Pul-eeze. Rehnquist kept the Special Division panel stacked with two Republicans and one Democrat, instead of rotating the panel’s members to prevent any one party for dominating more than two years as others had done previously. Rehnquist also appointed North Carolina Republican Party chairman David Sentelle to preside over the Special Division in 1992, despite his lack of qualifications over other judges. Sentelle then acted on behalf of Congressional Republicans (particularly Senators Helms and Faircloth) to swiftly boot Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske and replace him with Ken Starr because Fiske wouldn’t confirm their bullstuff about Clinton killing Vince Foster and other nonsense. To quote the New York Times, “it is now clear that the chairman of that panel, Judge David Sentelle, violated the court’s own standard for purity of appearances by by meeting with a Senator eager to have the court dump Mr. Fiske as counsel.”
Actually, when Starr approached Janet Reno for permission to broaden the scope of his investigation, he misled her as to the reasons for doing so, including hiding his own collusion with Paula Jones, Ann Coulter, and Lucianna Goldberg to to broaden the OIC investigation into the Jones case.
Interestingly phrased, since the historical record appears unclear as to whether the assassin who threw the fatal bomb intended to be mortally wounded as well as the Tsar (other members of the People’s Will involved in the plot lived to be arrested and sentenced to death).
His reluctance to use government coercion to interfere in the lives of peaceful honest people. He was the last president who did not fancy himself to be a solver of problems. Since then, presidents have fancied that they will solve everything from poverty to drugs to terror. And in true PT Barnum fashion, new voters arise every voting cycle to put them in office.
Yeah, the big difference between President George H.W. Bush’s alleged affair with Fitzgerald and Clinton’s affairs is there was no credible evidence. The claim was based solely on the fact that Bush and Fitzegerald had occasion to spend lots of time with one another.
The claim would be as spurious as one linking current President Bush sexually with Karen Hughes simply because they have worked together extensively over many years and happen to be of opposite genders.
Besides, I’m not sure you can call any president great, when after leaving office, they say in the 1940 Republican National Convention that what the US needs was a president who could do business with Hitler and not one who had already alienated him.
I would think Nan Britton was pretty well established. And Monica too, although that depends on what the meaning of the word “is”, is. And a whole raft of Kennedy boinkees.
Still, none of them are blunders until you lie under oath about them.
I couldn’t disagree more. Government spending increased by 50% during Hoover’s administration, at a time of falling prices. He signed legislation raising the top marginal income tax rate from 25% to 63%. He signed the largest percentage tariff increase in American history. Not content to mis-handle the levers of public power, he constantly summoned private businessmen to the White House and jawboned them not to lower wages even in the face of falling prices–ensuring eventual mass layoffs as businesses failed.
Given the consequences of Hoover’s administration (25% unemployment), if I thought he was an exemplar of limited government, I’d be a raging socialist.
Oh, come on, Communist and anti-Western my ass. It just wasn’t a bought-and-paid for dictatorship like all the others the CIA liked to run in those days. Whenever the CIA got nervous about controlling a coutnry, you started to hear about how Communistic and anti-Western it was. This was almost always bullshit. They just didn’t think they had Mossadegh sufficiently under their thumb.
I can definitely blame Ike for falling prety to the stupidity of the times. It was a huge blunder, and a predictable one, because if you’re trying to spread democracy, you shouldn’t go around supporting coups against them and installing dictators in their place. It was stupid then, it’s stupid now.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Best of luck making a coherent point, pal. When you’re discussing who made what blunders, something like this ain’t it:
Evil Captor, the overthrow of Mossadegh is a good call indeed, but it wasn’t the first or last US-led overthrow of a foreign government by far, or clearly the most consequential for that matter.{/quote]
I think it IS the most consequentlal, by a long shot. Suppose the Iranians had been able to maintain their democracy – quite possible, given their culture and so forth. If we hadn’t fucking OVERTHROWN their democracy … if we had in fact protected them from the Soviets who wouldn’t have cared for it … we would most likely be on REALLY GOOD TERMS with Iran right now. Think how that would change things in the Middle East.
I agree with you that these were stupid decisions, but none of these countries has the strategic importance of Iran. That was evident even then.
So if Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon stupidly jump off a cliff, it’s not stupid of Ike to do so as well? Is that what you are saying? In any event, I’d say none of their stupid puppet dictatorship plays matches Ike’s, simply because of that whole oil/Middle East thing.
Oh, it was certainly a blunder, all right, and immoral as well. No argument at all. There is, however, much room for argument as to the extent of the influence the non-Arab, non-Sunni Iranians have or would have had over the rest of the region, no matter who was in charge there.
But it isn’t clear (I used that word) that our relations with the Middle East are much more important than our relations with Latin America, right next door. No individual overthrows or other meddling incidents are necessarily all that important on the Blunder Index, but if you consider the adoption of the attitude that it was necessary and right to adopt the policy as being the blunder itself, the same argument I use for the Cold Warriors, then it’s right up there.
No, only that it’s unfair to single Ike out, to scapegoat him for the sins of the entire DC power establishment over a period of decades. I thought I’d made that clear.
Number 10 should be replaced with “Clinton fails to take out bin Laden when offered him on a silver platter”. If he had done his job correctly, we more than likely would not be in Iraq today. Clinton has a long, long list of stupid decision made while he was in office, but his failure on bin Laden is even worse than knob jobs under the desk.
You did make that clear, but that’s not my point. Ike, Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson (in terms of setting up puppet dictatorships) were like kids driving around taking turns firing a gun in random directions. The others hit mostly empty buildings and lots, or empty rooms in inhabited buildings. But Ike’s bullets happened to hit three students in a home school. It’s not that Ike’s actions were any different than the others, but that the effect of his actions was so much more of a problem. It was a bigger blunder, not because of its nature, but because of its effects.