 |
||||||
|
April 1, 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: National Security advisor testimony As an addition to what another BuzzFlash reader has already said in the mailbag,in the not-too-distant past other National Security advisors have indeed testified under oath. I am fairly certain that during the early 1980's, Ronald Reagan's National security advisor, Richard Allen, was called before the Congress to testify about some gifts he had received from Korean or Taiwanese businessmen (i.e., the "cufflinks" scandal). Can't our lazy corporate media types these days do one single stitch of research? They take at face value any lie or distortion handed out by the GWB administration. Democrats have to inundate the press with accurate research facts, so that time after time after time, Bush and his cartel of liars can be proved to be wrong. Donald P. Russo, Bethlehem, Pa. Subj: I agree with Kelly Ogle, of CBS, except.... Read Kelly's 2 cents about Richard Clarke and then mine. http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID... I think had they not campaigned on being the anti-Clinton administration and actually accepted the help on al Qeada, gone after bin Ladin, followed the al Qeada members that their own agents told them were taking pilot lessons for large planes, but weren't interested in taking off or landing they might have followed them to the air ports and made an effort. The statement that none of them even considered an airliner could be used as a weapon is really bizarre since the Hart-Rudman report said they were possibly planning it. They have heard of the kamikaze's of WWII being used as weapons, or have they? That stupid movie "Black Sunday" showed terrorists using the Goodyear blimp at the Super Bowl. While Condi is under oath they need to ask her if the oil tanker named after her will be used to transport Iraqi oil to refineries owned by Bush contributors. Karen Webb Subj: If Rice will speak to the public, why not Bush? Dear BuzzFlash, Only after relentless pressure from the public, Condi Rice is being "allowed" to speak to the 9/11 and the public under oath--but under the very interesting condition that the President of the United States is allowed to hide from us, the people he supposedly represents and defends. Now why do you suppose he wants to talk behind our backs about something that concerns us all, something that killed 3000 citizens? Why wouldn't he want us to know how hard he worked to keep 9/11 from happening, if there were signs of danger at the time? Why wouldn't he want us, in the midst of his re-election campaign, to see how he took every possible step to protect Americans from terrorism, in order to convince us that he will protect us equally as well in the future? We the people are wondering why Bush, Cheney and all the king's men have desperately fought to hush up the 9/11 commission, and why they're now refusing to testify under oath just as Rice is going to do? Why is Bush and gang refusing to record their private session with the commission, so that we the people won't even be able to read a transcript--which is what we need in order to decide for ourselves whether or not 3000 of us could have been saved? I used to think that 9/11 couldn't possibly have been prevented. But all this secretiveness and paranoia stacks up to only one possibility: Mr. Bush has something to hide. Something BIG. Sincerely, Teresa Josette Subj: Bush's High Ethical Standards Hi Buzz, I thought you might be interested in posting this January 23, 2001 article as a reminder to all of us, of the high moral and ethical standards that mr. bush expects from his staff. "Bush Urges High Ethical Standards" http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/213715.shtml Thanks to the folks at Democratic Underground for digging this one up. Unfortunately I think this philosophy went right out the window along with our Constitution. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Hadley is Saved Rove's plan worked, dangle Rice, then bargain for no more WH officials to testify, the commission has been had, Rice is window dressing, Hadley is the creature that needs to be under oath. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Daschle It seems we just turned our heads and Tom Daschle found his back bone....anyone else notice that! I hope he keeps it now! Maybe the politics at the Unity dinner rubbed off on him! I certainly hope so! They have little control in that senate now...the Democrats control nothing...I hope that changes in Nov, too! Shirley...........St. Louis Hi Buzz, Are the chickens finally starting to come home to roost...or should I say chicken hawks.......but as a senior registered voter who has seen campaigns come and go...my question is this....why is it that you,Buzz and I (WE THE PEOPLE)have known all this time what is going on, and now that an election is coming up.....all of our elected officials suddenly have questions...where have these "RIP VAN WINKLES" been all this time...it is as if they have suddenly awakened and are so surprised at what is going on in out government!....... What worries me is .....after someone new gets elected will they then go back to sleep again? About "dear Condi"....What makes her so afraid to testify in public under oath......Does it mean that should she be found lying she will face perjury...and if so ...does she then get prosecuted for the same ..and then will she have to fall on her sword for her beloved boss(I cant even say his name ) Hmmmmmm, I guess we will have to wait and see right.....why do I have so little faith in the outcome of all of this.........I guess because I have lived through so many of the same, over the years.......and I still worry that no one might have a chance to beat (you know who) if he has his way with the voting machines........ Does what goes around really come around......just wondering.......... Genie Subj: White House Lies Hi, I saw this on TV tonight and thought you might want to pursue it. It would seem trivial under any other circumstances, but I really think it demonstrates how this administration lies about anything that it doesn't like. This appeared on David Letterman last night: GEORGE W. BUSH INVIGORATING AMERICA'S YOUTH - We see the President giving a speech in front of an audience. Behind him stand many local supporters. One supporter is a youth of approximately 14 years old. He looks to be "all boy," dressed in his baseball cap. As the President gives his speech, we see the youth yawn, yawn some more, stare at the sky, check his watch, yawn, check his watch, bend over, yawn, and rub his face. No, the youngster wasn't invigorated by the President's speech, but I have a feeling he was going to be "invigorated" minutes later when his father got his hands on him. The kid's father shot him a look early in the piece but the kid pretty much ignored his dad, knowing there wasn't anything dear old dad could do at that moment. Source (http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/exclusives/wahoo/) Here is what was on CNN This morning: KAGAN: All right, had a good giggle before the break, that video from David Letterman. We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting. So that from the White House. Source:(CNN LIVE TODAY 10:00, March 30, 2004 Tuesday, 11:30 AM Eastern Time, Transcript # 033001CN.V75) From Lexis Nexis Followed by this later today: And now a cautionary tale about the hazards of dragging your kids to political events. "The Late Show With David Letterman" presents a political speech as seen through the eyes of a young boy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Need to maintain spending discipline in our nation's capital. I've got plans to protect small business owner and employees -- I actually did vote for the 87 billion -- with all your heart. -- all the local officials, the sheriff is with us today -- you're worried about the quality of the -- we stand for the fair treatment of faith- based groups -- this will not happen on my watch. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIPS: OK. We're told that that kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president. So you can put it all together. Source: (CNN, LIVE FROM... 13:00, March 30, 2004 Tuesday, 1:30 PM Eastern Time, Transcript # 033004CN.V85) Lettermen swears on tonight's show that the kid was there and that he was behind the president. I'm sure there's a way to check that. Assuming that Letterman is telling the truth, which I believe he is, but can't prove, why would the White House deny this? So a kid got bored, big deal. I really just see this as further proof that the administration does and will lie about anything that makes it look bad. Disgusting! If you can verify the video I think this story would be worth posting. Keep fightin' the good fight. Sam Subj: Condi under oath PLEASE....while Condi is under oath could we please revive the question of what member of the Administration outed Joe Wilson's wife! Does anyone remember that criminal offense that was so quickly swept under the rug?? PLEASE, ask her while she is under oath. That should give both Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart a chuckle. Susan McDougal would probably also appreciate it. Thank you. Deb Subj: Fox coming attack on Clarke I've been expecting some of the First attacks on Clarke's credibility to show up on Faux first. Needless to say, I wasn't wrong (but I was wishing I'd been disappointed). In the Fox link, you will read an attack on Clarke's credibility by "author Edward Jay Epstein". I thought it would be interesting to see what this guy wrote and did a Google search which led me in two directions: 1. Two books on the JFK Assassination and 2. A Slate article in Nov 2003 that continued (despite contrary evidence) to pitch that link between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/ So, below is just the beginning of the 2nd round of counter attacks by the Extreme right on Mr. Clarke. Rather than produce either his full testimony or the e-mails he wants declassified, we can expect more of the kind of trash (on their website) and below. Regards, Ron Russell * * *
Subj: WMD Switch to Intent Hi BuzzFlash: The Bush Administration is simply setting up the big find (remember the Iran news item claiming that we unloaded WMDs in the middle of the night in Iraq). I can't make myself disbelieve that Iranian article even in light of the source. What's wrong with me! By announcing a change to find "Intent", the shrub administration is just trying to convey to us that they have basically given up on actually finding the physical WMDs and surprise, surprise, we find them in time for the election in November. It all looks so authentic this way. Excuse me. I need to throw up. Judy Thibodeau Subject: Rice-a-phony Don't believe for a second that Condoleezza Rice was not going to testify in public, under oath, before the 9/11 Commission. What leads me to this conclusion? There were just too many prominent Republicans openly speaking out and calling for Rice to come before the panel. The real giveaway was when Bill Frist, the White House's handpicked head of the Senate, stood on the floor of the Capital and criticized the administration for not allowing her to reveal what actions she did or did not take leading up to 9/11. There is no way Frist would have urged Rice's testimony in that forum unless he had Karl Rove's blessing or instruction. Think about the timing issue. The White House had Richard Clarke's book in hand since last October. They pretty much knew what Clarke was going to say because he could not contradict anything he put into print. I'm sure the White House also had Clark's testimony before the Senate 9/11 Committee. If Rice was allowed to testify from the get go she would have likely appeared the day Powell and Rumsfeld testified since Richard Armitage, who already appeared with Rumsfeld, sat in for her on the day BEFORE Clarke was to testify. The White House could not take the chance of having Clarke refute any of Rice's testify since he appeared the following day. All of that maneuvering on "principle" now allows Rice to have another couple of weeks to rehearse her story to contradict Clarke's assertions. This is obviously a tremendous advantage and allows Rice to appear to have some viable answers to the questions that Armitage already was unable to answer. The agreement also does not allow any more testimony from administration officials after Rice in the event she contradicts anything Powell, Rumsfeld, or Armitage said. Once she appears the Democrats on the panel wall look like bullies if they try to beat up on a helpless black woman who was just working her way into a new job. The right media machine will rally to her defense by denouncing the mean partisans while at the same time claim that Rice gave "brilliant" testimony regardless of how she performs. They already put some chinks in Clarke's credibility armor by using a scurrilous campaign by their mouthpieces to paint him as an inconsistent opportunist. Remember too that the White House had 5 months to prepare this attack too. This is actually a pretty slick strategy and just might allow these Cheshire Cats to again wriggle their way through the small opening in the cage and escape with the canary between their grinning teeth. YT Cai Subj: NVA Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap never mentioned John Kerry & VVAW Dear BuzzFlash: On February 10, 2004 NewsMax.Com ran a story entitled, "Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S." The story claimed that "In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen.Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North." North's claim has been repeated as gospel in numerous articles, blogs, commentaries and pseudo-news reports, despite the fact that the Giap memoir is bogus.. According to WashingtonDispatch.com columnist Greg Lewis, who researched the alleged quotation, "no such volume exists." Lewis wrote, "A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an "urban legend." Specifically, based on a "news" item that appeared on NewsMax.com, I repeated a reference to a volume of memoirs supposedly published by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1985 as the source of an assertion by Colonel Oliver North. After a reader requested a reference to Giap's 1985 "Memoirs," I did research that convinced me no such volume exists. For that matter, I haven't been able to verify through Fox News that Colonel North actually made the comments he is said to have made and which I repeated." In the past, General Giap is alleged to have made similar statements about Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite, though there is no verifiable evidence that he ever did. Revisionist historians take note, check your sources, no matter how much you want to believe the lie. #### Walter F.
Wouk - director Author's Note: I am a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War SOURCES: " Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml Greg Lewis:http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8268.shtml Subj: Bush, Sr. Saw on my Yahoo news, politics, that Bush, Sr. got down right weepy over how unfairly his son his being treated by the media (news to me). Anyway, if he wants some company to commiserate with maybe he should start hanging out with the parents of men and women who are dying in his Sonny Boy's war. Wait, maybe not. Carol Sent to kos@dailykos.com: Subj: Large-but-Simple 9/11 Questions Going Unasked Dear Kos: You and your blog and blogsphere network may be the conduit through which these questions get "out there" and, hopefully, get asked by the up-to-now "softball pitchers" who sit on the 9/11 Commission. * Was or was not Mr. Bush ever informed of a threatened "spectacular" attack on the U.S. by al Qaeda? * Is it true that the Administration gave the Taliban gov't $43 million in or around the spring of 2001? * If the answer to the foregoing question is "yes," did the Administration believe that the Taliban was harboring OBL in the spring of 2001? * In the summer of 2001, is it true that Administration representatives attempted to negotiate oil pipeline right-of-way rights with the Taliban? If yes, was this done with Mr. Bush's knowledge and authorization? * (to C. Rice) When, on at least two occasions, you said that there wasn't anybody who could have predicted terrorists using planes as missiles, would you agree that you did not just "blurt" this out. And, why did it take you almost two (2) years to "revise" these assertions? * Please confirm that in the days following the horrors of 9/11, the Administration allowed one or more flights of Saudi citizens to leave the U.S., when all other flights were, at the time, grounded. * Were there any relatives of OBL on that/those flights? Who? Did anyone with the Administration check to see and note who was on that/those flights? We would like the Administration to provide a copy of any documents relating to that/those flights and any persons on them. * In July, in August, and from 9/1 - 9/10/01, would it not have been prudent for President Bush to have directed the FBI to "pull out all the stops" to alert agents from "top-to-bottom" of a threat of imminent attack by al Qaeda and work overtime, and then some, to monitor and, to the extent possible, detain for questioning all suspected al Qaeda-related persons within FBI jurisdiction? * In August and from Sept. 1-10, 2001, couldn't the Administration have directed the FBI, DOT and FAA to step up vigilance at airports and at airport metal detectors, with an eye towards persons carrying weapons or suspicious objects? ("Sir, I see you're carrying a box-cutter in your carry-on baggage. Would you mind stepping over here and answering some questions . . ."). What with the threats of an imminent al Qaeda attack, would you not agree that this is no "hindsight-is-20/20" question, but, rather, a question about minimal diligence and prudent action? * President Bush, you have stated that he saw, on TV, the first plane hit the WTC, when we know that, at least at the time, that was an impossibility. Did you just "mis-speak" this? Please explain. * Is it true that Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercially in or around August 2001? If so, why? * If hitting Saddam Hussein 12 years after the Gulf War was warranted due to the "threat" the Administration stated he posed to the U.S., what reasons justified the Administration's deciding not to hit (by cruise missiles, special forces, or, at least stepped-up CIA, FBI and Interpol monitoring of) al Qaeda and al Qaeda bases in the months after the Cole bombing? This is not about "invading Afghanistan" -- a political impossibility prior to 9/11 -- but, rather, killing and disrupting al Qaeda members and activities as much as our information, imagination, might and ability, would allow. These are not really "hard-hitting" questions, just basic ones that should be asked and their answers probed and scrutinized. I am afraid that, alas, they will go unasked and what really lead to 9/11 will never be discovered... Richard
R. Newton Subj: BuzzFlash Breaks New Daily Record As someone who occasionally dumps his rantings into your inbox, I want to thank you as one of your legion of contributors for your kind words (and to congratulate you). I feel you're doing important work, and I'm proud to be a small part of it. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: May 8th, 2001 - Bush appoints Cheney to ...... So has anybody on the 911 committee talked about this? http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/af/security/a1050878.htm its interesting and says Cheney should have contributed to the committee. Joe Magner By the way –we have been doing a one hour vigil at the Benton County Court House ever since Oct 7, 2001. We haven’t missed one day yet and had a march and rally March 20th that attracted 700 to 900 by head count. Peace……………. Buzz: From the 3/30 White House Press GAGgle by Scott McClellan, regarding the White House's decision to let Condi out of her protective bubble: Q You have this provision that says, "The commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice." Why are you -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, remember, they've already received -- Q No, I understand that -- MR. McCLELLAN: -- received access to everything that they have requested. Q But suppose Dr. Rice says something that triggers a line of inquiry that they want to pursue. MR. McCLELLAN: And remember that Dr. Rice has already met privately with them for more than four hours. So she's provided them with what I believe is all the information they need. But it's also important for the American people to have all these facts, as well. I see... since Scotty thinks that she's already provided the commission with all the information they need, further testimony is just indulging America's annoying desire for the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Maybe I'm just stoopid, but think that the 9/11 Commission, not the White House, can best judge whether or not they already have all of the information they need. Chris Q. Sent to politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov: Bob Biersack Good morning, I understand that the Administration is currently preparing a brief to the FEC that would gag non-profit organizations from critical speech. As you must be aware: effectively, this has already happened in the mass media, in at least two separate incidents: a) Comcast, early in 2003 refusing to take paid advertising from the anti-war non-profit group "Peace Action Coalition" for a single antiwar ad: stating that the claims were baseless. This turned-out not only to be false, but ironic as this country was ultimately taken to war on untruths. b) CBS during the 2004 NFL Super Bowl refused to take paid advertising " Child's Play" from the progressive nonprofit group "MoveOn.org". CBS declined to air it, citing an internal policy that prohibits "advocacy" ads. During that Super Bowl, CBS indeed ran "advocacy" ads for things including the administration's medicare "reform" position and various erectile dysfunction products, all advocating points-of-view, all controversial. In that the MoveOn piece was simply a critique of the Bush administration's fiscal actions: it was neither controversial, nor was it advocacy. It was political speech. Given that this administration, in its bid for re-election is proclaiming that it will raise over $150 million for it's media efforts: how does the FEC balance the leverage of that much unilateral money advocating a singularly radical political position against the body politic's need-to-know all sides of an issue? Wouldn't it be better to simply identify the source of the communication, rather than change the rules to favor only the wealthy political donors? In the light of the move on the part of this administration to have intractable and demonstrably hackable electronic ballots, architected by political friends...isn't it time to give voice to an already well-muzzled but loyal opposition? Regards, Walter Raczynski http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html Dear Buzz, It just hit me how interesting it is that the Bushies do not do the right thing from the beginning. Do they not know that there will be pressure brought? Or is their incompetency showing? Now, Ms. Rice will testify in public session after they have had time to look over others testimony and coach her. Naturally, little Bushy cannot testify alone because he doesn't know the answers, but has to have Cheney by his side. Do you suppose they will hold hands under the table? Just wondering, IrmaS Subj: Statue of Liberty It looks like the statue of liberty will be reopened to the public in about 4 months or so. Hmmmm, that's probably around the september 11th anniversary, and right before the elections. Do you think this may become a prop for the Bush Campaign. Remember the Bush speech with the statue carefully framed behind him and barges full of lights to make sure it made a great television impression. A BuzzFlash Reader Since Frist, Thompson,etc. want Dick Clarke to donate his income from his book to the families of the 9-11 victims, how about Limbaugh donating his book income to those in drug rehab, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and Ingraham donating their book income to the families of our troops lost in Iraq? Let them put their money where their mouths are. .........Nick Bobrick Las Vegas, NV. Subj: Human No More As a nation that boasts power, democracy, Christian values, and doing the right thing, the following response to no WMD in Iraq should make us all ASHAMED to be AMERICANS, ashamed to be counted among the HUMANS of the world. 'Saddam may have been developing ability to produce WMD' Not a definitive statement anywhere in the above sentence. The arrogance of the Bush administration is unshakeable. It makes you wonder why they even bothered to respond -- bullies answer to no one. Somebody wants to win an election very badly. PJOnes Sent to Howie Kurtz <kurtzh@washpost.com>; reliable sources <reliable@cnn.com>: Subj: Censoring the News Howie, I was wondering if the images from Somalia during Black Hawk Down were shown on TV? If they were, then why are they not showing the horrific images from Iraq of the contractors being killed and drug through the streets in a similar situation? Why the double standard for Bush? Is censorship of the news a good thing? Tell me about that LIBERAL MEDIA again. thank you, stevie gardiner Subj: Then and Now -- Iraq Then: "We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators" - Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC' Meet the Press - 3/16/03 Now: "In a separate incident in downtown Falluja, a mob attacked a group of foreign contractors, shooting four people to death, burning their two vehicles, dragging their bodies through the streets and hanging the charred corpses from a bridge." - NY Times 3-31/04 A BuzzFlash Reader Sent to 'oreilly@foxnews.com'; 'hannity@foxnews.com'; 'comments@foxnews.com'; 'foxnewsonline@foxnews.com': Cc'd 'today@nbc.com'>; 'netaudr@abc.com'; 'colmes@foxnews.com': Does the First Amendment only apply to Fox Blabbers (or should I say does it only applies to anyone who's a Republican)? It won't be long, and you'll turn this USofA into a communist country! FEC SEEKS COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULES REGARDING POLITICAL COMMITTEE STATUS http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html Fox News and the Iraq War: Fact vs. Fox-tion http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html Hey, I found this on the web - at least you're network is well-known as being biased. At least you live up to your reputation! The Most Biased Name in News http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html FOX NEWS PUNDIT BRIT HUME TELLS FAMILIES OF DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO "JUST GET OVER IT" http://www.counterbias.com/news004.html What a compassionate bunch of people on your network. Guess you told us, huh?!? Signed: When Will Democracy Mean More than Your Paycheck? Sent to The New York Times: Editor: Today the curtains were drawn on the lives of five more American soldiers in Iraq. I knew none of these heroic people but this letter is written in profound grief at their deaths. In their memory I am driven to ask, "How much longer must this waste of human life go on?" The ideologues surrounding President Bush have clearly miscalculated. None of their promises of benefit to either the American or Iraqi people have been realized and none ever will be. We have reaped only death and destruction and an exponential increase in the number of recruits to al Qaeda's degenerate world view. As John Lennon once sang, today I would like to "imagine." What if the United States, after subduing the Taliban and tearing up the terrorist bases in Afghanistan, had attacked the conflict that fuels nearly all Islamic militancy? What if we had used $200 billion to honestly broker a settlement between the desperate Palestinian and Israeli people and then sent our heroic military to enforce it? Such a policy would have seen flowers at the feet of our brave young guardians rather than flowers at their grave sites. Sincerely, Paul A.
Moore Subj: Slide Show of Remains Coming Out of Iraq. I will not repost the story of the recent deaths in Iraq, but will direct you all to view the slide show of some pictures out of Iraq. Take special notice of the charred remains. This literally makes me sick. God rest their souls and God damn Bush. Mary! PS: Someone in a chat room this morning where we do not speak of politics said that he was going to confront the liberal Democrats on this, and before I was able to get a word out of my mouth, someone reminded him that the GOP is in control of this country and I said "Right ON!" http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq Its becoming obvious that CNN (Bush HQ), must be proud of the creative ways they can find to advance the Bush campaign. Am I the only one who notices that they have been reporting Bush campaign smear ads as news? They really must think we are idiots, if they think we wont notice this obvious free airtime giveaway for the Bush campaign. They sure ain't reporting Kerry ads as news. I think its time for an e-mail attack against CNN, with special attention to propaganda minister wanna be Wolfgang VonBlitzkrieg (wolf blitzer)....that guy is just going WAY overboard. Lets get the e-mails rolling to let em know they are being monitored!!! ....A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Articles: Bush/Cheney Ignored Richard Clarke's Warnings for Pipeline/Oil Deals 9/11 could have been prevented, according to these watchdog sites, if the Bush White house understood the value of creating policy based on facts instead of doctrine and greed.
Kathleen CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE APRIL 1, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. |
||||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
