Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:39:40 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 05:48 AM 6/2/05 -0700, Drew Bittner wrote:

>Felt said that there was no other way to protect the
>integrity of the FBI, and I believe him; no prosecutor
>would have considered taking on the President. He was
>a courageous man-- it's Nixon, Liddy, Haldeman, and
>the others who betrayed the nation.

Agreed, but let's not forget what we are actually talking about here: a
third rate bungled burglary to tap a phone and a coverup of it, not
something really serious, like getting us bogged down in an Asian war that
killed tens of thousands of our soldiers because we weren't serious about
winning it once we were in...which Nixon got us out of.  The burglary and
the coverup were crimes, but so was what Clinton did, and you don't hear
people saying he "betrayed the nation".  Ditto for all the Democrats who
ignored the evidence and the law and voted pure-partisan to keep "their
guy" in office.  Seems like a double standard.  Either it's a betrayal of
the nation to break the law and use your position to cover it up and evade
the consequences, or it isn't.  I'd say it is, personally.  Any violation
of the oath of office is...but if we were going to actually do anything
about it the Congress would be pretty empty of the majority of those who
keep getting re-elected anyway (anyone who's voted for a gun control bill
that prevents an honest citizen from owning or carrying a firearm is a
traitor to the nation and in direct violation of their oath of office for
instance.  See the Second Amendment and the oath of office).  At least
Nixon had the intelligence to resign and not force an impeachment situation.

Since, unlike most it seems, I wonder about what *isn't* being talked
about, I wondered for years why the Democrats blew the Watergate break in
thing up as much as they did.  Yes, it was a crime, and yes, Nixon deserved
removing from office for helping cover it up, but why so *much* screaming
and yelling about it?  It's not like it was the first illegal wiretap in
history. or the first time a president abused his authority.  I wondered if
it might be to draw attention away from what it was the burglars were
trying to take.  They broke in in order to bug a phone at the Democratic
campaign headquarters...what was it that the Democrats were so afraid they
might overhear, and even more afraid might get out to the public if they
didn't create a big diversion?  I called Liddy's show one day and asked
him.  He said they were using the phone to arrange prostitutes for big
contributors and others whose influence they needed.  Why didn't that come
out in the hearings and trials?  The hearings were run by Democrats, so
that's obvious, and in the trials the judge suppressed that information as
irrelevant (it was of course...though not politically by any means).

-- Mike B.
--
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no
matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and
bear arms.  [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one
guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a
tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has
proved to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960