waterloo, watergate, whitewatergate, and just plain old gate

Es­ti­mated reading time is 7 min­utes.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW what Wa­terloo and Wa­ter­gate and White­wa­ter­gate have to with each other? And what does a just plain old gate have to do with any­thing and where does ABBA fit into this? What if I brought an­other, more re­cent gate into the conversation—like Beng­hazi­gate? Yes­terday I posted a piece on Trey Gowdy and Hillary Clinton and who’s lying about whose lies and out of that came this . . .

In “an­other fishing ex­pe­di­tion without a bite,” I called the at­tempts of the oh-so par­tisan Con­gres­sional com­mittee in­ves­ti­ga­tions to un­cover the elu­sive and un­de­fined ‘truth’ about Beng­hazi a never-ending story and the most re­cent as “the latest round of Clinton-bashing by the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy.”

Noting that this was the ninth (!) such com­mittee, I stated that it was “com­mitted to fishing—er, I mean finding—the ‘truth’ about what hap­pened in Beng­hazi three years ago.” 1

Ac­cu­sa­tions against the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of every­thing from mere in­com­pe­tence to a cover-up followed.

Of course.

After the first few Republican-chaired com­mit­tees found no wrong-doing, shouldn’t they have quit?

Of course.

But they haven’t and the at­tack, its af­ter­math, and the on­going se­ries of in­ves­ti­ga­tions are re­ferred to as Beng­hazi­gate, which is seen around the world as a se­ries of par­tisan at­tacks that have fanned the flames of ha­tred against cur­rent Pres­i­dent Obama and fu­ture Pres­i­dent Clinton while failing to un­cover a single shred of ev­i­dence to use as a foun­da­tion for that ha­tred or the investigations.

Alas, that is how the Vast Rightwing Con­spiracy works.


Trent Gowdy, Benghazi committee, lipstick on a pig, political committee, political cartoon

This car­toon by Jeff Danziger for The New York Times is ti­tled “Trent Gowdy’s Lip­stick” and refers to the rhetor­ical ex­pres­sion ‘To put lip­stick on a pig.’ This idiom refers to making cos­metic changes in an at­tempt to dis­guise the true na­ture of something.

The void that is the Internet

As usual, when I com­pose at my com­puter, I have ac­cess to the In­ternet and the stag­gering array of facts and fig­ures and even opin­ions. And I can get lost there: open up Google and type in a phrase and sud­denly I am looking at some­thing else only tan­gen­tially re­lated but nonethe­less re­lated to my topic that sends my mind ca­reening off in a new di­rec­tion and I just have to add this stuff to my essay and some­times I do but mostly I don’t.

For ex­ample, yes­terday a friend posted a line from a ’60s album on one of my Face­book en­tries: “but still you can say ‘darker and darker’.” I knew I knew that line but at first I thought it was Fire­sign The­ater. So I typed those words into Google, but I er­ro­neously sub­sti­tuted and for but and that al­tered the re­sults of the search. Still, I had more than 43,000,000 sites to choose from! 2

On the first page, I had links to sites about Fifty Shades Of Darker, Donald Trump, lake sur­faces, and staying out of the sun. The second Google page was even better be­cause I found an ar­ticle ti­tled “What The Color of Your Urine Says About You.”

And that al­lowed me to use a line from that ar­ticle as a non-sequitur re­sponse to the ‘darker and darker’ quote. (You had to have been there.)

When using a search en­gine, the re­sulting pos­si­bil­i­ties may be prac­ti­cally end­less if one keeps his mind open to those pos­si­bil­i­ties and out of that search came this . . .



This car­toon by Clay Ben­nett of the Chat­tanooga Free Press de­picts Hillary Clinton non­cha­lantly fending off the many swords of the many Beng­hazi com­mit­tees out to flay her.

I stuck mostly to the subject

I find his­tory and pol­i­tics and pop­ular cul­ture and rock & roll and grammar and word-play al­most equally fas­ci­nating topics, and I some­times com­bine two or more in one essay. Yes­terday I did not.

I stuck to the subject.


But I did get side­tracked with the use of gate as a suffix and started bab­bling on with my two typing fin­gers when I re­al­ized that I was off on a side­track that would make for a more fun main track as its own post. So I ex­cised it from “an­other fishing ex­pe­di­tion without a bite” and saved it for this piece today.

So here we are at that post!



This car­toon by Signe Wilkinson of the Philadel­phia In­quirer & Daily News tells it all!

All gates are not Watergates

The use of gate as a suffix in Beng­hazi­gate and White­wa­ter­gate does not refer to that wooden con­trap­tion that you have to swing open to enter a garden. Adding gate to a noun is taken from and refers to Wa­ter­gate, which most people know has some­thing to do with the res­ig­na­tion of Richard Nixon from the Presidency.

Ac­tu­ally, the Wa­ter­gate is a hotel in Wash­ington, DC. The 1972 scandal as­so­ci­ated with it and Pres­i­dent Nixon in­volved breaking into the De­mo­c­ratic Na­tional Committee’s head­quar­ters along with lar­ceny, un­doc­u­mented slush funds, and ob­struc­tion of jus­tice, among others. These crimes and mis­de­meanors were car­ried out by Tricky Dick’s henchmen, a clan­des­tine co­terie of creepy char­ac­ters from C.R.E.E.P., a Rep*blican ver­sion of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (Look it up!)

The term Wa­ter­gate has come to en­com­pass an array of clan­des­tine and often il­legal ac­tiv­i­ties and gate has be­come a common suffix. At least common among elected Rep*blican of­fi­cials in the DC area in the past twenty-five years.

In brazen at­tempt after brazen at­tempt to create columns of smoke where only a match had been lit (if that!) during the pres­i­dency of Bill Clinton, those rep­re­sen­ta­tives have ac­cused the Clin­tons of one non-event after an­other, giving us such non-scandals as:

•  Trav­el­gate of 1993, in which we learned that the Clin­tons had the right to fire anyone they wanted to, in­cluding mem­bers of the White House Travel Office;

•  Troop­er­gate of 1993, in which we learned that mem­bers of the Arkansas State Troopers were paid to give tes­ti­mony against former Gov­ernor Clinton; and

•  White­wa­ter­gate of 1992, in which we learned that the Clin­tons may or may not have made a profit in a pri­vate busi­ness ven­ture in­volving the White­water De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion during the 1970s and ’80s.

There were more.


Wa­terloo! I was de­feated, you won the war. Wa­terloo! Promise to love you for­ever more. Wa­terloo! Couldn’t es­cape if I wanted to. Wa­terloo! Knowing my fate is to be with you. Wa­terloo! Fi­nally facing my Wa­terloo.” See, I got ABBA into this thing after all!

Finally facing my Waterloo

Wa­ter­gate has taken on meaning sim­ilar to that of Wa­terloo, the de­ci­sive battle in 1815 in which Napoleon lost not just the battle but also his power, ab­di­cating his role as Em­peror of France. As an idiom, to refer to someone’s Wa­terloo is usu­ally a ref­er­ence to a de­ci­sion or ac­tion that de­cided the course of that person’s ca­reer or life—always negatively.

How could I not pay a nod to the grandeur that was ABBA? Wa­terloo was their first record to hit the charts where it mat­tered: in the US and the UK. As a ref­er­ence to Wa­terloo, it is prob­ably better known than the battle that caused Napolean to step down from power in France. Such is the power of pop­ular culture . . .

Gate as a transitive verb

The Urban Dic­tio­nary de­fines the non-capitalized word wa­ter­gate as “taping over a door latch to pre­vent the door from locking,” which is news to me as I have never heard or read the word used that way. But I haven’t read every­thing, so maybe it’s so, so I don’t want to con­fuse the sit­u­a­tion by giving yet an­other meaning to white­water.

What I sug­gest here is that we em­brace gate as a tran­si­tive verb: to gate someone is to ac­cuse them of scan­dalous be­havior without a shred of ac­tion­able ev­i­dence be­lieving the mere ac­cu­sa­tion will do them damage.

Ex­ample: During his pres­i­dency, Bill Clinton’s po­lit­ical en­e­mies gated him over the White­water investments.

Ex­ample: On Oc­tober 22, 2015, the Trey Gowdy-chaired com­mittee gated Hillary Clinton for more than ten hours.

It would prob­ably be best if we kept the use to gate to po­lit­ical sit­u­a­tions, but it could easily break out of those confines.

Ex­ample: Throughout the 1990s, Neal Umphred’s pro­fes­sional en­e­mies gated him in print about his work as the au­thor of price guides for record col­lec­tors. Would that be Col­lec­tors­gate? Priceguide­gate? O’Sullivan-Woodsidegate?

Somehow, using gate that way doesn’t carry as much clout, so I’m thinking we should just use gate for po­lit­ical conundrums.

That’s it: so I would like to hear from both of my readers where they stand on the use of gate as a verb . . .

Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!



HEADER IMAGE: Benny An­der­sson, Anni-Frid “Frida” Lyn­gstad, Ag­netha Fält­skog, and Björn Ul­vaeus. What is there to say? Oh, I know: Find your­self a copy of the 1994 movie The Ad­ven­tures Of Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert with Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, and the bloody amazing Ter­ence Stamp as three drag queens stuck in the out­back of Australia.



1   What hap­pened in Beng­hazi three years ago was an un­pro­voked at­tack on the US em­bassy there on Sep­tember 11, 2012. During this at­tack, four Amer­i­cans were mur­dered: J. Christo­pher Stevens, For­eign Ser­vice In­for­ma­tion Man­age­ment Of­ficer Sean Smith, and CIA con­trac­tors Ty­rone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

2   The line is from a piece of non­sen­sical di­a­logue is from a sec­tion ti­tled Bit Of Nos­talgia from Frank Zappa’s 1967 album LUMPY GRAVY.

Notify of
Rate this article:
Please rate this article with your comment.
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m late to this, but, since you ask:

1. “What I sug­gest here is that we em­brace gate as a tran­si­tive verb: to gate someone is to ac­cuse them of scan­dalous be­havior without a shred of ac­tion­able ev­i­dence be­lieving the mere ac­cu­sa­tion will do them damage.”

I’m guessing this means ‘swift­boating’ just ain’t gonna catch on. Which makes me sad, be­cause I’m re­ally tired of ‘-gate.’ Dammit this country needs a new eu­phemism for scandal, phony or otherwise!

2. And just as an aside: If AB­BA’s take on the con­cept of ‘Wa­terloo’ has in­deed trumped the purely Napoleonic as­so­ci­a­tion (which is cer­tainly pos­sible), then does it now stand for both vic­tory and defeat?

As in, ‘Yeah we’re standing up here singing about how our sig­nif­i­cant others (who wrote this song) have de­feated us, and won the war....but we’re also on our way to selling so many records that no one will be able to keep count,...as of RIGHT NOW.”

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x