To connect things to the present day, who is reponsible for Valerie Plame's exposure as a CIA operative? George W. Bush. Why? He chose his subordinates and they, not being stupid, rapidly figured out who got rewarded and who got screwed.

Who was reponsible for Watergate? Richard M. Nixon. Why? Exactly the same reason! I have, over the years, read several books concerning Watergate, but the most helpful to me on the "why" question was Sy Hersh's "The Price of Power", not actually about Watergate at all but about Nixon's foreign policy. It shows clearly how Nixon excercised power as a matter of routine, and it wasn't pretty.

So a fancy theory involving Maureen Dean is simply not necessary to explain the bugging of the Democratic National Committee; Nixon's henchmen were simply scratching and clawing for anything they could get. That's what the big boss wanted.

We also know that the original "Huston Plan", proposed by G. Gordon Liddy and eventually approved in a scaled-back version by John Mitchell as Nixon's campaign chair (although I don't know if Rosen's book agrees with this long-held interpretation, but the expenditure was approved by someone and that wasn't John Dean's reponsibility) incuded hookers and other compromising activities at the Democratic National Convention, so there's no suprise as to a possible connection.

Now Ben was right in that a book about John Mitchell is a good idea and I hope to read the book. I am amused, though, that everyone talks about the book being "well researched". Michael Moore's documentaries are well researched but that doesn't mean they are objective (and I do like Moore's output). Pity that David Halberstam was lost to us in that traffic accident a couple of years ago; I'm sure he could have instantly provided a different look at John Mitchell.