Watergate at 50: Nixon resigns, August 9, 1974

I'm old enough to remember his speech from the day before. And, as discussed in the run-up to the first 1960 presidential debate and how Jack Kennedy outfoxed him on the use of TV makeup, how Nixon looked so pasty, pale, and clammy while reading that speech, and sweaty as well.

Well, we've gotten a number of books about Watergate in recent years, but I'm going to start with an oldie that I read just last month. These will be excerpted Goodreads reviews:

To Set the Record Straight: The Break-In, the Tapes, the Conspirators, the Pardon by John J. Sirica
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Solid 4-star as a personal angle and first-draft-of-history take on Watergate by the man who was, more than anybody other than Nixon himself, at the center of the storm.

It has normal first-draft limitations. We know so much more about the backstory today.

And, the real reason no fifth star? Page 212:

But it seemed fairly clear that the Constitution prescribed that Congress, through the impeachment process, should have the primary jurisdiction over a president who committed criminal acts.

NO. And I don't care if you're John Sirica. It neither says nor implies that. And, this is also the bad thinking behind the Nixon-era opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice that sitting presidents can't be indicted, an opinion only, advisory only, that Robert Mueller stupidly bought into.

Rather, with the Constitution making clear that the penalty for conviction upon impeachment is limited to loss of office, I see it as implying that impeachment is an adjunct to criminal charges for an officeholder who won't remove themselves. (Congress can expel its own members; it must impeach judges and executive officials.)

And, that said, while Ron Jaworski getting the grand jury to name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator was good? IMO, better would have been indicting Nixon under seal.

===

The best of the more recent books? This:

Watergate: A New History by Garrett M. Graff
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A great book on overall organization, first (with one exception noted at bottom). And a great book overall, also with one exception.

The chapters are relatively short, about 10 pages each, each on one individual small subtopic. They’re grouped within larger sections. The narrative moves along smoothly, something a mix between journalism and history.

Second, this book earns its rating on one chapter alone. And, that’s “why did Watergate happen?”

In the chapter Third Rate Burglars, in less than 10 pages, Graff lays out each of the five reasonable main alternative interpretations to the traditional one, that it simply what Ron Ziegler called it: a third-rate burglary, bungled, by people with overactive imaginations. No. 1 is is the first of “hidden dirt” theories. This first of those three theories is that the burglars were looking for financial improprieties, possibly funding for the DNC convention. A subplot version of this is that they were trying to see what financial dirt Dems had on the GOP. Theory No. 2 is that sex was the hidden dirt. This says they were looking at dirt allegedly related to a DC call ring. This one, also, like No. 1, had “both ways” possibilities, starting with John Dean’s future wife, the then Maureen Biner, allegedly connected alleged escort Heidi Rikan. It was broached in the book “Silent Coup,” which Graff noted spawned lawsuits by both Dean and Liddy. Theory No. 3? Says the CREEP was trying to see if the DNC had its own ITT problem, or the possibility that Dems, like Republicans, were getting illegal campaign financing. It too has a “both ways,” and on this version of the theory, CREEP was trying to find out how much the DNC knew about Nixon getting money from the Greek military junta. Theory No. 4 is the most conspiratorial, and borders full conspiracy theory. It’s based on McCord and Hunt being (ex)-CIA, and says that, possibly at the instigation of Richard Helms himself. Helms and Nixon had “issues” with each other since the Bay of Pigs. Graff notes that Hunt was one of the biggest liars of the break-in itself and the early cover-up, and that McCord can’t be fully accounted for during all of the night of the burglary. Theory No. 5 is … interesting. It’s that the DNC and/or DC police already had some inkling of something going down and sprung a trap. I find it even more in the land of conspiracy thinking than No. 4, and also even less plausible. No. 4, in turn, is not mutually exclusive with one or another of 1-3, and especially not with No. 3, as the CIA would have information of its own on the Greek colonels.

In the end, though, I think the “official” explanation is still the best.

(deleted for space)

Other things new to me? Outside of Watergate itself, it was that John Mitchell was the lead contact with Anna Chennault in the 1968 campaign. And, that it wasn’t Spiro Agnew contacting her contacts from New Mexico in the last week before Election Day; rather, something got garbled, and it was John Mitchell contacting her from New Hampshire.

Not new, but further confirmed? John Dean has struck me as a duplicitous weasel LONG after he came clean. His book several years ago on the new Nixon tapes release confirmed that for me. This book only adds to that impression. (Hold on to that.)

The one tidbit on not so good organization? Sometimes, things are “dropped out.”....

Now, the one error of interpretation, which ties in a sense to Ted Kennedy’s take on ITT. It’s arguable that Anna Chennault’s operation was the start of Watergate. That said, this was NOT treason. It was a material, non-paper violation of the Logan Act. No doubt about that. But Graff errs in calling it treason.

===

I've read one modern bio of Nixon. And, Ev Thomas was decent.

 Being Nixon: A Man Divided by Evan Thomas
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A sympathetic, but not hagiographic bio, and a good one.

Thomas gets a few early-Nixon things right that most people don't know are the case.
1. Helen Gahagan Douglas' Democratic primary opponent first came out with the "pink lady" and comparing her record to Vito Marcantonio, Socialist Congresscritter from New York City. Murray Chotiner just has the idea of printing their records side-by-side and on pink paper.
2. Adlai Stevenson had a slush fund bigger than Nixon's in 1952, and it was used for a lot more ethically edgy purposes. For that matter, Ike, though not already an elected politician and thus technically not having a "slush fund," was getting a fair degree of personal aid from campaign funding. (Thomas doesn't mention that one.)
3. On the 1960 campaign, he doesn't go into detail (would be hard to prove) whether either candidate cheated. That said, in Illinois, the state GOP was known for its own shenanigans downstate. But, it's clear that he thinks studied neutrality is best.
4. He gets all parts of the 1968 backdoor from Nixon to Thieu correct, as well as noting that, post-election, Hoover incorrectly claimed LBJ had bugged Nixon's plane.

Watergate? I agree with him that Nixon didn't order the original burglary. That said, if John Mitchell had some idea about it ... Nixon couldn't have been surprised by it. After all, he had mentioned breaking into Ellsburg's psych himself.

Thomas is also right that Nixon sometimes WAS unfairly treated by the media, as well as the Georgetown-area "smart set."

And, I had not read before that a Special Forces unit ordered to go from South Vietnam into Cambodia to do "clean-up" after Nixon's first bombing of Cambodia mutinied. Interesting.

===

And, you can stop holding on. Here's that weasel himself, John Dean:

The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It by John W. Dean
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

One doesn't need to crib a Roger Stone interview, as one person on Amazon did, to find problems with this book.

Indeed, per the nonpartisan Nixon Tapes website, one can read about Dean blaming his previous book's editor, the well-known Alice Mayhew, for allegedly inserting material into his previous book, a claim she has called an "L-I-E."

As with previous Dean writings on Watergate, there are two main questions:
1. How much is he whitewashing Richard Nixon?
2. How much is he whitewashing John Dean?

On the first, we can see that at play in the opening pages of the prologue. Dean contrasts Nixon and McGovern's approaches to Vietnam, and makes it look like McGovern wanted to cruelly, callously abandon South Vietnam. But Dean never mentions Nixon's late-1968 violation of the Logan Act with his contact via Anna Chennault with South Vietnamese leaders, encouraging them to reject the Johnson peace plan.

Nor does he note, in his brief discussions of Nixon's orders to burgle the Brookings Institute in 1971, that what Nixon sought was NOT (or not just) a copy OF THE Pentagon Papers, but copies of Lyndon B. Johnson's intercepts of Nixon campaign contacts with Chennault, which he (wrongly) suspected were held there.

Beyond that, while Nixon may not have technically ordered the June 17, 1972 burglary of the Watergate, with the burglaries of Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatrist, the discussed burglary of Brookings (even though not carried out) and other things, it's clear that Nixon's general marching order to the Committee to Re-Elect the President indicated no stone should be unturned in doing this. Given that the idea, under Project GEMSTONE, was first discussed in January 1972 and that both Dean and Jeb Magruder were parties to such discussions, at a minimum, the fact that neither of them alerted Nixon to this, or if they did, he didn't squelch it, show that Nixon himself, contra Dean's claims, must be considered as at least an indirect father of the action.

....

At the same time, of course, he's sought to polish his own apple vs. other key players in the Nixon Administration in general and Watergate in particular.

By ending the narrative at July 16, 1973, and putting what happened after that in just a few pages of appendix, Dean's able to do that. The flip side of him turning state's evidence is that, before Nixon could show that he would be disloyal to him (or others), Dean acted first, rather than taking the fall, a la Haldeman and Ehrlichman.

In turn, that shows that this book is still missing psychological elements, starting with those of Dean himself. How does he feel about being the first larger player to jump the sinking ship of the man he still tries to connect to the Goldwater version of Republicanism?

And, to the degree Dean is still trying to cover for himself or his old boss, or both, the death of Colson 2 years ago [as of the time of the book's publication] made it another bit easier.

Finally, Dean's one appendix, on the 18-1/2 minute tape gap, serves nothing. After narrowing down the list of likely erasers of the tape, Dean refuses to look at any one of them as more likely than the others. He even claims it's not that important; real, professional historians would certainly disagree. He also gets coy on exactly what was likely erased, after giving some general parameters.

This isn't quite a one-star book. It does fill in some edges and corners. And it sheds more new light on the character of Dean, even though that surely wasn't his intention.

I'll take a look at the new Brinkley book on the tapes to see if it shines any important new historic light, but it appears even more wooden than this book.

===

Speaking of conspiratorial? There's good old Jefferson Morley:

Scorpions' Dance: The President, the Spymaster, and Watergate by Jefferson Morley
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Decent at best, plus a BIG asterisk ...

The "decent at best"?

There's really not a lot new here for people who know a lot about Watergate, especially if you read or have read Graff's book. In fact, Morley's overall thesis, that the CIA was quasi-involved, but not directing anything, is covered by Graff.

The big asterisk? Even though he claimed he's no longer one a few years ago, Morley is still a JFK conspiracy theorist. (I blogged about his non-denial denial.)

It starts on page 51 with a full chapter there in this chronological book, covering Nov. 22 and the immediate aftermath. Then there's most of a chapter in the middle of the book, re Nixon telling Ehrlichman to drop "Bay of Pigs" on Helms. Then part of a chapter near the end. Then the epilogue.

In the first spot, Morley clearly states he believes four shots (minimum) were fired at JFK. The first, that missed and hit the curb beyond the limo (at least he's following eyewitness testimony and evidence). A second that hit Connelly. A third that hit Jack in the body. Then, later, a fourth shot that hit Jack in the head.

In the third spot, he talks about various "framings" of interpreting the assassination. He won't come out straight and say the CIA did it, but that sure appears to be his angle. (deleted)

There's enough decent stuff around the edges, and the conspiracy theory isn't front and center, to rescue this from a 1-star, but that's about it, and it's obviously using Watergate, per psychological counseling, as the "presenting issue" to wedge in JFK. It still got my BS label, too.

===

 One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon by Tim Weiner
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Decent to good overall, but no more than that. Probably a 3.5 star, but since the Goodreads average is over 4, I rounded down.

It does have a good updated basic overview of the Nixon White House, updated after the release of new tapes of his and grand jury testimony.

But, it's only basic. Surely, it could have been better than this. Others note "quick and dirty."

I really didn't learn anything new about Watergate. I did learn bits new about Vietnam, or more explicitly, the illegal attacks into Laos and Cambodia. And, some things from any basic account of the Nixon years, like the Allende assassination, aren't here.

Also, Weiner came off as an unrepentant Cold Warrior in his introduction. That was likely going to lose it a star right there.

He also has historical errors here and there. The biggest, off the top of my head, is claiming executive privilege started with Ike or Truman. Nope. Try George Washington. The House wanted papers from Jay Treaty negotiations and he refused because only the Senate is involved in treaties. Any good bio of Jefferson will tell you that, re Aaron Burr and other things, he strongly invoked executive privilege.

View all my reviews