Ace, don't be too quick to jump on Woodward & Bernstein as just reporters. After all, one of the reasons Washington pols leak is to get public pressure for progress on internal investigations. Without the WaPo coverage, it's entirely possible that al the "official" investigations of Watergate could have died on the vine, or been brushed over.

The one thing I still don't get is why Felt didn't go to Congress instead of to Woodward-- and I think your link answers that pretty well. The Dems would have laughed in Felt's face, the pot calling the kettle black. Better to manage expectations with controlled leaks than to divulge everything all at once to an investigative committee.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

When I ask Liberals exactly what was it that Nixon did they usually answer that he bugged and burglarized the DMC at Watergate. Not true, he merely tried to cover up the "dirty tricks" that his minions did unbeknownst to him in some unsavory was and got completely caught. Richard Benvineste was on this weekend bloviating about non-specific charges of "corruption" of the CIA, FBI and NSC. What a fucking liar!

The one good thing to come out of Watergate was the sense that our system of government worked, that no one was above the law including the president. And then along came Bill Clinton: that lowest, dirtiest, greediest, most incompetant and cowardly scumbag ever to occupy the White House and completely reversed all of that so much so that people have become cynical and fearful of the rich and powerful who always seemed to get their way during his administration (while so many others associated with Clinton seem to have died mysteriously or wound up in jail) right down to the bitter end when he sold pardons to drug dealers and murderers for millions. This is the stuff of tin-pot 3rd world dictators not the president of the richest most powerful country on earth! Bill Bennet titled his book on Clinton scandals, The Death of Outrage because there was such a vast array of terrible scandals during his administration and with the Liberal press on his side nothing ever seemed to stick. The public got tired of being outraged, threw up their hands and gave up. Bill Clinton did far more than anyone in my lifetime to make us all a bunch sheep, or as Michael Svavge says: We, the Sheeple.

72things - Nixon did far more than merely try to cover up the "dirty tricks" that his minions did unbeknownst to him. I posted a long comment on this in the "Ben Stein" thread, but to abstract:
- Nixon knew about the break-ins as testified to by his counsel John Dean.
- Nixon did not lie to protect underlings, on the contrary the underlings were pressured to perjure themselves to protect Nixon.
- The burglars were part of a WH organization called the Special Investigations Unit, but popularly known as "the Plumbers", headed by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. This organization, paid for in part by illegal campaign contributions, engaged in a wide range of criminal acts, including phone tapping and burglary, against those on Nixon's "enemies list."

OTOH, I agree with you that Clinton and the Dems managed to undo much of the political structure and will to hold the President accountable to the law. But this did not start with Slick Willy, it started with Iran-Contra and continuew with Bush II.

I read the complete White House transcripts and do not recall anywhere that Nixon betrayed that he had prior knowledge of the Watergate burglary. Erlichman and Haldeman said he did not. Perhaps that was on the 18 minute gap, but it would seem that there would be more than a single discussion of it. As to the enemies list and dirty tricks, history has shown how trivial all that really was.

The motivations were much less complicated. Here is the real reason Woodward and Bernstein were meeting with Deepthroat.

this did not start with Slick Willy, it started with Iran-Contra and continuew with Bush II.

After Watergate, the press was looking for ways to get Reagan the way they got Nixon. Iran-Contra was nothing more than another media hissy-fit, but it didn't stick because too many people understood that Reagan was trying to defeat Communism at our back door and get all of our hostages back in one piece.

... it started with Iran-Contra

Horse apples. Iran-Contra was nothing but an attempt by congressional Democrats to criminalize the foreign policy differences (via the "Boland Amendment") they were having with the Reagan White House. Yawn.

So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals? Really?

So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals? Really?

Uh, yeah ... who isn't?

PS - I'm surprised at ya'll.

So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals? Really?

Isn't it spelled ya'll?

"So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals?"

Only when its a Republican administration.

:)

Well, if lying about about sex with a girl who is young enough to be your daughter and fat enough to be your wife is considered OK, then lying about freeing hostages and overthrowing a communist regime ought to be extra OK.

So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals? Really?

You sound like DMC lawyer.

There was time before and during the Reagan administration when the Democrats actually said that the US "was on the wrong side of history" and that we'd "have to get used to the idea of communism in central and south america." If Reagan hadn't been on the "wrong side of history" and acted as he did, we might very well now be facing a communist Mexico! There are times when governments must resort to seemingly underhanded methods to achieve great goals. And pulleeeeze don't trot out Hitler or the "end justifies the means" horseshit, sometimes the end certainly does justify the means as anyone who's read history should know.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy ...

The Boland Amendment was a crock, an attempt to overreach constitutionally granted Presidential powers in order to suck up to the commies in Central America.

Nixon also tried to shut down parts of the investigation, including firing the special prosecutor (Archibald Cox). To their credit, Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckleshaus resigned rather than fire Cox. (interestingly, the job was carried out by Robert Bork, I think the Solicitor General).

So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals? Really?

In the wake of the 1975 Church Committe (run, or rather, stampeded by Liberals) our intelligence gathering capability was hamstrung; and a was law passed that the US could not engage in assassinations of anyone, no matter how evil or dangerous they may be.

And speaking of Iran Contra, if Reagan and Oliver North had had their way, Osama Bin Laden never would've seen the year 1990, let alone hit us five times while that coward Bill Clinton did nothing. Moreover there are many, many dangerous trouble makers alive today that would not be if this idiotic law were never passed.

I can only hope that when it finally comes back to really bite us in the form of a nuclear detonation in a major city, that it happen in the city these treasonous motherfuckers and all their ilk live in and who are there at the time.

May I propose a slightly less "over-the-top" version...

--I can only hope that when it finally comes back to really bite us in the form of an attempted but foiled nuclear detonation in a major city, that it nearly happen in the city these treasonous motherfuckers and all their ilk live in and who are there at the time when it nearly happened.

Dave - The Boland Amendment may or may not have been bad law, but is that relevant to your position on supporting Executive Branch subversion of the law? If you support the Executive ignoring laws that are "a crock", then who gets to decide the law since you've factored two of the three branches of government into irrelavencies.

72things - Oh yeah, the Sandinistas were going to take Harlingen, Texas; I remember that one, good joke. But seriously folks, so you ARE supporting the Executive's ability to make the Legislative and Judicial branches irrelevant when the Executive determines it necessary?

"So y'all are in favor of administration subvertion of the law when the law interferes with "good" executive goals?"

Only when its a Republican administration.

:)

No, only when it's really justified by overwhelming reasons of national security. And believe it or not, that doesn't include getting blowjobs from interns and lying under oath about it, or selling nuclear and missle technology to the Chinese military, or selling an entire Boeing metal fabricating plant to the Chinese that could be used to fabricate nuclear missle parts for less than the local union members of the plant were willing to pay for it themselves, or for pardoning murders and drug dealers for huge bribes.

Dave - One thing that you left out of your Saturday Night Massacre timeline is that Bork immediately after firing Cox resigned himself in protest.

vonKreedon
72things - Oh yeah, the Sandinistas were going to take Harlingen, Texas; I remember that one, good joke.

Have you read the history of ther Cold War? The Soviet Union came perilously close to winning the Cold War and if it weren't for the Republicans they certainly would've. And if that meant some illegal Iran-Contra tricks it was easliy worth the price. How the fuck do you think the real world operates?

so you ARE supporting the Executive's ability to make the Legislative and Judicial branches irrelevant when the Executive determines it necessary?

Your words, not mine. You keep trying to use that same stupid, childish argument. No, no one supports making the "Legislative and Judicial branches irrelevant" but there are times when illegal or covert activities are justified.

Now let me ask you two questions:

1) If in 1931 we had such a stupid law, and we knew what we now know about Hitler, should we not have asassinated him back then and spared the lives of 50 million? According to your logic, in today's laws it would've "made the Legislative and Judicial branches irrelevant when the Executive determines it necessary?"

2) if we knew that Osama Bin Laden had a nucleat suitcase bomb, and had designs to blow up NYC and the assassination-ban law were still in effect and we had an opportunity to kill him and his followers and retrieve the bomb should we do nothing because of a very, very stupid law and sacrafice all those lives because ot it?

The Soviet Union came perilously close to winning the Cold War and if it weren't for the Republicans they certainly would've. And if that meant some illegal Iran-Contra tricks it was easliy worth the price.

Furthermore, it seems that the Republic withstood these "terrible assults" of the Executive's ability to make the Legislative and Judicial branches irrelevant when the Executive determines it necessary" a whole lot better than is has withstood the consequences of the stupid non-asassination law which culminated in OBL, Al Quida and 911.

vK, I could be more clear, what I meant by constitutional overreach was that the Boland amendment was unconstitutional. Deserved to be challenged.

I had forgotten that Bork resigned after firing Cox. I wonder why he fired him and then resigned though?

vonKreedon

What really bugs me about your argument is that it seems more interested in sounding clever than in finding and revealing truth. The use of slippery slope arguments is irrelevant in the real world of international power politics, money, murder, asassination, war and terrorism. There are times when the end really does justify the means, as everyone should know. There are times when illegal or covert operations are justified, and if you know of any major player on the international scene (who isn't being protected by us) who has never engaged in such things, please let me know about it.

If you skipped rdbrewer's link, I suggest you back up.

THAT IS AMAZING!

And, probably, NSFW.

Saw it previously. It's gotta be a gimmick or a camera trick. There's just no f'ing way.

Ya'll are competely sick, you know that, right?

Press Vanity - Yeah and having Robert Redford play Woodward was the ultimate in vanity.

No, vonK, the Red Menace could never've crossed the Rio Grande. As Bill Whittle laid out in great length and style, we're uninvadable. It's just inconceivable, which, if not the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment as designed, is surely a nice side benefit.

But whenever liberals (and as one not too long ago, I know the symptom and understand some of the motivation) point out that we're unconquerable, you're saying that what happens up to our own borders shouldn't concern us. Note, you don't scoff at the possibility of a Red Mexico (and you'd be foolish to so scoff), just a Red Texas. Two miles past the borders and their fate isn't a concern.

let's analyze what liberals are doing by this. They are taking the Taft/Buchanan hard-right/reactionary isolationist position - we're safe in our continental redoubt, and our dealings with the outside world can be streamlined sufficiently to allow of one guiding principle. For the old right it's profit or perhaps "national interest", for y'all it's "development" or "human rights" or "social justice" or whatever label you slap on it - it's still the thin stream of a Kleinian fantasy relation with the outside world. No danger, only giving and receiving of Kumbayah love.

Sure, the left comes at it from a different angle, and they emphasize what they see as the immorality of action rather than its uselessness or danger (though they like to flag those just fine), but in the end, you're really just so many bewhiskered William Jennings Bryan free-soil-and-keep-utah-white types. You've gotten to the point where you realize you should be concerned about those in your own country, but beyond your own borders ... There Be Darkies, Man! best not to meddle in their cruel, inscrutable dealings.

(a collective "you" here, of course, not you the vonK what writes the comments).

WRT Judge Bork's actions during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, two points with nominal support from the Wikipedia:

1. Judge Bork fired Mr. Cox, and then "resumed his duties as Solicitor General". Since he was the "acting" Attorney General, I suppose he would have resigned as acting AG, but I'm not entirely sure how the vocabulary and practices of succession works in these regards. (One of these "what is the definition of is" questions, perhaps.)

2. He fired Mr. Cox reportedly on the notion that someone was bound to do it sooner or later, and that he might as well get around to it. I think his theory was that RN wasn't going to stop firing until someone did it, and that could decimate the DOJ's personnel roster.

Make of that what y'all will.

Oops, I left out the link. Click here to view the article.