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: My concern regarding the Internet

Dear Buzz and fellow Buzz readers,

I have been having nightmares regarding what would be in store for us with another four years of George W. Bush. My husband pointed out one that really had not occurred to me, that we all take so much for granted. I fear that he is probably right. He suggests that one of the first victims would have to be the Internet as we know it today. He rightly suggests that the success of websites such as this one as well as the success of True Majority, Move On, etc., cannot be allowed to exist. They have been too successful in allowing dissidents access to alternative sources of information and have been too successfully used to raise too much money for those who oppose the present administration.

Of course, this will not be uttered across the political landscape for fear of raising the curtain on such sinister plans to those who are still fence-sitting prior to Nov 3rd. However, that will not be the case after the door slams on the traditions of American Democracy with the unthinkable 2nd inauguration of GWB. For all our sakes, I hope that is not an event that any of us has to live through. Hate to sound like a prophet of doom but so much is riding on this election and yet I see many here in N. TX acting as if it is some sort of Super Bowl contest rather than a deadly serious referendum on our country, its direction and our futures as well as those of our children.

In closing, all I can say is -- here's to President Kerry- may our country and our democracy prevail.

Peggy in TX

Subject: keeping it simple on terrorism

Not only has Bush been incompetent and created more terrorists, but he coddles terrorists when it's in the financial interests of the Bush Cartel.

So the language could be something like this:

Given the choice between protecting America and protecting terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Bush chose to protect the terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Given the choice between fighting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, and settling an old score on behalf of daddy, Bush chose to cut and run on Osama Bin Laden.

Of course, show the clips of "we can't win the war on terror," his 7 minutes in the classroom and the Saudis. And 80% of John Kerry's ads at this point must hammer down the point that Bush "can't win the war on terror" but he John Kerry will.

Remember that all of you at BuzzFlash are extremely intelligent but that millions of Americans in this country unfortunately form their opinions based on 15 seconds of language.  Thus, we have to be smart enough to adjust and use the tough language above instead of constantly bemoaning the fact that other people don't rise to our perceived level of intelligence or informedness.  That's true smartness.

Keep up the good work and post or pass along or use whatever comments you feel are beneficial to the causes we and most Americans believe in.

David

Subject: Dan Rather

One thing for sure, he will know how Clinton felt, during the late nineties. I would be willing to bet that every word of those documents is true....and they were given to CBS purposefully...knowing Rather would get the big scoop..and they could start this little brouhaha! (Hell, with the swiftvetsfortruth lies don't matter.)

Remember all the stories that burned like flames during the Clinton administration, especially after they could not kick him out and he would not leave???   huh??

Well, there was Elian Gonzalez....remember him?  Geez...when the right wing nuts I knew personally did not want to discuss the 'Sex' thing anymore...they just thought it was awful. (They knew the Sex thing was too  close to home...everyone has one of those)...so, the horrid thing with the administration now...was little Elian!!!

And a family member...with total disgust on her face...one of those rabid republicans who is so far to the right, she cannot even see the left...said to me, "You cannot agree with that..." (referring to the snatching of the Gonzalez kid, in the middle of the night), and I explained to said rabid rightwinger that they had to do what the INS ordered...it was not the Justice Dept's call...the Immigration and Naturalization ordered that the kid go back with his father...his living relative...Geez...what a big story! (The more stupid they are, the more right they think they are.)

She said, blaming [Janet] Reno for it all: "She is so disgusting anyway...she cannot stop shaking."  and I told the woman, ."She has Parkinson's disease!"  And the aforementioned right winger...nasty woman, said, "Well, then why doesn't she just get out of politics?" ...This woman was disgustingly stupid on top of being always right.

Incidentally...poor Reno drove her red pickup out of Washington after her job was done and is still doing great...better in fact.

The aforementioned rabid  rightwinger...in the ensuing 2 years...lost her husband to cancer (moving fast)...lost both her mother and her father...and a brother and a sister! Mom and dad were old...but, her husband was 71...her brother 65 and her sister 59....

I really wonder about all the hurricanes in Florida...it makes you wonder sometimes!!!

Shirley......St.Louis

Subject: Bush Can't Keep his Abu's Straight! Mixes up his Terrorists & This Country!

Even as he had difficulty pronouncing Abu Nidal's name, getting tongue tied every time, Bush continued in at least nine speeches (per Keith Oberman report on MSNBC) to try to link Nidal to Saddam Hussein, saying:  "Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."
 
He repeated the mistake Monday evening at a campaign event in New York City: "Abu Nidal was a cold-blooded terrorist killer who killed Leon Klinghoffer."

Actually, it was Abul Abbas, the leader of a violent Palestinian group, who killed Klinghoffer.

The White House had no immediate comment on the mix-up.

2002 August: [Abu Nidal] Dies in Baghdad, Iraq under circumstances that quickly become questioned. Iraqi authorities claim that he had entered Iraq illegally, and when discovered by officials, he shot himself. -- Encyclopedia of the Orient

Abu Abbas, organizer of the Achille Lauro hijacking, has died of natural causes while in United States custody in Iraq. -- http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/010808.html

Abbas, who was captured in Baghdad last year, was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. His faction of the Palestinian Liberation Front operated out of Tunisia until the cruise ship attack, then relocated to Iraq. U.S. officials say Abbas died of heart disease on March 10 while in U.S. custody in Iraq. Abu Nidal, a Palestinian renegade, died in Baghdad in 2002. His terrorist organization had been blamed for scores of atrocities, including the 1985 attacks on Rome and Vienna airports in which 20 people were killed and the 1986 attack on a synagogue in Istanbul in which 22 Jewish worshippers were massacred. --NewsTrove.com

Just as he continues to try to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism in general, he can't keep his stories straight about the two Abu's either!

The WH has no immediate comment on the "mix up"?  How about:  George Bush is always MIXED UP.  So what's new?

He can't even keep his terrorists straight, so how can we expect him to keep Iraq straight, tell the truth about it, etc.  It's entirely possible that this country is in the mess it's in because George Bush is too ignorant to comprehend things and make proper decisions!

Just look at the way he speaks and the constant lies and "slips of the tongue." 

But for whatever reason, he's too dangerous and too out of touch for 4 more years!!

And besides all that, Hussein CAPTURED ABBAS and probably had him killed.

Hussein was just as afraid of terrorists and they disliked him because he was a SECULAR leader and 99.9% of terrorists want RELIGOUS fundamental Islamists to rule the ME and the world!!!

They are glad Hussein is gone but not for the same reason most westerners are.  They want to take over the ME with their religious fundamentalism and leaders!  We have paved the way with the terrible Iraq war.

It was the Wrong war at the Wrong time, with the Wrong "terrorist."  Bush is too misinformed and too derelict in his duties as Commander in Chief to know that or admit that. 

HE NEEDS TO GO!!!!

And people who support him need to check their facts and/or their brains!

Jonell Belke

Subject: Kerry losing due to hurricanes?

I just heard a local news announcer say that Kerry is losing his lead in Florida due to the recent hurricanes. They said he had a chance before the hurricanes hit, but since then polling has indicated that large percentages approved of brother Jeb's handling of the local emergencies, and of George's. Well, I didn't hear any reference to voting preferences in that poll. What a spin. Bullshit. That doesn't have anything to do with who the people will vote for. Can't believe that was even reported. Just goes to show you. I hope people really listen to what was said, instead of what they thought they heard. Thanks for your web site.Love it!

Danielle in the panhandle

Subject: Basic math

Dear BuzzFlash Readers,

How do you manage your budget. When you spend more than you earn, do you borrow money to make up the difference and pretend you didn't spend because you didn't pay for the items you purchased? We all know that if we charge things, we eventually have to pay. We can't say that we lowered our costs because we put things on credit. That is what George Bush would have us believe. He claims he has lowered taxes. But how can you lower taxes and increase spending? It's a trick by the Flim Flammer in the White House to fool people into thinking they are paying less taxes.

If you look at the history of the country, you see that periodically the Republicans gain control of the government and spend without paying for their spending. They just charge up a storm. When the whole thing falls apart the Democrats come along and put it back together. Then the Republicans bad mouth the Democrats for spending too much money. The fact is, the Democrats tend to pay for what they buy and the Republicans don't. The taxpayer pays in the end. If the Republicans want to do the taxpayers a favor they would cut spending. It is basic math. No matter how much money you collect, you still owe for what you spend. Buying on credit is the worst idea you can employ as a means of meeting your budgetary needs. You simply pay higher prices for everything due to the interest. If you factor in the loans and interest that George Bush has incurred, his tax cuts turn into huge tax increases. The only President in the last 20 years that reduced taxes or should I say gave us some "Tax Relief" was Bill Clinton. Clinton actually lowered taxes in three out of four years during his second term. George Bush on the other hand has increased taxes by an average of 13% a year.

Bo Stencil
Washington State

It is Sunday morning, and as I sit here watching General Abizaid being interviewed by Tim Russert I can't help from wondering if the general is reading from a TelePrompTer or cue cards. The movement of his eyeballs, in short, jerky horizontal motions, would certainly indicated he is reading his responses.

Was this a spontaneous interview? Did the general know the questions in advance? Was he, indeed, reading his responses? Was Russert in on the ruse? He would have to be, wouldn't he?

Does anyone really believe that this, or any other, general on active duty[could] actually give an accurate evaluation of the situation in Iraq which deviates from the Bush administration spin? As long as they are on active duty they are in complete lockstep with everything that Washington espouses, but as soon as they retire -- we start hearing things such as -- quagmire, unwinable, tenuous, civil war, etc. I guess they are just being good soldiers and obeying the orders of their commander despite the very obvious -- he doesn't have a clue.

Bill Sybert
Dallas, Texas

Subject: Chicago Tribune Sat. 25, 2004 headline

Please check out Saturday's front page of the Chicago Tribune story about Bush manipulating milk prices for family farmers.  The Bush people are lying to the family farmers about their intentions for keeping milk prices high thru the Nov. elections.  Then they are going to take away the rug from under their feet after the election.  They plan to get rid of the payment to the farmers (due to the debt) after the election.  This needs to be known.

Mixing milk and politics -- Chicago Tribune

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: The Audacity

Friends,

I don't care whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, or what. YOU should be OUTRAGED at being played as a dupe. Last night Bill Moyers did an article on the staging of the debates and I was appalled at the audacity of the Commission on Presidential Debates deciding what I can hear or NOT hear.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are at fault. They have decided that we should not see a TRUE debate but one where the questions are known beforehand and the participants can prepare for. Moderators can't ask follow-up questions, important issues are never raised, and credible third-party candidates are excluded from the proceedings altogether...

I DO NOT WANT a President who has to be "handled" by a group of advisors that do the thinking and a President who is a puppet.

What have we become? You call this a Democracy? I call it a controlled Fascist State. The corporations and large money donors or PACs are controlling what we see and hear. Can you, as an individual, even get close to a candidate, little alone ask them a true question, or for that matter actually get in to see one? We are dependent upon the media for our view of the candidates, and the media seems to be failing us.

Let the candidate stand or fall on his or her own ability. If they can't think on their feet what good are they?

Lets go back to the League of Women Voters and have a REAL DEBATE!

I strongly suggest you look at Open Debates, and read for yourself the actions of these un-elected quasi-officials deciding what you and I should see and not see.

You might also want to look at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html.

Sincerely,

Robert O'Donnell CWO USN (Ret)
Kerrville, Texas

Subject: "It Can't Happen Here"

I just saw Maureen Farrell's column on Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" and wanted to let you know that there is now a new radio adaptation of the novel available through the Pacifica Network satellite.  It is available free of charge for broadcast on public radio, having already played twice in the Bay Area this fall.  For more information, contact KPFA at dramalit@kpfa.org.

David D.

Subject: October surprise

I don't know if I am the only one that has been noticing how much the media is mentioning al-Zarqawi as the superman of the insurgency...he has beheaded hostages, has planted bombs, has attacked troops, etc.

Could it be possible that he will be the October surprise in lieu of Osama? Could it be possible that he is one of the prisoners hidden from the Red Cross?

just asking

Jocelyn

Subject: Today's [Broder] Column

Dear BuzzFlash,

Here is a copy of a letter I sent Mr. Broder about his column today, which I would not have read if it hadn't been on your website.  Thank you.

Dear Mr. Broder,

I am afraid your column is too little too late.  I used to revere The Washington Post.  My love affair with The Washington Post began during Watergate when I was living in Seattle, where the Woodward and Bernstein columns were printed in one or both of the venerable Seattle papers of that time.  Both independent then.  However, beginning with the hunting down of President Clinton, then the very unfair and unequal coverage of Al Gore's run for President, and continuing with the Post becoming the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration, I feel betrayed by an institution I had trusted and loved for so long.  It made me very sad to see The Washington Post and the major networks to literally give up their First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press without a fight.   My sadness and the frustration I felt as I searched for good, substantive news finally brought me to something I thought I would never do.  In July this year, I decided not to renew my subscription to The Washington Post.  At this time, it is not even a shadow of the great paper it was under Katharine Graham.  I began to feel like I was in Russia in the old days and the Post was no better than Pravda.  It just provided me with the Bush Administration and Republican talking points and spin.  No more interesting analysis, no more interesting opinions, no hard-hitting investigative reporting, few, if any, diverse points of view. 

If Watergate had happened now, it never would have been discovered.  Richard Nixon would have never resigned.  No one on The Post staff seems to have the desire to get to the truth any more.  And that is the bottom line for newspapers especially--to give the American people the truth.  This business of giving both sides of the issue, without a statement of what the truth is, does not fulfill your role under the Freedom of the Press right.  Since Bush came on the scene, he and his cohorts have been telling us the sky is purple with chartreuse stripes and pink polka dots and the Democrats and other non-affiliated people have been saying the sky is blue.  Your role under the First Amendment is to state to the readers the fact that the sky is blue; not to stay indifferent under the guise of not taking sides and being fair and balanced.

The end result is that I have lost all respect for a lot of people and institutions.  I have no respect for:  The Washington Post, The New York Times, Colin Powell, John McCain, Bob Woodward, CNN, the major networks, Jim Lehrer.  Those who never even earned my respect are George W. Bush, Hastert, and other Republican congress people who have come on the scene since 1990.

The push for war without any discussion about what was true and what was not is unforgiveable.  However, I do have an advantage over you and your coworkers at The Post.  I am a member of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians in Tacoma, Washington.  I saw the whole rush to war as nothing more than an unwarranted invasion of a sovereign country.  Granted Hussein was despicable; but it seems to me the United States created that monster.  The war never should have happened.  The dead soldiers and the innocent Iraqi civilian deaths are on your shoulders.  The destruction to that country, the people, our soldiers, and future generations will be with us forever.  I do not approve of these things being done in my name; nor do I approve of my tax dollars being spent for this.  More destruction will be done if Bush is elected.  In fact, I firmly believe that there will be a nuclear war before 2008 if he is elected.  If he is elected, it will be because of the role the Post has played as surrogates for Bush in trying to destroy Kerry.  I can no longer support a newspaper who can no longer see how to use the Freedom of the Press right for the good of the country.

Bush's diplomatic failures should be making the headlines.  Diplomacy is way too important and always has been since the invention of nuclear weapons.  Bush cannot even speak the English language; let alone eloquently persuade our allies to help us out of this big mess.  That is important news that is not being written.

I have found truth on the internet.  But, I am sorely aware of how many households still do not have computers and access to the internet.  This is why a good newspaper and major networks who will follow the news wherever it goes are still needed if this country is to survive.  However, I am not hopeful for the survival of this country any more.  I wish with all my heart that The Washington Post would find that part of it that has been lost.  Maybe it isn't too late. . .  But, maybe it is.

Oh, and by the way, I consider all non-American Indians to be illegal aliens and my country is still occupied.

Sincerely,

Bonnie M. Matheson
Wheaton, MD

Subject: Uncovered

I literally got up this morning at four...could not sleep and watched 'Uncovered"...then I still could not sleep well.  Is everyone in this administration blood-thirsty??

Is Donald Rumsfeld not all there.....Does his elevator not go to the top floor? Is he a brick shy of a load? Is he out where the buses don't run?

He is a scary person...if anyone is more of a war monger than Geedubya...it is Rummy! They do not even try to cover up the fact that they lied through their evil teeth to begin with. I am still scared but more resolute than ever.

They lied...I did not hear anything wrong...they simply lied to get into this war...and they are going to destroy us, if they get back in. 

Cheney is evil...even Powell is such a disappointment...Bush is so smartass...I would just love to have a smack down!!

I am making myself more angry...everyone get out and vote...and watch the debates. You know, the right wing will have Bush winning, but we will see after they are over who actually wins.

Shirley........St.Louis

Subject: Who would my dad vote for?

My dad was a Republican. He was very active working for the party in his life.

In 1964, he made the local paper with his efforts.  A picture of him next to a picture of President Johnson carried the headline CAN'T VOTE FOR HIS DOUBLE.  In it, Dad was proudly pointing to a Goldwater button he was wearing.  Dad bore a great resemblance to President Johnson.

He even staffed a booth at the local fair that year called COLD WATER FOR GOLDWATER, which gave out ice water and campaign material during the August Fair heat.

If he was alive today, he'd be voting Democrat though. 

A party that authorizes smears, dirty politics, personal attacks etc. would get no support from him.

Plus my dad had served in the military, along with my brother, and the military service of both candidates would play a large part in his decision on who to support.

You see, while Bush's grandfather was making money with the Nazis, my dad was in Patton's Third Army helping to liberate Europe and the concentration camps.  And while Bush was flying high in Texas, my brother was fighting for his life during the Tet offensive while my dad worried at home.

Mike Curtis
Greenbrier, Ark

Subject: Whaaa?

"Allawi is right to come here and be optimistic, because his people are dying..."

Top senator calls Iraq 'quagmire' for US (AFP/TurkishPress.com)

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina defending the administration's optimistic view, while warning that more troops would be needed to secure the country for the elections.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Duhhbya/Powell Shell Game

Buzz,

Just as Rove's CBS documents and SwiftBoatLiars distract attention from the imploding economy, environment and social issues here at home, so, too, does all his puppet-chatter about January Iraq elections distract from the chaos of the disastrous invasion/occupation which is killing thousands of Iraqi civilians -- mostly women and children which the Cabal labels 'insurgents.'   Lackey Powell has the unmitigated gall to claim, "Yes, it's getting worse, and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election."

This is pure puckey.  'They are determined' to rid their country of the invaders -- the U.S. military which is occupying their country.  To distort that fact, the Cabal turns the target from death, destruction and genocide to "free democratic elections."  It sounds so much better, yes?  The Iraqis are fighting for their lives, for their country.  At this point in the deadly chaos, no Iraqi gives a damn about any US-contrived and controlled, faux election.  

And neither does the Cabal give a damn if unrest prevents polls opening in many parts of Iraq. Rumpsfailed, with cynical "so be it" disdain, spouted, "You have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

Sounds like their attitude about voting in the U.S. -- so what if millions are illegally disenfranchised from voting or if their vote isn't counted?  It's the illusion, not the essence, of democracy that counts.

Powell creates another distraction with his "it's getting worse...they..."  Who is the "they" who exacerbate the chaos?  According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, "Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents are" (Detroit Free Press, 9/25/04 -- "More Iraqis killed by U.S. than by terror").  The subheading of this article reads "Civilian deaths are undermining efforts to win over people." 

Duhhh - kinda hard to win over dead people.

So will Kerry/Edwards/anyone deconstruct this shell game of Orwellian Bushspeak?

T. Quigly

Subject: From AlJazeera

Pentagon documents made available to US lawmakers have raised questions over many of President George Bush's assertions about progress in Iraq.

Key congressional aides on Sunday cast doubt on claims ranging from the extent of reconstruction to preparations for January elections.

Bush used the visit last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to make the case that "steady progress" was being made.

He said Iraq's electoral commission was up and running and told Americans on Saturday that "United Nations electoral advisers are on the ground in Iraq".

He added that nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already at work, and promised more than $9 billion will be spent on reconstruction contracts in Iraq over the next several months.

But many of these assertions have met with scepticism from key congressional aides and experts, while Pentagon documents given to lawmakers paint a more complicated picture.

Pentagon contradicts Bush on Iraq (ALJAZEERA.NET)

In other words, he's lying.  But what else is new?

Peter Ryan Harty
Lone Tree, Iowa

Subject: Everyone Watch This Kerry Ad, Then IMMEDIATELY PASS IT ON!

Dear Folks,

This ad by the Kerry campaign must be watched by all and shared with all by passing it along the Internet to your political lists and personal email lists. In this ad, he mentions two key points. The first being that 1,000 soldiers have died and the systematic kidnappings of Americans where Bush has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop this violence. Iraq is NOT becoming the democracy that Bush says it is. It is a bloody quagmire that he got us into and where real blood is shed. Something he knows NOTHING about. Only Senator Kerry knows what that is, since he has seen it first hand.

Put your TRUST in Kerry! GET OUT his message and let us FIGHT with ALL OF OUR MIGHT to get him elected.

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/092404_right_track.html

Democratically Yours,

Mary!

Subject: Comment

Perhaps I missed something, the Polls show that Bush is ahead as the candidate who is most capable of fighting Terrorism, unless I am mistaken, there is ample evidence that Bush is the candidate who cut and ran from his sworn duty to protect our country during the Vietnam war, and the other candidate John Kerry did just the opposite during the Vietnam war. He volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments in that war and was awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star, for his outstanding bravery and service. I think these facts should be made known throughout our country, before a terrible mistake is made at election time.

A Grateful Buzzer

Subject: Bush's address to the UN

The rest of the world knows how badly the Iraqi war is going.  Too bad the American public can't figure just how badly the war is going.  You know, the Bush backers remind me of a person whose spouse has lied to them their whole marriage.  They know he/she will lie again, but they take them back anyway.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: NPR Roberts

Did Cokie Roberts just describe the banner from the famous aircraft carrier as saying "Mission Impossible" instead of "Mission Accomplished"?  She was talking about Bush in an interview saying that he would not have changed anything from that photo-op landing.  Did she really say "impossible" or did I hear that wrong?

J W Tomkovick
Chapel Hill, NC

Subject: Check out CAMPAIGN 2004 / Boxer...

Hey --

Senator Boxer hits the administration and her opponent in the Senate race hard.  And note the last paragraph of the article:

"We're only screening 5 percent of the cargo" coming into American ports, Boxer said. "That's just ridiculous. We should be protecting ourselves. It's no loss to have more ports protected. It's a gain.''

CAMPAIGN 2004 / Boxer says U.S. less secure, ties Jones to Bush policies (SF Gate)

Jake

Subject: St. Dpt: US isn't financially/politically involved, its interest: HUMANITARIAN!

New, five weeks before a tough election, watch for the new spin.

That's what a State Dept. Rep. told the BBC in an interview this morning..... yes indeed, we are killing Iraqis for HUMANITARIAN reasons, the WMD's are history, time for a new "hey the election is near" strategy.... the BBC reporter could hardly keep himself from laughing out loud, while the State Dept. rep was swallowing pretty hard - the BBC is not US media, they ask real questions - but he stayed the course...explained how all US involvement in the world is for humanitarian reasons.  Aren't we nice??

Watch for this new spin.... we, the people, are stupid.  We'll believe anything, right?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: "We Are Making Progress"...Sure, Bush! What Are You Smoking?

Dear Folks,

The other day in the Rose Garden at a joint press conference with Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, George W. Bush's answer when continually asked about the stability of Iraq was this: "We are making progress." Well, I want to know what the hell he is smoking or drinking and as a sober person, I want some NOW! This man is so out of touch it is almost laughable, but not a laughing matter considering the lives lost. Even Secretary Powell when questioned about this today stated this, "We have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world...I'm not denying this." Oh yeah, Secretary Powell as I read in today's Newsday that 5 more of our soldiers are dead.

My God, what is it going to take to wake up the morons that are backing Bush to change their pathetic little minds and go after the S.O.B.?! What is it also going to take for our beloved media to do the same? To those in the media who continually write pro Bush material, I say, "DO YOUR DAMN JOBS AND GO AFTER BUSH. PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR LIVES!"

To those that continue to go after Bush, all I say is, "BRAVO FOR DOING YOUR JOBS!"

A fellow patriot of mine on one political list that we are both members of ends his posts with these few words, "OUST BUSH! FOR FREEDOM!! FOR PEACE!!! FOR AMERICA!!!!" and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Iraqi Gen. Arrested As Violence Continues (AP/Yahoo)

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer (Snip) BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two car bombs wounded American and Iraqi troops west of the capital Sunday and a few hours later the U.S. military announced the arrest of a senior Iraqi National Guard commander on suspicion of ties to insurgents, underscoring the challenges to building a strong Iraq...security service capable of restoring stability.

A Patriot That Stands Up to Tyranny,

Mary!

Hello BuzzFlash,

My husband served in the Marines WW2, my Grandsons are Marines serving presently. Thank God, for your web site to tell it like it is!!! Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Trish

Subject: Is having an open mind "flip-flopping"?

Is John Kerry's stand on the war and the appearance of confusion a result of indecisiveness on his part, or is it simply the byproduct of having a conscience that tells him one thing while his oath of office and commitment to his fellow Americans says another? It is possible that he is grappling with the same arguments that have affected many leaders throughout history.

One such leader who had the misfortune of commanding the nation at a time of great conflict and political upheaval was Abraham Lincoln. We all know that he freed the country from the moral shackles of slavery, but there are many who don't know that freeing the slaves was not his primary objective or that he carefully weighed many options before taking a position that was unpopular to many. Mr. Lincoln had to make choices that appeared to be no-brainers, but were in fact the result of much soul-searching by an unsure leader.

Note this passage from a letter to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862:

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others, I would also do that.

Now President Lincoln goes on to say:

I have here stated my purpose according to my official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln bore no ambivalence about slavery, but to look at his writings you wouldn't know it, especially if that is what you were looking for.

Now, let's move forward 142 years and apply the same standard of right and wrong, black and white, and oneness of thinking that the Bush administration is using against Senator Kerry. There is little doubt that Bush/Cheney would be labeling Mr. Lincoln (the Republican) a monumental "flip-flopper" and as such unfit to lead the country.

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was a great leader, and our nation was saved by that leadership, but his personal beliefs were at times challenged by his love of country.

My point is that there are times when the President of the United States must look at an issue from several perspectives. He, or she must evaluate any decision before making it, and not after. He, or she must use all available resources and weigh the information not just from one point of view.

Mr. Kerry may have made decisions that were at odds with his better judgment and now wishes he hadn't. Who knows? But I do know that during the next few years the president will be called upon to make history-making decisions, and I for one hope and pray that he is up to the task of choosing a course (to paraphrase John Kennedy) "not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

Keith