Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on June 01, 2005, 09:31:22 AM
-
patriot or traitor?
-
think he'd opened his trap if Nixon would have given him the #1 spot in the FBI?
I do not .. what does that make him?
how about a senile old man whose family is tossing into the spotlight so that they can make a buck or two while someone still gives a rats arse about Watergate...
-
The FBI Oath:
I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever, so help me GOD.
Seems to me the guy did just that. He's no traitor. Nixon was breaking the law and subverting the FBI to cover it up.
-
Nixon was breaking the law and using his position to subvert the powers entrusted him as president.
The guy was no traitor, not to anyone but Nixon apologists. Nixon may have been a great president right up to when he violated the nations trust, but after that, he was damaged goods.
-
I think the only reason he has come to the public now is because his health is failing and he wants to make $$$ on interviews so he has something to leave to the family. It's all about $$$ now.
-
LOL... Why do conservatives hate America? Every time someone tries to make a buck they jump all over him.
Oh BTW - Patriot.
-
Ditto... Patriot.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL... Why do conservatives hate America? Every time someone tries to make a buck they jump all over him.
I think Patriot also
However, I'm not jumping all over him, I am just stating my opinion on the matter. After all these years why else would the guy finally come forward. I mean, it's not like anyone was actively still trying to find out who "deep throat" really was, and there are no active political campaigns or other politics that seem to be dependant on this isue... It's all about making money now, or getting some sort of recognition or notariaty from it.
-
In that light, you could say that it's classy that he's waited this long. If he had identified himself back a few years ago when the book came out that had everyone guessing again, he would have made a lot more money. Also, the fact is, he's NOT going to affect anyones campaign now.
It's a point in his favor that he waited this long, and he serves history by coming out before he dies. If we didn't know who he was until after he died, then the opportunity to ask a bunch of historically significant questions would disapear. If someone who's chronologizing politics of the late 20th century wants, they now have an opportunity to ask one of the most significant insiders in history for details that would otherwise vaporize.
If he was a 'money grubber', he would have unveiled himself earlier when the hype monster was strong. If he was a fame-potato, ditto.
-
anyone with a shred of common sense would agree with you chair.
-
That lets me out.. so why do i still agree?? ;)
-
Originally posted by Torque
anyone with a shred of common sense would agree with you chair.
Hmmm... you need to work on your tone. Instead, state it this way, "Anyone that disagrees with me is a f***ing moron."
You'll fit in better around here. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If he was a 'money grubber', he would have unveiled himself earlier when the hype monster was strong. If he was a fame-potato, ditto.
he ain't
his children are ... $$$
does he look like he even knows what he is smiling and waving at the camera for?
of course he's a good guy for whistle blowing but I do think that if he'd not been passed over for the FBI job, he'd said a word ...
-
Keep him in the role he played. He didn't bring down Nixon. Nixon and his cronies did that just fine on their own.
That he may have been not happy about being passed over by the Nixon bunch who wanted a yes man at the FBI so they could control it, is in many ways irrelevant.
I'd also suggest that he battled many an inner demon in keeping the secret and I'd bet he probably had days were he saw himself as a "snitch".
In the end, he did the right thing.
Patriot
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Nixon screwed up, there's no defense for that.
However, it's pretty obvious this guy did what he did because he got passed over for J. Edgar Hoover's job. He's hinted at that several times. He said before he felt like he did the wrong thing.
The truth is, he could have, and should have, dealt with the Nixon problems through legal channels. There's no doubt he could have brought Nixon down without the help of Woodward and Bernstein.
His FAMILY pressed him to reveal his actions now. One of his children, or grandschildren, has flat out admitted that she pressured him into this, so she and the family could get the money now. I think she wants ot pay off debt she ran up for her
children's education.
What does that make him? A man. Not a traitor, not a patriot. Just a man. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Imagine a world without Watergate.
One wonders... could be an interesting thread by itself. ;)
Regardless, if Felt had done nothing, never put the hounds on nixon, for whatever reason; what would that make him?
-
Woodward and Bernstein did a great job of outing Nixon and his cronies.
Pity they weren't around to do an expose on Old Joe Kennedy's role in determining the outcome of the presidential election of 1960.
Perhaps it's not too late.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
However, it's pretty obvious this guy did what he did because he got passed over for J. Edgar Hoover's job.
Saying Deep Throat is a Hero is like some one saying:
We should all be thankful to Nixon for sacrificing his presidency to ensure the American people would not have to deal with J. Edgar Hoover's "mini-me". It was a very brave thing to do, considering the information DT had on Nixon..
:cool:
-
Ben Stein's reply on the Question.
The "news" that former FBI agent Mark Felt broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's articles that helped depose Richard Nixon, a few thoughts.
Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.
When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:
1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.
2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.
So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me.
-
traitor or patriot?
given he was a beltway insider? I would say opportunist. was hoover a patroit or traitor? I think that irrespective of motive he did the right thing. he didn't have an once of testicles and was a dishonorable person. the right thing would have been to disclose openly and then run to hide under frank church's skirt. :D he would have had the eternal gratitude of the freedom hating communist loving liberals, keeping his cushy job as well.
patriot but just barely. a slimey spineless man.
-
ty tojo
the diff being Nixon had the class to step down for the good of the country whereas slick did not ... for lying under oath, not the hummer as some think
-
Gotta go with Ben Stein on this one.
The man was to cowardly to come forward and do the right thing.
It may not have been for the money but it sure was for revenge.
Funny how the same guys who defend Felt defend Clinton.
-
Woodward says his piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060102124_pf.html
-
Nixon did NOT end the Vietnam war from his on choice.. He was forced to. Nixon was probably more interested in escalating Vietnam as much as anyone in power at the time.. Watergate is just a glimpse into the world of lies that Nixon's presidency was..
Oh ya.. Patriot!
-
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050601/lester.gif)
-
Wow! Funny how the winds can change. Don't any of you gents remember that time?
Gotta love revisionist history.
All I know is some of you guys are really starting to scare me. Ben Stein included.
What planet was he on at the time.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Nixon after acknowledging that he made mistakes did the right thing....He resigned instead of draggin the country further into
chaos assoicated with the scandal. He stood up in front of the country and took resposibility for his actions on live tv and resigned.. That is what is I call a Stand up guy...Admit your mistakes and learn from them even if you take lumps on the way..
In later years Nixon's family would explain how bad he actually felt and the guilt he carried....
Compared to the Clinton scandal which Bill stood up on live taped tv and lied to the country, didn't resign, was proved to have lied and has absolutely no remorse for his actions what so ever...
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Wow! Funny how the winds can change. Don't any of you gents remember that time?
Gotta love revisionist history.
All I know is some of you guys are really starting to scare me. Ben Stein included.
What planet was he on at the time.
Dan/CorkyJr
truly. lol.
and let's not forget the iran contra affair. you know the one where reagan couldnt recall what had occurred (not to scary...alzhiemers and "the football" to contend with.
oliver north proudly wearing his,' i got away with defying the congress, breaking the law and farting at the constitution' look on that smug little chip toothed face. all while his barbie doll secretary with the headlips winks for the camera and blinks her little doe eyes at the mastadons. look over there!!! (criminals, exit stage left, sign good bye contracts, get yer pin)
who goes to hell first?
a. the guy who gets a hummy (which in lew of his wife is certainly an understandable...talk about taking one for the team, and who then lies when his little girl is watching television too...while all the little girls are watching. shame realyl. they coulda waited a few years before the conversation turned to lipjobs. that's how i saw it anyway. and for all of you anti feminists, dont you think for one moment that there wasnt an agenda in play there either)
but yes. it's wrong.
and no, its not worth making our country of the free look like a petty people with way too much free time)
and yes, he should have to meet the same standard as his officers, except that the president is a government employee not an enlistee.
but whatever.
it was fun fantasizing about monica lewisky you friendly neighborhood dusty cummins with her mouth on a lollipop wasnt it? (GAG)
I KNOW, i know... that if he would have just admitted it.
yeh.
or.
b.
nixon presiding over a government at the height of it's (and his) paranoia while using the presidency as a personal revenge tool.
he tried to duck the rap too.
he forgot that the first rule of leadership is accepting accountability for your actions. for you are a servant of the people.
both of them did.
the only disturbing thing about our deepthroat revealed is this.
he was skipped over.
like the republicans to clinton, he waged his war personally. i am glad in a sense that he did it. it reminds power that there is never an absolute. a story for the storybooks.
its probably why nixon skipped him over too. he probably sensed it.
yet, i dont disagree with what he did...except for not taking responsibility for it himself.
its scary to think that there are so many vendettas in the world.
silly garbage.
the lot of it.
-
Ben Stein is a fool!
All he did was lie a little.. gee willikers
He frickin used the FBI and the CIA and the Justice system to cover for a dirty trick team he had running for YEARS! He paid off people with campaign funds that were doing CRIMES like breaking and entering, and ruining peoples lives and careers.
Poor Dickie.....
-
Nixon only resigned because the Republicans in the House of Representatives told him that he was going to be impeached and convicted.
They weren't trumped up political assasination charges like those levied against Clinton, regardless of what you historical revisionists want to believe.
-
Nixon was my Commander-In-Chief.
He was held in utter contempt and disgust by miltary professionals and draftee's alike.
As an example of what constitutes wrongness in american politics in the 1960's and 70's he's without parallel.
Anybody remember Spiro T Agnew?
You goofly lil puppies that didn't live thru that nightmarish time.. didn't see the filth that was american government and politics laid bare for all to see.. you'll never get it.
Clinton was a sweetheart.. Reagan a great oaf, Carter a naive pragmatist and Ford a lost puppy.. but Nixon truly was a rat bastard that used the office in ways that reveal his complete lack of honor or decency.
I hope his corpse rots in hell.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nixon was my Commander-In-Chief.
He was held in utter contempt and disgust by miltary professionals and draftee's alike.
As an example of what constitutes wrongness in american politics in the 1960's and 70's he's without parallel.
Anybody remember Spiro T Agnew?
You goofly lil puppies that didn't live thru that nightmarish time.. didn't see the filth that was american government and politics laid bare for all to see.. you'll never get it.
Clinton was a sweetheart.. Reagan a great oaf, Carter a naive pragmatist and Ford a lost puppy.. but Nixon truly was a rat bastard that used the office in ways that reveal his complete lack of honor or decency.
I hope his corpse rots in hell.
errr corpses rot in the ground. your emotional attachment to the issue has clearly clouded your theology.
-
Originally posted by storch
errr corpses rot in the ground. your emotional attachment to the issue has clearly clouded your theology.
Cute. But not relevant.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Nixon after acknowledging that he made mistakes did the right thing....He resigned instead of draggin the country further into
chaos assoicated with the scandal. He stood up in front of the country and took resposibility for his actions on live tv and resigned.. That is what is I call a Stand up guy...Admit your mistakes and learn from them even if you take lumps on the way..
In later years Nixon's family would explain how bad he actually felt and the guilt he carried....
Compared to the Clinton scandal which Bill stood up on live taped tv and lied to the country, didn't resign, was proved to have lied and has absolutely no remorse for his actions what so ever...
Again I ask, do you remember the time? Nixon looked us all in the eye and lied. He did it again and again and again. He let his subordinates knowingly and unknowingly carry on the lie.
Geez, do a bit of research will ya? He betrayed his own party, he let others defend him without telling them the truth and when the truth came out they were betrayed.
To compare Clinton's stuff to Nixon's actions truely shows how little you know of what was happening at the time.
Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. He had a mandate from the people. Somehow through his own paranoia and misundertanding of the trust he'd been given by the people, he messed it up, and his legacy ended up being what it is.
But whatever you do, don't trivialize what happened then, with Clinton.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
texas killed kennedy.
;)
-
He was vindictive for being passed over.
One wonders if that was the FIRST abuse of the FBI he was privy to - not likely. Only when he had an ax to grind did he find this patriotism.
I don't fault him for doing what he did, and I am a Republican.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Again I ask, do you remember the time? Nixon looked us all in the eye and lied. He did it again and again and again. He let his subordinates knowingly and unknowingly carry on the lie.
Geez, do a bit of research will ya? He betrayed his own party, he let others defend him without telling them the truth and when the truth came out they were betrayed.
To compare Clinton's stuff to Nixon's actions truely shows how little you know of what was happening at the time.
Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. He had a mandate from the people. Somehow through his own paranoia and misundertanding of the trust he'd been given by the people, he messed it up, and his legacy ended up being what it is.
But whatever you do, don't trivialize what happened then, with Clinton.
Dan/CorkyJr
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
:D
Clinton never looked us in the eyes and lied...nope, no way.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Compared to the Clinton scandal which Bill stood up on live taped tv and lied to the country, didn't resign, was proved to have lied and has absolutely no remorse for his actions what so ever...
Gee... and here I thought he was acquitted.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
:D
Clinton never looked us in the eyes and lied...nope, no way.
He didn't lie. Before they answered this question, they asked for a definition of "sexual relations" and this was defined as standard sexual intercourse (noodle/vaginal penetration). Go ahead and laugh. You, me and most of the people we know will all agree that oral sex qualifies as sexual relations, but you'd be surprised at the number of women that consider themselves to be virgins even after performing fellatio.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
He was vindictive for being passed over.
One wonders if that was the FIRST abuse of the FBI he was privy to - not likely. Only when he had an ax to grind did he find this patriotism.
I don't fault him for doing what he did, and I am a Republican.
Whelp.. he nailed Spiro's bellybutton to the wall. And he nailed George Wallace too. Long before he dropped the dime on 'ol Tricky Dick.
Kinda easy for some folks to villify the old guy for doing what he did... yup; he was 'passed over'.. and the guy that got the office was one of Tricky Dicks political hacks. Not an FBI professional.
So tell me, oh wize ones, if you had worked your way to the top of an organization you cared about and an unprofessional political appointee was popped into the top job and then began to suborn the orginization you'd put 30 years of loyalty into, how'd you react when he started breaking the laws you were SWORN to uphold?
-
He didn't lie.
(http://www.r6-forum.com/nuke/modules/Forums/images/smiles/bs.gif)
Now can someone explain why Hillary did not leave him?
:)
-
She's a lawyer.. you'd think she's got grounds, motive, opportunity to fleece his cheatin carcass and strip him of every possession...
..unless he's got something better on her.
Something to ponder. Before you vote for her.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
So tell me, oh wize ones, if you had worked your way to the top of an organization you cared about and an unprofessional political appointee was popped into the top job and then began to suborn the orginization you'd put 30 years of loyalty into, how'd you react when he started breaking the laws you were SWORN to uphold?
I would report it to the President...oh wait a minute!
-
Welcome to the real world of Washington...
Nixon lied and misused his office to cover up crimes perpetrated by some of the oafs working for him. He did so because he was a politician, and a particularly bitter and slightly paranoid one at that.
Woodward and Bernstein and Rather and a pack of other editors, journalists, and talking heads flayed him alive because they are liberals and he was a conservative, because they despised him, and because it was a great story they would have sold their own grandmothers to be the first to publish.
W. Mark Felt illegally fed classified information from the ongoing FBI investigation to Woodward and Bernstein for a number of reasons, not the least of them because Nixon passed over one of Hoover's groomed proteges in favor of Gray, a man he knew he could control.
Who's the hero in all this? In my worthless opinion, None of the above.
Something to ponder, I seriously doubt if any of us would be in favor of the "leak first" methodology if we happened to be the target of the FBI investigation. This methodology has been used more than once to destroy the career and reputation of men and women who ultimately turned out to be innocent. By the time the investigation closed however, irreversible damage had already been done. Personally, I am a strong believer in keeping the details of a criminal investigation confidential until an indictment is brought regardless of the individual or their politics.
- SEAGOON
-
Kinda a true Tricky Dick setup.. Gray was a political appointee. The FBI up to this moment in history was not politically controlled.. and was investigating vigorously several shady operations the president wanted hushed.. including the Washington Police.
From a 1992 article on the Watergate Investigation:
Institutional Motives
WITH the benefit of hindsight, it becomes abundantly clear why someone at the FBI would have an interest in leaking information about Watergate to The Washington Post. In the very first week after the Watergate arrests, FBI investigators found that the White House was putting obstacles in the way of its investigation of the case. White House counsel John Dean insisted on sitting in on the FBI's interviews. The Bureau's efforts to interview witnesses and to obtain various records were being stalled or blocked. L. Patrick Gray, who was working closely with Dean, ordered FBI agents to call off a proposed interview with Miguel Ogarrio, a lawyer whose checks totalling $89,000 had been deposited in the bank account of one of the arrested men; Gray said the interview might jeopardize existing CIA operations in Mexico.
Nixon's White House tapes later demonstrated that, in one of the key acts of the Watergate cover-up, Nixon and his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, had ordered the CIA deputy director, Vernon Walters, to ask the FBI not to pursue its inquiries in Mexico. Of course, FBI officials other than Gray did not know this at the time. All they knew in late June of 1972, little more than a month after Hoover's death and Gray's appointment, was that the White House was impeding their investigation. And these White House efforts seemed to validate their worst fear: that the Nixon White House intended to use the FBI for political purposes.
FBI officials were furious. According to Mark Felt, on July 5 three top FBI officials asked for a meeting with Gray to protest White House obstruction of the Watergate investigation. The three were Felt, Charles W. Bates, the assistant director in charge of the FBI's General Investigative Division, and Robert Kunkel, the special agent in charge of the Washington field office, which was conducting the investigation. As Felt recounted in his memoir,
"Look," I told Gray, "the reputation of the FBI is at stake.... We can't delay the Ogarrio interview any longer! I hate to make this sound like an ultimatum, but unless we get a request in writing from [CIA] Director Helms to forego the Ogarrio interview, we're going ahead anyway....
"That's not all," I went on. "We must do something about the complete lack of cooperation from John Dean and the Committee to Reelect the President. It's obvious they're holding back -- delaying and leading us astray in every way they can....
Invoking Hoover's name, Felt made clear that he and his colleagues believed that the FBI's traditions and its future were at stake:
In fact, no one could have stopped the driving force of the investigation without an explosion in the Bureau -- not even J. Edgar Hoover. For me, as well as for all the Agents who were involved, it had become a question of our integrity. We were under attack for dragging our feet and as professional law enforcement officers we were determined to go on.
For a senior FBI official like Deep Throat, talking to Woodward and the Post about Watergate was a way to fend off White House interference with the investigation. The contacts with the press guaranteed that information developed by the FBI's Watergate investigative team would not be suppressed or altered by Nixon Administration officials. And, more broadly, the leaks furthered the cause of an independent FBI unfettered by political control.
-------
Deep Throat: An Institutional Analysis (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199205/mann)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Welcome to the real world of Washington...Woodward and Bernstein and Rather and a pack of other editors, journalists, and talking heads flayed him alive because they are liberals and he was a conservative, because they despised him, and because it was a great story they would have sold their own grandmothers to be the first to publish. - SEAGOON
Jesus...
Yeah, it was all about that.
The reporters "flayed him alive" simply because they were (in your words) Democrats. Not because there was widespread crime going down. No... Gotta be a motive. A scapegoat. A reason. A revision.
Couldn't possibly be because it was in fact true.
No idea what this kind of relativism costs you.....
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The FBI Oath:
Seems to me the guy did just that. He's no traitor. Nixon was breaking the law and subverting the FBI to cover it up.
Agreed. He's a snitch but he's not a traitor
-
Originally posted by JB88
truly. lol.
a. the guy who gets a hummy (which in lew of his wife is certainly an understandable...
Hey Im Lew:) I think you mean my brother "Lieu" :)
:D
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Welcome to the real world of Washington...
Nixon lied and misused his office to cover up crimes perpetrated by some of the oafs working for him. He did so because he was a politician, and a particularly bitter and slightly paranoid one at that.
Woodward and Bernstein and Rather and a pack of other editors, journalists, and talking heads flayed him alive because they are liberals and he was a conservative, because they despised him, and because it was a great story they would have sold their own grandmothers to be the first to publish.
W. Mark Felt illegally fed classified information from the ongoing FBI investigation to Woodward and Bernstein for a number of reasons, not the least of them because Nixon passed over one of Hoover's groomed proteges in favor of Gray, a man he knew he could control.
Who's the hero in all this? In my worthless opinion, None of the above.
Something to ponder, I seriously doubt if any of us would be in favor of the "leak first" methodology if we happened to be the target of the FBI investigation. This methodology has been used more than once to destroy the career and reputation of men and women who ultimately turned out to be innocent. By the time the investigation closed however, irreversible damage had already been done. Personally, I am a strong believer in keeping the details of a criminal investigation confidential until an indictment is brought regardless of the individual or their politics.
- SEAGOON
Jeez do a bit of research will ya? Woodward was a registered Republican at the time of Watergate. "Deep Throat" was his source. Hardly a flaming liberal.
It absolutely amazes me how narrow the view has gotten these days.
Open your eyes just a bit please and don't assume that one has to be conservative or liberal to think for themselves and ask questions about the leadership of this country. Last I checked it was part of the deal here.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I remember the college poli sci course I took that focused on Watergate.
The professor was also the Chairman of the Republican party in my state.
He rammed it down our throats about Nixon's abuse of power. He was absolutely livid about what Nixon had done. And he was no liberal.
He took us through Teddy White's book "Breach of Faith" and again, rammed it down our throats and made us understand what had happened.
He never wanted the party he supported and worked for, to ever go that route again. He felt horribly betrayed.
I pull that book out about once a year to remind myself of how it was. "They could not trust the king" was the other book he made us read.
Understand that if there was anything good to come out of Watergate, it was that the men and women in Washington did their jobs and as a group recognized what had to be done.
Nixon betrayed them all, along with us. Considering the overwhelming mandate he'd been given by the people in the election, it boggles my mind that he'd wreck that.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
People make too much of the part Hal Holbrooke played. Hoffman & Redford were on the trail, they would have just got there a few months later w/out Holbrooke
-
Originally posted by Nash
Jesus...
Yeah, it was all about that.
The reporters "flayed him alive" simply because they were (in your words) Democrats. Not because there was widespread crime going down. No... Gotta be a motive. A scapegoat. A reason. A revision.
Couldn't possibly be because it was in fact true.
No idea what this kind of relativism costs you.....
Nash,
Not relativism, reality. The Post's (and particularly its owners and editors) adversarial relationship with Nixon prior to Watergate was well documented, and I didn't say "Democrats," I said liberals.
In the real world of media, which is the world my father has worked in for most of his life, and unfortunately the world that permeated my childhood, Media outlets run defamatory stories on pols they dislike and spike promising but defamatory stories on pols they like.
For instance, the Washington Post (and Newsweek which the Post owns and controls), the same paper that eagerly printed Bernstein and Woodward's expose of the Nixon administration shenanigans, actively spiked even more sensational stories during the Clinton years - often via direct requests from the Clinton "War Room" to the editor (another fact that has been exposed in several books both right and left).
For example: Spiked -
* Michael Isikoff's multiple source story about Clinton having an affair with an intern and then asking her to lie about it under oath
* Michael Isikoff's report on Paula Jones
* Michael Isikoff's multiple source story about Clinton's sexual assualt of Kathleen Wiley
Now you may say, "well hrrumph, that's nasty sexual stuff, they spiked it because it's no ones business who a politician sexually harasses behind closed doors." Not so fast kemosabe, the Washington Post was also the first paper to run claims by several women that Republican Bob Packwood had sexually harrassed them. In fact, that story had less documentation and research when it appeared than two of Isikoff's spiked stories.
Additionally the Post spiked sourced stories about Gore using pot, while running with single source claims that Bush used coke during the 2000 elections.
Well you might say "this wasn't about sex or drugs, it was about an administration attempting to hide illegal activities done during an election campaign and involving attempts to thwart an FBI investigation." Sorry, in 1999 the Washington Post also spiked the story of Four FBI agents who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee as to how the Clinton Justice Department subverted their probe of Democratic campaign fundraising, specifically in the case of Charlie Trie. They consistently bent over backwards NOT to investigate or report anything related to the Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals.
And I could go on and on listing cases where the Post helped liberals and harmed conservatives via selective investigating and publishing.
But Nash you misunderstand me if you believe my point is the simplistic Republicans good, honest, pure and objective, Democrats Evil, dishonest, corrupt, and biased and vice versa that seems to predominate in these forums, my point is simply to say wake up, all of your media outlets are owned and edited by men with allies and agendas they wish to advance. Men like Raines and Ailes and in our own day, and Graham, Downie, and Simmons in Nixon's.
Rent Citizen Kane sometime for an entertaining view of exactly how "objective" the relationship between editors and politicians always has been...
- SEAGOON
-
'All the President's Men' was the first movie I ever saw. In the theater. 7 years old. Then read the book when I was 13, then again at 17. Prolly explains why I'm wired this way. Since then I've read many books and accounts of those days. Some good, some not so good.
What's hilarious (no - it's really not that hilarious) is seeing the jack arses, convicted felons, and general scum suddenly ooze, as if from an enthusiastically popped zit, straight out of the dark recesses of our mind to educate us on who the real bastard is...
The guy that wrecked their party. The guy that told on them (not exactly). Deep throat. Mark Felt.
It's amazing that G. Liddy and crew are being taken seriously. Doesn't he have a parole officer to report to?
It's amazing that so many are so quick to attack Felt and the reporters involved in the exposing of, the crimes commited by only the President of the United States.
You won't hear that stubborn detail mentioned.
-
Originally posted by Nash
'All the President's Men' was the first movie I ever saw. In the theater. 7 years old. Then read the book when I was 13, then again at 17. Prolly explains why I'm wired this way.
In other words, he drank the liberal koolaid.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nash,
....And I could go on and on listing cases where the Post helped liberals and harmed conservatives via selective investigating and publishing.
- SEAGOON
Holy... You think you're the only one able to come up with examples of spiked storys?
The examples you used to serve your side were of sex and grass. Ooh, scandalous indeed. A shame that you ignore other examples of spiked storys. A tad bit more significant than sex 'n grass. A tad bit more damaging to your world view.
But you're trying to make a point, so I can't blame ya.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
In other words, he drank the liberal koolaid.
Hi Funked.
You misspelled "Boosh is teh evil".
Just trying to help.
-
glug glug burrrp
-
Originally posted by Nash
Holy... You think you're the only one able to come up with examples of spiked storys?
The examples you used to serve your side were of sex and grass. Ooh, scandalous indeed. A shame that you ignore other examples of spiked storys. A tad bit more significant than sex 'n grass. A tad bit more damaging to your world view.
But you're trying to make a point, so I can't blame ya.
Nash,
Perhaps you didn't notice I wrote:
"Well you might say "this [Watergate] wasn't about sex or drugs, it was about an administration attempting to hide illegal activities done during an election campaign and involving attempts to thwart an FBI investigation." Sorry, in 1999 the Washington Post also spiked the story of Four FBI agents who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee as to how the Clinton Justice Department subverted their probe of Democratic campaign fundraising, specifically in the case of Charlie Trie. They consistently bent over backwards NOT to investigate or report anything related to the Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals."
PS: Genifer Flowers was a story about sex. Katherine Wiley, Juanita Broderick, and Paula Jones weren't stories about "sex." They were stories about a sexual assualt, a rape, and indecent exposure and sexual harrassment. As someone at the time pointed out, "if that's your idea of sex..."
So let me see if I have this right:
Liberals all good, Liberal politicians spotless, Liberal editors unbiased, Liberal scandals inventions of the vast right wing conspiracy or minor peccadillos at best? Conservatives exactly the opposite on all counts!
Have i got it?
- SEAGOON
-
And that's where your lose me Seagoon.
You keep making this a Liberal vs Conservative thing.
It was no such thing when it all came down to it when it came to Watergate.
Nixon tried to hide behind that, making it about the liberal press and the Democrats, but when the truth did come out, in his own words, his defenders were left betrayed and calling for his resignation as well.
There was no one left to defend him because his actions were indefensible.
Again I ask. Do you recall the time at all?
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nash,
Have i got it?
- SEAGOON
No Seagoon, you don't have it.
Because this here and elsewhere is and was never about liberals being all good and righteous and whatever.
It was about a President who was a royal shreck up.
So why are we talking about liberals all of a sudden? You should really ask yourself that.
Because I'm getting the nagging and strange sense that Republicans are Republicans first, and Americans second. They are only Americans in as much as it suits them. This is a perfect example.
In the face of (come on!) overwhelming evidence of a scandal that rocked the United States, all they can do is try to feebly hoist blame on Democrats. They ignore every other single factor about what it means to be an American in order that they win win win some argument that makes them right and America wrong.
Nixon was a criminal. Mmmkay? Why do you hate America?
No.... Liberals aren't without their own share of misdeeds. But to enter a discussion about Nixon with the sole intention of saying that Liberals are bad people is weak.
It would certainly be better for everyone if everyone weren't so afraid of admitting their mistakes.
-
IMO nixon increasing distust in g'ovt was the best thing he did as a conservative, maybe the only good thing he did (OK maybe vietnam was good & he greenlighted the F-16 & F15 & the urinal interview with H.S. Thomson was classic).
-
wtg seagoon
to the whiining libs on this board
again I say, why didn't clinton take the path Nixon did?
when you think about - "deep throat" was involved in both..
both were guilty of basically the same thing but one put the good of the country before his own "legacy" - a legacy that history will bare out to be the crock that it truely was
-
Originally posted by Nash
'All the President's Men' was the first movie I ever saw. In the theater. 7 years old. Then read the book when I was 13, then again at 17. Prolly explains why I'm wired this way. Since then I've read many books and accounts of those days. Some good, some not so good.
that goes a long way towards explaining your skewed views. your parents should be ashamed of themselves. my sincere condolences Nash.
-
The Post didn't sink Nixon. The Senate sank Nixon. I take that back...
Nixon sank Nixon.
-
I don't care if it was a Demo or a Repub that was President it was wrong of Felt to open his mouth while still in office.
He was a coward for not coming forward.
My dislike of Felt is not because I liked Nixon, which I didn't , it was because he showed he could not be trusted with the responsibilities of being #2 of the FBI.
How many other secrets got out because of him?
How many times did he do the exact thing Nixon did?
He was no better than Nixon and in no way shape or form is he anything but cowardly scum.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Hey Im Lew:) I think you mean my brother "Lieu" :)
:D
lol. my bad.
unless there is something that you arent telling us.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I don't care if it was a Demo or a Repub that was President ...
you should care as history has proven - they produce different results for the very same action/crime...
if nixon would have been a dem, and they bugged the rep office, it'd been swept under the rug and whoever the dem potus was would be in the history books as the pres who saved america from the mean ole vc
-
Originally posted by Nash
'All the President's Men' was the first movie I ever saw. In the theater. 7 years old. Then read the book when I was 13, then again at 17. Prolly explains why I'm wired this way. Since then I've read many books and accounts of those days. Some good, some not so good.
What's hilarious (no - it's really not that hilarious) is seeing the jack arses, convicted felons, and general scum suddenly ooze, as if from an enthusiastically popped zit, straight out of the dark recesses of our mind to educate us on who the real bastard is...
The guy that wrecked their party. The guy that told on them (not exactly). Deep throat. Mark Felt.
It's amazing that G. Liddy and crew are being taken seriously. Doesn't he have a parole officer to report to?
It's amazing that so many are so quick to attack Felt and the reporters involved in the exposing of, the crimes commited by only the President of the United States.
You won't hear that stubborn detail mentioned.
it really is unfortunate.
ollie north and his gaggle too.
they get the star treatment, run for office, stand as proud members of thier party...and they are crooks and thieves.
its like the mob where you do your time...noble thought, wouldnt you like to have friends that would take the time for you...but then again...they are freeking criminals. no if's ands or buts.
that said, i dont believe that the democrats are any less responsible for wrongdoing, thiers occurred more overtly earlier in the century.
its all a bunch a bunk.
(p.s.- ollie north shakes hands like a girl...fact)
-
Kinda funny how the grand conservative montra is "personal responsibility" until of course they are caught being personally responsible.
Then it's Felt's fault.
-
Originally posted by storch
that goes a long way towards explaining your skewed views. your parents should be ashamed of themselves. my sincere condolences Nash.
I can't remember if I told them or not.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you should care as history has proven - they produce different results for the very same action/crime...
if nixon would have been a dem, and they bugged the rep office, it'd been swept under the rug and whoever the dem potus was would be in the history books as the pres who saved america from the mean ole vc
"Peace with Honor" ???
Horsecrap.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I can't remember if I told them or not.
Dooood! Nonconformity is a sin!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
She's a lawyer.. you'd think she's got grounds, motive, opportunity to fleece his cheatin carcass and strip him of every possession...
..unless he's got something better on her.
Something to ponder. Before you vote for her.
I heard she wanted to divorce him, but she couldn't get her big bellybutton through the courtroom doors...
And I'm a democrat :aok
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And that's where your lose me Seagoon.
You keep making this a Liberal vs Conservative thing.
It was no such thing when it all came down to it when it came to Watergate.
Nixon tried to hide behind that, making it about the liberal press and the Democrats, but when the truth did come out, in his own words, his defenders were left betrayed and calling for his resignation as well.
There was no one left to defend him because his actions were indefensible.
Again I ask. Do you recall the time at all?
Dan/CorkyJr
Dan and Nash,
Respectfully, if you check above, I've never argued that Nixon wasn't guilty in fact I started out by saying: "Nixon lied and misused his office to cover up crimes perpetrated by some of the oafs working for him. He did so because he was a politician, and a particularly bitter and slightly paranoid one at that."
I have no doubt that even if the Post hadn't stuck to the story so tenaciously, the FBI investigation would eventually have toppled his presidency - even the conspirators have admitted that it was only a matter of time after the ham-fisted cover-ups started. My point, which I have to admit to being weary of making, was that the reason this particular Presidential scandal made it to the front pages of the Post was because of their particular editorial slant.
As a case in point, people at the Post knew of Kennedy's many affairs, including the fact that he and Sam Giancanna had shared a mistress. The 1960 vote buying scandal was also well known in the Washington Press corps, and interesting tidbits like the identity of "Mimi" the 19 year old JFK "intern" whose "only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House" according to biographer Robert Dallek could easily have been dug up by aggressive reporters with an editor willing to actually run the stories. However, JFK's scandal rich presidency was handled throughout with kid gloves by the Post in a way that Nixon could only have dreamed of.
If one is tempted to think, "well that's only because in the early 60s the Presidency was a sancrosanct office that the press would never have been willing to tarnish" one is forgetting the fact that the same "no digging, no reporting, no leaking" treatment was afforded to the Clinton Whitehouse and the Gore campaign during the fundraising scandals of the late 90s, and there the issue was not sex, drugs, or break-ins it was a foriegn power attempting to influence the US elections and their aftermath by making huge illegal contributions and then the subsequent attempts to cover up those donations and actively subvert the investigation into them. Here the Post had a story tailormade for gritty idealistic investigative reporters eager to uncover government wrongdoing even if it lead to the highest levels of the executive branch. What did they do with it? Spiked, ignored, waved away for the sake of preserving Camelot Mk. II.
Apparently a break in at the DNC and cover-up had to be run to ground by the Post as a high-crime of monunmental proportions. But China's attempt to illegally influence the US elections with the connivance of the administration, and all the associated "technology transfers" to the Chinese that could have been directly related were of no interest at all. I wonder if Reagan or either Bush would have been so blessed by the Post? Oh, of course they would, because none of this is about politics, only Fox News has an agenda. Och aye, and the Guardian frequently gives the Republicans and the Torries a free ride as well. :rolleyes:
Dan, in answer to your question. Do I recall the time? Yes, I well remember the grumpy looking man who occasionally interrupted my viewings of the Wombles and the Magic Roundabout whom my parents "tut-tutted" over. Apparently it was all very serious stuff. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
It's amazing that G. Liddy and crew are being taken seriously. Doesn't he have a parole officer to report to?
[/B]
No. He got that waived due to the next filming episode of JAG. :)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I have no doubt that even if the Post hadn't stuck to the story so tenaciously, the FBI investigation would eventually have toppled his presidency
- SEAGOON
In some cases faith is a good thing. In this case I'm afraid it's misguided.
-
Seagoon, it was a lot worse than Nixon 'using the office to cover up crimes perpetrated by goons working for him'.
This wasn't kennedy getting his salad tossed, or Eisenhower gettin a little off his driver. This wasn't FDR playing with the neighbors. This was not 'nooky hooky'. Watergate was not a republican vs democrat scandal. Not liberals vs conservatives. This was a corrupt presidency out of control.. it sickened all of us.
There was a hot war on.. riots, Kent State, civil rights violence. Governments were being toppled by the CIA, (under white house control) the cold war was going hot in the middle east.. it was not Eisenhowers America anymore.
Sorry it interupted the cartoon shows.. the revelations of the Press showed us with out dout and conclusively that our government was corrupt. It could not be trusted. It was lying to us. It's motives were not honorable. It was killing us. Spying on us. Doing things that disgusted us. We were ashamed. And angry...
And it all lead right to the President...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
our government was corrupt. It could not be trusted. It was lying to us. It's motives were not honorable. It was killing us. Spying on us. Doing things that disgusted us. We were ashamed. And angry...
And it all lead right to the President...
you talking about LBJ,macnamra and vietnam , right?
-
we agree with you hang
we are only pointing out the difference in treatment
clinton was as big, bigger in my eyes & others, a scumbucket for many reasons than tricky dicky but was given a pass by the same media who would have fried him if he was a R instead of a D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
clinton was as big, bigger in my eyes & others, a scumbucket for many reasons than tricky dicky but was given a pass by the same media who would have fried him if he was a R instead of a D
Pfft... Where's your sense of scale?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we agree with you hang
we are only pointing out the difference in treatment
clinton was as big, bigger in my eyes & others, a scumbucket for many reasons than tricky dicky but was given a pass by the same media who would have fried him if he was a R instead of a D
Comparing Bill the sweetheart to Tricky Dick? Not possible.. Billy-Boy had a problem with his fly. Dick had a power-complex that was beyond scary. You haul out some evidence that can compare with this:
Tapes: Nixon Sought Brookings Break-In
President Nixon ordered a break-in and theft at the Brookings Institution in June 1971 so he could learn what information the public policy center had collected on the Vietnam war, according to newly released White House tapes.
In a conversation that took place a year before the Watergate break-in that eventually drove him from office, Nixon told Chief of Staff H.R.Hadelman to "break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them out....I want a break-in. I want the Brookings safe cleaned out. And have it cleaned out in a way that makes somebody else look bad.''
At one point, with characteristic gruffness and punctuating each word, Nixon said, "You go in to inspect...and clean it out....I want Brookings, just break in, break in, and take it out. You understand."
Hadelman's responded by saying: "I don't have any problem with breaking in."
The Senate Watergate Committee report detailed the White House's concern that Brookings was planning a study based on Vietnam papers similar to those that had been leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post. The Panel took testimony that Nixon aide Charles W. Colson planned to firebomb the building and steal the documents, an allegation Colson denied.
-------
It ain' that Billy the Dickwad wasn't on the same team, it's that he ain't even in the same league as Tricky Dick.
-
how do you know what slick said?
any tapes around?
ain't talking about willies fly, he had many other issues other than his infidelity
his dealings with the chinese for starters.. from taking illegal donations to sellng them military bases and allowing technology transfer which gave them the ability to aim their weapons at & now hit the left coast ... hmm, maybe that ain't so bad after all..
again - if it were a dem - it'd been glossed over - look at jfk and his bro ted the drunk for examples of glossed over dems
-
Bah... dems just can't do a proper witch hunt.
If Clinton would have pulled this Iraq/WMD/ImminentThreat crap, there would already be indictments.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Bah... dems just can't do a proper witch hunt.
If Clinton would have pulled this Iraq/WMD/ImminentThreat crap, there would already be indictments.
better watch CNN, the UN now says the WMD were moved, but they don't know to where.
-
one word. downing street memo.
-
Anyone care to comment on the fact that Felt himself was tried and convicted of illegal wiretapping and other "black bag" jobs, the same things he claimed to be so vehemently opposed to and so deeply concerned about? It's a fact. Oh, and Nixon testified in his defense, and Reagan pardoned him. Nixon congratulated him on the pardon as well.
The fact is, regardless of what Nixon did, Felt is no hero, nor is he a patriot. Not when he was doing EXACTLY the same things he complained the Nixon administration was doing. He was merely pissed that he was the deputy director of the FBI and got passed over for the director job when Hoover kicked the bucket. He also lacked the balls to follow his oath and take it to the grand jury, and instead skulked around and stole documents and leaked them in violation of both his oath and the law. He hid for 30 years because he knew he was wrong, criminally wrong, and was ashamed. His family has outed him for the money, now that he is practically dead and only about 50% mentally coherent, about 50% of the time.
In keeping with the original question, which was NOT about Nixon, the answer is neither, he is no patriot, nor a traitor. He is no hero either.