« Liberal Blogs »


Republicans Lose Their Minds

What is going on with Republicans this week? Ever since Mark Felt outed himself as "Deep Throat" for the Watergate investigation, Nixon apologists have been coming out of the woodwork, and coming unhinged.

It's hard to say which one is the looniest, but Pat Buchanan is in the running. Every time he opens his mouth something totally absurd comes out. First, on Bill O'Reilly's radio show yesterday (I can't find the transcript anywhere, so if someone knows how to get one please let me know) he actually said that Felt had broken the law in the past by performing illegal searches while "helping us out by trying to bring down the 'Weather Underground'. And we backed him up then, and President Reagan pardoned him later because what he did then was in the best interest of the country, but what he did to Nixon was not in the country's best interest."

What? Pat did you really mean to say that when Felt was perfroming illegal searches to help "us" out that was OK, but when he leaked information about a corrupt president and administration to the press because his superiors where also part of the corruption and would not act on the information, that makes him a traitor?

Well Pat, what should Felt have done?

"Let me tell you what he should have done if he believed that. Go out and resign and say, "This investigation has been corrupted. I believe that there's a real problem and I believe it goes right to the White House and I'm not going to be a party to it. I believe the FBI's a honorable organization. We don't do those things." - Buchanan on the Today Show

All that sounds great until you hear what Buchanan said on "Countdown" with Keith Olberman,

"You've got all those names of Nixon people it never could have been any of them in my judgment for the simple reason that all those individuals owed their careers and everything else to Richard Nixon. They had no motive to go to the Washington Post and give the Washington Post, Nixon's enemy, information to damage a president who had defended them all and benefited them all."

So to recap, Pat, Felt should have quit his job to be "honorable" and yet I guess those people who had benefited from Nishenanigansnigans and had damaging information on him, "had no motive" to bring Nixon down. Unless their motive, in fact Pat, your motive would have been the same "honor" you want to hold Mark Felt to now. If Buchanan or any other Nixonite who "benefited" from Nixon's illegal behavior had showed the courage to step forward on their own and do the "honorable" thing, then Felt himself would have had no motive to do what he did. Instead, Nixon and those who "benefited" from Nixon continually obstructed the investigation at every turn. Very honorable Pat.

Of course Rush had to get into the act,

"Could you imagine, folks, let's go back to the Lewinsky and the impeachment era of the Clinton administration. Can you imagine if the FBI director or the number two in command at the FBI had leaked stuff from the Clinton investigations to the Washington Times? Can you imagine what would happen to that guy today, Louis Freeh or the number two man at the FBI at that time? If they had leaked stuff to the Washington Times or some other conservative newspaper, the mainstream press would call this a constitutional crisis and they would set out to destroy the leaker. They would set out to destroy the leaker. And, in fact, one of the prosecutors that was on Starr's team is named Brett Kavanaugh, and he is one of the names that the Democrats have vowed to filibuster. He's one of the names that President Bush has nominated for a seat on the appellate court. And why do they say that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed? Because he leaked! Kavanaugh was a leaker, the Democrats say. He leaked things from the Starr investigation. And of course that would be the last straw."

Now I think Rush has hit on something important albeitllbeit on accident I'm sure). The real reason the Republicans went through the mockery that was the Clinton impeachment, was to get back at the Democrats for Nixon. Which brings us to loony tunes Ben Stein who starts out his piece in the American Spectator with this crazy line of thinking,

"Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma."

So does any of that mean Nixon wasn't guilty? Does any of that mean that Nixon wasn't deserving of everything he got? Even if you grant Stein that everything he says is accurate, which it isn't, then all he has really done is prove that the others on his list where just as bad as Nixon, not that Nixon is some sort of victim.

Oh but then Stein really loses touch with reality,

"When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:

1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.

2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.

So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me"

Did I miss something or wasn't Nixon replaced by his VP Gerald Ford, and wasn't Henry Kissinger still Sec of State? I mean what is Stein saying? That those Republicans where inept in handlingdeling of Vietnam and that lead to genocide? Somehow I don't think that's what he's getting at, but it's hard to tell.

Using that line of reasoning a person like myself might come to the conclusion that the Republicans in the House Of Representatives who impeached Clinton (are you listening John Thune?) opened the door to mass murder on 9/11. I mean while they had FBI agents consumed with finding dirt on Clinton, theconspiratorsritors where learning to fly planes but not land them and planning their horrific crime right under our noses, right here in this country. Maybe if those FBI agents weren't busy tracking down every woman Bill Clinton ever winked at they would have foiled the plan. It's ridiculous, but that's what Stein want's us believe happened in Cambodia.

It's always amusing when the self proclaimed "Party of personal responsibility" won't take any.


At 6/02/2005 03:09:00 PM, Blogger Sophia said...

It is weird how ballistic they are going. Nixon was a "crook," as he himself stated, whether intentionally or not. It's also about 30 years ago. For pete's sake boys, let it go!

Just what we need, government by grudge.


Post a Comment

<< Home