The correspondent retches up regurgitated POTUS-cum onto his lapel. Like an over-suckled babe -- or a porn actress after one-too-many cocks uncorked down her throat -- he can no longer keep it all down.

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.

My wife and I saw the press conference referred to by Joe Conason in his column, "Saddam chose to deny inspectors," where Helen Thomas was about to ask George W. Bush a question about his plans to invade Iraq. Bush cut her off before she could complete her question.

Had she been allowed to complete her thought, or to have had a follow up, she would have asked about former administration officials who have talked about his early plans to invade Iraq.

In his book, "Against All Enemies," Richard A. Clark, in a discussion of how Presidents would approach the situation created by the attacks of 9/11, he wrote: "In the end, what was unique about George Bush's reaction to terrorism was his selection of an object lesson for potential state sponsors of terrorism, not a country that had been engaging in anti-U.S. terrorism but one that had not been, Iraq. It is hard to imagine another President making that choice."*** So, why did Bush make that choice? Refer back to O'Neill's comments; Bush had always planned to invade Iraq.

In August of 2001, my wife called me in to watch Bush address the traveling press corps. People and the press were beginning to wonder why Bush had taken no action to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue. He had obviously taken a hands-off approach, just exactly the opposite of the Clinton strategy. Paul O'Neill reported that Bush had said that he and Ariel Sharon had flown over Palestinian camps. O'Neill noted that "Bush said sourly, 'Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation." Suskind wrote, "And that was it, according to O'Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own. **** So, the questions asked by the press on August 13, 2001, would center on that conflict.

After fielding questions from the press for about 15 minutes, the end of the session was announced and Bush was about to leave when two more reporters asked him further questions. Now, here is where the media gave Bush a huge pass. His response to the second questioner was so outrageous that I knew the media would jump all over it; I was wrong. It was never reported in the press or broadcast media. However, it was reported in letters that I wrote to various Internet sites, to reporters, to media personalities, and to a local newspaper, the Independence Examiner.

The second reporter, a dark haired man standing directly in front of the TV camera, asked Bush, "When will you do something to stop the killing?" In the most casual way, the President of the United States, some say leader of the Free World, answered with, "When enough people die." I wondered aloud, "How many are enough and who makes that decision?"

About a month later, and about 5 weeks after the President had received his, now famous, PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States," I think the answer was made clear by a tragedy that occurred in the United States, one that not even George W. Bush could ignore. On September 11, 2001 enough people died so that Bush could carry out a war against Iraq by pretending that Hussein was a threat to the United States. Was it a plan of the administration, was it the fruition of a long held plan by Bin Laden, or was it the result of a careless comment by the President? We will never know unless that comment is given the scrutiny that I believed it deserved on August 13, 2001.

Read letters about this article"Saddam chose to deny inspectors" Bush repeated this bald-faced lie recently. The cowering press still lets him get away with it, but the public is no longer fooled.

Read letters about this articleThe Fix Whitney's "really broke." Hasselhoff divorce gets nasty. Plus: Lindsay Lohan's dad speaks out from prison.

Read letters about this articleCrackdown on aborting female fetuses A doctor in India goes to jail for performing sex-selective tests and abortions.

This is cache, read story here