The BuzzFlash Mailbag
August 13, 2002
We just want to say *Hooray for Terry McAuliffe*!
Also wanted you to know your bumpersticker is on our car, and I have the *BuzzFlash* button pin on my hand bag, with a *Bush Knew* pin. Just doing our part, the only way we can.
Thanks for doing your part in saving America, from this travesty of justice, that has befallen this great country of ours.
Senior BuzzFlash Readers from Philly
In several of your articles posted at your site I have seen the Right Wing's explanation as to why George H.W. Bush did not attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. One part of the explanation contends that George H.W. Bush thought that Saddam's removal from power would cause the unacceptable division of Iraq.
(I do not believe this explanation for many reasons. One reason, and in my opinion the most important reason, George H.W. Bush did not attempt to remove Saddam from power was because he KNEW how difficult and deadly that task would be! Banking on his high approval ratings to carry him through the next election, he KNEW that a high death toll of innocent Iraqis and of our military would ruin him politically!)
Now that the debate about whether we should or should not invade Iraq has had an anemic start, I would like to ask the Right Wingers to tell me this: Just what exactly has changed in Iraq between then and now?! Please Republicans, explain to me how it is that removing Saddam Hussein from power with The $on and his Chickenhawks at the helm won't result in a divided Iraq?!!
How much do you wanna bet, they don't have an answer! Then they'll call me un-patriotic for asking such a question!
Nancy Lynn Nagy TN
"Counter" Quote of the Day- by GW Bush!
Nancy Lynn Nagy TN
If you want to see the Republican handbook for running for office, check out the Simpson's new Season 2 CD. The way Mr. Burns yells bureauocrats!, poses for pictures, and is propped up by spin doctors is a total hoot. In the middle of a photo op for the "Pre-Election Surprise," Marge sets him up to eat the three-eyed fish caught near his nuclear plant. His polls plummet! On the way out he makes the observation if he killed them, HE would be considered wrong.
The toon is about 10 years old (wow!), but I couldn't help but note the irony.
- Simpson's Fan
We don't have to try to imagine what Saddam Hussein's exit would be the moment he felt the United States armed forces closing in on him. He's already shown us he has just as much disregard of the environment as he does of his people. Remember the burning oil fields? And remember he's used poison gas on Kurd villages, killing babies as well as women and men. He's assassinated his own sons-in-law and thrown his own son into prison for speaking publicly against him.
And for those who have watched his own televised history of himself, he once called a conference for all the heads of his "government" and when everyone was in the auditorium he had his guards lock the doors and he read names from a list. Every person whose name he called was dragged out of the room by his elite guard and the sound of shots were heard as they were executed. He was shown laughing.
So is there any doubt as to what Saddam would do if he knew he were in imminent danger of being toppled or killed? He's probably already set the trap. What does he care if he destroys the earth, whole villages or even Baghdad if he can't keep them for himself? Does anyone think there is anything he would hold sacred?
Saddam has already shown us just how big his exit hole can be, so how can Bush think this could be a winnable war? I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein would take anything and anyone out with him. He has so little regard for his people that he now has women and children training to fight our armies.
But Bush isn't ignorant of these facts. He's well aware of how indomitable Saddam has proven to be against all odds. Against the "smart bombs" and the hundreds of hours of carpet bombing, and the utter destruction of bridges, munitions factories, landing strips, bunkers, and communications centers that the allies visited on Iraq ten years ago. Bush and Cheney and everyone in this administration know better than anyone, because they were the "masterminds" who directed all these smart weapons to be used then. Like small children playing with make believe weapons, they don't appear to feel the need to control their knee jerk compulsion to go to war. They thirst for blood too much, not to spill it personally, but to get some sick vicarious pleasure in showing the world that we are the biggest, and the baddest, and that we will reign supreme over everyone.
So now I'm forced to think that maybe this administration doesn't have much regard for the environment, for the world or for its own people either. Certainly not for the military forces who will be forced to kill Saddam's army of women and children, and certainly no regard for the guaranteed unleashing of Saddam's big exit plan. I have no doubt that if Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons he will use them. As surely as he's killed thousands of his own people, he would gladly kill millions of the rest of the world. If he goes he will take as many of us as he can with him.
And Bush and his administration know this as well as the rest of us do.
Judith Foster Berkeley
Three of the CEO's invited to the Bush Economic Forum are CEO's from companies featured on the cover story of Fortune Magazine. Fortune Magazine refers to these company's execs as "The Greedy Bunch" because their company's stock has dropped at least 75% but the executives, officers and directors took most of their money prior to these losses via stock sales during the time period Jan 1999 thru May 2002. Twenty-five companies were featured.
The subtitle of the article is called "You Bought, they sold." The White House website does NOT give a complete list of forum participants. I've only been able to find articles listing three CEO from this list of "The Greedy Bunch" who will be attending the summit tomorrow:
#11 Charles Schwab, Investments- forum participant: Charles Schwab. Executive staff sold $951 MILLION in stock. Charles Schwab is the top seller at his company. His sells totaled $353 MILLION. Mr. Schwab will be the guest speaker at the forum on "Small Investors and Retirement Security"
#12 YAHOO - participant Jerry Yang. Executive staff sold $901 MILLION in stock.
# 13 CISCO - participants John Chambers. Executive staff sold $851 MILLION in stock. John Chambers is the top seller of shares at his company. He sells totaled $239 MILLION. Mr. Chambers is guest speaker for the panel discussion on "Education & Workers."
The complete list of those invited is NOT available at the White House's website so there is no way of knowing if other CEO's were invited who are also on Fortune's list of top 25.
Here's the link to Fortune.
I think I smell a rat or at least something fishy. The FBI is tracking down the anthrax terrorist using bloodhounds? So catching the anthrax scent must not be deadly to bloodhounds? I don't know.
Picture this. Several Air Force Delayed Entry Program enlisted boys and girls attending their monthly DEP Call meeting, where their Air Force recruiting Sgt. is teaching them the chain of command from the president on down.
When the Sgt. gets to the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, he calls him an "insatiable son of a bitch"!
This was told to me by an extremely reliable source.
By the way, when I met the recruiting Sgt. several months ago he told me that he was a Republican.
A long time, loyal, BuzzFlash reader
A fine editorial.
I thought you might like to be reminded of the first Bush and Panama. They did a night drop and in addition to a couple of deaths, there were something like 20 to 25 paratroopers with severe spinal injuries.
I recall reading that Bush's handlers more or less had to force him into going to visit the injured. He wanted to go, or was already there, to Maine. I remember thinking "What a miserable son of a bitch!"
The "nut "does not drop far from the tree.
About two or three times a week I listen to Fox radio personalities for about 15 or 20 (can't stand it for longer) minutes to hear what they are saying, and I heard something really odd a couple of days ago. Does anyone remember the brief uproar over United using the "bail-out" money after Sept. 11, not on upgrading jets, but on putting that money into new small charter jets? There was nothing said about it after that, no questions, no debate.
The other night this guy calls in complaining about how long it took him to get through an airport, he said 5 hours and it caused him to miss an important marketing meeting in New York. He went on to carefully explain he was just a very small businessman and could not afford to lose the business. Much, much commiseration from the host, all the "how awful," "what will business people do?" The businessman says "well, he and a lot of business people he knows are thankfully able to rent "small charter jets" from United. Well, the radio host was just ecstatic for him that he had found a way to save his business.
This was not an infomercial and my question, is Fox shilling for United? All of a sudden, the day before AA and United announce they are in trouble and need more money, United's new charter business is being boosted. A great deal was made out of this guy and that he was a very very small businessman and could still afford this chartered jet. Just thought it was interesting,
I don't think Bush or his associates would have any genuine feeling or concern about the well-being of any relatives in uniform but would gladly use them for public relations. Because Bush's political patrons probably expect him to keep their kids from serving, your prediction about such people should hold. However, a Bush or Cheney in uniform just might pop up.
an appreciative BuzzFlash Reader
>Those in the new survey also were about evenly split on whether the final decision should be made by Bush, 48 percent, or Congress, 44 percent. ("Poll Suggests Public Divided on Iraq," Mon. Aug. 12, 8:03 PM ET, By The Associated Press )
Why is it about the American Media? Let's get this straight:
1) When it comes to electing President, the media lets us believe that our popular opinion really doesn't matter all that much, and a Supreme Court interpretation should trump the popular vote.
2) When it comes to Art. I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution ("The Congress shall have the Power [. . .] To declare War . . . [among MANY other FRIKKIN' duties and powers]") . . . hey, the media throws that one open to discussion and polling.
It's the Publican way - mismanage, make poor choices, lose money, run to the government to get reimbursed, and the hell with everyone else who might have been conned by you - of course it's not your fault, nothing ever is.
Then tell everyone you are a great businessman, try a grab for public office so you can run a state the same way you ran a business and when that gets trashed - well, that wouldn't be your fault either.
Our Men and Women should tell our leaders to lead and we will follow! See how long it takes to change their minds about a war.
Your editorial was correct about the chickenhawks in the Administration not having anyone at risk. But I think you can go farther with the point.
Those who would benefit by Inheritance Tax repeal, mostly friends of the Bush regime, are also guaranteed that their children will not die in an Iraq invasion, or any other for that matter. The same applies to the CEO's and boards of America's big companies, and even to practically every one in Congress. Neither do the chorus of pundits pushing war, Brit Hume, Kudlow & Cramer, and their ilk have any risk.
I think we should be calling and writing these people and asking them to describe their combat experience, and telling us who in their families will be on the frontlines. Relentlessly. I've already done that with William J. Bennett, but as yet he hasn't answered.
This quote was on the front page of cnn this morning. Is it just me or is there something really funny about this headline.
Thanks for the article - I'm glad you're highlighting this particular recent action by Smirkco. A little history: A breast cancer advocacy group I belong to, along with some other patient advocacy organizations, lobbied for years on Capitol Hill for a bill protecting patient's medical privacy. In a Repug controlled Congress the legislation never got enough bipartisan support to pass. Finally, in his last year in office, President Clinton issued what was called a "Podesta" for medical privacy - an executive order enacting regulations that the Repug Congress refused to pass, a special project handled by John Podesta. Groups like ours wanted these regulations to protect patient privacy, not just from marketers and HMO's, but also to protect medical information from a patient's current or potential employer, so they couldn't be fired, passed over for promotion, or not hired because a previous illness, family history of disease, etc. Believe it or not, the regulations preventing your employer from getting this info. are weak to non-existent, and it happens all the time. In many cases, not only does your insurance company know that you have high blood pressure or are suffering from depression, so does your employer.
Unfortunately, this is one of the areas that our doctors don't realize or overlook. When President Clinton's medical privacy regs took effect, the Amer. Hospital Assn., the AMA and others screamed bloody murder because it was going to cause them extra paperwork to get your written permission. It was going to cost them money to improve security in their computer databases and train employees on the new regs. God forbid. The Repugs, insurance companies and corporations, cynically used the health care industry to lobby for gutting the Clinton medical privacy regs - and now you have no protection at all. Repugs screamed "medical malpractice" "tort reform" "greedy lawyers" "government overregulation & paperwork" and your doctor jumped on the medical privacy reform bandwagon.
Of course that's not what your doctor or the AMA or Smirkco is telling you. They're telling you that you do still have some rights and protections. But guess what. You don't. Want to know why? Because Smirkco's changes to the medical privacy regs gutted one of the most important components, the one your doctor isn't going to tell you about. You lost your right to "private action" - your right to sue if your medical privacy rights are violated. Because there are no other substantive penalties to parties who may violate your medical privacy rights, you really have no rights at all. What good is a rule that says your employer can't have access to your medical records if your employer faces no penalty for violating the rule? Do you think a potential employer is going to think twice about snooping in your medical records to decide if you'll be a burden on his medical plan, or that your present employer won't do the same when he's deciding who to lay off? Nah, he's not worried, you can't sue him and there's no penalty for doing it.
So all those new waivers that patients get to sign and notices of the rules protecting their medical privacy rights are useless window dressing -- because there's no enforcement to back them up. Tell your doctor thanks but no thanks when you see him next time and he gives you those papers to sign. They're worth about as much as the Bill of Rights under the Bush Administration.
Rant over. I'm frustrated because I spent 3 years getting these regs put in place and I'm mad because doctors unwittingly caused me to lose the Clinton protections.
Take care & keep up the good work!
otherwise noted, all original