Almost no one in America remembers Vietnam and the lies that began it, so why should they remember yet another lie from their President? I understand that what passes for the news in America is instead black propaganda. What I don't understand is why Americans care so little that they don't educate themselves about their government and more importantly their history. A few hours on the internet would put the lie to the lies.

So I can only conclude that most people in America simply don't care. They don't care about the 500,000 "extra deaths" caused by 10 years of sanctions. And they certainly don't care, or even notice, the 130,000 killed since then. As far as I can tell from here in Canada, they don't even care about 2000 plus dead Americans! So why should they notice a lie about something that does not interest them? Why would a little lie bother them, when a pile of bodies that if stacked up, would reach into space, seems not to perturb the American psyche at all?

Your President lies all the time, he does so on behalf of the ruling oligarchy, the demons at PNAC, and of course, your good good friends in Israel. He lies so that Americans can continue to be fatter than anyone in the world, he does it so you can drive 2 SUV's and live in 6000 square foot houses. He lies for you, and if you don't love him for it, well at least you do him the courtesy of not mentioning his insane and easily refuted lies.

I remember when the inspectors were asked to leave, and I remember why. Am I special, am I a genius,? No, but I do care, so I remember.

When will America care? When the war affects them, when it kills them, then, and only then they will care. America has not just lost it's way, it has gone insane. Bush is the President you deserve. Only an American needs Joe Conason to "remind" people that Bush is liar. Liar - he's a freaking monster, and history, if there is one, will depict him that way.

Bill Owen

Ottawa, Ontario

I have to admit that my initial reaction to Bill Owens' letter is to want to jump to the defense of the 50%, or so, of the people that DO care. That said, there are a lot of good points made. I think, though, that America's reaction is a matter of interpretation. People in America feel unempowered. Anne LaMott writes a nice little article exploring a non-violent "revolution", and, of course, someone has to jump into things and start yelling about hippie communards, or some such, and how it's no wonder that Democrats are so ineffective. But the point is a bigger one. How do you take power back to the people in such a way that signifies you reject the tactics of the neocon junta? The important point here being the power of the people, because for the most part, the media has done a decent job to highlight the lies. It seems to me that what we now want them to do is also fight our battles, and crucify those lying liars. I don't think that is their job (much though it would be nice to see...). However, until we (I will include Canadians here as our northern brethren) hold our elected leaders accountable, the shadowy conservative cabal can just sit back and laugh, because we are going after the media, and not the people who really deserve it. Can the media do better? Probably. Can our leaders to better? Yes, but only if we hold their feet to the fire.

The administration's bold faced lies, the media'a reluctance to hold the administration accountable, the Democrats' pervasive, disgusting complicity...cowards and prevaricators all. Truely, a low point in our history.

Not a single life did Monicagate take, and yet the opposition and media were relentless...silence in the face of distortions, manipulations, and falsehoods trumps everything...how have we become such cowards?

The media have been wimps because they are people with careers they don't want to jeopardize. Remember what happened to Dan Rather? The press were already compliant before he was brought down after the fake memos, after that they were scared shitless. Journalism isn't generally a very lucrative field for the majority of reporters, but there are a few who do well, and the White House has been very effective in intimidating reporters to avoid conflict with them. Who knows what backroom manuevering goes on to cow a reporter. A phone call is made to a media executive, perhaps there is some legislation they were anxious to pass, maybe a merger approval, it's not helpful if one of their reporters are antagonistic to the President.

Democrats seem to be in a similar boat. They like their job. They don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to seem too antagonistic. They are scared shitless they'll wind up on the wrong side of a vote and have their vote come back to haunt them in attack ads for being unpatriotic or some distorted negative. Republicans won't run attack ads saying Dems went along with them. It's pathetic. This country wants Dems to fight! Fight back for God's sake! Even clueless, red staters will respect a fighter.

Although the inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam did now allow them to visit all the places they wanted. They were often delayed, apparently with the intention of removing evidence before they got there. Recent testimony says that Saddam himself believed that he actually possessed the weapons, and his advisers were too scared to tell him otherwise.

That, I believe, is why the Times ignored the quote. It's false on its surface; like Saddam, Mr. Bush's advisers tell him what he wants to hear. But there is some truth to it a bit deeper: the inspectors weren't able to state conclusively that the weapons were gone, and Saddam was acting suspiciously. Terrible justification for a war, and Bush has made the case badly before and since, but I understand why the NYT would have bigger fish to fry in that press conference.