John Dean knows a bit about Watergate -- in fact, he went to prison for his role in the cover-up of President Nixon's abuses of power.
In a recent editorial at FindLaw Dean explores the possibility of the consequences of Bush's accusations against Iraq turning out to be baseless, a conclusion which Dean himself interestingly does not want to see come true.
But as he says in the column:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this is imho a very, very good point. Johnson's outright lies in the run-up to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution cost him any hope for a re-election, and are actually a much closer parallel to Bush's possible exaggerations on the issue of Iraq.
Ironically, this is not the first time Dean has written about the possibility of a scandal in the Bush administration. Almost a year ago he penned this piece, which lays out some of the common denominators of some of the biggest scandals of the 20th Century, from the Teapot Dome to the Iran-Contra connection (an interesting read btw if just for the history lesson) and speculates on possible problems for both the president and vice-president as a national consciouse geared at the time on corporate corruption comes to bear on both of the men's somewhat cloudy business history.
Phaedrus
In a recent editorial at FindLaw Dean explores the possibility of the consequences of Bush's accusations against Iraq turning out to be baseless, a conclusion which Dean himself interestingly does not want to see come true.
But as he says in the column:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this is imho a very, very good point. Johnson's outright lies in the run-up to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution cost him any hope for a re-election, and are actually a much closer parallel to Bush's possible exaggerations on the issue of Iraq.
Ironically, this is not the first time Dean has written about the possibility of a scandal in the Bush administration. Almost a year ago he penned this piece, which lays out some of the common denominators of some of the biggest scandals of the 20th Century, from the Teapot Dome to the Iran-Contra connection (an interesting read btw if just for the history lesson) and speculates on possible problems for both the president and vice-president as a national consciouse geared at the time on corporate corruption comes to bear on both of the men's somewhat cloudy business history.
Phaedrus
