BuzzFlash Mailbag - September 10, 2002

First off, he did some time with the Illinois militia during the Blackhawk war as a young man. It turned out to be a bit of a marching and camping trip, and he always spoke in a deprecating way about his "military experience," but he went and served. Later, he was one of the few congressmen to vote against Polk's Mexican war, and paid the consequences of losing his seat in the next election. And finally, during the lead-up to the Civil War, he gave the south every chance to back out. He would never have abolished slavery in the South, but he would not ever have allowed it to expand to the West. Free labor for a free people, after all.

So, you see, Lincoln was in favor of "containment," not of an attack on the south and the "rights" that had accrued to those states. Only after their attempted secession, and after two years of horrible war, did he even abolish slavery in the Confederacy, on a limited basis. And scholars generally estimate that, if he had lived, his policy towards the defeated confederacy would have been wisely merciful -- but there, we can only guess, since a 19th century nutcase ended his life prematurely.

On September 11th, Bush is scheduled to conduct several interviews and there will be several memorial clippings showing him pretending to cry, etc. Laura Bush suggests for all Americans to turn off the TV on September 11th....I agree (smirks).

The cost of the bailout of the banks defaulted by businesses that went bankrupt is 1.5 trillion; the cost for S.S. for a year is 382 billion. Which cost is being covered by the "liberal press"? We can afford to bale these banks and BIG BUSINESS CROOKS out but can't afford SS? The bailout price (probably very underestimated) would pay SS for more than 3000 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You had Cheney on for another puff piece interview of a Bush official, which you are getting regrettably good at.

Yet in all the time you had Cheney on, you failed to pin him down on what exact evidence they have of Iraqi complicity in 9/11 and an accelerated nuclear weapons program. This is especially relevant after it came out that the President misrepresented alleged photo evidence of an Iraqi nuclear plant construction project over the weekend.

You also failed to ask Cheney why Mr. Rumsfeld began talking to his staff about finding a way to pin 9/11 on Iraq five hours after the attacks on the WTC (per CBS News). In fact, this attack on Iraq has been premeditated by this administration since before 9/11.

And finally, you failed to ask Cheney if Iraq is such a threat now, why did he as CEO of Halliburton sell Hussein $23 million of goods in 1998.

But then, if you had asked Mr. Cheney these questions and held out for straightforward responses, you would have then been a journalist, rather than an extension of Ari Fleischer's office.

I have a theory that Blair is leading the drive to sell part of British military research to the Carlyle group. The MoD has said it will go ahead with the sale. I read it from a link on your website. Why the heck not? Carlyle already has John Major. Maybe Tony can "earn" an interest and a future fortune in Carlyle by sacrificing his political career by selling his country out, literally. How about a BuzzFlash commentary on this? I'll bet after he "retires" he is asked to join Carlyle (the payback).

Subj: White says Army is studying unit rotation, unaccompanied tours for Europe...

A story worth following.... my military (ret) friend says the reason White et al want unaccompanied tours is so base support can be supplied by private contractors rather the current Base Support Battalions (BSBs) themselves.

He said the company that got the private support contract in Bosnia and Kosovo was the Halliburton subsidiary "Brown and Root." That's the direction he thinks the Bush administration is headed in Europe and S. Korea....privatization of base support facilities.

The troops are not happy. It's difficult to believe White et al would pull a stunt like this so close to the election. One-year unaccompanied tours are not what you'd expect from a political party preaching "family values." My friend said he'd read that the Fort Bragg murders were the result of infidelities in the marriage. Some of those murders were committed by military members who had been deployed for (a mere) six months in Afghanistan. The Bushies' greed is throwing common sense out the window. One wonders if this administration is not planning on having elections, and so couldn't care less about troops' political support.

Well now, isn't this interesting. It didn't take long for the White House to send out their snakes to attack Ritter with their best venom -- Scott Ritter is an enemy agent working for Saddam! Jesus, this administration is so transparent.

It is disgraceful that in Delaware, in the primaries which were held on Saturday, only 6% of the registered voters voted.

It's not Saddam we need to be scared of ------- it's the evil war mongering Dick Cheney and George Bush we should fear! To keep their places in the white house they are willing to send thousands of our kids to their deaths! Neither of them have ever been in combat! They do not have a clue, nor do they care! And the media wants war for the ratings it will bring them.

So, you're beating the war drums again. You say you want the mothers of America to respond by handing over our sons and our daughters so that you can take them into harm's way. And whose blood will you shed?

The soccer moms who went through 5 years of in-vitro after selecting which egg would be implanted, who nursed those embryos into barely viable babies who survive in spite of peanut allergies and attention deficit disorders, what my mother called "misbehaving" but what their mothers call disability, these mothers won't let their children walk down the stairs without a helmet. They won't be Iraqi targets, you can count on that. These mothers who would make a federal case out it if anyone dared to discipline their child, these mothers who dressed their children in Baby Versachi and sent them to Miss Minchin's Finishing School, these mothers are not going to simply drop their children off in their SUVs at the recruitment office with cheery kisses good-bye. Any day now, we'll start hearing from the NIMBF's (Not in my boy's future).

And who will you turn to for support then? Will you ask the children of single working mothers in this country to fight your war? The ones whose mothers were turned away at the polls? The disenfranchised. The poor. The minority. The ones whose families need them most. Send them to fight your wars? Them that you ignored, marginalized, or ripped off as they were struggling to survive in this country?

How can you even ask these mothers to give up their sons to fight your battles? How do you dare? Where were you when that child was sick and his mother too poor to go to a doctor? Where were you when that child was hungry? How dare you ask this of them. You are the beggar today.

The first article below is the article that caused the furor and the second about the furor over the bush twins. I'll bet the secret service detail is changed as bush will be furious so he will get rid of the crew who "leaked."

Scowcroft Says Bush Incubator Untruth, Repeated Five Times, "Was Useful In Mobilizing Public Opinion" For First Iraq War

In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah. In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale. Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital. She had been coached – along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story – by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war."We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

– When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert."It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story. The White House is now making its case to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week. But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action....That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified...."My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be skeptical about it." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

Stoiber said he was opposed to German involvement in a war against Iraq unless it was UN approved.

Schroeder said that even with UN approval, Germany would not be getting involved in any war against Iraq.

First, thanks for posting the transcript to Scott Ritter's interview on CNN. I've greatly respected Mr. Ritter for many years now. As a veteran, I have nothing but the highest regard for another veteran who a.) speaks truthfully when his government is wrong, and b.) actually has the clout to be heard and affect change. When he spoke against the Clinton administration and its role in causing the end of Iraqi arms inspections, I wondered how long the guy would last. Now that he's criticizing the Axis of Evil (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld), I'm wondering even more.

Second, we should recognize that there will be a war in Iraq. History shows that when the hawks in power beat the drums for war there's no turning back. The decision has been made, and as we've seen in some recent reports the buildup is well underway.

I believe the reports because people I know in the military, as well as friends who have family in the military, have told me that not only are active duty forces deployed to the region around Iraq - thousands of reservists and Guard personnel have been placed on active duty and deployed to that hemisphere. The length of time that these folks have been on active duty (with the expectation that they'll be active for a year) is something I never saw even during Gulf War I.

Though the pre-emptive, unilateral Whack Iraq Attack has been pre-decided, I will still speak out against it - as we all should. We won't stop it, but if our numbers are great enough we might be able to stiffen the cartilage that passes for Democratic spine and mitigate the consequences (e.g. casualties, "blowback").

Thanks for all your great work, keep buzzin', and I'll be buying "Wealth and Democracy" from you soon....

On Sept 7, MSNBC posted a story titled "White House: Bush misstated report on Iraq."

The story at the url has since been changed. The original information is still there, but it is deeply buried. Both the heading and the lead have been drastically changed: The headline now is "Study: Iraq could arm nukes quickly."

So a story that highlighted Bush's dishonesty in fomenting a war is now a story that helps him foment a war.

Sept. 7 - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to show a united front on Iraq but communicated a confusing message instead. NBC's Norah O'Donnell reports.

Sept. 7 - Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

BUSH AND BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair talked to reporters before opening about three hours of talks at Camp David, Bush's presidential retreat in Maryland.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said as he greeted Blair for a brainstorming session on Iraq. "We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem." In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit - and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.

The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported. In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that "based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report," the official told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a single building we see," he said.

An Iraqi man walks past a destroyed nuclear facility Monday in Tuweitha, 12 miles south of Baghdad.

Sept. 9 -- John Chipman, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, discusses his group's report that Iraq is attempting to build nuclear weapons on NBC's "Today" show.

Sept. 9 - Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in a matter of months if it were to obtain radioactive material from abroad, but Saddam Hussein's regime currently lacks the ability to make its own nuclear material, a leading independent think tank said Monday. The group's assessment, which also said Iraq was working to develop equipment to make bomb components, will sharpen debate over how to deal with Saddam as President Bush prepares to make a key Iraq policy speech at the United Nations later this week.

JOHN CHIPMAN, co-author of a study on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, said the Iraqi leader is trying to build nuclear weapons. He said the Iraqis are developing machines to make nuclear material for weapons, but would need assistance and material from foreign sources to build a nuclear bomb soon.

"However, were he able to obtain fissile material from abroad, steal it or buy it in some way, we certainly believe he has the ability to put together a nuclear weapon very quickly, in a matter of months," Chipman, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Monday in London at a news conference to announce the release of a report on the issue.

Iraq possesses a small force of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon despite international efforts to destroy such weapons, Chipman said. The report estimates Iraq has up to 12 missiles with a range of about 400 miles, which could reach Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Iran and Turkey.

Iraq has also probably managed to hide some chemical and biological weapons, Chipman's report concludes.

ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE OWN MATERIAL Iraq is trying to build gas centrifuge machines that could produce weapons grade nuclear material, but is still far from success, Chipman said.

"We certainly confirm that it would be difficult for him in the absence of substantial foreign assistance or the lifting of sanctions soon to be able to develop his own fissile material," he said.

Officials told NBC News that there is no evidence the Iraqis are seeking fissile material on the black market. The study echoes the conclusions of previous assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as analyses by U.S. intelligence officials. The United States has been calling for action to stop Iraq's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction, saying Baghdad poses a threat to U.S. and international interests.

While the Bush administration has struggled to convince U.S. allies of the need to take pre-emptive action against Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday that there seemed to be a budding interest in toughening the post-Gulf War U.N. demands to end Iraq's arms programs.

"It does appear that a movement is budding to put some force into previous U.N. resolutions," Fleischer said as Bush flew to Detroit to meet Chretien. "Don't take it as military force necessarily." France has proposed a two-stage plan that could lead to U.N. authorization of military force against Baghdad. After meeting over the weekend, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair highlighted Saddam's potential to develop nuclear weapons. British officials said Sunday that Blair, who also warned of the "real threat" Saddam posed, had seen an advance copy of the IISS report. Bush was in Detroit Monday, meeting privately with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to air his concerns about Saddam.

Chretien has expressed doubts about the need for military action, saying he has yet to see evidence that would justify Canadian support for a military campaign against Iraq. But he said in advance of the meeting that he was ready to hear Bush's reasons. "I will see what he has to say, I will listen and we will decide," Chretien said on Thursday. Canada has supplied special forces troops, other soldiers, ships and planes as logistical support in the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.

In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted. Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said, standing alongside Blair. "We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem." In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit - and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported. In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that "based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a single building we see," he said.

Windrem reported that of all the international inspection regimes - chemical, biological, missile and nuclear - it is the U.N. inspectors who are most comfortable with Iraq's cooperation on nuclear matters. In fact, the United Nations said last week that Iraq had been in contact with U.N. representatives about a possible new round of talks on weapons inspections. A Security Council report Tuesday on the work of UNMOVIC - the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission - found that personnel from UNMOVIC and the atomic energy agency met in Vienna in July with Iraqi officials and Dr. Jaffar Jaffar, a high-level Iraqi contact on nuclear weapons issues. The head of UNMOVIC also took part in what the report called a "dialogue" between Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. Tuesday's report stated that Sabri wrote Annan expressing "the desire of the Government of Iraq to conduct a round of technical talks" between Iraqi officials and UNMOVIC representatives to review work on inspections between May 1991 and December 1998 and to discuss other matters to be resolved "when the inspection regime returns to Iraq." Sabri extended "the offer of Iraq to take part in a further series of technical discussions" in a letter last month, the U.N. report said.

NBC's Robert Windrem and Norah O'Donnell; The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

From an article in today's New York Times entitled"Bush Officials Say the Time Has Come for Action on Iraq," come the following:

Mr. Bush's meeting with the prime minister followed a weekend in which the president's top national security officials said nearly in unison that Mr. Hussein's efforts to build an arsenal of immensely destructive weapons left the United States little choice but to act against Iraq.

I find this statement eerily reminiscent of statements made during the controversy following the 2000 election when we were told, repeatedly, that the Nation was facing a constitutional crisis. The strategy then was the same as now -- deliberation and a careful analysis of the facts is not in our interest. We must foment a crisis environment so that immediate action can be "justified." Once it's done, it can't be undone and people will grow to accept it.

The truly frightening thing to me is that Bush has demonstrated again and again that he will always proceed with his own course of action regardless of popular or world opinion, Constitutional procedure, or long term consequences. This was true during the election as well as his tax cut, steel tariffs, enemy combatant detainees, the energy policy, the Kyoto accord, etc., etc., etc. If the pattern holds true, and there seems to be no indication that this will be the exception that proves the rule, a U.S invasion of Iraq is a certainty. The consequences are unthinkable.

When asked about us military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties the republican support for the war actually goes up at the prospect of killing innocent Iraqi citizens. The prospect of innocent deaths decreases support among the dems and independents, but the cold heartless republican bastards would actually be more in favor of war if we could kill iraqi civilians.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 2-5, 2002. N=937 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample)

	All	REP	DEM	IND
"Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial U.S. military casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"
Favor	50	58	43	50
Oppose	38	27	49	37
Don't know	12	15	8	13
"Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial IRAQI civilian casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"
Favor	49	62	41	47
Oppose	40	24	53	41
Don't know	11	14	6	12

stevie g

Perhaps it has been said already, but it is too important to not say it repeatedly. It is not enough to encourage people to vote in this election. We must also ensure that we be allowed to vote. So if you live in Florida, or any other state that has criminally removed voters from their registry, or if you haven't voted in awhile, or if you have moved from one precinct to another—RE-REGISTER. If you live in Florida, it might not hurt to register Republican. But, please, vote Democratic even if you must hold your nose while registering. Once we separate the Repugs from power, we will have plenty of time to deal with those Democratic Representatives who have acted so cowardly in standing up to the abuse of our civil rights. After the Democrats win this all-important election, even a Green vote could be effective.

As an individual who knows what the word "chickenhawk" means, I have a real problem with the fact that you choose to write about them without any understanding of the word as it is used by patriotic Americans. (Chickenhawk Vs. Chicken Little 9/6/02)

WE know that a Chickenhawk is an individual who used their influence, privilege or family contacts to cowardly avoid service in a combat zone during a time of conflict (such as Vietnam,) yet would hypocritically send other Americans into combat today, as casually as they made others fight in their place years earlier.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jeb Bush, Phil Gramm, Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove and Mark Racicot are perfect examples of these un-American cowards. They must been seen by patriotic Americans as having no credibility whatsoever as saber-rattlers due to their cowardice and hypocrisy.

You might be able to better serve your readers and America by presenting a profile of the real heroes who were sent to fight or die in place of these chickenhawks who used their connections and privilege to hide from their obligations to their country.

Or perhaps you could do the research and finally answer the questions surrounding George W. Bush's whereabouts during the last 18 months of his military service, because he is alleged to have run like a scared child from his National Guard commitment during this period.

Perhaps you could lead the charge to help expose the truth of George W. Bush's desertion during a time of conflict. Veterans know that a deserting felon belongs in a military prison, not in the White House.

Finally: I am curious... Did you just not care what a "chickenhawk" was, or were you hoping to intentionally mislead your readers? Either way, articles of this nature only help in undermining what little remains of the credibility of the Washington Post.

They No Longer Protect the American People From Those Who would Overthrow Our Democracy

Last Sunday, Tim Russert interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press. It once again demonstrated to me that the so-called "responsible" journalists in America are either too lazy or too stupid to ask some very important questions of this Administration. It's easy to give up on the FOX Network; any news organization that would ask an adulterer like Newt Gingrich or a convicted liar like Oliver North for their opinions can be discounted immediately. Chris Matthews on MSNBC never gives anyone the opportunity to complete a thought so we can avoid even watching his show to actually learn anything. Besides, his authoritative guests include Bush bag carrier Howard Fineman as well as a number of other GOP henchmen.

This million-dollar Fourth Estate has forfeited its' right to represent the American people. They refuse to ask tough questions of this Administration when it is about to embroil us in a shooting war. They speak in terms of "How long will it take for us to kick Saddam's butt?" as if it is some street fight or the measuring of someone's penis - Mine is bigger than yours.

None of them - not Cheney, Bush, Russert, Matthews, Fineman, Gingrich, Lott, Limbaugh and all the other politicians and media types who can't wait for this war against Iraq to begin have ever been fired at in anger. They don't understand history and they certainly don't understand their responsibility to the American people. They don't have to be smart about an issue for more than 20 seconds and even then they actually don't have to be smart - they just have to be "pretty" to earn their millions.

We are about to go to war with another sovereign country which as far as anyone can prove has never attacked the United States on its soil because we think - only think - Saddam Hussein is out to get us with weapons of massive destruction. And the media is buying into it. God help us all.

Following is a missive I sent to Tim Russert after last Sunday's interview with Mr. Cheney which I believe was the most telling admission of exactly how these maniacs in the Bush Administration are going to cause the downfall of this democracy.

As an addendum, I want to know the following from this Administration. Any country, including our so-called allies Pakistan and India, have always conducted nuclear testing of some sort before acquiring a launch capability. Has this Administration any evidence that Saddam Hussein has conducted or is prepared to conduct any nuclear testing of any sort in the near or long term future? If not, then why the rush to deploy American soldiers and airmen to destroy Iraq?

Will anyone ask that question? Of Cheney or the President? How many body bags? Someone orders the bags based upon current supplies and predicted need. So how many are predicted by the military operations analysis to be needed for an Iraq excursion? Isn't the number of expected casualties part of the equation? Perhaps that debate would stir some passion among the citizenry to get "straight" answers from this administration. Saddam is undoubtedly a rotten human being and deserves to be ousted, but in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Afghanistan situation, where is the proof that he must be ousted before any other situations are stabilized? How is Iraq a direct threat to our security? I personally don't believe anything being stated publicly by this administration. So who will ask, how many body bags will be needed for a military excursion against Iraq?

When being interviewed by Brian Williams on CNBC this evening at 7:30 pm, Andrew Card blatantly lied about the sequence of events on the morning of 9/11, involving Bush's actions at the Florida elementary school.

In the interview, Card said that Bush excused himself SECONDS after he was informed of the second plane crash in the South Tower of the WTC. Through an obscenely deceptive flourish of video editing, the sequence was artificially created by cutting two separate shots together. The first shot shows Card whispering into Bush's ear (and stepping away), then IT CUTS to Bush standing up while excusing himself. As we all know from Bush's own statements (and numerous news articles), Bush stayed in the classroom and continued to read for another 20 minutes.

Another serious discrepancy occurred when Card said that Bush had only seen the WTC plane crash footage AFTER leaving the classroom.........not before, in the hallway, as Bush has previously publicly stated, when he admitted seeing the FIRST plane crash, before it even was aired on network news.

The Bush administration is desperate and sloppy and trying (in vain) to patch-up the numerous holes in the story.

Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority (surely not, are these guys nuts? I knew they burnt their brains out on coke, but isn't there anyone with any semblance of sanity among them?)

As far as I'm concerned, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter is an example of an American patriot. He is speaking, loudly and clearly, against what he perceives is his country's pending mistake in going to war against Iraq. I can only imagine what kinds of pressure, intimidation, harassment and carefully planned smear campaigns are being leveled at him right now, and I pray that he has a very good security system or bodyguards around him. I don't doubt for a moment that he is in physical danger for daring to not only refute the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein is an immediate danger to us (WMD), but for also ridiculing the administration's claims and even accusing them of sabotaging the inspection process. He is a brave, brave soul. We need to hear more from him, Buzz...can you get an on-line interview with him perhaps? Then we can pass it along the internet, post it on BuzzFlash, share it with Moveon.org and other like sites...he speaks knowledgeably and STRONGLY against war!!! We need his voice on our side, the side of most Americans, the side of PEACE.

A quote from President John Fitzgerald Kennedy calming the American people while missiles were pointed directly at the United States.

In what is one more example of George Bush and Co. putting their own fortunes and politics ahead of the good of the nation, the Bush administration is choosing to attack Iraq. Furthermore, the administration is fully aware of the destabilizing effect that the Iraq war will have on the middle east and the increased anger and hostility such an attack will inevitably bring to bear on the United States. The question of course is why, do they want to do this when even their own right wing compatriots such as Brent Scowcroft argue against such a poorly conceived and illegal attempt to overthrow the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq.

The easy answer is of course oil. By taking over the oil fields of Iraq by installing a friendly government, the Bush cartel will effectively control 10% of the oil in the middle east. It also gives Bush more control of the surrounding countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia since such a takeover will inevitably lead to a large military component being left behind to "keep the peace" and give Bush the big stick diplomacy he so dearly loves.

But the real answer is military arms and continued domestic insecurity. By destabilizing the middle east, the military industrial complex will be in a position to sell increased levels of arms to both the United States military, to friendly nations of the United States and to both enemy nations and terrorist organizations. Such sales will surely line the pockets of the Bush family since Poppy Bush sits on the Board of Directors of the Carlyle Group, now one of the worlds largest players in the Military Industrial Complex. Is it so far fetched to believe that George is counting on inheriting money from his dad when the elder retires. Is it also so far fetched to believe that W is expecting to work for the Carlyle Group once his one term has left him once again unemployed and in need of daddy's help to get a job (Poppy Bush got W a seat on the board of directors of a Carlyle Group subsidiary Caterair).

Furthermore, by continuing to increase domestic insecurity, the right-wing radicals that stole the election and then chose not to stop Al Queda on 9/11 will be in an even better position to suspend and then fully eliminate citizen rights in America. Through the actions of GWB, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc. it is clear that there is an agenda to reshape America away from our populist, democratic roots and to install a new totalitarian government in its place. This is why we are creating a new Military division who is responsible for domestic control. This is why they are eager to create internal (USSR style) informants. This is why so many of our rights are being suspended. As long as the general population feels that their lives are in danger from terrorism, they will close their eyes to the Bush coup until it is too late to stop it.

Very interesting interview. First Barbara Bush claims that on 9-11 they first thought that this was caused by a commercial airliner but after the second one, they knew it wasn't. Bizarre.

Poppa continues the interview to whore for Saudi Arabia. ["They are our friends!"] and the CIA while poo pooing the notion that it is important to capture Bin Laden. He also implies that this was so well organized that it must have been in the making for years...READ AS "planned under Clinton." In true Republican fashion, he later claims to be irritated by the "blame game." And if only, we had an informed journalist conducting the interview to counter some of his no-brain answers.

Seems Frankie has a brand new poll. According to his Frankness, a whopping seventy-seven percent of Americans now feel Hussein is a much bigger threat than Bin Laden. That's right folks, Bin Laden is officially yesterday's news. The real threat is the guy with the scud missiles, at least that's what frank Frank would have us believe.

The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Wednesday that a 14-month investigation found pollster Frank Luntz violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

Ps. I hear Cheney saw his shadow and headed back to his undisclosed whole in the ground, which can only mean one thing, six more weeks of Bush-shit.

Perhaps American Citizens should also mourn what happened in Chile in the 1980's on 9/11.

Democracy was kicked out and a dictator put in. Thousands killed raped and missing.

"One year ago, we were attacked because of who we are and what we believe." -- George W. Bush, September 10, 2002

We were attacked because of what we do to other countries and how we disrupt other people's lives.

The terrorists don't really care how we live our lives. They attacked us because we were imposing our views on their lives.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the ways our greedy corporations take advantage of third world countries.

Until we address the real reason we were attacked and change how we treat other peoples, we will always be targets for terrorists.




MEDIA WATCH \| DAILY BUZZ \| FIFTH COLUMNIST \| CARTOONS \| SOUTHERN STYLE
THE ANGRY LIBERAL \| INTERVIEWS \| CONTRIBUTORS \| MAILBAG \| CAPITOL BUZZ
EDITORIALS \| ANALYSIS \| ALERTS \| PERSPECTIVES \| SEARCH \| ABOUT
HEADLINES \| MEDIA LINKS \| LINK ARCHIVES \| SEND NEWSFLASH \| CONTACT US
HELP KEEP BUZZFLASH BUZZ'N!

Unless otherwise noted, all original content and headlines are © BuzzFlash. Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.