 |
|||
| January 24, 2006 |
Mailbag ARCHIVES | ||
The BuzzFlash Mailbag The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. More reader opinion is at "Contributors." You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18. Subject: Stop Alito! Please Post Senate Toll-free Numbers Prominently CALL FOR A FILIBUSTER OF ALITO 1-(800) 426-8073 -- ask for your Senator(s). Alito is NOT a “done deal.” The momentum is building among Democratic Senators. The numbers are growing. More and more of them are seriously considering an Alito FILIBUSTER. It is the perfect time to add your voice; they need to know the country is behind them. It’s time to call your Senators and tell them they will represent YOU by filibustering Alito. 1. Call your Democratic Senators. There are 3 toll-free numbers to the DC switchboard. Ask for your Senator(s) and tell the aide that answers that you urge the Senator to FILIBUSTER Alito. You don’t need to speak paragraphs; all you need to say is that you urge him/her to filibuster Alito. (888) 818-6641 or (888) 355-3588 or (800) 426-8073 2. Call your favorite progressive talk show. Say that Alito is not a “done deal” as the Republicans want us to believe and that everyone should call their Senators and urge a filibuster. The filibuster was meant for just such a situation as this. Give out the toll-free numbers over the air. A list of progressive talk shows and their phone numbers is available at http://www.nocrony.com. 3. Call Senators other than your own. For suggestions, see: http://www.codepinkboston.org/filibusterAlito. More resources: Want to talk directly with the staff person of your senator who handles judiciary issues? Or, find fax numbers or contact info for your senator's district offices? Find them at: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home Here are some of the groups that have opposed Alito’s nomination thus far: http://www.nominationwatch.org/2005/12/momentum_agains WHAT IF ALITO IS DEFEATED? WON'T THERE JUST BE A WORSE NOMINEE? History shows that when the first two nominees to the Supreme Court are rejected, the third is more moderate. See: "The Case Against Alito," The Nation, editorial, posted January 5, 2006, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060123/editors What is a filibuster? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster ... And, if you want the animated cartoon version of what’s at stake, go to: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/greater.html Together we can and must stop the far right’s takeover of the Supreme Court! A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Bush speaking at anti-abortion rally today in Kansas C-Span aired Bush's remarks at an anti-abortion rally in Kansas. "Thank you for lettin' me come here today to speak for our cause," he said. "Our" cause? Excuse me, but I thought the president was supposed to represent all of us, not just some of us. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Bushspeak Bush today at the University of Kansas, speaking about the terrorists: "These people have an ideology, and a strategy to achieve their objectives. They kill innocent women and children." Bush today, earlier, at a pro-life (anti-abortion) rally in Kansas: "Thank you for lettin' me come here to speak about our cause"--a cause which for his cheering supporters is a strident ideology, and at the rally they were outlining their strategy (to get Alito on the Supreme Court, to change the legislation to overthrow Roe v. Wade). Doublespeak. A Buzzer Hi Buzz......... I think the best idea I have heard yet is for the Democrats to walk off the floor.... in a body, at Dubya's "State of the Union Address" They have the time to get it organized and DO IT......If they should DO IT....and if any of them are reading this....It sure would prove to "WE THE PEOPLE" that they have heard the voices of their constituents......Listen UP Dems..... Genie Subject: Rove & The Gop Re: National Security As part of the "NSA warrantless wiretapping" PR concert series, about to start its national tour, Rove has come out of his undisclosed location to scare the American people with visions of terrorists lurking behind every unsupervised phone call. I found this article written by another propaganda minister to convince the Germans that their obedience to their Führer was essential to their security, even at the expense of their dreams. The "30 Articles of War" explains why silence, obedience and trust in the leader are the obligations of all good Germans. Articles 8 & 9 will undoubtedly be rephrased for the November elections. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb45.htm A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: The Playoffs Well, the results are in; the team that recovers the fumble wins. Which holds for real life, too, where it's a matter of us against them; them, being the powers that be, us, we the people. And right now the powers that be are fumbling on every play, be it the war In Iraq, rebuilding New Orleans, Medicare drug coverage or global warming; doesn't matter what the call, invariably they fumble. We pick up the ball; just once, that's all it'll take. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Bushistas Don't Get It Regarding the wiretapping that the Bushistas have been conducting -- they just don't get it. No one, that I am aware of, has said that the administration can't or shouldn't wiretap potential threats to the security of our country and our citizens. The problem is that there is a mechanism provided within the FISA Act that allows wiretapping BUT (and this is a big BUT) it must be done legally. The only thing the Bushistas needed to do, which they didn't, was apply to the FISA court for the appropriate warrant. They were even able to wiretap first and obtain the warrant later. What good will it do to wiretap without the requisite warrant? This would be evidence that would not be allowed in court because it was illegally obtained. The White House counsel at the time, Alberto Gonzales, should have known this, yet he advised Li'l Georgie Boy he could do whatever he wanted. Yet, once again, Georgie couldn't be bothered with fulfilling his legal obligation (just as when he ditched out on his stint in the Texas National Guard). What IS it about Bush that so many people are hoodwinked into bailing his sorry butt out time and time again? If he was a toddler throwing a tantrum, he'd have been put on a time-out. This is the damnedest thing I've ever seen in my life -- and believe me, I've seen a lot. They don't get it, and I don't get why they don't get it. Lisa J. Subject: OK, it's time to look at more lies here Dear Buzzers: I've read several articles in various progressive publications over the weekend and early this a.m. -- and I feel my usual steam-out-of-ears/foam on the lips coming on. The Repukelicans are not only busy justifying a war that was created (lie-based, as we all know) to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (or, probably their first choice, dead and out of their way forever). These articles confirmed what Buzz and other progressive sites have said about the mysterious "brotherhood" between our *ssh*le-in-Chief and Osama Bin Laden (a subject I covered in my hypothetical letter last week); they, of course, went into more in-depth analysis, but we all ended up with the same conclusion: i.e., "terrist attacks" are always a last (or at least second) resort if other efforts to install a permanent neocon/imperial executive government fail. However, the MAIN subject of my rant (this time) is the blatant, in-your-face defense of the right to summon our email records on whatever premises they invent: e.g., we have contacts with terrorists? (Who has the power to define THAT standard? Take a wild guess.) They're commanding Google search records to protect children from pornography? (Yeah, right...and I still believe in the Easter Bunny.) Let's face it, folks: We are ALL potential targets for attack by this bunch of thugs. They are, as much as Hitler was, as determined to stamp out the "not like us, the rich and powerful and correctly religious" bunch (which includes anyone who thinks like us Buzzers). I hope they'll build a BIG tin box for us in Gitmo. We'll know each other by our orange jumpsuits. I'm still waiting to see which Dem comes down where, on the Alito nomination. I'll be WATCHING (and LISTENING). I hope all of you will be, too. I'm always torn between feeling that we're preaching to the choir and the hope (prayer?) that if we stick to our (non-violent) guns, we might actually change things. If we don't, I'm afraid no one else will. We can't let that happen -- and, personally, if I'm doomed anyway, I'd rather go down fighting. (I wish the Dems felt the same way.) Barbara Lee (Barb) Blazyk Subject: Host-in-chief? The “questions” don’t have to be “screened” ... if the audience has already been hand-picked. What a bunch of stinky Rovian crap. Reference the article about the reporters being removed from the Florida Jeb event. Puh-leeze.
John L. Johnson Subject: Re: Bush (Jeb, this time) addressing only the Repuke loyalists Dear Buzzers -- I just read this morning's (Jan. 23) headlines. If Jeb isn't LYING (yeah, and I'm an astronaut! Trust me. I can also give you a million-dollar-guaranteed deal on a song I'm writing) then I'll start believing that the moon is made of green cheese. Let's look at this fairly objective (which I, obviously, am NOT) article. Security guards removed reporters from the room (there were no specifications as to the degree of force that was used) because they wanted to hold a "private meeting." Excuse ME, but an open meeting -- gee, that concept DOES seem to have been redefined by the Busheviks, doesn't it? -- should be...DUHH...OPEN. Our *assh*le-in-chief has his audiences screened and hand-picked: as in, only the "Rah, rah, we love you, Mr. President" types allowed into the building in the first place. Baby brother Jeb has anyone he thinks might question his "wisdom" ejected from the room. I'm sorry, but I sat through enough history courses to know that this is NOT how democracy works. Not that I have much (if any) power, but collectively we progressives might: We MUST continue to oppose the dragnet spying, based on those of us who don't "go along to get along" and to insist on public meetings being open to the public, including the press. I have news for the Busheviks: there are those of us out here who do NOT believe in an imperial presidency, and we'll fight to the death (of our voices and our fingers) if that's what it takes to defeat you. But we WILL defeat you, no matter how long it takes. Barbara Lee (Barb) Blazyk Subject: Enough of Snoopy...stop the BS And enough, already, of this “snooping on Americans” theme in the MSM, lately. (Good one, Karl.) Call it spying, which it is, call it eavesdropping, which it is ,.. but stop referring to it as “snooping”, a term that conjures up innocent pictures of a long-eared beagle dancing happily along to a bouncy children’s tune. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=snooping&ie=UTF-8 Thank you. John L. Johnson Subject: Frustration with the Democrats The Democratic Party is failing our country right now. I am incredibly disappointed and frustrated with the lack of courage and focus expressed on the national level by our party. We are such easy targets for Neoconservatives to paint as weak and indecisive. When issues of vast importance surround us, the present Democratic Party acts like a bunch of keystone cops. Do you not understand the level of anger that is building? Do you not understand what is at stake here? Do you not hear the cry for strong leadership? Stand up, stand up, stand up and lead us!!
Daniel Patrick Schamle Subject: Power in the Hands Of “C” Students There is considerable concern being expressed over Iran’s intention regarding nuclear development. The Bush administration is declaring that Iran will be a great threat to the world if it develops nuclear weapons. From what I have been able to ascertain that even if they do, their actual operational deployment would be a minimum of 5 years. An issue I have not seen raised is what happens if Pakistan’s current government is replaced by one which is not so “user friendly.” The Bush bombing of the village of Damadola and lack of acknowledgement (hence no apology) has placed the existing government in a precarious position. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has already had several assassination attempts perpetrated against him. The Bush administration has displayed its dismissal of Pakistan’s sovereignty by bombing the country without any consultation with the government. A change in the government brought on by another military coup, assassination, etc. could bring great instability in the region especially between Pakistan and India. Since Pakistan and India both possess operational nuclear weapons, the stage could be set for a confrontation that makes the current one with Iran seem a minor “storm.” The Bush administration is composed of “C” students (a gentleman’s “C”) who cannot fathom the havoc they have wrought, in their attempts to change the world to fit their concepts of “democracy.” They are placing the world nearer nuclear conflagration Vaughn Williams Subject: Bush's Illegal Wiretaps The headline saying that Bush administration used the illegal wiretaps/surveillance as a "bludgeon" against Democrats pretty much proves what I've believed and been saying since 2000: that the Bush cartel has been blackmailing Democrats all along. Why else would the opposition party just roll over and play dead? The rethuglicans have got dossiers on every Democrat and tentative Republication in Washington. They've made it clear that a dissenting voice or vote will result in personal and political catastrophe. This is classic Karl Rove. Seb Subject: Molly Ivins, Hillary Clinton What would we do without Molly Ivins (and a few others like her). It was great to see a writer of her stature call the pile of bs we've all been looking at exactly what it is. As a dyed in the wool, bleeding heart liberal, I could not have been more outraged by Hillary Clinton's use of the word "plantation" for two specific reasons: First of all, she should have the sense to know that her meaning and any impact would be lost after the statement was run through the cesspool that is our current mass media, coming out on the other side as pure pap which the red state minded dittoheads would lap up. The republicans have been playing these word games with lies for a long time and the last thing the left needs is to play the same game with the truth. Our nation is in desperate need of honest, ongoing dialogue and she just wasted several news cycles with that incredibly counter productive stunt. Second, plantation is one of those words that should be retired from the language, like holocaust, unless one is referring to when it last applied. There was a time when this nation had farms, ranches and plantations, which were really farms with a sick twist. When you think of a plantation the picture is very specific and Ms. Clinton and her fellow democrats are not a nation of black folks, ripped from their homeland and beaten and maimed into submission generation after generation. While slaves feared for their lives if they stood up for themselves, too many dems are just wusses, scared of losing what little, itty bitty spec of status quo they have left. They can't even stand with the few (John Murtha, John Conyers, Howard Dean, etc.) who are screaming truth to power, instead either ignoring them or tsking, tsking that they shouldn't have said "that." Hillary Clinton will never be president. Anyone who doesn't realize this, has NOT been paying attention. I believe she is a good, intelligent and decent person, who has the best interest of the entire nation at heart, but she spends far too much time in the middle of the road, getting run down. Not to mention the full set of luggage that follows her everywhere, deserved or not. Our nation is going down for the count and the only thing that can save her now is a REAL leader. Someone who knows what needs to be done and will not be intimidated. Who will use the Goebbels/Rove model, but with the truth. Because if you repeat the truth loud enough and often enough, you will be heard, and the people of this nation must hear the truth. And those of us who have seen the truth for some time now are beyond weary from "leaders" who don't know how to use it. In 2004, John Kerry asked if we would do the work to get him elected and we did ... knocking on doors, making phone calls, posting signs, donating money and for those in Ohio, etc., standing in lines for hours to cast our vote. When his chance to stand for us came, he decided his dignity and position were more important. Enough is enough. You guys heard Molly, now get off the stick and let's get to the task at hand, saving our great democracy from the greedy, power-mad liars and the sheep who support them. There are no more second chances. SC Herbst Subject: Russert and Obama Hello all: Action Alert (please): I assume many of you saw Obama being interviewed by Russert yesterday (if you have the stomach for Russert). Would everyone please take a minute to e-mail Tim Russert (MTP@NBC.com) and NBC (viewerservices@msnbc.com) and inquire as to why Barack Obama was asked to defend Harry Belafonte (my hero and major heart-throb) for his anti-Bush remark. Do all African Americans have to answer for what one African American has said? And by the way, Harry Belafonte was right! Give 'em hell, Harry! I guess that means all white people must answer for every remark uttered by a white person. This was racism - blatant racism. As usual Barack handled it like a pro - but I do wish he had asked Tim why he chose him to ask that question as opposed to another senator/politician. Barbara in NYC [BuzzFlash Note: You're so right. Russert used the interview (his first with the senator) as infotainment, trying to play "gotcha" using the week's most inflammatory remarks and hot-button issues. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ He could have asked substantive questions and received thoughtful answers instead of playing reporters' games. Obama was freshly back from Iraq, after all.] Subject: Why aren't democrats and opposition parties prepared for the outrageous propaganda tactics that have been inundating public, media and government run outlets for, what is it, ten years now? How can democrats speak out or try to effect change unless they're prepared for the take down and fake smears? Incredibly, these high-seas-pirates and affiliates in the White House are so confident, that even when the first thin layer has been brushed off their systemic lies, exposing them for what and who they represent, it does not matter, it just continues -- on and on and even picks up speed. Just try to regain a scintilla of credibility after you've been made to look like a lunatic by these grand liars and their Brown Shirts. Ask Bill Burkett, (the CBS-Dan Rather-gate debacle,) an honest man who presented the truth (and what everyone knows to be true) about GW Bush's military service to a country he's not only trashed, but is continuing to trash! These liars in Congress and their Brown Shirts live to take you down, salivate over opportunities given them to pounce and ravage tasty democrats and detractors like hungry lions. And the greed of the cowards living in fear of losing the lifestyle they become so accustomed to on the backs of the working poor ... This is what they do. This is what the majority of republicans do like the rest of us breathe. Why are not actual, effective strategies employed by opposition parties? This is a war on all fronts. In what universe are democrats residing? Why are they never prepared for this long-in-the-tooth enemy? When are they going to get real and when are they going to get tough and when are they going to do the right thing? ...... When? Because America wants to know! Diane Subject: Are we such a bunch of wimps? Are we such a delicate generation that George W. Bush can persuade us no one in history ever had to deal with as much fear as we do in fearing terrorism? Are we truly that unaware of history? Bush wants us to believe no generation in history ever felt as much fear. Our president says the world was forever changed on Sept. 11, 2001, and, therefore, he needs to roll back our rights, freedoms and liberties in order to keep us "safe." Are we so easily persuaded? Is it even true? Let's think about it. Was the world forever changed on ... ... Dec. 7, 1941, the day the Japanese sneakily attacked Pearl Harbor, killing 2,471 American servicemen and civilians, and forcing the United States into World War II -- a war in which perhaps 60 million people died? ... July 16, 1945, the day the Manhattan Project scientists successfully detonated the world's first atomic bomb, launching the Atomic Age, soon to be followed by The Nuclear Age? ... August 6, 1945, the day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing at least 120,000 people immediately, and many thousands who died later from their wounds? ... August 29th, 1949, the day the Soviet Union, our rivals for world supremacy, successfully detonated their own atomic bomb, ending America's certain supremacy and feelings of safety? Did the world change forever during the 40 years of the cold War when the Soviet Union had hundreds, if not thousands of missiles loaded with nuclear bombs pointed at America's major cities? Did the world change on February 26, 1993, the day terrorists exploded a car bomb under one of the World Trade Towers, almost successfully bringing it down? Did the world change on April 19, 1995, the day a homegrown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh blew up a bomb-laden truck in front the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 Americans and destroying the building? Did the world change on August 7, 1998, the day terrorists bombed the American embassy in Kenya, killing 213 people? Did the world change on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people? Did the world change on the day the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, leading to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians in a country that had neither invaded nor attacked us? The world changed forever when the crossbow was invented. The world changed forever when dynamite was invented. The world changes with every new method or device for killing. Nevertheless, during all those years and for the past 800 years, people have fought to have rights and freedoms -- and fought to retain the rights they thought they already had. This is no time to surrender to fear and hysterical governmental urgings to surrender our rights in order to have "safety" -- a safety our president and his officials are doing little to ensure, but which they conjure up in order to seize dictatorial powers. We had better be tougher than that or will have neither rights nor safety. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Jack Abramoff "I raised a $100,000 for Bush Cheney 2004, and all I got was a lousy T shirt and another photo." A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Somebody's got a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy (sent to congressional delegation) Hello. I was struck by Lucille Gould's plaintive question in the Friday, January 20 Mailbag part two, about why there was so little in BuzzFlash regarding probable preknowledge or even involvement of the Bush administration in the events of September 11, 2001. In the interest of responding to Ms. Gould's concern, in the event you get a meaningful number of letters reacting to hers, I hope you will give a summary of the number of responses or tenor of communications. I am not one who buys off on the more improbable conspiracy theories, such as the ones involving radio controlled airplanes and direct participation by spooks in killing Americans. However, based on the prior statements of neocons on the role of "another Pearl Harbor," on those of Mr. Bush regarding the use of war powers to strengthen his position, the lack of response to a memorandum warning of attacks by Al Qaeda in the U.S., holing up of the president in Crawford during a time of prospective high danger, and the lack of response to the hijacking of four commercial passenger planes, a strong circumstantial case can be made that the government knew something was likely to happen, and chose to let it happen. I do not suspect that the neocons, including Mr. Bush, visualized anything as severe as the actual events now immortally etched as 9-11. I do believe they expected something and did nothing to prevent it. I believe they have shown exceptional boldness in adjusting to the horrific outcome, and using the events to pursue an agenda that includes the military activity in Iraq, as well as aggrandizement of executive power at the expense of law and the rights of Americans. At this late date, moving toward five years after the events, no one seems willing to examine the role of the administration in these events. Accordingly, in spite of probable actions (or inactions) that are treasonous, if true, Mr. Bush so far gets not only a free pass, but majority support as a brilliant opponent of terrorism. Like Iraq, I believe the events of 9-11 raise the question of whether the outcome was an honest mistake, or a mendacious one. If you don't want to print this, perhaps you could pass it on to Ms. Gould. It is helpful to those sharing these concerns to know they are not alone. Regards, John F. Williford Subject: Words BuzzFlash; Its time we take Ari Flesheater's advice and watch what we say: Republicans are liars, therefore anything they utter should not be referred to as 'saying' as in: "Bush SAID he didn't break the law." Instead, the word 'claim' is more appropriate, as in: "Bush CLAIMED he didn't break the law." When a Republican appears on TV, it is not a speech, or investigation, it is always a photo-op. And to paraphrase Sprawl-Mart: It is a photo-op, always. When Bush holds a photo-op where his words are written before hand, he is not 'delivering a speech,' he is 'reading out-loud.' We need to make sure our language reflects our knowledge that all Republicans are liars and cannot be trusted. Always. A BuzzFlash Reader CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE JANUARY 24, 2006 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG |
|||
| back to top | |||