Hitchens was never a supporter of George W. Bush per se. He was active before the 2000 election in highlighting the felons list in Florida. Generally speaking, Hitchens holds leftist political views that have evolved unpredictably over time. He has been a relentless critic of Henry Kissinger.
(Ohio Vote stuff below the fold)
However, Hitchens has never come to grips with some of the inherent problems with the way the Bush administration chose to solve that problem. The largest shortcoming was the basic dishonesty the Bush team used about motives. Misusing and hyping intelligence was both unnecessary and harmful to their program. Another shortcoming was their failure to share the post-war lucre with potential allies like France, Russia, and China that had a financial disincentive to help us remove Saddam. This led directly to our failure at the United Nations, which was more important than whether those countries deserved a piece of the pie. The Bush administration also failed diplomatically in the region. Most glaringly they gave guaranteed loans in the billions to the Turks, and received a refusal to base our troops in return.
And then there was the inadequate troop deployment that was a direct result of our failure to enlist anticipated support. And then there was our rejection of the State Department reconstruction plan. And then there was our use of torture and renditions. On and on, and Hitchens has never stepped back and asked himself seriously, whether he was misguided to place his trust in the Bush administration to carry out a mission that might have had potential to make us safer, but has manifestly failed to do so.
So enlisted is he in the Iraqi Liberation Project that he developed a hatred of those who criticized its implementation and began to move toward wholehearted and uncritical support of Bush's reelection.
As he says about Kerry in this Vanity Fair article: "...I did not think that John Kerry should have been President of any country at any time."
Yet, in spite of this, he now says that, "The Federal Election Commission, which has been a risible body for far too long, ought to make Ohio its business. The Diebold company, which also manufactures A.T.M.'s, should not receive another dime until it can produce a voting system that is similarly reliable. And Americans should cease to be treated like serfs or extras when they present themselves to exercise their franchise."
Most of the reasons that Hitchens cites will be familiar to those fraudniks that followed Georgia10's peerless work after the election.
Hitchens begins the article by detailing the 8-11 hour wait that 2,200 voters from Kenyon College endured waiting to vote on ONE voting machine. There had been two, but one broke down around lunch time. Apparently the mayor of Gambier had requested more machines ten days before the election and was refused.
Hitchens also reports on "vote-hopping" where a vote in one column comes up reported as a vote in another. And he makes an overall point about the trend in such problems:
From all this Hitchens draws the proper conclusions. A conclusion NOT DRAWN BY THE ADMINISTATORS OF THIS SITE:
...there is one soothing explanation that I don't trust anymore. It was said, often in reply to charges of vote tampering, that it would have had to be "a conspiracy so immense" as to involve a dangerously large number of people. Indeed, some Ohio Democrats themselves laughed off some of the charges, saying that they too would have had to be part of the plan. The stakes are very high: one defector or turncoat with hard evidence could send the principals to jail forever and permanently discredit the party that had engaged in fraud.
I had the chance to spend quality time with someone who came to me well recommenended, who did not believe that fraud had yet actually been demonstrated, whose background was in the manufacture of the machines, and who wanted to be anonymous. It certainly could be done, she said, and only a very, very few people, would have to be "in on it."
And if that doesn't convince RonKfromSeattle, maybe this will:
Indeed. Quite serious. The election was stolen, and instead of getting our hands on the machines and "send(ing) the principals to jail forever and permanently discredit(ing) the party that had engaged in fraud" we worried about looking like sore losers. I'm with Hitchens on this one, even though I'm pleasantly surprised to see that he is with me.