RICHARD NIXON'S REVENGE

Be careful what you wish for in this case, FoxFyre. Be very careful.

Good




To draw attention away from "the activities of politicians," (a diversion), we must now attack the press.

Everything is the fault of a press . . . the activist liberal media . . . gone wild . . . on a feeding frenzy . . . blowing third-rate burglaries out of proportion . . . and branding poor Nixon as someone who obstructed justice rather than a nice person who simply didn't have the heart to hang others out to dry.

Or maybe . . . just maybe . . . the American people have the right to KNOW about the activities of politicians.

Rest assured, Foxfyre . . . I'm sure there are a sufficient number of cover-ups that go unexposed that the activities of a great number of our politicians will never know the light of day.

Don't spend all your time worrying about the press. You should spend your time considering the following:

Government in the sunshine? Or government in the shadows?

Fabrication and falsehoods and innuendo and half truths 'in the light' are every bit as bad as truth in the shadows.

How about we demand and expect honest, truthful, complete, accurate, and fair treatment of government and government figures from the media?

Kennedy's revenge
And what about Kennedy's revenge? When will he get his revenge?
Did he get his revenge at the same time Nixon got his? (I'm still not clear on the revenge angle in this topic . . .)

***

A member of the Democratic Party, Edward Kennedy became involved in politics in 1960 when he campaigned for his brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in his successful attempt to become president of the United States. Two years later he entered the Senate representing Massachusetts.

Edward Kennedy also helped Robert Kennedy in his campaign to become president until his assassination in 1968. The following year he was elected majority whip in the Senate. Kennedy was himself front-runner to become the next Democratic Party presidential candidate until the death of his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, on 18th July, 1969, while he was driving across an unmarked bridge on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy withdrew from the contest when he was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident.

In 1979 Kennedy made another attempt to become the Democratic Party presidential candidate but withdrew from the race when it became clear that the public was still concerned about the events on Chappaquiddick Island.

***

Activist liberal media . . . providing a frenzied feeding of the news to an unforgiving and concerned public. How do we stop the media from ruining the careers of our most beloved politicians?

Maybe we should get rid of the First Amendment . . . I mean, the activist liberal press is abusing the "freedom of the press" by making mountains out of molehills and destroying the political aspirations of people who merely leave the scenes of accidents and obstruct justice.

Kennedy is your most beloved politician? You honestly believe he should have been president?

and Foxfyre is awarded the seque of the day.

Well she went on and on about Kennedy followed with this:

Oh okay I missed the last paragraph. Apologies Debra.

I prefer to demand honesty of government and government figures.

And that is where Mr. Nixon fell down badly.

I'm not certain what your gripe is . . . feeding frenzies or inaccuracies?

And, OMG, look at the feeding frenzy that occurred when Dan Rather was inaccurate concerning the authenticity of documents . . . (not that the content was inaccurate, but the gosh darn . . . .)

And I demand and expect that the Swift Boat Veterans be held to the same standard as the "liberal press" . . . I demand and expect them to be honest, truthful, complete, accurate, and fair.

Oh . . . too late. Forgive me.

Sorry, I missed some of this, I went out for sushi and came back to find something equally raw.

Foxfyre offers as a witness for the defense of Richard Nixon in these matters one Charles Colson. I almost fell to the floor.

(BTW I think it is so so cool that two people on this thread have met two of the principles of the Watergate era.)

Charles Colson, for those reading this who are under forty, was the worst of the bad idea thinkers of the Nixon administration. He thought it was a good idea to spread lies about people long before Richard Scaife bought his first book. In order to combat the release of the Pentagon Papers he ordered the break-in of a doctor's office in an attempt to get the medical records (psychiatric) of Daniel Ellsberg in order to use the information in them to smear him. Colson also....well, let's just say that if there was a dirty trick played on somebody the fingerprints would probably be Chuck's.

Then, Charles found Jesus. He was saved. He finally understood what truth and morality meant which is probably why, though he could continue to blow smoke up Foxfyre's skirt about Richard Nixon's great loyalty to his friends, he couldn't answer the question about whether or not he thought Nixon was guilty.

He could not tell a lie.

Joe (the committee was called CREEP for a reason.) Nation

Not couldn't. Didn't. there is a difference.

If he said he thought Nixon was guilty, he would be betraying a friend.
If he said he thought Nixon was innocent, he would be lying.


So, like any other good indicted co-conspirator, he kept his trap shut.

These were bad men, bad people, even the ones you met, even the ones you met after they found Christ, bad men and they don't need good people to defend them or their actions.

Stop. They are no longer important.

Joe(The names of the men they killed are on the Wall.)Nation

Well Joe, the folks who were there, good or bad, no doubt know more than you or I will ever know. I don't think they can be cut out of the picture when it comes to getting the story straight.

To Debra, what do we do when the media only does the job it decides is important and ignores the rest?


Tainted media

The recent resignation of CNN's news director, Eason Jordan, after his outrageous remarks about our military at an international forum were reported on the Internet, is only the latest in a series of media scandals, of which Dan Rather's forged documents were just one. Media bias does not consist in having liberal or conservative opinions but in how you do your job ?- or don't do it.


One document whose authenticity is not likely to be questioned by the mainstream media is the honorable discharge on Senator John Kerry's web site. Yet who in the major media has investigated why that honorable discharge is dated during the Carter administration, when Kerry's military service ended years earlier?


This is the same media that spent months investigating George W. Bush's military record and, even after key allegations were revealed to be based on forgeries, continued publicizing rumors and innuendoes. They didn't stop even after the President signed Form 180, opening all his military records to the public.


But who in the major media has asked why John Kerry would need to be issued an honorable discharge during the Carter administration, years after leaving the navy, unless his original discharge was less than honorable?


One of Jimmy Carter's first acts as President was to issue an order granting amnesties to draft dodgers who had fled the country during the Vietnam war and also allowing an upgrading of military discharges that had been less than honorable.


There is more to this than simply a strange date on an honorable discharge. The covering memo refers to U.S. Code Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163. Anyone who bothers to read those sections will discover that they are about unusual circumstances for issuing discharges from the military services.


Senator Kerry never signed Form 180 to make all his military records public, as President Bush had done ?- and the media didn't press him to do so. Even after Kerry's widely publicized role as a war hero was challenged by numerous men who had served with him in Vietnam, the media remained totally uninterested in checking out his record.


This gross double standard is the real media scandal, even more than the forged documents, which were after all the responsibility of just one network and one program.


Maybe there is a perfectly innocent explanation for Senator Kerry's late-dated honorable discharge during the Carter administration. But no explanation has been asked or given, even though there may also be a not so innocent explanation.


What is well known is that, during the Vietnam war, John Kerry went to Paris on his own and engaged in discussions or negotiations with representatives of the country with whom we were at war, even though he was still an officer in the naval reserve.


That raises legal questions about unauthorized personal diplomacy which naval authorities may not have overlooked as generously as the media did, and which could have affected the kind of discharge that Kerry received.


One of the few people in the media who has shown any interest at all in Kerry's military records has been Tim Russert of "Meet the Press." He asked Senator Kerry on April 18, 2004 if he would "make all your records public." Kerry indicated that his records were already public, that people "can come and see them" at his headquarters.


But recently, on January 30, 2005, when Tim Russert again raised that question and asked "Would you sign Form 180?" ?- the form that Bush had signed to open all his military records ?- Kerry started off on a tangent before Russert interrupted him to repeat that same question. This time Kerry said, "Yes, I will."


He will? He had already done so last year, if you believe what he said then. But will the media call him on it if he doesn't follow through now? Don't bet on it.


This is not about the past or ultimately even about Kerry or Bush. It is about the future of this country. A gullible public learning only what is filtered to them by a biased media is not a hopeful sign for the future of a democracy.


Some of the public have begun to wake up but more need to do so. Many in the media also need to wake up to what they are doing, or failing to do, when their politics taints their work.


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

And why not? Don't tell me your opinion of Edward Kennedy has been besmirched by the despicable media? So . . . he might take a drink now and then (and left the scene of an accident), but why should that disqualify him for the presidency? And why should a third-rate burglary cause Nixon to resign . . . I'll tell you . . . it's all the media's fault. These men were victims of the media feeding frenzy. And so what if Kennedy has/had a drinking problem, George W. Bush was a raging alcoholic . . . who later turned to God . . .

I swear . . . on a stack of bibles . . . we have to look past the activities of these politicians (ignore and/or minimize their shortcomings) and blame the media. They are victims of the press . . . all of them.

I finally see the light!

Yes. I see the light too. That darn Tim Russert and his nosey questions, why he can't just focus on the good these people do is beyond me. And if all the media would just get behind the President and push his ideas, why we could even pay them to do that I guess, then so many of the difficulties of governing would simply disappear. Sadly, so many in the press don't see it that way.

and there is this:
emphasis mine.

It seems a small thing. You shrug and say well, they were there, so they must know more then we will ever know but, if I thought that I would never read another page of history.

The people who were there suffer the circumstance of being in the midst of events they do not yet know the meaning of. We, who follow them, read their words, see their actions on tape and film , hear what they said in public (and sometimes in private), we who follow them will bear witness to the truth or falseness of their lives.

It is we who will know and understand much more than the participants ever realized and it is we who must be honest with ourselves and with history, otherwise we will be as myopic as those who were there and just as blind to the truth, but that won't be the fault of either history or it's participants, it will be ours alone.

These were bad men. They tried to steal your country. If you ignore this lesson of history, you will allow some other thieves to gather.



Ah. Too late.

Joe(History is written by the victors, rewritten by the Joes.)Nation

What's the big mystery about Kerry's discharge date? After being separated from active duty, an officer remains a member of the standby reserve. He doesn't receive his discharge until his entire military commitment is over. My own honorable discharge is dated about eight years later than the last time that I actually wore a uniform. This isn't media oversight. It's just another red herring.

"He was the ultimate campaign junkie, and his addiction to politics was total. Cheating and lying and stealing were all he really understood in life.

Richard Nixon was the real thing, and I will miss him for the hideous clarity that he brought to my understanding of American politics, and for the anger he inspired in my works. He brought out the best in me, all the way to the end, and for that I am grateful to him. What follows is the obituary that I just delivered to Rolling Stone. Read it and weep, for we have lost our Satan. Richard Nixon has gone home to hell."

--Hunter S. Thompson, who is being greeted in Heaven today by A2K's very own cavfancier

I don't argue with this. I personally and maybe everybody experiences that phenomenon of the bigger picture not being obvious at the immediate event. But in Colson's case, I would think he would have a much more intimate knowledge and understanding of who Nixon the man was than would the historians who did not know him personally but draw their conclusions from inanimate records and opinions of others.

Nixon (the man) is not the issue at hand. Nixon (the president) is.