All the President's Men

Rating:
Summary: Everyone should read this.
Review: This now-famous book is one of those rare creatures - a real-life thriller that's actually interesting for the average person to read. Starting with a simple break-in at the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, two reporters from the Washington Post followed the trail of money and corruption back to its source. If you haven't been living under a rock, you know exactly how this story turns out, but watching Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward track down the clues is quite interesting.

The flurry of different names and places can be intimidating, especially to the reader who does not have a lot of prior knowledge about the Watergate scandal. One will probably find oneself frequently flipping to the convenient Cast Of Characters page at the beginning of the book. Bernstein and Woodworth themselves are left rather faceless and I often found myself getting the two of them confused. Their attempts to humanize themselves fall flat almost every time, but that's to be expected; they are reporters, not pulp fiction writers and this is not a made-up story.

This book is recommended for anyone and is quite a page-turner, even for someone with only a passing interest in politics and history. For someone who enjoys mysterious and thrillers, there's nothing better than a good story from real-life. Everyone should read this book, if only for the historical impact that it has had on presidential politics.

Rating:
Summary: ...Couldn't put Nixon together again
Review: Time has not dulled the impact of "All the President's Men". It's been thirty years, now, since the thwarted break-in at the Watergate. Most of the higher-ups in President Nixon's administration have passed away, and subsequent generations reared on Iran-Contra and Whitewater may not even remember what the fuss was about. But from the very first page of this book, history becomes life and events rush forward to the inevitable conclusion that still seems impossible today.

Woodward and Bernstein's reporting is the major thrust of the first half of "President's". We watch both reporters work late into the night, interviewing reluctant and/or anonymous witnesses in an attempt to find out just why the Watergate burglars had connections with the White House, and how far up the political chain of command those men were connected. Along the way, mistakes are made and a reputations are wrongfully derailed. But the story -- the crimes and the subsequent cover-ups may have indeed been directed by the President of the United States himself! -- takes on a life of its own, and Woodward and Bernstein become witness to the defining story of an era.

Much of "All the President's Men" has passed into legend, especially the unrevealed identity of Woodward's executive branch contact known only as "Deep Throat". The Watergate players to this day still debate just who Deep Throat was -- John Dean seems to publish a book on the subject every five years. Time has proven most of the accusations correct -- for an interesting exercise, try comparing Woodward's and Bernstein's discoveries with the corresponding daily entries in "The Haldeman Diaries"). The book gives so few clues as to make the exercise nearly impossible, even to those of us who've read all there is to read about Watergate and Nixon. Was it John Dean? Alexander Haig? Perpetual Nixon apologist Bill Safire? The answer will be made known in my lifetime, but I would like to think sooner rather than later.

Although 30 years is a short time in American history, in politics it can be a lifetime. The meticulous triple and quadruple-checking of the Washington Post staff has given way to the unfounded accusations that support a half-dozen instant political bestsellers. Certainly no-one uses the passive voice quite as monotonously as do Woodward and Bernstein. These defects, however, are minor: the antics of Colson and Liddy and Haldeman and even the amusing capers of Donald Segretti remain fascinating in print even today.

When you're done with "All the President's Men", I recommend "The Final Days" (by Woodward and Bernstein) and "The Haldeman Diaries", and then the rebuttal books put out by Nixon staffers such as Haig and Erlichman.

Rating:
Summary: How journalism ought to be...
Review: Even after repeat viewings of the film "All the President's Men" on DVD, and really appreciating what a classic it is, it cannot beat the original book. In fact, along with "The Final Days," the film is even *better* when read in tandem with the book. Students should be reading it in either high school or college - it is not only compulsively readable, but manages to help those of us born after Watergate understand what really happened. And it's also a great introduction to life inside the (Washington D.C.) Beltway.

The reputation of journalism as a profession, and the ideal of truth and accuracy in reporting, has taken a beating. In the last few years, between the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times and the New Republic embarassment with Stephen Glass, it's refreshing to read this book and see what journalism is meant to be. For one thing, Woodward and Bernstein endeavored to be objective even when describing themselves, and their own actions - being honest about their own weaknesses and habits as reporters. There is no bombast or ego here, or in "Final Days", about what brilliant reporting they did, or how they broke this white-hot story when they were both quite young. It makes Blair and Glass's arrogance much harder to stomach.

Rating:
Summary: Important book for young Americans
Review: Reading this book made me realize just how little most American people my age really know about such an important and devastating event in our history as Nixon's Watergate. Of course everyone has to take the same American history course, and they learn the important events like the Revolution, the Civil War, the World Wars, and the Cold War (though I'm sure most teenagers couldn't tell you what years each took place in).

"All the President's Men" is basically an omniscent look at the reporting and journalism of the book's authors Woodward and Bernstein from June 1972 when the Watergate criminals were arrested to July 1973 when Butterfield revealed Nixon's private taping system to the Senate Committee. I think one of the most important aspects of the authors' research and reporting was that, contrary to the accusations of the White House, neither Woodward nor Bernsten had political desires to see Nixon implicated. Woodward was a Republican and Berstein was apathetic to the politics of the time and didn't vote in the '72 presidential elections.

Though this book doesn't focus on the Congressional impeachment proceedings and eventual resignation of President Nixon (which is left to the sequel, "The Final Days"), the importance of Watergate is especially relevent to most young people who came coming into political fruition during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. While most teenagers (as I also did) formed opinions based on what we'd been taught by our parents (i.e. on lying, adultary, etc.), Watergate provided a historical base to the impeachment conditions that eventually surrounded the Clinton administration.

The point is that this book is both an interesting, and the importance of the events that it describes is priceless to the American youth that strives to learn more about the political process and the standards that are applied to a sitting president.

Rating:
Summary: Disgraceful Work of Fiction
Review: If you want to see real investigative reporting, try reading "Silent Coup", according to which, the evidence is that Woodward and Bernstein used this piece of yellow journalism to make a name for themselves by telling a bunch of lies.

Maybe one can read G Gordon Liddy's "Will" for an insider's view of Watergate.

Of course, the Nixon haters represented by this book, and the self-promoting, self-protecting liars like John Dean (at whose feet both "Silent Coup" and "Will" lay the genesis of the breaking) will never read either. It would destroy their cherished historical revisionism and their cherished Hate-A-Republican-Forget-The-Facts attitude.

Rating:
Summary: A political and journalistic classic
Review: This is a remarkable book about two reporters who effectively brought down a president and an administration. The movie is a classic and a favorite among journalism students (this one included), but I'd recommend a combination of watching the movie and definitely reading the book. A quick compliment to the authors - the "Cast of Characters" section in the beginning of the book really helps the reader along, since there are so many names to keep straight.

This book harkens back to a time when work, time and careful documentation and cultivation of sources were required before printing bombshell accusations against an administration, unlike the scandal-mongering atmosphere from the Clinton administration up through the present. With the advent of the Internet and 24-hour cable news networks, the trend now is to publish or air rumor, innuendo or unfounded stories and do the legwork later, if at all. Woodward and Bernstein didn't do it that way - they uncovered a scandal the old fashioned way - they did legwork to ensure the accuracy of their stories. The result of their hard work and diligence is this book - the biggest, most sensational and shocking political story in the history of our country. Anyone wanting to know the inside story of Richard Nixon's fall from power, start here, and also read Bernstein and Woodward's "The Final Days." This book is a classic that will remain so 100 years from now.

Rating:
Summary: How journalism ought to be...
Review: Even after repeat viewings of the film "All the President's Men" on DVD, and really appreciating what a classic it is, it cannot beat the original book. In fact, along with "The Final Days," the film is even *better* when read in tandem with the book. Students should be reading it in either high school or college - it is not only compulsively readable, but manages to help those of us born after Watergate understand what really happened. And it's also a great introduction to life inside the (Washington D.C.) Beltway.

The reputation of journalism as a profession, and the ideal of truth and accuracy in reporting, has taken a beating. In the last few years, between the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times and the New Republic embarassment with Stephen Glass, it's refreshing to read this book and see what journalism is meant to be. For one thing, Woodward and Bernstein endeavored to be objective even when describing themselves, and their own actions - being honest about their own weaknesses and habits as reporters. There is no bombast or ego here, or in "Final Days", about what brilliant reporting they did, or how they broke this white-hot story when they were both quite young. It makes Blair and Glass's arrogance much harder to stomach.

Rating:
Summary: A Political Detective Story
Review: On June 17, 1972 Bob Woodward received a telephone call and was asked to cover a burglary of Democratic headquarters; he had just finished some stories on the attempt to assassinate George Wallace. All five burglars stood out against the usual suspects in police court; all had CIA connections.

Page 21 tells of the investigation into McCord's activities; he worked full-time for the Committee to Re-elect the President. McCord followed orders unquestioningly, did not act on his own initiative. Two of the burglars had the name and phone numbers of Howard Hunt. This number led to Charles Colson, then to the R. Mullen Company. Pages 24-25 tell how address books and telephone numbers were used in this investigation, with off-the-record reports. While this burglary was bungled, how many others succeeded (p.26)? The purpose of the break-in was for "scandal, gossip" (p.27). [To find someone vulnerable to bribery or blackmail who could be used as a spy or saboteur.] There were too many coincidences in this story (some of these burglars were around when offices of prominent Democratic lawyers were burglarized). While a burglary usually means taking something away, it could also be used to plant incriminating papers. Days later John Mitchell resigned as manager of the Nixon campaign (p.30). Bernstein went to Miami, and found out that a $25,000 check donated to President Nixon's campaign was deposited to the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars (p.44). Page 45 gives an example of how confidential medical records are used in politics. The GAO audit determined that over $500,000 in campaign funds was mishandled (p.40). They learned about money-laundering (p.54). Page 55 explains how this is raised for protection money.

Bob Woodward had a secret source ("Deep Throat") who confirmed information that had been obtained elsewhere (p.71). These reporters had different styles (pp.49-51). The big news was that Attorney General John Mitchell authorized campaign funds for apparently illegal activities (p.98)! Page 104 explains a clever denial. Both reporters had sources in the Justice Department who could confirm details (p.111). An unfair accusation in the 'Washington Post' could ruin careers. The Watergate bugging made little sense by itself, but could indicate part of a broader campaign (pp.113-4); page 116 gives an example. Page 127 tells how a faked letter could derail a successful campaign! The Nixon take-over of the Federal agencies was presented (p.130), as if it were subjecting the government and nation his personal whims. There was subversion of the electoral process (p.135). This was unprecedented in scope and intensity (p.143). Page 147 tells of an imposter who imitated the voice of a McGovern campaign official. There were other horror stories from the Muskie staffers (p.148). Control of the operations was traced to Nixon's appointments secretary, who had daily access to the President. The rest of this book covers events from 1973 until early 1974. Page 273 summarizes the connections (Chapter 13).

A "third rate burglary" led to White House personnel. Further investigations lead to wide-scale illegal fundraising, and political sabotage that involves misdemeanors and other crimes. Most of those involved had little experience in politics. The idol with feet of clay came crashing down. Most people under 40 missed these events; learn about it from this book.

Rating:
Summary: a pre-emptive strike against revisionism
Review: In the sub-genre of journalistic memoir, there simply is no book better than this. It is written still in the heat of battle - as it was being put together, Nixon had not yet resigned - and conveys the sense of being under pressure from public power, from the fears and lack of cooperation of individuals, and from their own human fallibility; conveys it better than anything except, perhaps, a war diary. As writing, it has not aged. And it is worth having for one very good reason: that Watergate has shrunk in the memory. After many succeeding penny-ante scandals, artificially built up to be something they were not, it is important to remember that the President at the time did not go down for the silly raid on the National Democratic Committee, nor even for having a few outright sleazeballs in his ante-room, but - to put it bluntly - for turning the White House into a criminal association within the meaning of the act. Secret intelligence, slush funds acquired from corrupt businessmen, sabotage, slander, destruction of documents, behind-the-scenes fixing - even arson and threats of violence - were the daily bread of the Nixon camp, the way they did business. If they had a choice between a legal and an illegal way to do anything, they chose, not the legal one - nor even the one that made most sense in terms of non-moral efficiency - but the illegal one, as a sort of constitutional preference. There has never been anything like this in the White House, before or - fortunately - since: everything that may be quoted against any other President, up to and including Teapot Dome and Ulysses Grant's inglorious time in office, simply pales in front of the daily, routine criminality of the Nixon men. At the time, the Republican Party at large was quite clear that the Nixonites were an entity apart, dedicated purely to the personal power of the President. And long before the Plumbers ever broke into Watergate, Richard Nixon was in hock and virtually paying blackmail to them and to similarly unscrupulous characters for a score of illegal acts; in the end, that, more than any break-in, made the exposure of the President virtually inevitable.
Just as inevitable, of course, is revisionism. I know that someone called Colodny has come up with an "alternative" account that charges that John Dean arranged for the break-in to cover up for his wife's involvement in a call-girl ring and then sold the President and his colleagues down the river to protect himself; and that Alexander Haig worked against the President and manipulated Woodward and Bernstein. The second statement is highly unlikely, in view of the fact that nobody comes out of THE LAST DAYS - the book that followed this - worse than Haig, who is shown to be a smooth careerist whose "military" career saw him go from Colonel to four-star General within six years at the White House, and who has loyalty for nobody but himself; a strange way to promote him to the public. The first only shifts the blame from one Nixon sleazeball to another, without doing anything to alter the fact that the Nixon administration, as a whole, was corrupt with a depth and thoroughness that, while not unfamiliar in American municipal politics, was and remains unique at national level. The evidence is beyond denial, and plenty of it is aired in this book - unbreakable paper trails such as the cheque signed by a perfectly honest Republican fundraiser called Kenneth H. Dahlberg, which ended up in the bank account of one of the burglars: with this sort of hard fact staring at us in the face, what does it matter whether John Dean lied or not?
Indeed, the best way to understand what happened in America between 1969 and 1973 may perhaps be to think of the politics of Chicago or Tammamy Hall transplanted to the federal level: comparison with corrupt Third World regimes is not very helpful, because Third World politics do not have the elaboration, thoroughness and reach that Nixonism had.
This, in the end, is the main value of this memoir: as a sort of pre-emptive strike against revisionism, reminding us that - whatever its ramifications - the Watergate affair was unique in its extent and depth, and should never be simply normalized in memory by aligning it with footling items about smeared cigars and hanging chads.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: If you care about the truth, if you think of yourself as informed, or if you are remotely interested in politics, you must read this book. Politics, politicians, scandals, cover-ups, lies, and conspiracies will never look the same again after you read Woodward and Bernstein's account of their ground-shaking investigation. Watergate changed everything. That these two guys took down the president is a modern miracle, and a vivid demonstration of why a free press is so important. We better hope we always have one.

Your perspective on the personalities at work in the White House of today will be greatly enhanced when viewed in the light of this book. The depths politicians can sink to, the lies they will tell, and their rampant passing of the buck gets exposed here. As you read this book and learn things about America and Americans that you never would have imagined, the unfolding drama of this moment in history will grip you and propel you to the end. By following the reporter/detectives as they unravel their story, you begin to feel like you're playing a part in it. And you are.