Younger DUers need to understand something about Watergate:

[PCIntern]

It did not explode onto the scene like the 'blue dress' of Monica did. Watergate was out there for a very long time before major national media began to notice it and even then, it crawled along at a snail's pace. Then, when hearings were convened, with the exception of 'maverick' CT Republican Lowell Weicker, the Rethugs asked question after question which was designed to exonerate the Nixon WH folks (Mr Haldeman, was there any question in your mind that that might be considered illegal or seditious? Ans: No sir, in no way did I EVER think that...) until the 'discovery' of the taping system.

Even then there was a lot of fighting about what The President meant when he said this or said that, (expletive deleted)'s notwithstanding. he still had his defenders almost up to the very end, he certainly had them during the votes for the impeachment resolutions...guys like Charles Sandman and the like were vociferous. Then when all was lost, Sens. Goldwater, Scott, and Rhodes went up to the WH that hot August day and told him that it was all over. Then they 'fired the shit heard round the world'.

Needless to say that there was tons of really horrible stuff about to come out which was considered off-limits after the Pardon. But that was that. There was much more to Watergate than met the eye, and much more we will never know thanks to the massive cover-up which continues to this day. Interestingly, many of the same folk are still around dealing with the present scandal and their verbiage hasn't changed one iota.

[Monkeyman]

1. yep

[L. Coyote]

78. "I'm Not a Crook" The Public Face and Private Political Reality of Richard M. Nixon

"I’m Not a Crook"
The Public Face and Private Political Reality of Richard M. Nixon
A Discourse and Conversation Analysis of Some Nixon Tapes

Some choice excerpts from the tapes:

http://jqjacobs.net/anthro/discourse.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. and patience, that was needed, the patience of a saint

[pat_k]

83. The comparison doesn't hold.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=516438&mesg_id=525170

[MissMarple]

88. Perhaps it does....hidden email accounts are surfacing.

Different decade, different technology, same kind of stupid, arrogant people. In one of the links listed here there is more than some concern that Rove has exposed the U.S. to dangerous security breaches because their servers don't have the security oversight and redundancies to protect any sensitive information being gleaned by foreign or even domestic enemies.

So many associated with this administration seem to have and use these alternate email accounts, even Jack Abromov was aware of them, low level staffers were aware of them. They were created specifically to get around any official oversight, off the official presidential communications which properly are government, not GOP, property.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3186269

[pat_k]

89. The difference is that we have high crimes "in the bag". . .

. . .that mandate the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Bush, Cheney, and Co. are undoubtedly committing grave crimes out of sight too, just as Nixon and Co were, but Members of Congress are bound by oath to act NOW to defend against the attacks on the Constitution that are plain for all see.

As I pointed out, Bush and Cheney, like squatters, are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

Squatters can only lay claim to your property if you know they are there and fail to evict them. Bush and Cheney are openly tresspassing on our Constitution intentionally. It is the means by which they are grabbing and holding powers denied them under the Constitution. They are saying:

As unitary authoritarian executive, we claim the right to violate any Federal law at will to 'protect the nation.' International law doesn't apply to our actions because we say it doesn't. To prove these assertions:

• Here we are, committing War Crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law. If we follow the Geneva conventions, we can't "protect the nation" so we aren't going to follow them.


• Here we are, violating FISA (Title 50, Section 1805). If we get warrants from the FISA courts, we can't "protect the nation" so we aren't getting warrants.


• He we are, nullifying McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed the Senate 90-9) with a signing statement. We need to torture to "protect the nation."


• He we are nullifying a few hundred other provisions with signing statements. We are nullifying these particular provisions, but of course we claim the unitary authoritarian power to violate any law, previously nullified by signing statements or not.

and so on.

Each of the above violations constitutes a single, simple, clear, and complete case for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney (Both of them because they both promote the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive). By "complete" I mean that staffers will find all the materials needed to make the case in the public record and that there are plenty of witnesses like Alberto Mora (general counsel of the United States Navy thru Jan 2006), ready and willing to testify.

By refusing to impeach now, Members of Congress are allowing Bush and Cheney to claim "ownership" of unconstitutional power under the old adage, "possession is 9/10ths of the law."

Surrendering your property to squatters without a fight is insanity, but that insanity doesn't compare to the magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight. But that is precisely what Members of Congress who say that the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney can't, won't, or shouldn't happen are doing.

What we sometimes need to remind ourselves is that impeachment is a defensive act. It is the means by which we defend the Constitution against officials who abuse their power to subvert it. The Congressional duty to defend the Constitution does not require them to uncover the full extent of the official's criminality, subversion, or abuses of power. One charge is enough to remove and defend the Constitution from further harm.

That's not to say that Members shouldn't continue their 50+ investigations to dig into this administration's nefarious activities, but if they continue, they must do it in parallel with, not to the exclusion, of impeachment. Since these people play the same tune over and over, at lot of what we find will harken back to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I administrations. It is hard to imagine anything more powerful than the Constitutional violations we already have, but if an investigation turns something like that up, great. Add it to the articles, or vote out a new set of articles.

[grasswire]

3. there was no 24 hour news

And there were no right-wing or left-wing pundits programmed to pounce. It was slow going. But the hearings WERE open to the public and WERE televised to the nation by the networks.

[PCIntern]

4. all day every day all networks. n/t

[Daphne08]

27. And I lived in my living room

with my then new-born son in order to watch the hearings and all the news. He was over a year old by the time Nixon departed on the helicopter that day.

[drm604]

35. Yes, all 3 of them. n/t

[SoCalDem]

65. People forget that when it broke, Nixon had won re-election and

was not as unpopular as *² has been for a LONG time now..

Viet nam was winding down, he had won some really good vibes over China's "opening up"..and things were not all that bad economically either..

[femrap]

79. Which doesn't happen now....unfortunately.

Back then, if you were watching TV between 6 and 7:00 pm, you were watching the News, not 'Friends' or 'Home Improvement.'

[Jacobin]

6. The hearings were televised on network TV

I skipped classes many days to watch.

And the tapes were kinda the bomb that blew it all apart, that and Nixon firing the special prosecutor

[barbtries]

9. i was a senior in high school

so frustrated that i was only 17 in 1972! because i watched the hearings and understood that the nixon administration smelled to high heaven.

i never thought i'd see someone worse in the WH. and SO MUCH worse. gawd

[progressoid]

25. First time I heard my mother swear was during the hearings!

I'm hoping someone in the corporate media connects the dots and starts doing some real reporting...immediately.
This Anna Nichole variety of news is getting tiresome.

[lostnfound]

47. There's still no 24 hour NEWS..unless you count the Internets. nt

[NewJeffCT]

69. there still aren't any regular left-wing pundits out there, are there?

There is basically Olbermann, but he is offset by Scarborough on his own network; Dobbs, Blitzer, Beck, Zahn, etc on CNN; everybody at Fox; etc, etc.

Watergate & the Nixon presidency, however, is what kick-started the rise of the RW media machine. Directly out of there, some prominent and very wealthy and very conservative Republicans made a concerted effort to fund and build a RW media infrastructure. That was when they started repeating their "liberal media" mantra and went to work demonizing the word liberal. They created and funded many of the RW "think tanks" out there and spent years building the people working at these think tanks into "experts" on various issues. The Heritage Foundation (1973) and Cato Institute (1977) and others came out of this movement. Funding for other RW think tanks flowed through them and into other places - into the media, academia, etc.

[pat_k]

84. Wanna reach every corner of America? Hold IMPEACHMENT Hearings.

The long overdue torture-gate, or unitary-gate, or spy-gate, or terror-gate (terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"), or whatever-gate Impeachment Hearings are the ONLY hearings are going to get massive coverage. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=516438&mesg_id=525763">More. . .

[JuniperLea]

5. No one wants to be the piano player...

When "The Party's Over" is played for Bush! That's going to be one hell of a temper tantrum! Even Ruggie won't be safe!

[HockeyMom]

7. Having lived through all that

all I can say is that was petty crime in comparison to what this administratin has done.

Don't take my word, though. John Dean's analysis on this administration speaks volumes.

[mmonk]

13. Comparatively speaking, the current situation is way more

overt in its sheer volume of questionable behavior. I still think this is taking too long (not the attorney firings, but things such as signing statements, circumventing FISA, the Plame affair etc. which are going on years now).

[yardwork]

21. Yes, and that's partly because "Nixon's henchmen" learned from Watergate

KKKarl Rove, Rummy, Cheney - they were all players. They were young big-shots in Gerald Ford's administration. Like petty thieves who get moved to the Big House, they learned how to launch bigger schemes. We failed to stop them when we allowed Nixon to be pardoned. We failed to stop them after Iran-Contra, which was a dress rehearsal for what's happening now.

If we fail to stop them now, then the country will slide into fascism.

[Radical Activist]

8. That's an important point.

I didn't understand that until recently since I'm too young to remember it. This is an important perspective that we can't count on the media to tell us about. Every journalist from that time period wants to act like they helped take down Nixon, but many news outlets ignored, or even tried to undermine, the story for a long time. The media is just as establishment today as it was then, if not more so.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. More so ......

..... waaaaaaay more so.

There is no Cronkite. And back then we had Rather and Donaldson playing the pit bulls in the pressers. They were tenacious.

Rather stayed sorta who he was. Donaldson .... not so much

[Kurovski]

18. The internet has countered them , so I wonder if

we aren't actually better off in some other ways, than we were then?

But yes, the corporate media itself is MUCH worse than in the days of Watergate.

[Oeditpus Rex]

26. The internet hasn't countered anything

Put a dent in it, yeah. But in the '60s and '70s, everybody watched network news — which was actually credible then — and most people read newspapers.

The internet still isn't used by most people as a news source.

[Kurovski]

40. I think the internet drives some stories to the forefront.

Things that would be otherwise easily ignored.

Election reform comes to mind. Even without the corporate media's help, great strides have been made because of the internet.

[Oeditpus Rex]

41. Okay

Can't argue with that.

Always makes me roll my eyes how I find out about so much stuff here, and then days later it's "breaking" on the networks.

[GregD]

10. I am actually fairly encouraged at the pace

at which investigations have turned up these bastards' mischief.

3 months into "we got the gavel" and look how much has been accomplished. If not in the next few weeks, certainly in the next few months I think we will see a significant impact on BushCo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. We are already starting to see some actually

and you've got to admit the tanter tantrums are getting better

[pat_k]

86. Impeachment is the only thing capable of making BushCo blink. . .

They are like squatters, trespassing openly and hostilely, daring the property owner to evict them. When the property owner fails for long enough, the property is theirs to keep. Wag your finger at squatters and they laugh and keep laughing until they are served with eviction papers. Sure, it can be a fight, but to surrender your property without a fight is insanity. The magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight is beyond belief.

Wag our fingers at Bush and Cheney and they laugh ("Gee, for a minute there I though the Democrats were actually going to DO Something!"). They are playing for keeps. They are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. Congress is meekly complying with their plan by refusing to initiate eviction (impeachment) proceedings.

Bush and Cheney prove over, and over, and over, and over, and over again that NOTHING -- not overwhelming public opinion, not laws passed by Congress (which they just nullify with signing statements if they are too cowardly to veto -- like nullifying McCains' anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate 90-9), , not getting caught red handed --absolutely nothing short of impeachment is capable of "making them" do anything they don't wish to.

Why should they care if they get caught red handed? They've already been caught committing War Crimes at Gitmo (confirmed by SCOTUS in Hamdan), holding abductees in secret for and torturing them in CIA prisons overseas, spying on Americans w/o warrants, in violation of the law of the land, terrorizing the nation with the most colossal bomb threat in history ("mushroom clouds in 45 minutes) and no Member of Congress has made the only meaningful "peep" they can make (i.e., accuse and demand impeachment).

If squatters move when you simply ask them to, great. But, like most squatters, Bush and Cheney aren't moving. They just keep claiming "this power is mine." The ONLY way to say "Nope. Not Yours" is to immediately impeach.

[Lerkfish]

11. yup, it was dreadfully agonizing..yet very intriguing at the same time.

[AndyA]

14. It's a good time to watch "All the President's Men" again.

You can see how some of the same things could be happening today.

Really, it does kind of seem like 1973 all over again.

[Kurovski]

20. "All the President's Men" and "JFK" make a good double feature.

Hand in glove.

[Kurovski]

53. And top it off with "Network".(nt)

[rman]

67. And don't forget Stone's "Nixon"

[blondeatlast]

72. Back then, all journalists wanted to be Woodward, Bernstein and Thomas. Now they all want

to be Katie Couric and whatever pretty boy CNN is touting this month.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. You just said exactly why we can't force the process

Even with all the publicly-admitted issues, we still have to have investigations. And we have to have the investigations which are going on now, to lead to the investigations into impeachment. Every freeper in the country will fight to the death to defend Bush (so long as they don't have to leave Mommy's basement), so the process has to be transparent and out in the open. the reason the Repigs failed in their attempt at impeaching Clinton was because they rushed it and the Senate saw through the process. That's why we have to have a completely watertight case this time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I will admit I was in college and paying attention to many other things

My mother called me to tell me she had saved up her vacation time and was staying home to watch the Watergate hearings. I thought she was nuts. Now, of course, I understand completely. (Oh how my mother would love CSPAN!)

What I do remember is that even as bad as it got, I was still surprised when Nixon resigned. My mom was mad because she wanted to see the impeachment hearings (she had more vacation time left). Anyway, as a dumb college kid who paid little attention to current events, I didn't really understand how serious it all was until Nixon actually resigned.

As far as time, the Watergate breakin was in June 72 and Nixon resigned in August 74. So I think it seemed to move along faster than this nightmare we are currently experiencing.

[Kurovski]

17. And the pardon by President Ford made certain that

we would never find out what the extent of the crimes were.

But the crimes and the criminals have continued on since then. I think we're seeing what the goal was from the start. One-party rule, facism, destruction of Democracy with only the facade remaining, corporate rule--whatever you choose to call it, it all has the same stink.

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. And remember that Rumsfeld was Ford's chief of staff

and then SecDefense, and was in Nixon's cabinet. And Cheney was his assistant, and they engineered the "Halloween Massacre."

It all began then, if not during Watergate itself.

[napi21]

23. Well, you do know Cheney & Rummy were both in the executive branch back then

and were pushing for "the Unitary Executive". Nixon thought it was a GREAT idea, but they failed. They are still pushing for the "Unitary Executive" with Shrub's total support as well. I sure hope they fail AGAIN, or God help us ALL!

[jwirr]

30. That is a phrase I do not remember, Can you tell me what that means?

[napi21]

37. Yep, check here.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

If you have time, scroll down that page to the section that's titled "What Does the Administration Mean When It Refers to the "Unitary Executive"?" It eaplaines how itis sourced back to the days of Vietnam and Watergate.

[MN ChimpH8R]

46. It's a theory of what amounts to presidential dictatorship

dreamed up by some reichwing law profs.

[Kurovski]

55. Yes, even Kissinger still plays his "little" roles.

Others as well.

[KittyWampus]

68. What do you think the more extensive crimes were? I've heard Watergate was more than a break in

and have no doubt there was much more underneath that got forgotten with the resignation/pardon.

But don't know that I've heard anyone suggest what the other malevolent deeds were.

[PCIntern]

71. There was a book: "Secret Agenda" which outlined many of these.

Can't recall the Author's name offhand. I have it somewhere.

[hlthe2b]

19. Seemingly infinite, complex layers revealed "sheet by thin sheet"

Almost like peeling an onion... Good reminder that we have to steel ourselves...

I remember my mother being as fixated on those hearings as we all are on this whole episode today--maybe that's where I got my determination to educate myself politically and try as I can to KNOW what is really going on...

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

29. Go back to the oil imbargo 1973-74

Short lived -and part of the many things going on at that period in time. If you were there-you might recall gas rationing for a short time.
WIN-Whipp Inflation Now- Ford.
Back up to Nixon just befor he boarded the helicopter -The arms raised high showing his V-for victory.

What ever did he mean -you may have thought.

The Carter adminstration and all in what was inherited from the Nixon white house years.

Than to the Iranian hostage crisis-and all that lead up to that.
Back to the Nixon White House.

But go back further to G.W. Bush -the Texas Air national guard reserve.
Than go to Alabama-remember George Wallace?

The Texas Air National Guard is the United States Army reserve.
You ever wonder why Bush,s records of reporting for duty are somewhat distorted?

Who than was the commander and chief American armed forces? Which by the by includes the reserve forces?

Did not the republicans see a oppertunity to capture Alabama ?
And Nixon- was he not the type that had to know everything and everything up to the moment ?
And would Nixon not want somebody there he would or could have absolutely trusted?

Now than-who (may) have that have been?
Good question right?
What about that oil imbargo?
You may have been busy with your college courses and your degree field than-but ,what about now?

Why is it do you think the Nixon cronnies were brought back?
And why is it-would you think they are there to stay -At All cost?

Watergate ment nothing to Nixon ,until they caught his hand in the till.
The Nixon White House cover up- involves far more .

[jwirr]

32. You have a point. We all wonder why the pugs are so willing to be

ignorant. Maybe their moms turned the television off so they would not have to face the piper.

[jwirr]

24. I was working in Democratic Headquarters at a state level for

McGovern in the election. We had this book call "The Bible" which contained the plans, positions and history of the candidates. At the very back was a small article about the break-in. That was the earliest item other than the newspaper articles at the time of the break-in. After that it was all but forgotten as we lost the election. That was in 1972.

[PCIntern]

49. I was in the McGovern campaign as well

in Upstate NY.

Sad...met a nice girl on Election Night GOTV. Went to a bar and then to bed. Evening not a total loss.

[jwirr]

50. Our whole office had a party even though we lost. I smoked my

first weed that night.

[Critters2]

28. I still remember the day Nixon resigned. I was a sophomore high school

Just going into sophomore year, as I recall.

We watched it on TV that night, and then my dad explained to me all that had happened. He was furious, but I remember him finishing the whole talk with, "but the system worked. And the rat is gone."

Here's hoping another rat goes soon.

[90-percent]

31. a point

The thing all generations currently living have to remember is that a PARDON is a disservice to the United States of America. People that commit the level of crimes this White House has been creating the last six years must be held to account in a legitimate Court of Law.

They must not go unpunished for the good of our Country! To let them go unpunished is tantamount to TREASON!

-85% Jimmy

[Critters2]

34. I agree.

Not sure how my dad felt about the pardon. I don't recall him talking about that. I think he saw Nixon's resignation as protecting the nation from any further harm. Like firing an employee to keep from harming the company, whether or not criminal charges are brought after the firing.

I should ask him how he feels about the pardon.

[bigmonkey]

36. Pardons should never precede convictions.

They innovated that for Nixon, then GHWB used it again to avoid Weinberger having to testify. I really think a lot of this crap would go away if, as seems common-sensical, the president can only pardon a convicted criminal. The trial, and the light it lets in, would promote political health.


(About your sig - I always thought it was "fast _and_ bulbous.")

[Ilsa]

54. Yeah, I was going into my junior year. We had started summer

band practice and marching for the Fall football games. The mom of one of my friends was possibly the only republican in town, a nice Baptist teacher.

[Critters2]

74. I actually heard he was going to resign

while I was riding a bus, and it was fun to wathc everyone on the bus being so happy about it.

I wore a backbrace in high school, and once a month I took the bus to Davenport for an exam, maybe x-rays, adjustments to my brace, etc. I'd take the morning commuter bus into town, and the evening commuter bus out. It was really a Trailways, that went through all these small towns, picking up people going to work in the Quad Cities. So they all knew each other and there was always a lot of conversation. I hadn't been paying all that much attention to the news, but everyone on the bus was talking about how Nixon was making a speech that night, and I was amazed at the things they were calling the president. I believe it may have been the first time I heard the term "rat bastard".

It was like a party, everyone so excited that the rat bastard was going to be gone!! Some guy gave me a bottle of 7-up and told me to pretend it was champagne!! Quite the celebration!

Then my family watched it on TV together. A memorable day indeed.

[kineneb]

60. Nixon resigned on my 16th birthday

Aug. 9, 1974 (the official date, he announced it the day before). I had watched almost the entire Senate hearings. Best birthday gift ever. But pardoning him left too many of the bit players free to continue sliming the country.

[Greyhound]

63. There it is. The moment of fatal error. The whole nation, like your dad, breathed

a sigh of relief and said or thought, "the system worked, that SOB is gone and now we can get back to normal". We were tired, wrung out and ready for a long rest, so hardly anybody noticed that it went far beyond Tricky Dicky, and when someone did mention it, the people didn't want to hear it.

But it wasn't over, was it? The bastards that got Dick Nixon back into the race were still just as powerful and held most of the cards and continued to implement their schemes. They learned some valuable lessons and made the necessary adjustments, but the eternal quest for absolute power went on. Most of puppet masters from then have died but they passed their legacy on and their apprentices have made a great deal of progress.

And today, we hear the same things from the same sources and the slow boil continues. Those of you that were adults then should have the best recollection of what life was like a mere 35 - 40 years ago, how does it compare to today? Does your common sense tell you that that world even exists today?

[Critters2]

76. At the time, my dad was a Republican. So, I think that colored his thinking.

But those days are over!! Now, he's wishing Feingold would run for Prez!

[Oreo]

33. You may want to take a look at you Shot heard round the world line

Not sure if it's too late for you to edit.
Those must have been some really strong beans!

Thanks for the history lesson though... good to keep in mind during all of this.

[Kurovski]

39. I thought it was put in on purpose.

:D

[PCIntern]

44. It was...

the other doesn't even make sense in this regard!!!

[Kurovski]

51. It did give me a chuckle. (nt)

[drm604]

38. There were break-ins in 2004.

Do a Google search and search the DU archives. A number of Democratic headquarters around the country had break-ins in 2004. The headquarters in the county seat here in Montgomery County PA (where I phone-banked) had laptops (with canvassing lists) stolen while cash was left untouched. It may be that they haven't given up on burglary, they've just gotten better at it.

[vickitulsa]

42. Another important point to keep in mind is that major successes were had by the Nixon backers

right up until he had to resign. This made it appear at times that all the bad news for them might not be having the ultimate effect that it eventually did, and that was worrisome for many of us.

Much as I have long loathed the way the energy industry (used to be called "oil and gas") does business, I'm an Oklahoma native and most of the best job opportunities here have historically been in that field. Even as an executive secretary, I found my best earning chances were often in oil and gas either directly or indirectly -- usually in engineering firms that support the energy biz.

I was in fact working for a major engineering firm (Williams Bros.) in Tulsa in 1973, living temporarily with my brother as I'd just moved to "the city" to get that good job, and had an amazing perspective from the inside of the industry's workings.

Remember, 1973 was also the year of the OPEC oil embargo, and gas prices at the pump shot up to higher levels (adjusted for inflation) than they did after Katrina (and again lately). There were truly "lines around the block" at gas stations, and citizens were more than mildly upset at the disruption in their lives -- and hits to their wallets!

This atmosphere resulted in Congress taking immediate steps to forget the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)'s cautions about building the TransAlaska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and push through legislation to get that project underway without further delay. The environmental groups had successfully held off the start of construction for six or seven years, from 1967 or '68 to 1974 -- but no longer!

I know because I saw a yet more promising work opportunity for myself in Alaska at that time and left in June of '74 for Fairbanks -- driving the 4000 mile trek from Tulsa in seven days with three friends, including one Nam vet aviation mechanic. Immediately all four of us were snatched up as rare and valuable personnel, and in the pipeline camps where we lived world news reached us about three weeks delayed, so interest among pipeline workers in the "big changes" in government in the Lower 48 waned quite a bit. We were too busy in the crash program to get that pipeline built in record time!

(Sound familiar? ANWR drilling being pushed through now due to this century's first "crude oil crisis"?)

Not for me did the interest in our government in the Lower 48 wane, though. I had been a Vietnam War protester for several years already by then and despised Nixon even more than Johnson for that heinous military venture and all the horrors that came from it. Especially I hated what it did to the veterans who came home alive but so very damaged (again, sound familiar?) -- and in that case betrayed by not only the government which had used them up and cast them aside but by many U.S. citizens as well.

In my opinion, it's because of the guilt many Americans feel about how they treated the Vietnam vets that there is such unrelenting fervor to "support the troops" no matter what the mission ever since then, by the way. Think about it.

Just a bit more of the broader picture of those times. But my main point is that we should not be discouraged when it appears that Bu$hCo scores some more successes even as the hearings go on and their ultimate doom looms ahead. Some posters here pointed out that Nixon had his staunch supporters even right up to the end. Very true!

Many of us -- and I was one of them -- kept thinking "he's gonna get away with it yet" when the facts were trickling out so slowly and the hearings kept dragging on and seemed only to involve the "little guys" in that administration, some of whom seemed quite willing to take the fall to protect their dear leader.

But never underestimate the strength and dogged determination of "average" Americans! Once they have been outraged and angered enough, finally Congress is obliged (and some members of Congress are also angered enough) to perform their duties of oversight and investigation, digging ever more deeply into the dirty secrets and dark dealings of a corrupt executive administration, until the writing on the wall can't be ignored.

In my view, by the time events get to the point they are now regarding Congressional investigations into criminal behavior to serve a secret agenda by a President of these United States, there is no stopping the inevitable.

Also I believe that Cheney (in his best Shari Lewis imitation) is hated by Americans even more than Bu$h the sockpuppet, so that he will tumble too, just as Agnew went down ("Exit stage left!") before Nixon did.

I'm watching all these developments now with a great sense of satisfaction, but also with a profound and marvelous sense of deja vu.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. Bush and his sociopaths make Nixon look like Barney the Dinosaur. I remember

Watergate very well, from the original break-in to Nixon resigning.

The Bush Gang have their skullduggery in so many nooks and crannies, that it will take years to sort it all out. My fear is that once he resigns (and I believe he will), all the investigations will end .. like Iran Contra, BCCI etc.

These people belong in Gitmo, lights on 24/7 and to invoke Barney again, I Love You, You Love Me, played 24/7 too!

Bless Henry Waxman, whose cup will keep overrunnething! And watch out for Conyers coming out of the gate soon.

[hang a left]

45. Does anyone know where you can get the hearings??

I would love to own me a set.

[PCIntern]

48. There were endless hearings day after day...

there was a great PBS 2 or 3 hour documentary on Watergate with lots of film and video. Took me back 30+ years.

[murielm99]

64. My daughter taped that and gave it to me.

It does take one back.

I was working at my first job out of college during Watergate. I would work all day, and come home to watch the hearings on PBS until far into the night. I hated Nixon, and I tried to keep up on every aspect of Watergate. I certainly could not keep that kind of a schedule now.

When Nixon resigned, we rolled a TV into the break room and everyone watched it. Our boss knew history in the making when she saw it.

I lived in a very Republican county then. There might have been two Democrats in the entire workplace. When Nixon was pardoned, I was surprised by the reactions of my co-workers. Most of them were angry and disgusted. I was bewildered, and felt like I needed time to figure out how I felt about it.

[porphyrian]

52. That doesn't mean it has to happen at a snail's pace again.

Especially given the fact that we've already seen this before.

[napi21]

56. No, but we definately NEED the investigations to build a solid

and unbetable case. I also happen to think we need the modern day whistleblower, equivalent to the guy who mentioned the "Nixon tapes". Willit be Sampson? Maybe. I believe there will be onebecause Shrub's "loyalty"seems only to extend to the few that surround him.

[NewJeffCT]

70. I agree that we need to build that solid case

While we on DU know about all of the high crimes & misdemeanors of Team Bush, it's really only trickled into the mainstream media out there. And, there really has been so many scandals that it is hard for even us here on DU to keep track of them all: Does anybody remember the spy plane crashing in China early in the Bush presidency and how that was botched? How about the submarine piloted by Bush donors that killed those Japanese students around that same time? How about when scientific information for tourists at the Grand Canyon was replaced with information about how Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon? Congress spent 150 hours investigating Clinton's White House guest list - the infamous Lincoln Bedroom - and came up with nothing. Did Congress spend even a few minutes investigating these more serious events?

A local radio host here in CT made a good point last week about how Bush has really benefited from the limited attention span of most Americans. Meaning, Walter Reed has already been almost forgotten because of the conviction of Scooter Libby and then the attorney scandal...

[pat_k]

82. The ONLY hearings that will get serious coverage are impeachment hearings.

As I point out in my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=516438&mesg_id=525655">reply to napi21, we have at least a half-dozen rock solid cases for impeachment. Not only does their oath demand that Members of Congress move to impeach now to defend against the attacks on the Constitution they are witnessing, impeachment hearings are the ONLY effective way to get coverage that will reach every corner of America.

BTW -- The public is way ahead of Congress on this. Despite relentless efforts by Pelosi and Co. to boost opposition and suppress support for impeachment, a Newsweek poll found that 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress, while only 44% said it should not be done.¹ In a more recent Newsweek poll, 58% the public say they want the Bush presidency over now.² (People who want the Bush presidency over are an unlikely source of "backlash" when Members of the House seek to end it by impeaching Bush and Cheney.)

Refusing to impeach while attacks on the Constitution continue -- attacks that are plain for all to see -- is like a highway patrol refusing to turn on their siren to pull over a driver that is barreling and weaving down the road, a menace to all in their path. Police take oath to protect the public. We gave them to power to apprehend and disarm those they deem to be a threat so they could fulfill that oath. Members of Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution. We gave them to power to impeach to allow them to fulfill that oath when the Constitution is under attack from within the halls of power.


==================

1. http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Priorities for a Democratic Congress
   
2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2752103&mesg_id=2753090">58% of Americans want his Presidency over now

[pat_k]

81. Already done. Have at least a half-dozen rock solid cases for impeachment. . .

Bush and Cheney are breaking the law in plain sight. That is their intent. Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession.

They proudly describe how they violate sanctity of our civil rights to "protect us" with their criminal spying operation. They may claim to have stopped the program (as if we can believe them) but they continue to claim they have the "right" to restart it whenever they wish.

They proudly describe how they commit War Crimes to "protect us" by ordering detainees at Gitmo to be subjected to treatment they know violates Geneva and by capturing and holding abductees indefinitely in secret CIA prisons. (Saying "the law doesn't apply to us" is not a get out of jail free card).

As they advance their a relentless campaign to turn the American presidency into an Un-American and Unconstitutional unitary authoritarian executive with unlimited power to "protect us." they have made us all witnesses to at least to acts on which at least a half-dozen, rock solid cases for impeachment can be made.¹ We passed the time for "investigations" years ago. It is long past time to convene impeachment hearings to make any one of the cases.

Related:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=516438&mesg_id=525170


===================================

1. For example:
   • ordering detainees in Guantanamo to be treated in ways they knew to be War Crimes (confirmed by the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling);
   • abducting, secretly holding, and torturing people in CIA-run prisons overseas (confirmed by the EU TDIP investigation);
   • abusing signing statements to declare their intent to violate our laws (just need a single example, such as the nullification of McCain's torture amendment, which passed the Senate with more than 90 votes);
   • terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" (the most colossal bomb threat in our history); or
   • violating FISA to spy on Americans.
   
   If Members of the House can't bring themselves to confront the grim reality that America has become a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, they could simply impeach Bush and Cheney because they are incapable of defending the nation. Their consistent lies (or as their defenders term them, "mistakes") have made any "evidence" that comes from any agency run by their appointees suspect. Their entire administration is therefore incapable of effectively motivating national or international response to a threat.

[pat_k]

87. since they're attacking the Constitution in plain sight. . .

. . ."snail's pace" is not just unnecessary, it is a violation of their oath to defend the Constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=271427&mesg_id=271572

[porphyrian]

90. That's more along my line of understanding.

These traitors need to be stopped now, not when it's convenient for politicians and bureaucrats.

[hootinholler]

57. I thought Poppy Bush was in on the crowd that went to talk him down?

But still, thses guys make that look like a gang of alter boys.

-Hoot

[PCIntern]

61. No...it was the three Senators

and it was a remarkable moment as they left the WH. Right up thre with the Army-McCarthy hearings' sudden 'explosions' of righteousness.

[Laurier]

58. This would be a good topic for the research forum.

What is the protocol for creating a specific research zone there? I think it would be great if enough DUers were interested in posting comprehensive articles and facts on a devoted thread there on the subject, and it would be a great, easily accessible resource for all of us when the subject of Watergate comes up anywhere. (Just thinking out loud)

[ComerPerro]

59. hell, I think that's something older DUers need to be made to understand, too

[Norrin Radd]

62. Thanks for the insight! I was born that year. n/t

[tom_paine]

66. Kick for the truth

[blondeatlast]

73. This thread is amazing. I was all of 11 when WG broke, but became a political wonk then.

Just a kick for a thread that all should see.

[pat_k]

77. There is no cover-up to uncover. Like squatters, Bush and Cheney. . .

. . .are trespassing in plain sight. They are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. Members of Congress, who we empowered and charged with the duty of evicting (impeaching) such trespassers, are refusing to act.

We are all witnesses to their high crimes. They confess their determination to destroy the Constituiton every single time they invoke their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive. There is no legitimate excuse for delay.

By refusing to stand up for We the People, the true owners of this nation, Members of Congress have created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.

We passed the need to "investigate" years ago. From day the felonious five on the Supreme Court violated the principle of consent -- the sole moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation rests -- to install Bush in the executive office, the Constitution has been in breach. Since that day, it has been obvious to an ever increasing number of Americans that Bush and Cheney are advancing a relentless campaign to turn the American presidency into an Un-American and Unconstitutional unitary authoritarian executive with unbounded power.

Attention all Members of the House:

Your oath is a individual oath; your duty an individual duty. Pick a charge, draft a set of articles, introduce them, and call on your colleagues to hold impeachment hearings to make the case for those articles (or some other set -- there are so many high crimes to choose from). Each day that you refuse to defend the Constitution by initiating the "eviction" process is another day of complicity in the fascist take over of our constitutional democracy.

While some of you may choose to be party to the treasonous campaign to consolidate unconstitutional powers in the executive, a vast majority of you know that no president -- not Bush, not Cheney, not McCain, not Hillary, not anybody -- can be allowed to claim unlimited power to "protect us."

We gave you, and only you of all our constitutional officers, the power to initiate the ONLY process that can stop the trespassers.

Redeem yourselves today. Act. Open your mouth. Accuse.

[Blackhatjack]

80. I remember Nixon said on tv he would not resign 24 hrs before he announced on tv he would...

I will always believe that it was a negotiated deal with Democrats, and in exchange much of the most damaging information was never revealed.

The deal was made with the Capitol Hill Republicans, not with Nixon.

If Bush were faced with the same situation, I believe the Capitol Hill Repubs would once again negotiate the resignation of Bush without his imput --then they would make the trek to the WHite House and inform him.

The difference might be that Bush would refuse to accept the news, and have to be carried out against his will. THat would be an appropriate ending to a disasterous presidency.

[PCIntern]

85. His tearful father would show up and

round up the wayward steer and escort him back to the Pig Farm for some transitional R & R and then off to Paraguay for a long vacation. Years from now, some asshole will ghost-write Jr.'s memoirs. The MSM will then say that although things were most difficult, he was one of the most enigmatic and interesting, multi-faceted individuals ever to inhabit the WH. Unfortunately for him, the times didn't allow the man to fully develop and on and on ad nauseum and infinitum. The mystery of Junior will forever live in the annals (anals?) of history.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

91. And so the flash back reminds

Back there in 1973 -Here and again- the Oil Imbargo.
Back to those gas lines at the pumps-the sudden rise in gas prices-the gas rationing- Here-it hits home.

But in Europe-And in particular England- It was not about gas rationing and rising prices at the pumps.

Now,- do you know that people in Europe-as Condi Rice says- oh, yes our very good friends in England- These people were terrified of Richard Nixon- I am talking about the feeling of being helpless and scared shitless at the same time and on a wide spread pannic scale?

Over here in the United States we as people were worried about gas rationing cards becomming exusted.

In England for example- With Nixon having sent a Carrier task force to the Indian ocean -The winds of War in 1973 was apon them.
The reailty of it, not hear say.
And thats just what was going on in the Nixon White House- At the same time pulling out of Vietnam.

The winds of War is the clue.