The BuzzFlash Mailbag
June 6, 2002
PLEEZE keep posting info about this bill that gives governor's dictatorial rights to force vaccinate, force medical exam, take away your personal property, quarantine you, and much much more!
In light of AG Ashcroft's recent decision to require the special registration of Middle Eastern men, perhaps your website could sponsor a program in which citizens concerned about the direction our country is taking with regard to civil rights, could proudly sport a green or yellow crescent (button, bumper sticker, etc.) to show solidarity with those whose rights are being trampled on, much like the story of the Danes wearing yellow Stars of David during WWII to thwart Hitler.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Reading the June 5 Mailbag, it seems to be a general consensus that Bush knew more about impending attacks on the US than he will ever admit, even though the evidence is pouring in.
Coupled into the consensus are various complaints about the US media protecting George Bush and anger at our security agencies for denying the obvious. I am of the same opinion. Each day that passes, we receive more information that points fingers directly at Bush and the denying security agencies.
When I connect the dots, I'd like to go on record in stating that I hold George W. Bush directly responsible for 9/11 because he looked the other way. I hold the corporately-owned media directly responsible for 9/11 through refusing to tell the truth about George Bush ever since he became a candidate for the presidency. I hold US security agencies directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of their sheer arrogance of power and refusing to do their jobs. I will throw in republican representatives who were yes men for an incompetent president instead of doing the honorable thing. In addition, hear me loud and clear. I will hold all of these manipulators directly responsible for any further terror attacks on our nation.
Look up the word traitor. All of these manipulators deserve to be labeled as traitors!
This morning I happened to catch an exchange between between Don Imus (Whore) and Andrea Mitchell (Bigger Whore) going over for the umpteenth time their spin on the first WTC bombing in 1993. Their practiced spin (chuckles and guffaws included) again insisted - especially Bigger Whore Mitchell - that President Clinton "did not do anything" about it in response.
How many times does this lie circulate in the course of the day?! Bill Clinton, in office for about a month, responded to the first WTC bombing by launching a comprehensive investigation with the result being that today some terrorists sit in a federal detention center in New York for the rest of their lives. The Justice Department headed by Attorney General Janet Reno -- the greatest attorney general in our lifetimes -- prosecuted successfully, and with their success were also able to collect other additional information which the FBI and the NYPD were able to use to thwart the UNSUCCESSFUL terrorist attack on NYC tunnels/bridges and the United Nations building; in other words, they stopped further attacks.
Can we please keep this fact out in front? And in 1993, may I also remind everyone, President Clinton did not instruct his staff to play the blame game with his predecessor, Bush I, because President Clinton understood that the buck stopped on his desk because it was his watch, albeit at that point, a very short watch of but a few weeks. So, right wing nut excuses that Bush II is blameless because he was only on the job for nine months (eight months if you deduct the 30 day vacation) ring hollow and trite.
To deny the American people an investigation into the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11 by an independent commission is aiding and abetting the terrorists. We deserve the best investigation by the best authorities we can find. We owe it to the victims, their families and ourselves. We need to have confidence that the failures will be found and remedied. This is not politics, this is what I expect from the great country, democracy, superpower, economy we are. I resent anyone who calls this "political," for a great country is not afraid to examine itself in the most stringent and analytical way possible. If we fail at this, who will we blame but ourselves.
9-11: No "Conspiracy Theories" Required
The pundits and media whores have been throwing around the term "conspiracy theory" a lot these days regarding the action and -- more importantly -- inaction of George W. Bush and his administration both before and after 9-11.
Lets get this straight: there are no "conspiracy theories" here. First, there is proof of deliberate inaction leading up to 9-11. Second, there is proof of a conspiracy of silence regarding the Bush administrations studied ignorance that allowed the events of 9-11 to go undeterred and unblunted at the costs of thousands of innocent lives.
By definition, a "conspiracy" requires a secret agreement to perform a bad or illegal act. What the evidence shows, to the extent that the American public has been allowed access to it, is that George W. Bush and certain members of his administration chose not to act in a way that would maximize the opportunity to deter the 9-11 massacre, while at the same time choosing to act in away that would secure their own personal safety. For example, John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights, and Dubya and Dick got out of the known target of Washington D.C. and relocated to more easily defended airspace on "vacation." A decision not to act simply is not a conspiracy, although it is no less despicable. Since there can be no "conspiracy," there can be no "conspiracy theory."
By definition, a "conspiracy of silence" is "a secret agreement to keep silent about an occurrence, situation, or subject esp. in order to promote or protect selfish interests." The Bush administrations actions since mid-May firmly establish that there was and continues to be a conspiracy of silence to prevent the American public from learning just how studied Bushs ignorance of the "dots" was and why Bush and his cronies worked so hard to save their own skins, while not doing a thing to protect the innocents that they swore to serve. There is nothing theoretical about the lies and dissembling of the Bush administration, which have been well-documented (again, to the extent that we are allowed access to the evidence).
The bottom line is that there is already sufficient evidence to impeach George W. Bush for High Crimes and Misdemeanors related to his inaction, which ensured that 9-11 would occur with maximum effect (both in terms of innocent lives and Dubya's own political advantage -- he "hit the trifecta!"). If the American public is entitled to investigate the sordid details of a presidential lie regarding consensual sex, surely the American public is entitled to investigate every nuance of a presidential lie regarding murder. As far as Im concerned, Bush should not only be impeached, he should be indicted as an accessory to murder, preferably in Texas. I hear theyre tough on murderers in Texas.
Where the heck is Tom Ridge hiding and why? Just wondering?
Stumbled across this the other day.
A Loyal BuzzFlash reader
Call me paranoid, and I won't argue with you.
I'm watching CNN right now, the Senate hearings with FBI Director Robt. Mueller. CNN just posted a note that GWBush is going to address the nation tonight at 8 p.m. ET on changes in homeland security.
The first thought that flashed through my mind was the rounding up of Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans, and general dissidents. Anyone who has made a single remark contesting the Administrations actions stands at risk, in my paranoid nightmare.
The Administration's collective feet are being held to the fire. W. Bush has already announced, to the graduates of the U.S. Military Academy, that preemptive strikes are in the future. The very first may, in fact, be in process right now -- against the perceived enemies within.
I hope I am proven wrong, proven to be just a frightened member of the loyal opposition. I'd much rather be embarrassed than . . . whatever.
Linda Ann Wheeler Hilton
How about something totally unscientific, but one which surprised me. I ran "anti-Bush web sites" on Google and had 1750 hits. I ran "anti-Clinton web sites" and had 1000 hits.
And Clinton was around for so many more years. Did people remove their Clinton sites or is it that the sites on Bush are on the fast track and springing up all over the place. Anyway, just my fooling around, but I am sending it for whatever its worth.
That there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye.
Questions that are not being asked:
1) Why would Bush clamp a lid on a Republican-led investigation?
2) Why would Bush protect documents that could make Clinton look bad?
3) Why would Bush protect documents that could hurt Janet Reno, and thus help Jeb Bush in the Florida election?
4) After stalling for three months, Justice was to allow Burton to see (but not make copies of) the documents in question. Why the odd stipulation? Have any documents been removed from the files while the matter was under dispute?
5) What is going on now? What was in the documents?
6) Did Robert Mueller, current FBI director and the Boston US Attorney in the 80's know about the FBI shenanigans?
X-Files mode [ON]
Mueller knew all about the FBI's tactics in Boston for protecting TE (Top Echelon) informants from criminal prosecution. It has been shown in US vs. Salemme that the FBI allowed police informants to be killed by the TEs, that people were framed for murder and the FBI all the way up to Hoover knew about it. The FBI routinely sabotaged DEA and Boston police investigation into their TEs. Given the coordination between the Justice Dept. and the FBI, especially over the handling of TEs, it is not hard to suppose that Mueller was in it up to his eyebrows.
Fast forward to 12/01. Burton's committee is demanding all the files on the FBI TE operation and investigations in Boston. Such info will spell the end of Mueller's career and a possible prison sentence. However, Mueller has an ace, he knows that BushCo knows about the pre-9/11 warnings. He also knows that BushCo spiked the Al-Queda investigation as soon as they took power, so as not to queer the oil pipeline deal they were trying to pull off.
Quid quo pro: If BushCo invokes "executive privilege" and stalls Burton for a few months so that Mueller can excise incriminating documents from the file, Mueller will run interference for BushCo should their machinations come to light. He will do everything possible to focus blame on the FBI and away from BushCo.
BushCo's exposure is very high. After all, former Anti-terrorist John O'Neill (killed in the WTC attack) quit the FBI over "administration interference." There are bound to be tons of documents at the FBI about the interference that will need to "go away," and Mueller is the man to deliver.
If I were an editor, I would have a battalion of reporters looking into this.
From the news release about Louis Freeh's resignation:
A BuzzFlash Reader
I can't eat, I'm having trouble sleeping & sometimes it's hard just to breathe. I'm haunted by the cries of 3000 lost souls and all their friends and family. It hurts so much.
I wonder how the Bush Administration keeps track of all the lies they have told? It must be pretty confusing around the White House because there are so many. I haven't looked for the articles for you, but I know it was said in the past few months that one of our problems was that we couldn't get agents inside al-Qaeda.
Now we are being told that in fact we did have agents in there and that that although they didn't have the date and time they passed on more than enough information to warrant some kind of a warning.
Why didn't the Bush Administration issue a warning? They had enough specific intelligence to issue a real warning. The implications are mind-numbing. This is clearly negligence -- to have had the amount of information they had and not say anything is negligent. I sincerely believe they didn't know the date or time, but that is no excuse for not issuing some kind of a warning. There was more than enough data available to justify putting the commercial airlines on alert, more than enough to have our reserve planes ready. I don't understand why Ashcroft turned down the FBI's request for anti-terrorism funds, but then he doesn't read the newspapers so maybe he doesn't bother with his reports either.
I'm surprised other countries haven't started asking some serious questions, after all, they lost citizens, too. With the tiny bit that has leaked out in the past couple of weeks it really makes you wonder just how much they did know. Certainly what has been leaked is just the tip of the iceberg.
We have go to have a real investigation into this. We need to know. We need to be able to sleep again.
I'm writing to suggest that you start posting stories concerning the Minnesota Green Party's idiotic decision to run a candidate against the most progressive Senator we have, Paul Wellstone. This decision, motivated by god knows what, could very well help turn control of the Senate over to the Repugs. Please see today's TNR.com for an example of such a story. You guys do great work.
Has anybody thought to compare the names of recently enriched Florida oil lease owners with names of Bush (GHW, GW, and/or Jeb) campaign contributors? You wouldn't expect to see any correlation, would you?
Awesome!!! Greg is the best! This is what I come to BuzzFlash for!
Regarding your headline article ("Bush's announcement is designed in part to steal some attention from the congressional hearings, White House officials said."), I think the more important info from the article is that only Republicans are being briefed on things like this. This point needs to be played up. The American people will not tolerate this. It not only says that the homeland security stuff is purely political, but it says that the Bush people are treating that 51% of the country that is Democrats as not even being part of the country and not part of what the war on terrorism is about.
"GOP leaders arrived at the White House Thursday morning for a briefing on Bush's proposal, NBC's Campbell Brown reported. She said Democrats told her they were not invited to the meeting."
otherwise noted, all original