It's always been overblown in my mind. In school it was always hammered into our heads as the great betryal and whenever the Clinton scandal first came up people would always be extremely quick to remind us of Watergate. Maybe all of these factors turned me off to the history of Watergate, so I never really bothered to learn about what really happened. Today while eating dinner with my father, the news was covering the new Watergate developments and my dad asked me what I knew about the scandal. Upon replying that I never really took interest in it, he was quick to give me his version of the "actual" events. So I'm wondering if there is any truth to his story.

He said that in actuality, the Democrats had set up a whorehouse, and for matters of national security Nixon, or the Republican party had planned to put surveliance equipment in the whorehouse to make sure that none of the government employees that went there would spill any kind of information. Upon getting caught Nixon, being a politician, didn't tell the truth about what happened, and tried to hide what he had done so the Republican party bascially made him step down.

This is definately a different picture from what I remember being taught. Is there any truth to this>?

A whorehouse in the Democratic campaign headquarters.

...Right.

Watergate is one of those scandals that, while our generation may not take much interest, has been covered to death over the years -- such a massive divergence from the 'official' storyline sounds unlikely.


But more important than investigating the actual charge your dad made (Which I'd wager to guess was false), let's take ask some starter questions:

1. Does your dad have a dog in this fight? As in, is he biased toward one side or another?

2. Were this true, why would it not be mentioned anywhere? A vast 'liberal media conspiracy'? Doesn't really seem logical.

3. What about all the other massive corruption at all the top levels of the Nixon White House? It doesn't make sense that on this instance, he'd be a boyscout, given all the other things we know about what he (and Spiro Agnew) had been up to over the years.

4. If the Watergate break-in was really a domestic intelligence operation, why would there be payments funneled to those responsible through Republican connections (as there was)? Why pick the sort of shady backgrounders he did to do the job?


Skepticism is a virtue. Even when it's your own father telling you what he thinks.