Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ International affairs _ Nothing about JFK, MLK, RFK, LBJ & Hoover Murders

Posted by: Trowbridge H. Ford 17.Jun.2012, 09:33 AM

Now, after 40 years, the famous Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who made out that the Watergate coverup was worse than the original crimes - only to take it all back at Mark Felt's expense after the crisis had passed, and been largely forgotten about - are claiming in a new book that Nixon was far worse than they originally thought.

Of course, any informed, even just a sensible, person would think that the ugly truth about what was going on in America during the terrible 1960s and '70s was finally starting to come out by respected, investigative journalists, only to discover that 'Tricky Dick' was the long-time scumbag we have always suspected.

Instead of hearing about all the still inadquately explained assassinations, and policy changes resulting, they tell us that Nixon was really serious in wanting to get Jews like Daniel Ellsberg, hated Vietnam-war protesters, detested Democrats like Muskie, was willing to buy off the Watergate burglars, perverted American justice, wanted to undo history, and the like. There apparently isn't even anything about him and the Plumbers taking out former Alabama Governor George Wallace, but we shall have to wait until the book itself comes out in September to make sure.

These efforts by them, if believed, show that Nixon and his killers were really not much worse than their competitors. In doing so, though, it shows that America investigative journalism simply sucks.

For more, read this:

By Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, Published: June 8The Washington Post

As Sen. Sam Ervin completed his 20-year Senate career in 1974 and issued his final report as chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, he posed the question: “What was Watergate?”

Countless answers have been offered in the 40 years since June 17, 1972, when a team of burglars wearing business suits and rubber gloves was arrested at 2:30 a.m. at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Watergate office building in Washington. Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.”

5000+
Comments

Weigh In Corrections? Recommend Tweet Personal Post
Video

Hear from some of the key players who covered and investigated the scandal that rocked a country and derailed the Nixon presidency. Listen to Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Tom Brokaw and William Cohen tell their stories on Watergate and the lasting effects on the country.

Watergate: 40 years later

Investigative journalism is at risk

Leonard Downie Jr. JUN 7

Watergate’s legacy is endangered in the chaotic digital reconstruction of journalism in the United States.

Nixon: ‘I am not a crook’

VIDEO | In a question-and-answer session with AP editors on Nov. 17, 1973, President Nixon declared "I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

Watergate: A trip through history

FULL COVERAGE | View four decades worth of Washington Post stories and multimedia on the scandal and its fallout.

History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice — the Watergate coverup — definitively established.

[Read how commenters are responding to this piece in Rachel Manteuffel’s PostScript.]

Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the coverup was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions.

Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the President of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.

Today, much more than when we first covered this story as young Washington Post reporters, an abundant record provides unambiguous answers and evidence about Watergate and its meaning. This record has expanded continuously over the decades with the transcription of hundreds of hours of Nixon’s secret tapes, adding detail and context to the hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives; the trials and guilty pleas of some 40 Nixon aides and associates who went to jail; and the memoirs of Nixon and his deputies. Such documentation makes it possible to trace the president’s personal dominance over a massive campaign of political espionage, sabotage and other illegal activities against his real or perceived opponents.

In the course of his five-and-a-half-year presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Long before the Watergate break-in, gumshoeing, burglary, wiretapping and political sabotage had become a way of life in the Nixon White House.
Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page EmailTumblr Reddit Stumbleupon Digg Delicious

Posted by: Cornelius Hamelberg 25.Jun.2012, 11:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AOUzlFdzes

Posted by: Snood 25.Jun.2012, 12:27 PM

Is the local really the best outlet and discussion forum for all of these posts about various, non-Swedish, historical, political things?

You just seem to be posting a series of articles, analysis and conspiracy about things which I guess 99.9% of the board members have no interest in reading.

Edit: To make myself clear, I don't have anything against you at all Trowbridge and don't mean to cause offence, It just seems to me that the local doesn't seem to be the right place for it, that's all.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)