January 22, 2004
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: The Guardian: The $500 billion fire sale
This is important from the U.K. Guardian. It describes a convention of people wanting to get a piece of the action in Iraq. The important part is the description of how even though world wide insurance companies will NOT give coverage to those investing in Iraq, there is a U.S. government agency that has just been given powers to do so. Except that it will ONLY COVER U.S. companies! Other companies are @&#*$* out of luck. Also, it once again means that the U.S. public bears all the risk of doing business in Iraq while all the profits are privatized. This is just grisly. This is what they planned all along. All that talk of Saddam being a danger to the U.S. and going in to liberate the Iraqis was a bunch of bull. What a bleak world.
Why can't we get Carville himself on talk radio? He is such a good talker, every bit as good as Limbaugh. We need someone who can succinctly, and with a clever turn of a phrase, speak for those of us not so facile.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Ted Koppel
Hi there Buzz,
I don't know about you, but I'm still fuming about Koppel's dismissal of the troop deaths in Iraq as being equivalent to "traffic deaths in Chicago" by which he means, I suppose, of no significance.
But think of it this way: what if a foreign terrorist set off a bomb in a subway and killed 500 fine, hardworking Americans? Would Koppel shrug it off then?
I guess we're supposed to just sit back and applaud while our government sends its people to their deaths, and invade other countries when they do it.
It's medieval to think of soldiers' deaths as somehow less important than everyone else's.
--- A Devoted BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Out-of-Control Reactions
After all the slappin'-their-thighs-in-glee repug dissections of Howard Dean's overly exuberant speech to his supporters on the results of the Iowa Caucuses, I can't help but wonder how this rollicking bunch of fun guys reacted to the ten-second or so expression of unmistakable, absolutely murderous rage that crept over the Chief Executive countenance when Georgeboy's announcement during the SOTU speech that parts of the Patriot Act were about to expire instantaneously stimulated a quite pronounced round of applause from a segment of the audience. Yessir, the look on ol' Don't-Mess-With-George's face made me damn glad that he wasn't wearin' his shootin' irons, or God knows what kind of regimental red-tied mayhem might have ensued. It provided this particular Bush-hater with an unexpected moment of levity in an otherwise acid-refluxy litany of the usual self-aggrandizing delusions, which, presumably in the need to fill up air time, included a few utterly ludicrous non-sequiturs (e.g., professional athletes taking steroids--oh, my God; another burning issue that must be addressed!) that probably made even the likes of Jerry Falwell yawn. Let's see, the last speech I heard that was that compelling, to the best of my recollection, was a college lecture in Thomistic metaphysics. (Except the professor had no trouble pronouncing the polysyllabic words.)
Subj: Are the Democrats Playing to Lose?
Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi was first suggested as the House Democratic Leader? There were shrill cries from Republicans that this " far left liberal" was too out-of-touch with mainstream America. They were right that she's "out-of-touch", but not that she's a "far left liberal". Her response to Bush's State of the Union speech, like Senate Democratic Leader Daschle's, was tepid. It's clear that they carefully planned these speeches, too. Ms. Pelosi focused on foreign affairs and terrorism, while Mr. Daschle focused on economic issues. They had a chance for a strong indictment against Bush and his divisive policies. Instead, they went with carefully scripted, bland speeches that were read with little enthusiasm.
As I listened to the Democratic response to "President" Bush's State of the Union speech, it was with a growing sense of dismay. Pelosi's speech perfectly mirrored what we see in the Democratic party today: generalities and gestures. She wasted no time expressing her love of our troops, love of our military, and love of our people. She criticized the Bush administration's foreign policies, but offered no alternative aside from vague platitudes about "forging agreements and coalitions".
Then it was Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's time to speak. He opened with "Let there be no doubt: the state of our union is strong".
Our economy is in shambles. We've lost millions of jobs. Poverty is increasing and Americans are increasingly divided over the loss of our civil liberties and troops dying abroad for this administration's lies. We've alienated many of our traditional allies and we see massive fraud committed by global corporations going unpunished. Bush threatens to divide the nation even further with a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage and funneling federal funds to religious groups.
I would like to know how the Democratic Leadership defines "state of the union" and how they can claim it's strong. We are living in a house divided against itself, but our political leaders ignore some of our most painful problems.
After Mr. Daschle's opening comment (thanks for giving Bush the ability to say "even the Democratic leadership admits the union is strong"), Mr. Daschle gets down to business and puts together a somewhat better speech than Ms. Pelosi's. He wonders when the American people's priorities become the American government's priorities. He gets more specific about how we should address our economic problems and talks a bit about education, and then he cuts to an issue that is near and dear to the Democrats: the elderly. The retired vote could seriously hurt Bush this year. The Republican Medicare plan, their lack of action on health reform and their desire to turn your Social Security money over to corporations are all strong issues that can not only move the elderly into action, but are real, solid issues that the Democratic party should be focusing on.
Unfortunately, like Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Daschle couldn't be bothered to discuss the PATRIOT act. Neither of them discussed how the Bush administration managed to sneak pieces of PATRIOT II into the law. Clearly, my having a job and having access to medicine is important to the Democrats, but my civil liberties are not.
The Democratic response to Bush was not a complete failure, but neither did it inspire. So many key issues were sidestepped. While Bush, who admittedly had much more time, specifically dealt with many Democratic objections, the Democratic response was frequently vague, and this points to the central problem with the Democratic party. They don't know who they are. Ask a Republican what her party stands for and she can tell you. State's rights, traditional family values, individual responsibility and smaller government would easily come to her lips. Never mind what the Republicans are actually doing. They at least have a clear message.
Where is that message from the Democrats? Find me people who can articulate, in a few words, what the Democratic party stands for. Then find others who will agree. The Republicans, whether you like them or not, have their act together and communicate well. The Democratic message seems to be "anything is better than Bush" I have a message for the Democrats: Bill Clinton's nudge and wink "who else you gonna vote for" attitude doesn't cut it when you have the personality of a pile of damp peat moss.
I want something clear. I want something I can articulate and understand. I don't want a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. Give me a central theme or two and build your policies off of them. I realize that the Republican's simplistic solutions to complex problems often don't work, but at least I know what they are!
Curtis "Ovid" Poe
Subj: politics: One American Doubting "America's" Word
The Bush lies continue; here's my favorite from tonight's SotU speech:
In regards to Libya's recent decision to dismantle its WMD programs, Bush stated in his 2004 SotU speech that "9 months of intense negotiations" with Libya accomplished what "12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not."
What he intentionally fails to tell the American people, because it would expose his diplomatic failures, is that economic sanctions have been imposed on Libya since 1986 (1) -- 17 YEARS! -- and that Libya's leader, Qaddafi, has been seeking to return to the international fold for some time. (2)
Subj: Marriage Initiative Act
As a woman and a low-income single mother I vehemently resent the implication inherent in the marriage initiative that all of our financial woes will be solved if only we can learn how find and keep a man. It seems to me that the solution to our "dependency" on the government is not to train us to become dependent on a man. Instead, how about teaching us "welfare mothers" self-sufficiency? How about assisting us to obtain education that would be a lifelong benefit and help us to be free of welfare completely as opposed to granting us temporary security that will only last for the duration of our marriage partnership? Upon divorce (the possibility of which this initiative cannot guarantee to eradicate) or the death of my spouse, what am I to do if I have not been given any real chance for self-sufficiency? Will I then be allowed back onto welfare to await the next man I am lucky enough to catch? This initiative can be in no way ascertained as a sincere effort on the part of this administration to relieve the poverty of single mothers but a blatant attempt to garner the vote of the religious right.
Subj: Reservist to be called up 1 year every 4 years
When is this book coming out on how Cheney used the Bush Family desire for power, money and revenge and the goals of the Neocons "Americans for a New American Century" or whatever its name is, to takeover the United States?
Otherwise have you heard the latest: The Army wants to call up reservists every 4 years for one year of duty. In the Bush "Leave Every Child Behind through Testing," he will then have plenty of recruits as hardly any jobs have been created, and these children whose talents lay outside the academic world will be sucked into the permanent war on the world.
* * *
Subj: AFA Poll
In connection with Bush's and the Republican's obsession with gay marriage, I wonder what this poll portends:
The AFA started this poll in order to "prove" to Congress that Americans are overwhelmingly on their side. But after the first few days (in which only AFA members knew about it) the poll has consistently shown a significant majority of votes for gay marriage, and another few percent for civil unions. Somehow I doubt that the AFA will show the results to Congress, after all. In fact, I think it's time to make a big deal of them now, before they disappear.
Subj: Iowa saves democratic party from ruin
Republicans are giving advice and Democrats are listening, seemed to work so well for Al Gore during the debates.
Boy, what great people those Republicans are to let us know we saved ourselves from ruin. In today's WSJ editorial section, known for it's conservative editorial page offers this headline: Hawkeyes Have a Good Eye for a Loser. These are just the greatest people. We should continue to solicit and adhere to the advice of Republicans. (/sarcasm off)
Proof again, if the Republicans wanted a fight they would be cheering for Dean, a strategy they championed early on and have quickly aborted. You have to learn to think like Satan to beat Satan. These people have a twelve pronged attack on the Democrats. Whatever we do the willing robots of the right and their media will tell America what to think and control the message for each day. PERIOD.
Subj: Health Care Tax credits
I was just wondering how it is that during the debate on the Presidents tax break for the rich the argument was put forth that since the poor pay little if any income tax they do not deserve a tax refund, yet now the presidents big plan for helping the poor acquire health care is tax breaks? If they do not pay taxes how on earth is a tax break gonna help? Do republicans think before they come up with this stuff?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Thanks Buzz, for the Democracy editorial. I need to hear things like this, especially this part:
Never again will we permit a regime to seize power with the false appearance of WASP piety and integrity . . . .
It's very important to me to know that you, all of us and all of our partners-in-sanity vow not to let this happen again. Anyone who's been awake for the past 3 years must realize that the pugs will try anything (you can use your own imagination to predict just what) and we can't let it happen. I'm afraid that even if the Democratic candidate wins by a landslide, they still will have something up their sleeve - you know, a Plan B, Plan C and so on and so forth. Or perhaps if things are looking really bad for King George, they will come up with a reason to call off the election, and I shudder to think of what that reason will be. We can't let that happen either. That is not the way this country works. We've been overwhelmed with their atrocities for too long. It's amazing we're still standing. But we are and we're not going away!
I'm pretty happy about the Democratic front runners. Anyone of them are candidates that I could enthusiastically support. But hell, what are we going to do about the media? At least we have them a little confused now. It just goes to show, they don't know shit. They spent so much time and effort Dean-bashing because they were sure he was going to be the winner. But he didn't win (at least not in Iowa). Doesn't that prove that they really don't have a clue - they just think they do. Why does anyone even listen to them? They are not news reporters, they are gossip mongers (i.e., argyle sweaters, $75.00 haircuts, etc.). They don't know what's in our heads. They don't know who we're going to vote for. SO WHY DON'T THEY JUST SHUT UP? I don't know whether to laugh at them or throw rocks at my TV set. They talk about candidates flip-flopping yet we have a sitting president who has never told the truth. Unbelievable.
Keep up the great work. I'm not sure what the writer in your 1/19 mailbag meant when he said that BuzzFlash should pick up the pace. Your pace couldn't be any faster. You practically get the news before it happens (sometimes literally - you've predicted so many things that came true).
Barbara in NYC
Subj: He should be clearing brush and pulling stumps full time!
Seems to me the surest way to get GWB out of the White House (no, not schedule a fundraiser) is for the 911 Commission to be allowed to complete its work. Given all the stalling, roadblocks, etc. there must be something Herr Rove does not want released to the public, jeopardizing Junior’s election chances. Perhaps the answer is private funding. Moveon.org has done quite well generating $’s and maybe a similar campaign is appropriate to fund the commission.
They’re hiding something!
Subj: Even when winning Tom surrenders
It is now clearly long past the time for Tom Daschle to resign as Minority Leader. His latest surrender completely defies belief. Even though Senate Democrats have the sufficient votes to sustain a filibuster against the final omnibus spending bill that allows the Administration to eliminate overtime protections for eight million workers and allows the FCC to open the door to fewer corporations owning more of the television market, Tom has incomprehensibly instead opted not to fight now and to retreat to supposedly "fight another day." Even though a clear victory on behalf of American workers and consumers is within his grasp, he has instead elected to unconditionally surrender.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose the Bush Incorporated desire to eliminate overtime pay and allow
more concentration of media power in the hands of fewer megalithic corporations. As a result they placed enormous pressure on their representatives and senators to stop this blatant, corporate giveaway. Fearing repercussions at the ballot box, and thereby demonstrating that representative democracy can at times still work, the House and Senate responded accordingly by overwhelmingly voting to restrict the FCC's right to allow such a sell off of the public airwaves, and they voted to block the implementation of the administration's draconian overtime rules. Yet, in blatant and contemptuous defiance of the will of the people, in the dark of the night and behind closed doors, these provisions were stripped from the final omnibus spending bill by the Republican leadership. Because of subsequent arm twisting by the corporate cheerleader in chief, Junior Bush, efforts to restore the provisions failed in the House. The Senate therefore remains the last best hope to restore these provisions before serious harm is inflicted by their enactment.
The votes existed to block the omnibus spending bill in the Senate until these provisions were restored. Yesterday an effort by the Republicans to overturn the filibuster failed when, in a bipartisan vote, a motion to terminate debate failed. However, rather than pressing on at this moment of victory and issuing a full throated, strong demand that these provisions which the American people have adamantly said they wanted be included in the final bill, Tom instead elected to surrender and settle for a "symbolic" victory. Running the white flag of political cowardice up the flagpole, he has indicated that he will instead to fight for these issues at some vague unspecified time in the future. This is an absolutely intolerable course of action for a supposed leader.
Tom will never learn that there is no such thing as a symbolic victory when dealing with this administration. A symbolic victory does absolutely nothing to stop those workers from losing overtime and does nothing to stop media companies swallowing up others as the quest for absolute monopoly continues. This administration has irrefutably demonstrated that they will ruthlessly pursue their pro-corporate, anti-worker, anti-consumer agenda with a vengeance and stop at nothing to get it made into the law of the land. This was a golden opportunity to stop them in their tracks and show the entirety of the American people that Congressional Democrats listen to the will of the people and will strongly fight every attempt by this administration to worsen their lives. Tom has instead once more inexcusably failed to seize the opportunity and press the battle forward.
An opposition leader he is not. Leaders do not surrender when victory is in sight. Had George Washington followed Daschle's type of "surrender when winning strategy" it would have been he handing his sword to Cornwallis at Yorktown, and we would have all been sipping tea and toasting the
Although a new Democratic Administration can institute rule changes to reverse Junior Bush's corporate sellouts, the battle cannot be postponed until January 2005. The American people demanded their Congress take action and stop these measures right now. I therefore submit that their will must be honored. Democrats and principled Republicans must stand and fight this underhanded thwarting of the people's will by this corporate controlled administration right here and right now. If Tom Daschle cannot lead this fight then he must step aside. A latter day George McClellan will not defeat this band of neoconfederate corporados. It is time for a new US Grant to step to the forefront.
Subj: Thought for The Day: WMD and the Semantics of War
Here's a thought for the day:
In 2002, the Administration claimed that Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (4 words) but couldn't prove it.
In 2003, the Administration claimed that Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" (5 words). This was a more general term that didn't have to mean actual 'weapons' -- and thus provided some semantic 'wiggle room' for the President despite the Administration's much-ballyhooed and precise - yet quite circumstantial - show-and-tell at the United Nations last February.
(For more on the Administration's semantic 'wiggle room' tactic, please research the circumstances surrounding the now-infamous "sixteen words" used in last year's State of the Union speech.)
In early 2004, during last night's State of the Union Address, the Administration now claims that David Kay's inspectors discovered proof that Saddam had dozens of "Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities" (7 words). Here, they're using an extremely vague term that could mean pretty much anything, but is the only way to describe the tawdry bit of stuff discovered thus far by our experienced and respected US weapons inspectors.
Based on this recent history, I guess the old Washington adage remains true: the more words you use to make your point, the greater the chance you're lying about something.
Subj: cbs & move on ad
Apparently cbs is refusing emails that have anything to do with the move on ad issue. email@example.com & firstname.lastname@example.org are no longer viable addresses for comments regarding the ad. Perhaps someone out there has an alternative route (other then snail mail) to make a point to them.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: The Ragin' Cajun
Michael Feldman interviewed James Carville on his January 17th public radio program from Madison Wisconsin, Whaddya Know? Buzzers can listen to it via Feldman's website, www.notmuch.com. Good interview. And thank you for yours - I sure hope the Democratic candidate, whoever he is, listens to his advice - did he not help Clinton to victory?
Subj: Republicans happy that threat won't end soon?
I am amazed that after last night's State of the Union Address I have yet to find any outrage over one interaction between the president and his republican followers. After the Democrats rightly applauded the statement, "(K)ey provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year(.), the president went on to say, "(T)he terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule(.). The republican leadership of this country, in what was an obvious attempt at political 'oneupmanship,' thought that statement worthy of a lengthy standing ovation and a vocal roar.
Are the republicans really that happy that the threat won't expire? What in that statement is worthy of any applause whatsoever? It is an outrage that the republican leadership is more concerned about pursuing its agenda of installing oppressive laws than in the safety of the people of our country. That they saw fit to applaud when the president said the threat won't end as soon as next year really showed where their priorities lie. Every American of conscience should be outraged over yet another obvious sign of disrespect for our lives and our freedoms.
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Subj: The Media and Howard Dean
I am so tired of the main stream media editorializing and criticizing instead of reporting the news. It is not their jobs to make the news but report the news but they don't seem to let this bother them.
They are doing the same thing to Howard Dean that they did to Al Gore when he was running and we are letting them get by with this slander. American people are listening to this tripe and believing what they say. Come on America. You are smarter than to listen to this drivel. They are deliberately trying to convince you that Howard Dean is angry and wrong for this country. They’re so scared of Howard Dean getting the Democratic nomination; it’s almost funny, but not quite. You haven’t heard them criticize the other candidates in this manner. Of course not. They know Howard Dean is the only one that has stood up to Bush and can be a real threat to him being re-elected.
They are saying Howard Dean is angry. Of course, there’s some anger. We’re all angry about the way the Supreme Court appointed the current President. Do we not have a right to be angry. Have you all forgotten the 2000 election? Have you forgotten the stolen votes, the disenfranchisement of your fellow voters, the way people were cheated out of their votes? Have you forgotten the deceit of Katherine Harris and the Governor of the State of Florida who just happens to be his brother. But Howard Dean's message is full of hope and power to the people who make up this great country. He has a great sense of humor and his speeches are not full of anger but full of passion and hope. We cling to that hope and we love his passion.
They are saying he’s negative. He’s running a negative campaign. He’s negative about the current resident of the White House who has shredded our Constitution and given us nothing but lies and more lies. He’s negative about the man who has sent our sons and daughters, children and grandchildren off to die in a foreign land for a pre-emptive war based on lies. He’s positive we can do better, and we can!!! He’s positive this can be a better country and it can.
Where is his wife? Why isn’t she on the campaign trail with him? She’s a working wife. She is a doctor with patients and a teenage son at home. She has chosen not to put her life on hold and follow him around like a puppy dog. She is a modern woman who believes like many of us that what she is doing is important also. That she can support her husband by being the person she is rather than the person narrow minded hypocrites think she should be.
Why is he wearing a sweater? Is he trying to re-invent himself? Of what significance could this be? What’s the meaning of his wearing a sweater? Could it possibly be because it’s damn COLD in Iowa?
Then, there is his speech to his workers, his “Perfect Storm”. They say it was crazy, he was just crazy. What about that speech? Everyone is talking about his speech and what an angry nutcase he is. IT’S CALLED PASSION, FOLKS. I’m sure the news media just aren’t familiar with passion and true belief in what you are doing and where you are going and why. They’re not familiar with people who would follow you anywhere because they believe in what you are saying and what you are doing.
They don’t understand about caring for people and wanting everyone to be equal because that is what Howard Dean is about. He is about making sure that every American, EVERY AMERICAN, has the same rights. That is the premise that this country was built upon. That is what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about. If that makes Howard Dean a nut case, then he’s with excellent company with the likes of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter who all believed and believe exactly as Howard Dean does.
The only thing the right wing seems to be concerned with is the outside shell, the outside facade. If it looks good, it’s okay. The fact that there may be maggots in the middle of the meat means nothing to them, just as long as it looks good on the outside. Nothing deep or caring or feeling comes from them unless, of course, it’s about them and their tax cuts. Money, greed and their own selfishness are the only motivating factors driving them.
So may I suggest that you stop listening to the right wing media and start listening to what Howard Dean is saying. Stop letting the media convince you that a Republican plant at a Dean rally was “treated mean”. Don’t let Chris Matthews or the Fox Channel tell you how to think. Think for yourself.
Sharion Hardaway for Howard Dean
Subj: Mailbag 1/19
Dear Buzz(all passed by now!)
In answer to Barbara of nyc....I think the (Deans) sweater thing is so funny! Now, today since Judy came...they both had sweaters..but hers was bright blue! Sheesh can they not think of anything more important, like maybe the loss of life in Iraq??
First they criticized her for not coming, then when she showed up, a very classy lady, they had to mention the sweathers.....are we living in Stepford.
And to Timothy in this same mailbag...a few years back, I realized that Ted Koppel was not who I thought he was. At the time of the impeachment mess, I remember well he did not seem to want to have that much to do with it on his show.....right at first at least...but, after that last debate...I just put him in the same category!
I have heard the comparison of loss of life in Baghdad, as compared to the day to day loss of life in car accidents, gun shot in this country, drug deaths....it is like they are living on another planet, Iraq is not life in these united states....we invaded this country and all deaths there are our fault!!!
Subj: Americans Like Bush's Qualities, Poll Says
This is the same old story heard in 2000. Even the Repubs admitted Dems had the edge when it comes to domestic issues. The US voters are brainwashed when it comes to the candidates. This is evidently where Repubs have the advantage, and all with their money, they have the media behind them. Bush has proven he doesn't give a damn about the majority of citizens in this country, everything he has done proved that. Every thing he has done is the exact opposite of what is best for the country. If everyone doesn't know that, they don't know beans about what is going on. They had better wake up real fast. And if anyone believes their polls, they are being brainwashed also.
* * *
Subj: Ladies Beware: George Bush says "I love you" but he only wants to get into our pants!
Ladies, beware. George Bush knows what we want to hear. His eyes brim with sincerity as he murmurs the "L" word to us and opens up his heart. During his recent State of the Union message, he was like some late-night Lothario at a singles bar, desperately trying to get laid.
You take him home with you. And he turns out to be Ted Bundy.
"I'll give you schools!" says Bush. I want schools.
"I'll give you democracy in Iraq, good medicine and make you safe," he says. I wanna be safe!
And the next morning, we wake up and find that he's gone -- and so is the television set, the VCR, the Toyota, the cat and our best friend Suzie. We're pregnant, have an STD and three of our fingers are missing.
Ladies, beware. George Bush is the man our mothers warned us about.
Subj: While our backs were turned
While we were wrapped up in the Iowa Caucuses, Cheney and Scalia were duck hunting and generally breaking the law in Maryland, duck hunting, having a good old time...Sometime when everyone has time...go back to a movie from '91, called "The Pelican Brief" and you will see a picture of the "then" president and his biggest contributor at a hunting lodge (in short the story was about a Richard Mellon Scaife or Ken Lay type, who wanted to dredge a hole through the marshlands out of New Orleans, to bring the oil out, but it would have ruined the habitat of the Brown Pelican, an endangered species....it is a good movie...but, it is so timely, every time I see this movie, I think of this Bush Administration. They are such crooks.
On Washington Journal, on the morning of the 18th, one of the rightwing "Good Ole Boys" called in to slam a woman who had called in to berate Bush for not making more appearances to just normal places, not just air bases, and the few places he can go and be accepted, like Military. (She said that when he got off the plane one could never see him because he was always carrying that dog!) The man, with the mouth...suggested that that big fat broad in washington, (Hillary) who made the gaffe about Ghandi should be run out of Washington...Ah, but he did not stop with that...he said that the reason you never see Howard Dean carrying a dog....is because his wife is the "Dog."
He was a sweetie....a real cool american!!
Lets check that thing out about Cheney and Scalia and see if we can impeach him.
Shirley ... St. Louis
Subj: ''The world now knows doubts of America's word''
Sometimes it is an insult for a president to talk down at us and assume we have not the intelligence to see through a blatant attempt to highlight only the selling points of his politically deficient lemon-agenda and ignore the obvious. Just words written for him and read by him and even more questioned than the trusted 'word of America' before the last SOUA written for him and just read by him.
* * *
Bush's Defiant State of the Union by David Corn
Subj: Year of the Monkey
Despite G.W. Bush's dismal speech last night and the harm he has done to America and the world, he is convinced that he will be re-selected because the Chinese have proclaimed this year the YEAR OF THE MONKEY!!!
Best wishes to all and thanks for the great job you do keeping patriotic Americans and concerned world citizens informed!
A loyal BuzzFlash reader
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE JANUARY 22, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG.
otherwise noted, all original