Richard M. Nixon--Tapes and Transcripts new releas

Poststructural Pub
1

Richard M. Nixon–Tapes and Transcripts
Source: National Security Archive
Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes
“There are few references in the surreptitiously recorded Nixon Tapes to W. Mark Felt, the former high-level FBI official recently unmasked as ‘Deep Throat,’ but the tapes are full of examples of the White House’s relationship with the FBI and Nixon’s thinking about a successor for J. Edgar Hoover. This sampling of tapes and transcripts, made available by the National Security Archive, shows the White House reaction to the death of Hoover, the transition to new management at the Bureau, and the seeds of bureaucratic tensions that set the stage for Felt’s ‘Deep Throat’ leaks of information to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.”

National Security Archive homepage here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/index.htm

Today’s release:

Updated - June 8, 2005

Only Recorded Conversation Between Nixon and Felt Posted

Nixon on Felt’s FBI Leaks: “Now why the hell would he do that?”

Nixon Rejected Felt as Interim FBI Director: “I don’t want him. I can’t have him”


MarkB

2

But still no one knows what was on the 18 minutes of erased tape. That’s one secret we’ll never know.

Susan

3

Nixon was a Quaker (Friend). I found out from some friends who are Friends today that the reason Nixon was never formally disowned from his home Meeting was pretty much because they just wanted to say they “owned” the President of the United States.

I find that fascinating, but then again I am a dork.

4

I still think that ‘DT’ was more than one person.

5

Why?

6

Cran,

Because of the myriad types of information that were ultimately attributed to this supposed ‘single person’.

Remember, that in those days, reporters actually had to confirm information via 2 independent sources… “Deep Throat” was often cited as a second source, but the information being reported wasn’t (or probably couldn’t have) been known by this one person all the time.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

7

Actually, I can’t remember those days.

8

:slight_smile:

Lucky you.

I was barely coming of age in those days.

9

I wish I could remember them, though. Then I could make first-hand observations and sound relevant.

10

I remember them very well, thank you (I still don’t sound relevant). I do recall one of the things that so shocked many people when any of the Nixon tapes were played on the news was his prolific use of profanity. I don’t think everyday folks believed their President (any President) talked like that!

Susan

11

You always sound relevant, Susan. I don’t know how you do it! :wink:

12

Cran, I thought those days would never come back. But at least in part, the revulsion by many for Bush approaches the intelligentsia’s hatred for Nixon (and I DON’T WISH to debate whether its justified, here). But Nixon looked funny so he was easier to hate. Bush just looks like either Johnny Carson’s love child (to me) or a chimp to many others.

You won’t likely know this, but Nixon was a profuse sweater. He once gave a national speech and held a little sponge in his hand and periodically did a quick swipe across his face. I mean, it was funny, whether you hated him or not. I guess there are probably quicktime clips on the Net of some of his speeches but he was definitely larger onscreen than Bush, in terms of coming across the waves, into your living room and giving you the creeps, than Bush. Bush seems two-dimensional to me, and “stays” on the screen..

I don’t think young people are as much on the same page socially today though as they are splintered into MORE sub-cultural identities, music tastes etc. Even during the groovy sixties, we still had Top 40 radio stations, that many, many people listened to. Most towns had 4 or less tv stations so there was a greater likelihood that people all watched the same shows. But I can’t remember anybody my age who didn’t loath Nixon, though i am sure some kept it secret if they didn’t. It would have been tragically un-hip. I think that today, more young people are militantly Christian than in my day, when those who attended church were quietly in the shadows. A few years after I graduated from high school, there was a new evangelical movement that caused a change in that.

I wouldn’t make too much of his Quakerism though, other than to note that I have long wondered inwardly if he wasn’t so uncomfortable because he had a conscious but smothered it on a regular basis and he couldn’t hide it. I have thought about it a lot when I was doing Quaker genealogy. As my dad’s side of the family is big-time ancestral Quakers, I can see this theme of a very strong sense of conscious running through my family. If I lied and deceived the way Nixon did, I would be very unhappy, and perhaps very sweaty, too.

13

Here’s one ‘Watergate’-related event I’ll never forget:

I attended a speech by G. Gordon Liddy while at university. This was some 7 or 8 years after the President had resigned.

At one point in the speech, Liddy made the comment (paraphrasing here):

“It’s probably not his fault that Judge Sirica is stupid.” (Sirica was the Judge hearing the case against Liddy & several others involved).

At that point, a man sitting in front of me jumped to his feet and began screaming, “That is a gross slander! That is a gross slander!” Really screaming loudly - it was suddenly very intense in the auditorium (which was packed to the rafters).

At this point, Liddy tells the story of how during the jury selection for the trial, Sirica was so anxious to get on with the proceedings, that he cut short the (necessary) questioning of the potential jury pool, and simpy said to the attorneys (both prosecution and defense), (paraphrasing again here): “That’s enough, we’ve heard enough - these people will have to do,” and basically admitted the 16 or so people who were present as the jury.

Both attorneys protested, but Sirica had his way, and into the jury room went the 16 people. One problem, though: One of the jurors who Sirica had appointed to the jury didn’t speak English.

Ooops.

Liddy then asked the man in the auditorium if that seemd to be a very smart or a very stupid thing to do…

No answer, and the man who did the screaming in the auditorium sat down. Quickly. I later learned that ‘Screaming Man’ was a PoliSci professor on campus.

There’s my personal ‘Watergate’ moment.

During the actual hearings, about all I remember during the hearings was that the live TV broadcasts interrupted ‘Gilligan’s Island’ . :slight_smile: (A point which Liddy also made during his speech).

14

Bonnie Raitt is a Friend, too. And although I never heard Nixon play guitar or sing, I think Bonnie is probably better. :slight_smile:

15

Well, you can make your lists, but you will find some strong differences in those who are: continuous ancestral Quakers, recent converts, high profile recent converts. This happens in other movements too. The other Weekender is a Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist and you have the original Japanese converts, many Westerners converted in the 60s, and the very high profiles, like Tina Turner and Herbie Hancock. Once again, big differences.

I have a lot of respect for long-term Friends because they have a very consistent message over the years and are not libertines in their personal lives but very solid people who are at odds with larger society.

16

And sooooo much prettier…

All that red hair comes from her Irish blood of course :wink:

Slan,
D.

i nearly put roots and hair in the same sentence there…

17

I wonder how many bleach-blondes have Irish roots…

18

:slight_smile:

Sorry, sorry - but this whole ‘Quaker’ thing reminded me of the bit from George Carlin:

“I used to be Irish Catholic - now I’m an American. You know, you grow…”

:smiley:

19

As thee might know, three of the Quaker Testimonies are pacifism, simplicity, and equality. There’s a “certain American Quaker author” who I probably should not name who 1) actively faught in war and is happy about it 2) owns many very expensive automobiles and homes and 3) was the head of a very exclusive upper-class school in a US city for many years. He is from a line of Friends that goes back about 300 years, but I sometimes wonder if somebody who recently joined the faith but sincerely believes in and lives out the Testimonies is not more genuine than he. Pedigrees do not a Friend make.

BTW, Friends don’t have conversion. It’s convincement. There’s a sublte but very real difference. :wink:

20

Do they get to throw their caps into the air?