|
Important Note: Because we can't always determine your intentions, we need to ask a favor of you when you send us email. If you DO NOT WANT YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED in the Mailbag or in the Contributors section, please write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the Subject line or at the top of your email. That way we'll know it's just a comment to BuzzFlash. Additionally, if you submit a mailbag item and DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME associated with your submission, sign your email, "A BuzzFlash Reader." If you send email unsigned, we will post your name with your submission, or, if that's not available, your email name (not the full address, just what's on the left side of the email address). Please try and keep your word count under 500. We can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
Subj: Helen the Great
As she does every single day, my heroine, Helen Thomas, tells it like it is:
"This is the worst president ever," she said. "He is the worst president in all of American history."
http://dailybreeze.com/content/bog/nmbogert19.html
God Save the Queen, Helen the Great!!
elaine in Petaluma
Subj: George W initiates new program of honesty and candor
Dear BuzzFlash,
On Wednesday, Jan. 22nd, George W. Bush gave a speech [supposedly] focused on his plans to improve the U.S. economy and help small businesses. [1]
He read his script in [apparently] the warehouse of a small business. Prominently displayed behind his head, where the TV cameras couldn't miss them, were huge stacks of boxes labeled in very large lettering, " Made in U.S.A."
However, a number of other boxes had brown or white tape sloppily plastered over their origin information. But Bush's staff, proving his candor and honesty, left other labels un-taped, so anyone could see their, "Made in China." [2] [3]
We must applaud Bush and his staff for honorably leaving some products' Chinese origins fully disclosed.
And since Bush's formal speech [4] concerned the economy and helping small businesses, he of course included extensive threats against Iraqis.
Discussing what he will do with any [Iraqi only] generals or soldiers who use weapons of mass destruction [5] to defend their dictatorship against foreign invaders, Bush clearly told them what would happen to them:
"When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and PERSECUTED as a war criminal."
Isn't it great that King George and his Republican Guard [6] have become so candid and honest in stating their approach to justice?
--jim
[1] Of course, it was essential for him and his large troop to spend much of a day and thousands of tax-payer dollars to go to St. Louis to read this speech.
[2] China -- unquestionably the foremost Communist nation remaining in the world -- is a wonderful trading partner for American corporations, allowing them to manufacture products at far lower cost than if they were paying Americans to do the work. Communist China is a nation into which American corporations are pouring many billions of dollars of investment ... rather than wasting it on investing in the U.S. economy and workers.
[3] Although most of the news channels -- except Fox, of course -- reported the side-story about the "Made in China" boxes and sloppy over-taping, it was NBC's cameraman who videotaped them, and Brian Williams news show that aired the visual evidence. Thank you, MSNBC, for recording and airing that UNscripted morsel!
[4] As usual, he appeared to be reading strictly from his podium notes and a pair of teleprompters -- that the cameras carefully avoid including in their images.
[5] Like "terrorists" [e.g., cyber-terrorists, pro-choice terrorists, anti-war terrorists, etc.] and "obscenity," we all know exactly what "weapons of mass destruction" are; don't we?
[6] E.g., Trent Lott repeatedly stated his longing for the good old segregated days in the South, and support for the policies of segregationist presidential candidate Thurmond.
Dear Buzz,
I sent this letter to Beverly Lowry after reading her review in The New York Times of Susan McDougal's book "The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk." (I also sent copies of the letter to The NYTimes' Book Review editor and to The NYTimes executive managing editor Howell Raines)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: "'The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk': Susan McDougal's Lips Were Sealed"
Dear Beverly Lowry,
Re: your review of Susan McDougal's book, I say, "Cute, very cute." Just not factually accurate. Also, dripping with right-wing, anti-Clinton bias. And filled with anti-Clinton slurs right out of the right-wing press.
I am stunned that The New York Times would engage someone so clearly biased against the Clintons to write this review; but then I am not entirely surprised considering their need to paper over Jeff Gerth's slanderous reporting in that paper.
You write: "The future president was governor and the McDougals owned a bank and a savings and loan and were buying and selling land and, like a lot of other people they knew, making money hand over fist." That is factually dead wrong. The Clintons LOST money on their investment in Whitewater. Even Ken Starr's office acknowledged that -- although it is true the right-wing press continues to beat that drum as if they never read the report.
Next, in your never-ending desire to smear the Clintons in true right-wing fashion, you write: "Unquestionably, the Clintons took part in Whitewater and irrefutably they and the McDougals trampled on some rights and bent some rules along the way." With regard to the Clintons (who, after all, ARE your target –aren't they?), that is also factually incorrect. Where in the name of heaven do you get this stuff? Do you read ONLY right-wing trash newspapers? Or, in your creative novelist's mind do you just make it up as you go along?
You give yourself away at the end, however, when you reference James B. Stewart's ''Blood Sport.'' As for Mr. Stewart's reliability, he claimed Hillary Clinton had filed a loan document in which she inflated the value of the Clinton's Whitewater investment. Unfortunately for Mr. Stewart's reliability he had not looked on the reverse side of the document on which Mrs. Clinton had provided all of the information Stewart claimed she'd omitted.
As for your slimy reference to the Mehtas' charges against Mrs. McDougal, you might have had the decency -- once you featured the accusation so boldly, if irrelevantly, in your book review -- to note that she was found NOT guilty of the charges. Gee, do you think that matters? Mr. Mehta even testified AGAINST his wife and described her as a scatterbrainish person.
When you write about real people as contrasted with characters in your novels, words matter. Do you think it is okay to go through life blithely smearing people, just because it feels so god? Shame on you.
I never heard of you before and now I know why. I am certain your novels are as trashy as your book review.
It does not matter that at the end you acknowledge you believe Susan McDougal and believe she was probably telling the truth. Unfortunately for Truth and Fairness, you set in cement a tone of anti-Clinton bias in the first nine paragraphs of your review, so at the end your conclusion hardly matters.
I think you owe an apology to a lot of people for what you have written in this review. You might start with apologizing to the readers of The New York Times for deceiving them, to The Times' editors for embarrassing them, to the Clintons for perpetuating phony stories about them, and to Susan McDougal for trashing her as a person.
Mrs. McDougal had an important story to tell about the Independent Counsel's misuse and abuse of his powerful office for partisan political purposes. She endured much and survived to tell that story, and THAT should have been the theme of your review -- not the trash you have written.
Sincerely,
Lois Erwin
cc: NYT Book Review editor
cc: Howell Raines
Subj: second term
Dear BuzzFlash,
It's becoming crystal clear to me, anyway, that we are experiencing George Herbert Walker's second term. He couldn't win reelection and blamed it on the lack of the support of the far right. He has planned since that time to get back in and march to Baghdad, depose Saddam and capture the oil fields. (He was stopped in the first war by agreement).
I'm sure Cheney could not reveal what he told the oil companies he consulted with in forming our energy policy because it involved sharing in the spoils of the Iraqi oil fields. It seems to be common knowledge that this administration came in with the invasion of Iraq already planned. Now Bush has his son in there and is counting on this war and the far right support to gain a real election.
Bush 1 and company did their best to destroy Bill Clinton and defame the Democratic Party. This bunch is obsessed with greed and power, and to HELL with the rest of the people! Like most sociopaths they are long-range planners.
We can't seem to see the forest for the trees. How can we stop this insanity???
carolyn
Subj: Missing Link
Dear folks,
Over the weekend -- I think Sunday, but it could have been Saturday -- you had a link at the top of the page to a story about Rumsfeld criticizing the war plans coming from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (The portent of all this is that the Iraq war plans will be drawn by Rumsfeld's civilian staff (in other words, his yes-men), not the military professionals. The very nature of military planning is to prepare for the worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, none of the high-ranking Bush administration want to hear any dissenting opinions. Thus, Rumsfeld's yes-men's war plans will be based on the best-case scenario. You know, like those war games we held last summer in the Persian Gulf. Ooops. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers' (And by the way, the Air Force has THE worst officer corps in the military; if you don't believe that's the case, reflect on how in every armed conflict since becoming a separate military branch the Air Force has consistently oversold its capabilities.) promotion to the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs, the highest military office in the country, was based on his reversing his stance and embracing the GOP's missile defense program, and that sent a message to military careerists that promotion would be based more on ass-kissing subservience than on battlefield competence. Which is to say, the know-it-alls in the Bush administration are marching us straight to hell.) Anyway, if you could send me that link, I'd greatly appreciate it; I was telling a friend about it yesterday, and he want to read it, too.
Sincerely yours,
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Rummy
Buzz,
In 1968 I volunteered for the draft. I ended up a radio-telephone-operator in the first air cav. More simply put, I was a grunt. I was wounded and received the purple heart and three bronze stars. I wish I could have done more and delivered real value to the army, sorry.
Jay Saul
Tucson,
AZ
Subj: Profiting from Iraq
Dear BuzzFlash,
NO Member of this Administration or their immediate Family Members should benefit financially from a war with Iraq.
If this war is truly about protecting us, the entire administration should come out and say so directly to the public. Hell, they should sign a legally-binding letter saying so.
If, as we all suspect/know/fear, this war is to enhance this administration's personal fortunes and settle an unproven old shoulder chip, they will deride or ignore this kind of initiative and anyone who thinks this, or any, war is wrong.
Joey Martin
Chicago
Subj: War Kills Children
Dear BuzzFlash,
As part of their "shock and awe" strategy, GW Bush and the rest of the Republican Hawks will be sending 800 cruise missiles at one time onto the city of Baghdad.
Fact: 49% of the Iraqi population is under 12 years old. The majority of the Iraqi population lives in Baghdad.
When the U.S. sends 800 cruise missiles into the streets of Baghdad, we will be killing mostly children.
I have heard many Right Wing Reactionaries refer to the Liberals in this country as "baby killers" because they support a woman's right to choose.
Who's really the baby killers here?!!
Shameless hypocrites!
Nancy Lynn
Nagy (TN)
War
Kills Children
"Shock and Awe": Guernica Revisited
By Gar Smith, AlterNet
January 27, 2003U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
Sunday 26 January 2003
Subj: Limbaugh
Hello to all the BuzzFlash readers and letter writers, and the BuzzFlash crew for making this site happen. I've been reading BuzzFlash for over a year but this is my first time writing to you, a virgin so to speak.
Here goes some of my thoughts. While this site is the first one I turn to every day it is the mailbag that affects me the most...this is where the heart of the BuzzFlash resides. The mailbag reminds me every day that there are thoughtful, intelligent, clear thinking, satiric (thank god) humane people out there who do care what is happening to our country ...and yes we are patriotic ......dissent is patriotic, no dissent is dictatorship......so I guess as not all of us are in jail yet this is still dictatorship light under bush/co.....although that could change any day.
There are so many issues to take offense to with bush that it seemed to hard to pick just one and send a letter and once I start writing I tend to ramble so will try and get to the point of my first email to you all.
I sent off several emails to Limbaugh's sponsors and received one back from Amtrak saying they didn't sponsor political shows and tried to back peddle, etc etc. I am very gratified to see that this campaign seems to be turning into a very big deal and hope that everyone continues to send emails to these sponsers...hit them where they live, money...the only point they will understand. I signed myself a patriotic american on my emails to sponsors as nothing offends me more than to be called unpatriotic by that hate-mongering strawman, whose anal cyst seems to have ended up where his brain should be. or vice/versa.
One of the writers today mentioned the defective suits to be worn by the soldiers...I too have been trying to keep track and find articles on this sickening story in the last year. I wish the families of the young women/men being shipped off to Iraq were more aware of this travesty and that nothing is being done by mr.chickenhawk/oilslick himself and probably doesn't give a damn anyway, war is hell you know and has to be done...with someone else's daughters/sons.......is he going to go and 'hug' each and every sick veteran after they come home, managing to live...for awhile until they to have 'gulf war syndrome'?.........
I have been trying to figure out a way to get that story to be repeated over/over on the news (fat chance) which I would think would make everyone really stop and think what is going on here with this war/the government. If anyone has any idea on how to make that happen, a continuous talking point on all the 'news' shows I think that could really make a difference. People who are for this 'war' might think differently with news like that instead of the 'patriotic claptrap lies' from our grown-ups in charge....or evil bastards as I like to call them. If we want to talk about evil we don't have to go overseas looking for "evil".
Now that I got my feet wet with this first email I probably won't be able to shut up ...
A fan of BuzzFlash and all the people out there writing in every day......
s. myers.......CA.
Re: Randi Rhodes
Dear BuzzFlash:
Just want to let your readers know that Randi will be in Washington DC this Tuesday to here the State of the Union and meet with a number of Democratic party representatives.
On Wednesday, January 29 she will broadcast her show live from DC. Her show hours are from 3:00 PM to 7:00pm east.standard time. Calls to her can be made to her line at WJNO Radio in West Palm Beach. The telephone # is 561- 930 9566. People listening on the internet can call via a toll free number available to them. Sorry I don't know that number but I assume internet listeners will have access to that number.
I gather that this is a sort of tryout for a possible future liberal, democratic radio show.
Let's all support Randi and jam the phone lines with calls for her.
She's the greatest and the entire country needs to hear her.
A BuzzFlash Reader
(PS I think the program will still be heard only on her local channel but others will be listening.)
Subj: Wolf Blitzer CNN Poll
Dear BuzzFlash,
sub: Wolf Blitzer poll on Who Do You Trust
As of 5:30 pm here are the results from a poll participated in by Wolf's informed viewers:
Who do you trust on Iraq?
Bush 23%
UN 77%
BuzzFlash leads the way in exposing the Bush Cartel propaganda.
Bob Gaiek, Atlanta
Subj: Body Bags and Mass Graves
Dear BuzzFlash,
How interesting. One of the sights televised during the Viet Nam that helped to demonstrate the cost of the war to us was pictures of body bags being shipped home, a stark and powerful visual icon of loss and sorrow. Now think of this. A mass grave in the sand. A trench dug and covered over before any cameras arrive to record anything except maybe a pristine marker or two. And then a tasteful little note, maybe edged in black, nothing too dramatic sent to the family, "We regret to inform you..." And no endless pictures of military funerals and grieving widows. It's so perfect. They have thought of everything haven't they? As the daughter of a soldier, I hope they rot in hell, all of them.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: I Shake My Head
Buzz,
If these chicken-hawks have evidence that Iraq possesses WMD, as they claim, shouldn't they give this evidence to Blix so his inspectors can more easily and quickly do their job?
As I read about Dubya's depressing & unbelievable march to war, I shake my head and ask, 'who are these aliens and why do they, with such demonic blindness, insist on destroying peace and the world?'
T Quigly
Subj: Ari Fleischer
Dear BuzzFlash,
I find it impossible to watch the White House news briefings anymore with Ari Fleischer. It is almost like watching a programmed robot speaking paragraphs of dribble in monotone. You know Ari's lying when he opens his mouth. There is no sincerity, warmth, or substance to what he says. When asked a question, rather than giving a straightforward answer, he gives you 10 minutes of mumbo-jumbo that says nothing and never answers the question. I guess this is what you can expect from an administration that is void of policy, morals or intellect. A dummy President should have a dummy Press Secretary.
Gigi
Subj: American Justice
Dear BuzzFlash,
If Bush and his hawks prosecuted Saddam in an American court of law, an honest judge would throw the case out for lack of evidence.
Can anyone imagine a Prosecutor telling a Judge that the Defendant broke the law, then offering no evidence, just allegations? And when the Judge asks the prosecution to present his case, that Prosecutor becomes belligerent and keeps repeating, "I know he broke the law. I just know it. He is an axis of evil I tell ya!" Then picture the Judge asking the Prosecutor, "Is this the only evidence you have to present?" And the answer is, "Yes, but I can't prove it and I know the guy is guilty of breaking the law!" The Judge wouldn't know if the Defendant was guilty or not guilty, but would certainly throw the case out of court for lack of evidence. And the Judge would simply come to that decision because, in American courts, a Defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
The Prosecutor is Bush. The Defendant is Saddam. The Judge is the World.
~ Cathy
Subj: Distilled from your lede article -- a letter to the editor
Hi. Thought you might find useful this letter to the editor that I wrote, which essentially boils your article. In general, it is as polished as any ad copy that I write. I've sent it to: Bradenton Herald, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, St. Pete Times, and Tampa Tribune.
Carl Parks
-------------------------
To the Editor:
Hitler ignored the advice of his field marshals, and Germany lost World War II. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff are urging George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush into World War III, the conservative Washington Times reports.* And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is said to be telling them to get in line or find other jobs.
Unlike Bush and Cheney who ran yellow from fighting in Vietnam, those with better military judgement know that war is an absolute last resort and only after all else has failed. Great loss of life is the only assured outcome of preemptively invading and occupying other sovereign nations.
Many of us veterans were outraged last week when Rumsfeld implied that draftees were an inferior kind of cannon fodder. Also, our allies France and Germany are justifiably angry over his "Old Europe" insults. But Rumsfeld's trashing of our top military experts should strike fear in the hearts of every patriotic American.
It is as though a "Ship of Fools" is running our "Ship of State!"
Carl Parks
Bradenton
the bush people think the iraq people will be grateful.......i wonder how they will show it when they see grandma get her head blown off? they may not see it in the light of the greater good. while we are at it we better take out all the little boys and young men.........they will be the next osama's in great numbers!
diane anderson
florida
Subj: DRUDGE REPORT 2003®
buzz--did you see THIS? Criminy, what unrepentant WHORES.
"BrokawRussertJenningsStephanopoulos and others will have private off-the-record lunch with President Bush on Tuesday... Developing... " BEFORE the [Sad] State of the Union....
A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
Hey, does this sound a little like the mailbag submission I sent 1/27... I mean calling the State of the Union address Bush's Super Bowl? It is probably coincidence, but I'd like to think that this journalist reads BuzzFlash, ha, ha. However, this article gives information on the post address strategies which are pure regimented spin. Oh Lordy, do we have to listen to all of that republican spin for the next 3 weeks? I sure hope the dems are ready to counter all of it.
~ just an FYI from Cathy
From the Cincinnati Enquirer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Lawmakers ready to spin Bush speech
By Carl Weiser
Enquirer Washington BureauWASHINGTON - The hype starts weeks before. The two teams talk themselves hoarse. And the huge audience means a major chance to sell, sell and sell. The State of the Union address, which President Bush gives tonight, is the Super Bowl of political speeches, and not just because it comes around the same time as the National Football League's championship game.
It's the one time of year when many people who wouldn't normally pay attention tune in; last year an estimated 52 million watched Mr. Bush's State of the Union address. (An estimated 87 million saw last year's Super Bowl.)
Because of that, it's also a chance to sell: not beer or cars, but political messages.
Subj: Weapons Removal
Dear BuzzFlash,
Here's an idea to get the weapons out of Iraq:
Why don't we make the American companies who sold Iraq the weapons in the first place to use their same sinister contact people to go back and "buy" the weapons back. It would be a lot cheaper than a war and won't kill any children.
MjM, Forestville, Ca.
Subj: Invitation to serious, effective national activism with me and others
Dear BuzzFlash,
Greetings! Many of you know me either as friends or through my writing. I want to invite you all to become participants in a nationwide campaign to inform and motivate the American citizenry in this time of extreme crisis.
You all know the score right now - war, economic meltdown, constitutional revisionism, etc. - so I need not belabor the point. This project is intended, simply, to try and do something about it. Basically, once a week I and the others at the core of the project will prepare a flyer/pamphlet delineating a hard bit of data the mainstream news is not dealing with. For example, the first flyer explains how the Bush administration intends to fire some 800 cruise missiles - more than double the number used in all of the Gulf War - into Baghdad when hostilities commence. Baghdad has five million citizens. 'Nuff said.
We prepare the flyers, and we hand them out all across the country. We put them under windshields, into coffee shops and libraries, and into the hands of tens of thousands of people during a once-a-week coordinated national day of very straightforward action.
I am involved at the core, along with Ronnie Dugger of the The Alliance for Democracy, and with Granny D. Nick with the Alliance is also deeply involved, and more groups are coming on board.
If you would like to be a part of this very important work, click this link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/invite/freedomflyer
Get on board, folks. The time is now. PLEASE send this on to whatever lists you may subscribe to.
William
Rivers Pitt
truthout.org
Subj: To The UN and Press
HOW CONVENIENT :):) NOW WE HAVE PROOF THE DAY OF THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS THAT SADDAM CAN BE TIED TO TERRORIST, WE WILL GET TO SEE IT NEXT WEEK YOU KNOW, AFTER THE POLLS ARE TAKEN :):) THE EVEN WHEN IT IS PROVEN BOGUS LIKE THE REST OF THEIR INTELLIGENCE:):) THE MEDIA WILL YAWN AND MOVE ON:):):)
DIANE A.
MIAMI
Dear BuzzFlash,
Here is a PR tip for Bush Cartel:
You must have Jeb Bush's son join the military - George P. Bush would just look great in a military uniform. Photo ops & PR would be at the best. Plus have photos of Bush's twins serving refreshments to him & other deporting for overseas at the DC USO.
Best of all, let George P. see some action in Iraq, preferably the first front to go in. Then next time Pres. Bush sheds some tears about the military serving our country, maybe we will believe the tears are real.
The twins would also look cute in military uniforms. But that would be expecting too much from the Bush Family. Just like always, the Bushes are protected from harm's way and are quick to use others for tasks they will not do themselves.
SM from Missouri
Subj: This war business: The Bushies got it all wrong
Dear Buzz,
I still think the approach to Iraq has been all wrong. Instead of trying in vain to build global political consensus, the Bushies might have had more success if they had been a little more embracing and welcoming of the global community at the outset. Ari Fleischer and Karen Hughes should have hired a graphic designer some months ago to come up with a nice invitation to send to heads of state around the globe last November, with the following information:
Come Bomb with Us!
You are cordially invited to join us for
A Potluck Stomp Upside Iraq
February 20 (or so),
Please RSVP by Feb. 1, 2003
We invite you and your military to bring whatever weaponry you may have just lying around along with any new stuff you've been itching to try out. Let us know whether you will need directions coming in from the north, east, south, or west. Join in a worthy cause and get lots of free press!
It's going to be a great multilateral action! Hope to see you there.
(As a way of thanking everyone afterward, the White House could send out trinkets and party favors to top heads of state of each participating country along with little pins that would "I bombed Iraq.")
I mean come on, when faced with a political ultimatum or an attractive engraved invitation, which would you choose?
I. Anon
Subj: Too Much On Target?
Dear BuzzFlash,
Last night on one of the politically oriented programs, a man asked something like, [Hasn't Bush put Saddam in a position of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't give full cooperation? If Saddam reveals weapons, Bush will bomb Iraq. If Saddam reveals nothing, Bush will still bomb Iraq. Wouldn't this attitude encourage Saddam to refuse revelation of bio-terror weapons because he feels they will be his only line of defense in an inevitable American invasion?]
Of course the pro-Bush guest degraded the question with meaningless generalities that made no sense and changed the subject. Why are legitimate questions from Americans being fended off in this manner by pro-Bush speakers? Could it be that questions like these are too much on target?
~ Cathy
Subj: Cooking the Books on Iraq
to Print Media people:
Today's headline in my Austin paper says: US: Intelligence On Iraqi Weapons To Be Made Public
It is a Bob Woodward article from the Washington Post. The first paragraph says the administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been moving and concealing banned weapons systems.
Mr Woodward states that the information was gathered from "an array of sources and methods." His unnamed source says the data is "compelling" and "unambiguous".
Some of us remember when Bob used to be required to get two sources for every story. If their names weren't used, then at least the bosses at the Post knew the names of them all, excepting Deep Throat, of course. But then, Woody no longer has Bradlee demanding accuracy and verification. Too bad.
I read it all and Mr Woodward has once again done his job as the supposedly objective spokesman and propaganda disseminator for Karl Rove. Yes, down near the end in paragraph eight he does write that our agencies "have not traced or located a large cache of prohibited weapons or ingredients (for) chemical or biological weapons."
But in what seems natural for him now he chooses to make no reference to the numerous reports that have appeared in his very own paper, the NY Times, the WSJ, USA Today and even the Washington Times in recent months telling us about the administration demanding that our intelligence people find something, anything that would support their claims that Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda, that Iraq had nukes.
USA Today has reported our intelligence agencies have been "pressured to deliberately slant" data. The CIA's former chief of counter terrorism was quoted as saying the administration was giving us "cooked information." An FBI agent said they were under tremendous pressure to "cook the books". Just last week the political website Capitol Hill Blue reported that the White House has again ordered the FBI and CIA to "find and document" links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. "The implication is clear," grumbles one longtime FBI agent. "Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq."
Right there you have multiple and different media outlets, each with their own different sources telling us what's going on. Mr Woodward chooses not to connect the dots. Or even tell us about them. And most sadly, he chooses to forget history. He should look up the 'cooked book' on the Gulf of Tonkin. Then he should walk over to the wall and read a few of the names there.
Tomorrow night, Junior is coming before us. The talking heads are telling us he's going to "make the case" for an American blitzkrieg. They're planning on hitting Iraq with 600 to 800 cruise missiles on the first two days. Rummy's boys are talking seriously about using nuclear weapons. It is about oil, friends, and you know it.
I do not expect the broadcast media to say much that will enlighten the vast populace of Moron-Americans out there, the 60% of our brethren who've been conned into thinking Saddam was involved in 9/11. No, war is great for ratings. Tim, with furrowed brow is going to hint at a probing question but let it slide when the probe goes unanswered. Paula is going to smile widely as she waves to the troops. O'Reilly will be showing a big, supportive thumbs-up. In my mind, their cheerleading is just as morally degenerate as is the launching of this insane war.
So it is up to you. You folks in the print media. 35% of adult Americans still look at your papers each day. Tell them the truth. Tell them again. And again. And again.
Citizen
Steve
San
Marcos, Texas
