The BuzzFlash Mailbag
December 5, 2001
RE: UNACCEPTABLE: BUSH'S FIRST REACTION TO SEPTEMBER 11th ATTACK
Why not link to the "complete" white house transcript, too? It's up now at:
I saw the "town mtg." live and the transcription looks pretty close. For once. Although of course you miss the awkward pauses, including a very long one before he cooked up "hell to pay for attacking America." And there's also a weird thing in there (just before the question that prompted the "pilot" gem) about god throwing a "shield" over America to protect us. Creepy shit. Even for Florida.
fan in Brooklyn
Note that this article (below) states, correctly, that Hillary promoted Afghan women's rights in the 1990's
"...So many speak now on behalf of Afghan women we risk drowning out the true sound of their voices. So Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) let them speak for themselves.
Clinton promoted the rights of Afghan women in the 1990s, when the topic of their repression under the Taliban carried more political risk than public-relations value. Last Thursday, she invited some exiled Afghan women who were in Washington under the tutelage of Vital Voices, an organization that promotes women's rights around the globe, to speak at a Senate briefing. The 13 women Senators are a bipartisan group that works and plays well together; all were there. So were two men, Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)..."
RE: Bush Interview with Walters
The transcript is very revealing. He quotes what he was told. So he knew about the first when told of the second and he sat there anyway.
rer orange park fl
followed your link to the USA Today story on the "Right Stuffer"
and noticed this entry just below it. Apparently, Bill "The Smoking
Drug Czar" Bennett is forming a SWAT team to haze Patriotically Incorrect
speech on campus. Someone needs to tell him that we've already seen such
groups before -- Hitler's called them "Brownshirts" and Mao
Bennett's new title: Patriot czar
President Bush's PR campaign to keep the public on his side in the antiterror war has won an ally who knows how to fight the good fight. William Bennett, the influential former "czar" of the drug, morals, and education wars, has signed on to help. He's creating the Committee on Terrorism in American Culture, which aims to buck up American youth, especially college students whose patriotism is being met with snickers and sneers on some campuses. "The older kids," says Bennett, "are for this, and they need some encouragement." His idea: Use TV and radio ads, special conferences, and a patriot SWAT team to shush anti-patriots. While he sets up the committee -- look for former CIA Director James Woolsey to co-chair -- Bennett has already gone on the attack, questioning why Harvard University, for example, bans ROTC but has offered bin Laden-family-funded scholarships. It doesn't end there: Starting December 5, his education business, K12, begins providing free patriotism lessons via the Internet for grades K-2.
[In the NewsDay article above] Note his seeing a plane ('obviously the television was on') hitting the tower and thinking 'accident' and 'terrible pilot'. Yet, there was no footage of the first plane hitting the tower until later that night. Plus, he heard of the planes hitting the tower while he was in the classroom (from Andy Card). His story doesn't add up with reality.
ADVOCATE OF DEMOCRACY
Portland's City Attorney has raised objections about the legality of certain specific questions to be asked of individuals that the U.S. Attorney General has identified. The U.S. Attorney General has stated that the interviews cannot take place unless all questions are asked.
According to the U.S. Attorney General, these 23 individuals in the Portland area are not suspected of criminal activity. Oregon State Law provides specific protections for individuals who are not criminal suspects. While Portland Police may ask most of the questions on the U.S. Attorney General's list, our City Attorney believes that state law prohibits them from asking certain specific questions. The pertinent statute is ORS 181.575.
It is our understanding that these interviews will be conducted by local federal agents; federal authorities are not under the same state law constraints governing the Portland Police Bureau.
The Portland Police Bureau is unequivocally committed to the fight against terrorism, but within the provisions of Oregon State law. The Portland Police Bureau continues to cooperate fully with the FBI and involved is in a Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI. In fact, we have devoted 7 officers to the task force for two years, which is one of the biggest commitments of this kind in Oregon. We have also committed thousands of dollars in police resources since September 11 to combat terrorism and will continue to do so in any way we lawfully can.
Thank you again for your comments.
I have also included an editorial from the Oregonian Newspaper dated December 2, 2001:
The Portland Police Bureau IS doing its share
By Chief Mark A. Kroeker
The recent editorial in The Oregonian, "Clueless in Portland" (November 28, 2001), did a grave disservice to the citizens of Portland and the members of the Portland Police Bureau. This editorial surmised that since Portland Police Bureau officers would not conduct the 23 interviews requested by the U.S. Attorney General of foreign nationals it is "sitting on its hands and not doing its share."
Not doing its share? You are wrong! No other police agency in the state has done more than the Portland Police Bureau. The Police Bureau has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in resources combating terrorism and cooperating fully with federal agencies since September 11. Our Explosive Disposal Unit and other members of the Police Bureau have spent massive time and effort to train our own people and other law enforcement agencies on response to bioterrorism threats. In October, when the FBI informed the Police Bureau that West Coast bridges may be targeted by terrorists, it was the Portland Police Bureau which immediately mobilized, developing and implementing operational plans. These plans became a model and have been shared with other jurisdictions. As the country remains under the umbrella of "heightened security," the Police Bureau continues to patrol and plan for possible terrorist activities at vulnerable sites throughout the Portland area.
Not doing our share? Consider this: One of our largest ongoing commitments to combating terrorism remains the Joint Terrorism Task Force-an effort between the Portland Police Bureau and the FBI. Portland has 8 Bureau members who work full-time on the task force and at this very time are involved in ongoing investigations regarding terrorism. This is the largest commitment of its kind in the state. And we are doing our work aggressively, but legally.
Last year the Police Bureau sought City Council approval in order to be involved in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. This was, of course, long before the events of September 11. This September, the Police Bureau went to the City Council again to ask to renew our participation in the task force. The Council heard two days of testimony from people who did not want the Police Bureau to be involved in this task force. Very few citizens came to speak in support of this effort. The driving steam of the opposition's argument seemed to be that working with the federal government would give Portland officers an "excuse" to erode our laws. In testimony before the Council, I gave my solemn word that the Portland Police Bureau would meticulously follow the law.
When the request came to me from the U.S. Attorney General, I wanted to ensure that officers would not be violating any state laws by asking the required questions. The legal counsel for the Police Bureau, the City Attorney, looked at the original set of guidelines set forth by the U.S. Attorney that contained possible questions. His opinion was that there were certain questions that Portland officers could not ask or they would violate state law. And the U.S. Attorney's Office has said that all questions must be asked-the Portland Police Bureau cannot pick and choose which questions to ask and the questions cannot be modified.
Oregon Revised Statute 181.575 is one that our City Attorney is extremely familiar with-probably more familiar with than any other attorney in Oregon.
This is because he's the only one currently litigating cases involving this statute, which is very broad and relates to specific information that is not to be collected or maintained by any Oregon law enforcement agency unless certain specific conditions are met. The Legislative Counsel, the lawyer for the Oregon Legislature who drafted this statute, agrees with our City Attorney. In fact, he reaffirmed his decision last Friday.
However, despite the differences of opinion, the relationship between the Police Bureau and the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI remains solid and untouched by this controversy. We work daily with federal authorities who understand and have firsthand knowledge of all the various activities the Portland Police Bureau is involved in to assist them. The 23 interviews in Portland are being done. Federal authorities are not bound by the law that binds local police officers. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon even issued a press release last week saying they respected and would continue to support the Portland Police Bureau and work with us on open investigations.
This decision should not be based on public opinion. It should be based on a principle that a person can assess and stand up for no matter how difficult it gets. In this case, the principle is the law.
The Portland Police Bureau stands shoulder to shoulder with federal authorities and all other law enforcement agencies throughout the country to aggressively pursue terrorists and subject them to the full impact of the law. To suggest that because we cannot comply with this one request by federal authorities, that Police Bureau is not doing its share is just plain wrong.
Following the horrific events of September 11, the most common question I received from officers has been: "What can we do to help?" The men and women of the Portland Police Bureau are devastated by the events of September 11, just like all Americans. Officers particularly feel deeply the loss of their New York brothers and sisters in law enforcement. Some Bureau members have even traveled to New York to help with grief counseling and medical examiner duties. I personally called New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and told him I had officers who wanted to come and help-if he needed them, they would be sent. And here in Portland, I am proud of the members of the Police Bureau who are continuing to help federal authorities fight terrorism and keep citizens safe on a daily basis. In sum, the Portland Police Bureau is doing all that it can and it's a remarkable effort.
Mark A. Kroeker is Chief of Police for the Portland Police Bureau.
Can anyone show me in the Constitution where it guarantees that all corporations will be granted a hefty profit every year? And if that doesn't happen We The People will grant them a sizable check even if the failure to profit is their own fault?
Dear Buzz -
As so many of your readers have already sent 20/20 the very questions I would ask, my submission was limited to a suggestion that the program would be a golden opportunity for Ms. Walters to correct her erroneous assertion on the David Letterman show last month that Putin delivered warnings of imminent terrorist attacks to Clinton administration officials when in fact these warnings were sent in March of this year.
Do ya think she'll do it?
Am I the only one raising my eyebrows at the travel industry featuring Bush Lite in it's commercials, at a time when they, among others, are seeking government assistance? A little quid pro quo?
Thank you again for courageously publishing the truth. As you have shown, the GOP hypocrisy party strikes again. I guess we are supposed to protect the life of the unborn but once a child is born and starts going to school, then that child has to be exposed to pesticides and we don't have to protect his or her life anymore. Is that what I am understanding from the GOP? This is what it appears that the House Republicans are saying. They defeated a bill to protect children from pesticides. I don't just give lip service to "leave no child behind". I VOLUNTEER in a kindergarten and I have seen how small those children are and those pesticides will kill them quicker than any adult. Leave it to the GOP to protect the pesticide industry. Isn't it true that Tom DeLay, a House Republican, was a bug exterminator before taking office? I guess it stands to reason that, like a good Republican, he would rather support the pesticide and chemical industry than the health of small children.
otherwise noted, all original