DEAN BOOK BLASTS BUSH (that's John Dean of Nixon fame)

NY POST ^ | 1/6/03 | CINDY ADAMS

[Liz]

A NOT very nice book by Nixon's White House counsel John W. Dean will drop on us.

"Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" says Bush's team has an obsession with secrecy and their willingness to deceive make them even more dangerous than Nixon's men."

[Liz]

What I'd like to know is how Dean got himself into the White House to dig up all this dirt.

The book sounds like it was written by a disgruntled insider.

Does Dean know somebody? Or did he break in (snicker)?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
10	Georgia	425.00	11	38.64	439	0.97	150.00	11

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[geopyg]

He probably directed someone to break in - just like he did the first time.

[kcvl]

I don't remember anyone asking him, but here is his opinion...(He is SO OVER)lol!


More vicious than Tricky Dick
John Dean says the Bush team's leaks are even viler than his former boss's -- and that Plame and Wilson should file a civil suit.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John W. Dean

Oct. 3, 2003 |

I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means.





http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:kTWYJnDdSLoJ:www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/10/03/dean/index_np.html+john+dean&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[CasearianDaoist]

Garbage like this will keep coming all year and it will have its effect. The only way to beat the Dems it to shine a light on their corruption. Start putting them in jail.

Bush could well lose because of the press juggernaut - it is scary how much power they still have, and how gullible the public is.

[Liz]

Heheheh.....great zinger.

[kcvl]

I don't think anyone is paying attention to him. lol! Trying to cash in on a war and his "friends" & "secret agent" wife/husband duo. Maybe he can play someone in the movie.


Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com

Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)


(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.


http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:IADxkcowQTsJ:www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/+john+dean&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Liz]

The book's mean-spiritedness sounds like it was written by a disgruntled insider.

How Nixon's ex-loyalist (gag) John Dean got himself into the Bush White House to dig up all this dirt is anybody's guess.

Dean may know somebody. Or did he break in (snicker)?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Dean missed all the Clinton stuff? Chinagate, Waco, Filegate, IRS gate, Tainted Blood, etc? Then there's the really well-proven Pardon-gate, such as pardoning bomb terrorists for votes and selling a pardon to a crack manufacturer for cash to his brother-in-law.

Then again, it appears that most of the GOP forgot about all of that, too.

I will even dare to mention Ron Brown, since it's so blatantly obvious that those forensics specialists were drummed out due to a coverup, and it's linked with Chinagate. But once again, the Cowardly Right refuses to acknowledge that, in the hope that bad things won't be said about their side. What a bunch of saps.

[kcvl]

JOHN DEAN: Let me start from the end of your question and work back, addressing your last two sub-questions first. Given the fact that Republicans control the Congress, there is absolutely no chance, because of the way Bush has handled the matter of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, escalating into impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political proceeding, of quasi-legal nature. Republicans are not going to impeach their president. To the contrary, it is very clear they would defend him.

While the political soothsayers believe it a long shot, it is not impossible that the Democrats could regain control of Congress with the 2004 election, and should that happen it would be a different story. With that thought -- however remote -- in mind, let me address your "if" question. If an investigation established that the president had lied to Congress and the American people to take the country to war in Iraq, and that in fact Hussein did not pose an imminent threat, would that be "more reprehensible" than Nixon's abuses of power?

Clearly it is more reprehensible than the abuses that fall under Watergate, which is a litany of activity that related to domestic matters. You will recall that there was an effort in 1973-74 to impeach Nixon for his unauthorized and secret bombing of Cambodia -- which resulted in untold deaths of innocent Cambodians. Nixon was charged with "false and misleading statements to the Congress" concerning that bombing. But the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry did not address the question of the president's lying, rather whether he had conducted an unlawful war.

By a vote of 26 to 12 the committee decided Nixon had not committed an impeachable offense, because he had informally informed a few select members of Congress of his action, and that he was acting within his powers as commander-in-chief to protect American troops in Vietnam. President Bush, of course, had Congressional authority, if not United Nations authority, for his actions in Iraq. But he certainly didn't have authority to lie.

SNIP

DEAN: Some of the most interesting evidence developed so far, which is public, has been largely ignored. It is the work of one of the country's best investigative journalists -- who has not become part of the establishment. I am referring to the work of Sy Hersh in The New Yorker, specifically his essay "Selective Intelligence" in the May 12, 2003 issue [LINK].

Sy presents a powerful case that Rumsfeld's team -- no doubt with Dick Cheney's support -- knew what they wanted and managed to intimidate the rest of the intelligence community into agreeing with them. That they, in effect, had a pre-determined conclusion and simply ignored any and all information that conflicted with their conclusion. Needless to say, this is not intelligence gathering. Hersh's work is precisely the type of information that can start opening up the closed doors. Indeed, Sy has done this before, and his work resulted in the revelatory hearings by the Senate (the Church Committee) and the House (the Pike Committee) during the mid-1970s. Sy doesn't get it wrong very often, and if he does, he will be the first to say so.

SNIP

I have little doubt that Cheney is the player in the middle of all this intelligence business, but the likelihood of his testifying about it is nil. Dick Cheney is the most secretive man in government, the most powerful, and the most unaccountable with no responsibility other than to give the president behind-the-scenes help. I doubt we will ever know what transpired between Cheney and Bush; therefore, I doubt we will ever know the true story. I am reluctant to speculate further because whether Bush could defend himself by claiming he was not given the information will depend on the facts. We are still very, very early in the efforts to unravel all this. So no one should jump to any conclusions, even if the aroma has a bit of a stench about it.

SNIP

DEAN: No signs of cancer, yet. But he certainly has a viral infection that could weaken his immune system.

SNIP

DEAN: No one knows better than BuzzFlash and its readers how this administration plays to public ignorance, and has become one of the most effective presidencies at manipulating the news media.

SNIP

DEAN: If this issue has not been resolved by the time the Democrats nominate their standard bearer next summer, I believe it will become a campaign issue -– potentially a serious issue for Bush if he has not been able to put it away by then. At that time, it could become a real problem for Bush. In fact, he will have trouble launching another war until he gets this issue resolved. Other than that, only Barney showing up at a White House press briefing to announce he is leaving home over the issue, is it likely to get widespread public attention. Needless to say, if such weapons are found, Bush will have a great "I told you so" that you can be sure will be exploited in the 2004 campaign, as he and his father parachute into New York City for the GOP 2004 Convention, and then proceed down Wall Street, wearing flight suits with helmets under their arms, in their tickertape parade.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:mzv1GK4NAOQJ:www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/17_dean.html+john+dean&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Liz]

......once again, the Cowardly Right refuses to acknowledge (Clinton's dirt)......What a bunch of saps.......

I'm sympathetic to your arguments. It's a well-deserved reaction to the conniving Clintons.

However, I think Bush made a conscious political decision upon taking office not to go after the Clintons.

If Bush targeted the Clinton messes, in the eyes of Dumbocrats, he'd have turned the Clintons into "victims."

There's nothing Dumbos would rather do than wallow in "victimization".....it's their drug of choice.

If Bush "victimized" the Clintons, there wouldn't have been enough vodka and valium left in the stores to sedate all the hyper-ventilating liberals we'd have had on our hands.

[kcvl]

Dean still looking for a scandal...


A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 10, 2003

It is too soon to know if this mess is malignant. Or terminal. Yet, this I do know: If mistreated, or untreated, this growing problem is going to become lethal for the Bush presidency. This is the Administration's first serious political scandal, and it is replete with legal problems and criminal implications.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

[CasearianDaoist]

I did not mean from Dean in particular. We will see this stuff all year long. The goal is a percentage point here, a percentage point there and it could just work. It is going to be worse than anything during the Reagan years. And can you imagine how brazen they will get if they win because of this" How cowed rank and file conservatives will be?

The Republican need to take off the gloves, and take off the gloves means start prosecuting. The Dems are so deeply corrupt and have 70 years of corruption to dig into. The Republican Party does not seem to understand our enemies very well.

This future of this nation was never more at risk than it is today.

[CasearianDaoist]

This is the Administration's first serious political scandal

I still think that this does not have legs.I do not see the "seriousness" of it. Am I missing something here? I don't seem to get it. It seems like just another contrived Dem "scandal."

[kcvl]

Yes, you get it. John Dean doesn't "get it". He is still living in his Watergate world.

[GeronL]

says Bush's team has an obsession with secrecy

What exactly are they referring to?? They never have any examples.

[Liz]

Don't sweat it. It's hype. They just want people to buy the book.

[putupon]

When thinking back to H2Ogate, John Dean looked like a metrosexual testifying before Congress, way before anyone knew what a metrosexual was.

A metrosexual before his time, as it were.

[Elle Bee]

this is a wholly discredited snitch

.... he was the predicate actor in Watergate

.... when caught he wet his pants and folded like a cheap suit ... gave investigators what they wanted: an exculpitory 'confession' which blamed everyone else

....his photo next to weasel and worm in the dictionary

... and he's throwning stones???

.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Do you think John Dean misses the limelight? Did he enlist Ramsey Clark to do an introduction? Look up "despicable" in Websters and there you'll see John Dean staring back at you.