Comments on: Watergate

Watergate

plep — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:42:25 -0800

Watergate: The Scandal That Brought Down Richard Nixon , at watergate.info. Extensive.

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:11:56 -0800

I can't wait to see the defenders of the Nixon legacy show up in the forum.

By: inksyndicate

inksyndicate — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:23:25 -0800

I can't wait for Iraqgate.info to go up. All the stuff with the forged uranium papers makes "All The President's Men" seem like a garden party.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:04:49 -0800

All the stuff with the forged uranium papers makes "All The President's Men" seem like a garden party. It SURE does. how like a garden party. So, a faux document has done more damage to the country then say the bombing of Cambodia by the U.S.?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:10:24 -0800

The man who sparked Watergate, Daniel Ellsberg, has deja vu watching the Bush administration try to spin the Plame leak.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:53:52 -0800

Ellsberg does not factor in new guidelines concerning Presidential privacy and the "fact" that ex-CIA agents where not caught inside the HQ of the DNC. But we have CIA and leaks and people playing with peoples lives and plausible deniability(s) and accusations of Illegal overt warfare conducted by United States military. the question is similar though. Did the president know? He says no. SO. And If the president knew, why did he not take action to arrest this person, or more over why would the president know unless he saw it as an a political advantage.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:22:01 -0800

Having just watched "All the President's Men" last week for the first time in 15 or so years, and realizing with the perspective of time how the movie is somewhat flawed, this is a terrific resource for the friends to whom I was showing the movie--all born post-1974. They found the movie lacking, and this will fill in a lot of the gaps for them. Thanks!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:25:08 -0800

why did he not take action to arrest this person, or more over why would the president know unless he saw it as an a political advantage. What if it was one of his most trusted advisors, like Rove? If he had Rove (or someone like him) arrested, Bush's whole political career would be over. Bush has already admitted many times how much he relies on the people around him, even to the point of not reading newspapers and allowing those around him to summarize and decide what to tell him. Bush is very very dependent on his staff--I can't see him ever turning any of them in, even if they murdered. It's a big difference from Nixon, who ultimately didn't trust anyone at all.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800

According to Chinese Astrology, Richard Nixon is a Rat. Never elect a rat.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:56:40 -0800

It SURE does. how like a garden party. So, a faux document has done more damage to the country then say the bombing of Cambodia by the U.S.? I don't agree with inksyndacate, clav, but one could argue just that point, in a way -- see, the Cambodia slaughter was, you know, back when the US did very very bad things in the name of anti-Communism (say, Chile, East Timor, Nicaragua, hiring and funding Osama to snuff the Godless Soviet Huns, warmly shaking Saddam's blood-soaked hand and providing him all the weapons he needed, the coziness with the Argentinian junta military thugs, that nice Stroessner, etc ect etc) right now, instead, the White House (and their many often-not-terribily-polite fans) seems to argue that that was then, NOW instead Afghanistan and Iraq are about Liberation and Washington is into very good deeds. at least that what's the neocon contigent seems to argue right? democratize the Middle East... heh so, the proof that Iraq Attaq was carried out on false foundations with bogus (and badly forged) evidence, is so bad that some could argue that it all throws this whole New Washington neocon wet dream out of the window ruthless power grab yesterday, ruthless power (and oil) grab today -- they could argue that point very easily clav. so yes, somehow the Niger BS could have done more damage than Watergate to a certain self-satisfied "patriotic" viewpoint not too mention I guess Iraqi corpses stink as much as Cambodians corpses did.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:18:00 -0800

well, before Cambodia was bombed we overthrow the prince, (helped) installed Lon Nol, them proceded to bomb, invade and bomb some more of cambodia (IMO, it is a "legit tactic in warfare IF the other guy allows you to use thier country to bomb another) but NO, Kissy and CO. had to go and make deals with fools, devils and a few so-so's along the way. The damage to the presidency i can see being near equal to watergate. but so was fellatio to another president. hey, i finished Baers newest book and WHOOOO-DADDDY. I want to get this guys autograph. Oh, have you heard or read Charlie Wilson's War?