David Frost Vs. Richard Nixon

This is quite a topic MiG.

First let me answer your last question. There is no comparison between then and now in this country.

I may be vilified for saying this, but I was a Nixon supporter from the time I met him with Dwight D. Eisenhower, while I was in high school.

But Nixon's history had always been somewhat controversial even as a congressman. Then he became Vice-President and at one point when President Eisenhower was ill and hospitalized, Nixon had the responsibility of taking on some of the responsibilities of the Presidency.

Since Nixon was from Whittier, CA it was of great interest to us here what he would do next. And he ran fro President and lost to JFK. Later Nixon ran for Governor of CA and I will never forget how bitter he was with the press when he lost. I saw him concede late at night on TV with the words "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore!"

But.... Nixon recovered to go on eventually to become President. And he was masterful at negotiating with foreign governments. During this time, I had occasion to write some material (questions) for the David Frost interview show when he taped in California. One of his interviews in addition to Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper about Easy Rider, was an interview that he was going to do with Nixon's Vice-President Spiro Agnew, later to resign due to some irregularities.

At the time the show was about to begin, in May 1970, I was there outside the studio, when all of a sudden we were told that there was a bomb threat. As I started walking rapidly from the back of the studio down a long block to the front door, I was joined by a talk show host named Bob Dornan, who later became a Republican congressman. At that point he asked what was going on and I told him and we broke into a run to get to the front door of the studio. They didn't allow us in, as they were certain a bomb was in the building. Yet, Agnew was interviewed by Frost and the question I had posed for Frost to ask him "Have you ever prayed and had the prayer answered?" was put on the air. But it was done without a studio audience, as they were kept safe outside.

Now I digressed a little to show you that David Frost did not flinch at dealing with anything and he could ask hard questions, which he did with Nixon. The hours of interviews that Frost did with Nixon were definitive, as you may have heard in the play. (I only hope I will get a chance to see it eventually.)

My personal feeling about the Watergate break-in is that we have never learned the whole truth of it. I believe the truth is somewhere between G. Gordon Liddy's story and John Dean's story about it. I tend to believe G. Gordon Liddy more than Dean and they are diametrically opposed stories about the circumstances of the break-in and why. There were tapes that were damning in some of the revelations about how Nixon spoke of people and his prejudices and language.

Yes, a lot of people in the administration left : Haldeman, Erlichman, and Colson.

Do I feel it is the same. No, for some reason I really don't. I think what really happened was blown out of proportion in relationship with what we are seeing today in the US administration which has affected everyone through the Iraq war and economy of this country for what appear to be very egotistical personal power plays and extremely disruptive warmongering by the now Secretary of State and the President and Vice-President, whom I believe are of the belief that that they are somehow untouchable, as a few of those who left, like Rumsfield, thought.
I could go into 9/11 also, but that is for another article.

Yes, the interview was played over several hours if I remember correctly. I'd like to see it again. I don't remember it ever being censored. Nixon was long out of office by that time and I think it was taped in San Clemente, CA where he then lived.

One other thing I might add, MiG, is that David Frost had an earlier show called "That Was the Week That Was". It was outrageous and funny, with his take on this country.

I've put in as much detail as I can for those who were too young to remember or like MiG were not in this country at the time. I tried to be accurate.

I remember David Frost's interview with Nixon...yes it was quite compelling and they did seem to have a connection that allowed Nixon to open up and take some sort of responsibility for his actions.

As to your question of how Watergate compares to the dark age we find ourselves in now...I would say that it pales in comparison to the lies and diception of our current president. Nixon's sin was ambition...he wanted to win at any cost. He was somewhat a pathetic character...I actually felt sorry for him in a way. And, even though President Ford took a lot of crap for it, I think it was the right thing to do to pardon Nixon and allow the country to move forward and leave that chapter of history behind us...and I say this as a Democrat!!

I'm not quite sure what motivates Bush but his sins against this country have not only caused embarassment but countless lives in Iraq in a war that was started as a personal vandetta and born out of lies and fear tactics.

If ambition is what ruined Nixon, I believe that Bush's downfall will be his unwillingness to admit when he's wrong and his belief that the path he is taking is somehow for the greater good...not recognizing the devistation of his actions. That, and the fact that he can't even construct complete sentences. I sometimes actually marvel at the fact that Bush is our president...and for two terms no less!!

As for the play, it sounds like a great production! It would be great to be able to see the show in NY but since that's not likely, I look forward to the movie adaptation.

P.S. I was only 9 years old in 1977 when the interview first aired but I recall the magnitude of the event...it was the first and only time Nixon discussed Watergate and his involvement.

Wish I had plans to go to NY soon. Thank you for sharing.

MiG, thanks for the review. I would like to see the play.

Sophia, you said it so well regarding the Bush administration. I think someone forgot to tell him that we don't have a king in the U.S.!! Thank God for term limits.

MiG, I think Dale and Sophia put in a nutshell most of the "Watergate Days", although I hate to admit I'm old enough to remember :/ But, I watched every minute of every day of the coverage of the Watergate trial. It amazed most of the nation that we had this Live on our tv! (my Grandma was enraged that it interferred with her soap operas! ha)
I watched the interviews with David Frost and Nixon.
We were a pretty naive country, then, and a lot of people were thinking it was just a sham to discredit the parties. I won't put my personal feelings on the man, we called Nixon, but the only sympathy I had and have for him was his sick and tortured determination to stay in office, to keep it at no matter What cost and to whom.
I guess that's what makes a person want the office in the first place. In my opinion, his Family suffered from his actions more than he did, as did the people and their families around him. And, probably still do.
As far as feeling sympathy for him in the play, I'm sure that there are times when there are those feelings from people, but still have to remember what he did, Knowingly and to what extremes he went to lie and cover up. I'm not just talking about Watergate, either.
I believe John Dean, always did and felt sympathy for him more than anyone. He and Moe, his wife.
Now,...looking back at that sad era, Vietnam, Watergate, relentless power/control plays in our government,...it pales to what is going on now.
"Losing "20 minutes of taped conversation by Nixon's secretary?? That was never believed, I don't think. Finding tape on the door latch which started the whole investigation, horrifying then. But, in perspective,....it was a soap opera compared to what is going on now. When will we learn to get out there and Vote with discernment and use our intelligence instead of "party-loyalty"
This play will be an opening to a real bomb-shell. I had No idea that Watergate was even still discussed and would Love to see it. I'd also love to see the entire hearings again and my age Now and see what I think of it. UN-edited, of course.

Am I the only Republican here?

No, Rose you are not. I've been registered as a Republican forever. But....... I've been voting for the best people, that we are allowed to choose from, for governor and president et al for many years now. Have also worked on the Perot campaign and state campaigns and learned a lot. I started early in our high school as Chairperson of our Election Board and we even had conventions like the Democrats and Republicans have. That is how I ended up going to meet Eisenhower and Nixon before they were elected the first time.

But I emphatically agree with all the thoughts that Sophia K., Karolyn Q., Kathy F. and Karen B. have expressed.

As for John Dean, five years ago I researched his background for a talk show interview and I had earlier read "Will" the autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy. I expressed no opinion to the producer/talk show host, when I presented the research, even though I had strong feelings about why the break-in really occurred. I might add that at that time in 2002, when the John Dean interview was produced, Dean and Liddy were still going at each other publicly on the news.

In retrospect, it might be good to view the hearings again, but we have too much to deal with presently to be going back over that. I'm sure we can all learn from history though, how to be more discerning about who we put in office.

Wow! Dale, Sophia and Karen, you amaze me! I am learnign so much more about you and about US history through the eyes of its citizens.

I am so curious about the Nixon era. Being from Australia, it's still a bit of a mustery to me. Thank you for your incredible insight. THIS is what rocks about gather.com. I ask a question and get answers from people all over the country.

Unfortunately I have to do some errands now, but would love to continue this conversation when I get back. Keep them coming! I love the passion you all feel about this and your country in general. It is great to see that people like you refuse to let the powers bring you down. You get involved. You get angry! I LOVE IT!! I think you have a lot to be angry about!

MiG - You are right that we Americans have a lot to be angry about, but not all of us are angry about the same things! I'm glad you have a Gather to go to, because if you listen to the media in this country, you will learn NOTHING but what they WANT you to learn, which basically is that President Bush is a horrible person, and that Republicans want only the things that are "wrong" for our country. It is only by talking to the people, in the small towns and big cities, that you can truly learn about America. We're not all Bush haters and we don't all believe that global warming will fry us in time. Sadly, America is becoming so divided about all things, and you know the words "united we stand, divided we fall". I have a real fear that America is eating itself alive. I do hope we can find some common ground before it's too late! (and Al Gore is taken seriously!)

I am very interested in this discussion. I tend to agree with Julie K. and I am trying to fully understand what everyone is saying. The issues are complex and rooted in years and years of policy & dealings I don't begin to know or fully understand.

Another sad addition to that chapter, we have real problems believing the 'positives'of politicians. Now, 'politician' can be more a Verb than a noun. And, condensed to a 4 letter word/verb.
If they're in office, in any form, they're suspect. Sad.
There ARE good people out there, just wish we could hear more about those.
And, there are always going to be differences, disagreements, lies and scandals.
I believe Thomas Jefferson and the rest had the right idea, I just wish they hadn't formed Parties to the 'democratic' side of things. you can probably tell that I'm Not going to state any 'official' party affiliation. I don't believe Any 'party' can voice my opinions or needs. It takes more than a Party, it takes team work, voices and sticking to our ideas and working them out. Hard work. But,...by and large, I don't know of anywhere else I'd want to live. Oh, yeah, RIGHT, like ya believe THAT! haha...well, not in Reality. As far as the government....we have to remind 'them on the Hill"....
WE are the government! It takes Us to remind and keep reminding...Like I told a friend, over and over again....'If ya don't vote, ya can't b *&*"
And, just an fyi...I even taped the Grand Jury questioning of Clinton! yep, got it right here in my tape-closet!
and...just what IS a 'hanging chad' anyway??
Just do our research, don't just listen to reteric (sp) on TV....search, search and research more on our 'leaders' out there.
Thanks to Al Gore,....I'll have 'funny-looking' light bulbs in the house.
If you haven't seen his movie "Inconvient Truths"...it's a must see! Whether you believe him or not by the end of the movie, I'll guarantee you, you'll have second thoughts! xo

I agree with Julie.

and I love gather, but I don't always jump into conversations like these with my opinions, I've learned the hard way people don't always want to hear your opinion if its not the same.

But since it is MiG asking- I'll meekly add my 2 cents.

I am not a Bush hater- I believe it's all prophecy.

and I believe it's a Global "WARNING" from a higher power- wrath of God.

It's all in the bible.

Yes, MiG, we do have a lot to be angry about and very disappointed with in many of our "leaders". Thank goodness for freedom of speech.

I must admit I was always wary of Nixon as I was with other Presidents, including the charming Ronald Reagan. When he was Governor of CA Reagan decided to close many of the state hospitals which put many of the mentally disordered people out on the streets. Today we have thousands of homeless people. I used to see the same people walking the streets every day carrying all their belongings talking to themselves etc. It broke my heart to see this and I was never able to vote for Reagan after that. When President Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, as vice-president were in office, the Iran-Contra affair which occurred was much worse than the Nixon debacle, but not nearly as bad as the current situation.

As for me, I also felt very sad for Nixon's dear family, Pat, Tricia and Julie. When he made his speech after the gubernatorial loss, I changed my opinion of him. I felt he should have certainly been more gracious than that. Oh the egos that are shown under stressful circumstances. And George W. is most notable for that as well.

We absolutely must select some truly decent people in the primaries in order to rectify the damage that has already been done. Nothing is impossible.

I've long felt the two party system is passe. When I hear the President say he is going to select a bipartisan group to investigate something like the shameful Walter Reed and other veteran's hospital situations, it irritates me. Because we should have been electing people who would have integrity, no matter what their party affiliation, to find out the truth of any matter.

I've never been a complacent person, even though I'm a spiritual person. When I saw Congress sitting on their hands throughout the whole debate over going to war or not and then capitulating to the President, it made me sick. And excuse me for saying this, but the UN was fed a load of cr.. by someone I had always respected, General Colin Powell. And then no one would take responsibility for the misinformation about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that was given to, at that time, Secretary of State Powell. However since he left office he has been very open about it and has apologized numerous times, even though he was given the wrong information.

We have spent an ungodlyu amount of money on this Iraq war and lost coutless thousands of our young American military and destroyed the lives of so many in Iraq. For what? Oil ....or to protect George Herbert Walker Bush's reputation for supposedly not having finished it with Desert Storm?

Well I better simmer down, as I don't want to start a conflagration here. Just thought I would bring you up to date, MiG, since you weren't in this country at the time and probably heard most of this in London, or Australia, maybe unfiltered. Because our news has been totally managed since 9/11 or just before and we've been fed what the adminstration wants us to hear.

There were 4 more comments posted while I was responding to MiG's comments. but I must tell you that I respect all of your opinions. That is what this country is about - Freedom of Speech and the right to respectfully agree to disagree.

For myself, I prefer not to be affiliated with any party. But as we know, we must identify ourselves one way or the other in order to get a complete ballot. My mother found out the hard way, as an Independent, so is now a Democrat, at 93.

Lily: Thank you for your input, you should never be afraid to state your opinion. I, for one, appreciate and respect everyone's opinion.

That said, I have to disagree about the situation we are in as being "prophecy" or the "wrath of God". I am a Christian but I believe in a loving and forgiving God...not an angry, spiteful God. The Bible also says "God helps those who help themselves" so we should be careful not to just sit back and accept what is happening as some sort of divine ordination. We DO have the ability to change the way we are treating this earth and eachother.

Sophia,

I think I might have been a bit vague, what I was referring to when I say prophecy, is the situation with the middle east, and the war.

When I said global warNing, I was referring to things such as Katrina.

I agree with you, God is a loving and forgiving God, but I believe the bible is his word, and is truth , and the bible clearly talks about the last days and the wrath of God, not because he doesn't love us, but because he IS God, a sovereign God.

I def agree with you that we do have the ability to change the way we are treating this earth and eachother.

And Thanks for not chewing me out for my opinion, makes me think I should write an article to open discussion on 'censorship" lol.

Now enough of the my 2 cents and back to the topic!

Lil - I actually LOVE the way one topics moves around from one thing to another! I am enjoying this conversation with so many obviously intelligent people! I shudder to think what God must be thinking when he looks down on the mess we've made. Thankfully, He is a righteous, loving and forgiving God!!!!

Lily: You are very welcome. Yes, you SHOULD write an article to open discussion about censorship...it would make for very interesting reading and dialog.

MiG: I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the current administration as an "outsider" since you just recently moved to the US. I find it to be an eyeopening experience to hear what people outside the US think of Bush, our policies and our relationship with the rest of the world. It is my feeling that we have lost a lot of credibility with other countries over the fiasco in Iraq and other mis-steps by our current government.

I dont remember the David Frost interview, I remember the Watergate scandal though. I wasnt into politics then , I do remember the remark from Nixon, about them not having him to kick around anymore as Dale quoted, I can remember some people saying(of Nixon) that he wasnt the first one to do something such as this, but he was the first to get caught.

Rose,
I'm republican too... and agree with Julie K. I'm certainly not a Bush hater and proudly voted for him.

I have a totally different view of things - opposite scale, MiG. My husband is in the Air Force and being in a military environment- well it just is different. I don't agree with the Bush hating. I believe he's done what he thought he needed to do to keep our country safe. And I believe he is a very good and moral man.. But that's just my opinion.

I actually voted for Perot Dale!! :) I believe he would have been a great President. I'm soo very worried about the upcoming presidential election...

I don't remember Nixon... but I have to say something pretty unpopular (probably). I agree that things are not any LESS corrupt in some circles. I voted for Clinton when he first ran... and unfortunately I didn't end up agreeing with his outcome.

MiG, we do get VERY angry - but, like Julie said - from all different angles. There is something so inexcusable to me for not supporting our troops no matter WHAT the controversy of the war is. And somehow the Bush hating has turned into something really awful for many of our troops... it's a very sad shame. It reminds me of what I've heard about Vietnam... So... yep we are in a dark age... just some people see through the smoke differently I guess.

And, before I get pounced on... :) I know no one mentioned anything specific about the war... so don't pounce.. it's just what comes to mind and pains me when I hear talk of the Bush administration.

one more thing.

My husband has been to the "desert" twice now... and he's met a lot of good people... Iraqi's, Eqyptians, Kuwaitis, and Iranians...

They are so very greatful for the U.S. there. However,... there are issues regarding us needing to leave. But, for the most part they are so thankful for being liberated from such a horrible tyrant. Not all of the citizens there are angry with us... a lot of them are very kind to the troops.
Of COURSE that sounds silly in the midst of all the hate and killing.
Jon HAS seen such awful atrocities and things you would not believe.

Amy,

Well said!! Thank you!

I'm still listening to the discussion. I am one that has a tendency to not support anything in the extreme. Both the extreme left and the extreme right appear to have their own agendas and neither seem open to real discussion and understanding of other views.

Amy E: First off, I want to commend your husband and all those in the armed forces for their service to this country. I may be against the war in Iraq but I would never NOT support our troops. Our military personnel sacrifice so much for this country...often the ultimate sacrifice…but I don't see that their loyalty and service is returned in kind by their own government. Our young men and women are in the front lines but when they return home (many scarred physically and/or mentally) there doesn't seem to be enough resources for them to cope and move on with their lives. Our military hospitals are so backlogged that many times these soldiers have to wait weeks or months to get treatment. This is not acceptable and is a shame.

You mentioned Vietnam…the similarities I see between Iraq and Vietnam are thus:

We are fighting a guerrilla war in a difficult terrain that insurgents know better than we do…and the urban warfare makes it hard to separate the civilians from the insurgents. We also failed to understand their local customs and culture as well as the role of Islam in Arab society (like we did in Vietnam's Buddhist culture) and their clear willingness to die for their beliefs. Not to mention that we didn't have an exit strategy when we deployed our troops in Iraq.

The domino theory: much like the belief that the fall of Vietnam would lead to a Communist takeover of all of Asia, Bush promised a similar domino effect in the Middle East with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein…that it would lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and breed democracy in the region. In reality…there are MORE insurgents in Iraq from various Arab countries that are fighting what they believe to be a "holy war" against their oppressors…we failed to understand that we would not be seen as "liberators" but "occupiers" by many in the region.

This was a war of choice and fueled by the misrepresentation of our government, first to engage US forces and then to keep them there. Our reason for going to war was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a link to al Qaeda (neither was found to be true) and now we're told that we're there to nurture a democratic self-government but the political reconstruction is not going well to say the least. We were told that our troops would be greeted with open arms and flowers and that Iraqi oil would pay for most of the reconstruction…but the reality is that we have lost over 3,250 US troops (I don't have the exact figures) in Iraq and have spent and/or approved over $500 billion dollars towards this war…with MORE money being sought by Bush for war spending in 2007 and 2008.

What's the worst part? There is no end in sight.

Sophia,

"This was a war of choice..."

Just curious, what was the alternative?

How do you think the administration should have reacted to what was done to this country on that Sept day?

I'm very intrigued as to your opinion.

And Sophia,

Just wanted to make sure you know...


my question to you is in no way meant to debate, or anything like that. I am genuinely interested in your opinion. I love hearing others point of view, I learn so much that way.

and you know i luv ya!

Lily: Girl, you know I love you too!!

What the administration should have done is keep the focus on Osama Bin Laden and the orchestrators of that fateful day on September 11th. As much as the administration wishes he had something to do with it, Saddam Hussein was NOT in any way associated with that terrorist act. I don't think there was anyone that wasn't behind the president when he announced going to war in Afghanistan to try to root out Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban that were hiding him. Sadly, the focus was shifted to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden still remains at large. And, as an added bonus, other Arab countries have since sided with Iraq and we lost all the good will we had from around the world (Arab countries included) after 9/11.

Thanks Sophia,

I'm, still, after nearly 6 years, deeply affected by 9/11, and I honestly just don't know what we could have done, should have done. I think Bush RE acted to the best of his abilty at the time. I don't neccesarily approve nor condone some of what Bush has done since, but hindsight is always 20/20 and I do believe he acted to the best of his ability given the circumstance we as a country faced.

It's like with everything. The blame game. If things go wrong, everyone starts trying to pin the blame. I personally will never forget the fear I felt on 9/11, it shook me to the core, life as I knew it was gone forever more. Perhaps I was naive, I don't know. And when we declared war, my fear level increased, but I knew in my heart, we had to do something, and do something immediately.

I was grateful to the President for taking action. Again, whether that action was the right one, hindsight 20/20. We will never know I guess.

Hello Mig, I watched most of TW3 - and I know YOU know what that abbrev. stands for. By the time the Frost Nixon interview came on, we were ensconced in Canada and I missed it.

My stepbrother turned 18 just after we arrived at the Canadian border.

I loved Frost. He was spot on, every time. Tricky Dicky was tricky dicky, every time. Took eons for the public to recognize that.

About as long as it is taking the American public to recognize Tricky Dubbya.

I think the reason Sheen was overlooked by the Academy for his performance as Blair is simply that the Queen is more illustrious in the eyes of the Americans than Tony is. And Dame Mirren has a lot of clout. I have yet to see that fine flick, but will soon.

Also, having lived in Canada (therefore, a non-US perspective ) for nearly 10 years, as a US citizen, I couldn't stand how naive the country was about so many things in the 70s. Communism was viewed as evil, reprehensible and punishable by the black list not long before in the McCarthy era; universal health care was viewed by Americans in the 70s as akin to socialism, therefore too close to Communism; Nixon and Watergate shocked both Republicans and Democrats. My very liberal friends were happily enraged it was all going down.

What angered me first about the 2000 election - what election - the US Supreme Court intervention was that the Media Circus and the Dems were nowhere to be found. What happened to the left wing, it was quiet.

My very liberal friends saw in March, 2003 that the Iraq war was a sham, another Vietnam.

I hated JBJ for ramping up Vietnam, though applauded him pushing through JFK's agendas on the domestic fronts.

My journalism business professor said only 20 years ago that the US will NEVER dismantle the entitlement programs of welfare and social security.

The idiotic people of the US voted in Bush in 2004; I was not too amazed, because, after all, they voted in Nixon, too. People say they vote for the person, not the party. They forget there is no such thing as voting for the person. Politicians are partisan to the core.

it is so easy, living outside the US to see through what many Americans believe. Americans believe that the US is the greatest, richest, best country on earth. Not true.

Americans believe that the entire world looks up to us. Again, no words need be said on this front.

The free and non free world envy the opportunities that capitalism affords those who live in the US.

You're right, Lily, hindsight is 20/20 but it would have benefitted the Bush Administration to have had a bit more FORESIGHT before entering into the Iraq War. In late 2002, UN Inspectors did not find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. It was by NO means a slam dunk that the US should invade Iraq. In contrast, Bush never got the UN approval he was seeking and instead used the passing of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of US Armed Forces Against Iraq by the majority of Congress in October 2002 as his legal basis for the US invasion of Iraq.

The US invaded Iraq in March 2003 and by May 2003 Bush was making his "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln. A few months later, in July 2003 he made an equally brash and cowboy with guns a-blazing comment of "Bring 'em on" about the insurgents. It's THIS attitude that I find so damning about our president. This is NOT a movie set of "Top Gun" or an old Clint Eastwood western, this is a REAL war!! The insurgents were taken too lightly and we have paid dearly for it and continue to do so.

Yes, the entire nation was shaken by 9/11 and felt a fear we had not known before on our shores. However, we had already waged a war against Afgahnistan as a response to 9/11 and instead of focusing our energies on capturing Osama Bin Laden and those who were responsible, the Bush Administration set their eyes on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq with no evidence of their involvement in 9/11 and no evidence that they had any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Sophia:
I see your concern... and have to say I agree with Lily. Is Bush perfect .. no. Did he maybe make some mistakes... probably. Is the war going on too long .. yes.
But, I also believe that (as unfortunate as it is)... we, as the public.. have NO IDEA what really goes on.. what Bush and his military are privy to. Period. We are not told everything.

So knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone in particular is to blame.. is dangerous and non-informed guessing. I truly do believe that Bush did what he thought he needed to do... but I'm certainly not saying that he's perfect.

And I'm SURELY not saying that the system is perfect regarding troops here in the homeland or when they return from war. A lot needs to be done... but I (imo) believe that Bush has deep concern and love for the country and our military.. I believe he's trying.

I'm personally VERY glad he was president during Sept. 11th and terrified of what might have happned had he not been. Democrat or Republican... they are equally able to make HORRIFIC mistakes..

If we did not know CLEARLY whether or not Sadaam had WMD... why would we just WAIT to find out??? that seems inexcusable... because something worse could have happened again.
Guess what I'm trying to say is that neither side is right or wrong absolutley (IMO). And.. I just wanted MiG to see that not all of us have the same view... that's all. But I do like hearing your thoughts and the others :).
Lily, you said things that I felt.. but couldn't express properly... thank you.

Kathryn,

I guess I'm one of the idiotic ones ? that voted for Bush?
And I'm one of the "Americans" that think like you think we do?

Again... that is not fair nor true per se...
all Americans do NOT think the same... nor are they idiotic if they voted for Bush? That's like me saying those who voted for Clinton are idiotic... um.. does that make any real logical sense? Not to me.

Amy, I agree with both of your comments 100%. I keep coming back to this discussion and was trying to decide how I wanted to respond to some of the comments that have been made. It's very easy for people on the outside to be critical, but the general public has very little realization of the pressure our leaders are under. Someone much earlier made a comment about the egos of certain politicians, I don't believe you could survive politics if you did not have a large and resiliant ego. To run for public office is to say that you know how to run the country better than anyone else and no one party is devoid of egoists.

It upsets me that we are resorting to calling people idiots because we hold a different political view and I don't really see what is wrong about believing that your country is a great place, sure we're not perfect, but what country is...I have to think that I'm pretty lucky to live in a country that allows even idiots like me to vote and be patriotic.

As for the original discussion, I believe in the end when we look back at Nixon's accomplishments they are pretty impressive and he was greatly respected in his later years by many people.

Thank you, Amy & Jen.

This is one of the many issues that devides us as a country and it's so sad. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that it results in name calling or bashing (and I mean in general not just this discussion) is very very sad.

The worse part, imo, is that the true hero's, the military, are forgotten in all this.

I personally don't have any family members serving, but that doesn't change the fact that I am eternally grateful for the soldiers, and have the utmost respect for them and thier families. They are the ones paying the hightest price for our safety. I feel that when someone bashes the President and his decisions, we are inderectly saying that soldiers lost their lives for nothing. And that, just is not so.

Every precious life lost on the battle field was for our freedom and in atempt to keep our country safe. In ATEMPT, meaning, errors are made by our administration, big errors, HUGE errors, but I have a very hard time believing they were intentional, and or made in haste.

I wish that we as a people, though we have differing opinions, could atleast stand united in supporting eachother and more importantly the hero's out there dying for us. When we focus on what Bush coulda shoulda done, we lose sight of what matters more, the people.

I know this discussion was supposed to be about Frost vs Nixon, and I guess because of the first responses bringing Bush into it, through commenting on as to the dark times we find ourselves now. But after reading peoples responses I can't help but feel that the dark times we are in, are not because of our leaders, but because we as a people take out our beliefs on eachother instead of embracing eachother and forgiving the errors, and moving on stronger, united.

Until people decide they have had enough hatred, bitterness, and overall anger, and instead actively and united try to bring about change, not until then will things in this country change. And it applies to SO many issues, its' mind boggling really. We are destroying ourselves, and I feel that is where our anger should lay. Yes, be angry, be very angry, but be angry about the things that we have the power to change, like ourselves and what we do with our anger.

I am not highly educated, nor am I smart or savvy, my opinion is just one from my heart, and I come with it meekly. I hope I have not offended anyone with it.

Amy E: I appreciate your response and your perspective as a military wife.

I think if you go back and read all my comments on this subject you will see that I have not bashed anyone's opinion nor do I condone name-calling. I have strong feelings about the Bush Administration and I don't have a problem voicing it but not at the expense of someone else's ideas and beliefs. All I can do is express how I feel and what I have experienced and I welcome the discussion with all of you.

It was mentioned that the public is not told everything and that is true...but it is not just the general public that had misgivings about the war in Iraq and our continued presence there. MANY people in the military (retired and active) as well as other government officials do not agree with the way the war is being handled and the policies of this administration...both democrat and republican.

It is important to read up and be aware of political issues so we can be informed to the best of our ability as civilians. In doing so, it is also OKAY to question authority and our government...that is one of the best freedoms we have in this country. Call me a "doubting Thomas" if you will but I cannot accept things as "truth" just because my government says it's so. I'm a rebel, what can I say? ;)

Now back to Nixon:

I agree with Jen G. that Nixon's overall accomplishments were impressive, especially in the arena of foreign relations during his presidency (between China and the Soviet Union as well as India and Pakistan). He was a master negotiator and gained the respect of foreign leaders. After his resignation, he came to be regarded as a respected elder statesman and was consulted on foreign affairs by both Democratic and Republican successors to the presidency. I think his legacy faired pretty well overall despite the dark cloud of Watergate.

Sophia K.:
Nothing about name calling or bashing was intended toward you at all :). I was just referring to Kathryn's post. Your comments are fine - and it is important to see both points of view.

however:

Lily: Bravo again... I love this part:
"Until people decide they have had enough hatred, bitterness, and overall anger, and instead actively and united try to bring about change, not until then will things in this country change. And it applies to SO many issues, its' mind boggling really. We are destroying ourselves, and I feel that is where our anger should lay. Yes, be angry, be very angry, but be angry about the things that we have the power to change, like ourselves and what we do with our anger."

There is another way to look at the whole Nixon/Watergate thing and that is: as a drama. Nixon can be seen as a the principal character in a classical drama, in that the seeds of his downfall were contained within his own character. Also, when he lost the presidency to Kennedy, and then the governorship of California, he was so determined to triumph that he did so at any cost and essentially made a deal with the devil. The diabolical forces in that case being the cadre of men who helped him get elected, and were the key staffers in his administration. Their greed and disregard for the law led to Watergate, and brought the whole house down.

I think it is fair to say that until the Watergate era the people of America, by and large, tended to trust their government, but that was the beginning of the end of that trust. Our country has not been the same since, and unfortunately, the door was opened for the current crop of toxic crooks and liars.

I'm really enjoying this discussion! It's good to have a place to go where there's intelligent and well thought out ideas and ideals. Not matter what your affiliation, youre opinions on whatever the topic, everyone here has had an insightful statement to make. Refreshing
And, refreshing to not be bashed or name-calling because of opinions, and, No censoring!
It's late and I've read all the conversations, and ready for bed, but, I'm going to keep coming back to read some more.
There was one thing that came to mind for me, as far as how naive were were/are about our complacency, etc. (I can't spell worth a hoot anymore)
Cable tv, CNN, and the other news stations have opened our eyes and ears. In the past, we had news journalists, reporters, that read what they were Supposed to read on the news. "don't antagonize, don't terroize the public, and for Pete's sake, DON'T let the people know what is Really going on"....Including our Walter Cronkite, 5:00 every evening, giving us the updates on Vietnam, for 30 minutes. That's about all we had to go by.
Oh, and the 'no, we're Not in Cambodia' fiasco.
Learning from history...
Complacent we are/were....Nobody would Dare tread our land, we had security, we had the knowledge that our leaders were taking care of that, then....the bombs started dropping, havoc and panic, OUR citizens killed, more panic as to what to do, who to go After, and Not sitting on their (our government) hands anymore.
The time had come for Action, no matter what cost, no matter Who, just take Action...a little slow on the mark, maybe. A little 'day late and dollar short'....
It was December 7, 1941....and, we/they haven't learn a Thing.
By the way, for those too young to have known, and....I don't know of a school that Taught it in 'American History", but....Vietnam was going on at the same time as the winding down of the Korean "conflict"....
Our economy was never as good as when the Vietnam war was going on. Horribly Sad, but true. It Wasn't LBJ who 'got us into' it,....ok, I'm off to bed.
THANK YOU all for such an enlivening conversation!!!

Sorry Mary F. but it is not fair to say that the American people trusted their government by and large in previous years. Whether you look at the government during the Cuban missile crisis while the President was John F. Kennedy or the manipulations and misinformation, regarding Pearl Harbor at the beginning of the war in the Pacific theater by FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) or the scandals that erupted during the Warren G. Harding tenure in office there have often been doubts and investigations or suspicions of wrong doing.

With the exception of the President Harding administration I observed each of these administratuions and paid attention to what was going on. Each of these have taken on different issues of morality and immorality to haved led to the downfall of some in office.

But the bottom line is - IN AMERICA WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If we pay attention we not only can make informed decisions and make changes but they can be very positive.

I believe we did that when we called for President Nixon to resign. He did admit to his errors in judgement and he did resign. If the accusations had been entirely unfounded, I am sure he would have fought to stay in office.

MiG asked how did that dark age in American politics compare to the dark age we are in now?

My personal view on it, is that it is worse now than it was then.... starting with the qustions that were raised over the election in 2000 and also very definitely in Ohio in 2004.

And Karen a "hanging chad" is an incomplete punch of a place on a ballot where it is difficult to tell if that was meant to be punched in relation to a vote. For MiG's information, the votes were not certified for many days due to irregularities in the election, particularly in Florida. It was the most unusual outcome of a national election in the questions that were raised and how it was all handled - iin my lifetime as far as I can recall.

I truly impolre anyone who cares about preventing further "dark times" to scrutinize how the candidates conduct themselves both in personal and public lives, read their track record whether they were previously in politics before or in business. Also ask yourself what do those running for office have to gain, not just whether they will willingly and honestly serve the people of this country.

Everyone please remember that those elected are supposed to be serving our country, serving us, who are the government - which is "of the people, by the people and for the people".

I felt and Still feel that G. Gordon Liddy is a scary, scary man!

I wouldn't disagree with you Karen about Liddy. But his book is worth reading.

Please excuse the typos as I do my best to make sure things are readable before I post them.

When all is said and done politicians are people and are human. We all make mistakes and if that is all they are, they are forgivable. One thing for sure is.... no one has all the answers to any given situation.

OK, I need to clarify my previous commments. I was not really tallking about policy or politics. My main point was that Nixon, his administration, and the events surrounding the Watergate scandal played out like a classical tragedy and, as a result, are a good subject for theatrical presentation.

As to the rest, I certainly was not saying that the Nixon adminstration was the first in American history to be corrupt. All I was pointing out was that the administrations the older ones among us can recall (FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and to some degree Johnson) generally had the trust of the people before the Nixon administration came along. I was not saying that they deserved all it, only that they got it.

One of the main reasons for that was the relationship between politicians and the press. Many facts such as health concerns and dalliances were not reported, so the public was kept unaware of things that might have made them less trustful. I think you must agree that THAT has changed.

MiG certainly opened up a lively discussion! My best wishes to him as he begins his next venture onstage and on tour in England.

I finally got around to seeing this play recently, and was impressed; maybe not as much as MiG, but nonetheless...I wrote my own review if anyone's interested:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977028590

Thanks!

I loved the movie.