Customer Reviews

Silent Coup: The Removal of a President

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

"Silent Coup" is the result of one of the most important journalistic research efforts of the modern era. It details an alternative view of the Watergate Affair, and blows a mile-wide hole in the commonly-accepted account of Woodward & Bernstein.

As distasteful as it may be to some readers, the work generally supports the long-held claims of the G. Gordon Liddy camp, i.e. that Woodward & Bernstein's accounts in "The Washington Post" and their following books were merely an extension of John Dean's version of Watergate, wherein Dean is innocent and everyone else is guilty. However, while the book vindicates Liddy's testimony as to fact, it does not paint much of a flattering picture of the convicted felon otherwise.

Colodny & Gettlin expose Dean's supposed role of "fall guy" for what it is: self-serving lies, and lies that were (or should have been) known to the Watergate prosecutors who used his perjured testimony, given in exchange for leniency, to bring down the Nixon Administration. A carefully researched and meticulously documented thesis is posited by the authors, namely that Dean essentially sent the White House up the river in order to save his own neck and conceal his own critical involvement in literally every aspect of the Watergate crimes and cover-ups.

Specifically, an overwhelming case is made that Dean, in order to squash his own involvement in a seperate legal matter pertaining to the surreptitious use of DNC headquarters in Washington as a front for a high-class call-girl service, and in which his own future wife Mo was complicit, instigated the burglaries at the DNC in hopes of removing evidence belying his association therein. The DNC burglaries were conveniently tucked into the overall dirty tricks program against the advice of most of the operative conspirators, who, as Liddy has stated, saw no value in hitting the DNC. The value of the break-in, the authors show, was to Dean and Dean alone.

The other primary bombshell dropped in "Silent Coup" is the very under-reported fact that journalist Bob Woodward was, astonishingly, a former Naval Officer involved in extremely sensitive communications intelligence, and that Woodward almost certainly briefed Alexander Haig and others in the Nixon White House in an official capacity prior to his departure from the Navy and rapid rise to the unlikely position of star reporter for the Post, and, conveniently, the lead newsbreaker in the Watergate matter! This direct link between Woodward and the Nixon White House should have disqualified Woodward from reporting on the matter. It did not disqualify him, because those who should have known about the link apparently either didn't know, or didn't care.

This fine history of the Watergate era covers many other pertinent related topics, including the establishment of a top-secret communications "back channel", which Nixon instituted in order to sidestep the State Department and Pentagon in sensitive dealings with the former USSR, Red China, and in the prosecution and settlement of the Vietnam War. The evidence shows that the back channel was illegally compromised by Haig and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The implications with respect to the larger Watergate scandal are addressed in detail by the authors.

The work also touches many historical issues exposed by the Watergate investigations, not the least of which is the implication that Nixon may have known the truth behind the Kennedy Assassination, and that some those connected to Watergate may have been directly involved, namely E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and perhaps some of the Cuban "Plumbers". Again, this history encompasses more than just Watergate by virtue of the enormous amount of studious research that was necessary to document the central arguments contained within.

The importance of this book is further magnified by the fact that a large number of the players in the Watergate affair are deceased; fortunately for history, the authors had the opportunity to interview most of the now-dead key players prior to their passing.

This book is must reading for anyone interested in Watergate. The book's radical rethinking of the common wisdom of Watergate is both refreshing and disturbing, not only in its treatment of the facts of the case, but as an expose' of the secret agenda of Bob Woodward.

"Silent Coup" is an important work of "Watergate Revisionism" that brings the Radford spy ring into the picture. In short, senior Pentagon officials at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level authorised what amounted to an "unofficial" spy operation targeted at the White House. They wanted to keep tabs on Kissinger and his secret diplomacy. Kissinger's moves were shaking the way US foreign policy had been conducted for a generation, the Chiefs believed they were being left out of the loop.

The authors see US national security chiefs as going beyond this illegal, unconstitutional and somewhat amateur snooping on Kissinger to a more sinister, and ultimately successful, effort to remove Nixon, or at least, deflect fall-out from the downfall of an administration already heading for a crash, away from themselves. Central to their thesis are the numerous links between various Watergators and the CIA, a VIP Call Girl ring (itself under CIA influence) used by the DNC and the past relationship between former USN briefing officer Woodward to both Admiral Radford and General Alexander Haig, whom the authors picked as "Deep Throat". The label "coup" however may be somewhat misleading. The authors are not so much talking about a Latin American putsch so much as political jujitsu by Haig and the Joint Chiefs.

Much of this material is discussed by other Watergate revisionists, for example, Jim Hougan in "Secret Agenda", although often framed in a different explanatory narratives. "Silent Coup" to it's credit provides numerous references and attachments as evidence, especially for the Radford spy ring. This isn't always the most enjoyable reading experience.

There are some benefits beyond Watergate revisionism too. In detailing the Radford spy ring they outline some of Kissinger and Nixon's tactics in laying the foundations for detente. We learn, for example, that the US tilt towards Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan dispute was related to Kissinger's use of Islamabad as a back channel to Peking. This tilt became important under later administrations as Pakistan's General Zia emerged as the empressario of US-UK- Chinese support for the Afghan rebels. As the US may be drawn deeper into Pakistani politics in the years ahead, this episode may receive greater attention from historians.

During the Nixon / Frost interviews, Nixon mentions a national security dimension to Watergate. Was he alluding to the Radford spy ring?

Since "Silent Coup" the identity of Deep Throat has been revealed to be the FBI's Mark Felts, not Haig. But as Jim Hougan has pointed out via his web site, Felt was formerly the head of the Bureau's controversial "Cointelpro" program. So Hougan casts reasonable doubt on the explanation that Deep Throat's motives were those of an outraged constitutionalist.

Despite more recent developments and revelations, "Silent Coup" is likely to be a valuable reference for students of the Radford affair and Watergate generally, even if some of the authors' more disturbing conclusions are themselves due for revision.

If Bob Woodward didn't exist, he would have to be invented. And he was.

SILENT COUP is not a perfect book--by the very nature of the subject perfection or certainty are excluded. But there is a lot of plausibility here; the ideas and main thrust of the authors fit in quite well with a lot of other pieces.

Robert Woodward, a mainstream icon of what passes for journalism nowadays, is a significant piece of this puzzle.

**It turns out that this darling of the 'liberal' media, has solid conservative credentials, bourgeois upbringing, Yale, US Navy; one Yale professor described Woodward as a "crypto-fascist"

**Woodward's cozy comfortable relationship with, and access to numerous presidents and administrations (what would you conclude if you constantly saw a policeman being welcomed to the home of a notorious gangster; is it plausible that presidents would invite an 'investigative reporter' to shadow them, if they had even the remotest doubt as to his pliability and docility?)

**his repeated failure to point out blatant, fundamental policy misdeeds that would not have eluded a bright 12 year old

**My uncle worked on the Post for years; the fundamental conservatism of this paper's owners and therefore of its editorial policy--as distinct from its cosmetic public 'image' as a progressive news outlet--was well known to insiders. Stories that didn't fit the establishment world-view of the paper simply didn't get written; the popular notion of Woodward as a fiery, risk-taking champion of the truth is Hollywood tripe

**the CIA and FBI had long-standing and quite successful programs to cooperate and co-opt members of the press; Woodward's instrumental role in channeling leaks engineered to bring down Nixon (whose detente with the USSR and overtures to the People's Republic were distasteful to the Pentagon-Industrial complex) and recent activities to legitimate and act as a well-respected 'fig-leaf' to the engineered 'Global War on Terror' follow a long and inglorious tradition dating back to Walter Winchell.

The only review I ever read on Silent Coup was in the Los Angeles Times when the book was first published, and the review took up an entire page in the book review section. The best version of the book is the paperback, where the authors tell of what happened after the hardback version was published. As an example, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes read the book and wanted to do a report, but the higher-ups at CBS told him he couldn't do it. Wallace tried several times afterward to do a 60 Minutes story, but was stopped each time. Because of the author's statements in the book, John Dean launched a 50 million dollar lawsuit, but his lawyer, after reviewing the book and the author's notes and interviews, dropped the lawsuit. Why? In the view of the two authors, John Dean was the total insider (and more) of the Watergate scandal, because he was the only one granted full access to the investigation, and this was under Nixon's direct order. The author's premise of taking all the books, all the magazine articles, all the newspaper stories and putting them in chronological order is the basis for the book and tells the reader that out of all the people involved in Watergate, there are two individules whose stories do not match the overall timeline established by the author's investigation. Nixon was not one of them. There are many conclusions to be drawn from the book, but the one that stands out to me the most is this one. Why did the Democratic-controlled congressional committee running the investigation seal certain evidence in the national archives FOREVER (and is it still there?)! You'll have to read the book (the paperback version is the better choice for the entire story) to find out. The liberal media has never given this book any credence, and possibly for good reason. They just might have got it all wrong! I believe so.

in addition: may, 2006

former fbi agent mark felt revealed he was the 'deep throat' in the watergate affair. this may be totally true, but i still have issues with the watergate scandal based on 'silent coup.' and have some questions about mark felt.

1. 'in silent coup' the authors believed that only four people knew about the oval office taping system. mark felt was not one of them, and it was the washington post, according to 'silent coup' that kept pushing the watergate committee to ask if there was a recording system in the white house. remember alexander butterfield?

2. in a book written by alexander haig, he denied being 'deep throat' IN A FOOTNOTE. one has to wonder about that one. there are three sections, if you will, on deep throat stories during watergate. the middle section has no deep throat stories. why?
if alexander haig was deep throat, does this come into play anywhere? first third, haig was white house military advisor, or something to that effect. the last third, haig was white house chief of staff. the middle section, where there were no deep throat stories, haig was in belgium, as nato commander. this was the conclusion of 'silent coup.'

3. going back to bob woodward, again he worked in the white house during his military career, where he was spottted talking to alexander haig, no less by an admiral who would become chief of staff at the pentagon. woodward has said he never met haig in the white house.

4. has mark felt really granted an full-fledged interview to anyone to 'time stamp' the facts, so to speak? it would be really interesting if the authors of 'silent coup' would do the interview.

5. finally, maybe in reality there is really more than one 'deep thoat.'

Having just completed Silent Coup this afternoon, I felt compelled to comment. The resignation of Richard Nixon was my earliest political memory and ignited an interest in Watergate and politics in general that I carry to this day. I don't believe, as some do, that this was an effort to protect/redeem Richard Nixon, nor a conscious effort to discredit the Washington Post. Instead, as is usually the case, a true and objective historical perspective is not always clear amidst significant events(i.e. Kennedy Assassination, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Panama-Noriega, Kosovo, Columbia, our current World Trade Center tragedy).

It is my belief that Bob Woodward was the only reporter at the time of the Watergate break-in with the access to discover the story as it unfolded. Unfortunately, the source/sources of this information was limited. It is not a surprise, assuming Haig was Deep Throat, that there would be a certain spin to the Woodward & Berstien coverage of the story. It is only after the passage of time and the publication of multiple biographies that we can begin to piece the entire puzzle together.

It is safe to assume that the whole truth will never be known, much less verified. What is unique about this Colodny & Gettlin effort was the extensive and expansive interviews with most of the key players, the analysis of conflicting stories in so many biographies of the critical figures and the presentation of several versions of certain events(Dean vs. Liddy, Haig vs. Ford, etc). Whether you agree with the conclusions that are reached in Silent Coup, this book provides the broadest perspective on Watergate I have read to date.

This book asks the eternal question: Are we too paranoid or not paranoid enough? It is a highly entertaining alternative history of Watergate. This book raises some serious questions that simple minded Nixon hatred cannot dispel. Considering that we continue to learn secrets of WWII and that Watergate is thirty years more recent and considering that most of the prinicipals are still living, I find it highly likely that more revelations lie in wait. I recommend reading this with Watergate by Fred Emery which gives a conventional history of the topic. Both books make clear that unanswered questions remain.

The book is objectively written and relies heavily on eyewitness accounts of the events leading up to the resignation of President Nixon. I did not feel that there was any attempt to "white-wash" the episode, rather, it is an attempt to show what really happened. The role the main stream press played was disgraceful. It was obvious to most people at the time that the press was in the midst of an unprecedented feeding frenzy over the Watergate affair. It was not obvious that the presidency was under attack by self-serving individuals out to save themselves from their own misdeeds at the expense of the President and the country. The press and academe has a lot to atone for in presenting such a distorted look at this episode in American history; this book provides the necessary information for the reader to see through the distortions and realize the true motives and betrayal that occurred. This book provides extensive references to other works that have been written over the years by the players involved and official documents generated as the events unfolded. Richard Nixon is portrayed fairly and is not presented as a demon or a saint. I highly recommend this book and feel it should be required reading for American history classes in our high schools

This a brilliant book in which everything is solidly documented. The veracity of this book was confirmed in the court of law when DNC secretary Ida "Maxie" Wells (basically serving as a proxy for John Dean) sued Liddy for espousing the SILENT COUP version of Watergate in multiple lectures. In July, 2002, a jury voted UNANIMOUSLY in Liddy's favor, and as one historian wrote, "This is Liddy's third victory in the case...History was preserved and changed; the `call girl ring theory' remains the only plausible theory of the Watergate break-in that HAS BEEN TESTED BY THE COURTS."

I'd give this minus stars, if possible.

It's hard to imagine how the authors can present this tripe with a straight face. By focusing narrowly on Dean and twisting enough facts and telling some outright lies, they make their case. But to believe it, we have to believe that Nixon, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, etc. lived in isolated bubbles and never communicated with each other. All they knew about the world, the learned from the evil Dean.
And oh, yeah, Enemies List, Tax Evasion, suborning perjury, and all the other little pranks of the Nixonian era? Nah, I never heard of them either.

This book really has the Nixon fans salivating revenge against the conventional (and well-proven) theory of Watergate.

Admittedly the book is written in a breathless and entertaining style with piles of interesting history thrown in...but does it refute the "conventional" Watergate story?

Before you jump on this so-called "revisionist" bandwagon, crying "foul" against the prosecutors, democrats and the press, be advised that:

1) The White House tapes are direct evidence against a lot of what's in this book.

2) Errors were made in gathering evidence (i.e. a Haldeman claim to a certain phone call on a certain date that's out of whack with the White House phone log.)

3) It's a subjective opinion, but many of the interview subjects don't sound very credible. I don't like "He Said, She Said" footnotes.

4) 60 MINUTES WOULDN'T DO THE STORY! So what! An independent production company in England (Brian Lapping Associates) wouldn't touch this story either because they just could not make the story stick (in it's view of Watergate, other elements have some merit.)

England, known for having much more of a penchant for scandal than the US certainly wouldn't suffer for doing a new expose, but they didn't because the facts couldn't be supported.

Lapping Associates ended up filming a terrific 5-part documentary called Watergate which ran on the Discovery Channel in 1994, watch that instead.

5) MIKE WALLACE WOULDN'T DO IT? Mike Wallace filmed an 2-hour special a few years after this book came out on his OWN where several of his subjects claim the whole John Dean-call girl ring was a crock.

Please, if you have to make up history to sell books, get the right publisher: Marvel Comics.