Was the whole thing a conspiracy?

Was it a facade? Was it just eyewash? That's another thought that comes into my head - Is it possible that everything was just a charade?

First the fact that of all the Democratic leaders, the weakest, the least impressive candidate was the one who ended up opposing Bush. 'Lamb to the slaughter' one could say! Isn't that something? I mean, can you think of any weaker Democratic candidate? Well, I'm sure it'll come down to the point of who had the most money. But if that were the case, then wouldn't the Democrats make a special effort of making sure that the strongest leader wins by backing that guy up financially? This, in itself, sounds like a kind of cop-out to me.


Then there were the rumours of the 'Skull & Bones Club'. Both Bush & Kerry are members of this club and even to this date refuse to disclose anything about their association with this club. There were many write-up that came up when the 'Skull & Bones' connection was unearthed, but somehow things quietened down afterwards. The surprising part is that none of the other candidates were members of this exclusive club. (Here's a direct link to the BBC Radio 4 audio)

I see shades of 'The Da Vinci Code' here. Could it be the whole populace is getting fooled into this huge sham?

The other thing that strikes me is that considering most of the media is corporate controlled, could it be that the whole media was manipulated and subverted? It happened earlier when support was required for going into war in Iraq. Because while watching the vote counting the evening of the 2nd, all that was being shown was all these predictions, and I kept on wondering why they needed to predict when the results would be out in a couple of hours?

And finally, Kerry conceded! I thought that strange. I mean once someone concedes do they stop counting the votes? What's the point after that? And why would someone concede before all the counting is done? Isn't that disrespectful to all the people who came out to vote?

And then there's Diebold! Here's quoting from Boing Boing -

In a fall 2003 fundraising letter sent to Republicans, from Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

This was even quoted in CNN, CBS among other places.

Isn't that, like, a slip? Something that shouldn't have come out at all? If Ohio was the clincher, and the e-voting machines company is based in Ohio, and the CEO of that company has made a statement like that, wouldn't that be enough reason NOT to use those same voting mchines for that particular state?

I don't know about anyone else, but I smell something rotten here!


Thanks to Boing Boing