September 3, 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,
Finally someone mentioning that those who have never been in the military are the ones who want war. Too bad more people don't say that. The press should note that 5 time draft dodger Dick keeps talking to veterans of previous wars about how we should go to war again. Amazing.
Karen
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html
Comments of Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) during a speech before the Florida Economic Club, Aug. 23, 2002:
Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.
It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)
Dear BuzzFlash,
I read Rob Moitoza's article in the August 29th mailbag and I think he has an excellent idea. I think that wherever there is likely to be news media, we should bring our signs protesting Bush. We can, indeed, force the media to cover us.
M L R
Dear BuzzFlash,
“I challenge you. . .to connect all of our classrooms, all of our libraries, and all of our hospitals and clinics by the year 2000”. -- Vice President Al Gore, 1-11-94
While I was doing some research work on the history of the internet I came across this little tidbit you never hear nor read about in the Right Wing controlled press!
Vinton Cerf is considered by those in the science and technology industry to be "the father of the Internet". In 1973 Robert Kahn and Vince Cerf began research into what eventually became IP--the Internet Protocol and its companion, TCP-the Transmission Control Protocol. ( the suite of protocols in which you are currently using to connect to the World Wide Web) Here is what they say about Al Gore's role in founding the Internet!
Al Gore's Role in Founding the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
So there it is, from the "father of the Internet"! Al Gore had the understanding and the vision for a technology that has literally stood the way we do everything from business, education and communications to personal entertainment on its nose! (And for the better, I might add!)
It's sad to think that this man right now, as we speak, possesses the foresight, wisdom and vision to solve many of our security issues, our economic issues, our election and democratic issues, and most importantly our environmental issues. Al Gore is someone who knew what the people of this country, its scientific and technological community and its government could do when challenged! Look who we have instead, GW Bush and perpetual War and recession! Boy, did we ever get screwed!
Nancy Lynn Nagy TN
Dear BuzzFlash:
I just wanted to give you and BuzzFlash readers a head's up on an odd little sign:
Elect George W. Bush.
I've noticed a few of these bumper stickers around town, without any date, and wondered if they were old or new.
Then I caught this from a BuzzFlash link to an article on an antiwar protest in Nashville, TN:
-------------
"A counter-protester, Klane Maples, 31, of Nashville, walked silently through the crowd, holding a sign that read ''Elect George W. Bush.'' "
-------------
How creepy and Orwellian is that? It appears to be a CURRENT slogan, that slyly acknowledges that GW Bush has YET to be elected!
I can't even fathom what the pod people who sport such signs are thinking!
~~robyn su
Dear Buzz:
Re the current rush to War and Bush administration's "intel"/propaganda...
A blast from past, a letter I wrote 9-15-2001 re Bob Woodward's puff piece on the CIA...
<< As an article in the "liberal press" recently stated, Mr. Woodward seems to be jumping back and forth over the line separating journalism and PR. Not bad for a paragraph that contains 67 words! >>
<< Maybe the CIA is so busy tip-toeing around the Taliban, it can't even notice the resistance to the Taliban when the night sky over Kabul is lit up in flames!! >>
* * *
9-15-01
washington post
to the editorsSadly, Bob Woodward's (along with Veron Loeb) article "CIA's Covert War on Bin Laden" in yesterday's Washington Post seems like a puff-piece. By now, objective observers should realize that WP often holds to the "conservative party line" in Washington, as espoused by military, religious, business, and media officials... and especially those in the "Intel establishment."
Mr. Woodward's article is a case in point. "US intelligence has observed the elusive millionaire several times this year... but reliable intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden... has been rare, despite what once source called a "rich and active" surveillance program."
Let's see: using the official sounding words "U.S. intelligence", "reliable intelligence," "source," "Secretary of State," "Pentagon," & "rich and active surveillance program" Mr. Woodward has basically said (to paraphrase) "well, despite the CIA spending millions on "Intel" in the region, the best they have so far come up with is a couple of sightings of bin Laden."
As an article in the "liberal press" recently stated, Mr. Woodward seems to be jumping back and forth over the line separating journalism and PR. Not bad for a paragraph that contains 67 words!
Woodward's next paragraph does more of the same: "we have a hell of a targeting problem," "the source said, and a few paragraphs later is the REAL "Holy of Holies" of Woodward's reporting: "HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DIRECTIVES."
Well, is it "CLASSIFIED" that the United States recently gave the Taliban government that harbors bin Laden $45 million for its "ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN," even though some sources suggest that the Taliban DIRECTS and PROFITS from the same drug trade, and has only limited the export (of those drugs) waiting for higher prices in a flooded market?
Is it "classified" information that the US has steadfastly refused to confront the Taliban re its prosecution of aid workers for the alleged crime of "spreading Christianity"?
And why is there no mention made of the attacks in Kabul on the night of the Terror bombings in New York and Washington. According to CNN live video feeds, in Kabul ammo dumps or oil tanks (probably Taliban) were attacked, resulting in huge flames that lit up the sky.
Maybe the CIA is so busy tip-toeing around the Taliban, it can't even notice the resistance to the Taliban when the night sky over Kabul is lit up in flames!!
America's conservative and arch-conservative leaders, pundits, officials, and business supporters have it that the (US) government CAN'T BE TRUSTED to do ANYTHING right, which is why it is NECESSARY to PRIVATIZE social security, the FAA, prisons, and etc. (what next-privatize the SEC and the Pentagon?)
Yet these SAME right-wing leaders call for the CIA and US "intel" community to RECEIVE BILLIONS of dollars, with almost NO oversight by or accountability to anyone!
I don't know about Mr. Woodward and the Washington Post, but I'm sure that those who administer some of those billion dollar contracts awarded to/by the CIA feel free to maximize their "return" well beyond the 10% profit margin typical in American business. After all, such established and visible government contractors as Boeing corp. are consistently caught overbilling the government, and they are CONTINUOUSLY audited and reported on.
In searching for Osama bin Laden and his followers, it seems to me a good place to start would be to find and support those who launched the raid on Kabul's ammunition dump on Sept. 11. They, after all, were able to move about in the Kabul/Taliban environment that might be "rich and active" with CIA "sources", but limited in "targeting results."
But then I don't have any personal interest in cramming as many "official secreteze" words into an article that I don't get paid for, nor will I have access to billions in "Intel" spending administered by my friends, allies, and co-horts "in the biz."
What has become of Bob Woodward and the WP?
************
LJBK
Dear Buzz:
Re: Letter by Bill Chickering http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/2002/08/29_mail.html
To respond to Mr. Chickering's letter taking issue with my three part series on Al Gore, I reviewed all three articles to make certain that I would be accurate.
Mr. Chickering's main complaint seems to be directed at criticisms of the Green Party or Ralph Nader. The problem with this is that there was no criticism of either. In article one is the only mention of them:
The Greens (Naderites) spewed that there was no difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Is that true? Absolutely not!
http://damnedbigdifference.org/
Secondly, Mr. Chickering implies that Al Gore has another incarnation with his recent editorial. Not so! Al Gore was a populist during the 2000 campaign and warned of the impending dangers of a Bush administration. His predictions were totally accurate. Mr. Chickering should go back and read the transcripts of the 2000 debates, as I suggested in article one.
Thirdly, Mr. Chickering addresses the money involved in politics. This issue was not mentioned in any of my Gore articles. However, everyone knows that the two major parties rely too much on contributions from corporations for their campaigns. Mr. Chickering, which candidate stated during campaign 2000 that campaign finance reform would be item one on his agenda as president? Al Gore! It is the Republican Party that fights against campaign finance reform.
Fourth, Mr. Chickering states: "What galls me even more is Ms. Knight's insinuation that the three million reasonably intelligent voters who cast ballots for Mr. Nader somehow betrayed Gore."
and: "What's even more glaring is that Ms. Knight, for all her talk of democracy, calls voters traitorous for exercising their choice."
Sorry, Mr. Chickering, this was never mentioned in any of the three articles. I did not address the Nader factor in election 2000. I support a third party and think it would be healthy for the political system, but, if the primary goal of 2004 is to unseat Bush, there is no chance of a third party accomplishing that goal.
Lastly, Mr. Chickering, the words "traitorous, fool, or traitor" are not included in any of the three articles. Please get your facts straight.
If someone writes a critical letter, they should at least address the issues raised in the articles being criticized. The issues written about were the election of 2000, a potential Gore candidacy for 2004, and media biases.
Rebecca Knight
Dear BuzzFlash,
It seems to me that rational thinking people should start to raise their voices in unison, instead of just "chatting," re: the ego-maniac who sometimes inhabits the White House. HE is going to set this planet ablaze, if he continues, unchallenged. Pleeze wake up America! Pleeze check out this site...
Maryanne, from Illinois
"Look at the past 25 years we went downhill, and if people don't realize it, they don't have their fucking eyes on ... In 1960, when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there's available to an average citizen in America right now... God almighty, what have we done to each other?"
-- Merle Haggard
Sent by a BuzzFlash Reader
Dear Buzz:
A new report finds that support for the First Amendment is slipping!
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/516894p-4102578c.html
Have the American people gone completely insane? The First Amendment is the backbone of all our freedoms.
THIS IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN FREE SPEECH IS DENIED!
Eugene Debs, Socialist candidate for president in 1918 on the nature of war:
"They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world, you the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people."
THIS SPEECH LED TO DEBS BEING STRIPPED OF HIS CITIZENSHIP AND SENT TO JAIL FOR TEN YEARS!
Rebecca Knight
Dear BuzzFlash,
Another news junkie here.
Been reading, listening, watching what passes for news and commentary in the US. (Have been doing so for decades now.)
Does anyone else suspect that this current emphasis on Iraq is a contrived effort to divert our attention from the potential scandals involving Cheney and Halliburton, and Bush and Harken, etc?
Just wondering.
Cheers,
Morgana Black
[BuzzFlash Note: "Distraction and Misdirection"]
Dear BuzzFlash,
Although I tend to agree with the faction that believes the Iraq war talk is a diversion from the corporate criminal acts both Bush and Cheney refuse to address, it isn't difficult to turn the "crystal ball" argument around on the invasion supporters.
Cheney, the head of Bush's "Terrorist Task Force" prior to 9/11, has learned from his past oversights and can now use his Kreskin-like skills to predict what other world leaders intentions will be. Unavailable to be served with subpoenas for his misdealings, he appears front and center to bark out his Scooby-Dooish assertion that "we need to have an Iraq attack."
The "what ifs" are endless, so the discussion could go on forever. Here is a scenario I recently posed to one of the warmongers to shut down their blue-sky offensive, and at the same time, make them think about what we are getting into:
Suppose that we make a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We march in with all guns blazing and meet the enemy head on. It is not all that inconceivable that there will be many thousand casualties on both sides. Say we are successful and take full control of the country. Then we discover that they not only didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, but that they did not even have any means to create such weapons. The Old Dog just plain got it wrong on this one. Based on what we know to date, this is as likely of an outcome as our getting in there and finding such weapons. Tell me how you would explain the needless loss of our youngsters lives to their families.
When they can't find a response to the above, I wind up the exchange with noting that the current administration has not been right about anything as of yet, and that they are either inept or unlucky when looking at all of the negative things that have occurred in the world since they took over. You won't find me following anyone either inept or unlucky into something as serious as war.
YT cai
Dear Buzz,
I sent this letter in reaction to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21639-2002Aug31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: "Officers: Iraq Could Drain Terror War"
Dear Bradley Graham,
All that you write may be so but, if true, what does that do to George W. Bush's statement that "You are either with us or against us"? There was NO room for shades of gray or ambiguity in Bush's thinking and utterances. He was very clear: "with" or "against." Period. No "ifs," "ands" or "buts."
So, where does that leave Colin Powell who seems to be, according to your column, all over the place, sometimes "with" Bush and sometimes not "with" Bush."
I think, as with so many controversial Bush high-up-in-the-ranks appointees, Powell is kept around for a very specific purpose: to take the fire that would ordinarily be aimed at the president. No one, any longer, believes Bush is responsible for much of the analyzing, decision-making, and strategizing that goes on in his administration. Most people believe (rightly or wrongly, it does not matter) that Mr. Bush only comes into events at the last possible moment, in time to read off the Tele-Prompter the results of all his minions' analyzing, decision-making, and strategizing.
Mr. Bush has said very publicly to the Messrs. John Ashcroft and Thomas White that he appointed them and keeps them around to serve as "lightning rods" to protect him, Bush, from attack. You can look that up in your own newspaper for verification. I think he keeps Colin Powell on board for the same reason; Powell takes all the heat from anyone who thinks this administration is going too far or not far enough fast enough. No one seems to blame Mr. Bush for anything. No one seems to think Mr. Bush DOES anything, so why blame him.
Mr. Powell understands all that and accepts his role as lightning rod. Maybe he believes he serves his country that way.
Think about it.
Sincerely,
(my name)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent by A BuzzFlash reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
I am a great fan of your BuzzFlash website.
But I am disturbed by this recent story that links to:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/46999.htm
I checked, on my own, (check some of it out for yourself! http://www.hanania.com/caajc/messages3.htm) Ray Hanania's website, and discovered he is not even close to being the Jew-hating radical as that stupid NYPost.com article attempts to imply. In fact, he is the OPPOSITE of a Jew-hater.
The real story here is the knee-jerk anti-Islamic anti-Arab nature of so many American Jews!
I am not anti-semitic in the least. But the pro-Israeli factions are becoming very intolerant and paranoid, to the point of becoming alarming.
This man Ray Hanania SHOULD perform at the Jackie Mason Show! Everyone would benefit.
Thanks. --ed
Ed Young
[BuzzFlash Note: We also posted this story on 8/29, "Jackie Mason: I Just Write the Jokes"]
Dear Buzz,
Something has been annoying me for some time now and it is that in recent years there has been a barrage of programs relating all the negative stories about both JFK and FDR that producers could dig up.
Instead of balancing such stories out with the remarkable achievements of those two icons of the Democratic Party, the programs seem determined to chop both men down to size.
I have not seen ANY similar programs de-mythologizing Ronald Reagan, who certainly has been pumped up in myth way beyond any place he merits in history. Face it, Reagan constantly confused old movies with actual events and made people think he was some sort of hero, which he wasn't. It was somewhat like the myth about John Wayne being some patriotic hero, which he never was -- he never served in the military. But people THOUGHT because John Wayne played swaggering, tough-talking, all-American heroes in movies that he was one. He wasn't.
Well, by the same token, Reagan was not a great president; he just had good press; Reagan knew how to manipulate the press. And there is an army of Republican myth-creators out there who have a vested interest in pumping up the reputations of Republican presidents (while burying any information about their many flaws), and destroying the reputations of Democratic presidents so that, by comparison their Republican "heroes" wouldn't look as pathetic as they were.
Books aimed at destroying the legacies of Democratic presidents come spilling off the presses on a daily basis; those books are subsidized by right-wing zealots who have an agenda. Many of those books rise to the top of best-seller lists because they are purchased in BULK by wealthy right-wingers. The books are also given much publicity on right-wing-owned cable TV channels. Even the History Channel is apparently owned by Disney, another conservative syndicate with a right-wing agenda.
Face it, folks, we are in a struggle for the minds of the American people. We are in a struggle for the reputations and legacies of people the right-wing zealots are trying to destroy. We must be alert. We must not let this revisionism slide by. We must object. We must write letters complaining about programs that skew the truth and focus on only the negatives, and which do not balance programs out by reporting the good things people have done.
Attempts are being made to claim that since both FDR and JFK came from wealthy families they are somehow in the same league as GWBush. They aren't. It is not how much money one is born to that matters; what matters is what one does with one's life, with one's privileges. Both JFK and FDR fought to protect and help average Americans; their administrations were not dedicated to skewing all the laws to help their rich friends. They did not turn the treasure of America over to their corporate campaign contributors.
There were huge differences between FDR and JFK on the one side and the Bush family on the other side. There is no comparison. The Bush family works only to enrich their friends; not even a zealous right-winger can make that claim about FDR and JFK.
Beware the zealous right-wing revisionists. We are surrounded by them.
A BuzzFlash reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
What good is all the lip service if people don't go out and vote. We all know how close the 2000 election was. Perhaps someone on your site can come up with a clever way to get folks to bring to the Polls a friend who never votes - this could get interesting if enough people get involved. All the writing of articles and all the reading and getting fed up, etc., doesn't really mean much if so few folks actually vote.
What do you think?
Natalie Rothschild
San
Mateo, CA
[BuzzFlash Note: Democracy Is A Participatory Sport.]
Dear BuzzFlash,
No doubt you've seen this, but just in case...
Quotations of the Week --
"With our help, a liberated Iraq can be a great nation once again. Iraq is rich in natural resources and human talent, and has unlimited potential for a peaceful, prosperous future. Our goal would be an Iraq that has territorial integrity, a government that is democratic and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected,"
-- Vice President Richard Cheney speaking at the 103rd national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, August 26, 2002.
"If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein -- assuming we could have found him -- we'd have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground some place. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've got to put a new government in his place and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shia government or a Sunni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation?"
-- Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, "The Desert War -- A Kind of Victory," BBC Radio 4, February 16, 1992.
Jeff Nelson
Dear Buzz,
I sent the following letter to Senator Lieberman.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RE: "New life for Operation TIPS"
at: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/30/tips/index.html
Dear Senator Lieberman,
What is this bizarre appetite you have for civilians spying on fellow civilians? People without any training in evaluating what they see, hear and read will be set loose upon fellow Americans to report "suspicious" activity. Is that a recipe for mayhem and chaos, or is it just plain nutty? Or is it just plain un-American?
The F.B.I. does not have the manpower or energy to digest and evaluate the messages and alerts that come into field offices from fellow FBI personnel now; how do you think the FBI will have the manpower to evaluate and investigate the extra millions of "alerts" that would be sent to them by untrained, unsophisticated and unvetted ordinary Americans as they run around spying on one another?
Are you nuts? Are you power hungry? Are you just trying to win "Brownie points" with the Bush administration?
Of all people on this planet you, active as you are within the Jewish community, should be better informed than most -- from first-hand accounts -- about what can happen when untrained, but zealous, people are set loose on their fellow citizens and told to spy on them. What accounts you must have heard over the years from Jewish people who suffered so horribly under the tyranny of Nazism! You should understand that down that road are prison camps for the out-of-the-ordinary persons who ruffle the feathers of the less imaginative people among our population, who have nevertheless been given the task of turning in neighbors who act "suspiciously." Who is to say what qualifies as "suspicious" in this new and wonderful kingdom of yours -- the land that until recently we cherished as the United States of America? Or did you forget what country we are all living in, and what Constitution we all live under the protection of?
Shame on you.
signed,
An American citizen who cherishes the Constitution of the United States of America more than you do, apparently,
Lois Erwin
Subj: Read this and then, let's STOP talking about Iraq
Dear BuzzFlash,
This may be the scariest paragraph I have read recently.
"Should Republicans maintain or expand their 12-seat majority in the House and reverse the Democrats' one-seat advantage in the Senate, Bush can tap into fresh support for the unrealized parts of his agenda, including new tax cuts, partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers and federal support for religious groups' social programs."
OMG, I have been thinking that NO one would be STUPID enough to reelect this charlatan in 2004 -- or I should say, "elect," since he was NOT elected, but was anointed by the U.S. Supreme Court once it stopped the vote counting.
Isn't it illegal for the Supreme Court court to interfere with any state's election process? Clearly, the Constitution of the United States (you know the Constitution, the one that is still in effect and has not been discarded!) provides that disputes within the states over voting matters will be settled in the Congress, NOT in the courts -- not even in the U.S. Supreme Court. So, how did this all come to pass?
It came to pass, because breaking the law never interfered with anything the Bush Gang wanted; they took a chance and went to the USSC knowing they had Five Friends there who would "see" things their way. And the Bushites trusted the right-wing media whores to say exactly what they said when it was all over and the coup was achieved. The whores all said, "Well, it's all settled and without any tanks in the streets"! Well, there SHOULD have been tanks in the streets!!
Something evil and illegal was perpetrated on the American people by the very court that was supposed to protect us from coups and illegal seizings of the presidency. Instead, we found out -- too late -- that the USSup.Court and the media were all part of the Bush Gang. And, so, our country was stolen from us by men in black robes, and pretty bubble-heads sitting importantly in front of TV cameras intoning how "lucky" we all were to be Americans.
Read this and, then, let's STOP talking about Iraq -- and lets' talk about issues Bush does NOT want us to talk about, such as what his policies are doing to America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2002 Election Is Key for Bush"
<<Since the start of the year, Bush has helped raise more than $100 million for his party and its candidates, by far the most any president has ever generated in a mid-term election. He has attended 44 events [NOTE from me: Isn't there a "war" against "terrorism" going on, a "war" he is supposed to be attending to?] in 26 states on behalf of 30 candidates, ranging from high-profile governors such as New York's George Pataki to relatively anonymous congressional contenders such as Steve Pearce of New Mexico's 2nd District.
White House aides say Bush plans no letup in the fall, mixing in a few fund-raisers with a heavy schedule of campaign appearances for Republicans in competitive races. >>
--------------------------------------------
Sent in by a Loyal BuzzFlasher
Hey BuzzFlash,
I think al the readers should expect that King George II will probably do something to get a good excuse to go to Iraq. I wouldn't put it past him to lie and say that they found a weapon in Iraq of some astronomical type, or blow up one of our own ships and say that Iraq did it. That will give him an excuse to invade without consulting Congress. His real goal, of course, is to take over that country and put in a leader that will allow him and Poppy to control all the oil. After all, Iraq is the second largest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. The pResident is still an oil man, no matter what. Afghanistan was just an excuse, too. Remember, there was a Russian embassy installed the day the Northern Alliance took Kabul. They want a pipeline to go through Afghanistan so they can get the oil out of the Caspian Sea. Pootie Poot was real cozy with King George II about that time and there is a LOT of oil in Russia and in the Caspian Sea there. I don't care how much Cheney barks fear at Americans. It is still all for oil that he is doing this. Think my idea is so crazy about Bush blowing up our own ship out there? That's what we did before the Spanish American war. That gave us an excuse, see? Check out some history. FAUX News won't tell you any truths.
~hiphop girl
Dear BuzzFlash,
Thank you for re-publishing the photos of the Republican engineered protest in Florida that shut down the vote count and effectively gave the election to Bush junior. It brought home to me at how small-minded these people are. Below is an account of an experience faced by citizen/patriots at the August 24th $1,000 a plate presidential fund raiser for a congressional republican candidate in southern New Mexico:
It was a Saturday adventure never to be forgotten. One to be written about and recorded for future generations learning about democracy in the United States at this point of time. I was one of a dozen or so citizen patriots from Silver City who joined with approximately 120 peaceful demonstrators at the entrance of the PanAm Center, the University of Southern New Mexico, in Las Cruces where Mr. Bush had scheduled an appearance. It was a relatively peaceful demonstration, although continuously monitored by more-than-enough police officials making sure that our shoes did not intrude on the public right-of-way. After more than three hours and after Bush had been spirited away, we drove to the area near the Hilton Hotel where he was to be the banquet speaker. Parking space was located and we walked to Foothills Road across from the Hilton but our group of five, the one car that made it through the traffic restrictions, was herded to a protected "first amendment zone" beyond the Hilton where we couldn't see or be seen. However, we were soon joined by four young men, led and positioned by two huge, burly "suits" and each received a Bush/Cheney placard. These were aggressively waved in front of ours effectively creating a disturbance.
"We're students," responded the older appearing, to a question.
"Where?"
"Western in Silver City."
Another young man appeared and claimed that he didn't have to obey restrictive parameters because he was on assignment for the Mustang, the student newspaper. When his film ran out, the student/leader ran off, returning with a camera. We are on film. Giving up on the intimidating hassle, we walked down to Telshore Boulevard and stood on the public sidewalk, kitty-corner from the hotel, exercising the right to peaceably assemble and the freedom of speech. Immediately we were surrounded by government authorities, three police on bicycles, two were called from the Mall although we were not on mall property, and four official vehicles disgorged six uniforms. In spite of insisting that we were exercising our First Amendment rights, Secret Service was called. Handy items, cell-phones. Two suits arrived and we asked, "Who gave these orders?" Then two more SS answered the summons and the "boss lady" herself came threatening immediate arrest and jail if we didn't vacate the restricted area. The sheriff joined in the threat. We left.
Why is junior Bush so frightened of United States citizens exercising their Constitutional First Amendment rights that he surrounds himself by armed protectors?
(s)
Millie Seewald, Silver City, NM
A
76 year old grandmother
Dear BuzzFlash,
What a hoot! cowardly george determines policy AFTER his Veep floats an unpopular balloon...! given the unpopularity of Cheney's "nuke Iraq now" speech, W. backs off a tad.... (for now)....
White House in disarray over Cheney speech
Julian Borger in Washington
Monday September 2, 2002
The GuardianGeorge Bush has moved to distance himself from his vice-president after it was revealed that a sabre-rattling speech on Iraq by Dick Cheney was made without clearing key points with the White House.
LJBK
Dear BuzzFlash,
Today Karl Rove, with his puppet Dumbya in tow, came to Pittsburgh so that the Boy who would be King could spew his noxious nonsense with his usual degree of chutzpah and/or cluelessness. Only an idiot would, while addressing a union crowd, call for the passage of his behemoth bureaucracy (the Department of Fatherland Security) which STRIPS ALL PROTECTIONS FROM UNION WORKERS. Who says irony is dead! But then this is the person who happily waved to Stevie Wonder and couldn't understand why Stevie didn't wave back. Fortunately Karl und Boy George were greeted by demonstrating REAL union workers and other concerned citizens who aren't easily fooled by outlandishly phony rhetoric such as his and who, consequently, weren't very happy to see him.
Oh, and while in Pittsburgh, the birthplace of the modern labor movement, Junior uttered not a word about all the workers who have been victimized by his corporate buddies. That would offend his real corporate constituency, to whom he is prostrate with worship. Instead he offered up his usual b.s. blandishments about how we need more corporate welfare to help his business buddies, in this case government funded terrorism insurance which would restrict future victims of terrorism from seeking recoupment for the negligence of government officials or corporations. Not surprising from a man whose Justice Department is currently thwarting the efforts of 9/11 families from getting answers as to who was responsible for allowing their loved ones to be slaughtered. We should all be quite leery of Mr. Bush's desire to heap more largesse on big business. The last time Mr. Bush signed on to federal help for business was when he signed an airline recovery bill into law after 9/11. However the bill was political cover for airlines to lay off people. In point of fact USAIR, Pittsburgh's largest employer, had to actually lay people off as a condition of receiving the loan. Interestingly, Junior didn't mention those permanently laid off folks while he was on his political campaign jaunt, nor will he be offering them assistance for their bleak future. Neither did Junior speak of the many steelworkers in the Pittsburgh area who lost their pensions when LTV was pillaged like Enron and the workers lost the medical benefits they had sacrificed wages while working to obtain. Although there was much support in Congress to take the revenues generated from his tariff plan and use it to defray the costs of this health insurance, he refused to hear of it. After all, his real concern was only the welfare of his corporate steelmaking buddies Obviously for Junior the labor of ordinary Americans is simply not worth honoring. That, however, is not surprising since this man never did an honest days work in his life. He doesn't know what its like to live paycheck to paycheck since Daddy's money was always flowing. No matter how stupidly he frittered it away, he knew there would be more. Daddy would strong arm someone, as in the Harken Energy case and, lo and behold, Presto the magic money fairy would appear to shower Georgie with gold or buy his worthless stock.
Such a spectacle as Junior's presence in Pittsburgh on Labor Day, (kind of like Lizzie Borden giving the keynote address at a conference on the importance of good parent-child relations) made my heart ache for a return to the day two years ago when President Gore came to Pittsburgh on Labor Day. In contrast to Junior's meaningless platitudes, President Gore honored real workers and gave them real hope for the future with concrete plans for meaningful policies to address their pressing needs. Too bad, for all of us, five members of the Supreme Court thwarted what would have been his triumphant return.
http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20020902bushwebp3.asp
Dan
Pittsburgh,
PA
Dear BuzzFlash readers:
Having read about the vile actions of the far-right republicans for two years under the faux president, it is time to do something about it. There is an election coming. We must all do what we can to sweep the party of the ultra rich and the fundamentalist religious right from the House -- you know, the ones who no longer believe in our Constitution except for their interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Here's what I did, for what it is worth. Everybody must decide what they can do, but for God's sake do something. Voting, as the republicans know well, is not enough.
First, I consider the battle for the Senate to be over. The media report that one extra republican seat will tip the balance, but that's a lie. If they were to get an extra seat (and the odds of that are very low at this point), Jeffords would go from Independent to Democrat. If they were able to stuff the ballot boxes sufficiently to get two more Senators, Chafee of Rhode Island would switch, as he promised to do if any blue dog Democrats switched to the Republican party after Jeffords saved the country.
The real action is in the House. All signs point to Democratic victory there too. But a narrow victory is not enough. Remember, many blue dog democrats (like Condit and Traficant) routinely vote republican. The Democrats need a crushing victory. They need every damn seat they can get in order to GROW A BACKBONE. And that is what we want.
I am fortunate in that I live in a district that has no chance of going republican. If it were up for grabs, I would be out there on the street with my two children in tow getting people to register to vote, working for the candidate, and contributing money to his or her campaign. Instead, I must look across the country to see which House candidates I might support with a check. That's right -- money! This is America, and unfortunately, you vote once at the voting booth (except if Florida and some other states), but you also get to vote again with money if you can afford it. It doesn't have to be much, but I can tell you that just like sending a check to BuzzFlash, it sure felt good to support people I respected. It felt good to do something! I would of course rather spend the money in other ways, but I reminded myself that we are at war and sacrifice is called for.
If you are like me, and you don't want to give to the Democratic National Committee, which may very well support Democrats who vote for tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of us, I have a suggestion: Go to www.mydd.com/politics/House2002.html
This is a great site, because it breaks down the top 50 closest House races. These are the ones that need to be fought and won. For my support, I picked candidates in races where the republicans were slightly favored. I also made sure they were not blue dog Democrats, by finding their websites, which you can do without too much trouble by typing their name and state into a Google or Yahoo search. (One Democrat I checked out, Courtney in CT, touted his candidacy by saying he was the Democrat "most respected" by his Republican colleagues. Not the best way to get my support, but I hope he wins anyway.) I even asked the guy who runs the site who the progressives were and he was quite happy to pick a few out of the crowd. They were all good, including John Norris in Iowa who has the nerve to say that Bush's rush to build an unworkable missile defense scheme was a load of crap (my words). Remember Star Wars is what Cheney and Rumsfeld were pursuing last year instead of terrorists.
Pretend you are going to a horse race. Have fun!
RA in LA
ps. Another very useful website for tracking the house races is www.dcpoliticalreport.com Although it's a bit confusing to use, it has a ton of information and links directly to the candidates' websites. I just choose the state I am interested in and scroll through the races shown on the split screen. It will tell you how much the incumbent won by in the last election, as well as predictions from a number of sources.
Buzz,
Two back-to-back items from the BBC World Today last week:
1. The first covered Dubya’s suck-up last week to Crown Prince Abdullah during a bbq down on the ranch where Dubya failed to win him over to a war on Iraq and the world. Afterwards some Dubya duncehead spouted to that very same world that the Prince was basically crazy and definitely wrong for not going along.
2. The second item announced that Dubya was going to hold another of his wacko Waco-type shows, this time discussing 'why do they hate us?'
Duuhh. To save thousands on another such inanity, I suggest Dubya just listen to item #1 for the answer -- he blows off anyone and everyone who won't go along with his dangerous charade. It's the arrogant hubris, stupid. It's the 'we’re the only superpower and will do whatever we want to so screw you' routine. It is not the 'everyone who disagrees is envious of our freedoms' routine. Wake up! and save taxpayers the price of another silly circus.
T Quigly
(TimesUK 03 Sept ) says Ark Royal, "fully equipped for war" has sailed.
Hummm....
no moon 07 Sept, tides at + 2-6 meters in P gulf on the night of 11-12 Sept.
Humm...
A BuzzFlash Reader
Gore WON Florida!
Not only did George W. Bush NOT win the majority of Florida votes, but in the process of Campaign 2000 he totally REINVENTED himself. The Texas Governor was in complete accord with the "Platform Planks" of the Texas Republican Party conventions - an extremely conservative (bordering on reactionary) set of themes, values, and issues - but then in 2000 campaigned as a moderate; a "COMPASSIONATE conservative" who promised "A NEW MORE BIPARTISAN TONE in Washington.
Mr. Bush promptly forgot all his vows of moderation and bipartisanship, selecting failed Senate candidate John Ashcroft as his Attorney General (Mr. Ashcroft lost a REELECTION bid for his Missouri Senate seat, despite all the advantages of incumbency), and so alienating moderates that Senator Jeffords, from his own Republican party, felt compelled to switch party affiliations and leave the Republican party.
A President who DID NOT win the election; a President who does not recall his own campaign promises; a President who was asleep at the switch as terror warnings flooded America from both within (FBI field agents) and without (dozens of security warnings from foreign intelligence agencies), a president who demonized those in Florida who wanted to have their votes counted: these are the attributes of a political leader many thousands of Americans see as "moral" and "honest"!
Amazing!
A BuzzFlash Reader
******************************************************************
Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002
Opinion
Posted on Mon, Sep. 02, 2002
Clearing up the election that won't die
By Lance deHaven-Smith
MY VIEWhttp://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm
Dear BuzzFlash,
I read with interest the Washington Times article by Paul Craig Roberts that you provided a link to -- I particularly enjoyed the opening gambit: "Is a vote for a Republican a vote for a police state? Everyone who saw Dr. Steven Hatfill's Fox News press conference on Sunday, August 25, must be asking themselves this question."
Unfortunately, as becomes clear later in the article, author Roberts is clinically insane. What are we to do with an absurdity like "feminists, minorities and homosexuals now dominate the American media"? And what's with all the references to Mr. Hatfill's "finance"? Assuming the word intended is "fiance," how on earth does "nationaly syndicated columnist" ("nationally" is misspelled also) Paul Craig Roberts manage to get such a twisted screed published with repeated misspelling of this kind intact? Is ignorance of the English language becoming fashionable in the wacko-right press as an expression of solidarity with our woefully "misundereducated" president?
"The American media functions primarily as a pimp for government," Mr. Roberts asserts with some accuracy, (the Washington Times being a perfect example) but then turns truth on its head by adding that "the liberal media will blast conservative Republicans, but never the government". Well, Duh... the current Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft "government" IS conservative GOP lock stock & barrel the last time anyone looked!
It's a pity that a nut-case like this columnist is all we can turn to in the Washington Times for a defense of civil liberties!!
Sincerely,
Jay in Independence, MO
