Readers Comment on Bush, Webb
Regarding “Time for Bush to Go”:
I think you are absolutely right. He must go. The amazing part is how are very own Caligula sees himself as representing the forces of peace and moderation.
How much do you think that the Bush family political power (especially with the media and getting opponents to role over) has to do with dirty secrets files, like those J. Edgar Hoover used to keep? Time and time again opposition to Bush and torture policies flare and then die for no good reason. It would seem to be the only possible explanation for Blair's continued support for Bush, when clearly it would be in Blair best political interest to dump Bush.
The reason I ask is because I just read that the US was monitoring Princess Diana's conversations without British permission. I personally cannot fathom any good reason for doing that except to gather dirt on the British Royal family.
Ly in upstate NY
As I watched James Baker and Sandra Day O'Connor on the Lehrer news
report the other night, I wondered if it ever crossed their minds that
they were among those responsible for our being in the mess we are in
today because of the George W. Bush presidency.
If they had not gone along with whomever the group was that stopped the
counting of votes in Florida, we wouldn't have had "W" for president,
might not have had 9/11 and would not be going broke in Iraq.
I hope their consciences bother them.
If Bush And Cheney are forced to resign or are impeached Who would the new President be? If Cheney resigns first Bush would get to name the replacement and that person would then be President should Bush resign. If Bush resigns then Cheney gets to name his (Cheney's) replacement and that person would then be President if Cheney were to resign. The Danger is that this replacement President could be packaged by those in power and the MSM as a "Reform" President and as such they would have a year or two to build on being the Incumbent. If they are in anyway temporarily successful or perceived through the MSM to be successful, then it would be very difficult for a Democrat to be Elected President in 2008. Then with a Republican in the White House yet again, they could go right back to their "reformed" Neocon practices. More importantly they could continue their War on the Rest of Us (attacking Social Security, Medicare, Supporting Privatization, Global Corporatism, etc.) and give the Corporatists even more power. All this with the coattail effect of winning back one or both houses of Congress! Thus getting rid of Bush (and Cheney could willingly resign too) would be exactly what the Neocons and Global Corporatists want; make things so bad in the Middle East that a "reform" Republican can insure even more years of their rule which would essentially be The End.
you talk about impeachment like it could happen. while the house with its dem majority could impeach bush, there's no way in hell 2/3 of the senate would vote him out of office. he should have been removed a long time ago. but unfortunately that just can't happen.
(mr) sandy goodman
I have read with interest your articles. They provide an informed backdrop against which thinking citizens may try the current political disasters and find them wanting.
One point I would bring to your attention, however. The other night on "Democracy Now," with Amy Goodman, I heard a brief but enlightening interview with Antonia Juhasz. Ms. Juhasz who says, "Put simply, the oil companies are trying to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq's oil under the ground." (Antonia Juhasz, author and activist. Her latest book is "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time").
Ms. Juhasz makes the point the the unspoken point in the Iraq Study Group's report is that Iraqi oil ought to be privatized and made available to foreign exploitation. This, of course, would mean the Iraqi citizens get none of the benefits of their own resource, would be mere pawns and employees of multi-national concerns and those monies, badly needed to rebuild a nation scarred by US bombs and devastation, would go into the pockets of the already glutted magnates, amongst whom would surely be James Baker. His record, which is far from illustrious, speaks for itself. His interests lie well within the oil empire, and not with the American people.
This point has not been spoke of in any news story I have seen, yet surely, this is the issue upon which George Bush has fixed his limited intellect for "staying the course." He could not be less interested in a democratic republic in Iraq. He is not interested in preserving the democratic Republic WE formerly enjoyed. Indeed, he is busily, if secretly, tearing down our Constitutional Republic as we speak. But the greed for the Iraqi oil and the vast profits which could be derived therefrom, well, the only way to grasp THAT will be to establish a pseudo-democratic, puppet regime in Iraq. Once they have been made secure (in the Green Zone only, of course), you get them to agree to the corrupt betrayal of the Iraqi people, upon whom we have visited such horror up to now!
This insidious scheme, which, as I say, is part and parcel of the wasteful Iraq Study Group suggestions goes unspoken. Is there an attempt to down-play or hide this information from the general public? We know the mainstream media news agencies will not give this item the thrust or coverage it deserves. Congress, that collection of cowards, will do nothing about this, say nothing. What have they done to date? Did any in Congress ask one question of Robert Gates regarding his involvement and lies during the Reagan scandal, Iran-Contra?
Congress is feckless and useless in my estimation, but still we vote! Despite the pre-election "promises", nothing will have changed in January. The "leadership" has made clear that business as usual will be the order of the day. As my Grandmother used to say, "Same gentleman, different position." Raise the minimum wage? Good, but not the same as making health-care universal. Has there been any substantial restoration of Social Security? We still hear that is in danger. Does anyone in Congress say, "Enough of pillaging the Social Security Trust?" Does anyone speak up to get Congress to restore the funds they have stolen from the trusting retirees of this nation? Is there any serious deliberation of cutting off funds for Bush's war? NO! We are betrayed, once again. Congress sits pretty, does next to no work and the workers of the US (and soon, Iraq, as well) are sold into a slavery they do not see until it is too late.
I am sorry to vent so. I really only intended to point out the oil connection between Bush's subtext and the Iraq Study Group's report, as set out by Antonia Juhasz
r. scott lyons
San Francisco, CA
Thanks for another fine and timely article. Unfortunately, as you indicated, the alternatives you proposed (impeachment or sequential resignations of Cheney and Bush) do seem unlikely. And I agree with you that, seen from the contemporary
mainstream American perspective, they seem "extreme" as well. However,
keeping in mind the magnitude of the suffering which this man and his
administration continue to inflict upon humanity as well as their
ongoing offenses against the U.S. Constitution, the sanctions which you
propose, while necessary, amount to no more than a slap on the wrist.
From this entirely reasonable perspective, impeachment would be like
taking the gun out of the hand of a killer and sending him to his room
without his supper. If there is any justice, impeachment will be only
the first step on a march towards long prison sentences for all those
involved in making the original outrageous and murderous decision to
launch a war of choice. Some form of personal apology and restitution
from each of the warmongers would also go a long way towards restoring
justice, just as reparations and an official apology from the U.S.
government to the United Nations would go a long way towards restoring
American honor and moral authority, currently in shreds thanks to the
Bush administration and their Democratic enablers.
Regarding Gary Webb’s Death: American Tragedy
Here is what I wrote to the Los Angeles Times after reading the LaTimes' infuriating obituary:
By insisting on a flimsy refutation of the important work that Gary Webb accomplished, your attack on Gary Webb through the obituary column attempts to pound the nail in his coffin once and for all. This harsh re-run of your smear campaign only reinforces the Times' fierce bias against addressing the important issues that surfaced only because Webb took his courageous stand. Readers were forced in the first sentence to suffer your spin on Webb's work as 'widely criticized.' Why? Because your reportage on this subject was at the center of the 'wide' criticism and because it hangs on the mistruth that Webb was wrong about linking the CIA's support of the Contra's to drug- and gun-running thugs. In fact, CIA Inspector General Hitz subsequently had to admit that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that Webb had actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes. Hitz's report was quietly released and summarily ignored by the Times. Remember way back then?
Instead of reporting on the CIA's and Justice Department's feeble attempts at damage control over these infuriating revelations, the Times wrote a whimsical, questioning piece that ridiculed the gullability of anyone who would believe that Webb's research was worthy of attention. The Times' resounding silence after the release of Volume Two of Hitz's report is precisely the kind of journalistic cowardice that, apparently, Webb's obituary was intended to obscure. The ugly truth contained in Hitz's Volume Two was just too nasty for the Times to print: the CIA withheld evidence of the contra criimes from the Justice Department and Congress; and, drug trafficking and money laundering could be tracked all the way to Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations. There you have it: Guilty as Charged!
Thank you for remembering Gary Webb on the anniversary
of his death. He was a great man. But do you really
believe Webb committed suicide? How about Danny
Casolaro? Or Hunter S. Thompson? My motto these days
is if you're not paranoid, you're not paying
If you have a chance, read Alfred McCoy's "The
Politics of Heroin," it's a page turner.
Dear Journalists and Friends,
My family,Gary's mother Anita,brother Kurt,children Ian,Eric,Christine,and I are writing you today with a request to help honor my husband Gary Webb.As you might know Gary died tragically December 9th 2004,at age 49.I have been searching for an appropriate way to remember and honor him,paying tribute to his great love for journalism.
The University of Missouri School of Journalism,with the help of faculty member Steve Weinberg,former executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors has offered to host an annual scholarship fund for a promising young student of journalism.I can think of no better way to honor Gary,to reinforce his journalistic values,and to celebrate the successes he enjoyed during his career. My children and I would participate in helping to select the student;this is something to which we are all very much looking forward to as a way of remembering Gary.
We need to raise $10,000 for the scholarship to be self-perpetuating.To all you journalists,I know that your salaries can be tight,but I hope you will consider a donation to honor Gary's spirit. This scholarship is a way to help others,so that maybe a little bit of good can come from a terrible sadness.
If you are interested,please write a check to the University of Missouri-Columbia,and add to the memo line "Gary Webb Fund."
Send the gift to:
Director of Development
Missouri School of Journalism
102 Neff Hall Columbia,MO 65211-1200
Thank you very much for considering this request,and please don't hesitate to send this email along to someone who knew Gary,or cared about his work.
Sincerely, Susan Bell Webb
Back to Home Page