May 22, 2002
Important Note: Because we can't always determine your intentions, we need to ask a favor of you when you send us email. If you DO NOT WANT YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED in the Mailbag or in the Contributors section, please write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the Subject line or at the top of your email. That way we'll know it's just a comment to BuzzFlash. Additionally, if you submit a mailbag item and DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME associated with your submission, sign your email, "A BuzzFlash Reader." If you send email unsigned, we will post your name with your submission, or, if that's not available, your email name (not the full address, just what's on the left side of the email address). Thank you.
The BuzzFlash Mailbag is updated on an ongoing basis, with the newest material and comments on top. Again, we can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
Dear BuzzFlash,
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238570,00.html
"...After all, the next time Bush needs to talk to his friend in the Kremlin, that once mysterious former KGB agent, he will probably call Rice into the Oval Office and, using his pet nickname for the Russian leader, say, as he has in the past, "Get me Pootie-Poot on the phone!" ..."
A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
Today, as I sit up here in the Great White North, absorbing the latest in a series of new "buzzwords" from those in DC, I can't help but be perplexed. Perhaps someone can help me to understand.
When the WH says these were "Traditional Hijack Warnings" - Does that mean the next statutory holiday proclaimed by Bush will be on 9/11 "Traditional Hijack Day"? Further, does this mean, Bush will follow "tradition" and pardon all hijackers? I mean if he can pardon a turkey, why not the hijackers?
Secondly, whatever happened to the White House proclamation that "suicide bombers" are "homicide bombers"? Today, they are saying "suicide bombers" will inevitably attack USA. Furthermore, they compare the terrorist attacks by Palestinians (who own the land next to Israel), as equal to the terrorist attacks on USA by those, Bush himself allowed to stay in the country. (I'm not even gonna discuss the fact that he adored them so much, he had visas issued to them even after death).
My third question of the moment is: If Laura, is asking Democrats to "Stand by her Man", why did she herself leave the country for Europe?
My last area of confusion is: Why can Bush have secret service agents sent to the Canadian Rockies to train to protect Bush from Grizzly Bears, yet he couldn't find time to send at least one fighter jet to stop, at least one of the 4 airplanes from attacking the people of America, causing 3000 deaths?.
Having said the above, I must confess my greatest fear as a Canadian, is that Bush will say "Canada is my Best Friend". Now that is truly scary.
Ev Kootenays, Canada
Dear BuzzFlash,
Many of us know deep in our hearts that there is an ugly connection between the vague warnings that the Bush administration have been doling out since 9-11 and their need to either divert our attention from pending scandal or to keep his popularity, according to the polls, high. We just don't have the empirical evidence to confirm it. What we need is a 2 or 3 column report. Column A providing date and type of warning issued by the administration. Column B providing the possible scandal from which they might be trying to divert our attention. And if possible, column C listing any independent source that would confirm that a warning was (or was not) legitimate. (A foreign press release reporting that the administration had issued another warning would not count. There may not be any independent source for each item.) The problem is that most of us weren't paying close enough attention to see a connection from 9-12 forward and do not have the research skill or the time that would be required to search for such a connection. Is there anyone out there willing to take on such a research project?
Jean
[BuzzFlash Note: There's an interesting timeline in this MSNBC article that lists the warnings leading up to 9-11: Failure of the top brass]
Dearest Buzz:
At the moment the pResident was told of the attacks on the WTC, all of the "generalized information" of the previous weeks and months became hindsight; at that very moment the dots were clearly, starkly, screamingly connected. So why did he continue to read his storybook rather than act like the leader of a nation under attack? He knew it was a crisis moment, yet acted as though he had no clue.
Rita
Weinstein
Seattle
To MSNBC:
All day today your show has talked up republican issues. You have promoted the new NBC/WSJ poll about the investigation question and forgotten about the previous newsweek poll. It seems to me in fairness since both were taken in approximately the same time frame you would mention both. Also your coverage of governors races is nothing but propaganda trying to boost Simon in Calif. I noticed how everyone said Jeb Bush and Pataki should have no problem, you portray Davis as in trouble due to his being under 50% despite his lead in head to head polls. (Which were not mentioned specifically as to the size of the lead) Matthews should have to give royalties to the RNC since his commentary could be right from the Republican talking points. His spin of Republican chances reminds me of Bill O'Reilly in no-spin zone mode, both make me dizzy with their pro-conservative views. (At least Matthews admits to being conservative although he tries to spin it by mentioning his Democrat roots)
Conservative bias is apparent in your reporting and it seems to be getting worse. By having Donahue on for an hour to offset a days worth of conservative bias won't work. (Abrams and Williams are fair, but it seems you guests tend to lean rightward--especially on Hardball)
ARE YOU TRYING TO BE AS FAIR AND BALANCED AS FOX?
thank you,
stevie
gardiner
somerdale,nj
Dear BuzzFlash,
After reading poll results and then hearing afternoon news anchor on MSNBC give the poll results, singing praises on high of old Georgie boy and asking for viewers to write about how concerned they were about latest alert, I was livid. So I did write and am forwarding you a copy of my e-mail to MSNBC. Know it won't make any difference to these brown nosers but did make me feel better but not much. How stupid can people be? Honestly think it's like Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"--'Gentlemen, you can't handle the truth.' Convinced more each day that many of our fellow Americans don't want to hear the truth. They might have to start thinking for themselves. I believe they'd be truly frightened by what's happened and is still happening under the reign of King George the Selected.
Hope you will encourage other readers to write MSNBC and the other broadcast media outlets and tell them how they feel about what's happening to our country and these "convenient" terror alerts.
Jo Texas
Dear Buzz:
Ain't it heartbreaking that the "pink tutu" Democrats are "running" the other way while one of the most treasonous acts ever committed in the history of the United States lies convulsing on the table of reason. Is Rove, DeLay, Cheney et al. that threatening? Why are Democrats so "scared" to say anything? What in the hell is going on in this country?
If we don't get rid of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the thugs in Washington, this country will surely be brought to its knees.
Jim
Johnson
Auburn, AL
Dear BuzzFlash,
Someone should bring up the question: "why did Bush fly the Bin Ladin family out of the U.S. the week of 9/11?"
This is a question that causes everyone to get mad at the administration, especially because of the timing. Bodies were yet uncovered at ground zero and this was Bush's priority. This is a good question to ask because it forces the administration to defend its actions by defending the Bin Laden family....which will open the door to all the info relating to the Bush family and its business relationships in Saudi Arabia. These questions should not be asked by Democrats...but they should be asked. There's an awful lot there...trust me.
EverywhereNYC
Dear BuzzFlash,
The presidency of George W. Bush has resulted in a fusing of American corporate policy with American Governmental policy. When the priority of an administration is to maximize the profits of those who sit on the boards of oil service corporations and energy corporations and airline corporations, the safety of the populace becomes a secondary issue, if it is even an issue at all. There could not be a more accurate definition of irresponsible leadership.
Pursue a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan which profits Unocal? Yes, although it risks a response by the world's most effective terrorist. Implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report? No, because it threatens to cut into the profits of the airlines. Work to shut down offshore tax havens and cut off the flow of money to terrorists? No, because corporations save millions using this method. Curtail civil liberties by establishing military tribunals? Yes, because it is a solution which will not impact corporate profits.
Branch Rickey, former General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, once said 'Luck is the residue of design'. This administration is designed according to the motus operandi of George W. Bush's political career - win elected office, create the appearance of public service, and pursue one thing - money. That it is on their watch that these attacks occurred may be bad luck, but it is no mere coincidence.
What seemed like a dubious speculation months ago is now becoming increasingly plausible - that had Bush been unable to orchestrate his own illegitimate election, the attacks likely would not have happened. Al Gore was and is a documented supporter of increasing airport security, and would likely been able to implement much of the Hart-Rudman recommendations even without the support of Congress. He was not likely to pursue such a reckless policy in the name of UNOCAL, and he was likely to consider the safety of the populace in dealing with the information coming to him from his intelligence agencies.
Dick Cheney's pronouncement that further terrorist attacks are almost inevitable is correct, given the policies this administration sees fit to pursue. The solution to this terrible reality is to vote and to encourage others to vote - to vote with the sadness, to vote with the pain, to vote with the anger, to vote with knowledge and a serious purpose, driven by the cry of thousands of souls lost. To vote in 2002, to vote in 2004, to vote every year and to put into office leaders, Democrat or Republican, who are clearly and demonstrably dedicated to the safety, security, and long-term happiness of the public they serve. That is the design for a better future.
-Peter Glasser
Los Angeles
Dear BuzzFlash,
If you like the Pentagon drill, then how about this WTC drill on September 10, 2000 conducted on the 93rd floor -- the same floor struck in the attacks.
WTC crash scenario foretold in '93
Trade center official wanted plan for jet disaster By Graham Rayman Newsday Staff Writer
November 12, 2001
A former World Trade Center director suggested in a public hearing after the 1993 bombing there that the Port Authority and city emergency agencies train for the scenario of an airplane slamming into the towers, a transcript shows.
But the March 29, 1993, recommendation of Guy Tozzoli - who was so closely associated with the complex that he was known as "Mr. World Trade Center" - was overlooked. No training exercise involving an airplane scenario was done, senior Port Authority officials said last week.
http://chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?
slug=sns%2Dworldtrade%2Dscenario%2Dnyn
Alan Balch
Dear BuzzFlash,
From: Lori
"The Bush delegation did not stand alone. Its positions on abortion and sex education drew cheers from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and other Islamic nations, as well as the Vatican."
-------------------- UNITED NATIONS --------------------
Bush vs. the world on sex
By Evan Osnos. Evan Osnos is a Tribune national correspondent working in New York
May 19, 2002
The Bush administration entered a historic United Nations summit on children this month with a bold strategy: persuade a skeptical world that its offspring would be better off under a conservative Texan's concept of family and sexual health.
The administration did not achieve everything it sought. But it succeeded in a different act of persuasion: convincing members of the global community that this White House has little regard for international consensus.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0205180263may19.story
ATTENTION: BuzzFlash friends,
Arianna Huffington has asked me to help her get the word out about a "new" book that she is working on about corporate greed and corruption. I think the title is going to be called: "Pigs at the Trough." Arianna has asked me to tell people to send her any and all information about companies that are involved in greed and corporate malfeasance so that she can put it into her book. She would like the information sent to her online e-mail address:
Please try and help her out with this goal. I think it's a worthy effort on her part. God bless. Peace.
Sincerely,
Ron Gordon Princeton, NJ
Dear BuzzFlash,
I just spent $3.95 on the current, "What Bush Knew" issue of Newsweek. I've only begun to read it, but it looks like pure dynamite; even the "What He Said/What He Knew" captions under the pictures of Bush's handlers drive home the duplicity of our supposed leaders.
My suggestion: EVERYONE go out and buy this issue - right now. The newsmagazines pay VERY close attention to newsstand sales, and if Newsweek sees that a hard-hitting expose of Bush crimes 'n lies sends their sales through the roof, it will encourage them to devote more time and space to this scandal over the coming months. Other BuzzFlash contributors have talked about countering freeper-skewed online news polls; instead of trying to beat the freepers at their own game (for an essentially meaningless, 1-day poll), a $4 investment could pay off with one of the US's most high-profile, mainstream news outlets putting - and keeping - Bush & company under a long-overdue magnifying glass.
-J
Dear BuzzFlash,
The weirdest thing of all is that Condi Rice is one of those saying this type of attack was unimaginable. I'm sure she stayed on the same U.S. Navy ship that Bush did for their meetings at that summit. Reports look like she was in on the Bush-Putin mtg July 22 doing debriefing and maybe Q/A. That's 2 short weeks prior to the infamous Aug. 6 briefing- in terms of connecting potential dots, had she forgotten why she couldn't sleep in a hotel in Genoa??!!!! There's absolutely no way out of that one, unlike lame excuses about the Library of Congress doc being buried, etc. If only Russert or Lehrer could ask her how her statements don't jibe with what she had personally experienced in Italy....
Keep up the great work.
Dave Dorsett
Dear BuzzFlash,
David Gergen just suggested on CNN we should not have open hearings on 9/11 until after the elections. He argues it will divert the administration's attention from the war on terrorism and will be too partisan and political if conducted during the campaigns. I'm sure Republicans agree.
Bush and company are obviously trying to prevent any investigation at all which gives a strong appearance they have something to hide. Certainly if there is damaging evidence they will want to delay hearings until after the election. The other advantage of delay is that as the trail cools evidence is less more difficult to retrieve and reconstruct and the public's interest will cool as they turn their attention to new and more current concerns.
The idea that if hearings take place the Bush administration and other government leaders will be distracted from the war on terrorism doesn't carry much weight unless their is truly a smoking gun. Bush and company haven't let the war on terrorism interfere with Bush's Texas vacations or campaigning activities.
The Democrats not only need to keep the pressure on Bush but they also need to turn up the heat while they have the public's attention. Election or no election, the American public needs to know if the Bush administration is acting responsibly, honorably and with the interests and safety of Americans as their first priority.
Bush and his arrogant administration needs to be reminded daily that he did not win the election and that Al Gore got 500,000 more votes than he did.
hickorywind
Buzz,
I just picked myself up off the floor after listening to two items on BBC news Monday night. First, Dubya fuming his 'my-way-or-the-highway' at Fidel Castro. They can't play together, he yelled, until Castrol allows free and fair elections [this spewed in Florida where Dubya stole the American election], and frees political prisoners [isn't Cuba where Dubya holds hundreds of prisoners in cages without the minimum of due process?]
Then second, Colin Powell commenting on the India-Pakistan problems, saying that neighbors need to keep open dialogue and negotiate their differences. Isn't Cuba Dubya's neighbor? At the end of the first item, the BBC reporter asked the head of the Cubans-in-exile group if he didn't agree Dubya was just stumping for Cuban-American votes for Jeb. The guy shot back, "Are you against democracy?' The guy had learned his repugnantlican lessons well.
T Quigly
Dear BuzzFlash,
It was with great interest that I read the letter from the lady in Boise, Idaho. She made some wonderful points, but then she lost me.
It was her position that we should all get to work for the Democratic party. But, I agree with Gore Vidal that we have only one party with two branches. As an example the Vice Presidential candidate in the last election, Mr. Lieberman, is just as much a hawk as Dick Cheney. He is just as much subservient to AIPac as any on the other side of the aisle.
Today, May 20th, Dick Gephart apologized for his criticisms of the lords and masters in the executive branch for things he said last week which were true. Some time ago Tom Daschle did the same thing, retracting truthful statements he had made.
My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, wrote me some of the worst pap I have ever seen, or at least someone in her office did, when I told her that if I had wanted a Republican senator, I would have voted Republican. The letter from her office extolled the virtues of bipartisanship. I don't remember any bipartisanship when Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office. As a matter of fact they attacked him for the same evasion of his vows of marriage that many of the legislators shared equal guilt for.
I have recently written to V. P.Cheney that I will be damned if I will mute my criticism. There is no intention of genuflecting to ask forgiveness. It is not my purpose to ask them if my past has shown my patriotism. For three and a half years I was under the control of the Marine Corps during WW II. As a newspaper man for the Corps I can remember interviewing some of the casualties from Iwo Jima and Okinawal, and then in September of 1942 they gave me the opportunity to see the handiwork of our military (with scientific cooperation) when we landed in Nagasaki.
At least I know what George Orwell meant when he said, "There are no good governments. Pick the least of the evils."
Keep up your excellent work, Had not Alan Greenspan lowered my income eleven times during the last year I would love to send you some money, but you see I have learned the Golden Rule of old age. One has to have enough gold to pay the doctor, the hospital, the pharmacy, the dentist, etc.
Respectfully,
J. Philip Schediwy
Apple
Valley, Ca.
To Paul Begala-
I remember during campaign 2000, the Bushies kept saying they were "The Adults" who already knew how to do the job and didn't need any time or training to get up to speed. "The Adults" were going to come in and fix the "broken military" and "messed up FBI", etc, etc. Bush and "The Adults" were going to save the day. (Apparently they wanted to "save us" from 8 years of peace and prosperity.)
Now that "The Adults" are being accused of falling down on the job where terrorism is concerned, I've heard several whiny Republicans say, "but we were only in office 9 mos. (approximately 1/5 of a 4-year term) , so we didn't have time to even evaluate things, much less fix them."
So which is it? Is Bush's team "The Adults" who already knew terrain and needed no training to get up to speed, or not? The Bushies need to pick a story and stick to it. If the Bushies are "The Adults", they need to quit whining like a bunch of children.
Mari
Dear Buzz-
A few thoughts...
Everyone's looking east, waiting for the next terrorist attack. Cheney tells us that another attack is eminent, sometime between now and the end of time, which also had the lucky-as-a-trifecta effect of changing the subject. We've been hit twice since 9/11 by terrorist attacks, the smiley-face pipe bomber and the anthrax mailer, one was definitely a domestic terrorist, the other, presumably. Meanwhile, we're still at yellow. Does anyone remember what that's supposed to mean?
The Bush Administration was OK with the threat of a "traditional" hijacking. No sense in shutting down the entire airline industry, they said, just to save a few hundred lives. I'm sorry but I disagree.
If the intelligence they had was good enough to warn John Ashcroft to stay off commercial airlines, why wasn't it good enough for all the American people?
Troy Torstrick
Dear BuzzFlash,
Were box cutters and plastic knives used in the hijackings?
"The administration, based on hijackings, notified the appropriate agencies and, I think, that's one of the reasons that you saw that the people who committed the 9-11 attacks used box cutters and plastic knives to get around America's system of protecting against hijackings," [Ari Fleischer] said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtm
I never questioned the fact of their use until I came across Edward Jay Epstein's "Fictoid 9 - Plastic Knives and Box Cutters":
Actually, it was [Ashcroft's and Rumsfeld's] imagination, not established facts, that informed the world that the hijackers had used plastic knives and box cutters to commandeer the two airliners that had destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Not a scintilla of evidence had been found then - or to date - that either plastic knives or box cutters were used by any of the ten hijackers who crashed United Airlines flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center. No box cutters or plastic knives were found in the debris. Nor were the cockpit voice recorders ever found from Flight 11 and Flight 175. No witnesses, either passengers or crew members, on either flight 11 or flight 175 ever reported any hijacker having a box cutter or a plastic knife.
And another essay by Adrian More:
FAA and FBI would have us believe that 5 hijackers with boxcutters and 4-inch (or shorter)-blade plastic knives "stabbed to death" a former Special Forces officer and two trained pilots while another 84 passengers + crew on board just sat watching, frozen up, all of them. How old were the 2 pilots? Lewin was 31, according to the Associated Press victims database.
Trained as the 5 may have been for the kill, they may have pulled it off with boxcutters plastic knives and bare hands - but I wouldn't recommend anyone try to confront a 31-year-old Israeli Special Forces officer & two U.S. pilots, plus 84 passengers + crew, with boxcutters and short, plastic knives.
http://adelaide.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=2655&group=webcast
Can anyone more knowledgeable than me judge whether the Administration was just feeding us another line or if Epstein and More are out to lunch on the subject.
Thanks,
A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
in yer mailbag section, a writer asked for the meaning of the Japanese term 'kamikaze'; it's literal translation being 'god wind'. kami being god and kaze a breeze or wind. keep up good works, you are deeply appreciated.
Willy O'Brien
Dear BuzzFlash,
"Evildoer"
BuzzFlash, Can't help but notice the word "evildoer" in the text of the 1999 report. Hmmm.. where have we heard that word before?... perhaps someone in the administration had read the report after all?
"While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him.- Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky" Quoted in THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?
MeandMuse
Dear BuzzFlash:
I just finished reading the mailbag posted May 20 and found it to be very informing. There are a lot of us who believe the Bushies are going to get away with this great debacle. Dick Cheney will continue stonewalling Congress on everything. The Republicans will continue to point the finger at President Clinton.
IF only those who wrote to you would also write to congress and the editors of their hometown newspapers, and even outside newspapers. We must continue to keep the stories of these atrocities alive. My hometown newspaper (Arizona Daily Star) refuses to print any more of my letters for obvious reasons, and I thought they were at least a little bit liberal.
Fact: The Bushies started receiving intelligence briefings once the Supreme Court anointed him president. That was December 1999!
Fact: Right out of the starting gate GW starting negating many of Clinton's Executive Orders. (His hatred of Clinton obscured his rational reasoning.)
Fact: Bush opted out of the Kyoto agreement because it was a "Clinton thing."
Fact: Bush elected to keep the head of the CIA and FBI, both Clinton appointees. So he must have been satisfied with the job they were doing.
Fact: Bush's plan to get rid of Saddam Hussein stems from the fact his father was disgraced by Hussein after the Gulf War.
Fact: Bush had on his desk a plan to invade Afghanistan two days before 9/11 so he knew we were about to attack a country for no reason that the public was aware of, yet no one has asked why?
Fact: The Attorney General John Ashcroft has been flying in government planes since July of last year, as recommended by his security team. Yet no one has brought this up.
Fact: Condaleeza Rice has said that public warning about possible hijacking of airplanes would have ruined our airlines. I don't think they fared too good after 9/11 so what was gained by withholding the information about possible "routine" hijackings?
Fact: Bush chose to continue his publicized visit to a grade school in Florida even after he learned about the WTC incidents. Did he purposely put the children at risk with his presence there or did he know he was safe there? (Forewarned about the WTC and Pentagon?)
Fact: Bush allowed the Secret Service to fly him around the US on 9/11 with the excuse he might be a target -- with US military jets guarding him?
Fact: His carefully worded speech in the Rose Garden in front of some cadets bears looking at very hard. Hell. No one accused him of knowing that some Arabs were going to hijack some planes and fly then in the WTC and Pentagon that very morning. That was a dumb statement and shows how badly Karen Hughes is missed. You can bet she would have put other words in his mouth.
Fact Fact Fact. The media is lousy with them. All we have to do it make sure they don't get away with it this time.
Jerry Lujan
Tucson, AZ
Dear BuzzFlash,
Re: TWO BUZZFLASH READERS EXPOSE THE NEW YORK TIMES DOING SOME MORE P.R. WORK FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
<< We don't have enough evidence to conclude that Bush and his administration acted appropriately. As on 9/11, the only thing we know about what Bush and his administration knew before 9/11 is what they tell us, and they have proven to be untrustworthy. >>
They knew enough to run away and hide.
OneCheetah
Dear BuzzFlash,
As I watch the Bushies chase their tail about 9-11, I am struck not only how much was known, but also HOW MUCH DID NOT HAPPEN BEFORE 9-11.
Before 9-11, in my opinion, the greatest threat to this country's security (both politically and financially) was Y2K. Osama bin Laden was not some ephemeral figure--he had already done Khobar towers and the embassy bombings. Particularly with the embassy bombings OBL had demonstrated the ability to plan and execute coordinated strikes on a large scale. (I say this to counter Condi's assertion that no one could have imagined OBL doing this.)
Anyway, my point is with all the finger pointing at Clinton/Gore, an objective observer can only conclude that Clinton/Gore was watchful, active and prescient. We may never know how many adverse events were averted for Y2K, but for sure it came and went with little fanfare. There was no need for the Clinton Administration to fear monger amongst the populace. Certainly no one called Sens. Lott and Hatch unpatriotic when they scoffed at Clinton/Gore concerns about international terrorism. Gore was in charge of the Y2K and unlike Mr. Cheney, who seem more preoccupied with making money for Enron, et. al., took his charge with quiet diligence and knowledge.
Oh yeah, by the way. If we are so tied up in war such that congressional oversight would be an unseemly burden, WHY DOES BUSH/CHENEY HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FUND RAISE???
DDZEKE
Dear BuzzFlash,
Wouldn't a Commission require the testimony of Dick Cheney... head of the the anti-terrorism task force and Tom Ridge Homeland Security Director??
Could they get away with stonewalling an independent commission the way they could try with a congressional committee?
Does this account for their desperate attempts to prevent a commission?
Could you see what the rules would be of such a commission? Could they require Cheney's testimony (under oath) even though he's VP because of his role as head of the task force?
Could the Commission veer off into exploring the warnings to the Taliban about permitting that oil pipeline or being carpeted with bombs?
And could the Commission determine that the "plan" to take out Al-Queda before 9/11 actually have been such a plan --- which might have precipitated a preemptive strike??
Just asking.
ross mitchell
Dear BuzzFlash,
Re: A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary: Sauce for the Gander
Because the media has bought and paid for this so called presidency. The media owns the White House
A&LN
Dear BuzzFlash,
LOOK BELOW AT ONE OF RELIANTS STOCK OPTIONS OWNERS (James A. Baker !!!!)
LET'S CONNECT THE DOTS !!!!!!
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/insiders.asp?symb=RRI&sid=654355&siteid=mktw
David Conley
Dear BuzzFlash,
Last night, 5/20/02, on Hardball Congressman Dick Armey stated, though the quote may not be exact, "We would never have been able to pass the Patriot Act without 9/11"
Does that give one pause to wonder what else would not have been passed if not for 9/11?
Larry Hawes
Hi, Buzz:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Terrorists’ attacks are imminent! Suicide bombers are packing themselves with explosives at this very moment (or very soon, at the least)--the head of the FBI said this is 'inevitable'! Your apartment building may be rigged with explosives!
In these frightening, unsettling times isn’t it a comfort to know that the Office of Homeland Security, ever vigilant, is on top of things? The security advisory system, reflecting the impending, has the current threat level shown as...yellow.
That's right: Yellow, as in "elevated/high risk of terrorist attacks"; not "Red: severe risk of terrorist attacks". As of 8:30 a.m.; Tuesday, May 21, 2002; we are officially at 'yellow alert'. Check it for yourselves: http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/
Again, this leads me to these questions: Do these guys EVER talk to each other? Does tom ridge, at the minimum, keep up with current events? Just what is dick cheney doing as 'point man' on security and terrorism issues?
Finally: what is the prescribed treatment for bipolar disorder?
Liz Taylor
Houston, TX
[BuzzFlash Note: According to "Diagnosis and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder in Children and Adolescents," in Psychiatric Times, the main treatment seems to be lithium.]
Dear BuzzFlash,
it's like "1984" out there, the kremlin 101. people disappear from pictures. truth are lies. historical memory never occurred. Keep buzzin'. i'm waiting for the mainstream media to mention this.
still, i don't want to make fun of the alerts or the fact that the govt is asking us to report suspicious activity. i live six blocks from the wtc and the first plane flew right over my bldg. and I'm on the 38th floor. i heard it zooming in. and i heard the crash which was something you experienced on a molecular level. i still remember what a beautiful day it was. how blue the sky was........i'm very lucky. i don't know anyone who died although in '93 i knew many people in the building. Still, i did start smoking again after ten years. despite what i think about bush, i love my country. i love the constitution. and i love americans for trying to be the best they can be. And i even have some friends who are republicans. gd bless them.
i don't know where you are geographically buzz, but we're still in mourning in ny although it might not necessarily show. And i have a deep sense of foreboding. there's more to come. And it was so terrible. i don't want anyone else anywhere to experience the disbelief, the terror of walking outside and seeing only one tower standing. i kept thinking of pearl harbor as i walked uptown with thousands of others whose phones weren't working.. And the hindenburg.
"oh the humanity!" and i kept remembering all those ww2 movies with the poor souls fleeing invading armies on foot with all their possessions. there was a feeling of stunned disbelief that this could happen. the silence.....
lmk
Dear BuzzFlash,
I live in Australia & I have just seen the most pathetic piece of News reporting/ propaganda crap ever televised on Cable TV {FOX enough said BUT!!!!}.
Here is Laura Bush telling the American people to eat a meal with their children read them a bedtime story because it helps them to sleep when they hear your voice. And do not worry because my husband will take care of everything.
Oh come on, do people in the USA really buy this crap.
Are you all so stupid as to take what this woman is telling you as some kind of sedative that will calm you against the Evil Doers .
IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING OR WAS I WATCHING A SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SKIT.
Please tell me you are not all crazy over there.
Regards
Chris
Gibson
Concerned mother.
Dear BuzzFlash,
Another example of democracy being good for everyone but our Appointed-in-Chief....
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/international/americas/21CUBA.html
"For 43 years, every election in Cuba has been a fraud and a sham," Mr. Bush said. "Mr. Castro, once, just once, show that you're unafraid of a real election."
Let's see, how many ways did Bush avoid, because he was afraid of, a "real election" in 2000?
1. His brother Jeb and his minions (esp Ms. Harris) illegally purge thousands of poor and black voters from the rolls that historically had voted for Democrats. Ex-felons who had their citizenship rights restored had them illegally taken by Jeb despite Florida courts declaring his policies unconstitutional.
2. Republican Party staff pressured county election boards to accept overseas absentee ballots in clear violation of Florida law. The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced.
3. Bush's legal team did everything they could to prevent all votes from being counted.
4. When things looked bleak, Bush turned towards a right-wing Supreme Court for relief. The Felonius-5 delivered a ruling so incredibly weak and obviously partisan they couldn't cite previous cases in support of it, and specifically stated their ruling should only apply to Bush and in no other cases!
Obviously I'm not including all the details in a short, man-am-I-pissed email, but the nerve of this man is just astounding. I can't wait to try to vote him out in 2004. Hey Johnny Ashcroft? Save this email for evidence; obviously I'm a subversive terrorist for not bowing down before Bushie-Boy.
Jeff Ferndale, MI
ps. I encourage everyone out there to get involved with their local election boards to work elections. If we don't get out there and make sure every law is followed, who's going to do it for us?
Dear BuzzFlash,
Robert Mueller, the head of the FBI's statement, was shocking: "There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it." That's some confidence.
It also begs the question: what then is the point of having intelligence agencies like the FBI and the CIA? Why are we, the taxpayers, paying these people's salaries if they can't do their jobs and protect us?
The Bush Administration tells us that we shouldn't investigate into the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11, which could shed some light on why we weren't able to prevent 9/11 as well as giving us clues on how we can do things differently and more effectively, because we need to focus 100% on preventing the next attack. Now the head of the FBI tells us that we can't prevent the next attack. So why doesn't everyone in the FBI just pack their bags and go home?
How absolutely irresponsible to make such a statement.
What I need to hear from the head of the FBI right now is this: "There will be more terrorist attacks. We are coordinating our efforts like never before, we are doing everything we can to prevent the next attack. Terrorist attacks can be prevented, because of good intelligence, the Clinton Administration was able to foil the bombing of the Los Angeles airport at the turn of the millennium. We may not be able to stop the next attack but it won't be because we didn't give 110% trying."
Unbelievable.
Troy Torstrick
Dear BuzzFlash,
Just a thought, Before people assume that Michael Moore is against Republicans, we need to remember that his book, "Stupid White Men", had a major oversight in which he overlooks the efforts of the courageous fourteen Democratic members of Congress who rejected Bush on January 6, 2001. Moore claims that no Democrat in the House did anything. Remember that Alcee Hastings(FL), Corrine Brown(FL), Maxine Waters(CA), Patsy Mink(HI), Bob Filner (CA), Barbara Lee(CA), Jesse Jackson Jr.(IL), Sheila Jackson-Lee(TX), Peter Deutsch (FL), Carrie Meek(FL),Cynthia McKinney - Truth (GA), Elijah Cummings(MD), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), and Eva Clayton(NC) all stood up and went again the Bush election but no Senator stood with them. These are also important points that make me think Moore works for the GOP. Doesn't Michael Moore share the same agent as Rush Limbaugh? Didn't Moore bash Gore in the last election? Didn't he camp out at Chuck Heston's home and discuss NRA with him? Wasn't that a sneaky way to promote the NRA and the Republicans? Remember, Moore is against Democrats and he will lie to get them defeated.
MV
Hello Buzz, Bob, Jerry:
The more I hear on this subject, the more it sounds like Ashcroft was responsible for diverting attn (so he could focus on things like gun rights and child pornography), not the agencies themselves. Look at the other articles sent last night on Ashcroft and "connect the dots".
FBI shared suspicions with CIA
To learn more, visit http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/05/20/usat-fbi-cia.htm
MEB
Dear BuzzFlash,
Isn't it ironic that the U.S president who lost the nationwide popular vote and secured his day job through voting fraud is lecturing Cuba's Castro about the importance of "free, fair, and transparent" elections?
Chewgababy
Dear BuzzFlash,
As Newsweek reports this week, Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror attack. He warned his replacement, Condoleezza Rice: "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other." Problem was, she didn't.
-------------------- Hiding Behind a Veil of Executive Privilege? --------------------
We're owed an explanation of what the White House knew leading up to 9/11.
VGD
* * *
Robert Scheer
May 21 2002
A full-scale investigation is in order as to why this nation was so poorly prepared to fend off an air piracy attack by a terrorist group that had already killed many Americans and attempted air hijackings and yet had total access to our flight schools.
The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/la-000035739may21.column
BUZZFLASH,
3000 of ours and we don't know how many of theirs are dead, WHY?????
And it all came to past, with the stolen election.
This is a big ugly joke, on America and the world!
Case closed! Life just doesn't matter to these horrible bush/cheney, greed, hate-filled people.
BUZZFLASH Readers
Dear BuzzFlash,
Greetings!
In the archives piece http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml (Ashcroft goes fishing), Ashcroft claims that he has been switched from commercial aircraft to charter transport and has not even asked why this drastic change has been made:
"Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer.""
Does this seem even vaguely possible? If you were Attorney General and an aide announced that henceforth you would be traveling by charter aircraft, would you not ask why such a change was necessary?
Cheers,
Doug Bostrom Atlanta, GA
Dear Buzz:
My favorite part of Bush speech on Cuba:
"All elections in Castro's Cuba have been a fraud. The voices of the Cuban people have been suppressed, and their votes have been meaningless. That's the truth. Es la verdad. In the 2003 National Assembly elections in Cuba, Cuba has the opportunity to offer Cuban voters the substance of democracy, not its hollow, empty forms. "
'nuff said.
vgdesign
Dear BuzzFlash,
There is only one reason that Bush retains high poll numbers; millions of Americans believe bush lies...
<< Imagine instead that Bush had hit the campaign trail promoting a Social Security shift that increased the system's deficits, requiring cuts in benefits and an increase in the retirement age; that he'd promised a tax cut that cost more than twice Social Security's long-term shortfall. Imagine that his patients' rights bill was advertised as authored by the HMO industry -- and as prohibiting patients denied care from suing their insurer; that he'd touted a Medicare plan that would keep ratcheting down payments to hospitals and doctors; that his environmental policy would scrap one protection after another and let industry rewrite the rules; that he'd pledged to demonize Democrats who resisted his policies; that his No Child Left Behind program pledged to freeze funding for Head Start and money for child care -- and to go back on a bipartisan deal to increase federal funds for poor public schools in exchange for high-stakes testing. >>
LJBK
___________________________________________________
The Ideological Impostor
Run left, govern right: The fraudulence of the Bush presidency
By Robert Kuttner Issue Date: 6.3.02
In the 2000 election, the voters of this country could have been forgiven for sizing up George W. Bush as a cross between a moderate Republican and DLC Democrat. Here are some of the things he said while campaigning: In a stirring passage in his convention speech, Bush invoked
single moms struggling to feed their kids and pay the rent. Immigrants starting a hard life in a new world. Children without fathers in neighborhoods where gangs seem like friendship. ... We are their country, too. ... When these problems aren't confronted, it builds a wall within our nation. On one side are wealth and technology, education and ambition. On the other side of the wall are poverty and prison, addiction and despair. And, my fellow Americans, we must tear down that wall.
One could imagine Bobby Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson -- or even Al Gore on a good day -- uttering just those words.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/10/kuttner-r.html
Dear BuzzFlash,
US President George W Bush appeared "shaken" at a meeting of Republican senators as tried to fend off criticism over a report that he had been informed about the terror strikes but refused to let up on his tirade against North Korea calling its leader a "pygmy" and "a spoilt child".
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=10453354
Chewgababy
Dear BuzzFlash,
Subj: Big Reason Not to Believe NYTimes Story
Buried in the story is this paragraph:
The memorandum was sent to counterterrorism offices in two cities — one copy went to John O'Neill, then the top counterterrorism agent in the F.B.I.'s New York office. Mr. O'Neill retired from the F.B.I. in late August. He had just begun a job as the security chief of the World Trade Center when he was killed in the attacks.
This information is incredibly pertinent, to say the least. According to the French book "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" (written by Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard) O'Neill was frustrated by the Bush Administration in his efforts to do his job. He accused the Bush administration of blocking his efforts to get Bin Laden because the Bushies were more interested in negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban. He resigned in protest. I say let's find out what O'Neill did with the memo. My bet is that he didn't sit on it like the article says. My bet is that he tried to act, was rebuffed and that's why he eventually quit.
The book additionally makes the charge that the Bush negotiators threatened the Taliban to accept the pipeline deal or be "carpeted with bombs." I have remained skeptical of this charge until recently when it was reported by NBC and AP, I believe, that Bush had attack plans on Afghanistan on his desk prior to 9/11. It may very well be that the Bushies were counting on the terrorists to commit some hijacking as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and make that country safe for UNOCAL and Enron, the two companies with the most invested in that oil pipeline.
a couple of links: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html
There are a lot more links regarding this book that I can't find right now.
Rustim Tahir
Dear BuzzFlash,
We're missing something else in all this that is also a scandal that puts all of us at risk. Who says the hijackers only had boxcutters? The administration. Who is as much an extension of the NRA as Enron? The administration. Someone really needs to connect the dots on this one. Numerous reports on 9/11...including a cell phone message from a flight attendant...specifically stated "they have guns" and are "shooting." The official conclusion appears to be that they were mistaken.
Training manuals found in Afghanistan specifically detailed how easy it was to get guns and training in their use in the USA. Even New York magazine did a piece last August about how easy it was to smuggle guns on board. And it has always seemed odd that dozens of people wouldn't jump a couple of guys with boxcutters...that just seemed a more likely reaction to someone with a gun. But rather than upset their friends at the NRA, the administration is lying to us about this, too. The only dots they appear to be concerned with are on the ones that make up that dotted line they sign on those pipeline contracts.
Nirana Comstock
Dear Buzz,
The truth will prevail and the world will learn that George and company knew something was going to happen, and decided to let it come down. They gathered around the table and figured that whatever was about to happen would probably mean the loss of oh, say, about 1,000-2,000 lives. They figured that with just the right touch America would stand tall and its citizens would unite around a just cause. The cause should and would be patriotism. If George and God bless America enough times it will eventually stick and the Bush administration would break the bank!
Let us never forget how skilled alcoholics and other sociopaths are at lying and covering up their tracks. With most of them it's an obsession that they never overcome. Give our boy George enough rope and he'll eventually ... he'll eventually explode!
Tricia Galbraith
Dear BuzzFlash,
Bush admin officials were in contact with the hijackers in flight. They thought they could negotiate, that's why there were no earlier fighter intercepts, the hijackers probably demanded this. Make this public, and maybe we'll shake a leak loose. Also, it's possible the hijackers could have been in communication with each other, via cell phones.
Andrew Gingery
Buzz,
Re: N.Y. Times Does P.R. Work For Dubya
1. You asked if Ashcroft and Mueller concealing the memo from Bush and his staff wasn't "lacking in integrity?" I ask, isn't purposely concealing vital information of an attack on our country "treason"?
2. Scot Griffin commented "I would be ecstatic to learn that 9/11 was simply a result of incompetence of Bush or his administration." I certainly would not be "ecstatic" - incompetence is abhorrent in positions of power. These men accepted the pomp & pomposity of the most powerful positions in the world - but not the onus of the responsibilities that go along with it. If they are too stupid or incompetent to handle the job, then get out!!.
3. It continues to astound me the extent to which officials will make themselves out to be blathering idiots in the name of cover-up.
T Quigly
Dear BuzzFlash,
CHECK OUT THIS AMAZING REVELATION FROM A FLIGHT ATTENDANT IN THE LETTER SECTION OF YESTERDAY'S USA TODAY:
Why weren't airlines told?
On Sept. 11, I was working on a U.S. commercial flight en route to Chicago from Rome. Fifty miles west of London we were informed of the attacks on the United States and were diverted to London's Heathrow Airport.
With recent breaking news regarding the White House being aware of the possibility of attacks coming to light, I would like to add some food for thought: Rome and Milan were my normal routes. On the morning of Sept. 11, I commented to a couple of the other crewmembers that security appeared to be heightened at the Rome airport (''FBI bin Laden memo wasn't passed on,'' News, Thursday).
There were military police on the mezzanine level looking down on the check-in area; that's normal. However, there were additional military police on catwalks on the front wall of the terminal watching over the check-in area -- something I had not seen before. There were also more military police present.
According to the news reports, some agencies were privately informed of possible hijackings of American aircraft. Were Italian authorities on a heightened alert because of knowledge provided by the U.S. or their own security?
Why weren't the airlines briefed? Initially, I considered the beefed-up security a coincidence. In light of recent news, I am more suspicious of how much the U.S. government knew and whom it informed.
Bill Hansen, flight attendant
- A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
"We need to be concerned about those people who would use violence or the threat of violence in furtherance of a domestically based political and social agenda. "
- excerpt from the Speech of JOHN P. O'NEILL Chief, International Terrorism Operations Federal Bureau of Investigation. Presented at the National Strategy Forum on June 11, 1997 http://www.nationalstrategy.com/speakers/oneill.html
Read the whole speech to get that in context, but isn't that the standard definition of terrorism, more or less?
What I just realized is this: you don't have to be the perpetrator of terror acts to be a terrorist, you just have to use the violence (or the threat of) for your own benefit. Bush has gained a bit of temporary popularity by promising to 'stop the terror'. These so-called leaders are using the violence for their own ends. Halting terrorism is primarily a matter of long term police-style investigation, not political posturing. Let the experts do their jobs, and get these bush buffoons out of their way.
I contend that the Bush administration clearly interfered from day one with our existing national strategy for dealing with terrorism. We know he interceded with the FBI, we know he pulled away forces that Clinton had laying in wait to strike Bin Laden in Afghanistan, we know he re-opened business negotiations with the Taliban, we know they've been inappropriately withholding information on a wide range of subjects. The time has come to remove this fool from office before he gets us all killed.
Andrew Gingery
Dear BuzzFlash,
This a great story and illustrates the problem inherent in trying to provide protection from random terror acts. It simply can't be done and Mr. Mueller acknowledges as much. Mr. Mueller states, "There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it."
If this realization is new then perhaps it is time to revisit the increased funding requests for counter-terrorist measures. Could it be that another reason for the 'war on terrorism' is simply to increase funding for an agency that won't, or in this admission can't, stop terrorists? And if terrorists can't be stopped why would we throw more money at an agency that requests a raise each and every time it fails to provide the very protection it is unable to provide?
Larry Hawes
Dear Buzz,
I have read numerous accounts regarding what information Bush did or did not possess regarding the 9-11 attack. For example, mainstream news sources, such as ABC News, have reported that information regarding potential attacks surfaced as early as April 18, 2001. My question is this: Why did Bush give $43 million dollars of taxpayer money to the Taliban, known to support and harbor Al-Qaeda, at the end of May 2001, a month after warnings about a potential attack was issued? One AP account (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/0284.Schakowsky.Taliban.htm) states "U.S. aid to Afghanistan bypasses the ruling Taliban militia". Exactly how do you get millions of dollars past a totalitarian regime such as the Taliban without them getting at least a piece of it? What is the current justification is being presented by the Bush administration to account for the transfer of this money? Is it possible that American taxpayer money actually helped finance the WTC attacks?
Janene
Dear BuzzFlash,
Ironic Statement of the Week:
"...every election in Cuba has been a fraud and a sham. Mr. Castro, once, just once, show that you're unafraid of a real election. Show the world you respect Cuba's citizens enough to listen to their voices, and to count their votes."
George W. Bush, at Cuban Independence Day Event, May 16
Congal
Dear BuzzFlash,
Yesterday you reported the NBC/WSJ poll saying Americans thought an investigation would be too political and unproductive. Perhaps your question including the political aspect is skewing your results. Newsweek by 68-24 thinks one should be started and ABC by 56-41 says people want one. Will your network provide these results to balance your pushing of the results that were pushed with such vigor yesterday. I believe your question has a built in trap which skews it toward the negative response. The USA today poll also skews the results by asking if the Bush Adm. should be investigated for it's not releasing the documents sooner. It says that people think by 55-43 that Bush's failure to release information earlier should not be investigated. This is also a skewed question. This deflects the larger question of an overall investigation. If your network is in the business of providing fair and balanced information regarding polls you should point out the obvious skewed questions, if on the other hand you are trying to compete with FOX (fair & balanced) News as a conservative corporate propaganda machine for the Bush Administration--then nevermind, you are doing a good job.
thank you, stevie gardiner somerdale,nj
PS-if you continue your conservative Fox-like trend toward the right, I will have to stop watching your channel and get my news from a more balanced source--like the BBC, or the internet newspaper sites.
HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS AND RESULTS FOR ALL POLLS they can be found at:
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
Dear BuzzFlash,
Click here: BuzzFlash Reader Commentary - How W. Bush and His Administration Failed Us
What great commentary! It hits the nail on the head and might have been titled, "The Essence of Bush."
IF ONLY we could read such enlightening and insightful pieces in the "New York Times" and "The Washington Post." Unfortunately, it appears they will continue to fill their pages with the same mind-numbing propaganda that helped put the Boy Wonder in the White House in the first place. What a truly sad chapter this is (mainstream journalism) in our history, and for our democracy.
Your site and your wonderful readers save us from concluding that WE are the ones who have lost our sanity. Many thanks to all of you!
Dan (NYC)
Dear Buzz,
We heard Cheney, over the weekend, say that he would advise that the briefing report given to Bush on Aug 6 should not be given to congressional investigators because it contains sensitive information, yet on the same weekend, Rice is saying the briefing was too vague to act upon. Hmm, which is it, it can't be both!
The Republican Talking points out in the field seem to be saying that the Intelligence committees received the same information that was contained in the brief, yet they can't have the brief, what is wrong with this picture?
The Republican Talking points seem to be saying that the intelligence committees had the same info as the Pres, yet Cheney, over the weekend, said that the intelligence committees receive redacted briefs. Again, which is it?
The can't even get their spin right, no wonder they couldn't connect the dots re 9/11!
Bev
Canada