Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 06:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Bittner <drewbitt at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

--- "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com> wrote:

> 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.

Mike, there is no comparison between Watergate and
Monica Lewinsky. Suggesting that adultery equates to
political sabotage is naive.

> 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).

Also naive as well as cynical. What makes you think
"the majority" of Congress is corrupt? The Second
Amendment is a tangent and a distraction; we can slug
it out over that one separately but let's stick with
crimes and misdemeanors in the Oval Office for now.

>At least
> Nixon had the intelligence to resign and not force
> an impeachment situation.

It was shame, not intelligence. He didn't want to be
impeached and he would have been. Smart enough to read
the writing on the wall, yes; smart enough to avoid
trouble in the first place, no.

> 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.

If you don't get why Watergate is a big deal, Mike...
Yes, the Democrats did want to "get" Nixon but this
was also rock-solid proof of a PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BEING DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN COMMITTING A CRIME.
The guy is chief of the Executive Branch, charged with
upholding the laws of the country, and he authorizes
spying on his political enemies.
This is banana republic stuff. Again, if you think
what Clinton did by lying about an affair was as bad
as what Nixon did...

>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

Sheesh. Like the Republicans are bastions of honesty
and integrity. Oh wait, we're talking about Nixon
here...

>and in the trials the judge
> suppressed that information as
> irrelevant (it was of course...though not
> politically by any means).
>
> -- Mike B.

Suppressed? Can you cite some proof of this?

Drew

__________________________________