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.
So many "What ifs" in Watergate that could have led to a different outcome. I do think dazzleman is right about the rules changing a bit from the early 60's to the early 70's, and that may have played a part in Nixon's downfall. From the early 60's on back a president could get away with alot more things and expect the press to sweep it under the carpet (to a certain degree). Politicaians kept quiet about the dirty tricks they played on each other. Nixon knew about the JFK election fraud in 60 that gained him the votes he needed to win, but Nixon did not contest it. The press knew about JFK affairs and remained silent. Johnson knew about Nixon's negotiations with the South Vietnamese government before the 68 election, to stall the peace talks and hurt Humphrey in the polls. Johnson had surveillance tapes that proved what Nixon was up to, but did not use them against Nixon to help Humphrey.
Also in the 60's, government employees in the CIA, FBI, Justice dept ect did not leak sensitive information to the press like they started doing in Nixon's day. Hoover (the man of a million microphones) would not help Nixon the least bit with plugging the leaks. I always thought that was strange because I think Hoover and Nixon had similar political ideals and should have cooperated with each other. Once he decided to set up the plumbers unit on his own, of couse it was all downhill from there. Nixon's men, especially Mitchell made all the wrong calls as to who they used for the job, how it was to be financed, how to protect the president from involvement should anything go wrong (which is pretty much standard operating proceedure these days). Of course Mitchell or Dean did not want to be the fall guy, Dean spilled everything when McCord told the Judge what was up, but it still came down to the presidents word against Deans, and that would have been the end of it, but for the tapes.
Yes Nixon could have destroyed the tapes but he did not, and that was his first act going down the road of rehabilitation. He was sobering up but it would take a while. Another person that could probably have saved Nixon some dispair about the tapes was not Rosemary Woods.....but Alexander Butterfield. Alot of people perjured themselves for Nixon but Butterfield was the one that could have helped him the most. He was in charge of the taping system and tried to fuzz testimony about it until Fred Thompson asked him a direct question about it under oath. "Are you aware of any listening devices installed in the WH ?" We know his answer but I have always wondered if it would have been that hard for him to cover it up for Nixon. I think that detail could have been covered up alot easier than the break in. Was Butterfield afraid of getting caught or did he not like Nixon ? Something else about Butterfield, he stayed on as head of the FAA in the Ford administration for a few months and then Ford fired him. What was that all about ?
So many "What ifs" in Watergate that could have led to a different outcome. I do think dazzleman is right about the rules changing a bit from the early 60's to the early 70's, and that may have played a part in Nixon's downfall. From the early 60's on back a president could get away with alot more things and expect the press to sweep it under the carpet (to a certain degree). Politicaians kept quiet about the dirty tricks they played on each other. Nixon knew about the JFK election fraud in 60 that gained him the votes he needed to win, but Nixon did not contest it. The press knew about JFK affairs and remained silent. Johnson knew about Nixon's negotiations with the South Vietnamese government before the 68 election, to stall the peace talks and hurt Humphrey in the polls. Johnson had surveillance tapes that proved what Nixon was up to, but did not use them against Nixon to help Humphrey.
Also in the 60's, government employees in the CIA, FBI, Justice dept ect did not leak sensitive information to the press like they started doing in Nixon's day. Hoover (the man of a million microphones) would not help Nixon the least bit with plugging the leaks. I always thought that was strange because I think Hoover and Nixon had similar political ideals and should have cooperated with each other. Once he decided to set up the plumbers unit on his own, of couse it was all downhill from there. Nixon's men, especially Mitchell made all the wrong calls as to who they used for the job, how it was to be financed, how to protect the president from involvement should anything go wrong (which is pretty much standard operating proceedure these days). Of course Mitchell or Dean did not want to be the fall guy, Dean spilled everything when McCord told the Judge what was up, but it still came down to the presidents word against Deans, and that would have been the end of it, but for the tapes.
Yes Nixon could have destroyed the tapes but he did not, and that was his first act going down the road of rehabilitation. He was sobbering up but it would take a while. Another person that could probably have saved Nixon some dispair about the tapes was not Rosemary Woods.....but Alexander Butterfield. Alot of people perjured themselves for Nixon but Butterfield was the one that could have helped him the most. He was in charge of the taping system and tried to fuzz testimony about it until Fred Thompson asked him a direct question it under oath. "Are you aware of any listening devices installed in the WH ?" We know his answer but I have always wondered if it would have been that hard for him to cover it up for Nixon. I think that detail could have been covered up alot easier than the break in. Was Butterfield afraid of getting caught or did he not like Nixon ? Something else about Butterfield, he stayed on as head of the FAA in the Ford administration for a few months and then Ford fired him. What was that all about ?
Thanks for offering some perspective to back me up. Some of the others act as if Nixon invented dirty tricks, when everything he did had some precedent. Buggings, break-ins, abuse of government agencies, etc. all took place before Nixon.
LBJ did know that Nixon was talking to the South Vietnamese, discouraging them from going along with LBJ's peace talks by implying they'd get a better deal with Nixon as president. LBJ retaliated by calling a bombing halt of North Vietnam a couple of days before the election, implying that a peace agreement may be close. This did produce a shift in the polls toward Humphrey, but fell just short of enough for him to win.
And as you pointed out, Nixon was also the victim of dirty tricks by the Kennedy campaign in 1960, the worst of which was the massive vote fraud in Illinois perpetrated by the Daley machine. Kennedy carried the state by about 5,000 votes, and there were probably more than that many cemetery residents among the voters. There was also massive vote fraud in Texas, courtesy of LBJ. LBJ had won his Senate seat in 1948 through vote fraud, as documented in a biography about him.
Nixon tried to use the FBI and CIA to win elections for the Republican party. None of the interventions others "got away with" approached that.
Nixon actually had less control over the FBI and CIA than LBJ, as an example. LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover had a very close relationship, and Hoover was far more cooperative in meeting LBJ's politically motivated requests than Nixon's.
Nixon tried to use the CIA to cover up Watergate, having the CIA tell the FBI to call off the investigation on national security grounds. Still, the CIA wasn't a friend of Nixon either.
But the fact is that abuse of the FBI and CIA by presidents was a fact, to varying degrees, since Roosevelt. I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that Nixon invented the tactic, or was even the most successful at it. The issue of Nixon, after all these years, is still more a litmus test of political leanings than a real review of the facts.
Nixon used the FBI and CIA well before Watergate and for political purposes. While Johnson may have had more influence over both he did not use it the same way Nixon did. Its not a question of abuses, its a question of what types of abuses and the level. Nixon went well beyond what others did in ways that could not be linked to purely national security gains.
At that time did anybody feel compassion for him after watching the last Frost interview?
As they all began to go to prison, what were their feelings towards him? Did they stay loyal or begin to hate him?
Just wondering about these things, I was not paying attention during this time.
You either weren't born yet or in solitary confinement in prison to proclaim -------I was not paying attention during this time--
No one is 100% against anyone in this country, hell there are people who still think that Charles Manson is a hero. As for Nixon, the Frost interviews did nothing to rehabilitate Nixon's image. I would rather believe that it cemented it in the minds of most of the American public.
By the way, which interview did you watch, the actual interviews or the Ron Howard mochumentary?
I watched the actual interviews and was so engrossed that I really wish I would have been paying attention when it all happened.
Think I will rent the movie, was it good?
I watched the actual interviews and was so engrossed that I really wish I would have been paying attention when it all happened.
Think I will rent the movie, was it good?
I lived through Watergate. It was painful to watch as it happened, and mind-numbingly boring. It's one of those things that's much more interesting to analyze after the fact.
Nixon used the FBI and CIA well before Watergate and for political purposes. While Johnson may have had more influence over both he did not use it the same way Nixon did. Its not a question of abuses, its a question of what types of abuses and the level. Nixon went well beyond what others did in ways that could not be linked to purely national security gains.
Not buying that. I think your view is being skewed by your greater sympathy for LBJ's policies over Nixon's.
I watched the actual interviews and was so engrossed that I really wish I would have been paying attention when it all happened.
Think I will rent the movie, was it good?
I would suggest a view of "All the Presidents Men" to begin with. Then if you can get your hands on the 1995 discovery channel 5 part series "Watergate", it has the most detail with interviews of all the key players involved (except for Mitchell) and is by far the best video on the subject, lots of details about the whole process from beginning to end, clips from the tapes, and info about what happened with Agnew as well. I would then follow that up with the 2004 PBS special "Watergate + 30", which has some good coverage of the congressional hearings with testimony from Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Dean and Magruder.
Personally, I can never get enough on Watergate or Richard Nixon. Always perks me up when they release more Nixon tapes. Love those behind the scene comments Nixon would make in his office, giving us his "private" views of that days events. Such as when Howard Baker sprang the question "What did the president know and when did he know it" Then you get to listen to Nixon getting pissed off and chewing out Kissinger or someone "That simpering A-hole Baker is not to be allowed in this office ever again !! " Have to admit that I enjoy stomping around the house doing Nixon imitations from the tapes.
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.
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.
