June 5, 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 the not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.

Dear BuzzFlash,

I just saw Bush say -- twice -- "I've seen no evidence today that could have prevented a terrorist attack." Two times in exactly that wording. Wow. That was carefully rehearsed.

What does it mean?

It means he might have seen evidence any day except today. Like last August, for example.

It means he might have heard evidence from someone in a briefing.

All Bush told the public is that today, he has not permitted his eyes to rest upon any report or memo or other evidence that the attack could have been prevented.

And they called Clinton a weasel. Some nerve.

And the whole time, CNN ran a crawl reading "no evidence that could have prevented a terrorist attack." I'm telling Mediawhores about this!

R0SAM0ND

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: Lewinskygate a factor in allowing 9/11 to happen

FORT MEADE, Md. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) expressed concern on Tuesday that congressional probes into the Sept. 11 attacks might take government experts away from their central job of preventing another attack.

Has anyone ever pointed out that the complete distraction of our government caused by the Republican manufactured Lewinsky "scandal" probably bears a huge amount of responsibility for allowing 9/11 to occur?

Austin Adams
Chicago, IL

Dear BuzzFlash,

Ashcroft is a friggin' genius. The terrorists hate us for our freedom. Take away our freedom and they have nothing to hate. My God, its so clear. Democrats never would have thought of it.

Ken Hayes

Dear BuzzFlash,

"The administration's top law enforcement officers said Sunday that, based on information now known, there was little likelihood they could have detected the Sept. 11 attacks."

Really? How can they possibly make this kind of statement? The truth is, we will never know because it is past, it already happened. They can not say that it could not have been prevented - it is entirely possible that one of those clues could have made a connection for someone - it happens all the time. People are talking & someone gets an idea & the next thing you know a new product is born or a new way of doing things. We usually think of this as invention, but the same thing happens in all areas of our lives - it's part of the magic of how our brains work. Sometimes these little "clues" are just tiny sparks but it only takes a tiny spark to cause a forest fire & there is absolutely no way they can say that September 11th could not have been prevented.

If President Bush had been serious about terrorism & had passed his concerns along to the airlines, do you suppose they would have ignored him? Perhaps, but not likely. It has been reported that 9 of the hijackers were screened - well, if the airlines were on higher alert, maybe those screenings would have been a bit more thorough. There is no way to know.

If the Bush Administration had made fighting terrorism first priority rather than eighth or ninth, maybe there would have been a chance. If the drone wasn't pulled off. If the surveillance was still in place in the Indian Ocean? What if our people didn't threaten the Taliban? Could that have made a difference?

Finally, if the news media had been a little bit more interested in reporting the news rather than chase after Gary Condit or in past years, the Clintons, would we have been in a better position? What if the American people were actually interested in their well-being rather than some stupid, politically motivated witch hunt? What if the American people actually had demanded news rather than garbage?

So, I don't think it is correct to say that September 11th would have happened anyway. I think there are a lot of things that need to be changed in America, but the biggest one is a basic change in people's attitude. As long as Americans are willing to accept the drivel that is shoveled out every day on their TV sets or in their newspapers & they don't complain, then there really isn't any hope. As long as the American people blindly accept anything & everything the Bush Administration says then there isn't any hope. Only when the American people start demanding real news from the media & real answers from their government will things change. This didn't happen in a vacuum. During the 2000 election people chose the superficial over the substantive. They wanted to hear about Gore's clothes rather than his ideas - at least that is what the media was presenting. Gore was the most well prepared person to be a President & I happen to think we could use someone with his knowledge right about now. Would we be in this mess if the Supreme Court had not interfered with the election? No one can say for sure because we can't go back & change things, but Gore would have done things differently than Bush did, so there is a good possibility that it would not have happened. It reminds me of that movie Back to the Future, where the present gets all mixed up because the jerk got power.

Linda Kekumu

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: God Help NBC

one day last week Dubya and Putin signed a pseudo-nuclear arms treaty. that evening Brian Williams, sitting in Tom's chair, opens the nightly newscast with this gem: "A farewell to arms...." and proceeds to tell us how historical it is...meaning the world is getting safer.

this is 'journalism'? this treaty is transparently meaningless. what it really, truly, actually does is to end arms control as we have known it for 30 years.

the treaty allows both sides to keep all their arms..maybe dispose of them, maybe not. maybe store them, maybe not. both get 10 years to do whatever it is they choose to do, and either side can opt out of it with 90 days notice to the other.

The real bottom line is this piece of paper makes it official that Russia will not make a fuss as the US begins gearing up for the idiotic, massively expensive and totally useless missile 'defense' shield and also begins development of a new generation of 'cute' nukes.

thanks, NBC for doing your part to advance the military-industrial complex.

that's reporting. That's incisive. That's telling it like it is. That's doing their part for democracy.

What a bunch of dork heads.

Steve Warren

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: Words of wisdom from our leader . . .

Heard this soundbite from our fearless leader a couple of times on the way home tonight; seems he'd rather keep our crackerjack FBI & CIA agents hard at work shredding warnings about impending attacks than wasting time testifying at hearings up there on 'Congressional Hill.' Took me a while to figure out why that last phrase sounded so off, until I realized President Junior had smushed 'Congress' and 'Capitol Hill' together in his teeny-weeny brain...

-Joe

Gang,

I read BuzzFlash regularly and enjoy your material a great deal. But I have to object to the factual inaccuracy lurking behind the lede of your recent bulletin, "The Creeping Fingers of Totalitarianism" (June 5):

BuzzFlash has been told by reliable sources that Attorney General John Ashcroft -- in a move that is reminiscent of the World War II era treatment of Japanese Americans -- is preparing regulations that will require aliens present in the United States, from certain Arab nations, to report to INS offices, airports, or other ports of entry to register with the government.

Actually, there's nothing "reminiscent" of the treatment of Japanese Americans in this. The control of, and sometimes even the outright arrest of, enemy aliens during wartime is a widely accepted convention of war. During World War II, for instance, the United States detained a large number of Italian and German nationals (many of them seamen who happened to be in U.S. ports when the war broke out) who were in the country at the time. This has never been a matter of controversy. And if the Japanese roundups had been restricted to aliens who recently had entered the country, probably no one would have objected. (The Japanese were in a unique situation vis a vis naturalization; while Italian and German immigrants could become American citizens, all Asians were forbidden from ever obtaining this status, a condition that did not change until 1952. Thus, there were large numbers of "aliens" who were immigrants who had been living in the States for years and had raised families here.)

What makes the Japanese-American internment a remarkable phenomenon is that American citizens were registered, evacuated and interned -- some 70,000 of them. Everyone, from the government to the hysterical press of the time to the general public, failed to distinguish between American citizens and enemy aliens.

Unfortunately, your reference to the internment is based on making this same mistake. I hope you'll correct it. I'm no fan of Ashcroft (see my piece for MSNBC last November attacking his dismal handling of the terrorism warnings) but cannot fault him on this particular count.

BTW, I'm the author of a forthcoming text, to be published later this year by University of Washington Press, on the Japanese-American internment; that's how I happen by all this info. Hope you use it.

David Neiwert
Seattle

BuzzFlash:

"I want a committee to investigate, not multiple committees to investigate, because I don't want to tie up our team when we're trying to fight this war on terror," said the president. "What I am concerned about is tying up valuable assets and time and possibly jeopardizing sources of intelligence." -- George W. Bush, June 4.

What a fraud! Georgie, considering your statement, would you also think that police officers should not do their day in court as witnesses for county prosecutors? Would you say that it would be tying up police teams and time and possibly jeopardizing police department work? And aren't police officers in a constant war too... against crime?

Oh and Georgie, in view of your statement about smelling politics as the senate committee was formed to investigate 9/11, wouldn't it have been better to have an independent blue ribbon investigation comprised of "non-political" figures and suggested by smarter people than you?

Hmmm, just asking, Georgie.

~ Cathy

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: bush knew in JUNE OF 2001...at the very least:

newsweek reported in it's may 27th. issue that cia notified bush in an august of 2001 briefing that osama bin laden was planning a major strike against the u.s. and that the potential plot could involve hijacking airplanes.

bush said in december of 2001 that "america never dreamt before september the 11th. anybody would attack us."

...but richard a. clarke, former white house coordinator for counter-terrorism, said that "...it all came together in the third week in june [2001]. the cia's view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks [new yorker magazine january 14, 2002]." [...in july major u.s. agencies went on highest alert status FOR SIX WEEKS].

...so in June of 2001, months before 9/11, CIA expects a major terrorist attack. Bush had to know right? CIA is going to leave the commander-in-chief out of the loop? And he takes no action to warn the american people? airport security implemented after 9/11 should have been implemented in June

The congressional committee's that failed as well to warn us will be doing the investigating. an independent commission must be established. But it won't happen unless congress reps get a letter, email or phone call from YOU. The 2800 died for us. we owe it to them.

mcmanus/los angeles

Dear Buzz,

Following the coup in December 2000, too few people cared. Then, after the truth about Enron (and the Bush/Cheney ties to the company) burst into the "mainstream", once again: most people didn’t care. And despite every regressive move by the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11, Americans still thought Bush was a hapless but relatively harmless boob. There was little opposition to his pro-corporate, right-wing, civil liberty abridging, wealth favoring, anti-worker, oil soaked, militaristic, crooked, fascistic agenda.

And now, as more facts about 9/11 reveal how shallow, craven, and inept this entire illegitimate administration is, most people still remain silent.

I’m sorry Buzz. Up till now I’ve kept some hope alive that "the American people" would rise to the occasion. But I don’t feel that way today. I’ve felt sick lately, in my stomach and in my heart. Shouldn’t we be taking to the streets? Am I wrong to think that most people are lazy fools who either believe what they’re told, or refuse to lift a finger in protest even though they see what is happening?

With Ashcroft’s accelerated decimation of our rights and Bush’s speech at West Point, a definite line was crossed. No one in the world is safe in his or her person and effects. Not in his or her home, or church, or on the web, or anywhere. A kinder, gentler Big Brother is here. It’s a new world disorder of a thousand points of fright. God Bless America.

How bad must things get before people wake up? I shudder to think. Not even the potential nuclear holocaust in Pakistan and India rouses us. If we don’t act now, don’t we deserve the inevitable? Our complacency, ignorance, cynicism, greed, pollution, consumerism, deregulation, and historical amnesia are coming to roost. We seem to be doing ourselves in.

As Roger Waters sings on Amused To Death, "Give any one species too much rope and they’ll f**k it up."

Mike Kress
Everett, WA

Hey!

Why do Ashcroft & Bush need new laws to fight terrorism? Why don't they enforce the laws we already have?

Seeya,
Kip

Dear BuzzFlash,

So Bush is acknowledging world scientific studies, verifying that we are experiencing global warming.

His acknowledgment has been followed by a loud PERIOD, as in subject ended. The (subject ended) attitude brings to mind a reporter questioning, then Governor GW Bush, about lasting ramifications for Texans related to a controversial decision the governor had made. Bush's comment to the reporter was, "By that time, I'll be long gone."

Sounds as if Bush's (by that time, I'll be long gone) theory is being applied to his lack of action on global warming. Perhaps George Boy feels that by the time the nation is feeling alarming effects of global warming, he will be long gone from the presidency. And by the time global warming could directly and seriously effect Georgie Boy, he will be a billionaire enjoying life in his newly built Crawford home. I've read that his recently-built home in Crawford is powered geothermally. No utility companies for him! And one has to wonder what other safeguards have been incorporated into the home. George Bush has proved to be a well-insulated president. When the nation becomes desperate as result of escalated effects of global warming, will we find that Bush is a well-insulated X-president against that too?

~ Cathy

5 June 2002
CNN "Crossfire"
Mr. Paul Begala
Mr. James Carville

Dear Sirs:

President Bush cries that any investigations into the failure to prevent the 9-11 terror attacks will harm America's current "the war on terra." This after Mr. Bush spent an entire year campaigning AGAINST "Washington officials"."

Mr. Bush then went on a ONE MONTH VACATION and left said officials to their own devices - within months of being given the most powerful job in the world !!!!!!!!

Dems need to trot out Mr. Bush's campaign appearances bashing "WASHINGTON OFFICIALS", (he bashed them at every appearance that I had the stomach to watch) and compare them to how HE NEGLECTED, nay, IGNORED the Hart-Rudman and Gore reports on Terror, as well as other more specific warnings of terror, by various US and foreign investigative agencies.

Just this week, you could also throw in Mr. Bush's latest dissing of "Washington officials" when he snidely dismissed a report of global warming thus: "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Bush said Tuesday when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty. *

The Washington and National media gave Mr. Bush a "free pass" in his 2000 campaign, for when Mr. Bush said he would "bring a more bipartisan tone to Washington", IN THE SAME SPEECH he also lambasted "Washington officials"! I don't care how pathetic the D.C. press corps is; "Washington officials" is code for "liberal-democrat-tax-and-spend-intrusive government agents" which is code for "minorities and immoral un-Americans." In short, the same slander used for decades by segregationists to defend segregation.

This is at best a distortion, for we now know that the rural "red-states" or "heartland states" (states that went Bush either by narrow or strong majorities) are more likely to be net federal tax-dollar recipients than their more urban, industrial states that tended to vote Gore in the past election.

But the larger problem is, if Mr. Bush is so contemptuous of "Washington officials", how does he plan to fight "the war on terra" if not by using them as scapegoats every time something goes wrong? Would you do YOUR best work, knowing that the bureaucracy of superiors above you, going all the way to the top, was always looking for the next fall guy? Mr. Bush does not seem to be a strong proponent of the adage "the buck stops here."

sincerely,
ljbk

*http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01013102.htm
**http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/04/bush.climate.change.ap/index.html

Dear BuzzFlash,

Subj: Why this leak now...???

Yesterday the NYT had story by Riesen. It talked about a meeting on 9-11 between Pakistani Intel chief Sen Graham and Rep Gross. I have been stressing this story for last six months. Why is this being leaked now?

Additional Information : The Pak Intel chief was hauled to the USA on a short notice after the chief of staff of Musharraf (Pak President) was killed (August 2001). The Intel chief's return to Pakistan was postponed twice BEFORE 9-11. He was detained here. This was reported in the Pakistani newspapers, BEFORE 9-11.

WE KNEW. I AM TELLING YOU WE KNEW.

Parag Adalja

Dear BuzzFlash,

I am not a Green, but I object to your blaming the Green party for the Republican win in Michigan (or wherever).

Are you suggesting that the Greens roll over (like the Democrats have) and let the failed two party system continue unchallenged?

We are already under the rule of Republican Repression - and maybe that is what it will take to wake the sheep AND the shrinking Democrat "leadership."

UNLESS AND UNTIL the Democrats show a spine, they can't count on my vote in the future and I don't care how many Republicans get in because of it. Shame on BuzzFlash to play partisan politics by blaming "any" third party for the failures of the Democratic party.

Carolyn