From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Hey! What about Watergate!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:41:20 GMT

In article <BrxCwD.K4r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mfenster@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mark andrew fenster) writes:
>
>discussions on the topic (mostly to do with who Deep 
>Throat is --- a far less interesting question that asking
>who Bob Woodward is), but most of them have been basic 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bah. Humbug. He wasn't even on the national staff at the Post at the time.

>and superficial.
	
>Having recently gone through Carl Oglesby's "The Yankee 
>and Cowboy War" and taken a cursory glance at Colodny and 
>Gettlin's "Silent Coup" (both of which argue that Nixon 
>[whom they both make clear was a bad, evil man] was the unwitting 
>victim of a[n ultimately successful] conspiracy or plot to 
>overthrow him), it's clear that the most interesting questions 
>that need to be asked have less to with the act of what the 
>Plumbers were after than with:
>
>1) Why did the get caught?

They got sloppy and fucked up.

>2) What were their actions and their arrest a part of (i.e., larger 
>machinations by Nixon, by those out to get Nixon, or by some 
>other hidden conspiratorial group)?

Larger machinations by Nixon, his staff and CREEP to spy on and sabotage
Democratic campaigns and candidates.

>Any ideas or comments?
>
Sorry to dismiss this all so, well, superficially, but I just don't see
much going on here but conspiracy-theorists at heart picking up on a
legitimized subject of speculation and going off on extremely strange
tangents that lead absolutely nowhere.
A
I think what is most interesting about Watergate is how well newspapers have
sold it as an example of how nothing gets past them, when the truth is,
all the press (including Woodward, Bernstein and writers at the LA and NY Times
and Time magazine) was able to do was get the Congresssional investigation
going. Then Congress got lucky and one of Nixon's boys cracked. If that hadn't
happened, we would still today have only deep suspicions that Nixon was
involved, just like we all know Bush and Reagan were both in on Iran-Contra
but don't (yet) have beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof.
	Although the American press obviously had the resources to uncover
the covert aid route to Nicaragua while it was active, it never happened. Right
now, Walsh is doing all the investigating and all the press is doing is standing
around waiting for the next tidbit to come out of his office. They're completely
feeble.
	To me, the Washington Post's relentless pursuit of the Watergate story
was an unusually brave and independent move for an American newspaper. I don't
see anything comparable happening today. There are certain stories no major
American paper is ever going to touch -- the JFK assassination being the primary
example -- in a serious way. (Even if you buy the lone nut thing, if you think
there is any substantial knowledge behind the press's perennial recitations
of the holy Warren Commission scriptures, you are exceedingly naive.) Other
examples are U.S. military support to the private armies of Central and South
American druglords, Bush's special relationship with the Chinese government,
major American financial institutions' involvement in money laundering, etc.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy