On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Carrol Cox wrote:
> I don't think the Watergate conspiracy was very
> significant, with one qualification. In the various discussions in the
> White House that we have learned of through tapes and memoirs, we have
> discovered that the activities of the anti-war movement did really bug
> those jerks in D.C. to the extent that they over-reacted. That tidbit of
> information may prove useful in the future. But as far as either the
> actual conspiracy or its revelation having any direct importance in
> human affairs, Nah! The absence of either the conspiracy or its
> exposure would have made no real difference (outside the careers of a
> few reporters and the profits of a few publishers or film makers).
> Carrol
Have no idea if any listers ever leaf through intro US gov't texts but they generally (with a few exceptions) convey message that 'system' worked in Watergate scandal. Typical line might read: 'Nixon's downfall was owed in no small measure to the handiwork, two centuries earlier, of the writers of the Constitution.' Blah, blah, blah...
Activities of Watergate (sabotage, theft, wiretapping, coverup, etc.) and worse had been carried out against left for years. What press (and Dem congressional majority) conveyed to folks as aberration was actually 'standard operating procedure.' Difference, to some extent, was that such actions were carried out against 'loyal opposition' faction of establishment (among which were Dem pols, Dem supporters, mainstream journalists). But as Anthony Summers indicates in his book on J. Edgar Hoover, both Dem and Rep presidents used wiretaps to spy on political rivals so that even importance of differing degree is limited.
As for Oliver Stone on JFK, his film can be reminder that there exist US gov't intelligence & military operations whose very purpose is conspiratorial and that have a long history of covert operations and assassinations. But his contention that Kennedy's assassination was conspiracy to prevent civil rights & end Cold War is, at best, naive (even if, as some suspect, national security apparatus was involved). Changing of guard at White House, whether through murder, impeachment and removal, or election (i.e., 'if we'd only had a stronger Dem - Ed Muskie? - in 72') cannot displace powerful set of ruling elites. So conpiracy doesn't take us very far in explaining political events.
US political institutions are designed to 'govern' what Shakespeare had that famous conspirator Brutus recognize in *Julius Ceasar*: 'tide in the affairs of men.' It isn't necessary very often for US elites to construct great conspiracies to maintain their control and dominance. And in that sense, intro US gov't texts are correct, system did work: Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton followed... Michael Hoover