[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
What grates is not that the President excused the sentence of someone who did something illegal in the employ of the Executive. So it is basically a case of the President saying, “Go ahead and do it, if you get caught,we got you covered.” The President essentially excused the crime that benefitted him, or at least was supposed to.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not following you. Bush said ot Libby go ahead and do what?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not following you. Bush said ot Libby go ahead and do what?
[/QUOTE]
Participate in the Plamegate coverup.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
True, but even the Democratic Congress would confirm Thompson, formerly one of their own and one with no skeletons in his closet, just as they confirmed Ford 30 some years ago when Agnew resigned and the specter of Watergate was over Nixon.
Olbermann was right about everything but Nixon having integrity and deciding to resign. Nixon didn’t decide to go until Howard Baker and other Senate Republicans told him the jig was up.
[/QUOTE]
At least Nixon was intelligent, and probably could have been a very accomplished president, had he not been such a corrupt, paranoid, bastard.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
At least Nixon was intelligent, and probably could have been a very accomplished president, had he not been such a corrupt, paranoid, bastard.
[/QUOTE]
The more time passes, the more I realize that (despite my (then and now) political disagreements with him) Nixon was a very accomplished President. A very accomplished evil bastard and a very accomplished conniving criminal as well, but there you go.
I never thought I’d want him back…
You’d rather have an accomplished, conniving criminal who assumably can more easily hide and plan far-reaching misdeeds, than one who’s heavy handed and incompetent, but at least puts his faults out for all to see?
If I’m gonna have evil, I’d rather it be something evident, myself.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
You’d rather have an accomplished, conniving criminal who assumably can more easily hide and plan far-reaching misdeeds, than one who’s heavy handed and incompetent, but at least puts his faults out for all to see?
If I’m gonna have evil, I’d rather it be something evident, myself.
[/QUOTE]
Nixon did not do 1/10th of the damage Bush has to our nation, either domestically or internationally. The nation took less than ten years to recover from Tricky Dick; we’ll be at least a generation recovering from W.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
You’d rather have an accomplished, conniving criminal who assumably can more easily hide and plan far-reaching misdeeds, than one who’s heavy handed and incompetent, but at least puts his faults out for all to see?
If I’m gonna have evil, I’d rather it be something evident, myself.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently, just because it’s evident doesn’t mean anything can be done about it. :mad:
[QUOTE=Frank]
The more time passes, the more I realize that (despite my (then and now) political disagreements with him) Nixon was a very accomplished President. A very accomplished evil bastard and a very accomplished conniving criminal as well, but there you go.
I never thought I’d want him back…
[/QUOTE]
Amen, Frank. I came to the same conclusion about two years back.
[QUOTE=Frank]
I never thought I’d want him back…
[/QUOTE]
Look in a mirror and say “Tricky Dick” five times! 
[QUOTE=Frank]
The nation took less than ten years to recover from Tricky Dick
[/QUOTE]
Really? I’ve read opinions that a lot of really lasting consequences have come out of Watergate, including much of the distrust of government, and the attendant drop in participation in the whole political process by the average joe.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Apparently, just because it’s evident doesn’t mean anything can be done about it. :mad:
[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, but when it comes to government, I don’t subscribe to the “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” idea. I’d rather know what I’m dealing with, instead of seeing it driven underground.
Look at it this way: would you rather have had a Rovian figurehead who was likeable enough to get the nation at large forgive and forget, and smart enough to do everything Bush has done, but so undercover that only a few dismissable bloggers actually knew what was going on?
[Quote=Martin Hyde]
As much as Bush is maligned for ignoring outside input, I can point to dozens of examples of him making compromises, often times it was with forces in his own party, but he’s done it nonetheless.
[/quote]
I have no doubt that you can find instances where GW has gone along because he had no choice. However, when the moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, I don’t think Henry Clay’s reputation as The Great Compromiser will be in danger of being eclipsed by GW.
In addition, a newscaster being an uncompromisng ideologue hardly has the same effect on the affairs of the nation as is an ideological president.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Really? I’ve read opinions that a lot of really lasting consequences have come out of Watergate, including much of the distrust of government, and the attendant drop in participation in the whole political process by the average joe.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think I’d go that far, myself, but certainly that’s arguable. My feeling is that distrust of government has been an American (if not human) trait from day one. The participation in the process issue I’d like to be able to explain with changes in society.
That’s the part I find arguable. I’d use such things as increased mobility, increased nose-to-the-grindstone, and, frankly, a loss of awareness of being a part of society. You may certainly use Watergate if you like. But the Republicans were in power again, with a acquiescent Democratic Congress, only six years later.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Maybe not, but when it comes to government, I don’t subscribe to the “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” idea. I’d rather know what I’m dealing with, instead of seeing it driven underground.
Look at it this way: would you rather have had a Rovian figurehead who was likeable enough to get the nation at large forgive and forget, and smart enough to do everything Bush has done, but so undercover that only a few dismissable bloggers actually knew what was going on?
[/QUOTE]
Except, we pretty much did know what Nixon was doing! Okay, so we didn’t know about is connection to the break in until Woodward and Bernstein’s piece, but “Tricky Dick” had a bad rep long before he became the President. (Google “checkers speech”) Also, his crimes were (besides the break ins): dragging out the war in Vietnam, expanding the bombing campaign, using government organizations to spy on people he didn’t like, and that’s pretty much it. In the years since, we’ve not had scandalous revelations of the President and his friends enriching themselves and their cohorts to the tune of several billion dollars, no allegations that there was wide spread torture, no programs of spreading disinformation about the environment, and shit, damn near everything else that Shrub’s done. Mind you, this is merely what we know about now. There’s no telling what kind of shit will be revealed after a new President takes power in '09.
Good, Christ, man! Rummy knew about Abu Graib long before it ever made the papers! This admin’s people have pretty much followed the G. Gordon Liddy rule of political intrigue: Keep your mouth shut.
Hell, in Nixon’s favor, we’ve got: Opened relations with China and started the EPA. I’m drawing a blank on Shrub’s positive achievements. If he ever get’s through immigration reform, that’ll be one.
At last check, he still is standing firm against research into human-animal hybrids! No president has taken such a bold stand on the issue, ever!
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
What grates is not that the President excused the sentence of someone who did something illegal in the employ of the Executive. So it is basically a case of the President saying, “Go ahead and do it, if you get caught,we got you covered.” The President essentially excused the crime that benefitted him, or at least was supposed to. As long as we are throwing out “What Ifs”…What f Libby was convicted of kidnapping and torturing an opponent of the President, found guilty and then pardoned. Extreme, certainly, but it wouldbe distasteful and raise concerns. Where do we draw the line? Which crimes, commmitted to benefit the President, are fine to be excused?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that would essentially make Bush complicit with Libby, wouldn’t it? What Olberman said was
[QUOTE=elucidator]
At last check, he still is standing firm against research into human-animal hybrids! No president has taken such a bold stand on the issue, ever!
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but: A.) I think a race of centaurs would be cool. B.) Hal’s strongly opposed to Shrub’s stand, and while Hal’s research into the matter hasn’t yielded anything in the way of results, I trust him, since he’s a Doper.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Participate in the Plamegate coverup.
[/QUOTE]
How was lying to the prosecutor supposed to benefit Bush?
It saved Bush’s puppetmaster (Cheney) from embarrassment that would distract from his primary objective, thus saving Bush from the trouble of running the country by himself.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
How was lying to the prosecutor supposed to benefit Bush?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that, in fact, the question? Did lying to the prosecutor protect Bush from being charged with a crime?