Could any of you recommend books about Watergate?

I've learned quite a bit just reading here on this forum, but, I have to share this computer with my kids who think they have to do their homework on it!!!

I've already ordered Silent Coup. I just need a few more suggestions.
Thanks for any help.

Pat

Hello Pat,

Everyone has their favorites. I think Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Katharine The Great by Deborah Davis are two important books. Certainly, there are more.

Of course, Silent Coup has an extensive bibliography that will give you some ideas.

I almost forgot. The Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby belongs on any list.

Thank you Michael.

I have ordered "The Yankee and the Cowboy War"
I'll look at the others after the holidays. Shipping this time of year takes too long!!

Pat

QUOTE (Pat Powell @ Nov 25 2006, 11:53 PM)

Thank you Michael.

I have ordered "The Yankee and the Cowboy War"
I'll look at the others after the holidays. Shipping this time of year takes too long!!

Pat

Pat: Carl's book is being scanned here on the forum. Soon all lthe world will be able to read Oglesby's brilliant words.

Dawn

_____________________________

Hi Pat,

Hougan's book as well as that by Colodny/Gettlin are companion pieces to one another. But Hougan's is a text book in many ways to investigative journalism and delves into whole areas untouched by our guardians of the press. I consider it groundbreaking and it is at once sad and frightening that it wasn't until ten years after Nixon's resignation that something of this calibre was published.

I recommend the section in "Secret Agenda..." wherein Mr. Hougan attempts to reconcile or at least rationalize McCord's apparent (to some, obvious) sabotaging of the 6/17/72 sortie; then, go to the postings here of Mr. Ashton Gray and watch as he peels away the remaining layers of the onion, right to the core.

In "Silent Coup" Mr. Roger Morris' superb and inciteful Forward to the book is a collectors' item and, I believe, the definitive essay on the fiction perpetrated by the media and, especially, academia (My favorite couplet: "Books and movies were confected. A generation of students stood inspired by discreet fraud.").


Yours Truly,
John Gillespie

Pat, I would recommend reading books based on the accepted story before embarking down Secret Agenda and Silent Coup road. I've found Nightmare by J. Anthony Lukas and Watergate by Fred Emery to be informative, while sticking to the seedy facts. If you want to expand your horizons then go to Yankee and Cowboy War, Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. This will give you a tremendous overview. If you want to go on from there, you should go back and read the first hand accounts, from Dean, Liddy, Magruder, Hunt, McCord, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Nixon, Colson, Woodstein, etc... At that point, you'll know as much as anyone.

Pat's advice is akin to recommending that someone studying the Kennedy assassination begin by reading You Are The Jury by David Belin or Portrait of The Assassin by Gerald Ford.

Pat obviously believes that there is an "accepted story" when it comes to Watergate. Many would dispute this.

His advice to read from as many sources as possible is sound, but I fail to see what difference the order makes.

Dispute over what constitutes the "seedy facts" is precisely what has spawned so many books with varying accounts about what we call Watergate.

As I mentioned in my original reply, the bibliography of Silent Coup will contain all of the above. You will be able to decide what you want to read, and in what order. You won't need us to tell you.

Thank you so much for all your replies. I've shown my wife my 'wish list' on Amazon.
I picked up my first two books this morning. "Silent Coup" and "Destiny Betrayed". "Secret Agenda" is on the list.

I'm not sure if I'm going to get any of the "first hand accounts" of any of the gentlemen listed. Although I very much respect the opinion of Pat Speer as I've read many of his posts here and on Lancer, I'm not sure the first hand accounts would be very factual, considering where they are coming from.

Again, thank you for the recommendations.

Pat

I beg to differ. It is only through reading a number of first hand accounts that you can get close to the truth. If all you read is conspiracy theories written by conspiracy theorists, you will be deliberately handicapping yourself. Authors of books like the Warren Report, Secret Agenda, and Silent Coup have a particular take on history, and deliberately ignore all the evidence that doesn't support their theory. First-hand accounts on the other hand are usually self-serving, and deliberately skewer history to make the protagonist look good. Which is why reading a number of them is helpful. If you can find something unflattering that is admitted to by someone in a first-hand account, you can pretty much take it to the bank, particularly if it is acknowledged by others in their first-hand accounts.


Michael's comparison of Nightmare and Watergate to Portrait of the Assassin and You Are The Jury is way off base, in my opinion. The first two are books written by onlookers, weighing the evidence, one contemporaneously with the event and one from some distance. The second two are written by participants and are designed to shut off speculation and support their prior conclusions. Apples and oranges.

If someone can read the Watergate Hearings and the Impeachment Report and not find the accepted facts surrounding Watergate seedy, I don't what seedy is. Here we have a president's staff paying men to break into psychiatrist's offices, beat up war-protesters, wire-tap journalists, disrupt political campaigns, etc... Here we have a president accepting large cash donations from ITT, Texas oilmen, the Dairy Industry and Howard Hughes, and doing God knows what in exchange. Here we have a president pressuring the IRS to investigate his political opponents. There was a lot more to the Watergate investigation than finding out who planted some bugs in the DNC. That some try to turn it into a sex scandal, and others try to sex it up by making it be about MKULTRA. experiments, is a shame. The Watergate investigation, in my opinion, is the clearest view we've been given into the seedy underbelly of American politics. The Bay of Pigs thing could very well mean the Kennedy assassination, That people still feel there must have been something more is to me a bit bizarre. i

Well, sure it an "accepted story," Michael. Untold millions have been spent shoving it down everybody's throat. It's "accepted" the way rape is "accepted."

By the way: this thread is a floor show to effect more such "acceptance." Same old floor show as ever.

Ashton

Give me a break. There has never been a single official story about Watergate shoved down everybody's throat a la the Warren Report. Nixon loyalists, from the very beginning, hinted that poor old Tricky Dick was a Patsy. There was almost from the beginning this sense that the true story would never be known until Deep Throat's identity was revealed. Now his identity has been revealed and people still aren't happy. For some, having the number 2 man in the FBI be the rat that helped oust the crook is just not as sexy as having the number 50 man in the CIA be the rat. So they try to twist history to be more sexy. Have fun.

Comparing Secret Agenda to the Warren Report. Now that's apples and oranges.

Who in this thread said that? C'mon Pat. You've morphed your original term "seedy facts" into "accepted facts." You accuse the Warren Report (and by definition, its authors) of having a particular take on history, and ignoring all the evidence that didn't support their theory. How do you know the same thing wasn't done at the Watergate Hearings? Just because you want to equate the Watergate Hearings and Report with the "accepted facts" doesn't mean it's so. If they truly had wanted to get to the bottom of things they could have been more aggressive in making the FBI and CIA divulge. They didn't. In fact they looked the other way. Some see those televised hearings as a dog and pony show.


Portrait of The Assassin & You Are the Jury were first hand accounts, written by participants of the Warren Commission.

By that logic, if all a person had read about the Kennedy assassination would have been the Warren Report, Rush to Judgement, Accessories After the Fact, Whitewash, Six Seconds in Dallas, Best Evidence, Conspiracy, Crossfire, Destiny Betrayed, Bloody Treason, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Harvey & Lee, Breach of Trust, The Last Investigation, and Someone Would Have Talked.... they would be deliberately handicapping themselves. I submit that they would be closer to the truth than most.

Conspiracy books often show evidence that doesn't support their theory. Then they proceed to refute it. Its up to the reader to decide whether they succeed or fail. I never had the opportunity to purchase and read all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission. I learned what was in there by reading Lane, Weisberg, and Meagher.

Every one of the conspiracy books I mentioned didn't claim they solved they case. All of them called for further study, further investigation, more research, and a release of classified documents. Many of them admitted the truth might never be known. What they all had in common (except the WR) was that they proved the government version was severely lacking. And they were right. And guess what? Many conspiracy books contain liberal references to "first hand accounts." In fact, all of the ones I listed do.

Ask for a suggestion on this Forum, and one is apt to get a ton of advice. Here's mine. Steer clear of people that have figured it all out. Steer clear of people that are convinced they know more than you do or are smarter than you are. Steer clear of people that want to make up your mind for you. If an author is biased, has an agenda, or deliberately ignores evidence....You will be able to figure it out for yourself.

[quote name='Michael Hogan' date='Nov 28 2006, 02:23 PM' post='82869']
[quote name='Pat Speer' post='82841' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:44 PM']
Pat, I would recommend reading books based on the accepted story before embarking down Secret Agenda and Silent Coup road.
[/quote]
Pat's advice is akin to recommending that someone studying the Kennedy assassination begin by reading You Are The Jury by David Belin or Portrait of The Assassin by Gerald Ford.

Pat obviously believes that there is an "accepted story" when it comes to Watergate. Many would dispute this.

His advice to read from as many sources as possible is sound, but I fail to see what difference the order makes.

__________________________________
Mike,

It's my understanding he has an autographed copy of "A Piece Of Tape..."
I'm surprised it didn't make the list.

JG

JG,

Oddly enough my copy is inscribed thusly:

August 26, 1974

To Linda

Sorry I missed you
on my Williamsport visit--glad
to have met your husband and
to have received the great Rotarian
hospitality of your city.

Best Regards,

James McCord

I agree with Michael's selection. All four tackle the contradictions in the traditional story of Watergate. I am no fan of Nightmare (J. Anthony Lukas) and Watergate (Fred Emery). They tell us little more than was reported at the time.

I have also read most of the first-hand accounts of Watergate. I would especially recommend those by Dean, Haldeman and Ehrlichman.

I have yet to find a really good book on the subject. Does one exist?

John,
I've got two of the four. The other two are on my wish list at Amazon.
I'm still debating on the first hand accounts.

This is a rather new book. I haven't read it, but I have a feeling that it is written from a pro Woodward-Bernstein point of view. Still, it might be a good read.

Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate
by Alicia Shephard

http://www.amazon.com/Woodward-Bernstein-L...TF8&s=books

Thanks Michael. Looks interesting.

I've got 5 books coming for my Christmas gifts from my family.
I'm definitely going to have some great reading material for the winter.