Replies

The motive for the burglary was irrelevant to the eventual resignation of Nixon in the sense that it was the cover up that brought him down, not the break in itself. No matter the motive, Nixon was going to thwart any investigation because there was a lot of activity -- Plumbers, etc. -- which an investigation of White House involvement would have uncovered. Nixon, as well as Halderman and Erlichman, were not going to let that happen.

True enough, but the fact that Nixon accepted the Dean scenarios and let Mitchell dangle without bothering to discover the full truth was a tragic mistake. I don't know for certain, though I've read and appreciated the Colodny/Gettlin thesis, but I can't help wondering if Nixon mightn't have saved himself a peck of trouble by probing as far as he could (Mitchell was his closest friend in the Administration; for a guy out to cover his friends' behinds, it seems odd that Nixon would have accepted a scenario that essentially left Mitchell out to dry) and, needless to say, by avoiding a coverup, since he surely knew nothing of the burglary until after it happened (even if he, like most, assumed the wrong motive...)

On the other hand, the motive for the break in is an important aspect of the Watergate saga ---- a story which impacted American history. Yet, the media has never focused on what the motivation for the burglary might have been. If anyone points out that the break-in seems to make no rational sense, the answer seems to be, "Well, they were just stupid."

Nixon himself, on the assumption that Larry O'Brien was the target, thought as much. He said it outright in his memoirs (Colodny/Gettlin cited the passage explicitly) - of all the places to seek political intelligence, the last place you'd go would be to the national headquarters office.

Colodny and Getlin put the lie to such a premise. They reveal the real purpose of the operation and the culprit behind it. Yet, during the 30th anniversary of the event, the media black out of Silent Coup continues.

I'm not sure the blackout will ever end, not even if (highly unlikely) John Dean ever decided to come legitimately clean about the whole thing. Colodny/Gettlin embarrassed a few too many people.

If the verdict in the Maxie Wells trial goes against Liddy, the media will say the verdict vindicates the Wash. Post version of events and dismisses the "looney" theories which contratict the Post version. On the other hand, if the verdict goes in favor if Liddy, the media will say practically nothing at all. And on it goes.

What a surprise! ;)

"...the fact that Nixon accepted the Dean scenarios and let Mitchell dangle without bothering to discover the full truth was a tragic mistake"

I can see that your thoughts and mine have run along similar lines. Mitchell and Nixon were mutual admirers. Yet when Halderman came to Nixon with Dean's implication that Mitchell had authorized the break in, Nixon simply picked up that ball and went with it, and never so much as questioned Mitchell about it.

There was something about the culture of the Nixon White House that made it very vulnerable to internal intrigue, and Dean made the most of it.