The BuzzFlash Mailbag
April 16, 2002
Sent the following letter to Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of the once-respected Washington Post, in reaction to his adoration of George W. Bush.
I would like to propose that in the future any time we talk about Fox News, we always had the term "War Channel." Yes, they are a press arm of Dubya's folks, but just look at their lineup of current and former military hawks. Gotta love that "war stories" regular program as well. If we do this, it would really piss off Ailes, and then we could use that great "chickenhawk" data on who did or didn't serve. The average American has no idea about that list.
Today's Atlanta Journal/Constitution (AJC) contains the column written by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney entitled "Bush Must Answer Sept. 11 Questions." It appears on the editorial pages and the editors have invited letter writers to send e-mail regarding her concerns to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I know that the paper will be inundated with conservatives and right-wingers
voicing their hatred for anyone who dares to question this administration,
I am hoping that a few BuzzFlash advocates will drop the paper a line
or two in support of McKinney's right
P.S. You must include full name, city, daytime phone (numbers will not be published)
I just read your link about how opening ANWR wouldn't help our oil dependence, and something nobody is mentioning occurred to me. How much of Alaska's current production is actually going to the U.S.? I seem to remember that a significant portion is going to Japan, so it doesn't help decrease our dependence anyway.
Just keep Buzzin,
What I Find Unusual . . .
I support Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's call for an investigation into the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I do not comprehend how calling for such an investigation can even be deemed unusual; what I find unusual is that every senator, congressperson, media person and American is NOT demanding the same investigation.
Good grief, it was the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history, and a House member is being criticized for believing we, as a country, need to know everything that is knowable about the failure of our government: (1) to see it coming, and (2) to be prepared to fend off the attack once it was known that the unprecedented hijacking of four airplanes had occurred almost simultaneously!
Why do we have a Republican former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, threatening to cut off funding for such an investigation? Whom is Lott protecting? I thought the Sept. 11 attack was an attack against America, not just an attack against Democrats.
Why don't Republicans and Conservatives want to know how such a failure of our Intelligence community could happen?
Why isn't our president DEMANDING a full investigation of Sept. 11? Does he have something he needs to hide?
Why in heavens name isn't every news organization calling for an investigation of Sept. 11?
Why is Congressman Cynthia McKinney being reviled by right-wingers for calling for an investigation that every American should be calling for?
What the heck is going on in the White House, in Republican and Conservative caucuses, and in the right-wing media?
What are they all afraid of? What will be revealed?
If there is no guilt on the part of anyone in our government, what will we learn that SOME don't want us to learn?
Who will answer my questions?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Are we in the big time now? With republicans on crossfire blasting us all the time and, whoopee!...we are in the big time with Scaife after us..look over your shoulder often..This man will stop at nothing. And, once again, where in the world did Roger Ailes go to school..or did he? He needs some literacy lessons.
Now the feeding frenzy has begun on Congresswoman McKinney. The frightened men of congress are so terrified by the idea of an investigation into what institutional failures led to the catastrophe that cost so much human life on September 11 that they are turning on her like wild hyenas. This attitude is absolutely unacceptable. The search for the truth underlying this catastrophe is paramount. This is not a partisan political issue. To imply that calling for an investigation is a political attack is to suggest that those who are resisting have something to hide.
The right of the American people to know what happened is the important thing and that is the responsibility of Congress, not to protect any group who may be damaged by an unbiased inquiry into the facts of 9-11. This is all that matters. This is the issue, not Congresswoman McKinney.
McKinney is important only to the extent that she was the only person in Congress with the courage to ask the questions that must be asked. As she pointed out, much lesser disasters are investigated. What can possibly be the justification for failing to investigate thoroughly the worst attack ever on the American people?
McKinney is the lone exception in an institution that has become so corrupted by big money, it has become a gallery of profiles in cowardice.
The following quote from an article in Tuesday's New York Times speaks volumes about the thinking in Dubya's crowd:
guess that's how they justify what happened in Florida 2000, eh, when
they stole the election from Al Gore.
I sent to the Atlanta Journal Constitution regarding their vicious op/ed
piece about Congresswoman McKinney, entitled "McKinney's call for
probe is nutty". The link for their article is here:
I think people ought to be very careful about believing the CNN story that says the ANWR drilling is dead. I am from Texas and I am familiar with Bush and the oil industry. Bush has a nasty habit of caving in on compromises if he really wants something, even after he has said "no way." If he thinks that by "lowering the bar" he can get Rockefeller, he will do it, because that is how important ANWR is to him. Bush cares about 3 things -- cutting taxes for the rich, drilling for oil, and rewarding business campaign contributors. Count on Bush to revise the offer to Rockefeller.
[BuzzFlash Note: For a prime example of Bush tactics, just look at the lies he told Nevadans about Yucca Mountain. In February of this year he suckled his corporate puppets and signed away Yucca's future.]
James Baker speaks on "Business Ethics".
Wow. What balls.
JAMES BAKER SPEAKS ON "BUSINESS ETHICS"?!
Now it's official:
Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".
George W. Bush will "leave no child behind".
Army Secretary Thomas White, "...never sold any stock based upon what anybody told (him) at Enron..."
Other speaking engagements we are likely to see in the near future:
Rush Limbaugh channels Adolf Hitler for a rousing speech at the U.N. about "Humanitarian Issues of Our Time".
Charlton Heston addresses the NRA on the "Positive Societal Effects of Common Sense Gun Legislation".
Ronald Reagan speaks to the AARP in Florida on the "Theory of Distributed Associative Memory".
Laura Bush is keynote speaker at the 2002 M.A.D.D. convention.
George W. Bush speaks at commencement ceremonies at M.I.T. on the subject of "Biochemistry and Pharmacology of Synaptic Transmission"....
Then jets off to alma-mater Harvard to engage the graduates in "Compiling Language Models from a Linguistically Motivated Unification Grammar".
John L. Johnson
Attorney General John Ashcroft is determined to execute an accused Brooklyn drug kingpin - despite the objections of the U.S. attorney, a published report revealed yesterday. Sources told Time magazine that Ashcroft denied a mercy recommendation to save Emile Dixon - believed to be in his 30s - from execution. Not only did the attorney general ignore the Brooklyn prosecutor's recommendations, but he also spurned his own committee of lawyers who review death-penalty cases.
A BuzzFlash Reader
otherwise noted, all original