This Is Not Watergate Redux

---

---

People who compare Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey to the Saturday Night Massacre show a stunning lack of knowledge of history. Recent history, at that. This isn't ancient history.

If you want to talk about ancient history, let's go back a couple of centuries to the time when the Founding Fathers were designing the system of government for this new country. Chief among their concerns was due process for people who were accused of crimes. They realized that, no matter how utopian they believed their new land to be, people are still people, and some of them will commit crimes. They wanted a government that would treat all who were accused of crimes to be treated fairly.

There had to be an actual crime, not speculation about what may or may not have been done; there had to be evidence showing that a crime had been committed (if, for example, a person disappears under suspicious circumstances, that disappearance cannot be treated as a homicide unless a body has been found). Witnesses were probably considered the best evidence at first, and they're still valuable, but as forensic evidence gained credibility, its stock in criminal cases rose considerably. When I was in high school, DNA was still in a limbo state, legally speaking. Today it is the coin of the realm.

Fast forward to Watergate.

Where shall I begin? Well, let's start with the fact that the Watergate investigation really began when Bob Woodward was covering the arraignment of the Watergate burglars in June 1972 for the Washington Post — more than a year before the Saturday Night Massacre. Burglary is definitely a crime. Everyone knew a crime had been committed when five men were arrested in the Democrats' national headquarters in the wee hours of a Saturday morning. That was certainly a suspicious thing, but curiosity was really aroused when a paper trail revealed that some of the burglars were linked to Richard Nixon's White House.

That was the root of the investigation. A crime. Not speculation that a crime may have been committed but evidence of an actual crime. Just as the Founding Fathers intended. Facts were deciding the case. Not emotion. Not rumor. Not innuendo. Not hearsay.

And it was the question of how potential evidence in the investigation of that crime was to be handled that ultimately led to the Saturday Night Massacre.

Let's back up just a little here.

In July 1973, it was revealed during the Senate Watergate hearings that there had been a taping system in the Oval Office, a system that was activated by sound. Only four people, I think, knew of the existence of this taping system, and one of them was Richard Nixon.

Anyway, this system had been secretly recording conversations Nixon had with his top aides for a few years. Special prosecutor Archibald Cox issued a subpoena for tapes of conversations believed to be relevant to the Watergate investigation, mostly based on testimony from former White House counsel John Dean; fewer than 6% of the tapes related to Watergate — many of the recorded conversations, for example, dealt with plans for Nixon's trips to China and Russia — and thus were irrelevant to the investigation, but the tapes Cox sought were expected to prove or disprove Dean's testimony, which had been remarkably specific as to the dates of conversations and what was said in those conversations.

Until the existence of the tapes became known, there seemed to be no way to break the impasse, but the tapes could establish who was telling the truth, Nixon or Dean.

Nixon refused to comply and offered a compromise. Mississippi Sen. John Stennis — who was notoriously hard of hearing — would listen to the tapes and provide a summary for Cox. Cox rejected the compromise.

Nixon's attorney general, Elliot Richardson, had appointed Cox earlier in the year and was the only one who could dismiss him. At the time of Cox's confirmation Richardson had promised the Senate that he wouldn't use his authority to interfere; some five months later, Nixon asked Richardson to fire Cox, and Richardson resigned. Next in line was Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, who also resigned rather than fire Cox.

Then it fell to Solicitor General Robert Bork, who carried out the order.

One thing that is not mentioned today — but was mentioned in Theodore H. White's book on Watergate, "Breach of Faith" — was the concern about Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who was meeting with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow. In the Cold War atmosphere of that time, perceptions were critical on both sides, and a presidential order had been defied. Many in the federal government worried about what the Soviets would think.

That does not justify anything, but it helps to put the decision process into context.

That was the Saturday Night Massacre. If there is a comparison to be made between the Saturday Night Massacre and the firing of James Comey, certain facts must be addressed.

In October 1973 everyone knew a crime had been committed. What was the crime in this case? I'm not talking about speculation. I'm talking about anything that would stand up in court.

That is due process, and every American citizen is entitled to due process.

Even the president, whether you like him or not.

Blood in Boston

---

---

I used to work as a sports copy editor, and, in those days, you never saw an article from the Boston Marathon on the front page of the newspaper.

Times have changed. I can guarantee that the Boston Marathon will be on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow, but that has nothing to do with the race.

It has everything to do with the explosions that occurred near the finish line this afternoon.

Initially, it was thought there had been three explosions, but, as I write this, it appears that the third event — a fire or explosion at the nearby JFK library — was a bizarre irony.

When I heard that, I immediately thought of the hijackings of 2001 — and how I heard of planes crashing into the World Trade Center ... and then the Pentagon. Perhaps it was due to the fact that my office did not have a television, but there was a lot of confusion in my workplace that day — and a lot of misinformation floating around, even from people who had been in contact with friends and relatives who were watching things unfold on TV.

There is always some confusion around an event like this, and, sadly, I have become well acquainted with them. I was living a short distance from Oklahoma City when the federal building there was bombed (the 18th anniversary of that event will be this Friday, by the way); it is safe to say that my exposure to that event was more intense than it was for most.

And I, like most Americans, remember the confusion that was part of the developing story on 9–11. A few years later, I watched, transfixed, as the news coverage of the series of bombings in London flooded the airwaves.

The only things that seem clear are that at least three people are dead tonight, more than 100 are injured (some have lost limbs), and no one has claimed responsibility.

The investigators may already have an idea who was responsible, but they are keeping their cards hidden — as good investigators do.

In the days ahead, I expect many of the pressing questions to be answered — perhaps not always to everyone's satisfaction but answered, nonetheless.

There were people from all over the world in Boston today; consequently, I expect to hear eventually of injured — possibly even deceased — people from several countries.

There may even be things about this case that will surprise me.

Actually, the only thing that I am sure of — at least, as sure as anyone can be at this point — is that this was a coordinated, organized attack that almost certainly involved more than one person. I don't know if it was carried out by a domestic or foreign group. I suppose that is a detail we will learn in due course.

For now, I am willing to let the investigators do their work — which, I suppose, is an easy thing for me to do, considering that I am about 1,500 miles away and I won't have to put up with the inconvenience that many Bostonians will as they try to go about their daily business.

But investigators don't get to choose where a crime is committed. They can only investigate the scene of a crime, wherever that scene happens to be. This seems likely to be a difficult scene to process.

I wish them all the best in investigating this crime. I hope they bring those responsible to justice.

And I hope that we learn whatever we need to learn from this event to keep another one from happening.

But I am doubtful that will happen.

I am doubtful because, as is abundantly clear in the debate over guns, we tend to treat only the symptoms and not the disease.

The symptoms are the weapons that are used to kill and maim people.

The disease is whatever prompts one human being (or a group of human beings) to deliberately hurt or kill other human beings.

People who are bent on destruction will do it with whatever weapon is available to them. They will use guns — or knives, as we saw at the school in Houston last week — or explosive devices, as we saw in Boston today.

Until we are ready to face that problem with the vigor with which we attack inanimate objects, we will not rid our land of this epidemic of violence.

The 'War on Terrorism' Tightrope

Barack Obama is obsessed with bipartisanship.

That isn't an entirely bad thing. The George W. Bush years might not have been so bad if he and the Republicans in Congress had reached out more to their Democratic brethren, particularly the moderates. And, no doubt, it would make it easier to do the things that need to be done now if more Republicans were on board.

But, whichever party is in control of things — Democrats now, Republicans in the first half of this decade — eventually faces issues about which its members have strong feelings — and about which the opposition party has equally strong feelings. On both sides, it cuts to the core of what it means to be a Democrat or to be a Republican.

In those situations, the party that is in the majority has to abandon the desire for bipartisan support and keep its own members in line. The objective is to pass the legislation. If you happen to get a couple of votes from the other side, that's icing on the cake.

And that may be the kind of situation Democrats face now when the subject is investigating how the Bush administration waged the war on terrorism.

Given that a Democratic president may be in the position of authorizing an investigation into the administration of his Republican predecessor, Obama is understandably reluctant to pursue this. My gut tells me he waffles on some of these issues to stay on the good side of those who didn't vote for him last year.

But that's the wrong approach to take, considering that public opinion seems to favor some kind of review of the decisions that were made. It seems that this probe is going to happen, whether Obama supports it or not, and he risks alienating some who helped him win the presidency if he doesn't accommodate them.

Apparently, this "yes we can" movement doesn't rely on any one man, but it does depend on commitment to certain principles.

So what Obama needs to do is take the lead in structuring the investigation. And Jon Meacham provides some common–sense guidelines in Newsweek for that.

• No televised hearings, like we had during Watergate and again during Iran–Contra. Inevitably, somebody (maybe several somebodies) will give in to the temptation to grandstand.


• Don't pursue criminal charges "against officials at the highest levels — including the former president and the former vice president." I'm not so sure about that one, although I understand how it would look on the surface.
  
  I keep thinking about Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon about a month after Nixon resigned, and I think that Ford paid a high price for that pardon throughout his presidency. In hindsight, I understand his reasoning, but I don't think he did a good job of articulating it for the American people. If he had, his presidency might have been more successful.
  
  But Ford wasn't a gifted speaker; thus, he might have been better advised, at that time, to let the justice system run its course, no matter where it took us. Obama is a better speaker than Ford so he may be able to talk his way out of a lot of things, but if public opinion supports the prosecution of some former higher–ups, Obama may be powerless to resist the tide.


• Meacham argues that "[t]he idea that our only options are to move on completely or to prosecute is a classic false choice." He says an alternative is a 9/11 kind of commission that has a certain number of Bush sympathizers. That may be the closest that Obama can come to bipartisanship on this one.
  
  "We heard many similar arguments against the 9/11 Commission that we are now hearing about what we might call a 9/12 panel," Meacham writes, "but the 9/11 report was riveting and revealing, and we are better off for it. Why preemptively foreclose the possibility that a follow–up project would lead us even further forward?"

OK, I get that Obama would prefer not to do this right now. But he can't sidestep any criticism. And flip–flopping will only bring more criticism from both sides.

He also can't avoid an inevitable drop in his approval ratings. He has some (pardon the phrase) political capital to spare right now. He should be true to his principles yet avoid appearing meddlesome.

In other words, pick a side and stick with it. And then, whatever happens, don't interfere.

John Kass, a columnist for the libertarian/conservative–leaning Chicago Tribune, writes today that, contrary to the image of "flexible leader" that Obama has sought to project, "last week, he bowed to his base in the hard political left by reversing himself, opening the door for the prosecution of Bush Justice Department officials who helped develop harsh interrogation policies for suspected terrorists."

Kass says Obama "must stop campaigning someday and start thinking like a chief executive."

I agree — but part of being a good leader is being responsive to the desires of those being led.

And I believe the Ford experience shows there is a price to be paid for preventing the system from doing its job.

Should Bush Be Investigated?

Some people are treating the suggestion that the Bush administration should be investigated as a lust for blood. I disagree.

In the New York Times, Paul Krugman makes a compelling case for holding a thorough investigation of the Bush years. If such an investigation is not conducted, Krugman writes, "this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse their power."

I think it is admirable that the president-elect has said he would consider such an investigation to be counterproductive because "we need to look forward." There is a certain amount of truth in this. There are urgent issues facing the nation — the economy and national security will demand most of the new administration's attention.

And Congress, after years of marching in lockstep behind virtually everything the Bush administration said and did, needs to be involved in the decision-making.

But Krugman is right when he says, "[M]ost of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies."

It's noble to say, "Forgive and forget." But, as Krugman points out, America did that before — and the second Bush administration put many of the violators from the Reagan-Bush years into positions of power, where they proceeded to commit even worse deeds — which have led this country to the precarious position it now faces.

The decisions that were made have to be examined, if only to learn from those mistakes. Those who do not remember the past, it is said, are condemned to repeat it.

If such an examination yields proof of criminal wrongdoing, that demands criminal prosecution. That's not a pleasant prospect, but the alternative is to accept what Richard Nixon said in his famous interview with David Frost — "If the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

Do we really want a government in which the validity of torture depends upon who is in power? Do we want to exist in a nation where the government can freely reward its supporters, even when those supporters are incompetent, and punish its opponents?

If Congress is to reclaim its independence and authority, it must investigate. This may be viewed as partisan, given the fact that a Democratic Congress would be investigating the members of a Republican administration. But there's a reason why the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in 2006 and built on those majorities in 2008, along with electing a Democrat president — the Republicans in the executive branch mishandled everything after being enabled by the Republicans in Congress.

If those actions can be defended within the framework of our democracy, that's fine. But, if not, the guilty must pay for their crimes.

This is not a case of the victorious taking advantage of the vanquished. It is a matter of accountability.

If America is to remain free, no one must be allowed to be above the law.

Does the Kennedy Assassination Still Matter?

---

Mary Moorman's memorable photo of the Kennedy assassination.

---

I've been searching the internet, but if anyone has published an article investigating any of the still unresolved issues in the Kennedy assassination lately, I've missed it.

Today, by the way, is the 45th anniversary of that assassination.

Here in Dallas, the only article I've seen about the assassination today, in the Dallas Morning News, laments the rate of attrition among the witnesses to it.

But everything I've read is a remembrance. Unlike anniversaries gone by, I've seen nothing that challenges the conventional conclusions, that asks questions about the things we've been told to accept as fact.

Personally, I remember very little directly — although, over the years, I think I've persuaded myself that I remember more than I actually do. Then, as now, I was only a few days from my birthday. In 1963, I wasn't even in elementary school yet. I was about to celebrate my fourth birthday.

In those days, my family didn't have a television set, but our neighbors did. And I vividly remember spending the next four days in our neighbors' small home, but I spent little of it with my parents in front of the TV. I was too busy playing with the neighbor boy, who always seemed to have the coolest new toys.

As young as I was — and as focused as I was on my friend's toy collection — I doubt that I saw Lyndon Johnson make his brief address to the nation upon returning to Washington. And I probably didn't see Kennedy's casket being removed from the plane and taken back to the White House.

I probably didn't see Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald a couple of days later, and I probably didn't see John-John salute his father's casket the day of the funeral.

I simply don't remember what I saw and what I didn't see in 1963. But I know I've seen footage of all those events many times in the years since.

Mostly, as I've gotten older, the belief that our nation has been lied to about what happened in Dallas has continued to grow. And nothing that I've heard has changed that feeling.

For myself and for those who died before getting the answers they sought, I wonder if those answers will ever be found.

I'm not one of those who believes, as has so often been said, that America "lost its innocence" on that day. The people of my parents' generation, who were in their early 30s when President Kennedy was killed, had been through far too much in their lives — the Depression, Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany, segregation, the Cold War — to lose their innocence. It was mostly gone by that time.

My sense of that time was that the adults felt an opportunity had been lost — perhaps the kind of opportunity that comes along only once in a generation.

Today, on the 45th anniversary, the only TV station I've discovered that is showing anything related to the assassination is American Movie Classics, which is showing Oliver Stone's "JFK" tonight at 7 and 11 Central. It's a well done film and it raises some important questions — but the film was made 17 years ago and those issues still haven't been resolved.

I have written about the absence of anniversary observations in the media in my Birth of a Notion blog.

But the question I'd like to ask here is simply this: Is the JFK assassination still relevant?

Does November 22 belong — once and for all — in the archives with all the important dates in history, even with questions unanswered?

Or should we continue to search for those answers?