October 9, 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.

Subj: Truth is the mortal enemy of the Lie

Dear BuzzFlash,

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.

- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subj: The chain reaction of evil

Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate;
only love can do that.
Hate multiplies hate,
violence multiplies violence,
and toughness multiplies toughness
in a descending spiral of destruction...
The chain reaction of evil --
hate begetting hate,
wars producing more wars --
must be broken, or we shall be plunged
into the darkness of annihilation.

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq

Dear BuzzFlash,

The people noted in this report and all military personnel with such knowledge not only have a right, but a duty, to speak out publicly about their misgivings. Their allegations about being pressured into "cooking the evidence" against Iraq amount to an indictment against the Bush administration. To put our nation at great risk on flimsy, trumped up and disputed evidence is tantamount to treason. Bush said he isn't willing to risk one American life waiting for a "smoking gun" on Iraq - what he doesn't say is that he's willing to risk thousands of our young soldiers and invite an even greater threat of terrorist attacks on countless innocent citizens here at home. Innocents in Iraq and the entire Middle East who may be lost are beneath his notice.

M. Murray

Subj: mailbags of 10/7 and 10/8

Dear BuzzFlash,

I am writing in part to lift the spirits of Dee Turner and hope that she does not give up. Remember, it is always darkest before the dawn! You say that you did not dislike Reagan and you thought that the first Bush had common decency. But, of, course, this Bush is hopeless! I agree with the fact that this one is hopeless, but I never liked Reagan (he lied more than Clinton was even accused of (and that was a tremendous amount), and Father George was no more decent that Reagan, with the lies of Iran Contra and all other things they were mixed up in, with Ollie North and the other crooks.

If you did not hate them, did you ever go along just because everyone around you tried to make you think you were wrong and they were right?

Let me tell you, Dee, what my life has been like. I am the only democrat, now, in an almost entirely republican mess. My three kids, adults, who all voted for Bill Clinton, thought at the time he was the greatest, have all gone over to the other side, and I am already seeing signs of regret, although as you likely know, a person who crosses over, will never admit their wrongdoing...that is the Republican Motto...We are never wrong!!

During Bill Clinton's presidency, the entire 8 years, I listened to him being called every name in the book by my own husband --'liar, lowlife, cheat, draft dodger' all of it -- until one day I reminded my husband that he in fact was a draft dodger of the worst kind, there wasn't even a war when he was called and his family still would not hear of their precious young men going. He and all three of his brothers got out!!!

Their pregnant wives went to the recruiters and begged that they be spared just going away! Now, I am NOT calling my husband a coward, just setting him straight on the difference in thinking, that a conflict was wrong, being a Rhodes Scholar, and just not wanting to go away from home (his mother had a hissy fit..later lost her mind completely, and had to be put away). But, in the meantime, three of her sons got out of the military altogether, while my mother, a widow at 34 with 6 children to raise alone, gave every one of her sons to the military -- lost one in Viet Nam and had another in the war in Cambodia!! (Incidentally, I was one of the aforementioned pregnant wives who thought I had to do what was asked of me in 1955) At any rate, I never again heard a thing about Mr. Clinton's being a draft dodger...

They are all wrong, Dee...all!

Last night, I watched the fool come out to make his case against Iraq. There he was again, no one with him, by himself, with that same "deer in the headlights look." It is always there. This man is a tool of his father, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld (who thinks he is actually cute) -- makes me sick! These old men all came back to settle the score and they brought Junior! He went along, of course, what the hell else is he going to do, he failed at every thing in his life, except cheating people out of billions in oil money! And of course, he is evil!! I believe that with all my heart. If anyone does not believe this was planned, read very carefully in "The Hunting of the President" all about the meeting that the evil Lee Atwater had with his RNC in the late eighties. He was and he stated "afraid the old man was going to blow it...he was sure, and no one concerned him but that young upstart Governor of Arkansas," mainly because the man was intelligent!!! What a reason to want to get rid of a man. Is that not hate for one's country...certainly not love, but then no one ever accused a Republican of being for Country first, and self second!!!

To this day, I have hope, that my children will find the way to begin to think in the way they used to, certainly not in the way they think now.

I have let them know that their father's bonus check was cut in half this year for the first time in our lifetime...his 401k is not going to earn a dime...but, those millionaires will get their precious tax cut.

I found out recently, one of the kids, a son, who told me that Bill Clinton should have been hung....did not even vote and has never!! Telling me that Clinton should have been hung, is like telling me that my best friend should be hung! My heart has been totally broken, by my own family!! People like Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Rush(the Flush) and so many other liars on the radios and television shows, don't even phase me anymore!!

I still have two sisters and their husbands who are devoted democrats and I get to talk to them occasionally. One of the sisters lives is D.C. and is close to the sources!! But, as far as I know, that is it. It was, at the time, the popular thing to do, then he had his little arranged bombing, and for at least a year, it was not nice to question the president at a time of crisis, so says Ari Fleischer

Things are going to get a little harder for them now. They are shooting themselves in the foot! Already, they slammed Torricelli so much that he decided to pull out, putting in a sure fire winner in Lautenberg...Talk about idiots!! New Jersey is ours now! Ha ha!!!! Give it another six months, Dee..watch and listen...they are idiots..all. Who else in that situation would turn around midstream, after his cowboy words, "Getting Bin Laden dead or alive!"...and go after, Hussein!??? Is that transparent???

This was the Bush Mission from the start!

Just watch it grow!!

Shirley... St.Louis

Subj: Arianna Huffington and War Casualties

Dear BuzzFlash,

Your site is great. I check it all day, for more headlines and articles, and it keeps me sane and angry.

Tonight I clicked on your link to Arianna Huffington's column about the "Magic C word- Casualties".

After listening to her on NPR's "Left, Right and Center" when she used to be the Right, I never thought I would find myself agreeing with her, and yet more and more, I do.

I think this war is a terrible idea, and has no purpose other than to distract Americans from the failed Bin Laden hunt, and the failing economy. Not to mention there is oil to be gained by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Or all the even more diabolical Bush and Republican plots -- that I read about on BuzzFlash.)

I have heard other mentions about the casualties that we could expect if we do go to war, but I haven't heard anyone mention the casualties we could have here in the US.

After what happened on 9/11, how can we be so naive, and pompous, to think that Saddam and the other anti-American religious jihad groups would be content to let us wage war on their turf, and not expect them to inflict some damage to us in our own country? This war could be perceived by some- Arab and Americans alike- to be an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Wouldn't the Iraqi's and other Arab sympathizers feel justified in attacking us back? And think of the damage they could do. Besides nuclear weapons and dirty bombs and planes into buildings, isn't it possible that they could wreak more havoc with a bunch of "little" suicide bombs like in Israel? How would the American people feel if they could be blown up at the local Starbucks, or movie theater or gas station? Now that would be terror. And what would something like that do to the economy? Besides, as Arianna says, Saddam is sure to have at least one last nasty trick up his sleeve as a parting gift.

Didn't the American people learn that we aren't really so safe and cozy, and if 9/11 could happen, why isn't anyone discussing what kind of retaliation we could expect, if we start a war against Iraq? Forget about the casualties abroad, ask Mr. Everyman on the street if he would care to risk having every day, commonplace suicide bombings like in Israel(and elsewhere). Is the war in Iraq worth that?

Diane Markin

Dear BuzzFlash,

While the enormous antiwar rallies from New York to Italy deservedly make headlines, protests in smaller cities are occurring, too. Bush was in my hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee, today, raising money for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, Van Hilleary. Hundreds of invited guests paid $1,000 a piece for the privilege of hob-nobbing with the Vegetative One while lunch was served; outside, hundreds of protestors objected to the possibility of pre-emptive war on Iraq. The rally was put together by several religious groups, and a variety of citizens--young and old, in jeans and sport jackets, in "denominations" from Catholic to Baptist to atheist--showed up to make their voices heard.

As usual, the crowd was herded into a so-called First Amendment zone--speak freely while your voices are contained here--but managed to escape to line Henley Street in downtown Knoxville, where the president's motorcade was scheduled to transport His Imminence in one of those black limos and SUVs: standard chariots for dictators across the world. Along the way, three protestors were arrested for straying outside designated protest areas, and police hustled folks from one place to another, "All in the name of national security," they repeatedly answered when questioned by people (like me) who resented being pushed down a sidewalk against our will. It must be said that they were relatively gentle, despite the arrests and their obvious surprise at the size of the crowd.

In addition to the number of people protesting, the remarkable thing about the protest was how few folks actively disagreed with it. Very few people in cars driving by did anything to counteract the demonstrators and their messages; many happily used their horns in response to the "honk if you love peace" signs. No counterdemonstration was evident, though two people held up signs for Shrub and the Republican candidate for governor, and they were left alone.

Our experience leads me to think that there is discontent for a trumped-up war all across small-town America. A recent poll suggests that 70 percent of our citizens are worried about what Bush is doing to our economy while engaging in his Oedipal obsession with Iraq, and we are prepared to speak out about it.

For more on the protest see http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_1466304,00.html

A loyal BuzzFlash reader,

Scot Danforth

Re: Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq

BuzzFlash:

Same old rhetoric, only delivered a bit slower, calmer -- just like an actor who has been coached by a PR firm.

Couple of things caught my attention in Bush's speech:

1. He still didn't show us any photographs or documents to support the fact that Saddam H. has bio/chem. weapons or nuclear capability. I hear people say he has something that he can't show us because of our security and blah, blah, blah. I say if John Kennedy could show us pictures of Cuba's weaponry, then so can GW. We should not go to war on words alone. So where's the proof?

2. He said that Iraq has shot at the British and U.S. planes flying over Iraq in excess of 700 times in the recent past. Yet none of these plans have been hit or shot down, as I recall. These guys are bad shots!!! I am just terrified (not!) of a country that has shot at us over 700 times and hasn't been able to hit us yet. So if they can't hit a plane flying over their own country, what makes Bush thinks they are so deadly on shores abroad?

3. How did Milosovich get arrested and brought before the War Crimes Tribunal? Could Saddam H. as he now stands be arrested and brought before the same War Crimes Tribunal for genocide and murder and attacking countries, etc.?

Should anyone on your staff know the answers to these questions, I would appreciate hearing your viewpoints.

I am deadset against this war. I think it is all about oil and a desperate attempt to hide all of the failures of this man as pResident. And no, I haven't gotten over the stolen election of 2000. That was the first act of terrorism on our shores. The second act was 9-11-01. The third was our domestic anthrax terrorist. The fourth is John Ashcroft and all of his scare tactics and his stupid color scheme. What a bunch of terrifically frightening idiots. If we attack Iraq this time, I believe it will only set more terrorism against the U.S. in motion. Haven't we made enough enemies?

Donna Woods

Dear BuzzFlash,

I've watched the shrub get nuttier and nuttier in his rabid desire to work us up over how serious the Hussein threat is. And the other day a terrible thought occurred to me that I can't shake. Given how many times he's given less than honest "proof" to advance his illegal cause, what's to stop him from faking an "incident" in the no-fly zone and then "respond" to the fake aggression ? That way he can claim that America wasn't acting pre-emptively.

I sure hope I'm wrong......

Your biggest fan,

Beautiful Barb
Seattle

Subj: Oil and war, simple enough?!

Dear Buzz,

Looks like we're headed for war now..., regardless of what the U.N. wants, or what the American People, or the World Community thinks. This is not about terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction, or threats to our allies, or about Israel, or Islam, or an attempt to assassinate George Bush's Daddy, or the human rights of the downtrodden Iraqis or even Saddam Hussein, it's about Ambition and Greed and Power (The power that the control of oil brings).

These 'justifications' are a ruse. These folks have a plan, well thought out, to exploit the situation to take over the Iraqi oil fields. Let's shuck it down to the husk. This is a stark, cold, calculated, cynical grab for oil, money and power, on the part of Bush, Cheney, and their ilk. The opportunity may not come again... and now's their big chance!!

They're sharp, no question. They've got Bush's personal charisma, and popularity, the Republicans very effective political machine, fear over the election and a lack of backbone on the part of many Democrats, anxiety of the people over 9/11, a well fostered distrust and hatred of Islamic fundamentalists, distractions over the economy and a coercion of the notion of patriotism to give them cover to pull this off.

They'll use our sons and daughters, and our money (money that will not then be available for our domestic needs; Social Security, education, health care, infrastructure, the environment... we all know the litany) and the immense power of the U.S. Military to accomplish this project. It's obvious that they can't be bothered with any issue that distracts from their purpose. Domestic issues are clearly secondary, if they even matter at all.

This war won't be any six week or even six month proposition. We (the U.S. Military 'our best and brightest') will have to occupy Iraq, not for five or ten or even fifty years, but from now on. And what's next?? Once the institutions to manage and broker the oil are in place and entrenched in Iraq, and defended by our military, what's to stop these boys from acquiring a taste for Kuwaiti, or Saudi oil? They can surely find human rights violations or other justifications, or excuses to insist on 'Regime Change' in these or any other countries.

The only other effort that George Bush is involved in these days is raising money for Republican candidates. He's in a great position to do it and he's good at it. Naturally the moneyed interests in the country will be the ones to benefit from the takeover of the oil fields, and if Bush is re-elected, or re-appointed, they'll just have more time to get set up in the Middle East to control and broker the oil. Let's not forget that Bush and Cheney are oil men from way back, and that Thomas White, Secretary of the Army , is a multi-millionaire former energy trader wheeler dealer from Enron, and that Harvey Pitt, head of the SEC, who oversees how corporations are allowed to operate is another former corporate wheeler dealer. Not to mention the other corporate bigwigs and lobbyists that the Bush administration is stocked with.

I don't believe the American people really want to become an Imperialist nation, but if so, let's go at it with our eyes wide open, and understand that the profits and benefits derived from this kind of geo-political arrangement, purchased with the blood of our military men and women, won't benefit regular working Americans, but will go to the wealthy, as is common under Republicans.

Charles Rogers

Subj: Hypocrisy in NJ

Dear BuzzFlash,

Little reminder that as the Chicken Hawk pundits out there keep slamming the Democrats in NJ for the NJ Supreme Court decision, just remember that they are all a bunch of hypocrites.

It was in the NY Times on Oct. 5th, of course 3/4's of the way down but it said,

"Mr. Genova also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today. "Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."

Mr. Genova said the Forrester campaign was trying to have it both ways. But Mr. Sheridan said today that the two situations were not analogous because "no primary ballots had been issued" in April."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html

There is also very good analysis by Joshua Mitchell (it's the second Oct. 6th commentary)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0201.html#100602137am

So basically, Forrester did the exact same thing that Lautenberg did, got his name on the ballot after the "strict" 51 day deadline. The only difference is the amount of days left (40 instead of in the thirties), a primary instead of the general election, and a few of the absentee ballots have been sent. The state elections committee already said they have enough time to redo the ballots. SO WHY ARE THE GOP STILL SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER OVER THE NJ COURT DECISION? Why do you think the Supreme Court did not want to touch it? In theory, if the supreme court enforced the 51 day rule, wouldn't that also exclude Forrester since he violated the same "rule" in order to get his name on the primary ballot? I guess New Jersey could have a Libertarian or Green Party Senator. I guess it's OK when it goes your way but not the other party.

Where are all the "liberal" media with this tidbit? We need to be screaming from the mountaintops with this info. We have caught all of the right wing talking heads with info that proves they're hypocrisy. If the tables were turned we would be hearing about it for the next five years from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. If not all over the media, than at least it might give you some facts to tell around the water cooler. Union Yes!

D. Joseph Hartnett

Dear BuzzFlash,

Reading about the numbers of people turning out to protest Bush's crusade to attack Iraq leaves me with one comment:

Georgie may end up in a war with Americans. The protest movement has just begun, mein Bush. We have just begun to fight!

~ Cathy

Dear BuzzFlash,

Despite heavy negative RNC ads aimed at Sen. Paul Wellstone (MN) attacking his defense voting record, the MN VFW has endorsed Sen Wellstone over his Republican (a former Democrat) challenger, former St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman.

This is supposed to be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation. The state GOP selected candidate, Jim Pawlenty was asked by Dick Cheney to withdraw from the Senate race so they could prop up Norm Coleman - whom they thought stood a better chance to unseat Wellstone.

U.S. SENATE RACE: Veterans group is backing Wellstone
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/4 233772.htm

A BuzzFlash Reader

Buzz,

I wanted to thank you for posting the link to the page for Cincinnati's anti-war protest Oct. 7, 2002. With your help spreading the word to potential attendees, the event was an awesome success. What a grand display of democracy in action in the "heartland" of the "homeland". Very, very few bushites. Thousands of antiwar, anti bush, anti coup, etc. folks with signs, signs, signs, chanting and drumming and singing, dancing and sheer joy in being in the company of true patriots. I am hoarse but encouraged to continue the struggle for a return of our democracy to the people. There is still hope for us all when in such a conservative location as Cincinnati, Ohio an estimated 5000-8000 came out on a Monday evening to protest the thief, with his insistent, bratty demand for a blank check to wage a perpetual war against all who possess his one true god - oil.

Thanks again for the coverage and keep up the great work!

Margaret Robinson
Erlanger, KY

Dear BuzzFlash,

Some senator or congressman should get on the floor and give a speech about Iraq with bold visuals. He should hold up a bodybag in one hand and a can of oil in the other and ask:

How many of these bodybags is it worth for this can of oil?

That would get the point across.

stevie g

Dear BuzzFlash,

I was in the Senate gallery yesterday and heard Senator Byrd speak. Again he sounded like the real thing; listening to him shows you what the Senate was supposed to be.

SENATOR BYRD, A HERO FOR OUR TIME

Thank God for Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), the one man in the Senate saying what needs to be said.

George W. Bush is trying to get America to attack Iraq.

This idea - that the world's most powerful nation should bomb, invade, and then remake a country that unfortunately sits on top of the world's second-largest oil reserves, though that country has never attacked us -- would be recognized as demented if any third-world clown in high place pushed it. Yet it is being "debated" in the U.S. Congress.

Following is part of Senator Byrd's statement to the Senate:

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

"Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

The fundamentals of democracy were good enough for Lincoln - and incidentally for George Washington, who resigned his generalship after the Revolutionary War, and declined kingship when offered it. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and to finance it, under our system of government; the reason is that a single man with unlimited power might abuse his authority and go to war for motives more in his interest than in the nation's. This is why we have a system of checks and balances - to sidestep the human tendency to abuse a position of unchecked power.

Most members of Congress, of course, are not consciously trying to replace this system. They humbly believe opinion polls show that going to war with Iraq has public "approval.

They're mistaken.

My family actually is from Texas, and we recently got back from two weeks in Houston. Enthusiasm for attacking Iraq? Nonexistent. The more Bush talks about "regime change," the fewer people enlist. Nobody wants to go to war with Iraq. Regular people don't even want to hear about it.

As goes Texas, so goes the nation. Congress is receiving thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls, all saying - basically -- "Are you KIDDING? So why aren't opinion polls running the same way? Simple: polling is no longer perceived as private.

I can attest personally that the polls leave the responder feeling rather exposed. Online polls don't just ask your "opinion." They ask your household income, your age, and your religion. They ask your race, your gender, and your marital status (and not just the innocuous 'married' or 'single,' either). They ask whether you are registered in a political party and, if so, which one. They ask your politics, from "very conservative" to "very progressive." Notwithstanding the privacy of the voting booth, they ask whom you have voted for.

It can take months to relearn not to evade, in such a setting -- isolated but not private, public but not reinforced by friends, relatives, and colleagues. That's why broad national polls can run months behind public sentiment. What they reflect is a climate of intimidation.

Let's hope the Democrats soon recognize that Bush's acting like Mussolini is a campaign issue in their favor. The public relies on Congress, and relies on the press, in spite of some distrust. Meanwhile, Senator Byrd is a hero for opposing the current Lack of Resolution.

* * *

Dr. Margie Burns, Cheverly MD.
I am a native Texan (degrees from Rice), teach English as an adjunct at the U of Md in Baltimore County, and write freelance in DC.

Dear BuzzFlash,

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Senator Byrd.

Please, everyone, the time is critical. Support Senator Byrd's filibuster.

Senator Byrd,

I am not your constituent in the strictest sense as I live in another state, New Jersey. But I feel as though you are representing my interests with your stance on many issues, especially regarding Iraq and our government's desire to attack it unprovoked.

Sir, from the bottom of my heart, and the depths of my soul, I thank you.

These men, these usurpers who sit in our Executive branch, have demonstrated daily that they have no regard for the opinions or the positions of the elected representatives of our citizenry. They certainly have no regard for the lives of the citizens themselves. We have seen that in the way they have stolen from us, and fattened the wallets of themselves and their ilk. They do this wantonly and brazenly, daring us to get in the way.

But now the stakes are higher. It is no longer hyperbole to say the fate of the entire world may very well rest upon what course, we, as a nation, take next.

Please implement your plans for filibuster. Please try to do anything and everything you can to hold onto the remaining shreds of our Constitution. Know and understand that there are millions and millions of us who look for someone - anyone - to stem this tide of imperialism that has been thrust upon us in the name of security.

Any man or woman of common sense and decency knows that this policy - this so-called 'Bush Doctrine' (as if the man was even capable of having his own doctrine), will crystallize and ensure the very things that it claims to prevent. Should calamities befall our population due to retaliation, these men will adjourn to their caves, protect their families and friends, and let the chips fall where they may. We are expendable, and only exist to provide means to their sinister ends.

The irony here is that should you be successful, there will only be wave after wave and thrust after thrust of new attempts of power consolidation from this vile and disregarding administration, until it's day has seen it end. Should you fail, and humanity survive, history will show you as one of only a few brave men who walked into the light when the darkness surrounded us.

Blessed are the Peacemakers. Our prayers and gratitude go with you, sir.

Sincerely,

Jim Cloud

Subj: Endangered Statesman

The last two years have been hell for liberals. We won the election and then watched helplessly as the presidency was stolen by someone who rejects the values that make America special. We agonized as our Democrats in Congress passively submitted to the extremist agenda of an unelected usurper. We were horrified to witness George W. Bush first allow our nation to be terrorized, and then cynically exploit that tragedy in order to confiscate our freedom. We have wondered in frustration why no one is standing up for us.

Where is the Democrat who will defend the powerless average citizen against the malefactors of great wealth? Where is the champion who will place the best interests of our country ahead of his own selfish interest? Where is our Harry Truman? Where is our Robert Kennedy?

He is running for reelection in Minnesota. Senator Paul Wellstone has put his political career on the line by announcing he will vote against giving Bush authorization to colonize the Middle East. Wellstone is in a close race for reelection, and he knows that his controversial vote of conscience could cost him his seat. He is aware that, no matter how he votes, the American military is going to be deployed to seize the Iraqi oil fields. Yet, unlike so many other Democrats, he has refused to expediently genuflect before Bush. Paul Wellstone is standing on principle, regardless of the consequences to himself.

This is what liberals have been impatiently waiting to see. This is a real time, modern day profile in courage.

Wellstone receives a rating of zero from the right wing American Conservative Union, which – from the enlightened perspective - is the next best thing to being endorsed by God. He voted against the Bush tax heist for the rich that turned President Clinton’s huge budget surplus into another Republican tidal wave of red ink. He has been a stalwart on women’s rights and civil rights and protecting the environment. He has prioritized the concerns of the common person above the greed of the multinational corporation.

Naturally, this strong record has motivated the Green Party to field a candidate against Wellstone. They hope to siphon off enough votes to defeat him. In doing so, the Greens’ stated goal is to throw the Senate to the Republicans in order to make things so bad in America that our traumatized country will ultimately turn in panicked desperation to the Savior, Ralph Nader.

Meanwhile, people who actually value democracy are in danger of losing one of the few heroes we have. Wellstone is a man of honor who would rather be defeated than be unethical. He is the un-Bush. The Republicans are spending a fortune to knock him off on the theory that they had better nip this outbreak of liberal courage in the bud – it might be contagious.

America has become what Alexander Hamilton envisioned – a pseudo democracy that exists for the benefit of the wealthy. Congress is receiving correspondence from constituents running 20-1 against attacking Iraq, but the politicians of both parties are voting on behalf of a few war profiteers who finance political campaigns. This is a perversion of what our country is supposed to be. It is the United States of Scalia.

Almost all of the Congressional Republicans and about half of the Democrats have forsaken the people they supposedly represent. They will vote for war, having pledged their allegiance to the Bush Doctrine, which compels America to destroy those nations that either have or don’t have weapons of mass destruction. Of the Democrats who are opposing the war, many are from safe districts or are not running for reelection.

And then there is Paul Wellstone. Although he is locked in an extremely tight race with Republican Norm Coleman, Wellstone has boldly challenged popular misconceptions about the impending conflict. He has refused to give the obligatory endorsement of the Bush fantasy that Saddam Hussein is on the verge of vaporizing Peoria. He has forcefully pointed out that the administration’s own facts contradict its argument for a violent resolution of this matter.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently testified that the Iraqi military is one-third the size it was prior to the Gulf War. He said that Iraq does not have a viable air force or navy. He stated that there is no evidence Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And yet, the elected representatives of the American people are allowing themselves to be stampeded into giving Bush carte blanche to obliterate the civilian population centers of Iraq. The ostensible leader of the putative opposition party in the House has shamelessly capitulated, embracing Bush less than a week after the former Texas governor questioned the patriotism of Democrats who resist the stampede.

At a time when most prominent liberals are cowering in fear, Paul Wellstone is walking tall. A deep sense of honor has led the senator to become the ultimate endangered species: a statesman. Wellstone is neither a fool nor a masochist – he is giving voice to the concerns of the American people knowing full well that, during times of great passion, honorable men tend to be cast out as pariahs. Dick Gephardt also knows this, and he has chosen the safer path of dishonor. He has surrendered to Bush in the belief that taking a dive will benefit a future Gephardt presidential campaign.

The policies that Mr. Gephardt has chosen to endorse are extremely dangerous for the nation he wants to lead. America cannot survive as both a democracy and an empire; these values systems are mutually exclusive. Americans must choose whether we want to be free, or whether we want to dominate the world.

Paul Wellstone has chosen. He has chosen peace over war and his country over his career. He has chosen to uphold the best ideals of our nation at a time when true patriots are being smeared as un-American. While other Democrats have taken the easy way out, Wellstone has chosen the difficult course of telling the truth in an environment where the truth is reviled.

Now, the liberal rank and file must choose. After longing for a champion to fight for our principles, will we meekly watch him be destroyed by people who have no principles? Or will we stand with him, and in the process stand up for all the things we claim to believe?

It is time for progressives across America to financially support Paul Wellstone, the man who has stepped forward to show the courage we have been demanding. It is time for us to do what conservatives have always lacked the moral strength to do – apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. If we are unwilling to defend someone who is bravely fighting for us, then liberals must finally come to terms with the fact that the cowardice of Dick Gephardt is not only what we deserve, but also the true reflection of who we are.

Wellstone for Senate 2002
P.O. Box 14377
St. Paul, MN, 55114.

Or to contribute online: https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/11413133/

- David Podvin

Subj: Senator Byrd's Grande Cojones!!

Dear BuzzFlash,

Hurrah for Senator Byrd! The only man in the Senate to stand up to his imperial lowness the prez-select. By taking this stand, Senator Byrd forces others to consider the impact of military action on our men and women who are NOT YET DEAD and the INNOCENT IRAQI CHILDREN NOT YET DEAD from what would be a HORRIFIC air assault by our air force.

There are other options available to our government to effectively neutralize Saddam Hussein. The actions proposed by Bush and his Henchmen is UNAMERICAN AND IMMORAL! Do not forget that this administration came into office with a WE WILL NOT GET INVOLVED IN PEACE MAKING IN THE MIDDLE EAST and damned if Bush hasn't been true to his word. Bush is ultimately responsible for the blood of every american who dies in the middle east and we are all responsible for the blood of every innocent man, woman and child who dies as a result of our military actions. When does the term "collateral damage" become unacceptable to the moral conscience of the American people? As Americans we need to take a moment and look into our national conscience and decide what kind of a country and what kind of a society we want to be. It is very easy to push a button on a weapon of mass destruction and very difficult to negotiate a peace. Our current leadership is taking the easy way out save for Senator Robert Byrd! Pax vobiscum not Pax American.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Dear BuzzFlash,

Let me get this straight . . .

Bush gives up on catching Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Bush decides he'd rather attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq who have almost NO links with Al Qaeda .

Al Qaeda uses this Bush provided break to regroup and start killing US troops OUTSIDE of Afghanistan.

So much for the 'war' on terrorism. Geez.

Skip Van Hook

Subj: War Diversion

Dear BuzzFlash,

Halliburton

Harkin

energy task force

Why haven't we heard anything about these issues that once covered the front pages of news magazines & newspapers?

Could be that our attention is being DIVERTED by something else?

Dave Soriano

Dear BuzzFlash,

Why isn't anyone pointing out how Jeb, K. Harris and other FL. republicans are basically calling Broward and Dade counties a bunch of morons? I would not like being called a moron and would not vote for anyone who would insinuate that is what I am.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Senator Byrd;

As a fellow thinking, patriotic American, I wish to thank you for you strong stand against precipitous, unilateral, aggressive war with Iraq. I called your office, but was told your mailbox is full. I hope it is filled with similar expressions of support.

You, sir, are doing God's work, and I bless you for it.

Robert Marcum
Springfield, OH

Dear BuzzFlash,

I just took a mere 10 minutes to contact my Congressman (Henry Waxman!) and my two senators to give them my opinion about how they should vote in giving George Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq.

One of the great things about the internet is reading about the groundswell of people paying attention to this issue and contacting their representatives. Our elected officials, in my opinion, don't think very highly of "the masses" and actually count on the fact that most people don't pay attention or don't say anything.

As a reminder, the people we elect and send to Washington are elected to represent US. Pay attention to how they vote on the issues near and dear to you, and if they are not representing YOU, vote to fire them and replace them with someone who will. And remind your elected officials that they serve at the pleasure of US.

Trust me, the members of Congress are being overwhelmed by how many people in this country are paying attention to them lately. Remind them of this fact. And lastly, I know I'm "preaching to the choir," but VOTE in November. Florida 2000 taught us that every vote counts.

Peace,

Jeffrey Stewart
Los Angeles, CA

Dear BuzzFlash,

I was watching the Capital Gang the other night and Mark Shields says something a bit unsettling. Here's from the show's transcript:

"SHIELDS: Now for the "Outrage of the Week." Congressional offices report that their calls, letters, and e- mails are running up to 100 to one and more against a U.S. military invasion of Iraq.

It makes you wonder whom editors of "The Wall Street Journal" Opinion.com talk to when they write, and I quote, "Based on the e-mail we receive, we'd say 95 percent of readers of this column support a war in Iraq, and of those who don't, perhaps half are either openly anti-Semitic or just plain nuts," end quote.

Unbelievable."

Either Congress would rather prefer to listen to "letters to the editors" than direct contacts from their constituents or Shrub has some sort of headlock on them.

Either way it reeks!

Keep calling your congresspeople!!!!!!

Hunter Richards
Houston-we-have-a-problem, TX

[BuzzFlash Note: Other than greed-motivated conservatives, who believes anything in the WSJ? Although, we did get a nice quote from them. :)]

Hi Buzz,

This is an email I sent to the Cincinnati Post re: "Protesters voice opposition to possible war" written by Jeanne Houck,

Dear Editors and Jeanne Houck,

Thank you for covering the peace demonstration in Cincinnati on Oct. 7 (Protesters voice opposition to possible war). It was a thorough and balanced article in which anti-war and pro-war voices were duly reported on. It's refreshing to have reporting of those occasions when Americans are practicing their right to dissent. It's been sadly lacking since 9/11, so I'm grateful to see the Cincinnati Post has chosen to cover these incidents.

But I do have one correction to your article. The problem with the longshoremen on the West Coast is not a strike. It is a lockout. The Pacific Maritime Association has locked the workers out for about 10 days now. This is absolutely not the dock workers going on strike. There is a tremendous difference. These are workers who are asking for safer conditions, among other issues, so people don't lose their lives earning a livelihood. There have been too many deaths in just the last months.

As the American economy, and whichever countries trade via the west coast lose billions of dollars every day it behooves journalists and the TV media to report the facts accurately. There is a tendency, perhaps not altogether deliberate, to see unions as troublemakers and willing to hurt the economy in order to get more salaries. This is fundamentally a flawed view. Yet even George W. Bush who has the ear of the entire world when he speaks has been implying that American citizens who are union members are somehow "unpatriotic" in some way. This implies that the very fact of any union members in Homeland Security would jeopardize the United States so badly that the terrorists would win his "war on terror". I venture to say that no American group of people, whether union or not is willing to oppose any President against any war that is JUST.

I only ask that you relate all the facts, as they are because what you or any journalists write is where we, your readers hope to get the truth.

Thank you,

Judith Foster

Dear Buzz--

This article by Sen. Robert C. Byrd made me weep. He has so eloquently expressed the dread that I have been feeling. History will show that the rewriting of laws to suit an individual's or regime's desires is the first step to the breakdown of government.

Lash us tightly to our constitution.

Gaylon Emerzian
Evanston IL

Subj: Bush Doctrine

Dear BuzzFlash:

I would like to make a point that I don't see debated anywhere (certainly not in our poor excuse of a fourth estate): Aren't we taking a giant step toward freeing our military from civilian control? By allowing one man the ability to directly control our military forces we would create a situation where the Joint Chiefs of Staff could, one day, dictate public policy. They could elect presidents and control Congress for their own benefit and damn the people.

I have received a totally unsatisfactory response from my senator which tells me that Congress has lost all sense of self-preservation. If Congress will not defend its powers under the Constitution I don't know what the answer is!

Gogi