In a recent podcast, Tucker Carlson delivered a provocative take on Watergate, framing it as a “deep state coup.” He accused the CIA and FBI, along with Bob Woodward—whom he described as a “former naval intelligence officer posing as a reporter”—of orchestrating the downfall of President Richard Nixon. Carlson’s comments delve into the intricacies of political maneuvering in Washington, raising questions about accountability and transparency.
Carlson began by dissecting the involvement of Woodward and his entry into journalism. “I mean, if you look at what happened to Richard Nixon…” he pointed out, highlighting Woodward’s quick transition from naval intelligence to leading the Watergate story at The Washington Post. To Carlson, this was not just a career leap; it was a troubling instance of someone with intelligence ties suddenly becoming the face of a major exposé. He remarked, “He’d never been a journalist at all… and somehow he gets the biggest story in the history of The Washington Post.”
His narrative outlined a connection between Woodward’s sourcing and the FBI, drawing direct lines back to the alleged intentions of the intelligence community. Carlson argued, “Who is his main source for Watergate? Oh, the number two guy at the FBI.” This assertion is significant; for Carlson, it reveals the collusion between media and governmental power during a time of political upheaval.
Carlson’s tone is both incredulous and assertive as he questions the mainstream narrative surrounding Watergate. “And yet, the way it was framed… was, oh, this intrepid reporter fought power,” he stated, countering that Woodward was instead “a tool of power.” This reversal emphasizes his belief that the true story of Watergate is one of manipulation and deceit, suggesting that Woodward’s portrayal as a champion of journalistic integrity was fundamentally misleading.
The podcast continues with Carlson asserting that the individuals involved in the Watergate break-in were predominantly CIA employees. He articulated the gravity of Nixon’s electoral success in 1972, stating he was “elected by more votes than any president in American history.” Yet, just two years later, he was removed from office by forces Carlson characterizes as deeply embedded within the state apparatus. He challenges listeners to reconsider their understanding of political narratives, positing that if the events surrounding Watergate occurred in a foreign nation, they would likely be labeled a coup.
Carlson’s argument raises eyebrows especially when he connects Nixon’s replacement, Gerald Ford, to the Warren Commission—an examination of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. He claimed, “the only unelected president in American history actually sat on the Warren Commission,” further implicating Ford in the saga of American political history that he believes is rife with hidden agendas.
Drawing his analysis to a tense close, Carlson revisits Nixon’s remarks about JFK’s assassination, stating, “Nixon says I know why they killed Jack Kennedy… the CIA director has this kind of sinister silence.” This unsettling conclusion invites listeners to question not only the integrity of past investigations but also the motives of those in power.
In summary, Carlson’s exploration of Watergate sheds light on perceived collusions between intelligence agencies and media figures, framing a historic event as a reflection of ongoing problems in governance. His insights encourage skepticism towards conventional interpretations of political history, appealing for a deeper examination of the narratives that shape public understanding.
"*" indicates required fields
