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

THIS IS PART 2 OF THE JULY 20, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1.

Subject: SUPPORT LINDA RONSTADT

Please support Linda Ronstadt now that her freedom of speech has been violated in this time of politically inspired hysteria.

Linda took a courageous stand in support of Michael Moore's brilliant, award winning "Fahrenheit 911" --a documentary which dares to expose dirty truths about a war of naked aggression against Iraq --a war that was begun upon a pack of verifiable and demonstrable falsehoods that were known by the administration to have been untrue at the time.

It is interesting that everyone in the media who has spoken out in defense of Moore has received treatment similar to the treatment that has now befallen Linda Ronstadt.

Even before Moore's documentary, it was the Dixie Chicks who were the object of hysterical vilification by the minions of Bush's right wing junta. Big media's orgy of mindless propaganda against the Dixie Chicks has been shown in retrospect to have been over-reactionary, wrong, and consisting of statements that were clearly untrue at the time and are now known to have been untrue.

Ronstadt has as much right to voice her opinion as do the proponents of war and the proponents of war have PAID mouthpieces: Bill O'Reilly, Britt Hume, William Safire, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a plethora of others throughout media --big and small. There is NO similarly organized dissent; there is NO similarly financed and organized opposition to the establishment drumbeat to war and aggression. But --nevertheless --big media would DENY Ronstadt her voice, a voice which has graced the American airwaves since her release of "Different Drum" which she recorded with the Stone Poneys in 1967. Interestingly, that was a time in which the United States was similarly bogged down in a similar quagmire: Viet Nam.

Please support Linda.

Please circulate the information about what has happened to her; support her fan club (does she have one?), buy her CD's, boycott the Vegas casino that fired her, and protest her treatment with letters to Congress.

It is time that this country supported free speech. If we don't, we will lose it.

As William Wallace --celebrated in the movie "Braveheart" --asked pointedly: what will you do without freedom?

Len hart

Subject: 1787: John Jay on 21st Century Bushco Iraq Invasion

It was obvious even then...
-Joe Weber

"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances."
-John Jay, Federalist Paper #4

Subject: Representative Corrine Brown stood against he Bush coup on January 6, 2001.

Write to Nancy Pelosi:

People, remember that Representative Brown and other members of the Democratic House tried to stand against the stolen election. You will remember that on January 6,2001, not one Senator supported them. Now the House Democrats are enabling the GOP. Why did Pelosi let them get away with this? Ask PELOSI why as Democratic Leader she allowed Brown to be censored? Why are Democrats behaving like the abused spouse of a Republican? Why do we tolerate it? Ask her why the Democrats didn't put up more of a fight.Ask her how could she allow one of her troops to be so denigrated and insulted by her opponents.Ask her why every Democrat did not rise and support Brown's contention that the election was stolen.Call her DC office at 202-225-4965, the San Francisco office at 415-556-4862, or email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Cheney Attacked America's Terrorism/Iran Policy on Foreign Soil

FYI...

With Halliburton yesterday being subpoenaed for its records about business in Iran, I wanted to pass on this article documenting how Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney actually traveled abroad to meet with foreign government officials and attack U.S. terrorism/sanctions policy against Iran. In effect, he went abroad to attack American policy, and put the interests of his own wallet in front of his own country's national security interests.

Here is the article...for more see American Progress's backgrounder at: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22211

* * *

Copyright 1998 FT Asia Intelligence Wire
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1998
Copyright 1998 BERNAMA THE MALAYSIAN NATIONAL NEWS AGENCY

April 20, 1998

SECTION: News

LENGTH: 467 words

HEADLINE: FORMER US DEFENCE SECRETARY SAYS IRAN-LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT "WRONG"

BODY:
KUALA LUMPUR, April 20 (Bernama) -- Former United States Defence Secretary Dick Cheney today hit out at his government for imposing unilateral economic sanctions like the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, saying they have been " ineffective, did not provide the desired results and a bad policy".

"I have made it clear that our (the US unilateral) sanctions policy is wrong," he said when asked to comment on the Iran-Libya Act which contains provisions for sanctions to be imposed by the US against foreign companies making investment beyond US$ 20 million a year in the oil and gas sector of the targeted countries.

Malaysia, which is against the extra-territorial law, has said that Petronas and other Malaysian companies will continue to invest abroad despite the US threat of sanctions under the Act.

Petronas is currently involved in a US$ 2 billion gas field project in Iran undertaken jointly with SA Total of France and Gazprom of Russia.

Speaking to reporters after calling on Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Prime Minister's office here, Cheney, who is now the chairman and CEO of Halliburton, said: "The US needs to be much more restraint then we have been in terms of pursuing unilateral economic sanctions."

Cheney, who served under the Bush administration between 1989 and 1993, however said the multilateral economic sanctions imposed by the international community on Iraq were "appropriate".

"I disagree with the current law (Iran-Libya Sanctions Act) but my company will comply with the rule (Act)," he said.

He said he also disagreed with the unilateral economic sanctions imposed on Myanmar and Arzerbaijan.

Cheney said his company which is involved in energy, engineering and construction was ready to do "some work" for Petronas and would discuss the matter with officials of the Malaysian oil company tomorrow.

He said his company was bidding for a gas project in the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area (JDA) and was also interested to service the Royal Malaysia Air Force's British-made Hawk fighter jets through joint ventures with local companies.

On the Malaysian economy, the 57-year-old Cheney who is also the vice-chairman of the Baltimore/Washington Corridor Chamber of Commerce, said he was optimistic in the future of the country.

"Despite the setbacks, the economic growth will continue and we want to be part of that," he said, adding that his company was interested in long-term business venture in Malaysia.

Asked if American companies are still interested to invest in Malaysia despite the financial and economic problems, Cheney said: "Most US companies are optimistic about this part of the world."

"This is the place we want to be," he added.

Copyright(C) 1998 BERNAMA The Malaysian National News Agency

Subject: Psychological info

Dear BuzzFlash,

Thanks so much for all that you do! I appreciate the support and sanity you supply so much.

Listen, UC Berkeley's Psych. Department did a study of the conservative mind (oxymoron?), and discovered several specific attributes that muddy thinking. Fear and aggression, for example, and intolerance for ambiguity. I'd forward the short account of this study from UC Berkeley News if I thought it would work, but surely you can locate this study. Please consider making it more well known.

Watching Tony Kushner on "Charlie Rose" one night, Tony commented that he considered neocons suffered from a 'thought disorder,' and I recalled the study. There's a lot of evidence to support the theory.

Meanwhile, I think I sent you a tiny check. I'm one of the casualties of the administration, and ...never mind. I'll do it again when possible.

With fond and grateful wishes,

Janice Mullen

[BuzzFlash Note: We found this July 2003 press release for the document, titled, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition." It's main finding, that "the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality." Talk about nice-fitting conservative shoes. Besides the obvious complaints of liberal research funded by the government, the Freepers apparently also didn't like the connection researchers made between conservatives Hitler and Reagan.]

Subject: CNN's Daryn Kagan spews rumor about Sandy Berger "stuffing"documents into clothes. Yellow Journalism.

CNN's Daryn Kagan repeated today's right-wing radio talking point that would have naive viewers believing that Sandy Berger didn't just possibly fold a document up that he believed was on the unclassified side of the line and put it in an exposed pocket, but somehow that he sat there putting documents inside his clothes on other places on his person. Her repeated jokes about articles concealed in stockings added to the (as of now) baseless implications. My understanding, by the way, is that there are people functioning as guards watching these actions at all times - I believe that's where the story came from.

I haven't read one responsible story that characterizes his behavior as Kagan does, and she needs to be much careful when applying such a low threshold of credibility to information that she gives her trusting audience.

My bigger point that transcends this irresponsible incident is that this is a highly disturbing pattern wherein Kagan acts as a journalistic biased " loose cannon" (she recently spun a Kerry decision as "classic flip-flopping Kerry"). Horribly unprofessional at best.

To emphasize how dangerous it is for anchors/reporters to salivate and over-react, no less than David Gergen is on other channels today calling Berger a "hero in the war on terror" who would "never compromise our national security".

Since we don't know if this may be a Justice Dept political witch hunt or not, or simply a mistake, it's VITAL that journalists not indulge themselves with "people are saying" statements that Kagan prefaced this potential falsehood with.

Ms. Kagan surely must be one of the most poorly informed and journalistically reckless TV personalities currently on CNN. Someone in management should immediately sit her down and explain that the actions she takes seriously risk turning her "news" segments into cheap thrill, tabloid journalism that undermines CNN's credibility.

Her statements about Berger today have to do with suggestions that he took actions that would be legally felonious and could damage national security. This is NOT a game or a topic to have fun with at the expense of a very possibly innocent, dedicated career civil servant.

CNN should issue a clarification of Kagan's reckless and potentially slanderous innuendo.

I would conclude by saying that for her to spread unsubstantiated rumors about President Bush would be equally as damaging to the public's clear right to get unbiased information, although, curiously, I've never seen her display anything but extreme deference to Mr. Bush, especially as regards his Iraq war and issues of terrorism.

Thank you much for considering these thoughts.

Dave Dorsett

Subject: "Fahrenheit 9-11", "Outfoxed", "Orwell Rolls in his Grave"

Dear Friends, Family and others who are interested in a better future for our country and those who follow us; Please consider checking out the DVD's and the movie listed in the subject line of this message.

Yesterday afternoon Anna and I went to see "Fahrenheit 9-11". We watch a lot of "60 Minutes" and "Now With Bill Moyers", and we've read a lot of books about what's happening in our country, and yet we still learned more by watching this film.

I also bought the two DVD's which are films that address many of our concerns about "double speak" and the sycophantic "reporting" of FOX News. Both of them ought to be in your personal libraries and required viewing for anyone over the age of 18.

You can purchase the DVD's at www.Outfoxed.org and at www.BuzzFlash.com.

The only way for "things to get better" in this country, is for us to get better at holding all elected officials accountable for their actions.

The movie and the DVD's help identify some of the things that are being done wrong and offer some ideas on how we can begin to have more influence on what is being done in our names.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Neb Conner

Subject: PURE FALACY THAT BUSH HAS THE CHRISTIAN VOTE

The idea that Bush has the Christian vote is unfounded.

I haven't done a poll, but I can tell you from the people of Catholic faith and a strong faith that I know: my family, friends, parishioners at my church, parishioners at my friends' churches - everyone who has a caring, compassionate heart - all of them DO NOT WANT to vote for Bush.

The people I know who are Catholic and actually follow the Catholic faith know that the Pope is against this war and abide by the Pope's views.

It's only those who want to put their party before their faith who are for Bush!! They care about their party more than they care about human lives.

Judy