From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:30:40 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery

> 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.

Uh huh, sure.  Nixon was elected in 1968.  *When* did we pull out of
Vietnam?  Hint:  It was after Nixon had resigned his presidency -- during
his *second* term.  Do you recall that in 1968 Nixon had "a secret plan" to
end the war in Vietnam? Funny how that disappeared after his election.

> 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.

That "third rate bungled burglary" was only the tip of the iceberg of
Nixon's crimes and deceits.  He orchestrated a number of other break-ins as
well.

There is no comparison between the many criminal acts of Nixon and his crew
and Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern.  None.

> 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).

And it never occurred to you that just maybe Liddy might be pushing an
agenda on his own?  That he is a convicted liar and thief, and perhaps not
to be trusted on this point?  The woman he accused of arranging for the
prostitutes sued him over that accusation, and lost in court only because
she couldn't prove a negative.

I believe the Republicans thought the Democrats might have dug up some dirt
on them -- there was plenty to be nervous about -- and wanted to keep a
close tap on them so there would be no surprises.

And you know why Mark Felt became Deep Throat, don't you?  He knew Nixon
was trying to subvert the FBI, having already succeeded in doing this with
the CIA, in order to cover up and sweep Watergate under the carpet.  And he
refused to let this happen.   (Nixon opposed Felt's succession to Hoover's
position after Hoover's death, because Felt was "a Jew."  In today's Wash.
EXPRESS it is opined that had Hoover lived, Watergate *would* have been
covered up -- just so Hoover could blackmail Nixon at his leisure with it.)

--Ted White