Featured Articles — November 14, 2009

November 14, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

A jihadist hiding in plain sight By Mark Steyn, OC Register
Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again – not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The “Shoebomber” attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

‘Going Rogue’ is Sarah Palin’s shot at redemption and revenge, The Los Angeles Times
She aims to reclaim the narrative of her political career.

A Risky Proposition for Democrats By William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
This AP story explains how a federal civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four associates poses legal and political risks for Barack Obama.

Holder’s Hidden Agenda By Andy C. McCarthy, National Review
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.

America is on trial as much as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed By Alan Dershowitz, Globe and Mail
Can the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11 expect justice in the emotional shadow of the World Trade Center?

The Fertile Crescent

November 13, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Cold War, Culture, Domestic issues, Economic issues, Ethics, Faith, History, Islam, Islam and the West, Military, National Security, Religion, Terrorism, War on Terror | 2 Comments 

Every time I read, view, or hear the latest attempt to portray Nidal Malik Hasan as a “loner” or “victim of racism” or “psychotic” – or (this may be my favorite) someone suffering from something called “PRE-traumatic stress disorder,” I am torn between the desire to scream or laugh. My internal conflict increases when I hear Chicago Mayor Daley suggest the problem is that Americans love guns too much.

And then there’s the granddaddy of all recent rhetorical absurdities when Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey uttered the incredibly clueless thought: “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

Can someone explain to me how the death of 14 (one of the victims was pregnant) can be trumped by the importance of a particular political agenda? The General should include a very real apology in his resignation letter.

It would be funny if not for the fact that it is all so dangerously sad. As I take it all in, it’s like the ghost of Groucho Marx is sitting on one of my shoulders making me smile at the outrageousness of such comments with his famous, “Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your own eyes?” This is all balanced by the difficult to ignore presence of the ghost of Gen. George S. Patton, who sits on the other shoulder and regularly fills that ear (this would be the right ear, by the way – in every sense of that word) with words I am not completely able to translate in this column.

Psychologists use the term “denial” to describe a way some people interpret reality. This manifests itself in denying something ever actually happened, or that it happened but it wasn’t to big of a deal (the “isolated event” approach), or even in something called “projection” which admits that something has indeed happened, but deflects blame and responsibility. We are a nation in official and pervasive denial.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis (c. 1962), if an American soldier would have opened fire on his comrades while wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt and yelling, “Long Live Lenin, Khruschev, and Castro,” it is doubtful that the guy’s communist sympathies would have been dismissed as irrelevant and peripheral. The commies were the enemy. And, if an investigation into his background would have yielded clues to his political feelings and fanaticism, there is no doubt that the case would have been a slam-dunk. And those who should have picked up on his radicalism before the awful fact would have been held accountable.

In fact, if some white-hooded fool were to open fire on a group today in the name of a fiery cross and a virulent racist perversion of certain passages in the Christian Bible, it is unlikely that such a terrorist would have any apologists reluctant to tie what he did to what he believed. Religious violence, be it of the cross or crescent, is always worthy of condemnation and contempt.

But when it comes to Islamism, the various contortions some use to distance what a Jihadist did from the ideology that so-obviously informed his actions are very difficult to watch.

Of course, I very much understand the complexities of this issue. We are a free society and among the most precious of those freedoms is that of religion. But as with another vital right – the freedom of speech – there are clear limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. And religious liberty notwithstanding, you cannot advocate the violent overturning of our constitutional way of life in this country in the name of any God.

Anyone, therefore, who embraces Sharia law and believes that it should become the code of a new America, should be disqualified from serving in the military. At any rate – how can they really take the required oath? Clearly one day long ago, the Fort Hood terrorist said:

I, Nidal Malik Hasan, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

We are told “officially” that there are 3,572 Muslims in our military ranks. Although it’s interesting to note that The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council has that number much higher, in fact, four times higher – at more than 15,000. What do they know that those in the barracks don’t?

Some might want to counter that bad things have been done – violently so – in this country and the world throughout history, in the name of my religion – Christianity. And, sadly, I must confess that this has been the case, on occasion. But it has never been the norm. And those who do such stuff certainly don’t get their instructions from Christian doctrine.

To get from the teachings of Jesus to murderous evil requires a tortured, twisted, ignorant, and monumentally long journey. Yes, people have done bad things in Christ’s name – but in doing so they have, in effect, denied him.

Some ideologies, however, are much more friendly to the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. For example, when it comes to economic theory, you are hard pressed to find any possible pathway from Milton Friedman’s monetary ideas to killing a bunch of people. On the other hand, when you take a look at the writings of Karl Marx (no relation to Groucho), history has shown that the distance from theory to bloodshed is not all that far. In fact, Marxism and violence are close cousins because you really have to force people to turn from self-interest – all for their own good, of course.

The thing that too many in our nation are simply ignoring is that when it comes to Islam, as opposed to any other religious idea extant, the journey from ideology to what happened at Fort Hood is also not a very long one. For any Christian to become so radicalized as to open fire people in the name of his or her religion would require a virtual repudiation of the faith. Could it happen? Sure – anything can happen. And if it did, the mainstream media in this country would have no qualms about wrapping the deed around the doctrine.

But the quantifiable fact is that such things really don’t happen with Christians the way they do with Muslims. And even when certain violent acts by professed Christians, such as the killing of a doctor who has performed abortions, make the news, usually among the first and loudest expressions of condemnation and outrage are from Christians.

Does anyone hear all that many Muslim voices condemning Hasan?

Much has been made of the fact that the Fort Hood Jihadist/Terrorist was harassed for his beliefs. First, let me be clear – I think it is wrong, un-American, and certainly un-Christian to at all persecute someone for what is believed and practiced in the context of our Constitutional freedoms. And when it comes to Christians – who have known the pain of persecution throughout the centuries – there is no Biblical mandate for a follower of Jesus to ever persecute another human being. If fact, in our way of thinking, and from the wonderful Jewish scriptures that inform our faith, we are ever admonished to love neighbor as self.

The Christian response to persecution is never to be that of reactive violence. The Apostle Peter gave instruction near the end of his life on this matter:

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.’ But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. – I Peter 3:13-16 (NIV)

Gentleness, respect, hope, and love – these are the watchwords of the follower of Jesus. But there is no “turn the other cheek” stuff in Islam. And at some point people in this country need to stop ignoring the obvious.

So I respect my Muslim neighbors and want them to be treated justly. This means, when there is peace, community, love of law, love of country, all will be well. And when these values are violently violated there must be justice of another kind – to punish evil, especially the egregious wickedness of terrorist murder.

But I also, taking another cue from Jesus, must be “wise as a serpent,” and this means I need to be aware that certain ideologies are more fertile when it comes to hate and violence. And, like it or not, they – and those who espouse such teachings – need to be watched very carefully.

Too many people have been looking the other way in America. It’s time to focus.

Featured Articles — November 13, 2009

November 13, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Obama’s Real Afghanistan Decision By Fred Kaplan, Slate
It’s not how many troops to send; it’s what those troops will do.

Explaining Away Mass Murder By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

Just the Facts, Mr. President By Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
Approach Afghanistan with sheer, blunt logic and a clear plan.

Free to Lose By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
With long-term unemployment at its highest levels since the 1930s and on the rise, the U.S. should consider policies that address job growth directly.

Beyond Berlin: Europe’s new chapter starts now By Timothy Garton Ash, Globe and Mail
Once more unto the breach – different times, different walls.

Meet John Thune By David Brooks, The New York Times
The junior senator from South Dakota has conservative roots but is pragmatic at the surface, and may be a strong Republican candidate in 2012.

Can Sarah Palin Make a Comeback? By Matthew Continetti, The Wall Street Journal
Her poll numbers among independents are strong enough to give her a chance.

Honoring The Veterans

November 12, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library events, Podcast | Leave a Comment 

The Golf Command, 4^th Marine Color Guard conducts the Presentation of the Colors in the Nixon Library’s East Room.

More than 2,000 people came to celebrate Veteran’s Day at the Richard Nixon Library on Wednesday, where there was also a program that honored America’s Armed Forces in the library’s replica of The White House East Room.

Introduced by Foundation Vice President Sandy Quinn, the first keynote speaker was Congressional Medal of Honor recipient John Baca.

Constrained by enemy fire during a night mission in Vietnam in February 1970, Army specialist Baca covered an enemy grenade with his steel helmet and sacrificed his own body to absorb the impact after it detonated, saving the lives of eight men in his platoon.

For his heroism, Baca received the Medal of Honor from President Nixon on July 15, 1971.

Baca’s speech was followed by remarks from U.S. Marine Major General Richard Mills, Congressman Gary Miller, former Nixon military aide Colonel Jack Brennan, Clay Baxter, Commander of the Richard Nixon American Legion Post 679, and Hal Short, Commander of the Yorba Linda and Placentia Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 9030.

Introduced by Colonel Brennan, the Nixon Foundation presented its first ever Orange County Veteran of the Year Award to retired Marine Corps General Bill Quinn.

General Quinn served in the Marine Corps from 1942 to 1975, commanding one-third of the Armed Forces at the El Toro Marine Corps Base during RN’s presidency.

Colonel Brennan added that General Quinn should also be honored for his loyalty and service to the Nixon Family, a relationship that extended beyond the White House years.

General Quinn was the first to introduce RN to the awaiting crowd at El Toro following his resignation in 1974, and later invited the President to play golf there when he and the First Lady made their permanent home in San Clemente.

Providing the ceremonies with sentimental patriotic tunes were Celebration USA, the Villa Park High School Symphonic Ensemble, and the Orange High School Chamber Singers and Concert Choir.

Courtesy of Foundation friend David Stokes, a radio talk show host and pastor at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia, below is a podcast recording of Wednesday’s events in full:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download On iTunes

Nixon’s New Jersey Friend Looks Back

November 12, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Nixon family, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

Last week I wrote about a retired Atlantic City firefighter named Richard Nixon, whom the New York Times’s website had profiled in a series about everyday Americans with Presidential names. Today’s post is about the Richard Nixon who lived on the opposite side of the Garden State during the last 13 years of his life – that is, the one, usually being discussed at TNN – and a remarkable man, Robert Re, who’s spent most of his 78 years in Bergen County.

Mr. Re, as this article by Karl De Vries from the Fair Lawn (N.J.) Town Journal describes, served for many years as a law-enforcement officer with the Ho-Ho-Kus police department, rising to chief, and also was a Bergen County undersheriff, as well as serving for several terms on the Saddle River town council, from which he is retiring next month. De Vries notes that:

[p]erhaps the achievement that Re remembers most fondly, however, was his intimate relationship with former President Richard Nixon, who lived in Saddle River from 1981 to 1991. When the former president waived his lifetime Secret Service detail in 1985, calling it unnecessary, he retained his own security team, tapping Re, then the head of the Ho-Ho-Kus force, as his right-hand man.

Re would serve the former president for nine years until his death in 1994, accompanying him on a daily basis, observing how Nixon would never turn down an autograph request or a photo as he walked the streets of the community.

“The Nixon I knew was a warm, compassionate man, sensitive to the needs of other people,” said Re, who would meet such figures as Billy Graham, Bob Dole, Mikhail Gorbachev and former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter through his relationship with Nixon. One of his most prized artifacts, which he springs at the opportunity to display, is a photograph of him flanked by Nixon and former President Ronald Reagan, signed by both men.

Following the stroke that would eventually end Nixon’s life in 1994, Re spent five days at New York Hospital by the former president’s side, and flew to Yorba Linda aboard Air Force One, which then President Bill Clinton had sent to New Jersey to pick up Nixon’s entourage. During the funeral, Re sat with Nixon’s daughters, Tricia and Julie[...]

He’s been persuaded by numerous friends and family to write a book about his relationship with Nixon, focusing on the life of the former president following his resignation from office in 1974. But in the meantime, Re remains grateful for the camaraderie of the people he served with during his 46 years in law enforcement, his fellow council members, and the friends he has made as a longtime resident of Saddle River.

It’s also worth mentioning, with Veteran’s Day just past, that the longest period Mr. Re spent outside Bergen County in his adult life was during the Korean War when he served his country for three years overseas in the Marine Corps.

11.12.56

November 12, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Featured Articles — November 12, 2009

November 12, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

‘A Referendum on This White House’ By Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal
Obama’s plan to nationalize the midterm elections may backfire.

Same Old, Same Old at Fort Hood By Victor Davis Hanson, RealClearPolitics
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of murdering last week 13 people (12 of whom were soldiers) and wounding another 30 at Fort Hood, Texas. It was not the first, nor will it be the last, domestic terrorist incident since Sept. 11, 2001.

Atención Deficit By Mac Margolis, Newsweek
Hugo Chávez looks like he’s preparing for war with Colombia. Don’t be fooled: he’s just wagging the dog.

Vietnam, Afghanistan and learning from history By Gordon Goldstein, Los Angeles Times
What can Obama learn from the Vietnam War, and how can he apply it to the war in Afghanistan?

Troublesome Facts About John Dean

November 11, 2009 by Geoff Shepard | Filed Under Watergate | 6 Comments 

Editor’s note: John Dean will be giving a lecture entitled Watergate: The Final Chapter from 7pm to 9pm (pst) at Chapman University in Orange, California.

Original caption from Bettman/Corbis: John W. Dean III, the fired White House Counsel, is sworn in 6/25 as the Senate Watergate Committee resumes its investigation of the Watergate affair. Senator Sam Ervin, Democrat-North Carolina, chairman of the committee administers the oath.

[*Footnote:  John Dean’s early career is well documented by letters, interviews and other materials compiled in connection with his sentencing—and are publicly available from the Library of Congress as a part of the papers of Judge John Sirica.  Dean’s role in Watergate and the subsequent trial is derived in the main from documentation in the files of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, which is publicly available at the National Archives.  The author’s views are more fully laid out—and documented—in his book about the politics behind the Watergate scandal, entitled The Secret Plot to Make Ted Kennedy President, Inside the Real Watergate Conspiracy, published in 2008 by Penguin Sentinel.]

I.   Introduction

Blind Ambition, John Dean’s 1976 book about Watergate, is being released in a paperback version —with a new After word by the author.  The book launch is planned for June 17^th at the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda.  No doubt Dean will be described as the former Counsel to President Nixon who got caught up in all the wrongdoing, but repented in time to become the lead government witness against his former colleagues in the Watergate Cover-up trial.

The actual story, however, is not nearly so benevolent to Dean or his actions:  He is the arch-villain of Watergate—playing central roles in bringing the problem about, making it far worse through an inept cover-up, and then changing sides and his story in an effort to avoid punishment for his misdeeds.

II.  John Dean’s Murky Background

You will read his books and search the Internet in vain if you are looking for any detail in John Dean’s rise to power.  One might believe that his story was one of a natural progression from Wooster College to Georgetown Law School to the House Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice and then to the Nixon White House—but this would overlook the astonishing number of fits and restarts in his early career:

• Dean grew up in Marion, Ohio and first attended Eber Baker High School—switching to Staunton Military Academy in Virginia early in his Sophomore year.  It is not clear what happened at Baker High, but in that era you got sent away to military school only if you came from a military family or there was trouble on the home front.
• He graduated from Staunton in 1957, but did not go into the military.  Instead, he enrolled at Colgate University in New York, intending to major in English.  Things did not go well for him at Colgate and he again switched schools in the middle of his Sophomore Year—returning to Ohio to attend tiny Wooster College, where his activities centered on the Pre-Law Club.
• In his Senior Year, Dean married Karla Hennings, daughter of Senator Thomas Hennings of Missouri.  He graduated in the lower third of his class in 1961 (144/204), but did not go to law school.  Instead, he enrolled in American University in Washington, DC, doing graduate work in political science.
• In 1962, he dropped out of American University to enroll in Georgetown Law School, from which he graduated in 1965.
• His first (and only) experience in private practice was with the small communications law firm of Welsh & Morgan, who specialized in obtaining very lucrative FCC broadcast licenses.  Dean was fired in six months ‘for unethical conduct’:  Apparently, while working on a license application for a firm client, he also prepared an application on behalf of his mother-in-law in St. Louis.  It is not clear from the record whether the Dean application was in direct competition with the one he was working on for the firm or just one that would have reduced the scarce number of such licenses.  What is clear is that Dean quickly ascertained the lucrative nature of what he was working on for the firm and sought to take advantage of that knowledge for his own family.
• Dean quickly became Minority Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, courtesy of Rep. Bill McCullough of Ohio—and Wooster College alum.  For reasons that remain unclear, Dean ‘was terminated effective August 13, 1967’ and remained unemployed for the next six months.
• In February of 1968, Dean became Associate Director of the Commission to Reform the Federal Criminal Laws, named the Brown Commission after its chairman, Edmund G (Pat) Brown ( who had defeated Richard Nixon in 1962 to become California’s Governor).  Dean described his duties as administrative in nature, but also dealing with conflict of laws and death penalty statutes.  While on the Commission staff, Dean obtained a letter from his previous law firm that qualified his termination, saying it  ‘resulted from a basic disagreement over law firm policies regarding the nature and scope of an associate’s activities’—but the letter notably did not rescind the prior characterization of being terminated for unethical conduct.

It is from this highly questionable base of experience and expertise that Dean became Associate Deputy Attorney General shortly after Nixon was inaugurated in January of 1969.  It was there that he supervised the work of the Legislative and Legal Section of the Department of Justice.  Six months into his new job, Dean separated from his wife, leaving her with their two year old son.

Dean moved to the White House in July of 1970, replacing John D Ehrlichman as Nixon’s Counsel.  How could someone who started and then dropped out of his first high school, college and graduate school, and who was terminated from his first two jobs end up on the White House staff?  It is as story of a classic bureaucratic move gone bad:  Ehrlichman had roomed at UCLA with Bob Haldeman before joining to Stanford Law School and practicing law in Seattle.  He had been a senior member of Nixon’s 1968 campaign staff that was run by Haldeman.  With Haldeman as Nixon’s Chief of Staff and Ehrlichman as his lawyer, they soon became known as the Berlin Wall.  After eighteen months, Ehrlichman become Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, taking all his top staff to the newly formed Domestic Council.

The hiring of John Dean to replace Ehrlichman—essentially replacing a power figure with a demonstrably less senior successor—was done to assure the Counsel’s office did not again become a power base.  Dean has said ‘the title was the best part of the job’, since all he really was ‘just a messenger boy between Haldeman and Attorney General John Mitchell.  He told his sentencing officer that ‘His principle [sic] duty was of evaluating and handling security clearances and clemency petitions in addition to administrative duties.’  Amazingly in retrospect, the FBI full field investigation that would have preceded any appointment to the White House staff was waived in Dean’s case—since he would have been the one to review it.

III.  The Arch-Villain of Watergate

There are three operative figures at the very center of the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up:  John Dean, Gordon Liddy and Jeb Magruder.  In the end, it was their supervisors—Bob Haldeman, John Mitchell and John Ehrlichman—who were convicted in the Watergate Cover-up trial—and were certainly the most vilified, but the former three actually ran the operations.

We will focus on John Dean’s role.  His path to becoming a central figure began when he was assigned the responsibility of designing a campaign intelligence plan for Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign.  It was in this role that he recruited Gordon Liddy, placing him at the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP) and promising him a $1 million budget for its implementation.

Jeb Magruder, CRP’s acting chief of staff while John Mitchell remained Attorney General, soon informed Liddy that only Mitchell could approve such a $1 million program—and promptly sought John Dean’s assistance in arranging a meeting at the Attorney General’s office.  That fateful meeting occurred on January 28, 1972 and was attended by Liddy (who was presenting the plan), Dean (who had originated it), Magruder (who would be responsible for oversight) and Mitchell (whose approval was needed for budgetary purposes).  Liddy’s plan was off-the-wall, suggesting a program of mugging, bugging, kidnapping and prostitution.  It was not approved, but principally because it would cost too much.

Liddy was devastated, but on the trip back to their offices, Magruder and Dean urged Liddy to design a scaled down version.  He did and it was presented to the same folks in the same place on February 4^th, less than a week later.  By this time, mugging, kidnapping and prostitution had been eliminated, but specific bugging targets were identified, with an overall projected cost of $500,000.  Dean arrived a few minutes late and stated such a plan should not even be discussed in the presence of the Attorney General.  While he has portrayed this as an early sign of his reluctance, it was taken by others to mean Mitchell deserved some wiggle room (plausible deniability) should something go wrong with the plan’s implementation.  Regardless, the meeting ended without any approval.

There remains substantial ambiguity about whether Liddy’s plan was ever approved by Mitchell:  Magruder met with Mitchell on March 1 in Miami and Liddy’s plan (now priced at $250,000 was the last item on a list of some thirty topics.  Magruder swears it was approved; Mitchell devoted half his defense at trial trying to disprove Magruder’s assertion.  A third witness, Fred LaRue, who was at the meeting and later became a government witness, stoutly maintained that, while the topic was discussed, Mitchell never gave his approval for its implementation.  Regardless, Magruder acted as thought it had been approved, phoning CRP’s offices to authorize release of substantial funds to Liddy.  It may be that Magruder was fearful of returning and being confronted by Liddy without having obtained approval:  Liddy had already committed to substantial expenditures and bills were overdue.  Liddy was an intense guy and he had threatened Magruder’s life before.  Besides, Magruder had authorized $37,000 in payments to Liddy on his own authority even before ;going to Miami.

Fast forward several months:  Liddy’s plan is being implemented; bugs are planted in the offices of the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate Office Building and results are being shared with Magruder and Mitchell.  A second break-in is authorized, but goes awry:  the burglars are caught, one of whom is James McCord, a former CIA wire expert who is CRP’s head of security.

Understandable panic spreads among those with guilty knowledge, certainly including Dean, Magruder and Mitchell—each of whom was present for the two fateful meetings in Mitchell’s Attorney General offices (thereby subjecting each to potential criminal prosecution).

John Dean, who is just returning from a trip to the Philippines , is assigned responsibility for ascertaining what actually happened.   Not surprisingly, he meets with Liddy that Monday afternoon , confirms  that (as feared) it was his operation that went bad, and reports this to a meeting that evening of CRP staff in Mitchell’s Watergate apartment (including Liddy’s commitment to his team that their defense costs will be covered).

What Dean reports to Haldeman and Ehrlichman appears to be somewhat different:  He assuages their principal fear that this was an operation authorized by Charles Colson, Special Counsel to the President, and run out of the White House itself.  Dean states categorically that no one on the White House staff knew in of the break-in in advance.   Dean conveniently omits any mention of the two meetings in the Attorney General’s office or of his prior participation.

Assured the White House itself is not at risk, three things happen in quick succession:  (i) Dean is assigned oversight responsibility of liaison with CRP in its own effort to defend itself; (ii) Mitchell departs as head of CRP; and (iii) Dean casts his lot with those at CRP facing similar criminal charges—becoming, in his own words, the chief desk officer for the cover-up.

It is important to realize that, had the White House known of Dean’s own risk of prosecution (i.e.:  had he told them of his work with Liddy and participation in the two meetings in the Attorney General’s office), he would have been immediately removed from the White House staff—every bit as quickly as John Mitchell had been removed as head of CRP.  There was simply no reason to expose the White House itself to such a risk.  Instead, Dean led the cover-up, committing a whole series of criminal acts (including suborning perjury, destroying evidence and improperly revealing government information) while continuously counseling the White House to continue to stonewall on the growing scandal.

Dean Changes Sides—and His Story

When his cover-up collapsed at the end of March, 1973, as it surely should have, Dean was among the very first to realize that federal prosecutors would soon realize he was one of the ringleaders. He switched sides—both legally and politically—and then changed his story to enhance his role as principal witness for the prosecution:

• He was the very first person to approach the prosecutors, offering testimony against both Mitchell and Magruder in exchange for his own immunity.
• He retained as his criminal defense counsel a Kennedy Democrat, Charles Shaffer
• When this effort did not succeed, he removed a series of non-Watergate files from the Counsel’s office (including those on matters dating from when Ehrlichman was Counsel), sharing them both with the prosecutors and with his own attorney.  These matters became known as ‘the White House horrors’ as they were selectively leaked to destroy Nixon and his administration).
• Beginning on April 2, 1973, Dean and/or his lawyer held a series of wide-ranging meetings with the prosecutors, frequently lasting for three or four hours at a time.  As Dean angled for immunity, his own story began to change:  it was not until toward the end of April that he first began to mention a cover-up or to become antagonistic toward Haldeman and Ehrlichman.  Prior to that, Haldeman was clean and Ehrlichman’s involvement was restrained.  And it was not until early May, after Dean had been terminated from his position as Counsel, that he first mentioned any involvement of Nixon himself.  In the words quoted from a memo in the prosecution’s own files, “. . .thus changing dramatically from his previous stance.”

Dean was the only witness who could move the scandal from its operators (Dean, Liddy and Magruder) to the next level (Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Mitchell)—and he soon became the darling of the Kennedy Democrats:  making Dean a hero was critical to the political destruction of Nixon and a whole series of prominent Republicans.  Dean’s electrifying testimony before the Ervin Committee represented the culmination, drafted in a series of secret meetings between Dean, his own lawyer and Sam Dash, the Committee’s counsel, represents expert political spin:  the arch-villain of Watergate, the one who set events in motion that culminated in the Watergate break-in, the one who made the scandal far worse through an inept cover-up and who almost single handedly prevented any White House disclosures, was recast as an earnest young lawyer only interested in telling the truth about the wrongdoing in which he had found himself a part.

Dean’s testimony, lauded for his innocence and precise recollection of events, occurred prior to disclosure of the White House taping system.  A careful review of the Dean tapes, however, shows he was substantively wrong on numerous occasions.  An analysis done by the Special Prosecutor and available at National Archives enumerates some nineteen examples of where Dean’s’ assertions are either contradicted or not supported by review of the White House tapes.  Another witness might have faced a perjury investigation, but not John Dean:  he was far too valuable as a prosecution witness.  Indeed, even the disclosure of his ‘dramatically changing’ account of events was kept hidden from defense counsel in flagrant violation of the Brady Doctrine (requiring disclosure of exculpatory evidence).

Dean’s role and situation is best summed up by Richard Ben Veniste, in his own book about the Watergate prosecutions (Stonewall, The Real Story of the Watergate Prosecution)

Archie Cox was particularly firm in his personal determination that Dean be prosecuted no matter what.  Dean became an idée fixe for Cox.  True, as a witness Dean would cement otherwise weak cases against Haldeman and Ehrlichman.  But Cox preferred, if forced to choose, to take the relatively sure shot at Dean rather than the long shot against Dean’s superiors.  When the Saturday Night Massacre loomed close, it might have been propitious for Cox to make a deal with Dean and secure Dean’s testimony against President Nixon as another weapon to hold the President off.  Even then, Cox’s determination did not waiver.  With all the uncertainties of Watergate that swirled around him—the weakness of evidence against Nixon’s top aides without Dean’s testimony, the possibility of Presidential culpability, the problems of obtaining White House evidence and of dealing with “national security”—Cox saw Dean’s guilt as the one enduring constant.  During a particularly difficult period Archie remarked to us, “If everything else goes down the drain the one thing I can cling to is Dean’s venality.”

Moral balancing aside, the realpolitik of the situation was that Dean would not be an effective witness at trial if he got a free ride.  His credibility would be substantially diminished by his making a deal with the prosecutors to implicate others only if the prosecutors completely forgave his own deep involvement. The evident effect of Dean’s prison sentence later, on the jurors at the Watergate cover-up trial confirmed our tactical judgment.  As a man who was already serving a long jail term for doing what he testified he had been instructed to do by Haldeman and Ehrlichman, Dean made a measurably greater impression than if he had never been charged or punished for his acts. (p. 107)

But Archibald Cox, the first Special Prosecutor, was lost in the Saturday Night Massacre (which came the day after Dean was allowed to plead to a single felony count) and his staff was out for blood.  While Dean originally was to be sentenced ‘following the trial in which his testimony was relevant’ (the customary procedure in such cases), there were going concerns about his own credibility as a witness.  To strengthen his testimony, Dean was hurriedly sentenced to a substantial prison term of one to four years, with confinement to begin the first day of the Watergate Cover-up trial.  Of course, Dean did not actually go to a Federal prison:  instead, he spent his nights at Fort Holibird, a nearby witness holding facility in Maryland.  Many of his days were spent on the witness stand or in the prosecution’s office.  If not testifying, he was working on his book.

Dean was well rewarded for his changed role:  One week following convictions of all major defendants on all counts in the Watergate Cover-up trial, John Dean saw his sentence reduced to time served—emerging from confinement a free man, having spent only four months at Fort Holibird, the shortest term of any central Watergate figure.

Conclusion

Dean’s reissuance of his book, stepping once more into the political spectrum of Watergate, will certainly get media attention—except this time efforts to uncover what really happened in Watergate and its prosecution may focus more attention on Dean than he has anticipated.

Dean was a central figure in setting events into motion that resulted in the Watergate break-in; his deceit during the cover-up and his desertion to the Democrats cost Richard Nixon the Presidency.  Dean is already a convicted felon and a disbarred lawyer—but much more remains to be understood about his real role in Watergate and its aftermath.

Lunch With Frank In Fairfax

November 11, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Nixon Foundation | Leave a Comment 

During my visit to the Nixon Library in September, Sandy Quinn peppered our conversation with various expressions that all basically said the same thing: “You really need to talk to Frank Gannon.” Since then I have dialogued with Frank via email, punctuated by the occasional telephone chat.

But today I had the chance to spend a few hours with Frank, and all I can say is that Sandy Quinn was of course, very right. Frank made his way out to Fairfax today and I had the chance to show him around Fair Oaks Church. He was drawn to the bookshelves laden with, well, books – then he was off, from subject to subject, this to that, anecdote upon anecdote, and I couldn’t get enough.

It was a bright spot on a very rainy day here in Northern Virginia. We made our way to a local eatery and continued the conversation over wonderful crab cakes. Then, all too soon, it was back to work.

Thanks, Frank – and thanks to Sandy Quinn for the idea.

What does “Nixonian” mean?

November 11, 2009 by Anne Walker | Filed Under Richard Nixon | 9 Comments 

It seems to me that we are hearing the term “Nixonian” used more often these days. Most recently when TV pundits were talking about the Obama Administrations criticism of Fox News. They talked a great deal about the Obama folks having an enemies list and how they were acting very “Nixonian.” I know they weren’t being complimentary when they said it.

I asked our in-house expert about this, the wonderful and wise Frank Gannon, and he had some interesting historic facts about the “enemies list.” It was originally a September 9, 1971 memo to John Dean, from Chuck Colson. It contained only 20 names. Mostly the reason they were on the list is because they were very, vocally, anti-Nixon. Dean took that original list and expanded it to over 200 names, mostly made up of people who were against the Vietnam war. He, Dean, has said publicly that he didn’t think President Nixon knew about the list. Then it surfaced during the “Watergate” hearings. Today, we are lead to believe the President wrote it himself. That is unfair and wrong.

I have often referred to myself as a “Nixonian Republican” and I never considered that I was being unkind to myself when I used that description. My parents were life-long Republicans and my mother was proud to describe herself as a “Civil Righter.” Then, President Nixon’s leadership also shaped me and how I think. I AM a more moderate Republican than many of our party members today and using the term just meant exactly that. My more conservative friends don’t seem to hold it against me. There should be room for both mind-sets in our party. Wise counsel told us that we should agree to disagree agreeably!

I went on Wikipedia to see what their description of “Nixonian” might be. What I read was very interesting. First of all, “one never self-identifies as a Nixonian.”

Oh my, what about me? I even have a button that my daughter Marja made for me that says, “Proud Nixonian Republican.” I must admit that when I wore it at the 1988 RNC convention, certain folks looked at me like I had a communicable disease!

The description goes on to say, “The term is most frequently used by Republicans to attack self-described moderates; when used by Democrats it is more apt to be used in the context of the Watergate scandal and the suggestion of Republican corruption.“

OK, we already knew about that and live with it everyday here at the Richard Nixon Presidential Foundation.

More from Wikipedia: “This moniker is based upon the administration of Richard Nixon, who ran in 1968 and 1972 as a conservative, only to enact unprecedented amounts of new regulations and government agencies, and expand federally provided social services. Among those were the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, implementation of price and wage controls to try to reduce inflation, and an unsuccessful attempt to provide a guaranteed minimum income to taxpayers.”

Hey! Isn’t this the Legacy we want everyone to know about? Now that’s NIXONIAN, and it’s a good thing.

I’ve been spending some time as a volunteer in the Museum Shop at the Library. It is fun and a great opportunity to chat with visitors and find out why they chose to visit. Their reasons are overwhelmingly positive and that’s heartwarming to hear. Last week I looked up from the cash register to see John and Marilyn Wilbur walking toward me. We were classmates at the University of Arizona and Marilyn and I were Delta Gamma Pledge sisters in the spring of 1956. What could be more fun than that? After they toured the Library, they said they “had forgotten what a great President he was.” So, it seems, have a heck of a lot of other people. That’s the mission ahead as I see it: remind the people and focus on the Legacy of the 37th President of the United States.

Tell me what you think. How should we work to take back the Nixonian label? Maybe the RN Foundation web-site could have a “Nixonian Moment,” or “Nixonianisms of Note” posted now and then. I for one would love to see it become a description to be proud of again.

Cross Posted from GramAnne

Who Is The Heart Of The Polar Bear?

November 11, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Center, Russia | 1 Comment 

The Nixon Center’s Dimitri Simes and Paul Saunders have a new op-ed in The New York Times on the Putin-Medvedev relationship.

Featured Articles — November 11, 2009

November 11, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

A Salute to Our Military By David Ignatius, The Washington Post
In the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, some commentaries have examined the damage to the U.S. Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few have spoken about the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, as an extreme version of what can happen with an overstressed force.

The coffins will keep coming until we conquer our amnesia on Afghanistan By Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian
Barack Obama is about to make his most crucial military decision. He should remember what took us to war in the first place.

The Economic Uses of Al Gore By Holman Jenkins, The Wall Street Journal
Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.

Trucks, Trains and Trees By Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times
No matter how many times you hear them, there are some statistics that just bowl you over.

Remembering Vietnam

November 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 1 Comment 

On this Eve of Veteran’s Day, a retired Air Force Colonel reflects on his days as a POW during the Vietnam War:

In Hanoi, Austin found himself photographed with the North Vietnamese as a prized animal with a hunter. In confinement, he was tied to a centerpost and seated on the floor. Austin was later led back outside to an angry crowd he estimated at between 750-1,000 people.

“They were shaking their fists, their eyes were ferocious looking and their faces were red,” he said.

Austin was placed in solitary confinement for 17 days in a downtown building known as “Heartbreak Hotel.” He was interrogated 24 hours a day for five days.

Though his physical body was weakened, Austin stayed strong mentally, applying survival and interrogation training.

When Austin emerged from his interrogation it was 18 months before he could walk, three months before he could close the fingers on his left hand and six months before he was able to hold a spoon with his right hand.

Despite such hardships, his confidence never wavered.

“I had confidence in God, confidence in my country and confidence in my fellow man,” he said.

Austin was returned to solitary confinement in “Heartbreak Hotel.” During that time, he broke off a piece of metal from his shackles, scratched his name on the wall and began keeping track of the days.

“The mind, it’s amazing,” Austin said. “It keeps up with all that.”

Austin was held at five prisons during his POW experience and even his release, on March 14, 1973, didn’t occur without some grandstanding by the North Vietnamese.

“They moved me and 207 others to the China border and were going to keep us as hostages, if needed,” Austin said. “But President (Richard) Nixon would have none of that and said we all had to be rescued.”

Appelby’s remains were recovered in Vietnam in 1996. Now approaching 72, Austin is glad to see the public’s attitude improve toward Vietnam and the soldiers who fought.

11.10.1775

November 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under History, Holidays, Military | Leave a Comment 

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine.

Our flag’s unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job
The United States Marines.

Here’s health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we’ve fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven’s scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

November 10, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, International Affairs, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

In today’s Telegraph, blogger Nile Gardiner notes Secretary Clinton’s historically short-sighted remarks at the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It’s bad enough that President Obama could not be bothered to attend the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary Clinton’s refusal to even acknowledge the role played by Ronald Reagan in the Wall’s demise as well as the downfall of Communism was highly insulting towards one of the greatest figures of our time, and reeked of petty and partisan mean-spiritedness.

The Secretary of State’s remarks yesterday in Berlin completely erased from history the huge contribution played not only by President Reagan but also by the United States in confronting the Soviet Empire. In her speech she applauded half of Europe, but could not bring herself to thank those Americans who bravely served their country and in many cases laid down their lives in defeating Communism, under Reagan’s leadership.

Here is what Clinton said in Berlin on behalf of the Obama administration:

“We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic. And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.”

Incredibly, Clinton ended her remarks, with a tribute not to the tens of millions of victims of Communism, but to Barack Obama!

“I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.”

Hillary Clinton would do well to learn from Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States, whom I had the privilege of working for in her private office. Like Ronald Reagan she is a statesman who understands that evil must be confronted and defeated, and a true leader who believes in the greatness of America as a force for good on the world stage.

As Lady Thatcher observed in her eulogy to Reagan at his funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington in June 2004:

“We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape… It is a very different world, with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. .. With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today, the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw and Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev, and in Moscow itself, the world mourns the passing of the great liberator and echoes his prayer: God bless America.”

These were the words that Clinton should have echoed in front of the Brandenburg Gate – a recognition of President Reagan’s huge contribution to the advancement of freedom in Europe and across the world.

Debate At The Nixon Center

November 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Center | Leave a Comment 

The Nixon Center has many of these types of panels. In the latest, the Brooking Institute’s Diana Negroponte challenges Latin American expert and former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda on the issue of drugs in Mexico:

11.10.52

November 10, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

Featured Articles — November 10, 2009

November 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry ‘Uncle’ By William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal
Bart Stupak wins a ban on federal funds for abortion.

The Shrink and the Terrorist By Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle
There have been two views on what happened last week when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on unarmed military colleagues at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian.

‘Strategic reassurance’ that isn’t By Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal, The Washington Post
The Obama administration’s worldview is still emerging, but its policies toward Russia and China are already revealing. Its Russia policy consists of trying to accommodate Moscow’s sense of global entitlement.

To abandon Afghanistan now would be a betrayal of the fallen By Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph
The campaign to defeat the Taliban must endure, says Boris Johnson – whatever it takes.

No Average Joe

November 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Center, The National Interest | Leave a Comment 

Nixon Center Executive Director Paul Saunders argues that Vice President Biden has ably taken on some tough issues:

Analysts and commentators (but mostly commentators-who needs analysis anyway, facts are too complicated) have a variety of explanations for this, generally cut to fit their political preferences. Those sympathetic to Mr. Biden argue that he was not a national figure before the election, that President Obama has given him some of the toughest issues, and that it is not really fair to make any comparisons to Cheney, who at the same point in his first term had benefited from a post-9/11 lift in the polls. Those with an axe to grind point to the wider unpopularity of much of the administration’s agenda, including concern over Iraq and Afghanistan, where Biden has had a high-profile role.

RN Takes A Stroll

November 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

The LA Times Larry Harnisch has more from November 1959:

« Previous Page — Next Page »