Skip to comments.Deep Throat and Genocide
Posted on 06/01/2005 5:55:15 AM PDT by veronica
click here to read article
We agree on the main point: that Nixon's activities could not be construed as 'picking' the eventual Democrat nominee. I appreciate the vote tallies from the '72 Democratic Convention, but I would make a couple of observations.
1. Muskie was already out of it. Any votes that he received were purely out of loyalty. His candidacy was dead.
2. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, IIRC, was actually strengthened as the campaign dragged on. He was a lot of peoples' "second-choice", but he was never a threat to actually gain the nomination. His politics were not a good match for his party's leftward shift.
3. Wallace was largely a regional candidate, although he did have enough strength among old-line democrats in my state (Pennsylvania), to throw a monkey wrench into the works for the Democrats.
4. Terry Sanford. Whoah, don't remember him being a factor. Seems like another favorite son type vote tally.
5. Hubert Humphrey. Probably never had a chance, in retrospect. He started the trend -- which I think continues to this day in the Democrat Party -- whereby you only get 1 shot at it. Take note Al Gore & John Kerry. You've both been tagged as 'losers'.
Please cite the sources for that assertion, i.e., they tried to have influence in that process.
Some at FR have argued that Mr. Wallace nearly cost Mr. Nixon the election, that Mr. Wallace hurt Mr. Nixon more than Mr. Humphrey.
I am not one of those. Wallace was a Southern Democrat. In 1968, Wallace won AK, LA, Miss, Alabama, and Georgia. Nixon won SC with 38% of the vote( Wallace came in 2nd), North Carolina with 39% of the vote(Wallace 2nd),and Tenn with 38% of the vote (Wallace 2nd). These were all historically Dem states.
In other Nixon won states Wallace received 18% of the vote in Kentucky, 24% in Virginia, 29% in Florida, 11% in Missouri, 8% in Illinois.
I have a hard time accepting the assertion that an avowed rascist Southern Democrat would siphon more votes from the Rep candidate than the Dem. The figures say something else. Nixon defeated Humphrey in the popular vote by about 500,000 votes (43.4% to 42.7%). Wallace received almost 10 million votes (13.5% of the total vote).
"I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents."
So, ergo, all previous presidents were engaged in felonious activities.
<True, but neither is Mr. Clinton. Yet, it doesn't prevent us from recognizing the truth that he (and Mr. Nixon) committed felonies. In the case of Mr. Nixon, the Republican leadership told him he'd have to go. In the case of Mr. Clinton, the Dammocrap leadership defended him till their dying breath.
Sorry, but Clinton was found guilty in a court of law for lying under oath and obstructing justice. He had to pay a fine and his law license was suspended. Although he was pardoned by Ford, Nixon never went to trial so he is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice.
My point was that there was no real consensus Dem candidate except McGovern. Muskie self-destructed. McGovern represented the mainstream thought of the Dem party at the time. He was not a creation of the GOP nor was CREEP surreptitiously pushing his candidacy.
I love Ben Stein too!
"Please cite the sources for that assertion, i.e., they tried to have influence in that process."
Here's a "reprint" from the WashPost, asserting that a White House official wrote a letter to the editor to the Manchester Union Leader in February, 1972, which put Sen. Muskie in a bad light.
As well, the article discusses other "dirty tricks" operations from the CREEP.
Of course, it was Mr. Muskie's reaction to the Manchester Union Leader's attack on his wife that led to the famous "crying" episode that all but destroyed his campaign. It's tough to decide how much the previous efforts by the White House influenced Mr. Muskie.
But it wasn't for lack of trying.
The article also goes on at some length about other activities by the Republicans to influence the Democrat nomination.
Here's another link with a little chronology of events around that time, including that the CREEP had decided to "gather intelligence" on the Dems, eventually defined in part to include illegal bugging of opponents.
"I am not one of those. Wallace was a Southern Democrat. In 1968, Wallace won AK, LA, Miss, Alabama, and Georgia."
In the past, I thought that Mr. Wallace harmed Mr. Humphrey more, but a poster here challenged that view a while back. In looking at the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential results, here's what I find:
In 1964, Sen. Goldwater won:
In 1968, Mr. Wallace won:
Of course, Mr. Nixon won all the South in 1972.
One can argue that the four states that both Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Wallace won would have reverted to the Dems in 1968, but I think that it's persuasive to make the opposite argument: that it is likely that Mr. Nixon would have taken those four states in 1968. They were Republican in 1964 (during the worst shellacking of a Republican ever) and were again Republican in 1972. Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).
Mr. Nixon did take South Carolina in 1968, but so did Mr. Goldwater in 1964.
As for Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, Mr. Goldwater ran much stronger in these states than in the country as a whole. Had the national race not been as lopsided as it was, it is quite possible that Mr. Goldwater would have taken these states. In Florida, he took nearly 49% of the vote against President Johnson.
Even in North Carolina, Mr. Goldwater ran about 4% ahead of his national numbers. In a close race in 1968, it isn't at all a stretch that Mr. Nixon may have won a two-man race against Mr. Humphrey in these states.
Thus, even without Mr. Wallace in the race, in a close race, it's possible that Mr. Nixon would have taken these states.
Like I said, I used to think that Mr. Wallace hurt Mr. Humphrey much more than Mr. Nixon. But in looking at the state-by-state results, I think there's a strong argument that Mr. Nixon may have actually won a clear majority of the vote in 1968 without Mr. Wallace, and would have had a modestly larger victory in the Electoral College.
"So, ergo, all previous presidents were engaged in felonious activities."
All? I don't know. More than one previous president? I think so. I've read more than once that in some sense, Mr. Nixon got caught in the middle of a change in what was and wasn't acceptable. Or maybe, he just got caught, period.
"Sorry, but Clinton was found guilty in a court of law for lying under oath and obstructing justice."
Mr. Clinton, I believe, was cited for contempt of court for his actions, and agreed to the penalties imposed by the judge, and requested by the Independent Counsel. He wasn't (regrettably) convicted of any felonies. In fact, his agreement to to pay a fine and surrender his law license was specifically in a deal to avoid indictment for felony offenses, just as Mr. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached by the House and likely convicted by the Senate. Remember that Mr. Nixon had decided to hang tough until the delegation went to the White House and even Sen. Goldwater told him he didn't have 34 votes in the Senate.
Each man avoided being convicted of felonies, yet each man received some punishment for his actions.
The difference is that Mr. Clinton was not forced from office for his illegal activities. In my view, the punishment received by Mr. Clinton - pay a fine, lose the law license - was less than what Mr. Nixon received - forced to resign the presidency. Others may differ.
"Although he was pardoned by Ford, Nixon never went to trial so he is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice."
In a legal sense, you're right. That is the same argument all my pro-Clinton friends cite. He wasn't convicted of a felony, or even indicted. He denied, and still denies, doing anything felonious, although he has admitted that his efforts to conceal the truth may have verged into technical falsehood.
But what was proved legally is different from what we all saw with our own eyes, in each case.
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
IMHO, it is not a stretch to connect the loss of Indochina, courtesy of the dems and the MSM, to the current Global War On Terror.
Thanks for the ping!
And the lefties celebrate this as the beginning of their short-lived Liberal Golden Age.
Score one for Ben Stein.
Please ping this great oped to your ping lists and friends.
Those of us who were adults during Watergate and the slaughter of innocents after we left Nam, know about that genocide.
Millions of younger Americans have no idea of what happened.
Pingin' my General Interest and Texas lists here. :)
This sounds like the article Rush read from on his show today.
Deep Throat and Genocide
Re: The "news" that former FBI agent Mark Felt broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's articles that helped depose Richard Nixon, a few thoughts.
Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
It is the article read by Rush. Where do you think he gets a lot of his reference material? ")
Wage and price controls. Ultimate bad karma.
Rush said that Ben Stein was the son of a man that worked
for Nixon in some capacity back during Nixon's administration.
Ben was one of Nixon's speechwriters.
Thanks for the ping.
Interesting, but I'm old enough to have watched the sorry Watergate scandal unfold. What Nixon did was MUCH more than lie. The corruption inside that administration was massive, and I'm still offended and betrayed by men whom I thought to be honorable.
Anyone who didn't live through that era should go back and read. Amazing.
As for other administrations: two wrongs don't make a right. Using Kennedy or Clinton to justify Nixon is silly.
Not taking up for Felts here. Frankly, "Deep Throat" wasn't that important to the investigation. He only confirmed or denied info that Woodward had collected from other sources. His clandestine persona made for a good mystery, but it all would have come out anyway. Nixon's downfall was Nixon himself and the thugs he kept around him.
A couple of sites with comprehensive links:
Pres. Nixon was my hero. I have a framed pic hanging in my office. When he fulfilled his ONE campaign promise for re-election in '72, and that was to bring our troops home with honor from a screwed up political war, he became my hero and has always been my hero. I also remember reading that Pres. Nixon could have tied up the 1960 election in court for a long time due to the massive fraud and other illegal activities by Kennedy & his minions, but he didn't. Instead, he let the moral reject Kennedy have it because he felt the country needed to get on with doing business.
"Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose."
" ...they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor,... "
Ben Stein, whom I am getting to like less every day, must really hate G. Gordon Liddy.
Nixon's major crime was loyalty to his friends.
As a result, he helped to cover up an investigation into wrongdoing.
He was threatened with impeachment by the large-majority Democrats after much hounding by the Old Media. Representatives of his party, Republicans, took a walk from the Capitol to the WH to ask in a private conversation that he resign. Nixon further showed his loyalty to his friends and his country by doing resigning, instead of forcing the party and country to split in a trial over this, though he never believed his actions were wrong. In fact he believed that the state of war gave the executive branch the right to do what his subordinates did, though he never specifically authorized their ill-fated actions, and cited WW2 precedents.
An unbiased history of Watergate would include what I wrote above.
I believe that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was among those whose telephone was tapped on the orders of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The media double standard, I think, is most glaring when you compare coverage of the Kennedy family to the coverage of any Republican family, leader, or President.
Nixon campaigned on that same promise in 1968, saying that he had a "secret plan," but didn't get around to actually pulling troops out until the fall of '72. It was the October surprise of the 1972 election. That's four years of death in Vietnam under his watch.
I've wondered if Kerry got his "I have a plan" strategy from Nixon '68. Thank goodness it didn't work twice.
I saw G. Gordon Liddy on Fox this morning and he alluded to a "call girl ring" that was being investigated. He stated that the telephone tap was placed on a secretary or assistant who was believed to be the link between the call girl ring and the DNC.
I prefer Stein's appraisal to yours. His has facts and logic, yours just emotion and opinion. If you aren't a liberal you share those traits with them.
During this election, it was revealed that John Kerry had a mole in George Bush's election campaign, so that he could find out what his talking points were going to be. How is this any different than Nixon's campaign placing a bug in the Democrats office to find out the same thing?
Exactly which is why I always wonder that the media, especially the east coast media, hated him so much. I agree with Stein in that I suspect it goes back to Alger Hiss but it's no secret that many of our current woes with big government started under Nixon (not that he was the one who got the rock rolling by any means!).
To tag on as for the remark "ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose" as far as I know there's no question about it, it's purpose was to acquire information on the use of prostitutes. There are grey areas within that but I thought it was pretty much settled that was the purpose. Have I missed something?
Certainly no more than other administrations have done and certainly a lot less.
Dang I thought a new STD was discovered when I read that title.....:o)
By the way, the Watergate break-in was about a call-girl sex scandal that the Democrats were having call-girls come to DNC headquarters, had some on DNC payroll to handle delegates "needs", and Nixon intended originally to bring this forward but needed concrete proof. The initial offenses by the individuals directly responsible were only low-rent breaking and entering charges, which the ones involved could easily have got dropped. He could have stopped everything by simply pardoning them there, and nothing further would have went from it..
Nope, it wasn't arrogant. It was, however almost non-sequitor and definitely naive.
Nixon was willing to pound the NVA into the turf, but Watergate made it possible for Congress to defund the war in 1975, essentially leaving Nixon one option - get out.
We left $11 Billion dollars (1975 dollars) of materiel and equipment behind in our haste, by the way. That's how fast we got out.
All of this, and we had, by top NVA generals own admission, the enemy within 2 months of capitulation. With NVA defeat, the Khmer Rouge probably wouldn't have happened.
Stein is right here.
A "Yuh gonna love dis one" Ping. Ben Stein says it best.
The Vietnam war was the longest in our nation's history.
1st American advisor was killed on June 08, 1956,
and the last casualties in connection with the war occurred on May 15, 1975, during the Mayaquez incident. Approximately 2.7 million Americans served in the war zone; 300,000 were wounded and approximately 75,000 permanently disabled. Officially there are still 1,991 Americans unaccounted for from SE Asia.
Vietnam was a savage, in your face war where death could and did strike from anywhere with absolutely no warning. The brave young men and women who fought that war paid an awful price of blood, pain and suffering. As it is said: "ALL GAVE SOME ... SOME GAVE ALL"
The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield. No American force in ANY other conflict fought with more determination or sheer courage than the Vietnam Veteran. For the first time in our history America sent it's young men and women into a war run by inept politicians who had no grasp of military strategies and no moral will to win. They were led by "top brass" who were concerned mainly with furthering their own careers, most neither understood the nature of the war nor had a clue about the impossible mission with which they'd tasked their soldiers. And the war was reported by a self serving Media who penned stories filled with inaccuracies, deliberate omissions, biased presentations and blatant distorted interpretations because they were more interested in a story than the truth! It can be debated that we should never have fought that war. It can also be argued that the young Americans who fought so courageously, never losing a single major battle, helped in a huge way to WIN THE COLD WAR.
Most seem to be missing why Felt, and maybe others in the FBI wanted Nixon out.
Hoover had ran the FBI since Calvin Coolidge, They always replaced those the left the organization with others they approved of and from within the FBI. It was a tradition. When Hoover died, Nixon put L. Patrick Gray in charge, an outsider. Those senior in the FBI, and many others in the organization were not happy about this, and held a tight grudge.
I personally feel Felt was not the only one in the FBI that went of their way to help Nixon fall.
You are not the only one here who watched Watergate unfold.
Your take is the one the MSM propaganda machine has successfully foist upon you and others.
What Nixon's administration did was unremarkable - but the Old Media and the liberals had been angry at him since he brought down Hiss - so they dared to bring on a double standard in reporting that has killed the credibility of the press, as well as having the other effects that the trivial burglary of Watergate ended up having, some of which I've detailled Here:
Ben Stein is the son of Herbert Stein, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Nixon. Ben worked briefly as a speechwriter in the Nixon White House, alongside Pat Buchanan. Nixon has always been one of Ben's heroes.
"...and Nixon intended originally to bring this forward but needed concrete proof."
Wrong. Dean suspected his new wife was involved in the call ring operation, and HE ordered the break-in --- NOT Nixon - who didn't know about the break-in until later on.
Thanks for filling in the details for me, folks. :)
Billy Jeff and Moniker. :)
John Kerry's brother was arrested for the same thing.
Breaking into the office of one of Kerry's opponents.
Does anyone else feel that another scandal is about to break? After listening to Rummy this morning and reporters asking him about what Felt did, if Felt was a hero or not, did Rummy suuport what he did. Something tells me they were setting him up for something down the line. Why else would you ask the SOD a question like that. I think a big story against this administration is fixin to break and I think the WP is behind it.
The Bush campaign willingly employed the Kerry mole. The Nixon campaign burglarized a private office in the Watergate complex (and several others). Burglary is a crime.
The difference is a little matter of breaking the law, then paying the burglars to keep quiet, stashing the hush money in a foreign bank, and then ordering the CIA to call off the FBI investigation because it involved activity outside US borders.
And much, much more. What a mess.
You may find this interesting.
Did Bush have motivation? You bet, Havill wrote. It was Richard Nixon who urged Bush to leave a safe seat in Congress, hinting there would be a position as assistant Secretary of the Treasury waiting for him if he failed to win a Senate seat held by Ralph Yarborough. When Bush lost, Nixon reneged and asked him to take the U.N. slot instead but teased him by hinting he would be the replacement for Spiro Agnew in 1972. Instead, he was given the thankless task of heading the Republican National Committee in 1973. The elder Bush got his revenge in the end, by standing up at a cabinet meeting in August of 1974 and becoming the first person in Nixon's inner circle to ask the President to resign.
But the one thing he did that chapped my buns was instituting the 55 MPH nationwide. ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!
generation gap exposes the excellent job the MSM has done.
"I guess that his big problem was going to bat and showing loyalty for underlings who basically betrayed him."
We have a WINNER!
Nixon did not order the breakin. His only crime was an attempt to cover up the breakin once he was informed of it.
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.