|
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 400. 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: Will Bush ever give blessing to Iraq's signature on Kyoto Treaty?
Buzz,
In the Guardian article you have posted on your website, 'U.S. Builds Motley Posse for Iraq Peace,' Bush is quoted as saying:
"We'll stay the course in Iraq. ... We're not leaving until we accomplish the task, and the task is going to be a free country run by the Iraqi people."
I'm just wondering if Bush means it's okay if the free country of Iraq: 1) joins the International Criminal Court 2) signs the Kyoto Treaty 3) bans genetically modified food and 4) refuses to help fight wars in the future, say on North Korea or Iran!???!!?
Or is it only okay for them to use their freedom to loot the Baghdad Museum? (If indeed it was the Iraqi people at all.)
I guess I'm 'just asking'!
Mary in NYC
Sent to Amazon.com:
Subj: Amazon.com and Ann Coulter's Treason
Hello,
I am writing regarding the amazon.com listing offering Ann Coulter's latest book Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
As you may be familiar, each book listing offers the opportunity for people to recommend books people might enjoy in addition to the book listed, or to recommend alternatives to the book.
Earlier in the week, over 50 people had recommended Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler in addition to Treason. A few days ago, all references to Mein Kampf disappeared, replaced by recommendations of her previous book (Slander.) True, some might have thought the recommendations inappropriate, but when one considers that Ms. Coulter:
....stated that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity......
...stated that John Walker Lindh should be executed, so liberals realize they can be killed........
......and, in the Hitlerian vein, referred to Katie Couric as "the affable Eva Braun of morning television...
...can one really say that the comparison to Mein Kampf is that far out of line? When one states that those who disagree with their point of view are traitors, and that they should realize that they could be killed........should they then expect to be treated with kid gloves?
I guess my question is this: what criteria did Amazon use to remove the Mein Kampf recommendations? I'd like to point out again......I was one of the people who made the recommendation, and it was not a recommendation that I think I would make regarding any other popular author. Regardless of how little I think of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their ilk, I would not make a similar recommendation, because it would be too extreme. But Coulter sets out to be as offensive and insulting and extreme as possible, and the idea that Amazon would promote her book, but in turn censor those who would suggest that her writings are the ravings of a dangerous fanatic, is disturbing. Has anyone else written you about this matter? I am very seriously considering no longer doing business with Amazon......it becomes very tiresome to find yourself financially supporting companies that provide others the platform to profit from their attacks on your character, value, patriotism, and even your most basic right to have a different opinion.
Perhaps you could have someone look into this. I've become so tired of such things that I scarcely have the energy anymore.
Thanks,
Alan Steele
King,
NC
Subj: Bush Double-Whammy
Dear BuzzFlash,
Jay Carney, of Time Magazine, was on Paula Zahn's show on 7/2 and this is a quote from the transcript:
"We are now at a situation where the same number of soldiers died before Baghdad fell as after and the White House official told me two weeks ago that the biggest political problem the president faces right now in foreign policy is the mounting death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq."
Bush sent these men to DIE for NOTHING and now he's whining that their continuing deaths are a POLITICAL PROBLEM?? Here's a quote from the Tennessean's forum from a soldier's mother:
"As a mother of one of our brave troops in Iraq, may I just say, Mr. President, Perhaps you truly do believe in the invincibility of our military; however, the next time you invite attacks on my son, and others, kindly stand in front of our soldiers, rather than hiding behind."
[LINK]
And that just about says it all, doesn't it?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: 71 percent believe the Bush Regime implied Saddam was involved in Sept 11
Bush foresees long, 'massive' role in Iraq
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 7/2/2003
Excerpt from the above article:
"According to a poll released yesterday by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, 71 percent said they believed the Bush administration implied that Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, while 25 percent believed Iraq was directly involved in the attacks."
[LINK]
Linda
Subj: Begala Nails Bush on AWOL Issue
Dear Buzz,
Seen on today's 07/03 Crossfire broadcast, Paul Begala and Robert Novak are reading viewer emails which prompted this exchange (appears near the end of the program transcript):
NOVAK: OK. Rob Hull of Vancouver, British Columbia, says, "I think that President Bush's comments were tough, as they should be. Paul and all the 'lefties,' are going to criticize everything that Bush says. It's too bad they are more worried about Bush's comments and landing on air craft carriers than anything of substance. Rob, you're my kind of Canadian.
BEGALA: With all respect to Mr. Hull, there are no Canadian boys being killed over there. And for our president who is standing up and saying "bring them on," by the way, when he was AWOL from the national guard they didn't bring it on for him to fight for our country.
NOVAK: He was not AWOL. He was not AWOL.
BEGALA: He was AWOL.
NOVAK: And that is a liable. I may file suit. I may file suit against you.
BEGALA: AWOL, AWOL, AWOL for a year from his National Guard unit.
NOVAK: You can shout it but isn't true.
It's been awhile since we've heard anyone on national media bring up Bush's sorry military record. Perhaps some day Bush will learn if you want to "talk the talk", you'd better have "walked the walk".
Of course, Novak has no idea where Lt. Bush served when he was missing from his Montgomery, AL National Guard unit. Do you?
SteveSubj: CNN's Blitzer Report blow it...
Dear Buzz:
On the Wolf Blitzer (with a fill-in reporter) Reports on the evening of the 4th of July, an entire segment was dedicated to Americans who did not know what their "unalienable" rights were. I know what inalienable rights are, but have checked my dictionary and found absolutely no listing for "unalienable" rights anywhere.
Has the great CNN blown it again?
Regards...Frank
Subj: Here's one I haven't heard about Daschle
Buzz,
I've been reading my complimentary copy of The Progressive magazine (http://www.progressive.org) -- June 2003 issue -- which I just received in the mail, and I came across something I haven't heard before about Daschle and his support for passage of the Patriot Act. You've probably heard this, but in case you or the readers haven't; in the article titled "Will Hatch Hold Back the Sunset?" written by Nat Hentoff, Hentoff writes, "Even Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, silent since 9/11 about Ashcroft's war on the Bill of Rights, said he would be "very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. It was then-Senate Majority Leader Daschle, who, on the night of the vote of the Patriot Act, ordered -- as The Progressive reported -- the Democratic caucus not to support any amendments by Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who became the only Senator to vote against the Act."
Daschle ordered the Democratic caucus not to support any amendments which would place limits on the Patriot Act! This said to me about Daschle all that needs to be said. They've got something on him. I could see it by the expression on his face that day he did the photo op with Gephardt and Bush. He looked like a man who had just been shown some compromising pictures in which he was the star. With sellouts like this pretending to represent our interests and republican front groups like the DLC pretending to be democrats so that the republicans can exert control over the democratic party, we've got to stay vigilant and mobilized.
Here's another recent example of attempted republican manipulation of public perception. The Republicans are trying to convince us that they actually WANT Dean to run against them in the general election! They're really afraid that Dean will win the Democratic nomination and pull the party back to the left where it once again will offer a real, different alternative to the greedy and destructive corporate kiss-ass Republican agenda. They absolutely don't want the two parties to separate into distinctively different parties. Because, if that were to happen, it would emphasize just how corrupt and greedy the republicans are. They don't want the voter to have any real visible choice between social justice and ethical-moral foundation as opposed to the current greed and corruption which is now at the heart of both parties. The republicans want the parties to be joined at the hip by corporate influence and big-money back room politics.
They're afraid that Dean will pull the Democratic party away from its "centrist", equally corrupt republican-clone image and back to its socially conscious and environmentally responsible roots where it will again appeal to the silent but longing majority of American voters -- Americans who long to once again see their government support and defend the ideals of fairness, justice for all, corporate responsibility and accountability, environmental responsibility, kindness and tolerance, International diplomacy and respect for other nations and cultures, the rule of law and government accountability to 'We the People'. If the democratic party were to become that party again, it would sweep the republicans from power so swiftly and remove them so permanently that the republicans would effectively be vanquished from their current tyrannical rule and planet raping agenda for decades to come. The republicans, and Rove, know this to be true.
IF -- BIG IF! -- we don't settle for anything less in 2004 than fair elections with voter verifiable paper trials, we have some hope that we can kick the greedy bastards out of OUR White House and OUR Capitol and restore America to it's former glory. When we have a real government once again, we will mobilize, become active and involved in government like never before, and repeal all the tyrannical legislation that's been passed under Bush. We will initiate some REAL investigations into 9/11, the whole Iraq debacle with its Presidential parade of 'misleadings' [the current spineless media and Congressional euphemism for lies], the conflicts of interest regarding the reconstruction contracts awarded to the big republican donors -- everything that the current crop of Republicans are using their stolen power to suppress.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: DOD and Brainerd Parade
Dear BuzzFlash,
I'm a regular reader and enjoy your site. When a peace coalition in Brainerd was barred from their city parade I found it reminding me of a link you posted from Orange, California regarding the DOD and their calls to cities asking they support the troops in their holiday celebrations. I don't know if the two issues are related but just in case I sent the following email to the Brainerd local papers that covered the parade story and to the Orange Weekly that ran the one about the DOD.
* * *
Greetings,
I read your article online found here: http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3971035.html I couldn't help but recall an article written by the Orange County Weekly in California called "Force of July" found here: http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/42/news-washburn.php which I happened to read at the end of June.
In the article it talks about how their city received a call from Rumsfeld's office requesting they use their Independence Day celebrations to promote support for the war in Iraq. According to the article one Orange city official was quoted as saying: "I got the impression that they had a list of every city in the nation that had applied for a pyrotechnics permit, and were calling them to persuade them to be part of the program."
I'd bet Brainerd received a similar call. More from the article:
QUOTE
" The project even has a name: Operation Tribute to Freedom, putatively overseen by Air Force general Richard B. Myer. Check out the website at www.defendamerica.mil/otf/photos/index.html Therein, it is claimed that Pentagon officials had been "inundated" with requests from communities asking how they could show support for the troops. Another press release remarks on the "spontaneous" displays of support for the military. And there doubtless have been many. So why, then, does the Department of Defense deem it necessary to cold-call cities to sell them on a military salute?"
END QUOTE
I'd be happy if this was exposed as being the pathetic marketing for nationalism that it is but more than that how they have promoted cities to block the free speech and participation of anyone that opposes their actions. So much for American free speech on the 4th of July.
The war is supposed to be over. Are people now banned from promoting peace even in what is technically peace time? Thanks to the internet I was able to access your article. Thanks to you for writing it in the first place.
Sincerely,
Tinya Gutierrez
Fresno,
California
Subj: hmmmm :):):)
SO GEORGE W. BUSH IS GOING TO AFRICA BECAUSE HE CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE. HMMM, ISN'T HE THE SAME BUSH WHILE IN BRAZIL ASKED IF THEY HAD BLACK PEOPLE AND WAS RESCUED FROM HIS STUPIDITY BY CONDI RICE? JUST ASKING. :):):)
RK
MADISON
WI
Subj: Bush's Inept Diplomacy
Dear Buzz,
The juvenile character of our President was best illustrated by his response to the question of daily killings of American soldiers. The "bring 'em on" taunt to the Iraqis only inflamed their growing resentment at our occupation of their country. A statesman in the White House would have addressed his remarks to the Iraqi people. "Work with us," he would say. "Let us work together to form a new government. We will bring in the best expertise from anywhere in the world, the Germans who built your electric power system to restore it to full capacity and our best technicians to bring your oil production up to full capacity. We do not wish to remain in your country, so work with us. I promise that we will not stay in your country any longer than is necessary and depart as friends."
Ellis L.
Bert
Dallas,
TX
Subj: The Prayer Team
Dear BuzzFlash,
After reading about the Presidential prayer team, I am recommending that BuzzFlash set up a "Let's Defeat Bush In 2004 And Elect A Democrat Prayer Team". Perhaps if we can enlist more members to our team, then God would be compelled to give us a Democratic president in 2004.
Hey you never know.
Sincerely,
John Byars
Subj: An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry
Dear BuzzFlash,
I've just submitted the following message to Senator Kerry at his web site. Feel free to post it if you think it's worth it.
Linda
* * *
In The Northwest: Vietnam vet Kerry braves fire on White House trail http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/129019_joel02.html
Dear Senator Kerry,
Thank you for being frank in your discussion in Tacoma. Until a few years ago, I had always considered myself to be a moderate Democrat, you know socially left but wanting fiscal discipline. Now I find that I am considered on the fringe, the far, far left because I believe that the Former Governor of Texas was installed as the President of our great Nation by a bunch of political hacks at the Supreme Court.
In the above article, it states about you: ""He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the "stolen" election. "Stop crying in your teacups," he told one audience. "It isn't going to change. Get over it."
You see, to many people in this country, Bush did steal the election. Al Gore got more votes than Bush did. Gore got more in the popular vote but he also got more in Florida but the Supreme Court stepped in & shut down the vote counting. This move had no Constitutional basis. This move was totally opposite everything these 5 Justices have said for years & years that they stand for. The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in our country. It's supposed to be about truth & justice. It's supposed to be right & fair. I only have one question for you - Do you honestly believe that if the shoe was on the other foot, if the roles had been reversed, if it had been Gore v Bush arguing the same case - would the Supreme Court have made the same decision?
No? I thought not. That is why some of us will never get over it. We are not crying in our teacups. We are not bitter because we "lost". We are not angry because it was a bad campaign. We are furious because Election 2000 was decided by 5 people, not by the will of the country.
We waited for our leaders to step up & renounce the Supreme Court for their unprecedented actions. Instead we were told over & over to just "get over it": While Bush decimated treaty after treaty, while he eviscerated the environment, robbed our treasury, plundered our Social Security funds, while he ignored security warnings, while he went on vacation, we were told over & over "get over it". Then 9/11 happened, without any kind of warning (according to the White House). We witnessed the total dysfunction of NORAD, the FAA, all branches of the military, all of the airlines, even the Secret Service that day. I'm a trusting person, but it is hard for me to believe that not one single agency managed to get anything right that day. Still, our leader said nothing. To date not a single report on 9/11 has been publicly issued. Why is that?
Then came the rumors of war & Andy Card stating last summer that August wasn't the right time to market a new product, in this case he was talking about us starting a war in Iraq. No, August wouldn't do, it had to be better timed so the citizens could be sold. The great marketing blitz started last fall. We were told all kind of things - unbelievable things, in fact, things that flew in the face of common sense. But our leaders went right along with the plan without speaking out, barely a question was raised even though millions & millions of us protested against starting an illegal war. What really surprised me was that after the Iraq war vote, it was revealed that Bush Co. had kept the nuclear threat from North Korea secret so it wouldn't interfere with the Iraq war vote & still you said nothing!
Months & months go by where we hear lies & more lies about WMD & mushroom clouds, Saddam & bin Laden in bed. Mobile labs, satellite photos, aluminum tubes, yellowcake from Niger - on & on it went. Each claim more ridiculous than the one before & still - not a peep. By this point I figured that Bush Co must have either threatened all of your families or had some goods on all of you. Perhaps he was delving into Hoover's files or something. I had to be something serious, Senator Byrd was the only one speaking out for the people in America.
We are now 3 months past the Iraq war & still no WMD have been discovered. By the way, we still haven't found bin Laden, the Anthrax killer or Hussein. Afghanistan is a mess & we are now negotiating with (are you ready for this - the Taliban!) But who cares? Apparently not our leaders. Just today, Bush was out there bullying again. "Bring it on" he said to the people in Iraq who are killing our sons & daughters who are currently deployed in Iraq. "Bring it on" - just like some school kid bully. Only he's not there. He doesn't have to pay the price for his hollow bravado. I won't hold my breath waiting for one of my leaders to denounce this latest insanity.
This country is in a shambles. Our national debt is obscene, the rich are making out like bandits, the poor are suffering, our Veterans are being ripped off, we have millions unemployed & our seniors -- those wonderful people on whose backs this country was built -- they are eating cat food so they can afford to buy the medicine they need. And still, all I hear is silence. It is deafening!
"Get over it" Three simple words. Those 3 words coming from you have just guaranteed that I will never vote for you. Ever. I'll sit out 2004 if you end up being the nominee and I don't think I will be alone. The DLC, DNC & the political consultants are telling you not to worry about it, that we'll all jump on board to defeat Bush no matter who the nominee is. They are wrong. We won't -- the reason is because that will just encourage more of the same nonsense that has been going on. We want a real leader. Someone with vision, someone who will speak up & speak out. Someone who actually believes in democracy & our core Democratic values. I can't believe you said "Get over it" -- it's so Republican.
Linda Kekumu
Pahoa
Hawaii
Subj: the wrong question on WMD
Dear Buzz,
One thing that seems to be getting missed in the controversy over whether Iraq's WMD ever really existed is that the U.S., by all appearances, had no comprehensive plan for securing WMD in the aftermath of the war. In his January State of the Union address, Boy George spoke portentously about the disaster Saddam's WMD, put into the wrong hands, could unleash on America:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." (Excerpt is available at [LINK])
At the time, I wondered how invading and destabilizing the country that supposedly held these weapons for its own use and defense would make those weapons more secure. (Giving the weapons to the fundamentalist Al Qaeda, secular Iraq's bitter enemy, never seemed to make much sense.)
But in the aftermath of war, wouldn't it be easy for members of a regime with nothing left to lose to smuggle a single vial of WMD over the border, or, hmmmm, bury it in a garden until they needed it?
So the administration's excuse that we haven't investigated all the potential WMD sites, and that we know the weapons are there but it's just a matter of time until they show up, is actually more damning than anything they could say. We didn't secure Tuwaitha or other key nuclear research sites either, and look at the potential mess that created. (This dirty bomb comes to you courtesy of George W. Bush's oil buddies.) If they find a cache of WMD now, more than two months after Iraq fell and was overrun by looters and God knows who else, how will we know it hasn't been picked over by terrorists, a few lucky entrepreneurs who understand there's a world market for this kind of thing, or bitter Baathists who now have absolutely no reason for restraint?
The mainstream media and the administration seem to think the U.S. is just one significant find away from this whole controversy blowing over. But finding WMD now would prove this administration left Iraq's stash of scary weapons vulnerable to a host of America's enemies. In short, it would raise far more alarming questions than it answered.
Tom Breuer, Appleton, Wis.
Subj: Revisionist History
Dear Buzz,
Conservatives love to talk about "reversionist history," so it amazed me when I found a bit of revisionist history in my local paper (Salisbury, MD), the Daily Times, which happens to be owned by Gannett Inc (who also own USA Today and who were notoriously supporting the FCC's proposed rule changes). The thing is, though, that this particular bit of revisionist history offended the hell out of me. The Times published part of the Declaration of Independence (see http://www.delmarvanow.com/news/stories/20030704/opinion/589520.html but compare that to the one found at http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm ), but they never indicated that it was an abridged version of the Declaration. This is particularly loathsome because the part that was removed was the very essence of the complaints against the King -- removing that part of the Declaration takes it completely out of its historical context and diminishes the ultimate reasons for our revolution to begin with: the Declaration was not just about grand political theories, it was also a practical decision to revolt against bad policies. To print the Declaration like that, without a disclaimer that it is incomplete, sets a bad precedent -- the text of the founding documents is not malleable and it is up to each generation to figure out what that text means, but to change the text by addition or deletion is a terrible, terrible way to treat our history.
Buzz, I hope that you can pass this info on to your readers and encourage them to write the times to express their dismay -- the Times email is newsroom@smgpo.gannett.com.
Thanks,
Mike Farlow
Subj: # of troops killed in Iraq
BuzzFlash,
Look at news accounts lately. Reporting of troops deaths have changes. The # is lower. Only those killed by enemy are counted and are stated as 27. The # is much higher, more like 75, due to humvee accidents and friendly fire. This is a definite effort to deceive.
Denny
Subj: I couldn't agree more . . .
Dear BuzzFlash,
Just read Stuart Finkel's "BuzzFlash" article and he could have taken the words out of my mouth. I come from a blue collar working class family who always registered and voted Democrat when being a Democrat meant something, like a backbone and opposition to the more extreme positions of the Republican Party. I currently have thrown my lot in with John Kerry because I believe him to be electable, but I could enthusiastically support Dean should he be nominated for the Presidency. I could even support Lieberman, albeit with my fingers to my nose, if it meant getting rid of the Corporatist/Falangist Bush and his cronies. If we don't find a way to unite all factions across the Democratic political spectrum then I fear we're in for a long "march in the desert". The DLC doesn't help matters when it engages in outdated and simply wrong characterizations of grass roots progressive Democrats.
Dan
Subj: Beware of the rag-tags
Dear BuzzFlash,
Twenty eight American soldiers have be killed since the May 1 declaration from Bush that the war was over: 28 and counting.
The Iraqis are using guerilla tactics, which can be better defined as terrorist attacks. The Palestinian Hamas has used the same methods against Israel for a long, long, time. Now, the US is engaged in the same type of war, and our minds quickly add up the years of perpetual killing in Israel and Palestine. Both Israel and the US have the most technological war equipment on the globe, but it is worthless against terrorist/guerilla attacks. We have learned from the Israelis, the attacks are slow and never-ending.
Palestinians and now Iraqis demand one thing to stop the attacks: leave their territories.
Regardless of military technology, our troops are sitting ducks for Iraqi guerillas. History tells us that the British were also sitting ducks in the Revolutionary War. Their red uniforms stood out like sore thumbs and they insisted on conventional marching directly at the enemy in large numbers. Revolutionists had learned from the Indians to hide and lay in wait. The Revolutionists fought an unconventional war against a conventional army. Yes, we had our Continental Army, but many of our warriors were of the rag-tag variety. Losing many troops and perplexed about how to combat the rag-tag tactics, the British left America. Have we learned anything from history? I would say yes. We know that the biggest and best equipped armies don't always win... the Brits in the Revolution... the US in Vietnam and Iraq... Israel in Palestine. The bottom line? Don't ever underestimate patient, rag-tag, bands of countrymen who resent your forced presence and want you out of their country. They will wear a conventional military down every time.
~ Cathy
A note from the BuzzFlash Postmaster:
Thank you to everyone for their patience and kind words during my paternity leave. My wife and I are very happy and fortunate to have our healthy son. It's good to be back at work, if only knowing the words you provide for the mailbag and our work posting them put us one small step closer to a better democracy. Perhaps, through our efforts, my son, Riley, will live and play in a better world.
For those who have asked, here he is in all his two-week-old glory:
Thanks and keep on Buzzin'!
- The BuzzFlash Postmaster
