Grist: Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another top climate research center
The Nation: Is Erik Prince "graymailing" the US government?
Newsifact: Joe Lieberman: No one will connect the dots about my lucrative post-Senate career
darrel plant: Big Buck Twilight Peacekeeper
Mainstream Baptist: Stonehenge Reloaded
Stinque: Talibunny's parents held captive as props for book tour
(In case you were getting all dewey-eyed for the 70s)
Before George P. Schultz landed in the Reagan Administration as Secretary of State, he served for a while as Treasury Secretary under Richard Nixon, right during the fabled Energy Crisis of the 1970s.
Granted, we hadn't gone through this kind of thing before. It was 1973 and we were about to be distracted in a big way by Watergate, but the thought of skyrocketing gas prices, panic buying at the pumps and oil companies raking in massive profits just hadn't happened this way before or to this extent.
And so everyone, including Schultz was busy scratching their heads wondering what to do as is evidence by this exchange during his appearance on Meet The Press from December 2, 1973.
Irving R. Levine (NBC News): “Would not higher prices for gasoline favor higher income groups to the disadvantage of lower paid people?”
Schultz: “Not necessarily. The . . obviously you have a family budget with so much purchase of gasoline and fuel oil, and to the extent that lower income groups use proportionate to their income a little bit more than higher income groups, it has some of that effect. But I don’t think it’s a major problem in the family budget.”
Levine: “ But would not a lower . . .
Schultz: “It’s much more of a problem than if we don’t pay the price that is necessary and we don’t have any fuel.”
Levine: “But would not a person with a big income feel free to buy whatever amount of gas is necessary to do the driving that he wishes to do, where a lower income person would not be able to?”
Schultz: “That is true of all kinds of things that are reflected in the buying power of people at different incomes.”
Levine: “ Do You oppose rationing entirely, even as a last resort?
Schultz: “Well I said it should be the absolute last resort, and I’m not really sure that it is a genuine alternative in the sense of being really a workable type of system. Of course there are various kinds of rationing, and depending on how its designed it could work better or worse. I think it is worth remembering that toward the end of World War Two we had patriotic fervor and so on, we had six thousand people in OPA, enforcing . .getting after people in the black market, which I think gives you an idea the difficulties of a rationing system.”
Okay, no simple answer. But the disconnect associated with "well, only higher income people drive" strikes me as typical Republican response. Even during the course of the interview, Schultz offers a few snide asides about higher and lower economic brackets. And of course, he was very much in favor of letting the marketplace go insane.
Remember the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - or as a friend put it, doing the same thing over and over and knowing what the results are going to be.
From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:
Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.
Schultz: Yep.
Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.
I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.
(Lest we all forget - only thirty-five years ago)
Hard to imagine it was only thirty-five years ago that President Nixon announced his resignation. It certainly answered weeks of speculation and the end to a long and bitter fight that erupted in the White House and almost took the country down with it.
Nixon: "I have never been a quitter - to leave office now is abhorrent to everything in my body. But . . . . "
I'm not sure we actually ever recovered from Watergate and the Nixon years. To many, it seems to be the gift that just keeps on giving.
History is just like that.
(It's not your dad's idea of government anymore)
I think one could probably argue the Reagan Years represent eight years of leaving the "hen house door open", and what we get to deal with now are the disemboweled carcasses of prudent ideas and the blood soaked abatoir of long range thinking.
Okay, leaving the grisly poetics aside, we can probably trace this "earthquake" (as Hedrick Smith puts it) back to the Nixon Years:
Hedrick Smith: “I think what happened . . .back in the 1970’s, and it actually began in the House not in the Senate, was a power earthquake that took place, an explosion of power that brought Congress as a whole in rebellion against the President. We had Watergate and Vietnam as you recall. We had the budget resolutions, the whole budget process, the whole War Powers resolution on Foreign Policy. And then an upheaval within Congress, a kind of anti-authority mood that swept the country during Vietnam and infected Congress, the members of the House threw out some of the old committee chairmen, the old seniority system was cracked, and at the same time a tremendous reform in the political financing system for campaigns, which brought a growth, an acceleration of the whole money business and special interest politics and then the dissolving effect of television. Our government is a much harder government to run for any President or for the leaders of the Senate or the House than it was in the time of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon.”
This documentary, part of the CBS Radio Newsmark series from May 8, 1988 features Lawton Chiles, Daniel Evans and Sen. Paul Trible, as well as N.Y. Times correspondent Hedrick Smith discussing with CBS News Correspondent Judy Muller the changes that have taken place in Washington in the Post-JFK, Post-LBJ period.
From all appearances, it's the downward slide that just didn't quit.
The Villagers were up in arms Sunday morning over on the set of ABC's This Week about the possibility that Eric Holder might appoint a special someone to look into the Bush/Cheney torture practices. Watch in awe and see how the Villagers feel about trying to get accountability from the Bush years.
Why, an investigation would just trash the place. Oh, the bitterness in D.C. would be too much to handle, all because those other people (that is, non-Villagers) would like to get to the truth.
Bob Woodward, who's trying to be the next David Broder by living off his long-degraded rep as the man who uncovered Watergate, wonders how we will ever be able to keep secrets again if there is some inspection. Um, isn't that what the Bob Woodwardses are supposed to do? Uncover stuff? Nope, not anymore. He's appalled that there might be a frakking investigation.
And he was all a-giggle with the thought that the CIA could actually lie. What a joke. I didn't hear him open his mouth when Newt Gingrich went all whiggy on Nancy Pelosi.
Cokie goes "Cokie" on us for a while and then after much trepidation comes down on the rule of law. Good for her, but she better take some R&R if it happens.
ROBERTS: I must say, I have very mixed minds about this. Because on the one hand, the whole idea of a prosecution gets Washington into that kind of horrible slog where everybody hates each other and the poison just gets very thick.
DONALDSON: Unlike at the moment, right?
ROBERTS: Well, no, it hasn’t been as bad lately as it was in the last 16 years.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And it seems like they’re trying to avoid at least in the design of this, criminalizing of policy.
ROBERTS: And just the whole atmosphere of getting that way again. On the other hand, the rule of law is terribly important. And we have to have it -- you know, we cannot operate in this country without the rule of law.
DONALDSON: So which hand do you come down on?
ROBERTS: I’d probably come down on the rule of law.
Digby writes much more:
Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.
The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.
Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.
George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.
They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.
Full transcript below the fold.
(Somewhere between delusional whack-Job and Cassandra stood Martha)
Martha Mitchell has faded into history's woodwork. Famous for her paranoid rants and haywire midnight phone calls, she had the dubious distinction of being associated (in a rather "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" sort of way) with Watergate via her husband, then-Attorney General John Mitchell.
Largely dismissed at the time as a bonafide whack-job, Mitchell did gain some vindication when the scandal of Watergate broke and all fingers pointed to the White House. But it didn't dismiss the fact that she was delusional, ego-centric and had a little bit of a substance abuse problem.
In this hour long interview, part of Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Snyder asks her point blank if she thought she was an alcoholic. Mitchell blurts out "no" (of course - wouldn't you?), even though the answers borders on the slurred. What Snyder failed to ask was if she had a drug problem. I believe the answer would have been a resounding yes - even if she had flatly denied it. All you have to do is listen to her.
So it was the curious mixture of the insane person being privy to shocking actual events, who took the elements of truth and turned them into a persecution extravaganza with all consequences directed straight at her that probably made her seem like she was imagining it.
The more she ranted, the more people thought she lost it. Of course, the Nixon White House did little to dispel that portrait - it did take the heat off for a while.
The bottom line was, she was probably right - but since she insisted it was all about her, the credibility drew more than raised eyebrows.
Of course nowadays, drugged out paranoid egocentrics get their own TV shows and loyal followings. Something that wasn't in the cards in 1974.
Happy Watergate Day! (It's the 37th anniversary of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate Hotel, DC.)
H/T Talk of the Nation. Thanks WeberLaxMan55 for the "All The President's Men" digest.
Open thread below...
(The Eternal Feeding Frenzy)
"I think that certainly there is an effort on the part of those in power to control what the press has to say about them."
- Brit Hume - February 22, 1973.
Oh, how times have changed. During several weeks in early 1973, the Senate staged hearings under the banner "Peoples Right To Be Informed". The question whether or not confidential sources were subject to subpoena was raised, certainly in light of Watergate, whose hearings would begin only a few months later. Senator Sam Ervin was Chairman and testifying during this session was none other than Brit Hume and Joel M. Gora of the ACLU. Hume was an investigative reporter working for print media at the time, and during the course of questioning was asked if the government was applying undo pressure on the media in presenting positive spin. Hume's response, as well as referring to it as propaganda, was rather interesting considering where he has gone in recent years.
And maybe how far the mighty have fallen. Or is there a checkbook involved in all this?
Gora and Hume's testimony as it was broadcast on February 22, 1973 - the morning session.
(Richard Helms - What Didn't He Know and When Didn't He Know It)
Ever since the latest fiasco regarding the CIA surfaced, I kept thinking how adept the CIA has always been, historically in telling half-truths, no truths and "who me?" prevarications.
Beginning in 1975, a series of hearings took place in an attempt to investigate certain "illegal goings on" within the CIA, It ran the full gamut from wiretapping, domestic espionage, assassinations and mail tampering. Heading up the Senate Select Committee was Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho), and the hearings were dubbed The Church Committee. The hearings lasted several months and fortunately most all of them were recorded and broadcast by NPR, back when NPR actually stood for something in the way of integrity and solid reporting.
This particular clip, from the afternoon session of October 22, 1975, features former CIA Director Richard Helms (who would later serve as Ambassador to Iran) being questioned by Senator Church over his role in the matter of illegal mail tampering - a practice that had gone on since the days Allen Dulles ran the CIA in 1953.
Since there are numerous hours of testimony to sift through from many witnesses, I will try and offer as much as I can in small doses over the next few weeks. Bear with me - it'll be worth it.
(Meanwhile, across town - sentencing was going on)
The conclusion of President Ford's testimony, with reaction at the end. I don't think anyone expected earth shattering revelations or teary-eyed confessions, but the collective skyward eye-roll wasn't either.
History lurches forward with a shrug.
(In the end, nothing much was accomplished)
In 1974, when Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency after the resignation of Richard Nixon, it was more or less expected Nixon would be prosecuted for Watergate and the subsequent cover up. It came as a surprise (at least outside the Beltway) that Ford quickly pardoned Nixon of any wrongdoing and sought to make everything quietly go away.
Most people felt a sense of betrayal that Nixon would slip into the shadows without any hint of justice being served.
So a Sub-committee was formed to inquire over the pardon and President Ford was requested to come before the committee to testify. A list of questions was provided and Ford was to answer them.
In retrospect, it was more of a "let's put on a show and pretend we're being in earnest about this thing" than anything substantive. Ford answered some questions, evaded others and when it was over, the Republicans patted each other on the back in satisfaction and the Democrats, headed up by Bella Abzug, walked away frustrated and somewhat played.
So here is part one of a two part complete testimony taking place on October 17, 1974.
Bill O'Reilly's hatred of NBC really has no limits. Including the most crass hypocrisy.
Last night on his Fox News show, O'Reilly featured some audio from Jesse Watters' invasion of the GE shareholders meeting -- which he described as a "stockholders' revolt."
Though there was some applause for Watters' histrionics (gee, now there's a surprise; right-wingers at a shareholders meeting), there was no actual "stockholders revolt." Just Jesse, doin' his shameless-partisan-attack-hack schtick.
But what was actually noteworthy about the segment was its overarching theme, as in the announced topic: "Will General Electric get paid for supporting President Obama?"
It concludes with this capper:
O'Reilly: Now think about this, ladies and gentlemen: A failing corporation, General Electric, might reap billions of dollars if the feds OK the carbon deal. By the way, GE is already getting taxpayer bailout money for its financial unit. So it's not a stretch to assume [GE CEO Jeffrey] Immelt would want to help President Obama as much as possible.
Now, we've asked Mr. Immelt a number of times to appear here on the Factor, but he will not, and that's why we sent Jesse out to see him.
This is obviously a major story -- when a powerful corporation which controls a major part of the American media may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics in order to make money from government contracts. That kind of corruption would make Watergate look small. We hope it is not true.
This funny, coming from the lead personality at a network owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has essentially carved out his niche in America by helping to promote Republicans, who turned about and enabled him to make billions of dollars in this country by rewriting the longstanding rules of ownership. This was first noticed back in 1995, and continued for as long as Republicans held Congress and the White House.
I just love that chryon: "When a major company uses its power to influence politics and make money, it's a big story."
Really. An Bill O'Reilly has been around politics how long now?
And this wasn't a "big story" when Rupert Murdoch did it?
(E. Howard Hunt. Murky pasts and clandestine motives)
Shadowy figures from our deep-dark past. The name E. Howard Hunt will always be synonymous with Watergate and Nixon, but his ties to the CIA and clandestine activities go back further. It's interesting how, with all the revelations and allegations regarding the Bush Administration, there had to be some model established, some precedent set for a White House run amok. It's been said that Karl Rove looks like a rank amateur compared to the likes of Hunt. Between this interview and the deathbed confession, that assessment would seem to be spot-on.
Here is an interview, in its entirety from the Firing Line series hosted by Hunt's long time friend, Godfather of his children and executor of his wife's estate, William F. Buckley from May 12, 1974.
(When the White House withholds "certain details")
"In my judgment, the President was fully justified, if in fact it is true, that during 1969 and 1970, he secretly bombed the occupied sectors of Cambodia because of American troops on the other side of the frontier." - Pat Buchanan
Taken from an interview as part of the Firing Line series hosted by William F. Buckley, this piece features a very young and very loyal White House Speech writer by the name of Pat Buchanan, discussing Presidential privilege and National security.
Makes for an interesting juxtaposition with the Bush White House. Particularly where the question of good judgment is concerned.
