Watergate: DT revealed

Palomar · 2005-06-01 11:44:03

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050601/ts … PUCUl]Felt is a traitor?

*He's being accused of "violating ethics of law enforcement." I posted his admission yesterday in the other politics thread, but it got avalanched in no time and no responses, so will try again...

By being afraid to come out publically and face probable character assassination, death threats and etc.? Richard Nixon was not a nice man. He was, based on what I've read and heard, paranoid and extremely vindictive (or more so than the usual run-of-the-mill President ). Felt would have been slaughtered if he'd come forth.

And since when is it a betrayal of ethics to "out" a President's bad behavior? Particularly when it impacts the other Party in a detrimental fashion?

But I'm not overly knowledgeable about Watergate, so will let these comments/questions rest for now.

--Cindy

P.S.: And what is the Washington, D.C. definition of "betrayal" anyway? Didn't Nixon betray his own Party by his criminal actions? Didn't he betray the U.S. people by creating the mess in the first place? Where were his ethics?

Palomar · 2005-06-01 12:09:09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … .html]Long Washington Post article with lots of details

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 13:11:21

Making their friends sweeter and their foes fouler, the age old game.

Nixon condoned or engineered some highly questionable conduct. As did Felt. Neither are monsters nor heroes but flawed men with selfish motives. Still, all this time we have Leftists holding up the myth of Nixon as a proxy for all Republicans and Rightists alleging that the toppling of the Nixon Administration led directly to the loss of Vietnam, the bloody rule of the Khmer Rouge and who knows what else. Nixon, Felt, Woodward and Bernstein; all self-serving swine yet all achieving some good despite themselves. Too bad most of it cancels out.

BWhite · 2005-06-02 09:19:50

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020001]Felt is WHY we lost in Vietnam.

Palomar · 2005-06-02 09:37:52

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020001]Felt is WHY we lost in Vietnam.

*Not sure I should comment, given lack of overall familiarity.

Wasn't Vietnam -already- going badly? For a long time?

If Nixon hadn't been brought down, 1975 was an Election Year of course. Had Jimmy Carter still won that Election, it's doubtful he would have carried on that war; most likely he would have ended it.

Nixon resigned in autumn of 1974...Carter took office in January 1976. That's not a lot of time when compared to the decade-long Vietnam war...is it?

What I know about Cambodia, Pol Pot, etc. comes mostly from "The Killing Fields," later news stories, etc. Tragic.

Limbaugh is such an incendiary anyway. I really don't trust him or anything he says. Not sure about Buchanan.

Vietnam was going to go badly anyway, it seems; likely we would have lost it regardless. And especially unfortunately for the poor folks over there, caught in the crossfire.

--Cindy

P.S.: I saw a Yahoo! headline where Nixon stated 15 months prior to his resignation that Felt was "a traitor" and should undergo a polygraph test. I sure wouldn't want to get caught up in the doings of such powerful people, no thanks. :-\

BWhite · 2005-06-02 09:49:02

Bill Clinton: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/02/clinton/]Felt did the right thing.

Cultural civil war.

Either we OBEY and SUPPORT our leaders or they OBEY and SUPPORT us.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 10:18:33

Felt is WHY we lost in Vietnam.

Glad you posted that, I was looking for it yesterday.

Yep, they go too far claiming a couple reporters and a rogue FBI agent are responsible for losing Vietnam and the rise of Pol Pot.

But they aren't entirely without a point. We like to think that when a leader does something we don't think is ethical that it's morally right to take them out, but every action has a consequence. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong, ususally it depends on your point of view; but undermining a national leader in time of war always costs lives on one side or another. I can't blame Woodward and Bernstein for what they did, they're reporters, they dig up dirt and spread it around like dung beetles. It's just what they do. As for Felt, if his conscience is clear, if he is certain that he acted in the greater good then I can't really fault him. But I'd have doubts in his place. I won't call him a traitor, but he's no hero either.

We all must do what we feel is right, of course.

BWhite · 2005-06-02 10:35:25

What if leader(s) create a war to insulate themselves from being undermined?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 10:47:29

What if leader(s) create a war to insulate themselves from being undermined?

It depends on what one values more. If nailing the dishonest leader(s) is more important to you than the lives of soldiers and the cause for which they fight, even if not for the reasons they believe, then go for it. I can't fault anyone for doing what they truly believe is right.

I can still fight them though.

However people do things they know are wrong all the time when other factors get in the way. I can see both sides to this, and while I probably would not have done what Felt did I can't simply call him a "traitor" and dismiss it.

clark · 2005-06-02 11:21:40

What did Felt do that was so wrong?

Didn't report to a grand jury? About what he knew regarding the actions of those in power?

The people crying the loudest are the ones who got caught for breaking the law. Why in the hell does their point of view even matter?

Maybe Felt had personal reasons for ratting them out, but so what? He chose to speak out in a way that resulted in justice. It's not like he made things up.

Of course I find this desire to cash in by his family to be a bit unseemly, but whatever.

Palomar · 2005-06-02 12:50:16

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/DeepThr … ]Editorial cartoons

*Democrats would like the last one on page #1.

--Cindy

Commodore · 2005-06-02 21:31:10

The funny thing is according to the ring leader of the break in, they were investigating a prositution ring.

If that is true, Nixon would have been considered a boy scout if he owned up to it.

Palomar · 2005-06-03 09:42:54

*A few years prior to Nixon's death, he was being carefully built up as an "Elder Statesman." I didn't mind (he was probably no worse than most current or formerly high-powered politicians).

Then when he died there was very little press coverage.

Of course he couldn't have the ceremonial Presidential funeral like Reagan. But it was odd that, after attempts were made to better dignify him, when he died...not much was said.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Woodwards]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050602/en_afp/uswatergatedeepthroat_050602183534;_ylt=AqjO29aGTqosHM0qT1CueucErUwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl]Woodward's book due out in July

Gennaro · 2005-06-03 15:47:23

Still, all this time we have Leftists holding up the myth of Nixon as a proxy for all Republicans and Rightists alleging that the toppling of the Nixon Administration led directly to the loss of Vietnam, the bloody rule of the Khmer Rouge and who knows what else.

If Nixon hadn't been brought down, 1975 was an Election Year of course. Had Jimmy Carter still won that Election, it's doubtful he would have carried on that war; most likely he would have ended it.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the (US) Vietnam War ended in January 1973 and the cease fire and American exit had been negotiated all through the autumn of 1972 (actually, talks had been going on since 1969). The reason the North yielded to a cease-fire at last without a demand for US bombings to end first, was a combination of being left in the cold by Russia and China due to their detente with the US and the Christmas bombings which finally pulled the plug. It had nothing to do with Watergate.

The Khmer Rouge rise to power in 1975 was an effect of the US bombings of Cambodia which had begun in 1969 and which managed to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a neutral country (it was also invaded in 1970). This rallied support to the previously marginal Cambodian Communists in the countryside, especially since Prince Shiounuk, the uniting figure of the country, had been ousted and replaced with the America friendly Lon Nol, with the good memory of Washington.

And of course, the US secretly came to support Pol Pot as soon as soon as conflict erupted with Vietnam and continued to do so for many years after he had lost power.

Oh by the way, way cool to have "Deep Throat" identified at last.

Gennaro · 2005-06-03 16:26:56

*A few years prior to Nixon's death, he was being carefully built up as an "Elder Statesman." I didn't mind (he was probably no worse than most current or formerly high-powered politicians).
Then when he died there was very little press coverage.
Of course he couldn't have the ceremonial Presidential funeral like Reagan. But it was odd that, after attempts were made to better dignify him, when he died...not much was said.

Actually, I had the exact same reaction. Curious, kind of. If I'd say anything about Nixon, it might be that at least he appeared to try and serve his country behind all that Machiavellian gun smoke, while Johnson was an egomaniac who seems to have been obsessed with nothing but his personal image as a great president. All in all, Nixon was left to sort out the mess which Johnson and to some extent Kennedy had brought about.

That's not denying that both shared a similar fixation with bringing the war to a somewhat successful end (i.e which in Nixon's case largelly implied a vain attempt to save face).

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-03 18:25:36

Quote
Still, all this time we have Leftists holding up the myth of Nixon as a proxy for all Republicans and Rightists alleging that the toppling of the Nixon Administration led directly to the loss of Vietnam, the bloody rule of the Khmer Rouge and who knows what else.

Quote
If Nixon hadn't been brought down, 1975 was an Election Year of course. Had Jimmy Carter still won that Election, it's doubtful he would have carried on that war; most likely he would have ended it.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. . .

I think the Stormtroopers might have got you.

The first quote was me, the other was Cindy. But you are correct, US troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1973. 1975 was the year the North invaded South Vietnam, killed a bunch of people and generally spread the misery that is communism around a little. Many things can be blamed for the failure, but the impeachment of Nixon really isn't one of them.

I don't even want to get started on Lyndon Johnson. . . :bars2:

Dook · 2005-06-03 18:41:47

Felt should have given his information to the investigators rather than using the media to prosecute the case but maybe he knew Nixon would illegally use his Presidential influence to inhibit any investigation.

But Felt didn't bring down Nixon, he did it to himself.

Nixon thought he was above the law and flaunted his power in illegal ways. He told the attorneys to 'back off' the investigation into the Watergate break in then he tried to influence the Supreme Courts decision on whether he had to release his tape recordings and the consequences mounted.

It's like a young car thief who runs from the police, speeding through intersections, hits another car and kills an innocent person. Instead of going to jail and being picked up there later by his parents he now goes to jail for many years.

Palomar · 2005-06-03 18:57:49

Quote
Still, all this time we have Leftists holding up the myth of Nixon as a proxy for all Republicans and Rightists alleging that the toppling of the Nixon Administration led directly to the loss of Vietnam, the bloody rule of the Khmer Rouge and who knows what else.

Quote
If Nixon hadn't been brought down, 1975 was an Election Year of course. Had Jimmy Carter still won that Election, it's doubtful he would have carried on that war; most likely he would have ended it.
GENNARO:
I'm not sure I'm following you here. . .
I think the Stormtroopers might have got you.
The first quote was me, the other was Cindy. But you are correct, US troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1973. 1975 was the year the North invaded South Vietnam, killed a bunch of people and generally spread the misery that is communism around a little.

*Oh. Sorry. Guess I'm a bit rustier on the fine details of the Vietnam War than I'd thought. Should have Googled (and how embarrassing, since I actually remember some live news reports about it...).

I was totally wrong about the 1975 Election Year reference in relationship to the War, then. :-\ Geez. LOL. (Note to self: Google next time you're discussing political history!)

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2005-06-04 00:29:52

Nixon very much has a checkered record, and it basically entirely stems from his rampant and largely unchecked paranoia, as if he were the tragic hero in a play about the US Presidency scripted by Sophocles.

Apart from finally managing to get the hell out of Vietnam and some deft triangulation and detente to cool down the Cold War, Nixon did some not-well-known stuff like quietly head off a Sino-Soviet nuclear war when the Russians got antsy about the Chinese and whatnot. In all, the makings of a pretty good President... if he's not 'a crook'.

The most perverse thing about the whole situation is the needlessness of the paranoia... it wasn't like Nixon was in serious danger of losing or even being remotely challenged by McGovern. Burglarizing the DNC to sneak a peek at their cards is like the Patriots stealing the 49er's playbook to gain an advantage in a potential Super Bowl matchup - utterly mad and pointless.

Palomar · 2005-06-04 07:12:30

Nixon very much has a checkered record, and it basically entirely stems from his rampant and largely unchecked paranoia, as if he were the tragic hero in a play about the US Presidency scripted by Sophocles.
Apart from finally managing to get the hell out of Vietnam and some deft triangulation and detente to cool down the Cold War, Nixon did some not-well-known stuff like quietly head off a Sino-Soviet nuclear war when the Russians got antsy about the Chinese and whatnot. In all, the makings of a pretty good President... if he's not 'a crook'.
The most perverse thing about the whole situation is the needlessness of the paranoia... it wasn't like Nixon was in serious danger of losing or even being remotely challenged by McGovern. Burglarizing the DNC to sneak a peek at their cards is like the Patriots stealing the 49er's playbook to gain an advantage in a potential Super Bowl matchup - utterly mad and pointless.

*Yeah, I've read some things about Nixon's paranoia. It could only have gotten worse once he took Office, I suppose. After reading your post, I wondered how it all affected former First Lady http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/first … 7.html]Pat http://utut.essortment.com/whoispatnixon_rilx.htm]Nixon. I don't remember her that well...probably because she was quietly supportive during the worst of it (and prior to that I was too young to pay attention to political figures and etc., of course).

She was a truly dignified lady and apparently loved him to the end.

Can't comprehend how difficult it must have been for her too, all the way around.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-06-04 15:00:30

Nixon very much has a checkered record, and it basically entirely stems from his rampant and largely unchecked paranoia, as if he were the tragic hero in a play about the US Presidency scripted by Sophocles.
Apart from finally managing to get the hell out of Vietnam and some deft triangulation and detente to cool down the Cold War, Nixon did some not-well-known stuff like quietly head off a Sino-Soviet nuclear war when the Russians got antsy about the Chinese and whatnot. In all, the makings of a pretty good President... if he's not 'a crook'.
The most perverse thing about the whole situation is the needlessness of the paranoia... it wasn't like Nixon was in serious danger of losing or even being remotely challenged by McGovern. Burglarizing the DNC to sneak a peek at their cards is like the Patriots stealing the 49er's playbook to gain an advantage in a potential Super Bowl matchup - utterly mad and pointless.
*Yeah, I've read some things about Nixon's paranoia. It could only have gotten worse once he took Office, I suppose. After reading your post, I wondered how it all affected former First Lady http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/first … 7.html]Pat http://utut.essortment.com/whoispatnixon_rilx.htm]Nixon. I don't remember her that well...probably because she was quietly supportive during the worst of it (and prior to that I was too young to pay attention to political figures and etc., of course).
She was a truly dignified lady and apparently loved him to the end.
Can't comprehend how difficult it must have been for her too, all the way around.
--Cindy

Its a saying but may be true if we consider Nixon

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!!!!

Gennaro · 2005-06-04 19:49:12

*Oh. Sorry. Guess I'm a bit rustier on the fine details of the Vietnam War than I'd thought.

Ah, never mind. Since the war actually has two endings (the American pull out in '73 and the South Vietnamese fall of Saigon in '75) it's an easy one to mix up when it's not current brain feed, and then follows consequences as to dates of presidential elections and what not. The famous footage of last US advisory personell trying to get out and the choppers being thrown into the Pacific are from the latter event, for example. I'm sure others made the same error against better actual knowledge as you did, they were probably only better at hiding it.
:;):

Yes Cobra, indeed, I did get confused up by the Stormtroopers, at least to begin with.

Current theory though is that you display an Imperial trooper and Cindy a Republican one (which would be apt), am I correct?

Palomar · 2005-06-05 13:04:05

Yes Cobra, indeed, I did get confused up by the Stormtroopers, at least to begin with.
Current theory though is that you display an Imperial trooper and Cindy a Republican one (which would be apt), am I correct?

*Your curiosity is certainly understandable. Without getting too personal, for me having that Stormtrooper as my avatar has been therapeutic. Both in forms of protest (mostly personal, i.e. in regards to some truly unexpected and unpleasant situations occurring in my life recently)...and dealing with feelings about America (some positive, some negative), etc.

Symbols have different meanings for different people, of course. That Stormtrooper has some very deep meanings for me (and just as suddenly and unexpectedly as the situations in my life referred to above) and is helping me sort out some major "stuff." It doesn't fit into any "category" with me.

Likely this will make no sense to anyone else....but it does to me.

--Cindy

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-10 09:20:32

Some call the FBI action the new Watergate or worse connection to political types who push 'treason'?

Commentary: No, FBI’s search of Trump’s home is not like Watergate
https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/com … 364029.php

Before approving Monday's "unannounced" search of Mar-a-Lago, Reinhart represented several employees of Epstein.
https://www.ibtimes.sg/who-bruce-reinha … tein-66213

Was Jeffrey Epstein's Lawyer Behind the Mar-a-Lago Raid?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/polit … aid-204118

Judge Bruce E. Reinhart
https://web.archive.org/web/20220704114 … e-reinhart

Trump says Watergate burglary and search of Mar-a-Lago were similar. They’re not
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 … arch-mar-/

Yet Obama puts his presidential records off-limits for 12 years?

“Last night’s raid… will only further erode confidence in the FBI and the Justice Department.” Sen. ChuckGrassley said he spoke with FBI Director Christopher Wray expressing his concerns over the agency’s conduct a day after the Mar-A-Lago FBI Raid
https://www.theepochtimes.com/grassley- … 54402.html

'Eric Trump reveals what REALLY happened'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … -raid.html

That Pillow guy 'Mike' controversy has been covered by CNN and NewYorkTimes which he calls 'Fake News'
the story broke while he was on air? skip to 4:30

Mike Lindell an American businessman who was the founder and CEO of MyPillow.

MyPillowGuy has also been an active promoter of the plant extract 'oleandrin', as an alternative medicine cure for Corona virus or COVID-19.

Oleandrin C32H48O9 is dangerous as a cardiac glycoside found in the poisonous plant oleander, due to its considerable toxicity, use of oleander or its constituents, such as oleandrin, is regarded as unsafe and potentially lethal.
https://www.drugs.com/npp/oleander.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20210312220 … index.html

Pillows and Alt-Health?

https://frankspeech.com/video/fbi-raid- … e-responds

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-10 09:29:01)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-01 11:44:03

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#2 2005-06-01 12:09:09

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#3 2005-06-01 13:11:21

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#4 2005-06-02 09:19:50

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#5 2005-06-02 09:37:52

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#6 2005-06-02 09:49:02

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#7 2005-06-02 10:18:33

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#8 2005-06-02 10:35:25

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#9 2005-06-02 10:47:29

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#10 2005-06-02 11:21:40

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#11 2005-06-02 12:50:16

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#12 2005-06-02 21:31:10

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#13 2005-06-03 09:42:54

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#14 2005-06-03 15:47:23

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#15 2005-06-03 16:26:56

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#16 2005-06-03 18:25:36

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#17 2005-06-03 18:41:47

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#18 2005-06-03 18:57:49

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#19 2005-06-04 00:29:52

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#20 2005-06-04 07:12:30

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#21 2005-06-04 15:00:30

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#22 2005-06-04 19:49:12

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#23 2005-06-05 13:04:05

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

#24 2022-08-10 09:20:32

Re: Watergate: DT revealed

Board footer