Worse Than Watergate [Hardcover]

(I have to confess as a life-long Republican, I liked many of the things Nixon did. For example, the first President to really address the crime problem in America.)

My students tell me I am being too critical and too hard on Lil Bush, but I think his father will go down in history as one of our best Presidents, and I voted for him, hoping he would be similar. So I confess by comparing him to his father I may be holding him to a much higher standard.

I have read many books on the Bush Administration, and this one and Al Frankins--Lies, Liars and the people who tell them are my favorites.

Dean argues that in asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American force in Iraq, President Bush made a number of "unequivocal public statements" regarding the reasons this country needed to pursue military force in pursuit of national interests. Dean, now an academic and noted author, shows how through tradition, presidential statements regarding issues of national security are held to an expectation of "the highest standard of truthfulness". Therefore, according to Dean, no president can simply "stretch, twist or distort" the facts of a case and then expect to avoid resulting consequences. Citing historical precedents, Dean shows how Lyndon Johnson's distortions regarding the truth about the war in Vietnam led to his own subsequent withdrawal for candidacy for re-election in 1968, and how Richard Nixon's attempted cover-up of the truth about Watergate forced his own resignation.

Dean contends that while President Bush should indeed receive the benefit of the doubt, he must also be held accountable for explaining how it is that he made such a string of unambiguous and confident pronouncements to the American people (and to the world as well) regarding the existence of WMD, none of which have been substantiated in the subsequent searches that have been conducted by either Untied Nations nor American Military investigators. Dean explains how the vetting process for any public staement is processed within the executive branch.

[...] Moreover, Dean contends, others such as Donald Rumsfeld were even more emphatic in claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD, even claiming to know the locations as being in the Tikrit and Baghdad areas. Finally, he concludes, given the huge implicit political risk to Mr. Bush, it would inconceivable that Mr. Bush would be so brazen as to make such statements without some intelligence to back them up.

Yet, according to Mr. Dean, we are left with a dilemma; either Mr. Bush's statements are grossly inaccurate, given the tons and tons of chemical agents he claimed Saddam possessed which can be neither located nor substantiated, or Mr. Bush has deliberately misled us. How do we reconcile what seem to be quite unequivocal statements from both the President and his agents and the evidence to date regarding the existence of WMD? According to Mr. Dean, there are two possibilities; first, that there is something devilishly wrong with the current administration's national security operations, a prospect Dean finds hard to swallow, or, second, the President has deliberately misled the American people and the world regarding the evidence supporting taking preemptive military action against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Bluntly stated, if Mr. Bush led this country into war based on bogus intelligence data, he is liable under the Constitution for manipulation and deliberate misuse of that data under the "high crimes" statute of that document, given the fact it is a felony to defraud the United States through such a conspiratorial action. According to Mr. Dean, It is time for both Congress and the American people to demand of Mr. Bush the same kind of high-minded honesty he pledged to us under the oath of office. This is an important book, and one I urge you to read!

2. Ditto for the author, who must have been using a barbituate drip tube for the same amount of time...Iran-Contra (mid-level employees launching an undeclared war against a foreign government in the basement of the White House), nation building efforts that were rarely subject to extensive debate (Somalia, Haita, Kosovo, etc.), the expansion of the national security state (again, without much serious attention or opposition). Where was John Dean during all of these events? More Sominex, anyone?

George Bush and Dick Cheney don't talk to many people, and run a secretive operation on many fronts...which exactly mirrors the role of Hillary, John Sununu (Bush I), and Don Regan...mmmmmmm...could this be the arrogance of power?

And will any other current candidate operate any differently?