New York Times - Frank Rich: "This Is Worse Than Watergate"

[writes2000]

From Sunday's New York Times.

We're Not in Watergate Anymore

By FRANK RICH

Published: July 10, 2005

"WHEN John Dean published his book "Worse Than Watergate" in the spring of 2004, it seemed rank hyperbole: an election-year screed and yet another attempt by a Nixon alumnus to downgrade Watergate crimes by unearthing worse "gates" thereafter. But it's hard to be dismissive now that my colleague Judy Miller has been taken away in shackles for refusing to name the source for a story she never wrote. No reporter went to jail during Watergate. No news organization buckled like Time. No one instigated a war on phony premises. This is worse than Watergate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10rich.html?th&emc=th

Looks like the media is finally calling this what it is.

Treason.

[wtmusic]

1. Yeah, except the reporter went to jail wasn't protecting a whistleblower

but a criminal. Big difference.

[Tigress DEM]

16. What was Judith's story going to be about?

And the other reporter who talked to Karl Rove -- if Rove outed the CIA agent on purpose -- was protecting a criminal too.

[Bleacher Creature]

23. Bingo!

Allowing a "source" to use the privilege to evade criminal sanctions for an illegal public disclosure is far worse for the privilege then is sending Miller to jail.

[EVDebs]

25. Miller is probably an Operation Mockingbird shill for the CIA just like

Novak. They let Novak "walk" and they put her "away" rather than let their 'non official cover' get into the official storyline and (gasp!) that would open the pandora's box of Congressional hearings like in the bad ole days of the late '70s with the Church and Pike committees, which ended up (gasp!) creating Congressional intelligence oversight committees.

Now that those committees are as useless as a cow's fifth tit, we see that MORE teeth in oversight is necessary, and the "intelligence community" doesn't want to go there.

Tough.

[shance]

32. Yes. She went to jail for essentially aiding and abetting a crime.

n/t

[Botany]

2. About time .....

..... maybe they might find out that the election wasn't on the
up & up too.

But I smell a labor day impeachment party ..... :party:

[tjdee]

3. The NYT reporters are probably in lock and load position at this point.

One of their own has been carted off to jail (and she didn't even write a story as Rich noted)--I'm thinking they're all furious.

Part of me says tough shit to them, if they had done their jobs since the Bush fiasco in 2000 none of us would be at this point.

But part of me hopes this gets them moving.

We'll see, I guess.

[Tigress DEM]

17. I hope so. Let's face it. Good ol' ass kicking the administration....

is not only needed at this time for practical consideration, but it makes for more interesting news.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Ten bucks is all it will cost you... plus shipping......

It should become a collectors item someday... an investment perhaps.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446694835/qid=1121026432/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-2215371-0231868?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



For a convicted felon, John Dean is an exceptional author. I remember reading his own recollections of the Watergate affair and his own association with the subsequent events that led both to his own denouement and the resignation of Richard Nixon in disgrace in "Blind Ambition" in the mid 1970s. Once again he weighs in impressively by building a very strong circumstantial case for the investigation and possible prosecution of President George W. Bush for criminal actions that Dean terms to be indeed, "worst than those of Watergate". Culling from public records and the recollections of other eye-witnesses, Dean shows how Mr. Bush has systematically exaggerated, embellished, and engineered a series of preverifications and outright lies to the American public in an effort to convince us of the need for military intervention in Iraq.
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.

[EVDebs]

26. Woodward was probably doing his part for the 'intell community'

even back then. Why else would the CIA guy at Mullen & company say he never told Woodward he was part of the CIA...very compartmentalized operation...

www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/07.03.97/scoop-9727.html

[Halliburton]

5. tell that to Bob Woodward

he says that this isn't a big deal.

[writes2000]

6. Rich's Last Two Paragraphs Call Out The Press

""Mr. Fitzgerald made his bones prosecuting the mob," intoned the pro-Bush editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, "and doesn't seem to realize that this case isn't about organized crime." But that may be exactly what it is about to an ambitious prosecutor with his own career on the line. That the Bush administration would risk breaking the law with an act as self-destructive to American interests as revealing a C.I.A. officer's identity smacks of desperation. It makes you wonder just what else might have been done to suppress embarrassing election-season questions about the war that has mired us in Iraq even as the true perpetrators of 9/11 resurface in Madrid, London and who knows where else.

IN his original Op-Ed piece in The Times, published two years to the day before Judy Miller went to jail, Mr. Wilson noted that "more than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already," before concluding that "we have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons." As that death toll surges past 1,700, that sacred duty cannot be abandoned by a free press now."

I love that he is challenging other members of the press to STEP UP.

[girl gone mad]

9. Now he wonders...

what the Bush administration was doing to suppress information.

A pity the press wasn't the least bit curious about that while it was happening.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

[writes2000]

10. Thanks! I don't know Rich's history

Isn't he usually this outspoken? Has he been more forgiving of the Bush admin in the past?

[blm]

15. It also sounds like they were covering something up worse than false WMD

claims.

I believe that Plame knew or was close to knowing that the REAL WMD and nuclear proliferation was going on under the very direction of the same Bush cronies at BCCI.

Longtime arms dealers like Poppy Bush, Khashoggi. James Bath, Khan of Pakistan, et al....didn't just decide one day to stop, did they?

[Old and In the Way]

38. You would believe correctly, blm.

I just read this DU link written back in August of last year. I was speculating that they wanted Plame out and the whole Niger Yellowcake was a ruse to make it happen....well, I didn't realize just how deep this goes. And, guess, what? It does tie into BCCI.

You gotta read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x66773

This is way bigger than Rove....I hope it gets resurrected and nominated for Greatest Page.

[blm]

39. Repost it and ask DUers to review and send on to media targets.

I'll help keep it kicked. The storms will be keeping me in for the next two days.

[Straight Shooter]

24. The WSJ has its collective head up its collective a**

Of course this is about organized crime. It's a crime to instigate war on false pretenses, it's a crime to commit treason, and if they didn't think these actions were organized, they need some serious psychoanalysis to overcome their blind spot.

[lovuian]

27. Rich is in the tough position of having the NYT being in the

middle of this and their pulitzer prize winner Judith Miller in jail and may have broken the wall!!!

these Media outlets have obviously been used by Rove & the White House to put out the information that will hurt and destroy any opposition to their agenda!!!

[blm]

40. The NYT knew Miller was being used, but their hardline proIsrael stance

got sucked in to the neo-con vision and they gave Bush all the column space he needed to have his war.

[City Lights]

7. Don't miss his take on Time Magazine:

Time Warner seems to have far too much money on the table in Washington to exercise absolute editorial freedom when covering the government; at this moment it's awaiting an F.C.C. review of its joint acquisition (with Comcast) of the bankrupt cable company Adelphia. "Is this a journalistic company or an entertainment company?" David Halberstam asked after the Pearlstine decision. We have the answer now. What high-level source would risk talking to Time about governmental corruption after this cave-in? What top investigative reporter would choose to work there?

[writes2000]

8. He hasn't gotten suckered into the faux freedom of the press BS.

I applaud the man.

[City Lights]

12. I applaud him too.

Thanks for posting this. Great read.

[welshTerrier2]

11. or his comment on Ms. Miller's hawkish, neo-con cheerleading

"The Niger uranium was hardly the only dubious evidence testifying to Saddam's supposed nuclear threat in the run-up to war. Judy Miller herself was one of two reporters responsible for a notoriously credulous front-page Times story about aluminum tubes that enabled the administration's propaganda campaign to trump up Saddam's W.M.D. arsenal."

Rich is OK in my book ...

[City Lights]

14. Mine too.

I hope everyone reads the whole article.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Nominated

The corporate media, including The New York Times, will have a lot more mea culpas to recite about the last four and a half years.

All we want is the truth.

[oxbow]

18. it's an opinion piece

until we start seeing some investigative reporting of this caliber, thngs are going to continue moving at a slow speed

[ClayZ]

19. Great Piece!

Kudos to him!

:applause:

[snot]

20. Rich is the only writer I look forward to in the NYT . . .

I noticed his stinging political essays in the Sun. arts section over the past year, wondered if the eds. knew he was slipping them in. Apparently so, since he was recently officially moved to the editorial page. I believe he worked as a theater critic for some years.

[spooky3]

29. and Krugman

[snot]

33. Is Krugman in editorial, too? nt

[spooky3]

34. here's a link

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html

[Democrats_win]

21. Well done, Rich! Still, Watergate was VERY VERY bad!

Don't forget Nixon spied on Democratic Party Chairman Lawrence O'Brien and Dem candidate Edmund Muskie. He used the IRS to harass people.

(Lawrence O'Brien later became NBA commissioner.)

Don't forget about the republicans putting Susan McDougal in jail because she wouldn't lie! This was the tiny non-scandal called whitewater.

DEMOCRATS get a clue! America can not move forward as long as the republican party exists.

[SoCalDem]

22. We know it is worse, but this time is different. Nothing will happen

When the oppposition party controls the investigative apparatus, things happen . That is not the case here. The wagons are circled, and if necessary these guys will toss out the old ladies and kids to the wolves before they give up their "boss". Manna flows from him and his cohorts, in the guise of campaign donations, and that's what everything boils down to.

Literally every problem we have as a nation boils down to campaign moolah... how to get it..how to keep it..who gets it when it's spent..whose ass to kiss so you keep getting it..

The DC primadonnas are looting our econoomy,stealing our jobs, and failing to protect us because they need campaign cash.

[EVDebs]

28. No no no no no ! The 2006 elections will happen, and then '08

Things must change. War for oil, 'stay the course' BS isn't getting us anywhere. Even the military knows that (see www.oilendgame.com ). The consolidation of stupidity in DC right now is collossal and can only be blamed on the rightwingnuts.

The people aren't stupid.

[SoCalDem]

30. The "people" are not stupid, BUT if the election machinery

stays as it is, we will probably continue to see "ohhhh, soooo close, but the republican won" style elections.. With no way to verify who actually even won, it's gonna be awfully hard to get the laws changed that need to be, and to institute policies that keep us safe..

The people who LOVE the way elections now work, are the very ones who have the power to change it.. Why would they do that??

[Stand and Fight]

31. Kicked and recommended.

We have, as of this moment, to see if any of this is going anywhere. I'm looking for something more than an op-ed piece on these events. When it appears in the news national news section -- then I'll believe that the ball is truly rolling. These op-ed pieces, while delightful in their content, are nothing but fluff.

I recommend this for the greatest page because Frank Rich is calling them out, urging the media to get off their lazy asses and do their jobs. I admire that a great deal.

[deacon]

35. Clearly worse than Watergate-- if the MSM "gannonizes" this

it also makes it crystal clear of the level of control this WH has over the tv media.

[Independent_Liberal]

36. I can't wait for Michael Moore's next movie!

Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2: When Watergate Looks Like Kindergarten

HA!

:)

[Hissyspit]

37. "Worse Than Watergate" did NOT seem like rank hyperbole in Spring 2004.

It seemed very intelligent. I read it then and Dean knew what he was talking about for the most part. The fact that it would to some people says a lot of about the state of the U.S. media and the American population.

[wabranty]

41. Lock up some more MSM reporters. . .

then maybe they will actually start to see how seriously corrupt and dangerous this administration is. It's been said that the reason the MSM has been so unquestioning of W and his war is that because 9/11 happened in New York which is the MSM capital, they gave W a free ride because the MSM'ers felt personally affected by terrorism. Well, then let them feel personally affected by the criminal actions of the W administration and then maybe they will go back to being the critical reporters of this administration.

[deadparrot]

42. 1700+ Americans and God only knows how many civilians

weren't killed in Watergate, either.

[politedem]

43. Good Piece, But Rich's Premise Wrong - NYTimes CEO Should Resign

Should a journalist protect a sleazy, possibly even criminal, source? Yes, sometimes, if the public is to get news of wrongdoing.

This is a key phrase. The "source" - which was not really just a source - but rather the mouthpiece of the executive - was not just criminal - he was using the journalists to retaliate against administration critics in a manner that subverts the Constitution and all of the freedoms that the journalist's promise of confidentiality - including the priviliges that we provide as a society to protect that promise - are meant to guarantee. It's not just me, but the New York Times, as a company, has such a bug up it's a** - that they are completely blinded to their own complicity with the subversion of Democracy.

It is becoming a serious corporate problem. I don't think they are weathering the storm well as an institution. The result will likely be a considerable loss of prestige. I would hate to be there now and part and parcel of that process of self-destruction. They are putting the ENTIRE COMPANY on the line for a journalist who lost all pretense to credibility by being a constant mouthpiece of this administration. Now she didn't publish, one reason why this is not about free speech, but she is committing a crime by not disclosing what she knows after a legitimate court determination that she has to. There is no partisanship in that decision, judges of all stripes and ideologies agreed. It's the law. PERIOD.

Given their loss of credibility by publishing uncritical administration propaganda leading up to the war, propaganda that other news organizations were not so uncritical about - and which the journalist in question was mostly involved in - and now this - I think their CEO or Editor-in-Chief should resign. Something is amiss in that organization.