← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

What Is Bush’s Agenda In Iraq?

Thread ID: 18834 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2005-06-26

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2005-06-26 00:21 | User Profile

What Is Bush’s Agenda In Iraq?

By Paul Craig Roberts

For what purpose has President Bush sent 1,741 US soldiers to be killed in action in Iraq (as of June 19, 2005)?

For what purpose have 15,000 - 38,000 US troops been wounded, many so seriously that they are maimed for life?

Why has the US government thrown away $300 billion in an illegal and pointless war that cannot be won?

These questions are beginning to penetrate the consciousness of Americans, a majority of whom no longer support Bush’s war.

Bush’s Iraq war is the first war for which Americans have not known the reason. The reasons they were given by their president, vice president, secretary of defense, national security advisor, secretary of state, and the sycophantic media were nothing but a pack of lies.

The top secret British government memos leaked to a reporter at the London Sunday Times make it completely clear that prior to the invasion President Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The memos make it completely clear that Saddam Hussein had no responsibility whatsoever for the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The memos make completely clear that the British government regarded the invasion of Iraq as a war crime. The memos show the British government scrambling to find some way of creating "cover" in order to obfuscate the illegality of the invasion that Prime Minister Tony Blair had promised Bush to support.

One of the cover plans was itself illegal. According to yet another leaked top secret British memo in the Sunday Times on June 19, Bush decided to sharply increase the US bombings of Iraq in the hopes it would goad Saddam Hussein into a response that could be used as a pretext for invading Iraq.

According to the Sunday Times, the British Foreign Office advised the British Cabinet that legally "the allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime."

The Bush administration falsely claimed that the bombing was legal in order to enforce compliance with UN resolutions 688 and 687. However, the British Foreign Office advised Bush’s poodle, Tony Blair, that the American view

"is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement."

In his June 18 weekly radio address last Saturday, Bush again lied to the American people when he told them that the US was forced into invading Iraq because of the September 11 attack on the WTC. Bush, the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer, actually repeated at this late date the monstrous lie for which he is infamous throughout the world: "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."

Whoever the "people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens" might be, they were not Iraqis, at least not until Bush invaded their country, killed tens of thousands and maimed tens of thousands more, detained tens of thousands others, destroyed entire cities, destroyed the country’s infrastructure, and created mass unemployment, poverty, pollution and disease.

The only reason Iraqis want to harm the US is because George W. Bush inflicted, and continues to inflict, tremendous harm on Iraqis.

If the Bush administration has its way, the Iraqi insurgents will be joined by the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Jordanians and Palestinians. The "people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens" will increase exponentially.

In print and on TV, Bush’s neocons have made clear their desire to see the US at war with the entire Muslim world: Today Iraq, tomorrow the Middle East. That the neocons believe the US can win such a war when the US cannot even occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport indicates a frightening insanity at the center of the Bush administration and a criminal disregard for the lives of Americans and Muslims.

The neocons assured Americans that the war in Iraq would be a cakewalk over in three weeks!

The neocons told us that only 70,000 troops were needed to bring Iraq to heel!

Neocons fired the top generals who had truthfully told Congress that several hundred thousand troops, at least, would be needed!

Neocons told Congress that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion and that America did not have to worry about the cost! So far that is a $300 billion mistake.

And Bush has retained and promoted these morons!

No one has been held accountable for this enormous disaster.

How many more American troops are going to be killed and maimed for Bush’s lies? How many more Iraqi civilians must be killed, maimed, and locked up?

Bush’s Iraq policy is based on lies, and force based on lies cannot bring democracy to Iraq or to any other country.

Bush’s lies are discrediting and destroying democracy in America. His "Patriot Act" alone has done more damage to Americans’ freedom than Osama bin Laden.

Why did Bush invade Iraq? Cynical Americans say the answer is oil. But $300 billion would have bought the oil without getting anyone killed, without destroying America’s reputation in the world and without stirring up countless terrorist recruits for al Qaida.

Congress gave Bush the go-ahead for the invasion because Congress trusted Bush and believed his word that Iraq had fearsome weapons that would be unleashed on America unless we preempted Saddam Hussein’s attack by striking first. Congress did not give Bush the go-ahead for initiating a war in order to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives "building democracy in Iraq."

Will President Bush ever tell us the real reason why he committed America’s treasure, the lives of American soldiers and the reputation of our country to war in Iraq?

Does he even know?

Dr. Roberts, [email him] a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former Contributing Editor of National Review, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration. He is the author of The Supply-Side Revolution and, with Lawrence M. Stratton, of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050620_agenda.htm

Angeleyes

2005-06-26 02:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Faust] The top secret British government memos leaked to a reporter at the London Sunday Times make it completely clear that prior to the invasion President Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. [/QUOTE] Bullshit. That kind of statement will not stand up to academic rigor, nor even cursory scrutiny.

That said, a far more important question has to be asked, and needs to be answered.

"Why did so many Americans accept the explanations given to them with so little cynicism?"

That is a far more important question to ask. That is the question whose answer will answer why those who wished to impose "democracy" on Iraq via "the bayonet" were given the blessing of the Congress. That is all the Constitution and subsequent Acta, demanded, and that is what was given.

The hard question is: once the real attack on the harborers of bona fide terror organs was underway, the attack on the Taliban, why did the brain cells stop functioning? Why did that nonsensical country song "Have You Forgotten" substitute for thought?

Men of worth, Anthony Zinni, James Webb, and many others spoke out against a war. These were not bleeding heart liberals, these were men who looked at long term American strategic interests and said "No, this war is NOT in the strategic interest.." Why were they ignored?

That question must be answered. Why was Cassandra, yet again, ignored?

Walter Yannis

2005-06-26 04:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE][Angeleyes]Bullshit. That kind of statement will not stand up to academic rigor, nor even cursory scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you say that. The UN inspectors looked far and wide and under every rock and came up with nothing.

And this when all agreed that Saddam was providing full access.

So what's so surprising about them turning out to be right?

Please explain.

[QUOTE]That question must be answered. Why was Cassandra, yet again, ignored?[/QUOTE]

Because the real reason for this war is not to protect the world from Al Queda (patently absurd) but rather to advance the interests of Israel and the Jews.

Once we get that central fact straight, the rest of it makes sense.

BTW, who has seen the Power of Nightmare from the BBC? It named the neokhans, but didn't name the Jew. It's still worth a look, though. There's really little doubt that 9-11 was part of the neokhan's plan to garner American support for their war for Israel.

SteamshipTime

2005-06-26 17:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Because the real reason for this war is not to protect the world from Al Queda (patently absurd) but rather to advance the interests of Israel and the Jews...[/QUOTE]Precisely. The neo-con Zionists played on the economically ignorant sentiments of the oil men, as well as Junior's own issues with his father, to get this war because Israel fears prosperous, secular Arab states in the region.

Of course they knew there were no NBC weapons in Iraq. In a just world, the members of the Bush administration would be sentenced to death by hanging.

Angeleyes

2005-06-26 21:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I don't know why you say that. The UN inspectors looked far and wide and under every rock and came up with nothing. I find it fascinating that anyone clings to that political and diplomatic fiction.

For instance, check out a snapshot from the timeline in 1991. It takes just over 3 months to get even the first UNSCOM boots on the ground. It is not unreasonable to presume that any amount of critical material can be hidden in three months time. Saddam is not stupid. He is going to play a shell game. His initial requirement was to meet a 90 day timeline, and as the history clearly shows, played a game of obstruction and deception for the first three years. His activity was steeped in deception from the word go. (If I'd have been him, I might have done the same, since the important thing, I Saddam am still in power, was still operative.)

I could go on, but the fiction of "full access" does not stand up to reality.

[QUOTE]And this when all agreed that Saddam was "providing full access." [/QUOTE]Having been alive at that time, I'll suggest to you that the term "full access" was no more than a political fig leaf, not what the words themselves connote in a literal sense. Consider going back to the reports Mr Ritter and others made at the time. I also recall the rancor with which Mr Ritter was sent packing from the inspections regime, and when he was accused by Saddam's people of being not an "impartial UN inspector," but a US intelligence agent.

How soon we forget.

I am willing to believe that, since deception is an important assumption, and that the numbers in versus numbers out, or material declared, did not match up, a not unreasonable assumption (NOT a fact) was made that he still had means and programs. That assumption does not and did not equal proof.

What was most revealing, in retrospect, was when Saddam stopped playing the bluffing game.

[QUOTE]Because the real reason for this war is not to protect the world from Al Queda (patently absurd) but rather to advance the interests of Israel and the Jews.[/QUOTE]Which war, Walter? The revenge attack on Al Qaeda was undertaken in Afghanistan. The pre emptive attack on Iraq could not hope to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda, and still has not. The presence of Al Zarqawi in Iraq is easily explained as taking an opportunity to hit the Americans again, both physically and politically, via body count.

I won't argue against a primary war aim being improved Israeli security. It is one of the few explanations that gives any coherence to "why now" in 2003. The other explanation requires broader thinking than I generally see on this board, or any other, which is an assumption that the 2004 election would be a loss for the incumbent, and that no less than 6 years would pass before an opportunity to act would come again. In 6 years, a lot can happen.

There's really little doubt that 9-11 was part of the neokhan's plan to garner American support for their war for Israel.[/QUOTE]I have yet to see sufficient evidence of that being any more than a theory, though I find some of the unexplained factoids troubling.

As I pointed to elsewhere, neocons are not the only people on the planet earth who have a plan, and agenda. International power is a many versus many free for all. Jungle rules.

Ponce

2005-06-26 23:25 | User Profile

Rumfeld...."We could be in Iraq for twelve years OR MORE"

What is the "agenda" in Iraq??????? to steal all their oil and then leave them in peace once again.

Are we going to war against Iran? with what? the Boys Scouts?

Against North Korea? forget it, they would kick the zhet out of the US unless we use nuclear, all they need is a good bolt action rifle and forget the fancy equipment that the US soldiers uses today.

So, where does that leaves us? in deep poopoo.

Franco

2005-06-27 00:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I find it fascinating that anyone clings to that political and diplomatic fiction.

For instance, check out a snapshot from the timeline in 1991. It takes just over 3 months to get even the first UNSCOM boots on the ground. It is not unreasonable to presume that any amount of critical material can be hidden in three months time. Saddam is not stupid. He is going to play a shell game. His initial requirement was to meet a 90 day timeline, and as the history clearly shows, played a game of obstruction and deception for the first three years. His activity was steeped in deception from the word go. (If I'd have been him, I might have done the same, since the important thing, I Saddam am still in power, was still operative.)

I could go on, but the fiction of "full access" does not stand up to reality.

Having been alive at that time, I'll suggest to you that the term "full access" was no more than a political fig leaf, not what the words themselves connote in a literal sense. Consider going back to the reports Mr Ritter and others made at the time. I also recall the rancor with which Mr Ritter was sent packing from the inspections regime, and when he was accused by Saddam's people of being not an "impartial UN inspector," but a US intelligence agent.

How soon we forget.

I am willing to believe that, since deception is an important assumption, and that the numbers in versus numbers out, or material declared, did not match up, a not unreasonable assumption (NOT a fact) was made that he still had means and programs. That assumption does not and did not equal proof.

What was most revealing, in retrospect, was when Saddam stopped playing the bluffing game.

Which war, Walter? The revenge attack on Al Qaeda was undertaken in Afghanistan. The pre emptive attack on Iraq could not hope to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda, and still has not. The presence of Al Zarqawi in Iraq is easily explained as taking an opportunity to hit the Americans again, both physically and politically, via body count.

I won't argue against a primary war aim being improved Israeli security. It is one of the few explanations that gives any coherence to "why now" in 2003. The other explanation requires broader thinking than I generally see on this board, or any other, which is an assumption that the 2004 election would be a loss for the incumbent, and that no less than 6 years would pass before an opportunity to act would come again. In 6 years, a lot can happen.

I have yet to see sufficient evidence of that being any more than a theory, though I find some of the unexplained factoids troubling.

As I pointed to elsewhere, neocons are not the only people on the planet earth who have a plan, and agenda. International power is a many versus many free for all. Jungle rules.[/QUOTE]

Do you think the Iraq War was a good idea? Do you support Israel? Yes or no?

Exelsis_Deo

2005-06-27 02:47 | User Profile

the fact is that THEY ACT, because THEY have POWER. WE DO NOT ACT, we only talk.. and therefore, THEY believe WE HAVE NO POWER. Understand ? They believe nothing you say means anything. They can ACT, and WE have NOT acted. There is only one thing THEY understand. You know what it is.

Angeleyes

2005-06-27 02:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Do you think the Iraq War was a good idea? Do you support Israel? Yes or no?

I don't think Iraq was a good idea. Never have. I never liked the answer to "why now?" Of course, no one called me to make the decision.

"Do you support Israel?" No, I don't send them money.

They exist as a nation state. That is reality. They exist becase America said so. That too is reality.

Where SHOULD Israel fit in US foreign policy? Somewhere, perhaps, but not above American national interests, and not above any number of allies in Asia, where the future security of our nation will be played out.

xmetalhead

2005-06-27 13:00 | User Profile

Bushco's agenda for Iraq? More of the same: death, destruction, murder and eventually utter ruin....for Iraq and America.

SteamshipTime

2005-06-27 13:35 | User Profile

I don't think the Administration really has one anymore. I think they thought we'd waltz in, depose Hussein, and the grateful, rose-petal-throwing Iraqis would install Ahmad Chalabi as El Presidente by universal acclaim. US troops would saunter around at ease, like they do in Germany, and Chalabi would start handing out the oil franchises.

The reality is that Iraq is a total hash and they don't know what to do. Rumsfeld is going senile before everyone's eyes. He's on MSNBC babbling about "the mission" taking twelve years to complete. If they're smart, we'll cut and run back to our huge, luxurious bases in Kuwait and Qatar. Nobody will touch the Kurds: they're well armed and mean as snakes. The Shia will eventually kill all the militant Sunnis and drive the remainder into Jordan and Syria.

But then, if they were smart, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sertorius

2005-06-27 14:59 | User Profile

AE,

I agree with you save one item. Hussein Karmal destroyed all this unconventional ordinance back in March of 1991. Saddam Hussein played his game to fool his next door neighbors.

As far as Hussein's unconventional weapons go I too thought he had some of this stuff squirred away. However, I never believed he had 30,000 artillery shells and rockets hidden as Powell claimed. Those figures put out struck me as grossly exaggerated. The reason I didn't consider Iraq to be a threat was I knew what sort of shape their armed forces were via their TOE. Obsolete equipment and an even more obsolete doctrine. Their offensive capability was nil.

I never worrried about Hussein giving any of this stuff to terrorists. 1) Hussein likes living too much and 2) Hussein doesn't care for religious fanatics.

I do hold to the belief that this war was started with Iraq because Israel and their fifth column here wanted it and the Wall Street plutocrats saw a way to plunder the region.

Angeleyes

2005-06-27 20:18 | User Profile

Good points, Sertorius. Your points on his disliking religious fanatics and his general craftiness are well made. I still think that a number of the cabinet firmly believed that once in Iraq, they'd find enough stuff to be able to show "see, look at this stuff, we told you it was here." That's called "betting the come" in Vegas. :wallbash: Some craps game that, eh? Blew 200 billion on that bet, and 1800 lives . . . and counting.

ST: It dawned on me last night just how much like Ngo Vin Dhiem old Mr Chalabi looked. I was re-reading March of Folly this weekend, and had one of those epiphany moments. Dhiem was chosen on as "good enough." Chalabi is a frighteningly similar figure, in terms of whose ear he had and what his real street cred in Iraq was. He was given a resounding raspberry by the folks who had not fled their country, which at least saved them that stage of civil war . . . throwing Chalabi out on his arse and beheadng him.

The picture I have of the decision making process is sliding him into a Presidency became a planning assumption, and the serials and branches for "if Chalabi not a suitable substitute" were ignored. Backup slides. [QUOTE=Sertorius]AE,

I agree with you save one item. Hussein Karmal destroyed all this unconventional ordinance back in March of 1991. Saddam Hussein played his game to fool his next door neighbors.

As far as Hussein's unconventional weapons go I too thought he had some of this stuff squirred away. However, I never believed he had 30,000 artillery shells and rockets hidden as Powell claimed. Those figures put out struck me as grossly exaggerated. The reason I didn't consider Iraq to be a threat was I knew what sort of shape their armed forces were via their TOE. Obsolete equipment and an even more obsolete doctrine. Their offensive capability was nil.

I never worrried about Hussein giving any of this stuff to terrorists. 1) Hussein likes living too much and 2) Hussein doesn't care for religious fanatics.

I do hold to the belief that this war was started with Iraq because Israel and their fifth column here wanted it and the Wall Street plutocrats saw a way to plunder the region.[/QUOTE]

Howling Privateer

2005-06-28 02:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]Rumfeld...."We could be in Iraq for twelve years OR MORE"

What is the "agenda" in Iraq??????? to steal all their oil and then leave them in peace once again.

Are we going to war against Iran? with what? the Boys Scouts?[/QUOTE] -To obtain the control of the future distribution of oil on the market of the emergent countries (China, India, SE Asia). -To control the Arab countries by a dissuasive presence towards possible military adventures. -To contain the rise to regional power of Iran. -To protect the Israelian fortress and to please the jewish-owned interests. This is surely important, but if might well be more secondary than you think. -To make pay the modernization of Iraq by the whole world by increasing the oil price. -To bring a financial relaxation to Saudi Arabia threatened by its fundamentalists. -To maintain the budgets dedicated to the American military power and to satisfy the suppliers of armaments. -To draw aside from the attention of the Americans the subjects which are more important to them (federal debt, immigration, working poors, ...)

So Bush made his perjury for what he thought of being the good for the American people and the world, just like deputies of Congress did too. However much of those followed by political cowardice. The problem is nevertheless that it will not work, and just like Afghanistan will remain the septic tank of the planet, the American presence in Iraq will be always lived like a foreign metastasis on the very soil of Islam, thus concentrating all hatreds against USA. Not to speak about the total human and financial cost for the average taxpayer. And I must warn you, when troops will retire in 5, 10 or 20 years, they will bring back to New York hundreds of thousand of Iraqi collaborators with the unavoidable chain-migration phenomenom, France also made that mistake in Algeria. I know an old proverb which dates from colonization: "40 feet under ground, an Arab remains an Arab". Thousand-year-old ethnic ties and seculiar kinships cannot be destroyed by even the most powerful armies in a land of such ancient civilization.

I do not want to play the bad prophet, but as a whole, a kind of sovietic syndrom has been engaged and the Iraqi freedom operation could have triggered what Afghanistan has been for Moscow. However, it must be tempered because the situation is by far less deteriorated than in post-industrial USSR. America is sure to stay the only world power for at least 50 years and can only be threatened by an interior collapse. For example a perpective of secession following the possible partition of Canada between 2009 and 2013 (Quebec). You should blame those who are attempting to turn the still young American nation into a "cradle of universality" or a "set of propositions", whether they're jewish or not.

Sertorius

2005-06-28 02:36 | User Profile

Howling Privateer,

That is a pretty sharp assessment of the situation. All of these play a role in this debacle.

Walter Yannis

2005-06-28 07:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Angeleyes]I find it fascinating that anyone clings to that political and diplomatic fiction.

On 28 June the UN throws a flag: Saddam's folks are obstructing already.

Later in 1991, Iraq rejected UNSC 705 and 707, which called for full disclosure on nuclear programs.

I could go on, but the fiction of "full access" does not stand up to reality.

Having been alive at that time, I'll suggest to you that the term "full access" was no more than a political fig leaf, not what the words themselves connote in a literal sense. Consider going back to the reports Mr Ritter and others made at the time. I also recall the rancor with which Mr Ritter was sent packing from the inspections regime, and when he was accused by Saddam's people of being not an "impartial UN inspector," but a US intelligence agent.

How soon we forget. [/QUOTE]

You're talking about Saddam's actions well before the final push for war. It's clear that Saddam had seen the writing on the wall and decided to capitulate back in 2002. That was clear at the time. It was also the position of Blix and Ritter.

And it proved to be true after we actually went in there with the Army and really and truly had full access.

So, we're not talking 20/20 hindsight here. Shrub very probably knew for certain that there was no real WMD danger there, and at the very least he knew that he didn't have nearly enough evidence to take us to war, as the Downing Street memoranda make crystal clear.

[QUOTE]I am willing to believe that, since deception is an important assumption, and that the numbers in versus numbers out, or material declared, did not match up, a not unreasonable assumption (NOT a fact) was made that he still had means and programs. That assumption does not and did not equal proof.[/QUOTE]

Downing Stree memos. There's really no doubt that even the Brits knew they had no case to go to war, even if they did have some lingering doubts about WMD.

[QUOTE]What was most revealing, in retrospect, was when Saddam stopped playing the bluffing game. [/QUOTE]

That's right, but that was clear at the time. This is no surprise.

[QUOTE]Which war, Walter? The revenge attack on Al Qaeda was undertaken in Afghanistan. The pre emptive attack on Iraq could not hope to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda, and still has not. The presence of Al Zarqawi in Iraq is easily explained as taking an opportunity to hit the Americans again, both physically and politically, via body count.[/QUOTE]

The Shrub administration made a specific link between Saddam and 9-11. And to this day many a Boobus Americanus believes it.

Shrub lied. Why do you resist that very obvious conclusion?

[QUOTE]I won't argue against a primary war aim being improved Israeli security. It is one of the few explanations that gives any coherence to "why now" in 2003. The other explanation requires broader thinking than I generally see on this board, or any other, which is an assumption that the 2004 election would be a loss for the incumbent, and that no less than 6 years would pass before an opportunity to act would come again. In 6 years, a lot can happen. [/QUOTE]

But the election was important largely for Yiddish reasons. Just like only Nixon could go to China, only the Pubbies can take us to war.

[QUOTE]I have yet to see sufficient evidence of that being any more than a theory, though I find some of the unexplained factoids troubling.[/QUOTE]

The Downing Street memos are the smoking gun. There's really no doubt about the fact that Iraq was decided upon well in advance of any failed weapons inspections. [QUOTE] As I pointed to elsewhere, neocons are not the only people on the planet earth who have a plan, and agenda. International power is a many versus many free for all. Jungle rules.[/QUOTE]

True, but the point is that the neokhans and indeed Israel and the Jews are our most dangerous enemy at this point. One war at a time.

datavirtue

2005-07-10 17:44 | User Profile

We need to abck out of every loan we owe. True this may devastate some but what is war? All these loans belong to Jewish (International) bankers who continue to further conflict.

The truth is; we cant do this. Why? The stock "market" is based on those loans as are our taxes. Therefore we are not in control of our money supply. If we had any control of our money supply we could fix a lot of problems.

The fact that we pay interest at all is absolutly rediculous; but everyone is brainwashed into not caring. If a government needs money it should get it from the people by selling bonds for the purpose. that way the actual reason for spending the money would have to "pass" by the people. This is like voting so there is no way that is going to happen.

why dont we have Internet voting on every issue yet? It is being suppressed not ignored. We bank online! Which is more important?

We could use our credit cards (or other exsisting system) to vote securely!!

We coulld assign unique numbers (like SSN) to each voter and have them vote by phone (online) with a paper trail.

If we could vote readily and acuratly then things would change over-nite.

Party system should be illegal. This is a lable which causes discrimination and division.

Sean