Posted on 06/07/2005 6:56:02 AM PDT by slowhand520
Good post! I'll bookmark.
I was thinking the Clintons. Nixon and Johnson combined couldn't touch them with a ten foot pole when it comes to crimes in office. I believe that Hillary is still leading the pact of criminals in high places.
What's the point?
It's been proven beyond a doubt that Johnson did whatever it took to win, including dirty tricks and stuffing ballot boxes. He was a bully and many other bad things.
None of which excuses Nixon or his henchmen.
I read a book, I think the Author was Cato, but can't remember for sure, about Johnson. He was an interesting character. He was crooked from childhood. Also a physical coward.
When he stole his Senate seat, he was aided by Harry Truman, that icon of modern Democrats, and sadly, many Republicans.
When JFK (whatever you thought of him, the man was never a coward) asked LBJ to visit Vietnam for him in 1963, LBJ apparently physically quaked with fear. Typical reaction for a bully and a cheat. Neither the Washington Post nor CBS "News" were, of course, interested one bit in LBJ's criminality; it didn't further their political objectives.
Can I assume you are one of the Hillary voters on here from your comments? Comparing Nixon and LBJ -- not even close. Nixon covered for his staff because he was loyal to people around him -- LBJ was involved in every detail of bugging the Goldwater campaign and dirty tricks and that doesn't even include his micromanaging the the war in Vietnam.
Watergate was a 3rd rate burglarly at best -- LBJ bugged everything in the Goldwater campaign not to mention stealing ballot boxes in Texas in his first campaign for Senate.
Of course they were probably trying to catch them for political purposes rather than national security.
Of course I had to ask him about it.
He said Kennedy was liked by all of them. He also said he behaved well after his boat was sunk. On the other hand he said having your PT boat rammed by a ship was considered about as bad as it gets since they were the fastest thing on the water.
"What's the point?"
In my opinion, the point is that the Watergate story is a story about the media, not the Nixon presidency and administration. It shows that the media was already completely one-sided more than 30 years ago.
We now know that the "Watergate" many of us were raised on was BS. The real story is how a disgruntled federal employee feeding dirt to a Red-Diaper (Doper) Baby working for a major paper can bring down a government.
Trying to catch Democrats in treason, like criticizing Democrats caught red-handed in treason, is the worst sin of all in the eyes of the mainstream media.
No, actually, there is one worse sin. Trying to undermine the spread of communism in Latin America is probably the worst crime.
And the way that Woodward first met Felt in the basement room of the White House kind of sounds like a gay hookup to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Difficult to believe that the FBI and CIA would do anything illegal. (Caustic sarcasm)
I read "My Brother Lyndon" by Sam Houston Johnson. It recalls a number of his childhood shennanigans along with some oft overlooked perspectives on his life in the Whitehouse.
And where was Deep Throat back then?
There is some truth tho, that when your opponent is ignoring all the rules, that sometimes it is necessary to get dirty along with them, or lose.
I don't agree with that but it certainly is a mitigating factor.
And there really is no doubt that the dems were playing dirty first and were deeper in the dirt.
1. They or theirs have done it in spades.
2. They or theirs are in the middle of doing it.
The point is that the media completely ignored the corruption on the part of the Democrats, especially today in their retrospectives. Had Watergate pulled down a Dem president, every report on it on ABCBSNBCNN would have a disclaimer in the 2nd sentence about how "Of course previous Republican administrations had engaged in the same illegal activity." It isn't about excusing Nixon, but further exposing the media 'coverups'. There is such a thing as 'lying by ommission'.
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.