April 14, 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: Bait and CensorRe: Did the White House Pull a Bait and Censor with the August 6th PDB?
I think your contributor must be right. Here is how Rice described the PDB under oath:
"This particular PDB had a LONG SECTION [emphasis mine] on what bin Laden had wanted to do-speculative, much of it-in '97, '98, that he had in fact LIKED THE RESULTS [emphasis mine] of the 1993 bombing. It had a number of discussions of-it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States, RESSAM.[emphasis mine] It reported that the FBI had full field investigations underway. And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place."
Rice has here characterized and summarized sections of the PDB that don't exist in the released document. There is no mention of Bin Laden liking the results of the '93 bombing --- yet Rice cites this specifically so it is presumably both in the original and not classified. There is no discussion of a specific plot to free Ressam --- and only one discussion, not "a number of" them of a plan to use hijacking to gain the release of Abu Al Rahman and "other US held extremists." Did the original document specifically mention a plot to free Ressam as Rice states? If so, that presumably unclassified information is also missing from the released PDB. And is 2/3rds of a page a "long section"? Not if we are to believe the Die Zeit article from Oct. 2002 quoted by your alert reader which says the original Aug. 6 PDB was "11 and one-half pages long." I suppose it is too much to expect that any reporter will ever ask the President or Rice herself about the inconsistency between Rice's sworn account of the PDB's unclassified contents and what has been released.
Albert Clark, NY
Subj: Historical Documentation
Has anyone thought to ask the President or Condoleeza Rice the following:
If you believed that the memo regarding Bin Ladin having cells in the US was an historical document without enough current information to warrant any pre-emptive action against Bin Ladin to prevent possible terrorist attacks on the US, then how could you decide to go to war against Iraq based on historical documents that said Iraq had WMD's but yet the current information verified that no WMD's were in Iraq?
Donald Rumsfeld said in a press briefing that "we had to go to war on what we assumed we know, not what we know."
The arrogance, audacity and stupidity of this administration is proving to be both historical and current.
Subj: Creating Peace - an approach
Excerpt from a blog as "pass it on"
a BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Massacre in Fallujah
Is it too early to speak about a massacre in Fallujah? More civilians have died there than at My Lai in Vietnam.
Subj: My Gratitude
Because you help us all feel like there is hope...because you are the long lost sanity of a desperate nation.......because we all consider you "Friend".....I'll be passing some bucks off to you come this pay day. I just really want to tell you how valuable you are BuzzFlash!! I look forward to reading you each day through out the day.
Keep it up and let's all work our asses off to get GWB out of there.
Subj: Wonder What the Bill Was?
If it weren't all so tragic and sad, I might smile that the Bush administration won't be able to use a scrap of that little dress-up "Mission Accomplished" charade they orchestrated so carefully last year. In fact, showing the prez in that flight suit might make a nice commercial for the opposition... (except I think the opposition has too much class to gloat about such a fiasco). I wonder how much we the people paid for that little stunt now destined for the discarded propaganda trash bin? Sigh.
And, on another matter, would someone, anyone, please, please, please explain the long tradition of martyrdom within Islam to the Bushies? Please? Capturing or, heaven forbid, killing Sadr, thus turning him into a martyr, will only fuel the already raging fire against our troops specifically and against all Americans in general. What are they thinking?
A sad BuzzFlash reader
Subj: Bush Keeps Saying
Bush keeps saying they did everything they could before 9/11 but it is quite apparent from recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission that counterterrorism was grossly under funded & budget requests were cut or denied.
Why? Why would the Bush Administration cut or deny counterterrorism funding.
The answer is very simple - they couldn't have their tax cuts if they properly budgeted for counterterrorism.
Tax cuts were a much higher priority than anything else in this country. That is the simple truth.
How many people would have gladly forgone their tax cut to have prevented 9/11?
Subj: Bush -- Spoiled Little Brat
I had a revelation today that it appears nobody else has had or at least has made mention of - Bush acts like a spoiled little brat.
When his business failed, his daddy fixed it. When he didn't fulfill his commitment to the Guard, his daddy fixed it. His daddy bought him the Presidency. That pretty much describes the most spoiled person I have ever heard of. Is that the very definition of spoiled? I think so.
The brat part is a little harder to prove, although blowing up frogs with firecrackers, making his 16 year-old girlfriend have an abortion(when he was 21), wiping his glasses on one of Letterman's assistant's sweater, are pretty good examples of how a brat would act. And that smirk is one that I would expect to see on a spoiled little brat.
He can't stand criticism to the point that he created free speech zones. He viciously attacks anyone who dares tell the truth about him. When it looked like Congress might not pass his tax breaks for his rich buddies, he whined that he could quit and go back to Crawford. He uses spoiled brat type language like "He tried to kill my daddy", "Dead of Alive" and "Bring it on". I fully expect that in private he uses phrases like, "I know you are, but what am I", "Told you so", and "I'm telling".
Since he was a spoiled brat as I child, I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone that he would grow up to be one.
As I look at the polls that show people like him as a person, I can't help but wonder how their opinions would change if people began to call him the name that best describes him - First Spoiled Brat (as in First Lady). Smirk is a name that describes what he does with his face and it's something people forgive him for. The term spoiled brat may wake some people up to who he is as a person and how he got where he is.
What I fail to understand is how and why everybody ignores the elephant in the room that is the Project for the New American Century?
Why doesn't anyone ever question those in charge when they lie and say their focus was not on Saddam, but on Osama pre 9-11. I think it helps connect the dots and answers a lot of questions. The pnac official web site is out there with their names written all over it. It outlines their thinking, plans and goals, which in my opinion, we are unfortunately well on our way to fulfilling. Since that is a public document they don't deny, it should be brought up over and over, especially to people like Rummy. People are acting like it was something the National Enquirer made up. I've never heard the commission or "reporters" (and I use that term loosely), except for PBS's Now, utter the words "Project for the New American Century" in public. Why isn't this issue ever brought into the mix. Why?
Travis in Collinsville
Subj: Some Thoughts about Recent Events
1. Why did the FBI fall down on the job of domestic intelligence?
Perhaps the FBI was absolutely competent in carrying out its responsibility to investigate possible domestic terrorism. Maybe it was the fellow at the top of the Justice Department who failed in his responsibilities to protect his fellow citizens from terrorist attacks --- primarily because he was too busy doing his own imitation of the Taliban and covering up statues in DOJ buildings in an effort to protect us from impure thoughts, rather than focusing on real and substantial threats to life.
2. I heard an interview with John McCain this morning on NPR. It was interesting in that he would not flat out say that Bush should be held responsible for 9-11. As a matter of fact, he made a point to place equal blame on both the Clinton and Bush administrations. However, he went on to tell a story about the USS Missouri and a time when it was run aground. McCain suggested that the Commander of the ship had left the bridge and was asleep when the ship ran aground. McCain went on to say that, within two days, the Commander was off the ship and removed from his position. The Commander had literally been asleep at the wheel (so to speak), was held responsible for the failure, and relieved of his duty.
I couldn't help but wonder as I heard McCain recount this story if the good Senator was speaking in a kind of code, essentially implying that Bush was the "Commander of the ship" on 9-11 when it "ran aground" and as the Commander he should be held responsible for the mission failure and immediately relieved of his command.
How else does a good & loyal soldier tell others his superior is incompetent?
Subj: Frontline: "The Man Who Knew"
PBS will re-air the Frontline program, "The Man Who Knew," this Thursday, April 15.
This chilling program is about John O'Neill, a terrorism expert formerly with the FBI who was among the first to begin putting pieces of the al Qaeda puzzle together and conclude Osama bin Laden meant us harm. Richard Clarke is among those interviewed for the program. I copied the lead-in from the transcript below, with a link, so you and your readers can get a feel for it.
Note that John O'Neill won't be called to testify before the 9/11 Commission. After being forced out of the FBI, he took a job heading security at the World Trade Center and died on September 11, 2001.
I just can't begin to tell you how pleased I am to know that our GREAT CHRISTIAN DIRECTOR OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was too busy chasing kids with reefers to pay much attention to TERRORISTS CRASHING JETLINERS INTO BUILDINGS!!! He was probably busy LOOKING FOR PORNOGRAPHY and HARRASSING WOMENS' MEDICAL DOCTORS!!!
Sorry about that outburst.
Ashcroft is a goddamn pervert and ought to be locked up.
Michael J. Fowler
Subj: Bush's comments on 4/12
In response to a question from a reporter regarding the current situation in Iraq, Bush said:
Anyone else reminded of a certain event from around November of 2000? Ironic--dontcha think?
Subj: Bush Press Conference
You people are wonderful and sharp so I'm sure you picked up on this but in case you didn't, we must highlight immediately.
As you probably observed, Bush's "press conference" was nothing more than a scripted appearance in which all his answers were prepped ahead of time and given to him. You probably also observed how he was afraid to allow follow-up questions.
Most notable was this response to a reporter who must have really pissed off Bush when he asked the mistake question in the Sammy Sosa context. Apparently that wasn't on the list. Bush's response,
Bush then fumbled around for 20 seconds in his usual nonsensical grammar that would be unacceptable in most elementary schools.
Subj: The Press Conference
Managed to tune in for the last ten minutes or so. It was scripted. Paraphrased, "Those that yell won't be called on. Now, here's someone I haven't heard from in a long time. Don....." If that doesn't indicate scripting, I wonder what would.
Dimbulb said that we are making progress in Iraq. Well, yes... in loss of soldiers lives. He also said that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. I asked...when? In 1991?
A question was asked about Intelligence Reform. Dimbulb is open for suggestions. I believe the lady who asked the question intimated that it would take a leader to get these reforms. Well, he will take suggestions from Congress, 9/11, for two. He will foster discussions. Actually, he did not answer the question.
Among his final comments was a doozy. He looks forward to the debates. That way the people will have the chance to decide who will do the best job of fighting terror. I have the answer...before the debates. Kerry!
Speaking to the debates, wonder if they will be negotiated. Bush gets the questions before the debate so that he can fiine-tune his responses. Keep a watch on this.
Subj: Get Ready
The Bush machine is gearing up for an attack on the "liberal media" for the softball questions that were tossed to the psycho-in-chief -- in spite of the fact that he didn't answer ONE question in a straightforward or honest way.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: PATHETIC SHOW OF WEAKNESS AT PRESS CONFERENCE
What a colossal joke this presidential press conference was. I've watched my neighbor lob harder balls at his three year-old than the questions this collective eunuch of a press corps tossed at this braindead president. Whatever happened to the gutsy Helen Thomases in Washington who weren't afraid to take off the gloves and act like real journalists? The entire press acts like an abused wife who's very careful not to say anything wrong for fear of being beaten black and blue after the company leaves. What a farce. Yes, we need a new administration in November, but what we need now is a new press corps whose spine isn't a vestigial remain.
Giving the fourth estate two thumbs down,
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE APRIL 14, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG.
otherwise noted, all original