A closer look at the Bush record -- from
the war in Iraq to the war on the environment
take the exit ramp off the Bush presidency in November?
Colin Powell's Legend
Colin Powell's sterling reputation in Washington hides his life-long role
as water-carrier for conservative ideologues.
Recounting the controversial presidential campaign
Is the national media a danger to democracy?
The Clinton Scandals
The story behind President Clinton's impeachment
Pinochet & Other Characters
The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics
Contra drug stories uncovered
How the American historical record has been tainted by lies and cover-ups
The October Surprise
The 1980 October Surprise scandal exposed
From free trade to the Kosovo crisis
Other Investigative Stories
November 3, 2006
Editor's Note: Below are
readers' comments about some of our recent stories:
Again, thank you for putting this crucial election into such stark
terms, which I do not believe is overstating the issues. Mr. Bush
is very scary in how he pushes the limits of the Constitution and
the Republicans foolish willingness to rubber stamp these betrayals.
Unlike many, I do not think that the Iraq war is a foolish, botched
effort from the point of view of Bush and his coterie. I think they
are getting exactly what they want out of the war. As for the
soldiers' and Iraq's losses, that is just collateral damage from
their point of view.
Prior to 9/11, I think Bush & Co. were in search of a war and almost
thought they had it with the spy plane issue with China. When
listening to the rhetoric then, I think Bush was trying to push the
Chinese as the Enemy, except Americans weren't buying it. These
guys missed the Cold War, as much of their agenda, the War on the
Constitution, was hidden in the War on Communism.
That much of this was planned out was evident from the rhetoric
after 9/11, and not just the substitution of Iraq for Afghanistan on
09/13. In the speeches after 9/11, including the State of the Union
(I believe), Bush talked about the Long War, and difficult war
against terrorism that would take a generation to win (similar to
the Cold War).
Around that time (and I am relying on my memory, not notes) he began
abrogating International Treaties, claiming he could not be
"fettered" and needed an unlimited range of action. Probably this
was the first salvo against the Constitution, as he (probably) was
Constitutionally bound to observed Congressionally approved and
Presidentially signed treaties.
now we have a unilateral leader who is facing his last possible
restraint with this mid-term election. If he wins (or more likely
steals it without a peep from the media/constituencies) I think it's
a toss up whether he will ever face another election again.
our house the question is whether there would be another
Presidential election again. I think that Bush would then suspend
the presidential elections and just rule as monarch, or Der Fuhrer,
or the Decider. He tried to suspend the Presidential election in
2004, claiming that it was too "dangerous" to have the election
while the country was at war. But he got no traction. My husband,
rightly, claims that there are plenty of right wing dictatorships
where sham of elections occur, such as in Mexico, Chile, etc.
But I do agree with you that this election is our last chance to
stop Bush. After 6 years of watching him be unchallenged by
Congress while everyone, including Socks the First Cat, was
investigated during Clinton's presidency, I am truly fearful of the
Election Day outcome.
Ly in upstate NY
The one thing missing from your story and to me the crux of the
whole story is, ...the why.
What is worth the loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars,
American power and respect on the world scene? If the story is true,
and it feels true, then you really should spend some time analyzing
WHY George Bush would take a world he quite literally "had by the
balls" and throw it all away on a situation that was questionable at
best and what we see now at worst.
Who wins? Surely this can't have been all about enriching Cheney's
cronies at Halliburton? While I don't believe that the president is
all that bright, even he couldn't think of starting a war of this
magnitude to enrich one large multinational corporation.
In a country with an experience of censorship and a more
history of political intrigue than we have had, it would be obvious
that alQ wants a continuation of present U.S. policies, as in late
2004 when the big man sent out a videotape ostensibly in favor of
electing the Democrats. By the same logic, would we be surprised to
witness a tape surfacing in the next week attacking our rulers?
The problem is the American people are, indeed, stupid...how else
a psychotic, ignorant, sycophant and aparatchick theocrat rise to such
of incompetence. The only real answer is with any rabid dog, out of
control...shoot on sight!!!
I realize this is a little late-due to a variety of
been way behind lately. But I wanted to add my US$.02 worth to your
fine October 19 article: "Who Is 'Any Person' in Tribunal Law?". This
is from my latest Express column which is clearly partially inspired
and informed by your recent writing.
"One of the most prominent features of the Military Commissions
(M.C.A.) is Section 7(e) which denies the right of habeas corpus- the
constitutional protection against illegal imprisonment. Those of us
are American citizens may be personally untroubled by this, assuming
that our status guarantees protection by our government of our
inalienable rights. But the M.C.A. grants jurisdiction of military
commissions not only over “alien unlawful enemy combatants” but over
“unlawful enemy combatants” as well. Moreover, this particular status
is to be determined by a “...tribunal established under the authority
of the President or the Secretary of Defense.” (Sec. 948d(c)).
The M.C.A. (Section 950v (26)) also specifically extends
of military tribunals to “any person...who, in breach of an allegiance
or duty to the United states knowingly and intentionally aids an
of the United States...” Since aliens owe no allegiance to the United
States this means that the M.C.A. refers to all of us, aliens and
citizens alike. Until and if the courts overturn this abominable
legislation we are all potentially subject to the jurisidiction of a
military commission. And exactly how “inalienable” our rights such as
habeas corpus really are will depend on how we may be classified by a
tribunal appointed by George W. Bush or by Donald Rumsfeld."
Thanks, as always for all your good work.
I read your refute of Peter Bergen's op-ed piece with great
interest. It makes perfect sense and I hope you will send it to the
op-ed editors of the New York TImes and other newspapers.
It seemed obvious to me at the time that Bin Laden wanted Bush
re-elected for his own ends but it would be helpful if you could get
this idea in some other parts of the American media.
to Home Page