All the President's Lies

[H2O Man]

"The thing that has been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done;
and there is no new thing under the sun."
-- Ecclesiastes 1-9 ("The Preacher")

President George W. Bush's body language while he was attempting to answer a question yesterday about his role in the Plame scandal was interesting. He lowered his head, and raised both shoulders several times, appearing uncomfortable with the subject matter. His physical presentation was markedly different than when Bush is at ease, much less confident, regardless of if he is attempting to tell the truth or lie.

For many of us who were around in the early 1970s, President Bush seems to be doing a mean impression of Richard Nixon. Now, two days ago, I posted an essay on Cheney's tribute to Agnew. While most readers understand such comparisons, a few react like a 10-year old when told they look like their grandparent .... and like that child who shudders to think someone views them as a gray-haired, wrinkled elder, a couple people pointed out differences between Cheney and Agnew. Likewise, there are very real differences between Bush and Nixon, and Plame and Watergate. However, today I thought it would be interesting to consider a few similarities.

On July 16, 1973, former presidential aide Alexander Butterfield disclosed that President Nixon had taped conversations in the Oval Office. These tapes became some of the most important evidence in the series of crimes that we know as "Watergate." On April 30, 1974, an edited version of some of the tapes became public.

Perhaps the most important conversation recorded by Nixon that became public was made on March 21, 1973. There are actuallt two from that day: the first was made from 10:12 - 11:55 am, between Nixon, his attorney John Dean , and his chief of staff H. R. Haldeman; the second was recorded from 5:20 - 6:01 pm, and included Nixon, Dean, Haldeman, and John Ehrlichman, Nixon's assistant for domestic affairs.

Let's look at some of the highlights. Nixon had been attempting to reduce Watergate to a public relations problem in the days before this meeting, asking aides, "How do you handle that PR wise?" Dean makes clear that it is much more serious.

D: I think that there is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we've got. We have a cancer within, close to the Presidency, that is growing. It is growing daily. It's compounded, growing geometrically now, because it compounds itself .... People are going to start perjuring themselves very quickly that have not had to perjure themselves to protect other people in the line. And there is no assurance --

N: That it won't bust?

D: That it won't bust. So let me give you the sort of basic facts ....

Dean goes into detail about the White House attempts to create an intelligence group to provide them with abilities that they do not enjoy with the established agencies. However, the intelligence network was used for political purposes -- to promote the administration's aggenda, and to damage their political opponents. While this is not an exact match with the Bush administration's OSP and WHIG, some perceptive people may note some subtle similarities.

More, in attempting to avoid telling the truth about their roles in these operations, a few White House officials have lied to investigators and a grand jury. They are facing potential charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. These are, curiously, the charges that Scooter Libby now faces .... and a couple others may be facing those same charges by mid-May.

D: ...I don't know if Mitchell perjured himself in the Grand Jury or not.

N: Who?

D: Mitchell. I don't know how much knowledge he actually had. I know that Magruder has perjured himself in the Grand Jury. I know that Porter has perjured himself in the Grand Jury.

Dean goes on to say that he "worked on a theory of containment" with information that could damage the White House. He was not, however, quite as confident as the senior White House official quoted in the December 5, 2003 Financial Times, who said of the Plame leak, "We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one." Dean realizes that truth crushed to earth tends to rise again.

N: ...but I would certainly keep that cover for whatever it is worth.

D: That's the most troublesome post-thing because, one, Bob is involved in that; two, John is involved in that; three, I am involved in that; four, Mitchell is involved in that. And that is an obstruction of justice. ..... All of these things are bad, in that they are problems, they are promises, they are commitments. They are the very sort of thing that the Senate is going to be looking most for. ..."

There are two problems that Dean outlines for the president. One involves a "no good, publicity seeking" attorney who is trying to represent one of the Cubans involved in Watergate. The attorney had tried to convince his client to plead not guilty. But "F. Lee Bailey, who was a partner of one of the men representing McCord, got in and cooled" the attorney down. But the number of defendants with knowledge of the scandal is a problem which requires large attorneys' fees.

N: How much money do you need?

D: I would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years.

N: We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. ...

The Scooter Libby Defense Trust could surely use Nixon's skills today, to pay for the legal team he requires. But money is supposed to buy silence, and last week Don Imus asked why Libby wasn't as honorable as Liddy?

N: ... I am just trying to think. Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove. ....

D: Well, that is one perjury. Mitchell and Magruder are potential perjurers. There is always the possibility of any one of these individuals blowing. Hunt. Liddy. Liddy is in jail right now, serving his time and having a good time right now. I think Liddy in his own bizarre way (is) the strongest of them all ....

P: Let's come back to this problem. What are your feelings yourself, John? You know what they are all saying. What are your feelings about the chances?

D: I am not confident that we can ride this through. I think there are soft spots. .... everyone is now starting to watch after their behind. Eveyone is getting their own counsel. .... I can see people pointing fingers. ....

At this time, Nixon and Dean begin discussing the options of pardons and clemency. But although promises have been made to some people involved in the case, Nixon knows that he cannot help anyone else in this way. To do so could connect him to their crimes in a way that he simple refuses to risk doing. Those who look at the Iran-Contra pardon issue, and think Bush is likely to save his friends, should consider Nixon's cold approach.

N: I know you have a problem here. You have the problem with Hunt and his clemency.

D: That's right. And you are going to have a clemency problem with others. They all are going to expect to be out and that may put you in a position that is just untenable .... politically, it's impossible for you to do it. ... It may just be too hot.

N: You can't do it politically until after the '74 election, that's for sure. Your point is that even then you couldn't do it.

Note Nixon's choice of words -- "You can't do it ... you couldn't do it." It indicates a psychological block, that renders Nixon incapable of processing that it is he, not Dean, who can grant clemency. But he needs to project the responsibility onto anyone else. He buries any thoughts of his role deep into some dark region of his mind. But, again, Dean knows that the truth always pops up.

D: Yes, sir. That is not all that buried. And while I think we've got it buied, there is no telling when it is going to pop up. .... some of these secretaries have a little idea about this, and they can be broken down just so fast. ....Liddy's secretary, for example, is knowledgeable. Magruder's secretary is knowledgeable. ....

N: The problem is that you have these mine fields down the road. I think the most difficult problem are the guys who are going to jail .....And also the fact that we are not going to be able to give them clemency.

D: That's right. How long will they take? How long will they sit there? ...

N: Thirty years, isn't it? ... Top is thirty years, isn't it?

Thirty years is, of course, what Scooter is potentially facing. And thoughts that Judge Walton will help Scooter should be viewed in this context:

N: Sirica? ... What is the matter with him? I thought he was a hard liner.

D: He is. He is. He is just a peculiar animal.

The thought of long prison sentences makes both Nixon and Dean uncomfortable. Nixon recognizes that there are too many weak links in the chain, and that some people will indeed face incarceration. He begins to consider who he can sacrifice to save himself. At this time, Haldeman joins the conversation. They begin to warm up to the idea of protecting themselves by claiming their roles involved "national security" -- something that some have noticed the Bush administration doing from time to time.

D: You might put it on a national security grounds basis.

H: It absolutely was --

D: And say that this was --

H: --CIA --

D: Ah--

H: Seriously.

N: National Security. We had to get information for national security grounds.

D: Then the question is, why didn't the CIA do it or why didn't the FBI do it? ....

H: Because we were checking them.

N: Neither could be trusted.

Hmmmm. The Nixon administration couldn't trust the CIA or FBI. Sound familiar? Bad choice of enemies. Why?

N: ... And in the end, it is all going to come out anyway. Then you get the worst of both worlds. We're going to lose, and people are going to --

H: And look like dopes!

N: And in effect, look like a cover-up.

Nixon says they need to "cut their loses" and "avoid criminal liability." But he knows that his people cannot do either by telling the truth. How to do that in the context of a Senate investigation or a grand jury?

H: ... You can refuse to talk.

D: You can take the 5th Amendment.

N: That's right!

H: You can say you've forgotten, too, can't you?

D: Sure but you are chancing a very high risk for perjury situation.

What other option might there be?

N: Leaks. ... we could do that. Leak out certain stuff. We could pretty much control that. We've got so much more control.

Later that day, they meet again. This time Ehrlichman joins them. Nixon asks, hopefully, if they have reached any conclusions on how to save themselves?

H: Well, you go round and round and come up with all questions and no answers. Right back where you were at when you started. ...

N: The imposing problem is this, Does anybody really think we can do nothing? That's the option, period. ...

Ehrlichman notes that Hunt will "blow" and bring them down: However, can he, by talking, get a pardon? ... If he goes in there and tells this judge before sentencing, if he says, "Your honor I am willing to tell all. I don't want to go to jail. .... I will cooperate ..."

D: That's right ... there are a lot of weak individuals and it could be one of those who crosses up .... They will have intense civil discovery .... They will go out and take depositions and start checking for inconsistencies ... It is structured. That's your concern about, "There is something lurking here." ....

H: The perception, as you put it.

N: The point is, we were talking --

D: Alright, is that better? Or is it better to have ... things blow up and all of a sudden collapse? Think about it. ... I see in this conversation what I talked about before. They do not ultimately solve what I see as a grave problem of a cancer growing around the Presidency. ...

H: Well, see if we go your route, you can't draw the line someplace and say --

D: No, no you can't.

N: You see, if we go your route of cutting the cancer out. If we cut it out now. Take a Hunt. Well, wouldn't that knock the hell out from under him? .... John, you don't think that is enough?

D: No, Mr. President.

By the next day, E. Howard Hun, Jr. had been given $75,000. This payment would be among the grounds for obstruction of justice charges against 7 administration officials, file 12 months later.

On April 30, 1973, Nixon announced the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlickman, during a speech to the nation. I remember Nixon's body language in those days. Unlike Bush, he never seemed truly comfortable in public, even when he was lying.

I am hoping that President Bush will show a sense of history, and address the nation on or about April 30, 2006. I am hoping that he will take the opportunity to do something Nixon was not man enough to do -- to tell the truth about his role in this scandal. Quit looking for a way to "handle this PR wise."

[CatWoman]

1. These morons remind me of the managers at my job

they don't address problems, they try to "manage" them.

You're on target about Bush's body language.

He uses that stupid, goofy "laugh" as a lifeline, and it is quite annoying.

Good luck on this murderous bastard admitting to anything.

Or telling the truth, for that matter.

[H2O Man]

5. Try to picture this:

[CatWoman]

40. I'm only interested in seeing Bush in chains

Reagan and Nixon can both burn in hell.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Bush isn't about showing a sense of history.

His only concern is relying on people to help him out of his f-ups.

K&R!

[H2O Man]

3. We've seen

this scene before .... Bush can try to dance around the truth, like Nixon did, but it will not work.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

57. Most of this administration has ignored history for five years

Failed economic policies being rerun.

Failed Vietnam war being rerun in Iraq.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. - Not. Just f'ing crazy.

[leftchick]

4. he is channeling Nixon all right...

I really don't expect him to address the nation unless either he or cheny are indicted.

[H2O Man]

6. He is trapped.

And he is being pressured by republicans to "get out in front" of this. Especially those close to the action, who understand that things are likely to spin out of control in the next month. The president is in a very stressful position right now.

[leftchick]

23. yes he is .

I can not wait to see him crack. I hope it is in public, for the whole world to witness.

[Me.]

25. At A Press Conference

One of my dreams come true

[leftchick]

28. where his earpiece falls out

and he gropes around on the floor for it!

:rofl:

[Me.]

32. I Had A Total Freakout Scenario In Mind

where someone has to come out and lead him away

[malaise]

41. I don't plan to miss that moment either

The sooner the better:popcorn: :popcorn: :beer: :beer:

[bostonbabs]

44. do you remember in the debates

when he told Shieffer to break the rules because he wanted to answer OUT OF TURN and stepped forward to answer it WITHOUT BEING GIVEN PERMISSION.....i SAW SOOOOO MUCH PATHOLOGY IN THAT MOVE....i could not believe my eyes...I would love to see him "step over the line"....his meds must be the only thing that keeps him looking normal....

[H2O Man]

47. Yep. Good call.

The sense of entitlement was stunning.

[madokie]

36. Something tells me he won't be able to handle it and will break

I would be very worried if I were he. They are a bunch of cornered rats and some have experience.

[Catherine Vincent]

43. Good!

And I'll forgive you for referring to Bush as the president. ;-)

[rustydog]

7. Excellent post. The parallels are unnerving

It is mildly amusing that these people think they are smarter and have learned from the mistakes of criminals gone by.

If you think about it, the people who make up this Administration are no different than gang members who plan bank jobs, or the career criminal who thinks he/she has come up with the fool-proof crime.
They think they are so friggin' smart and that they have the knowledge and power to win out in the end....

looks like Bush is more like Nixon than I thought.

Didn't Kissinger talk Nixon out of nuking Nietnam in the days leading up to his resignation? (another parallel)

[H2O Man]

9. It's perhaps especially funny

because guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld were offended by Nixon's humiliating experience -- they believe strongly in an imperial presidency -- and they thought they would avoid the errors that got Nixon caught.

[rustydog]

27. Exactly...But like every common criminal in this country

who thinks they can plan the perfect heist...the idiots still get caught.

Watergate began by taping a locked door open and when the tape was removed ("guys they know someone was here!") the idiot burglers retaped the door!


They get busted and the conspiracy to cover up begins...

[Me.]

31. But Was Tape Business A Mistake

or deliberate?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

56. The arrogance of power dooms them to be caught

The one thing that may save our country is that these guys always overestimate their abilities and always overreach.

[rateyes]

64. Some of them are the same damned crooks....

who worked for Nixon.

[stop the bleeding]

8. erie - how both of these WH's seem to have the same course laid

out before them.

Thank Waterman for filling in some history


04/02/73 is my b-day - so needless to say I came into this world during some crazy times.

[H2O Man]

10. Well, the more things change .....

... the more we need the congress to impeach. I think that's the old saying.

4-2-73? Just a youngster! Pretty darned smart for your age, I must say. (grin)

[stop the bleeding]

13. I listen to my elders well

they seem to have all of the pitfalls and mistakes that I would make already worked out.

Knowledge and wisdom are power, knowledge and wisdom comes with experience, experience comes with age. For what we lack we must seek out and find if we are to quench our needs.

Side note, I am still picking my jaw off of the floor from David's piece last night from countdown, what did you think about Judy's and Fibby's breakfast being the buzz in DC, more so the buzz about what was REALLY said at breakfast. What Judy testified to, what was in her notes.

I weep for the Constitution and what we have become, these are dark days for our country maybe some of the darkest.

[fooj]

16. Well said...

Knowledge and wisdom are power, knowledge and wisdom comes with experience, experience comes with age. For what we lack we must seek out and find if we are to quench our needs.

Peace.

[Gregorian]

11. But, what would Barbara do?

There's a wall between the truth and that beautiful mind. Bush will curse the truth from his jail cell, if he ever sees justice. Bush is just a propped up rag doll. And Cheney is too evil to ever start a crack in his facade. He's all the way on the dark side.

[Octafish]

12. The Gang that Couldn't Leak Straight

Agree there are eerie parallels between Nixon and Bush. It's in the cut of their jibs, I'd say.

For historical perspective: Singing Sen. Prescott Bush and Happy Richard Nixon.



The way they wear a tie. Their hats. Their slouch.

From today's Counterpunch, like-minded light from a law school dean...

A Modified, Limited, Hang-Out of Slanted, Partially Declassified Information ...

The Gang That Couldn't Leak Straight

By LAWRENCE R. VELVEL
Counterpunch April 11, 2006

In a court filing by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, it has now become public that, according to Scooter Libby, George Bush authorized the Vice President's chief of staff in July 1993 to disclose previously highly confidential information -- to leak this information -- in order to help make Bush's case for war. The information is said to have come from a supersecret 90 page document called a National Intelligence Estimate. The leaked information is a particular part of the Estimate which supported going to war, though one gathers that other parts, that were not released, were contrary in import and did not support going to war.

Because Bush is said to have authorized disclosure of -- leaking of -- a part of the report which supported his decision for war, the claim is being made that it was not unlawful for Libby to have told one (or more?) reporters about the information. The President, it is said, has broad authority to declassify information, and did so here. What is more, it is said that this was opined to Libby by a true creep, Cheney's right wing wacko lawyer, David Addington, whom Libby regarded as an expert on national security law. And, as a general matter, both now and previously the media, with the exception of a recent editorial in The Times, seems to have automatically swallowed the notion that a high level official with power over classification can authorize disclosure on the spot, as it were, of previously classified information: the issue arose a while back, when it was thought Cheney might have been the one who authorized disclosure regarding Valerie Plame and Bush's action was not yet publicly known.

There is one point which jumps out at me, even though the (incompetent) media has so far been blind to it. Does the governing rule really provide, is it intended to provide, can it truly be lawful for it to provide, that the President can, on the spot, authorize disclosure of previously classified information that supports his position, while withholding disclosure of classified information which opposes it, even information in the very same document or conceivably on the very same page? Is this what classification is really all about? Is this what it is supposed to accomplish or is intended to accomplish? Why am I dubious? Why do I think that, at least as embodied in law, as opposed to the evil chicanery that is an every day matter in Washington, this is not the purpose of classification and must be, indeed, a horrible abuse of it? -- in all justice probably a literally criminal abuse of it.

One recognizes, of course, that what Bush did is, as indicated, just another example of the abuses and moral corruption that have become standard among politicians in our country. In this sense Bush's action is related to the need for a third party because the current two parties have unalterably become moral and ethical cesspools. And one is further aware that the commonness of political abuses in Washington is why the media appear to regard Bush's action as just more business as usual, even if a particularly hypocritical example of the same. Yet it remains obvious, does it not, that if the kind of chicanary being discussed here is the intention or result of the classification system, then that system gives the Executive an awesome power to fool the entire citizenery and Congress, as appears to have been done here by the lies about WMDs. For the Executive will simply reveal, one sidedly, the classified information which supports its desires while keeping secret the classified information that undercuts them, all of which was done here. Congress and the public will know only one side of the facts, will correspondingly lack knowledge of the other side, will be disabled from making knowledgeable decisions, and, incidentally, the first amendment's purpose of fostering knowledgeable discussion and decisionmaking will largely be thwarted. All of which happened in large degree here with regard to WMDs and going to war.

CONTINUED...

Lawrence R. Velvel is the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law. He can be reached at [e-mail].

http://www.counterpunch.org/velvel04112006.html

Great post, as always, H20 Man. Much obliged for the reminder and analysis.

TRAITOR

[H2O Man]

37. Using the Watergate imagery

helps us to show those who do not participate on progressive sites like DU what Bush & Co really are.

That's a scarey picture, by the way.

[Patsy Stone]

14. Dean realizes that truth crushed to earth tends to rise again...

At this point, thirty-three years later, he still seems to be the only one to realize this.

[Jemmons]

22. One of my favorite quotes!

"Truth, crused to earth, shall rise again"
William Cullen Bryant

15. Things are darkest before the dawn

I just hope dawn isn't too far off. Bush and Cheney are off the charts in their corruptness.

Kick - will read later.

[gordianot]

17. I recently went to D.C for the first time.

I managed to strike up a conversation with a tour guide who is a long time resident. I have heard stories about the beltway and how they view events differently which the guide acknowledged. He compared Nixon and Bush II. According to the guide Nixon was a petty crook (Washington Politician) who was capable of showing glimpses of compassion along with Paranoia (also stated Nixon was a drunk). Bush is viewed as a hardened criminal without any human compassion and is viewed as actually running the Government. The guides next comment that is not to say he has not surrounded himself with a mob of equally dangerous criminals, Bush is viewed as the worst. Cheney is hated as much if not more than Bush. His next comment really caught me in that he stated he voted for Bush in 2000.

I remember Nixon well, I will never forget Bush or the details.

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Who is the person powerful enough to get POTUS & VPOTUS

to individually or collectively get them to understand they are darkening political Death's door? It is clear that there is no one who will stand up to Chickenhawk Cheney as evidenced by his disdain for the truth or the presidency after he shot his friend in the face and no one would call him to account. It is also clear that 41 has no jurisdiction over 43 as evidenced from Risen's book about junior hanging up on Bush Sr. Ma Barker Babs Bush would have some limited sway over her duplicitous son, but not enough to make him want to fall on his rubber thruthiness sword. Laura is literally and figuratively the window dressing.

Cheney's wife is an ardent supporter of world annihilation by her husband. Cheney listens to his own inner demons and is ruled by his magical thinking that he is never wrong about anything, ever. His former second in command is trapped between an unflinching prosecutor with who knows how much more evidence and the bush presidency hangs in the balance. Who has turned evidence to cut deals is not known. Rove hates Cheney and Cheney hates Rove and which one will buckle first under the pressure to protect the presidency at all costs. It used to be the president is the principal, but bush is the president in name only while Cheney is running everything. This presents why fitz went into the VP's shop first - it was where the criminal action was.

Who is the new 2006 "Mr. Fixit" that will get Cheney to go first to try and explain to the public. If bush goes first to discuss this, then he really is afraid of Cheney. But alas, even a precedent here where they testified together before the 9/11 Commission shows they are joined like in a bad marriage for an ill presidency.

Who is the person that will make them make the faustian hard choices so that they spare the country?

H2O Man, I enjoyed your post immensely.

[gordianot]

20. Today there is not a second voice of reason in the White House.

John Kennedy had Bobby, Nixon had Kissinger talk him out of using Nukes, Reagan had dementia and did not really know what was going on. I'm afraid I do not have any faith in Ms. Rice, Bush has no reason and very little capacity to think abstractly.

[H2O Man]

30. True.

Colin Powell was the only person who might have reasoned with Bush. Armitage tried to encourage that. But it never took root. A serious issue is that Bush, unlike Nixon, has errors in thinking based on his religious misperceptions.

[H2O Man]

26. Great question.

Who can stand up to the beast? So far we know a couple by name: Joseph Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald. There are also a few in congress who dare; they tend to have dark skin, and they speak up because they understand what the bad potential of America is.

A couple people in the corporate media have done good jobs of reporting on this case. But by and large, the truth is found in the hedge schools of the information highway, in places like DU.

I'm glad that you enjoyed this post. I put my essays on my blog, on DU, and two other sites. Of these, I get by far the best response from DU. There is a great group of people gathered here, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts on this scandal here. Thank you.

[Me.]

19. Tapings = Emails

I can't decide if there is a playbook that they all follow and convince themselves it will be different for them because they're the smart ones, or if it is arrogant stupidity. Why didn't they just get up from their chairs and walk to the other's office and say I want to talk to you in private? There is a level of insanity and they don't seem to understand that"doing the same thing over and over will not get you different results". But then they're clearly no Einsteins.

Even today it is being reported that Liz Cheney, with a budget of 80mil, has set up ISOG, the Iran Stria organization group, backed up by a compliment of Iranians who say the country will support us and greet us with flowers.

[Jemmons]

21. leveymg said that Watergate was one of the best things that ever

happened. At least it is one of the best ever lessons in history. Thanks for a fascinating account of those discussions, which should serve as a very effective reference for understanding the present administration and the situation that it finds itself in.

[H2O Man]

33. The investigation was.

The series of crimes constituted a great threat to our form of government. The investigation that resulted was a high-point in our nation's history. Though it failed to address all of the problems involved, it was a process that we could take pride in.

[RedEarth]

24. Good post, but I doubt if Bush would ever tell the truth.... I honestly

think Bush is insane and will continue to lie and manipulate the public to feed his insanity.

[H2O Man]

34. You have far more

reason to feel that way, than I have reason to hope Bush would ever tell the truth.

[cassiepriam]

29. I can't understand why Rove is letting Bush be asked these questions?

From a PR perspective shouldn't they be keeping Bush under wraps?
Especially when it appears that shrub can't seem to lie was well as in the past.

Bush's mental status is looking very shaky to me.

[H2O Man]

35. You are on target.

From a PR stance, the White House is doing the worst thing possible.

Bush reminds me of some of the fellows who used to be in some of the forensic groups I used to run at work. If his audience doesn't know he is lying, he puts on a show of confidence, with the puffed chest and jutting jaw. When he is caught in a lie, he lowers his head, and tries to become small.

[cassiepriam]

38. Why is Rove allowing this? Something seems off.

And yes, sociopaths often use distraction as a ploy, or their charm to avoid consequences. (What kind of groups did you run, H2O man? Were you a social worker?)

And is it only me, but does Bush's mental status and affect seem to be odder than usual?

[H2O Man]

39. I think there is

a problem in the White House response, that is largely due to the conflict between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.

(I worked at a mental health clinic, and among other duties, ran groups in the local jail, and for people who were court-ordered for treatment for violence against spouses/SOs, and against children.)

[cassiepriam]

42. It looks like there may be trouble in Paradise then.

A bit of dust up in the WH these days as people are tying to CYA?

H2O man I am going to PM you now, something I want to tell you.

[BR_Parkway]

73. Rove trying to push the situation to the edge, then promise salvation

in exchange for his own pardon - regardless of the stakes or consequences to anyone else.

Every member of this whole group thinks about themselves first. Libby seems to have tried to protect his superiors, it's possible Rove did too. But now that he sees it going down, I think he's intentionally putting Shrub out there to turn the heat up on him, so he can bargain with him later. And he knows he can't stop this train wreck, so he's building himself a softer landing.

[cassiepriam]

81. Very interesting theory. Keep talking.

Yes, let's start with the premise that these people are totally self centered and incapable of doing the right thing, or thinking of anyone else but themselves. That is a given. And to save themselves they would destroy anyone or anything, nothing is sacred or off limits.

And yes of course, we know that Rove lied bold face to Fitz as did the whole lot of them. And we do know Fitz has known all of this for some time now. And Fitz is playing a cat and mouse game with them. They have had this pressure for some time.

I think you may be correct that something is very off with Rove, but he has totally been ego invested in Bush's success for many years. Can he suddenly throw Bush to the wolves? Of course if his own neck is at stake he would turn on Bush in a second I suppose.

And then how will Rove turning up the heat on Bush, soften him up for bargaining later? Certainly Rove has no need to soften Bush up, Bush does whatever he is told?

[Joe Fields]

45. Very nice revisitation. Thank you

I was in school during watergate, and my current events instructor had us watch the watergate hearings every day. I got hooked on them, and followed them every day after school let out for the summer. They were a real life soap opera.

[H2O Man]

48. They were

such a big part of the younger generation's life, that I fully expect the one investment firm that keeps using 60's stuff to attact baby boomers, to use Dean's testimony in one of their ads.

[KoKo]

74. ha....I've seen those ads by that investment company.....

they are a turn off to me...but ...Good point...they might start using Dean at some point. :D Scurrilous investment company...

[H2O Man]

75. I believe that Mr. Dean

had a little experience in that area before he went to the White House.

[Joe Fields]

77. Younger generation? how old are you? I'm 50

[H2O Man]

79. Today I feel 150. n/t

[bostonbabs]

46. this is a great read thankyou

[H2O Man]

49. Thank you.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

[Disturbed]

50. Much worse than Watergate.

The situation that the US is in with the Neo Fascists in power is a whole lot more insidious than the Nixon Regime.

[H2O Man]

53. Yes. It is.

Nixon threatened the US with an Imperial Presidency, which while it involved a grab for power by using the threats associated with war, was largely "domestic." Bush is attempting a Revolutionary Presidency, and his group threatens the world's security.

On Hardball, Jim M. just reported that VP Cheney is pressing hard for a military confrontation with Iran. (He said Condi Rice is pushing hard for a diplomatic solution.) We have an out-of-control group that is willing to risk a world war in order to protect their lies and evil-doing.

It would be great if the congress -- House and Senate -- would step up to the plate. But they will not do it on their own. They will not do it from the goodness of their hearts. Not most of them, anyhow. We are at a time when it is important for people at the grass-roots level to exercise those rights found in that Bill of Rights .... to paraphrase Andy Young when he spoke at Fort Deposit in the summer of 1965, the survival of humankind is at stake today, and it very much depends upon the actions taken by the men and women at the grass-roots level. Young said that we are not a rich people, not particularly brilliant, and not especially industrious. And he said we were not necessarily what moralists might call "good people." But for some reason, which we may not fully understand, we are being called now by history to take a stand.

[robertpaulsen]

51. Hard to imagine Shrub having those kind of conversations.

It would be more like:



ROVE: Dubya, there's a cancer on the Presidency.

DUBYA: (searching his body frantically) Where?! Where?!

Rove rolls eyes and smacks forehead.

ROVE: No, not on you personally. On the office of the Presidency.

DUBYA: (searching the Oval Office frantically) What?! How? Did Saddam poison my office?

ROVE: Forget it. Have another beer.

[Me.]

52. Good One

*LOL*

[H2O Man]

54. Recent polls indicate

that the majority of Americans now recognize what RP said is true. It's almost funny to think about a year ago, when Bush's poll numbers showed significantly more support.

[TrogL]

55. At least Nixon can maintain a conversation

He speaks in complete sentences (when he can get a word in edgewise) and seems to have a firm grip on causality and reality. Dubya has none of this. All he has is Jebus talking in his head.

[ms liberty]

58. K&R, a most excellent post, as usual...

I had forgotten some of these details. The parallels are rather eerie, yes?

The difference, unfortunately, is that W is a card carrying member of the rapture cult, has serious emotional and psychological problems, and is surrounded by those who believe nukes and war are a good thing for America. There is no Dean in the WH, no one to stop this disturbed individual from doing something that could easily bring about the end of life as we know it on the planet. Everyone who has contact with him is compromised by their extreme ideologies, their partisan tunnel vision, and their avarice, ambition, and greed. Anyone disagreeing with him is marginalized or ignored. Right now there is not enough consensus among our elected representatives to remove him, although that could change if he were to meltdown obviously and publicly.

And he's steadily working his way toward a goal most of his inner circle shares: war with Iran.

I believe he is quite capable of doing it; I also believe that he and his co-conspirators see war with Iran as being a quite viable solution to *all* of their problems. Crashing polls, upcoming elections, possible investigations, et cetera.

"I'm a war prezdnt, see? I get to decide" (heh heh)

During the debate in the '00 (mis)election debacle, I turned to my husband and said

"This guy will push the button if he gets the chance - and he'll enjoy it."

Many Thanks to you H2OMan - I never miss your posts. You are one of the most insightful of the many talented individuals here at the DU. I so appreciate you, and everyone here - it's so nice to know I'm not alone in my paranoia!

[thinkingwoman]

59. Recommended and kicked for the evening crowd

H2O Man, that was a most delightful read. As someone born in '65 and raised by political and news junkies, I remember well Watergate. Although I was too young at the time to understand all of the details or the scope of the threat to our nation's well-being, I have paid attention to history since.

You've been comparing W. Bush to Nixon for some time now, with clarity and accuracy. I thoroughly enjoyed this latest addition to the debate!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

61. Thank you.

I was laughing out loud when I read part of the transcript .... the part about the administration not trusting the CIA sounded familiar, huh?

[thinkingwoman]

62. It certainly does!

It's remarkable how history repeats itself. It's stunning when it does it within your own lifetime.

And as added humor, remember that Karl Marx said that history repeats itself the second time as farce. I really feel like we're watching a farce sometimes.

[TacticalPeek]

63. I'd give almost anything

I'd give almost anything to see Karl Rove's sorry ass in a Senate hearing with Senator Sam staring down at him, eyebrows flying, waiting patiently for the wiseass remark that a country lawyer could dine on.

:patriot:

[kpete]

60. Wow!

this is a keeper...

[OG Yankee Patriot]

65. Two UNDENIABLE Truths About Repubs

whenever Repubs are around:
1. laws get broken
2. money disappears.

[AuntiBush]

67. 3. Always for BIG Corporations, not the People.

Grew-up hearing that all of the time. Everyone knew it.

What happened? They learned how to steal the votes.

[stevedeshazer]

66. From someone like me who remembers Watergate vividly, thanks.

There are days when I think to myself, "Self? Why don't people see the connection between Nixon/Watergate/Viet Nam and Bush/Liar/Iraq?

[NBachers]

68. Desperate Times - Desperate Measures

History repeats itself. Don’t think we shouldn’t take the Nuke Iran info seriously. I remember dangerous military threats during Nixon’s Watergate days. There’s an account at Democratic Veteran http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001319.html


And the NY Times story is at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/international/middleeast/02DOCU.html?ei=5070&en=da224a8b0ef13344&ex=1144900800&pagewanted=print&position=

Read through the entire NY Times article. It could’ve been written today. Note Prime Minester Edward Heath's concern that Nixon was using his Mideast Nuclear Option to divert attention from Watergate.


January 2, 2004
Britain Says U.S. Planned to Seize Oil in '73 Crisis
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ



ONDON, Jan. 1 — The United States government seriously contemplated using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, according to a declassified British government document made public on Thursday.

The top-secret document says that President Richard M. Nixon was prepared to act more aggressively than previously thought to secure America's oil supply if the embargo, imposed by Arab nations in retaliation for America's support for Israel in the 1973 Middle East war, did not end. In fact, the embargo was lifted in March 1974.

The declassified British memorandum said the United States considered launching airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, but only as a "last resort."

President Nixon's defense secretary, James R. Schlesinger, delivered the warning to Lord Cromer, the British ambassador in Washington at the time. In the document, Lord Cromer was quoted as saying of Mr. Schlesinger, "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

The seizure of the oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force," the memorandum said.

The potential for such a military action was taken so seriously by British intelligence services that a report was written listing the most likely scenarios for the use of American force in the Middle East and the consequences of each. The report, dated Dec. 12, 1973, was titled "UK Eyes Alpha" and was sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath.

The memorandum was one of hundreds of documents released by Britain's National Archives under a law that makes government papers public after 30 years. Details of the document were reported on Thursday by The Washington Post.

The exchange between Mr. Schlesinger and Lord Cromer came on the heels of the war between Israel and Egypt and Syria that began in October 1973. As retaliation for American support for Israel in the war and in an effort to sway world opinion, Arab members of OPEC imposed the oil embargo.
The embargo led to petroleum shortages around the world and to sharp increases in the price of gas in the United States.

As recounted by Lord Cromer, Mr. Schlesinger told him the United States was unwilling to abide threats by "underdeveloped, underpopulated" countries.

The document did not rule out the possibility that Washington would consider pre-emptive strikes if Arab governments, "elated by the success of the oil weapon," began issuing greater demands.
"The U.S. government might consider that it could not tolerate a situation in which the U.S. and its allies were in effect at the mercy of a small group of unreasonable countries," the document said.
As outlined in the memorandum, military action would be relatively straightforward: two brigades were estimated to be needed to seize the Saudi oil fields and one each for Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. In the case of Abu Dhabi, the Americans might ask for British military cooperation.

The greatest threat would arise in Kuwait, the document said, "where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene."

The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years. The use of force would also alienate Arab countries and irritate Moscow, although a military confrontation with the Soviet Union would be unlikely, the document said.

Discontent among Western allies was also cited as a possible consequence of military action. "Since the United States would probably claim to be acting for the benefit of the West as a whole and would expect the full support of allies, deep U.S.-European rifts could ensue," it said.

A separate document, also just released, illustrated Mr. Heath's profound anger toward Mr. Nixon, when the American president failed to inform the British prime minister he was putting American forces on a global nuclear alert during the Middle East war.

Mr. Heath went so far as to suggest that Mr. Nixon issued the alert in an attempt to deflect attention away from Watergate, which was in full swing in the fall of 1973.

"An American President in the Watergate position apparently prepared to go to such lengths at a moment's notice without consultation with his allies," Mr. Heath wrote in the second document, adding that there was no "military justification" for putting American forces on a nuclear alert at the time.

The alert was ordered after Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, warned that he might send Soviet troops into the Middle East after Israel crossed the Suez Canal.

[understandinglife]

69. "George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his ...

... willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

Period.

Recommended.

[obiwan]

70. Unfortunately, W makes Nixon look like...

... a Sunday school teacher.

I survived Watergate, and at no time did I feel like humanity was hanging in the balance.

Unlike W, at least Nixon still had a soul, tortured though it may have been.
Bush is a hardcore sociopath, far beyond caring about the consequences.

[mishanti]

71. During Watergate

I was in the US Army and we watched it everyday at work..I still remember where I was when Nixon fired everyone on a Saturday night..he really thought that he could do whatever he wanted to because he was the president. I do believe those who don't learn from history must relive it and we are now doing that. Bush is by far the worse President we have ever had and I have no doubt that that is how history will remember him if there is anyone left on this earth.

[Autonomy]

72. The Plame Affair and Watergate are not a comparison

They are a direct link. Also the JFK assassination. I understand the knee-jerk revulsion evoked by "conspiracy theory", but they're all linked via Nixon and the BFEE. Directly. Start snooping around the web on it. When you get to Rodriguez, Thornley, and Hunt you've gone far enough. There's no reason to be shocked at the parallels between Watergate and the Plame Affair; it's all the same crazies running the same plot they've been into since the 1940s (or before, in regard to their predecessors).

[KoKo]

76. A circle of evil that's now come around to completion......

I, too, believe it's all the same...the same crowd with the same attitude perpetuated by Think Tanks and Wealthy Individuals with an agenda who managed to find willing recruits from the religious right and the usual thugs and hangers on who always feed at the trough of any power structure throughout time.

That it could happen here is only because we thought it could never happen here in our special America. And, there were those who fed us born after WWII all that propaganda about how "special" we all were while keeping us afraid with the "Big Bomb" from "Communists.

They replayed the scenario with "terrorists" being the new Communism and the Bomb coming from Iraq and it worked for some...but not so much with those of us who had lived the script before. Many of us are here and everywhere working while we can still try to make a difference to stop this evil now...root it out and make sure it doesn't come back again in the foreseeable future.

Thanks Waterman! :toast:

[bleever]

78. The most striking difference between the Nixon and Bush II White Houses,

to me, is that Nixon's was far more intelligent and competent.

Bush has surrounded himself with intellectual low-lights. No one has a grasp of the law similar to Nixon's top aides.

In attempting to vindicate Nixon's vision of an imperial presidency, they have replicated much of the modus operandi, but with less cunning and skill. The denouement, I'm guessing, will be messier and much uglier than Nixon's.

For all of Nixon's faults, he knew when to tip his king over and concede defeat. Bush will tip the board over in petulant defiance.

Lastly, remember that Cheney has argued for a presidency that is "robust". Remember too that when he told Patrick Leahy to "go fuck himself", he later excused it as what he called using language that was "robust".

Thank you so much for this timely review, H2O Man. Top notch.

[Catrina]

80. Fascinating post, thank you H2O Man ~ something occurred to me

about Libby while reading the part where Nixon and his crew realized they'd probably be unable to grant clemency to anyone.

I read recently, I'm not sure if it was in one of the court documents, that Libby supposedly tried to get Bush and/or Cheney to help him regarding the legal jeopardy he believed he might in and that he did not get any support from them. I had the feeling while reading it, that he was desperate.

Someone here said that Libby appeared to have tried to protect Cheney and Bush. But maybe he didn't. Maybe he came to realize they would throw him away in order to protect themselves.

His testimony regarding Cheney telling him Bush had authorized him to talk to reporters must have been quite a while ago ~ if he was trying to protect them, he could have taken the 5th Amendent before the GJ, couldn't he? Maybe he knew what happened with Nixon, and decided to at least protect himself. I was really surprised at his testimony. I wonder if Cheney and Bush were also?

I suppose I thought that this administration would make it difficult for Fitzgerald by sticking together. But in the end they are all human and like Nixon's employees, are all most likely scrambling now to save themselves.

Nixon did seem to grasp quickly everything Dean was telling him. I can't imagine Bush understanding anyone trying to tell him the legal jeopardy he is in. I can imagine him understanding that someone is having the gall to try to make him believe he could be and throwing a temper tantrum over it.

As for the Bush WH having anyone reasonable, like Dean? I'm not sure of this, but I did read at least one article about Andrew Card which indicated that he might be that kind of person and was, in fact, against the war in Iraq.

Card resigned recently ~ I wonder if that might be because he is expecting an indictment, or will be a witness? Or could it be because he knew of their plans regarding Iran and was no longer willing to go along?

One more connection to Nixon. When looking up information on the Kent State shootings, I came across information that both Cheney and Rumsfeld were there when Nixon made the decision to send the National Guard to Kent State.

These people have been in power, or behind the scenes of power for far too long ~ imo. They are the largest gathering of evil men in one place this country has ever seen. They are like a bubble under the country's skin that has been there for more than 30 years, plotting and planning in the background. Twice before they were thwarted, Watergate and Iran/Contra ~ but they never gave up. Maybe at last, now that they have finally surfaced, the bubble will burst ~ I hope so.

I really am inspired to read more about Watergate ~ and Iran/Contra. You would think they would learn from history, especially since so many of them not only witnessed it, but participated in it.