I've read most of John Dean's books and enjoy them. This was a good book, very interesting and informative about the evil tenure of Bush/Cheney. I'm sure it's dead on with what went on behind the scenes and how we got into the sorry mess of a country that we are today largely due to these 2 idiots.

While the book is old (written prior to the 2004 election) and politics tends to change very rapidly, there is still quite a lot of relevant information. Dean dissects the Bush regime and compares it to Nixon's. He points out what Nixon did wrong and how Bush is following the same path. He does so in an intellectual manner and doesn't resort to Bush bashing or name calling like some books I have read. All of Deans points are well thought out and backed with evidence from sources from across the political spectrum. Overall, even though this is an old book, it is still a very good and worthwhile read.

This book is a bit dated as it was originally written before the 2004 elections but it has been updated a bit past that point so it still has relevancy today. Any impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and their minions should use this book for talking points. Mr. Dean points out all the horrific and illegal things this White House has done that are far and above what President Nixon ever did. It also makes the "impeachment" of Bill Clinton look even sillier than the total farce it was. These two (and others in the administration) should be in jail.

Worse Than Watergate by John Dean is worth reading just because of the title and who he is. John Dean, counsel to the Nixon White House, says that the Bush/Cheney White House is "worse than Watergate" -- that is like Jesse Ventura calling someone an obnoxious loudmouth! The book was published in 2004, ahead of the presidential election, so by the time I found it on the bargain table, it was somewhat dated. However, Bush/Cheney are STILL in power, and while the country has largely turned against them because of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, Dean's real case against them describes the more subtle ways that the Bush II administration has weakened our democracy.

The main beef that Dean has with Bush and Cheney is their secrecy. True, this is definitely a politically motivated treatise written by neither a scholar nor journalist, but it is also true that Dean has researched his topic well and that he has some first-hand experience in the matter of damage caused by a secretive executive branch. Worse Than Watergate is not going to sway Bush supporters -- if they haven't lost their confidence in his leadership by now, they are never going to budge. But, Dean has an interesting perspective, and if you are capable of separating the facts from the commentary, this short book is definitely worth the read.

This book is a well researched and documented examination of the excesses of the Bush/Cheney presidency and how this came to be. In the book, Dean looks at the issues of secrecy within the White House, lying and dirty tricks. And, if there is anyone, anywhere who knows more about this subject I would love to see who they are.

Dean does a wonderful job of comparing and contrasting the current regime with the Nixon presidency and writes in a clear, concise and easy to read manner. I look forward to reading his other 2 books, as to learn more about what has gone wrong with the current Republican Party.

This is a must read for any American who wants to see this country remain free!

The first in a trilogy of books by former Nixon counsel, John Dean, "Worse Than Watergate - The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" is a must read book for every American today who wants to understand the mechanics at work in the current administration. Mr. Dean, a life-long Republican and a Washington insider for most of his long career, is fully qualified to delve into the inner workings of the White House. It was John Dean who had gone to President Richard Nixon and advised him that the activities surrounding the watergate activities were illegal and that they should be stopped. When Nixon refused to do so, Dean went to the authorities and turned himself in. It was Dean's testimony that ultimately led to the investigations and the resignation of Richard Nixon from office. It is with this insight and perspective that Dean examines the current Bush administration and draws a comparison between them.

The contents of this book are very well researched and presented in a clear, concise and non-inflammatory manner. This is not a book based on character assassination or slander. Rather, what you will find are coherent and publicly available facts outlining the activities of the Bush administration. Dean begins by drawing the comparison between the Nixon administration and the Bush administration by showing the similarities in patterns of behavior and policies. He then begins to unfold in a methodical fashion how the Bush administration has, from day one, systematically engaged in a campaign of stone walling and secret agendas designed to keep information away from the public eye. The hidden agendas and obsessive secrecy employed by this administration are exposed for examination. Some of the activities revealed are downright shocking and disturbing to say the least. For those who are skeptical of the contents of the book, almost every sentence in the book is footnoted and referenced back to the source material from where the information came. So it is extremely easy to check and verify if the information is accurate.

The book is well paced and easy to read and engaging which makes for a very quick read. Unfortunately, the information contained within it's pages is quite disturbing. Nevertheless, it is information that all Americans should be aware of no matter how unpleasant it might be. The Bush administration has done an excellent job of sweeping important facts under the rug and out of sight and this book contains very critical information that should be understood by the electorate. President Bush, as Nixon, has operated outside and above the law and has pursued an agenda that has thrust this country into a diabolical war that is now pushing a price tag of almost $600 billion with no signs of stopping. Dean makes it very clear that the purpose of his book is to educate the population and to make it clear that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached for their willful misconduct, outright lies, and obsessive secret agenda that has now attacked the very foundations of our democracy and civil liberties.

If there was any question or doubt that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were and are sleaze-ball gangsters, you the doubter, will abandon your doubts once you read this book. They are truly frightening men, without morals and without conscience. Yes, they and all they have done is much worse than Watergate.

I finished this book in 2 days because I was so intrigued at not only the shocking comaprison's between Bush and Nixon but that the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration would make Nixon roll over in his grave upset he had not thought off executing his plan in the precise fashion the Bush-Cheney administration has. Ironically after I finished reading this book I was reading an article in the paper about Cheney not allowing the public to see his visitation log at his executive residence (which is customary for this information to be public)citing executive privilege (which never included VP's until Bush amended the law). Why can't the public see who has been to his home? Another article was on Bush not going along with the EU's plan to reduce emissions in the environment in an effort to stop global warming. He says he was going to think of another more efficient plan. Just reading those two articles after this book just confimed everything I read in this book which is very scary in terms of where our nation is headed.

Dean is on the right track in so many ways, but honestly, it's only slightly worse than Watergate, as described in this book. With enough sleazy lawyers, they have managed to find a legal justification or distorted precedent for most of this stuff. All the Family Jewels investigations in the `70's is not quite dwarfed by what the Bush Administration had done by `05. In the last year and half, though, things have changed. Congress is not allowed to further investigate how much the NSA was ordered to violate the FISA in its eavesdropping on the orders of the President? Karl Rove and the Justice Department lie to Congress to get the Patriot Act altered in March '06 to give the President sole authority to appoint interim U.S. federal attorneys, without Senate confirmation of candidates, and without a requirement for moving to permanent replacements? Then they immediately use it to replace unbiased federal attorney's with ones that will be "loyal Bushies and play ball" so they can try and rig the run-up to the '08 elections by only allowing corruption investigations of democrats and overturning elections that don't go their way? I mean, what the hell?! That is FAR worse than anything Nixon did. That is a downright attempt to subvert the republic. Is it possible NSA and FBI illegal conduct has also been used for political purposes? Is the Bush Administration now worried if another Republican doesn't get the presidency that the true extent of their corruption will finally be investigated? Quite simply, the behavior of the administration right now amounts to Guilty Demeanor. They appear to be in a panic, attempting to hold control by whatever means possible, even if it means invoking executive privilege and classifying the hell out of everything they can. Dean has good instinct, but it's only recently that his posit has been proven out.

John Dean's insight is profound. Everyone should have read this book as soon as it hit the book shelves, but it's still not too late. Like Nixon, Bush does not believe he should have to answer to anyone. It's really frightening.

"I hate Bush because he is a Republican" by John W. Dean.

In college I took a class in modern American history and in it made a minor study of Watergate. Based on what I came to know of him from that research, I don't like John Dean, and wouldn't trust him if he said the sky was overhead.

But you know, I'll say this, John Dean, has written a fairly astute book. Frankly, I found it frightening and credible, and to have had so much damning evidence under one cover made Worse Than Watergate worth reading. If there is little here that hasn't been said elsewhere, then it is clearer today than it was three years ago that Dean was right more often than wrong, and our current President and members of his covert-minded administration did indeed use the September 2001 attacks for some extremely self-serving ends. A problem with Dean's work, though, is that it suggests much but concretely proves little. It is as if Dean is scared to take the final step and openly state what he is merely asserting.

Is our forty-third President the worst ever occupant of the Oval Office? Is he a criminal? If one is to believe everything written here, someone might walk away thinking so. But let's look at Dean's probable motives in authoring Worse Than Watergate. Personally I think Dean penned this book because A) he wanted money; B) he had an ax to grind with some figures still in Washington; C) he thinks drawing attention to the conduct of others expiates his own lies, dirty dealings and betrayals. "They're worse than Nixon and I were? See? So that makes me not so bad." It often seems he's wanting to say just that.

Dean's book is an easy read and quite compelling. Cheney and Rumsfeld's attitudes are even more scary to "Freedom-Loving People" than Bush's.
The book carefully explains much of the positioning by Cheney and Rumsfeld to make the Bush administration even less accountable than the Nixon administration was. Yikes!

I wonder about those that tell all. Like how "Deep Throat" turned out to be someone with an axe to grind and that's why we learned about Nixon. Sort of frightening to think of all the wrong-doing that never gets uncovered because there's just no one hanging around with a chip on his or her shoulder. What are John Dean's motives? What were they back when he went on the stand during Nixon's hearings? I wonder about that.

In the end I don't really care. The information presented in this book was known well before John Dean wrote about it. The fact that there was at best only a weak case for war is also not new information. Of course if you watch Fox News alone there's no way you would know that. Unfortunately, because so many people like that day-time tv talk show style of "news" dissemination, most people watch Fox News and so have no clear idea what's going on in the world. As far as most people know, the Muslims knocked down the World Trade Center, so now we must knock the Muslims down. If we get the wrong ones, why, hell, everyone knows the only good injun is a dead... oops, sorry, wrong group of heathens.

Sue Lange
author, Tritcheon Hash

Dean did a fantastic job footnoting his evidence, data and sources; he gives the reader ample information if they want to explore this information further (or make a vain attempt to refute it).

Like other reviewers, I'm not sure why this book did not get more press. Dean briefly points out that the media has done a terrible job covering Bush and Cheney, as most of the major news outlets just seem to flow along with the spin. This is not a theme of the book, just a digression. Sorry.

Dean does a nice job cataloging Bush and Cheney's business failures and questionable deals, their rampantly unethical 2000 campaign and their mistakes, failures, lies, cover-ups and spins up through the spring of 2004.

Other books are now being published that have picked up on the same scholarly and impassioned path as Dean; they are "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks (about the disaster of war in Iraq) and "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind (taken from a Cheney statement that the US needs to go all out, even if there is only a 1% chance that terrorists have enough power and will to attack America).

Look, this is just another Bush Bash of the day. John simply pulls his topics from the most prevalent headlines of the time he and proceeds to rant on them with little reliable reference. As we distance ourselves from 2004 with the passage of time, his arguments break down further and further. The key arguments regarding the subject of "secrecy" are more like the end of a Jenga game than the beginning, with the "leaker" of Plame's name out (Richard Armitage) vindicating the administration, neither the Butler or Senate Intelligence Committee Reports refuting the "16 words", and the deficit falling and tax revenue climbing. Time has already rendered this book unreliable and discredited.

On the subject of how it is written, think of a C student writing a C paper in 14 point type and 3 inch margins in hopes that the professor is not savvy enough to realize it is 3 pages of text stretched to fit 20. It is poorly referenced, unscholarly written, and full of John's interpretation and conjecture. His topics are in the form of one or two words. If he started each paragraph, "The topic of this paragraph is..." you might not notice the difference.

John Dean is not a good read. He was just trying to make an easy buck during the 2004 campaign season. Even if you hate Bush, don't patronize this "intellectually lazy" author.

This book should be required reading for all Americans. I do not understand why this Bush and Cheney are still in power. Based on "W's" falling approval ratings, Americans seem to be waking up, but we need to "throw the scoundrels out."
I hope John Dean is working on an update.

After reading several books of this type (Bush sucks, therefore send him packing), I'm struck by how defeatist in tone they tend to be. All of them seem bewildered as to how a man as myopic and selfish as Bush can continue to remain in office. I can relieve their fevered searching with an answer: because Democrats, the press, and last, but certainly not least, the American people have been spineless in standing up to the inane and self-serving policies Bush has practiced. I think it's high time we as a people reinstituted an age-old American tradition called democracy and march en masse on the capital demanding congress impeach and prosecute Bush for war crimes, fraud, lying to congress, etc.

I mean, this book is OK and all, but there are already far too many reasons to give this administration the boot without having to read tome after tome relating how bad things are. The public and Congress already have enough evidence to impeach Bush, they're simply too frightened (or perhaps too out of touch) to follow through.

Contact your Congress Persons, write letters, start petitions, stir the pot, folks! But whatever you do, don't sit there complaining about how bad things have gotten. The only thing worse than a bad president is a lazy, timid republic.

I am suspcious of most politically motivated books. This one is no exception. It seems everyone wants to take potshots at our 43rd commander-in-chief. However, there is a common thread that runs through most of the critiques of the Bush presidency: DECEIT!! These attacks seem more "on the money" than ever before in light of the new evidence coming from foreign war correspondents and high-level officials within our own government that the Iraq war was a "done deal", and that supposed weapons of mass decep...er destruction,which were the alleged reason for going to war, was just the excuse needed to do what the warmongers were mongering to do from the beginning.
The book overdoes it, like most Bush-Bashing books, but is an interesting read, no matter what side of the isle your politicians sit.

Especially when it comes from one of their own. If we had any balance of power in this nation right now Bush would be long gone. The only reason why he isn't is because there are no real investigations into any of his crimes. Histroy will reveal all...

For those who have a knee-jerk belief in the infallibility of George Bush and Dick Cheney, this book is not for you. Denial and projection are strong defense mechanisms.

But this book isn't supposed to be about anyone's beliefs, it's supposed to be about facts. That's what John Dean delivers. The facts are events that have occurred, and words the Bush administration have said. John Dean gives us his interpretation, and then tells us why. Of course, he makes it clear that he feels Bush's actions and inactions are criminal. Hence, the title.

This book has three things going for it. It is written by a former republican who worked in the White House for a paranoid an intensely conservative president for that era, which means he cannot be accused of being a knee-jerk liberal. Two, the book is interesting and readable. Dean explains government workings in a way the layman can easily follow.Third, he presents his arguments effectively as a lawyer and White House insider.

I hope readers of all political stripes will read this. If you're liberal, you will take it at face value. But here is my challenge to conservative thinkers: Read the book. Catalogue all claims to facts, and then, see how many errors you can find. It is a much better pursuit than some of the shrill, caffeine-induced reviews before and after mine.

If nothing else, you will be better informed.

For those who have a knee-jerk belief in the infallibility of George Bush and Dick Cheney, this book is not for you. Denial and projection are strong defense mechanisms.

But this book isn't supposed to be about anyone's beliefs, it's supposed to be about facts. That's what John Dean delivers. The facts are events that have occurred, and words the Bush administration have said. John Dean gives us his interpretation, and then tells us why. Of course, he makes it clear that he feels Bush's actions and inactions are criminal. Hence, the title.

This book has three things going for it. It is written by a former republican who worked in the White House for a paranoid an intensely conservative president for that era, which means he cannot be accused of being a knee-jerk liberal. Two, the book is interesting and readable. Dean explains government workings in a way the layman can easily follow.

I hope readers of all political stripes will read this. If you're liberal, you will take it at face value. But here is my challenge to conservative thinkers: Read the book. Catalogue all claims to facts, and then, see how many errors you can find. It is a much better pursuit than some of the shrill, caffeine-induced reviews before and after mine.

If nothing else, you will be better informed.

Yeah, I happen to agree that the Bush administration is incompetent. Bush spends like a drunken democrat (Teddy K.?) and he's even slower than Democrat John Conyers. Watching grass grow is more exciting than listening to Conyers string out a simple sentence for five minutes. I do give Bush credit for nominating Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Maybe they can marginalize the ACLU witch Ginsberg who was foisted on us by the pathetic, zipper-challenged Clintoon. Dean comes across like a jailhouse snitch. So sneaky, the way he ratted out Nixon for glory. Let's face it - a little break-in to the dem headquarters to snoop around is nothing compared to Marxist Hillary hiring the hapless Livingstone to secretly peruse hundreds of confidential FBI files on Hill's "enemies. And they said Nixon was paranoid? Then there's Bill Clintoon selling secrets to China and pardoning drug runners like Dan Lassiter and neer-do-wells like Mark Rich and on and on ad infinitum. Dean is just insipid the way he lurks on the fringes waiting to capitalize on the misfortunes and screwups of others. The recycled title sounds so self serving - Hey, somebody look at me! I'm the selfless, heroic sneak who exposed Nixon and I need attention. Buy my book and line my pockets. So blatantly opportunistic-- all IMHO.

It's hard to tell. One manufactures his product out of leftover porcine odds and ends, and the other makes sausages.

John W. "Jimmy" Dean cranks the handle of his hard left Michael Moore-Molly Ivans-Al Franken sausage machine, and produces yet another mishmashed, facile, silly volume on what a bad guy the President is. It reminds me of the old joke about prison inmates who call out numbers instead of telling the whole joke. Maybe Jimmy could do something similar for political commentary, calling out "1" for Election 2000, "2" for WMDs, "3" for TANG, "4" for Carlyle Group and "5" for Halliburton, saving him the trouble of writing, and us the trouble of reading, the same old rehashed stuff.

Anyhow, let's examine the actual content of Jimmy Dean's sausage, to see if it consists of pure pork meat -- or tripe. In his own words...

1. "what I did not want to do: invent facts, appeal to emotions rather than intelligence, engage in vicious name-calling, and fail to provide documentation" (p xiv).

A. "...invent facts..."

i. The Scooter Libby leak of Valerie Plame's name was "against the law" (p x). It was? Says who? Certainly not Patrick Fitzgerald, who indicted Libby for the supposed cover-up, not the leak itself. Jimmy even goes on to state that the leak was so deadly serious because of Ms Plame's "undercover status" (pp x, 159). Ms Plame was undercover? Says who? Not Mr. Fitzgerald, who admitted that Ms Plame's cover was known outside the C.I.A. Actually, Mr. Fitzgerald's exact words were that her status was "not widely known outside the intelligence community" (Fitzgerald press conference, Oct. 28, 2005) which is a lawyer's way of saying "people outside the intelligence community already knew she worked for the C.I.A. so I can't pin that one on Scooter."

(Call me crazy, but if your wife's an undercover agent, it's not exactly the wisest course of action to write an op-ed in the largest U.S. newspaper announcing yourself as an agent of the U.S. Government. But that's just me, I'm obviously unschooled in the subtle ways of Foggy Bottom.)

ii. Bush overspending means that there will simply be "no money available to pay for social programs after this Administration" (p xvi). I'll put my response as tactfully as I can. Any moron can make an outrageous claim about the cause of an event occurring in the past (e.g., Bush invaded Iraq to help Halliburton) and it's hard to definitively refute. However, when a person makes a claim about the cause of a future event, well then, all you have to do is wait and see whether that person was correct, or a moron. Something tells me that Jimmy Dean will be proven to be a moron when, on January 20, 2009, social programs still exist in America.

iii. Bush removing war protesters from travel routes is an "obvious illegality" and an "unconstitutional" and "malevolent" practice (pp 64-5). It is? Says who? Jimmy's endnotes refer to a lawsuit styled Acorn v. City of Philadelphia, CA 03-4312 (E.D.Pa. 2003). The lawsuit was dismissed in May 2004.

iv. David Gregory is "about as low-key television journalist as can be found" (p 71). I swear I read stuff like this and wonder if it's in there just because the author felt like he needed a laugh.

v. Bush supposedly announced the "end of hostilities in Iraq" (p 74) onboard USS Abraham Lincoln. He did? Actually, he announced the end of "major combat operations" such as mass sorties, cruise missile launches and strategic troop movements. Exact words: "my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended" (CNN.com, May 1, 2003).

vi. Relating to war and international law, "very soon" is not the same thing as "imminent" (p 153). Who does Jimmy think he's fooling?

vii. L'affaire Plame shows evidence of a "criminal conspiracy" (pp 175-6). It does? Who has been indicted for conspiracy?

B. "...appeal to emotions rather than intelligence..."

i. Bush is "demanding complete control over government information" (p xv). Oh please. What totally hyperbolic nonsense. Has he canceled FOIA? You know what stuff like this reminds me of? It reminds me of the morons during the Clinton Administration who were always talking about Vince Foster and Mena Airport.

ii. Bush tried to disrupt the Florida Election 2000 recount by flying in protesters "all to intimidate Florida election officials" (p 5). Give me a break. If Florida election officials can be intimidated by 20 preppies, they have serious emotional problems.

iii. Bush is not "Junior" (p 6). To be a "junior" the son's names must match the father's. Bush 41 is George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bush 43 is George Walker Bush.

iv. Jimmy presents a scenario where Tom DeLay becomes president and passes it off as a real possibility (p 41).

v. Bush's flight suit is not a "pilot's costume" (p 74). If Jimmy knew anything about the military, he'd know that it's required gear for safety reasons.

C. "engage in vicious name-calling..."

i. Regarding Bush: "no question he is mentally shallow, intellectually lazy, and incurious" (p 8).

ii. Cheney takes pleasure in power like a "medieval warlord" (p 21).

iii. The Bush v. Gore Supreme Court majority is called "the gang of five" (p 82).

I guess these are examples of *non*-vicious name-calling.

D. "...and fail to provide documentation."

i. "History has shown that what our government does to others today, it will do to Americans tomorrow" (p 127). Oh? Is our government bombing us? Are U.S. troops firing on us? Jimmy, a liberal clich� does not equal documentation!

ii. Jimmy claims Karl Rove was responsible for a series of false accusations against McCain in the 2000 primaries (p 4). The evidence? Absolutely nothing. Not a reference in the text, not a footnote, not an endnote. This is pure character assassination. Does anyone possibly think that if Jimmy had any hard evidence of Rove's role in Election 2000 dirty tricks, he wouldn't have presented it?

iii. There is "widespread public opposition" to the Patriot Act (p 128). There is? What evidence do you have to support that, Jimmy? How could it possibly be that the Act just got extended then?

iv. "the rest of the world was strongly opposed" to the Iraq War (p 142). Like a lot of liberals (and Frenchmen), Jimmy seems to think that "France" is synonymous with "the rest of the world." I can assure him that's not the case, and the Brits, Aussies, Danes, Philippines and South Koreans might disagree with him as well.

v. Bush's Niger yellowcake statement has been shown to be "untrue" from "[c]ountless news media accounts" (p 204). In fact, the Butler Report confirmed the Brits' intelligence. Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report of July 7, 2004 states: "[former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim] Mayaki said...that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss `expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq....Mayaki interpreted `expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales" (Report p 42). Jimmy fell into the classic trap, so common among Beltway insiders but especially of kneejerk liberals, of passing off something as true merely because it has been often repeated.

2. "Inconsistency is not a problem for political gossipmongers and mudslingers" (p 4).

i. Jimmy claims Bush and Cheney have created "the most secretive presidency" of Jimmy's "lifetime" (p ix), but also states that Bush wants to -- but has not yet -- "turned the clock back to the pre-Watergate...unaccountable and extraconstitutional imperial presiden[cies]" (p ix). Jimmy by his own words contradicts himself, by implication saying that every presidency prior to Nixon was unaccountable, extraconstitutional and imperial, and that Bush's is not. Go figure. With logic like that, it's no wonder the Nixon Administration got in so much trouble while Jimmy was counsel.

ii. "by all prior standards" the public had a right to know Bush's medical history (pp 23-24). Really? And when did the public ever see Clinton's medical records? So Jimmy blasts Bush but gives Clinton a pass for the same thing. What a hack.

iii. When Bush keeps facts to himself, it's obsessive secrecy; when other presidents do it, it's "better described as confidentiality or privacy" (p 13). In other words, when someone Jimmy likes is president, it's OK to be secretive, but otherwise no.

iv. Liberals love leaks when the leaks benefit their agenda (pp 66, 69) (they're not leakers then, they're "whistleblowers"), but hate them when they don't (pp 157, 171).

v. Jimmy actually claims "[s]candelmongering holds no appeal for me whatsoever..." then immediately afterwards goes on to cite eleven supposed scandals in loving detail (pp 189-91).

This book shines a bright light into the dark secrets of official Bush Administration hypocrisy. John Dean is a man bearing considerable experience and knowledge concerning excessive presidential secrecy, since he was once counsel to none other than Dick Nixon. Dean examines many parallels between the Bush Administration and the Nixon Administration, only he sees Bush and Cheney as more corrupt, a "frighteningly dangerous" Administration with an obsessive agenda concealing corporate favoritism and nearly dictatorial power for the Presidency. Such risks threaten our civil liberties and a return to absolutism that the Constitution was meant to protect us from. One gets the feeling that Dean is trying to tell us what the Bush Administration truly is ... nothing less than a political Coup-de-tat.

John Dean is a man who is fully aware of the problems associated with excessive presidential secrecy. He spent many years as counsel to Richard Nixon when the former president's political world was crumbling all around him due to his secret dealings and unethical behavior surrounding Watergate. With President George W. Bush, Dean sees many parallels of the same, and often worse, presidential behavior; hence, the title of this book and Dean's motivations for writing it.

Dean explains many of Bush and Cheney's political deceptions in this book, and many of them involve things that are now well- known and old news. Dean had this book published in 2004, before the general election and at the time, it was already well- established that Bush had misled the public about Iraq, the "weapons of mass destruction" and other national issues. This book brings up this material once more (along with some facts I had not heard previously) both to shed some more light on the dishonesty inherent in the Bush White House and to provide evidence to support the feelings that Bush is just as bad as Nixon and has committed acts that, in some instances, are unconstitutional and worthy of impeachment.

Not all presidential secrecy is bad, and Dean agrees that there are many instances where presidential secrecy is a necessity. When the U.S. was thrust into World War II, for example, it made sense that military secrets relating to D- Day not be disclosed to the American people or anyone else. Dean, and most others, can accept this. But what Dean doesn't like is presidential secrecy employed to support a specific political agenda. This happened under Nixon and it is currently happening under Bush II. The attitude seems to be that if it is necessary to tell a lie, twist facts, leave out important points, etc., to achieve a political goal, then Bush is willing to commit these and other acts of dishonesty in order to push his agenda on the people. It's a basic `ends justify the means' approach, and Bush and his people are willing to say and do whatever necessary to achieve these political ends.

Refusal to talk about personal facts is one thing, but refusing to discuss and disclose facts about issues of national security is another thing entirely. I can remember when Bush dodged the questions about his own drug use and his problems with alcoholism. He was likely guilty, judging by his responses. But this isn't nearly as important as his refusal to be open when it comes to topics like Iraq, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and other important concerns. Bush has no problem at all distorting the facts and refusing to answer questions about these critical issues. He wanted to go after Saddam Hussein and he was ready to find any excuse to achieve his goal. This book offers many examples of Bush dodging questions; using sarcasm against reporters who dared to question him; keeping protestors at bay by pinning them in "free speech" zones so that the world will not see them on camera and will think the American people support his policies; seeking revenge against those who try to expose him; and manipulating the media into giving him a free pass for all of his constitutional sins. It is this last point that probably fascinates me more than any other. Back in Nixon's days, the media was all over the former president and his acts of dishonesty, exposing his lies and helping to inform the public about Nixon's unconstitutional behavior. But today, the media has become Bush's lapdog, not only silent on Bush's unethical behavior but in many instances playing alongside the president as he and his administration continue their daily charade. Dean only touches on this media control briefly, probably because close examination would require doubling the length of the book. But it is very fascinating, when you think about it. The media, long regarded as a bastion of liberal thinking and persuasion, has suddenly turned a deaf ear on constitutional rights and the Bush administrations successful attempts to hide dissent.

I like the way this book documents its assertions to back them up. It doesn't just state vague accusations and expect readers to believe what it says. Instead, the book shows the sources and the evidence that prove its points. The fact that the author once served under Nixon (and thus has Republican ties) adds further credibility to his case. No one can reasonably dismiss this as just another "liberal rant". It was written by a guy who has ties to many Republican officials but who feels that national security, respect, and integrity are more important than loyalty to a specific political ideology. Dean does get sidetracked in chapter five, when he starts ranting and raving about Bush's poor record on the environment. But other than this, he sticks to his core message that the Bush White House is very secretive, has little regard for the virtues of telling the truth, and has greatly damaged the respectibility of the office of the presidency.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the iron fists in Washington right now have committed many acts of dishonesty. This should come as no surprise to anyone, since modern- day politics, to a large degree, are tainted by the necessity of lying and deception. But author John Dean feels that Bush's secrecy has taken on new levels of extremeness and shamefulness and has led to the commission of acts that deserve consideration for impeachment. Dean feels that, in due time, the Bush/Cheney administration will be completely exposed for all its lies and its legacy will be sealed for good. It will not be remembered as an administration that helped "set the nation of Iraq free", but rather as one that was obsessed with secrecy to the point of sickness; ready to tell any mistruth necessary to further its own political agenda for the U.S. and the world.

If you took every rotten thing about every administration from Washington to Clinton, piled the scandals and uncovered scandals onto a scale, and weighed it against the first 5 years of GW Bush's Presidency the scales would tip invariably to GW's as the most corrupt, scandal ridden, evil- yes- evil- administration ever to curse this country. If there's something slimy, we have it here. More frightening is the very nature of the Bush-Chaney machine-read this and read the expose books on 9/11 and see what I mean. This administration will do anything to impose its will and ideology on the world- we are all at risk.

Dean begins by reminding us of his own experiences with President Nixon. Then Dean reminds the reader of Bush's character assassination of McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary (gay, tomcat, wife = drug addict, crazy, has an adopted black child (actually Bangladesh), and his impeding the Miami vote recount.

Bush/Cheney are "rulers," not leaders - due to their obsessive control of information and the spinning of it. Dean then details how Bush et al pulled a "bait and switch" to get voter approval for building a Rangers stadium, Bush's insider trading (protected by Dad's appointees), being booted off Caterair board for incompetence, hiding his gubernatorial records at Dad's presidential library - then being forced to open them, but is still hiding the records by delaying "processing."

Dean also reports that the ACLU had sued the Administration for relegating protestors 17 times to "Free Speech" areas away from Bush - as of the book's writing. Further, attendees at any Bush or Cheney "public appearance" are carefully screened - something Nixon didn't do (I went to his Phoenix appearance - plenty of "real" free speech there).

Numerous quotes of others' claiming this Administration is the "most close-mouthed, secretive . . . in memory." The classic case is Cheney's refusing to identify membership of his energy task force. "Show me a person who does not want his advice to a president made public, and I will show you someone . . . giving information not in the public interest."

Cheney began the new Administration by sitting on a Rudman-Hart report on terrorism - he wanted to start over on the topic. His first report came out 9/4/01. The Administration then first stonewalled, then weakened the 9/11 investigation. Next, we get false rationalizations/claims to invade Iraq.

Bush/Cheney also withheld information on auto safety from the public, and quietly rolled back 200 some major rulings on environmental protection - the most prominent involving significant power plant upgrades. Dean states that Nixon thought environmentalists were "downs" and their programs "crap," but never denied Americans health/safety information, nor "hits" on his enemies (vs. Bush/Cheney and Valerie Plame), nor opted for potentially fatal alternative environmental rulings to help contributors.

As for Cambodia, Nixon at least told the truth to some Congressional leaders.

Dean points out that secrecy prevents public accountability, and encourages incompetence. There has certainly been more than enough of both during Bush/Cheney.

Dean's "Worse Than Watergate" is well-documented, and convinced me. I voted for Bush in 2000 - even knowing of the South Carolina dishonesty, and therefore must share in the blame

Just a few thoughts brought out in this book:

Every administration needs some secrecy, but their are clearly lines crossed between protection and abuse of power, which is what we have today. As long as the interests of the wealthy and few outweigh the rest, secrecy, lies, stonewalling will dominate.And in this case the executory power believes setting the tone where the legislative has no choice but to follow. There is a gross imbalance of power.

Dean writes of Bush's hidden background, alcohol, the Texas Rangers, Harken and insider trading. Good thing for Bush the SEC chairman was appointed by his daddy years back and also a partner from the law firm of James Baker, Bush senior's White House chief of staff and later secretary of state. Bush's attorney during the SEC investigation just happened to be a former partner of the lead SEC investigator who just happened to be Bush's former personal attorney who had helped him put together the Texas Rangers deal.

Cheney's health conditions and Halliburton contributions, work contracts and political favors. In the White house secrecy, limiting journalists to one area of the white house; in hiding papers, in fighting and refusing to supply material of Cheney and Bush's energy and oil money favors to the General Accounting Office which had to back down from threats unlike any other president the U.S. has ever had including Nixon. Such paranoia over supposed leaks and dissent, investigating the slightest dissent with fear, smear and invasion of civil liberties. The news media are manipulated and intimidated as to any negative stories cut of the source journalist. Various scripts are given to the media to report.

The sealing of presidential papers, blocking the 9/11 investigations, blocking homeland security and when finally loosing to an extent taking credit for its formation and a lame version at that.

And the blatant lies over the Iraq war and WMD - an outrage to the world. Especially Collin Powell's photo demonstration using material from the 1980's in support of Iraq's weaponry and the need for attack. And the lies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, how blind can people be. Information on the Patriot Act, surveillance and invasion of civil liberties.

The ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that dared to speak up against Bush was avenged in revealing his wife's, Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity - treason against this county, in exposing both this agent and and other country leaders in dealings with her, all losing protection. There seems to be no lengths this administration will go to for what they want, regardless of all others.

Dean minimizes the crimes of the Nixon regime, and in doing so minimizes the crimes of George Bush. Dean describes Nixon's impeachment as resulting from a power struggle between Nixon and congress, that Nixon sought to create executive government without oversight or accountability to congress. Nixon did that, but that wasn't why he deserved to be impeached.

Nixon deserved impeachment because he took kickbacks from South Vietnam in return for continuing economic and military aid. While american soldiers were in harms way he received recycled aid dollars in his 1972 reelection fund. Essentially he defrauded Congress and the American people, transforming tax dollars into campaign funds. This constitutes a high crime in my view, and fully merited impeachment.

Bush may have increased secrecy and made bad government decisions more likely and more costly, but this is incompetence, not a crime. What is a crime is to receive campaign funds that originally left the country as foreign aid. The laundering agents are American companies engaged in 'reconstruction' rather then a foreign government, but the ends are the same. American soldiers get killed for no purpose while politicians turn tax dollars into campaign funds to help stay in office.

Reading this ingloriously disguised failure at intellectual critique--which Shyster-Dean shamelessly fabricates it is--I stunningly was OUTRAGED by Shyster-Dean's exorbitant irretrievability in character!!!! Anyone except low-mindedly antagonistic liberal-zombies who gullibly succumb to any libel at Bush can tell WTW's concocted with single-minded abusiveness meant to usurp Bush's praiseworthy presidency!!!! Shyster-Dean's ensnared by the same lure foaming-at-the-mouth, liberal abusers fall into while committing anti-Bush jihad: impeding over-reliance on half-truths/blatant forgeries from mentally imbalanced websites run by liberal fascists with agendas. WTW is THE most vengefully acerbic collection of manipulative defamation among the torrent of anti-Bush degradations, Shyster-Dean's personal animosity so glaringly apparent that his misconduct is underwritten by liberal-"activist" groups!!!! Consequentially, his demeaning struggle at "expose" is destroyed by his hampering excess in assuming he's "unmasked" Bush because it frequently derails into logically humiliating contradictions like ridiculing Bush's acumen and Cheney's business aptitude, yet disobediently persisting Bush/Cheney are master equivocators.

Unsatisfactorily dilapidating at 198 pages of grade-school reading, WTW turbulently begins by liberals' notorious disease of accusing via conjecture. Exhaustively planning to parallel Bush to Nixon because it's the cop-out-"thesis" of Shyster-Dean's libel, Shyster-Dean unconvincingly ties some Bush statements to Nixon's which remotely sound alike--if you're a mentally unstable liberal!!!! Shyster-Dean moreover chicanes "similarities" based on Bush and Nixon's habits of being "loners," holding formal views of the presidency, "crafting" public images, and being combative over leaks. Miserably, Shyster-Dean's discreditable observations are shallowly feeble, insinuating only coincidental likenesses which certifiably DON'T indict Bush for Nixon's breaches. Incrementally sinful is Shyster-Dean's unfairly partisan over-reliance on other slanderous "observations" by discriminatory schemers from liberal papers like LAT who've surreptitiously supplanted reporting with their prejudices. Yet ANOTHER Shyster-Dean prevarication's cunning generalization based on isolated accounts suspiciously from liberal mouthpieces like when Time questionably "reported" Bush uttering, "F$%k Saddam," Shyster-Dean smears Bush for prototypical behavior.

For all of Shyster-Dean's intimidating bravado in the "Stonewalling" chapter, he slips to "uncover" weakly insufficient cases where he accuses Bush/Cheney of secrecy. Shyster-Dean hypnotically rehashes the tarnish that has liberals going orgasmic, which is Bush's unfounded influence from father. Shyster-Dean SPECULATES concerning doubtful parallels between businessmen who helped or aligned themselves with GW and their personal ties to GHW. This, Shyster-Dean misuses so unconscientiously that he dissipates into liberal-recycled taints of Bush getting "insider information" while on Harken's board although board members aren't part of the corporate structure of the interior running; Shyster-Dean's brand's faulty: insider information ploys usually are to exit before the company goes bankrupt (didn't happen with Harken) or after embellishing the company's prospects. Shyster-Dean then caterwauls about Cheney's "secrecy" regarding health files before he dumbly, myopically undoes his contention by confessing Cheney has NO OBLIGATION to disclose!!!! Continuing with unraveling his damaged credibility, Shyster-Dean tarnishes Cheney for Halliburton's Iraq business, but COVERS-UP that a SUBSIDIARY was involved, which was LEGAL.

Shyster-Dean, unhappy with cursing Bush/Cheney, brings the lowering to Chief-of-Staff Card as a "staff coordinator" who functions like a yes-man. Shyster-Dean tricks incompetent liberals with the fearmonging of Bush/Cheney running a compartmentalized WH hoarding information from even cabinet members and excluding speechwriters from meetings so to stymie leaks. Only radical liberals who offer practicality for their psycho-ideology of "disclosure" even if it'd harm US interests would fault this efficient, administrative protocol. Shyster-Dean bitches about the Administration's professional oversight of WH press who're "herded" into their indoor-swimming-pool-converted-into-small-press-room and Bush's masterful delegation of calling on "pre-selected" reporters during press conferences, which are crybaby excuses for an ineffective liberal media!!!! Next, Shyster-Dean complains about Bush's "executive privilege," letting him withhold certain documents, which only impractical liberals would cite instead of acknowledging the criticalness that information control is to proficient governance; Shyster-Dean also whines over poor presidential scholarship that's setback by Bush's sealing of presidential papers. Ooooooo, what NITPICKING!!!!

Here, Ch.4, Shyster-Dean levels the worn-out, sadistically loved, liberal-connived scandalization that Bush was so empty in foreign policy, neoconservatives "hijacked" him; Shyster-Dean cites only circumstantial conjecture like Bush missing one or two foreign leader names in 2000's campaign. Shyster-Dean blackly defends the 9/11 investigations' Demoncratic politicization by perilously, incompetently demanding them to be held in 2004's election year to ruin Bush/Cheney, not due to care for 9/11!!!! Shyster-Dean worsens his affronts when he insubstantially denigrates Bush/Cheney for "controlling" staff selections for the 9/11 investigation with the slight being the "real" investigation would be conducted at their level although commissioners delegate; Shyster-Dean progresses conspiracies that NSC-vet Zelikow provided "channels" to and from the WH. Shyster-Dean lowers repute calamitously when AUDACIOUSLY pressuring Bush to--irreverent to national security--open the 9/11 investigation to APPEASE anti-American Eurotrash who invent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories because of joint animosity at America and Israel, which sadistically excites liberals!!!!

Mr. Dean gives us a detailed account of the lies and deceit being perpatrated on this nation by President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He brings the chickens home to roost.

There really is not much that we didn't know, or at least suspect, before. But the difference is that Dean backs it up with references and other endnotes. Plus I doubt that his political views could have shifted much to the left. It's been said that if you are not a liberal or a revolutionary when you are young, then you have no compassion. But if you are still a liberal near the end of your life, then you have no brain.

Dean was a young Counsel to Pres. Richard Milhaus Nixon. Nixon may not have been quite as far right as Bush, but he certainly was a conservative, not a liberal! His staff (Halderman, Erlichman,John Mitchell, Schlesinger, Laird, etc.) was definitely conservative. It seems unlikely that Dean has become a liberal in his old age. So the book is more significant because it was written by a noted conservative Republican.

Unless the midterm election creates a major swing in makeup of the house and senate, the Republicans will retain control and are unlikely to impeach their own man, despite what Dean's book argues is deserved. Such a massive shift in the make up of Congress is very unlikely. Even when the public is convinced its time for a change, they usually mean in everyone else's election precincts, not their's. They know and like their Senators and Representatives. After all, the incumbents have been around so long and had many opportunities to help their constituents navigate the rocky waters of the federal bureaucracy. Plus, the gerrymandering of whichever party controls a state has become so egregious, there is almost no reason to go to the polls except for statewide races.

Too bad this book wasn't published before the 2004 Presidential election.

John Dean was the White House Council for President Nixon. It was his testimony before Congress that blew the hole in the Whitehouse's secretive stonewalling about the Watergate break-in. That case ended in resignation for Nixon and jail terms for a handful of his henchmen. So when Dean sets out to compare the Bush Whitehouse with the Nixon Whitehouse, at least the point of comparison, is based on first person experience. The rest is based on painstaking research.

The book's thesis is that the exteme level of secrecy exercised by the executive branch under Bush is dangerously corrosive to the liberties of Americans and to the Constitutional form of government we enjoy. Framers of the Constitution understood that the flame of liberty is fed by the fresh air of truthful information. Choke off that flow and the flame quickly dies, suffocating with it all those nearby. This is the reason for having a free press, for having freedom of association, for having elections. This purpose is subverted when the executive either systematically misleads Congress and the electorate or systemmatically shields them from essential information. James Iredell was one of George Washington's picks for the supreme court. He expressed their views when he asserted "The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate." (p 155)

I imagine many people who start reading the book will be inclined to react as I did "Secrets and half truths .. so what? It's just standard fare for politics." But if democracy is to produce good policy we must expect much better than what we have recently gotten used to. And the Bush Whitehouse's practices in secrecy and falsification lie in a completely different league from anything that could have heretofore been imagined. The Bush Whitehouse's primary business, Dean argues, is to manufacture perceptions that belie its actions. (Government by misdirection is an art pioneered by his father under Reagan with the 'War of the Winter Club" - a war waged against a small nation during the lull between football and baseball season, and parodied in the movie "Wag the Dog") At one point Dean suggests that simply documenting all the falsity manufactured by the Bush administration would require a book of many hundreds of pages longer than this one. And he gives an online reference of a non-partisan group that has done just this.

The first chapter compares Nixon and Bush. Nixon was more paranoid - almost pathologically so. But his legislative record makes him look, in comparison to Bush, like a sociallist. Nixon worked hard and mastered vast amounts of information, and had a keen grasp of international and national politics. Bush is by comparison a quickstudy. But according to Dean he never exerts himself and therefore is essentially clueless about any area of inquiry outside those of 'spin' and baseball.

The next chapter is about 'Stonewalling' It makes the point that there are issues about Presidents and Vice Presidents that the electorate ought to know and have generally known about others in the same offices, but which Cheney and Bush have obscured. The issue of Cheney's long history of heart trouble - not the least of which was a heart attack during the Florida recount that Bush information officers denied ever taking place - is one instance. The case of how Bush accumulated his small fortune through a scheme that materially misrepresented the financial structure of the deal, defrauding the taxpayers and sports enthusiasts of Arlington out of tens of millions of dollars, TX is another. Since the issue of privacy and how much of it one needs to give up to serve in public office is an unsettled issue, this may be the weakest chapter in the book. Still, Dean raises some questions that need answers.

Dean starts chapter three with the story of Bush's illegal treatment of his own gubernatorial papers as Governor of Texas. State law requires them to be disclosed and catalogued. He sent them to his father's Presidential library and claimed they were beyond reach. In the end the rule of law prevailed, but the whole ordeal took years to sort out. It is a case where Bush intentionally, knowingly, openly, blatantly broke Texas law.

Any of these issues and several more are considerably more serious than the 'Whitewater' scandal that embroiled the Clinton Whitehouse. Yet there is no ongoing work to resolve their legal status. Still, these are small potatoes compared to the most eggregious abuses. The big issues involve 9/11 and Iraq.

The illogic of the Whitehouse's obsession of Iraq is illustrated most laughably by the shopworn story about the Rumsfeld Proposition . Early on September 12th 2001 Rumsfeld proposed as a response to 9/11 that we bomb Iraq because it at least has some 'good targets.' Or by Bush's telling counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to find links between Saddam and the twin towers incident. Everyone in the Whitehouse knew there were none. But this version of the truth was inconvenient. It did not support the conclusion that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld held when they entered the Whitehouse nine months earlier - that America ought to invade Iraq and install a puppet government.

Dean argues that this obsession with Iraq was not simply some personal vendetta against Saddam; it was the implementation of Cheney's radical neoconservative agenda. In this view of the world the US is the singular and supreme Imperial power. Being able to topple governments and install puppets to do our bidding is the means to ultimate, unstoppable, and unchallengeable American hegemony. Installing a puppet in Iraq was just the first step. Iraq was about the oil, yes. But it was much, much more. It was about RULING THE WORLD.

(( It is sad to think about how little some of our leaders learn from history. It was, after all, the CIA who installed the Shah of Iran using violent and unlawful means and justifying them on the basis of access to oil. Since then the shah has been toppled and Iran has an elected government of the sort we appear to be setting up in Iraq - one run by Shiite moslems and based on Islamic law. Is this the outcome Cheyney and his neocon pals are aiming for? If so, then the war was nothing but a very expensive and cynical re-election campaign. If not, what was he expecting? His own crown? One is tempted to wonder out loud whether Cheyney's visions of grandeur are not pathologically delusional. Or am I the only one who's been watching too much 'Pinky and the Brain?' ))

It was in justifying this war to the American people that the Bush Whitehouse commited its most eggregious crimes. For example, Dean reconstruct's Colin Powell's presentation to the UN security council regarding Iraq's WMD. He discusses something like a dozen slides that Powell knowingly misrepresented, turning mere water trucks into weapons of mass distruction. And representing as current stockpiles, photos of arms once in Iraq but known and documented to have long since been destroyed under the auspices of weapons inspectors . It is not that the Bush administration was merely mistaken about WMD. It is that they intentionally fabricated a case in order to further a hidden agenda.

This, by any standard, is an impeachable offense. For it sold Americans a war based on a premise known to the President to be false. And this was not any old war. This is the first war in the history of the United States to be started as a preventitive war, which is illegal under international law, rather than a preemptive war, which legal under international law (p 133). Clearly, using fraudulent means to drag America into an illegal war ought to be an impeachable offense. Perhaps it ought to be a capital offense, for at its core it is a conspiracy to kill people for reasons judged by the perpetrator to be unacceptable by his society.

Speaking of capital offenses, Dean also presents the Valerie Plume incident in which a Whitehouse Staffer committed an act of treason - revealing the identity of a spy is a treason. The reason, of course, was because her husband published an Op-Ed piece in the NYT demostrating that Saddam really was not engaged in buying 'yellowcake' the raw material from which nuclear fuel and bombs are manufactured as the Bush Whitehouse had publically asserted.

Dean's writing is clear. His argumentation exacting. His documentation is painstaking. His credentials are sparkling. This is a must-read book. It explains the facts clearly. And it connects the dots extremely well. Far beneath the surface, it also explains why I have been feeling a kind of yearning for the 'bad old days' of Nixon and the Cold War. Back then the press actually tried to get the story right. Politicians tried to act civilized. There was a commonly held notion that policy was important. There was debate about issues and policies. We were not obsessing over winners and losers. Spin, if it existed was subtle. Framing was not ironic. And Nixon, for all his paranoia and megalomania, really worked hard to understand the world and sometimes do the right thing.

I started the book skeptical that one could prove the current situation 'worse than Watergate.' I came away from the book thinking "saying it is worse than Watergate is like saying Katrina was a 'spot of bad weather.'" Democracy would almost certainly have survived were the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Nixon Whitehouse not revealed and prosecuted. If, however, the Bush standard for fraud, secrecy, vindictivenss, and deception is what we can expect of the Presidency from here on out, and the erosion of standards continues at the same pace, there is no question in my mind that the flame of liberty will be snuffed out in my own lifetime.