You've gotta love it.

can you say stoopid!!!

They don't have to think it through. They just have to think about November 2008.

The President's power to appoint Supreme Court Justices is the "One Ring to Rule them All". Precious.

Precious.

Judging the viet vets by kerry, webb and hagel, defeating our military certainly seems a technique for training elite democratic operatives who continue to destroy our military and country.

Multiply the numbers by 20 and you have a better picture. Veterans do not care for the way the "defeat at any price" Democrats are treating the troops.

Back in the 2000 election, the Gore campaign -- in one of the most despicable political acts I've ever seen, and considering what both sides did in that race alone that says a LOT -- sent lawyers armed with memos outlining just how to eliminate absentee ballots cast by service members stationed overseas. Yes, Al Gore, who touted his Viet Nam tour over George W. Bush's domestic Air National Guard stint, did his level best to deny those serving our nation and protecting our rights their own right to participate in the election.

I remember hearing about this at the time, and it is my understanding that this is one of those false claims that died under the light of fact-checking.

Anyone have a link to any PROOF that this really happened; any actual evidence that this is not just another Republican lie? And let me say in advance that a link to some right-wing tin-foil blogger doesn't count as "proof", just as linking to Jay's post above wouldn't count as "proof".

tick... tick... tick... tick...

Or the conservatives around here going to tell me I have to prove it didn't happen?

I remember it being prominently headlined in the news at the time, Lee. They were quite proud of it, too.

Why do we have to prove anything to a lefty? It happened. That is enough. ww

Lee:
Or the conservatives around here going to tell me I have to prove it didn't happen?

No, that's typically the liberal commenters that do that.. in fact, I believe you were the one who more or less suggested that it was up to the authors here to disprove Jamil Hussein's existence.

So I found this:

Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic presidential candidate and Medal of Honor winner, said allies of Texas Gov. George W. Bush were attempting to undercut the legitimacy of a possible Gore victory in Florida's tight presidential recount.

"Many of the things that are being said, if they are believed by the American people as the truth, will cast a pall of illegitimacy over the vice president if he ends up being the person that wins," Kerrey said.

Bush aides and Republican surrogates, including retired Persian Gulf war commander Norman Schwarzkopf, have blasted their Democratic rivals for having more than 1,400 overseas absentee ballots disqualified in Florida counties, many for lack of postmarks. Many of those ballots were presumed to have been from service members supporting Bush.

Republicans have said lawyers for Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, plotted to disqualify as many military votes as possible based on "technicalities." Democrats had circulated a memorandum detailing what was required for Florida absentee ballots to be counted -- including the signatures of a voter and a witness, a date and a postmark.

"If they have a legal ballot, it should be counted. If it is not a legal ballot, it should not be counted," Kerrey said. "Men and women in the military should not expect, and do not expect, to be treated in some fashion that has them being a pawn in a political argument that's very tense and very passionate here in Florida."

Hmmm. So what we're talking about is the legal votes being counted, and illegal votes not being counted. The "memo" only outlined the laws with respect to what is a legal or illegal absentee ballot.

The "memo" outlined the law, and how to comply with the law.

Oh, the horrors! Those Democrats only wanted legal votes counted, not illegal ones...

Jay's comment "Yes, Al Gore, who touted his Viet Nam tour over George W. Bush's domestic Air National Guard stint, did his level best to deny those serving our nation and protecting our rights their own right to participate in the election." is a lie.

Of course, you guys are still free to prove Jay's statement -- if you can.

tick... tick... tick... tick...

Fact-check done -- the tin-foil detector found the Republican lie -- carry on.

Oh and Lee while it's difficult to know when it became their intent. It was reported by that Ring Wing Mouth piece, CNN, that Democrats were specifically targeting a set a military ballots in an effort to change the outcome in Florida.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/11/recount.military/index.html

The lawsuit brought by Democratic voters sought to eliminate enough ballots to change the election results in Vice President Al Gore's favor. Republican George W. Bush led by less than 200 votes as election challenges continued in the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere Monday.

Fact check Done.

Just more of Lying Lee's Revisionist History....

underscoreMikeunderscore"I believe you were the one who more or less suggested that it was up to the authors here to disprove Jamil Hussein's existence."

Nope, that's not the case Miguel -- I was the one who kept saying the fact that Michelle Malkin and the other conservative asshats couldn't find him didn't prove he didn't exist...

and I was right, and the "right" was wrong. heh.

Not to worry - apparently you aren't the only conservative who can't remember worth crap, so don't feel badly.

...and you're a day late and dollar short with your link, Miguel. We now know that the ballot challenge was all about complying with the law.

But we also now know why Jay didn't link to anything supporting his contention that Gore "...did his level best to deny those serving our nation and protecting our rights their own right to participate in the election." It's just plain bullshit.

Ah, Lee and the typical Democrat distortion of the truth. The fact is and has been that US overseas servicemen do not necessarily have the availability of postmarks because they go through the military mail service.

The military ballots were NOT illegal, and certainly more valid than the dimpled chads that Gore so desperately sought to divine. The actual Florida statutes require a postmark OR to have been signed and dated no later than the date of the election. [F.A.C. s. 1S-2.013(7); 42 U.S.C. s. 1973ff-3.]

But many election boards hadn't consulted the FL Sec of State, and had initially rejected the ballots based on the Democrat operatives' lawsuits.

Here's a nice recap: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001128-1.html

Sorry, Lee, you're caught out trying to revise history once again. Pathetic.

LyingLee:
But we also now know why Jay didn't link to anything supporting his contention that Gore "...did his level best to deny those serving our nation and protecting our rights their own right to participate in the election." It's just plain bullshit.

I don't know what you call specifically targeting a set of military ballots in an attempt to change the outcome of the election, but any rational person would be appalled at the Democrats attempt to disenfranchise military voters serving overseas in order to steal an election. Regardless of whether JayTea "provided a link", I have and the assertion is true.

And Lee has successfulLee diverted another thread, if only temporalaLee.

And the link provided by Weegie supports my contention that Jay's thesis - his entrie thesis -- is based on a false accusation about Democrats "conspiring to deny servicemen: blah blah lie lie blah lie..."

The Florida courts and the Florida AG settled the matter (emphasis mine):

A Florida statute(1) appears to require a postmark on all overseas ballots, while a rule of the Secretary of State(2) clarifies that a date entered by the elector and/or the witness can substitute for a postmark, thus allowing the ballot to be counted provided all other qualifying criteria are met. The publicly articulated allegation, the news media reports and public statements by some canvassing board members indicated that some boards might have relied upon the statute in processing overseas military ballots, rather than the Secretary of State's rule. With the hope that no member of the uniformed services have his or her signed and dated ballot disqualified solely for lack of a postmark, this office urged elections supervisors to revisit the postmark issue, if it had arisen locally, to seek guidance from the Secretary of State, if desired, and to seek to amend the military overseas balloting returns, if appropriate.

"And Lee has successfulLee diverted another thread..."

Fact checking Jay's base assumption about Democrats conspiring to deny servicemen and servicewomen their rights, and proving it's not true, is diverting a thread that nothing more than another conservative circle-jerk session based on a lie.

Ooooh, My bad!

What we're seeing across the right-wing blogosphere is a mad scramble to pull the Bush administrations' ass out of the fire over the recent revelation that they just don't give a crap about returning wounded U.S. servicemen and servicewomen.

The revelation I'm speaking of is that -- despite the fact that the problems with military hospitals is by all accounts (ie. Lorie's post last night) a problem that has been going on for decades -- the Bush administration sent over a hundred thousand soldiers into battle without a care of concern about the subsequent care wounded and disabled veterans would receive when they return.

So the right is pushing stories as fast their little eagle-feathered hands can pound the keys -- stories that smear and distort and just outright lie.

WHatever -- but hey epador -- you're headed for DC aren't you? Surely you've heard by now that the anti-war Democrats are going to sray paint the Viet Nam Vets war memorial?

What's pathetic is that the rubes fall for it... and I'm sorry if you feel that the truth is disruptive. Once you realize that the right is just spinning biased, unfounded BS, as they piously pout over supposed MSM bias, you should recognize that the truth is in your best interests.

You can always prove me wrong.

tick... tick... tick... tick...

"The President's power to appoint Supreme Court Justices is the "One Ring to Rule them All". Precious.

Precious."
jpm100

Hello, Justice Sunday? What is the Democratic counter-example?

PREECCIIOUS.

I was the first to comment on this post early this morning - although I had nothing profound to say. Coming back some 4+ hours later and seeing what Lee has done to the post, I am just sick. It makes a lot more sense for people to ignore his nonsense than to be drawn in to it. OF COURSE it happened - I watched it myself on CNN, ABC as well as FoxNews.

Any chance we could try NOT to rise to the bait? It'll drive him nuts.

Well, the Congressional Democrats have unveiled their latest "plan" on Iraq, and it's a doozy. Others are having a field day with it, and I might go into that later, but there's one element about it that I don't think that the Democrats recognized.

The latest Republican "plan" for Iraq is to keep sending troops under various pretenses until everybody there becomes a registered Republican.

"Surge" my ass.

Lee -

Here's the rebuttal you asked for. My first one dropped into limbo because I had too many links, so this may end up a double post.

Your Kerrey quotation actually reveals the Democratic ploy. However, the Democratic strategy to contest military absentee ballots and others was laid out in the notorious 5-page memo by a lawyer of the Gore campaign named Mark Herron. It was distributed to all the Democratic partisan units, but one Democratic lawyer made the mistake of faxing the memo to Tom Dannheisser, the county attorney for Santa Rosa County. It was then obtained by FOIA request by Republicans and publicly disseminated. Among other items, it instructed Democratic lawyers to make "pettifogging objections" to military ballots, especially on postmarks.

Federal election laws, IIRC, do not require a postmark if all other requirements are met for a vote to be countable. The postmark requirement was a Florida one and one that a Federal Judge overturned. Overseas military absentee ballots are often dispatched w/o a postmark due to the particular nature of their points of origin.

It is not clear that the original FL intent was to exclude military. Remarks like the one by Kerrey, however, suggested that the Democrats welcomed that wrinkle.

When confronted with the Herron memo live on CNN, Lieberman publicly retreated from the position. Once Lieberman had repudiated the Herron strategy, others including Butterworth, FL AG, followed within days.

Here's an excerpt:

++++++++++
Military ballots have become another battlefront in the war for Florida's 25 electoral votes. According to CNN, Bob Butterworth, Florida's attorney general and an ally of Vice President Al Gore's, issued a statement encouraging counties to ignore postmark problems when counting overseas absentee ballots from military personnel. "No man or woman in military service to this nation should have his or her vote rejected solely due to the absence of a postmark, particularly when military officials have publicly stated that the postmarking of military mail is not always possible under sea or field conditions," Butterworth said. Democratic veep nominee Joseph Lieberman had made similar conciliatory comments over the weekend.

Surrogates of Gov. George W. Bush have been beating up the vice president for what they call an organized Democratic attempt to disenfranchise military personnel just because of their political beliefs. But the statements from Butterworth and Lieberman so far have not led Republicans to call a rhetorical cease-fire. "This is a belated attempt at damage control by Al Gore's supporters, who have already inflicted damage on America's military men and women," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer.
++++++++++++++

Can you say "cut and run cowards". Had to laugh watching that kinkie haired prevert outline the demo "plan" on TV yesterday. These people (including poor old p'p') are nothing but a bunch of whimpy ass cur dogs sulking around with their tails between their legs hoping someone doesn't holler boo.

I wonder if the 2000 Herron memo could be made required reading for US troops?

Maybe as part of their separation papers?

Lee, I believe your 11/29/2006 at 7:43pm comment is what _Mike_ was referring to. You implied that it would be silly for the military to have to prove that Hussein was not a captain. THEN you go on to say that they (and the "right wing blogosphere") won't apologize when they CAN'T prove it.

Caught again.

Lee's strategy with this issue, as with many, is to call one out to prove their assertions and when they do, he'll move the goal posts, drop another verbal cluster bomb to obfuscate and then move on to the next thread; sometimes contradicting himself in the same comment!

In all fairness, Lee can't help him-/her-/it-self. Truth, facts, and reality to do not fit the worldview of members of the fabricated reality based community like Lee. (See Lorie's post below-[Socialist regressive] la la land)

WildWillie beautifully encapsulates the intellectual mindset of far too many on the right:

Why do we have to prove anything to a lefty? It happened. That is enough.

Lee,
Democrats insist on allowing votes to be counted in THEIR favored areas even with bizarre problems (no registration, voter did not know own address, etc.). They call Republican poll watching an effort at vote suppression, and ANY attempt, no matter how well based in law, of challenging (or even watching the polling process) is often met with rudeness, lawsuits and, occasionally, violence.

So count me as a little suspicious when Democrats start quoting the exact statute about military ballots. They could care less about ballots from Detroit--and never mind hard-to-believe 90% turnout rates! (Stay away from that optical scanner while we stuff it, vote-suppressor!)

And I'd be pretty pissed if I sent a ballot from the Korean DMZ or a ship in the Pacific or wherever, did all the right things, then had it disallowed because the ship postal clerk missed that piece of mail.

Pardon the tangent but Lee brought up the point that poorly run military hospitals are proof that the Bush Administration doesn't "give a crap" about servicemembers. That is highly debatable but what is not debatable about that situation is that government run healthcare is a bad idea and the liberals want to provide everyone with this standard of care. Scary!

Gee, Jay. Just a few weeks ago you went on and on about how noble it is to take actions that go against one's own interests, in favor of the greater good. And now here you are mocking the Dems for supposedly doing exactly that. So which is it, noble or stupid? Or are you just being a yapping hypocrite... again?

I don't think you thought this fully through.

Brian, you're basing your comments on a flawed assumption. I do things that might be against my personal self-interest out of principle. Here, I don't think the Democrats are motivated by conscience, but self-interest -- but are trading pleasing their core constituency today with damaging their long-term prospects.

If you want to argue that the Democrats are trying to bring all the troops home JUST so they can vote non-absentee in the 2008 elections, you might have a leg to stand on.

Until, then, you are decidely un-Weebuly.

J.

support for the war is pretty damned high among active-duty military personnel, especially those in Iraq (as demonstrated by the above-average re-enlistment rates among those personnel

Well, if we ignore the polls that say just the opposite, then we can, of course, come to any conclusions we want. But that would require ignoring other facts.

According to Marine Corps Bulletin 7220, Marines re-enlisting or choosing to extend on recruiting duty during Fiscal Year 2007 will be entitled to bonuses, which have not been offered before.

Army officials attribute the strong re-enlistment rates to unprecedented cash bonuses and a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Some of the record bonuses are tax-free if soldiers re-enlist while in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you want to argue that the Democrats are trying to bring all the troops home JUST so they can vote non-absentee in the 2008 elections, you might have a leg to stand on.

Nonsense. You're talking in circles. That's like saying that you oppose the minimum wage JUST so you can have your own salary lowered.

The action is bringing the troops home. Having them vote in the 2008 elections is the supposedly damaging side-effect. And if, as you say, the Dems are acting in self-interest instead of conscience, then they wouldn't be doing that.

You're just saying that when YOU act against your self interest, you're being principled. But when SOMEONE ELSE acts against their self interests, they're just being stupid.

Really, Jay. Put this one in your folder of classics.

Brian,

It's possible I may be missing something, but the two blockquotes you posted weren't backing up your point were they?

You mentioned that poll numbers are contradicting high re-enlistment rates, but neither of the two instances refute that.

They do highlight increased rewards for those re-upping for Iraq and Afghanistan though, which isn't a bad thing.

I also believe that if you're against the war and enlisted, a cash bonus is not going to change your political beliefs. Or is it? Are you saying that Anti-war types can be bought away from their ideologies?

You mentioned that poll numbers are contradicting high re-enlistment rates, but neither of the two instances refute that.

No, the polls contradict that "support for the war is pretty damned high", not that reenlistment is up.

They do highlight increased rewards for those re-upping for Iraq and Afghanistan though, which isn't a bad thing.

Not a bad thing at all. It's just that if one is going to draw conclusions from results, one must examine all contributing factors, not just the favorable ones.

Are you saying that Anti-war types can be bought away from their ideologies?

We're not talking about chanting hippies who can be paid off to go away. We're talking about soldiers with families who, yes, when faced with either going home to no job or reupping for $40K, will put aside their beliefs and well-being to provide for their families.

I don't discount the claimed "renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism", which surely is present in some. But it's interesting that the Army lists the bonus as first in their "why people are reenlisting" explanation.

Brian,

No, the polls contradict that "support for the war is pretty damned high", not that reenlistment is up.

The polls indicate the general public's lack support for the war, or the soldier's lack of support for the war? It was the latter that was in question and I'm not sure I've seen a poll on that.

We're not talking about chanting hippies who can be paid off to go away. We're talking about soldiers with families who, yes, when faced with either going home to no job or reupping for $40K, will put aside their beliefs and well-being to provide for their families.

The problem is, the bonus is $10,000 over four years. As a member of the Military.com forum stated:

"$10,000 over 4 years is $2500 a year. This comes to $ 208.33 a month. Hardly a big bonus."

From the USA Today Article:

The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

Those senior special operations commandos I'm willing to bet are in the minority, which would likely explain the Army's need for their extended service and the larger than normal bonus.

Also from the article:

About 60% of all soldiers who have re-enlisted this year, Conway said, have received cash bonuses of some kind.

Which means 40% are re-enlisting for no bonus whatsoever....so that 40% can be struck from the record for re-enlisting simply for a cash bonus.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the bonuses have encouraged soldiers to re-enlist, but that many soldiers are committed to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brian:

But it's interesting that the Army lists the bonus as first in their "why people are reenlisting" explanation.

It wasn't the Army that listed it first, it was USA Today.

The polls indicate the general public's lack support for the war, or the soldier's lack of support for the war? It was the latter that was in question and I'm not sure I've seen a poll on that.

Here you go...

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

I won't dispute much of the rest of what you say. My only point was highlighting Jay's flawed simplicity of equating meeting reenlistment goals with "pretty damned high support for the war" among the troops.

It wasn't the Army that listed it first, it was USA Today.

There was another site I came across that was more official, and it quoted some general citing the bonus first. I don't want to be bothered digging it up again now, so believe it or don't. Minor point, anyway.

Lee, I believe your 11/29/2006 at 7:43pm comment is what _Mike_ was referring to. You implied that it would be silly for the military to have to prove that Hussein was not a captain.

Here's what I said:

OK, let's play your way, Corky. Why doesn't the military provide proof that Capt. Jamil Hussein isn't who the AP says he is? They must be lying right - the military must be lying because they haven't provided proof?!?!?

That's silly of course, but it shows the logic of the logic-impaired right on this issue.

The right expected AP to prove that Jamil existed. I said that was silly, they don't control Jamil - and requiring the AP to prove Jamil is a police captain was as silly as expecting the military to prove he wasn't.

THEN you go on to say that they (and the "right wing blogosphere") won't apologize when they CAN'T prove it.

Here's what I said:

"Not to worry - this will die down in a day or two, and you won't find a single solitary apology from the right wing blogosphere or the military if and when they give up and can't prove anything. You see, being part of the "New Media" means never having to print a correction or say you're sorry...."

"When they can't prove anything" referred to the blogosphere and the military (who questioned the authenticity of Jamil) proving that the AP lied - and the apology referred to apologizing to the AP.

...and that's exactly what happened. Jamil popped up, he was EXACTLY who the AP said he was, and the right-wing blogosphere was shown to be wrong again -- this time regarding the AP lying about their source.

Reading comprehension and context are your friends, oyster. Take a class and maybe you'll do better next time. And next time- instead of saying what I "implied" -- why don't you just quote the words I actually said. You may look like less of an immature jackass in the process.

Jim - I don't have time to read your lengthy and no doubt thoughtful reply right now - I'll try to read and respond later today or tomorrow afternoon. I'm slamming busy these days, but I will read and respond if I can get to it

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Le Moyne is in Syracuse, I'd be amazed if they could count.

Lee -

Yoohoo!

Herron memo!

Jim - "The Memo" - great - I had wondered why Jay didn't link to it. When I googled for it I couldn't find it.

Do you have a link?

Lee you lying sack of shit.

I was there. They had about a gang of ten lawyers at every county clerks office scrutinizing every absentee ballot. At Okaloosa county particularly where the largest air base in the free world -Eglin AFB is located.Where the precinct on base voted 87% for George Bush. They also hit Santa Rosa County home of Hurlburt Air Field and Bay County home of Tyndall Air Force base and Pensacola Naval Station-I don't recall the name of that county.

The Gore Leibermann ticket PAID over $40,000 to hire a private Leer jet to bring lawyers in from Atlanta-to the Okaloosa airport because they couldn't find local lawyers scummy enough to do the dirty work.

They also took this issue through the local courts google it you pathetic Communist re-writer of history start at Findlaw.

There is probably a good reason why "the memo" was not linked or quoted in this blog post or in the subsequent comments. When we get to the point of seeing and quoting the memo - I wouldn't be surpised if it is not the smoking gun it's been made out to be.

Rory - "I was there. They had about a gang of ten lawyers at every county clerks office scrutinizing every absentee ballot."

As they should have. The rest of the crap you wrote isn't worth commenting on...

That reason being that it was 7 years ago and the links to a complete copy of the memo are long dead.

Republicans care about strict enforcement of voting rules when it's felons and dead people voting.

Democrats care about strict enforcement of voting rules when it's military members voting.

"That reason being that it was 7 years ago and the links to a complete copy of the memo are long dead."

Really?

Date: November 15, 2000

To: FDP Lawyer

From: Mark Herron

Subject: Overseas Absentee Ballot Review and Protest

State and Federal law provides for the counting of "absentee qualified electors overseas" ballots for 10 days after the day of the election or until November 17, 2000. Sections 101.62(7)(a), Florida Statutes defines as "absentee qualified elector overseas" to mean members of the Armed Forces while in the service, members of the merchant marine of the United States and other citizens of the United States, who are permanent residents of the states and are temporarily residing outside of the territories of the United States and the Districts of Columbia. These "absent qualified electors overseas" must also be qualified and registered as provided by law.

You are being asked to review these overseas absentee ballots to make a determination whether acceptance by the supervisor of elections and/or the county canvassing board is legal under Florida law. A challenge to these ballots must be made prior to the time that the ballot is removed from the mailing envelope. The specific statutory requirement for processing the canvass of an absentee ballot including of overseas absentee ballot, are set forth in Section 101.52(2) (c)2. Florida Statutes:

If any elector or candidate present believes that an absentee ballot is illegal due to a defect apparent on the voter's certificate, he or she may at anytime before the ballot is removed from the envelope, file with the canvassing board a protest against the canvcass of the ballot specifying the precinct, the ballot, and the reason he or she believes the ballot to be illegal. A cahllenge based upon a defect in the voterÕs certificate may not be accepted after the ballot has been removed from the mailing envelope.

The form of the voter's certificates on the absentee ballot is set forth in section 101.64(1), Florida Statutes. By statutory provisions, only overseas absentee ballots mailed with an APO, PPO, or foreign postmark shall be considered a ballot. See Section 101.62(7)(c). Florida Statutes.

In reviewing these ballots you should focus on the following:

1. Request for overseas ballots: Determine that the voter affirmatively requested an overseas ballot, and that the signature on the request for an overseas ballot matches the signature of the elector on the registration books to determine that the elector who requested the overseas ballot is the elector registered. See Section 101.62(4)(a), Florida Statutes.

2. The voter's signature: The ballot envelope must be signed by the voter. The signature of the elector as the voter's certificate should be compared with the signature of the elector of the signature on the registration books to determine that the elector who voted by ballot is the elector registered. See Section 101.68(c)x, Florida Statutes.

3. The ballot is properly witnessed: The absentee ballot envelope must be witnessed by a notary or an attesting witness over the age of eighteen years. You may note that these requirements vary from the statutory language from the Section 101.68(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes. Certain statutory requirements in that section were not proclaimed by the Justice Department pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Sec. DE 98-13.

4. The ballot is postmarked: With respect to absentee ballots mailed by absolute qualified electors overseas only those ballots mailed with an APO, PPO, or foreign postmark shall be considered valid. See Section101.62(7)(c), Florida Statutes. This statutory provision varies from rule 15-2.013(7), Florida Administrative Code, which provides overseas absentee ballots may be accepted if "postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of the federal election."

5. The elector has not already voted (duplicate ballot). In some instances, an absent qualified elector overseas may have received two absentee ballots and previously submitted another ballot. No elector is entitled to vote twice. (Please insert appropriate Fl. xxx.)

To assist your review, we have attached the following:

1. A review Federal Postal regulations relating to FPO's and PPO's.

2. A protest form to be completed with respect to each absentee ballot challenged.

3. Overseas Ballot Summary of Definitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Overseas Ballot Summary of Definitions

There are 3 different types of overseas ballots that are valid for return at the counties provided they are postmarked on or before November 7th.

1. Federal Write-In ballot

Must be an overseas voter and must be eligible to vote and be registered under State law.

Must have affirmatively requested an absentee ballot in writing and completely filled out request (including signature)

Must comply with State laws applying to regular absentee ballots (such as registration requirements, notification requirements, etc.)

Ballot contains only Federal races, and is considered to be a "backup" system if the regular state absentee ballot fails to arrive.

The intent of the voter in casting the ballot should govern. In other words, minor variations in spelling candidate or party names should be disregarded in ballot counting so long as the intention of the voter can be ascertained.

Must be postmarked as an APO, FPO, or MPO in a foreign country or at a foreign post office.

2. Florida Advance Ballot

Sent out in advance of a regular General Election ballot with state and Federal candidates listed. Must be an overseas voter and must be eligible to vote and be registered under State law.

Must comply with State laws applying to regular absentee ballots (such as registration requirements, notarization requirements, etc.)

Must have affirmatively requested an absentee ballot in writing and completely filled out request (including signature)

Sent prior to the second (or October) primary elections to all permanent overseas registered voters.

Must comply with all State laws regarding signatures, witness requirements, etc.

Must be postmarked at the APO, FPO or MPO in a foreign country or at a foreign post office.

3. Regular Overseas Ballot

Sent after the second (or October) primary elections to all permanent overseas registered voters and voters requesting an overseas ballot from the county.

Must be an overseas voter and must be eligible to vote and be registered under State law.

Must comply with State laws applying to regular absentee ballots (such as registration requirements, notarization requirements, etc.)

Must have affirmatively requested an absentee ballot in writing and completely filled out request (including signature)

Full ballot with all candidates listed.

Likely would take precedence over any advance or federal ballot also returned.

Must comply with all State laws regarding signatures, witness requirements, etc. Ballot is designed by the county.

Must be postmarked at an APO, FPO, or MPO in a foreign country or at a foreign post office.

Below are the definitions for points of origin and postmark that are valid for military overseas ballots:

1. APO (Army Post Office) -- A branch of the designated USPS civilian post office, which falls under the jurisdiction of the postmaster of either New York City or San Francisco, that serves either Army or Airforce personnel.

2. FPO (Fleet Post Office) -- A branch of the designated USPS civilian post office, which falls under the jurisdiction of the postmaster of either New York City or San Francisco, that serves Coast Guard, Navy, or Marine Corps personnel.

3. MPO (Military Post Office) -- A branch of a U.S. civil post office, operated by the Army, Navy, Airforce, or Marine Corps to serve military personnel overseas or aboard ships.

4. Military Post Office Cancellation -- A postmark that contains the post office name, state, ZIP Cope, and month, day, and year that the mail xxx was cancelled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protest of Overseas Absentee Ballot

As provided in Section 101.68(2)(c)(2), Florida Statutes. I, as an elector in __________ County, Florida, hereby protest against the canvass of the overseas absentee ballot described below:

County: ____________________________________________________

Precinct: __________________________________________________

The Ballot: ________________________________________________

Name of Voter: _____________________________________________

Address of Voter: __________________________________________

Reason for rejection: ______________________________________

___ Lack of voter signature

___ Lack of affirmative request for absentee ballot

___ Request for absentee ballot not fully filled out

___ Signature on absentee ballot request does not match signature on registration card or on ballot

___ Voter signature on envelope does not match signature on registration card

___ Inadequate witness certification

___ Late postmark (indicate date of actual postmark)

___ Domestic postmark (including Peurto Rico, Guam, etc.)

___ No postmark

___ Voter had previously voted in this election

___ Other

Signature of Person Filing Protest

Print Name

11/15/00

The memo cites Florida statutes. This was corrected by the Florida Attorney General as follows (emphasis mine):

A Florida statute(1) appears to require a postmark on all overseas ballots, while a rule of the Secretary of State(2) clarifies that a date entered by the elector and/or the witness can substitute for a postmark, thus allowing the ballot to be counted provided all other qualifying criteria are met. The publicly articulated allegation, the news media reports and public statements by some canvassing board members indicated that some boards might have relied upon the statute in processing overseas military ballots, rather than the Secretary of State's rule. With the hope that no member of the uniformed services have his or her signed and dated ballot disqualified solely for lack of a postmark, this office urged elections supervisors to revisit the postmark issue, if it had arisen locally, to seek guidance from the Secretary of State, if desired, and to seek to amend the military overseas balloting returns, if appropriate.

There's no smoking gun. There's no conspiracy. There's nothing in this memo that supports the lies made by conservatives about Gore and the Democrats.

Jay wrote:

Back in the 2000 election, the Gore campaign -- in one of the most despicable political acts I've ever seen, and considering what both sides did in that race alone that says a LOT -- sent lawyers armed with memos outlining just how to eliminate absentee ballots cast by service members stationed overseas. Yes, Al Gore, who touted his Viet Nam tour over George W. Bush's domestic Air National Guard stint, did his level best to deny those serving our nation and protecting our rights their own right to participate in the election.

Show me where the memo supports Jay's contention.

Do note that, despite your interpretation of the memo, Lieberman was so upset by it that he led the Democratic retreat from it.