picked the other guy" her friendly face drained and she retreated fast! Fuck them! I'm sorry but the issues Republicans worry about and what we worry about as working class Latinos in this country seem completely different. I would never vote for them even if my life depended on it! I'm so anxious about the election's results! I just don't want Bush to win! There's election fraud and mishaps already happening. I don't know how it's going to come down to. Please people, think of it logically: we've seen Bush perform for the past 4 years and we should have a good idea how he works: terribly At least for Kerry, we would have a fresh start to see how he would work. I know Bush and what he's done is awful! I'd rather see Kerry have a chance to prove himself than give that demagogue, Bush another chance! No fucking way, I say! He wasn't even supposed to get a first chance anyhow and he forced it to happen! Not this time, dumb-ass! Whoo!

October 29, 2004

CASUALTIES

Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

ARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.

Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.

The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.

In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.

Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.

Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.

The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.

There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.

That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.

The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.

Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.

Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.

The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.

"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.

From: "Florida for Kerry-Edwards"
To: afichick@mail.com
CC:
Subject: RALLY: John Kerry in Tampa, FL
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:48:55 -0500



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dear Supporter,

Please join us for the Fresh Start for America Rally with John Kerry in Tampa on Sunday, October 31.

This is an exciting opportunity to stand up and show your support for John Kerry and John Edwards in the final days before the election.

Tickets are required for this event. To print your complimentary ticket(s) or to volunteer at the rally, please click here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/tickets

WHEN: Sunday, October 31
Doors open at 8:00 p.m.
WHERE: Curtis Hixon Park
700 N Ashley St
Tampa, FL
DETAILS: Due to security, please do not bring any umbrellas, bags, or signs. Please limit personal items as well. This event will take place RAIN or SHINE.


John Kerry and John Edwards will stand up for the values that have always made America great: faith and family, strength and service, responsibility and opportunity for all. Join us at the rally, and show that you share the Kerry-Edwards vision for an America that is stronger at home and respected in the world.

http://www.johnkerry.com/tickets

Thank you for standing with us,

Florida for Kerry-Edwards


-Guess who's gonna be there?
-That's right, me!
-Kerry please kick Bush's ass!

Finally, some justice. I can't even explain why the military is so brainwashed into following and committing crimes. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

U.S. Soldier Sentenced to 8 Years for Iraq Abuse
Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:02 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick was sentenced to eight years in prison on Thursday for sexually and physically abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.
Judge Colonel James Pohl also sentenced Frederick, 38, to a reduction in rank to private, to forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge from the army.

Frederick's lawyer Gary Myers called the sentence "excessive" and said he intended to appeal.

"We will seek to try to achieve a sentence reduction," he said.

Frederick, the most senior enlisted man charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal, had pleaded guilty to five charges of abusing detainees at the facility in October and November last year, including making three prisoners masturbate.

He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation.

Major Michael Holley, the military prosecutor, told the court it was a simple case of right and wrong.

"He's an adult and capable of telling, as we learned, the difference between right and wrong," he said of Frederick. "How much training do you need to learn that it's wrong to force a man to masturbate?"

Myers said that while Frederick was right to be punished, a degree of responsibility had to be borne by the military establishment.

"Punish him, yes. But please try to understand the defense's point of view that there is corporate responsibility," Myers said. "We discovered that (Frederick) has no abhorrent tendencies."

Frederick is the third U.S. soldier to be convicted for his part in the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. Five soldiers are still due to face courts martial.

Judge Pohl originally sentenced Frederick to 10 years inprisonment, but reduced it to eight years because of a plea bargain.

I love In These Times! They always have stories and opinions that you would never otherwise hear. This is a great article on how Bush managed to say very little during the debates. I was feeling incredibly horrible and guilty all day because of the documentary on the genocide in Rwanda that I saw in class today. I was aware of the genocide but I had never see a film about it which had actual horrifying footage in it. I was so outraged and emotional watching this. I felt like exploding after class. The injustice of it. The Western nations who stood by as bystanders and did nothing only going so far as to airlift their white citizens from Rwanda, leaving all the innocent Black Africans to die. Fucked up, I tell you. Even the U.N. was complicit in the genocide by skirting the issue entirely. I wrote so many notes with furious passion. First thing after class, I searched for sites on how you can either volunteer or become involved with the U.N. I'm seriously considering joining the U.N. or some other organization with the power to stop something like this from happening. The tragic news is that Sudan is now being compared to the genocide in Rwanda. It's at this point that I wish that I was in a position of power to help, aid, or help the victims of genocide. If I were in the U.N. I would push for immediate action and attention. Not like how they acted during the Rwandan genocide. Sigh, my soul is so heavy with the weight of social responsibility. Not to mention but I saw the documentary Dreamworlds again today and the rape scene left with tears rolling down my face. I was so impacted with everything and then that scene that it all came out. I'm more determined now than ever to create a life where I can be a part of social change. Finally, here's the story on Bush:


http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1355/

IN THESE TIMES

Please consider subscribing to the print edition and supporting independent media: http://www.inthesetimes.com/subscribe/
This article is permanently archived at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1355/

The Hollow Man
The debates revealed just how little Candidate Bush has to offer.
By David Kusnet October 18, 2004

After the third and final presidential debate concluded with the candidates reciting their prepared closing statements, the television pundits repeated their equally predictable conclusion that the event was a draw, with Kerry ahead on “substance” but Bush besting him on “style.”

But soon afterward, the voters weighed in with a different decision, declaring Kerry the winner by margins ranging from 52 percent to 39 percent (CNN/USA Today) to 39 percent to 25 percent (CBS) and 42 percent to 41 percent (ABC News in a sampling heavily weighted to Republicans.)

The people, not the pundits, had it right. Kerry won all three debates. Yes, he scored heavily on policy—a tribute not only to his forensic skills but also to the facts about the quagmire in Iraq and the jobless, raise-less economic recovery. But he also prevailed on personality—with his steady stoicism more reassuring in a post-9/11 world than the self-styled “wartime president’s” unsettling tendency to growls and giggles.

While the voters’ verdict on the three debates was varied, there’s no doubt about their impact on the presidential race. Bush began the debates 7 percentage points ahead of Kerry in most national polls. Two weeks later, after the third debate, Bush and Kerry were tied, with about half the voters saying they don’t want four more years of Bush—a perilous position for a president running for reelection.

The campaign turned from a blowout to a dead-heat because most voters seem to see the debates—and, perhaps, the presidential choice itself—through the lens of the first debate, where Kerry was confident and concise and Bush was frowning and frazzled.

But if any of the remaining undecided voters, especially worried working people, were watching the third debate, the Kodak moments came when Bush was asked questions about how the economy affects everyday Americans.

Early in the evening, moderator Bob Schiefer asked Bush, “What do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who’s being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?”

Bush looked at Schiefer, not the camera, and answered: “I’d say, Bob, I’ve got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st Century. And here’s some help for you to get an education. Here’s help for you to go to a community college.” Then, Bush started singing the praises of No Child Left Behind, the program to improve the nation’s public schools, from kindergarten through high school.

Several questions later, Bush was asked whether he would raise the minimum wage. This time, he devoted two sentences to low-wage workers, then retreated to No Child Left Behind.

For voters anxious about losing good-paying jobs or already working for poverty wages, Bush’s message was clearer than he knew: The problem, dummy, is you didn’t get a good education. And while it’s most likely too late for you, at least your kids just might have a future, if we shake up or shut down their schools.

Maybe Bush’s just-folks manner still makes him personally likeable, but the third debate went a long way toward sealing the impression that he’s a regular guy who’s out of touch with regular people. After all, he’s been president for four years, but on the night when his presidency hung in the balance, he couldn’t speak for 90 seconds about the problems of mature workers who are afraid their jobs will be shipped overseas, leaving them working for Wal-Mart wages.

Bush’s failure to fill his allotted time with credible discussions of economic issues spoke volumes about his handicaps as a debater, as a candidate, and, ultimately, as a president. Before the debates began, pundits and partisans alike agreed that Bush and Kerry had contrasting problems. Bush’s challenge was to collect and commit to memory enough plausible points about the country’s condition to fill his half of a 90-minute debate. Kerry’s problem was distilling what he wanted to say, so that he could complete his answers before the red lights went on.

Never before (including in Gerald Ford’s and Ronald Reagan’s reelection campaigns) had a sitting president faced such low expectations, nor had a challenger ever had it taken for granted that he had a greater command of the facts about foreign and domestic issues, facing only the obstacle that he had too many ideas to cram into 90-second responses.

Indeed, Bush’s advantages were believed to be his friendlier, more accessible personality and his ability to sum up his positions in simple statements of principle. In 2000, he held a more knowledgeable but less likeable Al Gore to a draw in their debates, and, this time, many pundits and political insiders thought the aura of the presidency would give him an added advantage over the patrician and professorial Kerry.

Except for the second debate where the town hall format allowed Bush to banter with the audience, Kerry was the winner on style as well as substance. Towering over Bush, looking straight into the camera, speaking in a strong and steady voice, and rarely fretful or frustrated, Kerry looked and sounded more like a president than the incumbent. He certainly seemed nothing like the “flip-flopper” who had been regularly lambasted by Bush’s stump speeches and the Republican convention oratory and branded “unfit for command” by attack ads on TV and a poison-pen paperback in the bookstores.

While Kerry, unlike his running mate John Edwards, is hardly populist in manner, he has honed an attack on Bush’s economic policies for catering to special interests, from the top-bracket tax cuts to the ban on importing inexpensive prescription drugs from Canada. And Kerry offered ideas to address the anxieties of middle-class Americans, from securing their health coverage to abolishing the tax incentives that send their jobs abroad.

Meanwhile, by the third debate, Bush had lost his last remaining advantage—an emotional intelligence that allowed him to bond with Americans, even though he rarely addressed them articulately without a prepared text—the great exception being his bullhorn-wielding pledge to the firefighters and ironworkers near Ground Zero: “The people who knocked down those buildings are going to hear from all of us soon.” Except when asked about faith and family, that Bush didn’t show up at the first or third debates. Instead, he smiled at things that weren’t happy, laughed at things that weren’t funny and seemed less like a commander-in-chief than an unprepared high school kid suddenly called upon in class.

In the remaining days of the campaign, Bush and his backers are left with the last-ditch tactic of embattled Republicans: calling their opponents “liberals,” and, in Kerry’s case, a “Massachusetts liberal” at that. But Kerry has taken pains to present himself in ways that transcend the stereotypes that skewered Michael Dukakis and Edward Kennedy. Unlike his predecessors and presumed soul mates, Kerry is a war hero, a former prosecutor, an aviator and, he reminded Americans in the final debate, an avid hunter as well.

Moreover, the issues in this campaign are different from those of 16 years ago, when the elder Bush branded Dukakis with the dreaded L-word. When the younger Bush bashes Kerry for wanting to spend more money on public education and homeland security, Kerry cheerfully pleads guilty, knowing that these charges carry none of the emotional impact of calling Dukakis soft on crime and spendthrift on welfare.

Four years ago, Bush won, sort of, by being more likeable at a time when it seemed the presidency might not be much more difficult than being governor of Texas. This time, Kerry can prevail with voters looking for gravitas, not geniality. Republican oratory notwithstanding, Bush, not Kerry, may be the candidate whose rationale was reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001.

David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is the author of Speaking American: How the Democrats Can Win in the Nineties (Thunder’s Mouth, 1992).

Kerry's Cheney gay daughter remark "uproar!"

What bullshit! The way Republicans are responding to mentioning a gay family member is equivalant to an insult. This speaks volumes about how they perceive gay people! They need to embrace the fact that gay people exist and are as human as everyone else and thus should have all the same rights, and get over it like the rest of us do. Grrr. I'm mentioning this in my paper on the debates for my Gender in Society class. This just adds more fuel to the flames...

From The Washington Post:
washingtonpost.com

Singling Out Mary Cheney Wrong, Most Say
2 in 3 Polled Find Kerry's Comment 'Inappropriate'

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2004; Page A05

An overwhelming majority of voters believes it was wrong for John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, according to The Washington Post tracking survey.

Nearly two in three likely voters -- 64 percent -- said Kerry's comment was "inappropriate," including more than four in 10 of his supporters and half of all swing voters. A third -- 33 percent -- thought the remark was appropriate.

Kerry's comment touched off a rare row among family members of the two tickets, and has become one of the hottest topics on talk radio since a CBS News report about Bush's National Guard service that was later discredited.

In the first reaction from President Bush, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that Bush "does not believe it was appropriate."

Asked whether he was looking for an apology from Kerry's camp, McClellan replied, "That's something for Senator Kerry to decide." McClellan said he thinks "a lot of people" share the president's view of the comment. "I cannot think of a single instance where a presidential candidate has talked about his opponent's child in such a way," McClellan said.

Kerry made the comment when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice. Bush answered that he did not know. Kerry said, "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Cheney has two daughters, and one of them, Mary Cheney, who heads vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about being gay.

After the debate, her mother, Lynne Cheney, criticized Kerry for raising the issue of her daughter's sexual orientation. The vice president expressed his anger the following day.

The Post tracking poll shows Bush leading Kerry 50 to 47 percent. Independent Ralph Nader continues to barely register nationally, getting 2 percent of the hypothetical vote. But the survey suggests that Kerry continues to claim a large lead in key battleground states. In these 13 states, Kerry held a 53 percent to 43 percent advantage among likely voters.

A total of 1,555 registered voters were interviewed Wednesday through Friday nights, including 1,203 likely voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the overall results. It is plus or minus six percentage points for the question asking views on Kerry's comment about Cheney's daughter, which was asked on Thursday night.

Greg Palast on Dan Rather-CBS fiasco

Shooting the Messenger Doesn't Discredit the Message

The Real Lt. Col. Burkett - in His Own Words to BBC Television
by Greg Palast

Tuesday October 5, 2004

When Dan Rather went down for airing a document he couldn't source,
he did the courageous thing: blamed someone else.

In this case, Rather and CBS loaded their corporate guilt on a guy
you've probably never heard of before, rancher Bill Burkett of
Abilene, a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Texas Air National
Guard.

CBS did a no-no -- used a document on air without fully checking out
its source. No excuses. Shouldn't have done it. They got the
document from Burkett.

Once CBS hung out its source and painted a target on him, Rove-ing
gangs of media hit men finished him off. Burkett's an evidence
"fabricator," "Bush-hater," and even, suggests
William Safire in the New York Times as he fantasizes a dark
left-wing conspiracy, a felon ready for hard time.

Let me tell you about this Burkett "criminal." I met him
while filming for BBC's Television documentary, "Bush Family
Fortunes." Better than that, I'm posting a transcript of our
hour-and-a-half interview.

Burkett a 'Bush-hater'? "George W. Bush was an excellent
pilot," Burkett told me, "He had the right leadership
skills, he had the 'Top Gun' approach."

But I didn't go interview Burkett to chat about our President's days
when he flew high. He has an important story to tell which has not
one damn thing to do with a memo by some Lt. Col. Killian. It has to
do with a phone call and a shredder.

Burkett, a top advisor to Major General Daniel James at the Air
Guard, was working at Camp Mabry with Major General James when a call
came in from Joe Allbaugh, the Chief of Staff to then-Governor George
W. Bush. Bush was about to get a political polishing up for his
White House run, with a ghost-written autobiography, which would
include his heroic years during the war in Vietnam. Allbaugh,
according to Burkett, stated that Bush political operatives Karen
Hughes and Dan Bartlett would be dropping by the Air Guard offices to
look at the war record and wanted to, "make sure there's nothing
in there that'll embarrass the Governor."

According to Burkett, the General and his minions who work for the
Governor, not the US Air Force, took this as an unsubtle hint from
the boss to purge the record. Lt. Col. Burkett, both curious and
disturbed by the call, wondered how his fellow comrades-in-arms would
respond. His answer was in the trash-to-be-shredded bin: George
Bush's military pay records. "I saw what are called LES (Leave
and Earnings Statements) which are pay documents. I saw Retirement
Points documents and other administrative information."

He did not see their content, only Bush's name, and therefore cannot
answer the 64 million dollar question: Did those records, now
"missing," indicate that our President went AWOL while
others ended up on the Black Wall?

That's Burkett's story and it's in the BBC film. Watch the film,
read the transcript, and judge for yourself. I think you'll find in
Burkett a straight shooter, telling a piece of the larger draft-dodge
story which mounting evidence corroborates.

So what about that "Killian" document? We don't have it in
the BBC film - we couldn't source it so we wouldn't use it. Burkett
passed it on from a third party, obviously someone still in the Guard
or fearful of Bush Family retribution. Now why would they imagine
that?

Under pressure, Burkett gave CBS a false name to cover for the
whistleblower. Burkett should not have done that. It is inexcusable.
Period. Yet, that does not tell us the document was fabricated. It
was the job of CBS to follow up -- they are the journalists.

And it is also the President's job. Safire in the Times, in charging
that Burkett faked the document, demanded the military open a
criminal investigation. Darn right they should. They haven't. Why
not? Maybe they don't want to check into this 'fake' document
because maybe it's not fake.

An investigation should begin with questions for the President.
After all, he can clear up the matter lickety-split.

"Mr. President, did you or did you not ask your commander Lt.
Col. Killian how you could shirk your duty to show up?"

"Mr. President, did you or did you not refuse a direct order to
take a medical exam and pee into a jar?" (The record is solid
on the evidence of refusing that order, Mr. Top Gun -- you were
stripped of your flight wings.)

"Mr. President, did Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes make any calls
to get you out of 'Nam and into the Air Guard? Yes or no?"

See Dan, that's how it should be done. It wasn't Burkett's job to
verify the evidence, it was the job of Dan and the President.

It is for the President, not Bill Burkett, to answer the question,
"Did your daddy the congressman vote to send other men's sons to
Vietnam while pulling the strings to keep you cozy and safe? Yes or
no, Mr. President, yes or no?"

For a clip from the BBC Television investigative reports on George
Bush's military career, go to www.http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm

Greg Palast's interview with Col. Burkett for BBC can be read at http://www.gregpalast.com/documents/BurkettTranscript.pdf

More politics news from several sources....

From Clamor Magazine email:

Okay. Does anyone but me just wish this election would be over
tomorrow? Can I get a HELLS YEAH? Maybe it's just because we're in
the middle of ground zero as they are oh-so-sensitively referring to
Ohio, but I could go a lifetime without having another conversation
about Swift Boats or getting out the vote. Bush is a madman. Kerry
sucks less. Let's get it over with already.

[1] CLAMOR UP FOR BEST IN SHOW: Utne Magazine (http://www.utne.com) has announced the nominees for their annual Independent Press Awards, and Clamor has
been nominated once again for Best Cultural Coverage. We're also up
for General Excellence, which we think is, well, generally excellent.
Thanks to all of you for reading, subscribing, and keeping Clamor
thriving for almost five years now.

[2] SWING STATE POSTER PROJECT: One final project before we step away
from this train wreck of an election year: The evening of November 1,
Clamor will join forces with Punk Planet, The Center for the Study of
Political Graphics, In These Times, and artists, activists, and
volunteers throughout the U.S. to present a national night of
swing-state postering, an election eve celebration of artistic
activism. We are concentrating our efforts around polling places in
OH, WI, PA and FL. Poster-hangers, artists, printers, and financial
donations (to offset mailing, printing, and materials costs) in these
states and others are urgently needed. Head over to http://www.punkplanet.com/swingstate or email
swingstate@punkplanet.com for all the details (including information about how you can make artistic and financial contributions to this project).


ACLU email on voting rights info:

ACLU Voter Empowerment Cards are now available for download in .pdf file format, or via bulk order through our respective ACLU state affiliates. (Click on the web site link or mail-to link for each state affiliate on the ACLU web page given below to place your order directly with the state affiliate. Just use the link or the state affiliate web site to send them a personal email identifying your group and indicating how many cards you need).



These cards are designed to inform voters of their rights and responsibilities on Election Day and help voters avoid problems when casting a ballot. Along with downloadable cards, there is information on the ACLU web site about voter registration forms, absentee ballot applications, polling place locators and contact information for the ACLU in various states, as well as contact information for state election authorities. See: www.aclu.org/vec.



Florida | Georgia | Iowa | Missouri | New Jersey | New Mexico | North Carolina
North Dakota | Pennsylvania | South Dakota | Tennessee | Washington



Please check the site frequently, as new states will likely be added soon, including Louisiana (which will likely be up later today – Friday) Maryland, Rhode Island.



Our apologies if no card is yet available for your state. Additional cards are in production, but because of the burden of election-related work here at the Voting Rights Project we cannot provide additional details about when those cards might be posted to the site or available for order. We will, however, post additional messages to various lists (and to all the individuals who receive this message) as new cards are finished. Thank you for your patience and your efforts to ensure that every vote is counted on Election Day.



Thank you very much,



Daniel Levitas | Ira Glasser Racial Justice Fellow - ACLU Voting Rights Project

2725 Harris Tower | 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. | Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 523-2721 x 213 (voice) | (404) 653-0331 (fax) | dlevitas@aclu.org

On the threat of an impending military draft!

Oh, fuck no! I would be protesting that so fucking quickly. Please god, I know we don't get along very well but get Bush Jr. out of office next month!

From a friend's LJ post:
Heh.... Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me."

From a Rock the Vote email:
Take Action on the Draft!

Dear Manny,

We just received an outrageous letter from the Chairman of the Republican Party,
demanding that we stop talking about the issue of the military draft.

He said that the draft issue is just an "urban myth" and Rock the Vote's
effort is being conducted with "reckless disregard for the truth."

The truth is that we still haven't received acceptable answers from the candidates
to real questions affecting our lives. The possibility of a draft is not a hoax.
It's a real issue that deserves real answers.

An attempt to silence us by any politician-Democrat, Republican, Whatever-is
unacceptable. This is one of the most important issues affecting our generation. And
that's why we need to stand up and make our voices heard right away.

Below is the letter that Rock the Vote sent back to the Chairman. Please read it.

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5014 responds to RNC.pdf
(PDF)

If you like what we are saying, sign our petition to the Chairmen of both
the Republican and Democratic parties asking them to answer some key questions that
we have about the draft:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5015

We're not going to stop talking about the issue of a draft simply because it makes
the politicians squirm. We're not going to let Congress think that a phony vote
against the draft settles the matter.

By sending thousands of email draft cards and talking to your friends about the
possibility of a draft, you ignited a national dialogue. If you have any doubt, just
look at the last two presidential debates-both of which included questions for both
candidates on the draft.

Click here to tell both parties that we need answers to some fundamental questions
affecting our lives:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5016

Sincerely,
Jehmu Greene
President


PS. And please support our effort to keep the heat on the politicians. Donate to our
campaign today.

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5017


--

Rock the Vote Responds to the RNC


October 14, 2004

Mr. Ed Gillespie, Chairman
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

VIA FASCIMILE: (202) 863-8774

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just
the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter
cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted
censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding
some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban
myth" that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United
States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and
Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going
to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony
vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks
that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is
living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with.
There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in
our country. There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How
long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if
full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility?
Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than
institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total
numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time
magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No.
2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not
guaranteed... Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the
Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was
expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But,
instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Although the draft may not be a discussion topic for someone of your age, we have
found that young people - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - are very
interested in this issue. We believe in the capacity of young Americans to make
their own judgments when fairly presented with the facts. That is why we are
actively promoting an informed, educated dialogue. I urge you to review the
"Debunking the Myths" section on our website where we address misperceptions about
the draft.

Mr. Gillespie, this is a generational issue. Nothing cuts closer to the core of the
very reason Rock the Vote exists. We think young people deserve to know where the
politicians stand on this issue-and that a generation that could be called to
service deserves more than the phony debate they are getting. We believe that it is
only by asking questions-not by censoring debate-that our democracy can remain
strong and vital.

Issues such as jobs, health care, Iraq, taxes, and education have energized the
electorate, and the draft issue deserves the same serious treatment and candor.
Blanket denials do not square with the facts and do not level with the electorate.
As far as the possibility that Rock the Vote's efforts might "decrease the youth
vote," we are feeling very confident at this point that the opposite is true. More
than 1.1 million people have used our website to fill out voter registration forms
this election cycle. Our street teams and ground partners have registered hundreds
of thousands more. Young voters are going to surge at the polls on Election Day and
make the difference for whichever candidate does thebest job reaching out to them.

Despite the strong and often strident tone of your letter, I would hope that we
could both agree that honest and open debate is the surest guarantor of our
democracy and liberty.

Sincerely,
Jehmu S. Greene
President



CC:
Randel A. Falco, NBC Universal Television Networks Groups
Judy McGrath, MTV Networks
Jonathan Miller, AOL
Vincent K. McMahon, Chairman, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.
Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and CEO, Time Warner Inc.
Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
David Letterman, The Late Show
Conan O'Brien, Late Night
Jay Leno, The Tonight Show

--

The Draft

Please view below the draft public service announcement.
The Draft PSA

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5018

--

The Draft Blog

Check out the current dialogue on the Draft on our Blog!
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5019

--

Volunteer!

Volunteer with Rock the Vote in our Get Out the Vote and Election Protection efforts!

Click here to Volunteer
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=843295&l=5020

I saw John Kerry live here at USF, Tampa today! It was an amazing experience for me despite considering myself a cynic. I'll expand on this later but I'll share the fact that 3 major public figures are visiting my campus at USF in one weekend. Including: John Kerry, Michael Moore, & Gloria Steinem. I feel blessed, for once at this college! Whoo!

Greg Palast on the Presidential Debate

Mr. Tall and Mr. Small
By Greg Palast

Thursday September 30, 2004
Our President told the debate audience, "You cannot lead if yousend mexxed missiges." I certainly hope not.But that's exactly what we got. You watch our President, the nervoushand-hiding, the compulsive water-glass-fondling, the panickedI-wish-I-had-a-whiskey look, and you think, "My god, this is theguy who's supposed to save us from al Qaeda."And how are we going to win the War on Terror, Mr. President? "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. Iknow that," he said. Well, that's a start, I suppose.But it doesn't have to stay this way. This is America, home of thebrave and where, I remember from school, we could vote for presidentand the votes would count. So we looked to the tall man next to himto show us the way out.In Iraq, "We don't have enough troops there," said the tallone. Really, Senator? We should send MORE? Not exactly: Mr. Tall'sgot a plan to get our troops out. He'll have a big meeting of"allies," and after he talks with them, they will all jumpup and volunteer to send THEIR kids to Fallujah. France andIndonesia and Kuwait can't wait to ship in soldiers and extra bodybags. Right. We love you, John, but there’s no band of Hobbitscoming to the rescue -- that's just a movie.Well, he looked kind of "presidential." But given theline-up includes Nixon, Ford and two Bushes, that's not a big trick.I'm sorry. I know I'm supposed to stand up and cheer that John Kerrydidn't get Gored. In fact, if you look at presidential debates theway the media plays it, as something akin to Olympic figure skating,where you score for the competitor’s style, you could say Kerry won.But I don't feel WE won anything.I mean, when Jim Lehrer asked how the candidates would make Americasafe from terrorists, Mr. Tall said he'd hire more firemen. And addmore cops. Maybe he thought he was running for mayor.It was disappointing, but then Mr. Small's answer was downrightfrightening. We have to "stay on the offensive," and"stay on the offense," and "I repeat, stay on theoffense." We have no doubt that Mr. Small can beextraordinarily offensive, but even he can't take his offensivenessto the bad guys if he doesn't know where they are. And on thatpoint, he's clueless.There were two words I was hoping to hear from Mr. Tall: "Saudi" and "Arabia." Imagine if he laid it onthe line, "The terrorists didn't put the hijackings on a creditcard, Mr. President. Their Saudi sponsors are fattening on thebloated war-driven price of oil. But you can't touch yourbuck-buddies in the Gulf, can you, Mr. President?. AsCommander-in-Chief, I'd cut'm off at the spigots, beginning with therelease of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And then I'dseize their fat assets in the USA to compensate the victims of terrorattacks."When Mr. Tall was asked what whoppers the President has told us,surely there was something a bit more memorable than Mr. Small'sfailing to win over allies for his whacky crusade.Here's what Mr. Tall said … in my dreams:* "Beginning in March 2001, your Administration began a seriesof meetings with oil company executives to map the conquest of Iraqand its oil, a plan Americans would pay for in blood. You originallycalled this scheme, 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' -- O.I.L. We don'tappreciate your little joke, Mr. Small."* "One month after seizing Baghdad you fired General JayGarner, the man you put in charge of Iraq, after he called for rapidelections in Najaf; after he refused to impose your plans to sell offIraq's oil fields. In Najaf, citizens denied ballots, turned tobullets. And then, as General Garner predicted, the seizure ofIraq's assets resulted in the type of war one expects -- when seekingto impose colonial control."* "Mr. Small, you claim we've given a thousand lives to bringdemocracy to the Mid-east. But so far, your democracy, Mr. Small,comes down to a puppet prime minister, we've installed in Iraq and apuppet government, the Saudis have installed in Washington."OK, I can't expect all that in a presidential debate, where themessage has to fit through a tube. But still, Mr. Tall could havewon my vote with two words. It's the two-word answer John Kerry gavethree decades ago when asked the same question -- “How can we get ourtroops out of a disastrous war?”Then, the clear-minded, tall young men said, "In ships."==================
View Greg Palast's exclusive interview with General Jay Garner forBBC Television in the film, "Bush Family Fortunes,"available this week on DVD in an updated edition from Ryko at http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39944000/rm/_39944105_iraq_palast19mar_vi.ramTo receive Greg’s investigative reports hot off the press click here:http://www.gregpalast.com/contact.cfm============================================If you would like to have your e-mail address removed from thismailing list. Cut and paste the following URL into your browseraddress bar. This will automatically remove from the mailing list andyou will receive no further mailings.http://www.gregpalast.com/emailremove.cfm?id=5257