January 13, 2005

Back to Washington

Well, the trial isn't in session today, so it's as good a time as any for an update.

When I previously posted here and elsewhere about the Washington gubernatorial race, I was extremely cautious. I warned against premature claims of fraud, and was determined to give the election every benefit of the doubt.

Things have changed. Those who oppose the legitimacy of the election have met the standard of proof. Revelations of dead people voting, improperly tallied provisional ballots, and out-of-whack ballot/voter numbers have convinced me that the election results are not legitimate. These things happen in every election, of course, but with the whisker-close margin of victory, they are enough to throw the outcome into doubt. The Chelan County judge who will hear the contest brought by Rossi should invalidate the results and order a special election.

January 13, 2005 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 13, 2004

Recount in Washington

Time once again for me to dissent from the Republicans with whom I usually ally. Let none accuse me of blind partisanship.

So as political junkies far and wide know, the state of Washington is currently undergoing an unprecedented statewide manual recount of an election... the gubernatorial race, to be specific, which Republican Dino Rossi led after the initial tally by 261 votes, and by 42 votes after the legally mandated machine recount. State law permits a candidate to demand a manual recount, either statewide or partial, provided he's willing to pay for it. If the result of the recount changes the outcome, the money is refunded (and the tab is picked up by the state), and if the recount was partial the rest of the state is manually recounted, also on the state's dime. Rossi's opponent, Christine Gregoire, demanded a statewide manual recount and forked over the dough.

Republicans have been howling bloody murder and demanding that Gregoire concede. They're infuriated about the recount. I am not.

Look, imagine the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Gregoire was the one who led by 261 votes, and Gregoire's lead dropped to 42 after the machine recount. Would you, Republicans, want a recount in those circumstances? I know I sure as hell would, and I'm betting Rossi would too. In fact, if Rossi conceded in that case, I'd be upset with him.

So I can't be mad at Gregoire for calling for the recount. It's her legal right, and it's what I'd do if I were in her position. And honestly, I find the brouhaha from the Republicans to be a bit embarrassing.

Republicans have also been lambasting Gregoire for calling the race a "tie". Stefan Sharkansky over at Sound Politics, who's been doing a fantastic job covering the race, has been particularly harsh. Stefan writes:

Christine Gregoire continues to insult the intelligence of Washington's voters:

"I've said all along, 42 votes out of 2.9 million is literally a tie," Gregoire told The Associated Press on Friday.

No, 42 votes is a victory as is 261 votes.

Sorry, Stefan, I love your site and I respect you, but I have to disagree.

Yes, 42 votes is as much a victory as a million votes. And if an omniscient being examined the ballots and declared a 42 vote margin of victory, I'd accept it as being perfectly legitimate. The problem is that we don't have omniscient vote counters. We have vote-counting machines, and vote-counting humans. Machines occasionally make errors, and humans do so with somewhat greater frequency. That's why each count has produced a different result.

Vote counting is a statistical process. Each ballot has a certain (slim) chance of being mistallied. It's very likely that the officially certified outcome of any race is not the exact content of the ballots. We're back to normal distributions, with the curve centered on the certified result. For most races, this doesn't matter at all... the bell curve tapers off to insignificance well within the margin of victory. But a margin of 42 votes out of over 2.8 million cast... well, the area under the curve to the left of X-42 is too large to say with any reasonable degree of certainty that the outcome is known.

Look at it this way. 1,372,484 votes were tallied for Rossi, 1,372,442 were tallied for Gregoire. If each ballot had an, oh, 0.05% chance of having been mistallied, what is the probability that Gregoire was the winner? Let's see, the sum of C(1,372,442, N) as N goes from 0 to 1,372,442, multiplied by 0.0005 to the power N and 0.9995 to the power (1,372,442 - N), carry the one... shoot, I don't remember how to do this. You're good with this sort of analysis, Stefan, you tell me. But I'm guessing it's relatively high... below 50% certainly, but probably higher than 10%. Statistically speaking, this race is a tie. Gregoire is right.

And at this point, I think she's likely to win. As of tonight, Gregoire has gained one ballot in the manual recount for every 1,610 tallied for her, while Rossi's gained one ballot for every 1,672 tallied for him. And there are more Gregoire ballots left to tally: 1,140,279 for her, only 1,054,194 for him. If the trend holds, Gregoire can expect to pick up 703 more votes, while Rossi will only pick up 630. Added to the gains they've already made, that's a net 852 for Gregoire, 820 for Rossi, a swing of 32 votes in Gregoire's favor, which would cut Rossi's lead to only 10 votes.

A lead that small will be overwhelmed by the 561 uncounted absentees from King. And yes: if those are valid votes, if real registered voters really cast them, and if they were really rejected because of an error by the county, they really should be counted. Even if it means Rossi loses. And I hope the GOP doesn't fight to keep them uncounted. I'd rather be honest than victorious. Wouldn't you?

And yes, I know that as attorney general, Gregoire opined that valid votes that were nevertheless untabulated in the initial canvass were not eligible to be included in recounts. So she's a first-class hypocrite. That's no surprise. But it's her earlier opinion that was wrong, not her current stance.

I've heard Rossi fans crying fraud. But I haven't seen any evidence. If you have some, please use it. I'd love to see Rossi pull this thing out. But if you don't, quit hurling unfounded accusations. Or go to DU... you'll fit right in.

December 13, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Arnebeck mystery solved

Cliff Arnebeck was going to file a lawsuit contesting the Ohio presidential results. No really, he was. He was going to do it two weeks ago. Then he was going to do it on Monday of last week. Then Tuesday of last week. Then Thursday. Then Friday. Then today.

Why the holdup? Well, he's finally gotten around to doing it... six minutes too late. I gotta admit, the man knows what he's doing. Had he files his suit in a timely manner and it gotten laughed out of court due to an absence of evidence, that would have settled things for many people. But summarily dismissed for lack of timeliness, that's a different matter. Now the shriekers can shriek. Now they can complain of being railroaded. Arnebeck, being a lawyer, was surely aware of the importance of the deadline. But he can count on his lay followers being ignorant.

If anyone has a copy of the suit, I'd love to read it.

December 13, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Aw, they're so CUTE!

So the DUers have noticed me. If any of 'em happen to be reading this... hi, DUers! You're all nuts! (Well, maybe not all of you, but definitely most.)

The latest over there is that Kerry has apparently sent a letter to the Ohio boards of election. The directors of these boards are rather pissed at Kerry at the moment for signing on with the Glibs to force them to undergo an expensive recount and waste badly-needed funds, so I'm not sure how they'll receive his request, but the gist of it is 1) the Connally thing, which is already well and truly debunked, and 2) apparently 92,000 ballots did not register a preference for President.

Well, leaving aside the fact that even if every last one of those 92,000 ballots had gone to Kerry it wouldn't've changed the outcome, by my count that means that approximately 1.6% of ballots had no vote for President. Is that so hard to understand? Pick almost anything, almost anything at all, and you'll probably find 1.6% of the populace will do it.

There's also some buzz about some blue states withholding their electoral votes in protest of the "obviously fraudulent" (pause to roll eyes) results from Ohio. Fat chance, guys. Contrary to a DUer's assertion that the electors can meet whenever they feel like it, federal law (3 USC 7) mandates that the electoral votes be cast on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December... today, in fact. And it's going to happen, all your wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's such a weird mixture of laughter and tears watching these guys at work. Their hopes keep going up only to be dashed, but that doesn't stop them from getting their hopes up when the next false Messiah comes around. It's like watching Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown over and over and over again.

December 13, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 01, 2004

The media continues to carry Kerry's water

So the Green Party and the Libertarian Party have finally joined forces. Not to lobby the American public for a new voting reform such as Instant Runoff or Condorcet (which would be an extremely useful thing to do) but to attempt a ridiculous recount to no apparent purpose whatsoever. This has done nothing but firmly cement my conviction that I'm doing the right thing by remaining a small-L libertarian. The big-L party won't waste a dime of my money.

One of the results of the Glib recount noises has been Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney's Office et al v. National Voting Rights Institute et al. The attorney and board of elections of Delaware County filed a suit seeking to enjoin the Glibs from compelling a recount, arguing no possible benefit and public harm in the form of unnecessary expense. A temporary restraining order against the Glibs was granted, with a hearing scheduled to take place today. The Glibs have successfully had the case transferred to federal court.

The Kerry campaign filed to join the Glibs in defense, but the only way you'd know it is to either go to the Delaware County Clerk of Courts office and read the notation:


Or to visit the Cobb campaign website and read their press release.

Ohio — Today, attorneys representing the Kerry-Edwards campaign filed papers in Delaware County, Ohio to intervene in legal proceedings in defense of Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, Libertarian Michael Badnarik and their legal counsel, the National Voting Rights Institute, who are seeking a recount of all votes cast for president in the Ohio 2004 general election.

What's missing? How about a press release from the intervenors themselves, Kerry-Edwards 2000? How about a statement from them saying what they're doing, what they believe, and what their intentions are?

Barring that, where are the media questions to Kerry asking what he's failed to volunteer? He is still a public figure, you know, and I'm sure he still has a press secretary. These are the sort of questions journalists should be asking:

  • Senator, why have you filed to intervene?
  • Do you still concede the race to President Bush?
  • If so, why are you paying lawyers to compel public funds to be spent on a recount?
  • If not, why are you not going public?
  • Do you believe there was massive voter fraud in Ohio?
  • Do you agree with Jesse Jackson, who has asserted that you support his efforts, that the results in Ohio do not pass the "smell test"?
  • Do you agree with Cliff Arneback, the attorney who is filing a suit seeking to overturn the election results in Ohio, that the "only possible explanation" for the results is voter fraud?

But, of course, these are difficult questions to answer, so Kerry will not be asked them. At least, not by anybody in the mainstream media.

December 1, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 30, 2004

Behold the power of delusion

The site I've been spending the most time on lately is Democratic Underground. Of course, I'm not permitted to post there, but registration isn't required simply to lurk, and I've been quite the lurker. At first I just came for some simple schadenfreude, to enjoy a little well-earned gloating, but now I simply can't look away. It's a fascinating glimpse into the minds of the delusional. A doctoral candidate in psychiatry could probably get a hell of a thesis out of it.

Not being a psychiatrist myself, I don't know if there's a formal name for the syndrome the DUers suffer, but it's most interesting. They hold an unshakeable belief, a belief not only that they are right, but that the rightness of their ideas is self-evident. They simply can't countenance the possibility that anyone would support Bush over Kerry, let alone a majority. This belief is so ironclad that evidence to the contrary must be explained away... no matter how preposterous the explanation, nothing is less probable than the chance that they are simply wrong.

How to explain Kerry's electoral defeat? The snap judgment was that the majority which supported Bush was stupid, misled, or both. That reconciles the outcome with the conviction, but it leads to an uncomfortable state of mind. People don't want to live in a country of fools and dupes. Furthermore, the tiny voice of rationality intrudes. Intelligent, clear-eyed Bush supporters exist, and they damn well know it.

So the story changed: the election must have been stolen. The majority did support Kerry, and did agree with their worldview, but Bush's evil cabal, led by the execrable Karl Rove, rigged the ballots. It's not enough to believe that Kerry's 160k margin of defeat in Ohio was the result of fraud, his 3.5 million margin of defeat nationwide was also stolen. Think of it: these people believe that Bush managed to steal over three million votes without leaving piles and piles of evidence. (This is difficult to reconcile with their belief that Bush is a low-grade moron, so of course the sinister plot is led by Rove and Cheney, the puppet-masters.)

But what of John Kerry, whom they had elevated to the level of a demigod? He's been silent about the fraud. How to explain that? On DU, no fewer than three theories have been proposed: he's biding his time and plotting, he's in league with the Bushes and was simply a prop, and he or his family have been threatened. All three have found their share of adherents. At first, the "biding his time" theory was most popular, but as the days tick by it's becoming less credible and the faithful are losing hope and drifting to the other two theories. It's fascinating to watch them turn on their man. The few faithful who remain have become ever more shrill as more and more of them break out the knives. The one theory which has not been widely proposed to explain Kerry's silence, of course, is that he really lost, he really knows it, and he's coping. That would shatter the myth.

A few DUers have suggested this, of course... not all of them are entirely insane. These poor voices of reason have been shouted down as "defeatists".

And now, the latest: Michael Moore. Appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Moore wore a suit and a clean-shaven chin, and spoke of Kerry's defeat. Not a fraudulent election, not a massive Republican conspiracy, but an electoral defeat. Moore tried to explain Kerry's loss... while everybody knows that he really won! The DUers are outraged. Some believe, as they did with Kerry, that Moore is plotting something, that his apparent joinder with the "defeatists" is all a scheme, a scam to get the Republicans off-guard. Some believe he must have been threatened. But most of them seem to think he's sold out. He's in the pocket of the Republicans. Think of it: Michael Moore in the pocket of the Republicans.

It's an awesome demonstration of the power of delusion. No theory, no matter how outlandish, will be rejected as long as it permits them to cling to their belief that their ideas are correct. It's fascinating to watch, and I encourage everyone to spend a few hours enjoying the spectacle.

November 30, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack

November 29, 2004

Election fraud proven!

The liberal sites are a-buzzin' with conclusive proof that the election in Ohio was stolen from John Kerry by George W. Bush. The evidence? The fact that C. Ellen Connally, the Democratic candidate for Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, did better than John Kerry in certain counties.

This thread at Democratic Underground spells it all out, linking to the brave and intrepid reporter at FreePress.org who uncovered the fraud. Jesse Jackson has gotten into the act, saying that the situation does not "pass the smell test". Cliff Arneback, an attorney who is filing a legal challenge to the Ohio results, said "It's simply not credible that a vastly underfunded African-American female candidate at the bottom of the ticket could outpoll John Kerry in Butler County", and has also been quoted as saying that the "only possible explanation" is that votes were shifted from Kerry to Bush. Reportedly, Connally received over 257,000 more votes than Kerry.

This poster at DU sums it up nicely (emphasis added):

4 Counties in southern Ohio had big discrepancies between votes cast for Dem Prez (Kerry) and Dem Supreme Court (Connally)
Butler County: Connally got 45,457 more votes than Kerry
Clermont County: Connolly got 22,998 more votes than Kerry
Warren County: Connally got 24,785 more votes for Kerry
Hamilton County: Connally got 16,289 more votes for Kerry


Pls distribute this info!!! More to come....

Suspicious, very suspicious.

There's a slight problem, though. According to the Columbus Dispatch, John Kerry received 2,659,664 votes, while Connally received only 2,017,602. Far from a 257,000+ margin for Connally, this is actually a 642,062 margin for Kerry. So what gives?

Well, if you read deeper into the damning FreePress.org article, we find that they're actually referring to Connally's margin over her opponent, incumbent Justice Thomas Moyer, versus Kerry's margin over his. They're saying that ( Connally - Moyer ) - ( Kerry - Bush ) is 257,000+. Fair enough.

But there's still a problem. By the Dispatch's count, Kerry lost to Bush by 136,483 votes, while Connally lost to Moyer by 291,505, leaving Kerry with a margin of 155,022 votes. (Note that all these figures are preliminary, and the final tally including absentees and valid provisional ballots will alter them slightly.) So now what gives?

Well, it turns out that ace investigative reporter Bob Fitrakis of FreePress.org picked 37 of Ohio's 88 counties in which Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's, and summed the totals to get his figure of 257,546. Seems to me that this means that in 51 of Ohio's 88 counties, Kerry outperformed Connally by 412,568, but okay. If Fitrakis and Arneback claim that this constitutes incontrovertible proof, for which there is no other possible explanation but fraud, who am I to argue?

In the interest of promoting fair elections, I decided to apply Fitrakis's and Arneback's proven method to my own home state of Washington, and the results I found are truly shocking.

I compared Bush's performance vis a vis Kerry with the performance of Republican candidate for Attorney General Rob McKenna. McKenna's opponent was liberal hero Deborah Senn, who as the state's Insurance Commissioner took on the evil big insurance companies and brought them to their knees. Certainly no Kerry voters would have pulled the lever for conservative (and miserable bastard) Rob McKenna, right?

Let's start with the DU post, in which poster "mod mom" found a "HUGE OH 4 county discrep betw Kerry + Connally". Believe it or not, I found the same thing in Washington!

King County (Seattle): McKenna got 82,364 more votes than Bush.
Snohomish County (Seattle northern suburbs): McKenna got 18,529 more votes than Bush.
Pierce County (Tacoma): McKenna got 10,987 more votes than Bush.
Thurston County (Olympia): McKenna got 10,164 more votes than Bush.

Truly astonishing. Lest you doubt that these are, in fact, liberal counties, note that while Kerry carried Washington State by 205,307 votes, he carried these four counties by a combined 323,592 votes.

But does that really prove anything? Well, maybe not. Let's look at the all-important margin... that is, ( McKenna - Senn ) - ( Bush - Kerry ). Here's where we might find our smoking gun.

Fitrakis examined 37 of 88 counties, or 42%. I decided to go him a little better and examine 29 of Washington's 39 counties, fully 74%. The numbers, I think, speak for themselves.

County Margin
Benton 1948
Chelan 1406
Clallam 2561
Clark 11390
Cowlitz 1413
Douglas 103
Grays Harbor 3381
Island 4265
Jefferson 3025
King 240889
Kitsap 17699
Kittitas 1520
Klickitat 54
Lewis 599
Mason 4046
Okanogan 151
Pacific 636
Pierce 42515
San Juan 2021
Skagit 6276
Snohomish 56575
Spokane 16434
Stevens 114
Thurston 29763
Wahkiakum 35
Walla Walla 507
Whatcom 13134
Whitman 1562
Yakima 4953
Total 468975

Clearly, John Kerry stole Washington!! There's no way that George W. Bush's margin was legitimately 468,975 votes less than Rob McKenna's. Votes must have been shifted from Bush to Kerry. I call on Jesse Jackson to travel here and demand a full manual recount. I call on Cliff Arneback to file suit seeking to overturn the election results. I call on Bob Fitrakis to write a story exposing this obvious fraud. There is no possible other explanation.

Well... maybe there is. Maybe voters split their tickets sometimes. Maybe some people who voted for John Kerry also voted for the conservative Republican white male Rob McKenna. And also, maybe some Ohioans who voted for George W. Bush also voted for the Democratic black female C. Ellen Connally. I admit that this scenario is a bit more farfetched than the idea that a massive conspiracy stole Ohio for Bush and Washington for Kerry, but it behooves us to consider it. Just in case.

UPDATE: It turns out that "mod mom"'s figures were wrong. Actually, Connally got only 5,347 votes more than Kerry in Butler County, 4,146 in Clermont, and 2,143 in Warren. All three are dwarfed by Hamilton County, in which Kerry actually got 31,030 more votes than Connally. The figures "mod mom" used are the margin. Applying that to my own investigations into the obvious fraud in Washington, we get:

Thurston County: McKenna's margin exceeded Bush's by 29,763
Pierce County: McKenna's margin exceeded Bush's by 42,515
Snohomish County: McKenna's margin exceeded Bush's by 56,575

And the topper:

King County: McKenna's margin exceeded Bush's by a whopping 240,889.

November 29, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 16, 2004

The mental health of liberals

It took me awhile to figure out that this post at the Boca Raton News was not parody. Board-certified psychologists really have diagnosed Post Election Selection Trauma, and it really is known by the acronym PEST. Apparently, the defeat of John Kerry has caused an entirely new psychiatric disease in certain weak-minded individuals.

I don't know about that. I've spent a good bit of time studying the post-election liberal psyche at Democratic Underground, and it seems to me more like the left is progressing through the classic Stages of Grief.

1. Denial. "Kerry didn't really lose the election! Bush stole it!" In some cases, the denial is so advanced that the patient is determinedly convinced that Kerry will, in fact, be inaugerated... and yes, there are plenty of people who believe this. The delusion can progress to the point where the unfortunately afflicted individual believes that a candidate for re-election can improve his vote percentage in 49 of 51 states by fraud, and can steal a margin of over 3,500,000 votes without leaving huge red indicators.

2. Anger. "Everyone who voted for Bush is stupid!" This was a pretty predictable reaction to the election results. It's typified by people like Ted Rall and organizations like the Daily Mirror, and is espoused by many who hypocritically call the Republicans the party of cultural elitism. Close-minded partisans on both sides of the aisle believe their position is so strong, so clear, that they find it impossible to understand how rational people could disagree. They are left to conclude that their opponents are stupid, insane, evil, or a combination of the three. In this particular case, racism and homophobia often ride shotgun alongside stupidity.

Patients who are transitioning from Stage 1 to Stage 2 often direct their anger at John Kerry... not for being a lousy candidate, not for running an incompetent campaign, but for conceding the election when it became clear he had lost. Those who remain in denial console these people by pointing out that concessions are not legally binding and Kerry can still win.

3. Bargaining. "Maybe it's time to change" Finally, the grief-stricken individual starts looking for ways to deal with his loss, rather than denying it happened or reacting with rage. Liberals in this phase suggest looking for ways to appeal to the majority of voters who rejected them. Popular proposals include banning partial birth abortion or dropping gun control. Their comrades who have made less progress react with disproportionate fury to these modest suggestions. They object that this would amount to "surrender" or "becoming the Republicans". Or that they have no intention of debasing themselves to appeal to the aforementioned racist, homophobic idiots who comprise the majority of the voters.

4. Despair. "This country is worse than Nazi Germany!" Also known as the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" stage, symptoms include hysteria and dramatic attention-whoring. A patient in this stage may threaten to commit suicide by relocating to a frozen wasteland. The recommended treatment is to hand them a plane ticket and bid them bon voyage.

5. Acceptance. This stage is characterized by recognition that America is still America, and that while democracy means occasionally seeing your candidate lose, life goes on and the world does not end. To the best of my knowledge, no patient has yet advanced to this stage. The prognosis for most of them is grim.

November 16, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 30, 2004

Karl Rove in cahoots with bin Laden!

Hat tip to Geraghty at the Kerry Spot for this spew from a man who was once the "most trusted man in America" on Larry King Live:

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

It's wonderful how the Democrats have found such a marvelous scapegoat for their own failures. CBS publishes obvious forgeries? Rove. Bin Laden crawls from his cave to remind us all why the election of Bush is so important? Rove. Forget tinfoil hats, Cronkite is wearing a full tinfoil body suit as he takes his food out of tinfoil plates in a tinfoil house.

As Geraghty puts it, "What on earth do you have to say for the general public to declare, 'That's crazy talk' these days?" If you're a Democrat, apparently the sky's the limit.

October 30, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

October 26, 2004

It could be true, therefore it must be true

I'm noticing a curious parallel between the left's reactions to Rathergate and NYTrogate.

Let's look at the facts. The Iraqi high explosives in question were definitely present at Al-Qaqaa on March 8, 2003, when IAEA inspectors sealed them. They were definitely missing on May 27, 2003, when the Iraq Survey Group did a detailed inspection of the site and did not find them.

They may or may not have been present on April 9th and April 10th, when soldiers of the 101st Airborne visited the site, accompanied by Reuters and NBC embeds on the respective dates. They saw no sign of the explosives, but did not check every one of the bunkers.

Had they gone missing before April 9, their loss could hardly be blamed on the United States, which didn't even reach the site until then. So were they taken after Coalition forces took control of the site?

Well, for that to have happened, an insurgent force of dozens of men with heavy lifting equipment would have had to have reached the site. A convoy of about 40 trucks would have had to be loaded, and would have had to flee along roads clogged with Coalition military and supply convoys, under skies filled with surveillance drones. All of this would have had to have been accomplished without any detection at all.

Occam's Razor certainly makes that seem much less likely than the far simpler explanation: prior to the war, Saddam loyalists moved the explosives to a safer site. But that doesn't matter to the left. Just as it didn't matter to the left that the vast majority of typewriters in the 1970s didn't have proportional spacing, that producing superscripts was a multistep process involving switching typewriter balls, that the few typewriters that did offer proportional spacing were difficult to use, that the secretary who would have typed such a memo denies typing it, that the memo involved terms that were not and are not in common use in the military. It's theoretically possible that an Air National Guard commander who is reputed never to have used a typewriter nevertheless typed a memo on a machine far different from the ones which produced other memos from his office, using unusual terms, therefore, in the eyes of the left, the memos must be genuine.

And, to the left, and to John Kerry who continues to hammer the President with this garbage, it's theoretically possible that the brave men of the 101st Airborne somehow missed an IAEA-sealed bunker, and a stealthy force of dozens of insurgents with 40 trucks made it past the military, spent hours and/or days loading a huge convoy, then escaped without encountering anybody, therefore it must be what happened.

October 26, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack