January 13, 2008
For something this ‘unbelievable’, (it actually is pretty believable) I must give sources first. This page has a simple translation of a December 2001 article in an Egyptian newspaper where Osama’s death was given. This page has more information, including a picture of the original newspaper and a picture of a pretty sickly Osama in a December 2001 tape.
How come Osama’s 2004 tape has been reported as fake? And are his 2002 voice tapes fake as well? Even Israel apparently admits his death – along with Pakistani president Musharraf.
Of-course, it makes sense to perpetuate the myth of a living Osama who can serve as both a casus belli for more wars and a bogeyman to keep the Americans brainwashed in fear. Disinter is right in tagging his entry on this with ‘fear-mongers’ and ‘war profiteering’.
January 12, 2008
What’s the point of ganging up on a candidate in an attempt to embarrass him, then removing his response from future broadcasts of the debate? It kind of defeats the purpose of showing him as a blubbering incoherent wreck. Unless – wait – he wasn’t a blubbering incoherent wreck, and actually answered the question better than anyone at the South Carolina Republican Debate could.
I’d like to draw your attention to Jason’s excellent analysis of Ron Paul’s treatment, which reveals just how afraid the establishment is of him. And, of-course, the fact that Fox News has cut off his response to their question on his ‘electability’.
Sorry Fox News; better luck hiding the truth next time. And to Ron Paul, excellent job at that debate – you remained cool, took everything they threw at you, and dished it right back at them.
Oh, and something new – if you’re interested in this, take a look at gillard’s compilation of Ron Paul’s responses in the same debate, well worth viewing.
January 12, 2008
As this post alerted me to, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (“wait, who?”) – who won about 2% of the vote in New Hampshire (“oh, one of those candidates) – is requesting a recount of the votes cast in the New Hampshire primary. Kucinich will have to pay for it: the cost is $2,000 if you have lost by a margin of 3% or less, otherwise you must cover the full cost of the recount. In a move which I don’t quite understand, Kucinich has sent off the $2,000 fee – that’s for candidates who lose by three percent or less, not for those who receive three percent or less of the vote. Unless it’s an obligatory down payment. In any case, Kucinich has said that he is not “making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf”.
Anyway, Kucinich can sort out the money himself. I do think it is a good idea to call this recount – obviously the only person who has anything to gain from it is Obama, who lost by a slim margin of 2%. It wouldn’t look good on Obama to call for a recount himself, (sore loser anyone?) so it’s probably best for Kucinich to do it. The Deputy Secretary of State, David Scanlan, says that he has “every confidence” that the results are accurate; but who cares, it’s Hillary who has the most to lose here. (Apparently those voting machines that favoured her can be hacked within ten minutes).
You have to admire Kucinich for this – I never thought that online allegations of election fraud would cross the boundary into real life action.
January 10, 2008
Firstly, I’d like to thank Jason for bringing this issue to my attention.
This is the U.S.A right? The country that invades countries and funds foreign governments in the name of ‘promoting democracy’ right? (Or not). Maybe America’s taking tips from Kenya.
Let’s skip to the point. In the New Hampshire primary, some votes were counted by hand and some were counted with the aid of a machine. You’d expect the percentage of votes won by each candidate to be roughly the same in the hand-counted votes and the machine-counted votes right? Wrong.
In the hand-counted votes, (which are harder to rig) Clinton won 34.7% whereas Obama won 38.8% – he won. However, in the machine-counted votes Clinton won 40.1% and Obama won 35.8%. Suspicious no? The machine-counted votes gave Hillary 5% more and Obama 3% less. I find it hard to believe that there should be such significant differences with both candidates – especially if both difference benefit the candidate favoured by the establishment. Here is a page with a whole bunch of figured detailing the differences between machine and hand counted cotes.
Of-course, just like Kenya, it’s not like anything will happen. After all, it’s America – land of freedom and democracy. How could the elections have been rigged?
January 10, 2008
Just a heads-up here, John Kerry will soon (or has recently) announce his endorsement of Barack Obama for Democratic presidential candidate. His main reason is that Obama is the candidate with the best chance of uniting America. Interestingly, he also said that Obama’s ‘inexperience’ is an advantage: “Because of his newness on the scene, he has not created the political opposition and enemies that come with extensive service in politics. He is a clean slate.”, in his own words.
Read the whole article here.
January 9, 2008
The title says it all; for more information, I’d like to direct you to the original article.
Of particular interest (at least to me) is this comment by Ms Young, the freelance photographer who caused the incident.
Read the rest of this entry »
January 9, 2008
It’s old news by now, but Clinton has won the popular vote in New Hampshire. Jason is right – it’s time New Hampshire changed their motto. The former president’s wife beat Obama by 2% of the vote to win the early state. On the Republican side, McCain beat Romney by a comfortable 6%; as Errington Thompson says, Romney is the real loser here.. Getting back to the primaries, are the two victories unconnected? I think not. Obama and McCain both benefit from the support of a majority of independent voters. That the media portrayed Obama as the clear favourite before the election must have resulted in these independents deciding that he didn’t need their support, and instead shifting their votes to McCain. The good news here is that Obama hasn’t lost the support of these voters that carried him in Iowa, they simply thought he could win without their support. Optimism with a dash of hope leads me to believe that these voters will return to back Obama in the coming primaries, (e.g. South Carolina). The bad news here is that independents cannot vote in the Democratic primaries in many states to come.
Hillary’s made a lot of ruckus about the parallels between her victory in New Hampshire and that of her husband, which resulted in him winning the nomination. However, the opposition that she faces is very different from what her husband faced – voters have a clear figure to rally around this year in Obama, (Edwards’s definite defeat in this primary might result in some of his supporters shifting their support to Obama simply to keep Hillary out). Clinton the First did not face such a unified opposition.
Finally, and perhaps very importantly, both Hillary and Obama walk away from this election with 9 delegates, meaning that Obama is still ahead in elected delegates. See this post for videos of the post-primary speeches of both candidates. And if you want more on the New Hampshire primary, see this informative analysis.
PS: 39% of college graduates voted for Obama, 5% more than those who voted for Hillary.