The BuzzFlash Mailbag
January 31, 2002
Bush's records, while governor, will go the way of his record of being in the National Guard. These people are unbelievable in that they want fame and fortune but no publicity. Perhaps that's the point-fame, fortune, and nothing to reveal how they got it. Too bad for America. This government no longer belongs to the people, it now belongs to the Bush administration and they have no intention of sharing. When I hear all the "mom and apple pie" statements coming from them I find it laughable, money, money, money in my pocket more aptly defines their philosophy.
THE CORPORATE MEDIA CHEERLEADERS REVEAL THEIR AGENDA TO THE AMERICAN
GEORGE W., admits his PREFERRED State of our Union, during his State of the Union address, on January 30, 2002:
"As we gather tonight, our Nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger."
Woodward Series: Reporting or Propaganda?
Are you writing a factual report or one to "clean up" the administrations problems with GW's conduct and the reports out of the White House that proved untrue?
Lets take a few examples:
What did Bush know and when did he know it. Bush himself has told different
stories about this including "seeing it on TV." But clearly
the FAA knew about the hijacking before the crash and one would presume
so did the administration. Now we get a story that he thought it was a
small plane. Is this to excuse or cover his continuing on to the
But even if that were true, once the second plane hit he was advised at 9:05 and he just sat there for 25 minutes. So why wouldn't your reporters ask the question "Why did he do nothing?" Whether it was for 45 minutes or 25 minutes, he did nothing. Why?
2. You once again bring up the myth of the plane aimed at the White House. This has been thoroughly discredited with only the White House claiming to have seen Radar plotting of this. Is this intended to help explain his failure to return?
3. You once again bring up the myth of the call claiming an attack on Air Force One. This too was discredited. Now we have a new explanation of how the misunderstanding might have happened. It sounds made up. But it covers up the failure to return and the fact that the White House was issuing false reports.
4. You state that they could not get a fighter escort for 40 to 50 minutes. Come on. That's just not plausible. As an AF vet, I just don't believe it.
5. You provide a dramatic tracking in of the plane that hit the Pentagon including the "minutes away." But you fail to explain why with this tracking of the aircraft and with two planes already crashed it was not shot down. And you apparently see no connection with this and the President sitting in a classroom until 9:30 doing nothing.
You report that the decision to shoot down was made at 10 am. That's an
hour and a quarter after the first crash and with full knowledge of the
fourth plane being hijacked. Why the delay? Why no explanation from your
reporters? Why not even a question about
are other aspects that could be covered, but I will note only one because
it fits the pattern of clean up or reporting discredited facts. This is
the question of the Policeman's badge. Once again we have the mother urging
it on the President. But this is a story well
It seems to me that your credibility loses something everyday. Perhaps those attacks by the right that the Post was the US version of Pravda were correct. But of course, for different reasons.
for your forum-CNN is definitely conservative now-Everywhere you turn
it's all over the radio and now it's all over TV-I can't be the only one
who sees and hears nothing but bush people -Is this a NAZI come again
nation or what-I get physically sick watching Bush and all the media telling
us that we need tax breaks for the corporations-they don't even pay tax-their
first move is to move all jobs to the non union countries of the world-but
that's the new world order-somebody has to come to arms for the people
of this country
Subj: No investigation of 9/11 intelligence failures?
requesting that the Senate and House back off of their planned investigations
into what went wrong with the intelligence and air defenses that are supposed
to protect our country from attack, Bush and Cheney have inadvertently
verified the truth of the allegations by FBI agents and others that the
current administration actually subverted government efforts to track
terrorists in this country because they were Saudis. And that the new
administration was making overtures to the Taliban to try to get a pipeline
not sure Most Americans are ready to hear that Bush And Cheney made it
easier for the terrorists, but when a national security failure of that
magnitude occurs is should be fully investigated to see what went wrong
and why, not to lay blame but to correct the problems. That's why the
FAA spends millions piecing planes back together to see where they malfunctioned--so
it won't happen again. And if a full investigation proves a major embarrassment
to the administration, so be it. These guys can dish it out but they just
Perhaps Buzzflash could repost a few articles related to the administration's handicapping of the FBI and other agencies prior to 9/11?
Having listened to all the commentators on CNN tell us how great Bush's speech was, (Daryn Kagan characterized it as "boffo") I reached the gagging stage by early afternoon and turned off the TV.
Shouldn't they have given credit to Richard Gerson, who is Bush's speechwriter, and Karen Hughes? The only thing Bush did was read someone else's words. I must admit his oral reading skills have improved. Laura must be teaching him to read.
How much input do your readers think Bush actually put into this "boffo" speech? Has anyone else noticed when he speaks at appearances before handpicked audiences how he repeats the same sentences over and over again? Can you picture him appearing before Congress to answer questions the way Tony Blair does in the British Parliament?
Disgusted in PA
After reading this story from one of your links, Yahoo! News - Republicans say they may try to stop planned GAO lawsuit I sent the following email:
Re: BUSH LIED -- AND HERE'S THE PROOF
I see it all now------lots of the ENRON and Arthur Anderson Accounting firm criminals will be given prison sentences, but BUSH will probably PARDON all of them before he leaves office.
CAH----A REAL Texan who is a Democrat
It only takes one paragraph of George Bush's "State of the Union" address to expose the entire whopping lie he espouses. Here is that paragraph, quoted verbatim from the September 29 speech:
"We have no intention of imposing our culture, but America will always stand firm for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance."
All righty then! Let's take this one issue at a time, shall we?
1. "We have no intention of imposing our culture..."
Well, let' see, the first one's into China and Russia, when these countries opened up to the west, were McDonald's and Coca-Cola, followed no doubt by "McChurch," the Christian chain of western religious ministries! Yes, friends, corporate America has every intention of "imposing our culture" every chance it gets! And who is currently running our government? You guessed it...corporations!
2. "Human dignity"
Although Bush clearly states, "Our nation is at war," the fact is, war has not been declared and Bush will not agree to hold any prisoners in accordance with the Geneva convention. Right wingers yell about how these people don't deserve fair treatment. Fine! Then go join the Taliban! This is about our moral values. Are we going to treat others as we wish to be treated or are we going to be just like them? Of all people, these supposed "Christians" should understand this. It's about our human dignity. We need to always take the moral high ground. If our men were being held captive we'd certainly demand the same.
3. "The Rule of Law"
Well, let's start with the thousands of "suspected terrorists" currently being illegally detained by John Ashcroft and the Bush administration. These people have not been charged with any crime, yet they are being held against their will. This is illegal! Further, the "rule of law" only seems to apply when the administration agrees with it. When the voters of Oregon twice voted for "Death with Dignity," Ashcroft tried to subvert the "rule of law" for his own convictions. So much for the "Rule of Law" and for Republicans belief in "state's rights" as well.
4. "Limits on the power of state"
This is a particularly good one, considering the fact that vice president Cheney is currently denying access to the records of his secret energy policy meetings with "Exxon, Enron and L. Ron" under the guise of "executive privilege"! They say the office of the president needs more power. Funnny. They didn't think so when Bill Clinton was in office! Fortunately for us, the founding fathers foresaw this type of blatant abuse of power and wisely set up three branches of government to assure that a "balance of power" was maintained. Indeed, it may be the first time in history that the general accounting office is actually forced to sue the executive branch of government in order to gain access to documents that "we the people" have a right to see.
5. "Respect for women"
Ha! Wait a minute now! Aren't these the same people who defeated the passage of the "Equal Rights Amendment," continue to oppose a woman's right to choose, and who call women "femi-Nazi's"? At least Laura got to straighten G.W.'s tie! Now, that's respect for women ain't it?
6. "Respect for Private Property"
Yes, Republicans certainly respected the "private property rights" of Bill Clinton when they published every last detail of his private sex life over the internet for the whole world to see. This is "respectful"? I don't think so. But, wait, you say. He's talking about people's "land rights." That's a good one too... as the government digs mines and destroys private Indian burial grounds, and natural wildlife habitat in order to keep the oil companies rich. The only private property rights Republicans care about is their own! They sure as Hell don't care about the rest of us.
7. "Free Speech"
Wherever George Bush and company go these days they set up "First amendment zones." These zones are in direct violation of our constitutional right to free assembly. They have been set up for the sole purpose of containing demonstrators in order to hide them from the public eye. After all, if they can create the illusion that no-one disagrees with Bush, then he can reign as "King of America" for ever and ever! This is not "democracy." It is "hypocrisy," and it flies directly in the face of "free speech." It appears that they are trying to abolish the "Bill of Rights" and replace it with the "Bill of Goods"! Americans should oppose this with every fiber of their being.
8. "Equal Justice"
Our jails are filled to the brim with minorities who couldn't afford high priced attorneys to get them off. Meanwhile, George's own daughters buy their way out of jam after jam with their dad's "Get out of jail free" card. Equal justice? Give me a break! In this country "Justice=Money." If you ain't got it, there's no justice.
9. "Religious Tolerance"
I do have to hand it to George when he at least "talks the talk" regarding respect for the Muslim faith. This is a step in the right direction. However, behind the scenes, he obviously panders to members of the religious right, and has expanded the government to include them in his "faith based" office... in clear violation of the separation of church and state. As for "religious tolerance," I don't happen to like his constant references to his "Christian God." There is no place for this in the government. I don't teach civics at your church! Keep your church out of my government!
And so, I have come to one conclusion regarding all of this. The main difference between the Bush administration and the Nixon administration is that the Bush administration has gotten much better at hiding and covering up the truth. I find these acts to be "un-American" and unworthy of a country as great as the United States of America.
And so I leave you with a line from George Bush...
"Evil is real and it must be opposed."
Noam Chomsky wrote in "What Uncle Same Really Wants":
someone please explain to me how an American teenager can infiltrate the
Taliban and actually have an audience with Bin Laden and supposedly be
privy to secrets regarding terrorist activities against the United States
yet our CIA and FBI were completely unaware and unable to procure information
regarding terrorist plots. Do we honestly think John Walker Lindh was
part of the Taliban and informed of these terrorist activities and should
be convicted of treason? If we truly believe this, then our CIA and FBI
must be completely inept to have not sent in undercover agents who could
infiltrate as easily as John Walker Lindh.
To the MSNBC Ombudsman:
is to complain about the unprofessional and unethical behavior of Chris
MATTHEWS. Over the years he has been a continual perpetrator in ways ranging
from the very serious to the annoyingly partisan, the high end having
been his having triggered an almost shooting in the Kathleen WILLEY incident,
the low end being his daily partisan slanting of his presentation of so-called
straight news under the cover of commentary, but always
The most recent incident (barring whatever he will do today and tomorrow) was on 01-29-02, during his "Special" program on the State of the Union speech. As usual, he had multiple guests, which on the surface gives an impression of variety, but is far from it. All of the four or five guests engaged in the usual unjournalistic fawning over one political side while not informing widely or analyzing deeply, with the one token opposition fellow, in this case, Rahm Emmanuel, from the previous Democratic administration. After doing the roundup of all the other guests, MATTHEWS focused this LOADED question on EMMANUEL: "What do you think about his having put all of his own negatives out there and turned them into positives." When EMMANUEL attempted to defuse the loaded part of the question and give his opinion, MATTHEWS escalated the disapproving negativity drastically, angrily demanding an opinion in CONFORMITY with his and his other guests', saying, "You're just spouting Democratic talking points." When EMMANUEL asked, "Is there a question in there?" MATTHEWS went clinically furious, screaming that he had asked the question TWICE and had been denied the appropriate answer.
have seen MATTHEWS do this to a few guests before, not many, because he
doesn't have many dissenting guests. Some have parried him gracefully.
Only one that I remember, U. S. Representative Barney FRANK, responded
completely devastatingly, saying to him, something like, "You asked
me a question. I gave you MY answer. Don't ask me to give YOUR answer."
Since MATTHEWS runs one of those "commentary" programs that
escape the bounds of professional standards of journalism, while also
blurring the roles by sometimes acting as an "anchor" of "straight
news," he, like several others these days, gets away with the unprofessional
and unethical behavior cited. Your networks have not appeared to impose
any limits on this fellow, who desperately needs them, quite apart from
the psychological intervention it is my opinion he also needs.
Subj: Soul-Staring, Bush Style.
How come George W. Bush could look into Vladimir Putin's eyes, see Putin's soul (by looking through Putin's retina, I guess) and, within a half hour, pronounce Putin "A Good Man," but look into Kenneth Lay's eyes over a period of ten to twelve years and discern nothing?
Was this a failure of Lay's retina to be sufficiently translucent, or was it a failure Of Bush to correctly read the tea-leaves on Ken Lay's soul?
WONDER WHY BUSH AND CHENEY ARE SO INSISTENT ABOUT LIMITING AN INVESTIGATION
INTO SEPTEMBER 11TH: THE MOTTO OF THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ANYTHING BUT
I have a suggestion. Every time the Republicans start Reagan worship, we should remind the world that he is the mama of osama.
A Loyal Reader in GA
A lot has been made of the back to the 80's theme with the Bushies, but the spectacle of the Enron scandal has reminded me of an 80's event that I thought I would never see again. Seeing the footage of Linda Lay crying on the Today show on Monday was an event that could rival only the public disgrace of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. Those two also swindled thousands out of their life savings and Linda Lay's performance on the Today show can only rival that of Tammy Faye's famous mascara event. Where do these people get off declaring themselves victim? How can you with a straight face steal hundreds of millions of dollars in daylight and declare that you are broke. It makes me want to puke.
the State of the Nation speech last night, CNN's Judy Woodruff (sp?) commented
that Bush dedicated only 1/6 of his speech addressing the economy.
The plight of Enron workers stands in stark contrast to the "golden
parachute" the company's former chief executive Ken Lay gets to ride
out of the company on.
A BuzzFlash Reader
otherwise noted, all original