Deep Throat was absolutely a hero. All you guys that claim that he was a rat, thats horseshit. he did the right thing by taking down a corrupt President in a time where corruption was king. He was ablsolutely an American hero. And as for the stupid claim that a man would stand up and face the press publicly, YOU stand up publicly with Hoover’s gestapo-esque FBI. That guy had shit on everybody, and they would have taken him down one way or another. Give this guy respect, i doubt very much that most people would have the balls to do such a thing, even the tough guys here.
It is true that my original intent was to gather info on the scandal. As is the want of most threads, they go certain ways. More often than not, a different way than intended.
At this point-yes- I think the guy came out for the glory or the money. What other motive exists? If Woodward and Bernstein were willing to go to the gravew with it why not him? Do you think it was strictly a cathartic move at this point?
I understand the other ocurring events–though I would like you or someone else to fill me in more-but Nixon was brought down for the wiretapping and cover-up–re: of the motive to bring those charges. Is that correct? I don’t want to lessen it if more is involved. You are right, that is what I want to know–that was my original intent.
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
[quote]At this point-yes- I think the guy came out for the glory or the money. What other motive exists? If Woodward and Bernstein were willing to go to the gravew with it why not him? Do you think it was strictly a cathartic move at this point?
I understand the other ocurring events–though I would like you or someone else to fill me in more-but Nixon was brought down for the wiretapping and cover-up–re: of the motive to bring those charges. Is that correct? I don’t want to lessen it if more is involved. You are right, that is what I want to know–that was my original intent.
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
[/quote]
I have my own opinions on the matter (and not many definitive answers; I don’t think anyone has many of those) and would love to discuss them. I just think you have to at least consider the possibility that this is on a greater scale than just an election scandal considering the times, as I said before. Unfortunately, the Cubs are on right now and I must go watch 
I will definitely come back at a later time, though, when I can talk longer.
P.S. I’m glad to see that this has come back to a little bit more mature of a discussion now, as opposed to just trashing various Rep and Dem public figures for whatever reason. I hope it stays this way…
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
[/quote]
I don’t think so, unless you want to get into real conspiracy talk. Nixon was one of the few hawks left, bombed the hell out of North Vietnam and brought them to the negotiating table, and would have kept vital U.S. air support for the South in place if he had stayed on.
Hey, why don’t you all just unclench your butt cheeks! 
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
First of all, Liddy is a lunatic. He and Oliver North and their ilk are the kind of people who give conservatives a bad name. Now if you saw the president, or even a lesser official, grossly abusing his power and wrecking the integrity of the office (not to mention stifling political opposition), you wouldn’t expose him? As for anonymity, it looks cowardly, but there are people who could have ruined the rest of his life (going on 32 years now) for what he did, so it’s pretty understandable.
Liddy - despite your personal opinion of him, would not rat on his boss. He went to jail rather than rat out his boss. That’s hardcore loyalty. And that’s highly admirable in my book.
North isn’t even part of this discussion, but I’m more than proud to have a man of his character on my side.[/quote]
Certainly loyalty is admirable but not so if you’re covering up illegal acts and crimes.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
It is true that my original intent was to gather info on the scandal. As is the want of most threads, they go certain ways. More often than not, a different way than intended.
At this point-yes- I think the guy came out for the glory or the money. What other motive exists? If Woodward and Bernstein were willing to go to the gravew with it why not him? Do you think it was strictly a cathartic move at this point?
I understand the other ocurring events–though I would like you or someone else to fill me in more-but Nixon was brought down for the wiretapping and cover-up–re: of the motive to bring those charges. Is that correct? I don’t want to lessen it if more is involved. You are right, that is what I want to know–that was my original intent.
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
[/quote]
As far as other people wanting Nixon out of office I do know that he talked about bringing in the reigns on the C.I.A. and there are heavy consequences to such statements. Kennedy said the same thing and also wanted to pull troops out of Vietnam alot sooner. The C.I.A. was also heavily involved in the October Surprise scandal against Carter who fired 700 operatives including the then director Bush Sr. when he was elected.
Except that he didn’t get any press for over three decades. Kind of puts a hole in your theory, don’t you think…?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Chris Mangano wrote:
So let’s see. A friend of yours kills someone and tells you about it. The cops knock on your door to ask you about it, but since you are “loyal” you don’t “rat” on your friend? I realize Nixon didn’t kill anyone, but the fact remains a crime is a crime. Just cause you don’t rat on someone who committed a crime doesn’t mean your loyal.
If someone accuses my friend of committing a crime, I stand by him because I am loyal. If said friend tells me he did it, I know longer stand by him because I have morals and my friend is now a criminal. There is a difference between morality and loyalty, and I think you are missing it.
This isn’t exactly the same as our scenario, but it touches on the same theme:
Two weeks ago one of my clients knelt down behind his storage shed, placed his mouth over the barrel of a .12 gauge, and blew his brains out. Why?
He had 11 felony counts of cattle rustling against him. He was part of a ring. The level of his involvement in this ring will never be known. However, the Texas Rangers were leaning on him really hard to flip on the other members of the ring. Rather than rat them out - he killed himself.
I don’t agree with what he did. I don’t mean to condone cattle theft. My point is simply this: Around here you don’t rat. Your name is worth more than anything, and a rat smears his name.
[/quote]
Cattle rustling. Things are just a little different here in Mass.
He was the biggest ‘anonymous source’ of the last 30 years. Probably longer. Just because his proper name wasn’t listed in the articles - he knew who Deep Throat was.
So no - I don’t see any holes in my theory.
Well, “get some press” generally means that you get your name in the paper, people know who you are. You become famous, or at least have some notoriety. If you don’t get your name in the paper, no one knows who you are, and there’s no point.
The way you make it sound, it’s like he said he’d give the information in exchange for some “press”, when it was unlikely that he even thought that his name would get in the paper in the first place - under an alias or not. In point of fact, it wasn’t until about three years after Watergate that anything about “Deep Throat” appeared at all. So it’s kind of doubful that he did it for any reason other than to help the investigation, and of the possible other reasons that are out there (revenge against Nixon or some such), becoming famous wouldn’t seem to be a possibility.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Now if you saw the president, or even a lesser official, grossly abusing his power and wrecking the integrity of the office [/quote]
Clinton?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Now if you saw the president, or even a lesser official, grossly abusing his power and wrecking the integrity of the office
Clinton?[/quote]
Getting a blowjob is “grossly abusing power”? I am in BIG trouble. Apparently “she” didn’t think it was that gross.
[quote]char-dawg wrote:
The way you make it sound, it’s like he said he’d give the information in exchange for some “press”, when it was unlikely that he even thought that his name would get in the paper in the first place - under an alias or not. In point of fact, it wasn’t until about three years after Watergate that anything about “Deep Throat” appeared at all. So it’s kind of doubful that he did it for any reason other than to help the investigation, and of the possible other reasons that are out there (revenge against Nixon or some such), becoming famous wouldn’t seem to be a possibility.[/quote]
I listed several reasons that he might have done what he did. A man that short on self respect could have done it for any reason.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Now if you saw the president, or even a lesser official, grossly abusing his power and wrecking the integrity of the office
Clinton?
Getting a blowjob is “grossly abusing power”? I am in BIG trouble. Apparently “she” didn’t think it was that gross.[/quote]
Clinton’s transgressions go much deeper than a blowjob from a fat chick.
You might as well characterize Nixon’s only crime as erasing a tape. Hell we have all done that too.
And another thing, couldn’t Clinton have gotten some better looking women? I mean it is the quality of his women that disgraced the Presidency the most.
[quote]char-dawg wrote:
Well, “get some press” generally means that you get your name in the paper, people know who you are. You become famous, or at least have some notoriety. If you don’t get your name in the paper, no one knows who you are, and there’s no point.
The way you make it sound, it’s like he said he’d give the information in exchange for some “press”, when it was unlikely that he even thought that his name would get in the paper in the first place - under an alias or not. In point of fact, it wasn’t until about three years after Watergate that anything about “Deep Throat” appeared at all. So it’s kind of doubful that he did it for any reason other than to help the investigation, and of the possible other reasons that are out there (revenge against Nixon or some such), becoming famous wouldn’t seem to be a possibility.[/quote]
This point may have been somewhat addressed today in an editorial piece I read. Woodward was interviewed and related some of the infor re: their initial meeting and future meetings re: Watergate.
Apparently M.F. was a onetime counter espionage specialist who grew quite fond of the clandestine type activities. He refused phone calls or unarranged face to face meetings. Their communication camr from secret ‘messages’ like hanging a red cloth from a plant. The plant would then be moved to the back of the WaPo to the front. This signaled a 2am meeting that same day. The way the article was slanted made it seem that M.F. enjoyed this very much and loved the ‘game’ behind the scenes.
If M.F. wanted to meet he somehow got a paper onto Woodwards desk and on some page would have a clock that suggested the time of a meeting in this prearranged underground parking area.
He also was very unhappy that Nixon was trying to pull the reigns on the FBI and CIA. Considered them ‘Nazis’ for their abuse of power. So there was some disgruntlement there.
Anyways–interesting stuff. I thought.
[quote]CC wrote:
At this point-yes- I think the guy came out for the glory or the money. What other motive exists? If Woodward and Bernstein were willing to go to the gravew with it why not him? Do you think it was strictly a cathartic move at this point?
I understand the other ocurring events–though I would like you or someone else to fill me in more-but Nixon was brought down for the wiretapping and cover-up–re: of the motive to bring those charges. Is that correct? I don’t want to lessen it if more is involved. You are right, that is what I want to know–that was my original intent.
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
I have my own opinions on the matter (and not many definitive answers; I don’t think anyone has many of those) and would love to discuss them. I just think you have to at least consider the possibility that this is on a greater scale than just an election scandal considering the times, as I said before. Unfortunately, the Cubs are on right now and I must go watch I will definitely come back at a later time, though, when I can talk longer.
P.S. I’m glad to see that this has come back to a little bit more mature of a discussion now, as opposed to just trashing various Rep and Dem public figures for whatever reason. I hope it stays this way…[/quote]
Cubs win! Cubs win!–what is that 5 or 6 in a row now? Anyways…
I would be interested to here your take on his actions back then
I also would like to know if so many high powered officials wanted him out, would their wishes gone unfulfilled had not Watergate come along or was there other things in the works?
I don’t mean to suggest that this all came down to an election scandal, hence my original thought process on the thread. Deep Throat was just suppose to be an attention getter–and I guess maybe it worked. But you can hardly disregard his influence on the totality of this scandal.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
It is true that my original intent was to gather info on the scandal. As is the want of most threads, they go certain ways. More often than not, a different way than intended.
At this point-yes- I think the guy came out for the glory or the money. What other motive exists? If Woodward and Bernstein were willing to go to the gravew with it why not him? Do you think it was strictly a cathartic move at this point?
I understand the other ocurring events–though I would like you or someone else to fill me in more-but Nixon was brought down for the wiretapping and cover-up–re: of the motive to bring those charges. Is that correct? I don’t want to lessen it if more is involved. You are right, that is what I want to know–that was my original intent.
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
As far as other people wanting Nixon out of office I do know that he talked about bringing in the reigns on the C.I.A. and there are heavy consequences to such statements. Kennedy said the same thing and also wanted to pull troops out of Vietnam alot sooner. The C.I.A. was also heavily involved in the October Surprise scandal against Carter who fired 700 operatives including the then director Bush Sr. when he was elected.[/quote]
Off topic slightly
Are you suggesting that Kennedy’s desires played into the assassination? Are you one of the many conspiracy kings out there that believe this was more than one man? I’m not bashing here–I must admit while most of the evidence points a certain way–like the Bible, many things can be interpreted to fit a given theory.
October Surprise? Was this the failed rescue attempt of American hostages in Iran?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Were those others in power so intent on removing Nixon for bigger reasons than this? Was he an obstacle to the war effort? Were there bigger national-international issues behind the move to oust the President?
I don’t think so, unless you want to get into real conspiracy talk. Nixon was one of the few hawks left, bombed the hell out of North Vietnam and brought them to the negotiating table, and would have kept vital U.S. air support for the South in place if he had stayed on.[/quote]
Maybe I should have stated:
Was he (Nixon) an obstacle to the PEACE effort?
Goddammit!
And here I thought this was gonna be a thread about chicks that like the dick!