Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
You’re not a mod or an administrator so blow it out your ear.
While Eve’s observation has merit, I have to laugh at this. How sad is it that you actually believe this to be true? How much sadder and more bizarre is it that you can hold this belief in the same braincase that dismisses Watergate as mere political manuevering?
The Washington Post most certainly did not nail Nixon to the wall.
Nor did Woodward and Bernstein.
Nixon did it himself by approving the various illegal activities and then trying and failing to cover them up.
The Post reported the information and di one of the finest cases of investigative journalism/reporting in history.
Despite what Conservatives and Republicans always shriek and bleat, the Post wasn’t out to get Nixon. The paper didn’t have a vendetta against him.
In fact it was the other way around.
Nixon was out to get and destroy people.
Nixon was the one with the vendetta.
And as for there being zero evidence that he ordered the break-in, it’s been pretty well established that the infamous 18 1/2 minute gap on the Nixon tapes is a conversation between Nixon and Haldemann concerning the break-in and how to cover it up.
Did he order it? Can you prove it?
While I was doing the reading that Elvis told me I should do, I came across no mention of Nixon giving the order to break into the DNC Headquarters. Considering how they gave up the goods on everything else, one would think that someone, anyone would drop the dime on Nixon if it happened, and nobody did.
He did the cover-up, but there’s no proof that he ordered the break-in.
And I never said the paper had a vendetta against him. I said that they nailed him to the wall for it. Note that he wasn’t convicted for it (although he would have been). His resignation was very much a result of Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting. Don’t think for a second that I have something against them. They did a fine job.
I’d thank you not to put words in my mouth in the future.
Stoid, I understand that in your desire to canonize your boy Clinton you want to write off all of his misdeeds, but it was an impeachment proceeding against a President. For that reason only, it was VERY important, no matter what you think of the motivation behind it.
I think that within the last year or so one of the co-conspirators said that either Nixon was the instigator or was aware of the plan ahead of time. I will see if I can find a source to link to.
Meanwhile, what kind of man would put Bill Cosby on an Enemies List? That’s how low and silly and stupid it got.
The Senate investigation into Watergate was very bi-partisan. If you would like to get a glimpse of the “young man” who discovered that Nixon had taped his Oval Office discussions, tune into Law and Order. Real life attorney and former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson plays the D.A. At the time of the Watergate hearings, he served as legal counsel to Senator Howard Baker and asked a lot of the questions.
Quiz of Friday.
Er…Teacher needs to learn to spell…
He said second impeachment. First Johnson, then Clinton. Nixon was almost impreached, but resigned first.
Airman, you are right that nothing proves Nixon’s involvement before the break-in. But this is the interview that I was referring to in which a co-conspirator said that Nixon ordered the break-in:
From the Washington Post:
From the BBC:
Does it really matter whether or not he ordered it? He was still involved, and he still was a fucking crook.
Looks like yes and yes!
See my post again…which references Eve’s post…which points out the only real importance the event had, which was hardly the importance you were implying (wishin’ and hopin’ and plannin’ and dreamin’…) it would have.
As to his misdeeds,** Airman, ** I have no need to “write them off”, as it were. I could shine a 1000 watt bulb on his misdeeds, writ in bright red 48 pt text, with bold, underline, and italics, described in the most lurid terms possible, I could hear them sung by the mighty Mormon Tabernacle Choir, I could hear them solemnly intoned by James Earl Jones, and not a one would inspire in me anything more dramatic than a shrug.
I am under no illusions about policians as a class, and Bill’s misdeeds simply pale into nothingness when held up against the felonious transgressions and villainy that so many of his predecessors were guilty of, not to mention the rap sheet His Awfulness is adding to by the hour.
Unlike yourself, for instance, I can rest easy in the blissful certitude that his misdeeds are confined to those sometimes embarassing, occasionally shameful, rarely shocking and altogther negligible screwups and bad choices we all have full knowledge of, courtesy of the ever-hatin’ GOP itself, who, despite digging, rooting, praying, bribing, lying, implying and shoving their collective nose up the mans ass from the day he took office til the day he left and refusing to let him pass wind without issuing subpeonas demanding testimony as to the composition and quality of his effluvia, *** still ** * couldn’t come up with anything more horrible than a rather sad and pathetic little sexual misadventure. (The poor guy spent his life aspiring to be the next JFK, Lotharian adventures and all…Monroe, for god’s sake!..and all he ends up with is a little coatroom fumbling. Poor shmuck.)
So it’s one of two things: either what we know is everything there is to know, (yawn) or the entire Republican leadership, press and party are a passle of incompetent boobs without the wit of a 12 year old girl between them.
You pick.
Ok, Slappy. You keep working on that comedy routine, you’ll be opening at Ha-Ha’s any day now.
You fucking zero.
This is the weakest bush-bashing thread I’ve yet seen. So you are pissed off at the bush people for glorifying the presidency? What do you expect them to do? Shit, I am not exactly sure who you are pissed off at here… Bush, for giving Clinton a respectful bio, or Clinton himself for his misdeeds.
The Bush whitehouse, while maybe deserving a tad bit of criticism, should not be hung up and lynched for giving Clinton a rather fair bio on the White House website.
To coin a phrase, doors, the bush administration, via its website, was pretty fair and balanced in its bio of the Clinton presidency. I think you can e-mail the president via the whitehouse.gov website if you have strong objections to their summaries of our former presidents.
Damn skippy, I wouldn’t. At least not in this thread. 
Anyone got any suggestions for a hobby for Airman? He’s got waaaayyyy too much time on his hands.
Robin, who is going to wander off to dust her shrine to Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Poking bears with sticks?
Milton and Dwight? Missus Eisenhower named the kids Milton and Dwight?
Man, THEY must have had to do some fancy stepping around the schoolyard.
I like how Bill and Hillary couldn’t remember anything while in office (especially during critical times) yet they both have gone on to make millions by writing their memoirs of the White House Years. Go figure.
I heard that same joke/opinion about 10 years ago, only instead of “Bill and Hillary”, it was “Ron and Nancy”.
It was about as funny and relevant then as it is now.
I’m not going to bet the farm on it, but I’m relatively certain that whitehouse.gov is maintained by a permanent staff regardless of who the president is. The Bush people had nothing to do with the bios of past presidents.
Anyway, the purpose of the bios isn’t to dwell on every lie to cover up an affair or less important stuff like the staff selling missiles to Iran and using the money to go behind congress’s back to fund a murderous rebel army in Central America. No, they’re just there to give some basic info about the president in a brief, informative, semi-respectful way.
"And he said: “Son, this world is rough
And if a man’s gonna make it, he’s gotta be tough
And I knew I wouldn’t be there to help ya along.
So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you’d have to get tough or die
And it’s the name that helped to make you strong.”
- “A Boy Named Sue”
Might be a point there. The top American generals and admirals in WW2 and the Cold War had first names like Dwight, George, Chester, Omar, Hyman …
I assume you have a point here, Dave, but I’m not sure what it is.
Depends on how much of the truth he told, clearly - and how much of that truth led to other truths.
As we’ve been discussing here, “Watergate” was considerably more than just the one break-in. And most of the guys who were involved in the actual Watergate break-in were also involved in the earlier one.
Well, yes. There he is, the C-in-C, and he finds out that his subordinates are planning and executing break-ins. He’s shocked to find this out, fires the lot of them, and…what? That’s not the way it happened?
He, as the Chief Executive, the guy who’s in charge of carrying out the laws, immediately threw his lot in with the lawbreakers, instructing the CIA to tell the FBI, a mere six days later, that the trail of the crime wasn’t to be pursued for “national security” reasons. (See the June 23, 1972 tape - the infamous “smoking gun”.) That’s taped evidence of a crime, btw - one that he committed on his own.
“From the get-go”? When was this crime, and what, exactly, was the “get-go”?