--- Begin Message ---
http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub
THE NEW YORK TIMES DOES SOME MORE P.R. WORK FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
The New York Times, in a breathless "exclusive" from unnamed "government officials,"
once again dutifully does the P.R. work for the White House. They swallow an
implausible story, tossed to them like a dog bone, fashioned to protect "the
President." Of course, two BuzzFlash readers saw through it in a minute, and these
readers aren't getting paid what New York Times transcriptionists (aka journalists)
and editors earn. We're sure of that.
Regarding: B.S. Alert. The New York Times Thinks This is Some Sort of Exclusive, But
It's More of "Protect the President Leaking": "Ashcroft Learned of Agent's Alert Just
After 9/11 but Bush Was Not Told"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/national/21INQU.html
Dear Buzz:
So if I understand this correctly .....
Two or three days after the attacks, Dale Watson, who was then assistant director for
counterterrorism, brought the (Arizona) memorandum to the attention of Mr. Pickard,
the acting director at the time, officials said. Mr. Pickard and several other agents
then briefed Mr. Mueller and Mr. Aschroft on its existence, the officials said.
That means that every time Mueller & Ashcroft heard Ari or Shrub say that they had no
prior knowledge or warning of 9/11, Mueller & Ashcroft just went along with it? For 8
months?
RK SEATTLE,WA
BuzzFlash Note: So Ashcroft and Mueller would be concealing the memo then, from Bush
and his staff. Doesn't that mean that they are lacking in integrity? Of course, the
other option is that the unnamed government officals might be doing a little bit of
prevaricating to the gullible New York Times. Which is it?
Dear Buzzflash,
Shocking. Within a couple of days of the stunning news that Bush and his
administration knew about a serious and impending terrorist threat planned within U.S.
borders, almost every major media outlet, including the New York Times, CNN, and the
Washington Post, seems to be concluding that Bush and his administration acted
appropriately, and that the real culprit was a breakdown in communications among the
intelligence community.
And what is the basis for this conclusion? Uncorroborated statements made by the Bush
administration.
Huh?!? We're supposed to believe the Bush administration is telling us the truth NOW
after it has been lying to the American public for eight months, after it (predictably
and speciously) blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11? Come on. It's almost enough to
make you want to stick your head up the media's collective ass so you can see what the
hell they're seeing.
Let's get this straight: at this time, the only thing that we can conclude is that
Bush and his administration actively lied to the American public regarding what they
knew about the threat to the United States and when they knew it. If lying about an
act of consensual sex is an impeachable offense, than lying about foreknowledge of
terrorist acts certainly ought to be.
We don't have enough evidence to conclude that Bush and his administration acted
appropriately. As on 9/11, the only thing we know about what Bush and his
administration knew before 9/11 is what they tell us, and they have proven to be
untrustworthy. Even if they finally are telling the truth now, they cannot be believed
without independent confirmation.
We also don't have enough evidence to conclude that Bush and his adminstration looked
the other way and allowed the terrorists to have their murderous way. Certainly, there
are enough inconsistencies and odd facts to give rise to a suspicion that something
sinister was afoot, but even the insipid opportunist George W. Bush deserves the
benefit of the doubt, at least until it is established that he retired to his Crawford
farn because it was surrounded by SAM sights to protect him from suicide terrorist
airplane attacks (which I bet you it was).
Until we have real answers, we need to challenge the media and our representatives to
really press Bush and his administration regarding the events leading up to 9/11. Just
as the "smoking gun" Enron memos show that the media rushed to judgment several months
ago when it concluded that "Enron is a business scandal, not a political scandal"
(actually, it is a government corruption scandal), there is more information out there
that must be considered.
Let me walk through some examples of lackadaisical reporting to illustrate how the
major media outlets and our congressmen) are not doing (their jobs. These quotes come
from a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/national/21INQU.html)
"But senior Bush administration officials said neither Mr. Ashcroft nor Mr. Mueller
briefed President Bush and his national security staff until recently about the fears
of an F.B.I. agent in Phoenix that members of Al Qaeda were training at American
flight schools, though the two men began daily briefings of the president at the White
House immediately after the hijackings."
Okay. Let's assume that we've established that Ashcroft and Mueller did not brief
President Bush or his national security staff before 9/11, that does not establish
that somebody else did not, in fact, so inform them. Indeed, it seems unlikely that
Ashcroft and Mueller would provide such briefings. Whose responsibility is it to
provide such briefings? Is the Bush administration saying that NOBODY ever raised
these issues to Bush or his national security staff before 9/11?
"Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, who was traveling today with the
president in Miami, said, 'We have nothing that indicates the president had seen or
even heard about this memo prior to a few weeks ago.'"
Okay. Do you have anything that indicates that, prior to 9/11, the president was
informed of the concern that members of Al Qaeda were training at American flight
schools? The president need not review nor be aware of a particular document to be
informed of the ideas expressed in that document.
"Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said last Thursday that the
president had not heard about the memorandum before the hijackings and had only
recently learned of it. "I personally became aware of it just recently," Ms. Rice
said, adding that she asked Mr. Mueller and George Tenet, the director of central
intelligence, to review the matter."
Okay. But were you aware of the basic concern stated by the memo? The fact that you
were not aware of the memo itself does not mean that you were not aware of the
concerns expressed therein
"The issue of when top officials knew of the Phoenix memorandum is emerging as a main
focus in Congressional inquiries getting under way. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat
of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has asked the F.B.I. to identify
anyone at the agency who knew about the memorandum before the attacks."
Too bad. Knowledge of the memo is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is knowledge
of the concepts and concerns raised by the memo. Everybody knows what a television is,
but how many people read the patent for it? There are many concepts that are widely
shared and discussed where those discussing it have no idea as to the circumstances
giving rise to those ideas.
As these simple examples show, the media and Congress still are not asking hard
questions of Bush and his administration. Let's ask those hard questions now. Bush's
breach of trust with the American people has eliminated any basis for treating the man
as if he had any integrity. Make Bush and his administration lift the veil of secrecy
and allow a full investigation of the facts. I, for one, would be ecstatic to learn
that 9/11 was simply a result of incompetence of Bush or his administration. On the
other hand, I would be crushed to learn that any president of the United States
(whether elected or selected) could be so heartless as to allow the murder of
innocents to advance his own political agenda.
Somebody needs to prove to me and the rest of the American public that there is reason
to believe in our government and in our media. Right now, all I see is a shameless
propaganda machine that is attempting to manufacture consent?
Scot A. Griffin
Redwood City, CA
http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub
Our list is opt-IN only.
PO Box 618354
Chicago, IL 60661-8354
To remove yourself from further mailings, please click the link below to unsubscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This email powered by EmailFactory
The Web-Based Precision Opt-In Email Marketing Solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list, go to:
<a
href="http://bye.emf3.com/handler.cfm?idAddress=L9635656637.38480";>http://bye.emf3.com/handler.cfm?idAddress=L9635656637.38480
</a>
If you are unable to click, copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://bye.emf3.com/handler.cfm?idAddress=L9635656637.38480
--- End Message ---
