Subject: It's A Cold Day In ---- Washington??

Many of us feared the results of the election but worked hard, gave our time, effort and money and vowed "it would be a Cold Day in Hell," if George Bush got elected. We have listened to the bungled efforts of the Iraq War, lost almost 1400 soldiers, slaughtered innocent Iraqis, and seen an unjust war result in a quagmire. We have heard lies and distortions about Bush policies that continue today. The Senate Foreign Relations committee voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice with only two Senators, Boxer and Kerry voting "no!" Questions of abuse and torture remain outstanding, our environment is in danger with regulations being diminished, Bush is pushing his views on Social Security and other policies, all a farce and abound with half-truths. No Higher-up in this Administration is held accountable for anything! More questionable nominees are waiting in the wings to be confirmed. The Republicans are jubilant; the Democrats spout pretty words, but refuse to participate in a Challenge for our right to vote. Despite the flowery rhetoric, most vote to confirm. George W. Bush takes the Oath of Office! And tomorrow, we are supposed to celebrate?? The weatherman says temperatures will drop, "It truly is a cold day in Hell!"

Susan C.

---

Subject: Re: Four More Years of Bush Makes the World Anxious

A belligerent attitude threatening preemptive military strikes against other countries is more indicative of a bully or fascist dictator than the president of the USA. The Iraq war has revealed to the world the fact that this country's military is spread too thin around the world already, with the regime's fiscal irresponsibility threatening to even weaken our defensive capabilities until our very survival is threatened. A strategic mistake made throughout history.

RB

---

I am writing to you to ask you please vote No regarding the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. She failed us as National Security advisor when she did not call meetings among the heads of Intelligence and when she did not take the memo about Bin Laden intending to attack America seriously. I was very disappointed when the 911 committee, after asking her some hard questions, seemed to let her off, even encouraging her when it came to their reports and their appearances in the media. How many businesses or institutions would reward such a poor performance with a "promotion"?

Why should she be trusted to handle our relationship with the rest of the world when she chose and advised the President to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian situation for a full year while blood poured in the streets? Why should we trust someone who is in against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, a country's favor for which we will be competing with China for their oil? And I will always feel that she was the real chink in the armor when it came to the 911 attack.

Yesterday and today, she has been let off the hook once again. Senators Biden, Dodd, and Chafee called her to task, and then assured her they would vote for her. Senators Boxer and Kerry were the only ones with the courage to criticize and then follow through with a no vote.

The Democrats have to get tougher on this administration. Watching what Bush did with your vote to approve the war should have taught you that they will never change. Until the Democrats stop fearing for their own re-elections and stop trying to abide by the phony religiosity that is one of the chief ruses of this administration, we will continue to fail as a nation.

I realize that the Democrats want to help the President get off to a fresh start, but if they think the Bush administration is going to follow through with any sense of fairness or bipartisan cooperation, they have learned nothing in the last four years!

Sincerely yours,

Subject: If the "detainees" at Guantanamo are so bad, where's all the security?

I thought you might be interested in this article in the New York Jewish Times, regarding a "contract" employee, who supposedly suffers from mental illness, who walked out of Gitmo with a disc of secret classified documents, and took them by plane to Egypt. But at least none of the people the government has no evidence to bring to trial, still can't get out of their shackles.

Guantanamo Bay Linguist Pleads Guilty (NY Jewish Times)

Katie W.

---

Dear BuzzFlash and its readers:

The following is a copy of an email I mailed to President Bush. I know he will never actually read it, but perhaps they can file it in the complaint file; plus, I just had to send it (anger management).

John Bogeman
Bloomington, IN

---

Subject: Condi Rice -- She said it

Yesterday, after boasting about her Russian language fluency, Condoleezza Rice showed her skill at putting her foot in her mouth in her native language, English:

Hey Condi, while you're working on "holding accountable leaders who do not govern democratically" don't forget your boss, Bush. Nearly half the voters participating in the 2004 Presidential election voted against him and his policies. We've already mobilized around an agenda of liberty, justice, prosperity, and, yes, democracy. However, you're welcome to join us. Democracy begins at home.

Ronni Graff
Highland Park, Illinois

---

Subject: "private" inaugural contributions (investments)

To address the mailbag entry to "The Bottom Line" and to the identity of the contributors to the inauguration. Some of Bush's defenders on Talk Radio called to say that since the millions of dollars are coming from private sources, what's the big deal? First, it is costing almost that much again in federal and District of Columbia police, helicopters, surveillance staff and other requirements of the Inaugural security state. Second, and more consequential, this private or corporate money is a very costly deal for regular Americans who don't get their calls returned.

It is not that these Americans are asked to contribute. Not while the corporate fat cats are falling all over themselves writing out $100,000 to $250,000 checks to the Bush bash. In return these companies get favors, privileges, tax breaks, subsidies, lax law enforcement for which the people pay dearly in health, safety and economic burdens. But then, with Bush, it has always been about Big Business.

An example is the atomic power industry that wants Bush to give them huge taxpayer dollars to create the next generation of nuclear plants and freeze out the public even more from challenging their location and emergency standards. So John E. Kane, the industry lobbyist, says that its $100,000 donation is a way of supporting the President.

The Washington Post summarized this cash register politics:

Corporations are free to give as much as they want to the Inaugural, unlike elections where they are prohibited from direct contributions (there are many indirect ways, of course). The Bush people placed a top limit of $250,000 to restrain those straining to add more for this lavish potlatch.

No industry has benefited more monetarily from George W. Bush than the drug companies. So they are reciprocating for all those massive taxpayer subsidies, government research, and weaker regulations for which they are so indebted.

Ameriquest, a mortgage company working the high interest fields of minority neighborhoods, got around the $250,000 limit by adding another $500,000 from its two subsidiaries. This company wants weaker federal pre-emption of tougher laws that states have been passing against predatory lending.

From Mondo, one of the faithful

---

Subject: Bush's "accomplishments"

I was visiting my next door neighbor the other day. He's a typical redneck Bush fan and non-thinker. He said with a gloating smirk: "Well, how'd you like the election results?" I replied: "What election?" He laughed and said: "I guess you still think he's an asshole, huh?" I replied: "Oh, no, He'd have to improve 100% to rise to that lofty height." Asked why I thought that way, I said: "Let's look at some of his administration's "accomplishments" to date (these are just SOME of the lowlights).

1. Lied to the American people about Iraq when he knew the truth, leading to the current tragedy.

2. Undid environmental laws it took decades of uphill battles to enact.

3. Inherited a robust economy that he managed to ruin (just like everything else he put his hand to) through his pathetic incompetence.

4. Is leading an attack on labor unions that is only just beginning (my neighbor remains non-union, even after I gave him a printout of union scale wages & benefits, which far exceed what he's getting now).

5. Is conspiring to destroy Social Security using the same vile tactics he used to bad mouth Kerry and lie us into an unnecessary war.

Well, you get the gist. My neighbor then asked: "How do you explain his reelection, then?" I said: "The same way he did it the first time." I was assaulted with a stream of derisive remarks, replete with platitudes and Republican newspeak, right out of their playbook, to which I replied: "You've got the party line down pat; Goebbels would be proud." "Who's that?" he asked. I said: "Never mind, but mark my words, it'll take decades to undo the damage after his sorry ass is gone."

I love ya, Buzz. Keep up the good work until the Thought Police shut you down and haul you away.

Bill Mac Bean
Klamath Falls, Or.

---

Subject: Having Integrity is Necessary for It to be Impugned

Dear BuzzFlash Readers:

Greetings from the Christian Progressive Liberal.

I watched the Confirmation hearings of Dr. Condoleezza Rice yesterday, and was ever so proud of my Senator, Barbara Boxer, lighting up Dr. Rice, by throwing the good NSA's words back in her face.

At one point, Condi implied that Senator Boxer was attacking her "integrity." Ya think?

However, my observation of Condi's performance communicated one thing, and one thing only. For a person to have their integrity impugned, one must actually possess integrity. Which, as has been evidenced by Dr. Rice's lies, fabrications, stories, etc., she readily demonstrates she does not possess.

Yes, it's fine and dandy to watch Sen. Dianne Feinstein apply her lips to Dr. Rice's rear end, by bringing up the fact that Dr. Rice was friends with one of the four little girls killed when their church was bombed back in 1963 - Denise McNair, and how Condi overcame all of the horror that was Birmingham, Alabama in the 1960s. However, what you don't hear is about how Condi's family refused to take part in any marches, water hosing, dog bites, jailing, that Dr. Martin Luther King did, in order to advance the cause of Civil Rights. The reality is, Dr. King sacrificed, and Condi Rice benefits, while dogging everyone else.

I don't deny her accomplishments. But to forget who made the sacrifices in order for her to realize what many of us can only imagine - this is what Condi does every time she lies, in order to show loyalty to the Bush Cartel. Additionally, I will make a bold prediction right now: that the worse the Iraqi quagmire gets, the more you will see her being set up to take the fall. If they can set up Armstrong Williams, why not Condi? After all, Bob Novak is not the one being disgraced; but you can see his fingerprints all over the outing of a CIA agent. Armstrong lost his outlets for playing the 'ho. And now Condi, especially since Colin Powell seems to have negotiated with the Devil to return his cojones and got out while the getting is good.

Sometimes, you can be brilliant....to the point of being an EDUCATED FOOL. For Condi Rice to complain that Barbara Boxer was attacking her integrity, is like saying GeeDubya will defect to the Democratic Party after he's sworn into office.

Even Jesus says that when everything else about you as a Christian is being attacked, if you have integrity, those who attack you will be ashamed of their attack (1 Peter 2:12 - Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation).

Do you think Condi Rice can make such a boast? NO? Didn't think she could. And the Pottery Barn Rule applies to her as well as GeeDubya and his new Attorney General that appears to be worse than another self-confessed "christian," John Ashcroft.

We need to stand firm and remain ever vigilant in the next three years - the survival of our country depends on it, especially since incompetence continues to be rewarded. That was never Jesus' way and it shouldn't become ours.

Until next time - stay focused, take charge and God bless you!

My name is Leutisha Stills and I am the Christian Progressive Liberal who approved this message!

[BuzzFlash Note: Methinks that Condi "hast protest too much," and drawn into question her "integrity," just as Nixon's "I am not a crook" remark helped people see him as one.]

---

Subject: epiphany

Hi, Buzz!!

It's the day before George "Wishing Can TOO Make It So" Bush's coronation blowout, and I have had an epiphany. Many of my fellow Buzzers have wondered how GW can justify spending $40 (or $50 - I've seen both figures) million on a big political bash when there's so much suffering in the world (some caused by GW himself): the tsunami, war, torture, death, maimings, election fraud, and so on and so on.

My epiphany is this: GW doesn't see any of this as real, except the politics. The war in Iraq, and the military and civilian suffering associated with it, are not real. War is a political construct that allows GW to portray himself as a "war president" and have fun strutting about in uniform. Torture is a political construct that allows him to feel Tough and Manly. The tsunami is an occasion to brag about his generosity (the generosity of the American people IS real, but we don't brag, we just do it). Since everything is a political construct and nothing bad is real, there's no reason to hold anyone accountable for anything, and there's no reason to back off his huge political coronation bash. The coronation IS real, because it's politics, and politics is all that's real to GW.

The only flaw I find in this notion is the dead of Iraq, both civilian and military. GW's record in Texas with regard to executions suggests that he finds death very real, and enjoys having the power to order people's deaths. Perhaps what's not real are the grieving families of the dead. Since they are not real, there's no need to attend any funerals and expose himself to embarrassment.

BTW, Steve W is right about Hitler; he was brought up a Catholic, and actually served as an altar boy. I don't consider that a reflection on Catholicism, only on Hitler; not even Jesus could reach everybody.

Jane Hawes
Emporia, KS (a red-state Democrat)

---

Kudos goes to Barbara Boxer and John Kerry. The Senators were great. It gave me some inspiration to come alive again. I loved every minute of it. B. Boxer should keep up the good work up.

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: On the day before the presidential inauguration

As immigrant citizen of these United States of America I feel an obligation to share my wartime memories with my compatriots on this day before the presidential inauguration: As a five year old child I survived the WWII aerial bombardments of Bonn and Koeln in Germany. As a sixty-four-year-old resident of the Twin Cities of Minnesota I've experienced the naivete of the younger generation regarding the realities of warfare. Let me put it in mild terms: Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. An old proverb. Those who survived the December 26, 2004 tsunami in which nearly 225,000 perished, will not forget the past. Those who survived the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam - will not forget. Those who survived battles in WWII will not forget.

But those who have no first-hand experience with warfare - like our current President -- have no experience to forget. They are floundering in ignorance. I call upon ALL who have had first-hand experience with warfare and bombing and disaster and floods and deprivation and starvation and destitute conditions to come forth and speak out! Natural disasters are uncontrolled events -- while warfare is a manmade, controlled event. Any political leader who does not grasp the consequences of his/her initiated acts is obligated to listen to wiser, experienced persons for the well-being of the citizens.

May our President keep an open mind and an open ear for the sake of bringing peace in all
areas where conflict reigns.

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: Letter on Bush inauguration and mandate

January 20th, Inauguration Day has been designated as a federal holiday for tax purposes by the Internal Revenue Service. Why couldn't the Presidential Election Day be called a federal holiday for voting purposes once every four years? Or is it that money is more important than democracy? On January 20th we will confirm once again the Bush dictatorship. After all Bush said and I quote, "I wish this were a dictatorship. It would be so much easier, as long as I was the dictator." In Election 2000 we had the US Supreme Court getting to vote twice and selecting Bush President. In Election 2004 we had vote suppression in Ohio and exit polls for Kerry with voting machine totals for Bush. Who knows if Bush was legitimately elected? Only the corporations controlling the voting software know for sure.

Finally, Bush states that the election vote was a mandate for his Iraq War policy and the deaths that occurred there. Pollsters tell us over 50% of the people think the Iraq War was a mistake. Who is lying? Bush or the People and the Pollsters?

http://www.literalpolitics.com/NewsDay/July/newsdayjuly.htm

http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#politics

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15/ar01.html

Karen Boerboom
Platteville, WI

---

Subject: Washington Post's lightweight retraction of its 1A story runs on page A18?

How interesting. The Washington Post finally does the right thing by retracting its 3000-word work of 1A fiction on Jumana Hanna -- and then BURIES SAID RETRACTION INSIDE THE PAPER ON INAUGURATION DAY. Clever! You folks at the Post are obviously hoping the rest of the media is too distracted to make a fuss. Shame on you. Esquire exposed your incompetence, and my guess is that your competitors are finally going to catch on.

A couple points:

1) Since when does a reporter who screwed up as badly as Peter Finn get to reinvestigate and re-present his previously sloppy reporting? This is a flagrant violation of basic journalistic practice. Finn should have handed his sources over to a team of Post reporters and then disappeared.

2) What a lightweight account of your mistakes you've presented in the wake of Esquire's debunking of your work. Your original piece was full of heightened prose and wild detail -- the corpse of Hanna's husband being handed to her through the Baghdad prison gates like "a piece of butcher's meat." Now that you've discovered that the husband is alive, you don't dredge up your colorful prose, do you? Why not?

3) You have accepted no accountability for the way in which the story was exploited by Wolfowitz in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after Finn's original story was published. There is nothing said about the fallout of your incompetent work: that Hanna's tale became part of the Administration's justification for war.

4) You have not fessed up to just how poorly reported your original piece was. Finn's retraction refers to all sorts of family and friends of Hanna who he supposedly interviewed last summer. But a careful reading of Finn's original piece leaves the strong impression that he spoke to a mere handful of people -- that it was essentially a ONE-SOURCE STORY.

Threads Unravel in Iraqi's Tale: Story of Husband's Execution Contradicted by Relatives Who Say He Is Alive (Washington Post)

Peter J. Martinez

---

Subject: George Lakoff's Moral Politics

Dear BuzzFlash,

I have been reading you now for six long months. I have learned a lot. But one of the best tips I got from you (I think) was the book "Moral Politics" by George Lakoff. This book has answered more of my questions about the current state of American politics than reading six months of BuzzFlash. Everyone should read this book and it should be a major point of discussion among liberals. This book basically says there are great moral divisions between liberals and conservatives and they will never be swayed by the other side's arguments.

Conservatives believe in the strict father family and liberals believe in the nurturant parent family and those two opposing views of the family are the reason that conservatives think (and vote) the way they do, and liberals think (and vote) the way they do.

This moral metaphor for people's view of the world, when applied to politics, explains everything. It is why the conservatives want to privatize social security (good citizens don't need handouts from the government) and liberals don't even see the problem (of course the government has to take care of its citizens.) Lakoff's moral metaphor also explains why I couldn't comprehend how decent people could even consider voting for George Bush. Those decent conservatives were raised in a strict father family while I, a product of a nurturant parent family, couldn't even believe he was a candidate for president.

I can't recommend this book enough. Lakoff goes on to point out that 40% of Americans are strict father conservatives, and 40% are nurturant parent liberals, with only 20% somewhere in between. All liberals need to read this book so that we can persuade those 20% of the American population who have a little of both types of upbringing in them to move towards the nurturant parent type of government that all liberals believe in and think is better for America and the world. Otherwise, we will be stuck forever with a strict father type of conservative government that basically says "too bad" to anyone who doesn't have the self-discipline to make it rich in America.

READ THIS BOOK.

Rachel Horwitz, a public school librarian

[BuzzFlash Note: We agree and will be offering Moral Politics as a premium next week. Lakoff's wonderful Don't Think of an Elephant (with DVD) is a current premium; it provides a briefer overview of similar concepts.]

---

Subject: Boxer is condemned on the republican Radio show

Dear Buzz,

Republican party can never tolerate a smart person grilling their kind. Today, on O'Reilly radio show, the folks were condemning Boxer for speaking the truth and so did O'Reilly. Republicans cannot stand the truth. They would like someone to pat their backs and go along with their lies. I think Boxer is one courageous lady to confront Rice.

EZ

---

Subject: Dear Mr. Koppel

You finally covered the voter fraud story in Ohio! I am surprised you bent so low as to cover a story made up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists! A man of your vaunted intelligence! Can you remember when those conspiracy freaks were bellowing about some stupid break-in in the early seventies? They actually believed the president was implicated in a burglary. No, wait a second, they were right about that one, I guess. Well hey they were bellowing all through the eighties about some secret government being run out of the White House basement that was trading arms with our avowed mortal enemies, the Iranians. And then there was that stuff about the CIA selling drugs to finance a South American contra movement. Real wacko spy novel stuff only an idiot would fall for.

What's that? It was all true? Oh well. Remember in the nineties when those goofy Clintons were sure there was a conspiracy of right wing conservatives out to get them? Pretty funny stuff, huh? Oh, wait, that was true as well. Yeah, but remember when the 2000 election was so close and those crazy democrats were claiming the republicans and Bush's brother the governor had suppressed black voters with some nutty felons list and if all the votes in Florida were actually counted Gore would be president? Wait, hey wait, that was true as well.

Yes at one time all these stories and many others were considered to be the stuff of partisan fantasy. Conspiracy quackery if you will. But back in those days we still had a few real journalists who risked job and sometimes life to check into this stuff and dig deep to find out the truth. Those of us who are old enough to have lived through countless scandals since the sixties are well familiar with the tar brush being smeared on those who seek the truth. Often by those in the comfy corporate media jobs like yours, Ted.

I am sure you are insulted by that statement. But Ted I remember how your little show started. The Iranians had taken some hostages at our embassy and your show certainly covered the hell out of that story! Night after night a voice of doom intoned at the start of the show. DAY 123 AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE! Or the next night, DAY 124 AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE! Hardly impartial journalism don't you agree? Poor Jimmy Carter sure didn't need your crisis hyping night after night. I mean, come on Ted, was America really being held hostage or just some embassy staff in Iran? Imagine doing that with, say, the War in Iraq now. Think that could help shape public opinion Ted?

But I am getting off into conspiracy stuff again. It's not like journalists are taking money from the president for favorable coverage. Or that our elected officials are lying us into a war we didn't have to fight. And I am sure all this voter fraud stuff in Ohio is nothing either.

A BuzzFlash Reader

---