Nixon: From the Whitehouse to Watergate
Nixon was known for starting the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Supplemental Security Income Program, the Drug Enforcement Agency and many more. I think his hatred of his political enemies and a desire to use his power to attack them; his readiness to discard staff members at a moment’s notice and his potent anti-Semitism were some of his ‘failures’ or downfalls. He seemed, at least during his first term, to be in a constant ‘campaign’ mode, always trying to make sure that people heard him AND believed in what he was doing and saying.
On the one hand, the president is responsible for those whom he staff’s and their actions. But on the opposite hand, he cannot be held responsible for what was done, in the physical sense. What got me was that he said that “if an order came from the president, then it should not be illegal”. On what basis was he taking his thinking into account? I disagree with that theory and am glad that the courts did so as well. Some of what may be considered ‘white house horrors’ could be the attempts by the white house to obstruct the Investigation of the Watergate affair. His abuse of money and power through the raising of money through fund raisers, especially during the beginnings of his campaign to run for president was another ‘horror’ that he allowed to happen. He ordered wire taps, not willingly at first, but then gave in, to be put onto the Democratic National Committee. What was he thinking? Finally when things did not turn his way, when the CIA would not shut down the FBI, Nixon offered ‘hush’ money to try to get them to stop and decease what they were doingâÂ?¦putting him out of the white house by the use of his own words and actions.
If a president ‘orders’ a wire tap, he should know all the reasons before he even attempts to go through with signing his name on the dotted line. If Nixon did not know what was going on then why would he do so? Because of political pressure; no I don’t think that would have been the answer. Is a president guilty of members of his staff and their wrong doings? Only if they were told or even ‘suggested’ by the president himself to get something done, ‘at whatever cost necessary’. Then, sure, if someone did something ‘illegal’ to do what he asked to have done, then the president is also guilty, by association, since he ordered it to be done, just not in so many words.
It is of value to hear, actually hear the president and past presidents through their process of decision making and policy making. It helps people to understand what is going on and what is being thought of during the process. It helps people to better understand their president and past presidents by way of ‘hearing’ them speak and think out what they are wanting done, reaffirming those choices and beliefs in the US and human nature. Historians can make a timeline as to what happened when and be able to pinpoint important times in history for people to know and find out about with better ease. It gives us as a country the knowledge to know how we got here and why and whose decisions it was to put us in the positions we are in today.
The only thing about tapes is that they can be manipulated; erased, stopped when someone does not want something to be remembered or heard. In the Nixon tapes, where parts of the tapes were erased, (or at least in the copies of them) so there would be no ‘implications’ against the president himself, you can see the view of why tape recordings can be BOTH revealing and misleading. Once the original tapes came forward and it was known that the president ordered the ‘burglary’ of the Democratic National Committee, the tapes were considered very revealing and the idea of impeachment was set in stone. Now at times we all say and speak things to ourselves or in a conversation that we do not want others to hear, our own personal thoughts about a situation, but in the case of a president, they cannot have any personal thoughts that are not of public knowledge when it comes to dealing with our country or other countries. Now if they do not want us to know their favorite kind of chocolate, or debate the ‘in your mouth, not on your hands issue’ with someone then THAT is their business and is not necessary to be public knowledge. BUT if that same conversation was reworded or put into a place where saying that line would be an insult or some other declaration of ‘war’ against someone, then it has been taken out of character and is not being mistaken, wrongly so, and a whole world of trouble could ensue from there. So, tapes can be both leading and misleading, just depending on who is listening, who is talking and what is being spoken about, and what the listener chooses to do with the new information he now has in his hands.
Who should have been impeached? Johnson, I really don’t think so. I believe that he just stepped on someone’s toes and really ticked them off, hence giving them reason to run with what little bit of ‘righteousness’ they had. He made some honest and good decisions. There were people who did not like his decision and because he did not follow others ‘example’ or ‘following’ he was said to have done wrong and ‘pushed’ right out the white house doors.
Nixon, I am still in the air about on whether he should have been impeached or resigned or not. On the one hand yes, he did wrong by telling someone to break in somewhere. Breaking and entering is just wrong in any sense. BUT then you look at what the CIA and the FBI and NSI does to get or extract information from ANYONE and then sit back and ask, did he really do something that wrong? I am a bit hesitant at saying yes, even though part of me wants to say so.
Finally, we have Clinton and his impeachment. For his I would definitely and emphatically say NO! He did wrong yes, on a very personal level, but that should have been dealt with by him and Hillary alone. It was no one’s business if they had an ‘inter-marital affair’ except his and Hillary’s and of course Lewinsky. Yes, he lied under oath about what he did and that again is one of those touchy subjects, which in the first place should not have been under public or governmental scrutiny.
Presidents have a lot to bear without having to have their total life being drug through the mud, their name, their reputations, it just isn’t right. Just like lady Diana, or any music or movie star, they feel that invasion of privacy is just that? What makes the president any less of a human, any less of an American, any less due the same rights as you and I? I could not say that stealing money or telling someone to break in somewhere or sleeping with someone makes my confidence any stronger for a person’s defense, BUT if you must have all the information, let it all out, let it all be known or stay out of it. Don’t try to hide or diminish the truth, good or bad, it will eventually all come out. Let the president be the president, but when with his family or friends, let him have a life (what little of it he or she does have while in office).
