Not Jefferson, anyway. In his case, no scandal ensued.
That day may come sooner than you think.
Actually Jefferson did take some heat in the press from it. But back then scandals didn’t erupt near like they did today. Information took a lot longer to spread and the public was a lot less likely to follow the news.
Journalists wrote several articles in the early 1800s trying to embarass Jefferson over the matter. It certainly wasn’t unheard of for a slaveowner to father children with his slaves but it also could easily result in social embarassment for the slaveowner and even possibly criminal charges (for mixing the races, not for rape.)
Probably because no one of those, taken alone, merits to Top 10 status.
Yes, and that started long before Reagan for that matter. The original Somoza was put in place by US power back in 1927, and Sandino’s revolt against him started about 1 day afterward. The revolution didn’t “become inevitable”, there was *always * an insurgency under the Somozas. When Sandino temporarily won control of much of the country, by defeating a force of US Marines, he was promptly killed. Later, it became easy for the Somozas to label the populist uprising against them “Communist”, and therefore demanding of more US support to oppose it. That’s a trick many tinpot dictators around the world figured out for themselves, just as many populist insurgencies labeled *themselves * “Communist” for the purpose of gaining support from the USSR.
:rolleyes: What exactly was “Communist” about Mohammed Mossadegh?
And why does “threatening American (and British) interests in the region” justify subverting another country’s government, in 1953 or at any other time?
The Secretary of Defense is not in the chain of command.
A crime, perhaps, but not a blunder.
And don’t forget Eleanor Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt#Marriage_and_family
Was race-mixing illegal, then? I always thought anti-miscegenation laws were put in place later, as a reaction to Reconstruction.
It’s difficult to think of instances in which powerful people have been killed by suicide bombings.
Tsar Aleksander II might have been the first suicide-bomb victim.
The PM of Sri Lanka survived one by the Tamil Tigers in 1999, as did President Musharraf of Pakistan in 2003.
Incorrect, sir. He is second in the chain of command according to the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
“bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff” . . . interesting . . .
I was sure the SoD was outside the chain of command because that’s a crucial plot point in one of Robert Heinlein’s stories, “The Happy Days Ahead” – the last story in his 1980 book Expanded Universe. (There’s a set-to between the SoD and the new president, who reminds the Secretary that she is in the chain of command and he is not.) Always dicey to use fiction as a source, but Heinlein was an Annapolis man and I never imagined he would get something so fundamental wrong. Yet, according to this article, the Secretary of Defense/War was always in the chain of command, even before the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
And Zheng the king of Qin, who later became the First Emperor of China, survived an assassination attempt by Jing Ke – who knew that, succeed or fail, he would die. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jing_Ke Assassination is often a risky business.
Actually, he is. That’s one reason why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs stands politely beside the Secretary at press conferences with his mouth shut until the Secretary calls upon him to speak.
Not to mention an instance in which Monica Lewinsky has been compared to a suicide bomber. 
So what made Hoover our greatest president, Liberal? Or was that a whoosh?
I have to disagree. I remember it was obvious even at the time (and as I’ve said, I’m a Republican) how blatently partisan the whole investigation process was.
No, the basis the Japanese were negotiating on was no occupation of Japan, no demilitarization of Japanese forces, the retention of some Japanese occupied territory, and the entire existing Japanese government and military leadership to stay in power. They were basically offering the same terms, with different details, that they had sought at the height of their power in 1942.