March 22, 2006

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: The Next Step

Now that the Bush administration has established, with the help of Congress, that warrantless searches of not only our communications but of our homes and possessions are legal, we might be concerned about the next step in the larger plan. Many might wonder how much farther they will go, now that the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has been removed. The Republican Supreme Court will need to support both Bush's warrantless searches and his indefinite detention of people without trial for this to go forward, but we have no reason to assume they won't. A more liberal court validated the no-knock search in the "Drug War" and also validated the power of the police to use a dog to carry out warrantless searches for drugs at traffic stops.

With the powers of warrantless search and detention without trial, the possibility of a new, powerful tool in the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" emerges in the form of the neighborhood sweep. This is an operation in which the police, generally with the help of the military, sets up a cordon around an area (often at three in the morning). With movement controlled, they then sweep through the area searching all cars, homes, and people, arresting anyone without jobs or identification and confiscating any contraband such as drugs like marijuana and birth control pills, political papers and other illegal information, weapons, pornography, etc., and arresting those in possession of such things. The Supreme Court has already established the legality of state confiscation in the drug war, so the operation should pay for itself by selling the houses, cars, televisions, computers, and bread mixers of the apprehended criminals. Forced labor will provide the money for the detainee's continued incarceration.

The administration and their corporate associates are now in the process of setting up the camps which could be used to hold those rounded up in the sweeps. Of course, lack of medical care, generally abusive conditions (16 hour work days with beatings), and a no-work-no-food policy should keep the life span of any individual in the camps to a minimum, particularly among the elderly, the very young, the sick, and those disabled who can't work. Naturally, photos will be released from the camps showing happy people being re-educated, but no statistics will be available.

The only real questions are where and when will the first sweeps occur. To continue the anti-immigrant façade, they will probably conduct the first sweeps in connection with some undocumented worker roundups in which they happen to search nearby unrelated properties that might appear suspicious. When will it be? With the tools in place now, it could be soon in a neighborhood near you.

Remember, many of these things they are doing now and are arguing that they have a right to do, they just haven't yet applied it to an entire neighborhood. Do you really think they won't?

Sure, I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Minority Rule

The reason that the left's message is so often ignored, in spite of the need to take it seriously for the sake of our children's future, is that we are prone to surrendering to many of the right's little lies. When we speak of our philosophy, our vision, and our response to current policy, we do so in the context of our right wing counterparts. They have a loud and excited base, and we are left debating among ourselves on how to defeat that minority faction. Worse yet, we tend to debate their issues among ourselves in order to emphasize our individual distinctions from them. For example, we speak of the "war on terror" as if it were some real conflict between equal but opposing powers, or the Iraq war as if we actually have to be there fighting a war, or even the past when we spoke of the former "Soviet Empire" as if it ever really was an empire (or a threat to us). And worst of all, we speak of the Democratic Party as if its current agenda were left wing, progressive, or even liberal.

But how did we get stuck debating right wing issues with our progressive bothers and sisters while a minority faction runs the country?

The American system has some flaws in terms of being a representative democracy. It was mistakenly designed to be a two party system. How can only two parties possibly represent the complex spectrum of interests of our people? It can't. In fact, our system is well suited to give rise to a minority faction. Just look at the ruling party's agenda compared to the desired agenda of a majority of American citizens. The right can spin it all they want with selective polls taken after fear mongering. But any intellectually honest person will tell you that most American's don't like the results of free trade, budget deficits, trade deficits, over-funding the military, under-funding domestic programs, corporate rule of government, or wars for cheap energy. Intellectually honest people will also tell you that most American citizens believe commerce requires sensible democratic regulation, humanity ought to trump profit, and that social safety nets like unemployment insurance, health insurance, and social security are well worth our tax investment. Most American citizens want government to be a nurturing mother more than an authoritarian father.

Yet these ideas don't win at the polls. The reasons are many at this point. But the root cause is the way in which we select the winner of an election. It's a mathematical problem that is simple in principle, yet somewhat difficult to comprehend at first. We don't require the winner to have a majority of votes. Our system only requires the winner to have more votes than any other candidate. This is why we are stuck with a two party system. Only a race with two candidates will result in a winner with a majority of votes. Any time we have more than two candidates, the majority of Americans watch the minority win elections. But third parties who still lurk around thinking they can win or even effect change within a broken system rarely learn the true lesson. Those that have truly learned the nature of the problem are those like the right wing Republicans that gave financial support to Ralph Nader in the 2004 presidential election.

Here is how it works. Let's say we have a congressional race in a district that has a majority of progressive leaning citizens. Let's say 60% are progressive and 40% are non-progressive. Given this break down, it is most likely that there will be more progressive candidates than non-progressive ones. Let's say we end up with three candidates, one non-progressive and two progressive. The two progressive candidates are competing for votes from the 60% while the non-progressive has a monopoly for the 40%. All the non-progressive candidate has to do is keep the base excited (so they show up and vote), and keep the progressives fighting among themselves (so the 60% gets split in a way that won't give either candidate more than 40% of the total). So, if the non-progressive is successful, she could win even though it is only a minority of voters who support her political philosophy. If progressive candidate one gets 35%, and progressive candidate two gets 25%, then the non-progressive candidate wins with 40% -- even though 60% of the population is progressive!

The fact that progressives keep losing elections is proof that we are the majority in America.

To win an election in America, you must embrace an issue that excites a strong minority, and bitterly divides the remaining majority. If that sounds like a familiar strategy then you've been paying attention.

What's the solution to this problem? Run-off voting, or instant run-off voting, is the answer. With run off voting, candidates keep getting eliminated until there is one with a majority of votes, who'll be declared the winner. This is how most democracies today work. Unfortunately, the oldest democracy in existence doesn't work that way. If our above example used run-off voting, progressive candidate one would have won, assuming that all those who voted for progressive candidate two would choose progressive candidate one as their second choice. This is because in round one, progressive candidate two would be eliminated and round two would be between progressive candidate one and the non-progressive candidate. With instant run-off voting, voters select their second, third, or however many choices, all at once so there is no need to keep having re-elections. If your first choice were eliminated, your vote would go to your second choice and so on until there is a winner with a majority of votes.

Jason Mott

[BuzzFlash Note: Jason Mott is a software engineer in Rochester, NY and a concerned progressive leaning citizen. He can be reached at 'citizen (at) jasonmott (dot) com'. Copyright 2006, Jason Mott. Permission to reprint this article is granted so long as it's printed in its entirety, including this copyright notice.]

Subject: Re Warrantless Wiretapping

In the March 20th Mailbag "A BuzzFlash Reader" wondered about the consequences of America eavesdropping on other countries: "Suppose the NSA has been monitoring the diplomatic communications of our "allies."" I would urge this person to read "Rogue State" by William Blum. In a chapter called "Eavesdropping on the Planet", he details how a Swiss company, using their "neutrality" as a selling point, sold encryption technology to 120 countries beginning in the 1950s. This company had a secret agreement with the NSA, however, that allowed them virtually unfettered access to these supposedly secret communications. This reader's conclusions are not that farfetched at all. this type of theft by the NSA even extended into commercial espionage where the NSA would provide American companies with information on technology from intercepts between research departments and head offices, for example.

This is just one chapter in a book that will astound you. Astound you with the vile, illegal, hypocritical, murderous, and just plain disgusting behaviour of the US on a global scale. And these are all facts, available to the public, if anyone is so inclined to look, as William Blum did.

I think I've said enough now. Those NSA goons are probably on their way north as I finish writing this. There's no point in being an anonymous "A BuzzFlash Reader." They can find you anyway. They also have a backdoor to Windows thanks to Microsoft. Bet you can't guess who Microsoft's biggest client is? If you said the Pentagon, you won yourself a rendition.

Joel Brown
Prince Edward Island, Canada

Subject: Re: History Will Vindicate Feingold

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to wait for "history" to vindicate anyone. I want the crooks in this republican administration drawn and quartered--thrown in jail--tried for war crimes--censured, impeached or whatever it takes to get them out of there. I am ashamed of my fellow democrats for being so wimpy and not getting behind Feingold. As a matter of fact, I don't think I want to belong to a party who backs off at every tough choice. I'm looking for someone with some backbone to stand up to Bush and his band of thieves. Thanks.

Kris Squires
Cook, MN

Subject: Your editorial...I hear Ya....but, do we really want to unload this mess on a democrat?

I am sick to death after only two of these pseudo speeches by this arrogant, Lying Bastard! I am with you...I want Gore in office....but, do we want to put him in there to clean up the mess Bush and his fools have created? Gore/Feingold....whomever proposed that...I am so with you. It makes me sick to think back to 2000, the way they treated Clinton...the only reason he could never speak....makes one wonder what Morons do....they vote for Bush! The perfect thing would be, if some judge had the cahones to order Bush to stay in office for three years.....make him follow orders of the American people....maybe by then Cheney would no longer be around....and then, when the troops are home and the entire world is pissed off at us.....make him write on the blackboard 200 times, "I am sorry I started a war in Iraq"....and, make him tell us why he has not even tried to get Bin Laden....and maybe torture him a little (I have a feeling that making Bush do anything that puts him in a bad light...would be torture) He needs to be belittled to the point of real embarrassment...he is so arrogant! I cannot watch him talk down to Helen Thomas...or any of the other people...he is such a pathological liar...it just does not bother him!

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

Subject: Breaking the Constitution Not News

BuzzFlash,

Apparently, Bush violates the Constitution so often that it's not even considered newsworthy for TV.  I haven't heard this week's US News report mentioned on any TV news channel.  Well, there's goes the Fourth amendment to the Constitution.  What else is new?  

The Letter of the Law: The White House says spying on terror suspects without court approval is ok. What about physical searches? (US News & World Report)

The Soft-on-Torture Liberal

Subject: Bushie's Press Conference

So Mr Bush comes forth today and makes the statement "no president wants to go to war"!

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP

I remember well his statements, "I am the war president," "BRING EM ON," "more deaths mean we are succeeding." Geez, where are the democrats? Sitting quietly by, fraid to make waves. They should be using all bushie's past remarks every chance they have. We need to keep all those remarks fresh in the ears of the public. flip flop flip flop liars! 

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: "Wrong" Stories from the Iraq War

It couldn't emanate from anybody's mouth but Bush's. During a cross country tour to attempt to gain support for the war (isn't it a little late for that?) Bush has told us that we shouldn't focus on the death and destruction in the Iraq war, but to pay attention to the good news. President Bush, you bumbling arrogant imbecile, there is no good news about war except when one ends. Unless you're a majority stockholder in Halliburton, Carlyle, Lockheed, Boeing or some other war machine. It's no stretch to imagine seeing soon on TV: "The Iraq War - brought to you by Halliburton." How you can try to suggest we turn attention to "good" war news just shows that you think Americans are as stupid as they think YOU are, which is not possible.

What's good? Not as many soldiers died today as yesterday? A three way civil war that is already going on, but you have the nerve to say it isn't? The only good news related to you and your treasonous henchmen will be your leaving office, hopefully by a guilty verdict in your impeachment, and your buddies being arrested for the war criminals they are.

Has anybody considered an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to charge Presidents when need be with treason or war crimes, and make them subject to incarceration like everybody else? As it stands now, the worst thing that'll happen to Bush is not being a President someday and maybe some political embarrassment. That's not fair.

Scott 
Fayetteville, AR

[BuzzFlash Note: The Constitution already has impeachment; it doesn't need an amendment to get rid of the president, just a Congress.]

Subject: Kevin Phillips

Your support of Kevin Phillips puzzles me. He may be all the things you say he is; a brilliant analyst who understands the current Republican party and so forth. But as an architect of the Southern Strategy, he is (at least) indirectly responsible for the racist, theocratic nature of the modern Republican party. Does he regret his role in the ascendancy of the GOP? Or is BuzzFlash supporting him because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Get the Much-Awaited New Book from Kevin Phillips on BuzzFlash.com: "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century."

Wayne Turner
Chapel Hill, NC

[BuzzFlash Note: As is the case for all of our premiums, we think this book provides insights that will interest our readers.]

Subject: The Unknown Soldier and My Lost Generation

"Breakfast where the news is read
Television children fed
Bullet strikes the helmet's head
And, it's all over
The war is over"

-- The Unknown Soldier (The Doors)

It's been a while since I head this song, but it randomly popped up on my playlist today, and it seems to be replaying in my head constantly. However, why should this fact concern the reader, surely my mental state has no meaning to them as long as I am not within a distance where it may be possible to cause bodily harm?

Perhaps, because other than that, there are a few other thoughts I would like to share. Being a relatively young fellow, I do not know much about the culture that gripped this country during the Vietnam War era. However, it is my understanding that it was a politically charged youth that absolutely polarized this country, and finally led to a withdrawal of troops. It may also be safe to say that music helped tremendously, and had a phenomenal impact on that generation. That was then, this is now.

Let's compare the music, the musicians of that era to the...ahem...musicians today. Let's take a look at what they stood for, the music they wrote, the passion with which they sang, the complete absorption of music, the moment carrying a message that penetrates deep, for it is possible to connect. Connect to what, one might ask? Connect deep within with the art, the music, the artist, to oneself, to the message, to something subliminal, to authenticity. That is where, one might argue, lay the power of the Doors, of Pink Floyd, of Led Zep.

Scan the landscape today, and what do we have? (With a few exceptions), it's Bi*** me (Britney) Spears, Jessica Simpson in tuna can, one might say, and other blithering idiots making millions as they expose their breasts (due to wardrobe malfunctions), and generally lip synch occasionally. And for the most part, they are adored by millions.

Cast your eye on Hip-Hop, and it's all about the booty, the bling bling, and some gang war that two artists may be having. I am not a fan of hip hop, but they do attempt to talk about social issues, so in a way there is some attempt to "keep it real."

The point that I am attempting to make here is that these celebrities are rewarded because they to us reflect our deepest values (my generation), and so just like the Vietnam Era, when Morrison created a furor over the Unknown Soldier, now Madonna kissing Britney causes a furor. The conservatives scream in disgust, while my generation laps it up, and puts it on the net. MSM goes wild, runs the clips dozens of times, and pundits spew their pearls of "wisdom."

The point that I am trying to make is that one only needs to scan the cultural landscape of the country to know what the younger generation is up to. In my view, it is important to do so to realize what direction the country is taking.

I am no apologist, but the fact remains that most people I know in my generation can't tell a Rove from a Wilson, both would be meaningless. Scooter means a gay french 2-wheeled object that transports humans from point A to B. But ask them what the latest hit single is, and chances are that they have it on their I-Pods. All this while a bullet strikes an unknown soldier in the desert, and he falls to his death, uncelebrated, unknown, for we are not even allowed to see his coffin on MSM.

It is argued that a larger young voter turnout would have ensured Kerry would win. Indeed, with Diddy (or whatever he calls himself now, I haven't checked since yesterday!!), this may have happened, but it did not. I wish to make 2 comments on that.

1. If this had transpired, it would have been for the wrong reason. Know why? refer 2.

2. We don't give a sh**.

Regards

Akhil Bhardwaj
Manhattan, KS

Subject: A Gore Comeback?

I can't seem to see anyone else...all the democrats in this congress and senate...are so tainted by this presidency. They all act like they are intimidated by him and his cabinet, but, hey...maybe they have been threatened. I have heard (only heard...maybe a rumor) that Kerry was told to not fight it...with a threat to his wife... I know, it is such a paranoid theory...but we have a president, vice president and Sec'y of Defense who lie nonstop...how do you not get paranoid?

Shirley ... St. Louis

Subject: Helen Thomas/Wolf Blitzer

If Helen Thomas knows about the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) ... why don't the senators and representatives know about it?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: "Bringing the Church to Its Knees" Please!

Right wing hysteric, Kathleen Parker penned an article. Per her modus operandi, she deflects and obscures the essential issues.

As with the molesting priests scandal, the Catholic Church is again scapegoating gays and lesbians; suggesting that we are the impediment to unwanted children being permanently placed in loving, stable and nurturing environments. GET REAL!

The issue at hand is that Catholic Charities is a contractor with the State, contracted to provide a specific set of social services for the benefit the entire populous, not merely members who hold or espouse their sectarian views. If they can not provide that service to all members of society, then the state should not subsidize, recognize or grant preferential treatment to them.

Of course this issue is something of a red herring anyway, since only a fraction of gay adoptive families even bother going through Catholic Charities, knowing full well their stance. And if Catholic Charities plays such a dominant role in state adoptive services, it begs some very troubling questions as it indicates a failure of the state, not to mention a large population of families, to tend to the basic needs of children.

Until the church acknowledges its complicity in the priest abuse scandals, not to mention the orphanage and work house scandals in Ireland, and the heteropolyamorous priests in Africa which are producing many out of wedlock births, the church is in no moral position to lecture to gays and lesbians about who is better equipped to meet the best interests of children.

No, if the blame is to be assigned for children languishing in warehouse conditions, it belongs squarely at the feet of a myopic and self serving institution that wishes to have it both ways-- not to mention the reckless and irresponsible heterosexuals who spawned these children in the first place; with no regard for their safety, happiness and well being.

That gays and lesbians who are willing to step into such a cesspool of hypocrisy and dysfunctionality to help children, to essentially clean up the mess caused by straights, should be commended, not condemned. But remember, in condemning our motives in the abstract, you are condemning innocent children in very real and literal terms.

Morality is as morality does, and Catholic Charities' position is immoral. Therefore it is better for all that they are no longer in the adoption business.

Jay Bagi
San Francisco, CA

Subject: Make A Choice ... Or Else

I had first read the March 21 BuzzFlash Editorial titled "Make a Choice" in passing. Maybe it was because of my initial cursory reading that I was so impressed by the final statements of the editorial.

A BuzzFlash Editorial -- You're either on the side of those fighting for America, our future, our principles, and our Bill of Rights -- or you quiver in fear of exposing the incompetent, destructive liars. Make the Choice.

BuzzFlash's extremely polarizing call to arms seemed to me, at first, to be an intentional play on Bush's past remarks of "you're either with us or against us." The significance of such a well played subtle jab at Bush's notoriously dangerous speech motivated me to re-read the editorial. Then, I read it a third time. Then, I began to worry. I think BuzzFlash might actually mean it. Either you're on "the side of those fighting for America ... or you quiver in fear." Could it really be that BuzzFlash demands such conditions of its readers? As a BuzzFlash reader, am I being forced to side with BuzzFlash's editorial opinion or else I must be a coward? I do hope I misread the sentiment. I hope BuzzFlash really did intend the March 21 Editorial to be a satirical redeployment of Bush's own twisted logic. BuzzFlash surely continues to recognize the right to dissent, especially among its own audience, right?

Furthermore, almost exactly three years ago, on March 25, 2003, BuzzFlash published a reader commentary piece written by Diana DeVito. Diana, a practicing clinical psychologist, offers her assessment of Bush's psychology in the form of an open letter to "President Bush." A relevant quote from the commentary on the BuzzFlash site:

Emotional immaturity has been in evidence as well. The tendency toward black and white thinking is one sign of emotional immaturity. Statements that divide the world into good and evil, and "you're with us or against us" reflect thinking typical of a young child. Emotional growth and development is known to be stunted by substance abuse. Could that be what happened with you?

A BuzzFlash Reader Offers Her Professional Services to George W. Bush

Jason Bury
Chicago, IL

Subject: Very Funny Bush Impersonator 3/20

Thank you Shirley for the amazingly funny comedy skit by the Bush impersonator. I know that there is a close double for nearly every person in the world, but OMG! He sure has the mannerisms down, for sure!

I really laughed about the selling Canada comment for a number of reasons. One of the prime reasons is that he HAS bought our newly elected 'Bushlite' Prime Minister Stephen Harper long ago (36% support from us really conservative Canadians: NOT!! Time for election reform). Well, if Bush thinks that by selling Harper he can make any money, I say...go for it; take him now and run! Harper and his own cabal (hmmm, mostly from oil rich Alberta except turncoat Emerson of Vancouver East, BC) are about all of Canada that Bush and his admin have bought...the rest of Canada is owned, like your country, by corporations (sigh!).

Marie-France Germain
Nanaimo, BC, Canada

Subject: Little Ben Clocks In

To the Publisher and Editors of the Washington Post:

Congratulations. You've managed to snare the young conservative, Ben Domenech, for the Post before he could enlist in the Marines and fight for "democracy" in Iraq. But exactly why doesn't he want to go and fight for a cause he (and your editorial board) apparently believes in? Isn't he of military age? Well, I guess you wanted him to enlist in your courageous 101st Fighting Keyboarders for the more important duty of protecting President AWOL and Five-Deferment Dick from scurrilous attacks from the left. How "fair and balanced" you've become since the glorious bygone days of Watergate. Always looking out for those woebegone Republicans, who only control all three branches of the government. They need watchdogs like you to lick their hands and their... Never mind.

Good work. You deserve all of the praise you're getting for taking such a bold step. Richard Nixon would undoubtedly be proud of you.

Here, from past posts, are a few little "gems" of the wisdom of Ben Domenech.

On Protest: "It's totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile." [3/24/03] "I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don't think we're going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad." [3/30/03] "Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq -- and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow." [3/28/03] And here is my absolute favorite find so far: "Claude Allen is as clear cut as a razor's edge. He's a stand-up, principled Virginian." [5/13/03]

The list goes on. Please see:

http://yourlogohere.blogspot.com/

Plus, you've got that wonderful connection of his father, Doug, another Bush appointee, to Jack Abramoff. Please see this post by Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo --

You see, it turns out the Domenech family came in for a number of Bush administration appointments. Not only Ben, but Ben's dad, Doug, who was White House liaison to the Department of Interior. Or to put it more colloquially, White House guy to make sure Jack Abramoff got what he wanted with the Indians and the Pacific Island stuff. Wayne Smith was the point man for Indian casino policy at the Department of Interior. He ended up having kind of a rough ride over at Interior. And, according to Smith, as reported last year in the Denver Post, Domenech told him "we had to pay attention to [Jack] Abramoff, because otherwise the religious right and (Ralph) Reed are going to come up and bite us, and our whole base will go crazy. They will light up our phones, shut down our phone lines.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007962.php

Again, congratulations, Washington Post, for hiring the young, conservative genius, Ben Domenech, who will certainly add substantively to the national debate. Politics aside, another brilliant move to add to your hitherto illustrious history.

Sincerely,

David Wyles

Subject: Hillary Clinton

BUZZ...

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, tell me it's not so,that Hillary is going to be the front runner for Pres. She's "SO KERRY" (I voted for it until I voted against it). She doesn't take a stance on anything-everything weighed and measured before she speaks....disgusting. We want someone candid and forthright who is not afraid to take on the GOP. This tip toeing and being afraid to say anything negative about her opponents MUST END.

Margaret Miller
West Palm Beach, FL

Subject: Bush Pledges To Leave Iraq Disaster, Death, Destruction, And debt To The Next President To Resolve. What An Incompetent, Failure and Coward.

Didn't he once say the opposite, that he was trying NOT to leave unfinished work for the next president? I remember it on one of your headlines.

Jeff
West Paterson, NJ

Subject: Good news at last: Bush is running around the country in desperation!

Dear Buzzers --

WHAT??? He's actually taken a break from cutting brush, falling off bikes, and choking on pretzels at the ranch??? I guess his handlers filled a backpack with Twinkies and beer and sent him on the road.

Seriously, even Bush's brain (lacking a cerebral cortex) seems to have recognized the fact that he's sinking in the Iraq mire and had better go on the road in show-and-tell appearances. (Yesterday he even called on -- GASP -- Helen Thomas, of all people. Of course he kept putting her down, since he had no adequate replies to her questions, but I assume that his handlers told him that it was wise, since even his own Repukelican supporters were turning against him, to create at least the APPEARANCE of "straight talk" on Iraq. (Yeah, right. And there's also no global warming going on either.)

If THIS doesn't give the Dems the foot in the door that they desperately need, I have no idea what WILL. They (not only the brave souls like Feingold and Boxer and a couple of brave Republicans) need to SPEAK OUT. LOUDLY. NOW!! We've got them on the run. Of course, they (the Repukes) still hold the power and will probably "allow" another terrorist attack to happen at just the right point if they feel that they might lose the elections.

If ever there was (and is) a time for DLC/Republican Lites to get off their butts and come up with a coherent and consolidated message, it's RIGHT NOW. We Buzzers could supply them with plenty of "talking points" -- but will they listen?? They're too busy covering their own butts and trying to figure out the "safe" path. Earth to Democrats: there IS no safe path. Preemptive action is the only course we have left (no pun intended). And time is running out.

The obvious frantic race around the country to sandbag his sagging ratings -- and appease the party (hey, this idiot has an ego the size of Mt. Everest...or Jupiter) so HE won't get blamed for losses in 2006 -- should be cannon fodder for the Dems. Let's see if they take advantage of the opportunity. (I'm not holding my breath here!)

Barbara Lee (Barb) Blazyk
Athens, GA ("Oh, Canada!")

Subject: NOT a Presidential performance

Dear BuzzFlash,

Bush was flippant at his press conference on March 21. He was flippant to the reporters and to the PEOPLE. He was like a teenage boy who has been told he has to apologize to someone, and the boy does it, but he does it with an attitude. That was Bush’s attitude and IT WAS NOT PRESIDENTIAL! It was clear when he said that “they told me to say this.” Bush cannot lead the PEOPLE, because they will not follow a teenager with an attitude.

Thanks for all you do, Buzz.

Margaret
Medicine Park, OK

[BuzzFlash Note: In their "Public Eye" blog, CBS puts it in perspective with their commentary, "All Press Conferences Are Stages And The Press Are Merely Players."]

Subject: George in Wonderland's Justification for War

See if you can follow this. This is "President" Bush's public explanation for invading Iraq. The way I read this is, Bush tried to lie and say that Iraq provided a safe haven for al-Qaeda, but Helen Thomas wouldn't let him. Therefore Bush lied and went on to other weak justifications.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth ? but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

QUESTION: And ...

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me. No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that's why I went into Iraq. (CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaida.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That's where...Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaida. That's where they trained, that's where they plotted, that's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.

Well there you have it! These are the public reasons for 2,300 dead troops and untold thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians and burning up 300 billion dollars: Even though we didn't have the UN's authorization, Bush invaded to enforce UN resolutions; Even though Saddam let the inspectors into Iraq, Bush invaded because he wouldn't let them in; and (drum roll) Saddam did not disclose the Weapons of Mass Destruction that he didn't have. Those are the reasons Bush is asking us to believe.

According to George in Wonderland, it's not about seizing Iraqi oil fields, or ensuring that oil is traded on the dollar not Euro, or permanent US military bases, or war profiteering. The war is based on B.S.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Man Beats 83 Year Old Woman

Reading the transcripts of the press conference yesterday, it appears that 83 year old Helen Thomas was verbally abused and beaten into silence. In response to her question regarding the war in Iraq, the abuser recited a mantra "9/11-Afghanistan-Iraq." Thomas tried to interrupt the mantra to get an answer. Instead the abuser chanted louder until she was silenced. He thus proved his superior lung power.

Jay Raskin
Orlando

Subject: Is It Arrogance, Ignorance or Propaganda?

I’m so sick of hearing all these partisan political hacks masquerading as journalists saying “I just came back from Iraq and……” then they start spouting about how wonderful things are there. It’s like rich people going to a Country Club Dance and then concluding based on what they saw around them at the Country Club how wonderful things are in America.

“We didn’t see any evidence of poverty in America; everyone arrived in chaffer driven luxury cars.” “We didn’t see any evidence of hunger in America; we were served steak and lobster.” “We didn’t see any evidence of unemployment in America; everyone who attended the party had great jobs.”

Hey folks try looking beyond the County Club!

Cary
Cedar Park, TX

Subject: Voting in Florida

The Florida Legislature has four similar/identical bills concerning voting in Florida, requiring paper trails. Everybody, including non-Floridians, should contact the legislators in our state and let them know that this is an important issue and request that they support these bills. The USA's future is at stake!

Bill numbers, HB 1401 sponsored by Rep. Gibson and others; SB 2720 sponsored by Sen. Klein; SB 2732 sponsored by Sen. Siplin and SB 1910 sponsored by Sen. Smith.

Links to the FL legislature are as follows:

http://www.flsenate.gov

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/

Follow the links for the representative's and senator's contact information. You may also find a copy of the bills on these links

Joyce Woods
Tallahassee, Florida

Subject: "They Told Me What To Say!" -- George W. Bush

“THEY TOLD ME WHAT TO SAY” is a statement heard at Bush’s press conference, but deleted from all media broadcasts and press reports! It brings us back to the debates and the question in many minds about the “bulge” on his back and if he was cheating and they were telling him what to say then!

Dana Milbank’s article in the Washington Post, “A Punchy President Meets the Press,” shows Bush doesn’t do too well when he doesn’t have questions in advance or prompting from others.

Transferring blame has reached epidemic proportions with the Bush Administration, while the Republicans deflect blame, deny blame, and love to make scapegoats out of anyone blaming them or George or the Administration! Mr. Bush, yesterday, complained about the media giving too much attention to the truth, and not covering his rear-end about the failures of the new Iraqi Government to accomplish anything, and the death and destruction in Iraq!

The other ploy frequently used is the excuse, “Bush didn’t know.” That plea of ignorance doesn’t work! It’s the President’s business and responsibility to KNOW!

How can anyone have confidence in a leader who pleads ignorance, transfers blame, whose mistakes are covered-up by his party, who breaks the laws with impunity, whose resolution smacks of stubbornness, and must be told what to say???

Susan Carr

Subject: Ambient Reality

Dear BuzzFlash,

Assuming that most of the Bush administration is on Ambien (how else could they sleep?) which can cause bizarre behaviors during sleep then amnesia about them, it looks like Big Pharma is pulling the strings of the front men at the White House. Side effects like hallucinations, psychomotor retardation, and euphoric mood could also explain what we are seeing. Can someone please get Nancy Reagan on the phone to JUST SAY NO to these people?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Wings of Justice Award

I'm a 52 year old man, a teacher, and a patriot. I just watched the BuzzFlash WOJA clip from "Boston Legal," and I wept, literally and completely wept.

Why?

Because for all the criticism the Hollywood elite takes, for all the "reality" crap we see on television, someone in the media has told the plain, flat-out, simple truth and NOT ONE politician has had the guts to say what David E. Kelley and James Spader said in five minutes.

We are not living in the America that I grew up in, nor the one my parents grew up in, nor the one that my grandparents grew up in, and so on. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever get it back. I will die seeing it get worse, and voices like David E. Kelley and shows like "Boston Legal " being erased from electronic memory.

Hooray for Hollywood.

DRA