Dear FRONTLINE,

The most striking aspect of your presentation was the fact that all of the first-hand information provided came from staff personnel at various agencies (with the exception of former Senator Graham). None of these staff individuals held a Constitutional-level position in the Executive Branch. All seemed to second-guess not only the policy-makers they formerly served, but also themselves. The program was truly 90 minutes of "inside baseball", with much personal critism of the policy makers and the President. There was no information provided to the public during this program that would help inform us in addressing current U.S. foreign policy and military challenges. Your program has not pursuaded me that either President Bush, or his advisors he relied upon, have not exercised their best judgments for the benefit of the United States and its citizens. That's all we can ask for in elected officials. The rest is up to us.

James Wallington
Lovettsville, Virginia

Dear FRONTLINE,

A comment to those who lament "there are no oposing views in the program". In fact, there are plenty. There is Cheney, Rice, and others talking on TV programs. The problem is, all they say are lies, unfortunately, intentionally or unintentionally. Could Frontline pick an interview with a true statement by the government official? I think we all hope they could ... . I know it is an unconvenient argument think about it - what would you call "an opposing view" during the Watergate scandal? (And to anticipate one response: "Sadam was a bad guy and we are better without him". Yes, this is a true statement! But it is not the answer to the question the war on Terror is fought over: "where are the terorists and how can we prevent more attacks?".)

Finally, about partiotism. Partiot is "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". Liberals are accused of being unpatriotic but it has nothing to do with oposing the war. Liberals do what they do from the great love and support for their country, and they clearly obey the rule of law. So ... ?

(I was a great supporter of the war. But it is not the war everybody fusses over now. It is how it is executed. If we had a stable Iraq now we would bless Cheney for all his miscalculations, but unfortunately, he made too many of them ...)

Andrew Grodner

Dear FRONTLINE,

It was an excellent synopsis and recapitulation of information and events with a breadth of background information in a valuable interview format. Thanks for capsulizing many years of events into a well edited hour program. When will this be rebroadcast in my location so I can make sure that friends and family are sure to see it? How can I find out when it will be broadcast again in other parts of the country so I can recomend it to out-of-town friends? This is a must see program and I want to bring it to the attention of people I know.

melissa stang
minneapolis, MN

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

Local PBS stations have the option of rebroadcasting FRONTLINE programs, so you should contact your station to find out if it will be re-aired. Here on this web site you can also watch the program in full.

Dear FRONTLINE,

i found the documentary refreshing and informative. i am so glad to finally see someone doing their homework and putting all the facts together. if the democrats were behind this chain of events, the republicans would be all over it. yet, somehow cheny, bush and the administration are getting away with allowing, much less creating, a serious breakdown in every system that defines the very values they claim to be fighting for. they have undermined and manipulated our democracy and should be exposed for it.

Anna Kenoff
new york, ny

Dear FRONTLINE,

Many will no doubt complain about a "bias" in this program. This is part of a broader effort to corrupt the very meaning of journalistic objectivity.

Objctivity is not characterized by simply echoing both sides of an argument, and leaving it at that; this is the version of "objectivity" that gave rise to such things as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." True objectivity relies on the journalist's own ability to examine the arguments on all side of an issue, and use their resources to confirm or refute those arguments.

This program appears to have a bias only because the facts of the situation are entirely unfavorable to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and their comrades. This is not something that could reasonably be blamed on Frontline. It is not Frontline's fault that these people chose to lie to the American people and the world.

Kevin Wright
Oak Ridge, TN

Dear FRONTLINE,

It was all very interesting watching Cheney's and Rumsfeld's machinations to have their own neocon agenda prevail and unleash the tragedy of the US invasion of Iraq (I thought at the time that Colin Powell's UN presentation sounded pretty hokey). But this all might have been prevented had most Americans, including members of Congress, been more knowledgeable of the Middle East and of US foreign policy in general. But unfortunately most citizens of the world's only super power, find foreign policy a bore and so the majority of them, in 2003, fell for the Administration's intimating that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved with 9/11.

BJ Kalmbach
Madison, WI

Dear FRONTLINE,

Looks like my earlier message did not get posted. OK, let me find a nicer way to say that your "Dark Side" hatchet job on Cheney--and Bush--was a miserable abuse of public trust and public resources. Let me more gently suggest that it is biased, blame-America, liberal journalists like those at PBS who are supporting the Dark Side, not our President and Vice President. Let me--oh well, why waste more keystrokes?

Harold Hunter
West Plains, Missouri

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for doing this show tonight. It was a very revealing look back into critical events that have, sadly, fallen out of focus in the present day--even though they transpired less than five years ago. I was particularly impressed at how diligent you were in tracing back Cheny and Rumsfeld's relationship and in your exploration of the newest developments in this saga (ie. the CIA leak investigation)I would caution in the future, however, against such inflamatory titles. "The Dark Side" almost comically evokes images of Darth Vader and presents an easy target for conservative cries of a "liberal media bias" (which I have already seen aired on this message board tonight.) Such a title repels many viewers who would have greatly benefitted from the well-considered information and skillful journalism contained in this program. Nevertheless, thank you for your presentation of a subject that warrents popular outrage. Perhaps a program on the problem of widespread political apathy is due...

Bennett Meier
New Melle, Missouri

Dear FRONTLINE,

I had already posted before reading some of the discussions. There are still some people out there that are in true denial. They write on here that it is bias and untrue. Yeah, that's right all the people on the program are liars. They just made up all the bad things said about Cheney and company.

Give me a break, how do you people sleep at night. Our soldiers are sitting ducks over there, just like Vietnam you can't tell who the enemy is. These kids are in unbelieveable hell but you good ole boys keep believing in your president. Stay the course. He is just doing such a great job. A real Slam Dunk Job...

J Subik
Kingwood, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for continuing to produce the best documentaries available on television.

In this day and age when the Fourth Estate is all about sensationalism and anything for ratings, it's incredibly refreshing to see someone still interesting in investigative journalism.

Kudos to Frontline!

Jerry Turner
Louisville, Ky

Dear FRONTLINE,

God, what a biased program... not even an attempt to present the other side

what we probably missed was that all of the incompetent CIA agents interviewed on the program were Clinton administratin holdouts that would stop at nothing to embarrass the president and shackle the US Military

Saddam never had any WMDs, eh? Lucky for you peacniks we aren't going to wait for another 9/11 to do something about terrorist threats

Thank God that the new media has relegated PBS and the rest of the drive by media to cheap entertainment for liberals

dane barse
vineland, NJ

Dear FRONTLINE,

After reading the previous messages, it is clear to me that we continue to be a deeply divided country. People see what they want to see and hear who they want to hear. There may have been irrefutable facts presented in the Frontline program, but the Bush-supporting conservatives will choose to understand them differently or excuse the means to justify the end of getting rid of a really bad guy and, in their view, preventing future attacks against Americans. On the other side, those who have been consistantly against the war and against the current administration will not be able to see that despite the strong case that appears to have been presented in the program, it is in fact one-sided and overly dramatized to make Cheney, Tenet, Rice, Libby and others look particularly evil. Where is the rational middle? When can we be truly patriotic again and go back to being WE and not US and THEM?

Pam Cooley
Shaker Heights, Ohio

Dear FRONTLINE,

I haven't felt this ill over what I was watching since Powell gave his UN address. It was then that I knew that Powell, whom I held in such high regard, had traded his integrity for political loyalty. Like others, there will be no accountability for the excesses and deceit of this group of bad actors. While Frontline has the courage to report what really has happened to bring us into war, the MSM talks about such pressing issues as Brad and Angelina's baby. Depressing.

Rick Wingo
Farmington, Maine

Dear FRONTLINE,

Overlooking the biased title (The Dark Side), the June 20 Frontline program is a useful case study of corruption of the intelligence process. However, I wish the producers had pursued a couple of points: first, the CIA's lack of an agent inside Iraq- years after the invasion of Kuwait. The DOD's attempt to suborn CIA responsibility for human intelligence (HUMINT) may have reflected Cheney's dissatisfaction with the product he had received dating from the Gulf War, as well as bureaucratic infighting. Second, the President's lack of skepticism regarding CIA HUMINT. Any well-read adult should have been familiar with CIA's major analysis failures dating from Russia's initial nuclear test to 9-11. The litany includes the invasion of South Korea, the lack of a popular uprising against Castro, China's, India's and Pakistan's initial nuclear weapons tests, the fall of the Shah and the invasion of Kuwait. Clinton declined to receive a personal daily brief and Nixon fulminated against the CIA in the Watergate tapes. Bush should have demonstrated a greater capacity for independent critical thinking.

Jack Kucera
Brentwood, Tennessee

Dear FRONTLINE,

Many are already familiar with the dynamics between Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. This provided a new light on Tenet. The liberal bias that some writers allege is partially explainable--no one from the administration wants or can go on camera. However, one does wonder why there was only a single administration defender--Maloof--on the entire program. Finally, I would have appreciated more content regarding the authenticity of yellowcake story; Christopher Hitchens in Slate has been claiming for months that Iraq really did try to buy uranium from Niger. I'm not convinced by his argument, but it would be good to see other news organizations address the story.

Michael Hansen
Charlotte, North Carolina