Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Bush rubò la presidenza ad Al Gore: con quella truffa hanno ammazzato 250mila iracheni e 3mila ragazzi americani, per un po' di petrolio e gli affari sporci di rumfield, Cheney  e Bush

In USA i marpioni trufaftori e ladri di democrazia hanno un potere
enormemente superiore a quello che può avere qui un pagliaccio brianzolo
come Berlusconi, il broglio elettorale che rubò la presidenza d Al Gore ha
avuto conseguenyte tragiche per milioni di persone con cnetinaia di migliaia
di morti innocneti.
CINQUANTAMILA BAMBINI massacrati dagli americani in Iraq han perso la vita
per la truffa elettorale ordita da Jeff Bush, governatore della Florida, per
dare la presidenza a Bushemo junior.
Quella montagna di cadaverini pesa sulla coscienza di ogni cittadino
americano.
ernesto
ECCO QUI:
 Subscribe to "Inside Bush Watch" and you'll get breaking news and broken
promises, quotes, jokes, blokes, and tokes. For you? Free. Such a deal!
BUSH WATCH
stories... issues... bushreport... comedy... site map... contact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Bush Lost Florida But Won
In The Supreme Court And The Media
by jerry politex, 
www.bushwatch.com
Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take
over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough
recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is
still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday
November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it
tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S.
Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in
reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida.
First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular
vote by over a half million votes. Secondly, Consortium interpretations of
the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in
Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his
favor, such as the Palm Beach butterfly votes, were declared invalid than
similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such unretrievable invalid votes,
Consortium interpretations, which allow only fully-punched ballot cards and
correctly marked optical scaned ballots, conclude that Gore still beat Bush
in a statewide recount in Florida by a thin margin of over 100 votes. Which
brings us back to the Supreme Court decision.
In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions
were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have
equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted.
However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the
formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the
court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of
nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the
winner in Florida. The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to
think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida. At any rate, in its
Dec. 12 decision the Court made clear that if it hadn't selected Bush, its
fallback decision would have been to call for a statewide election, since it
considered the case to be a matter of equal rights. It further indicated
that not taking a position on the matter was not an option.
Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion
that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the
election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium
reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid
votes," that he won because of the partial recount mandated by the Florida
Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore
under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways
that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot.
The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the
election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of
giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide
recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush. That's what makes the New
York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study
of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote."
While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility
to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the
media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its
politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore.
(c) copyright 2001. May be reprinted with attribution and link to
www.bushwatch.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!
It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote ...
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 1:18 AM PT
Slate.
Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a
familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story
line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the
hidden cache of valid, uncounted "overvotes"?seemingly double-voted ballots
that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the
key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.
Gore instead focused on "undervotes," ballots that initially registered no
vote at all. It has been widely assumed that the real-life, statewide
recount of Florida votes that was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court a
year ago?and then abruptly stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court?was also
limited to undervotes. Certainly the Florida court's opinion focuses on
undervotes.
But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge
Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday,
Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the
Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."
Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the
recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'
"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a
statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since
salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to
victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at
which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.
Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely publicized,
Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York
Times(and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been that?as
the Times' lede confidently put it?"George W. Bush would have won even if
the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of
the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."
[Emphasis added.] (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed
Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")
We now know, thanks to the Sentinel, that this Times take (and the somewhat
more hedged ledes in the Journal and Post) is thoroughly bogus?unfounded and
inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have
counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the
Times doesn't know otherwise.
That Judge Lewis would probably have counted the overvotes at the perverse
(in hindsight) urging of the Bush camp (which either wanted to delay the
proceedings or erroneously thought the overvotes would boost Bush's total)
doesn't alter this conclusion.
It looks as if the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the
Florida count cast the deciding vote after all.
P.S.: Does this mean Gore's undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn't
foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time
the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, it was
almost too late to count them before Dec. 12, the date accepted (foolishly!)
by Gore's lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida's electors. Any
recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as
this Sentinel companion story suggests. Had Gore instead asked for a full
statewide recount immediately after the Nov. 7 election, as some of his
aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes
and overvotes before Dec. 12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Gore Wins Popular Vote By Over Half Million
Associated Press, December 22, 2000
"Vice President Gore won the nation's popular vote in the presidential
election by more than 500,000 votes, according to official totals made
available Thursday to The Associated Press. An AP survey of all 50 states'
final election numbers showed that Democrat Gore led President-elect Bush,
the former GOP governor of Texas, by 539,947 votes. Final numbers show Gore
with 50,996,116 votes and Bush with 50,456,169. Bush won the White House by
capturing 271 electoral votes, one more than the Constitution requires. The
popular vote total includes all absentee ballots that were counted in the
weeks following the Nov. 7 election."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSORTIUM SAYS BUSH AND GORE WON FLORIDA VOTE
1. Gore Won The National Popular Vote By Over A Half Million (AP)
2. More Florida Voters Voted For Gore Than For Bush (SPT, CT)
3. The Supreme Court Selected Bush, 5-4. (Supreme Court)
4. The Supreme Court's Alternate Plan Was To Recount All Florida Votes.
(Supreme Court)
5. A Recount Of All Florida Votes Would Have Gore Winning By Over 100 Votes.
(NYT, WP)
As you read the Consortium membership comments (below the Parry summary
story) on the Florida presidential election of 2000, please keep in mind
that Bush was selected to be president by a U.S. Supreme Court vote of 5-4.
If the Supreme Court had not decided to take such a vote, it indicated that
neither the Bush solution to accept the State of Florida's count nor the
Gore solution to recount four counties would be acceptable. Nor would the
Florida Supreme Court's solution to recount 43,000 ballots be acceptable.
Rather, the entire state of Florida would have to be recounted, the Supreme
Court said. (Supreme Court summary ("equal protection") and decision here.)
That scenario would have Gore winning by over 100 votes, based upon the
recount by the Consortium. --Politex, 11/12/01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consortiumnews.com
Foreground: Gore's Victory
By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001
So Al Gore was the choice of Florida?s voters -- whether one counts hanging
chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news
organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any
chad measure, Gore won.
Gore won even if one doesn?t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today
estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed ?butterfly ballots,? or
the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely
identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.
Gore won even if there?s no adjustment for George W. Bush?s windfall of
about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax
standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to
Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington
Post and the New York Times.
Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida?s voters
anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half
million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on
studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2
and July 16.]
The Spin
Yet, possibly for reasons of ?patriotism? in this time of crisis, the news
organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their
stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate
winner, with headlines such as ?Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush?
[Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001].
Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story
headlined, ?George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,? in which Kurtz ridiculed as
?conspiracy theorists? those who thought Gore had won.
?The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media
were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,?
Kurtz wrote. ?That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news
organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount
plans being considered at the time.?
Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based
on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. ?Now the question
is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall
felt like the story of the century ? and now faintly echoes like some
distant Civil War battle?? he wrote.
In other words, the elite media?s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it."
Only "Gore partisans" ? as both the Washington Post and the New York Times
called critics of the official Florida election tallies ? would insist on
looking at the fine print.
The Actual Findings
While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it?s
still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results
of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.
?Full Review Favors Gore,? the Washington Post said in a box on page 10,
showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on
top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.
Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today
had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots
depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots ?
punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and
Gore under two standards.
The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was
applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting
fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115
votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one
corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes.
Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.
This core finding of Gore?s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount
might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top
paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted
hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.
Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the
new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the
?butterfly ballot? and other irregularities that cost him thousands of
ballots.
The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two
partial recounts that were proposed ? but not completed ? in the chaotic,
often ugly environment of last November and December.
The new articles make much of Gore?s decision to seek recounts in only four
counties and the Florida Supreme Court?s decision to examine only
?undervotes,? those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a
presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was
to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.
"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course
like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all
the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was
hypocritical as well as foolish.
The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to
join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results
without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a
public relations gesture."
The Bush Strategy
Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his
official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted on his
brother Jeb?s state officials to ensure the Bush family?s return to national
power.
To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched
thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level
in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal
the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman."
With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to
concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where
irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush?s
supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush?s administration and in the streets by
Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see
stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000]
Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts,
where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida
Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy.
Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the
presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide
recount of ?undervotes.? This tally would have excluded so-called
?overvotes? ? which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices
for president.
Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S.
Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9
and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush?s claim that the varying ballot
standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements.
At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results,
the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to
devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would
have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear. The hitch
was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete
this assignment, effectively handing Florida?s 25 electoral votes and the
White House to Republican George W. Bush.
A Third Hypothetical
The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical
cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of
the four southern Florida counties ? by 225 votes ? and the state Supreme
Court?s order ? by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news
stories, while Gore?s statewide-recount victory was played down.
Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme
Court?s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief
extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S.
Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the
news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.
The U.S. Supreme Court?s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied
in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important
fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.
?Ironically, it was Bush?s lawyers who argued that recounting only the
undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And
the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also
questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount
only to undervotes,? the Post wrote. ?Had the high court acted on that, and
had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet
another statewide recount, Gore?s chances would have been dramatically
improved.?
In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to
fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair
recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters ? both nationally
and in Florida ? might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have
been inaugurated president of the United States.
Favored Outcome
But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news organizations,
which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their patriotism. If they
had simply given the American people the unvarnished facts, the reality that
the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that
Bush indeed did steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined
his legitimacy during the current crisis over terrorism.
In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media also
showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy: that
leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from
legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers.
It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of the
latest recount figures.
Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything just
turned out right ? the Bush dynasty was restored to power, the proper order
was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a ?conspiracy theorist? or a
?Gore partisan.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune, 11/12/01
"The most comprehensive study of the troubled presidential election in
Florida shows the main culprits were simple and fixable: ballot design,
inconsistent election rules and voter error. The yearlong review of the
Florida election reveals that even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a
recount of ballots, there is no clear indication that Democrat Al Gore would
have gained enough votes to triumph over Republican George W. Bush. A close
examination of the ballots also suggests that more Floridians attempted to
choose Gore over Bush. But more Gore supporters improperly marked their
ballots, leaving Bush with more valid votes.
"The independent study offers an unprecedented look into the haphazard
process of the making of a president, highlighting a fragmented system in 67
counties that invalidated thousands of votes and clouded the unprecedented
legal odyssey to the White House. A consortium of eight news organizations,
including the Tribune Co., commissioned the National Opinion Research Center
at the University of Chicago to take the deepest look yet into the Florida
ballot box, trying to determine why the state?s voting system broke down.
"A close examination of the ballots also suggests that more Floridians
attempted to choose Gore over Bush. But more Gore supporters improperly
marked their ballots, leaving Bush with more valid votes. The independent
study offers an unprecedented look into the haphazard process of the making
of a president, highlighting a fragmented system in 67 counties that
invalidated thousands of votes and clouded the unprecedented legal odyssey
to the White House."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times, 11/12/01
"Bush Wins, Gore Wins-- Depends on How Ballots Are Added Up
Comprehensive study of uncounted Florida votes reveals mixed results.
"If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their
abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President
Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive
study of the uncounted ballots has found.
"But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida
and other states now are adopting-- rules aimed at recording the intentions
of as many voters as possible-- Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would
have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times, 11/12/01
"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's
presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the
United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the
votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.Contrary to
what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the
United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that
otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the
ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr.
Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had
not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. Even under the
strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ?
filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties
? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review
conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than
those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore
might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the
rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have
reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the
consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore
might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the
one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the
votes...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post, 11/12/01
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the
presidency last year if either of two limited recounts ? one requested by Al
Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court ? had been completed,
according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news
organizations.
"But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed
ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been
different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found
enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of
margins...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Petersberg Times, 11/12/01
"IT'S BUSH -- BUT IT'S ALSO GORE:
Certified margin: Bush by 537 votes
Statewide recount margin: Bush by 493
Margin with overvotes: Gore by 107 votes.
George W. Bush would have won if counties continued the recount ordered by
the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 8. But another recount scenario puts Gore
ahead....More than 2,100 Florida voters who wanted Al Gore to become
president tried to make doubly sure of their choice. So did more than 1,300
voters who backed George W. Bush. They marked a ballot for their candidate
and then wrote in his name for president, too. Or they circled the name, or
tried to scratch out a mistake, or otherwise made a second mark to emphasize
their choice.
"Those votes could have turned the election for Gore. But the extra emphasis
ensured they wouldn't count. Instead, the ballots were labeled as overvotes,
or ballots which machines read as having marks for more than one candidate
and were never recounted by hand. Had election officials looked at them, the
intent of these voters would have been abundantly clear...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press, 11/12/01
"A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential
election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the
partial recounts sought by Al Gore (news - web sites), but Gore might have
reversed the outcome - by the barest of margins - had he pursued and gained
a complete statewide recount. Bush eventually won Florida, and thus the
White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast. But questions
about the uncounted votes lingered.
"The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news
organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after
Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected
by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). Gore sought a recount of a
relatively small portion of the state's disputed ballots while the review
indicates his only chance lay in a course he advocated publicly but did not
pursue in court - a full statewide recount of all Florida's untallied
votes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN, 11/12/01
"A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests
that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to
proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected
president. On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida
Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all
undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively
ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few
hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast. In addition to undervotes,
thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated
because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter
correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The
consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had
included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin
of fewer than 200 votes."
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/


--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 Grazie Prodi
PRODI???????????
Guarda che il Libano l'ONU è andata per FERMARE UNA GUERRA E UN MASSACRO
(indem fu in KOSSOVO) non per dar manforte a un'invasione!!!
ernesto



 Non parlo di Libano(anche io sono per fermare il massacro israeliano).Parlo
di Iraq e Afghanistan


 di Iraq e Afghanistan
Non mi sembra che Prodi abbia ordinato il ritiro...


by jerry politex, 
www.bushwatch.com
Tutte balle smentite da due autorevoli indagini.
====================================
Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount.
April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in
last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by
the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won
the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.
The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of
64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last
month."
Luciano
"La sinistra sta sempre dalla parte sbagliata. È stata contro Hitler,
ma non contro Stalin. Certo, non sono così cieco da non saper
distinguere Stalin da Fassino... Fassino poi è così magro e non ha i
baffi. (da la Repubblica, 3 febbraio 2005)"
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
 The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 PRODI???????????
...certo...prodino!
Da se mesi oramai è al governicchio e nulla ha fatto per riportare a casa i 
soldati italiani che purtroppo sono ancora in irak e afganistan al soldo 
degli imperialisti americani! In questi sei mesi prodino si è lordato le 
mani di sanque perchè non ha ancora tolto i "nostri ragazzi" da quella 
sciagurata opera colonizzatrice ai danni dei fratelli maomettani!