June 4, 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,

The Salon.com cynical hit piece on Mediawhores Online is nothing more than a desperate and cynical ploy by a hemorrhaging website to generate thousands of clicks, and get publicity.

They are trying to trade on MWO's popularity with progressive web surfers, to generate clicks on their own site.

What better way to get MWO to attack them publicly and get a little controversy going.

Just ignore them.

--Hesiod

Dear Buzz:

To Rebecca Knight,

Speaking of "smell tests":

It is absolutely intriguing how, after months of relative quiet about possible new terror attacks on America, that as soon as serious inquiries begin to be made about what Bush did or did not know about the 9/11 attacks, his administration all of a sudden begins STRONGLY warning of imminent attacks. We begin hearing frightening reports about possible suicide bombings in New York, and tighter security at the Statue of Liberty... I'll be the first to say that attacks are always possible, and any warning should be taken seriously, but when Bush and his pals suddenly begin facing questions from the media and the populace about their conduct before September, they immediately begin squawking about imminent terrorism, using the strongest language they possibly can to convince us to run for cover... well, I don't buy it.

Bush backed out on the Tokyo Environmental Accord, which the Clinton Administration had been actively involved in, and which 180+ countries had been counting on the U.S. to sign. The reason given for backing out of the treaty was that cutting "greenhouse" emissions by 5% would wreck the US economy. Apparently, that is not a danger to the economies of Germany, France, England, Spain, Japan, etc. Also, Bush gave NO response when pressed be the other countries to come up with an alternative plan. Needless to say, this alienated many of our closest allies, who went ahead and signed the treaty. Also, at the same time as this mess was going on, Bush was pushing for legislation to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. What a guy!

This guy Ashcroft is scary. This may sound radical, but based on many of his quotes that I read or hear, I think the man should have FASCIST tattooed on his forehead. I cannot specifically recall any of those statements right now, but I do know that, every time I see him in the papers or on TV, something very ominous gets said. You probably have a stockpile of some of his doozies sitting around for reference.

These new Anti-Drug ads are absolutely intolerable. Of course you know I am not a drug user (Mom raised me right!), but the message is backward and ridiculous. I'm sure you've seen them: "I helped blow up a building today," "I helped kill a cop today," etc. All being recited by teenagers, with the slugline that, if you use drugs, you are helping terrorists. Now, I know the dangers of drug use, but is the administration so desperate to keep funneling HUGE sums of money into a FAILED drug war that it will now point the finger at it's own subjects... I mean, citizens? To equate marijuana use with direct support of terrorism is preposterous, IMO. It's amazing how many (millions) of our citizens are regular users of marijuana, and at the same time are upstanding members of society. In addition, such an attitude on the part of the government utterly IGNORES illegal drug use, past AND present, on the part of our elected officials. This brings me to my second point on the issue: surely if buying drugs is money that goes to directly support terror, then stopping at the gas pump and filling up is like being close personal friends with bin Laden himself? Most oil money goes straight to the Middle East, and much of it is funneled down to terror organizations. Of course, Bush would never criticize anyone for driving a gas-gulping SUV... indeed, Bush has made every attempt to block any legislation regulating fuel consumption on new cars in order to protect his own interests (oil), and his big-business buddies (auto manufacturers). I think, at a time like this, stricter fuel consumption standards should be enforced, and research into alternative fuels and energy sources should be of primary importance, rather than being squelched.

Cale Jones

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: FBI was already "reorganized" in 1999...

Does any of this stuff sound familiar to you? It should. This sounds almost word for word like what Bob Meuller just said he was going to do.

It begs the question: Why, despite this supposed re-organization to emphasize counter-terrorism activities in 1999, did the FBI STILL screw up prior to 9/11? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_516000/516805.stm

"The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.

FBI director Louis Freeh said: "The FBI must respond to changing threats and needs that involve foreign counter-intelligence, espionage, terrorism, domestic preparedness and infrastructure protection."

As part of the reorganisation, reported to be one of the biggest in the past decade, the FBI has set up a new department which would work specifically to prevent terrorist attacks instead of merely responding to them.

Spokesman Jim Davis said the anti-terrorist unit "should allow us to increase our efficiency to deal with these threats". Another new office would coordinate the FBI's international activities, gathering its own intelligence and working with the counter-espionage agencies of other countries.

FBI agents have increasingly been called upon to investigate cases outside the US, such as the bombing of its embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam.

Mr Freeh said both new departments were "essential" in terms of preventing or minimising "potential harm from terrorism and foreign intelligence activities". He said: "Protecting America from terrorism and ensuring our national security are the FBI's highest priorities."

'Sea change'

FBI deputy director Robert Bryant described the reorganisation as a "sea change" in Thursday's Washington Post. As well as helping to prevent terrorist attacks, the reorganisation will also help agents in different divisions share information more easily and co-ordinate their efforts, he said. "We collect a lot of information, but ... our predictive intelligence is poor. The bottom line is 'we don't know what we know'," Mr Bryant told the paper.

The FBI said its counter-terrorism budget had tripled over the past three years, while its overall budget has only doubled from $1.5bn to $3bn since 1993. The agency said its reorganisation, outlined in a strategic plan in 1998, was approved by Congress at the end of October."

**************************

Here's my question, at what point does Louis Freeh get blamed for totally mismanaging the FBI's counter-terrorism reorganization?

It seems that he spent more time arguing with Janet Reno about whether to appoint an independent Counsel to investigate whether Al Gore was taking a leak during a fundraising meeting, than on actually organizing the Bureau to fight and prevent terrorist attacks on American citizens.

--Hesiod

Dear BuzzFlash,

So when Karen HUGHES said she was leaving in order to be with her 15-year-old son and husband, she was lying. From the beginning there was speculation about the "real" reason, but our lapdog media solemnly proclaimed that in THIS case, Ms. HUGHES should be taken at her word. They TOLD us to believe her. Now, in gossip venues -- Page Six and the Sunday newspaper Parade Magazine -- the word is that the REAL reason was for Ms. HUGHES to shore up the losing Republican ticket in Texas --Senator, Governor, LT. Governor -- because losing the state would be a huge loss of face for her boss. So when her boss told us she was being an exemplar of family values, he lied. So when Ms. HUGHES baldfacedly told us her son said it "hurts me when you spin" she was shamelessly lying. She (and her boss) lied to us. She lied to her son and husband. They were props, like everything else in this Potemkin Village Mal-administration.

John Garza

Dear Buzz,

Subj: Ashcroft is Truly Evil

I had the misfortune to catch Ashcroft Sunday morning on Wolf Blitzer's show. Wolf asked some pretty pointed questions about the FBI memo from Phoenix and the Crowley letter (but not pointed enough. He still is maddeningly biased). Anyway, Ashcroft constantly used the "we're at war" excuse to justify his edict giving the FBI even more power to spy on innocent Americans. But what I found fascinating was his body language: he was sweating profusely, red in the face, stuttering and sputtering somewhat and becoming increasingly louder as the interview went on. He seemed desperate and trapped and relying on rehearsed and rehashed mantras that, of course, didn't answer any questions at all. I felt that I was watching a madman, spewing forth a TRULY evil agenda. It was really scary and I had to turn it off. I think he is certifiably insane. God help this country.

elaine in Petaluma

Dear BuzzFlash,

Tonight, on the NBC evening news, it was reported that limbutt's reaction to the bushies' turnaround on global warning was to call it "gloom and doom." Also, they played an audio clip that had limbutt calling jr. "george w. Al Gore."

What happens when the ultra-right wingnuts turn on him?

Liz Houston

[BuzzFlash Note: Have you ever seen what happens to a piranha when, during a piranha attack on, say, a large mammal, the piranha gets accidentally nicked and starts bleeding? Well, the other piranhas EAT the wounded piranha. We think Bush has been nicked. Unfortunately, we're not sure Limbaugh ever had a real set of teeth.]

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: A Bushel and a Peck

An observant individual of human nature once noted, "it's one thing to be a fool, it's quite another to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Another sage opined, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Applying these adages to our fearless leader (with a large asterisk), George W. Bush, one is left with a rather uneasy feeling, considering the fact he's the person the Supreme Court of the United States awarded control of the "red button." But, let's back up. From quotes like, "put food on your family," to "raise the pie higher," can anyone doubt the literate ineptitude of this fool? Yes, fool. It's one thing to make a verbal gaffe, but this guy Bush has taken it to a new level, and continues to do so on a daily basis. Is this what we expect from the so-called President of the United States, regardless of how he got there?

Does this make him a fool? I'm not qualified to answer that, but I'll bet a Bushel and a Peck that the majority of the American populace, not to mention the rest of the world, have grave concerns about his capability of leading, when he can't even speak the English language properly.

Moving on, has he fooled us once? Remember "uniter not a divider," "bring honor and dignity back to the White House," "leave no child behind," and "my tax cut will help the economy and won't hurt the surplus?"

Does alienating the rest of the free world with his abrogation of long-standing treaties make him a uniter? Did he bring honor and dignity back to the White House with his refusal to take a press conference or his concealing legally available Presidential papers? Did canceling"Head Start" help underprivileged kids get ahead? Did his tax cut for the wealthy help the economy?

Did we get fooled. Well, you betcha!

We have a fool for a leader, but guess what?

Shame on us.

Coach

Dear Buzz,

"Bush: U.S. Needs Better Intelligence"

This headline was a joke, right?

Rebecca Knight

[BuzzFlash Note: We think it was a cry of help and a vocalization of W's very first cognizant thought.]

Dear Buzz,

Tuesday's NY Times is reporting that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned the US of an imminent bin Laden terrorist attack about a week before 9/11:

Egypt Warned US of a Qaeda Plot, Mubarak Asserts
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html?

Internet Gossip and cross-dresser Matt Drudge also presents this as a headline, breaking story -- replete with flashing beacon.

But those of us courageous enough to look beyond the propaganda of America's right-wing dominated media know that this story was published months ago in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir and an AP wire story of December 7, 2001 (I received it in an e-mail digest from Truthout -- see below).

Why has it taken the media six months to report on information that has been in the public domain? Does the NY Times seriously expect us to believe they never heard about this until Mubarak's latest interview last Sunday? If you need any more proof that there is a media conspiracy to conceal the truth about Bush's pre-9/11 negligence, this is a smoking gun.

Frank Campagna

========================

Egypt's Mubarak Warned US Of Attack 12 DAYS Before 911

Friday December 7, 2001

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says he warned the United States that "something would happen" 12 days before the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

In an interview published Friday by the left-wing Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, Mubarak also said it would be a grave mistake if Israeli forces were to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Mubarak did not reveal how he learned in late August of a possible terror attack on the United States. He said he was taken aback by the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks, when hijackers seized four US airliners and crashed two into New York's World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside during an apparent struggle in the cockpit.

"We expected that something was going to happen and informed the Americans. We told them," Mubarak said. He did not mention a US response.

"But nobody expected the event would be of such enormity. We did not know that they would hit this target or that, and we were all surprised when planes with passengers on board hit the twin towers," Mubarak said.

Washington has said that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA issued a warning that bin Laden was pressing for terrorist action against Americans. The warning was based on new intelligence but did not have specific information on the type of attack, a date or a location.

Mubarak also commented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recent Israeli airstrikes have hit targets within 100 yards of Arafat's offices.

Mubarak said that if Israel were to kill Arafat, it would create a vacuum in the Palestinian leadership that none of the "six to eight contenders" would be able to fill.

"Leaderships would emerge that would vie for popularity and compete in staging violent operations, internally and externally, against Israel, plunging (the region) into chaos. They (Israel) should understand this and know that it is dangerous," Mubarak said.

"And what would happen after Arafat? Who would Israel hold responsible for (acts of violence) - the leaders of Hamas or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?" Mubarak said, referring to two militant Palestinian factions.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings that killed 25 people and wounded scores in Jerusalem and Haifa last weekend. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the assassination of the Israeli tourism minister in October.

Dear BuzzFlash,

I am sending this from my secret bomb/storm shelter located somewhere in the Arkansas wilderness. I have been here since I first learned that pResident Dumbya, Sen. Tim "Mr. Family Values" Hutchinson, and BroGov Mike Huckabee (also affectionately called Triple-wide) would all be in Arkansas at the same time and at the same place. So much greediness, sliminess, hypocrisy, and just plain old BS in one place, I just knew Armageddon was at hand!

So, can you tell me--is it safe to come out yet?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Ms. Liberto,

Yes yes, mean nasty ugly Media Whores Online. They actually think reporters should report instead of roll over to have their tummies scratched by Mr. Rove. Tell me -- who do YOU think made up that headline in the NYT about the Supreme Court decision not affecting the outcome.... except that down in graph #22 they say that by ANY standard in a statewide recount Gore would have won, had that count not been stopped -- amazing.... and tut tut tut for pointing out that one of the Washington Post's reporters checked in to who sent her some critical e-mail, contacted their bosses, and tried to get them fired... that's a story that really would get covered if only the mainstream media had the resources. Yeah right. C'mon baby. The fix is in. You know it. I know it. We all know it... just some of us are less willing to go gladly into that dark night than others....how about you?

Sincerely,

Geoffrey DeWan

To whom it may concern:

I observe that your policy is to refund the subscription fee for subscriptions less than 30 days old. I take that to mean that I am eligible for a refund of my recently-renewed annual subscription. Please cancel immediately.

I am taking this step because of the recent article denigrating the website Mediawhoresonline.com. This site is indispensable to me and to anyone concerned about the future of this country. For you to publish an article taking the site to task because the auteur prefers to remain anonymous was a betrayal of the muffled voice of outrage emanating from the left.

It was fun while it lasted.

Chris Powe
Memphis TN

Dear BuzzFlash,

Caleen Rowley is no doubt sincere and she has done this country a service. The results of her whistleblowing, however, have been channeled by Bush administration's spinners to the very useful end of setting up the FBI a permanent, all-purpose scapegoat for 9/11 fallout.

Whistleblowers posing a real threat are found shot to death in the front seats of parked cars, as was Cliff Baxter.

--One BuzzFlash Reader

Dear BuzzFlash,

I would just like to address the statements that this whole mess is Nader and the Green Party's fault:

1) The Bushites and the GHP stole the election! Their tactics: removing voters from the rolls, using confusing ballots, sending down their strong-arm GHP goons, buying off the judges and Supreme Court justices (an ironic term), were in place long before the election. And Pat Buchanan, I believe, was part of the strategy. He basically broke up the Reform Party. I don't believe he ever really left the GHP.

2) Ralph Nader states in his book, Crashing the Party, that he tried to work within the Democratic Party. He tried contacting the leadership of the party many times with no response. He was able to reach Gore one time and Gore said he would get back to Nader but never did. The Green party is the progressive side of the spectrum. I agree that if the Democrats had not moved away from their progressive side, people may not have gravitated toward the Greens. But you cannot expect people who are passionate about their principles to discard them after being taken for granted, year after year.

If the Dems do not show more backbone in standing up for progressive values and standing up to the Bushites, it is probably too late for them to get the progressives back in the fold.

Irma