Katie is now interviewing Brokaw and Russert. Couric just heaped scorn on Buchanan and Colson's notion that Felt had betrayed a trust. She sarcastically asked "I'm confused: wasn't Watergate a bad thing?" For Katie, the end always justifies the means. When the end is bringing down a Republican president, that is.
Katie's late sister was a very liberal Democratic state senator from the university town of Charlottesville, Virginia. She was elected on the basis of being related to someone famous.
If you had the head of the FBI criminal division passing confidential information on the ongoing investigation of Clinton's dalliances in an attempt to bring down the government because of "disappointment" over not being appointed head of the FBI, the Washington Post would have been in a fury and would have demanded that "Maximum John" Sirica (who later publicly campaigned with Carter while a sitting judge) throw the book at him. When the roles are reversed, this scumbo is venerated as a hero.
Watergate was probably a bad thing but it was not a big thing, if a Dem had done it. Selling nuclear technology to the Red Chinese is a big thing. Lying under oath is a big thing. Trying to fix a trial in which you are a party is a big thing. Raping women is a big thing. Destroying evidence wanted by the FBI is a big thing. Defiling the White House is a big thing. I could go on but why bother.
This idiots morning show's ratings are so low she'll be looking for another job soon!!!
Where was the rapturous reporting about Linda Tripp?? Oh nooooo, she was reviled as a snitch, and a betrayer of trust.. I find the very mention of Watergate, only fortifies my utmost disdain for the MSM, and everyone in it, and reminds me to never think that I could ever trust them.. and that is indeed a good thing..
See how there is always a silver lining to every dark cloud if you look for it.. :)
Wonder if she thinks Linda Tripp did the right thing, too?
Someone ought to clue the Old Mediots in about the results of the overblown Watergate affair:
-A presidency was brought down by indirect effects simply because the president was perhaps overly loyal to his people.
-The United States was weakened.
-The worst and weakest president of the 20th century was installed - emboldening our enemies.
-The Shah of Iran was overthrown instead of the US being able to bolster up a voice of moderation and modernity in the MidEast - and much of the world's terrorism was strengthened as a result
- and OPEC stretched its muscles - and the US was not strong enough to effectively respond (I categorically don't mean militarity).
-Reagan was the inevitable reaction to the worst president, but by that time irreversible damage had been done.
-The Old Media FRAUDcasters have since been trying to bring down presidents, and even found themselves forced, finally, into joining the New Media to some extent against Bill Clinton.
-Journalism's "highest calling" has become trying to bring shame on politicians - with the gold prizes for R-politicians - instead of reporting news that really affects the country and the world.
(Others have made these comments far more effectively than my poor attempt here, and I would appreciate a ping to better enumerations.) We're still in the process of attempting to recover from Watergate.
Couric's cute comment "wasn't watergate bad" burns me and anybody who cares about this country.