Replies

See my affidavit submitted to Judge John Sirica concerning Mr. Dean's presence in Arlington Towers during the first week of January 1973.

He was carrying a large valise.

The Cuban Watergate defendants had all been billeted on the 7th floor of the Madison Building by the courts ~ right where some of them had lived before they got caught.

Jack Anderson had a guy in a closet, but he was unable to see who it was bringing money to the defendants before they were to appear in court.

If we may add 2 and 2, I suggest that John Dean knows what corruption is, and barring his confession in open court, I would further suggest that he continues to be far removed from being able to make any judgment concerning anyone else.

Let's see, he knows, through intimate personal experience:

1. Bribery;

2. Betrayal;

3. Disloyalty;

4. Ass-covering;

5. Prostitution (through his blushing bride);

6. Being a rat;

7. Lying under oath;

8. Switching sides at the drop of a hat;

9. Manipulating the loyalties and honesty of others;

10. Playing the victim;

11. Being in prison (for four months whilst those he ratted out served much more;

13. Selling friends down the river;

14. Besmirching various reputations of good men.

Did I leave anything out?

NOW this backstabbing, duck-and-cover sleazy weasel has the unmitigated GALL to write a tell-all about an administration he's never been within 1000 feet of?

And someone is actually PAYING him to do this?!?

P.T. Barnum was right. Even THAT famous seer had no clue how low the democrats could go, or whaqt creatures they'll turn over rocks to find, to smear a President they hate.

Richard Nixon is watching this somewhere thinking he got off light.

It sounds like you two are up on Watergate, so I thought I'd bounce this off you and see what you think. I have a theory that some of the same forces and perhaps even some of the same individuals that took Nixon down are behind the campaign against Bush now. Dean's sticking his nose into the campaign reinforces my impression of that. Some other reasons (among others) that I suspect that: Ted Kennedy's links to both Watergate and John Kerry. The "Lowellgate" break-in with Kerry's brother Cameron, which occurred at the same time as Watergate and which the Kerry campaign today tries to blame on the White House Plumbers (in Brinkley's biography, 416-417: "Just as the Kerry campaign was gaining stride, however, a suspicious incident occurred that may have been attributable to the White House Plumbers. . .'It was a strange affair,' Kerry recalled. 'It was almost like a Watergate in reverse.' . .Cameron Kerry explained years later. . .'we had been set up--duped.'"). Minimal degrees of separation between Kerry and other Watergate-associated figures, e.g. Kerry roomed with H.H. Bundy, Ellsberg had worked for Bundy's uncles at the NSA (and Ellsberg is still around today saying things against Bush). The role of the Institute for Policy Studies in both the Watergate prosecution and Kerry's career. The fact that associates of Ted Kennedy got the Clintons started on their political career by getting them placed on the Watergate committee and the Clintons have been associated with some of the same political allies ever since--which I see as relevant because I see Hillary's MO in the campaign against Bush. The continuity between anti-Nixon reporting during Watergate and anti-Bush reporting today, e.g. the role of the Washington Post/CBS. Seymour Hersh is another media element I consider a potentially important link. Hersh was linked to an element in the intelligence community that was trying to get rid of both J. Edgar Hoover and James Angleton during the Watergate era (and Kerry's friend Ramsey Clark was also part of this anti-intelligence campaign, assisted by Hillary's mentor Burke Marshall, another Kennedy associate). Since 9/11 Hersh has been out to get esp. Donald Rumsfeld, and he has played a role in promoting the Wilson/Plame story (see e.g. Seymour Hersh’s Pipedream: Niger-forgeries scoop in New Yorker article “The Stovepipe” merits a pooper scooper: "Much of Hersh’s latest New Yorker article, 'The Stovepipe' (http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact), is a first-rate explication of how the Bush administration politicized and at times circumvented established intelligence processes to create an alarmist picture of the purported Iraqi 'threat,' so as to win public support for an invasion President Bush had all but decided on more than a year before he launched the war. But the big 'revelation,' the bombshell that makes the story special, is Hersh’s account of the forging of Nigerien and Iraqi documents that purportedly proved that Iraq and Niger had agreed on the sale of as much as 500 tons of yellowcake uranium."). Have Hersh and Nixon's other old enemies teamed up to stage the publicity stunts of Wilson/Plame, Richard Clarke, etc.? That's my general line of thought. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this theory, as well as any thoughts you or others have on the general subject.