March 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. 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.
Subj: BUSH BETRAYAL AT TORA BORAIn February 2002, President Bush had a golden opportunity to smash Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the mountain passes of Tora Bora , but instead allowed them to slip away into northern Pakistan. I am about convinced that this was done deliberately and this is why.
At the time, 2000 US marines were encamped exactly in the middle between Tora Bora and Kandahar, ready for action. Bin Laden was on the run and encircled in the mountains on the Afghan border. All Bush needed to smash them for good was to order those marines EASTWARD 200 miles to surround the retreating terrorist army in a steel ring, block the passes and systematically destroy them Instead, the marines were ordered WESTWARD to Kandahar, a backwater town with little strategic value except it was the home of Mohammed Omar.
We instead relied on local Afghan militias with outdated weapons, no real military discipline, and prone to corruption and bribery.
Imagine this- America's worst enemy, in our grasp, and we wait for surrogates to capture them instead of our best, crack troops.
Why? Simply this- the destruction of Al Qaeda at that point would have put the idea in the minds of America that the War On Terror would be won on the spot. Sure that would lift Bush in the eyes of the people, but it would also rob him of the excuse to invade Iraq.
The Neo-con doctrine was already on record that Iraq was a more pressing prize than Al Qaeda, so Bush and his cabal figured that keeping bin Laden alive but bottled up in northern Pakistan where we could in some way keep him on ice, he could make the case that the War On Terror must include the overthrow of Saddam's regime and that the American people would follow along due to the raw feelings after 9/11.
If Bush truly wanted to end Al Qaeda , he had his chance, but like the german High command at Dunkirk, they decided to hold back the troops and instead relied on air power
This was betrayal of the worst kind. A cynical plan to allow an enemy a chance to remain at large to further a larger plan to extend US influence and power in the Middle East
Now we see, seven months before the election, a renewed effort to capture Bin Laden in Northern Pakistan is under way- perfect timing.
Alex Morris, contributor
Sent to Joe Scarborough, <Joe@msnbc.com>:
Subj: You Want Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!!!!
Dear Mr. Scarborough,
Once again you do a whole program based on lies and misinformation. You choose not to do research because then you would never have any story to run on - better to just have the gossip and fly with the story from there. Now, I see very clearly what this station is about - you're just tabloid TV. I wonder if the station managers and producers know that their station is portrayed in this light. Who knows, maybe you're following their station format. But just in case not, I thought I'd include my comments to them.
Do any of you right-wingers find the truth sacred at all? Or once you start sinning, one just leads to another and another, until sinning doesn't mean anything anymore.
As I told Rush, What's the honor in getting paid to spread lies - a fat paycheck? Tch, tch, what a sad character that makes.
There's a lot of people who want justice in this once fair nation of ours, so I think it's best that you do some research before you start spouting untruths on your show. Of course, if you were interested in the facts and justice, you wouldn't be a right-wing republican now, would you?
"Kerry quote corrected as debate lingers," http://www.iht.com/articles/510506.html
"Give us the names, dammit," http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contributors/04/03/con04121.html
<<Just Give Me Some Truth>>
Signed: When Will Democracy Mean More than Your Paycheck?
Sent to email@example.com:
Subj: Please issue a correction
In today's issue of the The Note you write about an RNC ad making fun of Kerry's claim of support from FOREIGN leaders. However, the reporter who originally transcribed the speech has admitted that he made a mistake and that Kerry actually said MORE leaders.
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm Even Drudge has the story. If you are going to deliberately repeat things that are untrue, then you are biased and should not be working for a national news network. Either that, or you are anxious to follow in the footsteps of Jayson Blair. If you are repeating things that are untrue because you are lazy and uninformed then you are just bad reporters. Please issue a correction of your mistake.
Subj: Web searches
I'm writing to you cause I don't know who to write to. Last night I wanted to find out John Kerry's Vietnam war record. I went to Yahoo and typed in "John Kerry vietnam". The only things that came up were huge distortions and misinformation by conservatives. I mean they were the most disgusting thing I'd ever witnessed. It was so un-American I literally felt sick to my stomach. They were trying to paint John Kerry the war hero as a liar about his service. Some claimed he was in Nam for as little as 2 months and then others completely made stuff up saying he wasn't even hurt. To me it was as if they were spitting on soldiers. I'm writing to you guys to inform you and maybe somebody could do a story on this pornographic filth the right is spewing.
Subj: Surprise Visits?
What is with these surprise visits of Bush and Powell et al to Iraq? Bush cares about getting re-elected. I go to a Christian Church and talked with my minister privately the other day and he said he thinks Bush will lose "unless he steals another election like he did in 2000" and he also said it might be hard to pry the Bush administration out of office because they are not going to want to leave. Wonder if Bush is surprised that there are not only world leaders who dislike him, but also many Christian churches who mistrust him. My minister said he feels the vast majority don't approve of this administration, but they have been rendered silent.
a BuzzFlash reader
Subj: Kerry's Cabinet
First time primary voter in Illinois last Tuesday, but have voted for Democrats the majority of times in all general elections. We do have a demo machine in this area I would like to see term limits imposed on, but that's another issue. My husband was also a first time primary voter as well and although I never questioned him as to who he was voting for beforehand (he's voted for a few repugs in his day) he did ask for a demo ballot and voted for Kerry. He says we can't afford Bush anymore. The big surprise came when I questioned him after leaving the polling place about which candidate's delegates he chose and he said Dean! My husband had been pro Dean, but I was very surprised when he actually committed delegates to him. Even though Kerry has the nomination sewed up and I will be supporting and voting for him, my vote still went for Dean as the nominee (since I knew Kerry would win Illinois), and all 4 of my delegates for Dean as well. We want to make sure he has a voice in this nomination.
On another note I see that Dean now as well as Clark are stumping for Kerry. I hope they are included in a Kerry cabinet as well. We are going to need all of them to straighten this mess out. Also I would like to see Bill Clinton in a Kerry cabinet as well. I think he would make an awesome Secretary of State!
I remember a few months ago that one BuzzFlash reader had talked to an American soldier who was back from Afghanistan and who said that Osama has already been captured. (I am sorry that I can't remember the date of that mailbag and I can't seem to find it!) The message below comes from my daughter who is living in the Netherlands:
"In the 'oh and by the way' category, had dinner with a Dutch 'commando'' that is the word they have, and apparently the last time he was in the field he talked to someone of another force (American?) who knew--the US has had Bin Laden in custody for some time. Expect him to show up nicely before the election."
I am curious to hear if other BuzzFlash readers who are friends and family of military folks that have heard the same thing? And, if this is true, I think it is a high crime.
Subj: Flawed Haitian Election
In stories about why there was opposition to Aristide, the mainstream media kept referring to the "flawed" election. They never said what the "flaw" was. I even wrote many in the media and asked them if it was like 95,000 eligible voters being removed from the rolls in Florida by the brother of the winner. Of course, they never answered. Today, from an article by Mary Turck in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, I finally learned about the "flaw:
Of course, since the eighteenth century in the U.S.A., whoever gets the plurality of votes in each state, gets all the electoral votes of that state. In 2000, Bush only got 48% of the vote. It is safe to say about 52% of Americans voted to the left of our president. From the first day, Bush ruled as if he had won a tremendous landslide. In all of Margaret Thatcher's victories, she never got more than 42% of the votes. The Labor Party and the Liberal Democrats (both definitely to the left of the Conservatives) always had at least 58% of the vote. Would American or British conservatives say those elections were "flawed" and that an overthrow should be supported?
Subj: New Insane Death Figures from Iraq and other insane topics
We are all horrified at the latest figures of dead and wounded and suicides and "accidents" to our soldiers, not to mention that we will have no official numbers of innocent Iraqis killed or wounded, but has anyone picked up on the phenomenal amount, percentage wise, of JOURNALISTS that have been killed? And of that number an inordinate amount, too many to be coincidental, how many of them have been killed by U.S. TROOPS ? Just a cursory look and I come up with at LEAST 16 journalists, I believe I read somewhere that it was more than any other conflict. These are not accidents Buzzers...these are part of the strategy. We have nothing but an "official" record of this war...no independent version, just like the last war the Bush's threw...the first where that is the case in the history of America. We read on Buzz that missionaries are allowed to roam around freely, no troops "protecting" them, but we have to have embedded news reporters. Go figure. Another example, and there are too many to mention, of the Bush Bizarro World. All I can think of is "Welcome to the New American Century...How do you like it so far? How's that workin' for ya?
Never before have I felt that my opinions could get me jailed...now Ashcroft's internet snooping makes me feel just that...it's the whole "anyone SUSPECTED" that scares me. Who is doing the suspecting for starters, and exactly what qualifies as "suspicious" anyway? Will it be like the library books where you never get to know that you were being observed until you're disappeared, in a Guantanamo limbo?
I figure it's about time for a coup d' etat in Spain...after all...just because you're democratically elected doesn't give you legitimacy...just ask Ari Fleischer after the first failed attempt in Venezuela, or ask Aristide whom Cheney said "didn't govern in a democratic manner". Those Spaniards had better learn what the new "democratic" standard is...Cheney/Bush "War is Peace" is the gold standard and if you don't toe the line...you WILL be replaced. For the good of Democracy don't ya know. I find it amusing how many times a day I hear a RepugliCON tell us that we are bringing democracy to Iraq, while in the next breath they are screaming at us "libruls" that "we don't have a democracy, we have a representational republic" Uh...excuse me, but I don't hear you going around the world proclaiming that you're trying to deliver "representational republicism" to the great unwashed. And at the point of a gun no less! Did you ever notice that with this bunch of theocrats and their followers, everything is a "mission"? Either of the religious kind or the military kind. It gives them free rein, and the supposed moral authority to assume that "by any means", or "at any cost" attitude. As if "moral certainty" made something any less wrong. If I hear Bush et al say he has "resolve" one more time I think I'll scream. Having resolve doesn't make you right.
I was right with everyone who thought they would probably plan something horrific right before the elections, but after the backlash in Spain, I think now they'll abandon that and just go for canceling the whole election as your bright BuzzFlash contributor (Dan?) theorizes. They'll have "facts" to back up the action, like the ones they had for invading Iraq, a sovereign nation that WAS abiding by U.N. resolutions. I soooo agree with the sentiments of yesterday's article about how exactly are we justifying even having Hussein in custody, let alone trying him? According to everything we now know about the reasons for invading...he hadn't actually done ANYTHING that we could even remove him from office for! Another Bizarro example.
For those who are concerned that we don't have voter verified paper ballots yet...Bush Inc., L.L.C. is making sure that there isn't even a "standard" yet with which to certify ANY electronic machine printers, so that election officials can't be held responsible for not getting them. They have had a commission that is supposed to be handling all this since 2000, but it has only JUST met, and hasn't been authorized to distribute ANY money yet. I know....why don't we just wait until AFTER the selection, I mean election, to get that done ? Just like Cheney in 2000 exclaiming ad nauseum "Let's just get past the contest phase" and we all know what happened after getting past the contest phase....ehhhh...game over...thank you for playing...please deposit another quarter. What we need is a moment like the one in Stephen King's Dead Zone movie where Martin Sheen is the awful politician who, when confronted by an armed Christopher Walken pointing his rifle at him, grabs a baby out of a mother's arms to hold in front of him. That's how I think of Bush...if only we could capture that on film to show him for the despicable cowardly person he is.
Is there any way to impeach Scalia?
Gotta run...love this site to pieces...I feel as if I know you all. I am always touched by the letters from outside the country that don't hold this whole cowpile of a government against the average American. Thank you.
I agree about more people signing their names and addresses...take that you thugs!
Subj: marc racicot
as a montana voter, i am not surprised that racicot is your hypocrite of the week. lord knows i never voted for him, and that awful ("those wolves will eat your children") judy martz, his buddy. why such a poor state continues to vote republican is beyond me. anyway when racicot left us here as governor, he said he was just going to stay home and spend time with his family. imagine our surprise when we saw him working for bush! another lie! at least he is not here in montana. but he sure will be soon! oh well.
a BuzzFlash reader
Subj: Alterman V. Miller
I see nothing yet on the exchange between Eric Alterman and Dennis Miller Monday night on Miller's program. Alterman took Miller apart, not that it took much doing. Miller sat there like a Grand Poobah, saying nothing intelligent, while Mr. Alterman made an excellent case against Bush and the whole Iraq mess. All Miller could do was bluster and make a fool of himself, while A. spoke calmly and convincingly. It was a sight to behold, and portended the demise, once again, of Denny-boy. The clip can be picked up via a couple of links on Alterman's blog at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/ It is worth the time spent downloading.
Subj: Pakistani Action
debka.com is what it is, but considering your recent mailbag writer who said this might be the start of a Paki civil war....
Unfortunately they don't detail the story for the general reader.
I am watching Larry King and I can't believe the LIES that Rumsfeld is telling with such a straight face....unless he is totally senile and believes them himself.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: The Polls Toll for Bush
It's become obvious to me that Bush will win a 2nd term while losing the popular vote again. Electoral college shenanigans will make Florida 2000 look like romper room.
Subj: Vast Wasteland
How is the Left going to persuade the swing voter or any other group to vote for Kerry, when the media is so ridiculously pro Bush? Today every clown in the Bush circus was on television and radio celebrating the anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Once in a while the media would allow some half-witted liberal to babble a few criticisms, as long as the host (news anchor)could pummel him relentlessly about the head and face with the Bush Doctrine. I am so fucking sick of this nonsense. I haven't felt this ashamed and sick to my stomach about this country since the war in Vietnam. If I see George Bush smirking one more time while our soldiers are dying from his lies,I might move to Europe and never return.
Subj: It's Us vs. Them
I read with amazement and a sickening feeling about the amount of money that Bush has collected. He his met his goal of 150-170 million dollars-what are the democrats going to do? Living in Florida, I've already seen the ads they are running and unfortunately they look good-although they misrepresent the facts and mock Kerry. I spoke to the Kerry camp in Miami and they are trying to respond but they don't have the money. Where is the money??? Aren't there more of us than them??? Can't we combine our power and collect the same? If there are one million democrats and we all give $100 isn't that the same 100 million dollars. I don't have an extra 100 right now, so am going to JohnKerry.com and giving online 10 dollars a week for at least 10 weeks or more -- can I give up a couple of lunches a week for the most important election in my generation. Can we picture what 4 more years of this administration with no worry about reelection will do? Can BuzzFlash with it readership propose a challenge-if money is going to make the difference let us make a difference and give something to the Kerry campaign. But we have to do it right now so they can respond now!
Subj: anniversary reflectionshat
I shouldn't be torturing myself like this, but I've been watching the one year anniversary shows on MSNBC and CNN (forget Fox, I'm not a masochist), in "commemoration" of the one year anniversary of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Now, having read all of the current polls, it is beyond debate that approximately one-half of the U.S. population strongly opposes the war. It's essentially half and half; whether you support the war or oppose it, you have to concede the fact that the country is split in two over this. So, here's my question: Why are the news channels just lapsing into their tried and true Bush cheerleading about this war? I mean, I have yet to hear one analyst giving a thoughtful recitation about the fact that so many millions of Americans are so strongly opposed to this war. At this point, one year after the fact, we have no WMD, almost 600 dead soldiers, no connection to 911, and no "military victory" in plain sight. Yet, I am still hearing absolutely no thoughtful critique from CNN and MSNBC regarding the viewpoints of half of America. It wouldn't exactly be a "radical" or far flung point of view to acknowledge the fact that there is opposition to this war. Frankly, I'm surprised that the news networks are still clinging to their craven support of the pro-war position in this regard. Back in the 1960's, we had Walter Cronkite starting to question the Vietnam War on nightly TV news. I just am not seeing that type of objectivity any longer.
Donald P. Russo, Bethlehem, Pa.
The NY Times Editorial (at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/opinion/19FRI1.html>)is saying all the right things in it's review of Iraq at the anniversary of our invasion, but it still infuriates me by the arrogance it shows in hiding behind the old "had we known" defense.
The arrogance in the second paragraph is becoming the camouflage netting being used by media and government figures alike, as well as by Democrat powerhouses [including Kerry.]
Herewith, that paragraph:
I keep hearing the same refrain, ever since the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle lies have become so visible.
"We didn't know!" "Bush lied and we had no choice but to back him!"
Does the name Hans Blix ring a bell? He told us Saddam had naught, or naught plus a fraction, of what Bush's neo-cons, WHO HAD NOT EVEN BEEN IN IRAQ IN YEARS, were guessing that Saddam might have.
But the Republicans wanted war, and the Democrats were too scared to investigate charges or even to force open briefings where intelligence specialists from the CIA, NSA and all the other "A's" could be grilled on Saddam's WMD. Instead, those of us left who can read beyond the front page of a local tabloid, were reading of these anonymous Intel analysts who were screaming to any reporters who would listen, "It ain't so!" Ray McGovern and a group of former Intel people, who had held this country's highest security clearances, were informing us that their colleagues were telling them that Bush falsified Intel, that a new cabal was slanting reports to make the Intel fit the plans.
Unfortunately, the Times and her sister publications chose to play photocopier for White House press releases and we, the people trying to gather an informed position, were left with reading the real "news fit to print" in media highlighted by BuzzFlash or from oversees newspapers and blogs on the 'Net.
[Of course, those blogs were given short shrift by the mainstream media. For a long time, in this through the looking glass America, the Drudge Report became the only respectable blog that the major media would look to for news???]
If all this sounds radical, read the second paragraph below and tell me that you BuzzFlash readers didn't have credible reports, from both US and "alternate news" sites, of everything in that paragraph BEFORE we started raining bombs down on civilians and leaving depleted uranium debris all over Iraq!
Subj: Marc Racicot
It is my opinion that Mark Racicot is an extremely talented liar and the most crooked governor Montana has ever had.
Every issue that I can recall where there was a clear choice between the interests of the people and corporate interest, Racicot always went against the people.
Subj: The Place to Find Bin Laden
Pentagon officials now believe they have been unable to locate Bin Laden because he has found a place to hide out where
(1) it is easy to get in if you have the money;
(2) no one will recognize or remember you;
(3) no one will realize that you have disappeared;
(4) no one keeps any records of your comings and goings; and
(5) you have no obligations or responsibilities.
The analysts are still puzzled, however, as to how Bin Laden found out about the Texas Air National Guard in the first place.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Tell Bush to grow up
Now the media is cooperating with Bush to try to make Kerry look like a villain or look ridiculous. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Bush, since you don't and never did deserve the title of President? Why are you acting like such a chickenhawk? If you are so sure that you are better than Kerry, then debate him. What are you afraid of? Losing?
Subj: GW Bush war training magazines
Ever wonder what Lt. Bush was reading in that Alabama hangar all by himself during the the Vietnam War? One of the magazines has now been found and is available to BuzzFlash, Moveon.org. or the Media Council, etc. It includes this article:
How to Wage War and Win Friends Around the World by graduate students Condi Rice and Karl Rove:
Always pick soft targets; who wants to fight real men
Use lies, not real intelligence, to persuade people
Appoint a Defense secretary that alienates real Army generals, so they retire early rather than participate in planning a sham war
Stab allies in the back and then accuse them of being cowards when they are in mourning
Attack countries that have oil not terrorists
Allow your Vice President to intimidate the C.I.A.
Always give in to Arab terrorists when they attack; close all bases near Mecca or Medina. Then stage a mock war against terrorism to divert attention
Allow your Attorney General to intimidate your political opposition
Never meet with the public, only carefully screened supporters; who wants to deal with protesters?
Let others do your dirty work while you play video games
Get rid of the Bill of Rights
Buy a Napoleon Hat and do whatever your handlers tell you to do
Let the Supreme Court fight your real battles
Look into the eyes of the head of the former KGB and say, "Sure it's alright to form a new Soviet Union, just don't hold real elections."
Always believe that you are on a mission from God, and everyone who opposes you is working for the Devil
Protect your White House staff when they out the name of a CIA agent to the press during the time of war
The military industrial complex is no match to the war profiteers at Halliburton and Bethel; they don't give as big of political contributions or bribes
The U.S. armed forces, national guard, and reserves are your own personal army so you can jerk them around all you want
I believe more magazines and training manuals may be discovered later. Play feel free to share with those interested in the Truth.
Sent to firstname.lastname@example.org:
Subj: The Bush Flight Record
Kudos to Marlin and Steele for their article on Bush's partial record. Why Bush never flew after his evaluation (in which his performance was described, perhaps diplomatically, as 'noteworthy' by his commanding officer) was always more curious to me than his spotty attendance record. This article's explanation, that Bush may have been barred from flying under terms in the Human Reliability Program, has a decisive ring of credibility.
If a follow-up article is planned maybe your reporters could look a bit further into Daniel James III's response to Burkett's allegations that Bush's record was scrubbed. James is on the record as stating ‘‘I have never been involved in, nor would I condone, any discussion or any action to falsify any record in any circumstance for anyone”[emphasis mine]
James' response sounds more like careful, quasi-lawyerly parsing than an outright denial. Most people, perhaps James too, do not think of a falsification as the removal of true information but as something more along the lines of a forgery or document alteration. In fact, Merriam Webster defines falsify this way: to make false : as a : to make false by mutilation or addition
It might be worth somebody's while to ask James to explain how he defined and employed the word "falsify".
Subj: retort for "Saddam would still be ..."
Saturday, March 20, 2004 -- Day of mass display
'Saddam would still be in place' joins another idiotic line 'Gore would not have handled 9/11 this way,' as two more instances where reporters prove their newspaper isn't worth buying or their tv station isn't worth watching.
(It seems to me the internet would have an organization somewhere spreading the word to boycott newspapers and tv because of their active parts in the propaganda. You don't miss any news without them, and after their guy bin Duh-bia is gone we can go back to buying and watching again. People got the power of the purse over corrupt media, and no power of persuasion to get them to 'wake up and smell the fascism', as so many voices have tried to get through to reporters and jabbering faces.
(In fact, the way things are set up now, the thing to do with the strongest effect on cutting bin Duh-bia down to pipsqueak actual size would be cancel cable tv subscriptions. Especially as the cancellations start to spread. Riots at FOXzi News, I predict.
(The GOP panic would NOT be that canceling cable tv subscriptions takes away their brainwashing pipeline into people's living rooms -- hell, hardly anyone watches the FOXzis anyway, and those who do are already in brain lockstep sieg heil. No, the GOP panic would be losing all that cash flow that flows into their campaign coffers. There's billions-with-a-'B' being given to cable tv to do what they do, so they keep doing it. Follow the money, and it comes out Blitzer or O'Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh -- his sponsors are cable channels -- or whatever one you want to pick to hate. And then the very next month we sit down and write another check to cable tv that drives us crazy. But we don't have the money to make a small contribution to internet websites that help keep us sane. Can we talk priorities, people?
(Look, as part of a short six-month movement, could commitment to freedom and justice -- America's promise -- help people hold their lives together without the s#%*!%& cable tv? And not watching cable tv you don't miss anything. There's nothing there to miss, nothing's going to happen while it's off that you just. gotta. see. Although it would be precious to have O'Reilly shouting at the camera 'you can't do that; you can't cancel your cable tv; you can't get me fired; that's treason; you can't, you can't, help, help, I'm melting...' Trust me on this, it he does that you will get to see it on the web. You won't miss a thing. Cancel your cable tv, give the money to the place that delivers the news you grow by.
(Didja ever notice rich/successful/empowered people never say " I saw this thing on tv last night, did you see it?")
So, the come-back lines this started out to get to are: 'If we had waited out Saddam he might be dead of natural causes by now,' and then 'If Gore had been elected so we had a legitimate president 9/11 would never have happened.' Speculation cuts both ways.
Subj: How to privatize the IRS
Q: How do you successfully privatize jobs in the IRS?
A: Run it into the ground by not collecting billions of tax dollars and then renew a Bush administration push to bring private debt collectors into the IRS tax collection process.
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE MARCH 22, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG.
otherwise noted, all original