Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: GOP is the real cut and run party

  1. #41
    flushingjet
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Equilibrium
    If you are familiar with my past service as some of the posters are here, you will see that I am not an apologist for any party or administration. I merely am explaining historical context for all the events listed by the originator.



    Lebanon was in the midst of a multi-factional civil war fomented by Syria (whihc claims Lebanon is part of greater Syria) and Iran. Syria was one of the two major client states left to the Soviet Union in the 1980's, and it recieved massive military supplies and subsidies from the Soviet Union. At the time, the countries of the Middle East were openly aligning themselves with the US after the tension created by the oil embargoes during the 1970's. A US intervention in Lebanon would have forced the Arab countries to choose openly between supporting US policies (perceived as supportive of Israel, which invaded Lebanon from the South in response to PLO attacks) or neutrality. Greater strategic considerations took priority.

    Lebanon was for all extents and purposes no longer a state. A seat of government existed in Beirut (occupied by the Syrian Army), but it territory was occupied by the PLO, Amal, Phalange, etc. Syrian Army and the Israeli Army



    The South Vietnamese Army had already developed sufficient professional competency to defend itself against the North. In 1970, the South Vietnamese Army invaded Laos to destroy the North Vietnamese military sancturaries there and held their own against the North's forces. Concerned the the SOuth would improve its combat competency, the North decided to force the issue by conquering the South. The all-out full invasion gamble by the North to conquer the South in 1972 (The Easter Offensive) was defeated by the South Vietnamese Army exclusively supported by US air power.

    The failed '72 offensive and the subsequent South Vietnamese victories resulted in the South controlling about 90% of its national territory, more than at any time in its history. The invasion and its disastrous results for the North compelled it to seek a negotiated solution to the conflict.



    North Vietnamese documents from the era that I have been able to access demonstrate that the North Vietnamese government was afraid of Nixon, because he was unpredictable (purposefully sought) and implemented policies that ran against their analysis of US intentions.

    The Southern Army at the time of our withdrawl was competent and capable. In Januray 1973, we provided suficient aircraft to its air force to enable it to become the fourth largest air force in the world at the time. Over the next two an a half years, funding for the military was decreased so severly that on the eve of the North's invaion in 1975, only 10 combat aircraft, 4 transports and 20-odd helicopters were combat capable.

    The North's leadership specifically has said that their decision for its "final offensive" in 1975 was conditioned upon two factors; Nixon's resignation from office and the South's increasing military impotence. Nixon could have superceeded the legislative imprimatur proscribing military financing and supply by invoing the US military assistance treaty signed prior to the Peace Accords of 1973. The country was exhausted with the travails of Watergate and Congress and the people were anxious to move on. The North's analysis proved correct.

    Nixon's guarantees to the South featured the use of US air power. Ground forces were not only deemed domestically unpopular, but also unneccesary; the South's ability to defeat the 1972 all-out Easter Offensvie with reduced US airpower proved that relatively minimal US assistance would provide a sufficient US guarantee.





    The American people were disilusioned both with the conditions with which we entered the conflict and more disillusioned by the manner in which we fought it. When Nixon, who had nothing to do with entering Vietnam, but changed the US strategy of fighting it ("Vietnamization", destruction of Northern military sancturaries in Cambodia and Laos and a full scale bombing offensive Linebackers I and II) which compelled the North to settle for a negotiated solution proved satisfactory to the American people, hence Nixon's historic landslide victory.

    The domino effect did materialize in SE Asia, but it was mitigated by China. Northern supported forces came to power in Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam. Northern supported Insurgencies then arose in Thailand. The Chinese, who had no interest in seeing Vietnam dominate SE Asia, entered into conflict with Vietnam in 1979 and began actively supporting insurgencies against the North Vietnamese proxy governments.

    The same year, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to depose its proxy, the Khmer Rouge in fear of it turning against them. It also maintained tens of thousands of soldiers in occupation of Laos, a country which was officially declared neutral by the North and the UN in the 1950's ad 60's.

    The hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese executed, the approx. 2 million that entered decade long "reeducation camps", and the genocidal activities of the Hanoi government against the Montagnard and Hmong mountain ethnicities I think should also be taken into consideration in your final verdict.



    In foreign policy, you must understand that there is no template, a standard operating proceedure for every solution. Policy is made in the context of the domestic and foreign evironment and values of the country and its leadership of at the time of decision. That is why your charges of hypocracy are ill-considered.
    Liberals have no concept of realpolitik
    or knowledge of facts
    or thoughtful analysis

    They will not approve any other way except
    their own-usually some elitists will
    try to shove some collectivist or
    minority bias down our throats

    They have amnesia about what they do & did
    in the past that is and was so ruinous to us all
    at all levels of government
    in the case of Viet Nam
    basically a Democratic Congress pulled
    the plug on Viet Nam's funding to
    ensure our exit
    What is so freakin' difficult for people to grasp here

    Plain facts have been stated again
    and again but we just get emotional
    bleating in return

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    If Equilibrium theory on the 1972 election being a referendum on Viet Nam why was a so called "liberal" congress elected by the same electorate?

    That Congress was fulfilling the desire of the American people at that time - amd they were right to - no matter how much Flushing Jet rambles about liberals.

    A good read on those elections.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/101072-1.htm
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 08-24-2006 at 11:27 AM.

  3. #43
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Thanks Equilibrium for your informative posts. Here are a few points of mine.

    As far as Lebanon goes. Lebanon was a see of tranquility in the Middle East before Hussein threw the PLO out of Jordan. I disagree when you call it a civil war what was going on in Lebanon at that time. The PLO fighters that were there were not Lebanese. Our mission in Lebanon was to oversee the evacuation of the PLO fighters from the area to accomodate an Israeli withdrawal. Yes Syria had it's proxy Hezbollah there but Israel had successfully invaded all the way to Beirut which greatly decreased the power and the influence of the Syrians there. Syria does look at Lebanon as part of Greater Syria and our withdrawal led to Syria filling in the vacuum.

    All it took were some suicide bombers to make us run away and leave the area a mess which it still is to this day. If the we stayed and showed we could not be bullied maybe Israel could have had a successful withdrawal and a govt of Lebanon might have had a chance to develop free of Syrian influence because of the protection of the international force. Yes Syria was armed by the Soviets but the USSR was basically not a player in this arena at the time. If as you say "greater strategic considerations took priority," well that was a big mistake and we are paying the price for it today.
    Your knowledge of the Lebanese situation is impressive.

    The PLO was evacuated from Beirut to Tunisia. But the Israelis would not withdraw until a stable, credible government was elected and set up capable of governing the country's entire territory.

    Indeed, a such a government was elected, but the candidate was assasinated by Syrian sponsored elements before his inauguration, this convinced Israel to stay in the country until a new government could be installed to guarantee the security of its northern border. But as Syrian forces began attacking Israeli forces and several elements of the PLO infiltrated back to Lebanon after evacuation, they began to inflict casualties on the Israeli forces and eventually led Israelis to believe that they were paying more of a cost than they were willing to pay while awaiting a new government.

    Israel then withdrew to southern Lebanon, deciding that only its efforts could guarantee the security of its borders and await the formation of a new government there. But by this time, the country's body politic was fractured with the various factions and sub factions that emerged and began fighting each other and the Israelis and manipulated by Syria and Iran.

    Civil wars do not end by self-imposed agreements or coalition governments. They end when one of the factions wins, or when they are exhausted into stalemate. The Lebanese civil war only ended when all sides were exhausted and agreed to form a coalition government, amny argue that it was merely a truce, buying time until one of the factions regenrated enough resources to renew the fight or dominate Lebanese politics.

  4. #44
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    If Equilibrium theory on the 1972 election being a referendum on Viet Nam why was a so called "liberal" congress elected by the same electorate?

    That Congress was fulfilling the desire of the American people at that time - amd they were right to - no matter how much Flushing Jet rambles about liberals.

    A good read on those elections.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/101072-1.htm

    The Congressional elections were reflections of domestic discontent more than discontent foreign policy. Congressional elections are more local in nature in relevance to the voter. Foreign policy and conflicts recieve thier verdicts in presidential elections.

    Reagan, arguably one of the most popular presidents of our era in office, had to contend with a democratic congressional majority. Yet, the national mood at the time moderated democratic aims and made it more compliant in supporting most of Reagan's policies, espacially Reagan's economic and defense policies.

    Nixon's campaign strategies were no different from his predecessors, indeed, he was the victim of many of the things he was later accused of in the Watergate era. As was once famously said "..he (Nixon) played the game by the rules that we imposed on him, but the rules were changed during his term in office with little warning by those who made them."

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Equilibrium
    Your knowledge of the Lebanese situation is impressive.

    The PLO was evacuated from Beirut to Tunisia. But the Israelis would not withdraw until a stable, credible government was elected and set up capable of governing the country's entire territory.

    Indeed, a such a government was elected, but the candidate was assasinated by Syrian sponsored elements before his inauguration, this convinced Israel to stay in the country until a new government could be installed to guarantee the security of its northern border. But as Syrian forces began attacking Israeli forces and several elements of the PLO infiltrated back to Lebanon after evacuation, they began to inflict casualties on the Israeli forces and eventually led Israelis to believe that they were paying more of a cost than they were willing to pay while awaiting a new government.

    Israel then withdrew to southern Lebanon, deciding that only its efforts could guarantee the security of its borders and await the formation of a new government there. But by this time, the country's body politic was fractured with the various factions and sub factions that emerged and began fighting each other and the Israelis and manipulated by Syria and Iran.

    Civil wars do not end by self-imposed agreements or coalition governments. They end when one of the factions wins, or when they are exhausted into stalemate. The Lebanese civil war only ended when all sides were exhausted and agreed to form a coalition government, amny argue that it was merely a truce, buying time until one of the factions regenrated enough resources to renew the fight or dominate Lebanese politics.
    My question to you is this. Why did Syria not involve itself in Lebanon before the PLO entered? What were they afraid of? Criticism from other Arab states?

    What do you think would have been the end result if we did not leave Beirut and rather stayed with a formidable international presence. Might the Syrians have been afraid to have it's proxies attack that presence if the force would have faught back to establish peace? Suppose the US and France the main targets of Hezbollah's attack held Syria responsible and enforced strong international sanctions against it with maybe even some aerial attacks of supply routes. Would the history have been any different? I wonder.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Equilibrium
    The Congressional elections were reflections of domestic discontent more than discontent foreign policy. Congressional elections are more local in nature in relevance to the voter. Foreign policy and conflicts recieve thier verdicts in presidential elections.

    Reagan, arguably one of the most popular presidents of our era in office, had to contend with a democratic congressional majority. Yet, the national mood at the time moderated democratic aims and made it more compliant in supporting most of Reagan's policies, espacially Reagan's economic and defense policies.

    Nixon's campaign strategies were no different from his predecessors, indeed, he was the victim of many of the things he was later accused of in the Watergate era. As was once famously said "..he (Nixon) played the game by the rules that we imposed on him, but the rules were changed during his term in office with little warning by those who made them."
    So you are saying that people liked the war policy so voted for Nixon but were unhappy with his domestic policy so they voted for a Democratic Congress? I would argue exactly the opposite. Nixon won because of his law and order campaign, his Southern Strategy, and the weakness of his opponent. People voted for a Democratic Congress because in spite of all that they really didn't trust him. Reagan won his landslide on the back of Regan Democrats who still voted for Democratic representatives.

    That is such a cynical statement about Nixon's dirty tricks and an untrue one at that. Of course there were all kinds of hijinks done in elections but Nixon brought that stuff to a whole other level. Are you saying that breakins and wiretaps, and the huge cash slush fund that CREEP had was normal in our election process? Are you saying the Liddy's and the Sagretti's were normal campaign operatives?

    The rules didn't change on Nixon. Nixon tried to make his own rules and fortunately for us an investigative press doing it's job and a Congress that used it's power of oversight reigned him in.

  7. #47
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    My question to you is this. Why did Syria not involve itself in Lebanon before the PLO entered? What were they afraid of? Criticism from other Arab states?

    What do you think would have been the end result if we did not leave Beirut and rather stayed with a formidable international presence. Might the Syrians have been afraid to have it's proxies attack that presence if the force would have faught back to establish peace? Suppose the US and France the main targets of Hezbollah's attack held Syria responsible and enforced strong international sanctions against it with maybe even some aerial attacks of supply routes. Would the history have been any different? I wonder.
    The PLO after it retreated from Jordan really precipitated Syria's manipulations. But also remember that Syria claims Lebanon as part of Greater Syria, reserving the right to wield its influence as it sees fit.

    Yet, all the factions allied with Syria began to compete over which was more committed to the cause. This introduced Iran as a state sponser of radical organizations. Considering the largest group was Shi'ite, the danger of Syria losing its ability to manipulate the various factions by alternating its support, Iran could just support the largest group exclusively, dominate the country politically and become a proxy for Iran, out of the sphere of the Syrian orbit compelled it to join with Iran if only to temper its ambitions.

    The initial US and French responses to the barracks bombings were unimpressive; the battleship USS New Jersey fired from offshore a series of rounds towards suspected Hezbollah sites, but not much was destroyed. The French launched a carrier based airstrike against training facilities in the Beka'a Valley that was also relatively ineffective.

    Approximately around this time, a US Navy carrier strike was launched against Syrian AAA sites that fired at Navy aircraft. The attack was a Washington-controlled fiasco, several bombing arcraft were damaged or shot down, two crewmen were captured by Syrians and released to Jesse Jackson during his trip to Damascus.

    If we stayed after the truck bombing, I think it would have been domestically unpopular. Open ended commitments were looked down upon at the time, a legacy of the then extant "Vietnam syndrome".

  8. #48
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    So you are saying that people liked the war policy so voted for Nixon but were unhappy with his domestic policy so they voted for a Democratic Congress? I would argue exactly the opposite. Nixon won because of his law and order campaign, his Southern Strategy, and the weakness of his opponent. People voted for a Democratic Congress because in spite of all that they really didn't trust him. Reagan won his landslide on the back of Regan Democrats who still voted for Democratic representatives.

    That is such a cynical statement about Nixon's dirty tricks and an untrue one at that. Of course there were all kinds of hijinks done in elections but Nixon brought that stuff to a whole other level. Are you saying that breakins and wiretaps, and the huge cash slush fund that CREEP had was normal in our election process? Are you saying the Liddy's and the Sagretti's were normal campaign operatives?

    The rules didn't change on Nixon. Nixon tried to make his own rules and fortunately for us an investigative press doing it's job and a Congress that used it's power of oversight reigned him in.

    Without getting into an exteded debate, If you familiarize yourself with the history of Kennedy's electoral cmpaingn in 1960, you will see that Nixon learned his lessons from that era. What Kennedy's campaing did to Nixon during the election was the epitome of dirty.

    Nixon sought to gain information in '72, Kennedy sought to compromise an election in '60 using Mayor Richard Daley and Mafia connections in Chicago and Johnson's organization in Texas.

    Nixon, losing by the smallest majority in electoral history was aware of the activities, but rather than put the country through the electoral crisis of a recount, conceeded victory to Kennedy. He used this experience as the measuring stick for campaign warfare. Even after the elections, the Kennedy organization arranged for a break in to steal Nixon's medical records, had the IRS conduct an audit of his finances and leaked accusations to newspapers.

    Kennedy routinely used wiretaps and break-ins. He did not even limit them to political purposes; Robert Kennedy had the FBI wiretap Marilyn Monroe, Nixon and many others.

    When the full record is released on the Kennedy administration, we will see that Nixon will rank second on the dubious list of campaign malfeasance, and that he learned his lessons from the master.

    It would be erroneous to think that Nixon was an anomaly, Nixon was merely symptomatic of the general trend.
    Last edited by Equilibrium; 08-24-2006 at 02:49 PM.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    Even after the elections, the Kennedy organization arranged for a break in to steal Nixon's medical records, had the IRS conduct an audit of his finances and leaked accusations to newspapers.
    Well can I ask you how you know all this? If there is evidence of it how come it has never become public even now? How do you know these were not just rumors put out by Nixon to justify his actions and make him look like a statesman. Yes the 1960 election was very close but not in electoral votes. JFK could have lost Ill and still won. What exactly does it mean the Johnson policial machine in Texas? How do you know the JFK victory in Texas was not legit? You are saying that Kennedy bugged Nixon? I mean if you make a charge like this you have to back it up in some way. Sorry Equilibrium I think you are a very smart man and I enjoy your posts but sometimes you do revert to a Republican party hack. Nixon had a "checkered" campaign reputation back to his first Congressional campaign against Helen Douglas. There was no master that Nixon had to learn from. He could have written the book.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Equilibrium
    It would be erroneous to think that Nixon was an anomaly, Nixon was merely symptomatic of the general trend.

    Kennedy was a product of his father and I have no doubt that he was as corrupt as they come. Tip Oneal bragged about how they gave out money on election day in the South end to get him his Congressional seat. He might have just as easily been court Martial as made a hero for his PT exploits.

    However, You are giving far to little credit to the very complex, brilliant, deviant and devious Mr. Nixon. Unlike Jack Kennedy, Nixon was way to smart to be merely a symptom of a general trend.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-24-2006 at 03:32 PM.

  11. #51
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    Well can I ask you how you know all this? If there is evidence of it how come it has never become public even now? How do you know these were not just rumors put out by Nixon to justify his actions and make him look like a statesman. Yes the 1960 election was very close but not in electoral votes. JFK could have lost Ill and still won. What exactly does it mean the Johnson policial machine in Texas? How do you know the JFK victory in Texas was not legit? You are saying that Kennedy bugged Nixon? I mean if you make a charge like this you have to back it up in some way. Sorry Equilibrium I think you are a very smart man and I enjoy your posts but sometimes you do revert to a Republican party hack. Nixon had a "checkered" campaign reputation back to his first Congressional campaign against Helen Douglas. There was no master that Nixon had to learn from. He could have written the book.
    Helen Gahagan Douglas was a self-declared socialist (some even say communist) at a time when the ideology was believed to be a threat to the country. Nixon defeated her quite easily after the original nominee, a moderate new deal democrat, withdrew his nomination, and Douglas was chosen instead.

    Well can I ask you how you know all this? If there is evidence of it how come it has never become public even now? How do you know these were not just rumors put out by Nixon to justify his actions and make him look like a statesman.
    The information is publicly available, one just needs to search for it. The most authoritative source for some of these events was the ex-Democratic strategist during the Kennedy-Johnson era who was interviewed during the 1990's.

    A good man and Democratic strategist since Truman's time that I met briefly before his death was Clark Clifford, ex Secretary of Defense during the Johnson Administration and long term Democratic operative who remarked that electoral politics became dirty beacause of the high level at which it reached after 1960.

    Lyndon Johnson possessed the most powerful political machine in Congress. The best book about his ability to manipulate Texas politics is "Big Daddy From The Pedernales", the first of the Johnson dyology, the author's name escapes me now. In it, it describes the 1960 controversy in detail

    but sometimes you do revert to a Republican party hack.
    Hardly. I am merely demonstrating that commonly held beliefs and demagogic statements taken in the context of a time of extreme dmestic controversy have not matched the verdict of history on those events.

    No side has a monopoly on morality.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    I don't know how unpopular it would have been in the states if the US attacked ferociously after the Beirut bombing. Americans have the reputation of supporting their govt's reprisals after we are attacked.

    I think that we completely sent the wrong message and Reagan made a huge error that has cost us and Lebanon dearly.

  13. #53
    flushingjet
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    If Equilibrium theory on the 1972 election being a referendum on Viet Nam why was a so called "liberal" congress elected by the same electorate?

    That Congress was fulfilling the desire of the American people at that time - amd they were right to - no matter how much Flushing Jet rambles about liberals.

    A good read on those elections.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/101072-1.htm
    Boo-freakin'-hoo.

    Until Democrats started to ruin and dismantle
    our society in a unilateral, open-ended way,
    there was a common sentiment that a Congress dominated by
    one party would be an effective check on the power
    of the executive branch.

    With the McGovernization of the Democratic party
    and exodus of pro-defense, pro-war candidates
    that came to an end

    A perfect example of toleration is
    the Dixiecrats, who could be counted on being builders
    and defenders and not destroyers of our nation's defenses
    the nation would overlook their institutionalized racism
    for the greater good of defending the nation as a whole
    Last edited by flushingjet; 08-24-2006 at 06:33 PM.

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    Of course no side has a monopoly on morality but Tricky Dick (name given to him by Helen G. Douglas) was in a league of his own. So what if she was a socialist. A lot of people had that in their pasts during those times especially in show business like she was. This was during the time of McCarthy and Nixon played that card in a most vicous way with him even calling her a pink lady "even down to her underwear."

    I would really appreciate being given a link of the fact that you say that it is public knowledge that Kennedy bugged Nixon and ordered an IRS audit of him. How do you know that was not Nixon's famous paranoia at work and an excuse for his enemies list?
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 08-24-2006 at 05:27 PM.

  15. #55
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    Of course no side has a monopoly on morality but Tricky Dick (name given to him by Helen G. Douglas) was in a league of his own. So what if she was a socialist. A lot of people had that in their pasts during those times especially in show business like she was. This was during the time of McCarthy and Nixon played that card in a most vicous way with him even calling her a pink lady "even down to her underwear."

    I would really appreciate being given a link of the fact that you say that it is public knowledge that Kennedy bugged Nixon and ordered an IRS audit of him. How do you know that was not Nixon's famous paranoia at work and an excuse for his enemies list?
    So Douglas, with a reputation for being a socialist in an era when the "red scare" was at its peak with an obvious past should have been excluded from campaign attacks?

    I have researched the issue surrounding Executive priviledge from my graduate days and during my time in the Clinton/ Bush administrations.

    The problem with the Kennedy era wiretapping and private recordings is that they are still classified for the next twenty years Nixon's were released in the aftermath of Watergate. Nixon mentions it several times in a few of the recorded conversations when discussing the issue of wiretaps, you can listen and read them at the Watergate exhibit in the Nixon Library and Birthplace and even the National Archives.

    The only publicly available information that I know of is located in the Watergate exhibit of the Nixon Library; despite what cynical minds may think, it is truly an objective, non partisan center. In the archives, Senate testimony during the era (1973-1975) features FBI officials informing the Congress that domestic wiretapping of a domestic political nature occurred during the Kennedy administration and that it was a right of "executive priviledge" and that political opponents were "prominently targeted as subjects."

    In regard to the IRS audits, the best publication for research is the following:
    "Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156...313710?ie=UTF8
    Last edited by Equilibrium; 08-24-2006 at 09:29 PM.

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Equilibrium
    So Douglas, with a reputation for being a socialist in an era when the "red scare" was at its peak with an obvious past should have been excluded from campaign attacks?
    No it is not unfair to point that out, but to paint her as a communist ie subversive is unfair. Politicians like Nixon have a large responsibility in the creation of the "red scare" atmosphere. Listen we all know what was whispered under their breaths when someone was called a communist.
    I have researched the issue surrounding Executive priviledge from my graduate days and during my time in the Clinton/ Bush administrations.

    The problem with the Kennedy era wiretapping and private recordings is that they are still classified for the next twenty years Nixon's were released in the aftermath of Watergate.
    So info from 1960 is protected for 60 years under the Freedom of Info Act? I believe what you say about the Nixon library.

    Nixon mentions it several times in a few of the recorded conversations when discussing the issue of wiretaps, you can listen and read them at the Watergate exhibit in the Nixon Library and Birthplace and even the National Archives.
    And how do we know that this is not just another example of Nixon's famous paranoia?
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 08-24-2006 at 09:51 PM.

  17. #57
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    No it is not unfair to point that out, but to paint her as a communist ie subversive is unfair. Politicians like Nixon have a large responsibility in the creation of the "red scare" atmosphere. Listen we all know what was whispered under their breaths when someone was called a communist.


    So info from 1960 is protected for 60 years under the Freedom of Info Act? I believe what you say about the Nixon library.


    And how do we know that this is not just another example of Nixon's famous paranoia?
    I am not attempting to present excuses for Nixon campaign activtities. While, ideally, politicians have a moral obligation to not resort to a strategy of the lowest common denominator, i.e. ad hominem attacks or demagogic statements, unfortunately, they do not. The era must also be taken into account; no one knew how deep the "red conspiracy" was in American society. Nixon's nailing of Alger Hiss was a part of that era.

    Unlike Nixon's, Kennedy's recorded conversations and many executive memoranda are still deemed secret and are in the custody of the Kennedy Library. They have been specifically mandated to not be released in their entirety until 2020 or 2025, my memory fails me on the release date I am afraid.

    Nixon's claims in his tapes on the wiretaps are substantiated by independent congressional testimony during the Church committee hearings in the mid seventies.

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,846
    I have enjoyed this exchange with you Equilibrium. What you say about politicians is so true. I think though that one of the problems we have in our system is moral equivalents. When people talk of Nixon's actions the answer is well look at what Kennedy did. When people talk of the Abramoff scandal, they say he gave to both parties even though 90% went to one. It's not the same.

    Anyway do you attend any home games during the year?

  19. #59
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Queens Jet Fan
    I have enjoyed this exchange with you Equilibrium. What you say about politicians is so true. I think though that one of the problems we have in our system is moral equivalents. When people talk of Nixon's actions the answer is well look at what Kennedy did. When people talk of the Abramoff scandal, they say he gave to both parties even though 90% went to one. It's not the same.

    Anyway do you attend any home games during the year?
    My purpose for this thread then is complete my friend. My goal is to present a perspective on an issue of interest and to let the reader decide for himself the validity of any other poster's claims.

    I live in Miami and travel frequently to Washington D.C. I try to go to Jets home games as often as I can with my father, but the tickets have been hard to find for about the last two years. If you have any info as to how I can fix that problem, I'd appreciate it.

    I always go to the Jets games when they come down to Miami to play the 'fins.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us