John Dean: From Nixon to Bush to Giuliani--"Much, Much Worse"

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

John Dean knows something about White House abuse of power. He wrote a bestseller in 2004 on the Bush White House called Worse Than Watergate. In a recent interview I asked him what he thinks of that title now. Now, he replied, a book comparing Bush and Nixon would have to be called Much, Much Worse.

"Look at the so-called Watergate abuses of power," he said. "Nobody died. Nobody was tortured. Millions of Americans were not subject to electronic surveillance of their communications. We're playing now in a whole different league."

And how does Bush compare with the Republicans seeking to succeed him? "If a Rudy Giuliani were to be elected," Dean said, "he would go even farther than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments."

What about the rest of the pack? "I'm very concerned about the current attitude in the Republican party," he said. "However there are candidates on the Republican side who are not quite as frightening as Giuliani." When I asked who he had in mind, he laughed and said "Ron Paul." He conceded that "there's no chance he's going to be president."

Dean's new book is Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. It's a massively documented and thorough indictment, arguing that, over the last 30 years, Republicans have broken or ignored laws, rules, and the Constitution. He's especially critical of the growth of presidential power under Bush II, and what he calls the "corruption" of the courts by "radical conservatives."

I asked Dean to imagine the moment when Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, presumably to be replaced by a Democrat, presumably Hillary -- will it then be possible to say "our long national nightmare is over"? Dean replied with one word: "Yes."

He quickly added, "I do feel strongly that the Republicans have so abused the law and embedded so many people within the system, within the executive branch, that's it's going to take a couple of terms of Democratic presidents before you have people there who are representing the American people."

Does that mean he is supporting Hillary? "She's obviously the one the other Democrats have to beat," he said, "but I don't take any position."

How then would he describe his political position? He says in his new book that he's left his "former tribe" - does that make him a Democrat today? "It doesn't," he replied. "I carry water for nobody. My only interest is being an honest information broker about what's happening. I have no agenda other than explaining - and being shocked at my former tribe."

"I've had invitations to become involved with Democrats," he added, "and have turned them all down. I'm an independent. That happens to be the largest group of voters in the country today - we're about 40 per cent strong."

When I pressed Dean to comment on the Democratic candidates, he said he was more interested in whether any Democrats would raise what he called "process" issues - "kind of a dull-sounding word, but actually it's about the machinery of democracy. I was stunned when the Kerry campaign in 2004 totally ignored the remarkable secrecy of the Bush administration. I called the Kerry campaign after the election, and asked them why they hadn't raised this issue. The Kerry people told me, 'We didn't raise it because it's a process issue.'"

"I began making inquiries," he continued, "and found that lots of Democratic party campaign consultants believe that the candidates shouldn't mention process issues. Democrats thought it would make them look wimpy to say 'we're being excluded from the legislative process.' Kerry didn't want to raise secrecy for the same reason - he thought it would sound wimpy."

Was Kerry right about the electorate? "I found that's exactly 180 digress away from the truth," Dean replied. "Most people can't tell you what a motion to recommit is. They don't know about that kind of process. But they know when they're getting screwed. And process is designed to protect the public interest. So people get it when the game of politics is not being played fairly, when one party is using the process for their own benefit. These kinds of things are of great interest to about 20 to 30 million voters."

What about the many more who are apathetic and ignorant -- doesn't that make him pessimistic about political change? Dean conceded that "large segments of the American public are turned off and tuned out from the democratic process. They can't name their senators. They don't know who's the Chief Justice. But the reason I'm optimistic is that I think we have enough proxies in those who are interested. They are fairly representative of those who are not. When you give them the information they need, they do the right thing. That's why I'm trying to give people good information and hard facts to show people what's gone wrong."

To read more OffTheBus coverage and get involved here.

Comments

[rgblue]

John Dean, you are brilliant and honest. It's too bad the Dems don't turn to you for advice, because they obviously are not up too the challenge yet.

[librabbit]

What good does it do to be an independent if you are resigned to voting for one of the two Repunocrat candidates? RON PAUL has got it all, and if for some reason he doesn't get the Republican nod, he will almost certainly be drafted by the independent movement. There are millions of us, and we contribute, we blog, we campaign and we VOTE. That's where America's salvation lies, not in voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil!
Ron Paul 2008 Hope for America

[richw23]

Ron Paul raised his hand on supporting 'Don't ask don't tell' but claims to be a Libertarian.

He came off as a doofus on the Daily Show.

Jimmy Carter was probably the least evil president ever and look how that worked out.

[GoodDay]

And I thought we had scratched the bottom of the barrel with George W Bush and Dick Cheney. Now they're telling us that Guiliani is even worse than our current duo. Our current duo are probably the world's worst leaders, except maybe for the junta in Burma.

[tandrmcdonald]

Right down there with Putin and Pol Pot.
Gramma Rose

[realpolitic]

Dean says "large segments of the American public are turned off from the democratic process." He is so right. That is Bush and the conservatives ultimate goal to make people so cynical about government they no longer care or expect anything from it. This ideology would explain Bush's turning his back on Katrina victims, walking away from international treaties, such as Kyoto or nuclear nonproliferation, and historically high deficits. Bush's crowd wants people to hold government in such disdain, as they do, that they will turn their backs on it. Then Bush and crowd can further erode civil liberties, put unqualified cronies in important jobs and let the private sector operate with next to no regulation or civic responsibility. People's collective voices would grow fainter and everyone will be in it for themselves as the conservative free marketeers and social security privatizers want.

[Balloonman]

realpolitic
Yes, ain't it the truth. That citizens get so frustrated, experiencing time after time being screwed, witness to the seemingly impossible. That now with new CONGRESS, surely the shift towards balancing our REPBULIC/EMPIRE aright aligned to common sense and that justice for all will be DRAMATICALLY felt. But no. Things don't change soon enuf, aside obvious increments of change happening, sure: investigations, resolutions written in our proxy, angry for staying the course. Minimum wage increased, student loans reduced as fodder for private bank loans pushing students away from cheaper loans so loan sharks can give university favors. Now perhaps slightly more pocketbook equitible focus on cheaper government loans.

Changes yes. Oversight of government manipulations effectively increased. Moreover simply a shift toward decency. Decent CONGRESS people, more populist at least, in more majority, though overly cautious if not chicken. But where are the big changes NOW we cry out for? IMPEACH to set precedent that we won't allow DC criminals to go untouched, free from punishment for fraud, malfeasance, if not treason. Stop spying on us. And of course, QUIT THE WAR immediately.

We folks are looking for our votes to really count NOW! Now that the CONGRESS is different, that now, right now, we want action. Not getting it DOES, can't help but disgust/deflate us. To the point some of us are going to be added to the list of those voters already given up. That's a mistake, not to vote but is the syndrome manifest in BURN BABY BURN!

[BobOnThis]

YES, Ron Paul for President. A former Libertarian presidential candidate who speaks truth to power & knows that $1 + $1 does not equal $11 spendable tax dollars! It really is about the math... and everyone in Congress ought to learn it some day?

NO, Democrat socialists won't end the reign of unconstitutional lawlessness! The rights expressly stated in constitution and those implied in the declaration of independence are the greatest threats to organized religion and a bloated federalist gov't.

Individual liberty, personal responsibility, a return to constitutional law, and rational critical thinking is what will deliver us from democratic socialism and radically religious republican nuts hellbent on controlling society and determining our self-deter­minations!

Vote Ron Paul... Enough is Enough!

BobOnThis
Tacoma, WA

[sqweels]

I wasn't aware there is now a Democrat Socialist party running around.

[TJS]

There is a hypocritical tone to John Dean's criticism of Bush and Guiliani, even though his observations are generally accurate, at least in regards to Bush. Dean's comparison of Dubya to Tricky Dick is transparently self-serving. One of the classic ways that people who have been caught doing wrong try to redeem themselves is by comparing their deeds to someone worse, falsely believing this mitigates their own actions. Dean and his old boss, Nixon, committed crimes and misled the public. Now John Dean makes himself feel better by proclaiming, "Hey, at least we weren't as bad of THOSE guys!"

At this point in history, it is a no-brainer to conlude that Nixon was an far better president and a veritable genius when compared to George W. Bush. Dean's prediction of a future Rudy Guiliani presidency is pure speculation and a stretch of the imagination -- it is hard to conceive of anyone being worse than Bush and Cheney. The underlying current to Dean's observations -- even when accurate about Bush -- is to exonerate his own culpability by comparison.

Dean is like a guy who kicks his dog every night and then berates Michael Vick for animal cruelty. "My dog didn't die," says the dogkicker. "Look at the so-called abuses of power," says Dean. "Nobody died." (Notice Dean's use of the qualifier, "so called..." Dean still hasn't accepted responsiblity for his own crimes.) You can almost always find someone worse. Mussolini's apologists argued that Il Duce was not as bad as Hitler. Right wing Miami Cubans argue that Battista was not as bad as Castro. The list is endless. The undeniable fact is that John Dean was part of an infamous criminal conspiracy to mislead the public. He is the quintessential pot calling the kettle black.

[xenofile]

I think your argument is quite a stretch.
Dean atoned for his sins (to my satisfaction) at the time (back in the Watergate hearings) and I applaud his efforts to offer his perspective now. I judge it to be honest and heartfelt commentary.
You really care a grudge, don't you?

[Herrington]

"pot calling the kettle black"

Who better to know the blackness than the pot? In defense of Dean, it is not as if his politcal life and mistakes occurred yesterday. He has had thirty plus years to turn his hand to yet more mischief, and has not. Instead his contributions to law websites are consistently without any agenda other than a relative true respect for the law that sunk him and Nixon. In short, he actually learned his lesson and is sharing the wisdoms of that lesson that only he has the intellect and perspective to share.

[outnow]

TJS,

Dean knows where the bodies are buried. "It takes a thief," was the name of a popular TV series.

I watched the Watergate hearings with an attorney who represented Nixon working in a law firm that back-dated the Vice-Presidential Papers and supplied "hush money" to the Watergate Burglars. This firm also helped Nixon purchase the San Clemete property. Furthermore, I was raised in Whittier, California.

When John Dean testified, the comment was, "There goes the attorney-client privilege!" Daniel Ellsberg was also a neighbor of mine at that time. The Watergate "Gate" was in part about the break in of Mr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.

Having known the Nixons, and having watched the hearings with an un-indicted Watergate attorney, I can tell you that John Dean saved his own skin but may well have saved the country from the exact thing that is going on today. The Pentagon Papers established the fraud of LBJ in the Gulf of Tonkin. Mr. Ellsberg posted yesterday on zNet.com, in fact. You need to read that post about his experience as a former Marine, PhD in economics from Harvard and as a security analyst at the Rand Corporation.

Every Constitutional Law expert I know after 30 years of practice, whether of the right or left, agrees with Mr. Dean's analysis about the Unified Executive theory that is the justification of Mr. Bush's effectively taking over our government by eliminating the checks and balances, falsifying the grounds for the war in Iraq, and conducting warrantless wiretapping, which a federal judge in Washington held yesterday to have violated the Fourth Amendment.

The conduct of this administration exceeds the conduct of the most corrupt in history. We all fear that a coup has taken place. My family has been in the U.S. for over 375 years. Some of us were Senators, governors, and in the FBI - most were judges.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Lots of chatter here.

But no action.

[plutorage]

Giuliani wants Israel in NATO. Essentially on the day Israel joins NATO, all of Europe would be officially at war since an attack on one member - which occurs daily in Israel - is an attack on all, and all are mutually pledged to enter the war. We are already fighting a European religious war in Iraq. We don't need any more.

[CharliePfromHB]

Actually NATO needs to be replacd by WATO, (World Alliance Treaty Organization), with three distinct targets...­Genocide, Human Trafficking, and Terrorism. The question is...who will sign up? An attack on one is an attack on all. Who would sign up?

[realistic2008]

John Dean's comments should be prominently placed on every news stand, the halls of justice, the Capitol, at every University and principally at the National Archives next to the Emancipation Proclamation so people will remember that we were more afraid of phantom enemies than shooting ourselves in the foot.

[realistic2008]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Bush Chenney team is a menace to everything we hold sacred, except of course on the question of what God told him and perhaps is telling him now, go West my boy for who are we to question his devine intentions.
What a disgrace and yet I found more disgraceful that Americans are doing very little about it, the pribe of gasoline goes and continue going up and no one complains; the feficit is killing US and no one seem to care. I wonder what exactly are we waiting to happen before we finally say enough and do somehing.c

[coloneblog]

I'm convinced that its "all for one and one for all" inside the Beltway. The Reps and the Dems, the execs and the Congress are in cahoots against the American people. They're all influenced by the same special interests. So how do we mitigate that condition? The only chance we have is through the '08 elections. I think it best to keep a Republican in the White House to directly inherit and assume responsibility for the foolish Cheney/bush Iraq War, then elect super Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It would seem to be the best political combination towards limiting special interest access.

[TommyT]

I'm terribly sorry, but I have to say that your 'idea' for the '08 elections is quite frankly the dumbest thing I've heard in weeks. That wouldn't help anything, we'd be in the same damned bind we're in now. While I'm dead certain we'll pick up seats in both the House and Senate, there is no way we'll grab enough to guarantee the override of a veto. Which would leave us again at the mercy of a Republican asshole President who refuses to allow Congress to get anything the American people want done!

For all our sake's, get a clue.

[Susanholmes]

if what you call "process issues" were talked about by democrats, maybe we'd have a voter turnout in this country that at least approaches that of the third world...

[mpgarr]

It is process issues that I am most concerned with--I want to know where every candidate stands on such issues--and would they if elected President would set as their first priority--resetting the clock back to zero--at least in terms of vast expansions of executive power undertaken by both Bush and Cheney---prior to the Bush regime taking the controls---and then working to get a true debate in this country at just how much freedom we do want.

[FOXYLADY]

MUST WE BAND TOGETHER AND DO AS THOS MONKS ARE DOING? I'M AFRAID THAT TOO MANY AMERICANS ARE INVOLVED IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND ONLY INTERESTED IN "THE ME" AND NOT THEIR "BROTHERS"

[Mark701]

To an extent you are correct. I think Americans don't get active in politics until they consider themselves threatened. The sick genius of Rove et al was to convice so many AMericans that they weren't being affected by anything the Bushies have done, when if fact everyone's been negatively impacted (except the rich).
The reason Bush keeps recycling burned out Iraq vets back to the front lines is because he doesn't want a draft. Because draftees, their families and friends can be very dangerous to political power during an unpopular war. He realizes that if he wakes people up by causing them to suffer, his party will suffer.

[film381]

My question is:

How come Congress has done nothing to put this administration up on charges? How come they have not been held accountable and sacked? For the life of me, I don't get why IMMEDIATELY when the Dems. got more power in Congress that they refused to initiate impeachment procedures? Polosi stated right off the bat that there would be no impeachment against this Tyrant and his Himmler like co-pilot. Whatever happens in the end will be the fault of the people... for not holding their congressmen accountable. I

[eyecon]

While I agree entirely that Bush should be impeached, it's a non starter. There is little likelihood of a conviction considering the breakdown in the Senate.

Thus it becomes a partisan political exercise with little chance of success. The endeavor would be perceived as "petty."

The successes that we have achieved have been bi-partisan efforts like SCHIP and the Matthew Shepard amendment. The job of leadership is more than maintaining party discipline; It requires consensus building. Impeachment only fosters animosity across the aisle.

[Vernondelray]

The real difference here is the power of the vice presidency in the Bush administration. I think everyone in the solar system would rather let a Bush impeachment fail (or leave it "off the table")than have Dick Cheney as president. So, in order to affect change, both Bush and Cheney would have to be impeached. If that were to happen, the next in line of sucession would be Pelosi. Since the House has to pass articles of impeachment before the actual impeachment trial can begin in the Senate, this would be seen as a power grab by Pelosi. The constitution needs to be amended to place a different position than Speaker of the House as the third in line of sucession for this very reason.

[mtburke59]

Perhaps, but then the knowledge that they had no chance of convicting Clinton did not stop the Republicans from impeaching him for what ultimately is a minor issue - and the excuse of lying under oath was pure bull; they would have found another excuse to do it anyway since they were gunning for him from the day he won the 1992 election.

As for leadership - feh! (as my daughter would say) What do we hear from Pelosi, Reid and the others? Ooh! filibuster! Ooh, veto! We have to cave, cave, cave. That is not leadership. Leadership is doing what is right and needed whether it be impeachment, cutting off funding for anything other than bringing our men and women home, healthcare, etc., etc. What we have is excuses and then whining that we have to elect more of them to make it better.

Again I say: Democrats! Don't bet on winning the White House in 2008 and don't bet on even keeping your majorities if you don't show that you are vertebrates.

[Balloonman]

IMPEACHMENT, regardless convictions, is above PARTY politics because it is in the best interest of a real bipartisan Nation. Accusations of petty vengeance is what this admistration and much of the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, have been using as weapon and cover to thwart and deride right action all thru BUSH's wake of ruin.

IMPEACH is highest priority. Proves we have the guts to attempt at least to reset our NATION aright according to Constitution. Bringing to virtually common law justice 'elected' and appointed governing criminals practicing malfeasance and fraud, if not treason. Criminals who if untouched set precedent for future criminals to claim precedent when they use and gut our country strictly for their personal aims. IMPEACH simultaneous with extracting us from profiteers WARS.

[anotherpatriot]

And to add to your comment on impeachment, eyecon, there must be a supermajority vote to convict by the Senate, or it becomes an automatic acquittal.

Now if an impeachment acquittal is treated the same as an acquittal in a criminal trial, Bush/Cheney could never be retried for the same offenses again. I'm not sure if that's the case, but we sure wouldn't want that to happen with the criminals currently occupying the White House. So, we just might want to wait a little longer before taking that leap.

[lynn1219]

I agree that Impeachment should have been the first order of business after the Dems were in control. But, they know they lack the votes in the Senate to convict. So, we need to start a campaign targeting all republicans in the Senate. It shof should be something like.If you don't support impeachment, we will not support your re-election. If these politicians really believe that their constituents will not re-elect them, they might reconsider in order to save their own sorry behinds. Any ideas on how to get this started online? We need to reach EVERYBODY.

[Mannycongo]

No, Lynn1219; we need to impeach everybody. Then we need to repeal the fascist "Patriot Act" in its entirety. Then we need to increase the Supreme Court appointments to 12 and put some reasonable people in the mix. Then we need to ask ourselves: Who are they planning to put in that empty concentration camp in Omaha, Arkansas? Hilary Clinton is just as likely to change the direction of Constitutional lawlessness we've seen as Nancy Pelosi is to start impeachment proceedings. I have done!