The BuzzFlash Mailbag
December 27, 2001
was so upset, once again, by CNN. I really am trying to be like Gloria
I just received a nice letter from Vanessa Leggett thanking me and BuzzFlash for supporting her. However, she didn't say how we could help. She is obviously still in jail. This is outrageous! In fact, I call it un-American.
We need to get her out some way!
I would like to hear your comments about Ann Coulter's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. Have you noticed how she cannot keep quiet when people who disagree with her have facts to rebut her foolish statements? She talks and talks and talks so the speaker (Paul Begalla, in this instance) cannot be heard. This was the same tactic used by her heroine Barbara. I have noticed this same behavior with so many of the conservatives who appear on television with people who have opposing views. Haven't they been taught any manners? Personally I think they do this because their minds are closed and they are enamored with the sounds of their own voices.
[BuzzFlash Note: Some people just don't have the mental capacity to consider more than one or two ideas. The fewer ideas one has, the more important those ideas become. If those ideas -- no matter how antiquated or obsolete -- are challenged, the owner of those ideas will fight for them with lots of yelling and arm-waving. It's not much different than the way buzzards and hyenas fight over dead animals.]
Re: "God's Man" is Sitting in the White House
Bush himself dismisses the notion that he is part of some divine plan.
Oh he was selected all right! Not chosen.
A BuzzFlash Reader
[BuzzFlash Note: "He doesn't look at himself as a leader . . " Hmmm. Now there's something we can ALL agree on.]
Seems Elaine's commentary and the parallel pretty much describes Robertson, Falwell, bin Laden and the Taliban, huh? All are religious extremists hiding behind established Faiths. Hmmm. Just amusing myself!
New Subject: My Favorite Christmas Present
My favorite Christmas present came in today's mail.
The note from Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, thanking me for the miniature white Stetson sent her after she obtained Democratic House leadership status, lifted my spirits.
I was especially treated with a note from Vanessa Leggett who is still held political prisoner by Attorney General Ashcroft and the Bush-Cheney Administration.
This is what she wrote:
I am grateful to BuzzFlash for her address; and, gladly share these sentiments with you.
FYI, Cong. Waxman is the only elected official who actually responds to mail and discusses specific questions, unlike most elected officials who send general responses. Hopefully his efforts will result in a massive investigation - but let's not hold our collective breaths.
Happy New Year!
From BUZZFLASH interview with Congressman Henry Waxman on Enron and the Bush Administration, December 26, 2001:
I don't recall Armey saying "Whitewater is a private corporation, so therefore what happened to Whitewater is their private business."
Sauce for the goose, Mr. Armey! If Whitewater required a massive investigation by the Senate and House, FBI, Ken Starr and others, then Enron requires at least as large a commitment to uncovering the truth!
you can stomach it, read Time Magazine's latest puff piece on Bush the
"commander-in-chief.") Get it on-line. I would hate to think
that anyone is supporting this kind of bootlicking journalism by buying
It's called "Inside the War Room," although I doubt these two subservient reporters, James Carney and John F. Dickerson, ever got one toe inside the real inner sanctum where Bush, the former National Guardsman who was grounded and then went AWOL during the Vietnam War, is probably playing pinball while Cheney fills him in on what he and daddy Bush are cooking up.
The subtitle hints at what sort of nonsense is to follow: "Relying on instinct, and trusting his team, George W. Bush unleashed a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy--and faster than you might have guessed"
The propaganda starts to get thick in the third paragraph when the reporters spoon feed us the lies from inside the White House: "Over the summer--"when we were getting a lot of chatter in the system about potential threats," National Security Council chief Condoleezza Rice recalled--Bush had ordered the CIA and the NSC to draw up a comprehensive proposal for breaking al-Qaeda for good. "I feel like I'm swatting at flies," Bush had complained. "I want a way to take the network down." Tenet's team was working one up when al-Qaeda attacked."
Do the reporters really expect us to swallow Condi's quote which implies that Bush was motivated ON HIS OWN to finish off al-Qaeda before September 11? The last sentence further implies that Tenet, who was the CIA director under Clinton had no plan to break up the organization until Bush entered the White House. Right.
The next paragraph: "Bush trusted Tenet, even liked him. The President matches his desire for loyalty with an unshakable faith in his ability to judge people instantly--to 'look them in the eye,' as he likes to say, and size them up. Despite being a Clinton appointee, Tenet had passed those tests months before."
Despite being a Clinton appointee? Does that imply that all Clinton's other people were agents of the devil? No slant there.
Or how about this: "War has turned what many saw as Bush's liabilities--his distaste for detail, his cocky self-assurance, his sheer simplicity--into assets. Untroubled by doubt, uninterested in nuance, Bush has been relentlessly focused. He is, in a difficult time, what the nation needs in a Commander in Chief--simple in his speech, clear in his vision, confident in his ultimate success."
Note how skillfully the reporters have turned Bush's profound ignorance into a big plus. Perhaps in 2004 we should seek a president with even less knowledge of the world than Bush? Forrest Gump anyone?
How about this: "Like Bill Clinton, Bush has tremendous confidence in his ability to win people over. But Bush is a less needy politician, and he hasn't been handicapped by scandal at home when he needs to act overseas."
Less needy? What's that suppose to mean? And no mention of who the scandal-mongers were who handicapped Clinton's ability to act overseas: The Republicans.
I could go on. I could mention how in the print version black and white photos were used with the article to give it a sense of historical importance.
I have no problem with giving credit where credit is due. For instance, the same issue named Giuliani as man of the year for his real leadership during the attack. (I suspect the Bush piece was included to appease those who wanted to see Bush on the cover again.) But if the press is so willing to build up Bush with this sort of propaganda, while tearing down any Democrats who stick their heads up too high, what chance does the loyal opposition have in this country? Not a fair one. But come November 2002 we, not the radical right wing and their corporate contributors, will prevail anyway.
RA in LA
Following is a recent "celebrity email" encounter I had with Helen Thomas. Just thought I would share it with the rest of you.
[BuzzFlash Note: BuzzFlash is growing because of our readers. We don't advertise. We like being thought of as oxygen.]
don't know if you can use it but this is a Mike Mansfield quote I dug
up after his death in October.
RE: Economist.com Auditors
Great article guys, and did you notice...
Must be just a coincidence that the largest and most corrupt corporations have sought out both Texas and Florida for their headquarters, eh? Having a Bush as Governor of your state seems to attract the more "unseemly" in the business elite... Bah. Probably just a coincidence.
Subj: howler on Bush's black support in NYT
I'm not sure if you can get Gore Vidal to do another line by line critique of a NYT article, but the recent piece shouting that blacks now support Bush is a worthy candidate for dissection. The headline speaks broadly; buried paragraphs later is a poll that shows possibly 30-40% support. This is support?
Another piece of evidence that the NYT has gone far far far off track as a respectable news source. Its editorials may convince some that it is a left-leaning newspaper, but its reporters (especially the loathsome Rick Berke) may as well write for the Fox News Channel.
Speaking of Faux news, I noticed that there were frequent repeats of Christmas at the White House. I must have missed this special in the last few years, when Fox reporters walked through the White House with Hillary Clinton, talking about the decorations.
otherwise noted, all original