Is This Article On Voter Fraud By Wayne Madsen Credible?

[redstateblues]

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

I've heard his name but I'm not sure in what context. If this is even partially true it would be pretty explosive and drive many of us out into the streets.

[genius]

1. He is one of the most respected reporters out their according to people

I've asked. I was unfamiliar with him until this article and so I started asking people. He has regularly reported on the Intelligence community with accuracy.

[Cha]

2. I'm glad you at least brought it

into the Political Discussion. It was in LBN yesterday and was locked because it was in the wrong forum.

I've been reading Wayne Madsen for two years on the internet now and have found no reason to find him anything but credible.

As for this piece..time will tell. A DUer pointed out yesterday that there weren't that many credible sources for the report..but maybe they will come forward in time..we can only hope!

[jamboi]

3. Article to be updated tonight

I corresponded w/ him and he said he's got new info and will update his article. We are waiting for some more solid proof. I'm staying w/ the main thread until something breaks. Here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=78323&mesg_id=78323&page=

[Wonk]

4. Why do some folks link to blogs that link to articles instead of just

linking straight to the article itself? (rhetorical question, I think I know the answer)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112504Madsen/112504madsen.html

[shraby]

5. There was a link to the article on Buzzflash.

[redstateblues]

6. Sorry - I'm an inexperienced linker- realized my error after the fact

[buddysmellgood]

7. This kind of thing does huge damage to efforts to reform voting.

I would love nothing more than to believe this story, but is should not have been released until sources could be named. Now everyone switches focus to this supposed army of people impersonating federal officers while serious efforts to expose fraud are put on the backburner. Right now, this is just an opportunity for everyone who believes the election was rigged, to be painted as the tin-foil hat crowd.
I would love for this story to be true. I hope names are named. It would be great if fraud were this easy to prove. I simply can't believe this without proof.

[meganmonkey]

8. Naming sources is a sensitive thing

Many sources probably shouldn't be publicly named. It would be a lot easier for readers to trust information, but it would make sources a lot less likely to talk. It's great if you get a 'whistleblower' type who is willing to be open about it but that often isn't the cse. Who was Deep Throat anyway?

[roguevalley]

9. He needs support. I wrote to him and he told me that he gave

the article to some people who can 'kick ass' and that he's getting threats from Saudis and Bushies and isn't sure he can work much longer in Washington. He's getting locked out of work. I post this as a nearly 5000 post DU'er. There are a lot of trolls attacking this topic wherever and however its posted. I personally admire the crap out of him, admire his guts and support him. He said in his email he will work as long as his health and income hold out.

Another unsung hero of the resistance.

RV, a long time member

[meganmonkey]

12. I'm with you, RV- I wish folks wouldn't write this off as 'tinfoil hat'

I've seen you post about this in a couple threads. Do you think getting supportive emails would help? The only address on the link is editor@online journal.com - do you recommend using that address?

As for those who think this is 'conspiracy theory' - remember why we fought so hard to get Bush out of office? Because we knew that some terribly shady and dangerous stuff was happening with this administration. So why are we all so shocked and resistant to this kind of info? It's not like we're saying it was martians who rigged this election. This is some serious shit and unless we face it we'll never beat it.

[buddysmellgood]

13. Of course, but it has to be faced with facts. Storytime will not

hold up. The burden of proof is on us. What exactly did these technicians do? How many technicians were there? What precincts did they work in? Who allowed them near the machines? Who saw them near the machines? By how many votes? If you can't give names, you give compelling specifics that only the un-named source would know.

[meganmonkey]

14. here's an update

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x81645

doesn't answer your specific questions, but it shows he has some evidence that something may be happening. if this is true, it is serious dangerous stuff - it'll take time and I'm sure he's being careful. it loks to me, though, that he definitely has a source.

[buddysmellgood]

15. "Some of the vote riggers have started talking." I find that encouraging.

"Some" increases the odds that one will go on record. Once one comes out, others might follow. It certainly fits the Warren County scenario. Just one of these folks on Larry King would blow the whole election wide open. The media (I would think) would have to pay attention and there would be a scramble for every kind of fraud story. PLEASE PLEASE GOD.

[buddysmellgood]

10. The story has no credibility until proof is provided. Until then,

it's just another conspiracy theory. Perhaps the "sources" can show the reporter how to show that the vote was hacked and the proof can break without naming names.
We live in a world where the truth is dismissed if people can focus on one weak link. Bush really was given a spot on the national guard through his daddie's connections, but the point was lost because the note was thought fake.

[goclark]

11. Democrats wait for truth Republicans just say

whatever is compelling at the moment.