Is this what Watergate was like?

[DrWeird]

Before it was revealed there were audio tapes?

Also, is it not practically impossible to remove information from hard drives completely?

[maveric]

1. Not really. Back then the media was "Objective".

And didnt seem to side with the administration and slam the accusers.

[Hamlette]

30. media was "objective"?

That's not the way I remember it.

Those of us who hated Nixon were reading the Washington Post and shocked that the stories were not being picked up by the rest of the media.

It was maddening. I had this running dialogue (debate? fight?) with my dad who was a Nixon supporter. I kept saying "do you have enough evidence now? Do you think he should resign now?" He kept saying no. I couldn't believe it!

I felt just the way I do about Bush now. How come this is so clear to me and half this country still supports him.

In fact, reading Against all Enemies was surreal in a way. I kept saying "this guy is way out there, saying everything we've been saying for 3 years. What's the catch."

[mouse7]

54. Nixon Tapes changed whole Watergate dialog

The investigations of the Watergate break-ins never would have been fatal to the Nixon Presidency. Nothing Woodwarrd and Bernstein reported really made much of a difference.

The Nixon Tapes changed the whole Watergate investigation. Nixon's refusal to turn over the tapes was such a blatant slap at all in power in DC that they had to tear down Nixon after he refused to turn the tapes over.

Nixon didn't go down becasue of Watergate. nixon went down becasue he had a bunch of tapes that had evidence about Watergate that he refused to allow judges to have. THAT was what led to the impeachment and resignation.

Watergate was just the background drama that the Nixon Tapes issue played out over.

[historian]

2. its different

Two reporters went after Nixon tooth and nail and the press generally reported faithfully the facts as they developed.

[vetwife]

10. A lot different !

We had a balance of power. We had people who were willing to put their lives on the line to get to the truth. We had some integrity left to the adult population..They were grown ups and could handle the truth..they didn't shiver with fear and believe a lie just because some bible thumper with some oil wells blew into town. They wren't so prudish. They could tolerate controversy and were not spoon fed from the cable box. They read ! People voted and we didn't have third party dreamers wanting everything NOW in the middle of losing democracry and America.
It is worse now. I just don't think its fair to all of us who are having to relive Vietnam and Watergate. We are facing it twice and for us to go down this road again I think it worse. But then again its not our first time at the rodeo.

[RichM]

20. Some of your points are OK, but the bit about "third party dreamers" is

ridiculous & indefensible. Aside from the fact that it's untrue (there have ALWAYS been "3rd" parties), a very big difference in the situation then & now, is that in 1973-4, the Democrats had enough balls to impeach a criminal president. Today, they don't. Thus, the need for a new party today is much greater.

NONE of today's horrors could have taken place without the spinelessness & cowardice of the Democrats, who failed to challenge the stolen election, then failed to oppose and denounce Bush for the last 3+ years. Many Democrats have voted with him on his very worst actions -- and the rest of the time, they hid under their beds quaking silently in fear.

[burythehatchet]

35. Balls-Majority=Dick

[TankLV]

45. Funny how reality can throw cold water on an assumption.

Ouch!

[vetwife]

44. In 1973 and 74 we were not in jeopardy of losing America

We had a blance of power. Can't the 3rd party pushers see their
candidate is not playing in a field of balanced powers and the center is not going to run over to the left. It won't happen.
This is not the year. It may even be too late now as 2000 may have gotten sewn up by the Nader supporters who are very sorry today they voted as they did. Dems are far from perfect but a third party right now is out of the loop ! A vote for a 3rd party candidate as Dean said is a vote for Bush. if you can't vote Dem...then jsut vote Bush, same thing. throwing away a vote. to me, Its like playing air guitar, you are the only one hearing the music and there is a gap in the rhythm section and everyone endures the sound of that gap.
all because someone wanted to be in the band knowing they didn't have an instrument.

[shugah]

49. the thing is now we've "had nixon"

what did america really learn from watergate, and the subsequent resignation of nixon? that we should not tolerate dishonesty in our elected officials? nah! we learned to be cynical!

[SoCalDem]

55. We did not have the 24/7 rightwing echo-chamber radio/tv

That "post-watergate invention" could "save them...

Back then, most cities had at least TWO competing newspapers.. They had REAL reporters who were EAGER to investigate..

There was no cable..and the hearings were practically the "only" thing to watch..

No vcrs/dvds..If you wanted to watch TV, you could not avoid watching watergate..

There was "war fatigue"...

[Mr.Green93]

3. better

[many a good man]

4. Watergate was MUCH MUCH bigger

By the time we got to the hearings, there was a major media feeding frenzy. All the networks broadcast all the hearings for weeks. There was no cable so you had pretty much no choice but to watch. And they were really going after the truth and pretty much got it.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

5. No, Watergate was bigger.

Watergate hearings were on commericial broadcast network TV. This was pre-cable, so having a network pre-empt for hearings was a big deal.

[FloridaPat]

6. For us, no. For the population in general, I'd say yes. So many

people, the thought the president would do something like that was totally unbelievable. I know a lot of people like that now. To them, the president is next to God. They are having a really hard time digesting all this.

And then to think how horrible it was that a president would bug an office building. Just think what the republicans have done the last 3 years. When I tell people things that have gone, I really think I am in a science fiction movie because it really is hard to believe this is going on in this country. Maybe I crossed over to the Twilight Zone during the last presidential election. That has to be the answer.

What happened to America?

[tridim]

14. Yep and if we didn't have the Internet we wouldn't know a thing

Thank gawd for the Net.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. Back then we had REAL journalists

there is no such thing as investigative journalism in the mainstream media anymore. The talking heads that call themselves journalists are more comcerned with their careers than telling the truth.

[mmonk]

8. It was different back then

The media was a check and balance against government misdeeds or fabrications. That was during the days of the republic.

[AlinPA]

9. This event is dwarfed by Watergate. Media was indeed more fair.

[Atman]

11. Oooh...there are SOME similarities...

But they are subtle..........

[DeepModem Mom]

12. I did feel exactly like I felt after Clarke testified today...

several times as Watergate unfolded. But previous posters are right -- the press reported the unspun truth then, even to the point of digging it up themselves. And they seemed to care about the country, and understand their responsibility to it.

[strategery blunder]

13. As far as the hard drives go, it is possible to delete unwanted info

I recall seeing in a computer magazine a few months back (don't remember which one, sorry) that it is possible to delete something by writing something else over it. If the cabal wanted to do a cover-up, which he does, he could have people write random 0's and 1's over the damning information.

I think the DoD standard to wipe a hard drive is to write all 0's over the data, then write over the 0's with 1's, and repeat until original data has been written over seven times (I'm not 100% sure on this though).

[Dr Fate]

26. Or you can just throw them in the garbage. n/t

n/t

[strategery blunder]

32. But someone might find it

Some identity thieves get their information from garbage, you know.

[Dr Fate]

34. Ha ha! True...

but you get my point- who is to say the most "telling" hard drives (or any info on paper or other media) are not in ashes or at the bottom of the ocean, or in a safe in a Georgetown suburb...

[Woodstock]

40. You need more than 7 times - if it matters, they drill holes in the

hard drive...

[pinto]

15. people stayed home from work to watch the W'Gate hearings,

it was non-stop on the available media (big three networks of the day). Little spin by today's standards.

Otherwise, it feels a lot like that. Gradual exhumation of information and establishing question threads. Lots of questions that the commission already knew the answer (remember the W'Gate was a Congressional investigation, and they were all lawyers).

and finally,
The church bells in our Massachusetts town rang in unison the day Mr. Nixon resigned.

I doubt that is the likely format with this.

[Jade Fox]

16. The irony is the Watergate events pale before what Bushco....

has gotten away with, but the media response to Wgate was huge compared to
the pass that Bushco has gotten from the press during his whole administration.

Televised hearings are great. Those were what gave Watergate legs, once
Woodward and Bernstein had refused to let the issue die in the press.
TV made it real to all Americans.

[mmonk]

22. Yep. They were bugging offices.

This administration was pushing an ideological plan predicated on war pretending it had something to do with terrorism. The worst kind of fabrication in my book as it puts this country at risk of more terrorism IMO, loss of life, and complete loss of respect in the world that may have implications for quite awhile.

[Jade Fox]

28. Actually, they were doing far more than bugging offices.....

The famous Watergate bugging was just how they first got caught.
It was one of many illegal "dirty tricks" directed at the Democrats.
The Nixon Admin. agenda was to manipulate the 1972 election so he was
virually garunteed to win. They succeeded by destroying the campaign
of his most serious contender, Dem. Ed Muskie, who very well might have
triumphed. Instead McGovern, who was arguably the Howard Dean of his
day, was nominated by the Democrats, and Nixon won by a landslide.

[mmonk]

37. Very true

but I was keeping it rather short just relating to the "plumbers" and the Watergate. But there were lots of things besides just spying on the opposing party.

[Solomon]

23. I was about to say this. There has already been enough uncovered

which would have had the population aghast during watergate times. The deals with Haliburton, war profiteering, I mean this thing would have been too much for the watergate times to handle. Sucking us falsely into a war that you and your buddies are profiting from would have been treasonous in 1972.

Today the public just shrugs. Principles don't seem to matter anymore. People just look at whatever side you're on, and then dig their heels in the sand.

[lindashaw]

17. Watergate was before cable. I remember people buying

their first color television just to watch the hearings. We were glued to our sets for weeks.

[Turbineguy]

18. Watergate was big

Sam Irvin ran things and Howard Baker asked the hard questions. Everybody knew how it would turn out (I think). I enjoyed watching the hearings on TV.

Also it occured after the election. It dealt with an entirely different thing. I didn't think that the Watergate break-in was a serious crime. The cover up was.

None of Nixon's other policies were at issue.

Bush's policies and crimes are related here.

[talkingrain]

24. There were not so many

media choices. I remember coming home from school and mom was glued
to the TV. I was 12 living at Ft. Sill, OK. She told me to sit down and watch because this was history. At age 13/14, living in San Juan, PR My Dad said sit down, Richard Nixon is resigning. It was English TV! I was excited! Did not think much of the stuff at the time. However, looking back...IT was history!
911 commission stuff will NEVER compare!

[never cry wolf]

19. Kind of

I agree with much of what the other posters have said about the media but remember that woodward and bernstein were pretty much out there all by their lonesome for quite a long time. It took alot of drips before things caved in on nixon. In that way this feels the same to me. Not the 9/11 hearing per se but all the drips coming from all over. WMDs, O'neils book, Clarke book, the medicare funding fraud. The more the media smell blood in the water, whores or no, they will feed.

[yardwork]

41. I agree with that.

This reminds of of the drip-drip-drip that started before Nixon was reelected (and he was reelected, as Bush could be). The Watergate information didn't start seriously rolling for several more years. It took a looooong time.

This is just the beginning, I think.

Also, there were third party candidates back then, and they screwed up several elections, including the one in 1968 that elected Nixon in the first place.

[belle]

50. Maybe. My hope that he won't get re-elected is because of two factors:

1) News gets around much *much* faster now--everything moves faster now. People don't stay home to watch the hearings because they don't have to, is most of it. We have VCR's, TIVO, and the 'Net.

2) The crime is a whole different order of magnitude. This is deciding whether or not Bush could've prevented the worst terrorist attack ever to have happened, and arguably the worst day in American histor. It's also the lynchpin of how he got his "untouchable" status in the first place.

Of course, you can argue that Watergate was ultimately about Vietnam (as in, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, because everyone already hated him about 'Nam but couldn't or wouldn't step forward). But this is really big. I think. I hope.

[swag]

21. Watergate was the bigger event, but Bush's misdeeds are far

worse, in my opinion. And I thought that Iran/Contra was far worse than Watergate as well, but Congress and the major media were well on their way to spinelessness and mindlessness by then.

You had very aggressive Senators drilling witness after witness, day after day during the senate Watergate hearings. Partisanship existed in the Senate, but so did objectivity and some notion of the good of the nation. Howard Baker, one of the Republicans, was brilliant. I can't imagine Trent Lott or any of the current numbskulls even being able to read Baker's lines.

You had the suspenseful House impeachment committee hearings. It was all quite powerful stuff. People really cared about the Constitution then and were gravely offended by Nixon's trampling of it. It all spilled out in lurid detail with lots of lively slang. "Deep six it." "Go hang-out. Take the hang-out route." "I'm telling you, Henry, they're tawdry shits." Excellent times.

Older people (I'm 42) will start telling you that things are much worse than they used to be. It's probably just because they're getting old that they think things are deteriorating.

But it does seem that people used to care a little more about keeping the country a decent place. Where did that care go?

[pinto]

25. irony, thy name is Watergate.

[diamond14]

27. you're 42 year old? there is no way that you could understand

Watergate hearings at age 10. Your insight is the opinion of a 10 year old by your own admission.

[swag]

36. I sat in the house all that summer and watched the Senate

hearings. I even tape recorded some of them on my little cassette recorder. I read all the Watergate books when they came out.

Sorry, I was obsessed. If my opinion is that of a ten year-old, so be it. I remember it all quite vividly, though.

Anyway, as our President would say, "Who cares what you think?"

.

[PCIntern]

29. Yes and no...

Your anticipation, because you most likely aren't too fond of Bushco, resembles our excitement that it seemed that there was a chance that Nixon would finally be brought down after all those years of people falling victim to his lies and his venom. He destroyed a wonderful woman, Helen Gehagan Douglas, he had a slush fund, he was a virulent anti-Communist and a baiter of same, encouraging Red scares and other nightmares, AND contributing to the heightened fear of Atomic War. If you think this terrorism business is frightening now, you should have been a kid in the 50's and worried about every plane which flew overhead- that it might be carrying a Russian Nuke. Parenthetically, the closest we ever got to war was with Kennedy, however that is for another time.

But it wasn't so clear that Nixon would be defeated. He was tough and the media, with a few exceptions, wasn't asking a lot of real incisive questions in the beginning - Woodward and Bernstein, thru assistance of someone or someones in one or more of the Agencies, were investigating a very circuitous route to the Oval Office. It was only after a very long time that Haldeman and Ehrlichman were implicated and they were axed quickly. Interestingly, every time it looked like the boys had run out of info, the ostensible Deep Throat would step forward and lend a hand. The NYT was a bit behind the curve as they almost always were with important stories, with the exception of Sy Hersh, who still is a major force of expose (that's expo-say - no accent on my machine easily obtainable)

Many of the people who wrote here on the threadwere talking about the summers we spent watching the hearings - but it was nerve-wracking...until Alexander Butterfield with the Tapes. I'll never forget that lunchtime we waited for the beginning of the questioning by soon-to-be-actor Fred Thompson, later a Senator. Then we knew that it was just a matter of time, because Nixon was nothing if not candid and those tapes would destroy him, as they would probably have destroyed anyone else in the same position.

The media however, generally went along with the WH though, and it wasn't until they smelled the blood that they pulled out all stops. This guy's minions today though are icy cold dissemblers who have no problem saying everything in tandem and lockstep. There is a coordination of events which did not occur in Watergate. If someone slips, there is coverage by 50 others to explain his or her errant behavior. Character assassination is primo. In Watergate, they tended not to support each other and were afraid for themselves - even Haldeman and Ehrlichman (but not Liddy or Colson) tried to say that they were just following orders. They were horrible people and no one minded them going to jail. Nixon was another story - there were many who loved him even thru the resignation - it was very intriguing. See, Nixon was very bright and clever - odd duck, and full of psychiatric problems but brilliant and strangely charismatic in his own way. My father was a great Nixon-hater but had occasion to see him here in the Philly 30th St. Station, and was frankly amazed at his presence. Our Fearless Leader now has none of these attributes and all of the failings.

One more thing about Watergate - and I could go on all night, Watergate was the way in which the establishment was able to get Nixon out of public life for their own reasons. what's remarkable is that the same cast of characters were around in those days and are still around. The peripheral folk, young and spunky then are older and somewhat shrewder now. If you Google some of these people, you will see them pop up for generation after generation.

PS THe day Nixon quit, someone put up a sign at the University where I was doing summer research. It said:

THEY FIRED THE SHIT HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD"

[Zinfandel]

31. Condi Rice would NEVER have gotten away with NOT testifying, no way!

She would of been put out to dry by the commitee and the media at that time...how things have changed...with this coporate owned media.

[diamond14]

33. this is very much like Watergate....for nixon, the Watergate break-ins

were just the tip of the iceberg....nixon had many more crimes that he was complicit in, and those pressures were very much behind the resignation...all of which was orchestrated to protect nixon's 'reputation'.....just like bush*, there were many more nixon crimes waiting behind the curtain, more investigations, more charges....the reTHUGs wanted to end the 'drip drip drip' of nixon scandals, and had made many moves to maintain power, including replacing the scandal-ridden VP, spiro agnew....

just like nixon, this 9/11 scandal has been delayed, hindered, stacked-the-deck, and covered in Public Relations LIES (notable "I am not a crook" nixon speech on National TV)....this 9/11 scandal is now front and center at a VERY BAD TIME for bush*, only 8 months before the elections....and the 9/11 final report will be coming out for the public in about 2 months, leaving bush* only 6 months from the election with a major scandal in his lap....

the main difference here is that it is getting too close to the election for a lengthy impeachment....bush* could be prosecuted for his crimes later under John F. Kerry....

upcoming (following the Watergate model)...a lot of the scum in bush* mis-administration are simply criminals, not willing to go to prison for bush*, and to prevent that, there may be LOTS more 'jumping this sinking ship', just like in Watergate...it'll be ugly too....because some will get their heads chopped off to be sacrificed to protect bush*, and others will flee....

the bush* White House is already under extreme strain, due to another scandal...the Plame scandal, the outing of a CIA spy, where a grand jury hearing continues in Chicago....

this is all REAL BIG STUFF...way bigger than nixon's crimes...TWO full days of testimony on CNN, and NPR and more is a BIG BIG event...

the whole bush* cabal is hanging by a thread...when nixon resigned, I was actually surprised, and only later realized that the 'sudden' collapse was because everyone was out for themselves, abandoning OUR country, but covering their asses...bush* scum are the same, they care NOT for anyone else, and are very self-centered and will also abandon OUR country in a New York minute, in order to protect their collective asses....watch them scramble like common street criminals, to point their fingers at their 'friends' and 'colleagues' and at 'America' in order to save themselves from long prison terms....

[LunaC]

53. You read my mind....

....but expressed yourself far more eloquently. Thanks!

[Spazito]

38. Where the comparison resonates for me is...

it wasn't the break-in that did them in, it was the cover-up. The same applies here and that gives me hope that the end result will be the same as with Nixon, Bush will be gone, only difference is Bush will be defeated, Nixon resigned.

[Woodstock]

39. No, with Watergate Dems had more power

Part of the reason I'm a Democrat now is how much I admired them for standing up for the people while I was growing up. Unfortunately, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, I have more of a feeling like the bad guys are going to get away with it this time. Also, the press is a lot more conservative now than it was.

[never cry wolf]

42. Here's another similarity

The administrations own hubris will bring them down. Nixon would not give up, apologize and clean his own house at an early stage which could have saved his presidency. Instead he got more personally involved and tried to cover it all up.

These guys won't admit the sky is blue unless it helps them politically. Their lies and cover ups are very similar in that way.

[diamond14]

46. yes, just like nixon, the bushies are making incredulous stupid

tactical mistakes in this whole 9/11.....it was a nightmare to have 'armitage' appear instead of condi...then claim that he was NOT representing condi, just representing himself, as a private citizen....

this crap about not having condi appear has truly backfired, with LOTS of 9/11 commission members commmenting ON RECORD about condi's failure to appear, many times, and even submitting a Library of Congress list of all the times that National Security Advisors appeared before Congress and committess...BLOWING OUT OF THE WATER condi's 'little' excuse....and rice is getting SMASHED down in the hearings, where she refused to appear and could have spewed out something to tone it down....

the 'apology' from Clarke touched the whole nation...and that is another horrible mistake, just like nixon....bush* never apologizes, even though such a simple action could have helped him a LOT....

bush* has fired NO ONE over 9/11...and heads should have rolled, if for no other reason than to cover for the pResident's 9/11 failure...and worse, some of bush* own people are now coming out against him....writing books, appearing on TV...the right-wing reTHUGlicans are taking down their own puppet....

[historian]

43. hard drive

No it can be wiped clean - you need to do what is called a low level format - puters run on 1 and 0's (yes and no) this wipes out all the 1's so nothing is left

[troublemaker]

47. More like Iran-Contra

Reagan got off scotts free and most people still "liked" Reagan but we had all seen him lie on TV--a lame sort of folksy bullshit lie in the lovable Reagan style, but still a clear-cut lie about matters of national security. To many of his supporters Reagan was never the same after that. He was just another bum politician. After he'd been gone a while he was mythologized by the right to the point where few folks remember that he just wasn't very popular at the end of his reign.

Bush's whole gig, like Reagan's, is based on intangible perceptions of likability and trustworthiness. Intangibles can evaporate overnight.

There's little in the news so far about the most damaging aspect of this whole thing. Watergate fans repeat after me... IT'S NOT THE CRIME, IT'S THE COVER-UP.

As Bob Kerry said, the administration is damn lucky the old anti-alQaeda plan is classified.

Everyone was rooting for Bush after 9/11 and he could have come out and said, "well, this has taken us all by surprise. No one can view this event as anything other than a failure. I share the blame, blah, blah." Instead the administration, due to their fascist-lite instincts, created a cult of infallibility and built a mythology wherein they had been only moments away from destroying AQ... "the plan to eliminate AQ reached the president September 10th."

Everyone in the admin has made such claims publicly. It may take months for people to realize the admin was simply lying... that its fool-proof plan was to commence another humiliating round of begging the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over to us, followed perhaps by assisting the Northern Alliance.

Those are the facts and it's all on paper.

[milkyway]

48. Mainstream media was always trying to dig and beat the others to a scoop.

People can bitch about the media back then, but the NYT, Wash Post, Time, Newsweek, CBS, NBC, and ABC used their vast resources to try to investigate and break new stories. These frauds today haven't done a damn thing. There has been absolutely no mainstream media investigation of 9/11. What little has appeared until recently has simply been passing along white house press releases. Thankfully, we have the Internet and alternative news sources to turn to.

But we have reached a tipping point. The NYT hinted yesterday in an editorial that it was time to have a national dialogue about 9/11.

"Since the hearing is taking place during a presidential campaign, it's unlikely that a spirit of bipartisan decorum will prevail. Nevertheless, it's good to bring this debate out in the open. The memories of Sept. 11, 2001, are still so raw that it has been hard to regard anything about that terrible day as a subject for political debate. But now President Bush is running for re-election on his record in responding to the terrorist attack, and that transition needs to take place."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23TUE1.html?th


It seems to me that they were saying that the NYTimes has decided it's now o.k. to talk about (and investigate) the events of 9/11 because bush* is using it in his campaign. If the corporate media devotes even a small portion of their resources to fairly investigate 9/11, bush* will be finished.

[goclark]

51. Helen Thomas Is The Last Giant

I can not think of any other journalist that could nail these thugs. But, she has to be called on by ScottieMcWimppie ( who looks like he is ready for a melt down.)

Well, Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times does come to mind.
Boy, I wish he could just stay on this story night and day, I don't think the Times would let him because the RIGHT socked them hard for their detailed bashing of ARNOLD "so close" to the election.

For sure, their are no Woodward and Bernstein's that I can think of...

My prayer is that Clarke's story will keep its legs.

[ironflange]

52. Watergate was run by evil

This 9/11 thing is being run by stupidity.