Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:40 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 06:30 PM 6/2/05 -0400, Ted White wrote:
>From: "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com>

>> 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.

So what?  You think ending a war that way happens quickly?  It took the
Democrats (mostly) over a decade to dig us that hole...climbing out wasn't
going to happen overnight...unless we decided we actually wanted to win it
and acted accordingly (I'm talking about the Congress, White House and
Pentagon, not the guys actually doing the fighting here).

>Do you recall that in 1968 Nixon had "a secret plan" to
>end the war in Vietnam? Funny how that disappeared after his election.

Well, since I was 12 when he got elected the first time, I wasn't following
things all that carefully, but did he say his "secret plan" would be done
in his first term?

>> 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.

Got proof?  I can show you claims of crimes for Clinton that make break-ins
look trivial (dozens and dozens of them).  Things like murder for instance.
 Claims are easy to come up with.

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

Wrong.  There is a comparison, and I made it.  Since you seem to have
missed it, I'll do it again (but just this once, ok?)  Both are illegal
acts under the law.  Both are abuses of power when you use your position as
President to try to avoid the consequences of your actions.  Both are
hypocritical when the government branch you head put *other* people on
trial for the same crimes, but did anything you could, no matter how much
damage it did to the country, to avoid it yourself.  See?  Lots of
similarities.

Here's another: Like with Watergate, it wasn't so much the initial crime
that is the problem...burglary/blowjob...pretty common stuff.  It was the
coverup/perjury where the serious crime lies (no pun intended).  Perjury is
a felony with a potential 15 year jail term I believe.  Clinton is
certainly guilty of it, but for some reason, and unlike a number of other
folks in government during his term, he didn't get penalized for it because
too many in Congress shirked their duty for political gain, and his
attorney general did likewise.

It doesn't end there of course...there's other stuff that got glossed over,
like witness tampering for instance...but that starts leading into all the
other claims that never got heard in court so they are just claims.  Some
pretty wild, some pretty believable.

>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?

Liddy was convicted of burglary I believe, not theft or perjury...you must
be confusing him with Clinton...he's the liar...though he escaped
conviction, and even trial, for it.

>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.

Yep, that seems pretty clear now.  More power to him.

Don't get the idea that I think Nixon was a great guy...I just don't go
along with all of the stuff about him being so much worse than any others.
I said in my earlier post about this that what he did was a crime and
warranted him being removed from office (you quoted it above if you want to
check) had he not left voluntarily first.  Would have warranted some jail
time too, had he not been pardoned.  It's just that the same goes for
others as well...Clinton for instance...yet the same people who heap
derision on Nixon usually defend Clinton, and that's just hypocrisy...which
I find very annoying.

-- Mike B.
--
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.