Dear Bart:

Remember when I wrote a piece for Ampol, many moons ago, about how the National Enquirer dredged up some Bush dirt RE: an affair with a stewardess, only to debunk it in the very same article?

Remember how odd I thought it was that the Enquirer, which is normally not in the business of debunking rumors
-- they prefer spreading them -- would do this?

Remember how, after that rumor was "debunked", the tabs laid off of Smirk until well after he got into the White House
(and then only to talk about Jenna's boozing)?

Remember how Karl Rove deliberately leaked all sorts of Bush dirt to Jim Hatfield -- then, when Hatfield ran with it, used a twisted version of Hatfield's past to destroy him and "debunk" what Hatfield wrote (and, in the process, frightening off any mainstream reporter from covering Bush's personal life)?

This "ABC/Reuters story" that I passed on to without vetting (a big mistake on my part), that Reuters denies they ever ran, smells very much like the same sort of thing: created to be easily-debunked, and to, by false association, "debunk" the 100% real and provable horrors of Smirk's Junta -- such as Ashcroft's quietly authorizing concentration camps for anyone he deems a "terraist".  (See attached.)

In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Karl and Karen and Co. are using this "hoax" story as a way to tarnish the credibility of anyone who passes it along -- so that no one will listen to us when we tell our readers about something that really IS 100% true, such as the attached article.

If you could, please post this letter on your website -- next to my original sending of the "hoax" letter, if at all possible.  I just want everyone to know the whole truth, so far as I know it, about how I got to be sending you that little ditty.

Thanks muchly!

Tamara
 

Update from Tamara

I just found out that Robert Basler of Reuters (Robert.Basler@reuters.com) has declared this story to be a hoax.
I've  e-mailed him and asked him if he could arrange for Reuters to put up a  note on its website to that effect
-- it'd save him plenty of e-mails.

The hoaxer(s), you will remember, claimed that this story was originally up on the ABC.com site, but then
"mysteriously disappeared", which would explain why the authentic-looking link didn't work.  Since we're
all so used to the creeping editorialism that has infested "straight" news stories, the article's tone seemed legit;
the only real surprise  would have been the anti-Bush slant -- and that, of course, the hoaxers would use to
explain why ABC would have pulled it.

Anyhow, I'm sorry that I wasted your time with this stupid hoax.  I apologize, and hope you'll forgive me.

My only excuses are that it came from a usually-reliable source, and that it doesn't sound very different
from horrifying things that the Bush Admin really IS doing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,773574,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/international/asia/12INTE.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Tamara Baker
 

 Message from Tamara Baker  with Bart Comment below

 People, if ever there was a story that needs to be spread far and wide this is it.
 The link shown below does not work.  ABC for some unexplained reason pulled this story
 almost as soon as it went up.   Orders from the self appointed God, Judge, Jury & Executioner????

 Probably so or from the other end of the evil axis...Ashcroft!
 IF there is any doubt in anyones mind that bu$h intends to be dictator.... may I suggest that you think again?

 This miserable little nothing man who forced his ugly face in ours is preparing to take this country to the depths of hell.
 Print this story, spread it far and wide and may I suggest that everyone who reads this please write a letter, call your
 congressman, your local newspaper or anyone else who may listen.   This appointed dictator is out of control.

 http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters200200811_493.html
 

Bush OK's Summary Executions Of Some Designated As Terrorists
  8-12-2002

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move sure to raise outcries from foreign governments, civil liberties
 groups and others, The White House today announced with little fanfare that effective immediately, certain
 individuals whom President Bush or other high-level Administration members have designated as terrorists
 are subject to summary execution by either Homeland Security operatives, U.S. intelligence operatives,
 and in some cases by U.S. military personnel.

 The presidential directive applies to both U.S. and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States territory.

 The White House gave notice of the new policy in as quiet a way as possible, making the announcement
 late Sunday evening from Crawford, Texas. The unprecedented move is thought certain to generate a
 firestorm of protest from numerous quarters.

 I disagree with Tamara over the need for this retraction,
 but then, she's more of a journalist than I am.
 
 Many months ago, the Bush Admin announced they were going to hold "secret military trials"
 for people they designate as terrorists. Whoever Bush and Ashcroft put on trial will be found guilty.
 
 I mean, what military officer is going to vote against a member of Al Qaeda that Bush and Ashcroft say is guilty?
 An officer who votes "innocent" will not be an officer for very long.  Without competent counsel, with the admission
 of hearsay evidence, with no chance to face accusers or examine evidence, they will be found guilty and then they
 will be quietly executed.

 Is there anyone in America who thinks Bush or Ashcroft will show mercy to a man they say is a terrorist
 and give him a lengthy prison term instead of an execution? I mean, why do you think these men are being held
 in Cuba? It's so they can do what they want without anybody knowing about it. Who's going to stop them?
 Castro? The Democrats? The good puppy media? God?

 It's possible that hundreds of prisoners have already been tortured and executed.
 They said they were going to do it - who thinks they know the meaning of the word "restraint?"
 
 Since they've already declared their willingness to execute these men,
 I think it's a mistake to retract a story that is almost certainly true.