Worse than Watergate

[Ellery Eskelin]

Apropos to the 30th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon...

I heard John Dean (former council to Nixon) interviewed on WNYC this afternoon talking about his book "Worse than Watergate". I haven't read this book but he claims that much of the criticism within it is actually republican criticism from within the administration itself dealing particularly with issues of secrecy.

Interestingly, he makes the case for the impeachment of George Bush (albeit a scenario that could only take place if Bush is reelected and then loses the congress). Up till now I thought that'd be a lost cause since after all, congress gave him the green light. But Dean points out that this green light was contingent on Bush's fulfilling two conditions in his formal determination for war. They were that:

1. No diplomatic means were left to resolve the issue of WMDs.
2. That the action be consistent with war on terrorism and against those involved with 9/11 (meaning that there had to be an Iraqi connection).

Dean calls Bush's determination "the most fraudulent piece of paper to come out of the white house ever". And if that weren't enough Dean claims that he enumerates 11 other scandals which could also "cook" George Bush.

You can listen to the interview here:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/08062004
the real audio stream specifically:
http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram.py?fi...pate080604a.ra

I also downloaded Bush's determination:
http://www.c-span.org/executive/pres...ort107_243.pdf
which I will begin reading in the next several days.

Dean also had a lot to say about Dick Cheney, the "most dominant" vice president ever. He said that Cheney's job is letting Bush wake up every morning feeling like he's the president. Not that Bush is stupid but that he is "willfully ignorant" and lets Cheney handle the important issues while Bush runs a constant campaign.

Sounds like this and the Woodward book (Plan of Attack) might make for good pre-election reading...

[stonemonkts]

I thought the Iran Contra affair was worse than Watergate too.

[patricia]

[QUOTE=Ellery Eskelin]

Dean also had a lot to say about Dick Cheney, the "most dominant" vice president ever. He said that Cheney's job is letting Bush wake up every morning feeling like he's the president. Not that Bush is stupid but that he is "willfully ignorant" and lets Cheney handle the important issues while Bush runs a constant campaign.

QUOTE]


It looks like Dean is confirming what I had suspected, almost from the beginning of the George W. Bush Presidency. My feelings became more troubling when it appeared as though Cheney was more influencial in major decisions than Mr Bush seemed to be and had more input than seemed seemly for a Vice President. I had always understood that the main function of a Vice President was to take over the Presidency, SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE KILLED OR INCAMPACITATED IN SOME MAJOR WAY. In other words, kind of like the first runner-up in the Miss America Pageant.
This Vice President spent much more time, during crisis situations, "in an undisclosed location", which made me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, think that he was actually the one who held the power of the Presidency.
That made me very uneasy, particularly because of his neo-con leanings and the people with whom he surrounded himself. I'm thinking of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfewitz, John Ashcroft and particularly Donald Rumsfeld. The only one who didn't fit was Colin Powell and I always felt that he was just for show.
This feeling has only become stronger, the longer that this administration is in the White House.

[Ellery Eskelin]

I looked up the Iraq war resolution. Here's the part that Dean refers to:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So it seems to me that no matter what rationales are floated around as to why an invasion of Iraq was justified even though the intellegence was wrong there is simply no getting around that fact that Bush was not authorized to go into Iraq for any other reasons than the ones enumerated above. He can talk about what a bad guy Saddam was but he WAS NOT authorized to go into Iraq just to kick out a bad guy. No matter how noble any humanitarian rationales may seem he WAS NOT authorized to fight a humanitarian war. In fact, his botched efforts have made things considerably more dangerous. We were not prepared to fight a humanitarian war. In fact, here's what Bush Sr. had to say about invading Iraq in his memoir "A World Transformed":

Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

[sonic1]

not to be cynical, but I can't help it:

It is great to hear the truth coming out, but as long as it is not presented to the american people, what does it matter? Only those smart enough to go looking for the information will find it.

My biggest frustration with the democrats and republicans who feel badly about Bush is that nobody is organized like the far right is. Daily there is an attack from the right onto the left. They have crafted this to a fine skill. They have attack dogs that date back decades (like the anti-Kerry veterens who started their job of attacking Kerry during Nixons time). They have people who spend their whole lives attacking.

We have one attack dog, rather new on the scene, Michael Moore. But my god, all one would have to do is take the various lies and self incriminations Bush has done of himself and put it into an add. Let the man paint his own image-instead of letting the media and his image counselors edit out his blunders. Especially his campaign speeches of 2000, where he laid out a plan that stands in sharp contrast to what he has actually done. That man is just as "flip flop" as any politician and I would like to see that outlined.

I think the liberals tend to focus so much on intent they always forget presentation, which is just as important. This is where conservatives are strong, the left is weak in this regard.

Bush's economy and international behaviour makes Carter's presidency look very different. Yet people still say Carter was a bad president. Why? Because he was honest and said, yeah guys I fucked up a bit, where as Bush says, "we are staying the course". And so even though he has had the worst presidency in memory, some people still think he is a decent president because of how he presents himself-of course by doing a lot of lying too.

Liberals (and concerned conservatives) don't HAVE to lie to counter Bush, but we could be a little better at presentation.

Sorry for the tangent.

Jared

[RBS]

I read "Worse than Watergate" awhile ago. It makes some very strong, compelling arguments for the impeachment of Bush.

It's not just trash, either -- and it's not emotionally written -- Dean is not the most exciting writer in the world, but he sucks you in fact by fact.

If we didn't have a Republican House and Senate, I wonder what would be happening.