Enron Trial

[Axegrinder]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900864.html?sub=AR

The outcome of the criminal trial of former Enron Corp. executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, which opens today, will write the coda to four years of battle over whether government can effectively police corporate wrongdoing.

Unlike previous eras, this scandal was not confined to a few high-flying financiers with a penchant for flouting the rules. Corporate managers from every corner of the U.S. economy -- and the accountants and lawyers advising them -- were shown to have signed off on phony numbers,driven by greed, exacting expectations from investors to show growth in their businesses and little apparent fear of being caught.
"White-collar cases used to be isolated and very much on the margins," said former prosecutor David Gourevitch, now a defense attorney. "What you saw over the last four years was corruption cases moving from the fringes of corporate America to the very heart, including many Fortune 500 companies."

[SkinsKY]

Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling found guilty. Also check out the neat little courtroom boxscore that I've never seen but appreciate as a sports fan:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/skilling_counts_28.jpg

source (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes&guilty=true)

[lakewinola]

Guilty!!!

Now lets open the betting. How many days or months will it take before W pardons one of his families biggest supporters (Kenny Lay)


http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes

[dukeuch]

Guilty!!!

Now lets open the betting. How many days or months will it take before W pardons one of his families biggest supporters (Kenny Lay)


http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes

Don't know except that it will be sometime between the first Tuesday of this November and January of 2009.

[akhhorus]

Guilty!!!

Now lets open the betting. How many days or months will it take before W pardons one of his families biggest supporters (Kenny Lay)


http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes

0, Bush is a major fool if he touches either with a ten foot pole. Lay and the Enron guys destroyed way too many lives to be pardoned.

[Axegrinder]

A symbolic victory for the working class.
May these guys rot in their cells.

By the way,are they still free on appeal?
I saw Skilling give an interview after the verdict on the courthouse steps.

[CNYSkinFan]

0, Bush is a major fool if he touches either with a ten foot pole. Lay and the Enron guys destroyed way too many lives to be pardoned.
you may be answering your onw question here. But with his brother not running he may decide for a last minute pardon like Every president does. Clinton did Susan McDougle and a few other controversial ones. What would he care, the election would be over, the new president would be swearing in, and 2 years away from any real effect it would have on anyone.

[dukeuch]

0, Bush is a major fool if he touches either with a ten foot pole. Lay and the Enron guys destroyed way too many lives to be pardoned.

Bush's pop pardoned Casper Weinberger, who literally destroyed many lives. George is most definately a bigger fool that his dad, ergo...

[akhhorus]

Bush's pop pardoned Casper Weinberger, who literally destroyed many lives. George is most definately a bigger fool that his dad, ergo...

Big difference between Weinberger and the Enron executives. Weinberger was a public servant who was involved with Iran Contra. Bush also pardoned some CIA guys involved. None of them did anything more than perjury or contempt of congress. There zero chance that Lay and Skillings get pardoned. It would be a major scandal and make Clinton's pardons look good in comparison.

[akhhorus]

you may be answering your onw question here. But with his brother not running he may decide for a last minute pardon like Every president does. Clinton did Susan McDougle and a few other controversial ones. What would he care, the election would be over, the new president would be swearing in, and 2 years away from any real effect it would have on anyone.

None of Clinton's pardons did as many crimes as the Enron guys. Richt was the most contraversial, but he did some wire transfer frauds. McDougle was involved in whitewater, but little more than lie to investigators. This would be like pardoning a serial killer if Bush did it and would stain the GOP for the next election.

[CNYSkinFan]

None of Clinton's pardons did as many crimes as the Enron guys. Richt was the most contraversial, but he did some wire transfer frauds. McDougle was involved in whitewater, but little more than lie to investigators. This would be like pardoning a serial killer if Bush did it and would stain the GOP for the next election.
Your assuming Bush cares about the gop for the next election and that the public would remember it.

Hey I don't want them pardoned by any stretch of the imagination. I am just saying every time we say Bush would not be foolish to do something (exagerating intelligence on WMD, be involved in the Plame outing after claiming he was not, domestice phone call surveillance) he does it. I would not put it past him but I have no real information or intelligence that it will be done and none of us will know until mid January 2009.

[akhhorus]

Your assuming Bush cares about the gop for the next election and that the public would remember it.

Hey I don't want them pardoned by any stretch of the imagination. I am just saying every time we say Bush would not be foolish to do something (exagerating intelligence on WMD, be involved in the Plame outing after claiming he was not, domestice phone call surveillance) he does it. I would not put it past him but I have no real information or intelligence that it will be done and none of us will know until mid January 2009.

Except that Bush always hides behind a semantic fig leaf with those things. He can't do that if he pardons Lay and Skilling. And I do think that he cares about the GOP after he leaves office. Pardoning them would wound the GOP for the election after it.

[CNYSkinFan]

Except that Bush always hides behind a semantic fig leaf with those things. He can't do that if he pardons Lay and Skilling. And I do think that he cares about the GOP after he leaves office. Pardoning them would wound the GOP for the election after it.
See I don't think so since most people don't know who Lay and Skilling are and their relationship to the GOP and the onese who do are ultra libs who will vote against the GOP anyways. It's a myth that swing voters are swayed by Pardons. The only Pardon that happened with was Gerald Ford's immediate pardon of Nixon. Ford should have waited until his way out of office.

[akhhorus]

See I don't think so since most people don't know who Lay and Skilling are and their relationship to the GOP and the onese who do are ultra libs who will vote against the GOP anyways. It's a myth that swing voters are swayed by Pardons. The only Pardon that happened with was Gerald Ford's immediate pardon of Nixon. Ford should have waited until his way out of office.

They know who Enron is and I can guarantee you that most have heard about their connection to Bush. It would hurt the GOP especially on Wall Street, who wants Enron to go away from the headlines.

[Keino]

I didn't read any responses about this here, but I thought I'd sahre what one of my friends on another forum wrote, that I agree with wholeheartedly. I wish I could take credit for it:

Until they go to prisons where they can end up as buttbitches to the Latin Kings and/or must return to civilian life in a 2nd floor apt.across from a Galveston refinery, justice has not been served

[dukeuch]

Big difference between Weinberger and the Enron executives. Weinberger was a public servant who was involved with Iran Contra. Bush also pardoned some CIA guys involved. None of them did anything more than perjury or contempt of congress. There zero chance that Lay and Skillings get pardoned. It would be a major scandal and make Clinton's pardons look good in comparison.


Yes, but what Weinberger was perjuring himself about was illegal arms sales to Iran (ie; arming terrorists) and illegally providing funds and support to terrorists who killed thousands in Central America. But I don't want to wade into the waters or the value of a foreigners life against the value of an Americans (or in this case, and American's wealth) again.

Bascially, I was just trying to make a joke about Geroge W's boobery compared to his father, whom I disagreed with on most issues but certainly did not question his heroism or intelligence. Geroge W is sorely lacking in both.

[dukeuch]

Except that Bush always hides behind a semantic fig leaf with those things. He can't do that if he pardons Lay and Skilling. And I do think that he cares about the GOP after he leaves office. Pardoning them would wound the GOP for the election after it.


Of course he can...the old "keeping him in jail any longer has no effect on restoring the lives and fortunes of those injured".

[akhhorus]

Yes, but what Weinberger was perjuring himself about was illegal arms sales to Iran (ie; arming terrorists) and illegally providing funds and support to terrorists who killed thousands in Central America. But I don't want to wade into the waters or the value of a foreigners life against the value of an Americans (or in this case, and American's wealth) again.

You have no clue what that was about. Iran is a nation-state, not terrorists. We just don't recognize them(then and now). We were selling arms to them to pressure Hezbollah to release Americans in captivity in Lebanon. And we were doing the arms selling through Israel(they sold the arms to Iran, we resold Israel what they sold at cheap prices) originally. Oliver North decided that it would be better if we sold them directly to Iran at a huge markup, and take the profit and use it to pump up the funding for the Contras in Nicaragua(which by the way was getting direct money from the Dem controlled Congress and CIA advisors). Who's biggest terrorist act with US money was to buy loud, but generally harmless firecracker mines to stop the oil tankers in Nicaragua. The only crimes to be charged in the whole affair was things like Perjury, obstruction, destroying documents. Even with admissions from guys like Claridge and North, the funding didn't violate any federal law. Nice try, no points this round.

Of course he can...the old "keeping him in jail any longer has no effect on restoring the lives and fortunes of those injured".

Thats not a semantic fig leaf for Bush. Thats begging to re-open old wounds that he needs closed for his legacy and for the GOP's health.

[CNYSkinFan]

They know who Enron is and I can guarantee you that most have heard about their connection to Bush. It would hurt the GOP especially on Wall Street, who wants Enron to go away from the headlines.
I hope you are right Akh, but it is now mid 2006 with these guys out of the headlines for 2.5 years the publisc will tend to forget and with the promise of a new administration and the hub bub of inauguratio the General public will be hard pressed to remember the details. And the GOP has mastered the art of not looking back but forward media dance.

I think it is possible it will happen, for at least one of them.

[akhhorus]

I hope you are right Akh, but it is now mid 2006 with these guys out of the headlines for 2.5 years the publisc will tend to forget and with the promise of a new administration and the hub bub of inauguratio the General public will be hard pressed to remember the details. And the GOP has mastered the art of not looking back but forward media dance.

I think it is possible it will happen, for at least one of them.

The fact that it will out of the headlines will be the reason Bush won't pardon them. Its a wound no one in the GOP wants to re-open. It would be like Clinton pardoning Teddy Kennedy for Chappaquidick or something.

[dukeuch]

You have no clue what that was about. Iran is a nation-state, not terrorists. We just don't recognize them(then and now). We were selling arms to them to pressure Hezbollah to release Americans in captivity in Lebanon. And we were doing the arms selling through Israel(they sold the arms to Iran, we resold Israel what they sold at cheap prices) originally. Oliver North decided that it would be better if we sold them directly to Iran at a huge markup, and take the profit and use it to pump up the funding for the Contras in Nicaragua(which by the way was getting direct money from the Dem controlled Congress and CIA advisors). Who's biggest terrorist act with US money was to buy loud, but generally harmless firecracker mines to stop the oil tankers in Nicaragua. The only crimes to be charged in the whole affair was things like Perjury, obstruction, destroying documents. Even with admissions from guys like Claridge and North, the funding didn't violate any federal law. Nice try, no points this round.



Thats not a semantic fig leaf for Bush. Thats begging to re-open old wounds that he needs closed for his legacy and for the GOP's health.

Now who is fooling who with semantics? You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. Are you saying that there was NOT an arms embargo on Iran at the time we sold arms to Iran (there was)? The embargo was initiated as a result of 52 American Hostages being held in the US Embassy in Tehran (that's in Iran last time I looked) by supporters or Khomeini, who (if memory serves) was Iran's "supreme leader" at the time. I was alive at the time (you must not have been) and believe me, Iran was considered a terrorist state. As a matter of fact, at the time we sold arms to them in the second hostage crisis, Khomeini was still their leader, the embargo was still in place, and Ronald Reagan was calling them "the world's leaders in state-sponsored terrorism'. Now, how do you figure that selling arms to a country under an arms embargo because they are defined as a terrorist state, is not selling arms to terrorists? As an aside, I suppose you could suggest that Hezbollah was operating outside of or perhaps more accurately, in contradiction to Khomeini's wishes, but I think most historians would disagree. If not, how would selling arms to Iran help influence them to "put pressure" on Hez to release the hostages? By the way, I love the way you avoid saying "trade arms for hostages"!

And are you seriously implying that the Democratically controlled Congress at the time is somehow responsible for funding the Contras? For Christ sake, Congress passed the Boland Amendment specifically preventing us from providing support to the Contras. That's the law that was violated by North when diverting funds to them. I think that there may be quite a few folks who seem to think that the contras did a lot more than drop a few innefective mines. Little things like assassinating peasants, raping women, you know, the sort of things we'd call terrorist activities if they were done to US citizens or our international pals. SO you don't think that the Boland Amendment, which tried to prevent unauthorized, secret funding of the contras, was NOT violated? Was the Boland Amendment, or the Iranian Arms embargo, not considered federal law?

Seriously dude, where are you getting this stuff?

And while I'll agree that Weinberger was not pleased nor did he support these illegal activities, he knew about them for a long time, lied about their existence, and was pardoned before he was even tried. What a deal!

[akhhorus]

Now who is fooling who with semantics? You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. Are you saying that there was NOT an arms embargo on Iran at the time we sold arms to Iran (there was)?

I never said that. Good start there, trying to put words in my mouth.

The embargo was initiated as a result of 52 American Hostages being held in the US Embassy in Tehran (that's in Iran last time I looked) by supporters or Khomeini, who (if memory serves) was Iran's "supreme leader" at the time. I was alive at the time (you must not have been) and believe me, Iran was considered a terrorist state.

Yes, I actually was. And the hostages were released in 1980. And we were selling arms to Iraq, who was at least as bad as Iran. Where was the complaining about that then?

As a matter of fact, at the time we sold arms to them in the second hostage crisis, Khomeini was still their leader, the embargo was still in place, and Ronald Reagan was calling them "the world's leaders in state-sponsored terrorism'.

And had nothing to do with the 2nd hostage crisis.

Now, how do you figure that selling arms to a country under an arms embargo because they are defined as a terrorist state, is not selling arms to terrorists? As an aside, I suppose you could suggest that Hezbollah was operating outside of or perhaps more accurately, in contradiction to Khomeini's wishes, but I think most historians would disagree.

Oh really? Who? Iran didn't sponsor terrorism, but they did sponsor groups like Hezbollah(and Syria had and has at least as much influence and has given as much support to Hezbollah than Iran has). And they had SO much influence over them and other terrorist groups that they completely failed to free any hostages(except one, who was a holyman and there's no evidence that the arms sales helped that at all). And no, selling arms to a country under an arms embargo isn't selling weapons to terrorists. Its contradicting US policy to achieve other policy goals.

If not, how would selling arms to Iran help influence them to "put pressure" on Hez to release the hostages? By the way, I love the way you avoid saying "trade arms for hostages"!

We didn't trade arms for hostages. We traded arms to see if Iran could help. Iran nor any Iranian organization was holding the hostages.

And are you seriously implying that the Democratically controlled Congress at the time is somehow responsible for funding the Contras? For Christ sake, Congress passed the Boland Amendment specifically preventing us from providing support to the Contras. That's the law that was violated by North when diverting funds to them.

And Reagan still got 19 million from Congress to fund his NSD for help the Contras in 1981. Did the CIA sneak and vote on it themselves? The Boland Amendment didn't really contradict what they were doing as long as they were overt about it and the money was used for "interdiction"(hence the mines). Which is what it was used for. Hence that no one in the Reagan admin was charged with violating it.

I think that there may be quite a few folks who seem to think that the contras did a lot more than drop a few innefective mines. Little things like assassinating peasants, raping women, you know, the sort of things we'd call terrorist activities if they were done to US citizens or our international pals.

I'm actually shocked that you didn't try to repeat the stupid allegations of how the Contras and the CIA are responsible for Cocaine distribution in the US. The Contras burned villages and attacked their opponents, but I havent seen anyone claim that they raped and pillaged. Even Americas Watch.

SO you don't think that the Boland Amendment, which tried to prevent unauthorized, secret funding of the contras, was NOT violated? Was the Boland Amendment, or the Iranian Arms embargo, not considered federal law?

You should actually read the Boland Amendment. It didn't prevent the CIA from help the Contras at all, or organizing them, or giving them logistical support. And it has nothing to do with Iran.

Seriously dude, where are you getting this stuff?

You should talk.

And while I'll agree that Weinberger was not pleased nor did he support these illegal activities, he knew about them for a long time, lied about their existence, and was pardoned before he was even tried. What a deal!

And? Your point is what exactly? How does this relate to Enron execs possibly getting pardons?

[dukeuch]

I never said that. Good start there, trying to put words in my mouth.



Yes, I actually was. And the hostages were released in 1980. And we were selling arms to Iraq, who was at least as bad as Iran. Where was the complaining about that then?



And had nothing to do with the 2nd hostage crisis.



Oh really? Who? Iran didn't sponsor terrorism, but they did sponsor groups like Hezbollah(and Syria had and has at least as much influence and has given as much support to Hezbollah than Iran has). And they had SO much influence over them and other terrorist groups that they completely failed to free any hostages(except one, who was a holyman and there's no evidence that the arms sales helped that at all). And no, selling arms to a country under an arms embargo isn't selling weapons to terrorists. Its contradicting US policy to achieve other policy goals.



We didn't trade arms for hostages. We traded arms to see if Iran could help. Iran nor any Iranian organization was holding the hostages.



And Reagan still got 19 million from Congress to fund his NSD for help the Contras in 1981. Did the CIA sneak and vote on it themselves? The Boland Amendment didn't really contradict what they were doing as long as they were overt about it and the money was used for "interdiction"(hence the mines). Which is what it was used for. Hence that no one in the Reagan admin was charged with violating it.



I'm actually shocked that you didn't try to repeat the stupid allegations of how the Contras and the CIA are responsible for Cocaine distribution in the US. The Contras burned villages and attacked their opponents, but I havent seen anyone claim that they raped and pillaged. Even Americas Watch.



You should actually read the Boland Amendment. It didn't prevent the CIA from help the Contras at all, or organizing them, or giving them logistical support. And it has nothing to do with Iran.



You should talk.



And? Your point is what exactly? How does this relate to Enron execs possibly getting pardons?

Back to this later when I have tiem, but for now let me reply that you seem to be saying that despite having an arms embargo in place due to hostages being held preivously in their country by supporters of the leader of the country, who remained leader of the country when Hezbollah took more American hostages, and despite the fact that in your words they supported groups such as Hezbollah, who was holding American hostages at the time, and that the embargo remained in place, and that the US President at the time declared that they were the leader in state-sponsored terrorism, and that that president was selling arms to them in hopes of them pressuring the terrorists that they supported to release the hostages (because they apparently heald sway with such terrorists, other wise why do it?), that Iran was not a terrorist state.

Regarding the contras, you are deluding yourselve as to their relative innactivity, any search of comments by many CIA operatives, and indeed internal memos and distribution of the infamous "death manuals" indicates otherwise.

[akhhorus]

Back to this later when I have tiem, but for now let me reply that you seem to be saying that despite having an arms embargo in place due to hostages being held preivously in their country by supporters of the leader of the country, who remained leader of the country when Hezbollah took more American hostages, and despite the fact that in your words they supported groups such as Hezbollah

There's a big difference between supplies someone with arms and training and controlling them. We're Israel's biggest supplier of weapons and training, yet do we control them? Hezbollah and Iran were two different entities.

who was holding American hostages at the time

Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups were holding them, not Iran.

and that the embargo remained in place, and that the US President at the time declared that they were the leader in state-sponsored terrorism

Not to be picky, but Libya did far more than Iran.

and that that president was selling arms to them in hopes of them pressuring the terrorists that they supported to release the hostages (because they apparently heald sway with such terrorists, other wise why do it?), that Iran was not a terrorist state.

Nope. By your logic, we're to blame for any human rights violations commited by any group we give so much as a pair of garden shears to for them to fight with. Iran didn't hold any hostages, Hezbollah and other groups did. And just because we sold them arms, contary to US policy, doesn't make them a terrorist state or that they could help with the hostages.

Regarding the contras, you are deluding yourselve as to their relative innactivity, any search of comments by many CIA operatives, and indeed internal memos and distribution of the infamous "death manuals" indicates otherwise.

I read Clarridge's autobiography(and he has a full pardon for his activities, so he has no reason to conceal anything) and I've met him personallly. He admits the Contras were brutal in the attack, but denies any sort of mass human rights violations or any "acts of terrorism". And several human rights groups have said that the Contras only took the next step to massive human rights abuses(rape, murder, cotton candy) after 1989(which was long after we pulled all support and advisors for them) when they lost the elections.

[dukeuch]

There's a big difference between supplies someone with arms and training and controlling them. We're Israel's biggest supplier of weapons and training, yet do we control them? Hezbollah and Iran were two different entities.



Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups were holding them, not Iran.



Not to be picky, but Libya did far more than Iran.



Nope. By your logic, we're to blame for any human rights violations commited by any group we give so much as a pair of garden shears to for them to fight with. Iran didn't hold any hostages, Hezbollah and other groups did. And just because we sold them arms, contary to US policy, doesn't make them a terrorist state or that they could help with the hostages.



I read Clarridge's autobiography(and he has a full pardon for his activities, so he has no reason to conceal anything) and I've met him personallly. He admits the Contras were brutal in the attack, but denies any sort of mass human rights violations or any "acts of terrorism". And several human rights groups have said that the Contras only took the next step to massive human rights abuses(rape, murder, cotton candy) after 1989(which was long after we pulled all support and advisors for them) when they lost the elections.

Still don't have time to give this my full attention by way of response, but maybe you can answer a few questions and I can get a better understanding of your view:

1) Why did we intitiate an arms embargo against Iran in the first place and why was it still in place at the time Reagan was selling arms to them?

2) When Reagan called Iran the leader of state sponsored terrorism, was he mistaken, lying, or something else? I take it that you do not think he was corrrect?

[akhhorus]

Still don't have time to give this my full attention by way of response, but maybe you can answer a few questions and I can get a better understanding of your view:

1) Why did we intitiate an arms embargo against Iran in the first place and why was it still in place at the time Reagan was selling arms to them?

Carter initiated the arms embargo, I believe. Selling arms to them in contradiction of this is a completely seperate issue than suppling the contras or the allegation that we sold them at massive markups(Iran at first refused to buy the weapons at the prices we quoted) to get our hostages out.

2) When Reagan called Iran the leader of state sponsored terrorism, was he mistaken, lying, or something else? I take it that you do not think he was corrrect?

Sound bytes aren't sworn testimony. Bush has called North Korea, Libya and Iran similar things, but he just normalized relations with Libya, authorized talks with North Korea and looks like he's going to do the same with Iran. Just because a President says something doesn't mean he'll be consistant. In fact, the great ones never are.

[dukeuch]

Carter initiated the arms embargo, I believe. Selling arms to them in contradiction of this is a completely seperate issue than suppling the contras or the allegation that we sold them at massive markups(Iran at first refused to buy the weapons at the prices we quoted) to get our hostages out.

Ok, but you still have not answered my question. Let me re-phrase it: Why did Carter initiate the embargo? We can get to the hows and whys it was still in place later, if you like, but how about just saying why it was put in place (in your view) to begin with?


Sound bytes aren't sworn testimony. Bush has called North Korea, Libya and Iran similar things, but he just normalized relations with Libya, authorized talks with North Korea and looks like he's going to do the same with Iran. Just because a President says something doesn't mean he'll be consistant. In fact, the great ones never are.

Rhetoric is is used freely by any manner of lying politicians, I admit. In the case of Reagan and Iran, what is your view? Do you think Reagan truely believed Iran was a terrorist nation? Do you think he stood pretty much alone in his belief, or did a wide variety of people feel they supported terrorists and their causes?

[akhhorus]

Rhetoric is is used freely by any manner of lying politicians, I admit. In the case of Reagan and Iran, what is your view? Do you think Reagan truely believed Iran was a terrorist nation? Do you think he stood pretty much alone in his belief, or did a wide variety of people feel they supported terrorists and their causes?

I think-and I can't prove it at all-is that Reagan's people figured out that they were supplying and helping a worse devil in Saddam and decided to even consider supplying Iran as a counter weight to Iraq. The hostages or contras were just a superficial reason, if at all. Notice how they just supplies anti tank weapons to Iran, nothing else. And Iraq's armies were completely driven by Tanks. Iran did help some terrorist groups, but there were far worse violators of that in the world. The last thing they wanted was a middle east dominated by Saddam.

[Spence]

The Enron boys won't be pardoned. There is absolutely nothing to be gained for Bush in doing something like that. Bush has acted like he never met those guys ever since they were arrested and he'll continue to do that. To pardon them would be politically idiotic and Bush is not politically idiotic. He's quite clever politically. It's the policy part that he can't get right.

[dukeuch]

I think-and I can't prove it at all-is that Reagan's people figured out that they were supplying and helping a worse devil in Saddam and decided to even consider supplying Iran as a counter weight to Iraq. The hostages or contras were just a superficial reason, if at all. Notice how they just supplies anti tank weapons to Iran, nothing else. And Iraq's armies were completely driven by Tanks. Iran did help some terrorist groups, but there were far worse violators of that in the world. The last thing they wanted was a middle east dominated by Saddam.


Sorry I mistakenly imbedded one question within your quote, but I will ask it again: Why did Carter intitiate the embargo in the first place, and why did it remain in place during Reagan's first term?

Regarding your answer above, if the yardstick you use is that "yeah, they were terrorists but there were others worse", then we simply disagree and I'll leave it at that. Boy, if Iraq was really worse than Iran, and Reagan realized it, he must have been really pissed when he found out we were selling Iraq weapons grade chemicals and saw that picture of "special presidential envoy" Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein.

Hmmmm, there also seems to be quite a few National Security Decision Directives during that time specifically outlining various policies designed to ensure that Iraq did not collapse. Strange strategy for dealing with terrorist Iraq, if you ask me.

[Spence]

Iran was sponsoring [and still is] Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Lebanon. That was the group taking and holding Americans hostage in the 1980s.

[akhhorus]

Sorry I mistakenly imbedded one question within your quote, but I will ask it again: Why did Carter intitiate the embargo in the first place, and why did it remain in place during Reagan's first term?

For the same reason Bush didn't repeal a lot of Clinton's executive orders, and why Clinton didn't repeal a lot of Bush I's: New people coming in supposed that there's a good enough reason to leave it in place.

Regarding your answer above, if the yardstick you use is that "yeah, they were terrorists but there were others worse", then we simply disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Its not that simple. Its called the balance of power strategy. Its not to support any one country, but to make sure no one country takes control of a given area. Nixon really did an amazing job playing China off of Russia and vice versa. Preventing any one country from dominating the Persian Gulf is good foreign policy for the US then and now.

Boy, if Iraq was really worse than Iran, and Reagan realized it, he must have been really pissed when he found out we were selling Iraq weapons grade chemicals and saw that picture of "special presidential envoy" Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein.

Or Joseph Wilson telling Saddam that the US couldnt care less about Kuwait. Or American companies selling Iraq bio weapons in the 1990s.

Hmmmm, there also seems to be quite a few National Security Decision Directives during that time specifically outlining various policies designed to ensure that Iraq did not collapse. Strange strategy for dealing with terrorist Iraq, if you ask me.

Really? Like what?

[akhhorus]

Iran was sponsoring [and still is] Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Lebanon. That was the group taking and holding Americans hostage in the 1980s.

Yes, Iran sponsored Hezbollah, but they got as much support from Syria and Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. And despite us selling all these weapons to Iran, supposedly to get our hostages back, it completely failed to accomplish this. Also, some scholars now think that Hezbollah didn't really exist as a singular group until 1986 and was a loose collection of groups that Iran and Syria gave money to until then.

[dukeuch]

Yes, Iran sponsored Hezbollah, but they got as much support from Syria and Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. And despite us selling all these weapons to Iran, supposedly to get our hostages back, it completely failed to accomplish this. Also, some scholars now think that Hezbollah didn't really exist as a singular group until 1986 and was a loose collection of groups that Iran and Syria gave money to until then.

You are really spinning your wheels here. They were not a singular group until 1986? Well, they seemed to be organized enought to take hostages, relelase hostages, and take more hostages, for a few years before 1986.

And isn't it ironic, that as bad as it was that we were trying to trade arms for hostages, once we did it, it didn't even work. We appeased them for nothing in return. Boy that Reagan; what a mental giant and collossal liar.

Oh yeah, and the contras, funded with those illegally obtained funds, did a lot of good too.

[akhhorus]

You are really spinning your wheels here. They were not a singular group until 1986? Well, they seemed to be organized enought to take hostages, relelase hostages, and take more hostages, for a few years before 1986.

No, they released one hostage and killed more than they released before the Iran Contra scandal. And it doesn't take much to take a hostage. Iraqi groups are taking hostages and they have little to no organization and are sometimes smaller than 5-10 people per group.

And isn't it ironic, that as bad as it was that we were trying to trade arms for hostages, once we did it, it didn't even work. We appeased them for nothing in return. Boy that Reagan; what a mental giant and collossal liar.

If you assume that the arms sales were for hostage release, there's no proof of that. And Reagan was a great President, greatest since FDR. And Reagan was only a fool in this case if he assumed that Iran would release the hostages in exchange for the arms. Which again, there's no proof of.

Oh yeah, and the contras, funded with those illegally obtained funds, did a lot of good too.

And Congressionally approved money too.

[dukeuch]

And Reagan was a great President, greatest since FDR.
Ohhh boy. Better get ready to start a new thread.

[akhhorus]

Ohhh boy. Better get ready to start a new thread.

Feel free to. The Presidents from FDR to Reagan are a bunch of schmucks. You can look at it as a complement to Reagan, or you can look at it as a slam at Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

[dukeuch]

Feel free to. The Presidents from FDR to Reagan are a bunch of schmucks. You can look at it as a complement to Reagan, or you can look at it as a slam at Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Well, to Reagan's credit, he was number one in something; tripling the national debt. He's number one, he's number one, he's number one! (Oh yeah, and also negotiating and arming terrorists, or at least trying to)

[akhhorus]

Well, to Reagan's credit, he was number one in something; tripling the national debt. He's number one, he's number one, he's number one! (Oh yeah, and also negotiating and arming terrorists, or at least trying to)

And he won such a landslide in 1984, that it looked like that more Democrats voted for him than Mondale. He got the US to win the Cold War by getting the country to believe in itself again and believing that we had a responsibility to keep the commies at bay. Reagan did a lot of good and bad economically and in foreign policy, but he got Americans out of the deep funk they were in the 1970s and got us to believe that we could succeed. He's better than any of the last 4 Dem presidents combined.

[CNYSkinFan]

And he won such a landslide in 1984, that it looked like that more Democrats voted for him than Mondale. He got the US to win the Cold War by getting the country to believe in itself again and believing that we had a responsibility to keep the commies at bay. Reagan did a lot of good and bad economically and in foreign policy, but he got Americans out of the deep funk they were in the 1970s and got us to believe that we could succeed. He's better than any of the last 4 Dem presidents combined.
Ok I was willing to concede Johnson & Carter. JFK was too short to consider. Truman is underrated but fine I may give it up for Reagan's popularity alone. But come one you can't dismiss Clinton so easily. The economic turnaround alone gives him credence to at least Reagan's level if not surpass him. General peace and security and also the disaster that is the W administration shows how qualified and professional the Clinton administration was to hold the country together and in great shape.

[dukeuch]

And he won such a landslide in 1984, that it looked like that more Democrats voted for him than Mondale. He got the US to win the Cold War by getting the country to believe in itself again and believing that we had a responsibility to keep the commies at bay. Reagan did a lot of good and bad economically and in foreign policy, but he got Americans out of the deep funk they were in the 1970s and got us to believe that we could succeed. He's better than any of the last 4 Dem presidents combined.

I respectfully disagree and with great disrespect voice my belief that Reagan was a doddering fool.

[akhhorus]

Ok I was willing to concede Johnson & Carter. JFK was too short to consider. Truman is underrated but fine I may give it up for Reagan's popularity alone. But come one you can't dismiss Clinton so easily. The economic turnaround alone gives him credence to at least Reagan's level if not surpass him. General peace and security and also the disaster that is the W administration shows how qualified and professional the Clinton administration was to hold the country together and in great shape.

Clinton was able to look so good in foreign affairs because he cut as many deals a possible, no matter who he was dealing with. Its a good short term strategy, but just delays the tough decisions for another day. And Clinton loses major points for being the 2nd President ever to be impeached. Reagan had scandals, but nothing ever really threatened him.

As for the past: JFK loses points for expanding the moves into Vietnam and not ending it while he could. And he was certainly popular enough after the Cuban Missile crisis to pull out of Nam without any problems.

[akhhorus]

I respectfully disagree and with great disrespect voice my belief that Reagan was a doddering fool.

You can believe what you want. Its amazing what that "doddering fool" accomplished and how little Clinton accomplished in the same amount of time.

[CNYSkinFan]

Clinton was able to look so good in foreign affairs because he cut as many deals a possible, no matter who he was dealing with. Its a good short term strategy, but just delays the tough decisions for another day. And Clinton loses major points for being the 2nd President ever to be impeached. Reagan had scandals, but nothing ever really threatened him.

As for the past: JFK loses points for expanding the moves into Vietnam and not ending it while he could. And he was certainly popular enough after the Cuban Missile crisis to pull out of Nam without any problems.
The impeachment is a direct result in overreaching by the GOP and you know that. And while Clinton's policy of negotiations may seem weak he did do an awful lot of good in Bosnia and succesfully contained Hussein for 8 years with very little cost to us taxpayers or military lives.

An argument could be made that Reagan's policy of arming anyone and everyone to fight communism led to the middle east dictators and terrorist organizations that sprung up after the cold war ended as well.

[lakewinola]

He got the US to win the Cold War by getting the country to believe in itself again and believing that we had a responsibility to keep the commies at bay.

The Soviets lost the cold war 20 years before Reagan took office. Reagan was just the icing on the cake.

[CNYSkinFan]

You can believe what you want. Its amazing what that "doddering fool" accomplished and how little Clinton accomplished in the same amount of time.
Don't underestimate going from record (at the time) deficits to record (still) surplus. That alone is a huge accomplishment. As well as turning around one of the biggest recessions since the great depression and a relatively succesful foreign policy. All this under a heretofore unprecedented wave of attacks from a hostile GOP congress that tried to convict him on EVERYTHING and settled for lying about getting a hummer.

[akhhorus]

The impeachment is a direct result in overreaching by the GOP and you know that. And while Clinton's policy of negotiations may seem weak he did do an awful lot of good in Bosnia and succesfully contained Hussein for 8 years with very little cost to us taxpayers or military lives.

It was a direct result of Clinton lying under oath. If he had admitted to an affair with Monica under oath, there would have been a scandal, but there would have been zero talk of impeachment. He did a good job in Kosovo, but he didn't contain Iraq, he just delayed any action until after he left office. There is also some question about how much was actually done about Al Queda. Clinton authorized military action, but kept hamstringing the efforts by putting conditions and demanding total minute to minute oversight on their efforts.

An argument could be made that Reagan's policy of arming anyone and everyone to fight communism led to the middle east dictators and terrorist organizations that sprung up after the cold war ended as well.

Except that the policy started thanks to the efforts of One democratic Congressman(Charlie Wilson, who would take his bimbos to the Afghani-Pakistan border to "get them in the mood") and really started after the US embassy was sacked in Pakistan in the late 70s under Carter. The US supplied weapons and aid to Pakistan who distributed it to the Afghani rebels, but Bin Laden and what became wasn't involved until after we pulled our support.

[lakewinola]

He did a good job in Kosovo, but he didn't contain Iraq, he just delayed any action until after he left office.

How did he not contain Iraq? Did Iraq develop weapons of mass destruction? Did Iraq invade another country?

[akhhorus]

The Soviets lost the cold war 20 years before Reagan took office. Reagan was just the icing on the cake.

No, they lost it when they agreed to the Human Rights Convention which Ford pushed on them. Reagan got the kill shot in by convincing the Russians that Star Wars was real and forced them to bankrupt the state to pay for a counter to it.

Don't underestimate going from record (at the time) deficits to record (still) surplus. That alone is a huge accomplishment. As well as turning around one of the biggest recessions since the great depression and a relatively succesful foreign policy.

The recession under Bush wasn't anywhere close to one of the worse in US history and none of that economic growth would have happened if Bush 1 hadn't agreed to the Budget Reconcilation Act, which forced a balanced budget, but cost him the election since it had Tax increases in it. The GDP growth was already recovering substantially by the end of 1992. As for his foreign policy, Clinton did NOTHING substantive in foreign policy. His biggest accomplishment was the Oslo Accords, but those were being negotiated long before he was involved and Clinton couldn't get the two sides to agree on other things later on.

All this under a heretofore unprecedented wave of attacks from a hostile GOP congress that tried to convict him on EVERYTHING and settled for lying about getting a hummer.

Much like the Dems today whining about every little thing, eh?

[CNYSkinFan]

It was a direct result of Clinton lying under oath. If he had admitted to an affair with Monica under oath, there would have been a scandal, but there would have been zero talk of impeachment.

And the reason he was asked about an extra marital affair under oath was because....oh yeah a land deal in Arkanasas. I can connect the dots now. The question should not have been asked in the first place. It was the only thing (and it was not as cut and dry as you like to make out) in a long line of questioning that they could pin on him. You and I both know you keep someone under investigation long enough eventually they will commit perjury. It was perhaps the worst case for impeachment ever concieved of. It was Capitol punishment for jay-walking. And history is going to see it that way, espescially inlight of the failures of his succesor.


He did a good job in Kosovo, but he didn't contain Iraq, he just delayed any action until after he left office.

Action that was not or ever needed. The absence of WMDs found after the invasion shows that Clinton's policy of containment and quarantine was working, and working well.


There is also some question about how much was actually done about Al Queda. Clinton authorized military action, but kept hamstringing the efforts by putting conditions and demanding total minute to minute oversight on their efforts.

But that oversight prevented abuse and things falling through the cracks. We will never know if A Clinton Administration would have prevented 9-11, but they did prevent the millenium terror plots and succesfully prosecuted the suspects of the first World Trade Center bombing.


Except that the policy started thanks to the efforts of One democratic Congressman(Charlie Wilson, who would take his bimbos to the Afghani-Pakistan border to "get them in the mood") and really started after the US embassy was sacked in Pakistan in the late 70s under Carter. The US supplied weapons and aid to Pakistan who distributed it to the Afghani rebels, but Bin Laden and what became wasn't involved until after we pulled our support.

Well that is my point. It would be unfair to criticize Reagan for a continuation of the current policy just as it is unfair to blame Clinton for the continuation of the Iraq policy.

[akhhorus]

How did he not contain Iraq? Did Iraq develop weapons of mass destruction? Did Iraq invade another country?

Did Clinton do anything to stop Oil for Food? Did Clinton bother with any serious attempts to resolve it? Clinton just kept the status quo, and thats not containment, thats delaying.

[Keino]

Did Clinton do anything to stop Oil for Food? Did Clinton bother with any serious attempts to resolve it? Clinton just kept the status quo, and thats not containment, thats delaying.

Thats interesting because Colin Powell and Dick Cheney said in 2000 that Saddam was contained. And Since when is it a US President's responsibility to police the UN?

[CNYSkinFan]

The recession under Bush wasn't anywhere close to one of the worse in US history and none of that economic growth would have happened if Bush 1 hadn't agreed to the Budget Reconcilation Act, which forced a balanced budget, but cost him the election since it had Tax increases in it. The GDP growth was already recovering substantially by the end of 1992. As for his foreign policy, Clinton did NOTHING substantive in foreign policy. His biggest accomplishment was the Oslo Accords, but those were being negotiated long before he was involved and Clinton couldn't get the two sides to agree on other things later on.



Much like the Dems today whining about every little thing, eh?

There is a big difference in whining and spending MILLIONS of dollars in federal investigations into go nowhere made up scandals in the hopes of finding anything to impeach him on.

The irony is now we actually have eveidence of possibly illegal action and abuse of Executive power and the Dems don't have the power to push for investigations and the GOP could care less.

I think we agree on at least one thing that Clinton and Reagan are the only ones who can make a claim to the title of best President since FDR though. Right?

[akhhorus]

And the reason he was asked about an extra marital affair under oath was because....oh yeah a land deal in Arkanasas. I can connect the dots now. The question should not have been asked in the first place. It was the only thing (and it was not as cut and dry as you like to make out) in a long line of questioning that they could pin on him. You and I both know you keep someone under investigation long enough eventually they will commit perjury. It was perhaps the worst case for impeachment ever concieved of. It was Capitol punishment for jay-walking. And history is going to see it that way, espescially inlight of the failures of his succesor.


No, Andrew Johnson was just the North mad that Johnson ended Reconstruction. Clinton lied under oath and it was relevant since it went to his credibility. What's sad is that he couldn't keep a hummer quiet.

Action that was not or ever needed. The absence of WMDs found after the invasion shows that Clinton's policy of containment and quarantine was working, and working well.

So, Bush's policy for Iran and Al Queda are working since 9/11 since there's been no attacks and no war with Iran? So, you're in support of the Patriot Act since its contained Al Queda? I don't agree with those statements, but if you want to be consistant, you have to.

But that oversight prevented abuse and things falling through the cracks. We will never know if A Clinton Administration would have prevented 9-11, but they did prevent the millenium terror plots and succesfully prosecuted the suspects of the first World Trade Center bombing.

Actually it was blind luck and foreign intel who stopped those attacks. And prosecuting suspects of the first WTC bombing isn't an accomplishment.

Well that is my point. It would be unfair to criticize Reagan for a continuation of the current policy just as it is unfair to blame Clinton for the continuation of the Iraq policy.

So, Reagan can't be criticized for "arming anyone and everyone to fight communism led to the middle east dictators and terrorist organizations that sprung up after the cold war ended as well." then? If he's just continuing current policy(which started right after WWII under a Democrat).

[CNYSkinFan]

Did Clinton do anything to stop Oil for Food? Did Clinton bother with any serious attempts to resolve it? Clinton just kept the status quo, and thats not containment, thats delaying.
Oil for food was a UN scandal and it was corrupt to be sure but did not give Hussein any resources in which he could harm his neighbors, just money to lavishly spend on Presidential Palaces. A shame to be sure but not an offense warranting all out invasion Akh.

[akhhorus]

There is a big difference in whining and spending MILLIONS of dollars in federal investigations into go nowhere made up scandals in the hopes of finding anything to impeach him on.

And the Dems wouldn't spend as much money investigating every little POS "scandal" of Bush's?

The irony is now we actually have eveidence of possibly illegal action and abuse of Executive power and the Dems don't have the power to push for investigations and the GOP could care less.

You have nothing substantial. Certainly not enough to trigger impeachment. "Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon.

I think we agree on at least one thing that Clinton and Reagan are the only ones who can make a claim to the title of best President since FDR though. Right?

Clinton is the best Dem pres since FDR.

[Spence]

I have no idea how this thread moved from Enron to a discussion about the merits of 20th century presidents, but let me offer this bit for Truman: He and his advisors -- the finest foreign policy team ever assembled by any country -- were the architects of the most successful national security policy this country has ever had -- containment of communism. The entire post-war security apparatus of alliances was created by Truman and his team and, whatever the disputes among parties, every single one of Truman's successors, from Eisenhower to Bush 1.0, faithfully implemented Truman's policies. The secret genius of American foreign policy from 1945-1990 was the consistent application of a proven, successful policy. Nixon and Ford [Kissinger] tinkered with it a bit with their ill-fated detente venture, but the basic policy of containment and alliance with the civilized nations of Europe and East Asia remained the same. Every president from Eisenhower to Bush 1.0 can claim credit for anything they like regarding the Cold War, but pretty much every one of them followed in Truman's footsteps. Certainly you can argue that Truman only did what Roosevelt would have done [and was, in fact, already beginning to do] had he lived longer. True enough, but someone had to do it and Truman did.

That's what I've got on that.

[akhhorus]

Oil for food was a UN scandal and it was corrupt to be sure but did not give Hussein any resources in which he could harm his neighbors, just money to lavishly spend on Presidential Palaces. A shame to be sure but not an offense warranting all out invasion Akh.

And involved US politicians(the biggest being that NJ Senator who Lautenberg won his seat) and US businesses in the Clinton Admin.

[CNYSkinFan]

No, Andrew Johnson was just the North mad that Johnson ended Reconstruction. Clinton lied under oath and it was relevant since it went to his credibility. What's sad is that he couldn't keep a hummer quiet.

The sad thing was that Congress could care about it and use it to exploit their wish to seek vengeance for 92 & 96.



So, Bush's policy for Iran and Al Queda are working since 9/11 since there's been no attacks and no war with Iran? So, you're in support of the Patriot Act since its contained Al Queda? I don't agree with those statements, but if you want to be consistant, you have to.

My statement was about Iraq developing WMDS. Iran is developing a nuclear program under Bush and because of his failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq he is too weak to stop it. And the Patriot Act has not contained Al Queda....it has contained Americans. And since Al Queda's numbers are growing I don't see how that could be considered contained at all.


Actually it was blind luck and foreign intel who stopped those attacks. And prosecuting suspects of the first WTC bombing isn't an accomplishment.

It is when compared ot other administrations failures for prosecuting terror suspects and delivering justice to victim families.


So, Reagan can't be criticized for "arming anyone and everyone to fight communism led to the middle east dictators and terrorist organizations that sprung up after the cold war ended as well." then? If he's just continuing current policy(which started right after WWII under a Democrat).

Yes, Reagan can not be criticized for that. I was bringing that up as an example of bad criticism of Reagn and comparing it to what I think is faulty criticism of Clinton

OI gotta go right now I WILL BE BACK :devil2:

[akhhorus]

I have no idea how this thread moved from Enron to a discussion about the merits of 20th century presidents, but let me offer this bit for Truman: He and his advisors -- the finest foreign policy team ever assembled by any country -- were the architects of the most successful national security policy this country has ever had -- containment of communism. The entire post-war security apparatus of alliances was created by Truman and his team and, whatever the disputes among parties, every single one of Truman's successors, from Eisenhower to Bush 1.0, faithfully implemented Truman's policies. The secret genius of American foreign policy from 1945-1990 was the consistent application of a proven, successful policy. Nixon and Ford [Kissinger] tinkered with it a bit with their ill-fated detente venture, but the basic policy of containment and alliance with the civilized nations of Europe and East Asia remained the same. Every president from Eisenhower to Bush 1.0 can claim credit for anything they like regarding the Cold War, but pretty much every one of them followed in Truman's footsteps.

That's what I've got on that.

Then give Kennan and Achenson credit, and it did bring down the Soviets slowly(but Nixon did at least much as Truman with his playing China off on Russia and vice versa), but Truman's domestic policies were hamhanded. Especially with his handling of civil rights.

[Spence]

The western nation most at fault in the UN oil-for-food scandal is Australia -- by a big, big margin. An investigation into the involvement of the Australian Wheat Board in the oil-for-food scandal has already claimed several careers. It might go higher and take down Trade Minister Mark Vaile. It's even possible, though unlikely, that Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, could be implicated in the scandal. Arguably the biggest political scandal in Australian history.

[akhhorus]

The sad thing was that Congress could care about it and use it to exploit their wish to seek vengeance for 92 & 96.

And Dems have pure intentions with their talk of impeachment and aren't looking for revenge for 2000 and 2004?

My statement was about Iraq developing WMDS. Iran is developing a nuclear program under Bush and because of his failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq he is too weak to stop it.

They are? Everyone says that they are 8-10 years away from the bomb. Clinton helped North Korea get a nuke reactor, which allowed them to get the bomb.

And the Patriot Act has not contained Al Queda....it has contained Americans. And since Al Queda's numbers are growing I don't see how that could be considered contained at all.

The Iraq war caused Al Queda to grow in numbers, but Bush's invasion of Afghanistan had Al Queda on the ropes.

It is when compared ot other administrations failures for prosecuting terror suspects and delivering justice to victim families.

They captured a ton of the planners of 9-11(Zubayda, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed), but are holding them to interrogate them. Whether they will be prosecuted is a good question.

Yes, Reagan can not be criticized for that. I was bringing that up as an example of bad criticism of Reagn and comparing it to what I think is faulty criticism of Clinton

Right...

[Spence]

Then give Kennan and Achenson credit, and it did bring down the Soviets slowly(but Nixon did at least much as Truman with his playing China off on Russia and vice versa), but Truman's domestic policies were hamhanded. Especially with his handling of civil rights.Well, I have a higher opinion of Truman's domestic policies than you do, but I couldn't possibly disagree more about Nixon. His China gambit was well-played and important but it was our alliance system with western Europe and east Asia that did the most to win the war by a wide margin. That includes, of course, the Marshall Plan, which rescued the economies of western Europe and staved off communist victories in several important countries, notably France and Italy.

The Truman Doctrine also ought to be differentiated from the Reagan Doctrine, which mostly involved arming cocaine smugglers in central America, diamond smugglers in southwestern Africa, and ignoring the injustice of apartheid. When it came to foreign policy, Reagan's biggest successes occurred when he followed the decades-old consensus and fought to contain communism while remaining open to negotiations. Probably his best decision was rejecting the advice of people in his administration like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who insisted that the Reagan administration should not engage Mikhail Gorbachev in negotiations to reduce Cold War tensions.

[akhhorus]

Well, I have a higher opinion of Truman's domestic policies than you do, but I couldn't possibly disagree more about Nixon. His China gambit was well-played and important but it was our alliance system with western Europe and east Asia that did the most to win the war by a wide margin. That includes, of course, the Marshall Plan, which rescued the economies of western Europe and staved off communist victories in several important countries, notably France and Italy.

The Truman Doctrine also ought to be differentiated from the Reagan Doctrine, which mostly involved arming cocaine smugglers in central America, diamond smugglers in southwestern Africa, and ignoring the injustice of apartheid. When it came to foreign policy, Reagan's biggest successes occurred when he followed the decades-old consensus and fought to contain communism while remaining open to negotiations. Probably his best decision was rejecting the advice of people in his administration like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who insisted that the Reagan administration should not engage Mikhail Gorbachev in negotiations to reduce Cold War tensions.

And this was a policy-arming anyone to fight the commies-that started under Reagan? This was being done from Truman on. And was bad during Nam.

[Spence]

And Dems have pure intentions with their talk of impeachment and aren't looking for revenge for 2000 and 2004?Akhh, the Democrats aren't talking about that. Nancy Pelosi recently rejected the idea of impeachment. The GOP is sending that impeachment nonsense out in their blast faxes every week, but it's just something to get their extremely dissatisfied base excited. If the Dems win a house of Congress in 2006 there will be investigations. As their damn well should be. Long, long overdue.

Clinton helped North Korea get a nuke reactor, which allowed them to get the bomb.Akhh, I can't believe you buy that. Seriously. North Korea got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. The Pakistanis got long-range missile technology and the North Koreans got nuclear technology. It was the central part of the worldwide Khan nuclear tech bazaar. The light water reactor Clinton supported was not suitable for North Korean ambitions and didn't have anything to do with their program. You can argue that it was an unsuccessful attempt to encourage the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program, but Clinton didn't give the North Koreans nukes. That's outrageous and not supported by any evidence. Seriously, that Newsmax kind of stuff. You're a lot smarter than that.

[Spence]

And this was a policy-arming anyone to fight the commies-that started under Reagan? This was being done from Truman on. And was bad during Nam.Yeah, I don't have any disagreement with the notion that the U.S. supported some ugly characters during the Cold War, right from the beginning and up to the end. [Still doing it today.] Where the Reagan Doctrine differed was in shifting from containment to what he called "rollback." Hence the support for the cocaine smu -- uh, Contras and the diamond smu -- uh, UNITA in Angola. [Remember when Reagan compared Jonas Savimbi to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Ouch.]

Basically, my disagreements with Reagan's foreign policy had to do with the Iran/Contra scandal -- which was truly hideous in every single possible way. I was a pretty hardcore Cold War hawk as a teenager. I liked that part of Reagan's presidency. Wasn't so keen on the supply-side economics, though.

Interesting sidenote: I've noticed a recent trend in Republican economists trashing supply side economics. Even Ben Stein ["Bueller. Bueller"] is doing it.

[akhhorus]

Akhh, the Democrats aren't talking about that. Nancy Pelosi recently rejected the idea of impeachment. The GOP is sending that impeachment nonsense out in their blast faxes every week, but it's just something to get their extremely dissatisfied base excited. If the Dems win a house of Congress in 2006 there will be investigations. As their damn well should be. Long, long overdue.

Investigations are fine, but Conyers(and the Kos crowd) won't have the votes for Impeachment, no matter what there's nothing that can trigger impeachment unless there's some hidden body, literally.

Akhh, I can't believe you buy that. Seriously. North Korea got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. The Pakistanis got long-range missile technology and the North Koreans got nuclear technology. It was the central part of the worldwide Khan nuclear tech bazaar. The light water reactor Clinton supported was not suitable for North Korean ambitions and didn't have anything to do with their program. You can argue that it was an unsuccessful attempt to encourage the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program, but Clinton didn't give the North Koreans nukes. That's outrageous and not supported by any evidence. Seriously, that Newsmax kind of stuff.

No, Clinton didn't contribute to the North Koreans getting nukes; but by backing down to them and cutting a deal, he appeased them and told them-indirectly-that they could push the issue. I misspoke, but Clinton didn't help things by backing down to NK.

[Spence]

Investigations are fine, but Conyers(and the Kos crowd) won't have the votes for Impeachment, no matter what there's nothing that can trigger impeachment unless there's some hidden body, literally.Conyers got slapped down by Pelosi. Right now, there's nothing that would merit impeachment. Even I think that and my view is that this is the worst presidency since Pierce or Buchanan. I'm not even sure my darkest fears about the WMD nonsense would merit impeachment. Basically, this administration doesn't deserve impeachment. It deserves to be regarded by history for what it has been -- a gigantic disaster.

No, Clinton didn't contribute to the North Koreans getting nukes; but by backing down to them and cutting a deal, he appeased them and told them-indirectly-that they could push the issue. I misspoke, but Clinton didn't help things by backing down to NK.Certainly, the policy didn't work so it is fair to call it a failure. To be completely fair, though, it is unclear what anyone else would have done. It's noticeable that after Bush 2.0 came to power, one of Colin Powell's first acts was to declare that they would be continuing the Clinton policy towards North Korea. He was entirely contradicted by Bush and Cheney less than 24 hours later. The first of Mr Powell's many future humiliations at the hands of lesser men. But what has happened since then? What is our North Korea policy now? I'll bet you can't answer that question. Neither can I. As far as I can tell, we have no North Korea policy. I'm pretty sure that our policy right now is not to have a policy.

Bill Clinton didn't have any success with North Korea. Neither has Bush 2.0. It's difficult to know what to do with them. I am pretty sure, however, that North Korea is/was a much bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. I sure wish we'd spent the last three years focusing on North Korea and Iran. Right about now, I don't think that's a controversial viewpoint anywhere outside the American Enterprise Insitute, the West Wing, and a few [only a few] civilian offices in the Pentagon.

[akhhorus]

Conyers got slapped down by Pelosi. Right now, there's nothing that would merit impeachment. Even I think that and my view is that this is the worst presidency since Pierce or Buchanan. I'm not even sure my darkest fears about the WMD nonsense would merit impeachment. Basically, this administration doesn't deserve impeachment. It deserves to be regarded by history for what it has been -- a gigantic disaster.

And its impractical: impeaching Bush would just mean Cheney would take the office.

Certainly, the policy didn't work so it is fair to call it a failure. To be completely fair, though, it is unclear what anyone else would have done. It's noticeable that after Bush 2.0 came to power, one of Colin Powell's first acts was to declare that they would be continuing the Clinton policy towards North Korea. He was entirely contradicted by Bush and Cheney less than 24 hours later. The first of Mr Powell's many future humiliations at the hands of lesser men. But what has happened since then? What is our North Korea policy now? I'll bet you can't answer that question. Neither can I. As far as I can tell, we have no North Korea policy. I'm pretty sure that our policy right now is not to have a policy.

There's never been a North Korean policy in the US. Thats infected every President since Truman. Part of it is that we're technically at war with them and its hard to have a FP with a country you're at war with. Bush 2 hasn't been great and doesn't have a clear policy on NK, but that doesn't give Clinton a pass on giving them a Reactor.

[CNYSkinFan]

And the Dems wouldn't spend as much money investigating every little POS "scandal" of Bush's?

Ok I am back. sorry had to go home take care of the Dogs.

The Dems may spend alot of money but the abuses here are much more then durine Clinton. Falsifying and exagerating intelligence, moving money from Afghanistan to Iraq before congressional approval, NSA wiretapping, and that is just what we know of.


You have nothing substantial. Certainly not enough to trigger impeachment. "Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon.


What we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg, every congressional investigation so far has turned up more evidence of wrong doing just on accident. Imagine if the investigations had teeth.


Clinton is the best Dem pres since FDR.

Either you are saying Nixon and Ford were better then FDR or they were better then Clinton or both. I would love to hear those arguments.

[CNYSkinFan]

And Dems have pure intentions with their talk of impeachment and aren't looking for revenge for 2000 and 2004?

Again there is much more substance here and when Dems had control of the Senate for two years they did not initiate investigations willy nilly.



They are? Everyone says that they are 8-10 years away from the bomb. Clinton helped North Korea get a nuke reactor, which allowed them to get the bomb.


Under Clinton the N Korean nuclear program was at a stand still they had UN inspectors in and monitored their activity. Bush's insistence on 6 party talks instead of bilateral talks caused the breakdown in communication between the US and N Korea and allowed for them to accelerate their nuclear program.


The Iraq war caused Al Queda to grow in numbers, but Bush's invasion of Afghanistan had Al Queda on the ropes.


Perfect example of Bush's war of choice (Iraq) having disastrous consequences on other aspects of foreign policy. No partial credit here, he flunks.


They captured a ton of the planners of 9-11(Zubayda, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed), but are holding them to interrogate them. Whether they will be prosecuted is a good question.


Until they succesfully prosecute them, then all they have are alleged planners. And if the way they handled the Mossauri (sp?) trial is any indication of how prepared they are then we are in real trouble.


Right...

I am glad we agree :)

[CNYSkinFan]

And its impractical: impeaching Bush would just mean Cheney would take the office.

No one wants impeachment, investigations yes, impeachment only if it is warranted. I don't see it yet, but I have a strong feeeling we don't know the whole truth. What we have uncovered so far is far beyond what I thought would be possible, who knows where the traile will lead.


There's never been a North Korean policy in the US. Thats infected every President since Truman. Part of it is that we're technically at war with them and its hard to have a FP with a country you're at war with. Bush 2 hasn't been great and doesn't have a clear policy on NK, but that doesn't give Clinton a pass on giving them a Reactor.

A weak policy is better then no policy. Under Clinton we had Inspectors on the ground and cameras installed in their reactors to monitor them. Under Bush we played tough guy and broke off all talks and now we got nothing.

[Spence]

And its impractical: impeaching Bush would just mean Cheney would take the office.I think a couple of weeks ago I wrote on this board that the single best argument against impeaching Bush is President Cheney.

[akhhorus]

The Dems may spend alot of money but the abuses here are much more then durine Clinton. Falsifying and exagerating intelligence, moving money from Afghanistan to Iraq before congressional approval, NSA wiretapping, and that is just what we know of.

You have no proof of the first parts of your argument and the wiretapping is allowed by federal law.

What we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg, every congressional investigation so far has turned up more evidence of wrong doing just on accident. Imagine if the investigations had teeth.

And you still won't have enough to impeach, unless Bush is this machivellian genius who has a lot of proverbial skeletons in the closet that he wasn't smart enough to get rid of.

Either you are saying Nixon and Ford were better then FDR or they were better then Clinton or both. I would love to hear those arguments.

No, read what I said. Clinton was the best Democratic President since FDR. Nixon and Ford aren't Democratics, are they? Reagan, Nixon, Clinton are my top three since FDR. And none of them could hold FDR's jock(unclean mental picture now).

[akhhorus]

No one wants impeachment, investigations yes, impeachment only if it is warranted. I don't see it yet, but I have a strong feeeling we don't know the whole truth. What we have uncovered so far is far beyond what I thought would be possible, who knows where the traile will lead.

Unless you have a video of Bush beating a nun to death with a tire iron, you won't have the votes to impeach, especially in the Senate.

A weak policy is better then no policy. Under Clinton we had Inspectors on the ground and cameras installed in their reactors to monitor them. Under Bush we played tough guy and broke off all talks and now we got nothing.

No, Bush has been talking with North Korea without giving them anything. And Clinton didn't have a policy besides wishful thinking that the light water Nuke reactor would sate the North Koreans.

[CNYSkinFan]

You have no proof of the first parts of your argument and the wiretapping is allowed by federal law.

You yourself have questioned why they did not get Fisa approval for their foreign wiretapping program and the domestic program is borderline at best. A proper investigation is warranted into each of these incidents.



And you still won't have enough to impeach, unless Bush is this machivellian genius who has a lot of proverbial skeletons in the closet that he wasn't smart enough to get rid of.



I don't want to impeach. I want to investigate. Censure is possible. At the least they can find out what is going on and if necessary pass legislation to stop abuses if they are going on.


No, read what I said. Clinton was the best Democratic President since FDR. Nixon and Ford aren't Democratics, are they? Reagan, Nixon, Clinton are my top three since FDR. And none of them could hold FDR's jock(unclean mental picture now).

OK answer straight...Do you put Nixon above Clinton?

[akhhorus]

Again there is much more substance here and when Dems had control of the Senate for two years they did not initiate investigations willy nilly.

They didn't have enough control of the Senate or cause from 2001-2003 to investigate anything. They approved the Iraq war.

Under Clinton the N Korean nuclear program was at a stand still they had UN inspectors in and monitored their activity. Bush's insistence on 6 party talks instead of bilateral talks caused the breakdown in communication between the US and N Korea and allowed for them to accelerate their nuclear program.

Ive already answered this. Clinton didn't have any policy, outside of appeasement. Bush is doing the same level of talks(with similar results), except he aint giving the Koreans anything.

Perfect example of Bush's war of choice (Iraq) having disastrous consequences on other aspects of foreign policy. No partial credit here, he flunks.

I didn't say Bush's was right, but he did try to do something. Clinton spent 8 years doing jack, much like the Dems are now(and you wonder why the Dems lost election after election).

Until they succesfully prosecute them, then all they have are alleged planners. And if the way they handled the Mossauri (sp?) trial is any indication of how prepared they are then we are in real trouble.

Wow, is this some semantic crap. So, whether Bin Laden was involved-even though he just admitted it publically again-is still up in the air?

I am glad we agree :)

And I am glad sarcasm is lost on you.

[CNYSkinFan]

Unless you have a video of Bush beating a nun to death with a tire iron, you won't have the votes to impeach, especially in the Senate.


Get out of my head ....get out of my head


No, Bush has been talking with North Korea without giving them anything. And Clinton didn't have a policy besides wishful thinking that the light water Nuke reactor would sate the North Koreans.

Clinton got UN inspectors on the ground in N Korea. Bush has gotten absolutely nothing except rhetoric and the metaphorical middle finger from Kim Jong and China.

[akhhorus]

You yourself have questioned why they did not get Fisa approval for their foreign wiretapping program and the domestic program is borderline at best. A proper investigation is warranted into each of these incidents.

But even then its a minor violation, not frigging Watergate. And I also said that this wasn't a big deal.

I don't want to impeach. I want to investigate. Censure is possible. At the least they can find out what is going on and if necessary pass legislation to stop abuses if they are going on.

Yeah, good luck with that. Censure is useless and won't force Bush to do anything. Especially if he still controls one house of Congress.

OK answer straight...Do you put Nixon above Clinton?

Do you read English? I've answered that. Nixon was forced to resign, but he was a great President outside of his crippling lack of morals.

[akhhorus]

Clinton got UN inspectors on the ground in N Korea. Bush has gotten absolutely nothing except rhetoric and the metaphorical middle finger from Kim Jong and China.

And? So he got UN inspectors in NK. Bush had them still there and the NKs threw them out. Fat lot of good they did. And Bush still has gotten the same, only he didn't give them anything.

[CNYSkinFan]

They didn't have enough control of the Senate or cause from 2001-2003 to investigate anything. They approved the Iraq war.

So the argument that they would spend millions of dollars on petty investigations is still not substantiated by fact or precedent.


Ive already answered this. Clinton didn't have any policy, outside of appeasement. Bush is doing the same level of talks(with similar results), except he aint giving the Koreans anything.


Again Clinton had UN inspectors on the ground monitoring the N Korean problem. Bush has his head in the sand hoping rhetoric will keep N Korea at bay.


I didn't say Bush's was right, but he did try to do something. Clinton spent 8 years doing jack, much like the Dems are now(and you wonder why the Dems lost election after election).


Yeah but Clinton kept Hussein contained and harmless while enforcing the no fly zone. In hindsight this was the best policy instead of rushing into a war of choice with no cause. Hussein was not a world threat. We hurt America's standing in the world and 2500+ military lives to create a terorist breeding ground where non existed before. Good for us.


Wow, is this some semantic crap. So, whether Bin Laden was involved-even though he just admitted it publically again-is still up in the air?


I was not aware we caught Bin Laden...now that would be something. If only someone had declared that we wanted him dead or alive.......


And I am glad sarcasm is lost on you.

and apparently on you as well

[CNYSkinFan]

But even then its a minor violation, not frigging Watergate. And I also said that this wasn't a big deal.



Yeah, good luck with that. Censure is useless and won't force Bush to do anything. Especially if he still controls one house of Congress.



Do you read English? I've answered that. Nixon was forced to resign, but he was a great President outside of his crippling lack of morals.

I am sorry...maybe I am stupid. I still don't see where you have ranked Clinton above Nixon or vice versa. I know Reagan is at the top, and I know Clinton and Nixon make up the other two in the top 3. And I know you thiunk Nixon was a great president. Does his presidency, for you, rank above Clinton? Pretty simple question actually.

[CNYSkinFan]

And? So he got UN inspectors in NK. Bush had them still there and the NKs threw them out. Fat lot of good they did. And Bush still has gotten the same, only he didn't give them anything.

So UN Inspectors were on the ground during Clinton's tenure while the US was engagin in Bi lateral talks....then Bush broke off Bi lateral negotiations, the Clinton Policy and N Korea threw out the UN inspectors. Again another bad choice by Bush not continuing a Clinton policy that resulted in disastrous results in Foreign policy. That5 in and of itself shows the strengtrh of the Clinton foreign policy.

[akhhorus]

So the argument that they would spend millions of dollars on petty investigations is still not substantiated by fact or precedent.

It would be millions spent in a futile cause. The Dems would have to win every seat up for election in 2006 in the Senate for successful removal. If the net result is Censure, its milions for a slap on the wrist. Just as wasted as the whole Monica thing.

Again Clinton had UN inspectors on the ground monitoring the N Korean problem. Bush has his head in the sand hoping rhetoric will keep N Korea at bay.

This is what's making me laugh. Those UN inspectors were so effective, that the NK just threw them out. Yet you think that they are this great force that kept North Korea from doing anything. They were thrown out, and less than 6 months later, NK announced that they have a nuke. And it takes more than 6 months to develop the bomb, so, I guess the UN inspectors completely failed to do their job?

Yeah but Clinton kept Hussein contained and harmless while enforcing the no fly zone. In hindsight this was the best policy instead of rushing into a war of choice with no cause. Hussein was not a world threat. We hurt America's standing in the world and 2500+ military lives to create a terorist breeding ground where non existed before. Good for us.

So, the better plan would have been to just let Saddam sit there? The invasion was badly handled(especially the post invasion), but it was a good idea.

I was not aware we caught Bin Laden...now that would be something. If only someone had declared that we wanted him dead or alive.......

No, don't try to change the subject. You said that since they haven't been properly prosecuted, we don't know if they were involved-that they were alleged planners of 9-11. So, Bin Laden is innocent until convicted in US court? Even though he's admitted his involvement many times?

[akhhorus]

I am sorry...maybe I am stupid. I still don't see where you have ranked Clinton above Nixon or vice versa. I know Reagan is at the top, and I know Clinton and Nixon make up the other two in the top 3. And I know you thiunk Nixon was a great president. Does his presidency, for you, rank above Clinton? Pretty simple question actually.

If you can't figure it out, then you-as you say-are stupid. I've made it pretty clear.

So UN Inspectors were on the ground during Clinton's tenure while the US was engagin in Bi lateral talks....then Bush broke off Bi lateral negotiations, the Clinton Policy and N Korea threw out the UN inspectors. Again another bad choice by Bush not continuing a Clinton policy that resulted in disastrous results in Foreign policy. That5 in and of itself shows the strengtrh of the Clinton foreign policy.

And the UN Inspectors, which you place so much faith in, did nothing to slow or stop NK deveopment of Nukes. Which they announced they had within 6 months of the explusion of the inspectors. And yes, Bush did put conditions on talks(which have been futile for any President), but he didn't give them a free nuclear reactor like Clinton did. That alone makes Clinton's policy on NK worse than Bush's(not thats Bush's is great, but its no different than any President's since the 1950s).

[CNYSkinFan]

It would be millions spent in a futile cause. The Dems would have to win every seat up for election in 2006 in the Senate for successful removal. If the net result is Censure, its milions for a slap on the wrist. Just as wasted as the whole Monica thing.

Censure is not just a slap on the wrist. And as I said investigation are not pointless. They can uncover activity not in the best interest of the country and pass legislation to stop it.


This is what's making me laugh. Those UN inspectors were so effective, that the NK just threw them out. Yet you think that they are this great force that kept North Korea from doing anything. They were thrown out, and less than 6 months later, NK announced that they have a nuke. And it takes more than 6 months to develop the bomb, so, I guess the UN inspectors completely failed to do their job?


Just because NK announced they had it at that point does not mean they did. Even the Bush administration doubted they developed it so quickly. As the Bush administration sat there and did nothing they DID develop the bomb and/or perfect it. And if the UN Inspectors were there they would not have been able to develop the nuclear warhea=ds they did under the Bush administration.


So, the better plan would have been to just let Saddam sit there? The invasion was badly handled(especially the post invasion), but it was a good idea.

A good idea? When we weren't finished with Afghanistan to move against another country with no coalition and no plan to win the peace? No containment is a better policy then that. How many other dictators with no WMDs are we not invading right now? Should we be invading them too? This was a dumb idea and they drummed up WMD talk to get the American people to buy into it.



No, don't try to change the subject. You said that since they haven't been properly prosecuted, we don't know if they were involved-that they were alleged planners of 9-11. So, Bin Laden is innocent until convicted in US court? Even though he's admitted his involvement many times?

I never said they weren't guilty, I said that just having them in jail indefinitely is not a complete victory. Which is why I brought up Mossaui (sp) and they're buingling prosecution. I want these men convicted and sentenced passed, not just held indefinitely and eventually a court will order them released.

[CNYSkinFan]

If you can't figure it out, then you-as you say-are stupid. I've made it pretty clear.



Alright just so I understand the argument you refuse to articulate, Clinton is worse then Reagan one of the main reasons is because he got impeached, but Nixon is better then Clinton even though he was forced to resign?

I can see why you would not want to make that argument.

[CNYSkinFan]

alright I gotta go again....I will be back....again. Probably tomorrow.

[akhhorus]

Censure is not just a slap on the wrist. And as I said investigation are not pointless. They can uncover activity not in the best interest of the country and pass legislation to stop it.

And as Bush has shown, he'll invoke signing statements to ignore legislation. And as long as the GOp controls on part of Congress, any legislation will die in committee. Censure is pointless. It has no consequences outside of a stiff wag of the finger at the President..

Just because NK announced they had it at that point does not mean they did. Even the Bush administration doubted they developed it so quickly. As the Bush administration sat there and did nothing they DID develop the bomb and/or perfect it. And if the UN Inspectors were there they would not have been able to develop the nuclear warhea=ds they did under the Bush administration.

Only Israel was able to pull off the shell game of Nukes. NK has, by everyone estimation, nuclear weapons. They developed them while Clinton was in office and while UN inspectors were there.

A good idea? When we weren't finished with Afghanistan to move against another country with no coalition and no plan to win the peace? No containment is a better policy then that. How many other dictators with no WMDs are we not invading right now? Should we be invading them too? This was a dumb idea and they drummed up WMD talk to get the American people to buy into it.

Its a good idea with or without WMDs. A quick victory would have led to a base for the US to operate and redraw the power lines in the middle east. The Saudis would have to stop playing us for fools if Iraq was a firm ally of ours. And the Democratic Senate could have said no. But they didn't.

I never said they weren't guilty, I said that just having them in jail indefinitely is not a complete victory. Which is why I brought up Mossaui (sp) and they're buingling prosecution. I want these men convicted and sentenced passed, not just held indefinitely and eventually a court will order them released.

But only Zubadya is in US custody(and we're not even sure of that). We can't prosecute who we don't have. And we can't push Pakistan too much without major consequences.

[akhhorus]

Alright just so I understand the argument you refuse to articulate, Clinton is worse then Reagan one of the main reasons is because he got impeached, but Nixon is better then Clinton even though he was forced to resign?

I can see why you would not want to make that argument.

Wouldn't I have been making that argument if I publically put Nixon ahead of Clinton-which I did? Clinton is mitigated by doing far less than Nixon ever did domestically or internationally. Nixon would have been 2nd best in the 20th century if it wasn't for Watergate, and despite it, he still did far more for this country than Clinton ever could dream of.

[lakewinola]

Lets not dismiss Carter as one of the better presidents of the last 70 years, I mean he did legalize home brewing!! That's right, once upon a time it was illegal to brew your own beer.

[Keino]

Wouldn't I have been making that argument if I publically put Nixon ahead of Clinton-which I did? Clinton is mitigated by doing far less than Nixon ever did domestically or internationally. Nixon would have been 2nd best in the 20th century if it wasn't for Watergate, and despite it, he still did far more for this country than Clinton ever could dream of.

LMAO.....


Okay.

[dukeuch]

You have nothing substantial. Certainly not enough to trigger impeachment. "Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon.

Um, Nixon was pardoned before he was even investigated, let alone charged. To to stick somehing on somebody if he is pardoned before you get a chance to try.

[Spence]

Nixon was about to be impeached. He resigned after a delegation of senior Republican Senators went to the White House and informed Nixon that he would soon be impeached and that the Senate would surely convict him. They urged him to resign. He did so with the understanding that his successor would pardon him.

[akhhorus]

Um, Nixon was pardoned before he was even investigated, let alone charged. To to stick somehing on somebody if he is pardoned before you get a chance to try.

You're joking right? You have heard of the Watergate hearings, right? Ask Hillary, she was an investigator/lawyer for that committee. Nixon was throughly investigated, and resigned when Goldwater told him that he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't be removed from office. Ford pardoned him to prevent any sort of embarrassing trial(both to Nixon and to the country).

[lakewinola]

Nixon - my sig says it all.

[dukeuch]

You're joking right? You have heard of the Watergate hearings, right? Ask Hillary, she was an investigator/lawyer for that committee. Nixon was throughly investigated, and resigned when Goldwater told him that he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't be removed from office. Ford pardoned him to prevent any sort of embarrassing trial(both to Nixon and to the country).

Exactly! You said that "they couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon". Well, it wasn't because they couldn't prove it, they were never given the chance! The hearings made it all but certain that there was enough to at least put him to trial, and all you need to do is listen to the White House tapes to see that he lied and did commit many illegal acts, but they coudn't try him because he had been pardoned! How can you get it to "stick on him" if you are never given the opportunity to prosocute him? Christ, if members of your own party are basically saying "you are so guilty we don't even want you to be impeached and try to clear your name", how can you say that there was not enough to stick? At best, all you can say is "well, we will never know becuase he was not given his day in court".

[Keino]

Akh, I think this may be the first time I've ever felt that you wrote something completely preposterous......

[fent]

i'm not Akh, so i can't speak for his intent, but if you read what he's saying here, it's not that preposterous. the charges of contempt of congress and abuse of power were not what were going to take Nixon down and were very low on the list of charges brought. now, had he said that obstruction of justice and tampering with an investigation wouldn't have stuck, then it's a preposterous statement.

[dukeuch]

You're joking right? You have heard of the Watergate hearings, right? Ask Hillary, she was an investigator/lawyer for that committee. Nixon was throughly investigated, and resigned when Goldwater told him that he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't be removed from office. Ford pardoned him to prevent any sort of embarrassing trial(both to Nixon and to the country).


Oh yeah, and regarding the Watergate Hearings, remember who the first special prosecutor was? Right; Archibald Cox. Remember who fired him? Right; Nixon. Remember why he was fired? Right; Because he demanded tapes of the Oval Office conversations relating to the coverup which Nixon refused to turn over. Oh yeah, and Nixon also fired the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General who had refused to fire Cox themselves. Damn, I hope I get the right to fire the prosecutor if I'm ever being investigated.

AK, please, please say that there is no proof that Nixon fired Cox because Cox insisted on obtaining the tapes which contained proof of Nixon's participation in the cover-up!

[akhhorus]

Oh yeah, and regarding the Watergate Hearings, remember who the first special prosecutor was? Right; Archibald Cox. Remember who fired him? Right; Nixon. Remember why he was fired? Right; Because he demanded tapes of the Oval Office conversations relating to the coverup which Nixon refused to turn over. Oh yeah, and Nixon also fired the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General who had refused to fire Cox themselves. Damn, I hope I get the right to fire the prosecutor if I'm ever being investigated.

*yawn* And this contradicts anything I've said? Nixon was investigated. He tried to stop the investigation into Watergate by firing Cox and failed.

AK, please, please say that there is no proof that Nixon fired Cox because Cox insisted on obtaining the tapes which contained proof of Nixon's participation in the cover-up!

Again, you seem bound and determined to avoid debate on the main issue and want to discuss small issue unrelated to the main point.

Exactly! You said that "they couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon". Well, it wasn't because they couldn't prove it, they were never given the chance! The hearings made it all but certain that there was enough to at least put him to trial, and all you need to do is listen to the White House tapes to see that he lied and did commit many illegal acts, but they coudn't try him because he had been pardoned!

You cannot read the English language: I said:

""Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon"

Nixon was charged with more than that. But neither of these articles of impeachment would have stuck to Nixon. What would have nailed him was the cover up. But it wouldn't have been "contempt of congress" or "abuse of executive power", it would have been felony conspiracy and other related criminal charges, not the vague constitutional issues. The first article of Impeachment was "obstruction of justice", which they would have nailed him on. The tape where he authorized payments to Hunt was what forced him to resign(and would have been the major evidence for the first article on impeachment).

How can you get it to "stick on him" if you are never given the opportunity to prosocute him?

I've answered this, oh ye of little reading ability.

Christ, if members of your own party are basically saying "you are so guilty we don't even want you to be impeached and try to clear your name", how can you say that there was not enough to stick? At best, all you can say is "well, we will never know becuase he was not given his day in court".

Like I've said, you cannot read the English language. Those vague charges wouldn't have stuck. The conspiracy and obstruction charges would have.

[dukeuch]

AK: You said:

[QUOTE=akhhorusYou cannot read the English language: I said:

""Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon"
[/QUOTE]

Dude: Here are excerpts from the Second and Third Articles of Impeachment that the House Committee of the Judiciary PASSED against Nixon (bold added by me):

Second Article:

ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

...5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.





Third Article:

ARTICLE III, DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS. (Approved 21-17)

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...


These approved Articles of Impeachement were never voted on by the full house because Nixon resigned before a vote.

Now, maybe you don't agree that "Defiance of Subpeonas" is tantamount to "contempt of Congress", and maybe you are right, but I disagree. There can be no mistake, however, that "Abuse of Power", including specific mention of "knowingly misused the executive power" is not the same as "abuse of executive power" which you claim is not an impeachable offense, and one that "didn't stick" to Nixon. How do we know? Because Nixon was, in fact, impeached by a Congressional Subcommitte for that exact offense. AK, this is simply not debatable; it is recorded history that nobody, except perhaps you, disputes.

So who can't read English?

[akhhorus]

AK: You said:

Dude: Here are excerpts from the Second and Third Articles of Impeachment that the House Committee of the Judiciary PASSED against Nixon (bold added by me):

Second Article:
Third Article:

And none of those two would have been enough for removal from office. Every President since then has dodged supoenas or fought in court to suppress them, so they should all be impeached and removed? "Abuse of executive power" is so vague that you can't make a case for it. You can really say that about every President. Nixon was to be nailed on Obstruction-and thats why he resigned rather than face trial.

These approved Articles of Impeachement were never voted on by the full house because Nixon resigned before a vote.

And? How does that disprove or contradict anything I've said?

Now, maybe you don't agree that "Defiance of Subpeonas" is tantamount to "contempt of Congress", and maybe you are right, but I disagree.

And its so vague that you can charge every President with it.

There can be no mistake, however, that "Abuse of Power", including specific mention of "knowingly misused the executive power" is not the same as "abuse of executive power" which you claim is not an impeachable offense, and one that "didn't stick" to Nixon. How do we know?

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I never said that it isn't an impeachable offense, but I have consistantly maintained that it is vague and badly worded article that would never stick in the real world. Andrew Johnson was impeached(and narrowly escaped removal) for firing his Secretary of War(which the Senate claimed violated the Separation of Powers since they believed that all Cabinet officers could only be removed by consent of the Senate). The only reason for this was that Johnson ended Reconstruction and the North still wanted to punish the South. It was totally political and almost brought down a perfectly good President. Do you think that Congress would try and impeach Bush on something as petty as that now? According to the Constitution, you can be impeached for any High Crime or Misdemeanor. Cheney could have been impeached for shooting that lawyer in the face, but do you think it would have stuck at the end of the day? What I said was that Nixon wouldn't get removed for those charges since they are too vague. Which they are.

Because Nixon was, in fact, impeached by a Congressional Subcommitte for that exact offense. AK, this is simply not debatable; it is recorded history that nobody, except perhaps you, disputes.

Nixon was never impeached. The House Committee voted to impeach and read the Articles of Impeachment to the full house, but no vote was ever taken on it. Thats recorded history. You cannot be impeached until the House votes on it.

So who can't read English?

Obviously, still you.

[dukeuch]

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I never said that it isn't an impeachable offense, but I have consistantly maintained that it is vague and badly worded article that would never stick in the real world.


Nixon was never impeached. The House Committee voted to impeach and read the Articles of Impeachment to the full house, but no vote was ever taken on it. Thats recorded history. You cannot be impeached until the House votes on it.





Ak:

Here's where you said it wasn't an impeachable offense


You have nothing substantial. Certainly not enough to trigger impeachment. "Contempt of Congress" and "abuse of executive power" aren't enough to get impeachment. They couldn't even get that to stick on Nixon.

My response was and is that it most certainly is an impeachable offense, as proven by the fact that the Subcommittee approved the charge. So whether it is in fact, an impeachable offense from a legal standpoint is unquestionable. Nixon was in fact on the road to being impeached for it (even you admit that he resigned to save him and the country frr an embarrasing trial), Republican leaders acknowledged that they could not have blocked a House vote for impeachment. So Nixon resigend before he could be impeached. So your statement about how it "couldn't be stuck on Nixon" is pure conjecture at best, because the full house never voted on the charge; because he resigned, not because they tried and "couldn't make it stick", which was my other point.

[akhhorus]

Ak:

Here's where you said it wasn't an impeachable offense

My response was and is that it most certainly is an impeachable offense, as proven by the fact that the Subcommittee approved the charge.
So whether it is in fact, an impeachable offense from a legal standpoint is unquestionable.

Technically, failure to pay parking tickets is an impeachable offense. That doesn't mean that you can be removed from office over it.

Nixon was in fact on the road to being impeached for it (even you admit that he resigned to save him and the country frr an embarrasing trial), Republican leaders acknowledged that they could not have blocked a House vote for impeachment. So Nixon resigend before he could be impeached. So your statement about how it "couldn't be stuck on Nixon" is pure conjecture at best, because the full house never voted on the charge; because he resigned, not because they tried and "couldn't make it stick", which was my other point.

They had no evidence of ignoring of supoenas or "abuse of executive powers". At least nothing that couldn't be shuffled off on subordinates or explained away. They had tapes of Nixon obstructing Justice. There was no way on God's Green Earth that Nixon would have been removed from office because he failed to comply with sopoenas or "abused his executive power".

[dukeuch]

Technically, failure to pay parking tickets is an impeachable offense. That doesn't mean that you can be removed from office over it.



They had no evidence of ignoring of supoenas or "abuse of executive powers". At least nothing that couldn't be shuffled off on subordinates or explained away. They had tapes of Nixon obstructing Justice. There was no way on God's Green Earth that Nixon would have been removed from office because he failed to comply with sopoenas or "abused his executive power".


AK: Take a look at the conduct cited in the Abuse of Power as grounds for impeachment:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

All of this activity fell under the heading of Abuse of Power. His ordering of confidential tax returns of and income tax investigations for no lawful purpose included people who were simply on his "enemies" list, no claim of national secutiry or anything like that. Included is his role in covering up the Watergate break-in (there is simply no argument that, even if he had no knowledge of the planned break in, which I doubt, that he did not pariticpate in the cover-up. In one of the tapes that was not lost, erased, or redacted, Nixon says to Dean, regarding raising money to "hush up" the burglars: "We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. you could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, it could be done. But the question is, WHo would handle it? Any ideas on that?"). Included is his involvement in the use of the FBI, CIA and Secret Service to spy, break into offices, etc. of priviate citizens for no national security purpose.

Now, I am as cynical as the next guy, but if you don't think that these activities, which are included in the definition of Abuse of Power of this Article of Impeachemnt, could lead to impeachment, you are far more cynical than I, or the Congressmen on the Judiciary Committee, who voted 28-10 (including 7 Republican members).

[akhhorus]

AK: Take a look at the conduct cited in the Abuse of Power as grounds for impeachment:

All of this activity fell under the heading of Abuse of Power. His ordering of confidential tax returns of and income tax investigations for no lawful purpose included people who were simply on his "enemies" list, no claim of national secutiry or anything like that.

And unless you had Nixon personally requesting those files, its still a lackey's word against the Presidents and there were no tapes released that would implicate Nixon. The reason the obstruction charge would have been grounds for removal was that they had tapes of him obstructing Justice.

Included is his role in covering up the Watergate break-in (there is simply no argument that, even if he had no knowledge of the planned break in, which I doubt, that he did not pariticpate in the cover-up. In one of the tapes that was not lost, erased, or redacted, Nixon says to Dean, regarding raising money to "hush up" the burglars: "We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. you could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, it could be done. But the question is, WHo would handle it? Any ideas on that?").

And thats the obstruction charge that would have nailed him. Again, you're not contradicting anything I've said and there was a separate Article of Impeachment for that charge(and the threw in the obstruction part in the other charges for some reason).

Included is his involvement in the use of the FBI, CIA and Secret Service to spy, break into offices, etc. of priviate citizens for no national security purpose

It still would not have stuck to him. They(Washington Post and the House Committe investigating it) had plenty circumstantial evidence that Mitchell and Stans were behind all sorts of dirty tricks like that from 68 on, but they weren't anywhere close to the focus of the investigation since its not a charge that would have stuck to Nixon. The Post(and Felt) specifically saw it as a distraction that was a uselees investigation. The only thing they were persuing was Obstruction, which was what brought him down.

Now, I am as cynical as the next guy

:lol1:

but if you don't think that these activities, which are included in the definition of Abuse of Power of this Article of Impeachemnt, could lead to impeachment, you are far more cynical than I, or the Congressmen on the Judiciary Committee, who voted 28-10 (including 7 Republican members).

Oh course they would lead to impeachment. Thats not what I'm been saying(I misspoke in my first statement, and corrected it to mean removal: you do realize the difference between removal and impeachment, right?). What I've said is that it wouldn't have been grounds for removal. The Obstruction Charge would have been. You don't have the evidence that Nixon authorized the "Abuse of Power" except for Dean and the indicted staffers, who aren't enough evidence alone.

[dukeuch]

Oh course they would lead to impeachment. Thats not what I'm been saying(I misspoke in my first statement, and corrected it to mean removal: you do realize the difference between removal and impeachment, right?). What I've said is that it wouldn't have been grounds for removal. The Obstruction Charge would have been. You don't have the evidence that Nixon authorized the "Abuse of Power" except for Dean and the indicted staffers, who aren't enough evidence alone.


Ok, this is the first I have ever seen in this thread of you saying removal, not impeachment. But I still disagree with you. If he was impeached, and subsequently found guilty, he most certainly would have been removed. You keep saying that the evidence on file would not be enough to find him guilty. My response was always; yeah, he resigned before an investigation and evidence could be presented in a trial. Nixon never testified in front of the committee, and the evidence against him was never examined and judged because he resigned befor it got that far. I sort of view the Judiciary Committee's role as similar to that of a grand jury, they look at the available information to determine if there is enough there to warrent further action. There clearly was. Now whether there was enough to convict the guy is technically a matter of conjecture because there was never a trial, because he resigned and was pardoned before there was a trial.

And I am really confused about your repeated assertion that only the Obstruction of Justice article could have been proven and at the same time you keep saying the evidence could only have supported his guilt regarding a coverup. While I disagree about the strength of the evidence concerning all manner of illegal activities he was involved in or had knowledge of, go back again to Article 2 Abuse of Power. The conduct cited as evidence of Abuse of Power includes:

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

How in the world can you dispute, that a taped conversation of him instructing a subordinate that money can be paid to the burglars involved in the Watergate break in (you do know that when they talk about the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the DNC they are talking about Watergate, don't you?) to keep their mouths shut is not directly related to endevoring to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted ...entities? This is part of the Abuse of Power Article, the Article of the three that passed by the widest margin of vote by the Judiciary Committee, I am pretty sure, and positive that it passed by a greater majority that the Contempt of Congress article.

I guess you know more about the evidence, law, and impeachment than the members of congress who sat on the committee, reviewed the evidence, and voted on the articles. You are a genius, mind reader, attorney, and political pundit beyond reproach!

[akhhorus]

Ok, this is the first I have ever seen in this thread of you saying removal, not impeachment. But I still disagree with you.

Ive said it many times. Like Ive pointed out, your reading ability is poor at best.

If he was impeached, and subsequently found guilty, he most certainly would have been removed. You keep saying that the evidence on file would not be enough to find him guilty.

What I've been saying(since the beginning) was that the obstruction charge would be the one that brought him down. They had him on tape authorizing a payment to Hunt to keep his mouth shut. What you are missing is that I'm questioning the "abuse of executive power" and "ignoring supoenas" charges as potential removal grounds. They didn't have the evidence that Nixon was directly involved, outside of his lackeys saying he was.

My response was always; yeah, he resigned before an investigation and evidence could be presented in a trial. Nixon never testified in front of the committee, and the evidence against him was never examined and judged because he resigned befor it got that far.

This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I sort of view the Judiciary Committee's role as similar to that of a grand jury, they look at the available information to determine if there is enough there to warrent further action. There clearly was. Now whether there was enough to convict the guy is technically a matter of conjecture because there was never a trial, because he resigned and was pardoned before there was a trial. And I am really confused about your repeated assertion that only the Obstruction of Justice article could have been proven and at the same time you keep saying the evidence could only have supported his guilt regarding a coverup.

You're confused about a lot of things, least of which, this. There were two lines of evidence against Nixon: the testimony of Butterfield, Dean and the others who were indicted(Hunt, Halderman, Elrichman, Mitchell, Colson, Stans etc) and the tapes. The tapes only indicated that Nixon authorized payments after the fact to keep Hunt quiet. They didn't implicate him in beforehand knowledge of it(which I concede, might be on the tapes he took with him). You cannot get a conviction in any court in the US on the testimony of co-conspirators alone. Much less a sitting President in the US Senate. Unless they had tapes confirming Nixon's authorization of all the charges of "abuse of power", then it wouldn't have stuck to him. The Obstruction charge would have.

While I disagree about the strength of the evidence concerning all manner of illegal activities he was involved in or had knowledge of, go back again to Article 2 Abuse of Power. The conduct cited as evidence of Abuse of Power includes:

There was still no proof that Nixon authorized it beforehand, outside of the testimony of his subordinates. Which isn't enough to get a conviction in any court in the US, much less the Senate.

How in the world can you dispute, that a taped conversation of him instructing a subordinate that money can be paid to the burglars involved in the Watergate break in (you do know that when they talk about the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the DNC they are talking about Watergate, don't you?) to keep their mouths shut is not directly related to endevoring to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted ...entities? This is part of the Abuse of Power Article, the Article of the three that passed by the widest margin of vote by the Judiciary Committee, I am pretty sure, and positive that it passed by a greater majority that the Contempt of Congress article.

I'm not disputing it, in fact I'm citing it as evidence. Why you haven't understood this makes me think you've suffered from a head trauma. But its not "abuse of executive power". Its simple Obstruction of Justice. Which was the main article of impeachment against Nixon. It was included in the "abuse of executive power" to beef up a weak charge.

I guess you know more about the evidence, law, and impeachment than the members of congress who sat on the committee, reviewed the evidence, and voted on the articles. You are a genius, mind reader, attorney, and political pundit beyond reproach!

I know more about Watergate than most since my father was deeply involved with it. And you haven't offered anything to back up your assertion that I'm contradicting any of the "experts" you are talking about. You've just shown a poor reading ability and laughable legal knowledge.

[dukeuch]

Ive said it many times. Like Ive pointed out, your reading ability is poor at best.

You have mentioned "enough for removal" instead of impeachment exactly...once. You have mentioned "enough for impeachment" many times, including after that single reference to removal. My reading skills are just fine.


What I've been saying(since the beginning) was that the obstruction charge would be the one that brought him down. They had him on tape authorizing a payment to Hunt to keep his mouth shut. What you are missing is that I'm questioning the "abuse of executive power" and "ignoring supoenas" charges as potential removal grounds. They didn't have the evidence that Nixon was directly involved, outside of his lackeys saying he was.

And what you keep continuing to ignore is that the Article for Abuse of Power contains reference to the cover-up, not prior knowledge, which you seem to be using interchangeably with "obstruction".


This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

No it is not. One of my points is that we have never seen all of the evidence becuase there was not a trial. To say Nixon never could have been impeached, convicted, or removed based on the evidence is ludicrous because all the evidence was never exposed, unless you believe that by calling witnesses and issuing subpeonas for additiona documantes, testimony, etc. would not have revealed any info on top of what the Committee already had.

You're confused about a lot of things, least of which, this. There were two lines of evidence against Nixon: the testimony of Butterfield, Dean and the others who were indicted(Hunt, Halderman, Elrichman, Mitchell, Colson, Stans etc) and the tapes. The tapes only indicated that Nixon authorized payments after the fact to keep Hunt quiet. They didn't implicate him in beforehand knowledge of it(which I concede, might be on the tapes he took with him). You cannot get a conviction in any court in the US on the testimony of co-conspirators alone. Much less a sitting President in the US Senate. Unless they had tapes confirming Nixon's authorization of all the charges of "abuse of power", then it wouldn't have stuck to him. The Obstruction charge would have.

Again, the abuse of power article specifically included as a cause for the article Nixon's role in the cover up. How do you figure that his recorded voice, approving one of his "lackeys" to make a payment to Hunt to keep his mouth shut, consitutes testimony by "co-conspirators" alone? I see that you basically dismiss the actual Abuse of Articles language as including as a crime Nixon's role in the cover-up (not prior knowledge, the cover-up) by saying that they just did it to throw it in there. Why do you feel competant to flatly deny what what the congressmen who drafted and voted on the language voice as their concerns "really" meant?


There was still no proof that Nixon authorized it beforehand, outside of the testimony of his subordinates. Which isn't enough to get a conviction in any court in the US, much less the Senate.

I have not maintained anywhere that Nixon's "prior knowledge" would been enough to get a conviction. I have said that his role in the cover up would have been enough, and you have too.

I'm not disputing it, in fact I'm citing it as evidence. Why you haven't understood this makes me think you've suffered from a head trauma. But its not "abuse of executive power". Its simple Obstruction of Justice. Which was the main article of impeachment against Nixon. It was included in the "abuse of executive power" to beef up a weak charge.

Again, how do you presume to know why the Judiciary Comittee included the charge under abuse of power?

I know more about Watergate than most since my father was deeply involved with it. And you haven't offered anything to back up your assertion that I'm contradicting any of the "experts" you are talking about. You've just shown a poor reading ability and laughable legal knowledge.
If your dad was involved, based on your arguments, I can only conclude that you are either Trent Lott's son or Richard Nixon's illegitimate love-child.

[akhhorus]

You have mentioned "enough for removal" instead of impeachment exactly...once. You have mentioned "enough for impeachment" many times, including after that single reference to removal. My reading skills are just fine.

Actually, Ive brought up Nixon's removal and how it relates to the charges 7 times. Your reading skills are failing.

And what you keep continuing to ignore is that the Article for Abuse of Power contains reference to the cover-up, not prior knowledge, which you seem to be using interchangeably with "obstruction".

And what you keep continuing to ignore is that they had a seperate charge of impeachment for Obstruction and threw in the obstruction again as part of Abuse of Executive power. The obstruction is article one. Which, oh ye of little reading ability, that Nixon-after the Watergate break in-committed obstruction of justice which would have nailed him because of the tape that has him authorizing apayoff to Hunt. Its inclusion in Article 2 was only background to the second article.

No it is not. One of my points is that we have never seen all of the evidence becuase there was not a trial. To say Nixon never could have been impeached, convicted, or removed based on the evidence is ludicrous because all the evidence was never exposed, unless you believe that by calling witnesses and issuing subpeonas for additiona documantes, testimony, etc. would not have revealed any info on top of what the Committee already had.

The only evidence that has been suppressed is Kissinger's notes on the subject(which are in his private papers) and the tapes Nixon has kept private(which we'll never probably hear).

Again, the abuse of power article specifically included as a cause for the article Nixon's role in the cover up.

No, you're wrong. The 2nd article relates to other activities-spcifically the actions of the "Plumbers" before Watergate and then mentions that Nixon tried to obstruct justice. Which is a rehash of Article 1. Article 2 is not obstruction, it is illegally using governmental resources for personal or political gain(to wit requesting confidential information from the IRS, FBI, CIA etc).

How do you figure that his recorded voice, approving one of his "lackeys" to make a payment to Hunt to keep his mouth shut, consitutes testimony by "co-conspirators" alone?

Thats obstruction. Nothing more. Thats not abuse of executive powers.

I see that you basically dismiss the actual Abuse of Articles language as including as a crime Nixon's role in the cover-up (not prior knowledge, the cover-up) by saying that they just did it to throw it in there.

They don't have evidence of any Nixon involvement in any activites not related to the Watergate break in, outside of co-conspirator testimony.

Why do you feel competant to flatly deny what what the congressmen who drafted and voted on the language voice as their concerns "really" meant?

Do you know what they really meant? I thought not. I'm not denying that they were compentant or not(and if you really want to pick this scab, then we can discuss Johnson's impeachment since that was just political payback by his own party), but I can argue what they charge him with. Is it possible that Nixon was on tape authorizing the activities charged in Article 2? Sure. But we have no proof of that.

Again, how do you presume to know why the Judiciary Comittee included the charge under abuse of power?

Because it is vaguely relevant. The logic being: Nixon obstructed the Watergate investigation, Hunt worked directly at the White House under Mitchell and Halderman(the slush fund that Stans managed inside the WH), so Nixon must have had direct knowledge or control of the plumbers. Its called making a case. But they did start off with the obstruction charge first and made it a separate charge. So, if you prove the first charge, and include it again as part of charge two, then its easier to make the case.

If your dad was involved, based on your arguments, I can only conclude that you are either Trent Lott's son or Richard Nixon's illegitimate love-child.

Neither. My father was one of Woodward's editors.

[dukeuch]

God (oh no, you are driving me to religion!) I just don't have the energy any moer, so I'll address jsut some:

The only evidence that has been suppressed is Kissinger's notes on the subject(which are in his private papers) and the tapes Nixon has kept private(which we'll never probably hear).

You say the "only evidence" like it could not have an effect on the likelyhood of removal, and it includes the tapes Nixon didn't turn over? Given that the tapes he did turn over contained his proof of his attempt to "obstruct justice", or in more relaistic terms, pay a defendent to lie, you don't think there is a very high probability that those witheld tapes have even more damaging info? You don't think that in a trial congress and ultimately the SUpremem COurt (if it got that far) would not have forced him to turn them over? How about proof of convesations, memos, letters, etc. that the defendents, if they were on the stand to actually testify about Nixon in a trial of Nixon, might have (would have, in my opinion) come up?

No, you're wrong. The 2nd article relates to other activities-spcifically the actions of the "Plumbers" before Watergate and then mentions that Nixon tried to obstruct justice. Which is a rehash of Article 1. Article 2 is not obstruction, it is illegally using governmental resources for personal or political gain(to wit requesting confidential information from the IRS, FBI, CIA etc).

You keep saying the second article relates to other activities, and specifically the plumbers actions before Watergate. Well it does contain other specific activities, but it also includes very specific mention of Nixon's role in the cover-up: "Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following: ...concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof..." There is aparently a distinction between obstruction of justice itself (trying to cover it up) and the abuse of power (using his office and executive power to aid in the cover up). Either way, the Second Article, outlining Abuse of Power, specifically mentions the cover-up. The language is right there in that Article. How can you deny it?

Which brings us to:

Do you know what they really meant? I thought not. I'm not denying that they were compentant or not(and if you really want to pick this scab, then we can discuss Johnson's impeachment since that was just political payback by his own party), but I can argue what they charge him with. Is it possible that Nixon was on tape authorizing the activities charged in Article 2? Sure. But we have no proof of that.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess I don't. Just like I can't prove (nor can you) there is or is not a God, or that our whole universe is just a figment of my imagination. But I prefer to sort of assume that what they say they are doing is what they mean they are doing. That they included mention of the cover up in the Abuse of Power article, in addition to the Obstruction of Justice Article, to me means that they think it was a misuse of exectuive power too. My interpretation is based on wht they have writeen as a record of their opinion. your interpretation is that "well, they say they mean it, but they really don't".

[akhhorus]

God (oh no, you are driving me to religion!) I just don't have the energy any moer, so I'll address jsut some:

No, its driving you to forget basic reading skills.

You say the "only evidence" like it could not have an effect on the likelyhood of removal, and it includes the tapes Nixon didn't turn over? Given that the tapes he did turn over contained his proof of his attempt to "obstruct justice", or in more relaistic terms, pay a defendent to lie, you don't think there is a very high probability that those witheld tapes have even more damaging info?

I'm not going to speculate on what is on those tapes. Considering that ones that leaked out nailed him on obstruction, they would have to contain something pretty bad for Nixon to resign rather than turn them over. The only shred of evidence(and I use that term loosely) is what he told Helms to tell the FBI about them, that they were related to the whole "bay of pigs thing". Who knows what's on them.

You don't think that in a trial congress and ultimately the SUpremem COurt (if it got that far) would not have forced him to turn them over?

Two possibilities:
1-They incriminating Nixon further, but what leaked out already nailed him on obstruction and he had Ford's pardon, so why didn't he ever release them if they just proved the charges against him.
2-Something else is on it. Who knows what that could be.

How about proof of convesations, memos, letters, etc. that the defendents, if they were on the stand to actually testify about Nixon in a trial of Nixon, might have (would have, in my opinion) come up?

Unless its a signed note from Nixon authorizing the accusations against him, its still co-conspirators against the President.

You keep saying the second article relates to other activities, and specifically the plumbers actions before Watergate. Well it does contain other specific activities, but it also includes very specific mention of Nixon's role in the cover-up: "Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

And he did, by obstructing Justice. There's nothing there that proves the case.

This conduct has included one or more of the following: ...concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof..." There is aparently a distinction between obstruction of justice itself (trying to cover it up) and the abuse of power (using his office and executive power to aid in the cover up). Either way, the Second Article, outlining Abuse of Power, specifically mentions the cover-up. The language is right there in that Article. How can you deny it?

Nice try, but you cut out a key portion:
"He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President."

The key phrase being "He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee"

So, Nixon's people did it-not Nixon, and the President either knew about it, or should have known about it. Since they don't say either way: that sort of undermines your argument and your challenge. Sounds like the committee, that you put so much faith, has abandoned you. And nice try selectively cutting and pasting parts of the article of impeachment to fit your point.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess I don't. Just like I can't prove (nor can you) there is or is not a God, or that our whole universe is just a figment of my imagination. But I prefer to sort of assume that what they say they are doing is what they mean they are doing. That they included mention of the cover up in the Abuse of Power article, in addition to the Obstruction of Justice Article, to me means that they think it was a misuse of exectuive power too. My interpretation is based on wht they have writeen as a record of their opinion. your interpretation is that "well, they say they mean it, but they really don't".

No, my interpretation is based on what they say. They put the Obstruction charge seperate and then brought up a new charge, which the Obstruction is only part of. That Nixon abused his power by knowingly or unknowingly letting his subordinates run the plumbers and that the obstruction is because Nixon was involved....somehow.

[Keino]

I gotta tell you guys, this has been like watching one long point of Tennis, only the ball is some hairs, and your rackets are the axes you guys are using to split said hairs.

[dukeuch]

I gotta tell you guys, this has been like watching one long point of Tennis, only the ball is some hairs, and your rackets are the axes you guys are using to split said hairs.

You are right. I'm done.

[Keino]

I like tennis