August 28, 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,
I am one of those veterans who went to the Vietnam War and I am doing everything in my power to oppose this bullshit war in Iraq, and elsewhere. Watch....the Nigerian government will be next to let us in to take out its Islamic citizens because we have already condemned Islamic law with the Declaration of Universal Rights (what hypocrisy). Just coincidence that Nigeria sits on lots of oil.
Alan
Lewis
Veterans
for Peace
Vietnam
Veterans of America
Veterans
of Foreign Wars
BuzzFlash,
This WWII vet who lost a brother in Belgium WWII, is so opposed to this insanity of going to war without proof of any threat to America from IRAQ, it may take years to recover from this blunder if we go ahead and not having the majority of the people behind this fool of a leader.
John B.
Re: Editorial 26-08-2002
Ciao Buzz,
Read ya everyday from way over here in Europe! Keep dishin' it out!
Just a quick note about some language you used recently in an Editorial ("Message to America's Veterans: Part III" dated 26 August 2002).
At one point you described the Bush regime as a "shadow government." In Britain, the "shadow government" is a legal part of their framework that the opposition uses to frame its contrarian positions to the "government." The government is that group led by the prime minister and sanctioned by the Queen that actually gets to make policy and is elected when the party (or coalition) of the prime minister wins the majority of constituencies in Parliamentary elections.
OK, that's a little bit of info about English political law. My point ... "shadow government" is not the same as "shadowy government" or "government in the shadows." Although the term may be perceived like that by many Americans, remember you've got readers from all over the world. Since "shadow government" is a legitimate source of dissent in Britain, its use could be interpreted as you're claiming that the Bush regime was somehow legitimate.
I know this is an impression you'd never want to convey!
Keep up the good work.
Gianni in Italia
Dear BuzzFlash,
Thanks for including the Jimmy Breslin piece about Harry Castel, the "everyday American hero" who helped avert a confrontation after a Hasidic driver hit a black child in New York. In this discouraging time when nearly every article on your site describes a large, intractable problem, it's hard not to feel helpless and hopeless about having any meaningful impact in the world. Reading about a relatively ordinary person whose courage and humanity made a positive difference in his community was most heartening. Please include more items like this.
Sheila Collicott
Subj: The Shrub That Roared
Dear BuzzFlash,
Just a critical note on your editorial "Just Call Them Cowardly Hypocrites." You certainly indulge in some well-merited "abusive" rhetoric, but you didn't quite hit the trifecta as regards justifiable namecalling. Isn't it fair to say that G. W. Bush's AWOL from Vietnam-era national guard service makes him...a deserter from the military during wartime?
I suppose this is getting a mite technical, but, goodness knows, we're duty-bound to recognize the overriding importance of just such technicalities according to Katherine Harris' well-publicized notions of "principled leadership."
I swear, those thermonuclear levels of hypocrisy have the Party of Values so tied into self-referential knots that this kind of commentary is practically "rip and read."
Best,
Dan Kritchevsky
P.S. Speaking of self-referential irony, I quote from the 8/25 edition of Slate's Today's Papers:
"The LAT says that Iraqi exiles will soon be appearing on talk shows, writing op-ed pieces, and be giving speeches. Training will be given by the State Department, and according to one subtext-friendly sentence in the article: "The program will bring in journalists and media personalities to teach Iraqis how to 'become shapers of public opinion' to counter Hussein's 'propaganda machine,' the State Department official said." The war of rhetoric will also, according to unnamed U.S. officials and named Iraqi exiles interviewed in advance of training, likely reframe the need for a regime change from that of Saddam's anti-weapons-inspections policies to how Saddam rules his own citizens. Iraqi-American Muhannad [sic] Eshaiker, a California architect who will soon undergo Bush administration training, says several 'new arguments' will be introduced into the media. 'Is Saddam a legitimate president?' Eshaiker asks, as an example of one such new argument."
As if the only reason the whole world opposes our national agenda these days is that we aren't fine-tuning our marketing spin just right. But the phraseology of that last "argument" in particular, with its clearest possible invitation to recall Bush's own manner of installation, is the kind of polished self-parody that's had me wondering all along whether there's something deliberate about this administration's consistent habit, policy issues aside, of *imaging* itself in the worst possible light, including the most hypocritical light. Tsk, and it seems like only yesterday that the administration was tarring Robert Mugabe's latest election as fraudulent, unfree and unfair.
As for those policy issues, just below the ever-hazy media radar screen lies clear evidence that it's our own less-than-legitimate president who opposes a new weapons-inspection regime (see http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13749).
P.P.S. Not long ago I noticed that a brief BuzzFlash letter quoted the administration's rhetoric about Mugabe without even bothering to hint at the "recursive" angle, so obvious is the irony to your readership. And now, sheesh, here's P. M. Carpenter's latest consisting of a whole poker-faced columnful of more of the same, detailing the remarkable parallelism ad nauseum without once spelling out who he's really talking about. Another masterstroke of virulent virtuosity from this source. And to judge from a recent change in your c.v. for Dr. Carpenter, congratulations are in order for earning his (or her?) history Ph.D.
Dear BuzzFlash,
Just one comment on Bush's intended assault on forests, and his anti-environmental policies:
THIS PLANET DOES NOT BELONG TO US. WE BELONG TO THE PLANET!
~ Cathy
Dear BuzzFlash,
I learned something about myself today: I am a communist. At least according to conservatives on a couple of websites I visit.
I visit these websites and attempt to engage in intelligent discourse. It is very difficult when "the other side" refuses to accept facts or even attempt to look at issues with an open mind.
I posted a link to an article by William Rivers Pitt on Truthout.com concerning the treatment of protesters in Portland, Oregon. The article describes how the protesters were mistreated. Now, all the conservatives on these websites I mention above would not address the CONTENT of his article. They resorted to attacking the source as not being credible. Fine, maybe he was a little biased (he wasn't in this instance but, unlike my counterparts on these sites, I have an open mind and can accept their criticism). So I took it a step further: I posted the link BuzzFlash had to a site with pictures of the protest. Pictures are not biased. Pictures are not partisan. In these pictures the police were shown on one side of the barricade and the protesters on the other. The police were dousing the protesters with pepper spray and otherwise attacking them with no provocation. The responses I received to the pictures were disheartening at best. 1) IF the pictures were real then certainly the protesters MUST have done something to provoke the police that was not captured in the pictures. 2) The protesters should not have been there and got what they deserved.
These responses were from people who claim to be Americans. I'm sorry, but no REAL American would support such treatment of citizens wishing to voice their opinion of our government.
The conservatives on these websites labeled me a communist because I choose to support the right of Americans to protest. Un-F'in-believable. I then realized the headache I had was from banging my head against the wall.
I am no expert concerning political doctrine but I do remember what the old communist USSR was like:
1) The power of the entire country was in the hands of a few men who did as they pleased with no input from or regard for their citizens. (Bush and the chosen few have taken it upon themselves to ignore the Constitution and rule as they see fit, the hell with congress or anyone else).
2) Everything was done in secret. Sound familiar? Cheney's secret energy meetings, Bush sealing numerous documents, Ashcroft refusing to provide info to congress, Cheney ordering Daschle NOT to investigate 9/11 etc, etc.
3) Government officials could designate anyone they chose as an "enemy of the state" and that person had NO recourse. Sound familiar? Bush and Ashcroft have taken it upon themselves to cleanse us of the evil within. From the Stasi TIPS program to Ashcroft's wish of internment camps for those of us who oppose his fascist tactics.
4) The communist doctrine called for world domination. Sound familiar? First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then whoever Bush decides is "evil" and must be replaced. I'm sure the next "evil one" will also have access to plenty of oil. Why have we given up on getting bin Laden? He has no oil? Bush and co. are incompetent? Or maybe if bin Laden were tried in open court too many dirty Bush secrets would be exposed. They are/were business partners after all. Oh, I'm sorry, I am not allowed to voice any opinion that will make Bush look bad. Here I am Ashcroft, come and get me.
5) Speaking out against the government was not allowed. Sound familiar? See events in Tampa, Minnesota and now Portland.
I'm sure I have left some things out, but based on the above comparisons it seems to me that the commies are most definitely among us. Or rather, above us, in the highest echelons of what used to be our democratic government.
Peter Kallash
Subj: The Light of Liberty is not extinguished
Dear BuzzFlash,
There is hope. Today's decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that secret deportation proceedings are unconstitutional eloquently embodies the most fundamental core ideals and values that are our birthright as Americans and which we seek to protect for future generations.
The Court said:
>
A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete
> opposition to the
> society envisioned by the framers of our constitution . . . There
> seems to be no limit to the
> government's argument. The government could use its ... argument
as a
> justification to
> close any public hearing completely and categorically, including
> criminal proceedings.
> The government could operate in virtual secrecy in all matters
> dealing,
> even remotely, with 'national security,' resulting in a wholesale
> suspension of First Amendment rights.
> * * *
> * *
> [T]he public's interests are best served by open proceedings. A true
> democracy is one that operates on faith -
> faith that government officials are forthcoming and honest, and faith
> that informed citizens will arrive at logical
> conclusions. This is a vital reciprocity that America should not
> discard in these troubling times. Without question, the events of
> September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on our nation, but we
as a
> people are united in the wake of the destruction to
> demonstrate to the world that we are a country deeply committed to
> preserving the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our
> democracy. Today, we reflect our commitment to those democratic values
> by ensuring that our government is held accountable to the people
and
> that First Amendment rights are not impermissibly compromised. Open
> proceedings, with a vigorous and scrutinizing press, serve to ensure
> the durability of our democracy.
>
AMEN.
For Full Opinion See: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02a0291p
Dan
Dear BuzzFlash,
I stand with you. I am a 76 year old retired Army vet who spent my entire adult life in the service. In the first place, the idiots in the WH are not worthy of the sacrifice required of combatants in a war with Iraq or any other country for that matter. In my lifetime, Bush-Cheney represent the bottom of the barrel in terms of leadership of any sort. I just hope we can survive this "Theft of the Residency" and maybe by election time, some of the voters will get their heads out of their rear ends and get rid of these gangster! I'll meet you at the front door-John Asscrotch!
Raph H. Dunaway, Sr.
Astor, Fl.
Dear BuzzFlash,
Mr. Cheney's remarks in support of the War on Iraq while speaking to a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars was a study in disassembling. (www.reuters.com "Cheney States Case For Pre-Emptive Strike on Iraq.) Surely this isn't the case they are making to the American public as a justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
At one point in his remarks Mr. Cheney stated that "the entire world must know that we will take whatever action to defend our freedom and our security." Now that's an interesting and bold statement, considering the fact that this administration has been focused on repealing our freedoms and security. In fact, the experts in war "the Military" have continually warned that a preemptive strike would place the United States and its allies in an extremely insecure position.
Mr. Cheney finds the logic of the people who have served in the armed forces, gone to war, knows what we are facing, to be "deeply flawed." This from a man who hasn't served one single day in defense of his country, but he knows what he's talking about. You bet!
"Yet if we did wait until that moment, Saddam would simply be emboldened and it would become even harder for us to gather friends and allies to oppose him." Maybe Mr. Cheney hasn't been listening to the steady stream of allies saying "we won't be there with you, we are against this." Right now the only solid, for sure allies we have are in countries ruled by dictators.
Actually, Saddam was an ally of ours once upon a time, and we armed him with those weapons of mass destruction. And what does Mr. Cheney care about our allies anyway, this administration has let us know that they don't need allies, they don't need the people's approval, they don't need the approval of Congress and they don't need the expert advice of the military.
On the one hand Mr. Cheney exhorted the Veterans to "reject fears expressed by some." Then on the other hand Mr. Cheney basically said be afraid, be very afraid because Saddam is coming for us. I never believed Saddam ever stopped coming for us, now we are going to give him a reason.
No doubt Saddam has weapons of "mass destruction" so do we, so do India, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia, North Korea, England, Germany and France is considering beefing up their arsenal because they are becoming afraid of the United States and our weapons of mass destruction. I am not entirely sure how many weapons of "mass destruction" Afghanistan possesses, and I am sure Iraq shared what they had but in the end they found their own weapons right here on US soil.
I do think the threat of biological weapons is a fear, especially since our own intelligence agencies can't even catch the guy right here in America who is unleashing the United States biological weapons in the form of Anthrax.
Mr. Cheney seems to believe that we are in "mortal danger" from Saddam. I think we probably are or will be in mortal danger from Saddam and any number of countries when we awaken their sleeping giant. I think they feel the same about us.
This administration is going to plunge us into a war we don't want and one that will create havoc around the world, but I would like to end with a few of our Vice President's words. "Mortal threat," "wishful thinking," "willful blindness," "frenzy," "regime change," "deeply flawed." The Veep is using these words to incite war, many are using these words as examples of this administration.
Sally McDonald
Dear BuzzFlash,
As the former general of Veterans For Nader and a current retired corporal of the USMC, I agree vets need to open their mouths for more than a cold Bud. We need to tell our stories. I found your editorial right on mark, like a napalm strike during Operation Hickory II. Right, I'm a Vietnam veteran. The judge promised that the Marines would straighten me out better than prison. It was during this time, that I learned the useful distinction between petty larceny and grand larceny, and the latter can carry a mean prison time. So I chose the Marine Corps as my prison.
Back to your splendid editorial. I, however, smell something strange in the air, which is not surprising since I live in New York City. Actually, I mean in the political air. Sure the Chicken Hawks are screaming for blood, they're always screaming for blood. But there is a number 2 option that is at work here, one, I believe, that is slowly becoming the Administration's number 1 option. Instead of 250,000 U.S. military personnel invading Iraq, there will be covert action with locals, the CIA, and Special Operations to bag the Butcher of Baghdad and give the rich another tax break. According to Bush logic, cutting down the Butcher and cutting down taxes is killing two evils in one stroke. Didn't you know that in war, the rich need a tax break? It's a well know fact, as it's a well know fact that Saddam Hussein has a battery of the latest nukes atop intercontinental missiles pointed at every outhouse in America. This is serious business, tax cuts.
Let me be the first to say, then, which I just did, that there is not going to be an all-out traditional, untraditional war that the Administration continues to peddle like a cart full of worn out clothes and the media is now hysterical over. What makes me so damn sure there won't be a John Wayne in the desert? (Us Vietnam vets call war "a John Wayne," the original, unfortunately, had a bad knee and could not be in "a war," as he used to call wars.) Well, in Vietnam I was our battalion point man, even the damn dog walked behind me. I could take that the dog ate better than us Marine grunts, but it ticked me off that pouch was considered too valuable to step on a land mine so I had to walk in front of his twitching nose.) I was the point man -- although I was only a 19 year old boy -- because I have a real sharp eye. That's what the dog handler kept telling me. Although, I did get one testicle blown off. And I have this nerve damage in the right leg, but not the left leg. The left leg was amputated. What the hell, my Marine Corps disability payments pays for Intervention Magazine and allows me to write things like "US Will Not Invade Iraq" which has set a record for the least number of visitors for any article on the Internet.
Let me make a point about the Chicken Hawks. They did not merely skip out of Vietnam, it's worse than that. Much worse. They supported the war in Vietnam, and skipped out of Vietnam. The queen Chicken Hawk, Newt Gingrich, my queen anyway, said he didn't go to Vietnam because he wanted to go where the real war was: Washington, DC. As a former Marine on the DMZ who had a leg blown off by a mortar round that my sharp eye did not catch, but that damn dog survived with all four legs, and Newt with his two fat legs, I am not bothered by those who refused to go to Vietnam because they did not believe in that crappy war. For those who went to prison for their opposition to the War, I respect them. I wish I had the guts to do that. But I didn't, nor the brains, so under the threat of prison, I "volunteered" to go to a John Wayne. Going to prison instead of Vietnam took real courage, as great as the courage I saw on the battlefield in Vietnam. As for those who supported the Vietnam War and continue to support every war that comes down the damn pike, yet when it was their time to do the fighting, chose to skip out of the dirty work, as for the Chicken Hawks, I have ultimate contempt for them.
But
you know, there isn't going to be an invasion Iraq. Read my article if
you want to hear more. [http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?
op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=157]
Stewart
Nusbaumer,
USMC, (Ret)
Subj: SPIN, SPIN, SPIN
Buzz:
Haven't the press and the US learned anything about this sham administration. THEY SPIN EVERY ADJECTIVE, CONJUNCTION, PERIOD, and SEMICOLON. Yes, Bush can ATTACK Saddam without the approval of Congress. No, he cannot DECLARE WAR without the approval of Congress. Did anyone bother to ask if ATTACK meant to imply DECLARE WAR!
Yesterday's action was the great dog and pony show. That was free press to get the debate off Cheney and Halliburton and back in their preferred direction BIG BAD SADDAM.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
PJOnes
Texas
Dear BuzzFlash,
I should be a lawyer..actually I'm from a family of lawyers. If they are judging the fact that Bush can use his father's war to continue his quest in Iraq, they are wrong.
Constitution, Legislative Powers,
Section 8, Congress has the power to:
Item 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
So Bush's lawyers are wrong...they need Congressional approval for funding and action after two years. It is to be reconsidered after two years. Bush did not get Congressional approval for terrorism in the whole of the Middle East...for an "unending war on terrorism". He was given limited approval for seeking terrorists in Afghanistan because of 9-11.
Do Bush's lawyers have law degrees from Poedunk university...it should lose it's accreditation? Maybe our adults in DC have the same problem as some of our children...they can't read.
It is not Bush's decision to go to war...it is the Congress and the people's. He is not king. Is he?
A Citizen Who Can Read...the Constitution.
Dear BuzzFlash,
As always, congratulations for what you are doing. After my letter to you I copy a portion of an article from today's Guardian by Hugo Young, who is to the point for what's on my mind.
Our unelected VP threw the glove down, making it certain that there will be a war. The situation is snowballing, and the voice of those of us that are opposed to this action must be heard. Most of us are constantly sending emails and faxes to our representatives, but most probably these are ignored. Whenever I send email to GW I get the usual automatic reply with an attachment (that I never care to read anyway).
Most probably petitions with thousand of names have more power to sway opinion rather than individual mail and crooked polls! You are in position to organize such a petition because of your large base of readers. Many of the articles from other newsgroups that you compile for us share anti-war views and it seems you would share their views or would not reproduce them for us.
A petition will not change GW's belligerent views. He is like a child, wants something no matter how bad and kicks and screams to get his way. Maybe thousands or millions of names on petitions will force our Democratic leaders who are mostly silent or lukewarm on this issue, to stand up and take a clear stand either for or against. Voices like Hagel's show courage. GW has many dubious reasons for this war, but mainly to cloud the issues until the next elections and of course oil. The Dem's want to replace him and the best way is to stop this talk of this unnecessary war once and for all!
Respectfully,
Tania
Hugo Young in Vermont
Tuesday August 27, 2002
The GuardianFor all his scripted dumbness, George Bush is the voice of America. He manages to be loud and anxious at the same time. When he speaks his own words they often sound evasive and uncomprehending. But his is the only voice there seems to be. He is, after all, the president. Through him and the handful of his ministers regularly heard from - which means, in effect, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and almost no one else - we get a monochrome picture of the US: an America defiant, haughty and contemptuous towards both dissenters at home and, mitigated by the softening of the secretary of state, Colin Powell, other governments that do not agree with the Bush line abroad.
The dominance of this tone is surprising. Had it not been for the 9/11 crime against America last year, Bush would surely not get away with it. That remembered horror shelters him from the truth that an election he did not win fair and square should have induced a subtler humility. What is even more striking than the president's strident emptiness, however, is the absence of competing voices with a different philosophy.
The American system does not provide for a leader of the opposition. But it is still eerie to watch most aspirant leaders of the Democrats, preparing for an election contest with Bush in 2004, taking their tone from him rather than posing a frontal challenge to it. They gripe about the huge Republican tax cut for the rich and middle rich, and rail against corporate corruption. But they throttle back. They have to be careful. Many Democrats as well as Republicans took poisoned money from Enron and WorldCom.
Al Gore jockeys for position. Amazingly, he is the frontrunner, despite the fiasco of a campaign he ran in 2000 that let Bush in. He is hardly ever heard from, sidling away from confrontation and weighing up whether the polls will let him run. A handful of senatorial possibles - John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards - circle around, daring to say almost nothing, propelled, it seems, by terror of the Bush hard right more than the fury these incumbents deserve from any Democrat.
-more follows in the opinion article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,781039,00.html
Subj: Someone needs to go to law school.....
Dear BuzzFlash,
...or grade school where we all first learned about and read the constitution.
Under what perverse revisionist legal theory do Mr. Bush's lawyers and coterie of "legal advisers" conclude that he does not need to seek Congressional approval to wage war on Iraq? Perhaps his lawyers did not have to read the Constitution when they went to law school. Maybe they read the Very Hungry Caterpillar instead. One could easily draw such a conclusion from their exhibition of such marked ignorance of the plain meaning of the clear text of our fundamental charter of government and its historical underpinnings. The intent of the framers with respect to the power to wage war could not have been clearer. In Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, in which the powers of Congress are specifically enumerated, it is expressly stated that Congress "Shall have the power to declare war" and to "raise and support armies." This is as, constitutional historians have pointed out, a deliberate assignation of power to the body closest to the people to ensure that rash, reckless decisions to sacrifice young men's lives would not be hastily made, and, if they were, that the people who made such decisions would have to answer, in very short order, directly to the electorate for their folly and misdeeds.
The President's powers, by contrast, are quite limited in relation to the broad enumerated powers of Congress. The Commander in Chief power, which Bush obviously thinks makes him a dictator, is very narrow. Indeed, the President's power as Commander in Chief is strictly limited to those instances when the military is "called into the Actual Service of the United States." See U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2. Obviously the framers contemplated in Article I that the separate body that would be calling the military into service would be Congress, which is precisely what the Continental Congress did during the Revolution. That was, after all, the procedure with which they had the most personal acquaintance.
The ridiculous legal interpretation offered by Mr. Bush's personal legal counsel is nothing more than a brazen attempt to provide palatable, political cover for the seizure and entrenchment of a broad power to which he is not constitutionally entitled, and which the founder's absolutely did not intend him, or any other chief executive, to have. The founders were keenly aware of the danger of vesting the power of warmaking in one person alone. Their experience with the ruinous despotic excesses of King George in the wielding of the warmaking power was enough to convince them that no future generation should have to risk such calamity as the result of the unfettered power of a lone tyrant. As Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, in one of his many arguments to assuage the fears of those who worried that the President would wield far too much power under the Constitution, the president's authority with respect to the commencement of war was
in substance much inferior to [the king's power to make war]. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces ... while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all of which by the Constitution would appertain of the legislature.
(Federalist #69).
James Madison expressed his belief in 1793, that it is necessary to adhere to the “fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” (Letter of Madison To Governor Morris of Philadelphia, 1793) Thomas Jefferson said the intended purpose of the vesting of the exclusive right to declare war with Congress was to place an "effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of declaring war from the executive to the legislative body." (Letter of Jefferson to Madison, 1789).
The founder's plain intent on this matter was quite clearly recognized by President Lincoln, who presciently and cogently observed:
"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 [U.S. Constitutional Convention] understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the constitution that no man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us"
It is therefore absolutely imperative at this critical time in our nation's history that Congress reject the legal opinions of Mr. Bush's lawyers and act to preserve its Constitutional mandate by refusing to authorize any expenditures of funds for war on Iraq unless they have expressly approved a formal declaration of war. That is their sworn obligation under the Constitution. If this Congress abrogates their duty, it would be a betrayal of the sacred ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded and it would mark the return of this land to the days when Kings ruled by capricious fiat and contemptuously and brazenly disregarded the will of the people.
Dan DeLisio
For an excellent perspective on this matter from the point of view of a Congressman who understands and appreciates the nature of his Constitutional duty see: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0815-07.htm
Dear BuzzFlash,
In Wilmington, Delaware, police have assembled data bases of people who are likely to commit crimes. There are many names in these data bases of people with clean slates. The Delaware State Police have refused to give the ACLU the names of these individuals, and the individuals do not even know they have a file with the police.
Not Dumb from Delaware
Subj: Whoa! Executive Privilege goes into orbit!
Dear BuzzFlash,
"In pleadings filed in U.S. District Court here this month, including affidavits from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, the Bush administration contends that the privilege covers not only advice given to a president about individual pardons, but also government papers he has never seen and officials he has never talked to, such as the sentencing judge in a particular case."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64818-2002Aug26.html
Doug Bostrom
Re: BuzzFlash editorial to Veterans Part III
Dear BuzzFlash,
In regard to Bush and his co-conspirators, it's appropriate that both you and Sen. Hagel invoke the image of John Wayne, a hero in many a picture, but someone else who also avoided serving in the military. As with the Bush chicken hawks, Wayne became a hard line lover of war.
In World War II those with 4 or more children were deferred from service. They could volunteer, and heroes such as Paul Douglas (Senator from Ill) did. But not Wayne. He had 4 children, he stayed home and made money storming the beaches of Iwo Jima, and wearing a faux green beret.
How fitting that you cited him. Great editorial!
bob reynolds, orange park fl
Dear BuzzFlash,
The "secret" Rehnquist-appointed FISA court (the lower court) was quite right to slap down Ashcroft's bid that would have allowed prosecutors to go "fishing" through intelligence data collected under intelligence-gathering warrants (warrants for which the evidentiary threshold is significantly lower than "probable cause") However, all the bruhaha about 75 applications with missing information (or whatever) is pure misdirection. The court reportedly has never denied a warrant application in its 24 years! More than 10,000 warrants have been issued! So why the sudden interest in garden-variety amendments that FBI personnel brought forth VOLUNTARILY during the Clinton years? In my opinion, the FISA court is desperate to distance itself from Ashcroft, yet at the same time provide him some "cover" and point the finger at the Clinton Administration (no surprise there)
It all goes to the Moussaoui case. The fact remains that had Ashcroft acted on Zacarias Moussaoui prior to 9/11, who knows what they might have unraveled? Instead, his office rejected urgent pleas from field agents to search the guy's computer, phone records and other belongings. They've offered various explanations for this decision, none of them convincing This "oh-well, the-court-was-in-a-bad-mood-over-a-handful-of-applications" is just the latest non-excuse.
It will be interesting to see in the Moussaoui trial how much evidence the government offers that was collected under a warrant AFTER 9/11 that might have been useful BEFORE 9/11.
The bottom line is this: the Bush Administration came in and took resources OFF investigating the bin Ladens and Al Qaeda. This is well documented.
It's simply incredible that John Ashcroft wouldn't pass on to the court the requests for a FISA warrant when only weeks before he himself was advised to cease using commercial airlines (see for yourself http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/printable303601.shtml) . He said at the time that the FBI had advised him of a "threat assessment", but he wouldn't elaborate. And at about the same time, at the G8 summit in Genoa (July 2001) George Bush was advised to keep his quarters on a US battleship in the harbor because Italian officials were afraid terrorists would attempt to fly a plane into the meeting of the heads of state. So when Condolezza Rice comes out after 9/11 and says, "whatever intelligence we had before 9/11 only suggested a "traditional hijacking"", one has to be skeptical.
But don't expect the media to ever really challenge the White House on their negligence and willful disregard prior to 9/11. To any extent that the press HAS challenged the White House line, it's been carefully scripted to identify bumbling bureaucrats as the culprit, and to build a firewall around George W. Bush and his inner circle.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
President Bush's advisors claim he can attack Iraq under authority granted by either of two active congressional resolutions. Many in congress believe Bush needs congressional approval to attack Iraq. Congress should immediately vote to rescind the two questionable resolutions and replace them with a single joint resolution clearly stating congress's power. If Bush vetoes that replacement resolution, then Americans can brace themselves for an attempt by Bush to establish a fascist state.
Joseph
E. Boyett Jr.
Montgomery,
AL
Dear BuzzFlash,
You are my #1 bookmarked news site. I hardly ever check CNN or WashPost anymore, unless you send me there on a link -- they're not news sites anymore, they're propaganda tools. Thanks for doing your part to help keep democracy alive during this, one of the darkest periods in U.S. history. I do think historians will look back at the rule of Bush II and think it was shameful that we tolerated this.
Jeff
Nelson
Los
Angeles, CA
Hey Buzz.
As I watched Cheney making a speech before the VFW I couldn't help but wonder if the vets were out of their collective minds, not only for having him there but for applauding his speech promoting the invasion of Iraq. Here was the chickenhawk Cheney (I had different priorities at the time), who along with AWOL Bush, just cut 140 million bucks out of the medical benefits for veterans. The whole scene on that stage was surreal as I watched those on the stage, wearing their veteran's caps, stand and applaud Cheney when he finished the speech.
JohnW
Bensalem,
PA
Dear BuzzFlash,
Seeing the sickening photos of the Portland attacks, and listening to rhetoric on the left, it's really time for us to think a bit realistically.
We need to co-opt the police. Here in NYC a policeman starts at about $31,000 a year and can eventually work up to $47,000 or so, if they live that long! Although police here have asked for a 23% raise, they are being offered 5% and are thinking "strike". These are the people who, whatever their faults, in fact keep the public relatively safe from violent criminals and criminal gangs, and they do so at the risk of their lives every moment they are on duty.
In short, the police too are being screwed by the powers that be. But the long-discredited marxist-based tactics of confrontation entrenches the police on the side of their own oppressors, instead of marching with us.
So, if you are coming to New York to protest, say, a cynical exploitation of 9/11 by King George, instead of just yelling and screaming about the authorities, protestors should yell "23% for the Police" in addition to the other chants. Then we'd stop seeing Portland-like insanity.
Jim P
Subj: Orwellian Statement of the Day
Dear BuzzFlash,
"After three turbulent years in the presidential palace, President Hugo Chavez was briefly forced from office April 11, after snipers fired on a massive opposition march, killing 19."
http://www.petroleumworld.com/storyT328.htm
Briefly forced from office, eh?
Byron York
Subj: A Must Mention regarding Tom Delay's remarks about John Kerry
Dear BuzzFlash,
(Excerpt) DELAY: Well, the last I remember, Senator John Kerry was against the war in Vietnam even though he served in it, and went around the country undermining the military overseas in trying to fight this war and giving aid to those that were trying to run the war from Washington, DC
If we had had the leadership of a George W. Bush back in the Vietnam War days, we probably would not have lost that war. We would have gone in and won it. We would have given our soldiers the kinds of weapons that they needed. We would not have the rules of engagement that the liberals put on them. We would have allowed them to win this war.
And that's what happening here. George W. Bush is giving our military all of the support that they need. They are giving the military all of the weapons that they need, and giving them the international support from a coalition that they need. We're going to win this war because we are focused on it and we have a resolve to win it.
For the complete transcript, visit here: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/09/tt.00.html
Delay is proof positive of the old saying Ignorance is bliss. Remember, Vietnam was really a continuance of WW2, as the Japanese were in Vietnam, even after Truman declared Victory, after Truman who did send in some help, came Eisenhower, (One of The Greatest Generals ever, IMH Democratic Opinion.) Kennedy, Johnson, and finally Nixon brought it to an abrupt and horrific end, allowing many innocents to be slaughtered. Now does Tom Delay really believe that a stooge like Dumbya would have WON THIS WAR? Egad The US is more trouble with these Dumbheads, than we have ever seen before in History. The trouble with Georgie and Tommy is they are too dumb to know they are. Thanks for your Informative pieces.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Dear BuzzFlash,
Could someone please tell me why there is an official government type sign behind that fleischer guy in an official news conference that calls the bush private home the western white house. it is not the western white house, we have one white house. who paid for that sign to be used in official settings to go down in history as the western white house? do those bush people think they are royalty?
A BuzzFlash Reader
[BuzzFlash Note: They sure the hell act like it.]
Dear BuzzFlash,
The news will be out any minute now on the Washington Post that DC will not be among the two US nominees for the 2012 Olympics. New York and San Francisco will get the nods. But DC was supposed to have been a front runner. Is it possible that our “Special” President--by closing the city and closing off streets and sending the Veep into hiding, etc.--has the committee thinking that we can’t handle it? Hmm… Maybe you could run a link to the article when it comes up and ask the question?
Dick
Dear BuzzFlash,
You might like to know that not only did Veeper Cheney get to rattle sabres for the VFW...but these people gave a citizenship award to the CEO of WalMart...
I told them to take their membership card and shove it......It will be awhile before they can sit with the paper cuts and all...
Al Lewis
Subj: Anthrax and Hatfill
Dear BuzzFlash,
I think I was probably the first to alert you to the possibility that the anthrax attacks were not the work of foreign terrorists. I believe we've seen pretty good proof that my warning to you was justified.
I'm concerned about this Hatfill character though. I've watched both of his statements to the media denying any involvement with the attacks. If this man is lying, then he should win the Oscar for Best Performance in a Life Threatening Drama. His background is shady, true enough; but, something just doesn't ring true about him being the perpetrator.
Firstly: The first victim was a photo editor at a supermarket tabloid. Now, my memory isn't what it used to be, but weren't pictures of a drunken Bush daughter published in a tabloid just weeks before this man died? Was the victim employed by the same tabloid that splashed that picture in every supermarket checkout line? I don't remember. But, if the perpetrator was trying to 'alert the authorities to the danger' as has been speculated by some, why would he target the photo editor of a tabloid? Why not a prestigious newspaper, like the NYT or WP?
Secondly: The political targets were highly visible Democrats Daschle and Leahy. What was happening about the time of those attacks? My memory is that Leahy was being recalcitrant on giving the usurping fraud unlimited power and that Daschle was questioning just about everything the smirking chimp was doing.
Lastly: The Feds have told us the perp didn't realize the highly weaponized anthrax could leak through the paper of the envelopes and therefore the deaths in the Post Office were accidental. Wouldn't a scientist who'd studied weaponized anthrax understand the size of the spores and recognize it could leak through the pores of the envelopes?
I don't have a clue as to who is responsible for these attacks. But, I just don't buy Hatfill as the perpetrator. It's just too pat and convenient for the Bush Family Evil Empire. Here's this jerk with ties to the apartheid governments of southern Africa who believes the US is apathetic to bioterrorism and decides to raise the alarm with a few well placed attacks. That scenario completely shuts down any further investigation of how he came to possess such a weapon - he stole it. It shuts down any questioning about why weaponized anthrax was available in the US - he clandestinely weaponized it on his own.
I still don't believe these attacks had a foreign source, why would a foreign terrorist attack the tabloid? I believe it was domestic, probably (prayerfully) not officially sanctioned, but definitely connected to the radical right wing.
Paul M. Nations
Little Rock, AR
Subj: 8/27 Mailbag
Dear BuzzFlash,
It made me particularly nauseated to watch our vice president (president in charge of vice) address a bunch of veterans...about the need to go to Iraq and wage war. In a Pigs eye!! When he and his chickenhawk administration (Bush the AWOL president, Cheney, who, as if he was proud of it, admitted to 5 evasions (I saw it) and The One who had to teach at his religious college (8 times???)..Ashcroft, none of whom has ever seen the fields of war, nor will they ever, nor any of their rich relatives, nephews, nieces, sons or daughters...watch my words!!!! Yes, I am particularly sick of this bunch, in view of the fact that my own brother had to go, was drafted, went to Viet nam and the age of 24, was there exactly two months and died on the front lines in their stead!!! For every coward who never went to that war or any other, another more unfortunate lad, poor, with no daddy to get them out or not enough gall to lie or beg...had to go and die!!! We must all remember that war never solved a thing except the money that it could bring to the greedy!!!!! Thanks for letting me vent!!
Shirley, St.Louis
Dear BuzzFlash,
Would someone answer the question, who dug up Henry Kissinger after 30+ years. Does he have security clearance in this administration? Secretary of State under Nixon? Why do we hear so much from him and not the opinion of the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell. And it would be more logical if you are going to parade an ex Secretary of State out, would you not go for the opinion of someone who was there more recently with more knowledge of the facts such as Madeline Albright or Warren Christopher? Just asking, what's in it for old man Kissinger?
MSR
Pensacola,
Florida
Dear BuzzFlash,
Saw 'president cheney' on the local news tonight. He spoke to the need to attack Iraq Now!
Whoopee.
I have a suggestion- cheney and bush are in charge of unloading the body bags.
Stephanie
Dearborn
Subj: Breathtaking Hypocrisy
Dear BuzzFlash,
I was just listening to Vice President Cheney speak to the veterans of foreign wars and couldn't help but see the breathtaking hypocrisy inherent in his speech. Here is a man who avoided serving his country, has absolutely NO knowledge of how it feels to go to war, saying that the sons and daughters of those in attendance must do the bidding of this administration. He and the other war hawks know full well they, their children and grandchildren will not have to sacrifice their lives, they are protected by their wealth and connections just as they were. Why must there be a sacrifice? One word, OIL! The former CEO of Halliburton standing up there in front of real soldiers promoting a war for oil was disgusting and disturbing. The only bright light is we know they only send out Cheney, the heavy gun, when the Bush administration knows they are losing the confidence of the American people. I can only hope that the erosion of trust in this administration will continue!
Bev
Subj: Poll shows Blagojevich popularity 8/25
Dear BuzzFlash,
http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/082502/new_20020825029.shtml
bloomington pantagraph, Sunday. (originating from St. Louis Post-Dispatch story)
BuzzFlash remains my favorite daily newspaper since December 2000. Love the way you add a little zing to your headlines. The Pantagraph is a Republican paper and has let me down. If Jesus ran as a Democrat, the editorial board would clearly choose His opponent. If it's a Republican upstart, they endorse him due to "time for a change." If a Democrat upstart, it's "don't change horses, we need experience." I love hypocrisy.
Best,
~E
Central
Illinois
PS: Things are looking up in November. Go Rod! He'll be a new star of the Democratic party, along with Gov. Ed Rendell. Two months, can't wait. A Freeper type near me already put up his big elephant sign, (kinda early, ain't it?) but this race is Rod's to lose, and if I were that freeper type I wouldn't stock up on too much champagne.
Isn't BuzzFlash from Chicago? Haven't you noticed how arrogant Jim Ryan is? George Ryan did a few noble things like a moratorium on the death penalty and visiting Cuba to sell Illinois goods, but after the scandals how could anyone want a GHP governor in Springfield, especially an arrogant one?
Go Ed Rendell & Gray Davis too, and whoever the anti Jeb is. Gray looks in good shape. Methinks Democrats will do quite well in November, even in the south. Looks like California shot themselves in the foot by ignoring Richard Riordan, the man who clearly would unseat Gray. Finally some good news.
Dear BuzzFlash,
the genius of george... !!
(NOT laughing out loud!)
As we all know by now, it doesn't pay to underestimate the Bush administration's ability to "get their way": thus far, they have been able to shove astounding arrogance, budget deficits as far as the eye can see, secrecy, and a complete contempt for the American traveling public (in the days leading up to 9-11-2001) down America's throats (or, to be more precise, down the throats of unsuspecting, apathetic Americans) without having to pay any real price (to date...).
So, as many of us on the "librul" web sites realize that Bush's policies, themes, and goals are completely counterproductive, reactionary, and actually destructive, we are amazed that we are so powerless to confront them, much less roll them back.
Like Milosovic, Adolf, Benito, and other tyrants through history, W. has the knack for using scorn and contempt to rally "true believers" to his side.
Thus, when Bush's "swilling white whine at Martha's Vineyard" came perilously close to describing HIS OWN PARENTS AND FAMILY at their Kennebunkport, Maine, retreat, (I mean, how far different can a Kennebunkport summer on the beach be from a Martha's Vineyard summer on the beach?) Bush nonetheless hit a resonate chord with his supporters - and once again hit the effete press right between the eyes!
More on Sorokin's repulsive work in the days to come. But note one point from the week-long discussion which followed her initial report; note the silence on this latest slander from the nation’s "good guy" pundits. As President Bush recently said, your good guy pundits are swilling white wine at their Martha’s Vineyard havens, and they’re going to sit out this ugly slander just as they have sat out all the rest. All over America, talk-radio screamers and op-ed shouters have mouthed Sorokin's nasty slanders, spreading disinformation and hate through the land. And where are the HUNTS, the KINSLEYS, the GREENFIELDS, the RASPBERRYS? Where is MARK SHIELDS? Where hides DAVID GERGEN? They’re overpaid and they’re very scared, and they no longer care about America’s discourse. They didn’t stand up to Tony Blankley last week. They won’t speak to this latest hoax either.
LJBK
Dear BuzzFlash,
This is getting ridiculous.
Bush:
We don't need Congress.
Cheney: We don't need evidence.
Rumsfeld: We don't need allies.
Fine. Why don't we let the three of them go in Iraq by themselves. No army, no gov't support, no international allies, no U.S. citizens, just Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a couple of the more dazzlingly stupid Republican freaks like Wolfowitz, Perle and Delay.
They could be their very own crackpot commando unit.
A
BuzzFlash Reader
Former Sgt., Interrogator
415th MI Btn.
Army
National Guard
Dear BuzzFlash,
Thank you for the increased coverage of protests. Many of us have been standing with signs for months on corners of small and large towns protesting. My group has stood on a corner for close to nine months every Saturday no matter what the weather. We have begun to see shift in attitude from passing cars. Thank you for using articles from Indymedia. The corporate news system will often forget to cover any dissent.
Thank you,
celeste williams
Dear BuzzFlash,
What was it Ari said Tuesday about the Saudi Prince while he was visiting the ranch? Was it " ... he speaks better English than most Americans ..."? I assume he was including the pResident!
MariaSteel
Re: Fwd: 24 Ways Republicans Lie
Dear BuzzFlash,
An excellent and on-target essay by Hoppe.
Over and over he pointed out the conservative media's ability to carry on the message for the conservative candidates. There's good reason for this. The public hears almost no opposition to the right wing lies. We have Reagan to thank for that. He is responsible for the destruction of our broadcast media equal time laws.
If the Democrats take both the House and the Senate this fall, the first thing on their agenda MUST be re-establishing broadcast media equal time laws. For without that protection, the 20% undecided voters have no way to hear the truth. We sure can't expect the corporate media to tell them the truth.
Thanks,
nell
bartusch
san
diego, ca
Dear BuzzFlash,
I noticed one of your mailbag contributors (27/8/02) Jeff Crook mentioned in his letter 'The Art of War' by Sun-tzu. Thought you might enjoy some of these snippets from the book.
- All warfare is based on deception.
- Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.
- Under fragrant bait there is certain to be a hooked fish.
- The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Keep on buzzin'
D.M.Reid(NZ)
Dear BuzzFlash,
"One of the challenges that I knew I would have is that the further we got away from Sept. 11, the more likely it would be people would forget, would forget the challenge, would not remember the pain and suffering." __Wanton Boy, George W. Bush, Pretend President
Interesting to note that George says that HE would have the challenge that "people would forget." Obviously, it would be HIS challenge to OVERCOME that people would forget HIM and his heroic "leadership" after 9/11, his "wanted dead or alive" cowboy swagger and his pose as revenging vigilante out to rid the world of Evil. Our Hero!!
He doesn't give a damn about the "pain and suffering," only how it would effect his chance at re-election. After all, he knows the American people have a short attention span. Need to give them a good ole western shoot 'em up to keep them on HIS side. Can't have them forgettin' now, can we?
It just galls me that he assumes Americans would actually FORGET the worst attack on our soil. But we HAVEN'T, just as we HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN that he IS NOT OUR PRESIDENT. We also will not forget how he has destroyed this country in 18 months.
Don't COUNT on us forgetting anything, Wanton Boy.
A BuzzFlash Reader With A Long Memory
Subj: Heads-Up to Ky. voters
Dear Buzz,
Here's a heads-up to Kentucky Voters who visit BuzzFlash.com. Below are links to a couple of pages that KY voters should read before the elections in November...
-- the Herald-Leader's article titled "Obligation to Voters: McConnell should agree to timely debate" at http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/opinion/3945068.htm
and
the Courier-Journal's article titled "McConnell's debate dodge"
at
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/020822-2.htm --
Why doesn't McConnell want to debate Lois Combs Weinberg? Read the "Lois Combs Weinberg for US Senate" website, especially the news releases, and you'll see why.
Joe Kentucky
[BuzzFlash Note: http://www.lois2002ussenate.org/]
Subj: Where in Carmen Pakistani is bin Laden
Dear BuzzFlash,
Daisy petals in hand, he's alive, he's dead, he's alive, he's dead he's ?????????????
Karen
U.S. Troops Focus on Border's Caves to Seek bin Laden
By IAN FISHER with JOHN F. BURNS
SADABAD, Afghanistan, Aug. 23 - After months of frustration, American commanders appear to have concluded that Osama bin Laden is probably still alive and moving between mountain hideouts somewhere on a 250-mile stretch of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The hunt for Mr. bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has proved to be as murky as the silted rivers flowing through these inhospitable mountains. Nearly a year after Sept. 11, and nearly nine months after Mr. bin Laden's associates delivered their last videotape of him discussing the attacks in New York and Washington, hard facts about the quest are elusive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/international/asia/28AFGH.html
Subject: Bush the believer
Dear Buzz,
I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for Bush's excruciatingly embarrassing and ludicrous statements is that he believes what he (almost) articulates. Maybe he isn't lying barefaced and shamelessly at all. He shows every sincere sign of having a puffed up, deluded and bizarre image of himself as a world leader.
He believes that he's preserving our freedom by taking it away from us. That the American way of life (our open society) will be preserved by his closed shadow government. He believes that he is actually running the county when he sits and reads his caterpillar book to children while the towers fall, and he's positive he's taking care of bidness while on vacation in Crawford because, after all, he's working when he's spending all his time campaigning for republicans.
He believes that raising millions for his party shows that he is a great man. Didn't he strike a 'Presidential Pose' when he was photographed at Mount Rushmore?
He believes that denying firefighters better communications equipment is a show of fiscal discipline. A discipline lesson which he feels he must teach Congress. He believes in the American people to be as stupid as he is. Really, can a moron understand intelligence?
He believes that the rest of the world should do what he says - or almost says - or doesn't say - or whatever! He believes he actually gets to decide on his own whether we should go to war or not. His tiny little brain is puffed up with the "vision" he has of himself as a great embodiment who, like Churchill or Roosevelt was born to lead the world in this "Crusade" -- (oops!) -- "War on Terrah" and he's actually said that God chose him to lead us (to ever greater heights of Conservative Republican power, I'm sure).
He believes in carrying a big stick AND talking tough. He believes that he has the right to tell the Palestinians and Iraq and no doubt others what they must do and how to govern themselves and who can be their leaders.
He believes he's spreading Democracy across the planet even as he destroys it at home. He believes the national coffers are bottomless and totally at his disposal by right of just being himself (God's chosen, no doubt, because we sure didn't!).
He believes that it's good for forests to get cut down so they can be saved from "costly" fires. See, if we don't have to spend money on fire fighting of any king that's good for the economy.
He believes that all of life is divided into good versus evil. Humanity is divided into the haves (good) and the have-nots (evil) with nothing in the middle. That's why he's destroying the middle class by taking all the money he can and giving it the rich. Kind of like Robin Hood, only better, see? He believes he is following in the footsteps of just about every hero we've ever had, only better.
He believes that welfare payment during 4 years of college would not truly help the needy. He knows 'cause 4 years in college didn't do a thing for him.
He believes that we're all equal, except that the rich are more equal. Though I can't swear by it he probably believes that if we hadn't made God mad we'd be rich like him and Cheney and all their CEO friends and Conservative cronies.
He believes "American's ought to be able to express their thoughts," but just not around him (that's what first Amendment zones are for) and not if they interfere with his decisions.
And not least of all his beliefs is that if the use of air conditioners contribute to global warming, well, just turn up your air conditioner!
Judith
Foster
Berkeley
