Boston Globe: Was Fred a mole for Nixon?
posted at 1:42 pm on July 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
As if he won’t have a hard enough time distancing himself from number two on the all-time list of presidential unfavorables, now he’s got to distance himself from number one as well.
We had to relive Vietnam in the last election, now we’ll get to relive Watergate in this one. Who’ll be eligible to run in 2012 that was associated with Iran-Contra?
“Thompson was a mole for the White House,” [Scott] Armstrong said in an interview. “Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was.”…
On July 13, 1973, Armstrong, the Democratic staffer, asked Butterfield a series of questions during a private session that led up to the revelation. He then turned the questioning over to a Republican staffer, Don Sanders, who asked [Nixon aide Alexander] Butterfield the question that led to the mention of the taping system.
To the astonishment of everyone in the room, Butterfield admitted the taping system existed.
When Thompson learned of Butterfield’s admission, he leaked the revelation to Nixon’s counsel, J. Fred Buzhardt.
“Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home” to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote [in his Watergate memoir, "At That Point In Time"]. “I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action.”
Armstrong said he and other Democratic staffers had long been convinced that Thompson was leaking information about the investigation to the White House. The committee, for example, had obtained a memo written by Buzhardt that Democratic staffers believed was based on information leaked by Thompson.
Armstrong said he thought the leaks would lead to Thompson’s firing.
This could actually be fertile ground for a Democratic attack in the general if they flesh it out and try to tie it in to Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. Not because the circumstances are similar in any material way, but because it would put Fred in a box with Bush and Nixon as shady, secretive, more-of-the-same Republicans. The problem is, how do they get around the fact that he did indeed ask Butterfield the famous question about listening devices and his general reputation for, er, law and order? And what Republican would dare pursue this line of attack in the primary?
Update: Given Fred’s vociferous support for pardoning Libby, they don’t really need this for a “more of the same” attack, do they?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
The big problem is that most people’s parents aren’t Mormon. So whether that religion happens to be good or bad will be irrelevant come next november. The bottom line is that every liberal media outlet will paint it as a blood-drinking cult, and the 10% of conservative outlets will have a hard time educating everyone from the ground up about an unfamiliar religion.
The past two elections mean nothing. We will be facing a candidate who knows full well she cannot get a majority of the popular vote, but is fanatically dedicated to winning at all costs. Next year will be by far the ugliest election in American history. This is not the time to be breaking any new ground.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Heh heh heh, thats precisely my point. To quote the Gospel of John chapter 1 verse 46…”And Nathanael says to him”, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Change that to “Can anything good come out of Massachusetts?” and you get my point. How could anyone be a politician from Massachusetts and not be more snake oil salesman than not.
It really doesn’t matter if he is, he is forever tainted with a fine coating of oil that has for decades oozed out of Ted Kennedy’s fat bloated carcass to cover every politician that will come out of Massachusetts for a very long time to come.
It stains the political waters of Massachusetts politics so badly that to even compete in Massachusetts means developing a slick polished image that those not from a state drowning in liberal ideology will find repugnant.
Like I said, it is our cynicism that tells us that nobody could possible be that smooth, that slick, that polished without being a snake oil salesman.
Personally I blame Ted Kennedy and Slick Willie…
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I’m only picky when I can AFFORD to be. All I ask is for a conservative Republican candidate who’s electable. If we had two or three of those on the block, I’d be hemming and hawing like crazy.
But that choice just wasn’t there before. Giuliani isn’t conservative; McCain isn’t a Republican; and Romney and most of the other Ten Little Indians don’t appear particularly electable. And of course no amount of cattle-call style “debates” is ever likely to change that.
A lot of us conservatives had been waiting around to see what Newt Gingrich was going to do. But he never really gave off that “electable” vibe either.
Of course there’s still plenty of time before the start of primary season for someone else to rear his less-ugly head.
But for now, Thompson is good enough.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:22 PM
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Don’t forget…Kerry is from there too.
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I don’t feel this way. I don’t think “he’s good enough”. I think he’s more than good enough. Until I see him do or say something that shows me that he isn’t what I think he is, he is more than good enough for me.
If there’s something I don’t know…then soon enough I’ll find out.
I will still vote for Rudy or Mitt, if either of them gets the nom. I’m not suicidal.
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 2:29 PM
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM
You are right, it will be by far the ugliest election in American history, Hillary and her comrades will employee the divide and conquer strategy, their strategy will work unless we develop a strong counter strategy.
The only counter strategy that will work against the Clinton juggernaut is one that draws republicans and independents together under a unified banner.
Hillary is never going to fall for the trick GW pulled on Al Gore, which is to win the electorate college first and foremost.
She is going to do anything that it takes to ensure that the Republican party has its own fatal Ralph Nader attack. I’m sure she is behind the Ron Paul and Micheal Bloomfield campaigns.
Hillary knows with absolute certainty that if she can divide the republican party and keep the independent and libertarian parties unfocused and fragmented that she will be elected.
And sadly unless Fred’s net-centric campaign gains some very serious traction Hillary Clinton is already the De Facto 44 President of the United States of America.
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Possibly the last ever, if she pulls a Hugo, which she just might do.
jdawg on July 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM
When it comes to guessing Presidential winners, I go by a pretty simple theory: which one would you be most likely to buy a used car from? Think back over the last several decades and I think you’ll see it has a ring to it.
Reagan? D’uh.
Bush Sr. over whoever the Hell he ran against in ‘88? Again, d’uh. You don’t have to like Bush; he was recommended by your grandfather for crying out loud.
Clinton? Again, d’uh.
Bush over Gore? Close call here. Bush seemed more earnest, but Gore seemed like the kind of idiot who you’d want to wait and see if he made a pricing mistake in your favor…
Bush over Kerry? Once again, d’uh.
The problem is that Mitt Romney comes off as a Republican version of John Kerry. He’s not the sort of person YOU would buy a used car from; but he looks to you like the kind of guy you’d think SOMEONE ELSE would buy a used car from.
As I said, it’s still way early and who knows what people are thinking about now. But when the time comes, I don’t think we’ll fall into the same trap the moonbats did. We’ll go with our guts.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:41 PM
She does, and someone will take her out to the woodshed. It has been proven that we take only so much before we act.
Remember that little Shamnesty thing we went thru – and WON?
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Oh crap…Now that I have foolishly stared unblinkingly into the darkness of the abyss I really need a beer…Be back in a few when my friend Samuel Adams has given me counsel on removing this dark visage from my poor troubled mind…
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I was feeling kinda pessimistic during the Shamnesty fiasco, thinking people would just let it pass. But people proved that there IS a line that pols can traverse to get their backsides kicked by We the People.
I’m firmly back in my half-full mentality.
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Do you remember how the media practically had an orgasm every time Clinton spoke? Nothing with that crowd mattered. She could do it, and the media would be all for it.
jdawg on July 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Ron Paul seemed obvious to me, but I couldn’t figure out the Bloomfield slant until I looked at it from a purely electoral point of view.
Bloomfield is like a guided missile designed to target Giuliani. He would sabotage Giuliani in New York and Pennsylvania. And, by campaigning heavily in Florida, he’d practically guarantee a Clinton victory.
A politer-than-thou RINO won two skin-of-his teeth elections by out-triangulating utterly incompetent opponents. So some idiots think that’s our only hope for the future of the Party. But mark my words: if we try to pull that kind of “Bush league” crap on a shark like Hillary, we may as well fit her for her crown right now.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Hon, I wasn’t talking about THOSE people. I was talking about WE THE PEOPLE.
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 3:04 PM
logis on July 6, 2007 at 2:53 PM
For the most part I agree, however I believe you are wrong about incompetence levels of Bush’s opponents. Al Gore was anything but incompetent, now don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say anything positive about Bush, but with a B.A. from Yale and a M.B.A from Harvard and an I.Q in the 135 range, he beat Gore and Kerry the old fashioned way. He out smarted them.
The part where I totally agree with you is…Bill and Hillary have political smarts out the fu$king ying yang. It’s going to take a strategy from so far out in left field to blindside the Clinton machine it may well be impossible to do. One thing is for sure, they are not going without one hell of a dirty brutal ugly fight.
Al Gore actually ran a brilliant and I damn near voted for him because of it. Bush came up with a strategy that completely blindsided Gore.
Personally I think that is what lead to Gore’s intellectual and emotional breakdown. He just couldn’t accept the fact somebody he had been lead to believe was his intellectual inferior outsmarted him.
Kerry on the other hand just had that snake oil salesman feel about him that half the country couldn’t stomach and despite the enormous anyone but Bush phenomena he just couldn’t shake that image.
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 3:15 PM
No, it’s going to take something from RIGHT field.
Don’t get me wrong, electoral tactics are all nice and good. The problem is that so many people see politics as only a game, and they forget that it’s also – well – politics!
The primary strategy is to nominate someone with the best political philosophy we can find. Contrary to liberal belief, Ronald Reagan didn’t win a LANDSLIDE through his smile alone – and he sure as Hell didn’t win it through his snappy comebacks to debate opponents and liberal MC’s. He won a LANDSLIDE because of his political views, and his ability to clearly articulate them.
We can play all the games we want. But all the tricky moves our opponents can think of will mean little if we bury them.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Oh, I didn’t think those people mattered anymore, except election time.
And, of course, when we bring thier phone systems down…
jdawg on July 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM
doriangrey on July 6, 2007 at 3:15 PM
There were a lot of things I couldn’t stomach regarding Kerry.
jdawg on July 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM
You were talking about MEDIA folks orgasm’ing when the Clintons spoke. The media doesn’t have the power it thinks it does anymore. The MEDIA was FOR the Shamnesty.
The people that matter are the ones who spoke up and told Congress to go jump.
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM
tickleddragon on July 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM
True enough, but you know as well as I most people get thier news from 30-second media soundbytes, 99.9% of which are either biased to the left or patently false.
jdawg on July 6, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4