WHILE CLINTON SLEPT (AND DID OTHER THINGS)

9-12-03 | DICK MORRIS

[duckln]

Nixon WAS guilty

Of what? Some back door unidicted co-conspiritor crap?

And, yes, Richard Nixon DID die rich Where was he listed in Forbes? Didn't he wind up in an apartment in NY for awhile or did he have multi homes like Kerry? Do you know what rich means?

Your list of accusations are just that, the only thing missing is rapist or that he sat on the highschool bench during football games. You can't make any of them stick Unless

Unless you control the judicial system. Consider the treasonous, election stealing Floriduh Supreme court, the district court in California attempt to prevent a recall vote, the Massachusetts court's marriage highjacking, etc. You have no case.

Rush is just now talking about the commission on 9/11 that's going on. He's wondering why we didn't have a commission on the Vietnam War. It's easy, Rush says, just blame it on Nixon and move on. Rush must be talking about guys that include gullibles like you!

You didn't answer my question. When are you going turn on Bush. What will it take? Lying about WMD?

[Howlin]

Oh, gosh, you're right after all.

He resigned for NO REASON.

I guess he was as dumb and dense as you are.

[duckln]

he resigned for NO REASON.

Wrong again. He resigned for the same reason that Gingrich resigned. The deck was stacked against him. And sadly, 1 Freeper was a card in that deck, you.

[Howlin]

Well, you're right about that; as soon as he was implicated, I wanted him to resign. And those of us who felt that way were vindicated when we heard the tapes. Nixon was the director of the entire debacle. Live with it.

Either you haven't read one word about Watergate, or you're one of those people who can't see the truth when it's right in front of them. Unlike you, I don't stand up for crooks and liars.

Nixon resigned rather than be impeached -- and there was plenty there to impeach him with.

Unlike the Democrats, the GOP clean their OWN house.

[MamaLucci]

He resigned for NO REASON.

Pardon me for butting in here, but Nixon resigned because the media drum-beat (not unlike what we are seeing right now) forced wishy-washy republicans (namely, Trent Lott) to go along with the democrats political asassination of a sitting president. Did Nixon make some mistakes? Yes. ALL Presidents do. Were laws broken by subordinates? It would seem so, but I submit that that is the case, one way or another, in EVERY administration. Clinton raised it to an art form. The left in this country HATED Nixon, so he had to go. Just in MHO, of course. :)

[Howlin]

Were laws broken by subordinates?

You do realize, don't you that

On Aug. 5, Nixon made public the transcripts of three recorded conversations that were among those to be given to Jaworski. At the same time he admitted that he had been aware of the Watergate coverup shortly after the break-in occurred and that he had tried to halt the Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiry into the break-in. Several days later (Aug. 9) Nixon resigned and was succeeded by Gerald R. Ford.

There may have been a drumbeat, but Richard Nixon was CARRYING the drum. And there were plenty of regular Republicans who thought he should resign, too.

Ford pardoned him so he wouldn't be prosecuted and sent to jail. He was NOT a man who was innocent and driven out of office.

[MamaLucci]

Oh, I am under no illusions that Nixon was "innocent". He was a politician. I am simply saying that he was not the first, nor the last, POTUS to use the FBI or the IRS for his own personal gain. I guess I have become weary of the double standard, because I myself have proudly stated with regard to Nixon that at least we take out our own garbage. All things being equal, I DO believe that. All things ain't equal.

[Howlin]

Absolutely. We can't put up with that if we're going to rail against somebody else doing it.

[MamaLucci]

We can't put up with that if we're going to rail against somebody else doing it.

That's it in a nut shell.....WE can't, but THEY sure as hell can. We are, in effect, handicapped by our ethics.

[Howlin]

And that, thank God, is the difference between us and them.

Maddening as it is, at least we can sleep at night with a clear conscious.

[Howlin]

When are you going turn on Bush.

If and when there is positive proof that George W. Bush committed crimes of any sort.

I'll be the first one to demand that he resign.

[Eva]

You seem to forget that the Republicans are on the defence here. They can't stop without replying because that is what the Democrats are counting on. The left is now suggesting that it is the Republicans who have gone negative and should stop the finger pointing. Yeah right. Kerry has a long history of politicizing legislative committees to advance his own agenda and Republicans are not going to sit back and let it happen this time. While Kerry goes into hiding, we will continue on full attack mode.

[duckln]

positive proof is what you didn't have with Nixon.

IMO, even with positive proof, the president is immune from a potentially corrupt judicial system. The founding fathers realized this and put it in the constitution. It takes impeachment with a senate trial or an election to remove a president.

You should demand that he be impeached, and in Nixon's case he would have been, given the number of Rinos then.

Bush is harder to get impeached as the house is controlled by Republicans. But the NYT,and Franken etc, beating Bush to shreds, that's a different story. It's the Nixon story.

[Carolinamom]

Nixon resigned because he KNEW there was enough evidence to convict him. By resigning when he did, he retained his pension and other perks. A delegation of REPUBLICAN Congressmen went to the WH and advised him to resign.

To his credit, his books and behavior in later years restored some measure of respect.

[duckln]

No evidence could convict him. He could only be convicted after impeachment and trial in the Senate. Then, there were enough RINOS to convict him, and he was told as much. The 'media' did not have a case to convict after his term was up.

There was not enough evidence to convict him either way. With Senators, it's politics first, evidence be damned. With the 'NYT' and 'Franken' types', samething. They have the power to ruin anyone, and do. Good example is Dan Quayle.

They ruined Senator McCarthy (Wis)legacy as pointed out by Ann Coulter in her book. Again there, the Senators, played to politics and the power of the democratic media. Yet, there are many to this day that believe the thrash said about him.

Right now they are working over Bush, Mel Gibson, Ascroft etc. After all, it's been said politics is a blood sport. If we're not on our toes, they'll succeed.

[Carolinamom]

Watergate

[Howlin]

IMO, even with positive proof, the president is immune from a potentially corrupt judicial system.

You simply are willfully ignorant.

[Howlin]

Here's all the proof anyone needs:

On Aug. 5, Nixon made public the transcripts of three recorded conversations that were among those to be given to Jaworski. At the same time he admitted that he had been aware of the Watergate coverup shortly after the break-in occurred and that he had tried to halt the Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiry into the break-in. Several days later (Aug. 9) Nixon resigned and was succeeded by Gerald R. Ford.

[Carolinamom]

Case closed.

[Enchante]

Just found this article in the archives when I was searching for items on this subject - I posted on another thread that the big wake-up call, our "Pearl Harbor" of terrorism, should have been the FIRST WTC bombing in '93. I thought at the time (and it didn't occur to me that people charged with protecting national security wouldn't think the same thing) that the '93 WTC bombing had to be regarded as vastly more significant than what the 6 fatalities and hundreds of wounded might suggest to lackadaisical liberals..... it was the FACT of such a bombing on our shores, in the middle of our largest city, by Islamic terrorists that indicated we might well be in store for much much worse, especially if WMDs were acquired..... when the federal government did not make any evident public response in '93 I thought (silly me) that meant that all the heavy lifting was being done quietly behind the scenes..... and that we did not want to tip our hand to the terrorists. It did not seem possible then (I know, I was naive) that we were not making the most strenous efforts possible to reform and re-direct the intel agencies to deal vigorously with Islamic terrorism.

Morris:
"In June 1993, when the FBI arrested Sheikh Rahman and nine of his followers, President Clinton must have been told that the terrorist groups in and around New York City were actively plotting massive destruction of high-profile targets. The World Trade Center had already been bombed, the United Nations and bridges and tunnels had been targeted. What else did the president need to grasp the gravity of the situation? Yet he never ordered any major shakeup of the antiterror apparatus. No extra tools were given to the FBI. No massive mobilization was declared. The government simply shrugged its shoulders; the bank robbers had been caught, after all; why make a fuss?