August 3, 2004
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 AUGUST 2, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1.
Subject: Another Nixon Administration?
In the preface of his book "Worse Than Watergate, The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," John W. Dean compares the Bush Administration to that of Richard Nixon. Nixon, as most people know, was the first president to resign from office when it became evident that he would be impeached, removed from office and possibly tried for treason. He was pardoned by president Ford.
The preface alone is worth reading, and I feel if the rest of it is as good it will be even better. I have read some of Dean's articles, and as counsel to Nixon, he certainly is an expert on the subject. Dean is a very knowledgeable person, and his warnings about the Bush administration should not be ignored. I certainly do not ignore them. It is my honest opinion that even if Republicans lose the White House and the Senate, they still threaten the future of this country with a majority in the House of Representatives, a majority in the US Supreme Court, and Federal Courts. And the tremendous national debt they are guilty of will likely damage the economy, Social Security and Medicare drastically.
RB
Here is a glimpse where he goes in the book:
In the chapters that follow, I begin where this inquiry started, with my discovery of the surprising Nixon-like traits of George W. Bush. When looking at him closely, though, I noted the early-warning signs of the undue Bush-Cheney secrecy. What at first appeared only a penchant for secrecy I soon realized was a policy of concealment that they exercised throughout the 2000 campaign. I've used examples of their campaign stonewalling because they have morphed into White House stonewalling. Once ensconced in their offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they quietly closed their doors, pulled the shades, and began making themselves increasingly inaccessible to the media and Congress while demanding complete control over government information. Government under a virtual gag order became their standard operating procedure.
In looking at the Bush-Cheney White House, I found it not unlike Nixon's in that it spends far more time crafting the president's public image and working on the politics of reelection, than on truly addressing the business of the American people. But what clearly distinguishes this presidency is its vice president, a secretive man by nature whose unmatched power is largely veiled but whose secret governmental operations have changed the world -- and not for the better. Dick Cheney, effectively a co-president incognito, works behind closed doors and does not answer to Congress or the public. His partner, the president, is not sufficiently knowledgeable about their policies to answer questions about them adequately, if and when he does occasionally make himself available. It is not that he is stupid, only ignorant -- and apparently by design. Yet time and again, their principal public policies -- both foreign and domestic -- are laden with hidden agendas.
The Bush-Cheney hidden agenda I have focused on relates to their national security policies, given their critical importance. Equally worthy of attention is their hidden agenda to end federal entitlement programs by running up budget-busting deficits while hiking military spending, which is bleeding the federal treasury and will ultimately result in there simply being no money available to pay for social programs after this administration is gone. These, of course, are programs -- such as Social Security and Medicare -- that they dare not eliminate.....
Dean elaborates why the actions of the Bush administration illustrates a regime which considers itself above the law and could result in the destruction of democracy as we know it. RB
Subject: Coinky-Dink Terror Alerts
I read on your website:
I also found this new alert, at best, a strange coincidence. The question has previously occurred to me and now I really want to know. What is the comparative timelines of these various terror warnings and prevailing news stories embarrassing or troubling to the administration. I'd love to see something like that laid out in a graphic manner.
So, my question is, does such a comparison exist?
Any information you can give me on the matter would be appreciated.
Thanks
Mike S. (Tigard, OR)
Subject: Yet Another Orange Alert
Today's Orange Terror Alert is yet another reminder that America is losing the war on terror because we have a president who in incompetent. America is not safer than before we invaded Iraq because we let the real enemy get away and become even stronger. We need a president who's family is not in business with the bin Laden family. A president that cares more about America than the Saudi Royal Family. America needs a regime change.
Marc Perkel
San Francisco, CA.
Subject: ElectionProtection.org
Please promote this website for working assets' election protection volunteer page. I am an avid BuzzFlash fan. I am not a member or employee of Working Assets, but I did volunteer for this project.
Here's the link:
http://www.workingforchange.com/electionprotection/index.cfm?mktcode=EI001
KC Jones and Ann Richards
Subject: Another News Media Bash
Buzzers,
It's good to hear other Buzzers with messages concerning the national news media. My husband asked me if I was going to watch as much of the repug conv as I did the dems. I told him I won't be able to stomach much of it, but I do want to check in and see if the dems get as much coverage on their time as they did on our time. I wouldn't want to bet on it.
I keep hearing these media idiots saying over and over that the people don't know John Kerry, the democratic planks or policies. I heard Katie ask John Kerry that question before he left on his bus tour after the conv. Maybe the reason people might not know Kerry or what he's about is because THE MEDIA ISN'T COVERING IT! If they were covering it then she and others shouldn't need to ask the question.
The more you learn about the media and start paying attention to what they're doing, what questions they're asking, how they're asking them and to whom their questioning, the more you realize how uninformed those that aren't on the internet really are.
Sign me up as one of those that have turned off TV news (except for Jon Stewart and NOW with Bill Moyers). I stopped watching local TV news long ago because they just regurgitate the national news line, plus add "breaking news" about every house fire in the city. When did that ever become breaking news anyway?
Thanks for being there buzz!
A. Travis
Collinsville, Il
Isn't this called blatant lying of a pathological liar?
This is freaking me out.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Florida Voting
Your article on the letter sent out by Florida Republicans to their constituents warning them to secure absentee ballots came as something of a shock to me. I spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why Republicans are worried about faked voting results in that state.
Then it came to me.
They have reason to worry that the Florida vote will not be sufficiently manipulated to ensure their state's electoral votes for Bush. They may be the only people alive who read the entire report on the final recount and discovered that when all the votes that could be counted were counted Gore won in Florida. And this time around the people who were disenfranchised in 2000 are determined to make their votes count (and be counted) in 2004.
The logical scenario at that point would be a riff on the successful strategies of 2000. They claim that the Democrats have stolen the election! They appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene. They flood the streets with young congressional staff members flown in by special jet.
And so forth...
Beware!
Jo Ann McNamara
New York City
Subject: The latest terrorism alert
A foiled terrorist attack. Now that would be a convenient shot in the arm for an incumbent's sagging political campaign, wouldn't it?
jak in nyc
Subject: Trent Lott's comments
It would be refreshing to have a President who speaks two languages, as opposed to our current President, who barely speaks English.
Dennis C.
Please make it known that DFL St. Paul, MN Mayor Randy Kelly has endorsed President Bush. He is touring Minnesota today with state Republicans to support Bush's re-election. He apparently thinks it "unwise to change national leadership during the war in Iraq", and thinks the Kerry administration would "jeopardize the economic recovery that we are experiencing."
Now I know that you will find several things wrong with his statement; but the local news stations are quoting him as saying it would be "dangerous" to our national security to change leadership at this time.
What a slap in the face for all of the Democrats who voted for Kelly! Is this another Rove manipulation? Is it possible that they enticed Kelly into this? So many things have been orchestrated in Minnesota politics by the Republicans since the Bush's took power! This seems to have Carl Rove's fingerprints all over it!
Thank you,
Jeanne M Dean
Subject: A Lot of Lott (Too Much, In Fact)
Dear Buzz,
John Kerry may speak French (something Trent Lott lacks the intellectual capacity to do) and he may be from Massachusetts, the crucible of the American Revolution, but he's no socialist. Trent Lott, on the other hand, is an ignorant racist and a hate-spewing cro-Magnon from Mississippi. I will not denigrate Mississippi, as there are many good people there, both black and white. Trent Lott just isn't one of them.
Jon Krampner
Subject: MORE Great Intelligence
I would have given Ridge the benefit of the doubt but for this quote:
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.
It was a great day to announce the terror threat and give Bush a campaign plug on a day he'd decided not go on the campaign trail!
Now we know why Ridge was ready to resign. He is getting real tired of carrying the water for this bunch of criminals.
I saw the Sunday political news shows and KERRY AND EDWARDS were kicking some serious Bush butt! They were very strong, decisive, and pointed in their criticism of Bush and they NEVER BACKED DOWN! Wolf was wide eyed and shocked as if to be asking, you aren't backing down. Bush has decided that not only will Friday be a day to direct the news but Sunday is now open as well. Remember, it worked so well with Howard Dean and Al Gore just a few months ago.
Sunday was our day to expand on the convention and we were ALL over the Sunday talk shows -- mostly devoted to Kerry/Edwards. Too much good press time to drag out Ridge. I still support Howard Dean. His point was not farfetched. What makes this evidence any different than the evidence Colin Powell produced or Chalabi.
PJOnes
Mesquite
Subject: New Slogan
I think from now on a great slogan for the Kerry camp when describing George Bush’s administration should be:
“Dumb or Dishonest …The results are the same”
Sw
Subject: Terrorist Alert
The question that keeps me puzzled these days is this:
With the elevated and specific terrorist warnings we are now in the midst of, why oh why are W and Dick out on their phony bus tour talking to highly selected audiences about flex time? Why aren't they in Washington, at high level meetings with their terrorist experts, "shaking the trees"?
Are they planning to sit out this attack too? Or is it just another one of those nicely-timed alerts we've all become so accustomed to?
A Loyal BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: AN EXPLAINATION FOR KERRY'S RELUCTANCE TO "GET OUT OF IRAQ"
Hi -
There are so many things going on it's hard to select just one topic to write about. However, I really think the majority of people are missing a very blatant explanation as to why John Kerry refuses to say he will get us out of Iraq. Pure and simple: Look at Madrid. If Kerry were to take that stand and there was a terrorist attack (which we're told is highly likely) then everyone would rally to Bush's support as the alternative to "giving in to terrorists".
Sally Maitland
A Florida Voter
Subject: Police Action
Dear Buzz,
In the NYTimes today, an article describes the source for the intelligence information upon which the new terror alert is based (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02intel.html). It describes the arrest of a suspected Al Qaeda operative and the capture of a trove of documents detailing specific plans. My response to the uncovering of this operation is relief. What if we had not captured this suspect and the documents, and he had been helping plan attacks about which we otherwise would have had no idea? This demonstrates the value of treating terrorism as crime, and responding with good old fashioned police work -- undercover detective sleuthing and clandestine apprehension. We didn't fire-bomb any village to inflame ire, no thumb-in-the-eye meathead military shock and awe, but police work. Those who denounce treating terrorism as a crime need to see that the things that have made us safer have been unseen -- except for occasional glimpses (A.Q. Khan, for example) -- police action. Meanwhile, the things we have seen -- fire bombing innocent people all over the muslim world -- has made us much less safe, and swelled the ranks of the criminals who must be dealt with by the former, more effective method.
John C. Pitblado
Hartford, CT
Dear Fellow BuzzFlash readers,
I suggest that we BuzzFlashers write editorial boards of newspapers and television stations to ask them to state that
ALL OF BUSH AND CHENEY EVENTS ARE TICKETED EVENTS AND NO ONE WHO IS NOT A SUPPORTER WILL BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND.
That fact is almost never reported.
GET MOVING FOLKS.
Fran Dejasu, Massachusetts
Subject: Convention Bounce
As of Sunday morning post-convention, CNN is reporting no bounce for Kerry from the convention. I think a clear formulation of the numbers, as of this writing, is still not obtainable. For example, Newsweek is reporting a much higher bounce. Nevertheless, I think the Republican corporate media convinced the Democrats that they could not "go negative" on Bush, and the Democrats took the bait. Not surprisingly, Bush simultaneously goes out on his Heart and Soul Bus Tour, and proceeds to savage Kerry (as does Cheney). Yet I see no tut-tutting media pundits decrying Bush's "negative attacks" on John Kerry. I now perceive a leitmotif developing here --- Democrats are ponderously warned by media pundits speaking with furrowed brows that they dare not be negative about Bush -- while at the same time Bush and his bully boys are free to launch unvetted, unmitigated attacks against Kerry and Edwards. The idea that in a political campaign in a democracy Democrats are not allowed to be critical of a sitting President is simply absurd. There are also rumors out there that Bush wants to reduce his debates with Kerry from three to two. Obviously, he does not want to debate Kerry. But Kerry, if confronted with this outrage, should simply scream bloody murder about this, thereby making an issue out of the debate issue itself. Let's not forget -- several months ago Michael Moore had Bush on the ropes when he declared him to be a draft dodger. Things got so bad for Bush that he ended up having to go on Tim Russert's program to allow Tim Russert to rehabilitate him by lobbing him some softball questions without followup. But Bush went on Russert's show only because his poll numbers were crashing. I don't want Democrats to become paranoid about the media in a Nixonian fashion, but they have to understand that the new corporate media has an agenda - and it is not an agenda intended to help Democrats. Finally, if I have to hear about John Kerry's 87 billion dollar defense vote one more time I'm going to throw up. Geez, we've got a President who lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war, and yet inexplicably it is John Kerry who the media keeps peppering with questions about this one vote? Where are the questions for Bush and Cheney about their lies on Iraq? If we allow ourselves to continue following this absurd corporate media playbook, we are guaranteeing an outcome favorable to the Republicans.
Donald P. Russo, Bethlehem, Pa
Subject: GOPHOTW
Dear BuzzFlash:
Isn't it time we honored Senator Joe Lieberman? (I'm not sure if BuzzFlash already has--I do recall his name being mentioned.) I heard on the radio this morning, in response to Gov. Howard Dean's accurate remark about the GOP trotting out Tom Ridge every time Bush & Co. need a boost (sounds like a Pepsi addiction), good ol' Joe Lieberman sprang up to defend his comrades by stating it was ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the President would adjust the color alert for political reasons. Worst of all, I had to hear this before breakfast!
Really, now. Any thinking person knows that this whole "war on terrorism" has been manufactured by the GOP to promote its interests of world domination, boost the bottom line of Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, and other Bush & Co. economic interests, AND advance its war against the American people. I for one am sick to death of this fear-based policy approach. Either we get some fresh air or we're all going to suffocate. "Democrats" like Joe Lieberman contribute to our oxygen-deprived environment. I think he should be honored, then voted out of office. Connecticut can do better than Joe Lieberman. We all can.
Regards,
Marsha Elliott
Walnut Creek, California
Subject: Let's Be Honest Here
Dear fellow Buzzers,
Having just read the article on how the Bush campaign will "go negative" in August (how will we know?), I feel like my head is going to explode. It seems that the focus of this "negativity" will be regarding Kerry's 19 years in the Senate. All well and good, I guess, but when do we fight back with "what was George doing"? Has the entire US forgotten the "lost years" of alcohol, cocaine and partying? Running companies into the ground....living off Daddy's money and influence? Let's have an honest comparison of how both Kerry and Bush spent those years.
Barbara Silverman
Subject: What happened to Donahue?
Donahue was one of the few on television who opposed the war against Iraq, and who had a very intelligent show in which he challenged pro-war guests, and in which he presented antiwar guests. He did a one and one with Chris Matthews in which he gave Matthews his lunch. Matthews defended the 'group think' of the media about the war. For all of this, Donahue was fired by his corporate bosses who profited from the war. Namely, GE.
My question is, 'What has happened to Donahue?' Why isn't he speaking out? Does anyone know the answer?
Bob
Subject: Bush got scared
Bush saw the huge crowds Kerry was drawing and he got scared so he sent Ridge out there with the terror elevation warning. What a sick Presidency. They would actually put anxiety on the people. Then, what do you expect from a monarchy that orders torture of its prisoners in Iraq?
A Buzzer
Subject: "Fear Is On the Way"
Beware the fear mongers! When will most of the American press, (the AP and Wolf Blitzer of CNN especially as identified in the article below), begin to get it, that the American people not only deserve to know the truth about what our political leaders do in our name, we want to know it?
Only the incurious, ill-informed and those with vested interests, (like NBC's owner GE, that has over $600 million in defense contracts in Iraq), seem to believe everything that comes out of this administration.
Millions of Americans are accessing foreign newspapers via the Internet, as well as communicating across vast areas in minutes instead of hours, and are not only keeping themselves informed, but are sharing their "news" with others.
The motto of North Carolina says it all:"Esse quam vidieri" "To Be Rather Than To Seem". Our country is too important to leave it's future to those who spin images without substance.
As ever,
Neb