 |
||||||
|
March 30, 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: Today's mailbag contains emails from BuzzFlash Readers about Condoleezza Rice and her unwillingness to speak to the 9/11 Commission. As of today, it appears that she may actually speak, under oath, to the Commission. We know this administration pretty well, and we don't expect this to work out in any way that's unfavorable to the Bush Cartel, which means it will be unfavorable to the 9/11 families and the truth. Therefore, we still think all the emails about her are highly relevant and must reading to keep us focused on getting the truth. Never underestimate the quality or quantity of deceptions and lies coming from the Bush White House. Today is no exception. Re: NBC coverage of Newsweek poll BuzzFlash, You have two links up about fallout from the Bush administration attack of Richard Clarke. One is from the Washington post and one from Newsweek. Both of these stories maintain that Bush's credibility has suffered. Both of these media entities also have a corporate relationship to NBC if I am not mistaken. Strange then that on last night's NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw (hosted last night 3/27 by Lester "the dolt" Holt) the lead story was that the White House offensive had worked and that the Newsweek poll proved this. The story claimed that the damage control had worked and that fallout had been contained and that people polled said it hadn't changed their opinion of Bush. They had the usual unnamed administration sources and the crux of the entire piece was that the potential for harm to the W.H. was over. Case closed. I was unable to find the transcript but you are probably more adept at this and I believe you might like to post it. I think it shows that we are about to enter into a period when our mainstream media (already loathsome and discredited) takes a page from Bush's playbook and begins creating their own reality even when it disregards the data they have generated themselves. Regards, Jim Tragos Subj: Malevolent incompetents The most confusing aspect of this rogue administration foisted upon us is whether to consider as more significant their utter incompetence, largely the product of their fascistic ideological priorities, or their simple malevolence consisting of an incredible arrogance, an all-encompasing greed, an ignorance, deliberate and otherwise, of our nation’s ideals and intents, and above all of the kind of attitude toward everything from the environment to protection of the vulnerable that places like Texas are notorious for. This administration can do no good, even in spite of itself, and we can only hope that the damage they are wreaking upon us, our institutions, and our children’s futures can he summarily halted and repaired as a result of our coming elections. Nothing puzzles me more than the alarming fact that so-called moderate Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, can remain in this destructive, anti-American party and still look at themselves in a mirror. They needn’t become Democrats, but, like Senator Jeffords, they could express their dismay and their patriotism by resoundingly withdrawing from this vileness. These moderates, so-called, have become accessories after the fact in the criminal endeavor called our administration that has not only let terrorism murder 3,000 people on our soil but has determined that any true investigation of the crime be limited and thwarted wherever possible. Conservatives, indeed! They conserve and advance nothing but the wealth of the already wealthy - their primary raison d’être. This is without a doubt the most radical and dangerous regime in the history of this country, one fully capable of claiming they are doing God’s work. Shame is beyond even their comprehension. Norman Weinstein Subj: Loss of Eye Exams Retiree Health Benefits are being cut- Military Retirees have been authorized Preventative Clinical eye exams every two years under the Tricare Health Program.I just viewed a Tri Care Fact Sheet dated March 10, 2004 that states "Retirees and their family members who use Tricare Standard,Tricare Extra and Tricare For Life are not eligible for routine eye examinations". http://www.tricare.osd.mil/Factsheets/viewfactsheet.cfm?id=264. My paternal grandmother went blind due to glaucoma and I have a son that went blind due to degenerative eye disease, I have been diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes. Is this another example of how Bush plans to take care of the troops? I have been forced to give up 60% of my retired pay for 24 years in exchange for my Disability pay and Bush wants me to wait another 10 years before I will receive my full pay.This is my reward for serving 26 1/2 years in the USMC and USAF? I think America needs to know how Bush is continuing to screw the Troops. John Dinges Subj: Let's Watch I've been following stories on the Bush administration for years. Some are really off the wall and some (most) just make me want to scream. But the thing that's making most upset about what's been happening in the last week or so in Washington, is the fact that none of Clarke's testimony is that much of a surprise to me. Is anyone here surprised that the Bush administration took a negligent attitude towards all things Clinton? Why bother with what the Clinton administration ranks as a threat against this country when there are taxes to cut and oil wells to pump? Remember what the Bushies were upset about when they came into office? They were making claims that the Clintons had trashed the White House and Air Force One. This is about the time that the outgoing security advisors were trying to educate them about the seriousness of bin Laden. And another thing, Clarke mentioned it briefly this week, who authorized the clearance for the bin Ladens to leave this country immediately after 9-11? No one is fessing up to that one. Maybe Rice has some answers buried in that cold, calculating heart of hers. Maybe not. All I know is that this country was attacked and the people who were to make sure that those murderers were held accountable went off on their own agenda. Those murderers are still out there folks, and why should they give up? Have you seen anything we've done that might really put a crimp in their operations? OK, grant you that we've pushed the Taliban out of power, but so what? This was a theocracy that went around executing women and blowing up ancient monuments; let's get back to the 21st century, shall we? Bush and cronies are in trouble -- vicious animals that are cornered are dangerous. Let's you and me watch and see what happens, shall we? Roma Subj: My email to Tim Russert and MTP Mr. Russert, I admire journalists first among all professions. In my first book, I chose a journalist as the protagonist. It is a noble, relentless, often dangerous, and overlooked art. That is why it sometimes pains me to watch Meet The Press. Mr. Russert, propaganda is not only what we are told that is not true, it is also what we not told that is true. The smears against Mr. Clarke are untrue. Yes, you are correct to cover them anyway, but the time you devote to covering them is part of your art. You spent far too long on that today. Still, that would have been acceptable, but what you did not devote time to is the larger issue. The fact the War in Iraq does not equal the War on Terror and that it has undermined the War on Terror is fact. You devoted 3 minutes to that and, as I am sure you remember, you moved Mr. Clarke along at one point. The points Mr. Clarke made are terrifying, Mr. Russert, and although they are obvious to so many of us in the citizenry, these are the points you do not choose to cover. These were also the points Mr. Clarke expressly wished to cover today. I hope, Mr. Russert, that you someday share the urgency regarding the truth about 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq that so many of your fellow citizens experience. We knew the war was based on lies before it happened. You and the press largely covered that up. You let The Bush Administration trick Americans into linking Iraq and 9/11, you let people like Judith Miller make easily disproven myths about WMD into fact, and you helped turn the American press into an international laughingstock. You helped start this war. You will carry that failure for the rest of your life. It will, I am afraid, be a heavy weight for you, Mr. Russert. We are now in enormous trouble as a country and a species. You simply must do much better, starting now. This may seem like a game in DC and I'm sure a lot of it is a game, but on some levels it is not a game. This is one of those levels, Mr. Russert. Are you not afraid yet? Once again, my deepest respect and thanks for the excellent work you do some of the time. I can't imagine the behind the scenes and classified nature of the work you do. Some of this may be beyond your control. But we need you to do better, now. Sincerely, Eric Sisak If you'd like to see what some of us know about The Bush Administration and the press, please spend a moment at either of these sites. Have you heard of PNAC, Mr. Russert? Perhaps you could devote a show to them someday soon... www.BuzzFlash.com i just saw that creepy rumsfeld say bush would love to have condi rice testify in public and under oath, but the white house lawyers say no, gee and all these years i thought the president called the shots in the white house, and by the way, wasn't it republicans screaming about the clinton white house and executive privilege! well at least now we know who is really in charge of this white house, THE LAWYERS! diane and don Subj: Who's on first, what's on second? While taking in the news last week and seeing the Bushittes scramble and sweat, a crystal clear picture came into focus. Nothing is below Bush and his cronies. The cronies are not only in the administration, but throughout the US. They are the Pioneers and Rangers. They are on the Boards of US and International corporations. They have infiltrated the US media, thus developing a subset of cronies. The subsets are your friends, neighbors and relatives who believe the partisan distortions of a biased and twisted and crony media. The wealthy, who gain the most from this administration, are enjoying the fruits of their greed and they do not want to see it come to an end. Greed is not against our laws, but let me remind you that it is against the laws of God: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods and Thou shalt not steal. We can bundle a lot under the term 'goods.' The dictionary defines [covet] as yearning to possess something belonging to someone else. Bush and his cronies yearned to get more of everything and that yearning was quickly transformed into action - stealing. Because of the Bush tax giveaways to the wealthy, the poor and middle class are taxed more [in one way or another.] That would be considered coveting your neighbor's money. Can we categorize the deaths of our GI's in Iraq under coveting? Absolutely! The big oil cronies have coveted the lives of our sons and daughters in the name of yearning to take control of mideast oil. Let's throw in more crony greed in coveting American jobs, politely calling it 'outsourcing.' When you take away a man or woman's job, you have coveted, then taken their very means of support. The cronies coveted your 2000 vote then interacted with other cronies to steal it. Thou shalt not steal. Greed is what drives this administration and its cronies. They want it all and are more than willing to see this nation implode to get it. That's why you see the biggies donating to the Bush campaign... they know there's more where that came from. They know that the millions donated to Bush will come back to their pockets TENFOLD. But wait. What about your common folk neighbors and relatives who have been brainwashed by the corporate media and who continue to stand behind this president, claiming they will vote for Bush again? Where do they finish? Quite simply, they will finish by continuing to stand on first base when the Bush ball game is over! And the most pitiful thing in the whole mess is that these brainwashed common folk will be blaming all of their Bush perpetrated woes on the next democratic president. And the corporate media? They will be fueling the common folks to place blame everywhere but where it belongs... on Bush and his cronies. Thus the vicious circle continues to go round and round. ~ Cathy Subj: Rice's Excuses Hi: Condoleeza Rice is using the Constitution to get out of testifying under oath to the 911 commission. On 60 Minutes she said she'd willingly testify, but the doctrine of separation of powers prevents her from doing so. I may be mistaken, but isn't the Kean Commission a commission that was set up by the Executive Branch of the government? I don't see any current congresspeople sitting there and the mandate for its creation didn't come from Congress. How can an executive branch member testifying at an executive branch commission be in anyone's worst interests unless testifying ANYWHERE under oath creates a problem for Condi regardless of the genesis of the body to which she gives evidence? Matt Subj: Condi A No-Show at 9/11 Commission I'm utterly flummoxed by the argument Condoleeza Rice makes for not appearing before the 9/11 Commission: that it would somehow violate separation of powers as laid down by the U.S. Constitution. First of all, the commission, although established by Congress is independent of it. So separation of powers doesn't apply. Secondly, hasn't Ms. Rice heard of checks and balances, that different branches of government restrain the excesses of the others? Oh, that's right -- to members of the Bush Regime, "checks and balances" means their campaign contributors write them big checks, which improve their bank balances. Jon Krampner Subj: Chemical Ali Hey Buzz, What is it about this "Chemical Ali," that he is first killed, in April 2002, and then a few months later, in August of that year, captured? And now, in a story by telegraph.com.uk, about Spanish cops mistakenly letting the bombers of Spanish trains slip through their fingers, it says, down near the end of the story: "The fingerprints allegedly were those of Jalam Zougam, the owner of a mobile phone shop, and Abderrahim Zbakh, a chemistry graduate. "Zougam is said by investigators to have been one of the ringleaders of the Moroccan terrorist cell blamed for the attack and Zbakh, dubbed 'Chemical Ali' by investigators, is believed to have made the luggage bombs." Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/... A BuzzFlash Reader All Weapons In a recent news report, a section of an exploded terrorist bomb was shown on video tape which had English letters printed on it. Of course, the entire world is deeply worried about the WMDs, but could it be time to stop the sales of "weapons of any kind" to countries and groups that have shown a dislike for the Western World? Denny Burbeck Subj: mailbag: bob dole from russell, kansas, or baghdad bob? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/opinion/28DOLE.html I don't know why I gave Bob Dole more credit for being a statesman. In his current op-ed in the NY Times he certainly reveals himself as nothing more than a GOP party hack, as he parrots some well-worn talking points about the economy which are simply disingenuous at best. For example, in "support" of the myth that the US economy is recovering (for whom?), he points to the 364,000 jobs that have supposedly been created since August. This number is in range with the one (350,000 new jobs) Bush trotted out on Mar 8 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040308-7.html). But Josh Marshall has questioned the President's figure as a sign that the US economy is recovering jobs (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives...). According to the Dallas Morning News article that Marshall cites, "The labor force typically expands by about 150,000 a month. This has led economists to estimate that payrolls must rise by more than 200,000 a month to reverse the damage in the job market." Therefore, to claim, as Dole does, that 364,000 new jobs since August signifies a reversal in job losses is dishonest or delusional. A reader. Subj: The pResident Must Go This pResident Must Go How is it possible, so many questions of national importance go unanswered, day after day after day? Could one reason be, there are too many questions? So many questions make it very difficult to concentrate on any particular one for any length of time. This Administration has saturated us with misdeeds. pResident Bush has to go. It is not an option. It is a necessity. If the Supreme Court appointed pResident gets four more years, the consequences will be irreversible. Our country and our Constitution will be dealt irreparable harm. We have to stop being afraid of the truth and begin to repeatedly reveal these thugs for what they have done, not let them continually get away with the lies they claim to be doing. Look what has happened, since pResident Bush lost the popular vote by more than one half million votes. Florida was a travesty that only solidified the fact the outcome was rigged from the start. The only thing certain about the Bush Administration is, no matter what they say, you can be sure the opposite is the truth. Whatever they accuse their opponents of doing, you can be certain it is exactly what they are doing. Just check the facts everytime there is a question of veracity. John Kerry and his campaign workers have got to question every misdeed that permeates this most foul of Administrations. They have to keep questioning each misdeed, over and over, until they get an honest answer. Honesty is a lost virtue with the Bush Administration. 'Lost' is a deceiving word because they never had any honesty. The good that will come by continual questioning will be the peoples' ability to see over and over, their reluctance to answer anything truthfully. You can be certain they will never be forthright with their answers, because the truth will not set them free, it will put them in jail. An amazing thing is, we will be saving the millions of fools who follow this man in lockstep no matter how much proof is placed before them. But that has always been the way of Democrats. There is so much, it boggles the mind, which is part of the Bush strategy. The most monumental crimes and misdemeanors become diluted because of the multitude of crimes involved. For starters, hiding the truth by sealing Bush Sr. and Reagan's Presidential papers. His Texas Governor's papers sealed.(where's the national security there?) Dick Cheney's energy meetings and Ken Lay's participation. Delaying the 9/11 investigation and then making it hard for the investigators to do their work. Condoleezza Rice refusing to testify in public. Bush's National Guard service and being found guilty in shady business dealings. The WMD debacle and six hundred and still counting, American lives lost because of lies. Medicare, Social Security, jobs, the overtime pay farce, tax cuts for the ultra rich. Scalia, Tom Delay and their jaded agendas. Ambassador Wilson and the vendetta against his wife. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It goes on and on. It is a no-brainer, it was all done for oil and power. It seems to be so difficult to say openly what most people know for a fact. Why does everyone continue to say he is really a nice guy, who may not realize he has made mistakes? They are not nice people and Kerry and the rest of the Democrats have got to stop saying we all want what's best for our country. This Administration does not care about the United States as it has been for over two hundred years. They are looking for a kingdom and theocracy dominated by a very select few. If they should lose this election, it would not surprise me to see most of them leave the country rather than face the consequences when the multitude of secrets and deceit begin to unravel in the refreshing light of day. The sad, but factual thing is they will be able to buy their way out of most anything. I'm sure they can buy their own country and set up laws protecting them from any contingency. As wealthy as they were when they bought the 2000 election, it pales when compared to the looting that has taken place with our national treasury. They have become so brazen and so immune to criticism, I am certain if voting machines with a paper trail are not required, they will somehow program the machines and steal the election again, even with everyone watching closely. Then they will dare anyone to prove anything. They have openly been defiling the Constitution for three years and if they can steal the next election, which there is little doubt they will try, there will be nothing left of our great country to salvage. Mel Spiegel, a very concerned American citizen Subj: Good Research Dear BuzzFlash: Congratulations on some nice research work on digging up that old Time Magazine piece from August of 2002. This lengthy article corroborates and authenticates everything Richard Clark is now saying. Every Democratic elected official and any Democrat appearing on any TV talk show should get a copy of this article. These Republican attacks on Richard Clark, such as the ones by Bill Frist and Porter Goss, are simply outrageous. I hope that Senator Kerry goes after this issue with a tone of great urgency. Richard Clark is this nation's number one expert on counterterrorism. His credibility on this subject is overwhelming. He is a Republican, so no one can accuse him of partisanship. And, as to Condoleeza Rice's tactics, she has fallen onto the last refuge of scoundrels -- blaming her 911 Commission non-appearance on White House lawyers. Yeesh, this is basically the John Gotti defense. A BuzzFlash Reader [BuzzFlash Note: You can thank your fellow readers -- they're the ones who help us find a lot of these articles. It's a group effort and couldn't be accomplished any other way. Thanks.] Subj: Richard Clarke vs. Bill Frist, dueling authors Dear BuzzFlash: Bill Frist has denounced Richard Clarke on the Senate floor for "trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing on the tragedy of Sept. 11" by writing his book "Against All Enemies". Frist didn't mention the fact that the book had been cleared by the White House prior to publication. Instead, Republicans are demanding Clarke donate all of the proceeds to the families of the victims of September 11. Clarke said he has plans to donate a percentage of the proceeds not only to these victims but also to the orphans and widows of soldiers from the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but is now worried about his financial future because he has been told he "will never make another dime again in Washington in his life" . Pot, meet kettle. Frist never mentions his own book "When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor". Published in February of 2002 by Rowman and Littlefield (IBSN 0-7425-2245-8) it can be found at www.wheneverymomentcounts.com., with the description "When deadly, anthrax-laced letters were sent to government and media offices in the fall of 2001, bioterrorism against American citizens became a grim reality. In this indispensable guide, U.S. Senator Bill Frist--the only physician in the Senate and co-sponsor of the two major pieces of legislation dealing with this frightening new threat--offers straightforward, practical advice on how to keep your loved ones safe." The book is "written in question and answer format". Richard Clarke says the main impetus for his book was to answer the questions of the 9/11 families about what happened in the lead up to the tragedies. It of course can be argued whether Frist's motives were benevolent, or whether he was "capitalizing on the tragedy" of the anthrax poisonings." I suppose one might make the argument that he might be "trading on insider access to highly classified information" too, indirectly, by counseling the American public on bio-terror. But what interests me most of all is whether or not Bill Frist donated the profits from his book to the families of those that died from the anthrax poisonings, their widows, widowers and orphans. It seems to me that he knowingly traded on the politics of fear by giving " advice on how to keep your loved ones safe", for as we learned during the anthrax poisonings, and as we learned on 9/11, if the government fails to do it's job, either at the post office, or in the White House, no amount of secondary precautions can keep the American people safe. Its also interesting that Frist has such wide ranging knowledge of bio-terror agents considering the Ricin scare that recently took place, which ended up being much ado about nothing although the media suggested that the Ricin was intended for Frist. Interesting because it diverted media attention away from the 9/11 families' efforts to get the 9/11 hearings extended. Sounds like "wag the dog" tactics that the Republicans erroneously accused Clinton of, a mistake for which 3000 American citizens paid with their lives. Who am I to say though? The "Senate's Only Doctor" says Richard Clarke is a villain, so the American people apparently expected to fall into lockstep behind this theory. As Richard Clarke asserted, "this isn't about me, this is about September 11". Shhh. If Frist's diversionary tactics are successful, maybe no one will notice. Kerry Wells A Letter to the Editor of a Local Paper: National Guard Member Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia recently turned himself in as AWOL. He stayed away after his leave from Iraq. He stated that he feels that after his experiences in Iraq, he is against war, period. He says that after what he's seen there, he feels there is no "fair" war. Innocents are caught in the crossfire and pay with their blood in any war. He also stated that he does not believe we are fighting for freedom, WPMs, or Saddam's ties to terrorism. He states that whenever he tried to find a reason to believe, all he found were lies. This man is a true hero. He's standing for what he believes, and he's standing for the TRUTH! At this time, he's filing for conscientious objector status. I would like to encourage everyone to read his story at "http://www.stewart.army.mil/frontlineonline/archivedpages/FrontlineOnline03-25-04News.pdf". I plan to send him a letter of support and appreciation to:
I hope those who realize that this "war" is indeed about Bush's lies will also send support to this soldier. I’m certain he’ll appreciate hearing from us. Sincerely, Linda G.
Richard Dear BuzzFlash: The following (below) is the text of a fax I sent Bill Frist on Saturday, 3/27. I thought you might appreciate reading it, and if you care to, perhaps sharing it with your readers. BTW, Dr. Frist's fax number is: (202)228-1264. Kindest regards, Oscar Torsteinson >>>>>>>>>> Dear Senator Frist: Your tirade against Richard Clarke yesterday was repugnant, ill advised, and detestable. Rather than slander a patriot who has chosen to speak the truth, you might better use your time to encourage the Bush administration to do the same. What a refreshing change that would be! Your vile, and false (in my opinion) charge that Mr. Clarke may have perjured himself, brought to mind the saying, "the pot calling the kettle black". Of far greater concern, is the perjury engaged in by the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraq war. There is solid, and irrefutable evidence that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, all perjured themselves on numerous occasions during this period, the results of which have now led to the deaths of almost 600 of our soldiers, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I ask you, from a moral standpoint, which perjury might be worse? If you were a true patriot Dr. Frist, and not the partisan hack you have shown yourself to be, you would be seeking the truth, not only from Mr. Clarke, but from the Bush administration. Your failure to do so, bespeaks of the true nature of your patriotism, and to your shallow dedication to our Constitution and the people of this nation. Sincerely, Oscar Torsteinson Subj: Stolen Files Buzz, I don't know about you, but I don't think for a minute that George W. Bush wouldn't order or condone a break-in at some guy's house to steal FBI records about John Kerry. After all, Nixon ordered or condoned similar break-ins, and that was _just Nixon_. Here we are talking about _George W. Bush_. Barry Schwartz Subj: Rice Having Seen Condi Rice's interview on "60 Minutes", I can now understand why she will not testify under oath to the 9/11 commission. She would then be required to tell the truth, with many people watching. For her in particular and the Bush Regime in general, that would not be acceptable. James Wesley Roberts Jr. Subj: Condi's Refusal Dear BuzzFlash, Dr. Rice's ongoing refusal to testify in public, under oath, may be a " political blunder of the first order," and the administration may be " shooting itself in the foot," as various Republicans have been saying. But that doesn't mean the whirling dervishes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue haven't been spinning it for all it's worth. One swirling thread of the spin has been that it's a Constitutional issue, centered on the separation of powers. The other has been that BECAUSE it's a Constitutional issue, it's also a matter of principle--and as one ostensibly objective reporter put it the other day, "When it comes to matters of principle, this administration won't budge." I think we can all settle in for a hearty laugh at the suggestion that this administration lets either the Constitution or accepted principle get in the way of what it wants to do. The Constitution? Ask people who have been herded off into "free speech zones," had their abortion records pried out of their doctors' hands, or found creationist brochures sitting right next to real science at our National Parks' visitor centers. The right to keep and bear arms is just about the only one of the Bill of Rights Mr. Bush has "protected and defended"--he's led an unprecedented, all-out assault on the others, along with major chunks of the rest of the Constitution. (For more on this, please visit www.riteblok.com, and see "What ARE We to Tell the Children?") Even the separation of powers has only been sacred when it's worked to protect the Bush administration--he's been more than willing to jam his fingers into the Congressional and Judicial pies when it's been to his advantage. Principle? Ask Joe Wilson, whose wife was outed as a CIA operative to punish him and intimidate other intelligence professionals. Ask Paul O'Neill, who was accused of stealing classified documents when the administration couldn't counter the revelations in his book with facts or logic. Ask Richard Foster, who was told he'd be fired for telling Congress the truth about cost estimates for Medicare "reform." Even the notion that our steely-eyed leader "won't budge" in general is laughable when you consider how many times he's completely reversed himself under political pressure--always without acknowledgement or explanation--and thundered off in a new direction, bellowing about strong leadership and taking credit for anything good that happens along the way. Personally, I think the reason the administration won't budge on this one is that it's stuck between a rock and a hard place with Condi. If she appears under oath, she's obligated to tell something within yodeling distance of the truth that will eventually come out. If she doesn't tell the truth, and the country sends her boss back to "clearing brush" in Texas this November, she could well face a trial for perjury. If she does tell the truth, the boss will damned sure go south in November, along with her high-powered job. The only option for these guys is to brass this one out, and hope that some time between now and November, they catch Osama bin Ladin hiding at John Kerry's house. Robert Crawford Subj: Today, Jamaica ; Tomorrow, Liechtenstein ! I see where our intrepid Security Director has finally had enough of the impudence of those smartass, dreadlocked foreigners. It seems that she has given the Jamaicans an ultimatum to expel Haitian president - in - exile Aristide, or face " the full force" of the United States of America and Condoleezza Rice. I'm so proud to be an American! While we're at it, we should invade the Galapagos Islands and force them to turn over Charles Darwin so that we can try him for spreading sacrilegious doctrines. And just for the sake of keeping Rummy happy, our warplanes can find plenty of targets in Liechtenstein: men in lederhosen - how gay is that?! I'm so proud that our leaders are seeking a final solution to all of our problems. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! or else. Michael J Fowler Subj: Rice the Weasel Outmaneuvers Bradley I just watched the Condoleeza Rice interview on "60 Minutes" conducted by Ed Bradley and I was (not) amazed with what was either edited out or NOT FOLLOWED UP during the interview, let alone not dealt with directly (i.e., many of Clarke's major allegations). Clearly, the interview was edited because at a few points during the tape, the show cut to other footage with a voice-over by Bradley. Did they edit out the follow-up to Rice's assertion that "we [the White House counsel] have not found" any precedent where a presidential adviser testified under oath before Congress? Of course, the FIRST problem here is that the 9/11 Commission is NOT Congress, but rather a body put together BY Congress. Secondly, Ben Veniste, a democratic member of the commission, already provided several examples of previous advisers testifying when faced with this puny excuse. Why didn't Ed Bradley, a SEASONED JOURNALIST, follow up on this? I did a Google Search and found pages of documentation to refute Rice's assertion, all from mainstream press such as CNN, Time, NBC, and CBS itself, for heaven's sake. Bradley did press that this was a unique and urgent circumstance and Rice agreed, but then he let her CHANGE the subject, as she did throughout the interview and weasel out of the reason she should testify. Any person connected to the Internet could've spent 30 minutes and had REAMS of paper to question Rice on, documentation of lie after lie. Instead, Bradley gave the appearance of grilling her and then let her slide on all the lies. I used to think 60 minutes was hard-hitting journalism. After tonight, I guess I can write that one off my list of reliable sources too. Signed, A non-journalist who's embarrassed by those who call themselves by the name. This one goes on the mailbox with a used Earl Grey bag in the fold for the President's cuppa. The mailman is starting to look at me oddly. Keep it up, Buzz. We can make a difference. ============================================ Monday, March 29, 2004 George W.
Bush Mr. President, How was your weekend, Sir? A little busy? Have some tea, Sir. I find it helps. While we're on the subject, have you seen Condi anywhere? I need to apologize for my error in Friday's letter. Oh no, that's very nice of you, Sir, but I did make an error of fact. I quoted her as having said that Richard Clarke was 'out of the loop' when it was actually Mr. Cheney who said it. Well, yes, I do think it's important to correct the record, don't you, Sir? You've never had to do that? Wow, you can't know how jealous I am, Mr. President. Well, I guess that's why you're the President and I'm not. Oh, there she is, over behind those drapes. Yeah, she see us. Here she comes. Now, before you say anything, Condi, let me apologize for that misquote. I was wrong. I was incorrect. I own the error. Mea culpa. I will strive to do better in the future. Please accept my apology. Thank you. See, Sir. It wasn't that hard. The earth didn't open and swallow me. The sky did not fall and the Apocalypse has not yet begun. No, really Mr. President, not yet. Sir, as unlikely as it seems, should you ever find yourself in the position of having done something to apologize for, it can be done. Try to remember that. It may be good for all of us. Since I'm being everyone's nosy aunt today, Condi, a little advice. Stop the excuses about the Constitution. Given what has been done to it in the last three years, it's really not a good idea to try to hide behind it now. It reminds people of the other occasions when it was being assaulted. And what's worse for you, it's making people laugh. Sir? Surely you saw those editorial cartoons when you were reading all those papers with Laura this morning. They're a scream, aren't they? Well, I understand, Sir. It all depends on one's point of view, doesn't it? And Condi? Unless you talk to the commission in public and under oath, people will assume that you have something to hide and they will assume the worst. And, hey, at least they're not going to ask you about a BJ, are they? I'll get you a cup too, Condi. You look like you could use one. Sorry, no scones yet. Sir, that reminds me. I received this atrocious bill from Halliburton for transshipment of the scones from Central Africa to Haiti. They're holding up shipment until they get paid. Congress will take care of it? What a relief! I didn't know where I was going to get that kind of money. It certainly doesn't hurt to have you as a friend, Sir. Thank you. Most Sincerely, Barbara
A. Rittiman Subj: Friedman's Cry for Help Dear BuzzFlash: I consider Thomas Friedman's March 28 column ("Awaking To A Dream") to be a cry for help. To him, the Bush regime would be perfect, if only it only it behaved entirely differently than it does. It's a type of wishful thinking that I call "buying Enron at 100". What saddens me is that he desires a sign of positive leadership, but he admits that he missed the 9/11 hearings, in particular Richard Clarke's testimony. He says:
Now look at this testimony from Clarke:
An admission of failure, an apology, and a plea for understanding and forgiveness; how's that for imagination? For stepping out of oneself and thrusting out a hand? Friedman should realize that not only evildoers have imagination, even nowadays. Friedman, in particular, is very imaginative, especially about the Bush regime. But the Bush regime has no imagination at all. Sincerely, Nathaniel Hellerstein Subj: Condi Dr. Rice doesn't have time to appear before a Congressional Hearing on 9/11. What with her duties as talk show guest and now she is threatening Jamaica if they don't expel Aristide. Yes, Condi is threatening Jamaica with the force of the US if they don't kick the Aristide's out. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/032904F.shtml Does anyone know if we have accidentally fallen into a Monty Python movie? Sally A. McDonald Subj: Bush spent 42% of 1st 8 months on Vacation Dear BuzzFlash: I love your flashback on Ashcroft's warning not to fly in the summer of '01. Here's another flashback, currently being rerun at the link below. Please continue these flashbacks...remind people of the PNAC, too. Thanks!!! A BuzzFlash Reader =========================================== Subject: Fwd: Bush spent 42% of 1st eight months as president on Vacation This news report is from Aug 29, 2001 a few weeks before 911. And while Bush was out playing almost half the time, add to that all the numerous fundraisers he attended.. and his actual time 'on the job' would be somewhere around 25% ... that's a 10 hour work week. George Bush, as president of the United States is on a 10 hour work week? Bush even out-does Ronald 'Nap time' Reagan as the laziest president in the history of the United States. And we now know that George Bush received an urgent security warning of terrorist hijackings on August 6, 2001 and still went on a full month-long fishing and golfing vacation, ------------------
Subj: Hats off to Barbara A. Rittiman! And, a tip of my teacup, too! Now, THIS gal knows how to write a letter! Not only ONE letter, but ONE-A-DAY, in order to "Teabag Resident Bush"! I can't wait to read them, each day - Please, KEEP IT UP! nerdeaux in Idyho Subj: Troop change in Afghanistan Pulling the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and replacing them with troops with expertise in Spanish cultures wasn’t a mistake, it was his all part of Bush’s master plan of fighting terrorists. The new troops would use their expertise to put on a bull fight and announce that bin Laden had won free tickets, and when he showed up at the will call window they would capture him! John Andersen Subj: It's Midnight in America Disagree. It is not midnight. It is the darkness before the dawn. The Hour of the Wolf. That early morning hour when every demon has slipped out of our subconscious caves and now pirouettes in a dance macabre about our souls, faster, faster, faster, 'til we jolt straight up off our pillows gasping for breath. The room is dark - - - darker than midnight - - - because the moon and stars have already said their good-byes to the nighttime sky. Finally, that little crack in the east. Going back to sleep is hopeless. Time to get up and make some coffee. Anita Beckenstein Subj: Letter to the Editor - Condi Won't Testify? I find it amazing that Condoleezza Rice won't testify to the 9-11 commission referencing "constitutional issues " and "separation of powers". Seems I don't remember these issues being a problem back when the Republicans were dragging President Clinton and everyone in his administration before congressional panels. The way the Bush administration is hiding things make one wonder if they have something to hide? The more Ms. Rice says she won't talk - the more interested I am in hearing what she's not saying. Marc Perkel Subj: Rice's Testimony So, if Rice testifies under oath and in public it will set a dangerous precedent? I guess that's more important than 3000 lives. "Remember, if you don't testify, the terrorists win!" Mike Curtis Subj: Elaine Cho Article You missed a really great opportunity to reveal a classic Bush media strategy. I rode the link to the article about Elaine Cho, and noticed it was designated "pro." So then I clicked around the site to find the " con." The response to the editorial was written by a Labor Department media relations hack whose column was classic Bush-speak. He starts and ends with rude and uncalled-for comments about the author of the opposing opinion. I think he needed to do this to take up space because of course he really could not cite any notable achievements by Elaine Cho in terms of her mission to protect the interests of American workers. Go read it - I think you have writers that are better prepared than I am to turn these two pieces into a powerful commentary on the Administration's inability to hold an intelligent conversation about the issues facing voters in this country. When you put these two articles side-by-side you can't help seeing the whole problem with this administration. Joanne Roush Subj: Kerry and Nader meeting I hope that when Kerry meets with Nader, he doesn't reveal any secret campaign strategies to Nader or tell him too much, considering where Nader is getting some of his funding (republicans). A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Condi Rice We all know Condi not testifying has nothing to do with National Security. It has to do with we can't charge her with perjury if she is not under oath and she knows it. Again they are asking us to trust them to tell the truth, when they rarely have. Karen Webb, Moore, Ok. Subj: advance knowledge of 9-11 documented in sf Chron Dear Sirs; Please look at following link for a SF Chron story on Mayor Willie Brown's advance warning on 9-11. Haven't seen this one pursued anywhere: URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL Best, David in SF Subj: Will Someone Ask "What happened on 9/11?" Please. James Fallows, in his book "Breaking the News," laments news organizations covering "the horse race" over covering the substance of what the "race" is about. It's at it again, with a vengeance. Over the past several days I've lurched between being dumbstruck to being outraged by news [sic] coverage of Richard Clarke's 9/11 Commission testimony and Administration reaction to it. Over and over and over again talking heads and members of the media "Kool Kids" club have breathlessly reported on polls and public perception of Clarke's testimony and the whirlwind of vitriol spewing forth from the White House and its operatives on The Hill and talk radio. The current "Will-or-Will-Not-Rice-Testify" flap is even part of that. Never mind the heart of the matter. Never mind whether or not Bush and his minions fiddle-farted in the Summer of '01 when it should have been pulling out all the stops to prevent what turned out to be the crimes and horrors of 9/11. Does anybody, anybody, deny that in July of '01 W. Bush's top priority was getting a massive tax cut bill through Congress? Does anybody, anybody, deny that in August of '01 Bush took a month-long vacation in Crawford, Texas -- a "victory lap" after getting his tax cut bill enacted? Why can't any news organization start from those points in analyzing whether or not Bush and his people did, or even attempted to do, all that could be done to prevent a then-know al Qaeda threat to attack the U.S.? Last week, on March 26, 2004, Josh Marshall, in his blog, said it with clarity: Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here. What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed. This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch. But who will really, I mean really, try to get to the bottom of this? Richard
R. Newton Subj: How Bush takes B.S. and makes lemonade In this week's radio address Bush used his tax cuts to take credit for the 24% rise in homeownership over the past year. A clear case of uses facts to lie. His $600 tax refund isn't enough for the down payment on a tar paper shack in Mississippi! Why hasn't anyone in the media pointed out that the more likely reason for the rise in homeownership has been rock-bottom interest rates brought on to help salvage the tanking economy? A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: UNCUT BUSH 911 MORNING VIDEO AVAILABLE ON VHS This footage, obtained and presented exclusively by The Memory Hole, shows President Bush sitting in a Florida classroom for 5 minutes after he was told that the second Twin Tower has been hit and that America was being attacked. A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time. Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: NSA'S HAVE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH Zbigniew Brzezinski, then national security advisor, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate the Activities of Individuals Representing the Interests of Foreign Governments on Sept. 17, 1980 to discuss efforts by the President's brother Billy Carter to influence the federal government on behalf of the government of Libya. Sandy Berger, NSA at the time as is Rice now, appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on May 3, 1994 to provide a briefing on United States policy toward Haiti. He later appeared before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on Sept. 11 1997, concerning fund-raising practices in connection with the 1996 federal election campaign. in other words . . .Rice could testify if she wanted to (and presumably would over something that didn't damage the admin)! http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: 1994 Debt of Honor Ending of Tom Clancy novel, Japanese KLM slammed into Capital. Copyright 1994. No one ever could dream of doing this, Ms. Rice A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Bush's War Click here: printer-friendly story Dear Buzz, Today while reading my local paper I found this letter to the paper on our use of children in Iraq to get to their parents. While I have always been against the war and am no longer surprised at what our government does, this kidnapping of children goes well beyond the bounds of even a modicum of decency. If all of your readers would write their senators and congressmen and notify their newspapers of this tactic, maybe we as a nation could put a stop to the practice! And we wonder why we are hated in so many parts of the world! An avid NC reader Subj: Ollie Ollie Oxen, Freeh, Freeh, Freeh! Hey Buzzers, Where is Louis Freeh in all this? Madeleine Albright referred to the FBI Director in her statement to the 911 committee without naming him as have others. I googled "Freeh 911 commission testimony" to see if he has testified and could not find any reference to statements he has made to the committee. Why has Tenet testified under oath but not Freeh? Why the head of the CIA under Clinton and Bush but not the head of the FBI under both. It is as though no one even wants to speak his name, including the press. Where is he? He served as head of the FBI from 1993 until May of 2001 and would surely be able to clear up any discrepancy between Clarke's and Rice's recollections of the run- up to 911. Why isn't the committee demanding his appearance? Come out, Come out, wherever you are Ollie Ollie Oxen, Freeh Freeh Freeh! Leslie Crabtree Hi BuzzFolks, I walked into a Barnes and Noble the other day looking for Bev Harris' Blackbox Voting book. They did not have it in stock. I asked why. They did some checking, and came up with this. "The book was never offered to them". It was put out by a small publisher with no distributor approaching them, it seems. (Then how did Buzz get such easy access to it????) Nicely, I asked them if they'd stock it, or at least find a way to order such an important book for me, their way too loyal customer. (OK, I might have been acting too nice. But nice works.) We now have the name of Barnes and Noble's book buyer, Sally Leventhall. She has told my local store that she will be looking for a distributor who can provide her fine chain with this book. As we all know, one person walking into one chain store is never enough. This is also not just an effort to boost b/n walk ins. The book needs to hit other chains and other stores as well. If each and every one of us hit at least one bookstore asking for this book or any other that spreads a truth not uttered by those who are well paid and "fair and balanced", we just might have a chance at saving our country before the November election. After that, well I think it'll just be too late. Dix Subj: Malveaux shills for White House on Rice testimony question. Unfair reporting and a disservice to the public good. Monday at 2:00P.M. CST CNN's Suzanne Malveaux (unfortunately in very typical fashion) biases her White House reporting to explain verbatim the W.H. line on the very current and thorny question of Dr. Rice's potential returning to testify at the 9/11 Commission hearings. Please take a look at vital and breaking news and facts that were not revealed by Malveaux in this segment: 1. The commission has voted UNANIMOUSLY that Rice should testify publicly. - Does Malveaux report this? NO. 2. Richard Clarke made a clear and powerful request in both interviews yesterday, (as have others), that any Rice declassified testimony can only be fairly released in its entirety (clearly to avoid the danger of WH cherry-picking and manipulation of tactically selected quotes). - Does Malveaux report this important development? NO. 3. Even Republican members of the Commission (and Richard Perle) have said they believe that it's an Administration mistake not to have Rice testify. - Does Malveaux report this? NO. 4. The separation of powers debate is in full swing with member Jamie Gorelick (and even the Republican head of the Commission Thomas Kean) saying these highly unique circumstances trump the typical separation protocol. Other Commission members are citing examples of previous exceptions to same. - Does Malveaux report this? NO. Hopefully the point has been made, but I'm more than happy to get CNN transcripts and provide more proof of highly germane facts that are hidden by Malveaux. There is a larger point to be made here, and I will continue to watch this exceedingly smooth but strongly biased reporter and send examples of said bias. If transcripts are needed or a more formal analysis of her ever present pro-Administration slant (and her clear motivation to avoid any serious discussion of facts that could embarrass the Administration, probably costing her access) is desired, I would be delighted to comply. No balance here - Malveaux's "reporting" was precisely as Rice/Cheney/McClellan prefer: give their spin on the story.... and then be quiet, very quiet. Once again, with Malveaux's incessant White House pandering, our poor democratic requirement for both sides of a vital debate is terribly mocked. Hidden by her pleasant, sophisticated appearance and well modulated speaking style her severe lack of courage to even question the Administration is all the more dangerous to her trusting viewers. In closing, I'd like to say that I'm sure Malveaux's personally a fine person, but I'm talking about professional ethics and behavior that impinges of the trusting American public's rights to truth in journalism here. That's where the viewing public is absolutely OBLIGED to draw the line. Thank you for reading, and I would advise other CNN viewers to watch Malveaux's future work with this example of hiding mitigating facts and highly selective reporting strongly in mind. It's very sadly pervasive. Dave Dorsett Subj: Colin Powell Colin Powell has backed down from his moderate stand on foreign policy time after time. He doesn't have the guts to stand up to the right-wingers. RB http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/4/steinberger-m.html Misoverestimated Yes, the hard-liners have outflanked and humiliated Colin Powell. But don't feel sorry for him. He has no one to blame but himself. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Rove and the DREAM BuzzFlash, Since when does the Secret Service serve as Rove's little private police force??? I've never heard of a Secret Service detail for a presidential advisor! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31890-2004Mar28.html A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Landmine Removal Machine Wow, this is an amazing story. Japanese businessman builds own machine to make world landmine-free http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&e=... Judy Subj: Another (Surreptitiously) Broken Promise Last October, in a clarion call for Congress to finalize a bill for senior's drug coverage, President Bush promised, "If there's a Medicare reform bill signed by me . . . corporations have no intention to dump retirees [from their existing drug coverage] . . .What we are talking about is trust." In support of this contention, The White House and the congressional backers of Mr. Bush's proposal emphasized the bill included a special tax subsidy for companies to "encourage employers to retain prescription drug coverage" for their retirees and not to cut them off. Now the bill is passed, and -- as it is with most bills such as this -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. A closer reading of the final legislation reveals in very small print -- at the bottom of the page upside down and backwards -- as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 8, 2004 -- the White House added, surreptitiously, a little-noticed provision to the bill that allows companies to severely reduce -- or almost completely terminate -- their retirees' drug coverage "without losing out on the new subsidy." This legislation actually rewards companies who discontinue their employees' drug coverage with an enticing new tax break! Well, Mr. Bush, you asked us to trust you. A lot of did -- reluctantly. Why this reluctance? Because we still remember all to well when Congress was appropriating money to fund the Halliburton no-bid contracts for restoration of Iraq, you and your cronies tried to insert a rider stating that any contractor found to be price-gouging or overcharging on this work would not be subject to prosecution! Fortunately, before passage the insertion was discovered, and it stank so badly neither party would vote to pass it. Is there any reason why anyone with the ability to think should not be suspicious and suspicious? Both of these instances could not be merely oversights -- they had to be intentional! (A light bulb moment!) Could it just possibly be your decision was based on the fact that the major backers of the provision in this most recent bill were General Motors, Lucent Technologies, Dow Chemical, and SBC Communications, who just happen to be major contributors to your reelection campaign, contributing over $139,000 in soft money and over $2.5 million in hard money to your campaign fund and the RNC during the current election cycle ? ? ? Nah ! ! ! --Bill
Sybert Subj: Conservative Pundits I just spent the last few hours listening to Sean Hannity and then John Gibson rip apart Richard Clarke and Bill Clinton, of course claiming that everything is their fault, and that poor Bush only had 8 months in office before 9/11, so we can't blame Bush, Bush is so wonderful, Bush is doing great in Iraq...blah, blah, blah, it makes me sick!!!! I remember when Clinton lied about Monica these same conservative pundits went on and on for nearly a year about how we can't have a President who lies...Well, I'd like to see all of their quotes about a lying president so that it can be thrown back into their faces now that Bush is a bigger liar than Clinton ever was. Just a suggestion for an article. Thanks! Subj: Fighting Terrorism With Both Hands Tied Behind Your Back! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/ Dear BuzzFlash, I wonder if this is the reason Condoleezza Rice doesn't want to testify under oath at the 9/11 commission. How can Bush explain why Richard Clarke was demoted and "out of the loop." It also looks like the top FBI Al Quaeda terrorism expert, John O'Neill, was also being "taken out" of the loop. Why did Barbara Bodine work so hard to keep John out of Yemen? Remember, John O'Neill quite the FBI "under a Cloud" on Aug 31 and was one of the victims in New York. This PBS special sheds some interesting facts on pre 9/11. BuzzFlash Reader |
||||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
