www.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/
“many counties are violating the campaign law as I understood it from you. God help us if the Democrats find out.”

www.blackboxvoting.org – phony computerized touch screen voting machines

www.truthout.org/docs_04/102904W.shtml
It Will Be Worse Than in 2000"

By Mary Jacoby

Salon.com

Thursday 28 October 2004

NAACP head Julian Bond says the GOP is going all out to suppress the black vote.
Can his “Election Protection” offensive stop them?

www.oilempire.us/ballot.html (more on touch screens)
www.oilempire.us/2004.html (regime rotation 2004)
www.oilempire.us/elections.html (the stolen 2000 election)

October 28, 2004
www.gregpalast.com
Florida's Computers Have Already Counted Thousands of Votes for George W. Bush
by Greg Palast

Before one vote was cast in early voting this week in Florida, the new touch-screen computer voting machines of Florida started out with a several-thousand vote lead for George W. Bush. That is, the mechanics of the new digital democracy boxes “spoil” votes at a predictably high rate in African-American precincts, effectively voiding enough votes cast for John Kerry to in a tight race, keep the White House safe from the will of the voters.

Is FEMA planning a “terror alert” on Election Day?
www.legitgov.org/essay_kane_fema_terror_drill_102904.html

Journalist Wayne Madsen's scenario of how Bush/Cheney could use a terror alert to steal the election
www.legitgov.org/essay_madsen_terrorism_and_california_071404.html

rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/october-portents.html

OCTOBER SURPRISE?

IS THE “OSAMA VIDEO” RELEASED ON FRIDAY THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?

Richard Clarke was on ABC Nightline on Friday evening talking about the Osama video.

His conclusions:

— Osama wants Bush to win (to keep the status of “al-Qaeda” in the Muslim world).

— Bush let Osama get away (from Tora Bora).

For more on Richard Clarke, see
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040504_Clarke_orchestra.html

Richard Clarke's Orchestra: Maestro Plays Simple Waltz;

Shackled Media Manage to Dance Along. by. Jamey Hecht, PhD.

Ted Koppel even mentioned that Osama pointed out that Bush was reading “My Pet Goat” and gave al-Qaeda more time for the attacks. This last point is very curious. It's understandable that OBL would want Dubya re-selected (they are a synergistic relationship), but why would al-Qaeda point out the “goat story” that hints at the (intentional) paralysis of the air defense system? This is a story that has many layers to it, and probably consists of deception upon deception woven into it. OBL attacking Bush in many ways strengthens Bush for some of his supporters, but also reminds others that Bush wasn't able to capture him. Bush and al-Qaeda have a synergistic relationship — each feeds the power of the other. That synergism doesn't require that they like each other, or that they stop attacking each other, but each is behaving in ways that strengthens the others' influence. (9/11 saved Bush's administration, and Bush's blundering in Iraq is the best recruiting for al-Qaeda.)

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/10/bin-laden-timing.html

Saturday, October 30, 2004

From Osama bin Laden's latest broadcast:

www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
“We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.”

It is impossible to know whether we should take anything bin Laden says at face value, but this comment on the timing of the attacks is interesting. While the timing of the broadcast makes it clear that Osama is playing right into Bush's election campaign by reminding Americans of why they instinctively look to Bush for security from the likes of bin Laden, the sly attack on Bush's goat book reading leaves enough ambiguity that Bush can argue that bin Laden is actually campaigning for Kerry, thus further increasing the value of bin Laden's words for Bush. Brilliant. Bin Laden continues to earn his pay.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

(the best “timeline” of the events of 9/11 is the “Complete 9/11 Timeline” at www.cooperativeresearch.org, which is now contained in Paul Thompson's book “The Terror Timeline,” published by a major book company and available at that website. the best analysis of the failure to intercept the planes is Mike Ruppert's book “Crossing the Rubicon” – see www.fromthewilderness.com for details)

Here's another commentary on this. I think it is a much rosier view of Kerry than what we will probably get, but the general conclusion (that OBL wants Bush) is probably true. It also overlooks the fact that Cheney and the people around him are very smart, and probably also want Iraq split into smaller countries (even if Bush isn't that bright). A civil war that converts Iraq into three new nations would probably make it easier for the US to dominate the oil fields (divide and conquer).

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:45:08 -0400
From: genemessick@ earthlink.net
Subject: Bin Laden Emerges to Influence Election

So. Who would Osama bin Laden vote for?

I asked and answered that question 2 months ago, for those of you who file away my commentaries.

Now, Osama has brought us his October surprise in his first video in 2 years, almost on Hallowe'en, no less! (Be aware we have seen only 6 minutes of the 18 so far.)

To see who bin Laden came out to campaign for — and make no mistake about it, this was a commanding campaign endorsement, aimed at overwhelmingly influencing OUR election — let's first look at who bin Laden does NOT want to be elected our President.

John Kerry has promised he will involve nations around the world, those George Bush alienated so thoroughly, in the War on Terror. Bin Laden's bunch, as the CIA just recently told us, has transformed from a structured “organization” to a worldwide “Movement”. That's why even we say it doesn't matter much if we kill him, his franchised Worldwide Hate America Movement would be alive and well, if not more empowered by his martyrdom.

Bush has proven he cannot gather other nations to fight his self promoted War on Terrorism. So this is a plus in bin Laden's eyes. Kerry says he can, and as the new guy on the block, he most likely will organize a tight, effective world wide noose in many nations around bin Laden's Movement. This means bin Laden would not have Kerry cornered in Iraq, as he has Bush pinned down, depleting his forces man by man, day by day, drip by drip, with no chance to win the guerrilla war. The longer bin Laden can keep his problems
isolated to Iraq deserts, the more assured he is he will win.

Secondly, Kerry is intelligent, and unlike Bush, will draw intelligent people around him. Bush, though savvy, by any measure is not very bright, and had totally NO foreign experience when he took office. He has absolutely no understanding of any culture outside Texas, other than the swaggering imitation Cowboy image that has not worked in our favor anywhere thus far. That's why our nation is in the general mess internationally that it's in.

To bin Laden, the Bush Administration's massive ignorance about Islam and what drives al-Qaeda has worked greatly to his advantage. Bush cannot imagine how to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, other than promise them “democracy”. He will have to continue blowing up a major portion of Iraq before it can be made “secure” for elections. But even then, his promise is only an empty word, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing Iraqis can understand. The more he fails to deliver on rebuilding their infrastructure (nowadays we are blowing up more than we are building) and securing the peace, the less Iraqis want anything to do with his idea of “democracy”. It's not truly outrageous to say that Iraqis might elect Saddam Hussein if he were on the ballot, preferring the stable security he provided to the devastating insecurity that is all Bush has delivered.

On the other hand, Kerry can and would draw around him people of good sense about international affairs, to provide intelligent guidance for America in the years ahead. This would not be good for bin Laden, because if we understand him, and speak the language and culture of Arabs as Bush could never do, then this works against bin Laden's goals. He needs to keep America angry and stupid. Look at the Bush Presidential campaign: promote anger, hatred and fear in the general population. Now that's a portrait of stupid.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So. What is there about George Bush that bin Laden likes? Well, there is no denying that George Bush is the greatest recruiting officer the al-Qaeda Movement has ever seen. If Bush had gone after bin Laden at Tora Bora and killed him, then had the good sense his Daddy did in the first Gulf Oil War and go home, al-Qaeda would be a minor player on the world stage. But, as some blond woman yelled out on Fox Newsytainment tonight, “the War on Terrorism is not going to be ended in a few years, it's going to go on for 40 or 50 years!”

Yep. That is what Bush has caused. Endless war for generations into the future. “Invisible” flag-draped coffins as far as the eye can see. And it suits bin Laden just fine. He knows we cannot win a war against a people who believe that dying is the best way to get to heaven.

Bin Laden also understands why Bush switched his focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. He knows, far better than most Americans do, that Cheney's plan to invade Iraq was on the drawing board even before Bush's selection to office. He knows what every Arab in the middle east knows: Bush's Second Gulf Oil War, like the first one, is only about who controls the oil under Arab sands. Some 65% of the World's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf States, none of which are democracies. By contrast, the US sits on only 3%, but
uses 25% of the world's oil. Now you know why Oilman Cheney cooked up the plan to invade Iraq about 6 years ago. They only needed an excuse.

Bin Laden provided the excuse on 9/11, or at least Bush claims he did. One has to wonder what other excuse would have been used by Oilman Bush to invade Iraq, had 9/11 not happened. Clearly, they had been cooking up the WMD excuse for some time.

Bin Laden knows that the Cheney/Bush Administration's absolute dedication to securing control over Iraq's oil will keep Bush tied down in the desert for years to come, and will make it impossible for him to go after the Movement as it grows to threaten other free nations around the world. As the Movement expands, expect kidnappings of Americans and ransoms to become a world wide al-Qaeda pastime. Just how will Bush send the Reserves and National Guard to 60 al-Qaeda infested nations around the world? This is the unintended consequences of Bush's inability to plan or design or figure out or guess or surmise or think.

So. You have a choice on November 2.

Vote for John Kerry.

Or vote for the man bin Laden endorsed.
________________________________

c 2004 — Gene Messick

Terror Alerts vs. Bush's poll numbers (a very revealing graphic / analysis)
juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_juliusblog_archive.html#109156476570482138

here are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

– Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.
– Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.
– Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).
– As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

WHY THE TERM “OCTOBER SURPRISE?”

www.oilempire.us/911.html (9/11 Dictionary)
October Surprise: a term that dates to the 1980 Presidential Election between President Carter and the Reagan-Bush campaign. The October Surprise was the suggestion that Carter might be able to free the 52 hostages being held in the US embassy in Iran immediately before the election, which would have given his re-election campaign a giant boost. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein (with the blessing of the US government) initiated a pre-emptive attack on Iran, which forced the Iranian government to seek spare parts for the military equipment that the ousted Shah had purchased from the United States (these parts are not generally available on the open market). At this time, the Republicans made a deal with the Iranian government, offering a better deal than the Carter administration (more weapons) if they delayed the release of the hostages until Reagan and Bush took office. The hostages were released within minutes of the change of Presidential leadership on January 20, 1981. Several writers and whistleblowers ave charged that George Herbert Walker Bush flew to Paris to cement the deal with representatives of the Ayatollah Khomeini regime — this claim can be summarized as a short slogan: “On October 19, 1980, Bush was dealing with Khomeini!” The “October Surprise” was the start of the “Iran-Contra” scandal.

Many people are speculating that an “October Surprise” will be used to disrupt or delay the 2004 election, or less severely, to stampede public opinion in favor of Bush-Cheney just before the vote. These hypotheses include a 9/11 repeat (an attack on this scale), unveiling of a captured Osama bin Laden, a “red alert” (martial law clampdown) just before or during the election, to name a few of the most popular ideas. More subtle tampering is already underway with phony computerized ballot machines, fake election polls, efforts to keep the full truths of Peak Oil out of the mainstream of media discussion until after the election, various dirty tricks against the Kerry campaign (Swift Boats, the faked papers about Bush's AWOL in the National Guard that nevertheless told the truth about his lack of service), and last but not least, the selection of an unpopular elite candidate by the Democrats as the “opponent” to George Bush. It is possible that the October Surprise will really be a December Surprise, a nasty “housewarming” gift from the outgoing Cheney-Bush administration to the incoming Kerry-Edwards team, similar to the Somalia debacle given by outgoing President Bush in 1992 to the Clinton-Gore administration. A 9/11 sequel under a Democratic White House would also deflect criticism that the attack was staged by the “neo-conservatives” to boost their extreme ideological agenda — a new terror attack after Kerry's inauguration would seem to be legitimately directed by an outside enemy, not an “inside job.” Perhaps the Kerry – Bush campaign is just a “good cop, bad cop” effort.

For more on the 1980 “October Surprise”
www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

book reviews of three books about October Surprise
www.namebase.org/books59.html

Honegger, Barbara. October Surprise. New York: Tudor, 1989. 323 pages.

Parry, Robert. Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery. New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1993. 350 pages.

Sick, Gary. October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. New York: Times Books – Random House, 1991. 278 pages.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Long term issues (regardless of whether Kerry is allowed to win or not)

America's Perfect Storm
www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/953_0_15_0_C/

The limits to growth
www.commondreams.org/views04/1028-23.htm