Irregular Times: News » This Is Worse Than Watergate

This Is Worse Than Watergate

Filed under Ethics, George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, Media, Politics, Republicans, War and Peace by Jim at 10:09 am

When John Dean published his book “Worse Than Watergate” in the spring of 2004, it seemed rank hyperbole: an election-year screed and yet another attempt by a Nixon alumnus to downgrade Watergate crimes by unearthing worse “gates” thereafter. But it’s hard to be dismissive now that my colleague Judy Miller has been taken away in shackles for refusing to name the source for a story she never wrote. No reporter went to jail during Watergate. No news organization buckled like Time. No one instigated a war on phony premises. This is worse than Watergate.

…

That the Bush administration would risk breaking the law with an act as self-destructive to American interests as revealing a C.I.A. officer’s identity smacks of desperation. It makes you wonder just what else might have been done to suppress embarrassing election-season questions about the war that has mired us in Iraq even as the true perpetrators of 9/11 resurface in Madrid, London and who knows where else.

[ ] [ RSS Feed of Comments ] [ permalink ]

8 Comments »

So now that it’s in the NYTimes, it’s not “nutty” to believe that something might have been done to suppress embarrassing information. Yeah, it
makes
you
wonder…

Comment by Zero Haven — 7/10/2005 @ 2:35 pm

Zero, we’ve been writing about this stuff for some time. I don’t agree with this because Rich wrote it in the New York Times. I agree with Rich because his piece makes good points in the wake of the emergence of solid evidence in this case.

There HAS been a great deal of speculation that turned out to be inaccurate in the Plame case. Just because someone claims something is true doesn’t mean it is.

The first and third links you provided DO make me wonder — how long it takes for the authors to concoct theories while working with a lack of evidence — correct me if I’m wrong, but the first and third articles seem to be “just asking questions.” The test is to see what the definitive answers to those questions are. Go ahead, ask any question you want. But if you want me to take your questions seriously, back them up with evidence.

The written format of the second link — to “testimony” that the person would like someday to give to the Senate, in conjuction with periods of treatment for “stress” — leads me to distrust the person’s veracity. This is just my take, but the way that person writes it seems like they’re trying really hard to pull one over on somebody.

My skepticism isn’t just directed at the people who are pursuing goals different from mine. It is especially directed at “my side.”

Comment by Jim — 7/10/2005 @ 3:04 pm

Thanks Jim, I finally get how you percieve your reality.

A previously gentle dog is walking wobbly, growling, baring his teeth, and foaming at the mouth.
Perhaps he is thirsty? Got into some beer? Perhaps he has eaten a bar of soap?

You’d get at least two separate labs to run blood tests. Plus you must see the lab certificates for each, and personally view the testing being done… and then you just might be willing to accede it has rabies.
I’m so happy I finally understand.

Comment by Zero Haven — 7/10/2005 @ 5:31 pm

No, when a dog is baring his teeth, growling and foaming at the mouth, I call that reasonable enough evidence for me to back off and call animal control.

When a bunch of people say they’ve got “questions” about who caused 9/11, or what the role of the Bush administration in causing the Tsunami was, I say, great, that’s nice, when you have actual evidence give me a call. Then I let them go on their merry way and pay them no mind, because I don’t actually see confirming evidence of their theories.

When someone makes a claim based on motive, I suggest they write a screenplay, since such motives tend to be creative and conveniently unrelated to evidence.

Are you actually claiming that there is evidence for the conspiracies you cite that is equivalent in its immediacy and clarity to a dog baring his teeth, growling and foaming at the mouth? Because if you are claiming that, then fine, lay it out in its astonishing clarity.

But you said in another post that you just have questions, not evidence. To that I say fine, questions are good, but I’m not going to get invested or convinced before I see some evidence.

In the case of the material you link to, what you’ve got in analogy is a dog that’s barking from behind a chain-link fence that might or might not be secured by a padlock, a dog that might be foaming at the mouth but also might just be drooling. Do I call animal control because I have questions about this dog? No. I just move on my merry way.

In the Valerie Plame / Joseph Wilson case, we have established facts. So I pay much closer attention to that dog.

Comment by Jim — 7/10/2005 @ 6:28 pm

Zero,

When you’ve got solid evidence against a criminal on multiple counts of murder, treason, fraud and criminal incompetence, why focus on conspiracy charges you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

We’ve got solid evidence Bush is harboring terrorists.

We’ve got solid evidence that memos from Alberto Gonzales calling the Geneva Conventions “quaint” preceded widespread torture of captives by U.S. forces.

We’ve got solid evidence Bush sold a war on false premises and bogus intelligence.

We’ve got solid evidence Bush didn’t bother to break off his month-long vacation in August 2001 for a memo entitled “Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Inside U.S.”

We’ve got solid evidence the Bush administration blew the cover of a CIA agent.

Isn’t that good enough? We already have evidence of massive, multiple crimes and gross incompetence on the part of the Bush administration?

Why do we need to focus on the more questionable theories about Bush being behind 9/11. They rest on speculation about things we are likely never to have proof of: Is there any hard evidence about exactly how hot it got inside the towers on 9/11? No. The temperature of jet fuel burning in the open is insufficient to melt steel, but did the outer walls of the structure reflect heat back in? Can’t prove they didn’t. High temperatures weaken steel before they melt it, right? So exactly how much weight did the structural damage of the impact place on how much steel in what position, and what temperature did it reach in the fire? We’ll never know beyond a reasonable doubt if it was enough to cause the steel to fail or not, because we just don’t have the data.

Observation: unenclosed jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel. Conclusion: Bush was involved in a conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center. Not gonna stand up in court.

Look, if there were memos from Alberto Gonzales to the president saying it would be “naive” for the Bush administration NOT to blow up the WTC, AND you had photographs of U.S. soldiers blowing up the WTC, AND you had official reports from the Red Cross that documented how U.S. soldiers blew up the WTC, you still wouldn’t match all the evidence we have that Bush is behind torture. TORTURE, for God’s sake!

What objection do you have to putting this guy behind bars on solid evidence first, THEN speculating about 9/11?

Comment by Ralph — 7/11/2005 @ 3:31 am

Observation: unenclosed jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel.

But the fuel didn’t work alone; the steel was wrapped in something that increased resistance to ordinary flames, but, when coated with burning jet fuel, turned into an accelerant.This is what I remember from “Why the Towers Fell”, anyway.

Comment by John Stracke — 7/11/2005 @ 9:47 am

Or perhaps the impact of the plane knocked the flame-resistant coating off some of the steel? And the jet fuel soaked into everything flammable it touched–wood, plastic, etc.?

My point is not that this is unimportant, but that there are so many unknown variables we are miles from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush did anything criminal.

Unlike, say, the case for torture.

Comment by Ralph — 7/11/2005 @ 3:31 pm

i say hang the guy with whatever rope we can find. what we need are elected officails with enough balls to pursue it.
and a little of that “left wing media” wouldn’t hurt either.

Comment by randy ray haugen — 7/11/2005 @ 6:44 pm