40th Anniversary of Watergate Break in

[David]

And the Washington Post is celebrating. After all, it was their salad days. They have only lost ground ever since. They feature a long piece by Woodward and Bernstein marking their "triumph." They proclaim Watergate was worse than we knew back then.

Forgive me for not taking the bait. Watergate was incredibly overblown. A third rate burglary. Nixon was guilty for trying to protect his team members. Clearly the "plumbers" and quasi governmental agents were illegal. But, it didn't start with Watergate and hasn't stopped Presidential overreach. "Fast and Furious." Crony capitalism. Congressional thievery often rival Watergate. Certainly the FDR knowledge of a possible Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor dwarf Watergate. Nixon was a very flawed President. However, he didn't sleep with numerous women on a daily basis and endanger US security. Just putting things in perspective. Liberal media so yearn for Vietnam and Watergate. The rest of us have figured them out a long time ago.

SOURCE

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by David

And the Washington Post is celebrating. After all, it was their salad days. They have only lost ground ever since. They feature a long piece by Woodward and Bernstein marking their "triumph." They proclaim Watergate was worse than we knew back then.

Forgive me for not taking the bait. Watergate was incredibly overblown. A third rate burglary. Nixon was guilty for trying to protect his team members. Clearly the "plumbers" and quasi governmental agents were illegal. But, it didn't start with Watergate and hasn't stopped Presidential overreach. "Fast and Furious." Crony capitalism. Congressional thievery often rival Watergate. Certainly the FDR knowledge of a possible Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor dwarf Watergate. Nixon was a very flawed President. However, he didn't sleep with numerous women on a daily basis and endanger US security. Just putting things in perspective. Liberal media so yearn for Vietnam and Watergate. The rest of us have figured them out a long time ago.

SOURCE

Incredibly overblown? The President of the United States condoning, if not ordering the burglary of his political rivals? Overblown?

Tell me, David, if Obama were to do such a thing, how would you react?

At the very best, Nixon instigated the cover up of a crime, no matter how petty.Are you happy with that?

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Incredibly overblown? The President of the United States condoning, if not ordering the burglary of his political rivals? Overblown?

Tell me, David, if Obama were to do such a thing, how would you react?

At the very best, Nixon instigated the cover up of a crime, no matter how petty.Are you happy with that?

No, it's not clear Nixon knew aboput the break in before it happened. Yes he did cover up, but it paels in comparison with more recent presidents.

David was kind actually, talking about Clinton. The numerous affairs were petty, the possible sales of US technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions was not minor and neither were the coverups of illegal foreign campaign contributions. Clinton regularly ignored the law, though he was more subtle about doing so. And the very public "bribe" of Senator John Glenn, who got a free ride on the Sapce shuttle for coverong up and ensuring that the China campaign bribes were not investigated was outrageous. It was also quite obvious, and an initial indication of Eric Holders deep corruption, of the numerous payoffs to keep things covered up, even regarding the minor nature of the Lewinski affair. Obviously Clinton LIED UNDER oath!

And Obama has simply built upon the outrage that Clinton got away with.

GW Bush, could have been impeached for his dereliction of duty regarding enforcing the border. Instead, Obama has simply built upon that which Bush got away with.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, it's not clear Nixon knew aboput the break in before it happened. Yes he did cover up, but it paels in comparison with more recent presidents.

Apparently your "moral center" differs greatly from mine.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

David was kind actually, talking about Clinton. The numerous affairs were petty, the possible sales of US technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions was not minor and neither were the coverups of illegal foreign campaign contributions. Clinton regularly ignored the law, though he was more subtle about doing so. And the very public "bribe" of Senator John Glenn, who got a free ride on the Sapce shuttle for coverong up and ensuring that the China campaign bribes were not investigated was outrageous. It was also quite obvious, and an initial indication of Eric Holders deep corruption, of the numerous payoffs to keep things covered up, even regarding the minor nature of the Lewinski affair. Obviously Clinton LIED UNDER oath!

Clinton was never questioned about the sale of technology to China. He was only questioned about oral sex (heh heh he said oral sex)

Yeah Clinton lied. And so what? He still skated.

As for what David Gold intended. who can say? He has not clarified as I write this. My gripe with Gold (and you) is that he, as one who has criticized the left for having no moral center, nevertheless appears to condone Nixon and his administration for their lack of moral center. Sauce for the goose, my friend!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And Obama has simply built upon the outrage that Clinton got away with.

GW Bush, could have been impeached for his dereliction of duty regarding enforcing the border. Instead, Obama has simply built upon that which Bush got away with.

So could Reagan, for gawdsakes.....The cowardly left, right, and center have continued to punt on this issue for what? 40 years? You tell me!

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by Bemused

He was only questioned about oral sex (heh heh he said oral sex)

NO! His impeachment was about not telling the truth to a federal judge. During the impeachment, the charges mention nothing about his affairs.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Apparently your "moral center" differs greatly from mine.

No, it's your strawman argument, I didn't give Nixon a pass. He was threatened with Impeacment and decided to resign instead. Clinton was impeached on the most minor of his offenses and the DimocRAts circled the wagons and contaminated the system.

Clinton was never questioned about the sale of technology to China. He was only questioned about oral sex (heh heh he said oral sex)

EXACTLY! That was his BIG crime!

Yeah Clinton lied. And so what? He still skated.

So where's you moral center now? Clinton had Janet Reno block prosecution and the investigation into corrupt business practices involving White water. Clinton had Senator John Glenn block the Congressional investigation into the diverse evidence of possible bribes and illegal sale of technology to China. So are you telling me you don't agree that covering up a breaking to a doctor's office is less serious than illegal sales of Nuclear and missle guidance technology to China?

As for what David Gold intended. who can say? He has not clarified as I write this. My gripe with Gold (and you) is that he, as one who has criticized the left for having no moral center, nevertheless appears to condone Nixon and his administration for their lack of moral center. Sauce for the goose, my friend!

Well, you are again mistaken. I just think it is stupid and petty for the Washington Times to pat itself on the back for a past story while they cover up for a current "Muslim Traitor". And ask yourself, why did GW Bush not enforce the immigration laws of the US, and conduct a "witch hunt" on two Border agents? Did I not say, that was an impeachable offense for Bush? So you see, I'm the one that's really consistant.

So could Reagan, for gawdsakes.....The cowardly left, right, and center have continued to punt on this issue for what? 40 years? You tell me!

No, not Reagan. But certainly GW Bush and Obama.