News, Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought. (war, Washington)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Sen. Sam Ervin completed his 20-year Senate career in 1974 and issued his final report as chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, he posed the question: “What was Watergate?”
Countless answers have been offered in the 40 years since June 17, 1972, when a team of burglars wearing business suits and rubber gloves was arrested at 2:30 a.m. at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Watergate office building in Washington.
Mnay thigns form that ear are coming clear as documants are released. But some are not being. Certainly we see a JFK who was consumed by his desire to assissinated castro to pot fo dealig with thne mob.We also know Nixon got the idea on dirty tricks form JFKs cpoampign squad in teh 60;s's elction. We alos knw that he sued the FBI and Hoover aginst his enemies and that Hovver has alot on hi like his girl friend thru out his life including when presdient.Camelot actaulyl was a fruad that the press covered up and went along with.Wealos know that it really was the US that blinked i the Cubna missle crisis and agreed to remove our recently deployed missles in europe which was why the Russian counter it with missiles in Cuba.Kennedy was consumed by defeat of comminism beyond anything seen before and since in reckless actions its clear now.
Texdav, I think you've nailed it. If Kennedy had lived through two full terms, he would have destroyed America as we know it, and maybe none of us would even be here to talk about it. The only thing that got in the way of Orwell's prophecy for 1984 was Lee Harvey Oswald. Orwell's scenario is still very much a work in progress, and wouldn't get back on timeline until Reagan/Bush.
Nixon was working to dismantle what remained of the Kennedy legacy. Governance is dirty business, and Nixon got caught. Reagan did too, but he looked like a movie star, so nobody cared. When cooler heads prevail, centuries hence, historians will have a field day with these guys.
So it is/was Kennedy's fault that Nixon was a crook?
Kennedy was dead almost ten years, but there was this ghost floating about compelling Tricky Dick to Lie, Cheat, and Steal.
Interesting.
Every president is a crook who lies, cheats and steals. A few get caught. Fewer yet get held to account for it.
Whose ghost compelled Reagan to lie about Iran/Contra? Whose ghost forced Bush to lie about WMD? Turn on your TV, You'll hear a presidential candidate lie within the next 30 minutes. Who is compelling them to lie? You, the gullible voter, by rewarding with your vote the one who lies most convincingly.
By the way, whose post were you responding to?
Last edited by CowanStern; 06-10-2012 at 11:26 AM..
But this Nixon vs. JFK debate is idiotic. Because the most vile, conniving, unethical man ever to sit in the Oval Office was the one who came between them: LBJ. He made both Kennedy and Nixon look like amateurs in comparison.
But this Nixon vs. JFK debate is idiotic. Because the most vile, conniving, unethical man ever to sit in the Oval Office was the one who came between them: LBJ. He made both Kennedy and Nixon look like amateurs in comparison.
...Although he did make sure that Kennedy's civil rights legislation got passed. And he did admit at the end of his term that escalating our involvement in Vietnam was a huge mistake. I can't quite recall Nixon thinking so.
But this Nixon vs. JFK debate is idiotic. Because the most vile, conniving, unethical man ever to sit in the Oval Office was the one who came between them: LBJ. He made both Kennedy and Nixon look like amateurs in comparison.
...Although he did make sure that Kennedy's civil rights legislation got passed. And he did admit at the end of his term that escalating our involvement in Vietnam was a huge mistake. I can't quite recall Nixon thinking so.
As to the Nixon Presidency ever taking place, that can probably be summed up in two words plus an initial: Sirhan B. Sirhan. Nixon could beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Whether or not he could've beaten Robert Kennedy isn't so clear.
(I do agree with you on the merits of the debate, though. Might as well threaten World War III over any two Presidents we've ever had!)
...Although he did make sure that Kennedy's civil rights legislation got passed. And he did admit at the end of his term that escalating our involvement in Vietnam was a huge mistake. I can't quite recall Nixon thinking so.
This is true about the Civil Rights legislation. I'm actually reading the fourth volume of Caro's biography right now. And he did have empathy with the oppressed in society. But that's really about the only positive accomplishment of his administration. From the massive run-up of entitlement programs that were not sustainable to Vietnam, the man was just a buffoon. A cagey, corrupt, amoral, wheeling-dealing buffoon, but a buffoon nonetheless.
Well, I'm no Nixon defender, but he was the one who actually extricated us from the conflict. Meanwhile, Johnson quietly kept ratcheting up the conflict without the explicit consent of the American people. By the time Nixon took the oath of office, he already had a craptacular mess on his hands.
Woodward and Bernstein remind me of the uncle in Napoleon Dynamite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.