My remaindered copy of The Strong Man

Five years ago James Rosen, Fox “News” Chief Washington Correspondent, published a book on Watergate with a gigantic lie in it (surrounded by all kinds of smaller falsehoods). This lie continued the cover up of Richard Nixon’s treason during the 1968 presidential campaign.

Rosen is unjustifiably proud of his revisionist history called “The Strong Man,” which purports to tell the truth about John Mitchell, Richard Nixon’s Attorney General and, later, head of CREeP, the unfortunately accurate acronym for the Committee to ReElect the President.

Back in May I told the HIGH-LARRY-US story of my electronic bun fight with Rosen, but only hinted at The Big Lie. Even though I promised a full book review, I got bored with poking Rosen with a stick and let the topic die. However, it needs to be asked: Why did Rosen include this massive lie in his book when the truth was already known?

To understand this story one must go deeply into the Watergate Weeds. While most people use the term “Watergate” to refer only to the break-in at DNC headquarters that brought Nixon down, there was a whole litany of wrongdoing that falls under the rubric of Watergate, including this story. It goes back to the 1968 presidential election. President Johnson had already decided he would not run for office and Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic candidate. Meanwhile, LBJ had been pushing all parties involved to come to the Paris Peace talks in an effort to end the war in Vietnam.

An early picture of Anna Chennault, nicknamed “The Dragon Lady” by the Nixon White House.

Nixon didn’t get the nickname Tricky Dickie for nothing. Using a woman named Anna Chennault, a member of the so-called China Lobby, Nixon went around President Johnson to the South Vietnamese leader to scuttle the peace talks. She carried word from Nixon who said, in essence, if you don’t go to the Paris Peace Talks you’ll get a better deal from Nixon when he’s elected.

The broad outline of this treason has been known for decades (but more proof keeps coming to light). That’s why it was so puzzling that Rosen, in his laughable rewriting of history, would write:

James Rosen, historical revisionist

“A source close to the [Anna Chennault] affair–who demanded anonymity–strongly challenged the veracity of the prime witness.”

The demand for anonymity is backed up by end note 66 on page 514, which reads: “E-mails from [a confidential source] to the author, January 21, 2003, 6:16 p.m.; and Wednesday January 22, 2003, 3:25 p.m.”

Here’s the full quote from the book [Pages 61, 62]:

A source close to the affair — who demanded anonymity — strongly challenged the veracity of the prime witness. “Simply do not trust what Anna Chennault says about this incident,” said the source, a senior policy adviser to Nixon and other GOP politicians in later years. “She manufactured the incident, then magnified her self-importance.”

She caused untold problems with her perpetual self-promotion and, actually, self-aggrandizement, because she was only interested in the money. I do not put it in the realm of fantasy that she was paid by the SVs [South Vietnamese]; she had them bamboozled, believing she was an authentic and important “channel” to the campaign. John Mitchell . . . did not have the bullocks to kiss her off, a tough and persistent woman who could grind you down. . . . . Anna thought of herself as a puppet master. She had no assignment, no tasks, and was an over-the-transom type that can never be suppressed in a campaign.

Yet the Chennault affair continued to haunt Nixon’s presidency. His infamous orders to burglarize the Brookings Institution, issued in the summer of 1971 following publication of the Pentagon Papers and never carried out, stemmed from the president’s concern that the Washington think tank possessed documents related to “the bombing halt” — a euphemism for Nixon’s and Mitchell’s own back-channel machinations to counter it.

Keep in mind that James Rosen challenged me to read his book for myself and not “let @JohnWDean (x-felon) bully” me about it being revisionist history. Rosen’s mistake is that I know almost as much about Watergate as I do about Beatles trivia. The minute I came to that passage on Page 61 I knew that he was hoodwinking his readers. The broad outline of the Anna Chennault story has been known for decades, but the actual proof has only come in drips and drabs over the years. However, by the time Rosen wrote “The Strong Man” it was generally acknowledged that Chennault was telling the truth and Rosen’s secret source was lying through his teeth.

Corpulent liar Roger Ailes [right] with his evil overlord Rupert Murdock

As soon as I read that passage I started to think, “Who the hell is still around that would still want to cover up Nixon’s treason? Who’s left? The only people who would want to cover it up are all dead.”

Then suddenly it struck me. There is still one person who needs to cover it up. Just to confirm my hypothesis I jumped to the index to look for “Ailes, Roger.” Well, whaddaya know about that? Roger Ailes, Nixon’s media man and John Mitchell’s behind-the-scenes right-hand media man in the ’72 reelection campaign, is NOT mentioned anywhere in the index. Nor does his name ever come up in the 498 pages of the book.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roger Ailes is the “senior policy adviser to Nixon and other GOP politicians in later years” who Rosen so blithely quotes calling Anna Chennault a liar. And, if I knew that the passage was a lie when I was reading it, why didn’t James Rosen know it was a lie when he was writing it? Did James Rosen help cover up his boss’ treason? Because, make no mistake, covering up treason is a treasonous act in and of itself. Therfore, James Rosen, if he knew the truth — but printed the lie — has also commited treason.

When I started asking Rosen uncomfortable questions on Twitter as I was reading his book, he very quickly blocked me. He claimed he did it because I wrote negatively about him for NewsHounds, which, if true, just shows he’s as thin-skinned as Bully Boy Bolling. However, I have always believed it was because he knew I wasn’t buying the bullshit he was selling in his book. Over the last 10 months, since I first wrote about my bun fight with Rosen, I have left many phone messages at Fox “News” for him. All I want to do is clear up the mystery of who is his secret source on Page 61 of The Strong Man. Rosen never returns my calls.

There’s only one conclusion I can come to: James Rosen is a treasonous coward who is covering up for his treasonous boss Roger Ailes. Now, go ahead and sue me. I double-dog dare you.