Watergate: S & D

Hunter S. Thompson:

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.

These are harsh words for a man only recently canonized by President Clinton and my old friend George McGovern -- but I have written worse things about Nixon, many times, and the record will show that I kicked him repeatedly long before he went down. I beat him like a mad dog with mange every time I got a chance, and I am proud of it. He was scum.

Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man -- evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him -- except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.

Alfred & HST otm

and that's why I am going to clown at his grave

Of course he was a pariah; if I remember the first Crowley book correctly, he was alway mad at sitting presidents for giving him the brush-off. And when he was consulted, it was more of a symbolic gesture; no one really took him seriously. Anyway, he was a pariah in a much bigger sense, in that he spent the rest of his life trying to restore some semblance of public standing. And I'm not at all saying that that was unfair; he fully deserved his pariah status. But I don't think it's accurate to say he was this guy who was right in the middle of things. (If you're measuring his pariah or non-pariah status against the fact that you believe he should have gone before a firing squad, then yeah, he got off easy.)

Really kinda think if Watergate happened right now, they would just file it under Unstrippable National Security Powers of the President During Wartime and say STFU.

If you want me to criticize Nixon's persecutors, the House Judiciary Com'tee failed to pass the article of impeachment on the invasion of Cambodia, which was even a bigger crime than Watergate.

Cambodia was worse, agreed.

One point on which we part company is the idea that Nixon was evil. Sorry, don't believe that, no more than I believe George W. was/is evil. You could spend a month cataloguing Nixon's faults, and yes, he had much blood on his hands. As to the former--the small-mindedness, the paranoia, the manipulativeness, etc.--I recognize them as human failings, some of which I share. He had an inordinate number of them, an almost perfect storm, but I recognize the person there. In terms of the latter--the thousands upon thousands of deaths in Vietnam that he could have foreshortened--to me that's a complicated mixture of Nixon's personality, the institution of the presidency, the American character, the male character, etc., etc. If I'm not mistaken, Morbius, you describe almost every post-war president as evil. If you believe that, fine. I don't. Sorry to be obvious (naive, I'm sure say, my Kay Corleone to your Michael), but to me evil is Hitler and Manson and the like.

I consider Nixon's men sabotaging the Paris peace talks in '68 an act of depravity, and the manner in which Nixon's terrible prose and slipshod public statements unwittingly made clear his indifference to the lives he destroyed because he wanted or wanted to stay in power -- that's evil. Sorry, clemenza, but "evil" needn't be represented by Hitler and Manson.

very Oliver Stone of you, clemenza

I've read all the major Nixon biographies, and one of his "books." I've a pretty good understanding of the man, and it doesn't blind me to the casualness with which he resorted to malice -- a man whose first instincts were always to stab you in the back the second your back was turned. Let's not allow his psychological problems blind us to his pathology.

And when he was consulted, it was more of a symbolic gesture; no one really took him seriously.

This is incorrect.

I'll let you guys set the bar on what constitutes evil. Make sure you set it carefully, safely out of reach of anything you've ever done yourself.

his indifference to the lives he destroyed because he wanted or wanted to stay in power

Yes, Nixon was unique among politicians in this regard.

This is incorrect.

According to you. I'll skim Crowley's book again; if I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so.

I don't know what kind of standard you've set, man. Are you suggesting that my own venality prevents me from judging Nixon? Really? Seriously? I judge a man by his actions, and Nixon's are well-documented.

According to you. I'll skim Crowley's book again; if I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so

Who do you think suggested Alexander Haig and Richard Allen to Reagan? Reagan's people actually brought Nixon to the Residence in the middle of the night in 1986 on the eve of Reagan's Iceland summit.

Crowley was a hack herself who could barely acknowledge her idol's culpability in Watergate.

What I'm suggesting is that things you're calling evil are very human failings. Nixon was incredibly small-minded; so am I sometimes. He was incredibly manipulative; so am I sometimes. And before he entered politics, he was a guy with a family, just back from the war. I don't think the presidency transforms you from there to a state of evil.

I think the other point I'm making is something along the lines of the boy who cried wolf. When Morbius daily refers to virtually every president as evil, including the sitting one, his outrage over Nixon becomes harder to take seriously. It's a version of right-wing radio; the outrage machine loses credibility at a certain point of saturation.

I'll let you guys set the bar on what constitutes evil. Make sure you set it carefully, safely out of reach of anything you've ever done yourself.

scuse me, off to napalm the Bronx

Sigh.

The Nixon-Kissinger historical record in Greece, Chile, Laos, Cyprus, the Ellsberg burglary -- not just their sneers and chuckles and terrible jokes, but the ease with which they separate motive from consequences as only sociopaths can -- amply proves that this person's acts were not "human failings."

and as I've said, all modern US presidents are evil, just as all Mafia dons are. There are degrees, of course.

I don't at all think Obama is at Nixon levels yet or has shown Nixonian intentions.

As discussed in our poll, those post-WWII presidents are a vile bunch.

Then I'll go back to the way I phrased it originally: "If you believe that, fine. I don't." I do realize I have a minority viewpoint here. But I also think it's a valid one. And I suspect I've listened to, read about, and thought about Nixon as much as you guys have.

(Another point on which we disagree; I don't think evil has gradiations.)

At least I have Neil Young on my side...

sure it has gradations, that's why I held my nose and voted for Bill Bradley over Gore in the 2000 primary.

Of course evil has gradations: that's why, as you pointed out, he could love his grandchildren and speak intelligently about Hegel.

I've been skimming the Crowley book, and while I can't find exactly what I'm looking for, it was likely a passage like this that prompted my comments upthread:

"Nixon relished the idea that Clinton might defer to him on international affairs and permit him greater latitude than either Regan or Bush had. Clinton might grant more weight to his opinions and advice and perhaps even act on them."

Now, you say she's a hack (simultaneously saying "as the Monica Crowley books showed"...)--I remember liking the first book, but maybe you're right, I don't know. But she's probably primarily guilty of being a mouthpiece for Nixon, in which case those the preceding quote would be reflective of how Nixon perceived Regan and Bush's treatment of him. My sense is that when they conferred with Nixon, it was more because he was a potential nuisance to be pacified, Johnson's thing about having someone inside the tent rather than out. I don't view carryover in appointments as especially significant; that's a standard Washington thing, where new administrations overlook everything except who can step in on day one and have some idea of what's supposed to be done.

Bill Bradley less evil than Al Gore? I don't know, they're both pretty scary guys...We disagree. There's evil, which is innate, and there's bad behaviour, bad decisions, momentary insanity, etc. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Omit "those," and "Reagan" for "Regan."

Actually, skip to the 8:10 mark here: Nixon/Hopkins ruminates on evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0t-pLLD2k

If I'm not mistaken, Morbius, you describe almost every post-war president as evil. If you believe that, fine. I don't. Sorry to be obvious (naive, I'm sure say, my Kay Corleone to your Michael), but to me evil is Hitler and Manson and the like.

while i'm sure most of us would rather attend a dinner party with nixon than manson, what exactly makes manson more evil? manson was a fringe cult leader and an obvious nutjob; nixon was given a position of incredible responsibility and power, and misused it horribly, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.

I think the other point I'm making is something along the lines of the boy who cried wolf. When Morbius daily refers to virtually every president as evil, including the sitting one, his outrage over Nixon becomes harder to take seriously. It's a version of right-wing radio; the outrage machine loses credibility at a certain point of saturation.

it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that every post-war president has ordered acts that could be pretty unambiguously described as evil. i'm personally not that concerned whether or not any of them personally is 'evil' -- in fact, the post-war president i admire most as a president, LBJ, was arguably the worst human being among them. on the other hand, not holding leaders responsible for what they do, or making excuses for them because they seem like nice people, is a slippery slope.

the reason ppl argue against the 'imperial presidency' is precisely because everyone's 'human failings' are inflated by power. comparing the likes of taft, harding and coolidge to the post-war presidents is pretty instructive.

And people have made the same argument against Truman, George W. Bush, Johnson, etc. As I say, I think you can disagree on this point. To me, Hitler and Manson and evil in its truest form springs from hatred. When presidents initiate and/or okay some of the horrible things that have taken place under their watch, I don't see hatred as a motivating factor. To me, the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing and raising his family anonymously 15 years ago; I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency. I think there's a myriad of factors that have been behind the wars of the past 50 years. Some, like oil and money and political power, are not very noble; sometimes, whether you agree or not, I think they're trying to do what they see as right from the vantage point of the presidency. I don't see hatred as one of those factors. And I realize that, if you're living in Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, and you've been on the receiving end of that myriad of factors, it's a moot point. I understand that.

Or if you've been infinitely detained &/or are being tortured daily by 'the free-est nation on earth'.

Trust me on this one point: I'm not arguing that Nixon wasn't evil because he was a nice person. Nice is the last thing I'd describe him as (notwithstanding that he did have a major sentimental streak in him).

hey it's just the system that's waterboarding me, one guy can't change it. xp

I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency.

No; under present conditions, you generally do when you set your sights on it.

ie "the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing" -- no way to know.

but the stealth question of this thread is: Who's driving me to the Nixon Library?

damn, alf's bringin the ruckus itt

Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large. So when Morbius says I'm off to napalm the Bronx, that's a non sequitur; you aren't, because you can't. The question is, how would you behave as president? That's what none of us knows, and why I'm a little hesitant to start setting the bar on evil.

You HAVE to bomb people to be president. So, you know, if elected, I will not serve.

I believe my every pronouncement is the gospel truth FOR ME, WHEN I MAKE IT.

plus if anyone tried to implement truly leftist values as president, assassination would be efficiently arranged.

you guys can go on and on about how bad the soviet union was, but boy i'll tell you, i'd like to see some of you guys in stalin's place, what would YOU have done?

Don't forget Hitler; you need to get to work on an outrageous Hitler analogy pronto.

Hitler loved his dog.

Good enough. Hitler loved his dog, Obama loves his dog, gradiations of evil...it's all starting to come together for me.

btw, this:

Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large.

is precisely why people object to the inflated powers of the modern presidency. nixon minus those powers is just a jerk; nixon with those powers is a dangerous man. but that doesn't excuse nixon -- he set out to expand those powers once in office, after all.

That's fair. We're arguing in circles a bit here--as I've tried to make clear, I'm really and truly not trying to excuse Nixon. We just view what lay behind his actions differently. You guys see evil; I see lots of reasons, but evil's not one of them.

And just like I'd love to see what a few people here would be like as president, I'd equally love to see what Nixon would have been like on a message board like this. I imagine he would been something to behold.

Huh, guess my brother-in-law was born the day before the break-in

Bill O’Reilly, who was fired from Fox News in April after several harassment allegations came to light, will appear in the special, according to ABC.

oh... never mind.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/05/31/abc-watergate-documentary/

"balance"!

I suspect Nixon was ultimately punished more for approval ratings that were cratering than for the high corruption. If the public had decided Watergate wasn't that big a deal, I'm sure Goldwater and the rest of them would have stood their ground and the impending impeachment would never have reached the stage it did (which I think was a recommendation to proceed with impeachment hearings...I'd have to double-check). I'm not defending Nixon, believe me; I'm just saying I'm not ready to ascribe noble principals to the Republicans who bailed on him (or, to be truthful, to the Democrats who were swarming either). It's politics; most everyone was acting out of self-interest.
― clemenza, Saturday, April 2, 2011 11:35 AM (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

curious if anyone has any favorite watergate documentaries. dunno if i'll bother w/ the abc one but would be interested in a good one with lots of original footage.

the clemenza post seems right to me -- but what's astonishing, from this late date, is how sincerely outraged the public got over something as complicated and unsexy as watergate. feels like a high-water mark for democracy that we'll never get close to again.

there haven't been a huge number, and i don't remember watching more than one or two. BBC did one a lot of ppl seemed to like, but the YT quality is poor. xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRCih5rUiVQ

It was all very new, esp w/ the tapes, to hear the president curse, say "Get the money," etc. And now...

quoted it because it's basically the theme of the trump thread, how much will people care and how complacent is the GOP willing to be

There was Foster Wiley's 'Watergate Plus 30: Shadow of History', which I saw when it came out in 2003 but can't remember much of xp

https://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww56/harrylime49/vlcsnap-2010-12-22-17h01m51s189.png

The PBS American Experience installment on Nixon that aired in late 1990 had a fair amount of contemporary Watergate footage, iirc.

I watched that BBC one the summer it came out, it's great.

I recently (ahem) rescreened All The Presidents Men for the first time since I saw it as a teen who then knew nothing about Watergate. The movie was baffling to me the first time round, and this time round, I a) appreciated it as one of the all-time great detective stories and b) admired how unforgiving it is re: expecting the audience to know what Watergate was, what Nixon did, etc. That final scene before the credits roll - the meaning and irony of it were completely lost on me the first time I saw it.

well, remember, it was released less than4 years after the break-in.

“That axiomatic Hollywood principle, action is character, takes a strange turn in [Alan J. Pakula’s] All the President’s Men [1976],” writes Mark Feeney in an excerpt from Nixon at the Movies: A Book About Belief now up at Slate. “The Woodward and Bernstein we get to see—so dutiful, so serious—are Butch and Sundance gelded. It wasn’t as if Woodward and Bernstein and the Post were out to get the president and his men (the party line of Nixon apologists). They don’t bring down the government out of any animus. They don’t even do it because it’s fun. (The only person in All the President’s Men who ever seems to be enjoying himself is Jason Robards’s Ben Bradlee.) They bring down the government because it’s a great story, and getting great stories is their job. . . . What’s so charismatic about journalism here isn’t its practitioners (Bradlee once again excepted); it’s the idea of journalism.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/conspiracy_thrillers/2017/06/all_the_president_s_men_made_woodward_and_bernstein_the_stuff_of_journalistic.html

That Feeney boom is terrific, by the way

Book

Jaworski report released

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-archivists-release-watergate-report-that-could-be-possible-road-map-for-mueller/2018/10/31/841cc938-dbb5-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

RIP Ruck

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-27/william-ruckelshaus-nixon-nemesis-who-headed-epa-dies-at-87

egil 'bud' krogh dead

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Egil-Krogh-Seattle-lawyer-leader-of-Nixon-14990183.php

nobody left but liddy and dean

does Diane Sawyer count?

it was a guess really but it had a certain poetry so i went with it

alive!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/roger-stone-richard-nixon-tattoo.jpg

Magruder testifies that money was given to Liddy in good faith to use as security at campaign rallies for Nixon surrogates and the RNC convention.

— Watergate Day Of - 1973 (@WatergateDayOf) January 23, 2020

embedded tweets are good again

(ps they were always good)

The crazy rat bastard finally popped his clogs

G. Gordon Liddy has died at 90. His bungling of Watergate break-in triggered a crisis that led to President Nixon's resignation. https://t.co/UM81k5hv5v

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 30, 2021

Somewhat fatalistically, I'm starting in on the Graff book.

HBO ‘Plumbers’ tv show; five episodes, starts March

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXTmH6C4LHY