June 17, 2005
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: ABC News, Downing Street Memo ignored
I guess ABC News is expecting a nice doggy biscuit and a pat on the head from Bush! ABC News is pretending like Bush's fully exposed ass is not really fully exposed.
Will this absurd kowtowing to an extremely unpopular President never cease?
While I single out ABC News, none of the major news outlets - whether print or television - has properly covered this historic memo. The docile behavior of the mainstream media is shocking at best and extremely dangerous to a democratic society at worst.
Bush should be impeached. 1,700 US soldiers are dead because of his lies. As many as 100,000 Iraqi citizens are dead because of Bush lies.
I've been waiting for all the b.s. to stop about the downing street memo, and for someone to get to the heart of the problem: yes, the present regime in Washington has been planning this war on Iraq since the middle 1990's, and the proof, including their "Statement of Principles," dated June 3, 1997, is still on their web site for all to see. Check it out at http://www.newamericancentury.org. The downing street memo is only one more small piece of evidence that the plan started much earlier than the beginning of the shrub's regime.
I'm talking about "Project for The New American Century" (PNAC), the organization that picked an electable but clueless front man (cheney's sock-puppet) for the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, then did whatever it took to get him elected. As tvnewslies.org states so well: "PNAC -The Project for a New American Century; the neo-cons. These people are the real president of the United States."
One point the PNAC makes in their Statement of Principles: "The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire."
In their letter to President Clinton on January 26, 1998, they state: "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
So who is the PNAC: Some of them are very familiar to us, because they hold (or held) highest offices in this regime. Some who signed that letter to President Clinton:
Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, et al.
Some who signed the Statement of Principles:
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Steve Forbes, Zalmay Khalilzad,Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.
What a coincidence. Those who advocated regime change in Iraq since at least 1997 are those same people who directed this country's march to the invasion of Iraq after they formed the "bush" administration in January of 2000.
Yes, there are some web sites out there that clearly offer the story of the PNAC, in fact BuzzFlash and mediachannel among others have mentioned it. But the story that needs to be redefined is one I can't understand: the downing street memo that only showed what was planned by PNAC, publicized on their web site, and put into action.
Some who are not afraid to talk about this PNAC and how it owns the gummint at this time:
Finally, I think this was the culmination of the republican efforts to take over permanent control of the gummint since 1974, though a more brazen effort, and one that grew out of the frustration and shame those criminals of the Nixon Administration and their apologists felt when Nixon resigned ... the humiliation of their loss of power and "status," of being shut out of the halls of power ...
Of course, some were in the halls of power in the 1980's, during their "glory days" when they had earlier clueless front men (do I have to spell it out? reagan and the shrub's daddy!) acting as president. Yes, back in the glory days, when rummy was shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein, 1983, I believe, and most likely giving him weapons of mass destruction ... how else would we have known for sure he had them?
Yes, they unsuccessfully used some very specific threats and every dirty trick in the book to keep Bill Clinton from the White House, and then unsuccessfully again, to drive him out, and those same people are doing the same to Hillary, only because she's a credible threat to their hold on power and their warped world view.
If George Orwell was living in these times and had an idea to write "1984" now, he'd say "Those bloody PNAC's stole my idea!"
Thanks for the opportunity ... by the way, does this letter qualify as a "rant"??? Please say yes!
Subject: With Us or Against Us
OK, so now that we know for sure, and we have proof, that Bush and his ilk lied to Congress, lied to the American people, and lied to the world in the UN about the war ... why do we still have members of Congress acting as if this is all "just fine?"
How can anyone, repub, democrat, or any MSM company, be considered anything but complicit in, and thus also guilty of, treason against our nation, if they do not raise hell and throw this criminal out? Is it not time we begin to frame this debate as Bush himself did once? "You are either with us (the people) or against us." Including every Bush apologist and traitorous member of Congress. Shout it out friends, they are obviously not with us. Let's tell it like it is.
The recent AgapeNews article, "Recruiting Numbers Down; Critics Blame Hostile Media" left me disappointed. Both Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson (retired) and Gary Bauer (American Values) blame the news media for spreading bad news about events in Iraq.
If they believe in the war and that the cause is the liberal press, they should address this by holding 'enlistment rallies' after church services each Sunday. This would demonstrate their patriotism and their unfailing belief that the war isn't that bad. They could televise this, and then, after all their sons and daughters have successfully served for this noble cause, they'll have all these wonderful stories to report versus the horrendous evils that the liberal press selectively presents.
Subject: Verified Voting
We have so many issues to resolve as a result of this disastrous administration, it's hard to prioritize. Before we can effect any changes, we must unite for the most important issue: paper trail verifiable voting. The next election is right around the corner, and the Repugs will steal every seat if we don't demand that confidence be restored in our election process.
D J Hunt
Subject: The Wall!
Since George W. Bush and his Administration came to office we have seen a wall of secrecy and deceit built brick by brick. They, along with their majority of Republicans, want to add even more bricks, to diminish checks and balances, and slowly diminish our civil rights using the excuse of “Terrorism.” The wall they are building keeps George and his loyalists and their secrets in, and the citizens of America out! Their first line of defense is the complicit media! Its design gives them more and more power and extends their excuse for building an empire!
Today, John Conyers has a cannon aimed at their wall! “The Downing Street Memo” and the six “UK, Your Eyes Only Briefings” are the first cannon balls. This morning there is little mention of the first assault in the media! Representative Conyers was even refused a room to hold his meeting in by the Republicans! The Republicans and the media stand tall in their position of defense. There is more than enough evidence in these documents to prove Bush and Blair fixed information, misrepresented the facts and lied us into a war that never had to be. There comes a time where all walls have to be destroyed, where truth must be told, where investigation must include Bush ineptness for 9/11. Walls are not transparent and with this corrupt Administration, and more transparency is needed! In past history Reagan asked that one wall be brought down. Now Americans need to start to bringing the wall of secrecy, deceit, and corruption down, brick by brick, in so many areas. United we must do it! Once part of the wall is destroyed, the rest will come down much easier.
Restrict government power in the Patriot Act that tramples on our Democracy. Bolton should not be our Representative to the United Nations. Bush’s plan for Social Security must be stopped dead in its tracks. Question the destruction of our national resources, demand health-care for all Americans, fight for clean air and our environment, implement election reform and, most of all, Iraq is a loser, bring our troops home! Bring Bush and the wall down!
Subject: God Thought of Everything Strange and Slimy!
This is the title of a book being offered by D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. I just KNEW there had to be an explanation for Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, Robertson, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, & all the other right-wing christian whack-jobs!!!!!
Pope Bandar Bin Turtle
Subject: Did Democratic Senators Know the Truth About Iraq? - Part 1
Why are the Democratic Senators so relatively silent on the Downing Street memo? It seems that they are almost afraid to address it. Why? Popular views are that they are cowards, or afraid of offending Republican voters who might switch parties. What if the truth is more harsh?
Were some of the top Democratic Senators invited in by the Republicans to participate in evaluating the evidence against Iraq, and planning the war? In other words, did at least some of the Democratic Senators know the truth? Did they know the evidence suggested, and large segments of the intelligence community believed, that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, and had no WMD? Did they also know the evidence was being manipulated (or invented) to justify the war? Did they know Bush was lying to the American public, but they kept silent?
Why would a Democratic Senator do this? They are, at heart, mostly interested in keeping their own jobs, and, in some cases, want to be President. So if Kerry, for example, was wooed by the Republicans, flattered, told his experience in combat would make his input valuable, wouldn't he see that as an opportunity to position himself as a 2004 presidential candidate? He could then take partial credit if the war was successful.
Think back to Kerry's inability during the election to ever articulate anything intelligent about the war in Iraq. The most he came out with was that he would have sent more troops. But he never criticized the invasion of Iraq, and he never complained that the Bush people had lied to the Senate about the intelligence which supported the Bush claim that Iraq had WMD and was a threat. In fact, he later said that even if he had known Iraq did not have WMD [so was no immediate threat to the U.S.] he would have supported the war anyway.
If Bush lied to the Democratic Senators about the basis for war, why not make that a campaign issue? If he lied to the public, why not make that an issue? Never a peep from Kerry.
And now, with the media finally paying attention to the Downing Street memo, what does Kerry say when given the opportunity to speak on it? I believe his statement last week was that the Downing Street Memo was important, and needed to be addressed by Bush, and that he (Kerry) was going to raise that issue next week. Why the delay? Why not take that opportunity, for example, to say something like "If Bush lied to Congress and lied to the American people, this is an extremely serious issue." But he didn't say that. In fact he's never said Bush lied to him or to the Senate. Then when Kerry got back to the Senate last week, he in fact said nothing.
It appears that Kerry is pressuring the Bush administration to take a position - come up with whatever bizarre explanation - so that Kerry can follow suit, or simply defer to them.
Why is Rep. Conyers pushing this issue while the Democratic Senators are silent? Remember the 2000 election, when not one member of the historically all-white millionaires club known as the Senate would stand up and object to the denial of voting rights to black citizens in this country?
Kerry and the other top Democrats need to be confronted on this issue. If they knew the truth, and went along, they need to fall on their sword, to leave politics, and to be thrown out of the Democratic party. The way things are now, the Democratic Party is unable to protest the war. Even Republicans are now coming out against the war, demanding withdrawal. Why are the Democratic Senators silent? There is only one plausible explanation: at least some of them knew the truth and went along.
And think how smart Karl Rove would have been to invite the most likely 2004 presidential candidates to participate in the inner circles in planning war against Iraq. Rove would have known that if the war went bad, the Democrats would be silenced in the campaign, and could not complain about it.
Did Democratic Senators Know The Truth About Iraq - Part 2
By the summer of 2004, the official reasons for attacking Iraq had been proven false: (1) no WMD had been found; and (2) any claims of Iraq's involvement in 9/11 had been discredited.
At the Democratic convention in July, Kerry chose to primarily focus on his military capabilities, portraying himself as a worthy successor to step in and take over the war in Iraq. There was little if any discussion about the fact that the war was unfounded and illegal, despite the fact that the majority of delegates were anti-war.
Polls showed the public was not clear about what Kerry's position was on the war in Iraq. Was he against it, as were most of his supporters? Or was he still in favor of it, as he apparently had been when he voted to authorize Bush to start the war. This uncertainty was hurting Kerry among likely supporters.
Kerry's vagueness on the war was also helping Bush, who was perceived as being clear and committed on his policy (even if wrong). So why would Bush do anything to force Kerry to clarify his position? Why would Bush do anything to force Kerry to come right out and say that Bush was wrong to have invaded Iraq, and Bush lied to the public about his claim that Iraq had WMD? If Kerry had finally taken a clear position on that issue, it might have helped Kerry and hurt Bush.
So why, on Friday, August 6, 2004, did George Bush publicly challenge John Kerry to answer the following question: If Kerry had known, when he voted in favor of the war in Iraq, that there were no WMD in Iraq, would he have voted in favor of the war anyway? "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
John Kerry's response came the following Monday, August 8, 2004, at the Grand Canyon. "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used the authority effectively." Kerry later supposedly told some of his aides that he had not heard the question correctly - he thought they were just asking whether he thought his vote to give Bush authority was correct, and he was only answering that question, but did not understand the question was would he have voted the same way had he known there were no WMD. This nuanced distinction was apparently supposed to allow Kerry to wiggle off the hook, and continue his claim that he only voted in favor of the resolution because he thought Bush would not go to war - would just use the threat of war to get concessions from Iraq.
Despite the fact that Kerry claimed to his aides that he had not heard or understood the question, the decision was nonetheless made that he would not publicly correct his answer. Why not? If someone asked whether it was proper to invade Iraq, and the person thought "no" but misunderstood so answered "yes," wouldn't they be eager and anxious to correct that statement? His aides claimed he did not want to feed into the image of him as a flip-flopper. Wasn't it worse for him to admit that he would have invaded Iraq even if he knew Iraq had no WMD and was no threat to the U.S.? Didn't that provide complete approval for what Bush had done?
Why did Bush push Kerry to take a stand on that issue? Kerry's vagueness was hurting Kerry. And Kerry never attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq - he just said Bush should have waited longer before attacking, or sent in more troops. So why force the issue, when it could have opened up attacks that Bush invaded despite the fact that Iraq had no WMD, and was no threat to the U.S.? One reason Bush might have forced the issue is because he knew Kerry would be forced to admit he would have supported the war even absent WMD, because that's exactly what he had done.
Kerry's answer was given on 8/8/04. The reaction to it from the media and his supporters was so extreme that he refused to answer any reporters' question for the next month. The last questions he answered were at the Grand Canyon on 8/8/04, when he said he would have voted for war even if he had known the truth. Given that his response supposedly was based on a misunderstanding by him of what the question was, and given that the response drew such negative attention, why didn't he come out and correct it? Why hide from the media for the next month, waiting for it to die down? The logical answer is that he had no other answer to give, because he had known the truth all along.
And let's come back to the present. Kerry is right now spending his time working on some law to provide health care for children, which is admittedly important, but is really not the central issue on most people's minds today. What about jobs? What about CAFTA? What about outsourcing? What about the war in Iraq? What about the Downing Street memo?
Is Kerry silenced because of his complicity? And which other Democratic Senators fall into the same boat?
There is a simple series of questions the Democratic Senators must answer. Did they know before the U.S. invaded Iraq that it was unlikely Iraq had WMD? Did they know Bush was lying to the American public? If not, they need to immediately and publicly denounce Bush for lying to them and to the public. They cannot remain silent on this issue any longer.
3. What Did Democrats Know About Iraq - Part 3 Now that the Downing Street memo is getting some U.S. press coverage, the Democratic Senators are finally feeling pressure to prepare an official response. As discussed above, John Kerry passed on the opportunity to address the press on this memo, saying he planned to raise it in the Senate. Now the Washington Post has reported that Kerry has drafted a letter, and is circulating it in the Senate. No mention of what is said in the letter.
The few comments coming out of the Democratic Senate on the Downing Street memo are nuanced and avoid the central issue of whether Bush lied to them in claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and lied in claiming Iraq had WMD.
Instead, the nuanced response from Democratic Senators is as follows: when Bush asked Congress to give up its constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war, did Bush lie to the Congress in claiming he would try to obtain a peaceful resolution, since he had already decided to go to war?
But that does not address the central question. Did Bush lie to the Congress about whether Iraq had WMD? If not, and if Congress knew the truth, then Congress cannot complain that Bush lied to them about the supposed justification for going to war. And if Bush lied to the public, and the Democrats knew he was lying but sat silently and said nothing, they are equally responsible.
Put differently, if Bush lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD, why isn't Congress standing up and announcing that to the world. "We were deceived. Had we known the truth, we never would have authorized war."
Also note the proposals in the House and in the Senate (from Senator Kennedy) that Bush provide a timeline for withdrawal. Again, silence on the question of whether we should have been there in the first place.
The truth will come out, and must come out. If the Democrats knew the truth, they would be better off coming clean now, instead of allowing the Republicans to hold this over their heads (and the party's head) forever.
Nancy A. Butterfield
Subject: Frist lies to Matt Lauer on the Today Show
Frist lies to Matt Lauer on the Today SHOW (crooksandliars.com)
I was wondering how Frist would handle the news about Terri's autopsy.
Majority Leader Bill Frist this morning on the Today Show:
Frist on Senate Floor, 3/17/05:
More from Frist, 3/17/05:
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: American Taliban
Thanks for the quotes from the American Taliban. Scary stuff, but we need to know how these wackos are thinking (or not thinking, which is more likely). I am particularly annoyed by the men who lecture women on "submission" to their husbands while quoting Ephesians: "The husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church." They need to examine that more closely, and in connection with Jesus' own statements on greatness and leadership. Christ is head of the Church by virtue of his willingness to die by torture to bring the Church into existence. How many of the Taliban would sacrifice anything for their wives, much less their lives? And they are forgetting what Jesus said: "He who would be first among you must be last of all and servant of all;" and, "He who humbles himself will be exalted, and he who exalts himself will be humbled." The husband's "headship" is not about giving orders, but about service. I am sick of being lectured about my "place" by men who don't know theirs.
Was Blair "standing by intelligence" that his own head of intelligence wouldn't support? (Downing Street Memo) Didn't they talk to each other?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Downing Street Memo
Upon viewing the hearing on the Downing St memo aired on cspan 6/16, I was unable to visit www.afterdowningstreet.com
I found this very troubling and my suspicions were peaked. I was wondering if anyone else ran into this problem.
A BuzzFlash Reader
[BuzzFlash Note: It worked for us ... then later it didn't. Too many hits, maybe???]
Subject: Downing Street Memo
Thanks to Greg Palast and you, anyone interested in the truth as opposed to the pap in the MSM knows for certain that the Bushies lied us into the Iraq tragedy. Lezzsee, that's treason (Valerie Plame), war crimes, crimes against humanity, and lying to Congress and the American people, not to mention election fraud 3 times over. That ought to be enough to lock up this evil gang for about 800 years-maybe even life, don't you think? It'll be interesting to see how they slither out of this one. If they're kept on the defensive the balance of the current term, someone else may have a chance in 2008. One can only hope. Don't slow down.
Bill Mac Bean
Subject: My Letter to the Christian Coalition, 6/16/05
Here’s a letter to www.cc.org (Christian Coalition), 6/16/05. Am I enjoying this too much, or should I consider body-armor ... hmmmmmmmm…?
I'm amazed at the close ties between your coalition and the pseudo-Christians in the present administration in Washington. For some strange reason, when I ask Christian friends who vote Republican the following questions, their eyes glaze over and they can't talk. Actually, I think they can't hear my questions, because if they did, they'd start to think:
1) Do you remember from reading your Bible that Jesus Christ is a Liberal?
2) Why do you support a party (Republican) that is so obviously NON-Christian, a party with leaders who claim Christianity almost as their own possession, but who do NOT live Christian lives?
3) Would Jesus Christ invade other countries, or would He did good for all, whether they had money or power or not, did He teach us to do good works, to love one another, and did He sacrifice Himself for all Humans?
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE JUNE 17, 2005 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG
|back to top|