Posted on 05/06/2002 10:28:25 AM PDT by It'salmosttolate
But if the American public was against his Vietnam policies, why did they re-elect him in 1972 ? They had four years to decide that his "secret plan" was not gonna fly.
It was not the American public that brought him down, it was a press frenzy. LBJ was just as much a crook, but the press didn't have the obsession with LBJ that they did with Nixon.
Nixon WAS paranoid (maybe he had reason to be) but the press was also suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder when it came to Nixon.
Almost exactly 24 years ago this week, an historical event took place. Amazingly, we seem to be living it all over again but this time there is no war in Vietnam and the survivors of the decade of “make love, not war” and all of their guilt-ridden psyche which deceived them into thinking that the government and for sure, it’s leader, needed to be removed from office are predictably AWOL. Perhaps it is because of the actions of that leader, Mr. Richard Nixon, that the current mood seems to be one of complacency and disinterest. Or maybe it is because this is a time for the grown-ups from the sixties, the free love crowd, to continue their selfless pursuit of the notion that sex and its sometimes attendant minor nuisances, such as kids and the need to lie to some folks about it, maybe even lie under oath about it, is fair game. America, the innocent virgin (pardon the sex analogy) under Mr. Nixon’s watch, brutally raped and constitutionally dismembered by his administration, has become a grown-up, remarkably tolerant and even submissive in its eagerness to accept that consensual sex between the President and an intern is acceptable. Hell, it is even acceptable if he lied under oath about it and perhaps it would be just as ok if he suborned perjury and obstructed justice in dealing with it. Is this not reminiscent, among those of you who happen to have older siblings, of the fact that they paved the way in reducing the objections of your parents to stark submission when it became your turn to do all the “bad” things they disapproved of, like smoking cigarettes? So it is then that Mr. Nixon’s presidency took the innocence of this country’s sheep, er...people, and it could never be the same again. Or could it?
Visited upon Mr. Nixon was the holy trinity, out to restore law and order and triumphantly darn the fabric of our modern day democracy. A trinity that fought and saved us from the hellish acts of, yes, almost a Hitler. That of course likens the triumph of this trinity to that of all the Allied soldiers of WW II. An historical triumph to be sure, for Misters Woodward, Bernstein and Deep Throat. Now, all of these years later, in the course of their life time, are they faced with circumstances that are familiar? But they had already rooted this out. They had built a democracy that was going to last and last - until they were dead and gone anyway - and someone had the audacity to forget their heroism in the twentieth century. How could history repeat itself in their life time here at the eve of the next century without this glorious trinity coming to the rescue? The answer is, fortunately, there is nothing here to get that excited about. This is not a scandal to bring down a president, this does not have the back drop of our trinity digging up the “truth” and letting sunlight into the dark recesses of a madman’s mind. This cannot be a legitimate area of inquiry. After all, the Pulitzer prizewinners cannot simply ride into the sunset like some old, pimply faced bounty hunter from the west. If a presidency must be undone, they must be the hired hands. But in appearing on NBC’s “Meet The Press” last Sunday (8/9/98) our fearless crusaders allowed us the opportunity to peer into their hallowed minds. After the incursion, one is left to wonder if this was indeed two of that trinity.
Here was Mr. Woodward, after describing the illegalities of Mr. Nixon’s gang and the creation of what he called “a police state” saying that “Now, 25 years later, the issue turns on not something of that magnitude, but a dress.” Mr. Woodward, brilliant reporter that you are, can you tell us why the issue turns on a dress? Is it because the President might be caught lying under oath? And is lying under oath a felony? Is it more or less a felony in the matter at hand? Is it more or less of a felony if committed by the President? Mr. Bernstein then follows up begging for a sense of “proportionality” and questions the use of the independent counsel statute: “Was it really intended to cover the president’s private sexual behavior...?” It is quite clear that the statute covers any illegal activities by the executive branch and does not omit those circumstances that Mr. Bernstein seems to think it does. Similarly, perjury is perjury and Mr. Bernstein, the strictest law enforcer, cannot decide in a democracy when it is ok to lie under oath and when it is not. If he makes such distinctions then one has to question his motives. Furthermore, Mr. Bernstein knows all of this and the fact that Mr. Starr’s investigation along these lines was allowed by the Attorney General should be enough to force him to return the Pulitzer prize. He said that the Watergate matter and the current crop of scandals is like comparing “apples to oranges” and proclaimed that we are at the “precipice of a very dangerous and perhaps tragic situation”. Then of course, Mr. Bernstein begs for “thoughtful people” to get together so that “everybody can walk away from this without any further damage to the country.” In the early days of Watergate, when Misters Bernstein and Woodward labored over what was called a “third-rate burglary”; if someone had said the same words to them that were just quoted above what would have been their reaction? Here the “third rate burglary” is what Mr. Bernstein now calls “consensual sex”. Is he really this dumb? Or has time and the excesses of living as a celebrity so tarnished his ability to think that he can state without embarassment that which clearly makes him a hypocrite. Mr. Woodward then notes that the purgatory the administration finds itself in is being on the “edge of some sort of tragedy” and protests, with uncommon sophistry, that “we now have a presidency, because of this, that, in part, really’s been destabilized”. I wonder if Mr. Woodward attempted to rationalize in this way in the Watergate matter; perhaps not, there the enemy was much more insidious and nothing short of a good dose of strong, old-fashioned journalism could root that out. With Solomon like wisdom, Mr. Woodward then encourages all concerned to “pull back” and “consider larger interests, not just the interest of what Starr has gathered.” A casual observer is compelled to ask Mr. Woodward again if in the early days of his investigation of the “third rate burglary” he ever asked these very questions of himself? Or did the clairvoyant nature of his being egg him on to the very pinnacle of his career? Ladies and gentlemen, I must reveal to you the true identity of Deep Throat. Here, in the true nature of a divine trinity, is the revelation of the century: Deep Throat meet the mind-melding energy of the ESP of Misters Woodward and Bernstein...Deep Throat meet yourself. This is the only possible explanation of how Misters Woodward and Bernstein knew that there was so much more to Watergate than the “third rate burglary” and how it is they know so emphatically now that all Mr. Starr has is a case about consensual sex. These gentlemen, in their majestic divinity have been able to overcome the barriers of grand jury secrecy and have determined that this should all go away because it is “talking apples to oranges” with Watergate as the reference.
Not being entirely satisfied with their uncanny ability to x-ray view the skeletons hanging in any scandalous closet, Mr. Woodward remarks that the investigation of Mr. Starr has “peeled away every privilege...and so we now have a presidency that is stripped of some of its power.” Two points need to be made here. First, Mr. Starr does not have the authority to “peel away” anything. Mr. Woodward, the Constitution you fought so valiantly to protect all those years ago does not allow certain infringements in this country. Assuming, of course, that your motive was driven by the need for your personal stewardship of constitutional law. Incidentally, it apparently does not allow certain frivolous privileges to be exercised in criminal proceedings either. Secondly, does Mr. Woodward mean to suggest that the use of executive privilege as a means of obstructing justice is now okay? Mr. Woodward, one of the articles of Mr. Nixon’s impeachment was for claiming executive privilege. To his credit and his lapse into a mere mortal, Mr. Woodward does later recognize Mr. Starr as a “legitimate” prosecutor and even concedes that Mr. Starr, “clearly, now has very substantial evidence” and that “this is a very, very serious matter.” But he immediately compensates for this momentary backslide and wonders if the “quite smart” Mr. Starr wishes to be remembered as the “Sexgate prosecutor”. Mr. Woodward, 24 years after the Watergate affair, do you plan to be remembered as a zealous reporter of a “third rate burglary”?
Mr. Tim Russert then quotes the “scorched-earth tactic” from the internet magazine, Salon. Essentially, this is an approach to dealing with possible impeachment hearings by slinging mud at every Republican involved in the process. To be sure, some of these guys are probably not as pious as church mice but if the mud comes out of the 900 FBI files that were gathered by the invisible employer of Craig Livingstone then would Mr. Woodward and Bernstein see this as a much larger matter than the supposedly speckled dress? I should remind these aged gurus that Chuck Colson went to jail for sticking his nose into one such file. Maybe the investigative genius of our trinity can tell us all about these files. But Mr. Bernstein is not alarmed at the possibility that the scorched-earth policy is being contemplated. He does not believe that it would happen and seem to think that if it does that it would be because everyone’s gone too far and that we must ask, “How do we pull back?” Mr. Bernstein does not see this as intimidation; this is no enemies list. Mr. Bernstein agrees with Elizabeth Holtzman who wrote in an article titled “Not Why We Wrote the Act” (The New York Times, Tuesday August 11th) that she never dreamed that the act would be used to “investigate accusations about a President’s private (and legal) sexual conduct.” It must be noted that in that article Ms. Holtzman, indicating just how clever she is, claims at one point that the current investigation is about “accusations of lying in a civil deposition about a sexual relationship that was not even material to the case.” Later, she blindly theorizes that in his grand jury testimony, the President is facing a hazard because, “If he reaffirms his story that he and Ms. Lewinsky had no sexual relationship, he faces possible perjury charges...” Is there not an obvious conflict between the first statement and the latter? Why would a former prosecutor put these conflicting statements forward as a defense? Is she being inept and how many criminals were allowed to walk free because of her incompetence?
What does all this mean? And why should we be concerned, regardless of the pathetic defenses of rabid sycophants? Well, there are in this country factions of all kinds that, although they may be in the minority, hold steadfastly to what the majority may consider unreasonable positions on certain issues. There are those who believe that banning partial birth abortions would lead the way to outlawing all abortions over a period of time. There are those who believe that requiring child safety locks on guns or that banning the sale of some automatic guns would lead to the wholesale banning of all guns. These arguments are made based on the slippery slope principle which essentially says that if there is a starting point at restricting certain “freedoms” that it would eventually lead to despotism. So, among the most active members of the citizenry there is a loathing for taking their issue on a ride down the slippery slope because there is a real fear that the ensuing result could be disastrous. It seems to me, therefore, that allowing the president, any president, to “get away” with any unlawful conduct in office will be taking the rule of constitutional law down such a slippery slope. Should this not be of concern to the citizenry? Is this what we really want? If the highest official in the goverment is permitted to break the laws that he is sworn to uphold what else could we at some point in the future tolerate? And why? Is it the “economy stupid”? I hope not. I think that it would be a very sad day for America if its fortunes are inextricably linked to the fortunes or foibles of any one person. The notion that this country needs any one person in order to prosper is an outright lie. We would have coronated kings if this were true.
The innocence of the American people and what they will, now and in the future, accept as suitable behavior in their presidents is fortunately tempered by the rule of law. For the restoration of the public trust and confidence in an elective democracy; we must await Mr. Starr’s report and let the system proceed. We must see what the evidence is and then decide what the merits of the case demand as a suitable course of action. Obviously, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, this would become clear and the President and his supporters should feel outraged. The rage should not be directed at Mr. Starr however as he was merely carrying out his duties under the independent counsel statute. A law re-authorized by a Democratically controlled Congress and this President. An examination of this law with a view to modifying it when it comes up for re-authorization next year would be prudent. If, on the other hand, there is evidence that the President has committed perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice in any or all of the matters investigated by Mr. Starr then he should either resign or be impeached, regardless of the underlying, initiating circumstance. There are serious flaws in arguments made by certain defenders of this president that “this is all about sex” and “the Europeans are laughing at us” and “he did it (allegedly lied in the Paula Jones case) to protect his family.” It is not simply about sex. It is, rather, about a pattern of abusing power to coverup not only sexual dalliances but possibly, Webster Hubbell in the Whitewater matter, the Travel Office firings, the misuse of FBI files and the denial of the civil rights of Paula Jones. The notion that the sophisticated Europeans are laughing at us (Steve Roberts singled out the Italians from his recent vacation there and of course, there is the French) is on its face laughable. How many Prime Ministers have the Italians had since the end of WW II? And why did many of them have to leave office? The answers: many and corruption. It appears that even the Italians, therefore, recognize that there are certain illegal acts that when committed in public office cannot be allowed. Did Mr. Mitterand ever lie under oath about his mistress in order to reduce his liability in a sex harassment case? I think not. His style was more in the form of flaunting his conquests. I doubt that the president’s problems in the Lewinsky matter would have received all the attention had he admitted the affair in the first instance and then said “so what”. Which brings me to the last flawed argument. It is simply inconceivable that Hillary Clinton does not know whether or not the alleged sexual problems of her husband are true. Would it be the public nature of their relationship that would be hurtful? Maybe so, but it would be better than breaking the law. The people must insist that the trinity either keep their mouths shut or go zealously looking for the truth. We know they are capable. In closing, if I had to choose a crime to be associated with, I'd side with a leader who obstructed justice to protect loyal “friends” rather than one who did it to protect his own reckless appetite.
Note: References to Misters Woodward and Bernstein as winners of the Pulitzer Prize are indirect. The Washington Post actually received the award but it was, in large part, due to the work of these gentlemen on the Watergate investigation.
Your accusation is remarkably ill-informed. The US needed time for "Vietnamization"- training and equipping of the ARVN well enough for them to fight the NVA on their own. By 1972 US combat forces were largely gone, replaced by ARVN and South Vietnamese marines. The South Vietnamese fought well until the 1974 "Watergate" Congress cut off all gas and ammuntion support, in a truly sterling act of betrayal of an ally. In 1975 the NVA conquered South Vietnam with a conventional armored assault.
The plan to end the war was Vietnamization. This was a process that could not happen overnight, and was still ongoing by the time the '72 election came around.
is there any self serving action that you believe was beyond Nixon's capabilities?
Nixon, like all politicians, made many self-serving actions, but I still believe that he did what he thought was right for the country. He may have been misguided and misinformed about some of them, resulting in bad decisions. Some of these decisions did result in the unnecessary loss of life, and for that I am deeply saddened. We have the benefit of hindsight; he did not.
BTW, I was drafted into the Army 1966-68.
Thank you for your service. I can't even imagine the hardships you were forced to endure and the horrors that you were made to witness or take part in. I suppose if I had the same experience, I might take a harsher view of Nixon as well. Godspeed!
PS. I wrote earlier that I thought these posts were getting off topic, but you asked some questions that I felt deserved answers. I hope this will suffice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.