BIGGER THAN WATERGATE: Presidential Lies Revealed

A factual telling of George W. Bush's underhanded dealings that strategically maneuvered our country to war has been released by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Ron Suskind. Watergate doesn't have anything on this unleashing of the truth.

(SALEM, Ore.) - The fall of George W. Bush. It has been called for and attempts have been launched, but taking a blow at this administration is like playing the video game Galaxian for the first time; you may knock out a few enemy ships, but they are going to send you down in flames before the games really gets going.

An explosive new book charges that President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

This is but one of the multitude of worst-case scenario situations aptly described in this newly released book.

In The Way of the World, Ron Suskind delivers a succinct and stunning blow to the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; indicting the President for having forced the issue when he knew it was a lie.

According to most accounts, this presidential "mistruth" has cost the world over a million lives, including several thousand of our own United States' citizens.

This book explains with substantiated, credible detail how America lost its way and looks at the nation's struggle, day by day, to reclaim the moral authority upon which its survival depends. This goes way beyond simple ethics.

From the White House to Downing Street, from the fault–line countries of South Asia to the sands of Guantánamo, Suskind offers an astonishing story that connects world leaders to the forces waging today's shadow wars and to the next generation of global citizens.

Tracking down truth and hope within the Beltway and far beyond it, Suskind delivers historic disclosures with this emotionally stirring and strikingly original portrait of the post-9/11 world.

Truth, justice, and accountability become more than mere words in this story. Suskind shows where the most neglected dangers lie in the story of "The Armageddon Test" — a desperate gamble to send undercover teams into the world's nuclear black market to frustrate the efforts of terrorists trying to procure weapons–grade uranium.

In the end, he finally reveals for the first time the explosive falsehood underlying the Iraq War and the entire Bush presidency.

According to Rob Richer, the CIA’s Near East division head, “Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in office. Nothing was going to stop that.” Suskind quoted Richer in The Way of the World.

On page 371, Suskind describes the White House’s concoction of a forged letter purportedly from the hand of Habbush to Saddam Hussein to justify the United States’ decision to go to war:

“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq — thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade.”

He continues, “A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for dissemination.”

TIME reported that in March of 2002, John McCain and two other Senators were at the White House with Condoleezza Rice when Bush unexpectedly stuck his head in the door and asked, "Are you all talking about Iraq?" And then he waved his hand dismissively and said, "F___ Saddam, we're taking him out." Then he left the room. The bully on the block attitude was clear even then, but he continued to win support.

In early 2003, when war was still uncertain, I looked at my co-workers and asked if they believed we had good reason to invade Iraq. No one agreed that removing Saddam was important enough to wage a war, but most were behind the president. Americans need to not be taken for a ride when they put their faith in their Commander in Chief.

TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira on Tuesday asked why Suskind’s sources are finally speaking out now, more than five years after the war began?

He answered, “Well, you know, a lot of them have been walking around with this lump in their chest for a couple of years — five years now. And because they’re essentially free — they’re not the original source — they said, ‘Look, why hide now? Let’s trust the truth.’ ”

This book brings the last five years into focus. The things that we thought could be true, that we hoped were not, are for the most part, true. People in power do succumb to personal wants, needs, and ambitions. It is our responsiblity as citizens to keep each other in check. It seems in this White House, that would be like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

While the public and political realms struggle, The Way of the World simultaneously follows an ensemble of characters in America and abroad who are turning fear and frustration into a desperate—and often daring—brand of human salvation. They include a striving, twenty-four-year-old Pakistani émigré, a fearless UN refugee commissioner, an Afghan boy, a Holocaust survivor's son, and Benazir Bhutto, who discovers, days before her death, how she's been abandoned by the United States at her moment of greatest need.

A graduate of the University of Virginia, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Mr. Suskind has appeared on various television news programs as a correspondent or essayist and is a distinguished visiting scholar at Dartmouth College.

From 1993 to 2000, Mr. Suskind was the senior national affairs writer for the Wall Street Journal. He was a contributor to "Profiles in Courage for Our Times," (Hyperion, 2002), along with other prize-winning authors. He currently writes for various national magazines, including the New York Times Magazine and Esquire Magazine. Two articles that appeared in Esquire in 2002 delved into the workings of the Bush White House.

His 2004 book, "The Price of Loyalty, George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill," is a sweeping tour of the inner working of the Bush Presidency, among the most secretive administrations in modern times.

In 2006, Mr. Suskind published "The One Percent Doctrine," a revealing journey deep inside America's battles with violent, unrelenting terrorists -- a game of kill-or-be-killed, from the Oval Office to the streets of Karachi.

Mr. Suskind is also the author of "A Hope in the Unseen, An American Odyssey from the Inner City to the Ivy League," (Doubleday/Broadway, 1998), which was launched by a series in the Wall Street Journal that won him the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing, has been a favorite on U.S. campuses and in book clubs.

If the allegations in The Way of the World are true, and by all accounts they appear to be, then the Bush administration's behavior is no less than psychological warfare, used against fellow Americans. Our public was coerced into supporting a war, and a president, without merit. Is simply impeaching a president who has committed these errors against our people punishment enough? How Nancy Pelosi and other "powers-that-be" react to these revelations will be historical.

For anyone hoping to exercise truly informed consent and begin the process of restoring the values and hope—along with the moral clarity and earned optimism—at the heart of the American tradition, The Way of the World is a must-read.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark August 9, 2008 3:23 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Forgive lack of clear location for Doctorow piece. It is found under current Op Ed on "Choices"....

Henry Ruark August 9, 2008 3:18 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Just found this "see with own eyes" link which ties neatly into mine to Len re two-quote comment from him. This is clear example of misinterpretation caused by lack of check rather than how-read for content-involved; check would have eliminated error. "WPost Admits Bungling Obama Quote --By Robert Parry August 10, 2008 The Washington Post’s ombudsman says the newspaper’s original source for a quote that was used to portray Barack Obama as a megalomaniac now disputes the Post’s negative interpretation that has spread across cable TV, the Internet and even into a John McCain attack ad. Post ombudsman Deborah Howell also acknowledges that neither Post reporter who relied on the misleading quote spoke directly with the source, checked out its accuracy, or made any independent effort to determine the context of the remark, which was made to a closed Democratic caucus meeting on Capitol Hill on July 29. ------------ Naturally Len had no chance to check out quotes-used, so no way to verify if accurate, or in any way distorted, by lack of context in which they were accessed. Misunderstanding via factors I cited is predominantly from strong feeling for situation, rather than by intentional action. Error-caused ones, as in WP, are much more often intentional via choice of the reporter(s) to neglect, for whatever reason-cied, the real demand for accuracy which goes with the job, sometimes now ignored due to strong career pressures stemming from the overwhelming corporate ownership of the media itself.

Henry Ruark August 9, 2008 2:46 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Tel: You also wrote re Corsi book: "One must evaluate the content and look at the footnotes and other sources." That's precisely what the professional review I linked for you does, statement-by statement, line-for-line. Did you seek it out, yet ? Pays to do so prior to any further analysis; or seek out book on Amazon-site for actual skim over some pages, often available, perhaps new to you, too ? Also both positive and negative reviews there, within hours after book goes on sale. Then for key-ones, you gotta actually READ, spend time, and even cogitate a bit...helps much to lower wear/tear on b/b region, I have found, but inevitably adds to cogitative wear-tear, too...

Henry Ruark August 9, 2008 2:39 pm (Pacific time)

Hey, Tel !: Re "fog", that lifted years ago when in direct contact with Mainers during REAL Depression... Re rest, you simply stating "politics is only politics", when in reality it has now degenerated into truly deadly confrontation of basic values, judgments and philosophical roots for our democracy. See ref. to Doctorow article in other story-comments, unrepeated here since Tim has ONLY such much patience...!! Glad to explain further when you've absorbed that-'un by famed writer/novelist, which makes it very clear why current "false-choice trap" now makes dead-sure (no pun !) politics cannot be "like combat", even though sometimes hardball-fun with someone who can play game honorably as you have done and continue to do. My pleasure, sir, and best to you even though you remain still somewhat befogged... which Doctorow article might help to clear up for you.

Telford August 9, 2008 8:14 am (Pacific time)

Henry as you know any book that goes after one candidate will be challenged by the other candidate's supporters. One must evaluate the content and look at the footnotes and other sources. I recall that John Kerry was going to pursue a lawsuit, but he did not, obviously. I am still waiting to see his military medical records that he said he would release. As you know, the vast majority of veterans hold Kerry in low regard not for the Swiftboater's (his peers by the way) assertions, but because of his lies about Vietnam veterans. I realize that there are those who believe his "unqualified statements", but that will never change. I guess Obama could sue this Corsi guy and his publishers, but pretty sure that won't happen. I expect that in the following weeks before the election many assertions will come up. What is true or false will pretty much be left for the individual to evaluate. As you know, for example, Edwards was not forthcoming and he claims his wife knew about the relationship 2 years ago. I guess we won't see him as a VP choice, though it would have been sweet had he already been chosen. Politics like combat is hardball. Thanks again Henry for your very civil tone, it is an extreme pleasure exchanging comments with you. And I cling to the notion that you can teach old dogs new tricks. So here's hoping that the fog begins to lift 4 u...

Henry Ruark August 8, 2008 12:48 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Tel et al: Here's "see with own eyes" link to MediaMatters review on the Corsi book, allowing YOU et al to check out precisely what facts Corsi corrupts and how far he goes. This is best possible answer to your "Leninist"-smear on M/Matters and Soros, who may be "left-ish" (as are many others of us here) but hardly deserves Communist-fear/smear. SO check out source to see what the review REALLY SHOWS, by simple access to link-here: Unfit for Publication: Swiftboater Book 'The Obama Nation' Filled with Falsehoods By Matthew Gertz and Eric H. Hananoki, Media Matters for America http://www.alternet.org/story/94322/ Summary: In its preface, Jerome Corsi compares his new book, The Obama Nation, to his 2004 book Unfit for Command. The comparison seems apt: Just as Unfit for Command contains false attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters review finds that The Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama. (The review then shows, with direct page references and excerpts, specific distortions and corruptions executed by Corsi, compared with the actual documented factual statement which prove the Corsi actions.) Note to Tel: Now you have the irrefutable facts right before your very eyes, perhaps you can verify or may wish to withdraw your "Leninist" smear re Soros, which equates being "left-ish" with being Communist, only distinction being HOW FAR "left" one is and the continuing direction --with your final implied damnation reserved for those who may degenerate all the way to socialism. Which MAY just open up a new dialog, sure to be intriguing for those willing to pursue wherever that may take us all. To my sure knowledge, it is NOT illegal to be socialist in U.S. YET, although that may soon come; and, for those who will but look, "democracy" as we now are experiencing it via 40 years of determined neocon distortion/perversion may be next-step to fascism, a return to royalist/rule as in primitive Middle Ages, prior to Reformation, Enlightenment --AND the American Revolution followed by Bill of Rights and our Constitution, still operational despite being somewhat tattered and torn...

Henry Ruark August 8, 2008 11:26 am (Pacific time)

Apologies for inadvertent use of "Anon" in response to Len re Cheney-words. D0 believe ref. to signed previous comment makes all clear, but wish to guarantee you all know provenance of the direct rebuttal to him. Now have six similar from other sources, for anyone who still has any question whatsoever re Suskind statements and his veracity, long ago proven in piles of published materials open to painful probing by other prolific protesters, none of whom has ever "made it stick" via resorto to always-open profitable-if-won suit. Can feel for that situation, since have been sued twice, won both, last one paid for Chicago lakeside condo for a number of months...

Anonymous August 8, 2008 7:05 am (Pacific time)

Len Hannaford: You may have missed mine 8/7/10:22 which documents direct lie to Cheney in letter he signed re that PNAC project with letter to Clinton (1998). Regardless of that proven documentation, do you really consider anything Cheney states as other than in own also-proven self-interest and now becoming-desperate attempt to avoid "war crimes" designation, if not impeachment ? It is height of naivete to now believe either VP or President will NOT lie on occasion, when required for tactical reasons, as your citation here surely indicates was the case on int'vw chosen. Re tie to Russert, that only points up again far too close association of some pundit types with power-as-seen, for which Russert was sometimes as guilty as anyone else "in the media" whose career advances depend solely on UN-flapping those who control that gain. Again, I speak from personal experience; what's yours, as in media critic-role surely played here ? IF you seek credibility, earn it by share with us on that point.

Len Hannaford August 7, 2008 6:49 pm (Pacific time)

VP Cheney's Own Words Debunk LAT's Rutten, Suskind Book By Dave Pierre (Bio | Archive) August 6, 2008 - 23:13 ET Los Angeles Times's Tim Rutten is at it again. In an op-ed in today's paper (Wed. 8/6/08), Rutten buttresses a new book by author Ron Suskind and asserts that "Vice President Dick Cheney and his inner circle long have insisted" that Iraq was directly connected to the September 11 attacks. Rutten's claim is an easy one to debunk. Here's Vice President Cheney in a Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert a mere five days after the September 11 attacks: RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? [Sept. 11 attacks] VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. Does it get any simpler than "No"? Cheney's words also strike a major blow to a wild accusation in Suskind's new book. According to Politico's Mike Allen (and quoted by Rutten), Suskind claims, "The White House had concocted a fake letter [that] said that 9/11 ringleader [Mohamed] Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq."

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Tel: Reason b-ball/shot by Obama caught my attention is simple: I'm longtime Blazers fan. Also: Took guts to fire it right under view of troops, and confidence since it was hardly easy-shot. For me, that was character sig. Forgive my line re McC. "not able to get it up !", meant to refer ONLY to basketball, naturally.

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 3:27 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Tel: Your key-phrase here is: "Note: Media Matters relies on what could be called a Leninist approach, complete with paid professional revolutionaries, in an ongoing effort to shame Americans who deal in ideas into embracing, or at least not opposing, their political agenda." That alone disabuses yours of any descriptive power for non-partisan, since it clearly demonstrates your intent to use ref. to "Leninist" as old tactic leading to fear of the Communist concept. I'm a bit surprised on that, from you ! But do agree it will take real revolutionaries to break tight grip of corporate owners on msmedia,perhaps "good deal" no matter how achieved. Re Brooks, I agree he's own victim of flip/flops; we can take him or leave him, with no loss to either of us here. Re Soros, who/what he has proven self to be open to full personal interpretation, sure to be heavily dependent on one's own political/economic foundations. The funding involved falls within same pattern as all other 501/c, so appears irrelevant here. Re relevance to mutually revered First Amendment, and journalistic standards, that too is matter for differing opinions heavily dependent on life and especially working experience as well as any special training. Am at disadvantage re that latter for you, since do not know what experience you have had, or training, or living on edge of profession. Can you elucidate on that point ? Appreciate mild tone of yours, per our usual mutual civility, as always. Ranger "on way", with many others; Annapolis-kid on a-powered sub today, warned him to "hold your breath under water !" --which seems good idea for any continuing mutual surveillance of this always intriguing area.

Tim McFarland August 7, 2008 11:31 am (Pacific time)

Terry Gross is interviewing the author on Fresh Air today at 2:00 and 7:00 on OPB.

Telford August 7, 2008 10:33 am (Pacific time)

Henry et al, I often peruse Media matters and am familiar with it's organizational background and it's funding, are you? David Brock, the president and CEO of this George Soros funded organization, Media Matters for America (MM), which euphemistically describes its mission as "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," isn't even pretending to be nonpartisan or fair anymore. Brock has assumed the chairmanship of Progressive Media USA (PMUSA) and in that role will spearhead "a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain,". "We're a little behind where we need to be," Brock said last week of the fledgling group's fundraising following a Manhattan meeting with Soros, the left-wing philanthropist, and Paul Begala, the TV talking head and longtime Democratic Party operative. As a 501(c)(4) organization, PMUSA doesn't have to disclose its donors according to Brock, who is author of the new book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. Conservatives ought to welcome Brock's refreshing honesty. At last he has publicly unmasked himself as a partisan political operative, as opposed to a mere liberal ideologue. Such candor from Brock, the self-described former "right-wing hit man" turned left-wing hit man, is a rare occurrence indeed. (For more on Brock's mendacity see Rondi Adamson's profile of Media Matters. Although Adamson's report is thorough, it barely skims the surface of Brock's various deceptions. For more on Brock and his tall tales, a good place to start is the "Articles and commentary" section of Wikipedia's entry on Brock.) Note: Media Matters relies on what could be called a Leninist approach, complete with paid professional revolutionaries, in an ongoing effort to shame Americans who deal in ideas into embracing, or at least not opposing, their political agenda. This tack motivates the faithful and silences opponents. Some may provide this method a variety of descriptive labels, with none reflecting our Founding Fathers intent with regard to the 1st Amendment and embracing minimum journalistic standards.

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 10:22 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" very revealing excerpt from reliable source re precisely the same situation covered in the book-reviewed: Saddam's fall was planned in 1998 "In this liberal climate there came, nearly unnoticed, a 1997 proposal of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that forcefully mapped out "America's global leadership". On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam. "While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel, the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's oil reserves". They put their case as follows: "In the short term this means being ready to lead military action, without regard for diplomacy. In the long term it means disarming Saddam and his regime. We believe that the US has the right under existing Security Council resolutions to take the necessary steps, including war, to secure our vital interests in the Gulf. In no circumstances should America's politics be crippled by the misguided insistence of the Security Council on unanimity." (clintonletter) Blueprint for an offensive "This letter might have remained yellowing in the White House archives if it did not read like a blue-print for a long-desired war, and still might have been forgotten if ten PNAC members had not signed it. "These signatories are today all part of the Bush Administration. They are Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad - fresh from being special ambassador and kingmaker in Afghanistan, now Bush's special ambassador to the Iraqi opposition." (Ties in nicely with quotes, circumstances reported in the Suskind book, you will see.) From: www.informationclearinghouse.infor/article2041.htm

Corsi August 7, 2008 10:02 am (Pacific time)

IMPEACH NANCY!! SWEATERS, TIRE GAUGES, AND FANCY LIGHT BULBS ARE NOT THE PATH TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE! WE WERE FOUNDED ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! NOT THE DECLARATION OF DEEEEEPENDENCE!!!!!

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 9:11 am (Pacific time)

To all: Please note also Wayne's reference to Blum information re role of World Bank and International Monetary Fund. That damaging impact, via ready source of desperately needed very-large funding to those nations, is outcome of the Milton Friedman/Chicago School dogma of "monetarism" and "free-market" miracles, which never work --as demonstrated wherever used including every S. American nation invaded by raiding U.S. corporate interests. Think-tank studies reported in late '90s, now again being revealed, prove conclusively that Iraq preemptive attack and false "war on terror" were initiated then, as major project by NPAC, signed by same cabal now signally-failed in D.C. --after huge costs in blood and treasure for many nations. Documention on request to Editor Tim with ID.

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 9:01 am (Pacific time)

To all: For revealing "see with own eyes", re how Corsi book is full of inaccuracies,intended distortions and direct attack on Obama, here's lead of special review by MoveOn: "This week, two right-wing books came out about Barack Obama. One is written by Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command—the 2004 book that launched the "Swift Boat" smear. The other is from a right-wing publisher who describes the book's "goal" as the same as Unfit for Command—to spur negative coverage of the Democratic nominee and tarnish his image.1 "Already, the authors are making the rounds on TV shows. And already, media watchdog group Media Matters has found pages and pages of factual inaccuracies in these books. But just like in 2004, if the media parrot baseless right-wing smears over and over again, it won't matter whether the books are true—the damage will be done." (Media Matters is reliable, nonpartisan source; MoveOn is advocate now hated by both parties, surely a strong characterization here !) Details via excerpts and quotes from both books show YOU precisely how this attack via distortion and untruth is done. Given easy-money readily, widely available from heavy, continuing corporate campaign contributions, we can expect similarly heavy-flood of just this kind of specious attack via propaganda at all levels. Obama does not yet "walk on water", is only human, has and will continue to make his own mistakes. SO what's the other choice ? Thinking citizens will want to seek out truthful, tested, authentic, strong journalism for its reliable insights. Naomi Klein's SHOCK DOCTRINE is precise example, reported on here when published, with Op Ed references ever since. Check it out and evaluate with OWN MIND !! Thanks, Wayne, for reminder; agree with you on Blum books, and your note re his conclusions, which echo our information here previously. (Ref. to Op Eds coming, or see STAFF section, "Written By..")

Oregon Veteran August 7, 2008 7:10 am (Pacific time)

Wayne you mention that when europeans get peeved they take to the streets when they object to government actions. Can you name some european country where things are going well? FYI, I have been protesting in the streets here for quite a while, and still the politicans ignore the will of the people. Look at our current energy disaster, the democratic leadership (controlling the purse strings and legislative agenda for 2 years now, think about that!) will not allow a simple up or down vote on new energy policies, even though the majority of Americans demand it. I say we need a special prosecutor to investigate current leadership. This coming winter people will die because they will not be able to heat their homes. Maybe they can get a tire gauge to offset future costs and supplies? That is not the liberal way to develop solutions to problems, but it is the radical approach. Pay attention to what some of these pols say, past and present.

Wayne August 6, 2008 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

Naomi Klein's new book, Shock Doctrine" thoroughly enlightened me about how the US government, under both political parties, has systematically overthrown less powerful governments in order to allow the global corporations to buy up their assets. Iraq was just the latest victim. Just one example: Iraq owned almost 200 companies that produced most the goods for the Iraqi people. The US government privatized all these companies and sold them off to global corporations. Previous to the US invasion, these companies paid 45% in taxes. The US reduced the tax to 15%. The US is owned and controlled by the large banks and corporations, whose interst is turning the world into one great marketplace--that they own. A great source on how the US works the finances with the help of the World Bank and Internation Monitary Fund, see books by William Blum. The books by these experts don't seem to help. Blum himself says that most Americans are unaware and oblivious and that nothing is going to change until they take to the streets, as they do in European countries when they object to their government's actions.

Glen August 6, 2008 5:38 pm (Pacific time)

Lee Simms, I am concerned about Obama, too. I worry that he's just not liberal enough.

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 11:46 am (Pacific time)

To all: For definitive information on how distortion and paid perversion of truth works, and why it sometimes succeeds in seducing sensible voters, see: How False Narrative Works By Robert Parry www.constiumnews.com/Print/2007/111407a.html Parry broke Iran/Contra story for AP and NEWSWEEK is one of most reliable sources today for such background.

jimmy August 6, 2008 11:24 am (Pacific time)

Well this is great, another smoking gun that in other times would have triggered the impeachment process. Clinton almost got it for lying about a blowjob, what does this guy have to do before he gets impeached? What can we do?

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 10:22 am (Pacific time)

BV et al: Your perceptions are mostly accurate, and only remedy is determination of credibility varying with sources. Then too the problem of defining "truth" still remains, insoluble except, again, on the basis of source credibilities. Which is why we offer "see with own eyes" links here, and recommend evaluation with OWN MIND via their use to put you into touch with what we find and report --as corrective process-part leading to a closer approximation to "truth" for all involved. That way, individual life experience and all other factors, including emotional intelligence now recognized by cognitive science as a very strong factor, comes into the strong consideration often neglected. For ALL of THAT, honest, open, democratic dialog is one of the best possible answers, dependent on the recognized strengths of "the wisdom of crowds" --a foundation principle for any approach to a true democracy. That recognition is at the heart of the prescient approach taken by our Founders in their long-continued dialolg via Federalist Papers and other pre-Revolutionary processes, now world-famed for their outcome. Thanks for your penetrating insights; even if "negative", they are provocative and here add to dialog and its impacts.

BV August 5, 2008 11:01 pm (Pacific time)

Why should I waste my time reading this book? Most of print media is slanted. I want the TRUTH, not opinion! Sources..nothing but b.s. You can find any source you want to form a story that fits your beliefs. America can handle the truth. The problem is they rarely get it from any form of media, including this site.

Mik August 6, 2008 8:22 am (Pacific time)

As bad as it is, when you reflect back to 9/11/01, America was spoiling for a fight. No one was going to attack our buildings and get away with it. I was actually at a VA clinic and saw it on TV, and you can imagine the atmosphere. Guys in wheelchairs were wanting to get into the action. Really, just because other nations are forced to endure terrorist attacks and are unable to retaliate effectively doesn't mean we shouldn't do so. Anyway, that was the atmosphere then. Whoever we decided to fight, for whatever reason, it would have been better to immediately start thinking through the event with the end in sight - which we haven't done, and that is what is hurting us now.

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 7:31 am (Pacific time)

To all: Do you reall think Pelosi et al will now come out from under that table ? That's what has sheltered them --until repeated factual disclosure collapsed it on their heads-- of complicity or colossal political stupidity, clearly as reported in depth and detail in WHAT HAPPENED.

Lee Simms August 6, 2008 7:03 am (Pacific time)

Bonnie King, this is just a great book, and I sure learned a great deal. May I suggest another superb book, just released yesterday and already #5 on Amazon. It's called "The Obama Nation" by Jerome Corsi, PHD. It has over 700 footnotes that can easily be searched to verify its contents.

From the beginning, we see that Corsi is a student of current media, launching the meat of his book with a YouTube video posted this Spring by a blogger. If you are a concerned voter wanting to learn more , and want a full picture of the Barack Obama our mainstream media is desperately protecting, read Corsi’s book before casting your vote in November. Our Republic is at stake. We cannot afford to have uninformed voters.

mbeauchemin August 6, 2008 4:41 am (Pacific time)

love your country, fear your government

Janet August 5, 2008 10:42 pm (Pacific time)

How "Nancy Pelosi" reacts will be historic indeed. Our president has been ridiculous in his actions for sure....however our democratic controlled house has been even more so...they have gotten nothing done with their time and they helped vote for this war. They are just as bad as George W. They fell for all of it.

[Return to Top]