BuzzFlash Mailbag - July 13, 2004

The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Read the BuzzFlash FAQ for info on submitting to the Mailbag.

We know that if the shoe were on the other foot, and it had been a Democrat who cussed Cheney out, the entire GOP would be demanding an apology. If it was so out of character for Dick to say that, Mrs. Cheney, why didn't he apologize right away? What do you mean it is "understandable" for him to do that. What would you say if a Democrat had cussed out your evil hubby? You know very well that the GOP doesn't want to govern. It wants to rule. It is, as BuzzFlash says, the Grand Hypocrisy Party, after all. Do as I say and not as I do. I suppose this is a great role model for our kids. If Lynne Cheney thinks she is softening the edges by saying she supports gay marriage, and trying to sneak in a few votes for Bush that way, all I can say is that we are not stupid.

Reaction to Republicans' shameless effort to cast themselves as "moderate" at convention:

I like to think that the American people are like a sleeping giant awakening from a long slumber of this administration's policy of fear.

Think of it !!! The most powerful country on the face of the earth is going to postpone their election because of a bunch of ragged people hiding in caves in some distant land (the terrorist?). What a joke, where are the people that need to be asking the hard questions?

Our current leader, gw bush in his own words, "Bring em on".......Oh no! I was not talking about the election.

No other argument need be made, no other options allowed. Unless there is a direct amendment to the Constitution a sitting President may NOT serve more than four years without re-election to confirm a second term. It does not matter if we are frightened of unknown possibilities. It does not matter if we are Republican or Democrat, it only matters that our representatives keep their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

The Repugs keep talking about what Kerry and Edwards said during the primary. As I recall, that hypocrite McCain and GW Bush said some mighty ugly things about each other and now are heaping praise on each other.

Take a second to vote in this poll, so the administration gets this message from as many angles as possible. If we let them cancel this election, it would mean our last one in history is already past.

BuzzFlash Note: The question, "Should our presidential election ever be delayed because of the threat of terrorism?" came back with a 94% "no" response based on 265 responses. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

I got a real laugh when I recently heard bush say that if he had not served he would not have an honorable discharge. No one in the military would have given anything else to a son of a congressman with connections. They would not jeopardize a vote at appropriations time. It is an unwritten rule in the military.

It seems that so often we miss the core of an argument, and therefore bring our attention to more minor details, and as a result, make little progress. For example, take W's AWOL story -- and how convenient it was to "lose" microfilm that could have answered this question -- what a joke. The AWOL story has never been the "issue." Of course, the GOP has framed W's AWOL as the issue, and it has played right into the hands of Karl Rove. The issue is not W's AWOL. The issue is W's loss of his flight status when a drug test was not performed, or because he had a felony cocaine arrest on his record at the time, etc. So as BuzzFlash readers know, it was W's drug use that caused the loss of his flight status, that eventually brought about his AWOL. (Why would W stick around after losing his flight status? To mop barracks? He had better things to do.) So, while Karl Rove keeps the country on the AWOL business, he finally quashes it with inadvertent destruction of microfilm. How quaint.

Another example is currently headlined at BuzzFlash, q.v., the possibility of "postponing" the upcoming election. Here again, Karl Rove is in the driver's seat. If an attack occurs on November 1st, or the last week of October, say, Karl Rove and Ridge et al. are without question in a position to "postpone" the election. Who can argue? If it was a Democratic president, and there was an attack during the last week of October, the same thing would be done. Here W and his team of felons, liars and conmen know that if an attack occurs in the last week of October, that it is perfectly acceptable to postpone the election (and in their minds long enough to "rally" the non-thinking voters in this country to get behind Bush). Then, the election can be re-scheduled for a time when Bush holds the advantage.

The real issue in a postponement of an election is "complicity" -- a Reichstag fire, as one BuzzFlash reader put it the other day -- what does the White House, FBI, CIA, etc. know? How can the White House keep coming out and saying that an attack is "imminent" yet no evidence is forthcoming? Indeed, the fact that the Senate will be tied up all week debating gay marriage is a sure-fire clue that somebody is lying, somebody is "looking the other way."

When government becomes "secretive" it draws the curtains on Democracy. We have become, with the help of the media, etc., an "unthinking" people (bovine); and that is very dangerous. Albert Einstein said that the greatest danger to truth is an "unthinking respect for authority." He was right. That is why the 1st Amendment is the "first" amendment, because the framers knew that our last defense against tyranny is the "truth" and so free speech is our most protected right, indeed, "political speech" is the most protected right under our Constitution.

Many more examples could be given. But until we start addressing the "main issue," Karl Rove and the GOP will complete their coup on America, and lord knows what catastrophes will come our way.

One thing is for sure. If the GOP steals the next election, which in all likelihood seems probable, the rest of the world is going to be very upset (except bin Laden and his associates, who will rejoice knowing that the great Satan (the west) will continue its imperialistic aims at controlling middle east oil, etc.., and so guarantees him that recruitment will be up, terror will be on the rise, and his dream of bringing America to its knees will be closer to reality). If we continue on the course of avoiding the "main issues" we will surely fail. So let's stop talking about AWOL, and start talking about drug arrests, and let's stop talking about postponed elections, and start talking about what this administration knows of an imminent attack on the US.

Imagine my shock as I was reading "Officials discuss how to delay Election Day" on CNN's website and found TWO CONSECUTIVE ACCURATE PARAGRAPHS. And they seem to say it all:

That is to say, what has Homeland Security worried is that an attack with no measurable impact on an election will precede the unseating of an incumbent. It follows that the Bush administration's exploration of ways to stop elections if there is a Madrid-style attack is an exploration of ways to use an otherwise ineffectual attack as a means to manipulate the election in favor of the incumbent. Thank-you CNN for getting the facts straight (intentionally or otherwise), thereby making the true aim of the administration's efforts transparent.

Postpone the November elections? Why? We've never done that, even in time of war. We've never done that, even after earthquakes. We've never done that, never. So why is it that suddenly, a Bush appointed head of a commission sends a memo to the HSO asking for it to be considered? Why? There is only one reason why -- Republicans, fearing for their political majority, and a president, facing certain defeat in a re-election bid, want to use a terrorist attack as an excuse to avoid reality. The reality is what happened in Spain and they simply can't face that. Such a postponement would be just another device to keep Republicans in power and would further and more deeply divide the nation. But let's take it to an inevitable conclusion: If the elections are postponed, it will be a victory for the terrorists and a sure sign of fear on the part of politicians. Fear for their political majority. And that, my fellow Buzzers, is all it's about.

Let's get this straight; Saddam had "the capability of producing weapons of mass murder"? We've seen it proven that a right-wing farmer from America has already produced weapons of mass destruction (i.e., the Oklahoma City bombing), so now Bush can attack all right-wing farmers in America?

Saddam "could have passed that 'capability' to terrorists"? If the terrorists weren't idiots, couldn't they just get that 'capability' by reading the newspapers and doing a little research?

Here is the scariest part: "We removed a declared enemy of America." I don't think it should be a comfort to any patriotic American to hear this justification from the same group who is happy to label anyone who disagrees with them as "unpatriotic" and "aiding the terrorists." It's only a small step from declaring yourself an enemy of America to having the administration make that declaration for you.

George Bush is not fit to shine the shoes of the Americans who have brought our country to where it is today.

Subject: Getting the "nukes" ready for election day!

Dear BuzzFlash,

The importance of the statement by Bill Clinton to Jim Lehrer that Bush and Cheney are developing "very small nuclear bombs" is that "very small nuclear bombs" will get used. Big ones get stockpiled. That is a change in nuclear policy that was decided by Bush and Cheney and not by debate in the Congress with input from all of us. Jim Lehrer didn't even ask a single question about it. Was he shell shocked or biased or just didn't get it?

Now, the danger in having a very small nuclear bomb, even a "test" bomb, is that it is really, really tempting to try one out near or on election day and leave everybody guessing that it was a dirty "nukuler" bomb set off by a "terraist." That's how you control an election.

Mark my word. I've been predicting since the color alerts were invented that we will be a red alert on Election Day. Even now the groundwork is being laid on the internet by the Republicans circulating emails to prey on the Bush Christians to make them scared of "Muslims."

And keep up the good work BuzzFlash.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Slam Dunk

Dear BuzzFlash,

Two major political stories dominating the news are the most ironic to date. The first is the devastating Senate Intelligence Committee report about the total failure of our intelligence agencies with the CIA (annual budget of $40 billion) leading the pack. In light of George Tenet's resignation it's like beating a dead horse. But the dead horse has a lot to do with the total collapse and miserable failure of our intelligence.

Here is my scenario: If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, as soon as Bush came to the presidency, there were Republican vociferations about whether he should keep Tenet (appointed by Clinton) as DCI. Bush went to visit Tenet at the CIA headquarters. His visit was short, and immediately afterward in the lobby of the Agency, Bush declared, in a photo-op, that he had complete trust and confidence in George Tenet as DCI. I wonder what they talked about behind closed doors?

Perhaps Bush told him his intention to invade Iraq and asked Tenet if he would support his president and gather intelligence support for the war. I tend to believe that Tenet had agreed to do just that. So, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condie, Wolfowitz and company had highjacked our intelligence. That's why they all missed the gathering storm coming from Al Qaida because the CIA was looking for everything and anything to incriminate Iraq. Tenet unleashed his troops to look through all the intelligence with the Iraq scrutiny in their irises.

After that, Tenet was in the White House every day briefing the president on his progress. Richard Clarke never had a chance to brief the president about Al Qaida; he was pushed away, put down and even changed his mission to chase after crimes on the Internet. The Agency was too busy collecting data on Iraq.

Now, the "slam-dunk" thing; I tend to believe that Bob Woodward (a little older, a little wealthier and a lot lazier than in his youthful years) was talking about that scenario honestly. What he didn't tell was, what they were talking about when Tenet made his "slam-dunk" reference. Perhaps they were analyzing the gathered, made-up intelligence and the President didn't find the case for the war strong enough. In other words he asked him: "That's all that you came up with George?" And the other George reassured him that the case was a slam-dunk.

What is outrageous is that the death toll now is over 4000 on our side (9/11/2001 and our Iraq war casualties). All that because they distracted the CIA from their normal duties to watch over the dangers facing this country.

The irony is the second major political news: On the same day, Tom Ridge's face showed up on our television screens warning of serious intelligence that Al Qaida is going to strike in our country between now and election day. They just have to keep playing this card to keep us scared, but they won't raise the terrorist warning to orange because that is very costly and probably would bankrupt some states. "Serious intelligence" Tom? Intelligence from where? From the CIA that you guys just declared null and void???

Go sell this to kindergartners, Tom, perhaps you can scare some there...!

Bill K.


July 13, 2004		MAILBAG ARCHIVES
The BuzzFlash Mailbag The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Read the BuzzFlash FAQ for info on submitting to the Mailbag. Subject: Republicans grasping at straws Wow, what was that drug Colin Powell admitted he and Bush's cabinet are all on? I'm beginning to wonder what it was and its possible effects. When Bush was in NC, a reporter asked him what he thought of Kerry's choice for VP and that Edwards was youthful, attractive, etc., etc. With the killer glare, eyes narrowed, Bush responded, "Dick Cheney can be president!" Hold it! I was under the impression Dick Cheney was president [heh, heh] and that much of the country is unhappy with the whole state of the nation. Whoever the real president is, his performance stinks to the high heavens. And so the repuglicans are all picking up the chant that Edwards has no experience, yadda, yadda, yadda. Never mind that Bush had less experience than Edwards and less than .01% of Edward's brains. Did the repuglicans forget that the TX legislature only meets once a year? Did they forget that the TX Attorney Gen. actually wields the power in the state and that the Governor is more or less a figurehead? Did they figure out yet that every venture Bush laid his hands on, failed? Oh yes, the GOP'ers are quick to point out that the VP is a heartbeat from the presidency and that Edwards is not qualified to take over. Well, how 'bout our illustrious VP, Cheney who is also a heartbeat away from the presidency... you know... the VP with the weak and ailing heart and heartbeat? You know who I'm talking about... the VP whose official team of doctors has a member who was just let go for having a drug problem? Hmmm, imagine that! The last few times I've seen Bush on his attacks, he projects an attitude of, "Wadaya mean I have to run against someone again?" He acts like running for president again is beneath him, like no one has any business challenging him. He thinks he is a King. Watch his attitudes closely and you will see what I mean. If these people are not on drugs, they certainly act like it! ~ Cathy Subject: So, Mrs. Cheney, what if the shoe were on the other foot? We know that if the shoe were on the other foot, and it had been a Democrat who cussed Cheney out, the entire GOP would be demanding an apology. If it was so out of character for Dick to say that, Mrs. Cheney, why didn't he apologize right away? What do you mean it is "understandable" for him to do that. What would you say if a Democrat had cussed out your evil hubby? You know very well that the GOP doesn't want to govern. It wants to rule. It is, as BuzzFlash says, the Grand Hypocrisy Party, after all. Do as I say and not as I do. I suppose this is a great role model for our kids. If Lynne Cheney thinks she is softening the edges by saying she supports gay marriage, and trying to sneak in a few votes for Bush that way, all I can say is that we are not stupid. http://www.cnn.com... A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: NPR's miscast ad analysis Hey Buzz: Here's a letter I just sent to NPR's Morning Edition: Dear Morning Edition: Another morning, another letter of complaint to NPR (sigh). In today's broadcast, John McChesney presented a look at Kerry's and Bush's latest campaign ads. In Kerry's ads, although Bush is never mentioned by name nor anyone in his administration, yet NPR's analyst referred to them as "attacks" on Bush's record. Um, if you don't cite an adversary, how can you be accusing of attacking him/her? Certainly, Kerry's ads are meant to raise questions about the areas addressed (world respect for the U.S. and so forth), but their challenges to Bush are implicit not explicit. McChesney went on to speculate that whether the ads are perceived as "attacks" probably depends on which side of the fence you occupy. He then played a Bush ad condemning Kerry's recent absence from the Senate and his vote against the "Laci Peterson" act (as an aside, McChesney mentioned this legislation passed without explaining why Dems would be against giving the fetus legal rights, i.e. its providing a precedent for future anti-choice legislation). Bush's ad directly impugns Kerry, with little said about Bush himself. Unlike Kerry's ad, Bush's ad DOES explicitly attack Kerry. To sum up (and to reach a different conclusion than Mr. McChesney), Kerry's upbeat ads about his plans don't mention Bush by name but do implicitly raise questions about the current administration's record; Bush's ads, on the other hand, explicitly attack Kerry. Comparing the two candidates' ads in terms of "attacks" is like comparing apples and missiles. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Tell CNN we ALREADY want regime change! As BuzzFlash points out, the stories on "De Laying" the election all imply that the "terrorists" want us to elect Democrats, citing Spain's electing new leaders and pulling out of Iraq as if it were a worst case scenario that plays into the terrorists hands, instead of something the Spanish people wanted. Below, is the link to the CNN story that equates voting Dem as a terrorist's wetdream, followed by the link to CONTACT CNN and my own letter to them. Please take the time to let them know we already WANT regime change! http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html TO CONTACT CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom/ My letter was as follows... CNN online reports: What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said. Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose center-right government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The country's new government then pulled Spanish troops from Iraq. And my comment on that is SO WHAT? Maybe we ALREADY want regime change! Bush already deserves to be IMPEACHED let alone elected out of office for presiding over the greatest security failure in American history, followed by stripping us of our civil liberties, not funding homeland security then firing whistleblowers who warn us our borders and public monuments are not protected, and, finally, leading our country into an illegal and irrelevant war for the profit of his oil buddies and Cheney's employer, Halliburton, which has been stiffing our troops for services not rendered. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Quote Reaction to Republicans' shameless effort to cast themselves as "moderate" at convention: If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day. -- PAUL WEYRICH, a veteran Christian conservative organizer A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Postponing Election I like to think that the American people are like a sleeping giant awakening from a long slumber of this administration's policy of fear. Think of it !!! The most powerful country on the face of the earth is going to postpone their election because of a bunch of ragged people hiding in caves in some distant land (the terrorist?). What a joke, where are the people that need to be asking the hard questions? Our current leader, gw bush in his own words, "Bring em on".......Oh no! I was not talking about the election. Sincerely, David Anderson Denver, Colorado Subject: Election Postponement a Constitutional Issue This is a Constitutional question, NOT a question of threats, real or imagined. Article II. Section 1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows... No other argument need be made, no other options allowed. Unless there is a direct amendment to the Constitution a sitting President may NOT serve more than four years without re-election to confirm a second term. It does not matter if we are frightened of unknown possibilities. It does not matter if we are Republican or Democrat, it only matters that our representatives keep their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Larry H. Subject: Abu Ghraib? What's going on with the special courts martial and the investigation into Abu Ghraib? That story seems to have completely fallen from the headlines. Have you heard anything? Thanks. Patricia Ponder Subject: Hypocrites The Repugs keep talking about what Kerry and Edwards said during the primary. As I recall, that hypocrite McCain and GW Bush said some mighty ugly things about each other and now are heaping praise on each other. Karen M. SC Subject: What to do Now we read that the Homeland Security Department is seeking legal authority to cancel or reschedule the November election in case of a terrorist attack. Why bother? I submit: IF there's another terrorist attack on US soil or its interests, that the sitting administration has abdicated through incompetence and the challengers could do no worse. Let's recap: The Bush administration makes frequent recourse to blame the Clinton administration for not 'Ending Terrorism,' yet we have documented evidence of dedicated and resourceful FBI efforts -- in lieu of a national Homeland Security cabinet position -- intercepting and preventing major terrorist plots (during Millennium celebrations in New York and Los Angeles, to cite two). The intelligence infrastructure may not have been perfect, or fully funded, or always listened to; but the problem seems to have been taken seriously. Following the 2000 election, key investigations were shut down, political agendas trumped objective information gathering and analysis, priorities were shifted and terrorism was effectively omitted as a concern for Attorney General Ashcroft's Justice Department. Until September 11, 2001; declared in the aftermath as the "worst intelligence failure in US history." That's 'One.' Wait. Just last week, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, referring to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraqi Intelligence, branded the performance of the CIA as "one of the most devastating intelligence failures in the history of the nation." That's 'Two.' It sounds as if Bush is angling for another Trifecta! Look, it's very simple: If there is a terrorist attack of any kind prior to the November election, it will be because a) the Bush administration failed to prevent it and b) because the Bush administration failed to 'End Terrorism' either through its blunt force military methodology or by addressing the root causes of economic and social injustice that give rise to insurgent movements. That's not a Trifecta. That's Three Strikes and You're Out! Play ball. Gary L. Gehman Philadelphia, PA Subject: MSNBC poll: Should we ever cancel election for terror attack? Take a second to vote in this poll, so the administration gets this message from as many angles as possible. If we let them cancel this election, it would mean our last one in history is already past. A BuzzFlash Reader BuzzFlash Note: The question, "Should our presidential election ever be delayed because of the threat of terrorism?" came back with a 94% "no" response based on 265 responses. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/ Subject: bush's honorable discharge I got a real laugh when I recently heard bush say that if he had not served he would not have an honorable discharge. No one in the military would have given anything else to a son of a congressman with connections. They would not jeopardize a vote at appropriations time. It is an unwritten rule in the military. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Main issue Dear Buzz: It seems that so often we miss the core of an argument, and therefore bring our attention to more minor details, and as a result, make little progress. For example, take W's AWOL story -- and how convenient it was to "lose" microfilm that could have answered this question -- what a joke. The AWOL story has never been the "issue." Of course, the GOP has framed W's AWOL as the issue, and it has played right into the hands of Karl Rove. The issue is not W's AWOL. The issue is W's loss of his flight status when a drug test was not performed, or because he had a felony cocaine arrest on his record at the time, etc. So as BuzzFlash readers know, it was W's drug use that caused the loss of his flight status, that eventually brought about his AWOL. (Why would W stick around after losing his flight status? To mop barracks? He had better things to do.) So, while Karl Rove keeps the country on the AWOL business, he finally quashes it with inadvertent destruction of microfilm. How quaint. Another example is currently headlined at BuzzFlash, q.v., the possibility of "postponing" the upcoming election. Here again, Karl Rove is in the driver's seat. If an attack occurs on November 1st, or the last week of October, say, Karl Rove and Ridge et al. are without question in a position to "postpone" the election. Who can argue? If it was a Democratic president, and there was an attack during the last week of October, the same thing would be done. Here W and his team of felons, liars and conmen know that if an attack occurs in the last week of October, that it is perfectly acceptable to postpone the election (and in their minds long enough to "rally" the non-thinking voters in this country to get behind Bush). Then, the election can be re-scheduled for a time when Bush holds the advantage. The real issue in a postponement of an election is "complicity" -- a Reichstag fire, as one BuzzFlash reader put it the other day -- what does the White House, FBI, CIA, etc. know? How can the White House keep coming out and saying that an attack is "imminent" yet no evidence is forthcoming? Indeed, the fact that the Senate will be tied up all week debating gay marriage is a sure-fire clue that somebody is lying, somebody is "looking the other way." When government becomes "secretive" it draws the curtains on Democracy. We have become, with the help of the media, etc., an "unthinking" people (bovine); and that is very dangerous. Albert Einstein said that the greatest danger to truth is an "unthinking respect for authority." He was right. That is why the 1st Amendment is the "first" amendment, because the framers knew that our last defense against tyranny is the "truth" and so free speech is our most protected right, indeed, "political speech" is the most protected right under our Constitution. Many more examples could be given. But until we start addressing the "main issue," Karl Rove and the GOP will complete their coup on America, and lord knows what catastrophes will come our way. One thing is for sure. If the GOP steals the next election, which in all likelihood seems probable, the rest of the world is going to be very upset (except bin Laden and his associates, who will rejoice knowing that the great Satan (the west) will continue its imperialistic aims at controlling middle east oil, etc.., and so guarantees him that recruitment will be up, terror will be on the rise, and his dream of bringing America to its knees will be closer to reality). If we continue on the course of avoiding the "main issues" we will surely fail. So let's stop talking about AWOL, and start talking about drug arrests, and let's stop talking about postponed elections, and start talking about what this administration knows of an imminent attack on the US. Francis X. DuCharme Prairie du Chien, WI Subject: Re:"Officials discuss how to delay Election Day" Imagine my shock as I was reading "Officials discuss how to delay Election Day" on CNN's website and found TWO CONSECUTIVE ACCURATE PARAGRAPHS. And they seem to say it all: What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said. Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose center-right government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq. That is to say, what has Homeland Security worried is that an attack with no measurable impact on an election will precede the unseating of an incumbent. It follows that the Bush administration's exploration of ways to stop elections if there is a Madrid-style attack is an exploration of ways to use an otherwise ineffectual attack as a means to manipulate the election in favor of the incumbent. Thank-you CNN for getting the facts straight (intentionally or otherwise), thereby making the true aim of the administration's efforts transparent. Albert Clark NY Subject: Postponing the Election Hi Gang! Postpone the November elections? Why? We've never done that, even in time of war. We've never done that, even after earthquakes. We've never done that, never. So why is it that suddenly, a Bush appointed head of a commission sends a memo to the HSO asking for it to be considered? Why? There is only one reason why -- Republicans, fearing for their political majority, and a president, facing certain defeat in a re-election bid, want to use a terrorist attack as an excuse to avoid reality. The reality is what happened in Spain and they simply can't face that. Such a postponement would be just another device to keep Republicans in power and would further and more deeply divide the nation. But let's take it to an inevitable conclusion: If the elections are postponed, it will be a victory for the terrorists and a sure sign of fear on the part of politicians. Fear for their political majority. And that, my fellow Buzzers, is all it's about. Jerry Peurala Westfield, IN Subject: he is a mad man Bush says we are fighting the war in Iraq so we don't have to fight the terrorists here at home. i think the American people thought it was over wmd, then we were liberating the Iraqi people. do the Iraqi people know the plan was to get all the terrorists to come to Iraq where the Iraqi people would be killed instead of us? how many more countries will we bomb and kill innocent people so bush can spread the terrorists around the world? Wake people! we have a mad man at the helm of this ship! the Massey in South Carolina Subject: Iraq excuses get weaker and weaker... "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said. -- 'Bush again defends invasion of Iraq ' (msbnc) Let's get this straight; Saddam had "the capability of producing weapons of mass murder"? We've seen it proven that a right-wing farmer from America has already produced weapons of mass destruction (i.e., the Oklahoma City bombing), so now Bush can attack all right-wing farmers in America? Saddam "could have passed that 'capability' to terrorists"? If the terrorists weren't idiots, couldn't they just get that 'capability' by reading the newspapers and doing a little research? Here is the scariest part: "We removed a declared enemy of America." I don't think it should be a comfort to any patriotic American to hear this justification from the same group who is happy to label anyone who disagrees with them as "unpatriotic" and "aiding the terrorists." It's only a small step from declaring yourself an enemy of America to having the administration make that declaration for you. George Bush is not fit to shine the shoes of the Americans who have brought our country to where it is today. A BuzzFlash Reader and Big Time Patriot Sent to Bob Herbert: Subject: Bush's "impenetrable logic" Re "The Real Enemy Staring Us in the Face" (NY Times, Op-Ed) Dear Bob Herbert: Again you write a well-phrased and impassioned piece. However, Bush's logic is not "impenetrable" in the slightest, and that may be why your article is titled "The enemy is staring us in the face." Yes, the enemy is us, or better yet, the Bush cartel and the media in lockstep with them (including the NYTimes which pushed front page false info on the public to support this criminal war in Iraq), and, finally, those of us too stupid to think. However, why sidestep it? Say it. Bush is the enemy. He plans to attack Iran and Syria, as they planned all along, as outlined in the Plan for a New American Century. PNAC, plotted out ages ago. That should be the front page news. It's not "impenetrable logic" because Bush's goal has nothing to do with either a response to or prevention of attacks on American soil -- in fact, such attacks supply the illegally-installed Bush-Cheney cartel with the very support they need for their imperialistic plans. Therefore, this criminal administration has a vested interest IN another such attack. Is it an accident that Bush presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history? Whether he ignored warnings during his month-long vacation in August '01 due to incompetence or criminal compliance, he deserves impeachment. And his wrongheaded approach to responding to Al Qaeda suggests the latter. Besides the points you outlined, look no further than the funding crisis in our national parks and monuments, where such an attack may occur. What is Homeland Defense doing about that? Nothing, unless you count firing the whistleblowers who try to warn us that they are unable to protect our national treasures from attack. Bush is a traitor to this country, to the point where they are even floating the idea of "postponing" our Presidential Election...in case the American people get sick of being less safe and, like the Spaniards, vote the warmongering bastards out. This is treason. All of it is. Bush should be impeached. What are you waiting for? Say it. Instead of pointing your finger at the American people and ask what WE are doing. We're doing plenty. You worry about doing YOUR job. Thank you. Robyn Miller Quincy, MA Subject: Let's study quick impeachment The Dems should form a commission to study quick impeachment and conviction of Bush-Cheney if there's another attack by foreigners on American soil before the election. That's what is really needed. Mitchell J. Freedman Poway, CA Subject: Re What Would Abraham Lincoln Say About Canceling a Presidential Election? great piece. we didn't "postpone" elections during the Great Depression or WWII which were at least, if not more, threatening to our liberty than Al-Queda or the current Administration! a loyal reader and blue dog Demo Rick Murphree Knoxville, TN Subject: Getting the "nukes" ready for election day! Dear BuzzFlash, The importance of the statement by Bill Clinton to Jim Lehrer that Bush and Cheney are developing "very small nuclear bombs" is that "very small nuclear bombs" will get used. Big ones get stockpiled. That is a change in nuclear policy that was decided by Bush and Cheney and not by debate in the Congress with input from all of us. Jim Lehrer didn't even ask a single question about it. Was he shell shocked or biased or just didn't get it? Now, the danger in having a very small nuclear bomb, even a "test" bomb, is that it is really, really tempting to try one out near or on election day and leave everybody guessing that it was a dirty "nukuler" bomb set off by a "terraist." That's how you control an election. Mark my word. I've been predicting since the color alerts were invented that we will be a red alert on Election Day. Even now the groundwork is being laid on the internet by the Republicans circulating emails to prey on the Bush Christians to make them scared of "Muslims." And keep up the good work BuzzFlash. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Slam Dunk Dear BuzzFlash, Two major political stories dominating the news are the most ironic to date. The first is the devastating Senate Intelligence Committee report about the total failure of our intelligence agencies with the CIA (annual budget of $40 billion) leading the pack. In light of George Tenet's resignation it's like beating a dead horse. But the dead horse has a lot to do with the total collapse and miserable failure of our intelligence. Here is my scenario: If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, as soon as Bush came to the presidency, there were Republican vociferations about whether he should keep Tenet (appointed by Clinton) as DCI. Bush went to visit Tenet at the CIA headquarters. His visit was short, and immediately afterward in the lobby of the Agency, Bush declared, in a photo-op, that he had complete trust and confidence in George Tenet as DCI. I wonder what they talked about behind closed doors? Perhaps Bush told him his intention to invade Iraq and asked Tenet if he would support his president and gather intelligence support for the war. I tend to believe that Tenet had agreed to do just that. So, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condie, Wolfowitz and company had highjacked our intelligence. That's why they all missed the gathering storm coming from Al Qaida because the CIA was looking for everything and anything to incriminate Iraq. Tenet unleashed his troops to look through all the intelligence with the Iraq scrutiny in their irises. After that, Tenet was in the White House every day briefing the president on his progress. Richard Clarke never had a chance to brief the president about Al Qaida; he was pushed away, put down and even changed his mission to chase after crimes on the Internet. The Agency was too busy collecting data on Iraq. Now, the "slam-dunk" thing; I tend to believe that Bob Woodward (a little older, a little wealthier and a lot lazier than in his youthful years) was talking about that scenario honestly. What he didn't tell was, what they were talking about when Tenet made his "slam-dunk" reference. Perhaps they were analyzing the gathered, made-up intelligence and the President didn't find the case for the war strong enough. In other words he asked him: "That's all that you came up with George?" And the other George reassured him that the case was a slam-dunk. What is outrageous is that the death toll now is over 4000 on our side (9/11/2001 and our Iraq war casualties). All that because they distracted the CIA from their normal duties to watch over the dangers facing this country. The irony is the second major political news: On the same day, Tom Ridge's face showed up on our television screens warning of serious intelligence that Al Qaida is going to strike in our country between now and election day. They just have to keep playing this card to keep us scared, but they won't raise the terrorist warning to orange because that is very costly and probably would bankrupt some states. "Serious intelligence" Tom? Intelligence from where? From the CIA that you guys just declared null and void??? Go sell this to kindergartners, Tom, perhaps you can scare some there...! Bill K.
BACK TO TOP