James Rosen: Fox News Correspondent, Watergate Revisionist

"This is not your father's Watergate," said James Rosen.

Mr. Rosen, an on-air D.C.-based correspondent for Fox News was speaking to NYTV on Monday afternoon. Next month, Doubleday will publish Mr. Rosen's first book--a revisionist history of Richard Nixon's downfall, called The Strongman: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate.

As NYTV's overcrowded bookshelf can attest, TV newsmen are constantly cranking out books that are heavy on the self-promotion and light on, um, research. Mr. Rosen's book promises to be neither. It will weigh in at a hefty 600 or so pages, contain 65 pages of footnotes, and will include insight culled from some 250 original interviews. There was no ghostwriter. And in a clear affront to the requirements of the genre, Mr. Rosen's face doesn't even appear on the cover.

Mr. Rosen said Strongman will be the first major biography of John Mitchell, the late U.S. attorney general, who played a pivotal role in the "rise, reign and ruin" of Richard Nixon. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Mr. Mitchell was convicted on a number of charges stemming from his role in the botched break-in and surveillance operation. The nation's top law enforcement official eventually spent 19 months in prison.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Knowledgeseeker]

Liberal TV networks don't have the backbone to take on FOX news

[J_E_Mugford]

It says it all in one Quote
Mr. Rosen. "My contrarian conclusion was that The Washington Post was largely extraneous to the outcome of Watergate. So, too, were Woodward and Bernstein."

His dedication to the Neo-Con approach mandates that he tries to eliminate all factual aspects of our memories. His next book will be "How Bill Clinton Invaded Iraq and Caused Oil Prices to Skyrocket"...Look for it soon..Revisionism is a ploy used all to often by extremists. Look at Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

[lisakaz2]

Given where this guy comes from, I wouldn't doubt it if he makes Watergate all John Dean's fault.

[PackyJ]

More probably Howard Dean's fault.

[Stevelagain]

The ignorant ranting here is unbelievable. This is NOT a negative article. It's actually quite favorable. I can only think that uneducated flaming board trolls see the word: "Revisionist" and think it's a signal to show their "intellectualism" and Moral Outrage by ranting.

The article indicates this is a scholarly work involving a massive effort on the part of the author that crosses years and digs into mass quantities of documents and evidence the public has not seen.

Revisionists often SET THINGS RIGHT but getting at the truth. Not all "revisionists" are liars spinning away obama blunders. Some revisionists have done their homework, know what they are talking about, and are right.

There isn't even a clue as to what parts of history might be revised. And yet the left wing lunes go off on a bender. If it wasn't so plain sad and ignorant, it would be funny.

So much for the "enlightened liberal" crowd..

[cutebeatle]

It is facsinating to see so many people trash a book that hasn't even come out yet, all on the basis of the author's affiliation with Fox News (and not even on the basis of his actual work as a reporter there). Aren't liberals supposed to abhor McCarthyism -- the imputation of guilt by association -- and, too, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes?

[lisakaz2]

Like that liar Michelle Malking who thinks she knows Pearl Harbor after less than a year's worth of research? There are revisionists and then there are revisionists of the Hal Turner Hitler diaries mode. We'll see where this guy falls but given his Faux background, there is reason to be cynical.

[LAShores]

Is anyone surprised. I mean seriously. Facist News is so totally over the fuggin top that they are scary and funny at the same time.

[mamacat]

There is a big difference between Nixon and Bush. In my opinion, Nixon screwed up big time, actually stole the election with the results of the Watergate burglary, BUT, he loved his country, and refused to commit treason in defence of his election-related crimes. Bush, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to commit treason in defence of his middle eastern war, by outing a CIA master spy and her network.

I have always admired the fact that Nixon was unwilling to use his very considerable powers to actually overthrow the government. It was an option, but he turned it down. To today's religious and greed motivated neo-cons, subverting democracy is a tool that brings them neither self-doubt, shame, or remorse. They regal in their crimes, gleefully happy that they have succeeded in what no one before them has dared to do. No doubt they are looking forward to many happy years of retirement, enjoying their gated mansions and vast ranches, protected by private armies of Blackwater gaurds.

Nixon died after a trip to Russia, in the cause of diplomacy. Bush will probably die by falling off of his hobby horse, pretending to be a cowboy.

[jukesgrrl]

"To today's religious and greed motivated neo-cons, subverting democracy is a tool that brings them neither self-doubt, shame, or remorse." Truer words were never written. Bush IS worse than Nixon. Much, much more dangerous. (And at the time, I thought Nixon was the prince of darkness.) It will take three liberal presidencies to undo the damage done to our Constitution by the neo-cons. And what do you think the chances of that happening are?

[Stevelagain]

What a load of shameless propaganda.

[dotmafia]

Great read. Thanks.

[armadillious2002]

Faux news days are numbered. They have a small number of younger viewers and getting smaller. As the older crowd sucuumbs to the Nursing home or worse Faux will be totally irrelevant. They are liars and fabricators who appeal to radicals and the misinformed and the whole world is starting to wake up and realize it.

[DELICIOUS]

PEOPLE USUALLY GET LIGHT HEADED FROM LACK OF BLOOD FLOW TO THE BRAIN, HOWEVER FAUX NEWS VIEWERS AND STAFF ARE LIGHT HEADED FROM LACK OF BRAIN...THE HELL WITH THE BLOOD.

[99hockeyman]

Rosen is thinking: If we(Fox) can fool the American morons about this criminal in the White House currently, it should be a snap to change Watergate around. There are millions of fools that will fall for this. No wonder this country is screwed up

[jmj680]

It's taken Rosen 17 years to write this? Hell, FUX "news" revises history every day.

[pakaal]

It took 17 years to figure out how to spin this reality - not surprising, you'd have to be really dedicated to even think of trying to nail a halo on Nixon's head. I like how he's doing the typical Republican trick of finding a convenient scapegoat (in this case Mitchell, now dead thus unable to respond to the accusations) to blame for what others did.

Mitchell did it all, huh? Whew, what a relief to know all the Nixon tapes, his rise to power on the coattails of McCarthyites, who were busy coming up with laundry lists of supposed Communists, his illegal surveillance activities, his support of Sukharno, secret bombing of Cambodia and such weren't his fault after all! Oh, that terrible, terrible John Mitchell! I say we start parallelling the current "It's Clinton's fault" for anything bad that's happened in the last 20 years, with "It's Mitchell's fault" for the 30 years before that.

[Bluedog12]

In thirty years he'll be writing about Iraq's invasion of the US after 911. Jonah Goldberg will edit. Foreword by the late William Kristol.

[Stevelagain]

I think that went over the heads of most of these ranting "intellectuals".

[BongWater]

Re visiting Watergate is a worthy endeavor.

The break in occurred because Nixon Republicans were very worried that the Democrats were in possession of evidence (held at the Watergate office) about the assassination of JFK.
The involvement of the Dulles brothers, George HW Bush, and the truth that Nixon was aware and supportive of this crime against our nation, was why the break in was necessary.

Think about the one part of the Watergate story that makes no sense. Why do such a high risk crime?

To get a glimpse of some top secret Democratic economic stimulus plan?
To see if Democrats were in favor of education, small business loans, or medical care?
To see if they would spend more on lawn signs, lapel buttons or TV ads?

No, risking everything for information of such little value makes no sense.

The real Watergate story is about why the Republicans felt that such a high risk caper was worth it.

The JFK wound was still open and painful back then, and the Nixon gang was worried that Democrats had the proof of their involvement in it. Keeping that secret was well worth the risk, and it appears to have paid off. The truth does not change even though professional liars work to subvert it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031

[zendem1]

Nixon was concerned that the Democrats had material on his involvement in the attempted assassination(s) of Castro while he was VP under Eisenhower. This was, essentially the Bay of Pigs invasion. Castro was supposed to be dead before the rebels hit the beach, but things went wrong, and kennedy stole the election before Nixon could. Nixon had also heard rumors that Larry O'Brien had documents which listed suspected Communist donors making campaign contributions to the Democratic Party.
Basically, Hunt, Sturgis, Liddy, etc, were forming a little group of "commandos" to wreak havoc and change that election, and all future elections for the Repigs. There were alot of "trial runs" of tactics that Karl Rove has made commonplace today. It was all CIA-spook style stuff--stuff that gave that whacko Liddy a hard-on.

[only1Demvoter]

BongWater : That is a lengthy video, which I will watch in it's entirity later on this evening.

Thanx for the link.


-ralph

[BongWater]

You're welcome Ralph, good for you.

[eugenegerard]

The key to the evil of Mitchell was his wife Margaret. She had a conscience. She used to appear on Carson and call people at all hours of the night snitching on the bad guys in charge. I think she was suicided.

[Podewumun]

John Mitchell's wife was Martha.

Margaret Mitchell wrote "Gone With The Wind".

A small thing, perhaps, but there it is. ;)

[LoRiseAntlers]

The story doesn't exactly jibe with the headline.It sounds as if the book might be worth a read,unlike anything else ever written by a Fox News personality.

Hopefully,it won't be like the right's "history" of the Reagan years.

[pakaal]

It sounds like the current players in the Bush Administration who once supported Nixon want to keep working that revisionist history to paint their failed administrations in a more positive light. One of the most public scandals - and arguably THE most public presidential scandal ever - and this guy has somehow found evidence that everyone else was wrong, it was all Mitchell's fault, and Nixon was actually a great guy but misunderstood? Ignoring the fact that this is the EXACT argument Rove, etc., are using to make it seem like President 28% is actually the bestest prezamadent ever, the fact that Nixon was one of the pushers of the "Communist Conspiracy" McCarthyist crap, that he indeed authorized wiretaps, that he bombed Cambodia secretly and illegally, that he supported ruthless dictator Sukharno....

It will be exactly like the "right's history of the Reagan years" as you say, more of the same, with the same purpose. It's not a pithy truism that history changes depending on who wins. It's also true that history changes if you let people lie to you about it, and you don't research for yourself what's true and what isn't. I encourage you to NOT buy this book. Read an extensive review - someone will surely tear this book's premise apart once it's released.

[mjc]

As others below have mentioned, is it a biography of Mitchell or more revelations of Watergate or a revision of what is generally known about Watergate? I lived through every second of the hearings and Dean's testimony and thought that there wasn't too much in doubt about who initiated it or who was involved and who ordered it. Would be nice if the opening of the blog had stated some of those concerns. It couldn't possibly be an apology, could it???