Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (74059)	2/14/2003 8:52:53 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the role the Pentagon Papers had in Watergate we are likely to read. Now that Nixon's press secretary died, we lost another candidate for "Deep Throat." Ron Ziegler was one of about 5 left in the running. Woodward says that it really was one guy, and he will say "who" when the man dies. He has also said that he is an ex-military who is a heavy drinker. Leads me to believe it has to be Alexander Haig. What a traitor to Nixon if it was him. Hard to believe that Haig goes back so far that he was "Aide De Camp" to MacArthur during Korea.

To: JohnM who wrote (74059)	2/14/2003 9:22:52 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for finding that article, John. It was a terrific read. I had not followed the story at the time. Ellsberg and Paul Vann fighting together in Vietnam is worthy of a book by itself. The Times' reporter's burglary of the "Pentagon Papers" from Ellsburg's brother is astounding. That the Times would then publish papers that they knew were not only stolen from the Government, but subsequently from a Government employee, is unbelievable. There was no way they did not know that their reporter had acquired them by theft. What an ethical lapse on the part of the Times! Even though the Author of the article is a very biased source, as shown by the viewpoint of the books he has been writing, I won't play the "consider the source" game with you that you play with me. The material was so long ago that I assume that it is basically true, from the Author's viewpoint. As far as his conclusions, projecting that the deception then must also be happening now, you can guess that I would disagree. I must feel good to go back and read about the days in the 60's when everything you believed in and fought for was being vindicated.