More to come: John Dean, "Worse than Watergate;" Woodward, Kitty Kelley

The Clark book (which I bought today) is only the start. There are books coming out that will curl even Karl Rove's hair. If this keeps up, we draw ever closer to martial law; Bush will freak out. He can't handle any criticism, and will lash out.

Blessed be.

This may destroy his "base" - whatever the hell that may be unless you're the guys in "Deliverance" screaming "Squeal, piggie, squeal!"

I think he still has credibility as journo.

Kitty Kelly is more of a gossip columnist thing going...and John Dean...???

Please say I am wrong.

But I'll believe when I see it ..

As the former White House Counsel in the Nixon Administration and a practicing attorney he knows full well how administrations like this one subvert, stonewall, and coverup. After all he and his ilk were consider masters of the art, until these rats came along. I think when it is all said in done this group of crooks will make the Nixon gang look like Alice in Wonderland.

Here's the link to the Amazon site. I am buying this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031600023X/qid=1080012689/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8320311-2212634?v=glance&s=books

Thanks for the link.

Not altogether rumor writer.

Her book NANCY was attacked by Reagan lovers as expected.

However, she and her staff did over 1,000 interviews.They named many names.

George Caprozi a friend of Reagan's did a follow up and said he knew Nancy was not a slut.

First comment in his writing."Damn, she was a slut".

She can reach another base.

The last one was a pretty obvious sellout. Any reason to think this one will be different?

(Edited to correct typos created by having keyboard set on Danish language)

So what in the past 30 years do you have on him that we may join in a criticism of Dean? Neither he - nor we - have made excuses for his conduct. But he sure knows a "cancer on the presidency" when he sees one.

he's still washing *'s jiz off his tie from that stoopid "Chimp at War" thing from '02.

After all, the guy does have credentials. Many are coming around to see this evil; I think Woodward might, too.

The majority of the Op Ed columnists are right wing now...

He may be more right wing now, but it's hard to believe that anyone can blame Woodward for its hard-right, neo-con stance on Iraq. Bob Woodward may have clay feet, but he will always be a hero to me. I remember.

All the President's Men and The Final Years. And I followed the story when it happened, of course. While he was making his mark as a reporter (this was his first big break) perhaps the truth meant more to him. And remember his editor was the great Ben Bradlee.

He's a former Navy officer and a Republican to the best of my knowledge. And he's also assisting managing editor of the Post.

And while I didn't read the Bush book, by all accounts it was a puff piece.

This all adds up to yes, maybe his influence brought the paper right and no, he's not on the left.

I thought he already wrote his bush* hagiography? (Bush at War) An amazing feat, considering how dark it must have been that far up bush's butt.

After that putrid performance, I don't see how anything from Woodward could be particularily helpful...

sw

I hope so. But I still hope Bu$h gets burned for it!

on the Chimp's back. Every litter bit helps. Every potential voter will need a reason to vote against *. If AWOL brings in 1000 votes, that's fine.

and it's a beaut!

Does this mean liberal is back in vogue?

Disarming Iraq, just picked it up. And P.J. O'Rourke (whore) has one due out called Peace Kills (I think he argues peace is worse than war? I have an advance copy, I'll let you know.)

I also just got Deans book, should be great and he's harder to criticize as many Americans still see him as a hero for outing Nixon. I'm sure Bush will find a way to trash him <sigh>

Hey, let me know of any books coming out. I might be able to get advance copies for an article I'm writing for a local bookstore. The article is on anti-Bush books. The bookstore owner HATES Bush. I did a review of all the books out by last Christmas and she wants me to do another for the summer edition.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html

Not inaccurately, the Bush presidency has been called imperial, in Schlesinger's sense. The evidence? Its "preemptive" and "preventive" military policy, its contentions that it can go to war regardless of whether Congress approves, its policies calling for American world domination, and its unprecedented blending of national security policy and domestic law enforcement. In my view, these policies and positions not only easily establish the Bush presidency as imperial, they also rank it beyond anything in the annals of the modern American presidency. This may be the most imperial Presidency our history has yet seen.

I've spoken with Arthur Schlesinger about it -- asking him if he thought the Bush presidency fit his description of an imperial presidency. In response, he chuckled, and said, "I'd certainly say this is an imperial presidency."

The fact that five cases currently before the Supreme Court address the question of presidential powers -- and whether or not the Bush presidency has exceeded them -- speaks for itself. Bush has had almost twice as many such cases before the Court as Nixon had, in half the time.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html

What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030926.html

Ashcroft has told Congress he wants a "comprehensive, coordinated, Government-wide, aggressive, properly resourced, and sustained effort" to deal with "the problem of unauthorized disclosures."

It's important to watch Ashcroft's lips here: He said "unauthorized" disclosure - not, say, disclosures of classified information relating to national security, which would be a very different matter. Plainly, he is targeting anyone who leaks information the Bush Administration would rather not have made public - even when security is in no way at risk.

that accuses bush of slashing a las vegas prostitute to pieces while in a coked out haze...that poppy had to call in his chips with the mob to clean up the mess!!

anybody heard anything about that?

All this is great, and essential, and I look forward to Ron Reagan Jr.'s piece. But the reaction of the Bush Administration - well, let's not be naive here. They will threaten the publishers at the very least. How far will they go to silence this avalanche of criticism? How far do you think? Do you think they will rely on Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al to assure a second term? I don't. They are useful orcs, but not a sure thing - and Bush wants a sure thing.

about 9/11, and I read somewhere about a movie that is critical of Bush's environmental policies (I think.)

So many books, so little time to read. I still haven't read American Dynasty.

Well, then, let's just do that.

Note sig line - TOLL FREE to give 'em HELL ON THE HILL!