May 30, 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,

Let's explore certain "what if?" scenarios in detail. What if it was some other country where a political party took over the presidential palace in the way the Bush administration took over the White House? Should we hail as the true patriots of this foreign land those of its citizens who endorse an "election" that was shut down by judicial fiat before it was over, even if the court's explicit basis for that premature shutdown was that their favored candidate somehow already had "legitimacy" entitled to protection at his opponent's expense? In other words, can a "free and fair" election elsewhere in the world have a winner before it has a winner? To illustrate with a real-world example, how about if that other country was, say, Cuba, and the "winning" candidate was, say, Fidel Castro?

In fact, let's come back home to imagine that Bill Clinton has the lead in a presidential vote tally, but his margin is so narrow that he's only ahead because of various election-law violations committed right out in the open by the Democrats (whose own recent litany "a crime is a crime" is still ringing in our ears, mind you). And then, how about if a liberal Supreme Court majority were suddenly to jump in at Clinton's request and declare that this exceedingly close election still in progress, whoops, is all over, and that the winner is the political criminal with his ill-gotten lead rather than the honest candidate who won not only the popular vote but also the honest electoral vote?

But now let's suppose that we all manage to get over Clinton's accession to power in this extravagantly corrupt fashion, and then eight months after his inauguration, the nation's air-defense system suffers an unexplained total breakdown on the very occasion when it was needed most. And let's further suppose that this massive national-security failure has the predictable effect of giving the administration near-ultimate political carte blanche to do as it pleases without effective opposition (as acknowledged by Clinton himself with his open exulting over having "won the trifecta" or some such).

Now, what if the Clinton's administration's response to this "lucky" security meltdown consisted of (a) obfuscation by Vice President Gore to confuse the issues of launching fighter planes with shooting down airliners in order to pretend that the former decision should be a "difficult" one, (b) flat-out prevarication that no fighters were available, as belied by the military's own public Web site, (c) moving heaven and earth to discourage investigations into how the failure came to happen, and (d) even daring to snarl at us that patriots aren't supposed to be curious about this of all questions?

Tsk, but here I am, playing politics with tragedy.

Dan Kritchevsky

Dear Buzz:

Wow! After reading your link "Scapegoat: How Bush Nearly Ruined the FBI" by Cheryl Seal (http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7506), I now know who Mueller really is. It figures; he was selected for head of the FBI over a long list of better candidates primarily because he filled Bush's top requirement: loyalty to the Bush Dynasty. He helped cover for daddy Bush years ago.

Mueller (who is now desperately trying to shuffle his staff around and reorganize the FBI to make it look like THEY were the problem) was clearly undermining the bureau's anti-terrorism efforts, undoubtedly because he was told to from above.

That takes us to:

Ashcroft, a senator who lost a race to a dead man, was also selected because of loyalty (for instance, he would never do anything but whitewash the massive voter disenfranchisement in Florida) and because he would faithfully represent the NRA and the right-wing religious fundamentalists who have so successfully co-opted the Republican party. Although he's not up to the job (as Robert Sheer writes in Over His Head: The Job Has Become Too Big For Ashcroft www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=13388&CFID=1661211&CFTOKEN=44773 62), the Attorney General will remain because he is loyal to the Bush Dynasty.

And lets not forget the brand new head of the Air National Guard, Major General Daniel James. We now know he was not picked for any special competence, but because he helped Governor Bush scrub his National Guard records of an embarrassing year-and-a-half desertion. (www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/05/28_Scrubbed.html) Talk about loyalty; this general is now subject to a military court martial for having helped Bush cover up his disgraceful military service record.

The pattern here is that Bush is putting loyalty to himself and his family above the security of the American people.

Given what I now know about Mueller, I think he should follow in Tom Pickard's shoes. Pickard was the number two man at the FBI who played a large role in undermining the efforts of his subordinates in counter-terrorism. He did us the favor of resigning last November.

Mueller should be a man and resign, instead of trying to place the blame on those below him who were doing all they could to alert the nation to the danger.

I highly recommend Cheryl Seal's three part series on the Administration's role in the disaster, particularly the last one on FBI agent John O'Neill--a true hero. A lot of what she says is new to me and will probably filter down into the mainstream press if they ever get around to reporting the whole story on what Administration did and didn't do.

democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7391

democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7437

democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7479

RA in LA

Dear BuzzFlash,

Stolen Cyanide Drums Found in Mexico (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28406-2002May29.html

I hope the barrels are intact. It apparently only takes a few crystals to kill. So it would not have to be too much taken from the barrels to do serious damage.

- Hesiod

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: Mailbag 5/29

subj. J.Gocht...thanks for your insightful article as to your service in Viet Nam. I think many people in this country (and rightly so) think the war was once again for money for the rich and it may have been! However, it blows my mind how all these Bush administration big shots evaded it. My brother was 24 when he went to Viet Nam, thinking it was the most patriotic thing to do...he was there exactly two months when he died...so, I certainly feel your pain! He was killed, a machine gunner, he wrote of being crowded together in foxholes, keeping watch. He died in 1968 and it still feels like yesterday. I am sure, those of you who came home, were not treated like the powerful Mr. Bush.. I sometimes entertain myself with the thought that perhaps he couldn't pass the literacy test, even if he had gone...

Thanks,

Shirley, St. Louis

Dear BuzzFlash,

"Very good, the guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental," he said sarcastically as a bemused Mr. Chirac looked on. "I'm impressed. Que bueno. Now I'm literate in two languages."

Hmmm. I think he meant that he is "ignorant" in two languages. And, a tip of the hat to Molly Ivins who reported on another Texas politician referring to an opponent as now being "bi-ignorant".

Regards,

Sharon Addison
Loudon, TN

Dear BuzzFlash,

Again we have the Green Party in the same position they were in the 2000 presidential election -- that of the spoiler. There is no doubt had Nader not been in the race, there would have been no need for the Florida coup. Now we have Senator Wellstone in Minnesota faced with the same situation as apparently the Democratic candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, who may well face a Green Party candidate. It seems obvious to me that the Green Party agenda would be better served in a Gore led administration than in the present Bush one. I still take issue with Ralph Nader that there would be no difference in a Gore or Bush Presidency. I think the 17 months speaks to that issue quite clearly. I realize that these people have every right in the world to run, but my question is do they and their supporters realize the jeopardy that they place their own agenda in when they enter such crucial races. Senator Wellstone is probably the most progressive liberal in the Senate. The control of the Senate is crucial. Certainly there must be some consideration given to the ramifications of running in such a race. The Green Party's agenda will be better served with Paul Wellstone in the Senate as opposed to seeing another Republican elected and that is predictably the outcome if a third party candidate runs. Haven't we learned that the Republicans are successful in pushing their agenda because they have a unified front, a common message and a common cause? The Democratic Party is a big tent. Why can't we find an acceptable place for the green supporters that will keep us unified and moving forward so that we can keep the Senate, take back the House and hold George in check until 2004 when hopefully we can show him the door.

Peggy in TX

Dear BuzzFlash,

Matthew Miller writes in the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune that it's time for "Democrats to come out of their foxholes", and that a "major address by a major figure is needed". How right he is. I am urging Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye to do just that. He is a WW2 hero with REAL credentials to discriminate between real warfare and this faux "war" being waged by the Bush Administration. Miller, in his piece says, correctly, "what we're in is not a war." It's propaganda. I am hopeful that the Senator will read and act on this piece. Also I would encourage BuzzFlash writer J. Goeht to forward his comments to Senator Inouye. Bush at Normandy...an outrage!

Les Parsons, Honolulu

Dear BuzzFlash,

Pasted below are some very brief excerpts from the Free Congress Foundation's recommended political strategy. The White House (i.e., Cheney and Rove) keeps in close contact with and consults regularly with this group and its very influential founder (Paul Weyrich). For example, see http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,107219,00.html

The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement

by Eric Heubeck

We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement...

We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime...

We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions...We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths...

...Our movement will be entirely destructive....We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity.

...We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American...

http://www.freecongress.org/centers/conservatism/traditionalist.htm

[BuzzFlash Note: Another example that our country has been stolen by a "right-wing jihad."]