February 7, 2009

Hello Mr. Fund:

John Dean and the Watergate scandal were recently brought back to life in the New York Times articles when the 1996 transcript of Watergate tapes was found incomplete and misleading. David Scull in his February 1, 2009 NYT article identified number of misinterpretations in Stanley Kutler’s widely accepted transcript of Watergate tapes published in 1996. Patricia Cohen in her January 31, 2009 NYT article “John Dean’s Role at Issue in Nixon Tapes Feud” stated that Kutler in his book left out the 35-minute conversation in March 17, 1973 between John Dean and President Nixon during which they discussed possible involvement of White House officials in the cover-up when Dean suddenly mentioned himself. Nixon asked: “You? Why?” to which Dean answered: “Well, because I’ve been all over this thing like a blanket.” This was the first and the last time Dean told the truth.
In 1974 I published an article “John Dean Behind the Mask of Sanity.” (I will send you this article if you express an interest.) My perception of Dean was influence by the book “THE MASK OF SANITY” (1955) by Hervey Cleckley, M.D., who sited dozens of cases of seemingly normal people, some of them successful businessmen, lawyers, doctors and other professionals, who were afflicted by moral blindness and habitually committed various crimes, but often wiggled out of punishment by projecting their guilt on other people and blaming others for the crimes they themselves had committed. After having kept silent for more than a quarter century, Gordon Liddy in January 2001 finally revealed in his sworn testimony in Philadelphia court that it was John Dean who ordered the Watergate break-in. (The New York Times, January 30, 2001, p. A-19) This important information was moved to page 19 and was probably dismissed by people who did not want to admit even to themselves that they were duped by, as General Alexander Haig put it to Leon Jaworski, “The tapes after March 21 show Dean to be a subtle but clever liar.” (Leon Jaworski, (The Right and the Power, pp. 151-152). Actually it was John Dean who ordered Gordon Liddy to organize the Watergate break-in and then, to avoid punishment, projected his guilt on other people, including President Nixon. Not long ago Mark Felt, a senile 91–year-old former FBI official, was paraded by the mainstream media as the “real Deep Throat.” Now Mark Felt is dead. But in 1979, when Felt was alive and not senile, he published his book “The FBI Pyramid from Inside” in which he stated emphatically:

I never leaked information to Woodward and Bernstein or anyone else.

In the Chapter 8 – “Watergate and the Yom Kippur War” of my book “Israel at High Noon” (2006) I stated that the “Deep Throat,” the mysterious source of Watergate “revelations," was John Dean, who, at the time of the break-in, was the Counsel to the President in the Nixon White House and who became the “star witness” against President Nixon during the Watergate hearings. I would be happy to send you this book if you indicate an interest. It has a lot of factual information about John Dean and his true role in the Watergate scandal. Now I want to publish a book entirely focused on Watergate to reveal that the Watergate scandal was a hoax and a ruse by the anti-Vietnam War left-wing liberals who used John Dean to reverse Nixon’s 1972 landslide victory to satisfy their camouflaged wish for American defeat in Vietnam. Leonard Garment, who became Counsel in the Nixon White House after Nixon had fired John Dean, wrote:

Watergate grew out of a dispute about Richard Nixon prosecution of the Vietnam War. This dispute was, in political terms virtually irresolvable. (The New York Times, Nov. 19, 2000, WK 15)
This was not the first time in history when anti-war movements caused upheavals. Leaders who failed to deliver on a silver platter a quick and glorious victory inspired hatred of their people who wanted a change. After the protracted WW1 the German Emperor was exiled while the Russian Tsar and his entire family were murdered. Dissatisfied with protracted wars and taxation, the Paris mob on July 14 1789 stormed Bastille prison, freeing 7 common criminals, among them Marquis de Sade, the infamous sadist, who shouted to the enraged crowd, "They are killing the prisoners here!" which caused a riot. King Louis XVI was guillotined and his wife Marie-Antoinette, who was accused of changing her dresses every day, met the same fate. Their son, the Dauphin, suffered a terrible death in prison. People got more of a change than they bargained for in Hitler the Fuhrer, Stalin the Vozhd and Napoleon the Emperor, all of them having popped up from nowhere.
Harry Truman had even lower rating during the long Korean War than George W. Bush had during the Iraq War. Bob Herbert in his Op-Ed article wrote, “Anger at George W. Bush is white-hot.” (NYT, August 26, p.19) There is a link between the “white-hot” hatred of Nixon and Bush because of their quest for American victory in the unpopular at the time wars in Vietnam and Iraq. It has been not easy to publish anything if the subject has contradicted with the prevailing point of view. Bernard Goldberg’s book “A Slobbering Love Affair Starring Barack Obama-The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” was a great joy to read. This book brought back my memory of twenty years of futile attempts to publish in the U.S. my book “The Secret File of Joseph Stalin – A Hidden life.” American scholars did not recommend publication of this book because it contradicted their version of Soviet history which they had been teaching generations of students and required their students to read published Stalin biographies. My book was published after US Army Colonel David M. Glantz sent his comments to a British publisher, stating:

Brackman’s approach synthesizes the vast amount of fragmentary information on Stalin, “the man“to form an imposing and unprecedented psychological portrait. Indeed, Stalin comes to life and emerges “real” in the book. No other existing work has accomplished this feat. There are many published biographies and portraits of Stalin. None, however, places a proper face on the man or explains why he acted as he did. This book does both.
Christopher Andrew in The Sunday Times review stated:
There is much in The Secret File of Joseph Stalin that challenges conventional interpretations of Stalin’s dictatorship... Brackman’s claim that Stalin had been an Okhrana agent also deserves to be taken seriously.
Nikolai Yamskoy reviewed my book in a two page article in the Russian newspaper Russkiy Kurier, stating:
The history of the file is one of the most captivating scenes in R. Brackman’s book. In essence, this is the real “History of KPSU” instead of the falsified one, which was fed to us for decades and in part still continues to be fed to us in ‘politcorrect’ text books in schools and universities (Nicolai Yamskoy, “Our History-The Hidden Life of the Kremlin Boss” Russkiy Kurier, December 2, 2004, pp. 26-27)

Francois Kersaudy, a Sorbonne University Professor, published a 10 page review of my Stalin book in the February 2003 issue of the Paris magazine Historia with the cover title Staline - Agent du Tsar. There were many reviews of my Stalin book in the Russian, Israeli, British and American press.
My published books are listed on amazon.com, but I have never had an agent. Recently I received a letter of rejection from a literary agent who wrote: “I don’t think the book is something I can sell. I’m someone who’s heard too much of Watergate. I am sure another agent will be more enthusiastic, as there is a sizable audience still fascinated by it.”
I hope you might suggest an agent or a publisher for my book on John Dean and Watergate. This is the reason I burdened you with this communication. Below is my published letter to the New York Times Editor about Nixon and the Watergate scandal:
Sincerely,

Roman Brackman Ph.D.
700 Fort Washington Ave. apt. 5-D
New York City, NY 10040
Tel. (212) 740-8744
Tel. (845) 292-6534
E-mail: nadrom@nyc.rr.com
Website: romanbrackman.com
The New York Times, FRIDAY, APRIL 12. 1974
Letters to the Editor
'If the President Withdrew. . .'

To the Editor:

Senator Buckley in his much pub¬licized statement said "If the Presi¬dent withdrew, this crisis would be resolved." It would not. On the con¬trary, the real crisis would only begin. The President's resignation would deal a devastating blow to the legitimacy of our form of government, and not only to the office of the President, .but also to the very genesis of our country-its Constitution.
It would deal a deadly blow to the foundation of our system of justice - the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. The President's resigna¬tion would be widely interpreted as acknowledgment of guilt. The Senator went so far as to imply the President's guilt by association only because some of the people in the White House night have committed a crime. "
The Senator's statement that his call for the President's resignation does not imply any belief on his part in the President's guilt or innocence is puzzling. If the President is inno¬cent of any crime, why should he re¬sign? If the President were to resign, he would set a. frightening precedent.
Any future President could be removed from office only because some fantastic charges gained wide publicity. The next logical step would be to remove the legally elected head of State by public opinion poll, or by par¬tisan cabal, which chooses to ignore the only constitutional procedure, that of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
It is not the agony of the perfectly legal impeachment proceedings which would tear the country apart, as the Senator suggests, but the agony and the pervasive sense of guilt stemming from the destruction of an innocent man which would result in endless recriminations, strife, bitterness, and quite possibly in a civil war. Removal of a head of state by illegal means or pressure had precisely such results, as history shows so clearly.
President Nixon will stand tall in history for his courage and statesman¬ship in his foreign policy initiatives, for his courageous, if unpopular at that time, decisions on Vietnam and Cambodia, in September 1970 during the Jordanian crisis, in last October's Mideast war, and not the least in im¬portance, for his remarkable endur¬ance to stay in office and to uphold our Constitution despite pressure from his opponents and his friends.
The President will not resign be¬cause by following the Senator's ad-vice he would place the future of this country and indeed of the world in jeopardy.

ROMAN BRACKMAN
Chappaqua, N.Y. Mar. 29, 1974.