Category: Watergate Scandal

The film The Post can be deemed historically accurate to a large extent due to it staying true to the actual events that occurred in 1971. Even though some crearive freedom was taken to make it more entertaining, the movie encompasses the story and to a large degree tells it accurately. The movie’s plot is written in such a way that majority of it reflects what happened in the past. The director’s choice to tell the story from The Washington Post’s point of view may make it seem historically inaccurate when really they have shown us a different percpective. There are some things in the movie that diminish its historical accuracy. The movie to a great extenr can be regarded as historically accurate.

The story line of the movie closely references what happened in the past, making it historically accurate. The movie depicts the Vietnam War as it opens and the role Ellsberg played during it and after his return from war. We are even shown the company he worked for after his service, The RAND cooperation, and how he used it to bring in and duplicate papers, (A). This reference is proven to be true in the newspaper used in Source C. The movie captures the involvement of other newspapers, even though it is being shown through The Post’s point of view, they keep it accurate by mentioning other papers such as The Times which we are told in Source C play a major role in the publishing of the Papers. The reaction of the people is accurately depicted even the tension in the courtroom is captured by the film, Source A. the desire of the people is also accurately captured, it is known that the people wanted to stay true to the Frist Amendment in Source B. the film captured small details that made the movie more historically accurate as it was able to be placed in context.

The focus of the movie is placed on the Washington Post, this is where some people may think it loses its accuracy. Whilst one may argue that there is too much focus placed on The Post, (D), the movie really does just focus on The Post’s side of the story as The Times’ has already been told. The Times was not the only paper to publish the Papers, (C), but it was however the first. The little mention of The Times and Daniel Ellsberg whom is not made into a key figure as that is not what the story is about. It is about the role of Kay Graham and Ben Bradlee and how they were left to take care of the paper, (A), because of this that is why there is little mention of other papers or key figures of the actual story. This movie was created in order for a different perspective to be seen as we have already seen it from Ellsberg’s and the Times’. The historical accuracy of the movie is not diminished because they have chosen to focus it from the point of view of another side, which is where some people think the movie went wrong.

There are however some things that diminish the historical accuracy of the movie. The movie makes a bold and incorrect statement by saying The Washington Post was first to publish the Pentagon Papers when really it was the times, (C). in the movie we are shown Kay Graham being given the Papers at her birthday party, when really this was an addition, (D), made by the director to make the movie more interesting. The movie portrays President Nixon in a negative light and often shows him to be a villain, as they were looking for an antagonist to make the victory of the papers more impactful. Nixon was really just protecting his predecessors as he had nothing to hide in the papers, (D), and was really the one to bring an end to the USA’s involvement in the Vietnam war. There is the addition to the famous Watergate scandal into the movie, even though this event only took place a year later, (D). this places the movie out of context and maybe its biggest inaccuracy. The movie however even after its accuracy was diminished can still be regarded as historically accurate.

The movie The Post, to a great extent, can be deemed historically accurate even after it has taken some creative freedom. The movie mostly sticks to the storyline, enough so that we can place it in context and analyze it with what actually happened. The movie focuses on a different side of the story, giving us a different perspective to learn from. Even after creative freedom is taken and small additions are made it is still historically accurate. Therefore, the movie The Post can be regarded to a large extent as historically accurate.

The Post tells the story of the Pentagon Papers and it focuses on the Washington Post’s role in the battle between the press and the government. The issue arose when the White House kept the way they were handling the Vietnam War under wraps and did not inform the public on their lack of results regarding the war. This was the first time the American government had tried to stop the functioning of the press. It starts with Daniel Ellsberg coming back from serving in the war with confidential information revealing the lies the government had told the people of the USA for years. The story was the dealt with years later by the New York Times after Ellsberg was successful in receiving classified documents detailing the previous year’s actions in the partaking of the war. After the ruling from the court to stop the publishing of the papers The Post found its way to the documents that had been in the Times’ possession. They were sitting on many classified papers they could not publish, a decision was made by the new publisher, Katharine Graham and the editor, Ben Bradlee to publish the papers even after what had happened to the Times. There is a battle within Graham on whether or not to publish abd risk losing the paper and the little respect her peers had for her because of her gender and to do what was right as a publisher and tell the story. They added the Watergate scandal to insert another interesting factor and make the viewers engage more with the protagonists of the story. The Post is of Graham and her team moving around the minefield that is the government and for Graham, her gender and position in the paper during a time which was not ready to see women as anything other than subservient, all to publish the truth. We are shown and taught the constitutional rights of the press and how the executive of the country has no right to cover up whatever they would like to.

The campaign against Hubert Humphrey, and the campaign against Kennedy, who by the time of the time piece had already been assassinated, further represent an important turning point in Nixon’s life and political career. Before the 1960 election, making use of petty, quasi-illegal dirty tricks was a means of victory for Nixon – he had scarcely lost an election before then and was seen as a powerful, young, up-and-coming politician. However, following the losses to Kennedy and Brown, Nixon’s use of political dirty tricks seemingly becomes more calculated and long-term. Understanding the context of the presidential victory over Hubert Humphrey is essential to understanding the use of dirty tricks in that campaign.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson dropped a bombshell: ”I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President’. There has been much debate over the years on why this decision was made when LBJ was clearly the front-runner for the next year’s election. Just before his decision, Johnson had commissioned a poll in which the public overwhelmingly voted in favor of Johnson’s reelection. Chief of Staff James Jones states that “the real reason for Mr. Johnson’s withdrawal was Vietnam”, which had been a “blot on his Administration”. Jones further acknowledges that by deciding not to run, LBJ was able to focus all his efforts on ending the war (Jones, NYT, 1988). LBJ, however, would not be able to end the war. He had announced a bombing halt, and had been on the cusp of bringing the North and South together for talks, but mysteriously, it seemed to many, those talks never materialized. One of the reasons for this seemingly mysterious dissolvement of peace talks was Richard Nixon, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President.

As Thomas writes, “Months before Nixon learned that a bombing halt was imminent, he had set up his own back channel to Saigon”. This channel had been made possible through the work of a woman many simply called ‘The Dragon Lady’. Her name was actually Anna Chennault, and she had come to the United States after marrying the World War II ace Claire Chennault. After Claire died in 1958, Anna moved to Washington, and soon became deeply involved in the political circles of that time. This allowed her to rub shoulders with men such as John Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. She was aligned most closely politically with the Republican Party, and supported Nixon as he ran for president. When LBJ announced the bombing halt, Nixon saw it as a dirty way to promote Humphrey’s candidacy – if the Democrats could end the Vietnam War, the voters would choose them over the Republicans. Therefore, Nixon was determined to ensure that no peace would be made – he himself was running on the policy of being the one to end the war. It was clear to him by this point that if the bombing halt and peace talks were to commence, Nixon would likely lose the election. His lead was already slipping away. Thus, he sent Chennault to South Vietnam, with the intention of her working covertly with the South Vietnamese government until they were convinced that the best way forward would be to ignore LBJ’s call for peace talks and instead wait for a Republican president – Nixon – to end the war. After days of secret back-channel negotiations, the South Vietnamese government responded to LBJ to say that they would not sit down with him for talks. The peace talks thus derailed, Nixon won the election by “just enough.” It is clear that LBJ suspected Nixon all the while. In ‘Richard Nixon: A Life’, John A. Farrell writes, “With transcripts of FBI wiretaps in hand, Johnson blamed Nixon for strangling a chance for peace” (pg. 343). However, LBJ never told the public of his suspicions, and instead accepted the falling through of negotiations as something that came about legally and without covert intervention. Yet it is clear today, as well, that Nixon almost certainly played a major role, personally, in derailing the peace talks. In RN, Farrell writes, “Haldeman’s notes from the 1968 campaign show how Nixon personally directed the skullduggery – conducting backstage negotiations with a foreign country in violation of U.S. law”.

The actions that Nixon committed during this election were treasonous, yet nonetheless they were effective, granting Nixon just enough of a lead in the polls to win the election. It should be noted that during his first four years in office, Nixon achieved a number of policy successes that are now all but lost to history due to the overshadowing nature of the Watergate scandal. He began the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and passed into law the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, he “ordered federal agencies to shed surplus properties – which were transformed into parks, for families to enjoy”. He also worked to desegregate schools in the South, although this is less clear if this is more of political tactic to gain support below the Mason-Dixon line or if it was based in a legitimate desire for racial equality. During these first four years, his greatest diplomatic triumph came at the end of his first term, when, in 1972, he became the first U.S. president to visit mainland China, where he met with Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. This opening of the previously closed communist China gave Nixon substantially more negotiating power in the Far East. He furthermore helped to lessen Cold War tensions through his policy of détente and his meeting with the Russian premier Leonid Brezhnev, bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear war, which is where it had been under Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile crises. These diplomatic triumphs, however, were to be eventually overshadowed by the break-in that occurred on June 17, 1972, and the ensuing scandal.

On June 17, 1972, five men were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C by security guard Frank Willis. At the time, it seemed to be an isolated event, perhaps carried out by disillusioned anti-Communists. Nothing appeared to be stolen, and, according to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, it seemed to be a rather unimportant burglary. Yet in court, the first link to the White House was realized when the chief burglar, James McCord, revealed that he had formerly worked for the CIA. Over the following two years, Woodward and Bernstein would “follow the money,” as Deep Throat advised, working to expose the inner dirty workings of the Nixon administration to the public. It turned out that first and foremost, there was a secret slush fund in the administration, controlled by the top of the president’s men: HR Haldeman, Chief of Staff; John Dean, Counsel to the President; John Ehrlichman, Assistant for Domestic Affairs; and Gordon Liddy, chief operative of the “Plumbers unit” in the White House. This slush fund was a collection of campaign donations to Nixon, that evidently were not being used in the way they were intended. It transpired that these funds were used for secret hush payments to men whom Nixon did not want going public. These men included the Watergate burglars.

As the trial, led by Judge John Sirica, progressed, more information came out about the nature of the Nixon White House that had been previously unknown. It became clear for the first time to the public that Nixon was not a politician who had ran by all the rules and was solely interested in the betterment of the United States. Rather, he was paranoid – paranoid that some one would take his power from him, that he would lose an election. For years, he had engaged in what he called ‘ratfucking’, series of small dirty tricks that were meant to discredit or disgrace his opponents. Examples include moving the location of a convention, so when the candidate showed up, nobody would be there; or ‘leaking’ fake information about the candidates, so that they would be discredited in the eyes of the public.

The Watergate scandal is important in relation to Nixon’s dirty tricks because it was the first instance where in trying to win an election, Nixon managed to do so but got caught. It was a moment that Nixon spent the rest of his life trying to explain away, but it remains that what the public remembers of Richard Nixon was the Watergate scandal, his claim that he was “not a crook,” and the lies that brought down his presidency. It would be impossible for one to say definitively that Nixon would not have won had he not had access to Murray Chotiner and other fixers and had he not been intent on cheating to win his elections. Yet given the situations of the elections in which he most powerfully abused his power – 1968 and 1972 – it is clear those elections would have been much closer had Nixon not tried to fix the results. In the 1968 election, Nixon had to ensure that he could run on the slogan of ending the war, so he committed what turned out to be treason to ensure victory. In 1972, Nixon was worried the front-runner, Ed Muskie, had a chance at beating him, so he commissioned the Muskie letter , which effectively ruined Muskie’s candidacy. These election results may have been very different had Nixon not acted the way he did – thus the use of dirty tricks in these campaigns is monumental in history. Nixon’s legacy remains one of scandal and corruption, of a man who was so paranoid and greedy for power that he was willing to go to any reach to ensure that he remained in control. However, this legacy is based largely on the cause for his resignation – the Watergate scandal, and the lies that were told by the administration to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigation. Although the victory sign that he threw as he boarded the Air Force One helicopter to end his tenure as president remains his trademark, a man seemingly victorious even as he resigns from the most powerful position in the world, his career in politics spanned many decades longer than the six or so years he spent in the White House. Most know him as the man behind Watergate, but in fact he was the secretive, paranoid man behind years of dirty dealings and cheap shots that got him from being a poor son of a violent father in Whittier, California, to being President of the United States of America. His use of dirty tricks got him the glory he desired over forty years of incredible political success, but it eventually made him what he was most paranoid of – a pariah as the only man to resign the presidency.

By the time Nixon resigned in disgrace, even some of his formerly staunchest supporters did not support him any longer. In fact, one of the reasons he chose to resign was he had been told by a number of his Republican friends in Congress that if he did not resign, he would certainly be impeached. Yet justice in the courts was never really brought against Nixon: for better or for worse, Ford pardoned him in 1974, only a month after Nixon’s resignation.

The Watergate scandal is important in relation to Nixon’s dirty tricks because it was the first instance where in trying to win an election, Nixon managed to do so but got caught. It was a moment that Nixon spent the rest of his life trying to explain away, but it remains that what the public remembers of Richard Nixon was the Watergate scandal, his claim that he was ‘not a crook’, and the lies that brought down his presidency. It would be impossible for one to say definitively that Nixon would not have won had he not had access to Murray Chotiner and other fixers and had he not been intent on cheating to win his elections. Yet given the situations of the elections in which he most powerfully abused his power – 1968 and 1972 – it is clear those elections would have been much closer had Nixon not tried to fix the results. In the 1968 election, Nixon had to ensure that he could run on the slogan of ending the war, so he committed what turned out to be treason to ensure victory. In 1972, Nixon was worried the front-runner, Ed Muskie, had a chance at beating him, so he commissioned the Muskie letter , which effectively ruined Muskie’s candidacy. These election results may have been very different had Nixon not acted the way he did – thus the use of dirty tricks in these campaigns is monumental in history.

Nixon’s legacy remains one of scandal and corruption, of a man who was so paranoid and greedy for power that he was willing to go to any reach to ensure that he remained in control. However, this legacy is based largely on the cause for his resignation – the Watergate scandal, and the lies that were told by the administration to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigation. Although the victory sign that he threw as he boarded the Air Force One helicopter to end his tenure as president remains his trademark, a man seemingly victorious even as he resigns from the most powerful position in the world, his career in politics spanned many decades longer than the six or so years he spent in the White House. Most know him as the man behind Watergate, but in fact he was the secretive, paranoid man behind years of dirty dealings and cheap shots that got him from being a poor son of a violent father in Whittier, California, to being President of the United States of America. His use of dirty tricks got him the glory he desired over forty years of incredible political success, but it eventually made him what he was most paranoid of – a pariah as the only man to resign the presidency.

On April 30, 1973, President Richard Nixon addressed the nation not three months after his second inauguration, stating that he had fired two of his White House aides for their participation in what was to be known as the Watergate scandal. Those that were let go were Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Nixon said that he was in Florida when he first heard the news reports on the break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Building in Washington, D.C., and stated: “I was appalled at this senseless illegal action, and I was shocked to learn that employees of my Re-election Committee were apparently among those guilty’ (Nixon, 243). Nixon claimed that he was given assurances repeatedly that his aides were not involved. He believed that he trusted those giving him these reports. He ordered that everyone was to cooperate fully with the FBI and others in their investigations or resign from their service. Nixon stated, “I will not place blame on subordinates; the responsibility, therefore, belongs here in this office, I accept it’ (Nixon, 248). He went on to say, “There can be no whitewash at the White House’ (Nixon, 252). The arrest and testimonies of several of Nixon’s aides and Nixon’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution led to Nixon’s impending impeachment and the resignation of his presidency.

On July 16, 1973, an aide revealed in his testimony, that there were recordings of everything said in each of the President’s offices, which the President then refused to turn over to the prosecutor. In 1974 the tapes of the wiretapping and the recordings of conversations between Nixon and his staff were subpoenaed, but the President claimed to be honoring it by giving only transcripts of the conversations which announced his innocence, alleging that the tapes absolved him of any wrongdoing. In one of the transcripts, Nixon is speaking to Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Henry Petersen stating, “I made clear there would be no coverup, we all have to do the right thing, we cannot have this kind of business, and we are going to get to the bottom of this thing’ (Nixon, 267). Speaking to John Dean, Nixon stated, “Tell the truth, that is the thing I have told everybody around here’ (Nixon, 267). Nixon firmly stated during this time he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

In May of 1973, William Merrill contacted Jack Miller, an old friend, to see if he could give his name to the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Jack Miller agreed to give Archibald Cox his name to become part of the prosecuting staff. Later that day, he sent a letter to the Special Prosecutor to let them know he was interested in becoming a part of their staff. William Merrill knew that his salary would be significantly lower than what he was currently making in his law firm if he were to be given the job. Merrill waited for a few days, then made an excuse to go to Washington on a separate business matter to talk to Cox in person. In mid-May, he got a call from Cox’s office stating that they wanted him as part of the staff, Merrill would require an FBI clearance. Even before the FBI clearance came in, on June 18, he received a phone call from the office asking if he could be available right away, to which he agreed. The next day, he arrived in Washington D. C. and took the oath as a Watergate Special Prosecutor in which he promised: “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America’ (Merrill, 8).

His first interview was with Charles Colson, who said he had received $5,000 in cash for break-in expenses from Everette Howard Hunt, a CIA agent and Gordon Liddy, an FBI agent. After the interview, Merrill in his excitement, almost shouted, “If he testifies, the defendants are dead’ (Merrill, 16). It seemed that they had only just begun to uncover a little bit of the scandal. It would seem that David Young, of the Special Investigations Unit was in charge of getting the Plumbers to block the exposure of information that was supposedly being of great risk to the national security. William Merrill knew it was of great importance to interview David Young, a member of Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council. David Young had been recruited from a large prominent New York law firm by Henry Kissinger. In Young’s first interview with the original prosecutors he gave such roundabout answers that the prosecutors knew he was covering up information, his attorney told them if he was not given immunity, he would not testify, citing the Fifth Amendment. Allegedly, David Young had the only copy of a memo authorizing the break-in. In the memo, dated August 11, 1971, David Young and Egil Krogh recommended: “a covert operation to examine all the files still held by Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst’ (Merrill, 16).

In July of 1973, Merrill met with General Robert Cushman, deputy director of the CIA. Merrill received a copy of a transcript of a conversation that Cushman had recorded between him and Hunt (unbeknownst to Hunt). During this time, the former Attorney General Mitchell was testifying in front of the Ervin Committee. Mitchell testified that the cover-up of the burglary was to avoid public disclosure. Due to Mitchell’s testimony, Merrill suggested to Henry Ruth, deputy special prosecutor, “that we should consider the advisability of having the trial of the Fielding break-in before the trial of the Watergate cover-up’ (Merrill, 24).

A confrontation between Cox and Nixon had been escalating since Cox was appointed Special Prosecutor for the Watergate cover-up. Nixon did not cooperate with Cox concerning the submission and access to documents and files that had been repeatedly requested. Cox was also met with more than a few obstructions for obtaining the tapes of the wiretaps coordinated by the White House.

On July 23, Nixon refused to hand over the tapes, Cox stated publicly in an interview; that he would have them subpoenaed if Nixon did not produce the files. Cox went to Judge Sirica to obtain a subpoena for the tapes that Cox felt they held strong evidence of the Watergate coverup. The President’s lawyers opposed the subpoena; however, Judge Sirica ordered compliance concerning the subpoena. The President’s lawyers appealed the subpoena order; however, the appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals denied the subpoena order, Cox knew by continuing to insist on getting the tapes, that he was putting his career at risk. After Cox held a press conference, he returned to his office and stated: ‘Well, I might not be here Monday’ (Merrill, 44).

In June of 1973, John Dean made a statement of the misdeeds by the Republicans in the White House in which he also named Nixon and Colson; however, he was not able to produce evidence to back his statement and was accused of being a bitter ex-coworker.

In July 13, 1973, Alexander Butterfield, Haldeman’s former deputy, took to the witness stand. He stated that the President recorded their meetings on tapes that Judge Sirica forced to be handed over. On October 19, 1973, Nixon suggested that Judge Sirica take the transcripts instead of the tapes (Convard, Quentin, et al., 12).

On October 19, John Dean would plead guilty for his role concerning the Watergate break-in; later that same day, Nixon stated he would hand over a summary of the tapes and that he wanted Cox to stop trying to get the tapes by subpoena. The press quoted Cox as saying “For me to comply with those instructions would violate my solemn pledge to the country to challenge exaggerated claims of executive privilege. I shall not violate my promise’ (Merrill, 44).

Later, after the press conference held by Cox, Merrill stopped by his office to grab some memos he had on evidence pertaining to President Nixon. He found out that Cox had been fired and that the offices had been sealed off by the FBI. He had gone to a friend’s house for dinner, which was also an attorney; after everyone else left, Merrill told his friend what the FBI had done so he told Merrill to make copies and he would put them in a safety deposit box for safekeeping. After leaving his friends’ law office, Merrill expected the FBI to be at his house and was surprised to find that they were not there.

A few days after Cox went into the office to say goodbye, Merrill met with Acting Attorney General Bork and the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice Henry Peterson concerning the Fielding break-in; Bork signed a letter to the White House, pressing for documents and files. In the Washington Post, it was reported that “Nothing has dismayed the White House more than the aggressive investigation of the plumbers by the Cox task force…Nixon aides believe Merrill’s investigation…intends to implicate Mr. Nixon himself and that Merrill was said to be “an implacable foe of the President’ (Merrill, 48).

When the Supreme Court agreed on the ruling of the Commission, the tapes were handed over. The tapes made clear that Nixon had done everything within his power to stop FBI investigations. Since he now had no deniability, on August 8, 1974 Richard Nixon resigned his post as the thirty-seventh President of the United States.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, evidence would suggest that politics had gained a ‘black eye’. It would seem that at the time of all of the allegations if Nixon was innocent of any wrongdoing, he would have given the tapes instead of a summary of the transcriptions of the meetings that had taken place between him and his trusted office subordinates. Assumedly, Nixon thought he could get away with corrupting justice and creating a breach in the Constitutional rights of the American people. Perhaps, had President Nixon told the truth from the very beginning, there would not have been such a lengthy trial with so many put on the stand to testify against him. As evidence would also suggest, there should not have been any ‘whitewash by the White House’. It would seem that the Constitution proved to have more power than even the President of the United States.

Works Cited

1. Convard, Quentin, et al. The Watergate Scandal: The Conspiracy That Brought Down Nixon. 50Minutes.com, 2017. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com.
2. Merrill, William H. Watergate Prosecutor. Michigan State University Press, 2008. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt130hjkn.
3. Perlstein, Rick, editor. Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents. Princeton University Press, 2008. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sg9w.

What does Zinn mean by Under Control?

Zinn makes it quite clear on how impressive and amazing the United States of America truly is even after all the behind the scene dirt that came out. Furthermore; the events that occurred during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. This reality of American’s perception came into light in the 1970s. Zinn shares that people believed that the government was only interested in gains that served their purpose, not in its people. Zinn says that 25 percent of people believed this to be true in the 1960s, but that number doubled to 50 percent in the 1970s. Luckily for America, this feeling of distrust and anger was taken out on Former President Richard Nixon. President Nixon is the only president to have ever reason and the reason became the infamous WaterGate Scandal. The Watergate Scandal occurred during Nixon’s second presidential campaign. President Nixon was attempting to ruin the reputation of his opponents. Nixon had broken into the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate district in America’s capital and attempted to steal documents. These documents were top-secret papers that Nixon wanted with or without knowing it Nixon committed Espionage. Furthermore; President Richard Nixon even attempted his very best to cover up this crime. Nixon was caught red-handed and Congress took charge in order to start the process of impeachment. The American people rallied behind the idea to impeach Richard Nixon making him quite easy to blame for all of America’s problems. The government of the United States of America capitalized on this motion which became a huge victory in order to gain the respect of the American people back without changing any true colors or ideas Congress had. Nixon bore all the hatred and due to the amount of backlash he resigned. Zinn even forces this idea by talking about Vice President who became the 38th president of the United States of America, Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford throws the former president under the bus by stating “Our long national nightmare is over”. President Gerald Ford continued the forieng policy of Nixon and nothing really changed to prevent a scandal like the Watergate Scandal from recurring. To sum things up, The United States of America was keep the American people under control, by a mistake president nixon committed and capitalized on it in order to show the American People that the United States of America was “truly” against evil, when in reality the corruption was still there.

What were the connections between Vietnam, Watergate, and the Mayaguez incident?

The Watergate scandal, The Vietnam War, and the Mayaguez incident all have one particular connection in common. The connection that all three events have is fear of power. As a reader of Zinn’s book I see a different perspective, from many. In my analysis, I see how the United States of America feared the loss of control in all three scenarios. After World War II, the power of the United States’ enemies was growing. Their Ideology, their government structure, and most importantly their support… Communism grew. This worried the United States putting the entire country on edge, When Vietnam was on edge on choosing its nation’s government and even though it had nothing to do with America. The US got involved in the fear that they would gain another enemy. Even with their citizens being against the involvement; Congress

I have always liked the tune and it has good lyrics so I decided it would be a good song to write about. It talks about an outlaw with the singer telling him that he needs to settle down and find love and stop hiding behind the mental walls he has set up. In short it is a meaningful song about an outlaw who needs to come out from behind his mental barriers and change his ways to have a chance for love and settling down, and is written by one of the top bands of the decade who have numerous accomplishments.

The Eagles have had many accomplishments during their career, such as five number one singles, six number one albums, six Grammy awards and, 5 American Music awards. Not only this but their albums “Their greatest hits”, and “Hotel California” rank first and third in that order on the bestselling albums of the United States. Their album Hotel California sold 26 million copies in the U.S. alone and 42 million across the world. The inspiration for the song was found when a fellow musician came up to Jackson Browne and showed him a picture book of cowboys and gangs in the west who then showed it to Glenn Frey which inspired him to write a song about an outlaw during those times. The tune was written by Don Henley who got his inspiration by writing in the style of Stephen Foster. The song was redone many times by people such as Johnny Cash, Linda Ronstadt, Clint Black, The Carpenters, Johnny Rodriguez, Diana Krall, And Alison Porter. It was written in 1968 and then revised until early 1973 where it was recorded in London. They were only given four takes by the producer because he wanted to record it quickly. It was released on April 19, 1973 along with the rest of the album instead of as a single so the album would make more money. Even with Desperado being one of the Eagles more popular songs it didn’t show up on the billboards until Glen Frey’s death in 2016 where it was number 20 on the charts. It was rated number 494 on the Rolling Stones top 500 songs in 2004 and is known for being in the Seinfeld episode “Checks”, and being the inspiration and theme music for the 1987 movie, Desperado, and it’s four sequels.

1973 was a busy year for the world. To start out the year the Vietnam war ended among vast controversy and questions of why America had been involved in the first place. Soon afterwards American prisoners of Vietnam are released, and the value of the dollar is reduced by 10%. Then the Watergate scandals letters are revealed with the men involved saying they had been told to keep quiet and with Richard Nixon taking responsibility but not blame. Soon afterwards the Sears tower is finished becoming the world’s tallest tower until 1998. Next Skylab the first U.S. space station is launched on March 14, and on May 17 the Watergate scandal has its first televised hearings. Then Secratariat wins the triple crown and becomes the first horse to do that in 25 years. Following that the Cambodian bombings end after 12 years. The oil company OPEC also doubles its prices and abortion rights are put up in the U.S.. lastly, the Sydney Opera house opens, O.J. runs for 2000 yards in a season the first running back to do so, and Nixon publicly declares that he is “Not a crook”.

The song gained popularity because of its great tune, storytelling lyrics, and beautiful singing. It was also a very mainstream type of music at the time it was made which meant it had a large crowd of people listening. I think that future generations will like this song and continue listening to it. Even though the main genre of music has changed this is a song that stays great even as people listen to different music. The song itself doesn’t mean anything to kids my age and doesn’t have any cultural or political significance. It is just a good song that tells a story of an outlaw who needs to settle down and find love. It fits into the historical context because it is a rock song which was the main type of music during those times. It doesn’t relate to the events during the time in which it was written, some of which are the Watergate Scandal or the Vietnam War ending due to its focus on a story that didn’t have to do with politics. I myself believe the song has a great tune and enrapturing lyrics that combine to create not only a song but a story as well. This combination makes it nice to listen to because you get the good story and fun tune. Ultimately it is a great song that tells a story and plays a tune all at the same time.

The 1970s-2012 was an era of war, international conflict, and significant political change in which the US exercised the three different types of power in order to establish an assertive front to their international relations.

There are three types of power, soft, hard, and smart power. Soft power is a pragmatic way to achieve results that would be favorable to both parties and uses propaganda, education, attraction, and other means whilst, hard power uses weapons and coercion in order to insist upon other individuals or groups to act in certain, predetermined ways by the party exercising the coercion. Finally, smart power is the combination of both soft and hard power. The implementation of such power tactics by the US was made evident on many occasions such as The Cold War, the Watergate Scandal, PATCO strikes, and the September 11 attacks in which the US responded in hardline authoritative ways which resulted in numerous global conflicts and forever changed the socio-political landscape of international politics and global relations that we know today.

The Cold War was one of the most significant events in the world and brought about great change to society. It was an example of countries using a combination of soft, smart, and hard power to manipulate and gain authority over each other. The Cold War was a period of tension and conflict between liberal democracy in the Western World and communist countries of Eastern Europe. It was named the Cold War because the two countries never directly faced each other in combat, and the conflict lacked the ‘heat of battle’. The Western World was led by the US and Eastern Europe led by the Soviet Union. During the Second World War, the Soviets and the US fought as allies against the Axis powers. The Cold War essentially started after the defeat of Nazi Germany, in 1945. By 1948, the Soviets had implemented left wing governments in eastern Europe which resulted in the US and the British fearing the permanent Soviet domination of eastern Europe and the spread of communism. However, the US and the Soviets never declared war on each other; they fought numerous proxy wars, one being a result of the US aiding South Korea and the Soviets helping communist North Korea. They also took part in the arms race and the space race, both examples of the use of soft and hard power. Soft power was the prominent form of diplomacy between the Soviets and the US during The Cold War. For example, the US used soft power to deter belief in communism behind The Iron Curtain (Poland, Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and the Soviet Union, etc.) Both sides attempted to use soft power, through the media, culture, and propaganda. For instance, the US used movies in Hollywood to promote propaganda against communism, and Eastern Europe and to create an atmosphere of paranoia towards the Soviet Union. The US also produced several “documentaries’ ‘ that supposedly exposed the dangers of communist countries to both the Eastern and Western worlds. Russia created a strong sense of fear and ignorance amongst its population due to the oppressive political environment. Russia used powerful speeches, culture, and propaganda to promote communism to both the West and Eastern countries.

The Soviets and the US took part in the space race, the competition to attain first spaceflight ability. The space race was an example of the use of soft power by the US and The Soviets as both countries used intense propaganda to attempt to win the space race and show the European and Western countries who had the most advanced space technology and economic system. Smart power was also used by both parties during the Cold War; a main example of the US exercising smart power was when they provided aid to Afghanistan so they get invaded by the Soviet Union. The Cold War had one of the largest arms races of all time and was between the US and the Soviets. While the Cold War did not result in The Soviets or the US declaring on one another there was always the threat in the background. The closest example of this is the Arms Race and Cuban missile crisis. The Arms Race resulted in both parties stockpiling large amounts of weapons including nuclear warheads which threatened the outbreak of war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the Cold War came to breaking into a Nuclear war. The US used its naval forces to blockade deliveries to Berlin and Cuba, which is another example of hard power. This was due to the US discovering the Soviet’s install missiles in Cuba. The Cold War has forever shaped our world today as it resulted in countries apart of the Westren and Eastern powers to form alliances, friendships, and hostilities between countries, which has significantly changed international politics for the better

The Watergate Scandal and the PATCO strikes are both one of the most famous and well known internal conflicts scandals and both brought about great change to global politics. It was an example of US leaders exercising hard power in hopes of manipulating the American government and civilians. The Watergate Scandal occurred in 1972 when numerous burglars were caught and arrested in the Democartic National Committee in Washington DC. The burglars attempted to steal important documents and wiretapping phones. These burglaries were found to be connected to Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. Nixon took great measures to try and cover this up, but failed when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reported Nixon’s role in the scandal to the Washington post. This resulted in Nixon resigning on the 9th of August 1974. Nixon used hard and smart power to execute this scandal. Nixton’s intentions were to use smart power to manipulate the election campaign, however, his way of executing this caused him to use hard power by hiring burglars to steal from the Democartic National Committee. In the 6 years of his presidency he achieved nuclear arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, negotiated with China which set the stage for arms reduction pacts, and which ended the Cold War. His resignation changed US politics as the scandal resulted in American civilians questioning their leaders and the American political system.

Between 1970-2012, the US had several internal conflicts which resulted in two different parties exercising hard power on each other in hopes of gaining power. The PATCO strikes were an example of this. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers organization or (PATCO) was an American trade union between 1968 until it was decertified in 1981 by Ronald Reagan as a result of illegal striking. As a result of these strikes, Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers who were protesting for increased wages on August 5th, 1981, for defying his orders to return to work. The strikes led to 7,000 flights being cancelled during the summer travel season across the nation. PATCO used hard power by protesting/striking against Reagan and refused to work. In return, Reagan threatened to ban them from federal service for life and fire any controllers who failed to return to their posts and branded the strikes illegal. The strikes occured when Reagan was only eight months into office, and saw the strikes as a challenge to his authority. This resulted in him trying to show American citizens the power he has over them by threatening the PATCO workers. According to Labour historian Joseph A. McCartin, the PATCO strike was “one of the most significant events in the twentieth century”. In my opinion, this internal conflict helped shape America and our world today as it showed Americans and non Americans the cost of defying their president.

The September 11 attacks were the most significant terrorist attacks and had a significant impact on international relations, global politics, and the global economy. The series of attacks was conducted by an Islamic terrorist group known as “Al Qaeda ”. Al Qaeda exercised hard power by hijacking four planes and driving them into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre which resulted in the death of 3000 people. Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, conducted these attacks on the US because of its political interference in the Middle East and interventionism in international politics. These attacks came as no surprise to the US, as Bin Laden was determined to strike using hard power in the US and made several threats to Bush weeks before. After the attacks Bush announced war on terrorism, and promised he would attempt to bring Al Qaeda to justice. 2 years later, Bush invaded Iran, he also talked about the relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda and told the nation they had weapons of mass destruction. The US media “beat the drums of war”, as Bush said that 1% chance can be 99% chance when it comes to foreign policy. This resulted in almost 60 countries making it onto Bush’s “hit list” and triggered protests about peace around the world as the US plans to bomb Iraq. These attacks were a great awakening for Bush and the world, and resulted in people in all countries questioning their governments ability to keep them safe. As a result of the attacks, America’s hard power was extremely damaged, as their military power was severely weakened which meant America was unable to provide American residents with adequate protection, and also resulted in significant changes in U.S and foreign policy. The U.S government began to increase economic measures, military operations, and pressure on suspects and groups of people accused of being terrorists, and was also an increased suspicion of non American citizens. For example, there were 600 incidents towards Muslims or Arabs between the 10 days after 911. 500 people robbed a mosque in Chicago, and a Pakastani grocer was brutally murdered. American citizens were furious at people of Musilm descent as a result of the attacks and attempted to exercise hard power on them. The 911 attacks also had a major impact on the global economy and resulted in stock markets to crash, the US lost around $40 billion in insurance losses. Travel and entertainment stocks fell while military and defense stocks rose, in international and domestic markets. One major impact the attacks had on the economy was the significant increase in oil prices, and distribution of international trade. The 911 attacks majorly affected the global economy and forign affairs, hard power was exercised by Al Qaeda to the US mainly due to their support of Israel. As a result of this, Bush called for the invasion of Iran which caused the collapse of the global stock market and economy, which significantly impacted international relations.

In conclusion, the Cold War, the Watergate Scandal/PATCO strikes and the September 11 attacks were all events that significantly impacted international relations and shaped our world today. The US exercised soft, smart and hard power on foriegn countries to revive national pride after World War One and Two, which led to conflict with foreign countries, and resulted in drastic change for foreign affairs and global politics.

To what extent are you comfortable with the actions of key actors and to what extent are you disappointed

The US engaged in many different foreign affairs and started many conflicts among different countries to prove to the rest of the world their strong government and economy. The actions of many important world leaders resulted in conflict and pain for people all over the world and also had a negative impact on the global economy. For example, the actions of President George Bush announcing the invasion of Iraq was based on misinformation and was essentially bordering on a lie. However, the assination of Osama Bin Laden known to be conducted by the US government, was an action to prevent the death of thousands of innocent civilians, which I agree with.

Bush announced the invasion of Iraq 2 years after 9/11 occurred and was the first stage in the Iraq war and lasted for a month. He sent 177,194 American, British and Polish troops to Iraq, to “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and to free the people from Iraq from Saddam Hussain ”. Bush triggered the attacks on Iraq, as a way to show citizens of America that he is taking action and revenge against terrorists in the Islmaic State, and to create a diversion between them. In my opinion, he used hard power in order to gain maintain popularity among voters and the gun lobby. Leaders from France, Canada, Germany and New Zealand (allies of the US) opposed Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and said there was no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush’s actions against Iraq triggered worldwide peace protests against war in Iraq. The war also cost taxpayers up to $2.2 trillion and killed 190,000 people 70% being civilians. The war also caused PTSD for 25-33% troops deployed in Iraq and caused its economy to collapse with unemployment rates reaching 60%. In my opinion the actions of Bush resulted in pain and conflict, and had significant ramifications for the global economy and had several long term impacts on global politics. The actions of Bush resulted in ramifications for not only Americans but the allies such as Britain, Australia, and Poland, and in my opinion created significant instability in the region.

Osama Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda, and was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In 2011, he was killed in an operation conducted by the U.S government. In my opinion, I support this decision as it brought justice to the thousands of innocent civilians who died as a result of the attacks. I believe that killing him was a fair decision made by the government as he caused the US to declare war on Iraq which led to several more issues such as a collapsing economy and conflicts between other countries.