By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
August 20, 1998
Greta Van Susteren, on CNN's Burden of Proof has been hammering away on an issue of her own for several days now. Over and over she claims that "no other president has EVER had the kind of investigation that President Clinton has had!" Her valiant effort to convince the listeners that "no one" is ever indicted for lying and Kenneth Starr is out of control in pursing President Clinton is simply not supported by history.
When the national media was howling for the impeachment of Richard Nixon over Watergate, it was not the first issue they used to try to get him impeached. During those years, as an active volunteer in Democrat politics, I was puzzled by the hue and cry that went up over the Watergate burglary. First, the tapes actually proved that Richard Nixon knew nothing about the burglary before it happened. He was threatened with impeachment over his attempt to cover up wiretapping activities, which were very common in the 1960s. In fact, the highest number of wiretaps in America's history took place when John F. Kennedy was President and his brother, Robert, was Attorney General.
Specifically the Three Articles of Impeachment the House Judiciary Committee with High Crimes and Misdemeanors, including: obstruction of justice, abuse of office, and unlawful refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. Both Clinton and Janet Reno have failed to comply with congressional subpoenas. While sex with an intern in the Oval Office during work hours is not the issue at hand with Clinton, if it were anyone else it would be Abuse of office. Sen. Bob Packwood was drummed out of the Senate on far lesser charges. The stonewalling on almost every prior attempt at investigation - the health care task force, Billy Dale and Travelgate, Filegate, Campaign Finance investigations - all appear to be far more clear a case of obstruction of justice than Watergate.
As a Democrat, back in 1973, when I received in the mail a petition I was urged to get signatures for to "Impeach Richard Nixon," it was the third petition I had received from Democrat sources determined to get him out of the White House. The first effort to impeach Richard Nixon took place in 1970 after he ordered the bombing of North Vietnam. The Anti-War Activists, those of the ilk of Jane Fonda, whose sympathies were with the Communists of North Vietnam, were furious.
The second petition I received, but never signed, was I believe in 1972 when Nixon called an 18 month moratorium on construction of subsidized low-income housing because of rampant corruption and fraud going on in the program. It had become the milk cow for radical inner city groups whose activities were being financed by public tax funds. Naturally, those who were receiving millions of dollars to push their causes reacted angrily.
The third and final attempt was over Watergate. When the target was Richard Nixon, however, the media saw nothing wrong with arm-twisting, denial of executive privilege and seizure of tape conversations held by the president and his closest advisors. Van Susteran claims is abuse of power by Kenneth Starr to require testimony by Clinton advisors.
The following excerpts from a press conference on October 26, 1973 on impeachment pressures gives a small snapshot on how the media handled the same questions being asked today about impeachment - when the target was a Republican. For example, the question on the President's ability to govern with the controversy taking up so much time:
THE PRESIDENT'S CAPACITY TO GOVERN
The Public Papers of the Presidents, Richard Nixon 1973, Pg. 719, Item 236, August 22
[11.] Q. Mr. President, at any time during the Watergate crisis did you ever consider resigning, and would you consider resigning- if you felt that your capacity to govern had been seriously weakened? And in that connection, how much do you think your capacity to govern has been weakened?
THE PRESIDENT. The answer to the first two questions is no; the answer to the third question is that it is true that as far as the capacity to govern is concerned, that to be under a constant barrage--12 to 15 minutes a night on each of the three major networks for 4 months--tends to raise some questions in the people's mind with regard to the President, and it may raise some questions with regard to the capacity to govern. But I also know this:
I was elected to do a job. Watergate is an episode that I deeply deplore, and had I been running the campaign rather than trying to run the country, and particularly the foreign policy of this country at this time, it would never have happened. But that is water under the bridge, it is gone now.
The point that I make now is that we are proceeding as best we know how to get all those guilty brought to justice in Watergate. But now we must move on from Watergate to the business of the people, and the business of the people is continuing with initiatives we began in the first Administration.
Q. Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT. Just a moment.
We have had 30 minutes of this press conference. I have yet to have, for example, one question on the business of the people, which shows you how we are consumed with this. I am not criticizing the members of the press, because you naturally are very interested in this issue, but let me tell you, years from now people are going to perhaps be interested in what happened in terms of the efforts of the United States to build a structure of peace in the world. They are perhaps going to be interested in the efforts of this Administration to have a kind of prosperity that we have not had since 1955--that is, prosperity without war and without inflation--because throughout the Kennedy years and throughout the Johnson years, whatever prosperity we had was at the cost of either inflation or war or both. I don't say that critically of them, I am simply saying we have got to do better than that.
Now, our goal is to move forward then, to move forward to build a structure of peace. And when you say, do I consider (Pg. 720) resigning, the answer is no, I shall not resign. I have 3 1/2 years to go, or almost 3 1/2 years, and I am going to use every day of those 3 1/2 years trying to get the people of the United States to recognize that, whatever mistakes we have made, that in the long run this Administration, by making this world safer for their children, and this Administration, by making their lives better at home for themselves and their children, deserves high marks rather than low marks. Now, whether I succeed or not, we can judge then.
Van Susteran and others have constantly used Watergate as the epitome of evil - giving the impression that wiretapping was something that only happened when done by Richard Nixon. Actually, political espionage was very common and practiced enthusiastically by every Democrat group I ever knew back in those years. It was one of the reasons I left the party. The following is an excerpt from another press conference, held on August 22, 1973, which involved surveillance in National Security Matters - which was what Watergate was all about. The so-called "plumbers," who broke into the Watergate offices of the Democrats were there to see if they could locate "leaks" that were occurring in matters of National Security.
THE PRESIDENT: We always have to have Mr. Deakin [James Deakin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch] for one.
Q. As long as we are on the subject of the American tradition, and following up Mr. Rather's question, what was authorized, even if the burglary of Dr. Fielding's office was not--what was authorized was the 1970 plan which by your own description permitted illegal acts, illegal breaking and entering, mail surveillance, and the like.
Now, under the Constitution you swore an oath to execute the laws of the United States faithfully. If you were serving in Congress, would you not be considering impeachment proceedings and discussing impeachment possibility against an elected public official who had violated his oath of office?
THE PRESIDENT. I would if I had violated the oath of office. I would also, however, refer you to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, or at least an opinion that even last year--which indicates inherent power in the Presidency to protect the national security in cases like this. I should also point out to you that in the 3 Kennedy years and the 3 Johnson years through 1966, when burglarizing of this type did take place, when it was authorized on a very large scale, there was no tank of impeachment, and it was quite well known.
I shall also point out that when you ladies and gentlemen indicate your great interest in wiretaps, and I understand that, that the height of the wiretaps was when Robert Kennedy was Attorney General in 1963. I don't criticize it, however. He had over 250 in 1963, and of course, the average in the Eisenhower Administration and the Nixon Administration is about 110. But if he had had 10 more and, as a result of wiretaps, had been able to discover the Oswald plan, it would have been worth it.
So, I will go to another question.
In the October 26, 1973 Dan Rather, then assigned to the CBS News White House Press Corp, asked the following blunt question and an attempt to generate pressure for his resignation:.
[5.] Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News]
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could share with us your thoughts, tell us what goes through your mind when you hear people, people who love this country and people who believe in you, say reluctantly that perhaps you should resign or be impeached.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am glad we don't take the vote of this room, let me say. And I understand the feelings of people with regard to impeachment and resignation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rather, you may remember that when I made the rather difficult decision--I thought the most difficult decision of my first term-on December 18, the bombing by B-52's of North Vietnam, that exactly the same words were used on the networks--I don't mean by you, but they were quoted on the networks--that were used now: tyrant, dictator, he has lost his senses, he should resign, he should be impeached.
But I stuck it out, and as a result of that, we not only got our prisoners of war home, as I have often said, on their feet rather than on their knees, but we brought peace to Vietnam, something we haven't had and didn't for over 12 years.
It was a hard decision, and it was one that many of my friends in the press who had consistently supported me on the war up to that time disagreed with. Now, in this instance I realize there are people who feel that the actions that I have taken with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Cox are grounds for impeachment.
I would respectfully suggest that even Mr. Cox and Mr. Richardson have agreed that the President had the right, constitutional right, to dismiss anybody in the Federal Government. And second, I should also point out that as far as the tapes are concerned, rather than being in defiance of the law, I am in compliance with the law.
As far as what goes through my mind, I would simply say that I intend to continue to carry out, to the best of my ability, the responsibilities I was elected to carry out last November. The events of this past week--I know, for example, in your head office in New York, some thought that it was simply a blown-up exercise; there wasn't a real crisis. I wish it had been that. It was a real crisis. It was the most difficult crisis we have had since the Cuban confrontation of 1962.
But because we had had our initiative with the Soviet Union, because I had a basis of communication with Mr. Brezhnev, we not only avoided a confrontation but we moved a great step forward toward real peace in the Mideast.
Now, as long as I can carry out that kind of responsibility, I am going to continue to do this job.
At the time there was an aura of crisis, largely created by the anti-Nixon media that made many feel the nation was itself threatened. In the same press conference this was discussed:
[7.] Q. Mr. President, in 1968, before you were elected, you wrote that too many shocks can drain a nation of its energy and even cause a rebellion against creative change and progress. Do you think America is at that point now?
THE PRESIDENT. I think that many would speculate--I have noted a lot on the networks, particularly, and sometimes even in the newspapers. But this is a very strong country, and the American people, I think, can ride through the shocks that they have--the difference now from what it was in the days of shocks, even when Mr. Lisagor and I first met 25 years ago, is the electronic media.
I have never heard or seen such outrageous, vicious, distorted reporting in 27 years of public life. I am not blaming anybody for that. Perhaps what happened is that what we did brought it about, and therefore, the media decided that they would have to take that particular line.
But when people are pounded night after night with that kind of frantic, hysterical reporting, it naturally shakes their confidence. And yet, I should point out that even in this week, when many thought that the President was shell-shocked, unable to act, the President acted decisively in the interests of peace, in the interests of the country, and I can assure you that whatever shocks gentlemen of the press may have, or others, political people, these shocks will not affect me in my doing my job.
What was going on while the nation's media was hyping the Watergate issue? While many in the media pushed the idea that if President Clinton would only "apologize" that all would be forgiven, that was not even suggested for Richard Nixon. In fact, he DID apologize, over and over, and it merely made the media angrier. At the time the Vietnam war had just been ended, and, in spite of the Democrat controlled House de-funding the war, which threatened the ability to bring the troops home, by ordering the B52's to bomb the supply routes, Nixon bought enough time to get the American soldiers out. However, the Cold War was in full swing and there was threat of another war in Israel. A question which might give this generation a glimpse of that era was asked on that subject: <=p> [8.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to the Middle East crisis for a moment, do you consider that the crisis is over now, and how much longer will the American forces be kept on alert around the world?
THE PRESIDENT. With regard to the alert, the alert has already been discontinued with regard to NORAD, that is, the North American [Air Defense] Command, and with regard to SAC [Strategic Air Command]. As far as other forces are concerned, they are being maintained in a state of readiness, and obviously, Soviet Union forces are being maintained in a state of readiness.
Now, as far as the crisis in the Mideast is concerned, I don't want to leave any impression that we aren't going to continue to have problems with regard to the cease-fire. There will be outbreaks because of the proximity of the antagonistic forces, and there will be some very, very tough negotiating in attempting to reach a diplomatic settlement. But I think now that all parties are going to approach this problem of trying to reach a settlement with a more sober and a more determined attitude than ever before, because the Mideast can't afford--Israel can't afford, Egypt can't afford, Syria can't afford-another war. The world cannot afford a war in that part of the world. And because the Soviet Union and the United States have potentially conflicting interests there, we both now realize that we cannot allow our differences in the Mideast to jeopardize even greater interests that we have, for example, in continuing a détente in Europe, in continuing the negotiations which can lead to a limitation of nuclear arms and eventually reducing the burden of nuclear arms, and in continuing in other ways that can contribute to the peace of the world.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest that with all of the criticism of détente, that without détente, we might have had a major conflict in the Middle East. With détente, we avoided it.
The media gave Richard Nixon no quarter whatsoever. There was a determined, left wing movement to oust him, which I thought strange at the time. Richard Nixon was the president who disentangled America from the Vietnam War that was so hated by the left wing. Yet, within six weeks of ending the war, the media created a aura of crisis over what I personally considered just another routine bit of political espionage which, as Nixon pointed out, was the most rampant during while Robert Kennedy was attorney general.
Can the media save their darling Bill Clinton, the current resident of the White House by convincing the younger generation that no president was ever so mistreated or so "investigated" as Clinton? We shall see.
To Comment: mmostert@originalsources.com