I just read The conviction of Richard Nixon : the untold story of the Frost/Nixon interviews by my old english teacher and thought I would bring it to the attention of the political wonks here.

As many know much better than I, this was THE TOPIC in its day when Nixon was forced to resign. Clinton's peccadillo's were inane and trite by comparison.

In a dashing "Librarian to the rescue" style he tells of unearthing previously unknown evidence of skulduggery and lies by dear old Tricky Dick while poring over stacks of documents in some dark dank repository. These documents were "overlooked" during the Nixon impeachment trial.

The crux of the story is that the new evidence conclusively proved Nixon a liar, perjurer etc.

I found the book short and readable without being too pedantic myself and was wondering if anyone had read the thing.

If this is off topic let me know and I will delete it.

Message edited by its author, Sep 14, 2008, 5:44pm.

It's this flogging a dead horse? Nixon was clearly on a track to be both impeached and removed. But both processes related only to Nixon's right to hold the office, and he resigned. (Clinton was impeached, but not removed.) As for criminal liability, he was pardoned; he didn't get off.

Message edited by its author, Sep 14, 2008, 8:51pm.

Ack! I was unclear, this book describes events that occurred 3 years after Nixon's resignation, If you thought I said the research was contemporary. I consider the affair history and am not really that concerned with the legal nuances but executive power is a contemporary issue.

Mr. Reston was on the research staff of David Frost and is very scrupulous with the facts and time line. I was not so interested in the "new evidence" as the description of the times and people. Oddly enough I was driving past the road to Nixon's house in the upper keys if I am not mistaken during that time. He also had Rastafarians trying to legalize pot living in a mansion nearby.

The book does provide a unique perspective of events and is also providing a chunk of change I presume, since I read the movie rights have also been sold. I guess he is betting people will pay to flog this dead horse.

Message edited by its author, Sep 14, 2008, 9:39pm.

IMHO, it was a big mistake not to jail Nixon. It established a precedent that presidents are too important to face the legal consequences of their lawbreaking. I expect that GWB will pardon his entire administration for anything they did or may have done during the entire 8 years, as well as key collaborators outside the administration, and that will be that -- presidents can do whatever they want.

It was critical in Nixon's removal that many Republicans in Congress abandoned him and favored his removal because of his lawbreaking. That would never happen with the Republicans in congress today, for whom power is much more important than the law.

"I consider the affair history and am not really that concerned with the legal nuances but executive power is a contemporary issue."

Why, then, not consider the Constitution as "history," as it is older even than the Nixon administration and crimes?

And why bother with "legal nuances" when the Constitution is irrelevant?

To the contrary: Executive power is a contemporary "issue" with the full weight of prior history -- even though it need not be made relevant, though it has been, by Cheney's assertion of Nixon's anti-Constitutional/American "If the president does it, it's not illegal".

Bottom line: if prior administrations and their histories were irrelevant, we wouldn't revert back to prior administrations -- Washington in false defense of the use of torture; Lincoln in false defense of the suspension of habeas corpsus by the Bushit criminal enterprise, as example -- seeking justifications for "contemporary" ab/uses of Executive power. OR for excuses to rationalize and avoid such ab/uses.

The issues we have had shoved in our faces during the last eight years will not simply go away -- evaporate -- with a change in administration because -- and this was part of the conscious Cheney/Addington intent -- everything they did, as did everything done by prior administrations, established "legal" precedent. And in keeping with the way law works: if one doesn't expressly prohibit a precedent one affirms it as legal.

Torture is a war crime, prohibited always and everywhere. It cannot be made legal. But shall we pretend that which the Bushit criminal enterprise denied -- contrary to existing law -- was torture is therefore not torture due to an unconstitutional unilateralism? Shall we pretend it can be made legal in effort to ignore the fact that it cannot? What, then, will the consequences of such "American exeptionalism" -- self-exemption from the rule of law -- be?

Last but not least: with the processing and release of Nixon tapes by the National Archives, additional crimes are discovered and reported, so we aren't done with discovering the extent of Nixon's criminality. Despite the best efforts of Republicans since then with drip-drip-drip attacks on JFK's character -- he not being here to answer back -- and exploitation of FDR and LBJ tapes, they've found NOTHING in them which indicate violations of law, while the Nixon tapes reveal that as the constant norm with Nixon.

The so-called "legal nuances" of the Nixon administration (as example) are as relevant today as those of Washington, and Lincoln* -- and of the Bushit criminal enterprise.
_____

*Lincoln isn't only spinning in his grave; he's changing his voter registration to Democrat.

Message edited by its author, Dec 17, 2008, 5:05pm.

"It's this flogging a dead horse?"

The Bushit criminal enterprise doesn't think so: Cheney was (along with others) in the Nixon administration, and he reaches back to Nixon for his anti-constitutional justification that "When the president does it, it isn't illegal."

Nor does contemporary law: the Bushit suspension of habeas corpus was justified by misrepresentation -- lying -- of both the Constitution and Lincoln's suspension of it.

"Nixon was clearly on a track to be both impeached and removed. But both processes related only to Nixon's right to hold the office, and he resigned."

Nope: the process of impeachment concerning Nixon was not whether he had a "right" to hold the office; it was presumed he had been elected, and legally so (there is since 2000 legitimate question about that in view of the locus of the Watergate burglary).

It was based upon the hard evidence of violations of law, as formulated with bipartisan agreement in Articles of Impeachment, including:

1. Obstruction of justice. That included the false invocation of "national security" in effort to cover up crimes.

2. Warrantless wiretapping.

"(Clinton was impeached, but not removed.)"

That's because, for one, there are two steps to the process. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment -- which occurs in the House. The trial on the impeachment occurs in the Senate, guilt being proven, the subject of the impeachment then being removed from office.

"As for criminal liability, he was pardoned; he didn't get off."

That is true of Nixon: he was not found innocent, or acquitted. He was already seen to be, on the abundant public evidence, guilty of the several charges leveled at him, that affirmed by the bipartisan House investigations and hearings and their Articles based upon the evidence developed.

By contrast, the right-wing Clinton-haters continue to smear him as being a "perjurer," which in fact was the charge in the Republican-controlled House*; but when tried for that in the Senate, he was acquitted -- found Not Guilty.
_____

*Republican Henry Hyde, who lead the lynch mob, was himself having an affair at the time. One crucial difference between the two was that Clinton had a non-illegal consensual hetereosexual affair with a single of-age woman who admitted having stalked Clinton specifically for the purpose of "earning her knee pads". The persons injured were Hillary and Chelsea; and, of course, Clinton himself.

Hyde's was a consensual heterosexual affair with a married woman which broke up her marriage. The persons injured included her husband and Hyde's wife. But not Hyde unless one believes (1) there's a "God," and (2) the Commandment against adultery is actually "God"'s word.

Or believes that harms to moral and ethical standards held, however superficially or artificially, by Hyde were harms to Hyde himself "spiritually".

I think there's an ironic "jekyl" in there somewhere which sums up in the word "hypocrite".

Message edited by its author, Oct 24, 2008, 6:11am.

Wow, have you seen the hype with the movie out about the Frost/Nixon interview? They are actually throwing some advertising change at the flick. I believe it was rated a "must see" by several reviewers.

I wish I had found out about the movie development earlier. I think the "Rastafarian" connection would have made an interesting juxtaposition to the main plot - hmmm I could see myself and a couple of starlets filling those roles!

Message edited by its author, Dec 16, 2008, 4:57pm.

#3 --

"He also had Rastafarians trying to legalize pot living in a mansion nearby."

I have no idea what that is to mean. NIXON "had" Rastifarians, who were attempting to legalize pot, "living in a mansion nearby"?

NIXON was urging them to attempt to legalize pot? NIXON was paying their rent? NIXON owned the mansion and allowed them to live there rent-free?

>8
Will echo that one. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there a Nixon/Rastafarian connection? The idea intrigues and I'm curious to know more.

#8 "NIXON was urging them to attempt to legalize pot?"

Sounds good to me but no that was not the case as I understand it.

The facts were that a group of Rastas were trying to make pot a legal religious sacrament during that same period, if I remember the Miami newspaper articles and evening news clips correctly, and they lived in the same neighborhood as Nixon was staying. {Who was the guy who took off to Cuba, Rebozo? might have been his place?}

I like your version better however! Since I read 10% of the movie is fiction , having several gratuitous "sacramental scenes" on a clothing optional beach in front of the Rasta mansion to contrast the political directions the nation was going in at the time would give a break from the monologue inspired tension I anticipate to be in the movie {I have seen no pre release}

Hmmmm let's see, would it be out of the realm of reality for Nixon to stroll down the beach and Grok the whole scene after indulging in a "special rolled' Jamaican cigar? Has that scene been used somewhere already?

Message edited by its author, Dec 17, 2008, 11:41pm.

#10

I still don't get it. Nixon wouldn't be "staying" in a ghetto; Rebozo wouldn't own and live in a ghetto. And Rastafarians -- if they could afford it -- wouldn't be living in a doubtless-whites only neighborhood which would have Nixon and/or Rebozo.

Rastafarians have long claimed reefer to be a "religious" "sacrament" -- and not only those in FL. But have you ever discussed their "theology" with them? -- wholly uninformed mishmash of second-/third-hand and the ludicrous elevation of an African dictator as their prophet.

Timothy Leary also claimed that LSD was a religious sacrament.

Few, if any, who made such assertions actually believed them; and few others believed they were actually sincere about their claims.

The same suspicion applies to the "medical marijuana" movement, though there is some evidence for their claims.

". . . would it be out of the realm of reality for Nixon to stroll down the beach and Grok the whole scene after indulging in a "special rolled' Jamaican cigar? Has that scene been used somewhere already?"

As I indicated, David Frye's "Nixon: A Watergate Fantasy" (released days before the "Saturday Night Massacre" -- amazingly prescient; if you hunt for it you can probably find the CD of it*) had Nixon imprisoned -- in a cell with a "hippy". The "hippy" turned him on to reefer, and Nixon gets the munchies for Oreos, reflects upon how the moonlight illuminates the bars in the cell window, and revealing he'd occasionally haed an urge to do things to Pat Nixon's body with the presidential seal -- occasionally recurring back to reality by calling the hippy, "you hippy freak!"
_____

*"He's Back: David Frye is Nixon" (BMG 75517-49521-2 1996). The final track on side 1 was Kissinger, "Master of the Vorld," ORDERING the listener to turn the record over. More readily available is the double CD "I Am the President"/"Radio Free Nixon" (Collectors' Choice CCM-627), both of which preceeded "Watergate Fantasy," and were on Elektra ("Fantasy" was on Kama Sutra/Buddah).

Message edited by its author, Dec 25, 2008, 12:23am.

# 11 "I still don't get it. Nixon wouldn't be "staying" in a ghetto; Rebozo wouldn't own and live in a ghetto. And Rastafarians -- if they could afford it -- wouldn't be living in a doubtless-whites only neighborhood which would have Nixon and/or Rebozo."

You are right it was weird, no ghetto's involved. It was a very wealthy upper keys area. No accounting for wealth sometimes I guess. The Rasta's attempts at legalization were not weak, they had good lawyers as I remember. {I think they got near, if not to, the supreme court. Sorry I am to lazy to search it out}

"Rastafarians have long claimed reefer to be a "religious" "sacrament" -- and not only those in FL. But have you ever discussed their "theology" with them? -- wholly uninformed mishmash of second-/third-hand and the ludicrous elevation of an African dictator as their prophet."

I think you are wrong in that assertion. As I understand it their religion is from The
Coptic Church, the oldest existing Christian sect, which predates the Catholic church and our current version of the Bible if I am not mistaken.

Haile Selassie {ludicrous elevation of an African dictator as their prophet} from the small bit I have read about him was a leader in peace and a very popular benign "dictator" ousted by external corporate and imperialistic forces.

"Few, if any, who made such assertions actually believed them; and few others believed they were actually sincere about their claims."

I read a biography of Bob Marley, Bob Marley in His Own Words I think - it was some time ago, and he was very sincere in all his beliefs; political and religious. He went on stage to promote a political candidate hours after being shot through the arm by assailants who broke into his home and who also grazed his wife's head with a bullet. How many musicians would do that? I think he was also buried with a ring given to him by Haile Selassie which was said to be handed down from Solomon who also wore it.

On the other end of the spectrum I schemed with an acquaintance who surmised that if the law passed you would need to be an "official" Rasta to be legally protected. He started plans to create a series of "Rastafarian schools" where you would learn to be a Rastafarian, with a diploma - for a fee! He belittled my knowledge of the subject and made me learn the Jamaican patois , as he knew it, and said I could be an instructor. After a few beers this seemed like a great plan even though we both had blond hair and I had never been to Jamaica.

Message edited by its author, Dec 25, 2008, 10:23pm.

This is certainly an extreme example of `thread drift` - from Nixon to Rastafarians in 12 messages !

There are many bad books on the Rastafarian movement, but if anyone want some good ones, here are a few I`d recommend - Benjamin Zephaniah - Rasta Time in Palestine, E E Cashmore - The Rastafarians, Joseph Owen - Dread. Cashmore`s will still be in print I think, the others maybe not - you should be able to find second hand copies on Abe or Antiqbook.

One I`ve never read is by the late Len garrison - Black Youth, Rastafarianism and the Identity Crisis in Britain. It might be rather dated by now. I used to know the author slightly some years ago and always had some regard for him as I recall.

That should keep you going for a bit anyway.

Many of you liberals and progressives fail to point out the great things Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon has done.

He negotiated the SALT talks with the USSR, took our dollar off the gold standard to slow inflation, opened a relationship with China which set the stage for the fall of the former USSR, he ended the Vietman War as promised, signed a bill to open a governmetn agency called the Environmental Protection Agency, and tried to win a Democrat's war (Kennedy) in Vietnam. Further he reformed a governmental assitance program called Welfare among other things. He found and exposed Communists in our government like Algier Hiss and "the Pink Lady" Helen Behagen Douglas. Thanks RN!
Then this task fell in the very capable hands of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Watergate was politics - nothing more - and more historians now beginning to reconsider Nixon's legacy. As for wiretapping - the White House taping system was set up by Lyndon Johnson. The Kennedy's wire tapped as well.

Nixon may have obstructed justice if you consider that a crime - I do not however. He tried - and honorably so - to keep his loyal subordinates from getting convicted of burglary which - again - was just politics.

Daniel Ellsberg should have been shot for interfering with peace talks between the Nixon administration and the Noth Vietnam.

Finally, Mr. Nixon may have been the last U.S. president to have the intellect and guts to - actually - make his OWN decisions in the White House!

So you Nixon bashers and haters will have to try harder to discredit his genius (by making a bogus movie or insinuate that he is paranoid or a drunk) as it is impossible to ignore RN's true greatness.

Long live the greatness of Richard Nixon and long live his legacy!

THANKS!
Michael D'Antonio

Our involvement with Vietnam went back to the Truman Administration. The hot war part of it was all LBJ and Robert McNamara. The war ended because the democrats refused to continue funding it.

Breaking and entering is a felony crime everywhere in this country, as is obstruction of justice.

Nixon wound up the victim of his own paranoia.

This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed.

>16 "a limp wristed website such as this"

Your wanking wrist seems pretty limber.

>16 geneg is my real name. Gene Greathouse. Secondly, I watched hours and hours of the Watergate Hearings live as they were happening. Third, I don't know where you get the idea Presidents can do whatever they want in pursuit of national security. Fourth, Watergate wasn't about national security, it was about a paranoid president afraid of losing an election he couldn't have lost if Mars fell on the Capitol.

Why do I get the feeling you are a troll. Is it because of the stunning ignorance of your posts?

Your turn.

I wonder if calling someone a troll shouldn't be the only form of abuse allowed under the Terms of Service. It's something of a term of art in social-networking circles. At present, however, I'd avoid it as name calling. K, guys?

As for this being a limp-wristed website, them's fighting words!

T

T? Can't you even sign your real name in your posts?

And what's wrong with limp wrists?

Complicates reading.

Shut up, four eyes.

Flag abuse! Flag abuse!

Nixon should have been convicted and should have served some jail time. Ford's Pardon was so bogus and reeked of putting the fix in.

But what GW Bush has done is far worse and he makes Nixon almost benign in comparison.

Put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz on trial and let the chips fall where they may.

We could start with War Crimes and use Nuremburg as a model.

Message edited by its author, Apr 24, 2009, 6:59pm.

You Americans are hilarious! Keep it up guys, this debate has me splitting my sides with laughter! If you could see your debates from outside, it would do all of your perspectives a great deal of good!

Can we put Roosevelt and his cabinet on trial? He misled Congress about aid to England, imprisoned Japanese Americans and executed German soldiers on a military mission to New Jersey. Let the chip fall where they may.

Not to mention the Kennedy's attempts to assassinate Castro, the Bay of Pigs...

Or Clinton's illegal war against the hapless Serbs!

The whole arms for drugs for aid thing with Reagan.

That was another thread. Republican presidents are all criminals. Democratic presidents never.

Ok, does Johnson's initiation of the bombing of Laos and Cambodia and use of the security apparatus to spy on American citizens count?

Because obviously if this -

Republican presidents are all criminals. Democratic presidents never.

is incorrect, then this -

Democratic presidents are all criminals. Republican presidents never.

must be correct.

God bless logic.

Message edited by its author, Apr 25, 2009, 1:24am.

I still can't decide if you are always right, always wrong or always joking... :)

That makes two of us.

> 20 "And what's wrong with limp wrists?"

Nothing--and what's wrong with wanking? By the look of those flags, it seems to have rubbed some folks the wrong way. So to speak. This is baffling.

Maybe it was the "commie" part... Or maybe it was just the fact that the comments were obviously intended to be derogatory and ad hominem.

I do think that the primary effect of Ford's pardon of Nixon was to establish a trend. Presidents get away with lawbreaking. They are above the law for everything but hanky panky in the oval office. All of the arguments against prosecuting those who established the policies for torture are basically arguments that presidents and their appointees should be above the law.

"As many know much better than I, this was THE TOPIC in its day when Nixon was forced to resign. Clinton's peccadillo's were inane and trite by comparison."
Watergate wasn't inane? He wasn't being charged for Cambodia ("everything that flies on everything that moves"-Kissinger), he wasn't being charged for overthrowing Chiles government, he wasn't being charged for COINTELPRO activity during his term like the assassination of Fred Hampton.
No, his great crime was some bumblings in a hotel that have never been explained and calling some people bad names.
The demonstration here is pretty obvious. All that stuff I mentioned isn't important and can be forgotten, the implication is that they are accepted and approved of, BUT using the state apparatus against the representatives of the less extreme faction of the business community that is the great crime of the century.

Using the state apparatus against anyone for political purposes is the major crime of this or any other century.

To compare tyranny and stains on blue dresses misses the point, altogether. I guess tyranny against your enemies is not tyranny when your guy does it. Right?

Those war crimes he and Kissinger committed, while they don't pale in significance, don't rise to the level of tyranny, either. Nixon's enemies list and his actions against those on it, the use of the power of the state to harrass individual citizens for political purposes, next to treason, is the most serious crime a sitting President can commit.

I don't think "I never had sex with that woman" quite comes up to tyranny.

"As for criminal liability, he was pardoned; he didn't get off."

As for criminal liability, there was none: except for impeachment, which is the equivalent of indictment, he was neither tried nor convicted.

He was pardoned in order to PREVENT his being tried and convicted (the Nixon dead-enders then insisted one cannot be tried after being removed pursuant to impeachment; but that's not how the Constitution reads on the point; and today they lie that he was "driven from office").

Which pardoning is obviously odd: one cannot logically, or in terms of law, be pardoned for something one did not do. And one is considered innocent unless and until convicted of the thing charged.

#13 --

My views on "Rastafarianism" are based upon knowing and discussing it with "Rastafarians".

#14 --

"Many of you liberals and progressives fail to point out the great things Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon has done."

We don't forget those assertions and theories. But we also don't forget his crimes.

As for the treasonous view that, "If a president does it, it isn't illegal," I invite you to read the Constitution on that point:

US Con. Art. II, s. 4. The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

What that means should be obvious: that a President is subject to impeachment and conviction means a President is not above the or beyond the reach of law. It means not only that it was recognized that a President can violate the law -- one cannot violate that from which one is exempt -- and can be impeached and removed from office for doing so.

And it does not contain any exceptions such as, "The false invocation of the concept of 'national security' to cover up crimes and obstruct justice."

Further: there are two categories of crime: misdemeanor, and felony. A high crime is a felony. Burglary -- as only one finding against Nixon -- is a felony. And the idea that the burglary of the opposing political party's offices was a defense of "national security" is worse than ludicrous: it is an attack on democracy and a defense of tyranny.

And it isn't only "liberals and progressives" who see, and don't deny, that Nixon was a criminal who committed impeachable offenses: the Articles of Impeachment were formulated and voted FOR by a significant number of REPUBLICANS. To reduce that to politics is to reveal ignorance of the fact that politics and law are not the same thing. The Constitution establishes the rules, within -- but not against -- which politics occur.

John Adams explained his defense of the British troops involved in the "Boston Massacre" to those who were using that incident for political ends:

"Justice and the rule of law are to be above politics."

It is a phony, false, "conservative" who trashes that distinction by reducing everything, including the rule of law, to politics -- to "anything goes" -- so that, then, everything is "legal," depending only on the size of one's criminal gang. That is contrary to the Founders/Framers' intents, and to Constitution and rule of law.

Message edited by its author, Nov 8, 2009, 7:57pm.

#26 --

"imprisoned Japanese Americans"

Which the SC held was legal.

#27 --

The factual history is that the efforts to assassinate Castro, and the Bay of Pigs invasion, were planned and initiated under Eisenhower-Nixon. They were inherited by JFK -- and we know that had he stopped them he would have been called "Commie" and the like by Nixon, et al.

It's okay to violate the law, so long as one is claiming a high purpose, against a boogeyman?

#29 --

That reminds of my favorite TeeVee moment of all time -- when Reagan -- wearing his suit jacket -- went on live TeeVee, waggled his finger at the camera, and declared,

"I never had sex with those Iranian terrorists to whom I gave the Stinger missiles in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act!"

#38 --

Exactly.

The reference to "wiretapping" above as concerning Nixon's taping of himself, and how that was done before him by LBJ and JFK (he left out FDR), and therefore not being illegal, is emblematic of the dishonesty of the Nixon dead-enders.

The Article of Impeachment on wiretapping did not concern his self-taping; it concerned the use of illegal -- warrantless -- wiretaps against his perceived enemies. And even against his own brother.

A deranged irony: Nixon wiretapped Kissinger illegally, and Kissinger wiretapped Nixon illegally, both at the same time.

Message edited by its author, Nov 8, 2009, 7:59pm.

"Those war crimes he and Kissinger committed, while they don't pale in significance, don't rise to the level of tyranny, either."
So a list of people for the IRS to audit is tyranny - but killing hundreds of thousands of peoples and devastating an entire country isn't, overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a military junta isn't, both the activities of COINTELPRO & the murder of a Black Panther organizer isn't.
I think you've proved my point, that this is an institutional reaction - the powerful protecting themselves.

#43 - and when that failed the Kennedy administration moved on to Operation Mongoose, decades spanning terrorist war and countless acts of sabotage.

#47 --

If you hadn't the facts correct re. Bay of Pigs, and with whom it originated, then how can we rely on your statement of facts about such as "COINTELPRO," and other vociferous catch-alls for conspirabunk?

Further:

"the Kennedy administration moved on to Operation Mongoose, decades spanning terrorist war and countless acts of sabotage."

JFK wasn't in office for "decades".

JNagarya #40

"""My views on "Rastafarianism" are based upon knowing and discussing it with "Rastafarians"."""

Jeez JN... My view is, unless you are an atheist, deriding another religion/sect is really too easy {an atheist wouldn't bother, a waste of time}. It also puts you in the position of throwing bricks from a very thin paned glass house.

With all the faith based premises of religion, the only way to settle an argument about religious validity would be an old fashioned show down - with who can turn water into the best wine, rods into the neatest dancing snakes and produce 69 scantily clad virgins out of thin air. If cargo cultists could make beer and attractive lap dancers fall out of the air with a soft landing I would vote for them.

and that's my opinion just sticking to the topic ;-)

#49 --

I'm an agnostic. I don't know enough to be an atheist.

Or enough to be a religiowhatever.

The premises of "faith based" whatevers -- "religions" -- are, in once sense, impossible to disprove because they are impossible to first be proved.

So, in a sense, there's nothing there to deride.

But let me in on the secret: where are these 69 scantilly clad virgins?

And why are they overdressed?