Watergate's Deep Throat Revealed

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

people who sign up for the military know there is a chance(or extreme likeliness) they will leave their families.

You mean the recruiters never used a line like "Well, in theory the National Guard could be called up, but that hasn't happened since World War II"?

I'm just saying that every effort has been made to disguise the true cost of this war from the public, and that groups who approve of the adminstration's social agenda are not making any effort to address this.

Personally, the desperation to ship mommy off just shows how much manpower is being stretched. I guess she's lucky to have been able to wean the kid.

[lookout123]

Personally, the desperation to ship mommy off just shows how much manpower is being stretched. I guess she's lucky to have been able to wean the kid.

what are you talking about? did i miss the newsbrief about the military scouring the roles for moms to deploy? deployments are based on numbers called billets or UTCs. when they are deciding who to deploy, they pool the numbers. the people associated with those numbers then deploy.

if i remember correctly, GWB hasn't led a campaign to require women be pressed into combat duty. in fact, i remember a number of years of advocacy groups demanding that women have the RIGHT to be assigned to any billet they are intellectually and physically qualified for - including combat arms billets. they won the battle against the nasty, evil conservatives and old school pentagon types who said sending women into battle would not be a net positive (some for valid reasons, some not). this is the result. women got the right to slide into nearly every military career field, resulting in women filling a number of forward area billets.

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite. if women weren't sent then some advocacy group would, no doubt, sue the evil repressive pentagon powers that be.

You mean the recruiters never used a line like "Well, in theory the National Guard could be called up, but that hasn't happened since World War II"?

not in a very long time, if ever. no one joins the military without the very basic understanding they are joining an organization that is meant for war.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite.

Twisting a logical post about a 'military so stretched' into a Rush Limbaugh response. The military is literally sending everyone available - even moms with one year old kids - into combat. Even recruiters who can't find sufficient recruits are being deployed to Iraq rather than recruiting more troops. Will they recruit Iraqis into the US military? Of course not. The military is that desperate for troops in the "Mission Accomplished" war. People who normally would not be deployed due to extenuating circumstances are now being sent to a country that is no longer a threat.

Meanwhile, bin Laden still roams free as George Jr still does nothing sufficient to find America's real enemy. Even moms of one year are deployed. The military would have never done that had the administration gone after bin Laden instead of a 'threat to no one' Saddam.

Even when the military cannot recruit enough troops, instead, we are reducing the number of active recruiters to fill the ranks in Iraq - where things have been getting better for years. Everyone - even less than one year moms - must be sent into combat because we have such a moral president.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite. if women weren't sent then some advocacy group would, no doubt, sue the evil repressive pentagon powers that be.

not in a very long time, if ever. no one joins the military without the very basic understanding they are joining an organization that is meant for war.

I don't have a problem with sending women into combat. I do have a problem with sending new mothers into combat. Unless you think that morale is so bad that women will be deliberately getting pregnant to avoid call up (which they can do anyway), I don't think delaying the deployment of the mother of a 1-year-old would be wrong.

As for 'basic understanding', well, some recruiters can deal with that.

[warch]

I'm all for women, gays, any orientation voluntarily joining up, trained and equipt well, and serving in any and all capacitites. It will be interesting to see how the recruitment pressures may alter these policies- with the threat of draft potentially looming.

Here's an interesting article about the legislative attempt and legislative backpedal to keep women away from combat. In Iraq, thats not really possible, its all combat.
So is the need for any/all soldiers more than the need to control the public perception of dead young women soldiers and conservative religious views? A little Republican on Republican action.
sexism and hiding the cost of war

[Happy Monkey]

When G. Gordon Liddy was uncomfortably sandwiched between Howard Stern and Don and Mike in DC, I'd occasionally tune in. One of his arguments against women in combat was that Americans didn't want to see uteruses scattered around the battlefield.

I gotta say he's right about that, but I'm not much keener to see penises scattered around the battlefield either.

[lookout123]

from my perspective, the public voices against women in combat operations are just foolishly pounding a drum to a beat they don't understand.

i am not opposed to women in combat. i am opposed to having women shuffled into combat arms positions without volunteering. i am opposed to having a selective service for women.

that being said, there is one major negative to women in combat. they are fully capable of doing the same job as the men are. tiny 5 ft nothing ladies don't volunteer for the airborne so i'm not worried about any physical issues. i am considered about the psychological issue. it was a horrible movie, but GI JANE had one scene that was very accurate. the scene was when Vigo M. said that the problem with women in combat isn't with the women, it is with the men. most men could not handle women being severely wounded, etc.. in their presence. most guys i know have an instinctive expectation that women are to be protected - sometimes that is incompatible with the appropriate actions in a combat situation.

chauvanistic? maybe, but it is true. the men will just have to get over it, if women want to be in a combat role.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

... but GI JANE had one scene that was very accurate. the scene was when Vigo M. said that the problem with women in combat isn't with the women, it is with the men. most men could not handle women being severely wounded, etc.. in their presence. most guys i know have an instinctive expectation that women are to be protected - sometimes that is incompatible with the appropriate actions in a combat situation.

chauvanistic? maybe, but it is true. the men will just have to get over it, if women want to be in a combat role.

I am rather surprised at a pragmatic attitude from lookout123. This issue has mystified me for some time now. From my emotions, I agree with Vigo M's assertions. But then that is also where my racism comes from - first impressions. The logical me has had doubts for some time. Is the problem of 'women on the line' based upon a man's response? Maybe. But where is the research - the necessary facts?

For example, why does the soldier fight? For god and country? Bull - only in a world of extremist liberals and neocons. #1 reason - soldier fights to protect his buddies. They are all just more muddy souls - black or white, man or women, eyes, hair, size, whatever. The bond must be made 'brain to brain' - the bias of external features eliminated. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses. They are all Storm Troopers for the Republic. Good buddies - man or woman - must not matter? When the Storm Trooper in the latest Star Wars movie had a buddy down, what did he do? He stopped fighting and took care of his buddy. Even mindless soldiers called Storm Trooper do that. Why would it matter if it was a man or women? IOW where are the facts so necessary before expressing an opinion?

It’s convenient to have an emotional response. Then one need not perform reading and research. Meanwhile, others demand facts?

Do I express an opinion yes or no? If you think so, then you also have this problem I so often confront. It’s a ternary world. Others unfortunately may assume the world is binary - and ttherefore assume I have expressed an opinion.

I bring one observation to the table. When running volunteer groups, groups with all women (at least at the teenager age) work best. Strength has nothing to do with physical size or testosterone. Mixed groups or groups of all guys don't always work as productively. This is rather a change from the seventies - using my perspective - when the guys did every crap job and never complained. My bias? I came from a circle and community where accomplishment was so 'inbrained' (yes I know it is suppose to be ingrained) that we literally were #1 or #2 in every athletic sport. So maybe I have some unreasonable 1960s bias that distorts my perceptions. But when it comes to getting jobs done today, the worst jobs were performed successfully by groups numerically dominated by women.

It is my perception - an observation - that today's teenage women are tougher than today's teenage men. I never ask anyone to do anything I would not and have not done. And yet some guys will literally give up on what the old man would still do.

Ok. I have stated what was observed. Are women in military combat a problem? My gut feeling is - no definitive answer. Now where are the studies?

Those with a political agenda - those who fear to first learn - would keep women far away from combat? It's called equality verses a quitter’s attitude. Until they can prove this is a problem (logically or pragmatically), then they better damn well prove they don't have some extremist agenda. Currently there is no good reason that some soldiers should be banned from any military duty only based upon sex. Its time to learn what we all can and cannot accomplish. Until we have facts, extremist politicians should button their propaganda holes. Time to first provide real facts (and do the research) rather then let Rush Limbaugh reasoning dominate the issue. The concepts cited in GI Jane are based upon fiction. Many fiction writers fail to first do two years of research. GI Jane only asks a question - and provides no facts. Where are the facts?

Meanwhile, using same speculations, lookout123 also condemns Mark Felt for doing what we now konw was so important in perserving the US Constituion. That too is a fact only made even more obvious by recent releases of the Nixon tapes (which I believe can be listened to in the U of Maryland library). Nixon was so bad that Mark Felt deserves nothing but praise. Facts again in the face of lookout123's emotional attitudes.

[lookout123]

Facts again in the face of lookout123's emotional attitudes.

once again, tw WTF are you talking about? i don't revere Mark Felt the way you do, so i must be making emotional assumptions? his work in helping bring down a crooked politician is a positive. i still think that he could and should have done it a better way. that's just me though, you are free to think whatever you want - just don't make the assumption that because my thoughts differ from your own that i must be irrational and wrong.

did you even read my post toward the top of the page? or is this just another example of you choosing to ignore something that hits a little close to home?

and about providing proof for male reactions to the presence of female danger on the battlefield - you know as well as anyone that it is unproveable one way or the other. human emotion and reaction to these stresses is unquantifiable. in that area, i will have to go back to my experiences in the military in deployed situations over the last 13 years - i'm the air force so most of our jobs aren't classified as combat (which means we have women in almost every job) and yet, we have been in combat zones frequently. i stand by my earlier post.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

once again, tw WTF are you talking about? i don't revere Mark Felt the way you do, so i must be making emotional assumptions?

The bible does not tell you how to regard whistle blowers. And since whistle blowers are a threat to a lying president, then Mark Felt must be evil. That is clearly what you have posted. You are just trying to be too politically correct to be honest.

"WTF" - clearly there is a devil in you. Or are you just being emotional (angry) again. God may smite you. Be careful what you post.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i stand by my earlier post.

Just as George Jr stood by claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Anyone can use emotions to conclude anything. But if women in combat was such a problem, then the problem can even be quantified. Lookout123 instead would have us believe it cannot be quantified. Rush Limbaugh type propaganda.

No facts exist or prove that women in combat is a problem, just as there are not facts in lookout123's reasoning. He just *feels* it must be true. That is sufficient for him to declare it a fact.

And so we have the same logic that also justifies evolution. "I feel, therefore it must be true".

[warch]

That G. Gordon Liddy attracts anything but laughter and derision baffles me.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

But if women in combat was such a problem, then the problem can even be quantified.

All problems must be quantifiable or they are not problems? What a binary view of the world.

Originally Posted by tw

Are women in military combat a problem? My gut feeling is - no definitive answer.

Your gut feeling? Holy shit, that sounds exactly like something you FEEL. You're such an emotional basket-case tw.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You want emotion?
Deep Throat was a God. I worshipped him with countless bowls of incense.
It was a dark and scary time for anyone that knew what the Nixon White House was doing to this country.
Eroding democracy at a prodigious rate in three ways:

1- Using public office for private enrichment.
Let’s see…damn cobwebs….grain scandal, ITT scandal, several housing scandals, federal Bank Charter scandal, suddenly aborted anti-trust suits. Oh yeah, the milk deal, blatantly blackmailing the Dairy Farmers Assoc for several hundred grand in campaign donations before raising the federal price supports on milk.
There have always been politicians that lined their pockets while in office, but they did so in whispers, clandestinely and if it became public knowledge most of them slithered away or were summarily dismissed.
Tricky Dick & Company, however, were blatantly out in the open with their systematic fouling of the democratic system for personal gain.

2-Secret campaign funds kept offshore.
A large network of spies, burglars, security coordinators and saboteurs, bugging phones, wiring offices, forging documents and carrying guns to intimidate anyone questioning them.
All this with blessings from the very top crook.

3-Usurping constitutional powers by the White House.
Invading Cambodia and bombing Laos on Nixon’s say so, without the advice and consent of Congress.
Instead of vetoing bills he didn’t support and then live with the decision of Congress on an override vote, Nixon ordered an Executive Impoundment of funding for federal programs he didn’t like.
Something like 25 billion dollars worth. (That’s early 1970s dollars)

There was a war going on….and on….and on, with no likely end. It became apparent that winning was out of the question. They weren’t even trying to win just stop the commies from winning.
Besides, war is handy for taking those colored boys, redneck hillbillies, and long haired hippie types and making good citizens out of them. The Army does that you know.
Since Johnson declared we could have “guns and butter,” most middle class and up families weren’t affected too much other than the evening news was not conducive to watching during supper.
Oh they might lose a son here and there but more likely the maid’s son, gardener’s son or car mechanic’s son.

People, like my parents, coming from very humble beginnings and rising with the post WW II prosperity to become the middleclass, were living better that they had hoped to and were making the payments on time.
They still believed in the government and certainly didn’t want to rock their financial boat.
They were scared to death of communism, the bomb and hippies.

Except for a few screams in the night, the only recognition that all this shit was going on and more importantly it was WRONG, was the Washington Post/Woodward/Bernstein/Deep Throat.
To suggest Deep Throat could have gone to Congress or the Press is silly.
IF THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS.
They’d have shot the messenger.

I’ve made the same plea here in the Cellar. Read the post – evaluate it on its merits – don’t disregard good information because you don’t like or trust the person posting.
Even we idiots are right, sometimes even brilliant, on rare occasions.

Anyway, Deep Throat was a God that shone like a beacon in a dark and stormy night.

[richlevy]

I completely agree with TW's last post (I won't comment on any others). The recent attempt to rewrite history - 'What Nixon did wasn't that bad', 'Nixon was a great statesman with only a few minor faults', is the Republican party's attempt at belated damage control using their new media power.

While there had been crooked presidents before Nixon, the public had become somewhat spoiled by Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, FDR, and Eisenhower. While some of these men made controversial decisions, public and private, there was a sense that these were true populists. These men were intelligent, but were regarded as fair dealers. They were men who honest, but smart enough to deal with men who weren't.

Nixon brought pettiness and pure self-interest to the White House and got caught doing it. In his defense some people might say that his not being personally wealthy and not having wealthy friends like FDR did, he had to work harder and cut corners to stay in office and lead. Of course, their were many other presidents who were not born wealthy who seemed to have been able to reach and keep the office without resorting to the level of corruption of the Nixon White House.

There have been great presidents in the past, and many of them were Republicans. Some conservative presidents like Coolidge have left a legacy of poor foreign policy and corporate interference in government, but others were true populists. Even Coolidge was a dedicated public servant.

Nixon's actions in the White House tainted his party for a least a generation, injected a (healthy?) cynicism of future presidents in a population already affected by Vietnam, and unfortunately may have provided a playbook for future less-than-honest administrations.

Of course people are trying to polish up Nixon's image at the same time we are dismantling the checks on power that were established because of Nixon's actions.

We have allowed the special prosecutor law to expire. We are discussing not only renewing some of the most controversial Patriot Act provisions, but making them permanent . In all, we are setting ourselves up for a future Nixon II who will have more unchecked power than any president in the 20th century.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
George Santayana