Replies

I would would not even bother to reply to your dumb post if you hadn’t flat out accused me of being the bullshi**er you are.

I bought the book and read it 20 years ago, weighed the information in it, dismissed it as full of half-truths and disinformation mixed with good information and half-backed theories, written when the whole Watergate subject was still fresh in enough people’s minds to make a book that claimed to be the definitive explanation of Watergate a best-seller.

It was written 20 years after Watergate and in the 20 years since then, enough information has come out to discredit the book as anything to use as a reference work on Watergate.

Besides, if your bullsh** meter didn’t peg out when one of the greatest bullsh****rs of all time, radio talkshow host G.Gordon Liddy, endorsed the book, well, I worry about you.

And, thanks for making me go find the old book in that box in the attic. Think I’ll put it back on the shelf in my library in case a friend wants to borrow it.

You have yet to state a single "fact" that "discredited the book." 1) Liddy testified that they were looking at a state-level DNC guy's desk . . . NOT O'brien's. Do you have any contrary evidence or testimony?

2) That particular guy's desk---and NO OTHER---was tied to John Dean, and had no special relevance or importance as far as the campaign was concerned. Do you have any evidence or testimony to the contrary?

3) There is no evidence or testimony that they looked anywhere else in the DNC HQ that night. Do you have any facts to the contrary? No less a historian than Joan Hoff Wilson, a huge lib, who rejected the conclusions of "Silent Coup," nevertheless could not refute its basic assertions.

Now, it's your turn to present evidence and stop the infantile name calling.

BTW, there is a reason history is usually written 20 years or more after events---precisely because people at the time often don't have all the facts.

Oh, and I think you meant "half-baked," not "half-backed."