Posted on 06/02/2005 8:21:22 PM PDT by John Robertson
While many MSM'ers (sorry, most) are lionizing this guy as "a hero," someone who "did what he had to do," something big is being missed.
Our side has pointed out that he authorized/engineered illegal breakins himself...
And that he turned on the Whitehouse because he didn't get the top FBI job. Now think about that....
Felt became a snitch because he didn't get something he wanted! He was an opportunist, plain and simple (and it runs in the family, apparently, as they shamelessly say they urged the old man to do it so they could all get some money). Yeah, a real hero.
But here's what I haven't seen....
If they had made him the head of the FBI, he WOULD NOT have turned on the Whitehouse.
In fact, as head of the FBI....
HE WOULD HAVE HELPED THEM BURY WATERGATE!
Same here...went to bed early last night and missed all the fun!
Need the condensed version when it gets put together.
"I guess it has something to do with the Rosenbergs, the establishment of a Zionist state, and the Zionist movement in this country. He saw a contingent of Jews, evidently, as proZionist and as such possible security risks (as has been borne out recently)."
Well...how has it been borne out recently?
Geez .. they were every where
I keep pinging Backhoe, and I haven't heard from him yet.
Hopefully, he will index all the great data that is coming out.
Missed you last night. Sometimes we old grampas need our beauty rest. :)
Nixon serves out his term. He ends his term in office with high popularity for ending the Vietnam war and opening doors to China. This opens the door for almost any republican to win.
No way Ford runs for office, however a Republican wins in '76. Ronald Reagan is a good possibility to win in '76.
With a functional military, and with a POTUS with a spine, the Iranian hostage crisis is properly addressed or never occurs in the first place.
Muslims thus do not believe that America is weak. 9/11 never happens.
"As much as any politician, Pepper had reacted slowly to geopolitical shifts that followed World War II. The Soviet Union, once an ally, had taken over Eastern Europe and stolen the United States' atomic bomb secrets. While Truman expanded the military and created NATO, Pepper urged cooperation. He praised Joseph Stalin and appeared at peace rallies with American Communists."
Shortly before, during and after WWI, the communists and their bastard offspring, the Progressives gained strongholds across and up and down America. This love of the communists went to a holding pattern during WWII. After WWII, it started to come back out both as open communists, so called Progressives and a$$holes like Pepper and most of Follywood.
They were all over then and probably a lot are still left (pardon the pun).
I LOVE your scenario!
Several have said here that no Nixon downfall meant we would never have had Reagan. I have responded that Reagan, a one of a kind, would have risen no matter what.
But I missed the obvious: No Nixon, no Ford.
Thanks.
"Ronald Reagan is a good possibility to win in '76.
With a functional military, and with a POTUS with a spine, the Iranian hostage crisis is properly addressed or never occurs in the first place.
Muslims thus do not believe that America is weak. 9/11 never happens."
USSR goes backrupt earlier shortly after Reagan became president in 76. Nixon convinced the ChiComs to become capitalists. Carter never becomes president, and the Green Nazis never gain a foothold. We drill for oil in America and in Alaska and continue to build nuclear power plants. As a result the Opecker Princes continue to ride camels instead of having a fleet of Mercedes and private jets. There is no Islamofascist terrorism because the Mass Murdering Mullahs never gain power in Iran. Our Supreme Court would not be like the current one as well as Federal Judges throughout America.
"Ronald Reagan is a good possibility to win in '76.
With a functional military, and with a POTUS with a spine, the Iranian hostage crisis is properly addressed or never occurs in the first place.
Muslims thus do not believe that America is weak. 9/11 never happens."
USSR goes backrupt earlier shortly after Reagan became president in 76. Nixon convinced the ChiComs to become capitalists. Carter never becomes president, and the Green Nazis never gain a foothold. We drill for oil in America and in Alaska and continue to build nuclear power plants. As a result the Opecker Princes continue to ride camels instead of having a fleet of Mercedes and private jets. There is no Islamofascist terrorism because the Mass Murdering Mullahs never gain power in Iran. Our Supreme Court would not be like the current one as well as Federal Judges throughout America."
Grampa, you DID get a good night's sleep, didn't you? Excellent analysis. Thanks.
No. Tripp taping Lewinsky.
I had a great night's sleep.
Watching the Watergate myth unfold on Free Republic is great medicine for those of us who lived through Watergate and had no tool like FR to battle the fraud.
Tripp taping Lewinsky....
I've never said Tripp was a person of completely sterling character.
That said, I am saying that she is leagues ABOVE a Mark Felt in character, even if some of her acts were questionable.
Most freepers are very patient with good freepers with good questions.
However, most of us have zero tolerance to phoney questions raised by trolls and brown shirted moles pretending to be conservatives.
The first night after this DT S storm hit, I had your whirling/churning mind problem.
After the great posts/replies by you and other Freepers, I felt like a 30 year old boil had been lanced and the poison was leaving my body.
As Southack, you and others have pointed out, this will be a very costly mess for the liberal elites and the MSM.
But I do know that taping private conversations with your friends - conversations that you prompt - and then turning the tapes over to the authorities is something less than 'dignified.'
"I've never met, or even spoken with, either of them, and I don't know their families or their friends, so I'd say I'm not really in a position to judge their character, or to rank one above the other."
This is beneath your usual responses. Never met them? Who cares.
Didn't make it to Vietnam, but I have an opinion.
Never had an abortion, but I DEFINITELY have an opinion.
I could go on and on, but the operating principle must be, You don't have to have first-hand face-to-face knowledge to comment on something. If that were the case, FR never would have existed. And a million other venues.
Jeesh.
Un-needed aphorism, all posts are some ones opinion on FR..
Even so-called "experts"...
Unless its an Opus from some doofus.. that we'll call a "doof"..
There is, IMO, quite a difference between knowing something of an issue, or a thing, and knowing a person's character. You have apparently decided that you can judge a person's character by reading newspaper articles about one aspect of their life - or seeing them talk about one aspect of their life on TV.
I disagree.
"Ah, beneath your usual responses. Why don't you address the issue you raised instead of some red herring apples-to-oranges thing?
There is, IMO, quite a difference between knowing something of an issue, or a thing, and knowing a person's character. You have apparently decided that you can judge a person's character by reading newspaper articles about one aspect of their life - or seeing them talk about one aspect of their life on TV.
I disagree."
I was being generous. You want it full bore?
Apparently you are able to make "judgements" about public officials' and persons' "characters" only if you've met them in person. That is beyond absurd.
You haven't met me, dude, but you're making a judgement about me, aren't you?
Presume I didn't meet Bill Clinton (which I did, by the way, but let that go), is my opinion of his character--based not just on "newspaper articles" and "their life on TV"--but on all sorts of other info sources and research...invalid?
What about Paris Hilton (funny, how Bill and Paris should come up right next to each other)...is it "unfair" for me to have an opinion that she is a brain-addled, bad-example, one-dimensional, voracious slut because I haven't met her? (I've had more than enough information on her to form an informed opinion, believe me.)
You can get to judgements on people real fast--faster than most of us realize (read the current book, "Blink," about just that subject).
There is loads of information out there about Mark Felt, from across 35 years. Believe me, it's enough to "judge his character." (And just what is this crap about knowing someone in person before you have a "right" to judge his character? Haven't you ever been fooled by someone you thought you knew?)
When the Tripp story broke, there was loads of information on her--her life, her career, her family. Her response in front of the camera (no matter what the talking heads said over her images).
You got out on the wrong side of the brain today, in my opinion.
But I could be wrong, as I don't know you in person.
Before you respond, could you please get to know me in person? I mean, come on over, sit down, chat a bit...get to know me, man.
Funny, how you don't seem to hesitate at all about making your judgments based upon information that is selected, edited and filtered - and possibly not even true.
But, in answer to your question, I'm not making any judgment about your character. There are lots of folks who I think do or say wrongheaded things, but that doesn't equate to being persons of low character.
As for Ms. Hilton, it would appear to me that you have completely bought into a manufactured image intended - and successfully so, at that - to make Ms. Hilton famous and popular. Perhaps the question that really needs examination is why being perceived as an empty-headed voracious slut is a recipe for fame and success.
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.