The BuzzFlash Mailbag
March 15, 2002
Audio of Congressman Kucinich's Prayer for America:
I thought the text of the speech was strong but the audio blew me away. Made me weep.
Now why isn't there streaming video of this speech? Somebody must have it.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Here's an interesting item (imho)....
Apparently, someone in Florida thought that the clergy had diplomatic immunity which protected them from being prosecuted for committing crimes....I'm surprised that Ashcroft didn't file a brief on behalf of the clergy....
Don't know if you noticed the statement by our beloved leader (intense irony), about the Pickering pickle....
Speaking of intense irony, it is as follows...
".....The action of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse Judge Pickering a vote by the full Senate leaves another empty seat in the federal judiciary at a time when we face a vacancy crisis. It was unfortunate for democracy and unfortunate for America."
I do think he has coined a nice phrase...unfortunate for democracy and unfortunate for America...it pretty much sums up his "election" and many, if not most, of the actions performed by pretzel man and his shadow administration.
Dear Mr. Blitzer:
RE: "[David Brock's] book is going to generate lots of debate. Clinton critics will argue that they've been vindicated. They will point to his $850,000 payment to Paula Jones to settle the case. They will cite Clinton's belated admission to the Independent Counsel that he did offer misleading testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition. They will note that Clinton was forced to give up his law license for five years. And they will note that he was impeached by the House -- though he was acquitted by the Senate."
And your point is ...?
I've always had a very high regard for you. However, please try to maintain some sense of balance and fair play when reporting on the Clintons. This kind of statement, with its insinuation dangling firmly in midair, I'd expect from Judith Regan--not from you.
The real scandal behind the Whitewater investigation is not what Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly did or didn't do, but rather the blatant prosecutorial abuses and alarming judicial misconduct that allowed the initial investigation into a failed Arkansas real estate investment to range far afield almost at will and random, in pursuit of a very partisan agenda.
In short, the GOP and far too many in American media took it upon themselves to pronounce the Clintons guilty of something, without ever specifying exactly what crime or crimes had been committed. Then they spent six years desperately looking for something to justify their sanctimonious verdict.
Sadly, it worked. I bet that 85-90% of those who so vehemently denounce the Clintons would be very hard pressed to tell you exactly what the original Whitewater investigation was about. And that is truly frightening. The only person vindicated is the late Josef Goebbels, Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda, who so perfected the art of the "Big Lie."
The publication of David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right" is not some isolated event, as you seem to have treated it. There have been a number of meticulously researched and documented books covering this sordid era in our nation's history.
One I recommend without hesitation is Joe Conasan's and Gen Lyon's "The Hunting of the President." Published a couple of years ago, its facts and documentation correspond nicely with what Brock has to say in his "mea culpa."
History will render its own verdict in time, as it always does. And I believe that verdict will be quite harsh toward the Republican Party and their willing media operatives, who sought to destroy both the President's family and his administration. A terrible wrong was done to the Clintons.
the same period will be seen as a low point in the history of American
media, with its reckless dissemination of rumor, innuendo, and punditry
as substitute for real news and hard fact. In so doing, its sorry legacy
will ultimately be one of willfully aiding and abetting what
P.S.: Lest you think I'm some sort of left-wing fringe case, I must disclose that as a member of the Young Republicans I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. However, I have long since renounced my membership in the GOP, and want nothing more to do with that party of venomous Mona Lisas and scheming Mad Hatters. They no longer offer anything but hatred and divisiveness.
[BuzzFlash Note: In the event you were looking for the book and thinking about supporting BuzzFlash, "Blinded By The Right" is now a BuzzFlash Premium.]
just this evening, on Aaron Brown's show, caught a short interview with
David Brock..I must,
Barr is under attack from liberals,etc?????!!!.....GIVE ME A BREAK! Thanks
to the BuzzFlash reader who provided the report about Bob Barr's plea
(begging) for financial support from "his
I pity the fool :)
I had to make a list of shames that are bothering me about this country,
it would be as follows:
Shame on the Press for:
Shame on the Supreme Court for:
Shame on the Republicans for:
And, lastly, shame on us for keeping silent and afraid. In 2002, 2004 and every year thereafter we have to VOTE, VOTE, VOTE for the good of our country. They are supposed to be working FOR US.
believe me, that is not a crowd
As I was rereading above, it occurred to me that above could be misinterpreted (and I'm afraid that with emotions running so high on the Nader issue, it will).
The thousands who flocked the Nader super rally are not a crowd Dems want to alienate because these rally-goers I saw were so energized, involved, and concerned about the world that they are super assets and allies when their power is harnessed. And you don't want to fail to harness that power by turning them off on politics altogether.
In fact, I had no idea there were any Gore voters who were as energetic, idealistic, informed, and deeply concerned about the world as the Nader crowd until I started visiting BuzzFlash during the Theft of November 2000. Previous to that, the Nader people I knew were the only ones who got excited about politics. My Gore friends were just resigned: "I don't like him that much, but he's the lesser of two evils"; "I just don't want that idiot getting into office." They were not excited about the election or Gore's cautious campaign.
The Nader rally, on the other hand, was like a rock concert, the energy was so high. The next time I saw a crowd so energized was at the inaugural protests on January 20th -- I bet there were *at least* as many Greens at the protests as there were Dems. Moore was there.
Now I'm hearing there are the same crowds at the Moore book-signings -- mobs of excited Americans who feel they don't have a voice snaking around the block. Why can't the Dems harness that amazing progressive energy? Because they're too busy tiptoeing around trying not to frighten the Rush-publicans. Unfortunately, when they do that, they only let the dialogue be pulled further and further to the right, as progressive voices are stilled. Gore constantly told progressives (like people protesting the mass disenfranchisement of blacks in Florida, or letting the bipartisan debate commission accompany Nader off the premises like a criminal) to shut up.
("Shh! You'll frighten the Republicans!) Moore mentioned in your wonderful interview that many Americans didn't know about the mass disenfranchisement that went down in Florida. Don't forget that Gore told black leaders to stay away -- he didn't want to turn the Florida situation into a civil rights issue. He just wanted to get enough ballots counted to put him over the top.
When the Supreme Court stopped the clock, Gore did not express outrage about what happened. Moore did: he conducted email campaign to flip electors, and spoke to thousands of outraged citizens at the inaugural protests. Gore was at the inauguration calling Bush "my president."
The Democrats just seem meek, and then wonder why some progressives seek an alternative. If they had courted progressives instead of threatening us, I have no doubt they would have inspired enough people to go to the polls -- even disillusioned McCain voters -- that we wouldn't have the situation we have now.
I wonder if your readers have noticed a disturbing trend. The last few weeks I have been home sick so I have watched late night television, which I rarely do. I am quite annoyed at Jay Leno and refuse to watch to him anymore. He is still making a lot of nasty Clinton jokes, particularly about sex. Yet, there were no Bush jokes! One friends suspects it is because NBC is owned by GE and we all know how pro-Bush GE is.
Subj: Candidate for Ironic quote of the Year...
"Mr. Mugabe can claim victory, but not democratic legitimacy."
--Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
I love you, but you missed the intent of the Washington Times piece by Bruce Fein. Fein trashed Clinton at every opportunity during his tenure, you should have known something was up. This piece was not a defense of Clinton's honor, it was meant to set a standard that the NEXT special counsel would have to adhere to, when George W. Bush and his band of thieves are investigated. You and MWO were taken.
Last month (I believe) all of the news was directed at a US spy drone that surveyed suspicious men in the Afghanistan desert, ending in the drone dropping a bomb on the suspicious group, blowing them to pieces.
The Pentagon claimed that there was a tall man in the group who could have been bin Laden. The people in a neighboring village claimed that the men were simple villagers looking for scrap metal. The next thing I heard was that our troops descended into the area of the bombing incident and collected fragments of remains to be tested for DNA. And the DNA was to bear out whether the tall man was indeed bin Laden. bin Laden family members agreed to give DNA samples for the DNA matching tests. Next, there was a little blurb that the Pentagon would probably have the results in a week. Weeks have come and gone and I haven't heard or read any more on the subject.
Did I miss something, or is this another "sweep it under the carpet" blunder? Can you shed some light on the subject?
Note: We think it has something to do with the recent admission from Rumsfeld
that they killed innocent Afghan civilians.]
Name that election!
(The name of the country and the participants have been removed.)
"[Winning candidate], the . . . leader who was hailed as a [party] hero . . . was declared the winner today of a presidential election marred by political . . . irregularities.
The results were swiftly rejected by [Winning candidate's] challenger . . ., who denounced the voting as rigged. "It's the biggest election fraud I have ever witnessed," he said.
[Losing candidate] said the opposition, wary of fueling the political violence . . ., was considering options that might include a court challenge or calls for a general strike.
standoff - and the possibility of greater civil unrest - left this already
troubled country deeply uneasy. But for today, at least, opposition supporters
remained calm, and activity on the streets was dominated by hundreds of
young [Winning candidate] backers who showed their approval of the results
by dancing and singing. They waved [national] flags and chanted
"[Gloating phrase]" the young men chanted. "[Gloating phrase]"
"Our position has been vindicated," [Winning candidate's legal consiglere] said in an interview. "We went to the people to seek a new mandate to complete the unfinished business of [policies opposed by the losing candidate] The people have now given us that mandate."
According to an Associated Press news release dated 3/14/02, pResident bush said Wednesday that flaws in the Zimbabwe's election might prevent the United States from recognizing that incumbent, Robert Mugabe, was "the winner." Powell's statement with his pointed use of the term, Mr. rather then President, is further evidence of how deeply offended both bush and Powell are about voting irregularities in Zimbabwe. Colin Powell quietly raged and exuded his displeasure with his statement, "Mr. Mugabe may claim victory but not democratic legitimacy." Why is that? Does Zimbabwe not have a Supreme Court to provide president Mugabe with the same legitimacy as president bush? Are the Zimbabwe "irregularities" any different than jeb bush's irregularities in Florida? Did Mugabe's operatives not hire the finest firm in Texas to scrub names from the Florida the voter list? What did Mugabe do wrong? Or phrased another way, did Mugabe do anything different than the bushboys in the November 2000 "election" held in the United States?
I suggest that editors across the country tell both bush and Powell to "move on and get over it." An election took place and Mugabe, like bush, will be installed into office. Meanwhile, Democracy Activists will keep soldiering along, looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. Let us hope that in the United States we have a real election and we see that first glimmer of light in November 2002.
DeHart Democracy Activist
I thought you would enjoy reading the response to an email I sent. I wonder if they'll rerun the Bill Moyers' pieces.
* * *
Sent the following letter to Len Downie (executive editor at the Washington Post) and to Howell Raines (executive editor at The New York Times):
As you well know and understand, the president told a few falsehoods (can we call them lies even if he isn't under oath?) in his above-quoted response.
ONE: The GAO has NOT requested documents regarding "privileged conversations." You know it. I know it. The president knows it. Your readers know it. The GAO has made perfectly clear to everyone (even someone as obtuse as the president) that their request is for the names of the people allowed to meet with the energy task force, the dates of their meetings with the task force, the topics covered in their discussions -- but not the minutes of the meetings!
TWO: Neither the president nor the vice president has ASSERTED any claim of "Executive Privilege" regarding the GAO request. For the president to slide the term "privileged conversations" into his answer was disingenuous at best, and ignorance of the issue at worst. Well, maybe flat-out lying is an even worse scenario.
have an obligation to your readers, specifically, and to the nation at
large, to print facts, not spin, and to write an editorial correcting
Mr. Bush's misleading answers. I hope and trust you will use the power
of your editorial page to do just that.
You might also consider sending the president a grammar book. :-)
Remember Theresa LePore???? She's at it again...
This is a post I just wrote at DU Underground:
Hi Buzz -
I've lately been rereading Walter Cronkite's wonderful 1996 memoir "A Reporter's Life."
There on page 255, in the context of a conversation with James Schlesinger, Nixon's SecDef, reads the following. Quoting from the book:
Walter, I miss you. I wish that these words could be etched on the front of every TelePrompTer and computer monitor, in every newsroom of our nation.
Thanks to Michael Moore's book, I know readers will become more aware of how many illegal votes were counted, stealing the election for Bush. What I am about to write sounds like it has no connection, but read on and you will see that it does. Here's something I had to throw in because it is such a little known fact.
I know a person who used to work for one of the oil companies. Here's why exiled President Gore would have been the best choice, even greener than Nader on the world stage. My friend was a mathematician hired as an engineer for a major oil company (until one of our "leaders" laid her off as part of a plan to get a better retirement for himself).
There was a nuclear plant leaking radioactive waste into the Columbia River and then Vice-president Gore got all the mathematicians from the oil companies to sit down at a meeting and figure out, through mathematics, how to successfully shut down those containers.
He made those companies do it. He was effective and got all except one of them to sit there and attack that environmental hazard.
Remember, Shell is a Dutch company and the information had to get to all of the oil companies and FAST.
That is why Gore brought the Internet to us (that's what he meant when he said he invented the Internet).
This was an environmental crisis. Gore was effective in getting every major oil company to sit down at the meeting. The only company that did not show up was Exxon (that's something you should remember when filling up at the pumps).
This is why Big Oil was afraid of Gore. He makes Big Oil toe the line with the exception of one company. He is more effective environmentally even than Nader and I hope Michael Moore is seeing that now because he did not support Gore in election 2000.
I watched president Bush's press conference on Wednesday just for the sake of watching the blundering, pathetic, and the lying of this UN-elected moron to our White House I don't know if anyone caught his answer to the question of his choice for the INS for the boondoggle of giving visa's to the hijackers His answer was "He ain't bin there too long." Just pathetic. This man is an embarrassment. Remember when the media parsed every word that Al Gore and President Clinton said? I'll bet "He ain't bin there too long" is not in any transcript anywhere either. Where the hell was Barbara and Poppy Bush in bringing up this blooming idiot? Did anyone ever teach him English?
Thanks for letting me vent.
RE: Bush 'does not recognize flawed Zimbabwe election'
Please - why doesn't the world stand up and tell BUSH "We do not recognize the US flawed election"
In my dreams!
Loyal BuzzFlash reader
Shawn Redden wrote you regarding John Kerry's comments and actions regarding his protests over the Viet Nam War. He refers to the atrocities committed by Kerry. I believe he has his Kerrys confused. Even though I disagreed with all the negative publicity given to Bob Kerry's Viet Nam service (It is easy to criticize from the safety of home and hearth rather than experiencing the horrors of battle and war first hand.), it was the former governor and senator from the Midwest who now serves as President of the New School in NY that Redden has confused with the current junior senator from Massachusetts.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Would like to attempt to clarify something Shawn (mailbox) said about Senator John Kerry's Vietnam war record. He is not the Senator involved in that scandal. The person in question is Senator Bob Kerry, a retired Senator I believe from Nebraska. I realize there has been some confusion, but our Senator Kerry has no marks against him regarding Vietnam. He served his Country well.
I remember after the last election, President Clinton was asked who he would like to see as our next Democratic President and his answer was John Kerry. Yes, I'm still someone who hangs on Bill's every word, and would support John in a minute. I think he's great and definitely Presidential material.
otherwise noted, all original