Posted on 11/20/2008 10:07:32 AM PST by Hyzenthlay
Hi everyone! So, I saw a promo for something like a movie or TV show about Watergate the other day, and that sort of sparked my curiousity about what the whole scandal was about - up until I started researching it, I only had some vague understanding that there was a break-in, a big scandal, some partially erased tapes, and Nixon resigned. Well, after researching it quite a bit I have a much better understanding of the whole fiasco, but there are still a few things that I don't understand or can't make sense of yet. I'm also wondering if the media was putting a liberal spin on things back in the '70s, and if they were, anyone who wants to correct any common misassumptions brought about by that is more than welcome to do so. Since I wasn't even born by then, and my parents said they weren't old enough to be paying much attention to politics back then, I was hoping that some of you (particularly history buffs and people who were paying attention back then) could please clarify a couple things for me =)
Why did the five men break into the DNC headquarters in the first place? This seems to be the one detail that's the fuzziest... strangely, none of the things I read mentioned 'why', and I highly doubt that five grown men would break into a building just for the heck of it.
There was a secret fund of some sort - where did this money come from, and what kinds of things was this money used for? Wikipedia has a very detailed account of the 'paper trail' for some of the money, but it's so much information it makes my head spin, cause I'm not great at understanding financial stuff more complicated than your generic personal bank account or simple investments like CD's.
What was the information that 'Deep Throat' was revealing to the press? Obviously, he was telling them something both confidential and important, but again, everything I've found is fuzzy on the details.
In the 'smoking gun' tapes, what exactly was going on? I read a transcript, and from what I could make of it Nixon and Haldeman came up with the idea to tell the FBI that the CIA didn't want them investigating because it would start up the Cuban Missile Crisis again - is that right? Is the awkward break in the conversation the missing 18.5 minutes?
Was Spiro Agnew's resignation connected with Watergate in any way? Or was it that Nixon and Agnew were just both involved in their own separate scandals that just happened to blow up in their faces at roughly the same time?
bookmark
I just wish for a return of those days of honest politics.
At the time our elderly neighbors were telling us that the entire Watergate ‘scandal’ was nothing more than the media driving Nixon out of office because he was anti-communist.
Didn’t quite get it then, believe it now.
Read Silent Coup by Len Colodny. The men broke in to cover a call girl ring run by John Dean’s wife. Dean orchestrated the break in.
The money came from excess campaign funds. As someone who worked for the Committee to Reelect, they had plenty to go around.
Agnew’s resignation was for his activities, including tax evasion, as Governor of Maryland...it’s a state tradition.
In a nutshell, the Watergate scandal was all about the coverup, and very little about the actual crime (the break-in). The break-in was a ham-handed attempt to get intelligence about Democrat activities that could be used against them in the election. Remember this was before information is as free as it is now, with email and the web. The coverup became important because the President himself had full knowledge and exerted power to conceal crimes. The money trail showed who was involved, and the tapes confirmed it.
Not our finest moment.
I agree
You don’t need to read anything by Woodward and Bernstein
The authors of “Silent Coup” read all the books, interviewed all the people, cleared up all the conflicting stories and discrepancies, and presented the clearest version in their book “Silent Coup”
It clearly explains how and why John Dean was the main culprit behind the whole thing.
Not surprisingly, the media establishment ignored this book or tried to discredit it, as it says bad things about them.
It’s out of print, but still probably available at your library.
That book was an eye-opener.
For a little context of the time, keep in mind the media had to hammer the scandal at the public, daily, for nine solid months before anyone began to give a crap.
Then, as today, there is no scandal unless the mainstream media says so.
Thanks for the book recommendations - I’ll definitely check to see if any of the local libraries or used bookstores have them.
Everyone else, thanks for the explanations so far, you all have already clarified quite a few things. I’ve got to go for a bit, but I’ll definitely check back later =)
As Teddy Kennedy said in the Roger Mudd interview, at the time (paraphrasing), "This is really nothing. It's politics. Both parties do it all the time." Of course, he only said it once before the DNC got to him and shut him up.
And the tapes "confirmed" nothing. Nixon, being a man of honor unlike Clinton, chose to resign rather than put the country thru the trauma of a trial.
It's also claimed that a fellow who died a few years ago was THE Deep Throat. In which case he was probably just a source of some significance, but still, the best theory I've read is that Deep Throat was a amalgam. Not just one source -- a mix.
Why the break-in happened is up for grabs -- competing stories. Some say it was that one WH guy's wife was involved in prostitution and the Dems had a file -- that was the target of the break-in.
It was tempest in a teapot. As usual the Dems and Media were making something of almost nothing. It would have passed by, but Nixon stonewalled. And it was that stonewalling that caught him. The Dems and the media where able to demonize him, and he fueled that demonization in part with his reaction.
Never say to the public "I am not a crook." Comes off like an admission of guilt. -- At least when the media has it's long knives out for you. Yet ... Clinton DID in all effect do the same thing when he said "I did NOT have sex with woman ..." Clinton almost got away with it since he was Dem and the media was on his side. But even he managed to get singed with the mark of Impeachment.
You see how the media demonized George W. Bush? Or even tried to demonize Sarah Palin? Over-the-top of over-the-top.
But Nixon had no alternative media to take his aide -- or at least take the side of The Whole Truth.
G.Gordon Liddy, who was part of it, suspects that it had to do with prostitution...
The Other Watergate Conspiracy - (G. Gordon Liddy says John Dean really behind Watergate) (JUNE 22, 2005)
One of the main culprits of the Watergate scandal, John Dean, who spent 4 months in prison, surfaced as a media hero. He has also surfaced as an expert on the alleged scandalous behavior of the Bush Administration. He wrote the book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. But the facts, which have survived several challenges in court, indicate that Dean had a much bigger role in Watergate than reported by Woodward and Bernstein. The book Silent Coup argues that the Watergate break-ins were really meant to cover up embarrassing information about a call-girl ring whose "Madame" was a roommate of John Dean's wife, and that John Dean ordered the break-ins. Watergate, as Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy maintains, was "a Dean Operation."To the credit of MSNBC's Chris Matthews, he had Liddy on his June 1 show to comment on the naming of Mark Felt as Deep Throat. Liddy said it didn't add up. Liddy explained, "One, Woodward wrote about how Deep Throat, he had a long friendship with Deep Throat. There's no evidence that he ever had any kind of friendship with Mark Felt. Secondly, why would the number two man at the FBI choose to confide in a young metro reporter for 'The Washington Post' who had only been there for nine months? Three, Deep Throat is given credit by Woodward with the story of the destruction of the tape. How would Mark Felt have known about that?
Didn’t quite get it then, believe it now.”
Maybe so, but Nixon did lie and break the law.
The tragedy of it, is that when he discovered what his people had done; he should have fired them and made it public that he would not stand for this kind of thing.
He would have looked at as a hero (after a period of initial attacks against him).
Really, one needs to read everything to have any chance of understanding what happened.
All the President’s Men presents the official, received version of events pasted together post-facto for public consumption by the mainstream media for the benefit of their own liberal interests.
Silent Coup is the revisionist re-examination of the story, focusing on the loose threads left by the “official” version.
Both points of view are partisan; the truth probably incorporates both, but it’s safe to say that no one who has any part of the truth is interested in the whole truth ever being known.
I don't really think Nixon gave the situation much thought until the noise in the press began to drown out all other news.
He was taken completely by surprise and remained confused by the situation until the day he resigned.
They were sent there by John Dean, a lawyer who worked in the White house.
His wife had worked as a Call Girl, and he was afraid the Dems had her name in a book they intended to reveal to the Press.
Nixon did not know about the break-in and when he learned about it, he tried to stand behind his men.
John Dean then went to the press to deflect blame to Nixon and further keep his wife out of it.
Watergate was the truly stupid effort of a basically decent man to protect his friends. The break in was exactly what has happened in every election before or since- just to get information on another’s campaign- Remember Gore “somehow” getting his hands on Bush’s strategy notebook? We’re-so-sorry-for-the stupid-operative-who-did-this- blah blah blah...
Nixon did not know about the initial break-in, but then stupidly tried to help the cover-up afterwards. It was dumb and nothing compared to the criminality we saw with the Clinton’s, but it depends on who the press likes. The reps folded just like they always do and refused to back Nixon- so he resigned. The tapes were nothing more than discussions on what to do now. It wasn’t nearly what we have seen since, but the press (which didnt have any real competition back then) hated Nixon and the left was determined to overturn the results of Nixon’s LANDSLIDE victory. They were emboldened by their successful attacks on Agnew.
“Deep Throat” was a lie and two men built whole careers on it. This person never existed. Woodward pranced some senile, one-foot-in-the-grave, old time Nixon enemy out, just before the guy died, and claimed THIS was “Deep Throat”. Only the most gullible believe it for a second. I just wonder how much the old man’s family made on the deception.
When a demonRAT screws up (Clinton), the left, the pols and the press circle the wagons; when a rep does, it’s every man for himself. THIS is why THEY win and WE lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.