 |
|||||
|
December 15, 2003 |
|||||
The Special Saddam Hussein BuzzFlash Mailbag 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.
BuzzFlash Note: Don't forget to also read today's regular BuzzFlash Mailbag. Subj: Bush-Hussein Headline Dear Buzz, I'm a fan of your website. I appreciate your headline today about Hussein's capture not absolving GWB for his lies. I feel like saying "how about getting Bin Laden and the people who actually have attacked the US." (unlike Hussein and Iraq). Capturing the tin horn dictator Hussein is no great achievement. But our Fuehrer Bushleague will try to blow it up into a wonderful triumph, and the broadcast media as well no doubt. Thanks Buzz. M. Schmitt so we should be able to get out of iraq now right? oops, no we can't, we would not want to stop that flow of money and oil! :):):) ps, did saddam have the weapons of mass destruction in his pocket? :):):):) a BuzzFlash reader Saddam being a bad man is not the reason we were told we had to go to war. We were told he had wmd and wanted to use them on us and could do so inside of 45 min. We were told we could not find them because people were scared to talk not knowing if saddam would come back or not. The wmd did not hide themselves.....where are they? Bush lied and our people have died! His donors are making millions! Diane Anderson Subj: Can't bare to watch the con artist at 1600 Penn. Ave. Buzz, I watched a repeat on C-Span of Bush's "news-conference". When I realized that I was close to tears just watching this little sad excuse for a man masquerading as president, I cut the TV off. According to most pundits he will be (re?)elected in 2004. This isn't surprising because if Bush doesn't actually get the votes, somehow he will again be awarded the presidency. And this country will continue on its downward slide. We are hated by our friends as well as our enemies. What is wrong with the citizens of this country? What happened to true/fearless investigative journalism? How far will these neo-cons go before the citizenry realizes that we are screwed? While the Democrats and Greens fight among themselves and with each other, the neo-conservatives are marching lockstep towards dismantling the America that we know. I weep for us. Dee Turner Subj: Saddam Saddam's caught, so what, send the troops home, NOW. Richard
L. Fricker Subj: "Saddam Show" in Iraq! Why Did They Capture Him Alive? The Bush Cartel Needs to Make the Show Into a Weekly (Daily) As always, with any stunt pulled by this residency, we'll have to wait a week or so to get, "The rest of the story." In any case, Karl and crew are taking the biggest risk yet with this diversion. Saddam can tell too many tales out of school. Maybe things are even worse than we suspected: Iraq, Afghanistan, the dubiously recovering economy.... A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: SADDAM CAPTURED!!!!! WOW!!! Now, poor Saddam was captured without even 1 shot being fired. Isn't that just wonderful??? What a bunch of "BULL". How convenient that just as Bush's buddy Cheney is getting rapped because of his Halliburton company cheating we, the taxpaying suckers, Bush's rating dropping, everyday one of our soldiers are killed and many of them wounded, Bush is losing the war, AND, Bush knows his ratings will zoom through the roof that poor Saddam is captured without 1 shot. Also, they picked a great day to "capture" him because it is Sunday and a lot of people are snowbound!!!!! I continue telling people that all local, state, and our federal idiots must be watched carefully because they are all a bunch of magicians---they show you one hand while the other is "doing the dirty deed." Please investigate this further because NO ONE will ever tell me that they captured him. BETTY DEHART, CHAMBERSBURG, PA Subj: Whose Hole? Dear Buzz, So, Saddam is captured on December 14, exactly 11 days before Christmas. What a piece of luck for the Bushites that timing is! How amazing! Anyone placing bets on how many days before the election we capture bin-Laden? Linda Subj: Timing is Everything Does anybody else find it odd that the U.S. capture of Saddam Hussein just happens to coincide with: * Bush's poll numbers' remaining in the gutter despite his fake turkey photo-op. * The revelation that no-bid Halliburton has been price-gouging in Iraq. * Our traditional allies' outrage at being denied access to Iraq-rebuilding contracts because they didn't jump on the war wagon. * James Baker's hitting the road to try to persuade these same countries that they should pony up money and troops. * Gore's endorsement of Dean, citing his consistent opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And, suddenly, Saddam turns up. Hmmm. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Bogwash! Dear Buzz- This whole thing, relating to Hussein's capture, is nauseating. A) If we had behaved reasonably from the beginning, we would have "learned" about Hussein's whereabouts long ago. (Of course, this assumes that it was reasonable to invade a sovereign country to take their oil, and to provide a reason to shift massive quantities of low and middle class US citizens' tax dollars to campaign contributors, in the first place...which of course, neither was.) B) Assuming the same "logic", why did it take the most technologically advanced army the world has ever seen 9 months to capture this man in his own home town? Keep up the great work!! Barbara
Kamholz Subj: Saddam's Capture: So What? Open letter to high-fiving Bush supporters: What, if anything, was actually accomplished now that we've captured Saddam Hussein? We invaded a nation that was no threat to us and deposed its leader, a bad guy we originally helped put into power years ago. Since then we've been stuck in Iraq being ground down by an increasingly effective resistance whose leadership is unknown. At the same time, our own real national security needs have been pretty much ignored. Now we've captured the paper tiger we deposed. Whoop-dee-doo. You say the Iraqis are happy, and I do not doubt most of them are. That's what America lives for, you know; making Iraqis happy. Never mind our own needs or national security or anything. It must be in the Constitution somewhere that America stands for the happiness of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. (Anyway, we've seen images of happy, dancing Iraqis before. Then a few days later we learn their demonstrations were staged.) Saddam's capture may or may not have an impact on the Iraqi resistance. If the resistance continues, how will Bush rationalize it? Next question, what will we do with Saddam? You know the Bushies won't turn him in to an international tribunal, because that would mean giving up control. The Iraq governing council is calling for an open trial. I'm not holding my breath; surely the Bushies will want to keep a tight lid on whatever information may come out of the trial, in case it makes them look stupid. And how will a secret trial make them (and America) look? Bottom line, it will be several weeks, maybe months, before we see how this plays out politically. It may work out for Bush, or it may come back to bite him. We'll see. Barbara
O'Brien Subj: Saddam reunited! Is Saddam going to be reunited with his old buddies Rumsfeld and Cheney? A BuzzFlash Reader Dear BuzzFlash, Just a few observations from a citizen (subject!) of the United Kingdom. First of all thank God that there are still some sane and rational (and compassionate!) people out there in the world. I found your site via a link the other week and have studiously been reading it every day. Although your site is primarily concerned with the American Administration, I feel there are a lot of parallels to the political scene here in the UK. It is probably worth noting the contradictions that Blair and his apologists have that are not necessarily present in the Bush Presidency. Firstly Bush and the Republicans are right-wing ideologues with the same (or similar) objectives in mind. Blair's political party is not. He is the leader of a Left-wing political Party, the Labour Party. His fawning over Bush is difficult to understand. Blair is no left-winger, but he is also no Neo-Con. What is frustrating to people like me and other former supporters of their Labour Party is that his position is untenable. Why is Blair so in thrall to a right-wing administration with whom he has few political similarities? Although our media is perceived as more challenging and presenting a truer picture of the war in Iraq, this is not necessarily the case. Many in the media are associates or supporters of Blair - some have been donors to his party and "New Labour project". Blair used exactly the same excuses and lies that Bush and co did to justify pre-emptive invasion but there appears to be no genuine or concerted effort to bring him to account. Even prior to the invasion when our version of the hawks were challenged they shifted the goalposts of the arguments - first it was WMDs, then toppling Saddam Hussein (whom we had supplied armaments to up to 1988) then "liberation" and democracy. The real irony is that Blair had to rely on the votes of our right-wing Conservative Party opposition to secure a parliamentary victory over war against Iraq. And once again it was based on old documents and suspect "evidence". This evidence has been discredited in the UK, much as it has in the US. The media were presented with documents which were quoted out of context, such as that by the former (now deceased) Iraqi defector. All presented in "soundbite" form. It is worth bearing in mind that there are two main culprits behind the this invasion and they should both be held accountable. yours sincerely, A BuzzFlash Reader Dear BuzzFlash, About an hour ago, Fox News was showing a celebration rally of people with red flags, including one with the hammer and sickle, with the comment that the Iraqi people were demonstrating their joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein; or were they celebrating that now that the socialists are out, the communists can take over? Does anybody else have a take on this? Melvin La Follette Subj: Saddam Capture And Aftermath Analysis With the apparent capture of Saddam, the political realities of Iraq and the middle east have radically changed. While Bush and his neo-facist buddies celebrate their victory and Iraqi civilians celebrate in the streets, other elements in the Iraqi society celebrate for much different reasons. For Bush, it will make his poll numbers go up. The neocons will gloat. They will be bold and declare how their policies brought this about. They will point to the celebration in the streets as justification for their gloating. But the situation in Iraq goes far deeper than this current neo-con fascist administration will let on. Just as the common Iraqis celebrated in the streets when Saddam was originally toppled and guerrilla war followed, the Iraqis will return to their guerrilla war ways now more than ever because the US has done a huge favor for the radical clerics and taken away the boogeyman. No longer do the clerics and other radicals have to figure Saddam perhaps returning to power in their equations. The cat has taken out the big rat. Now all there is to deal with is the cat. Make the cat go away and its a two-for-one deal. There will be a "honey-moon period" of relative quiet for several days on the streets of Iraq. Then the lid will be blown off. The battle to win Iraq by the radical shiites will have begun. There very well could be a radical shiite government in power in Iraq in a year or two - one much like the current one in Iran. Will this be the real Bush / neocon legacy? Is this why our troops really died? To ultimately set up a type of government which the neo-cons are claiming to keep out? This now more than ever looms as a very real possibility now that Saddam cannot regain power. The reasons for starting this ill-advised, pre-emptive war have still not been justified by the neo-cons, though undoubtedly they will try to do so. Where are the WMD's? No where. Where was the real threat to the US security? No where. The world's second largest oil fields lay before the feet of the neo-cons. One of the two real reasons why this "war" was initiated in the first place. What was the other reason? World domination. The lies will continue as the cover up continues. --- Kevin Subj: Great News! I just heard the great news that Saddam Hussein was captured. And best of all for the Bush administration, they located those pesky weapons of mass destruction in his wallet. In the true spirit of the season, please remember that everyone profits from Peace on Earth!! Best Regards, Kurt Polakoff Subj: Bush's Speech about Saddam ROFL ROFL! Did you watch the Prez's speech on CNN? At the bottom of the screen was a banner reading "Presidential Address" and beneath that were the sound bites from the speech flashing. The last sound bite said something like: "An historical day has arrived" but it suddenly flashed off and was replaced with: "Does this work? Didn't think so" then it flashed back to the previous sound bite. LOLOL! SOMEONE'S head is gonna roll, but WHAT GUTS!!! Didja see it? Deb Frueh SADDAM CAPTURED This is wonderful, great news. Now with no sign of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam captured, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in Iraq. Is there? I trust there will be an open trial in keeping with our democratic principles. Since Saddam is billed as the most dangerous criminal alive (just as Oswald was in 1963) I am sure they will have protection around Saddam, just to make sure that his story is his and not someone else's story. Yes, yes now our troops can come home, and Iraq can be turned back over to the Iraqi's (it's their country after all). Sally A. McDonald Subj: Capture of Saddam It seems to me that Bush (Sr. & Jr.) should reach into their personal coffers to pay for the war and the trial. After all, that's what this is all about...their revenge. We put 600 troops at risk to capture this guy for them?!! Susan Subj: hocus pocus...again Halliburton et al caught with hand in cookie jar...presto! up pops saddam Paul Now is the time to make sure people understand that it was OSAMA and not SADDAM who was responsible for 9.11 - the Bushies will now try to confuse the issue again; that'll make him a here... A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: PNAC The capture of SH is certainly a feather in the Bush admin's cap. Unfortunately, it serves only to deflect attention from the larger problem looming ominously on the horizon for people everywhere--namely The Project for a New American Century. Would greatly appreciate your site drawing attention to the PNAC in every way possible. To aid, I'm enclosing several links. The first, to the PNAC site itself and the second, to Crisis Papers Org. and a level-headed editorial-primer about PNAC written by Bernard Weiner. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm respectfully, Samantha Colt Miller Subj: Saddam's Capture Capturing Saddam Hussein is certainly a good thing, but the idea that he was this sequestered impresario, hidden away and directing his loyal followers is simply ludicrous. Moreover, it is belied by the circumstances of his capture. For pete's sake, the guy was living in a hole in the ground, even the U.S. military noted that there were no electronic devices or other visible forms of communication found in his " cave". In fact, my fear is that the next rallying cry for the opponents of the U.S. will be to "free Saddam". By making him such an important issue, we are doing ourselves a disservice. For example, even if Saddam were to be summarily shot by the U.S. troops today -- would that end the problem? Of course it wouldn't!! The problem is endemic to the region. There are a lot of people there who hate us. Sure, they hate Saddam as well, but this doesn't make them hate us any less. Nevertheless, in its inimitable fashion, the Bush administration will blow this up into a huge propaganda offensive --- just as it did on May 1st of this year in the now infamous aircraft carrier landing. Perhaps Karl Rove is already gussying up the President's old flight suit and getting it ready for the next photo op. I can see the banner now: "Mission Accomplished [again] -- Saddam captured". Will this capture bring our troops home even one day sooner? I fear not. Donald P. Russo Subject: Another Amazing Coincidence? Why is it that every time a scandal surfaces within the Bush administration another big story suddenly develops to move the scandal off of the front page? It was reported late last week that Halliburton, major defense contractor and still benefactor to Dick Cheney, got caught red-handed siphoning off $61 million in excess profits from the US taxpayers to buy gas for Iraq. In laymen's terms, they were stealing on top of their no bid war profiteering, which happens to be another scandal in itself. George Bush's response? The Enabler in Chief took his usual bold response by suggesting that if an overcharge was made, then well, maybe they just oughta pay it back. Say what??? Halliburton, who has a long history of fleecing our treasury, should have been summarily fired for a clear pattern of crookedness and deception. But not in George Bush's America. You know the place where patriotism trumps all else, where candidate Bush vowed to ferret out waste in government spending, where openness and transparency were going to be the new Washington model. After all, it is now patriotic to put profit before all else, to run up record deficits and spend money like it's water, and do it all behind closed doors and underneath the radar of buried stories. Yup, it was a very good time to not have the Sunday talk shows dwell on thievery, and instead make everything all right by conveniently hauling out Saddam Hussein who likely was at a known location for some time. YT Cai Subj: Bush and his Rovian propaganda machine BuzzFlash: If you're a Bush Republican or a misguided Democrat all it takes to legitimize 500 American deaths and 10,000 Iraqi deaths is to capture Saddam Hussein alive. Most reports say that Saddam was captured through the work of covert forces and I wonder, Couldn't we have used those same agents to track down Saddam and assassinate him without having to bomb Baghdad into oblivion, without losing 500 American soldiers, without wounding and maiming several thousand of America's best and without spending $150 billion dollars of American taxpayers money? Oh, I forget, it's not the policy of our government to assassinate world leaders, it's the policy of our government to abandon the search for the mastermind of 9-11, to start preemptive war in Iraq, to kill thousands of innocent people, and to fail to find WMD's or any evidence of Iraq's complicity in 9-11. So what if it only took the most powerful Army the world has ever known 9 months to capture Saddam we've got him and now we'll execute him which is much better than assassination, isn't it? And never mind that It probably won't stop the violence in Iraq or the civil war that most observers believe is inevitable because our fearless leader, George W. Bush has what he went for, Oil and a hell of a PR stunt. God Bless America! Carolyn Subj: Saddam Capture Shows We Can Catch "Bad Guys" - When We Try So, we caught Hussein - We found a powerless ex-dictator who was never a significant threat to us, after killing Iraqi civilians at a greater rate than Hussein ever did. After months of astronomical expense, hundreds of soldiers killed, thousands wounded, and even more thousands of innocent civilians killed, we caught a guy in a little hole who could no longer harm us. That's good, because he had been a bad guy, although not the worst dictator in the world. This proves that when the Bush administration cares to try, even they can catch the guy they're after, or rather, our military can do it. The problem is that they only seem to be able to catch bad guys who were never a threat to us, were not involved in 9/11, and are in no position to be a future threat. The capture of Hussein only underscores the massive failures of the "war on terrorism" by comparison. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration simply doesn't give a rat's ass about protecting us from terrorism. They quickly lost interest in rebuilding Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban or catching bin Laden, as soon as they had taken control of the oil pipeline in Afghanistan, giving access to Caspian sea oil. As Bush put it, capturing bin Laden was "no longer a priority." But I think this nation still considers getting justice for 9/11 a pretty important "priority." I guess they are interested in protecting America as long as they can profit from oil as a result, but other than that, it seems we're screwed. Scott McGlasson Subj: general reflections on Sunday's events BuzzFlash’s recent blurb about the offhand remarks made by Illinois Republican Congressman Ray LaHood’s remarks a couple of weeks ago, regarding the imminent capture of Saddam Hussein, are now looking more salient than we ever could have imagined. Mr. Lahood’s remarks might even lead one to wonder just how long the U.S. military actually knew exactly where Saddam was located, prior to the “tip”that it received on Sunday. Recent reports about Karl Rove starting to gear up to oppose Howard Dean in the general election also make one wonder about whether or not Herr Rove felt that he needed to spike Dean’s candidacy right now, before Christmas, and before things really got too out of hand. And of course, willing lapdogs like John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, as we easily could have predicted, were out there on Sunday afternoon, doing Mr. Bush’s bidding, talking about how the capture of Saddam Hussein makes Dean look so foolish, unschooled in foreign affairs, etc., etc. Why did it take second tier candidates like Carol Mosley Braun and Dennis Kucinich to point out the obvious, that is, that not one single soldier will be coming home in the near future, and that we are still tied down in a deadly war that has gone on for more than seven months since the day that Bush declared an end to major hostilities? And of course, no one even bothers any more to think about making an issue of the WMD matter. After all, wasn’t this the sine qua non for going to war in the first place? I take it that going to war under false pretenses is no longer a matter to quibble about in this country. On the cable news networks on Sunday afternoon, all of the commentary was falling into place, exactly along the lines that the Bush propaganda machine would have wanted it to. There are simply no contrary voices to be heard over these airways. For example, will Saddam’s capture now embolden the Shiite forces, who have been intimidated thus far by the fear of Saddam’s return? Something tells me that some of the radical elements of the Shiite clergy have been more than happy to sit back and let the U.S. military take out Saddam. Now that that has been accomplished, we have to watch carefully what the Shiite clergy’s next move is going to be. I cannot say that up to this point I have been a stalwart Howard Dean supporter, but now, given the craven groveling of the other candidates, I believe Al Gore’s endorsement is starting to look prescient. Other than Dean, the other mainstream candidates have been, and continue to be, scared to death to act as a counterbalancing force against the Republican war juggernaut. Yet, respected voices like Jimmy Carter are still out there pointing out that there is absolutely no historical precedent for a preemptive war in our nation’s history. And, of course, President Carter also notes that all of the original precepts and premises for the war have been proven to be non-existent. Assuming for argument’s sake that Governor Dean does in fact get the nomination, how do Lieberman and Kerry expect that Dean will be able to overcome the nasty attacks that they have been leveling against him to date? Surely they cannot expect that the Republicans just would have forgotten about all of their diatribes against Dean? Obviously, those accusations against Dean by his fellow Democrats will be fodder for Republican TV attack ads for months to come. Ed Gillespie didn’t get to be the chief lobbyist for Enron, and then RNC Chairman, without having more than a few dirty tricks up his sleeve. Back in the 1960’s, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were critical of the liberal congressional Republicans, saying that they appeared to truly enjoy their permanent minority status. Clearly today, people like Kerry, Lieberman, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt are also enjoying their minority status, and are more than happy to play second fiddle to Karl Rove, thereby letting the Republicans define all of the issues, set the rules, and circumscribe the terms of the debate. Compare them to Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Robert Byrd and even Ted Kennedy, and these quisling Presidential candidates look pathetic indeed. No wonder progressives were flocking to Dean months ago; I just didn’t understand their rationale at the time. Donald Russo Subj: Saddam Capture, So what? We created him in the first place. I really don't get all the hoopla over the Saddam capture. REAGAN/BUSH created Frankenstein then BUSH2 kills Frankenstein. I mean we allowed this monster to create this havoc on the Kurds, Iranians, Shiites and others. But when it affects the oil of Kuwait, BUSH1 go in to play superman. BUSH2 goes into Iraq to seal the deal. There is no honor in his capture after we created this Frankenstein to kill thousands and pluck him after lying about WMDs. Oh well the Simple Minds will rally around the MISLEADER while he wields his power to ship more manufacturing jobs out of the country and health care benefits are being tossed out the window by GLOBAL CORPORATE GREED. Tom I got up late today...almost just in time to watch the Rams game...and my husband said to me..."guess who they caught." And I couldn't guess at that hour of the morning...he grinned and said "Saddam"! So I replied, But where is Bin ladin?" He said that they didn't say, "They were not together, I don't think." It was almost funny...but strangely sad....Bin ladin was the one who was supposedly responsible for 3000 american lives on 9/11, 2001! Shirley.............St.Louis Re: BuzzFlash Interviews Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Dear Buzz, I am glad that you will continue to report as usual and will not change your tune, even with the capture of Saddam. People need a wake up call that it was us who put him in power in the first place. Bush's father helped, yet no one either remembers that or no one really gives a damn. I will now go and ready this interview. Thanks for being there for all of us, Buzz. Hugs, Mary! Subj: Capture of Saddam As Dubya so ineloquently tried to say a while back, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." So, I ask, is this really Saddam Hussein or just another plastic turkey? A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: A Little Too Convenient Well, Isn’t that Special? Does anyone else think that the timing of the media bonanza surrounding the capture of Saddam Hussein is a little too convenient? Coverage of democratic candidates on cable and network news –particularly Howard Dean –was at an all-time high and endorsements were coming fast and furious. On December 2 an article on Pentagraph.com, a central Illinois news site, reported that Representative Ray LaHood knew something the rest of us didn’t know: “We’re this close [to catching Saddam Hussein].”The focus of the article was on the strength of support for the President in this country and the likelihood of his successful reelection, and Rep. LaHood commented “Once we get Saddam…and we’re this close.”11 days later, he is in custody. Exactly how long has the administration been “this close”? What have they been waiting for? That perfect, Karl Rove moment when it will have the greatest political impact and turn focus away from the administration’s critics? According to Time magazine, Hussein surrendered peacefully by saying ‘I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq.’CNN reports that he was armed with a sidearm, but not a single shot was fired. This man, who has released tapes urging Iraqis to rise up against the coalition occupation, just holds up his hands to the armed soldiers hunting him down and says ‘Hello, I’m the one you’ve been looking for?’ Not to mention the speed with which his identity was confirmed. No heavy foot of bureaucracy here…DNA samples and other data required to identify the deposed dictator were apparently right there and ready to go in the middle of a war zone, Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was ready and able to confirm the captive’s identity within hours, and tests were able to be concluded and confirmed with remarkable speed…all in time for the morning press the next day. Meanwhile, in civilization, express service for DNA testing –even for something like a paternity test –takes 3 to 5 days according to many Internet sites. Amazing how everything was able to come together and get resolved so quickly. And instantaneous transportation for former Deputy Prime Ministers is only seen on Star Trek. How long have they really had him, or at least known that they could get to him fairly easy? This is more than a little too convenient. Although the peace has not yet been won, pundits and pols are out in force with the verbal equivalent of the infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’banner. It remains to be seen if we have truly been successful in Iraq, and even if we were close to success it would not change the circumstances that lead to the war –the lies and the poor foreign policy, specifically. Absolutely nothing has changed, except for the depths of sleaze Rove and Co. are willing to sink to in order to win. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: AP: "Captured Saddam Faces Tough Interrogation" Saddam is said to be "uncooperative" so far. Define uncooperative? Well, he refuses to admit he has WMD and tell us where they are. That's uncooperative and unhelpful. Of course we know he is lying, so we're going to have to be tough until he becomes cooperative and helpful. But he is in Iraq. Thank goodness we live in the US where there is a Constitution and civil rights, and due process, and fair and speedy trial, and innocent until proven guilty and all that. Thank goodness for George Bush and John Ashcroft, who respect our rights and liberties and would never do to us what they did to Iraq. They would never invade our homes without probable cause, or lock us up indefinitely. If they did, rest assured it would be based on good intelligence. (Unless we are unpatriotic and criticise them.) Michael Subj: The Day After
Ray Subj: All News, All Saddam A quick search through today's articles for Saddam on the NY Time's website revealed 174 pieces. The search for "Halliburton" garnered only 4 which each included only tangential mention of the company which had been the subject of a front-page above-the-fold article just two days earlier (http:// www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12PENT.html). (At this early hour, "today's" news appears to include Sunday, 12/14 and Monday 12/15.) A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Pantagraph.com - News - LaHood: Hussein's capture imminent 12/02/03 Once again showing that Buzz picks the important news stories, BuzzFlash linked to what seemed an an odd story (at: Pantagraph.com) a couple of weeks ago. In it, U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, a Republican on the Intelligence Committee, states that he knew something about the imminent capture of Saddam that the rest of us didn't know. Now, on the weekend in which Meet the Press and the other news shows were scheduled to focus on the Halliburton overcharges, Jeb Bush's new religious prisons and Wes Clark's testimony at the War Crimes Tribunal about Milosovic, Saddam's capture took all that news off the stove. And, if an "administration source" is right, Saddam's trial should take months to begin and should end about 6-8 months from now. That brings the trial right up to the Presidential election. Very convenient timing. Jack Ballinger Subj: Hussein Capture How can we be sure that Saddam was captured yesterday? Why was he disoriented? Why is this another timely news event for the Bush administration? Is it possible that Saddam had been in US custody for a while and Bush decided when to "capture" him? Why was he SO disoriented unless he had been a prisoner and in isolation for longer than was stated? Just some doubts..... Carmen L. Subj: Saddam "Photo Op" Poll Bounce While at first it seems as if the capture of Saddam Hussein spells the end of any significant challenge to Bush's second term plans, remember how each and every "coup" scored by the Bush political handlers has been tarnished by revelations of sleazy manipulation of some sort, and this one will be no different. Think about how quickly the carrier landing spectacle was revealed as a sham, and most recently the fake-turkey and phonier British Airways sighting of Air Force One stories showed once again the shameless politicizing that has become the trademark of the Cheney/Rove administration. Doug Basham said it far better than I could. This changes nothing. Bush and his entire team must go. FC Subj: Bagging Saddam A lot of people seem to want to believe that because Bush bagged Saddam at a cost of 80 billion dollars, all the loss of prestige we had in the world, five hundred American lives and over nine months with more time, money and lives yet to be lost, that he is going to bag the presidency. Nonsense. This is a puff of splendor for Bush. That is all. Linda Deak Subj: IT'S NOT SADDAM !?! How do we know that's really Saddam? The media/administration has lied to us before about captures/arrests/etc. What happened to all those look-alikes that everyone talked about that Saddam had for years. Did they find any/all of those guys? If you lived in Iraq right now and looked just like Saddam Hussein, I'm sure you'd be found living in a hole too. One of Saddam's look-alikes would work just fine for BushCo's ongoing TV drama. Someone who has spent his life scripted to impersonate Saddam. The real Saddam's probably watching all this from a private snow-covered resort in Russia right now. Free your mind. Form you own opinion. Mark D Subj: Saddam to play Santa at White House! Today, after Saddam confessed that he planned 911 with Al Gore - and that he sent Osama to France with all the WMD's before the war, it was announced that Saddam would be invited to play Santa at the White House this year. The White House staff regrets that Saddam's "perfectly good" beard was cut off by someone in a fit of pique, but assures us that he will look good in the fake beard the staff will provide him. Joe Subj: ...and now this fairy tale from our propaganda machine. Hi Buzz, Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist, but by golly, isn't it strange that the most powerful man in Iraq - a man, who has been worshipped and aided by many not only in his country, but throughout the Middle East - was found, seemingly without any trouble and resistance, all alone, somewhere in a ditch? It almost seems that Saddam was waiting right there to be picked up by our troops, conveniently equipped with a suitcase full of sensitive documents. I surely cannot be the only person to whom this scenario does not make sense. A Buzzer. Subj: Dead by February, or Alive to tell the tale I am amazed that the US forces captured Saddam alive. Rather, I am amazed that they let him stay alive after they captured him. Let's look at the upside for Bush: Days of flight-suit style press ops, preening, prideful smirking, stock market upswing, patriotic fervor, job well done, and etc. We got 'em, Tonto, our job in this town is over, let's ride, - Hi Ho Silver, and bye bye. Bumbling stumbling idiocy from Dean and Gephardt and even stupider hogwash from Lieberman. Looks pretty good for George so far. But- like the flight suit debacle, the euphoria will last only until the facts start emerging. And emerge they will, if Saddam lives. Reading the story from Agence Presse below- (via CommonDreams) http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/1214-02.htm We can see the dangers in this for the Busharchy -- both past and present. Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush The Greater were all up to their eyeballs in at LEAST the first three of the probable criminal charges below. Remember when Iraq responded to the UN inquiry and filed their detailed report on the WMD situation? Pages and pages were devoted to outing the US, US Corporations, and the above named co-conspirators, as the actual SOURCES for the WMD. This of course was roundly ignored by the US media. Well, this time, it will be a great deal harder to ignore. The world may be ignoring the Milosevic trials, and certainly ignoring the evidence presented there of atrocities and murder committed by ALL sides- But the Saddam trial will be much much too profitable for CNN and MSNBC and FOX to ignore a single minuscule particle in their desperate hunt for ratings and profits. This will be OJ times 1000. We all know what's coming on your local cable channels: SADDAM ON TRIAL! 24/7 Legal experts, Arabic experts, Iraqi lawyers and ex judges, a one hour bio film showing his rise and fall- (SADDAM: The RISE AND FALL, tonight ONLY on CNN !) There seem to me to be only two possibilities- 1- The trial will go on. As usual, I don't think the Bushies have thought this one through. Like the flight suit shitpile, like the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions, they figured the beginning and some of the middle, and forgot the possible end. Saddam on the witness stand, Saddam with endless media access. Saddam with millions of Muslim and other supporters galvanized behind him, and talking very loudly. This will not be good for the Bushies. Saddam will be able to tell HIS story. UH OH. 2- He will never make it to trial. Some poor Sirhan Sirhan stooge will be found standing over his body with a bloody knife. Me, I betcha two round trip tickets to the 2012 Winter Olympics in Ramallah that he is dead by -- ohhhhhhh- February. A BuzzFlash Reader * * *
Subj: Convenient Bush's ace in the hole capture of Saddam sure took the Halliburton story right out of the headlines didn't it. Maybe the headlines should just read.. $120+ MILLION US TAX DOLLARS disappear down "rat hole." I suppose Bush is saving the capture of Osama to deflect stories of how he once again "stole the election by computer fraud in 04". BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Doubles? Buzz some google search results for Saddam Hussein doubles the question would be "Is there going to be independent verification?" ----------------------------------- The Many
Faces of Saddam Hussein ----------------------------------- "I
uncovered Saddam Hussein's doubles" ----------------------------------- Saddam Hussein
Joke - The Body Doubles Iraqi officials gathered all 8 of Saddam Hussein's doubles into one room at his official palace and announced that they had some good news and some bad news for them. "Firstly", said the official, "Saddam is alive." There was a great cheer from the doubles. "The bad news is that he has lost an arm." ----------------------------------- saddam doubles
look-alikes ----------------------------------- A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Now that we got him, someone remind me again... Why we needed to waste thousands of lives, the integrity of our nation and 200 billion dollars to get him???????? Oh yeah... to relect Bush.... Got it! Roger Subj: I commend you! Dear BuzzFlash; I am so grateful for this forum and your diligence at getting to the truth. We are so lulled into stupor's by TV and ALL other media that some of us seem to be asleep and the lies just blanket us without our knowledge. There are subliminal messages everywhere and I can't believe the right-wing can so easily slide so much rubbish through without notice of half(?) the nation. How is that possible? WHY is that possible? The article I had just read about the bullying by this administration at the end of the 3/17/03 resubmission somewhat answers these questions but there has to be more. Even when presented with proven facts, the right-wingers still are incapable of excepting them and turn it around using the "Clinton Whipping Post" ...He lied and he bombed and he avoided the draft. That doesn't make Bush any less a lying, AWOLer coward. I don't know of any president who has robbed so much from our treasury and harmed our environment and had so little resistance in doing so...Are we under some kind of mind control? Did some of us not get that HAARP'd (google HAARP and wonder) into our heads? Look at physics911.org at the timelines and tell me the truth isn't there. That the plan wasn't in place well before 9/11 and before Bush Sr. I once saw "W" on TV calling himself a loving man and I wish I could remember that date or could get that footage. When you hear him say it, he seems not to believe either. "I'm a loving man" (bombs blowing up Baghdad), "I'm a loving man" (kids disfigured from depleted uranium), "I'm a loving man" (the Iraqi boy who was literally disarmed), and "I'm a loving man" (450 soldiers dead and thousands seriously wounded while their benefits are reduced by the same guy who was AOL for 12-18 months...If these things can't be exposed, if there's that much control of the media and no representation, how can we trust the elections? Frankly, we have reason to believe they'll be as fraudulent as the 2000 election. So, thank you so much for all your efforts and be as diligent and LOUD as possible. More noise and much more exposure. As ever, Kathswaa Subj: Saddam "no longer a concern" Dear BuzzFlash, I seem to recall that back in May or June '03 - when pressed on Saddam's whereabouts - Bush said that Saddam was no longer a concern... Just wondering if you still have the link to the story? D. Hippauf bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans, & SADDAM is our "Frankenstein"? A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: December 13 Hello There, The capture of Saddam Hussein has momentarily obscured the problems of the Bush White House. In their believe that we are all blind and dumb, they now think they have the election already won. What has really happened is this: 1. the excuse that Saddam is behind Iraqi resistance will soon become the wishful thinking for which Karl Rove, Perle and Wolfowitz, are famous. 2. the trial of Saddam will provide the perfect opportunity for Bush et cie to completely piss off the rest of the world by coming up with a Roland Freisler type monkey trial in order to prevent Saddam to tell the whole story about Bush sr., Rumsfelt, the entire gang and its involvement in the gassing of the Kurds. What has happened so far outside of Iraq is ominous for our future. The Texan shruB and his neo-fascist gang have managed to drive China and Russia into each other arms. But more than that. France and Germany are re-aligning with the Russians. In years to come, this will be a diplomatic revolution similar to the one of the late 19th century, but with us this time at the receiving end. Not a WWIII, but its economic equivalent. Yes, shruB has managed to get us allies like Tonga and Uganda, even Poland. Poland has managed to repeat the folly of 1939, only this time with an even less reliable partner. Yes, and even though Schroeder and a few mayors are crawling before the shruB (wish to be) emperor, in Germany the voices of "Amis out of Germany" are getting more intense and louder. In the meantime, at 1 billion dollars a day for the Iraq folly, we are getting poorer, well, except for a handful of shruB cronies and the mad emperor himself, who are pillaging our treasury to their heart's content. All this in the certain knowledge that no US Congress will ever hold them responsible for their crimes. All we can hope is that Dean and Clark will hold this up to the noses of our compatriots. Perhaps even the massive e-voting machine fraud planned in the White House may not manage to win an election for these criminals. Sincerely, Frank A. Lojewski BuzzFlash Note: Don't forget to also read today's regular BuzzFlash Mailbag. |
|||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
