Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

It's obvious that John Dean came through Watergate a much wiser man. So who better to compare the Bush (fils) administration with Nixon's? The comparisons are indeed alarming. At least Nixon was elected to the presidency--twice. Bush was never elected--once. Nixon graduated from college on his own, but all one has to do is listen to Bush for a few minutes to realize that someone wrote his papers for him at Yale and Harvard. Then there are the lies, piled atop falsehoods--about Iraq, about everything. Neither Nixon nor Bush (fils) could keep from lying, and unlike the Clinton lies about sex, no one died as a result of Monica. They certainly died in Viet Nam and they continue to die in Iraq. But the real question that nags me is why Republicans can't understand the antipathy Democrats feel toward Bush. So many reviewers have mentioned this. Apparently they thought it was all right to accuse Clinton of everything, including murder, okay to spend millions on an investigation that ended in nothing, much less an apology. And then Democrats should line up being Dubya? Anne Coulter can call Democrats traitors, and Democrats should not respond? John Dean has laid out the case against Bush dispassionately, which is more than one can say for the sneering, smirking Clinton haters.