Thing is, Ace, we're of a different generation. We may hae seen what happened with Nixon but we didn't really live it.

This isn't quite the same thing, but consider this; what if, 20 years from now, some Clinton insider were to come forward and produce concrete evidence that shed light on a mystery during their 8 years (and there were PLENTY with that crook)? I know I'D be interested...and I suspect younger conservatives wouldn't be.

Compared to more recent scandals, Watergate was obviously a doddle, a tempest in a teacup that, thanks to highly biased journalism and Deep Throat's interference, ended up ruining a president. Maybe further down the road something will top Clinton's shenanigans and make them look like nothing in comparison, too. But, that wouldn't keep me from getting royally upset if new information came out about his presidency that could have changed history if we knew it at the time. WOULD knowing Deep Throat's identity in the 70s have changed what happened? Possibly...and I don't blame those involved for wondering if it would have and being a little pi$$ed off about it.

Later,
bbeck

A tempest in a teacup?

Burglarizing the offices of your political opponent, then attempting to use the FBI and CIA to cover it up?

That's not a tempest in a teapot.

I was angry that Clinton used the IRS to audit those he found pesky. But using the CIA is worse by a step or two.

The only reason this is getting play now is that the libs hope that the accolades they shower on Felt will be an inspiration for someone to do the same to W. They've got little else going for 'em.

Yes, Watergate was a REALLY BIG DEAL! And I've gotta' say that Nixon pretty well got what he deserved out of it.

On the other hand, I can't say that I admire Felt for what he did. I don't want to cast him as a villain, even though it appears he leaked the info as a result of frustrated personal ambitions.

Yes, let us just let it go, and leave it to the historians. I just hope they get it right, rather than doing clever rearrangements of the facts to serve some modern agenda.

Just my $.02
DRK

What is interesting and relevant for us today is the nature and tactics of bureaucratic infighting, especially when it spills over to elected officials. If the FBI would stab Nixon, would the CIA stab Bush? Of course! When we see all these leaks today, we need to look into the motives of the leakers and ask what have they not leaked? The earlier analysis of Deep Throat’s motives and actions that pointed to the FBI establishment should guide us in evaluating today’s news brought to us via the MSM.

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen I think I have to admire G. Gordon Liddy the most of the bunch. In that he stuck to his guns and didn't roll for anyone.

But, it's not like I've researched it.

I tend to take a milder view of Watergate. The burglary was something that happened without Nixon’s knowledge or authorization; his real crime was in the cover-up, which amounted to obstruction of justice and possibly perjury. I think that was the “smoking gun” that led most of the Republican senators to turn against him. If Clinton had been held to a similar standard, he would have been removed from office (and we would have had at least four years of President Gore, so let’s be careful what we wish for). Of course, Nixon resigned rather than put the nation through that trauma, but Clinton doesn’t have nearly as much honesty and dignity as Nixon.

That being said, it was interesting that Deep Throat was the lead story in both of my local papers. While I think bbeck has a point about the generational aspect, I think this has more to do with the story’s occupational appeal. Watergate was the defining myth of modern journalism; reporters could blow the whistle on the government and be convinced they were doing the right thing. They could sincerely believe that they hated the government because they loved their country. Highlighting this story lets the press relive their glory days, while reminding us lowly readers that all their skullduggery is in a good cause. “See? [pointing to the Watergate Hotel] That’s why we had to blow the whistle on the CIA’s air fleet.”

Sorry Ace. I believe any FBI agent that violates his oath and illegally provides information should be scorned. There is no statute of limitations.

I wouldn't expect a 'Clinton Insider' to wait 20 years. The Hillary '08 campaign, right after she's nominated sounds about right.

Whoever it is won't be a media darling though.

A tempest in a teacup?

Yes, when compared to more recent scandals, like I said.

Using your example: I think that using the Internal Revenue Service as your personal bully to coerce, threaten, silence, and possibly imprison anyone who opposes you to be a tad worse than Nixon's behavior. But that's me.

Later,
bbeck

The real story being overlooked is the controversy surrounding the motives of Democratic Senator Thomas Walsh. Did he truly believe he was just doing his duty or was he merely using Albert Fall to try to bring down a Republican administration? Of course the MSM won't cover that, they were always anti-Harding.

After all these years, the big mystery about Teapot Dome is how Albert Fall could have been convicted of taking a bribe that Harry Dougherty was acquitted of offering him.

I wouldn't expect a 'Clinton Insider' to wait 20 years. The Hillary '08 campaign, right after she's nominated sounds about right.

...provided, of course, their plane doesn't crash or they don't commit suicide in a public park first.

Later,
bbeck

Nixon actually used the IRS too, in addition to his other actions. His administration formed the "Special Services Staff" to coordinate IRS activities against ideological enemies.

Nixon actually used the IRS too, in addition to his other actions.

Thanks for saying so Ace. I don't disagree with any of the comments saying there were ulterior motives to exposing the crime, or that other Presidents abused their priviledge worse, or that if it had happened to a Dem President we'd have never heard the story...

...that's all completely irrelevant. Nixon committed a horrible abuse of his office and if anything got off incredibly lightly. I'm thrilled he did some good things at the end of his life, but that will never excuse his crimes.

Ford is rumored to have told a golf buddy that he always tried to live a good christian life, but because he pardoned Nixon he's probably going to Hell.

Pretty sure, utron. I googled before I made a comment on that recollection to try to find a dependable source, it was mentioned in this Cato paper. I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I think it'll be more interesting when (if?) someone goes through the two reporters' published assertions AT THE TIME to see if Deep Throat was really in a position to provide ALL the information attributed to him.

I suspect that in several instances it will be seen that Deep Throat (now that we know who he is) could NOT have known all the things perported to have been divulged by him at the time.

I still think DT was a composite. Felt might have provided The Hardy Boys with some of the information, but not all of it.

What? Bob Woodward confirmed Felt's identity? Oh, well that changes everything.

Instapundit has a link to Ben Stein's reaction to the Deep Throat thing. Stein, as I'm sure you know, used to write speeches for Nixon and it seems he feels pretty strongly about the whole deal. Here it is if you want to skip wading through Glenn's catblogging

Hubris, it looks like we're talking about two different things. The Special Services Staff was a formal office charged with keeping tabs on organizations that were viewed as politically iffy, for one reason or another. That might be dubious, but it wasn't viewed as one of the abuses of power that emerged during the Watergate investigations.

What was discussed on the White House tapes was the possibility of going outside the structure of the IRS and using tax material to go after groups or individuals that were informally, and privately, identified as enemies of the administration. Nixon rejected that option. Clinton didn't--when the American Spectator was running its endless series on Whitewater, the magazine was audited five times in five years.

utron,

I'm not sure whether he was able to succeed in the attempt, but it seems like there was little doubt that the intent was there.

Let it go.

Easy for you to say, but we're still dead.

Here's another article of interest.

It looks like Nixon did not decide against it, but didn't succeed because of IRS resistance.

That's the one, Hubris. IIRC, on another tape made a week or so later Nixon and his aides rejected the idea. There would have been too much political fallout if their actions ever became known, and their legal position would have been impossible.

Nixon usually doesn't get the credit he deserves for all he accomplished, IMHO, but reading the quotes on that link reminded me that in a lot of ways he was a pretty nasty character.

Thanks for the conversation, it forced me to learn details I didn't know.

If somebody linked a bunch of quotes of ace's, without discounting the hyperbole and the context, ace, too, would be considered a pretty nasty character -- but, he's not.

I am not defending Nixons actions against his enemies but they were truly enemies and not some innocent organizations. They were still after him because of Hiss and other anti communist actions. We also forget that Barry Goldwaters offices were also burglarized. You can choose to fight by getting down and dirty or you can take the moral high road and fight with restrictions that may or may not cause you to lose. I personally would take the high road but as Chris Rock would say, I don't agree but I understand.

Barbwire Mike -

Ford is rumored to have told a golf buddy that he always tried to live a good christian life, but because he pardoned Nixon he's probably going to Hell.

I always liked Bill Safire's "channeling" of Nixon after he died, as Safire's muse, advising Bill from Purgatory. Safire's serious response to someone who questioned why Safire put him in Purgatory, not Hell, was that Nixon despite his flaws did far too much good for America and the world to imagine him being cast into Hell.

Anonymous,

Take a look around if you'd like additional context.

Demonizing Felt or rehashing Watergate? Forget it! THE MEDIA IS THE MESSAGE - a hyperchoreographed cynical manipulation of the news cycle in an attempt to salvage their most holy anonymous sources. And I betcha it works.

Just look at how this "news" story "unfolded."
1) We have a "legacy" media weathering unprecedented criticism/contempt for it persistent use of anonymous sources despite repeated rapid-fire discrediting of their so-called "news." (Newspeak Magazine being only the latest in a rapidly lengthening series of legacy media players claiming to "tighten" anonymous sourcing "standards.")
2) Felt's grandson holds "impromptu" mid-afternoon press conference the day after Memorial Day, in time to ensure saturation of evening news cycles (for whatever that's worth these days) outing his "hero" grandfather.
3) A parade of photos and video of Felt, the infirm, grandfatherly character surrounded by loving family, carefully staged to evoke maximum sympathy for - THE ANONYMOUS SOURCE WHO SAVED OUR REPUBLIC FROM DOOM!!
4) The oh-so-coy refusal by Bernstein&Co. to confirm the story, providing just enough (if ever so brief) controversy to ensure a mass media circle jerk and widespread public attention.

What a crock!

I don't need it, Hubris. I lived through those times. And you're not paranoid if people are out to get you and people were certainly out to get Nixon. The protestors were not some benign enity. It was riot after riot and bombings. It was quite a shock after demonstrating against Nixon, finding myself becoming nostaligic about him.

So, I predict, you an a number of others will at sometime also become nostalgic about Clinton. And, frankly I rather feel nostaligic about my tricky dicky, then your tricky dicky. :-)

One question that was never answered to my satisfaction by the MSM: what was it that was that the burglars were attempting to burgle?

Oh, I have ideas about what "it" was, mind you, but for some reason no one could see the forest for all of those trees in the damned way.

They wanted files- donor lists, campaign strategy, talking points, etc.

The sad part about Watergate was it was totally unnecessary. Nixon demolished McGovern in the election. It was a nation-wide wipeout. Nixon didn't need to do anything dirty- he was way ahead.

There is some disagreement as to what the burglars were looking for and who really arranged the break-in.

Anyone who's interested should read "Silent Coup: The Removal of a President" by Len Colodny and Bob Gettlin.

It's a fascinating book that offers some very interesting information about a lot of the players in Watergate, especially John Dean and Bob Woodward.

I think they were also installing surveillance equipment (microphones).

They were making copies of files, not stealing the files. It was supposed to be a non-detected job.

Nixon's paranoia was his downfall.

But I have to admit, I am bone-weary of the media myths that were spun from that time. And I have no desire to rehash it.

For perspective, I was old enough (young enough) to be home from school watching Sam Ervin and the committee hearings.

The burglars (I keep imagining Bilbo) were attempting to reset phone taps that they had set incorrectly on a previous, undetected, burgle. I've got a pretty long comment post in the Ben Stein thread.

An interesting thing about Nixon and the Repub party in '72 and the Repub party now is that Nixon, and to a large extent the '72 Repubs party, would be considered raving Liberals by the Repubs of today.

Since you don't have Trackback, I'll post the link here, because I want to add my voice to the discussion, here.

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2005/06/hero-no-just-another-political.html

Bottom line is, Felt is a prop used at just the right time.

Whenever I hear some nutcase spout of conspiracy theories about 911 or the Kennedy assasination or some other nonsense, I always think about the Watergate burglary. If something as simple as breaking into a building can't be done by a ruthless but brilliant US President (or by his proxies), then what chance do any of these other conspiracies have.

And JFK would be considered a neocon fundamentalist Papist/crypto-Zionist warmongerer by the Dems of today.

We've all got strange bedfellows and weird hangovers these days. What's your point?

Von Kreedon your statement "An interesting thing about Nixon and the Repub party in '72 and the Repub party now is that Nixon, and to a large extent the '72 Repubs party, would be considered raving Liberals by the Repubs of today." I find very interesting except it was George Wallace who was paralized by an assassination attempt back in those days. George W was very upset with the Liberal Democrats that had gained control of the Democrat Party.
I expect that more Democrats deserted their party and became Repubs than Repubs deserting and becoming Democrats. But GW remained a Democrat until his death. I can remember when the South was noted as the "Solid South" by the Democrats. Times have changed haven`t they?