February 12, 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. If your letter includes hypertext links, please include the entire URL. 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: BuzzFlash's ISP has been experiencing some problems because of the recent viruses. A lot of our email has been help up and nearly 1000 pieces of email appeared in our in-box last night. Some of the mail below is a few days old, but we felt it was still worth posting. We're doing our best to catch up, but don't expect to get through it all until early next week. Thanks for your understanding.
Subj: And Why Not, W?
Subj: Bush/ RNC Pop Up Ad Campaign
I have gotten two pop up ads for Bush from the RNC, both connected to unsolicited emails from mortgage brokers. I was wondering if any other BuzzFlash readers have experienced this in the last week or so? How about asking on the site?
Why is the Pentagon promising to capture Osama Bin Laden in the spring? Wouldn't this give Osama enough time to escape, or hide in a different place? Or at least not be surprised by the surprise attack and to be armed to the teeth? One would think that this government would be extremely careful about promises after the "mistakes" over WMDs.
Could it be the Pentagon is making this pledge because Osama has already been captured?
J. Fairchild Williams
Subj: "Tremendous Stress"
Bush just openned himself up. During "Meet the Kiss-up" with Tim Russert, Bush, thinking he was making a self-serving point, admitted that the nation's economy was under "tremendous stress" due to the Iraq war. Well, jeepers, who chose to launch that war, Mr. President??!!!
If Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards (as well as, ahem, journalists) don't jump all over this like a big boy dog, then I don't know that they'll ever get another chance as golden.
Subj: Bush on Being AWOL
President Bush argues against the charge that he was AWOL this way:
"There may be no evidence but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged." (Meet The Press 2/8)
This is laughably bad reasoning: Suppose a student who never attended class and had other people take his tests argued the same way:
"There may be no evidence that I attended class, but I did, otherwise I wouldn't have been granted a degree."
Obviously, the student cheater's degree doesn't "prove" he went to class, any more than an honorable discharge proves George Bush ever reported as ordered to his Alabama and Texas ANG postings after May 1972.
If George Bush met his obligations his official service record will show it. That record IS the evidence: let him show once and for all that it supports his claim of service, and not the charge that he shirked his military duties.
Albert Clark, NY
Subj: CONTRACT SPORT What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?
Bush lied in his interview with Russert. I thought you might like to see these two facts juxtaposed.
What Bush said: "The other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war ... and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the best training and the best possible pay."
What Bush really did:
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary - including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day. Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Subj: Bush's military service lacks record of attendance
Subj: Margie D. Shoedinger
In response to your BuzzFlash EDITORIAL "Sex, Lies and the Bush Cartel" of February 9, 2004, I would like to add the following tidbit to the list of sexual "improprieties" that have been amassed by the Bush family. This story has never gained national attention, despite the fact that it is about a sexual lawsuit involving a sitting pResident (Gee Dubyuh) - now if it had been about Clinton we'd STILL be hearing and reading about it!
I would think that this story needs a proper investigation, as it seems just a bit too "cut and dried" to be believable, the way it stands.
Wasn't the death of Marvin Bush's baby sitter also somewhat strange, being crushed to death by her own car?
No sexual implications here, just a possible link to some major 9-11 WTC security allegations connected to Marvin.
This story never gained national media attention, either. I wonder why not?
nerdeaux in Idyho
Subj: Bush National Guard
Isn't the man who was head of the Texas Air National Guard now national head of the Air Guard? I don't guess there's any way that could have been a reward for scrubbing records, could it?
Why does no one ever mention that the White House admitted that they began taking Cipro (to fight anthrax) before any anthrax was discovered?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Progressives Take Heart
I’m a Democrat with a heart of Green. I’ve never voted Green in a presidential election because I’ve always felt that I needed to vote strategically, reasoning that it’s more important to keep the more evil ones out of office than make a "statement" about the value of third parties. I’ve been supporting Howard Dean since before the war and have been quite discouraged since he’s taken a turn. I understand the frustration that a lot of you Green-thinking people have when you see someone like John Kerry heading for the nomination of the Democratic party. I’ve heard many of you talk about how you will not vote in November because you will not vote for a centrist Democrat. I hear and understand your frustration that the Democratic party is too much like the Republicans. I have some strong thoughts on this matter;
Here’s the way I see it: There are two parties in this country. Two. That’s it. It’s a crying shame that there aren’t more and that people can’t vote their conscience instead of having to vote strategically. I think most of you will agree that run-off voting is the way we can start getting validity for third parties and we must work hard to get it. Meanwhile, we have "EVIL" and "kind-of-evil-sometimes" to choose from. The presidency of George W. Bush is a perfect, eye-opening example of what happens when we have "EVIL" in office. It’s very sad that we have to vote for "kind-of-evil" just to keep EVIL from winning. But, my opinion is this: WE MUST. You can be angry and decide not to vote, but guess what….no one is going to miss you. This isn’t a job where you go on strike and someone notices. You are merely withdrawing your opinion from the official collective and your opinion is very important, no, crucial.
Consider this: You are not making a statement to the Democratic party when you don’t vote. The Democratic party is about half of the population of this country and it includes many centrist-types. There is no big sitting "Democratic Party" somewhere that you can appeal to as a collective. The Democratic party is millions of people. You may not like it, but this is democracy. Majority wins. If most of our fellow Democrats seem to want John Kerry who are we to say it’s unfair? I don’t believe that all the more centrist Dems are semi-evil. I believe they vote the way they do because they don’t understand the depth of the problems that we Green types are concerned about. Things like global warming, corporate fraud, the WTO and IMF. They don’t see as deeply into the picture of how U.S. policies contribute to world poverty and help spur the conditions that give rise to the type of desperation that breeds terrorism. You and I know why they don’t know….it’s the media. In their eyes, John Kerry is almost the same as Howard Dean. Simply put, they are not fully informed. I believe that deep inside most run-of-the-mill Democrats is a Green dying to get out! And we have to help them, not abandon them in frustration.
I am the editor of a newsletter for a small group of Democrats. Most of our members are older and I can tell you, they are not evil or even semi-evil! They were in love with Howard Dean and Dennis Kusinich and I firmly believe the reason is because they are informed! In my newsletter, I print everything of importance that I can find that the media has not given much attention. I put in progressive views and plans. This little group of formerly centrist, older Democrats are practically Greens! So here’s my pitch to you……until a third party becomes a viable option (and we must work hard and long to get run-off voting, etc.) the only real way we have to change the direction of our country is to educate Democrats! We need to start putting our muscle into the only party that has a chance in hell to win, if we’re ever going to change. I am suggesting that until a third party is powerful enough to elect a president, we put forth the effort to be a strong voice within the Democratic party. We’ve already done it to some extent…..Howard Dean was the front-runner for a good while. To me that proves that the Democrats are moving to the left. They truly want a Dean or Kusinich type but they got scared at the last moment. And with good cause. Sad as it seems, someone seen as a liberal is going to have a hard time beating Bush in Nov. The fact is: that’s public opinion. The only remedy is to change public opinion. Getting mad and not voting doesn’t help one iota, IMO. It’s the same as giving up in my eyes. (And pretty wimpy if I might say so.) If we want progessives in the White House, the progressive view will have to be the dominant one in the US first and we will have to work for that to happen. Educate people. Stop being afraid to talk politics. Write letters to the editor. Insist the hard truth be stated and published. Start alternative news sites. Contribute to progressive causes. Join your local Dem group and be active! In other words, we must all do everything we can to sway public opinion to the left. Just crossing our fingers and wishing is not going to get someone like Dennis Kusinich nominated much less elected. The public opinion must be there first. The nominee is only a reflection of the public opinion. There is a ton of work to do, but I think we can and will get it done. But it won’t get done by dropping out of the political arena in despair. It will get done little by little by people like us who are working very hard. The right has been doing this for decades now with much success. They knew they needed to get their opinions into the mainstream. If they were able to get their extreme and convoluted opinions all the way to the White House, how much more successful might we be if we put the same effort into a message that actually makes sense and truly is moral? I think there is much hope if we just keep at it. It’s time to stop whining and start working hard. John Kerry in the White House in November might not be the ideal situation but little as it is, it’s a step in the right direction. From where I live you have to get to Barstow before you get to Las Vegas. John Kerry is Barstow. And I’d rather start from there than from where we are right now.
Subj: Neocons and the Titanic
The Neocons are starting to look like pasengers on the deck of the Titanic without liferafts, running around in the same small circles yelling for help, hurling insults at those who could help, and blaming the innocent for running full speed into an iceburg despite "details" that were in the weather report.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Franken Wins Grammy
This is only a list--I will send a link for an article if I find one mentioning his win.
Spoken Word Album: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right (Al Franken)," Al Franken.
Subj: Bush's Interview on Meet the Press
Not only didn't Tim Russert call him on the fact that he didn't release his records in 2000, he didn't make him clarify what he meant when he said 'I showed up, I reported' and he never made him say he wasn't AWOL or was present whenever he was required to be present, both in Texas and Alabama. Russert never asks how he got into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of hundreds of others that were on a 3 year waiting list, or how he managed to negotiate to be release 8 months early to attend college. Russert also let many other issues go by the wayside too. I think Russert asked him tough questions, but when Bush speaks about the evidence for war, he fails to bring up several issues:
1. The claim of yellow uranium from Africa.
2. Bush's citing an Atomic Energy report that didn't exist.
3. The plagiarism of an old student thesis as evidence of WMD.
4. That when he mentions that Congress saw the same evidence, he fails to bring up the fact that Congress didn't give him a mandate for unilateral war, or the ability to ignore the formation of a collation of our real allies and the UN.
5. When he says that the UN agreed that Saddam was a danger, he fails to bring out the fact that the UN didn't agree that invasion and take over was the answer.
6. Saddam may have used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran, but the US is the country that supplied them and we sat by and did nothing when he used them.
7. When Russert says 'This is an important point because when you say that he has biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles' and Bush responds 'Which he had' (you can't discern it from the transcript but Bush is referring to the aerial vehicles) Russert fails to bring up the fact that the aerial vehicles were exposed to be aerial vehicles made of balsa wood and duct tape that couldn't be used for weapons.
8. Russert also doesn't call him on his claim that Saddam has ties to terrorists.
9. He doesn't confront him on his claim that we are welcome in Iraq.
10. He also fails to challenge him on not testifying, under oath, before either the new commission he has formed, or the 9/11 commission, nor does he bring up the fact that the adminstration constantly stalls the 9/11 investigation.
11. He never ask George Bush one question about the fact that he is the first president to have a net loss of jobs, the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shipped overseas at an alarming rate, or that this is the 42nd month in a row that the US has lost manufacturing jobs, or that 70,000 of the 112,000 underpredicted jobs that were gained in January were nothing more than minimum wage jobs, far below the the wages of the jobs that were lost.
I have to say that when all is said and done the thing that I found most disquieting is the lack of hesitation, the tone, as well as, the look on his face and in his eyes when he said No, I'm not going to lose. That is what reminded me of 2000 all over again.
Re: Bush reading Papers
Does W read papers, as Laura said or does he not, as he said??????....one of them is lying.....if Hillary and Bill would have had such different stories......there would have been a special prosecutor appointed!!!
Subj: Please investigate and write an article on this
To the editor,
March 20, 2003
Bush writes an executive order stating: "it is in the interest of the United States to confiscate certain property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and that all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated should vest in the Department of the Treasury" This includes banks and oil management. link - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-10.html
On February 4, 2004:
Bush writes an executive order on Federal Real Property management, "For the purpose of this executive order, Federal real property is defined as any real property owned, leased, or otherwise managed by the Federal Government, both within and outside the United States, and improvements on Federal lands." link - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-1.html
Something is very wrong here, I think. This has not been in the papers as far as I can tell. I searched and found nothing. I happened to come across these while browsing the executive orders at the White House website. I know that there have been accusations of Bush & Co. selling off Iraq and privatizing it, and I think there is proof of that here.
Subj: New National Guard Records
WOW!!! Did you see this? This site shows new documentation of Bush’s military record….he was assigned to the ARF (Air Reserve Forces) in Denver where members of the Guard are assigned for disciplinary reasons. Apparently, he earned points there during the “missing year”. Check it out: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html. If this is true, this is huge.
Is this "deja vu" or what?
"After the Pardons?"
Perspective on current events
You really have to admire the way the rechargeable Dick (short for peckerhead) Cheney can get the inanimate (not inebriated) President of the US to speak volumes without moving his lips (the presidential lips, that is). Wonderful the way the unelected moron who does not believe in democracy and proves it daily (if he believed in democracy, he would have said, "You got a half million more votes, Al, it's your job.") speaks one verbal message and another winds up in print. The power of the press, or the people who run the press. Notice I did not refer to them as media whores. Nope, I believe whores are a pretty decent class of people, and I did not want to demean them, nor cast aspersions upon their character. Bush defends democracy in print ( refer to Al a few sentences back.), he defends freedom by initiating a process to remove uneeded freedoms and distribute wealth (freely shared the treasury with the ultra-rich goombahs), he defends basic rights (except the ones he's getting rid of like legal representation), as an MBA has an inate understanding of all things financial (an area where things are not black and white, who would have believed?), and last but not least, with the world economy in the dumpster (one man's dumpster, another man's buying opportunity), energy use down everywhere except the US and Pentagon (just a coincidence that this has kept the barrel and pump prices up for oily types like the electric VP and the oil states bonzo). Stay tuned for financials updates of the Carlyle Group as we generate hot wars and jumpstart cold wars for the people with the strings. If they should, perchance, profit from these unrelated and unplanned events, perish any thoughts of subterfuge and manipulation until after the pardons have been read in detail.
ol' quid pro quo
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG.
otherwise noted, all original