Anybody who gives "LOO-oSER" John Dean the time of day does not deserve to stay in office...

...and we have no comment on Senator Feingold....

John Dean says to censure Bush
Watergate figure testifies in Senate on eavesdropping
Saturday, April 01, 2006
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau



WASHINGTON -- Former White House Counsel John Dean, a central figure in the Watergate scandal who served time for his involvement in the Nixon administration cover-up, told a panel of senators yesterday that President Bush should be censured for authorizing the government to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone conversations.

Mr. Dean was the most controversial witness at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, as members debated a proposal by Sen. Russell Feingold to censure Mr. Bush, which has angered Republicans and whipped up support for the Wisconsin senator in the Democratic base.

Mr. Feingold has argued that the president broke the law when he secretly authorized the National Security Agency to listen to phone calls of Americans -- as long as one of the parties is suspected of having ties to terrorism -- without first seeking a warrant from a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Several Republican senators bluntly questioned why they should give an audience to a convicted felon. Although Mr. Dean provided critical evidence about President Richard Nixon's participation in the cover-up of White House involvement in the burglary in the Watergate affair, a political scandal that ultimately led to the president's downfall, he served four months in jail for obstruction of justice.

Mr. Dean took the comments in stride yesterday, telling senators it was important that they sometimes hear "from the dark side."

"I think I have probably more experience first-hand than anybody might want in what can go wrong and how a president can get on the other side of the law," Mr. Dean said. "Had a censure resolution been issued about some of Nixon's conduct long before it erupted to the degree and the problem that came, it would have been a godsend."

Mr. Dean said wiretapping by the Bush White House was "a part of a very consistent, long-term, early-announced policy of this presidency that they are seeking to build presidential power for the sake of presidential power." And he said censure was appropriate to restore the balance of power.

But the comparisons with Watergate irritated Republican senators, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-S.C., who had a heated exchange with Mr. Dean.

"To say that there's a political or moral equivalent [between] a president breaking in ... to find out what their political opponent may be up to [in the Watergate scandal], or lying under oath in a private lawsuit -- to say that that's the political and moral equivalent to this president's decision to surveil the enemy, I think is absurd," the senator said.

He contended that if Congress were to censure the president, it would "kill" the wiretapping program and impair national security. "You would do a lot of damage to future presidents, because they could not go down a road of honest debate without facing extreme political consequences."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Mr. Feingold's censure proposal was "without merit," but agreed to the hearing because he said it was an important part of exploring the legality of the president's actions and the scope of his power in wartime. Mr. Specter has said Congress cannot determine whether the president is authorized to conduct the surveillance program because most senators lack access to the classified information about why the program is needed.

But the Judiciary chairman has authored legislation that would require the administration to justify the eavesdropping program before the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which routinely reviews sensitive information in secret. Mr. Specter said those judges should determine whether the administration's program is constitutional. "I want to be sure the president has the authority he needs to protect America, but that's up to the court to decide," he said.

Just two Democrats, Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors of Mr. Feingold's plan -- and only two Judiciary panel Democrats showed up for yesterday's hearing.

One was the panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who took a step toward supporting Mr. Feingold's proposal when he said he was "inclined to believe" that censure of the president was an appropriate response to a program that he believes violates the law.

Despite scant support for his proposal, Mr. Feingold said he would not give up until the administration is held "accountable."

The senator argued yesterday that "The lawbreaking is shocking in itself, but the defiant way that the president has persisted in defending his actions with specious legal arguments and misleading statements is part of what led me to conclude that censure is a necessary step."

Mr. Specter has said he expects the panel to vote on Mr. Feingold's measure, but has not said when.


[Feingold]