Worse than Bush?
By Steve Benen Friday Sep 28, 2007 12:45pmAccording to John Dean, it's possible.
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."
Login or Register to post comments.
Luckily, Giuliani won't get the rep. nomination, cuz he'll never get the support of the religious right due to his pro-abortion stance.
Giuliani would be a disaster for this country if he were elected. Luckily, he will not win, because many people want a real leader and not a 9/11-exploiter and wannabe tough guy.
Seriously, for those of you bashing the democrats right now for doing nothing, you need to read Dean's new book Broken Government. It may appear they're sitting on their asses, but in reality they're just trying to figure out what the hell Repugs have done in the past 12 years (esp. the past 7) and figure out how to fix it while the repugs are fighting them tooth and nail to prevent it. Dean went into great detail and as usual does a great job documenting the abuses.
Great Frybread King @ 2:
You forget, the republican primaries are voted by republicans who are easily impressed by 9/11-exploiters and wannabe tough guys.
It's no wonder the word giuliani is Italian for Satan.
Ru911dy Gu911li911an911i w911ill no911t g911et ele991ted .
.......911.
The guy is creepy, just like Bush! So I guess if he were elected we'd have more of the same: Hell on Earth!
I didn't think Bush would be elected either ... Oh, but he wasn't, I forgot. Silly me!
And Rudy actually thinks he's FDR.
worse than the Boosh- Chainy admin?......that would be hard to do..But I'm sure someone will try.Rude boy doesn't have a chance,neither does Thompson.Romney...? They'll turn away from him near the end unless he steps in it with both feet.McCain is getting traction..and he was promised the job by booosh...so he has an inside track.But i think you have to keep an eye on Hunter....he's trouble waiting in the wings.
If Giuliani became president we would truly have a Roman emperor - mad and self-indulging.
What do people think is the percentage likelihood that the gopers will nominate one of the current pack versus bringing in a late entry like gingrich or some other nitwit?
Strawberry @ 3:
Thanks Strawberry...I read his last book.
and found it confirming alot of my suspicions....gotta get the new one.
“If a Rudy Giuliani were to be elected,” Dean said, “he would go even farther than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments.”
What exactly is he basing this on? How exactly does he fathom a dimension in which "further than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments" even exists?
serial groom Rudy will do anything to get and keep power. He has his Stasi and Mussolini playbooks ready to go
Of those who have declared to date, most of the Democrats would be as bad or nearly as bad, all the Republican candidates at least as bad, and some of them, clearly, yes, worse.
cg, maybe you should check out Dean's columns to get an idea of how much weight to give his opinion.
Newt decided not to run for President in 2008.
He did not want to give up all his lucrative gigs. So much for all his high minded blather about the dire need to save the nation.
99 @ 15:
gg, there is no way any of the Democratic candidates will be as bad as Bush on domestic issues like SS, health care and education. Maybe they will be as bad as Bush on Iraq, as some of them are now saying they cannot promise we will be out of Iraq by 2013, but not on everything else.
“If a Rudy Giuliani were to be elected,” Dean said, “he would go even farther than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments.”
That's comforting, isn't it?
joe @ 5:
That's nonsense. It is Italian for dumbshit.
Liam @ 16:
More details on Newt decision to not run for President in 2008.
He is Mr. GOP(Greed Over Principles)
y LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."
Gingrich decided "to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges" as the group's chairman, Tyler said, "rather than pursuing the presidency."
Over the past few months, Gingrich had stoked speculation he might enter the crowded GOP field, despite the seemingly insurmountable challenge of entering the race several months after the other Republicans have been running.
He noted that GOP voters, especially conservatives, remain unhappy with the candidates and acknowledged that the much-anticipated entry of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson into the race had been bumpy.
Yet he also has spoken positively of Thompson and the other leading contenders, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Just last week, Gingrich said he had given himself a deadline of Oct. 21 to raise $30 million in pledges for a possible White House bid, acknowledging the task was difficult but not impossible.
He abruptly dropped the idea Saturday, apparently unwilling to give up the chairmanship of American Solutions, the political arm of a Gingrich's lucrative empire as an author, pundit and consultant.
American Solutions, a tax-exempt committee he started last October, has paid for Gingrich's travel and has a pollster and fundraiser on staff. The outfit has raised more than $3 million, mostly from two benefactors who each gave $1 million: Sheldon Adelson, chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., and North Carolina real estate developer Fred Godley.
Gingrich makes hundreds of speeches each year, many paid. He will not say how much he charges, and neither will the Washington Speakers Bureau, which books him. But some clients have said they paid $40,000 for a speech.
He also has a contract with Fox News for commentaries and specials; Fox said it does not disclose the terms of its contracts. Gingrich also is a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Gingrich has a daily radio broadcast on more than 400 stations, and he writes a free online newsletter with 200,000 subscribers that is distributed by the conservative news magazine Human Events.
He also has a for-profit think tank, the Center for Health Transformation, which grew out of the consulting firm he started after leaving Congress in 1999.
Gingrich quit Congress when his party, after spotlighting President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, lost seats in the 1998 elections. The next year, Gingrich's involvement with a congressional aide, Callista Bisek, led to his divorce from his second wife, Marianne; he later married Bisek.
Gingrich, 64, tried to rehabilitate his image this year by admitting publicly to his extramarital affair during the Clinton impeachment scandal. He made the admission in an interview last month with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, and he won praise for the acknowledgment from another conservative Christian leader, the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
___
" Cheney to address ( CNP ) - TOP SECRET - far right wing conservative group "
All ( CNP ) Members LIST OF Names at...
http://www.RogerART.com
Click 2 Read... OPEN - LETTER
( WHO'S - really - NUTS - ? ) to
All Members, Bush, Cheney et al. of the FAR Right Wing
Secret Council for National Policy ( CNP )
FREE ( SECRET ) LIST of ALL MEMBERS copy & PASS EM ON
... & OK 2 Copy Pass It On 2 Family, Friends, Your Reps in Congress etc.
http://www.rogerart.com/open_letter_from_rogerart.htm
.
Giuliani could, if nominated, be the first to get 0 electoral votes. He might carry Utah, Idaho, and Mississippi, but only if Hillary is his opponent. Otherwise, its worth a tenspot with good odds to see if I'm right.
Otay @ 10:
I dunno... putting lead paint on his dishware* might actually make him saner.
* Around the 1st century CE, wealthy Romans starting using plates decorated with a lead based paint... it is speculated that this is the reason why so many emperors went insane.
moondancer @ 22:
Yea, he'd be perhaps the one most likely to lose. But so what.
An absolute, fucking nightmare: Rudy.
...
"And Rudy actually thinks he’s FDR."
Actually I think every wingnut and a large number of the more sane conservatives think this is their WWII and their chance to have an FDR shining moment. Of course, FDR made mistakes and the cons only got a W.
cg @ 13:
Because he's a political opportunist interested only in power but he lacks the foresight and intellect to really be a good leader. Just look at what he did during his tenure as mayor, for example, he used his 'power' as mayor to shut down an exhibit of art he found personally objectionable, gave the police powers to eavesdrop on political protesters, put his emergency control center in a building that had previously been attacked by terrorists, refused to give emergency workers the money to buy decent radio gear and so forth. Ask a New Yorker if Rudy would make a good President. You'll get an earful - and these are his 'own people' not a bunch of 5 degrees removed types who watched him pose for the camera during our nation's greatest tragedy.
AConfederacyofDunces @ 25:
You said it. Lucky for us Rudy's idea of proving he's a good "family man" is faking a phonecall from his wife during a speech.
As for John Dean, he forgot the mess Bush has made with the economy and the collosal waste of money on top of lost lives.
Blue Buddha @ 23:
Arsenic was also being used as a sweetener at the time.
Rudy! Giuliani! 9-11 Profiteer! (sung to the tune of "Davey Crockett")
And during Watergate we had a Congress with a spine, and a press that wasn't licking the balls of its corporate master. Where have you gone Bob Woodward?
Curmudgeon Boy @ 30:
because Bob Woodward isn't licking his corporate master's testicles?...
you're being sarcastic.
John Dean: “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.”
Nobody died from the Nixon-Kissinger Watergate abuses of power??? How about hundreds of thousands of Cambodians from 1968-1975 for starters?
According to William Shawcross in his book Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia, what climaxed with the Watergate break-ins and illegal wire taps began with Dick and Hank's "reactions that verged on hysteria" to William Beecher's March 26, 1968 New York Times article leaking the first of the "secret" (from the US Congress) US B-52 carpet bombing raids on neutral Cambodia (pp. 33-35, etc). Kissinger ordered a FBI wiretap on his own aide Morton Halperin in search of the "leak".
"This tap was immediately followed by others. In important, specific detail, these taps infringed the limits of the law. They marked the first of the domestic abuses of power now known as Watergate" (Shawcross 35).
As Dickie and Henry the K. expanded their efforts to keep their war crimes secret, the team of Watergate "plumbers" were assembled to stem the "leaks".
John Dean saying that "nobody died" from the Watergate scandal is sadly equivalent to the present anti-war "movement" naively chanting "Nobody died when Clinton lied"-- forgetting how many hundreds of thousands of death "Bombin' Bill" presided over all through the 1990s.
If Rudy is our next president, you can reach me at 1-800-UNDER-MY-BED.
steve @ 32:
"Bombin' Bill?" You really are an idiot. I doubt Bill Clinton's decision have led to as many death as your Imperator's have. Conservative estimates put the Iraqi casuality count at about 70,000-80,000. All because Bush, that megalomaniac, had to get revenge on Saddamm for trying to kill his daddy.
WTC7 - WTF, G-man??? Just answer the question, please. Just the facts.
This man is not as incompetent as bush. He is evil-spirited, and very, very greedy for both power and wealth. Unfortunately, the current administration has paved the way and shown an obvious path to absolute power for people even more dictatorially-minded than bush. And giuliani is one of those.
Be very, very careful. This is a man who uses fear and pure bullshit almost as well as bush and cheney. His path to power is ready for the taking, thanks to the current WH, and will thus be an easier road since the major obstacles (such as The Constitution) no longer exist.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Dean pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1973. He was the guy in charge of paying off the Watergate burglars from Nixon's re-election slush fund.
He paid his debt to society and helped expose the full extent of Watergate (to the extent it could be exposed - the 18 minute gap in the crucial Nixon tape, and Nixon's true role, are lost to history). But while he was in the WH, he actively aided and abetted Nixon's crimes.
He's a patriot and a man of conscience - but he's no hero.
Strawberry @ 3:
Thanks for pointing out the info from his book. I heard him discussing it on NPR and had no idea how the republicans had changed all the rules when they rose to power 12 years ago. They changed the rules because they couldn't be overridden.
Well, we'll all be paying for this for the rest of our lives. Another reason to really be glad that Gingrich is so damaged that he can't run for Alderman, let alone President.
It would be interesting to see how the republicans in Congress will respond to the newly found (I'm being cordial at best) powers of the executive branch if a dem is elected as President. The "War On Terror" will be diminished to an afterthought compared to the newly found rights of American citizens (that being unapologetically sarcastic). The beauty of it would be seeing Rudi Guilliani complaining of dems exploiting 9/11 for political gain. Herein lies the difference, although the dems could abuse the strong-arming that the current administration has used to gain additional (albeit, illegal) power, they would do the right thing (IMO) and restore the checks and balances that our forefathers had when establishing our government.
The question, in my mind, is how has RG gotten this far already? How did Gee Dumbya Bush get to be president in the first place? These are not simply single standing events. In math and science, when a theory is repeated unfailingly over a long period of time we finally call it a law. With conspiracy theories, if there is actually a conspiracy, is it no longer a theory? The same people who ran the Arkansas project to "get" Bill Clinton helped GWB become president. These same folks will help RG become president--unless there is overwhelming opposition that destroys their power. Just as Al Gore felt that a GW Bush, et al., administration would be better for the country than a protracted battle for the presidency, the Democratic opposition simply does not believe the big guns of law and civil disobedience are necessary to stop the crawl to fascism in this country. And of course, you have the Democratic members of congress (a la Leiberman, Nelson, Tauscher, etc.) who do not actually oppose the direction the hard right wants to take. The Shock Doctrine is the best theory I've heard for a long time that explains what is actually happening in world politics. At what point, however, do we conceded that there is actually a conspiracy? A hundred years into the future after RG has stolen the election with the help of his cohort and the US as we know it no longer exists? Hm. Interesting.
I always felt the biggest events of my life would be related to climate change and exhaustion of natural resources. I should have realized that these events would have major political feedback. I wonder if the Japanese journalist killed in Burma is allegorical of the position intellectuals and scientists find themselves in presently--we are there, we are telling the story as it unfolds, and we are in danger of being silenced in similar brutal fashion.
*cue Twilight Zone theme*
OK, enough deep thinking for a Saturday. I gotta go polish my tinfoil hat.
One crucial difference between Rudy and W.:
Bush is clearly not in charge. Dean says in Conservatives Without Conscience that Cheney is pulling the strings. Bush no doubt gets his way when he figures out what that is, but he's pretty clueless about most things.
On the other hand, Rudy is not likely to be the front man for someone else's bad policies -- just his own. To me, that makes him ever so slightly less dangerous.
I think it was an article in the New Yorker that was headlined something to the effect of "Why the Midwest Loves Everything about Gulliani that New Yorkers Hate". It was an issue within the last month and a half. I read the article, but I didn't really come away with a good understanding of why anyone who had done even an hour of research would like the guy.
There have been several articles over the last couple months with the heading of "Worse then Bush". The important points I came away with is 1) He operates exactly like bushie. Inner circle about as big as a penny. And all his information comes from this circle. 2) His campaign staff are almost all former bushies. And of course the big one 3) His framers have positioned himself as the hero of 9/11. An analysis shows it all revolves around photo ops ("Mission Accomplished" anyone?), and press releases full of lies.
LiberalTarian @ 40:
i dont understand ,you say the repigs have changed the rules in the last twelve yrs ! are the democrats so dence they didnt see it? how long will it be playing catch up till they figure out that weve been sold out by these politicians to the corporations ? seems to me that should be aparent to them when they open up thier bribery envelopes,
I've stated often and again that Rudy has only wanted the keys to the country and above all the POWER of the job of President and then he would send this country further into oblivion with his ratcheting up of what Bush and Cheney have wrought with their ill-informed and reckless decisions. He has the look of 'the Mask' in that Jim Carrey film, and what did that character always say, "Somebody stop me!" Well, that would be Rudy's line for ever and always. So he must be stopped and at any cost. He has to be exposed for the fraud and arrogant presumptor he is.
The list of consecutive failures that results in this is astounding. Starting with Gore being decent with a murderous thug during the election to hundreds of others. Anyone of which could have stopped these animals.
They now have:
1) An executive packed with acolytes
2) A court packed with acolytes
3) A legislature that is controlled by acolytes
4) An army that is controlled by acolytes
5) Criminal connections with foreign governments - Saudi Arabia and others
6) A mercenary army
7) Criminal connections to international corporations
8 ) A body of law that Hitler Stalin would have admired
... anybody getting this? Ok Polyanna, so you expect them to behave decently ... when? You plan to do what when you get power? Did you expect the same after 2006?
tyree @ 43:
Tyree, that's EXACTLY what John dean is saying. Many of the committees that the repigs formed didn't even allow Dems to be on them. Read the book. Seriously, please read it. dems were completely shut out and only found about many laws AFTER they were drummed through late at night buried in the Patriot Act.
It's a fairly short easy read, well worth the time. But it sure got me in a bad mood!
The lesson here is that when YOU let one criminal get away with it even an inch, the next crime will be larger.
Nixon got away with it, by resigning without really any conviction.....public humiliation was all he got.
Then there was Reagan & Bush I, who got away with the Iran Contra Scandal.....nothing happen to that either. public humiliation.
Then there was Clinton, perjury, adultery, impeachment without any conviction....got away easy also.
If this was ANY of us, we would have been convicted of a crime and sentences to prison.
I read Clintons book MY LIFE......
And he admitted that he did what he did because "he could". he was the President and he could basically do what ever he wants to do.......just don't get caught.
What GOOD is it to have LAWS when there's no teeth to any bite?
So in essence the LAWS generally applies only to those they govern. which are the citizens of United States. Any laws can be adjusted internally if you have a rubber stamp legislature to change the laws to fit the needs of the President and what ever his agenda that he is trying to accomplish.
It has been proven that, that was the case with BUSH II. That is why he is getting away with MURDER......
SO the question is DO AMERICAN still TRULY believe that we are in a DEMOCRACY, when evidence shows that all AMERICANS are being treated EQUAL? WHO gave them permission to AMEND LAWS so that the balance of EQUALITY tilts more to the government over it's people? WHAT is the PUBLIC role in this system? And WHO are the PUBLIC SERVANTS, in this scenerio? WHO reprimands or fires a servant who does NOT do it's duty? The Police Chief is suppose to ANSWER to the people, and NOT the politicians. If someone commits a CRIME as citizens WE have the option to REPORT the CRIME. And the POLICE department investigator team is suppose to investigate the complaint. THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG with this system.
when evidence shows that all AMERICANS are being treated EQUAL? I MEANT UNEQUAL
[...] (Hat tip: Steve Benen, Crooks & Liars) [...]
Tough cookies for John Dean and his radlib admirers. Come Jan. 20, 2009 sing Hail to the Chief to Rudy Giuliani.
Obviously John Dean hasn't been coming on C&L. If he were, he'd understand from the commenters that Hillary Clinton is the real threat to America.
Annoyed Canuck @ 37:
I've heard him speak many times over the past few years, and he would be the last person to claim that he's a hero. But I do thank him for his scholarly examinations of the functioning (or nonfunctioning) of our government.
Curmudgeon Boy @ 30:
You know it's pretty bad when people think of Watergate as the "good old days."
The stakes are very high. Americans need to mobilize in every way. I am a foreigner. If I come to protest, I may be shipped off to Syria-- enemy combatant. But the street protests have to begin.
I know big money runs everything, but no one likes an angry MOB! Very hard to control-- endangers their riches (see 1789 France).
mudshark @ 12:
I haven't read it, but think it's naive to think the Dems can waltz in and fix everything in 10 months. The GOP has a stranglehold on Washington, and uses terror to keep it all secret. It'll take years and years to "fix" it, if that ever happens. All governemnets like mega-power; spying is good?
Why do republicans hate sex and drugs and rock and roll. If you ask me, they're way better than war, torture and police states. People would be happier with the former.
After reading the foreign policy plan from Rudy in Foreign Affairs, Dean is correct.
Rudy is one scary goon.
With the damage that has been done during the Bush administration, I don't think party affiliation matters in who gets elected. We are going to have to watch them very carefully because that is an awful lot of power for anyone to give up. And I don't entirely trust any of them.
Out of all the Repub candidates, Rudy scares me more than anyone! Don't get me wrong, Tancredo & Hunter scare the hell out of me, but Rudy is the scariest, because he actually has a chance of winning!
I hope Newt runs!
Edwin @ 55:
that's why everyone here has been up in arms for a long time now...beause some of the things that got broken during this admin....might not get fixed at all. And The next Pres will have an incredible work load trying to fix what the neocons destroyed in the country and abroad.
Edwin @ 55:
Mudshark [at] 59. I hear ya. I have been up in arms since before it was even fashionable. Maybe I've always been up in arms? I don't like cops or politicians. Question authority, you know.
mudshark @ 60:
Thank you to all the above. Rather than spout venom, you are intelligently looking at the real problems in the government. I much prefer that to the vitriol I've seen on this site this week!
Glad to hear Gingrich is not running. In my opinion, he was someone who could have rallied the Republican base. He's smart, and he's a smooth talker; knows how to manipulate a situation to his advantage.
Now if only Mitt, Rudy, and Fred can create friction within the Republican party and keep them fighting amongst themselves, the Democratic candidate may have a chance.
However, if one of them is the clear favorite, and can rally their base while SwiftBoating the Democrats, they may again pull this out in 2008.
Democrats need to stop the bickering and come together with one unified voice. Makes no difference who the eventual candidate is; we all need to rally behind him or her.
Strawberry @ 46:
Bullshit. Dean is a lying SOB as well as Shrub is.
I always thought that after re-electing your current turnip you all deserved whatever you got. If Giuliani gets elected, not only do you deserve whatever you get, you are officially the dumbest population on the planet.
Dude, if RG is elected, I am getting the hell out of dodge. Expect a whole lotta brain drain, because I don't plan to be here for the cataclysm. I am the daughter of immigrants who had the brains and the guts to get out of Europe when the getting was good. Sure I love my country, but only while my country loves me. If liberal values are out, so am I.
JR @ 64:
• Gingrich is a CO-CONSPIRATOR in the Iraq Genocide. He has committed capital crimes.
Mukasey, who the Bushoviks are trying to install at AG, is, with his son, two MEMBERS OF GUILIANI’S NEO-CON 20-Member STAR CHAMBER, along with arch-Bushovics Ted Olson, Michael Estrada (who they tried to install on the federal bench), Calabresi (co-founder of Federalist Society), Larry Thompson (worked for Gonzales), Carol Dinkins (worked with Gonzales in Texas), Maureen Mahoney (”the female John Roberts”), Doug Cox (litigator in Bush v. Gore), and some others.
TWO out of the twenty hardcore Bushovics who are members of Ted Olson’s Neocon Cabal are named MUKASEY.
We ALREADY HAD A GONZALES. He sucked.
We need an Attorney General, not someone who sits five paces from Ted Olson and nods his head.
Ramone @ 66:
And YOU WERE WRONG.
The 2004 election was stolen. The evidence of that is quite clear, but on top of that, Bush's campaign chair/Ohio SecState Blackwell REFUSED to do a court-ordered recount, even after being threatened with contempt.
He's gone, and so are complicit SecStates in FL and CA as well. And the electronic vote-fraud system they tried to install is being dismantled, though more work is needed by EVERYONE who has any voice at all.
We didn't 'reelect Bush' -- we NEVER elected him. Any country can have a coup with enough conspirators, and we have a beehive full, and they have stung the shit out of us.
That tide is turning, and the bees are falling dead from various democratic micro-organisms, such as the blogs, the protesters, and the slowly resurrecting Justice Dept. Blaming us for a coup is as meaningful as blaming the sun for global warming. We don't turn the crank on the sun, and we don't have any way of stopping a coup if the R party wants to destroy itself in the process, as they have.
CensoredFan @ 65:
Dear Mr. Frybread:
#1) Bush is not "my Imperator", as you put it, just because I bring up Bill Clinton's own bloodbaths. Bush the Second has finally surpassed Clinton the First in blood spilt-- can't wait to see who Clinton the Second will slaughter. The Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same imperial Washington war party as far as I can see-- remember Vietnam? US citizens must progress beyond my-team-versus-your-team, black-and-white thinking.
#2) Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on a regular, almost weekly basis all through his presidency. Read the newspapers.
#3) According to the UN, Bill Clinton presided over the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, deaths caused by the most draconian economic sanctions ever imposed in modern history. When asked about these deaths, Clinton's Secretary of State declared them "worth it". Nice.
#4) The most conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths by violence since the 2003 US attack, invasion, and ongoing occupation remains G.W. Bush's cavalier "about 30,000 more or less"-- two years ago. Yes, Iraq Body Count (IBC www.iraqbodycount.org ) estimates 70,000 to 80,000 based solely on deaths reported in Western news media. But IBC itself admits these figures are a gross undercount.
As you know, Mr. Frybread, the most scientifically conducted and statistically valid estimate of Iraqi mortality since the the 2003 US attack and occupation are the two Johns Hopkins University School of Pulbic Health on-the-ground epidemiological studies published in the British medical journal The Lancet. The second study published in October 2006 estimated Iraqi deaths in excess of normal morbidity since March 2003 was 655,000. That number came out one year ago. It's probably closer to or has passed 1 million dead by now.
Great Frybread King @ 34:
Mr. Frybread:
Here's a working link to the most scientifically conducted and statistically valid estimate of Iraqi mortality since the the 2003 US attack and occupation-- the two Johns Hopkins University School of Pulbic Health on-the-ground epidemiological studies published in the British medical journal The Lancet. The second study published in October 2006 estimated Iraqi deaths in excess of normal morbidity since March 2003 was 655,000. That number came out one year ago. It’s probably closer to or has passed 1 million dead by now.
Oh, and Mr. Frybread... nice job completely ignoring the point of my post and the point of the original C&L blog article... that the Watergate abuses began with Nixon and Kissinger's frantic attempts to coverup their own secret bombing of Cambodia-- 200,000 or more dead Cambodians and a countryside utterly destroyed by heavy US carpet bombing and made ready for Pol Pot and the genocidal Kymer Rouge. So the idea that "no one died when Nixon lied" about the final Watergate Hotel break-ins needs some correction.
steve @ 71: "just because I bring up Bill Clinton's own bloodbaths. ...
#2) Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on a regular, almost weekly basis all through his presidency."
Those NFZ bombings, during Clinton's terms did not kill any significant number of persons, such as you have claimed.
"#3) According to the UN, Bill Clinton presided over the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, deaths caused by the most draconian economic sanctions ever imposed in modern history. When asked about these deaths, Clinton's Secretary of State declared them "worth it". Nice."
Albright's malignity aside, blaming Clinton exclusively for that UN project is fallacious.
"Nobody died from the Nixon-Kissinger Watergate abuses of power??? How about hundreds of thousands of Cambodians from 1968-1975 for starters?"
If you are going to blame the Cambodian genocide on Nixon, fine with me, but to suggest that Watergate was the cause of the Cambodian genocide is hilarious.
"...forgetting how many hundreds of thousands of death "Bombin' Bill" presided over all through the 1990s."
You are conflating the deaths due to Food for Oil with the NFZ bombings, and perhaps the Kosovo bombings (which, according to Samantha Power, saved 150,000 lives), which is a fallacy.
Clinton's "Desert Fox" successfully destroyed Hussein's high-explosives factory. Nothing wrong with that action.
Ah, but, I don't wish to appear to defend Dean's thesis either. The suggestion that domestically Bush is far worse than Nixon is correct, but to claim that his crimes were restricted to Watergate is of course ridiculous.
It also must be pointed out that Nixon actually won his landslide election before he resigned. Bush has never won a legal election in his lifetime, so far as I can tell. He was installed.
Personally, I believe that LBJ installed himself, which is even more illegal. LBJ started bombing Cambodia in 1965 (but they didn't use B-52s because it was a more targeted bombing, for close support of CIA and other covert troops). His entire political career was funded by Brown of Brown & Root, and he made them a ton of money.
Also, Nixon's actions took place during a decade of heightened Cold War tensions, which Bush didn't face at all.
So my comparison is between LBJ and Bush, and I think that they were both mass-murderers and warmongers, unlike Nixon, who was just a mass-murderer.
Paul in LA @ 70:
Clinton bombed a goddamn pharmaceutical company and the only people that don't friggin' admit that are American Democratic Party supporters.
Dear Paul in LA (not Mr. Frybread, I guess):
I was not reversing or conflating history by claiming the Watergate Hotel break-in caused Nixon's secret and unconstitutional carpet bombing of Cambodia. That claim would be absurd.
Please read my FIRST post in Comment #32 above where I reference William Shawcross's claim in his excellent book:
======
Nobody died from the Nixon-Kissinger Watergate abuses of power??? How about hundreds of thousands of Cambodians from 1968-1975 for starters?
According to William Shawcross in his book Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia, what climaxed with the Watergate break-ins and illegal wire taps began with Dick and Hank’s “reactions that verged on hysteria” to William Beecher’s March 26, 1968 New York Times article leaking the first of the “secret” (from the US Congress) US B-52 carpet bombing raids on neutral Cambodia (pp. 33-35, etc). Kissinger ordered a FBI wiretap on his own aide Morton Halperin in search of the “leak”.
“This tap was immediately followed by others. In important, specific detail, these taps infringed the limits of the law. They marked the first of the domestic abuses of power now known as Watergate” (Shawcross 35).
As Dickie and Henry the K. expanded their efforts to keep their war crimes secret, the team of Watergate “plumbers” were assembled to stem the “leaks”.
======
Sideshow is a great book, meticulously documented. I recommend it highly.
Paul in LA @ 74:
Dear Paul in LA (I'm in LA, too. Hi, Neighbor!):
By NFZ you mean the "No Fly Zones" unilaterally and illegally imposed over Iraqi airspace by the US and UK governments?
Can you tell us how many civilians (not to mention Iraqi military guilty of defending their own airspace) were killed by US and UK bombers in weekly raids all through the 1990s? How many? I never claimed a number-- I just called him "Bombin' Bill".
The 500,000 dead Iraqi children is very serious. When the Pentagon in its own documents admits to deliberately bombing Iraqi water purification plants during the 1991 Gulf War with the long-term aim of causing waterborne disease in the civilian population and then the UN sanctions bullied through by the US deliberately deny Iraq the chlorine (among many, many other items vital to civilian public health) to cleanse their water and that policy is kept in place by the Clinton Administration (Albright worked for Clinton) and that policy results in the 500,000 dead Iraqi children, then yes Bill Clinton and Bush 1 and Bush 2 all bear responsibility.
Paul in LA @ 74:
steve @ 80: "By NFZ you mean the "No Fly Zones" unilaterally and illegally imposed over Iraqi airspace by the US and UK governments?"
And the French.
"Can you tell us how many civilians (not to mention Iraqi military guilty of defending their own airspace) were killed by US and UK bombers in weekly raids all through the 1990s?"
Few civilians. There have been no reports of large civilian casualties from the (illegal) targeting of radar stations.
"The 500,000 dead Iraqi children is very serious."
You leave out the one million adults who also died under that policy.
"policy is kept in place by the Clinton Administration (Albright worked for Clinton)"
The only thing I was objecting to was your claim that Clinton killed hundreds of thousands by bombing. That's flatly untrue.
I've read it. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we now know that LBJ began bombing Cambodia in 1965, which Shawcross didn't know.
I don't disagree that the US committed a genocide from the air in Cambodia on an awesome scale.
I blame LBJ for that, and also for making money on it. To my knowledge, Nixon didn't make money on the war, so I tend to consider him a weak president like Clinton, who was buillied by the Pentagon, even though Nixon was ten times more evil than Bill Clinton. LBJ and Bush are something else -- persons who reached the presidency by disaster and installation, not by elections.
Cheers, Steve.
Paul in LA @ 81:
No. You are right. His methods were much slower.
Paul in LA @ 82:
>
OK, Paul and Mr. Frybread, I apologize for calling Bill Clinton "Bombin' Bill"-- I did not mean to imply that Clinton the First killed 500,000 Iraqi plus 1 million adult Iraqis (have it your way, Paul) through bombing. He did bomb (Paul still can't give me any actual numbers or sources, I notice). Clinton (and Bush 1 and 2) presided over 1.5 million Iraqi deaths mostly through strangulation of an innocent civilian population. That's all.
BTW, here's an interesting article from Alexander Coburn about how the Clinton Administration sabotaged the UN weapons inspections in 1997 when they were about to declare Iraq "WMD free". Since such a declaration would have meant killed the rationale behind the murderous sanctions on Iraq:
Interesting article, yes?
miss_kitty @ 83:
steve @ 85:
Cockburn is not always reliable; here he quotes Scott Ritter's argument.
• Iraq suspended cooperation with the UN in August 1998, a year and half after Albright's statements.
• Desert Fox successfully destroyed Al-Qaqaa's high-explosives factory, which was a good thing to accomplish -- at least until Bush left AQ wide open for looting of those materials.
The Pentagon controlled Clinton rather than the reverse. I protested him many times during the 90s, so we are on the same page about a lot of this. However, his bombing of Iraq and the NFZ bombings did not kill many civilians, which remains my sole point. 'Bombin' Bill' is alliterative, but not particularly accurate.
Login or Register to post comments.