Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789
Results 161 to 176 of 176
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I agree with all that you wrote
    Wow! Perhaps you should read it again. Perhaps I am improving.
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I've not read anything either -- but I'm dubious of how the 3rd ranked constitutional officer, head of an independent co-equal part of the government, and a member of an opposition party, could be seen as breaking any law
    Oh come now. Is this Nixon's "If I did it, it is legal argument?" Bush's "We do not torture" defense. If an official of Sadam Hussein's govenment did what Ms Pelosi did, they would have hung. He killed members of his own family for less.

    High office is no defense.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/30/2007 at 10:32 AM.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You well know that that post does not address, in any realistic sense outside of an internet forum, what criminal actions were undertaken by Pelosi. Furthermore, no legal precedent has been established to support the allegations made here, no validation of any documented case law or legal precedent via the Appeals process. Where's the beef? If it exists, I'd genuinely like to read up.
    I am not prosecuting but indicting. I assert that there is a priima facie case to be answered. Do you rise in defense?
  4. #164  
    Private citizens, as the representative of a Party nominee for President of the United States of America, no less.

    Clearly, the choice has been made by some to remain willfully obtuse to historical and legal precedent, as the case for what genuinely constitutes "aid and comfort to the enemy" has been pretty well and narrowly defined over the past 50+ years. The cost in American lives in the 10s of thousands, due to Nixon's win-at-all-cost politics, also constitutes mass murder with depraved indifference, in my personal judgment.
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I am not prosecuting but indicting. I assert that there is a priima facie case to be answered. Do you rise in defense?
    Gee, what happened to your Rule of Law stump on this subject? Ad libbing for public consumption is, well, more Fox News/Infotainment than anything else.
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Gee, what happened to your Rule of Law stump on this subject? Ad libbing for public consumption is, well, more Fox News/Infotainment than anything else.
    I am afraid I missed your point.
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    how would you describe the acts of private citizens who sabotaged the potential for a negotiated peace for their own material benefit ??
    Forgive me....but you see even though I am a geological scientist who does consulting work for many of South America's largest and corrput oil companies, I am still a person of the pueblo....a swarthy "costeño" if you will. I am afraid I am not wise in the ways of America, though I try to learn in my own simple ways.

    Please be patient with me.

    Let me familiarize myself with this word you use, "treason".

    Ahh - I see, the word means to participate in the overthrow of ones government, a breach of faith, or treachery.

    A very serious charge, is it not?

    I see that this Nixon person had a liason with a foreign government during a time of war. I also see that the honorable President Johnson ordered your military to stop bombing to that his candidato partido could benefit in your elections?

    October 30th was when your pilots were grounded? We here in South America follow your elections closely. They occured on November 7th that year...si?

    ¡Que chorizera! It seems that your office of presidente makes good men do stange things.

    So, the question becomes. What is more "treasonous"? Nixon telling Thieu to hold tight? Or Johnson's unsuccessful attempt to throw the election?
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I am afraid I missed your point.
    Surely, you jest.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Forgive me....but you see even though I am a geological scientist who does consulting work for many of South America's largest and corrput oil companies, I am still a person of the pueblo....a swarthy "costeño" if you will. I am afraid I am not wise in the ways of America, though I try to learn in my own simple ways.

    Please be patient with me.

    Let me familiarize myself with this word you use, "treason".

    Ahh - I see, the word means to participate in the overthrow of ones government, a breach of faith, or treachery.

    A very serious charge, is it not?

    I see that this Nixon person had a liason with a foreign government during a time of war. I also see that the honorable President Johnson ordered your military to stop bombing to that his candidato partido could benefit in your elections?

    October 30th was when your pilots were grounded? We here in South America follow your elections closely. They occured on November 7th that year...si?

    ¡Que chorizera! It seems that your office of presidente makes good men do stange things.

    So, the question becomes. What is more "treasonous"? Nixon telling Thieu to hold tight? Or Johnson's unsuccessful attempt to throw the election?
    I think the dictum is, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." Power, whether political or economic, tends to corrupt. Elections and markets tend to correct abuse, at least in the presence of transparency. Therefore, those in power have a penchant for secrecy. Many examples come to mind.

    An external enemy, either real or simply nominated, can be used to justify the secrecy and delay the correction.
  10. #170  
    Don't hurt yourself trying to straddle those fences, whmurray.
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Don't hurt yourself trying to straddle those fences, whmurray.
    At my age, that kind of an injury is only a minor (if painful) inconvenience.

    I was already an old man before I recognized that the last and only US president that I liked and trusted was Franklin Roosevelt. I have voted in every presidential election since Eisenhower. Several times I have voted for Gus Hall, but in all that time I have never ever voted for an incumbent.

    To the extent that I do not come down on either side of the fence, it is that I do not trust the powerful or their partisans. I do not want to be in either camp. I can look down on all of you but there is not much room up here for many to join me.

    Up the next election! Always the next election!
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/30/2007 at 07:09 PM.
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    ... Several times I have voted for Gus Hall...!


    and to think that the only revolution I ever supported was the one that made me emperor...

    oh well, back to my waterboarding therapy ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post


    and to think that the only revolution I ever supported was the one that made me emperor...

    oh well, back to my waterboarding therapy ...
    You betray your age, if not your politics, by recognizing the perennial candidate of the Communist Party of America. Many has been the election since Gus passed when I wondered where he was when we really needed him.

    (I like your uniform.)
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  14. #174  
    To the extent that you prefer to remain outside partisan positions, I can certainly understand. However, where vetted historical fact is concerned, that fence can become increasingly uncomfortable.

    The comparison (not yours, whmurray ) with Pelosi is egregious, self-serving, and flatly inconceivable outside the most offensive Atwater/Rovian partisan.

    The Real Story of '68 Vietnam Bombing Halt by William P. Bundy Princeton, N.J., June 4, 1991. The writer was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 1964-69, and editor of Foreign Affairs, 1972-84.

    Mr. Safire states that Mr. Johnson's bombing halt announcement on Oct. 31, 1968, looking to immediate negotiations, was an "election-weekend stunt." On the contrary, "Counsel to the President," Mr. Clifford's memoir, shows that Mr. Johnson's terms for a bombing halt, worked out in late June 1968, never changed. As Mr. Clifford relates with feeling, Mr. Johnson resisted many attempts to soften or shade these terms, forcing a platform confrontation that played a big part in the disastrous Democratic National Convention in August. Some election stunt! ...

    About Oct. 29, as Mr. Clifford recounts in more general terms, Mr. Johnson and his inner circle (of which I was not part) learned through intercepted South Vietnam Embassy cables, particularly one of Oct. 27, that Anna Chennault was conveying via Bui Diem apparently authoritative "Republican" messages urging Mr. Thieu to abort or cripple the deal by refusing to participate.

    That "smoking gun" cable included promises of later favor from Mr. Nixon, including a possible visit to Saigon before inauguration if he were elected. (As Mr. Nixon well knew, "reading the mail" of allied governments of importance to United States foreign policy was not an exceptional practice in the postwar period.) Thus alerted, Mr. Johnson requested Federal Bureau of Investigation surveillance of Mrs. Chennault and the embassy, and the results amply confirmed her activity.

    No Clifford "confession" was needed about these actions. The surveillance was disclosed fully in Senate Committee hearings in 1975, the F.B.I. testifying that it accepted Mr. Johnson's request based on possible violations of the Neutrality Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act, both concerning dealings by United States private citizens with the governments of other countries. Interference such as Mrs. Chennault's is certainly something the United States Government is entitled to know about as a matter of national security, in a situation such as prevailed in late October 1968.
    Any Reagan Republican is simply incapable of accepting these historical facts, nor accountability, as they are more inclined to advance and promote their martyrs than try them for the crimes of which they are most guilty.

    Even Gerald Ford and other world leaders of the time were able to come to terms with the fact that Reagan was solely an intellectually lazy salesman.
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #175  
    It is probably worth remembering another historical fact: Hubert Humphrey was down 17% to Nixon in the months leading up to the election.

    Johnson had announced to the nation, on March 31 of 1968, that he had ordered a cessation of bombardment above the 20th parallel. It was on this day, as well, Johnson indicated he would not seek re-election.

    Then came the October 30th announcement, which said that the US would stop bombing the entire North Vietnamese territory.

    As Johnson himself said on October 30th:

    "We have been engaged in discussions with the North Vietnamese in Paris since last May. The discussions began after I announced on the evening of March 31st in a television speech to the Nation that the United States-in an effort to get talks started on a settlement of the Vietnam war--had stopped the bombing of North Vietnam in the area where 90 percent of the people live."

    "For a good many weeks, there was no movement in the talks at all. The talks appeared to really be deadlocked.

    Then a few weeks ago, they entered a new and a very much more hopeful phase.

    As we moved ahead, I conducted a series of very intensive discussions with our allies, and with the senior military and diplomatic officers of the United States Government, on the prospects for peace. The President also briefed our congressional leaders and all of the presidential candidates."

    Hmm...."a few weeks ago"? A bit of a stretch to speak about something that *might have happened* in late June (as Bundy and Clark Clifford assert) from an October 30th speech as being "a few weeks ago".

    Then there was this interesting tidbit in the speech that addresses the notion held by some in this forum that Nixon, somehow, covertly abrogated a "sure peace".

    "I think I should caution you, my fellow Americans, that arrangements of this kind are never foolproof. For that matter, even formal treaties are never foolproof, as we have learned from our experience."

    So much for that "assured peace".

    Of course, we all know that Johnson did not seek re-election because the Democratic party was fractured over the Vietnam issue (anti-war McCarthy did win the New Hampshire primary after all). It was this same fracture that was about to sink Humphrey's hopes in the '68 election - hence, the October 30th speech - the first such "October Surprise".

    So, it has been demonstrated that Johnson kept repeating himself in the closing months of this Presidency just before the election. It seems the accurate picture here is that Johnson was scrambling in the last few months of the election as to provide Humphrey with a fighting chance at the polls by playing games in Vietnam.

    It almost worked, as the '68 election was quite close (in terms of popular voting anyway).

    I am still waiting, by the way, for someone to explain the treasonousness of Nixon in 1968. The FBI "accepting" Johnson's request to investigate Neutrality Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act means nothing and, as history shows, no one was put in jail - or even reprimanded.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #176  
    delete - double post
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789

Posting Permissions