Secrets and lies and Iraq and lies and enemies lists etc., etc,.

For quite awhile the Democrats have been unable to master one of the techniques of the vile opposition during campaigns,scandals or hot button issues. That is:

Find a simple phrase, link it to another phrase,truthful or not,and hammer away. 9/11 and Saddam anyone? Bush is still using that one.

If this isn't the perfect opportunity to nail these guys using this technique, and truthfully I might add, there never has been one. No Democrat should speak about this investigation without linking it to the war and the dreadful lies told to lead us into war, as well as the lack of character this administration has exibited in ignoring good intelligence,which was also available to them, and using their energy not to defend Americans, but to destroy their political enemies. And then repeat. Getting a little rough on these guys just might save our republic.

The article "Secrets and lies" by Michael Scherer refers to the Italian Prime Minister as "Sergio Berlusconi." Last time I checked, the infamous Italian PM was called SILVIO Berlusconi. Does Mr. Scherer imply that he was replaced by an evil twin brother named Sergio? If yes, who is behind the coup? Please clarify.

A few years back, Cheney was on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. The discussion was about Watergate and The Vietnam War. Cheney's response to one of the questions, Cheney said "I would do things differently this time around" The impression I got was that he believed that if it wasn't for the media and the war protestors, we could have won the Vietnam War. He also implied that the presidential powers that were eroded as a result of Watergate should have never happened and should be restored to pre-watergate statis.

What was Cheney's role in government at the time and "what things" has he done differently this time around?

If it's a "hidden history," how do you know that Fitzgerald's work has anything to do with it? And if you know his work will have an impact on it, why is it still a "hidden history?" Unless of course the words are just boilerplate to make your story sound way cooler than it is.

Two quick questions on other topics: Could you get someone other than a typically narcissistic Baby Boomer to review their experience of a Green Day concert with her kid? I'm pleased that the writer and her son enjoyed their experience, but seeing boomers get all warm and fuzzy because someone recognizes that boomers are the bestest, most specialest people ever and we all need to be just like them is nothing new.

Also, did the irony police cite you when your story about how the poor may be largely shut out of some New Orleands reconstruction models could be accessed through an ad for a car that was "for those in the black" and "for the culturally advantaged?"

There's sort of a tabloid quality to the things that are supposedly going to be revealed when Scooter rolls into the defendants chair. What is left to know that is worth knowing? It's the need to personalize it, at this point. You done me wrong, Scooter, now Scoot along, maybe to prison.

Because, in fact, we know what went wrong. We didn't understand that Islam matters to the Islamic people. They don't want Western institutions, even if they want some form of popular will or democracy. Bush felt we would make them like us, or something, and this reveals his lack of understanding of the world. Don't ignore Pakistan or Indonesia or what is happening anywhere in the Islamic world. But to appreciate the change, you have to have a deeper understanding of Islam, not the cartoonish version of the Bushies.

People should look at the philosophies that drove the people to the actions they took. Look at who educated Wolfowitz and the swirl of ideas that infected all these men, to varying degrees. Their sense of American power, the power of American ideas, seems a little overdone, at best. They made so much of the Cold War. Most Poles don't think Reagan liberated them. They think THEY liberated themselves.

I used to email Seib at the Wall Street Journal, height of all this Iraqi engagement, asking if he thought the US would still be a Super Power in five years. I clearly felt Iraq was 'it'. America would go 'all in' and walk away from the table.

Why go to war, to solve terrorism? How else can we engage with the world, and sell it to an anesthetised electorate? Guns and abortions and gays, they done took their toll on the psyche. This is the dumbed down America that thinks everything is on its side, able to engage with Islam only in a military sense. Hegemony? That's pretty much over. The world knows we have a limited number of troops.

In the end, Bush has smashed the illusion of American power. After Vietnam, that was what drove these guys, recreating American power. The Left folded under McGovern, and the Right emerged to begin some vague, arrogant Restoration.

How stunningly, shockingly ironic that they are the ones who have now lost American Power. Again. And perhaps forever.

I am very heartened to see that Mr. Fitzgerald might be getting close to exposing some of the nefarious machinations of this Administration. However, I am surprised by the general tone of the media and the public on the matter. Everybody seems to be acting like this is NEWS- that the Bush Administration MIGHT have cooked intelligence to support its desire to conquer Iraq. Haven't we known this all along?

It was pretty apparent to anyone who knew anything about the Neocons and the Bushies well prior to 9/11 that the invasion of Iraq was Agenda Item #1 for the administration's foreign policy. I'm surprised that there has been such minimal coverage of a quote I noticed first in 2000, which was some pretty solid foreshadowing of events to come. The Charlie Rose Interview in August 2000:

"Rose: OK. What if you thought Saddam Hussein, using the absence of inspectors, was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon?

Bush: He'd pay a price.

Rose: What's the price?

Bush: The price is force, the full force and fury of a reaction.

Rose: Bombs away?

Bush: You can just figure that out after it happens."

"You can just figure that out after it happens." There is no "if" or "maybe in that sentence. Shouldn't he have said: "You'll find out IF it happens?" Perhaps Bush doesn't know how to use the subjunctive tense, which I don't doubt. But, those words seem to me to be a pretty direct acknowledgement that he was already planning something in 2000 (if not well before that).