Subject: Galloway wailing on Norm Coleman - heavy duty
Please try to link to footage (CSpan?) of Galloway's absolute
mopping the floor with Norm Coleman today - if you haven't seen
it it's almost breathtaking. I don't know if it was part of an
opening statement or answer to questions, but he skewers him in
a way that we've all wanted to do to Bush's mafia.
I GUARANTEE you'll eat this up if you see it, and to see it is
entirely different than reading the quotes. It's kind of a work
Subject: Whose record is better?
Am I imagining things, or is our Jackanapes in Chief tryin' to
make the case that the state of the American economy is better
now under his "watch" than it was when President Clinton
was in office? Wait! What was I thinking? It goes without saying
that the argument he proffered in his
radio address was not actually "his" - that is,
in the sense that he actually formulated it himself. So, technically,
it wasn't "him" making the case at all, I should posit,
at the outset. Nevertheless, all that aside, here's how said argument
went, if, in point of fact, I heard it right. He took the unemployment
figure for one month out of his interregnum, and compared it to
the 1990's "average" unemployment figure. And because
the unemployment figure for this one month was better than that
average figure referred to, the implication the Rove Administration
would like for us to come away with is that Buff Daddy has done
a better job on the employment front that Clinton did.
But aren't we really comparing apples and oranges, here? If we
are going to make a truly fair comparison, there are two ways
to go about it, as far as I can see. If the Rove Administration
wants to take just one month, any month, and point to the unemployment
rate for that month in order to tout its record on fighting unemployment,
then we should be allowed to choose one month, any month that
we want, from the Clinton Presidency, to tout our record on fighting
unemployment. And guess what? Employing this first case fair comparison,
we win hands down! During the Clinton Administration, we recorded
the lowest monthly unemployment rates in decades. Buff Daddy has
not matched these monthly rates, let alone improved upon them.
Now, the second case fair comparison would occur if we were to
take all the monthly unemployment rates for each respective Administration
and get each respective average. (Notice that the figure adduced
by Buff Daddy was the average for the 1990's - i.e., the entire
decade - which time would include two years of Bush Sr.'s Presidency.
Recall also that during those two years, the country was in the
throes of a severe recession with concomitant high unemployment.)
I suspect that if we were to make the comparison on this second
basis, i.e., take the respective averages for both Administrations,
that Clinton would come out on top once again. Even given the
fact that he inherited that deep recession from Bush Sr. and that,
conversely, Buff Daddy inherited a demonstrably low unemployment
rate from Clinton. Perhaps someone could crunch those numbers
One final point. When Buff Daddy proudly crows about those 200,000+
jobs, we must ask; "What kind of jobs are we talkin' here?"
The most important standard of measurement we should be utilizing
when we assess the overall employment picture is standard of living.
The baseline number of jobs "created" does not tell
the whole story. Not by a long shot. Is the standard of living
of the American people expanding or contracting? This should be
the question. And when we analyze the relevant evidence pertaining
to the question of standard of living, guess what, Buzz? Clinton
wins, yet again, on this count, too! That is to say, under Clinton,
our standard of living demonstrably expanded, whereas under the
Jackanapes, it has demonstrably gone in the opposite direction,
or, straight down South. Ergo, Q.E.D. - and case closed! Happy
warriors to the end, compadre! Keep the faith, Buzz!
G. Will Hunter
Subject: Norm Coleman's face
Nothing in this time (since Bush was seated, and got all the right
wing in) has done me more good than watching Norm Coleman's face,
when Galloway was giving him hell! I do hope they play that once
again .. .at least. I enjoyed it so much!
Subject: Newsweek error
If Newsweek is to be held responsible for their misstatements,
shouldn't our government be held accountable as well?
Dick Cheney (8/26/2002): "Simply stated, there is no doubt
that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
George W Bush (9/12/2002): "Right now, Iraq is expanding
and improving facilities that were used for the production of
Ari Fleisher (12/2/2002): "If he declares he has none, then
we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the
Paul Wolfowitz (3/2003) "There's a lot of money to pay for
this, it doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, we are dealing
with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction,
and relatively soon."
Don Rumsfeld (3/30/2003): "We know where they (WMD) are.
They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,
south and north somewhat."
Condoleezza Rice (6/8/2003): "No one ever said that we knew
precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored."
George W Bush (5/30/2003): "But for those who say we haven't
found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
wrong, we found them."
Subject: Newsweek red-herring - don't bite Rove bait
Just like the Dan Rather 60 Minutes memo, of which the basic facts
were never denied, now we have a Newsweek story, of which
the basic facts are not being denied. These Koran flushing stories
have been in newspapers for months.
This is a huge two-fer for the White House. First they trash the
mainstream media and destroy its credibility. Second, they blame
anybody but themselves for the terrible worldwide reputation of
the United States and the subsequent riots in Afghanistan.
The stench in the air is palpable. This stinks of Karl Rove. Remember
the bug he planted in his own office in Texas? And just where
did the 60 Minutes memo come from? Now we get this Rovian distraction
God I hope the press isn't as stupid as they were with the Dan
Rather stuff. I hope they do some basic research, like using Google,
before they start criticizing Newsweek. For starters,
listen to General Myers saying the Newsweek article had
nothing to do with the riots in Afghanistan. He said this last
week. Now Rumsfeld and Condi are implying and saying the exact
opposite. How stupid does Condi think we are? This is pathetic.
It is a nakedly obvious dodge that is embarrassing to any thinking
Gee, I wonder what Bush and Rove are trying to distract us from?
Could it be the infamous Downing
Street Memo, which proves that Bush and company lied about
WMDs? This memo (minutes from a meeting really) prove that Bush
and company “fixed” the facts around their policy. As a consequence
of this gross abuse of power, over 1,600 US soldiers are dead.
As many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Starting an unjust
war based on lies is immoral and un-American. This is treason
on a deadly scale. Bush should be impeached.
Why does the vast majority of the mainstream media continue to
ignore the Downing Street Memo? And yet this same media laps up
Karl Rove-manufactured swill like it is the finest wine.
Mr. Moyers, continue to fight back. It is my hope the Dems.
will continue to fight the Republicans with tooth and nails
with their Right Wing agenda. People are sick of them and their
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: A Short Primer On How to Become Ruler of the World
When young, put firecrackers in the mouths of frogs and watch,
with glee, as the frogs explode.
Chase younger, smaller siblings around the house with a BB gun.
Get Cs in college, think it's funny.
Booze and take drugs, hang around pools and chase girls (getting
at least one pregnant and providing her an abortion).
Use the National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to fight
in a war you could care less about, Vietnam.
Use booze and drugs until you get grounded from flying.
Leave the Guard without permission to "work" on a
political campaign, but come in late every day and annoy the real
Stay drunk until the age of 40.
Have Dad and Dad's friends get you four consecutive jobs running
four companies that you run into the ground.
Become governor of a big state.
Become president of the United States, Declare war for the hell
Become Ruler of the World.
Oh, I forgot to add, this MIGHT not work for everyone. There are
a few elements missing here. You would have to be born into a
rich and powerful family that has NO scruples about anything.
You, also, must be free of ethics, morality or honesty. You must
"understand" that only suckers play by the rules of
honesty, decency and fairness. You must reject all of those silly
notions, portray yourself as a religious person (oops, I almost
choked on that one), be willing to punish anyone who gets in your
way, not let anything interfere with your passion for destroying
the American middle-class and, lastly, never admit error or tell
An American Citizen Who Bows To No One
Subject: Doomsday blitz
Everybody go sign up for PFAW's "Nuclear Option" Mass