If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   So, it is looking more and more like Nixon really did sabotage the Vietnam war peace talks under Johnson, letting it drag on five more years, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Just to win the election   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 175
    More: Sick, Viet Cong, hilton hotel, South Vietnamese, peace talks, North Vietnam, national security adviser, Richard Nixon, Tet Offensive  
•       •       •

5318 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 12:23:55 PM

Gunther: Jesus, that isn't just evil, it's comic book super villain evil.Sabotaging peace talks, getting potentially millions of people killed to win an election?

Farking hell.



And not just those killed on the battlefield.  Think of all the military and civilian lives that were impacted negatively for decades, even generations, possibly just because this guy wanted a soundbite he could use to in an election.
 
m00
2013-03-16 12:28:03 PM

AlanSmithee: Yet again, Nixon checkered past dogs him.


I see what you did there ;)
 
2013-03-16 12:29:59 PM

lordjupiter: TheOther: malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.

I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."

RTFA: They didn't want to out Nixon at the time because it would expose the FBI for tapping the S. Vietnamese ambassador's phone.

Whether you believe that's the real reason or not is up to you.


That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.
 
2013-03-16 12:37:09 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: TheOther: malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.

I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."

RTFA: They didn't want to out Nixon at the time because it would expose the FBI for tapping the S. Vietnamese ambassador's phone.

Whether you believe that's the real reason or not is up to you.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.



I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.
 
2013-03-16 12:40:15 PM

whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.


NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.
 
2013-03-16 12:52:41 PM
FTA on recordings:

Nixon wasn't the first.

He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency.

"They will provide history with the bark off," Johnson told his wife, Lady Bird.


Yeah, that's what he told Lady Bird.

His real intent was to use the words of those he was speaking with against them (friend or foe), should the need arise.

The article suggests that Johnson was played by Nixon. Nixon couldnt touch Johnson where it came to playing political hardball.
 
2013-03-16 12:55:01 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


The difference being the very few politicians will commit outright treason. I'm not going to mince words, that's what he did by sabotaging those talks. I used to think, "Okay, Nixon wasn't perfect. He did a few illegal and dumb things, and h let some others get away with shiat." He wasn't evil in my mind, until now.

Should there be a Hell, I hope he's roasting, and has to recite the names of every person killed.
 
2013-03-16 12:58:48 PM
catmacros.files.wordpress.com

Mistakes were made. Move on. Nothing to see here. Everyone's to blame. Next time we'll all do better.
 
2013-03-16 12:59:15 PM

Therion: Saint Reagan / Jimmy Carter / 52 American hostages / etc.


This bears repeating. Meanwhile, Fox News is still trying to make Benghazi a scandal.
 
2013-03-16 01:00:45 PM

Slaxl: That really puts the seal on any hopes of a Nixon rehabilitation, doesn't it? They say he was a great president, especially on foreign policy, and if he wasn't a paranoid and petty man then that's how history would remember him, as great. Well, I fear history is about to get a lot more harsh on Nixon.


No historian I have ever seen says that Nixon was a great president, except for the scope of his crimes and his exemplary performance of a paranoid maniac during the Red Scares. American historians especially despise him. So I've been really confused about this "Nixon rehabilitation" thing going on. Who is behind it? Who is the audience? I honestly can't picture either, I'm really asking.
 
2013-03-16 01:12:53 PM
Now I know what that expression "not news" means. Thanks, Fark.
 
2013-03-16 01:16:09 PM
The war is not meant to be won, It's meant to be sustained.
 
2013-03-16 01:19:09 PM
Anybody else notice how angry Republicans get when you point out that the US remained free even after losing Vietnam?

It's odd how those who believe in "small government" get red in the face with anger defending wars of choice. Even more bizarre, is the support for wars waged with the intent of exercising social control over others in ways which would be seen as totalitarian if done domestically.

Shame on Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson for flexing American military power in Indochina, which resulted in countless deaths and untold misery for millions. And shame on Nixon and Kissinger for mapping out US foreing policy in the most Machiavellian way possible. Nixon was as anticommunist as he felt was politically expedient (hence why he happily opened up friendly relations with Communist China).

The fact the we happily went our merry way in 2003 into yet another war of invasion and aggression shows what we've learned.

And to think, it wasn't that long ago that it was debatable whether or not the US is an empire.

Academically, at least, there is no longer any doubt.

"It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character almost every other country in the world has learned to fear and despise."

-Hunter S. Thompson
 
2013-03-16 01:26:16 PM

Demetrius: IIRC, this is all outlined pretty clearly in The President's Club. I'm not sure what new information there is here, except maybe the actual recordings themselves.


Based on the BBC article, this was all suspected, but not verified.  The Johnson tapes verify the story.
 
2013-03-16 01:27:29 PM

lordjupiter: TheOther: lordjupiter: TheOther: malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.

I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."

RTFA: They didn't want to out Nixon at the time because it would expose the FBI for tapping the S. Vietnamese ambassador's phone.

Whether you believe that's the real reason or not is up to you.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.


I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.


The US had already colluded in assassination of their puppet Diem!  Did the US really think Thieu was dumb enough to trust them??  Meanwhile we are worrying about South Vietnam's reaction, they are cratering the peace talks.  How could that have gone worse?

As for the other ambassadors: does any ambassador, from any country, to any country, believe that he/she is NOT a surveillance target in the host country?...out of paranoia or delusions that they are improtant enough to be worth bugging, if nothing else?
 
2013-03-16 01:37:35 PM
Silly libtards, information from Soviet defectors and KGB documents, obtained after the breakup of the Soviet Union, mostly, MOSTLY vindicated Joe McCarthy. Our government was riddled with spies and Joe should be remebered as a hero.
 
2013-03-16 01:42:26 PM

lucksi: Just imagine what we will learn when they finally release the JFK files. Can't be long now...

Maybe in 40 years we will also learn which corporation was behind 9/11


I feel sorry for you.

I once thought a bit like you, instead, it had a little spin. I once was an Alex Jones Truther. I know how you think because we are a lot alike (believing in such conspiracies). I just wanted you to know that the theory that a US Corporation did the 9/11 attacks is wrong. I once thought that the Government was behind the 9/11 attacks to start a war to steal oil. These ideas or theories fit your preconceived notions. You see corporations committing the 9/11 attacks for profit because that is what you want to see.

We all have our bias. We only chose to retain knowledge that fits with what we expect. Any other information is discarded if it does not fit your preconceptions. You have to understand your biases in order to see things from a neutral eye. When you look through it with an open eye then you will see that you are wrong.
 
2013-03-16 01:56:37 PM

TheMysticS: whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.

NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.


I love how you libtards like to hold up the arugula story to obfuscate the real crime:  dijon mustard.  Whatever; history will vindicate us.
 
2013-03-16 02:01:22 PM
You mean the Hippies and Protesters were right all along?
 
2013-03-16 02:01:38 PM

born_yesterday: TheMysticS: whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.

NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.

I love how you libtards like to hold up the arugula story to obfuscate the real crime:  dijon mustard.  Whatever; history will vindicate us.


Even worse was how many calories "Moochelle" stuffed into her face on inauguration day when all she wants are kids to eat our bean sprouts and tofu.
 
2013-03-16 02:03:50 PM

Heraclitus: You mean the Hippies and Protesters were right all along?


Yup.

And, in recent years, the French and the United Nations.
 
2013-03-16 02:07:42 PM

MFAWG: BMulligan: The fact that Nixon became some sort of senior statesman after his resignation, rather than be forced to live out his days in obscure humiliation, is appalling. The man should have been publicly humiliated and spat upon whenever he appeared in public, not given a soapbox on the op-ed pages of America's most prestigious newspapers.

On the other hand, the current crop of Republican ex-POTUSII make him look pretty damn good in comparison.


Not even a little bit. As venal and incompetent as GWB was, as radical and destructive as Reagan was, Nixon was the vilest, most contemptible sack of puke to stink up the Oval Office in my lifetime. When he died, they should have tossed his corpse in a landfill somewhere and let the seagulls at him.
 
2013-03-16 02:19:28 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


It can be difficult for a politician to compete without matching rhetoric.

What a politician then chooses to act on is perhaps the more important bit.
 
2013-03-16 02:27:42 PM
Nixon is one of two ex-Presidents whose graves I would enjoy pissing on.

/Wilson is the other
 
2013-03-16 02:31:52 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: TheOther: lordjupiter: TheOther: malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.

I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."

RTFA: They didn't want to out Nixon at the time because it would expose the FBI for tapping the S. Vietnamese ambassador's phone.

Whether you believe that's the real reason or not is up to you.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.


I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.
...



Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.
 
2013-03-16 02:48:46 PM

lucksi: Just imagine what we will learn when they finally release the JFK files. Can't be long now...

Maybe in 40 years we will also learn which corporation was behind 9/11


you mean when they release the JFK files in 2038?
 
2013-03-16 03:00:56 PM

Baron Harkonnen: Kibbler: Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.

Not by any means. But the price in blood he paid was the highest.


If we're talking about all presidents shedding blood in the name of their own pigheaded glory, what Teddy Roosevelt did in the Phillipines us probably the worst. But point taken.
 
2013-03-16 03:02:28 PM
We can know about things like this because we have the tapes and other records from these administrations.

George W Bush's administration shredded all the files in their last days. But I'm sure there was nothing questionable, they just destroyed the files so the GW Bush Presidential Library wouldn't be boring.  You know, more room for pac-man and frogger machines.
 
2013-03-16 03:06:51 PM

lordjupiter: Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.


Obviously, I don't see how it makes things worse, then or afterward.  Thieu already believes the US is selling him out at the peace talks, so what's a little bugging compared to that?...and, even if they did not have the technology to detect or stop it, the Vietnamese had to assume their lines were tapped...assuming Nixon didn't get that information and tell them, anyway.

As it turned out, Nixon was elected; the war went on, Americans kept dying, the war was eventually lost, but the 'War on Personal Freedom' got a big boost...but Thank God the South Vietnamese didn't know for sure that the US was bugging their ambassador, because that would have just been...what?
 
2013-03-16 03:07:06 PM
He had no mojo, Nixon.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:32 PM
i.imgur.com

Har-de-har-har!
 
2013-03-16 03:21:01 PM

MFAWG: X-boxershorts: Animatronik: This story is not new, it gets pulled out every 10 or 15 years. No doubt Nixon was an ass, but I doubt the talks in Nov. 1968 would have ended the war.

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.

So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?


August, 2004. Sen. John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, found to be in secret talks with tribal coalitions in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Hey, they're just talking here!
 
2013-03-16 03:22:14 PM
I guess the Republican party has been treasonous for longer than we'd first thought.
 
2013-03-16 03:34:07 PM

Frederick: It's no surprise that "war time president" was a continuous mantra during each Bush presidency.


GAT_00: Par for the course for a Republican President.


you guys seem to be forgetting that LBJ lied to get us into the war. getting off active duty late in the year before i remember the summer of '64 well. the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the prelude to LBJ's war powers act. it wasn't so much that he wanted to kick NVA ass as he needed some sort of rallying cry to get elected in his own right. remember JFK kept LBJ well in the background so he was little known nor loved.

it was my first time to vote. in my heart i knew who was right and that's who i voted for.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:13 PM
This is an old story.  The article only tangentially touches a major point:  There is no evidence that Nixon knew how far Mrs. Chennault had gone.   Part of the reason Humphrey didn't press the point was that he wasn't sure if Nixon was orchestrating Mrs. Chennault's amateur diplomacy.

I'm old enough to remember the '68 election.  There were a lot of things that sank the Democrats that year--the campaign of George Wallace, which drew a lot of white working class voters away from the Democrats (especially after Robert Kennedy's assassination in June), which was a factor that caused Humphrey to lose states like Ohio and Illinois; the repression, by a Democratic mayor, of the demonstrators at the Democratic convention in Chicago (August), which soured many people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on Humphrey, and our continued involvement in Vietnam, escalated by two Democratic administrations.  I also remember hearing a lot of Democrats going around saying what a crumb Humphrey was, that he was Johnson's sock puppet, etc., etc.  Maybe so, I remember thinking at the time, but the alternative is Dick Nixon.

A few hundred thousand votes more for Humphrey in some key states like California, Illinois, and Ohio might have swung the election to Humphrey.  A little more wagon-circling and a little less infighting among Democrats in 1968 might have produced these votes.  Say what you like about Humphrey, but if he had been elected we would have been spared the presidency of Dick Nixon--which would have been a fortunate result indeed had it turned out that way.
 
2013-03-16 03:55:25 PM

whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.


DID YOU KNOW IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS THAT WANTED TO CONTINUE SLAVERY?!?!?!?!?!
 
2013-03-16 04:05:56 PM

earthworm2.0: lj1330: Well, my take on this:  This is a glaring example of the resoult of looking only toward the destination instead of the journey. It is time for conservatives to start looking at trying to get things with honor.  Look at what cheating gets you?  The truth comes out, it allways does.  Now people like to say that both sides are bad. There are bad liberals.  We don't (as a whole) condone that.  Conservatives promote it!

Having the truth come out doesn't seem to be having any ill effects on them. Nixon got to die of natural causes, carter pardoned him.... Ollie north became a politician.... Having the truth come.out is not a real consequence that has aneffect. There's no justice. A black kid sells a crack rock and gets jail for 10 years. Nixon is responsible for the deaths of at least 22,000 people, and got nothing. Having truth does not equal meaningful justice.


let me add Bush not in jail or the flames of hell to your list.

and btw i will never understand the resurrection of ollie north. slip him a few bucks for a job well done if that's what you believe but to have him back out front? wtf it's a constant reminder of one of st ronnies big failings. although i have seen folks on the TV going weak in the knees about meeting him. so what's up with that? proof these folks have no shame?
 
2013-03-16 04:22:07 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.

Obviously, I don't see how it makes things worse, then or afterward.  Thieu already believes the US is selling him out at the peace talks, so what's a little bugging compared to that?...and, even if they did not have the technology to detect or stop it, the Vietnamese had to assume their lines were tapped...assuming Nixon didn't get that information and tell them, anyway.

As it turned out, Nixon was elected; the war went on, Americans kept dying, the war was eventually lost, but the 'War on Personal Freedom' got a big boost...but Thank God the South Vietnamese didn't know for sure that the US was bugging their ambassador, because that would have just been...what?



Rationalizing all of the known treachery away with selective application of assumptions and facts accomplishes...what?
 
2013-03-16 04:48:21 PM
Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.
 
2013-03-16 04:58:23 PM

PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?


Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.
 
2013-03-16 05:07:30 PM

abb3w: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?

Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.


Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be  there, and ffs it doesn't need to be  Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

/I know, I know, it'll never happen, but still...
 
2013-03-16 06:03:03 PM

PsiChick: abb3w: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?

Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.

Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be  there, and ffs it doesn't need to be  Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

/I know, I know, it'll never happen, but still...


Make it an Executive branch office, and they'll be drone killing pols in no time. Perfectly legal, too!
 
2013-03-16 06:16:46 PM

PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.


Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.
 
2013-03-16 06:22:33 PM
i.imgur.com

"And then I told them that I had a secret plan for getting us out of Vietnam!"
 
2013-03-16 06:26:17 PM
No way. Next you're going to tell me Republicans lied to start a war in Iraq, needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people. Oh wait...
 
2013-03-16 06:29:42 PM

cptjeff: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.

Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.


Or allow someone to be prosecuted for, say, war crimes...I mean, look at Bush. Prosecuting him would have been a great move for not just Americans, but for our foreign policy. It wouldn't have been suicide, and if they broke the law, 'well, they won't win the next election' is hardly any sort of victory for rule of law.
 
2013-03-16 06:35:55 PM

PsiChick: cptjeff: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.

Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.

Or allow someone to be prosecuted for, say, war crimes...I mean, look at Bush. Prosecuting him would have been a great move for not just Americans, but for our foreign policy. It wouldn't have been suicide, and if they broke the law, 'well, they won't win the next election' is hardly any sort of victory for rule of law.


There is no justice in the legal system.

Welcome to the past 4,000 years.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:27 PM

Ishkur: So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right? Moonlanding, second gunman, tower 7, Roswell, Clinton body count, New World Order, the Fed, electric car, Illuminati, AIDS, crack cocaine, MK Ultra, Philadelphia Experiment, chemtrails, numbers stations, Dick Clark, bigfoot, HAARP, fluoride, the Trilateral Commission and the reverse vampires all framed Nixon with these tapes. Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.

We're through the looking glass, people.


I know you're trolling and/or joking (and I know I'm gonna get flamed for this), but the definition of a conspiracy -- "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act" -- seems to include an awful lot of political activity in general. Some dictionaries add "surreptitious" to the definition, which would encompass basically everything the CIA does.

Discounting the use of a term due to some actual tinfoil hat misuses of it (as prevalent as they may be from time to time) creates an excuse to write off or ignore dangerous activity.

The MAFIA was clearly a criminal conspiracy. Watergate was most certainly a wrongful act and, whether or not it falls under the definition of criminal, there were more than two people involved (several Nixon administration officials DID go to prison over it, which would seem to indicate it fell under the definition of criminal), which makes it a conspiracy. MKUltra was a real, documented program -- even if the extent of it may have been exaggerated, it still falls under the definition of a conspiracy as some wrongful acts were certainly intentionally committed.

So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right?

No, it doesn't. But that line of thought makes it so much easier to discount a real one in plain sight. Like Hoover did with the Mafia.
 
2013-03-16 06:59:24 PM

MacWizard: Ishkur: So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right? Moonlanding, second gunman, tower 7, Roswell, Clinton body count, New World Order, the Fed, electric car, Illuminati, AIDS, crack cocaine, MK Ultra, Philadelphia Experiment, chemtrails, numbers stations, Dick Clark, bigfoot, HAARP, fluoride, the Trilateral Commission and the reverse vampires all framed Nixon with these tapes. Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.

We're through the looking glass, people.

I know you're trolling and/or joking (and I know I'm gonna get flamed for this), but the definition of a conspiracy -- "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act" -- seems to include an awful lot of political activity in general. Some dictionaries add "surreptitious" to the definition, which would encompass basically everything the CIA does.

Discounting the use of a term due to some actual tinfoil hat misuses of it (as prevalent as they may be from time to time) creates an excuse to write off or ignore dangerous activity.

The MAFIA was clearly a criminal conspiracy. Watergate was most certainly a wrongful act and, whether or not it falls under the definition of criminal, there were more than two people involved (several Nixon administration officials DID go to prison over it, which would seem to indicate it fell under the definition of criminal), which makes it a conspiracy. MKUltra was a real, documented program -- even if the extent of it may have been exaggerated, it still falls under the definition of a conspiracy as some wrongful acts were certainly intentionally committed.

So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right?

No, it doesn't. But that line of thought makes it so much easier to discount a real one in plain sight. Like Hoover did with the Mafia.


I think you're in on it, and I'm reporting you to the proper authorities. Expect a Buttling, sorry, a Tuttling, soon.
 
2013-03-16 07:34:58 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Silly libtards, information from Soviet defectors and KGB documents, obtained after the breakup of the Soviet Union, mostly, MOSTLY vindicated Joe McCarthy. Our government was riddled with spies and Joe should be remebered as a hero.


Our government was riddled with Soviet spies, and Joe didn't identify a single one correctly. It was the classic definition of a witch hunt.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report