An American hero

[RickSp]

Quote by: fedfem So how do you feel about Joe Wilson? He spoke out publically and look what happened to him and his wife Valerie Plame...both of their careers have been sabotaged.

Last night I saw the son-of-a bitch Bob Novak who outed a CIA agent to assist in a political vendetta calling Felt names. Sickening.

Interesting out the conservatives don't mind a president lying us into a war where tens of thousands of American soldiers are killed or maimed but feel free to damn a whistleblower who helped stop another lying president.

These fools seem to confuse omerta for patriotism.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp And if the leader of the organization was involved in a crime and this was the only way to get the word out? Pretty typical of the right - loyalty is always more important than justice.

Yeah, well, turning stool pigeon wasn't the "only way to get the word out", was it? He could have gone through the proper channels to get his information out, if that didn't work he could have resigned and gone to the media, which at that time was doing everything it could to bring Nixon down. He could have gone to the grand jury. He might have lost his job, but his career certainly wouldn't have been ruined. Both Ruckelshaus and Richardson went on to serve in other government positions and both were successful businessmen. In any case, none of his superiors at the FBI were ever implicated in Watergate, so why assume they would have suppressed his info or retaliated against him?

And your childish attempt to paint this as an issue of the "right" or conservatives is ludicrous. It's an issue of honesty and integrity. To paraphrase Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman), "Become a snitch, save your cushy job". He's a liar and a hypocrite, having been indicted and convicted of the same type of illegal break-ins that he supposedly felt so strongly against. Now he's coming out to try and make some money from his sad tale of "selective honesty" with a book deal. Even in the end he's demonstrated his sense of "honor", he shafted the very people that protected him all these years and went public in a competitor's publication.

To take a page from your right-left reasoning, it's no wonder that the left likes this sneaking, lying, self-serving rat - he's one of them.

[RickSp]

Proper channels? Sure. The odd thing is that Felt was in fact a criminal. No not for leaking the truth to the press but for doing his job in the FBI. He was convicted with Edward Miller in 1980 for authorizing FBI "black bag" operations against anti-war groups. (They were both pardoned a few months later by Reagan.)

Ironically, Felt did the right thing when he leaked information to the Washinton Post, yet was breaking the law when working in the FBI. Of course those attacking him are upset only about "Deep Throat" when he did the right thing and not when he broke the law, working "within channels" for the FBI".

[lsbskins1]

Zeebadee-

"In any case, none of his superiors at the FBI were ever implicated in Watergate, so why assume they would have suppressed his info or retaliated against him?"

Oh, really...

"On the 26th April, 1973, The New York Daily News claimed that L. Patrick Gray had destroyed documents taken from a safe in Howard Hunt's White House office. These documents included cables fabricated by Hunt to implicate President John F. Kennedy in the 1963 assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. Other documents were about Edward Kennedy. Gray later admitted that these documents were destroyed at his home in December, 1972.

The following day Deep Throat confirmed the story about the documents in Hunt's safe. He tells Bob Woodward that they were "political dynamite" and on 28th June, 1972, John Ehrlichman and John Dean told L. Patrick Gray that the documents should "never see the light of day".

L. Patrick Gray- the man Nixon appointed to head the FBI - Felt's superior.

Do not speak of which you do not know.

[Zeebadee]

Oh yeah, faked cables and info on Chappaquiddick, "political dynamite" all right. In any case, Gray was never charged or indicted, and he certainly wouldn't have been dumb enough to get between the media, which was rabidly anti-Nixon at that point, and Felt, had he gone public.

[The Analog Kid]

This is hilarious.

Democrats claiming some high moral ground and calling a guy who was a whistleblower to the press, which was illegal, a hero.

Contrast this with the venom they unleased towards a woman named Linda Tripp, a whistleblower who followed the law and reported the activity to the authorities.

Pretty typical of the right - loyalty is always more important than justice.

ROFL. Oh please. Tell us about Linda Tripp, Ricky, and then tell us how all you leftists stood loyal to a clown who perjered himself on the witness stand and obstructed a government investigation.


Liberal hypocracy never ceases to amaze me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: The Analog Kid ROFL. Oh please. Tell us about Linda Tripp, Ricky, and then tell us how all you leftists stood loyal to a clown who perjered himself on the witness stand and obstructed a government investigation. Liberal hypocracy never ceases to amaze me.

I would have no problem with Clinton being sent up for perjury. Unlike you conservatives I don't enjoy being lied to by the president.

And fool, I am a libertarian, not a liberal, not that such distinction would mean much to one such as yourself. Of course, any response to your posts is a waste of time anyway.

[fedfem]

Quote by: The Analog Kid This is hilarious. Democrats claiming some high moral ground and calling a guy who was a whistleblower to the press, which was illegal, a hero. Contrast this with the venom they unleased towards a woman named Linda Tripp, a whistleblower who followed the law and reported the activity to the authorities. ROFL. Oh please. Tell us about Linda Tripp, Ricky, and then tell us how all you leftists stood loyal to a clown who perjered himself on the witness stand and obstructed a government investigation. Liberal hypocracy never ceases to amaze me.

I am not a Democrat. I never slammed Linda Tripp but didn't think it was a national issue either. I was a repub until the silly, impeachment crap over a blow job.

[Zeebadee]

The "silly, impeachment crap" was over perjury by the President, not a blow job.

[Sonart]

Quote by: The Analog Kid Democrats claiming some high moral ground and calling a guy who was a whistleblower to the press, which was illegal, a hero.

So? Martin Luther King also broke laws to do what was right. Besides, you guys still worship Ollie North as a hero, to say nothing of Saint Ronald of Reagan. I think we're entitled.

And on to this...

Quote by: The Analog Kid ROFL. Oh please. Tell us about Linda Tripp, Ricky, and then tell us how all you leftists stood loyal to a clown who perjered himself on the witness stand and obstructed a government investigation

...which takes us back to our discussion of Clarence Thomas, and, of course, Iran/Contra.

And you say "Liberal hypocracy never ceases to amaze me"?

.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee The "silly, impeachment crap" was over perjury by the President, not a blow job.

As the saying goes, "when Clinton lied, nobody died."

And now we have proof that Monica is not "Deep Throat".

[Digital Man]

Quote by: fedfem I am not a Democrat. I never slammed Linda Tripp but didn't think it was a national issue either. I was a repub until the silly, impeachment crap over a blow job.

just as water gate wasn't about a two-bit botched theft, Clinton's impeachment wasn't about a blow job. Did you support his lies and cover-up?


Just from what I have learned, Felt was the no. 2 man in the FBI and was upset at being passed over for no 1 (personal vendetta?) How can a man that high up on the ladder NOT do his duty and report what he knew to the head of the FBI or the AG? He broke the law and protected himself rather then take a risk...not very heroic. I think he had two choices and took the one that was less honorable and less risky....I thought we were suppose to expect more from leadship?


Notice I did not say he was wrong, but I won't be one of those sucking his wanger and calling him a "hero" or a "great American" simply because the ends justified the means

[Sonart]

Quote by: Zeebadee The "silly, impeachment crap" was over perjury by the President, not a blow job.

The "silly, impeachment crap" was over a 6 year effort to find something, anything, with which to bring down Bill Clinton.

Do you honestly believe that Reagan and Bush didn't lie under oath about Iran/Contral, a subject of significantly more national import than an affair with Monica Lewinski?


.

Quote by: Digital Man Notice I did not say he was wrong, but I won't be one of those sucking his wanger and calling him a "hero" or a "great American" simply because the ends justified the means

That's pretty much where I'm at on the subject. I don't see Felt as a particular "hero".

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Zeebadee Oh yeah, faked cables and info on Chappaquiddick, "political dynamite" all right. In any case, Gray was never charged or indicted, and he certainly wouldn't have been dumb enough to get between the media, which was rabidly anti-Nixon at that point, and Felt, had he gone public.

Not a big deal, you say. Faked documents , created by someone on the White House payroll in an attempt to effect the outcome of the Democratic primaries (Nixon feared Ted Kennedy because of the "mystic" attached to his name and because his brother had defeated him previously) and you believe that is no big deal? You do not consider them political dynamite? What was all the fuss about CBS and Dan Rather then? Nixon wanted to use what he ABSOLUTELY KNEW were fake documents and that is no big deal. CBS uses what it believes to be real documents and that is the end of the world and proof positive that CBS is untrustworthy, because they did not vet, double vet and attach people to lie detectors to confirm authenticity. But it is unimportant that forged documents existed in Nixons case. Quite an interesting double standard.

And, how, do you suppose Felt would keep access to the info he had if he quit? How then could he protect the FBI, being out of the loop? But then, you don't make consistant arguements, so why should I expect you to view this in a consistant manner (consistant with reason, that is).

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Sonart The "silly, impeachment crap" was over a 6 year effort to find something, anything, with which to bring down Bill Clinton. Do you honestly believe that Reagan and Bush didn't lie under oath about Iran/Contral, a subject of significantly more national import than an affair with Monica Lewinski? . That's pretty much where I'm at on the subject. I don't see Felt as a particular "hero".

So you think it's ok for a president to commit perjury because others lied too?? Shall the degree of "national import" become the yardstick that we measure right and wrong from?

Felt violated the processes and proceedures that he was obliged to follow. Some people want to excuse that by claiming he believed that was the only way he could act. What other, possibly classified, information did he leak because of what he personally believed? Who did he leak it to? Should everybody in such a job be allowed the option of leaking information when they think it's the right thing to do?

[The Analog Kid]

I would have no problem with Clinton being sent up for perjury.

Sure. Right.

Unlike you conservatives I don't enjoy being lied to by the president.

You mean we enjoy being lied to? Wow. Where did you get this startling piece of crap from? Err America?

And fool,

What jackass?

I am a libertarian, not a liberal,

You are a leftist libertarian. Libertarians come in both left and right persuasions, that that such a distinction would mean much to one such as yourself.

not that such distinction would mean much to one such as yourself.

LOL. I can make the distinction between leftist libertarians and right leaning libertarians.

Of course, any response to your posts is a waste of time anyway.

So don't respond to me.

I was a repub until the silly, impeachment crap over a blow job.

It was not about a blowjob. It was about perjery and obstructing justice in a Sexual Harrassment lawsuit.

So? Martin Luther King also broke laws to do what was right.

So the ends justify the means? Gotcha.

Besides, you guys still worship Ollie North as a hero, to say nothing of Saint Ronald of Reagan. I think we're entitled.

North and Reagan acted in the best interests of the country, not for themselves or their own political survival.
Quite a difference.

which takes us back to our discussion of Clarence Thomas,

Clarence Thomas? What was he found guilty of?

and, of course, Iran/Contra.

Deflections deflections.

And you say "Liberal hypocracy never ceases to amaze me"?

Yep. Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths continually. Most recently they've argued both sides for and against the filibuster. In the past 5 years they've argued both sides for partial privatisation for Social Security. The Whopper of course is their arguments both for and against Iraq, especially from that war record embellisher and failed Presidential candidate John Kerry.
On and on it goes.

just as water gate wasn't about a two-bit botched theft, Clinton's impeachment wasn't about a blow job. Did you support his lies and cover-up?

Indeed. It's not the crime or the severity of the crime, it was the cover up.
Liberals can't seem to grasp this. It must be some sort of mental block.

Notice I did not say he was wrong, but I won't be one of those sucking his wanger and calling him a "hero" or a "great American" simply because the ends justified the means

Apparently liberals are all to happy to suck wang if it supports them or their cause.

What's interesting is why Nixon was so hated by the left before Watergate was ever on the map. It's an extremely interesting story for another occaision.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Zeebadee So you think it's ok for a president to commit perjury because others lied too?? Shall the degree of "national import" become the yardstick that we measure right and wrong from? Felt violated the processes and proceedures that he was obliged to follow. Some people want to excuse that by claiming he believed that was the only way he could act. What other, possibly classified, information did he leak because of what he personally believed? Who did he leak it to? Should everybody in such a job be allowed the option of leaking information when they think it's the right thing to do?

Gray was a friend of Nixons and had actually worked on his campaign agains Kennedy. Felt had NO other option.

You know what is the problem? Trying to compartmentalize everything into Dem/Repub or Liberal/Conservative causes so much to be overlooked. Corruption has no party or ideology.

[Digital Man]

Quote by: fedfem Felt had NO other option. .

That's BS

[lsbskins1]

Analog-

"Indeed. It's not the crime or the severity of the crime, it was the cover up.
Liberals can't seem to grasp this. It must be some sort of mental block."

What a crock of shit. Of course the severity of the crime matters. If what you were saying was the case, if a sitting President, um-got a speeding ticket and lied about it, he would be just as deserving of impeachment as someone who murdered someone. Don't be stupid. It does matter that Clinton lied under oath in a civil matter, while Nixon attempted to thwart an investigation into his own abuse of power . He used funds raised in a political campaign to bug the offfice of the Democratic National Chairman, he kept a secret (and illegal) slush fund to pay for other dirty tricks, he by-passed the courts and broke into the private records of a citizen of the United States, records that were priveliged information and not even presentable as evidence in any court, he fired 2 sucessive AG's who would not fire the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him. These two things do not compare and anyone with even a smidge of intellectual honesty would admit that. And besides, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. In the ballace of history, they each got about what they deserved. Clinton had a nightmare of a political headache, and loads of embarassment and Nixon lost the precidency. So be real.

[The Analog Kid]

Quote by: lsbskins1 What a crock of shit. Of course the severity of the crime matters.

It wasn't the crimes that got them in trouble, it was the coverups. Don't be so obtuse. You are proving my point. One was in regards to a petty break in, the other was in regards to a sexual harrassment lawsuit, both serious matters.

If what you were saying was the case, if a sitting President, um-got a speeding ticket and lied about it, he would be just as deserving of impeachment as someone who murdered someone.

If he had lied about it in a court of law, yes.

Don't be stupid.

Who is the one that doesn't understand that it's not the crime itself that was the issue in either Nixon or Clinton?
It was the coverups.

It does matter that Clinton lied under oath in a civil matter, while Nixon attempted to thwart an investigation into his own abuse of power .

Um. Clinton also attempted to thwart an investigation by perjering himself on the witness stand, in a court of law, and under oath. He also obstructed justice by hiding and removing evidence, not to mention attempted to coach witnesses. He also got his operatives to release the confidential files of Linda Tripp. Those are all crimes.

He used funds raised in a political campaign to bug the offfice of the Democratic National Chairman, he kept a secret (and illegal) slush fund to pay for other dirty tricks, he by-passed the courts and broke into the private records of a citizen of the United States, records that were priveliged information and not even presentable as evidence in any court, he fired 2 sucessive AG's who would not fire the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him. These two things do not compare and anyone with even a smidge of intellectual honesty would admit that. And besides, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. In the ballace of history, they each got about what they deserved. Clinton had a nightmare of a political headache, and loads of embarassment and Nixon lost the precidency. So be real.

I am being very real. Both men should've lost their jobs. Had Clinton had 1/2 the character of Nixon he would've resigned.

Had Democrats had 1/2 the character of Republicans they would've called for his resignation as many Republicans did of Nixon.

Instead, Clinton hid in the White House for over a year, lied to everyone, focused his attention on his legal defense rather than important things like say, terrorism.
He put himself before the country. Typical of him. His defenders reduced themselves to excusing perjery and obstruction of justice under the guise of "its' just about sex".


Keep talking, you just proved my point. Thanks. You made it easy.