 |
|||||
|
November 5, 2003 |
|||||
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: Sent this to CBS Hi BuzzFlash,Feel free to reprint the following, which I emailed to Les Moonves this morning. Others should be encouraged to do the same. John Drouillard * * *
Subj: CBS must be made to pay for buckling in to right wing pressure We should target CBS for a one time boycott... say on some particularly important ratings night... If the only pressure they ever feel is from the right they'll never learn to stand up for themselves The airwaves belong to all.. that means, yes, liberals too. Roger Subj: History Lessons Buzz, BuzzFlash posted three recent articles that, among others, should be taught in every history class in every American school. 1 - past. ‘Assassin's History' by William Rivers Pitt. This is one of the most moving pieces that has ever been printed about the past 40 years of American history - a stark eulogy for loss of 5 amazing leaders and for where our nation could be today ["None of these men were even 50 years old when they were killed. All of them would have entered the 1970s, 1980s and even the 1990s as activists, elder statesmen, and spokesmen for the most righteous progressive causes imaginable."]. 2 - present. ‘Mental Exercise for Fat Americans' is a concise and revealing recap of the past 3 disgusting years of American history - the reality, unfortunately, of where our nation is today. 3 - future. ‘Bush Faces Fiery Welcome.' On a lighter note, this Guardian piece portends what could turn out to be a fun week to watch as DimSon falls flat on his face. [The article omits a previously-posted project to moon our FaultyFaker wherever he goes so all photo-ops feature flashers]. Why can't we as a nation gather together in the same good spirit to show DimSon our outraged displeasure? T Quigly Subj: Start a Reward Sir: I would be the first on to pledge $100 bucks toward a reward to anyone that can come up with a tape footage of some of Enron's party "bashes". "Kenny Boy", mainly his guest list would be worth a million bucks! glenn sinn Subj: Fight "The Reagans" censorship- buy the DVD Buzz- Here’s an idea. We on the left should commit ourselves to buy at least one million DVDs of The Reagans- and to buy extra copies to donate, publicly, to every conservative wing nut group in the land. If we allow this form of censorship to go unchecked, there will be not let up from our relentless thugs on the right. Best, Doug Subj: VA and Casualties Don't blame the VA yet. We at the VA are still waiting to get the casualties. In Ohio there have been fewer than five casualties known to the VA. The Army is warehousing the wounded with the hope that most will grow impatient and request an "Early out" rather that a board hearing. That way the casualties don't count and many more months will be delayed until the Army gets the records to the VA for the new veteran. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: CBS Cowards Here's a letter I sent to CBS via a little form on their webpage, concerning their cancellation of the Reagan mini-series:
********************** Keep the hammer swingin', Bart, and the Buzz a buzzin'! T Subj: generation 9/11 - Bush Youth Bush's strongest ratings come among the younger generation. Even on Iraq, the 18 -- 30 year olds give him a big vote of support -- more than any other age group and the reverse of the over 60s. Bush has a 66 percent general approval rating among the young, compared to 51 percent among the old. How to explain it?
Up to 50% of US units in Iraq won't re-enlist. [LINK] I say draft the College Republicans
Brian Subj: If Only CBS Were As Gutsy As E! Dear Buzz-- Last month I was sitting flipping the remote when I stopped at the E! Channel. There was a "lookalike" Bill Clinton standing in an office (presumably oval) with a slightly overweight woman who went to her knees and, yes in full closeup, started to unzip his pants. On the voice-over we heard a young woman reading a narrative of the "event". Yes -- this was on TV, being broadcast over the air waves you and I supposedly own. But do we dare show anything negative about Mr. Reagan. This is a man who did indeed remark about AIDS, as indicated in his official biography "Dutch": "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments". On one hand we have a President who made some poor choices in his personal sex life, and really hurt no one. On the other we have a President who dismisses a disease that has killed MILLIONS (yes, that's right, millions) worldwide as a plague, and did nothing about it. Would that make him complicit in murder -- or perhaps he was just a messenger of God! The more I read and see about what has happened to this country, I can only say three words: SHOCK AND AWE! Regards, BC Subj: Exit Strategy The more I continue to read extensive commentary regarding the lack of an 'exit strategy' in regards to Iraq, the more I am compelled to believe that the reason the Bush administration neglected to plan for an exit strategy, is that they never planned on exiting at all. Permanent occupation. End of story. Am I the only one who sees this? Thanks BuzzFlash, you are a beacon in the dark. Kristin Subj: Kathleen Parker To the editor: So Kathleen Parker (or at least one of her friends) advocates the assassination of Presidential candidates? How cute. In my opinion, the only people who have betrayed our soldiers are already in the White House -- they and their boot-licking pundit pals, like that great spy revealer, Robert Novak. But Ms. Parker did pass along one true statement, from the New York Times' Tom Friedman, in that otherwise ludicrous column -- "98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen". That would explain why the Bush Administration is stonewalling the 9/11 investigation. Gregg Gordon Re: That Reagan movie One might truly feel sorry for the Reaganites, and their concern for their dying hero's legacy, if part of that legacy did not include the attempt to destroy the fairness doctrine in the late 1980's. After all, it was the Reagan White House in the late 1980's that wiped out the Fairness Doctrine, which guaranteed that both sides of an issue be aired on television and radio. As an interesting side note, as a young actor, Reagan played a heroic Custer in 1940's "Santa Fe Trail," a film which goes out of its way to portray John Brown as an evil madman/murderer and abolitionists in general as criminals. Jim M. Re: CBS kowtowing to the GOP soviet style Dear BuzzFlash.com, If the republicans feel that they can bully CBS, and it appears that they have, we have the opening gambit to Soviet style political censorship. It's time that the left-leaning, liberal, progressive movement, or whatever you want to call those of us left holding the bag by our Democratic Lap Dogs, get organized and stand up to these Orwellian tactics. I propose that we organize a nationwide boycott of CBS and its chief advertising sponsors. I think that we need to show them that we are willing to sacrifice our hard earned entertainment hours and not reward them for their cowardice. I think that we can crush CBS in a fashion that will speak loudly to the Neocons and their sham foundations to make sure that they will tread lightly when it comes to censorship in the future. I for one will not watch the Cowardly Broadcast Service again until they apologize to the American Public for this travesty. Bill Short Subj: CBS .... Reagan series ... Was that a whimper? So ... After 75 years of impartial and proud broadcasting, CBS threw in the towel because some right wing loud mouths are howling that the truth is finally coming out about former president Reagan. I suppose CBS will go back to creating another looser series for the Survivors! Yea, now there's something we can look back on with pride in another 75 years. What a sad day for a great network .... Three cheers for the wimps at CBS!!!! Ron Young Subj: Bush nominates new Defense CIO
Chewgababy Subj: Columnists aren't the only ones who Change Quotations The White House does it too, to make the president look better. [LINK] Thought there might be an item in that, --- Ben Varkentine Subj: Let CBS know how big a mistake they made with the Reagans decision. Here's the text of the message I just posted at the CBS.COM site:
Roger Subj: Did not plan a withdrawal? Hi, Why would anyone plan an early withdrawal if he was after two things: Iraqi oil and to plunder the US Treasury for so-called "re-construction" money? Why would Bush and his gang worry about security, he and his close friends are not getting killed, are they? And if history is any guide, at most he will get un-elected (he wasn't elected the first time around, anyhow). He certainly will not be tried for crimes against peace, humanity, war crimes, much less for theft and robbery. He'll stay the course he set and become so much richer, at Iraqi and American expense. Frank A. Lojewski
Whoa....let's not run away with this notion regarding No Exit. There's no exit because none was ever intended from the outset. The scam collapses and clears when you realize this. The mission of the PNAC neo-cons was, and remains, to control the Middle East for its resources and its "strategic" interests. End of story. We'll hear a lot of wailing about the exit strategies, etc, poor planning, but the truth is obvious and simple. We, or rather our homegrown, are there to stay. And to be picked off. Michael Arvey Subj: New Bush Banner
By my friend Karen C., Irvine, CA. Feel free to use. -Joe Weber Subj: Mainstream press is ignoring deaths of the wounded Your site does an excellent job in covering the Iraq war. The mainstream press has completely ignored what could turn out to be an enormous scandal: Out of over 1700 wounded in action so far the US Dept. of Defense says than only 7 have died. This is nonsense. According to an article in the Boston Globe, Aug. 31, by Robert Schlessinger, this compares to the deaths from wounds rate in WWII of 40%, Viet Nam 25%, and Gulf War I of 24%. I called Landstruhl Medical Center in Germany and they told me only 2 soldiers had died from combat wounds out of the >6000 who had been treated there, including those with mental problems. At Walter Reed they told me only 1 had died. At the Faces of Valor website, a semi-official military site, each incident involving an American soldier's death is logged, including the circumstances that caused the death. I went thru all 300+ incidents and counted only 17 where a combat-related injury resulted in a subsequent death. All others were reported to have died immediately at the scene of combat. Central Command in DC was hostile when I asked, and would not give me a number. I talked with Robert Schlesinger at the Boston Globe who wrote in an Aug 31 article that the deaths from wounds rate in Iraq was 13.8%. He told me that, odd as it may seem, DOD counts those killed in action as wounded, as well as those those who were actually just wounded. So to get the rate of 13.8% he added the 178 killed in action to the number of those who were just wounded, 1012, and divided by 178. For this to be valid, all those who died of their wounds must have died at the instant they were hit by enemy fire. This is nonsense. If the actual death rate of the wounded is 20%, that would mean that 0.2 X 1700 = 340 additional deaths have occurred, a total that exceeds the number killed directly in combat. Without journalistic training or contacts I can go no further to investigate this extremely important matter. Thank you in advance for any help. I would very much appreciate a response to this message. Regards, Dean DeHarpporte Subj: Corruption in Florida Voting Check into a news report that aired today on the channel 9 Local news. It seems the township decided to pave the street in front of the voting district used by the vast majority of black voters in Daytona Beach Florida. The people were unable to vote. Voting in Florida remains corrupt, the entire political machine is no better than the immediate post civil war. Thomas Subj: Bush's Fundraising BuzzFlash: As reported today --
Tony Subj: News Anchors and Democrat-Trashing Dear Buzz, I agree with the BuzzFlash reader who described CNN's Carol Costello's banal comments. I find most news anchors have a kind of "seventh-grade" mentality (although this may be unfair to seventh graders). They divide the world into who's in and who's out, they gang up on those on those who are 'out'; they don't engage in one iota of independent thinking; and they are boringly, conventionally moralistic. Gloria Borger and Alan Murray on CNBC's "Capital Report" come to mind, but there are SO MANY others. It is kind of discouraging to think that this rather low level of development is representative of gainfully employed adults who are supposed to be our role models on some level. But enough of being catty. It seems to me that there is a continuously and consciously deprecating attitude toward the Democratic candidates. I can find no evidence that Bush has done anything particularly well during his presidency, in fact he has done an immense amount of harm, but still the anchors and the pundits and the press deride and insult Democrats while letting Bush off pretty easily. I even hear this attitude on Public Radio. Every week Cokie Roberts repeats why the Democrats don't have a chance against Bush and how they are weak on defence. Does it occur to her that Bush isn't exactly doing all that well on defence? Does she really think that we could continue this way ad infinitum and it would all work out just fine? Does she really think it's acceptable that we were lied into an unnecessary war? This is being 'good on defence'?! I think it has just become a kind of knee-jerk reaction at this point for most people to automatically diss liberals and liberal ideas. I don't even think most of them know what they are dissing. And I think many people who would be inclined to be liberal are scared away from it -- it takes a certain amount of courage to throw yourself out there all the time just waiting for them to start throwing the eggs, attacking your character, and sometimes threatening violence against you. Last night I watched Dick Gephardt on Chris Matthews' program. He was very good. Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards -- I think any of them would be fine. Chris Matthews -- the same Chris Matthews who recently dissed Bush and Cheney at Brown University -- kept interrupting Gephardt to ask him if he would revoke the 'right to work' laws in the South and 'force' people to join unions. Now, that was a trick question! Matthews tried to portray 'right to work' laws as some kind of lovely freedom. Right, the freedom to be exploited. Unfortunately Gephardt did not defend his views as strongly as he should have and Matthews kept interrupting him. A lot of ordinary people who are not in unions don't understand that the reason they even have decent working conditions (which are being eroded as I write this letter) is because of unions. It is really important to make sure that people understand that corporations are not going to give us good working conditions out of the goodness of their hearts. I have read/heard in a couple of places that college students are more conservative than liberal. As a person who lived through the sixties and the Vietnam War, I must say I don't understand this. These young people don't seem to understand that if we keep pursuing the same policies, there will be no jobs and no upward mobility for them. There will be dirty air and dirty water, and we will all be a lot poorer. Bush and his friends will have moved on, though, and their children will be fine. I have no idea if a Democrat can win next year. If people really understood what is going on in this country, the Republicans would be out of office for a good long time; in fact, many of them would be thrown in jail. If a Democrat does win the election, you can be sure that the Republican attack machine and the media will start undermining the new administration immediately. I think we may have to go through a lot of deterioration before people really start to understand that they have been tricked bigtime. A Devoted BuzzFlash Reader Subj: FIVE Senators--by voice vote--approve Bush's $87.5 billion. Byrd votes no. BuzzFlash, I'm sending this 11/4 NYTimes story about the SIX Senators who met yesterday's to vote Bush's request for $87.5 billion in the hopes you will post it. By a VOICE vote, five said Aye, only Sen. Byrd yelled Nay. This pathetic display demands the attention of all Americans. According to this story, the Republicans stayed away because they did not want to justify this huge expense. Democrats stayed away because they were afraid their patriotism would be challenged if they voted no. In a proceeding similar to a poorly attended PTA meeting, the Senate passed Bush's enormous & controversial appropriation of $87.5 billion for Iraq. Another indignity for the American people. We need to see the list of the 94 members who did not show up and hid under their desks while this vote was taken. I don't see the URL here, but it is surely on the NYTimes website. Best wishes. Judy Munro-Leighton [BuzzFlash Note: You can find the article, and all the despicable details, at this link.] Subj: "Re-Defeat Bush" Hi to BuzzFlash, 11/4 In Kentucky, we are disheartened to learn that we have a Republican governor, a lapdog of Senator Mitch McConnell and a man who ran one of the nastiest, lowdown campaigns ever. Our state will face many new challenges in the months ahead. As we look ahead to the 2004 Presidential election, we should all challenge any reference in the media to the "reelection of Bush." We all know that Bush was not elected, so how can he be reelected? Please help keep this clear in the minds of Americans with short memories. Please do no run stories or headlines that refer to Bush's "reelection." Please refer instead to his race for a second term, his election campaign etc. We are making signs and banners that say, RE-DEFEAT BUSH Thanks for your hard work. Judy Munro-Leighton Subj: Why the WH is SOOO concerned about Russian oil tycoon? Friends in v. high places Friends like the Carlyle Group and Papa Bush.... "Allegations of business improprieties" did not keep big whigs in the government nor in US business, including our ex president George H. Bush, from visiting this man in Russia and befriending him... now the WH is into Russian internal affairs and wants him released. This is without a doubt the most blatantly corrupt administration in US history. Did this man contribute to George W. Bush election or re-election campaign??? [LINK] A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Right-Wing demagoguery: When In Doubt... Support our troops - Question their killing! American! Liberal! Proud of both! Roger Sent to: Rockefeller, Senator (Rockefeller) <Senator@rockefeller.senate.gov>; bob graham <bob_graham@graham.senate.gov>; tom daschle <tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov>: Subj: You need to find the mole who leaked to Hannity You are under attack. You either have a mole working on the Democrat Intelligence staff or you have some one, as you stated, using unauthorized access. Why not just say "spying on the Democrat staff"? These people are waging all out war on the Democrats and there is very little fighting back. Unless you and others in the party start speaking in plain terms that catch the attention of the public you are not going to make your case. Sean Hannity and the other ideologues will do it for you and paint you as traitors and political connivers. Defend the memo. State the problem. Demand an investigation as to how Hannity got the memo. Aren't the Intelligence Committee documents classified? Is there a mole in the staff? Is that a danger to the country? What other documents are being intercepted? What else is being passed along? Hell, accuse whoever did this of treason, that's what any "decent" right wing Bushite would do. But please, no more "unauthorized access" and other wishy-washy, nice-nice phrases. Sen. Roberts set you up Sunday on national TV by claiming the White House had agreed to release the papers, undermining your comments. He didn't have time to let you know. By Tuesday, not on national TV, he admits to a misunderstanding, the White House hadn't agreed to anything. Wake up! These guys have something to hide and will do whatever is necessary to keep it hidden. The memo as given in the WND is a statement of the problem. True it can be construed by Hannity and Roberts as a political attack proposal rather than as an analysis of what is necessary to get the facts and the true story out. Letting them get away with doing so is the fault of the Democrats. They have managed to undermine every investigation into 9-11 and into intelligence matters. The 9-11 Committee will die in May without ever being able to produce a full report. The first intelligence investigation was restricted in scope to avoid any investigation of 9-11 and at least 28 pages are still being withheld. Pages that Sens. Graham and Shelby agree should not be censored by the White House. Why not have someone leak them? Most of the time I feel like screaming in frustration! What's wrong with these guys? Why don't they fight back? Why do they think I'll vote for them? Capons don't rule the roost. Robert E. Reynolds, Orange Park fl
|
|||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
