George Will rewrites Watergate

[rivergator]

He writes a glowing piece about Robert Bork, including his role in Watergate:

On an October Saturday, when Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, Richardson and his deputy resigned, urging Bork to execute Nixon’s lawful order, which he did. By the two resignations, Bork became acting attorney general, in which capacity he protected the ongoing investigation of Nixon.
Bork deserves to be remembered by a grateful nation for the services he rendered in preventing disarray in the Justice Department at a moment of unprecedented assault on the rule of law, and for facilitating the removal of a president during Washington days that were darker than most people today can imagine.

link

Richard Ben-Veniste, chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s Office, tells a far different story:

Bork’s assertion that by firing Cox he acted to protect the ongoing investigation of Watergate crimes is akin to the Army major’s claim during the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Secret recordings reveal that well before the controversy surrounding the subpoenaed White House tapes, Nixon discussed with his chief of staff, Alexander Haig, his intention to fire Cox. This was part and parcel of the president’s continuing effort to obstruct the Watergate investigation.

Indeed, far from championing an independent investigation that would allow recourse to the judicial process, Bork signed an order on Oct. 23, 1973 — three days after firing Cox — abolishing the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. Bork’s support for Nixon’s position, if successful, would have kept secret the most devastating evidence against Nixon and his closest associates. It was only after the firestorm of public revulsion following the Saturday Night Massacre that Nixon backed down — producing seven subpoenaed tapes (less 18½ minutes of deliberately erased conversation on one of them) — and acceded to the demand to appoint a new special prosecutor to replace Archibald Cox.

link

[jdrgator]

He who controls the past...

[rivergator]

You think he just figured no one would notice?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You think he just figured no one would notice?

Given that more recently Will has discarded the pretense of caring about facts when writing about climate change, I can't help but think he'd treat other topics is a sadly similar fashion. And I am kind of a George Will fan even if I usually disagree with him.

[cjgator76]

I read that column last week and found it puzzling. I've never heard Bork's side of the story in detail, but the claim that he "protected the ongoing investigation" doesn't quite square with my recollection. George has some splainin' to do.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Given that more recently Will has discarded the pretense of caring about facts when writing about climate change, I can't help but think he'd treat other topics is a sadly similar fashion. And I am kind of a George Will fan even if I usually disagree with him.

Yeah, he and Scalia are kind of going down the same sad and pathetic road.

In the past, both were respected, even by their opponents, for the sheer force of their intellects, now...not so much.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Yeah, he and Scalia are kind of going down the same sad and pathetic road.

:Face-palm:

[rivergator]

Will does have a point in that days have been darker in Washington. Agnew resigned for accepting bribes. Shouldn't have gone to jail, but skated with a small fine and probation. Nixon resign.
Pretty ugly time.

The left and right does seem a lot more split now, but I do think the Nixon years may have been the beginning of it. Agnew was particularly big on insulting Democrats.

[Wormwood56]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Will does have a point in that days have been darker in Washington. Agnew resigned for accepting bribes. Shouldn't have gone to jail, but skated with a small fine and probation. Nixon resign.
Pretty ugly time.

The left and right does seem a lot more split now, but I do think the Nixon years may have been the beginning of it. Agnew was particularly big on insulting Democrats.

The split between the ideological left and right began in the 1930s, and it was far worse than it is today. Back then, the left didn't really have a tradition of democratic socialism to use as their paradigm, as there were no examples of such. Therefore, they whitewashing the so-called progressivism of the USSR as their exemplar.

The True Believers were ardent supporters or sympathizers (many in govermnent and labor were spies) of Stalin, while those who knew and hated/feared Stalin leaned towards Trotsky. In Britain, many like George Orwell straddled the Trotsky/anarchist line as an alternative to the totalitarian tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler. Those on the right were traditional conservatives who advocated the smaller government of Coolidge, strong business relations, and isolationists/noninterventionists.

The next phase of the split occurred in the sixties, when the radical Left despised the older liberals with a passion, as the JFK,LBJ/Humphrey/Scoop Jackson types were still strong Cold Warriors and ardent anti-Communists. Many of their ideological breathren, mostly among the former Trotskyites, veered sharply towards libertarianism and neo-conservatism (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Dexter, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, etc).

These days, the mainstream left are those who advocate a benevolent form of democratic socialism/statism without the totalitarian elements. I would say that the hard Left are still in the Stalin/Mao/Hitler/Trotsky camp of statism, of course without the mass murder of millions that usually accompany totalitarian statism.

Thankfully, that extreme form of statism is limited to the staffs of The Nation, Mother Jones, The Daily Worker, and faculties throughout the United States who are largely (and happily) marginalized in their ivory towers.

The American people will never stand for leftist statism, but are too comfortable with their entitlements to veer to far to the right and live without the safety net.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

The left and right does seem a lot more split now, but I do think the Nixon years may have been the beginning of it.

Yes, the Nixon years were when the Democrats' penchant for vilifying their opponents really started to hit full stride. No doubt Nixon was guilty of wrongdoing but the opportunistic Democrats painted the whole Republican party with that brush. Republicans understandably reacted with resentment to that and it was all downhill from there, leading to the present state of affairs: Those on the Right say, "we're right and they're wrong," whereas for the Left it's, "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys."

[Row6]

Poor pitiful republicans. Life is so unfair.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Wormwood56

The split between the ideological left and right began in the 1930s, and it was far worse than it is today. Back then, the left didn't really have a tradition of democratic socialism to use as their paradigm, as there were no examples of such. Therefore, they whitewashing the so-called progressivism of the USSR as their exemplar.

The True Believers were ardent supporters or sympathizers (many in govermnent and labor were spies) of Stalin, while those who knew and hated/feared Stalin leaned towards Trotsky. In Britain, many like George Orwell straddled the Trotsky/anarchist line as an alternative to the totalitarian tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler. Those on the right were traditional conservatives who advocated the smaller government of Coolidge, strong business relations, and isolationists/noninterventionists.

The next phase of the split occurred in the sixties, when the radical Left despised the older liberals with a passion, as the JFK,LBJ/Humphrey/Scoop Jackson types were still strong Cold Warriors and ardent anti-Communists. Many of their ideological breathren, mostly among the former Trotskyites, veered sharply towards libertarianism and neo-conservatism (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Dexter, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, etc).

These days, the mainstream left are those who advocate a benevolent form of democratic socialism/statism without the totalitarian elements. I would say that the hard Left are still in the Stalin/Mao/Hitler/Trotsky camp of statism, of course without the mass murder of millions that usually accompany totalitarian statism.

Thankfully, that extreme form of statism is limited to the staffs of The Nation, Mother Jones, The Daily Worker, and faculties throughout the United States who are largely (and happily) marginalized in their ivory towers.

The American people will never stand for leftist statism, but are too comfortable with their entitlements to veer to far to the right and live without the safety net.

not sure what that is supposed to be.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

Poor pitiful republicans. Life is so unfair.

Thaaaaaat's right. It's the Republicans who rally their supporters with complaints about unfairness, not the Democrats. Suuuuuuure.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Thaaaaaat's right. It's the Republicans who rally their supporters with complaints about unfairness, not the Democrats. Suuuuuuure.

I'm sorry to over react, but I was all misted up reading this thread about the injustices placed on Republicans by Democrats and how they have remained steadfast and true to their founding principles while democrats have flirted with Trotskyism and always play dirty. Refs, are you listening? Of course a party that booted out Sen Lugars and Bennet needed that purge based on the northern Lincolnian progressivism on which it was founded.

[Wormwood56]

Originally Posted by rivergator

not sure what that is supposed to be.

It's called a history lesson, in a very brief nutshell. The ideological divide was far worse in the 1930s than it is today. I responded to your assertion that it has never been worse than it is now.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Wormwood56

It's called a history lesson, in a very brief nutshell. The ideological divide was far worse in the 1930s than it is today. I responded to your assertion that it has never been worse than it is now.

just seems to be a treatise what you think the far left thinks. doesn't say much about an ideological divide.

[wgbgator]

Southern conservative Democrats were pretty supportive of the New Deal, but resistant to anything disprupting the racial order. There would have been no New Deal without their votes. I think the prevailing sentiment in the 30s was worry that liberal democracy couldnt compete with authoritarian governments. The idea of small government was in moribund, and the left and right were both willing to expand the power of government to avert crisis, economic and military.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Will does have a point in that days have been darker in Washington. Agnew resigned for accepting bribes. Shouldn't have gone to jail, but skated with a small fine and probation. Nixon resign.
Pretty ugly time.

The left and right does seem a lot more split now, but I do think the Nixon years may have been the beginning of it. Agnew was particularly big on insulting Democrats.

Would anyone care to opine on which presidents, if any, have maintained an enemies list since Nixon?

How many politicians have subsequently said in one way or another, "I am not a crook."?

"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[JerseyGator01]

Watergate was child's play by today's standards of DC corruption. So Bork is now getting Borked while in the grave by the fringe left mainstream media? Yet another slow news day in the messianic times.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Watergate was child's play by today's standards of DC corruption. So Bork is now getting Borked while in the grave by the fringe left mainstream media? Yet another slow news day in the messianic times.

Actually, the piece was written by the guy who led the Watergate Task Force.