SPINNING WHEEL (Forgot how the song goes)

[Lilly]

Look at this sob in action! Clinton was a communist and he tricked half the country!

New York Press | September 6-12, 2000

TOWARD THE END of his appallingly self-congratulatory speech at the Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton put forward a bizarre thesis: "I graduated from high school in 1964. Our country was still very
sad because of President Kennedy’s death, but full of hope under the leadership of President Johnson. And I assumed then, like most Americans, that our economy was absolutely on automatic… And then, before we knew it, there were riots in the streets… The leaders that I adored as a young man-Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy-were
killed… And then we had an election in 1968 that took America on a far different and more divisive course, and, you know, within months after
that election, the last longest economic expansion in history was itself history."

Go Postal

So everything was wonderful in America until that terrible man Richard Nixon came along to spoil it all. America’s subsequent economic problems had nothing to do with the vast expense of the Vietnam War that LBJ had refused to raise taxes to pay for. Three days later, Al Gore parroted his boss’ startling insight: "I finished college at a time
when…our nation’s spirit was being depleted. We saw the assassination of our best leaders. Appeals to racial backlash. And the first warning signs of Watergate. I remember the conversations I had with Tipper
back then-and the doubts we had about the Vietnam War." Gore’s observations were a little more opaque than Clinton’s. What exactly were the "first warning signs of Watergate"? What were his "doubts"
about the Vietnam War? That it is wrong to pulverize a small country? Or that it is only wrong to do so when said small country knows how to fight back and has powerful friends?

Vietnam, Watergate, Nixon - the official liberal version of history must be told and retold with the regard for factual accuracy of a high school textbook from the Stalin era. According to official history, Americans,
instead of falling on their knees in gratitude to leaders like Clinton and Gore-and obviously Kennedy and Johnson-fall for the wily machinations
of a Richard Nixon. It is the theme of Anthony Summers’ trivial and ill-written new book, The Arrogance of Power. The sense of decorum,
which had prevented The New York Times-today’s chief purveyor of official history-from repeating Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation of rape
against Bill Clinton, was notably absent as it retailed gleefully Summers’ ludicrous story of Nixon beating his wife.

The hacks were too busy high-fiving one other in joy at the prospect of four Gore years to wonder if there was not something bizarre about two men, who boast proudly of the number of people they have kicked
off the welfare rolls, attacking as "divisive" a president who had once proposed a federally guaranteed minimum income. The same president had also sought to introduce a comprehensive health insurance plan more than 20 years before Clinton. Nixon’s HMO Act of 1973, incidentally,
institutionalized the system of modern managed care. Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He launched the nation’s "affirmative action" program with his Executive Order 11,478, which required all federal agencies to
prohibit discrimination and provide equal employment opportunity. And he introduced the concept of "goals and timetables" to ensure that federal contractors would have a racially "diverse" labor force. In addition, Nixon’s "war on drugs," unlike Clinton’s, did not involve
spraying the fields of other countries with herbicides or training killers
masquerading as an army to go out and slaughter unarmed civilians.

Nixon expanded methadone programs and other forms of drug treatment. Whatever one may think of the programs of the Nixon administration, it towers in legislative achievement next to Clinton’s inconsequential White House tenure. Yet this is not how official history tells it. More than 25 years after Nixon’s resignation one is still supposed to
shudder at the mention of his name. Imagine-Nixon had asked the CIA to lean on the FBI to curtail their investigation of the Watergate break-in! Now, that is a violation of the oath of office; that goes beyond the bounds of constitutional propriety; that is an impeachable offense.
Ordering the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro as the Kennedys did, on the
other hand, falls well within the purview of the oath of office. Ordering the CIA to overthrow the legitimate governments of Iran and
Guatemala is also apparently well within the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency.

The United States bombs Iraq on an almost daily basis to enforce the so-called "no fly zones." Neither the bombing nor the "no fly zones" have ever been authorized by any United Nations Security Council resolution. During the last bombing spree on Yugoslavia-also a violation of international law-Clinton explicitly targeted President Slobodan Milosevic. This is a violation of U.S. law, which forbids the assassination of foreign leaders. Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to distract the public’s attention from his lies about Monica Lew-D-insky. The media cheered Clinton throughout.

Official history will have us believe that Nixon should have simply pulled U.S. troops out of Vietnam the moment he took over. Almost four years
after all U.S. troops were supposed to have left Bosnia, they are still there, with no prospect of withdrawal anytime soon. U.S. troops in
Kosovo are also there to stay. This elicits almost no protest. The purveyors of "official history" are only "troubled" by foreign
entanglements against tough opponents like the Vietnamese. Beating up weaklings like Noriega or Slobo or Saddam is so much more fun.

************


The article about the Nixon-bashers could not be more pertinent. We are all concerned about the direction of your politics (liberal media bias, political correctness) and culture (debased and degraded). While everyone locates the current state of affairs in the 60's and the Vietnam War, I've long believed that the Watergate affair has been overlooked as a contributing factor.

I remember being just amazed at the speed with which the media capitulated to the Left's version of Watergate. At first, there was an attempt by some sections of the media to try to put the Watergate revelations in perspective. But the media rhetoric became increasngly intimidating and manipulative and, by about the time of the Saturday Night Nassacre in late 1973, the Left had completely overwhelmed the debate. Then it just became the media barking the Left's adversarial blather.

I have always had questions about the received wisdom on Watergate provided by the Left. Given the confrontational, violent activities of the Left, were the concerns of the Nixon administration really so surprising or unreasonable? Does the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist only to give the Left everything it wants and to beat opponents over the head? Was it really just about the Left's prejudice of evil Nixon vs. virtuous protesters? Was there an aspect of frustration over the fact that the Left's candidate George McGovern lost the election? Who died and made the Left our official moral authority anyway?

Then there are the disturbing messages communicated by the media that first appeared during the affair and have echoed down through the years, none of which will enhance the cause of political plurality : "We the Left are allowed to do whatever we want, regardless of the law or national security or national interest, whereas you the non-Left may not do anything to protect or defend yourselves." "We are allowed to have our hatred, anger, enemies, foul language and name-calling but no one else is." "We believe only we the Left (by our definition good) are allowed to interpret and define political events whereas you the non-Left (by our definition bad) are not".

Although some books have discussed it, there has been virtually no media inquiry into "strumpetgate" the new theory of recent years which holds that the original burglary was not related to the election but rather to rumors of a call-girl ring that surrounded the Democratic National Committee.

My intent is not to completely defend Richard Nixon. The Watergate burglary was a dumb, stupid thing that should not ever have occurred and Nixon terribly mishandled it. Some members of his administration did things they should not have done. But the issues were very much more complicated than media portrayals and I don't think the cause of truth is served by viewing his presidency entirely through the lens of Watergate or viewing Watergate entirely through the lens of the adversarial media, a lens provided by the Left. My major concern is independence of thought and research which liberalism, with its official sanction of tolerance, openness and free expression should not be afraid of.

David Horowitz's greatest service has been to rip the veil off the Left and expose its hatred, violence, hidden agendas and collaboration with foreign totalitarians. This, plus "strumpetgate" plus the revelations over the years about other presidents and their activities (and the way their reputations have been largely unaffected) plus this current round of Clinton scandals (and the far more muted media response to them) make me think the time is nigh for a more critical, scholarly and objective appraisal of Watergate.

History will remember Richard Nixon for his accomplishments. Clinton is so busy loving himself to death he can't see what a complete boob he really is. Clinton has his legacy. He has freed Richard Nixon from the chains he himself now wears. They are much larger chains and, with any amount of justice, after he leaves "our" White House they will surely pull him down.

One gets so fed up with media Nixon beating. Not only is that horse long-since dead; but as George points out, Nixon was a far better Lefty prez than any Lefty prez has been, because Nixon got things done. Sadly, he may be remembered a century from now as the Executive Branch's Earl Warren. But he will not be harshly remembered -- because the misdeeds of Bill Clinton will overshadow anything Nixon did.

[Lilly]

I forgot to add that I an American guy who always said "Saint Richard Nixon", because this guy personally did not have to go to Vietnam, thanks to Nixon. Did Clinton forget that it was a war that was not started under Nixon, yet ended under him?

[the_Gipper]

Yes the liberal free press exploited the Nixon administrations burglary of the WATERGATE HOTEL..

Did you know that the 72 election of nixon was the greatest landslide election in the history of the usa?
He didnt need to spy on the DNC at all to win the election.

And his foreign policy was the best, nobody ever mentions this

[the_Gipper]

if the truth were known, Nixon wasnt a bad man, just a sick man at the end of his administration. HE WENT OFF THE DEEP END

[the_Gipper]

What goes up,
Must come down
Spinnin Wheel,
Spinnin Around
Drop all your troubles by the riverside,
(cant remember anymore)

[Lilly]

I saw a 2-hour documentary on the History Channel a while back based on Anthony Summers' trivial and ill-written new book, "The Arrogance of Power."

The documentary was a left-wing hatchet job on Nixon's personality, painting him as a hard drinking, wife-beating, prescription-drug-abusing psychopath who badly needed a psychologist but didn't have the personal courage to keep seeing one, for fear of political consequences. All this was supposedly driven by his "desire for power and control by a man who was never cut out to be a politician."

It never mentions any of the accomplishments that he achieved while in office, except for the China and Russia trips. But, of course, they were only done to undercut the North Vietnamese war effort. Yeah, right.

But what can you expect from a good leftist like Summers? He is only trying to do his job, that is, defeat and discredit capitalism.

[Lilly]

Originally posted by the_Gipper
What goes up,
Must come down
Spinnin Wheel,
Spinnin Around
Drop all your troubles by the riverside,
(cant remember anymore)

That's it Gipper, but I thought the last line was "drop your drawers by the riverside....