Watergate's Deep Throat Revealed
Identity of 'Deep Throat' Source Revealed
In a statement issued later, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."
The reporters and Bradlee had kept the identity of Deep Throat secret at his request, saying his name would be revealed upon his death. But then Felt revealed it himself.
I wan't sure I would ever know this secret. I don't ever remember this guy's name being even mentioned as a candidate for "Deep Throat", but I was wrong.
The identity of the source has sparked endless speculation over the last three decades. Nixon chief of staff Alexander Haig, White House press aide Diane Sawyer, White House counsel John Dean and speechwriter Pat Buchanan were among those mentioned as possibilities.
Felt himself was mentioned several times over the years as a candidate for Deep Throat, but he regularly denied that he was the source.
It's actually pretty historic.
If they ever gave a medal for whistleblowing, this guy earned one. I'd love to see Bush have the balls to recommend this guy for the Medal of Freedom. Of course, considering the secrets probably roaming the halls of our current adminstration, I think he'd be afraid to encourage someone.
I really thought it would be someone we all knew...
i saw this earlier but figured it was a gag. i didn't realize it had been confirmed.
i remember my high school history teacher telling us that we would know who deepthroat was but he would probably go to his grave not knowing. i should follow up and see if the teacher is still alive.
Well, this is certainly a big week for coming out of the closet. :biggrin:
Richlevy is right. W. Mark Felt is the whistler blower of epic proportions. It's good that he could enjoy talking about it before he passed. Good for him.
Many -especially those who only know Watergate from the movie "All The President's Men" - don't realize how severe and endangered the US Government really was at that time. As the Supreme Court was deciding US verses Richard Nixon (a 9-0 vote), the court was also considering what to do should the president order troops to occupy the Supreme Court building. Yes, Washington was becoming that scary back then. Nixon's own people, by this point, had ordered the military to ignore any presidential request to launch missiles until confirmation came from a select group (which included the Sec of Defense). Yes, they even worried that Nixon might go berserk.
One must also remember that outside of Woodward and Bernstein, litteraly no one was doing any serious reporting on Watergate. As Nixon was parading in his second inauguration, jurors who were deliberating the Watergate burglar trial watched the Nixon motorcade go past. Hardly any news sources were reporting on Watergate then. And yet the crisis could have (doubtful but some still worried about the possibility) developed into a coup.
When were the last time there was no network TV and no commercials for continuous weeks for every minute of the Senate Watergate hearings. Literally no commercials and no TV during those weeks. Same with the impeachment hearings. It was back then that serious a threat to the US Constitution. And as we all well know, Nixon was a crook. He even lied about being a crook on national TV.
IEEE Spectrum reports on the man who led a study on those missing 18.5 minutes on those tapes - James Flanagan of the Bell Labs. The tape had been erased in at least five segments. Erasures that required hand operation of keyboard controls (at least 5 times) and definitely not by the foot pedal or by accident as Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods had speculated. The tape has been preserved so that some day a technology might recover those 18 minutes where the Watergate conspiracy is said to have been discussed in detail.
But there is no doubt people like Deep Throat and Judge Sirica are classic examples of what a Medal of Freedom winner are suppose to be.
However who would want it. A man who even violated principles well taught in 500 BC, Ambassador Bremmer, and who created the Iraqi insurgency, is a Medal of Freedom winner. Clearly the Medal does not deserve such stellar American heroes such as Mark Felt.
A remaining question is how important was Felt to Woodward and Bernstein - who have said so little about Felt. It is quite possible that Woodward and Bernstein would have been removed from their Watergate investigation had not Mark Felt come forward. The 'powers that be' back then were so adverse to suggestions that Watergate existed - which was why Watergate was so little reported outside of the Washington Post. Back then, the US could unilaterally attack any nation and that other nation "must have been wrong". The mentality of those times - the president was never wrong. Never.
Again, most don't realize how severe and endangered the US Government really was at that time. Few have any idea of the balls it took for Ms Graham to permit those Watergate stories be reported. Washington had become a very scary place in Nixon's time.
Lets also not forget when the US came closest to all out Nuclear war. Not during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was during the height of the Watergate scandel.
Meanwhile, where is Jimmy Hoffa? Maybe Elvis will come out of hiding to tell us?
I was almost certain that it was Pat Buchanan.
I was almost certain that it was Pat Buchanan.
Me too!
I was almost certain that it was Pat Buchanan.
My bet had been on the assistant presidental console - the Attorney who was second in command to John Dean. I don't even remember seeing Felt on a list of potential suspects.
i saw this earlier but figured it was a gag.
How did you guys pass on this one?
Deep Throat... gag...
Or was that one even to low for you guys?
it's sort of a let down... i was expecting a huge name!
Conspiracy theories will need to be rewritten. Can't wait to see the new batch.
OK, I guess I'm just not old enough or politically savvy enough, but can someone tell me why this is such a huge deal? Does it matter who did the telling or that it was told? Is it just a matter of "Oh! Didn't see that coming!" type of interest, or does this shake the country's politicos to their knickers?
I think people are just excited that the answer has been revealed, and not excited too much about what the answer actually is.
Conspiracy theories will need to be rewritten. Can't wait to see the new batch.
Don't give up on this one yet. From the AP story via Yahoo:
For some, it raises new questions.
"I never thought he was in the loop to have the information," John Dean, counsel in Nixon's White House and the government's top informant in the Watergate investigation, told The Associated Press. "How in the world could Felt have done it alone?"bernstein has said all along that DEEPTHROAT wasn't just one person. there were multple sources - you know back when reporters checked for corroboration before printing the story.
nixon was dirty. impeachment was justified. i don't think that there is any questioning the facts there. what i don't get is why anyone would think that the #2 guy at the FBI becoming an informant to a couple of journalists is a good thing. in his position the proper course of action would have been to follow the proper legal channels - investigate, grand jury, etc. at the very least - go PUBLIC with this info and then watch the vultures swarm. this just smells of an action by a man who hated Nixon (justifiably) and had information of illegal activities and when he came to the crossroads of blowing the whistle for altruistic reason vs. possible personal benefit he chose the path that could possibly enrich him. did he receive any stipends from woodward and bernstein?
nixon was a shitbag, but it seems like felt is too.
OK, I guess I'm just not old enough or politically savvy enough, but can someone tell me why this is such a huge deal?
Literally most everyone above Felt was in on or participating in the Watergate coverup, the plumbers, and numerous other crimes intentionally initiated by the White House. Ironically who was also part of another embarrassment - a previous misuse of power for the same reasons – the McCarthy hearings? Nixon was also involved there.
Name another whistle blower who did more to save the US Government. You can't. Deep Throat was the mother of all whistle blowers in a time when whistle blowing was illegal and never considered neccesary. For almost a year, numerous crimes conducted by high level people in the US Government and absolutely no one to go to about these crimes. No one. Nada. There would be no special Watergate prosecutor for another year. The revelations so massive and - well - every day was another 'punch you in the face' relevation in those Senate hearings. There was no TV all day for weeks - except for the Watergate hearings. Did that ever happen in your lifetime? No, because the foundations of the US government were never so much under attack. Literally everyone in position of power in the White House was involved. And there probably would have been no investigation if Felt had not done as he did - at great risk to himself.
The expression "don't trust anyone over 30" was just another sound byte so accurately describing how corrupt the US Government had become. Everyone did drugs because the government lied. Smoking a joint only proved again what liars our government was. This in a time when so many refused to believe government would lie.
BTW, these are all symptoms of Vietnam - a war conducted without a smoking gun and continued using lies. The Watergate burglars were created because of the Pentagon Papers - the first real facts we had that the American government was lying about Vietnam. The 'everyone hates me' attitude, the enemies list, and so many other gouges in the US Constitution finally came to a head with Watergate - where literally anyone who should be investigating or prosecuting crimes against the government were literally part of the conspiracy.
It may have been 1972. But is it part of the turmoil we call the 60s. Watergate only brought it all to a head.
nixon was a shitbag, but it seems like felt is too.
Rush Limbaugh said the same thing. Who do you believe? History or the opinions of a drug addict and money launder. Rush can't be bothered to say why he has those opinions. But then the ideal that Felt is evil must be promoted considering how many lies the current administration is involved in.
Apparently, Liddy said that Felt was dishonorable. Coming from a thug and criminal conspirator, I find the definition of 'dishonorable' interesting. Buchanan was all over Felt on Hardball. Chris Matthews saved the last word for Ben-Veniste, who was on the Watergate Task Force.
Richard Ben-Veniste was the chief of the Watergate task force of the Watergate special prosecutor‘s office from 1973 through 1975.
Pat Buchanan, Richard, says that the real villains of Watergate were the ones who caught Nixon.
RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION: Well, of course he would. His team lost. It‘s absurd to listen to guys say now tonight that—that Mark Felt was disloyal to Richard Nixon.
Just get your arms around that. The deputy director of the FBI, who provides information that the FBI itself is being corrupted by the president of the United States, the deputy director of CIA sent to the FBI chief to tell...
MATTHEWS: Vernon Walters, right.
BEN-VENISTE: To tell L. Patrick Gray, stop the investigation. You‘re treading on national security interests in Mexico. All bogus. A lie.
And so, all of that, all the efforts to corrupt the CIA and the FBI came to naught when the plot unraveled. They weren‘t the only agencies. There were—the IRS. All of the other abuses which John Mitchell called the White House horrors, all unraveled little by little. But the start of it was Woodward and Bernstein with a lot of help backstage from somebody who knew where to look.
You have to give G.W. Bush and Rumsfeld credit. They spent yesterday tap-dancing around the hero-villain question. They're smart enough to know a political live wire when they see one.
I can't imagine any sitting president commenting on Watergate. Lots of potential for sticking your foot in your mouth, and absolutely no political capital to be gained. It's an interesting historic footnote, nothing more. There have been scads of Deep Throats since then, but presidents have gotten better at dodging their fire because of the lesson of Nixon.
... but presidents have gotten better at dodging their fire because of the lesson of Nixon.
It didn't take lessons from Watergate to teach presidents how to act. Lesson 1: when planning crimes against the US Constitution, then don't record them.
#2. create layers of political insulation, and #3 slowly erode the freedom of information act.
#2. create layers of political insulation, and #3 slowly erode the freedom of information act.
I don't believe there was a Freedom of Information Act back then. As I remember it, the crimes of Richard Nixon were the force that created a Freedom of Information Act.
Nixon did not really use political insulation. During Watergate, Nixon successfully put blame at the lowest level, blaming misguided subordinates for all problems, until Watergate was directly traceable to his two top lieutenants - Halderman and Erhlichman. Why? Thank your god for people like Mark Felt.
A personal note. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst even denied Watergate crimes to his own kids. Crimes that Kleindienst was knowledgeable of, and that he hindered the investigation of. Mitchell, the original Nixon AG, was also fully involved in Watergate. Kleindienst was Mitchell's #1 then.
I am surprised that OnyxCougar would ask:
... but can someone tell me why this is such a huge deal?
I would have thought this was routinely taught in school history classes. But then I lived those times. I sometimes take for granted that others are equally informed of how dangerous Watergate was. Again, the movie "All the President's Men" does not do justice to the real Constitutional threat. Literally every day during those Senate Watergate hearings was about as exciting as the original Star Wars movie.
Those times are why I saw so many lies in what George Jr administration was saying concerning WMDs, the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the half truths about social security, the protection of high drug prices to the outright and unjustified benefit of drug manufacturers, the protection of First Energy to the risk of Toledo, and the repeated destruction of science for political gain.
George Jr was doing (in attitude) what Nixon did. George Jr just did it while using propaganda with stunning success. Nixon would simply make claims and most people blindly believed him. When innocent students were shot dead at Kent State, how did the nation respond? Long haired kids were then denied service in restaurants. Yes, we so blindly believed Nixon that he would out rightly lie - and so many would not doubt (especially those with lesser education).
Nixon was not good at propaganda. But back then, propaganda was not necessary since FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy had earned the presidency such prestige and credibility. Again, I am surprised (and should not be) that anyone would have to ask what Oynxcougar has asked. Those were wild times.
I don't believe there was a Freedom of Information Act back then
yeah it came outta Nixon and has eroded under Bush.
I was talking about what the Presidents Men today have learned from history beyond not to record themselves.
Literally most everyone above Felt was in on or participating in the Watergate coverup, the plumbers, and numerous other crimes intentionally initiated by the White House. Ironically who was also part of another embarrassment - a previous misuse of power for the same reasons – the McCarthy hearings? Nixon was also involved there.
Name another whistle blower who did more to save the US Government. You can't. Deep Throat was the mother of all whistle blowers in a time when whistle blowing was illegal and never considered neccesary. For almost a year, numerous crimes conducted by high level people in the US Government and absolutely no one to go to about these crimes. No one. Nada. There would be no special Watergate prosecutor for another year. The revelations so massive and - well - every day was another 'punch you in the face' relevation in those Senate hearings. There was no TV all day for weeks - except for the Watergate hearings. Did that ever happen in your lifetime? No, because the foundations of the US government were never so much under attack. Literally everyone in position of power in the White House was involved. And there probably would have been no investigation if Felt had not done as he did - at great risk to himself.
The expression "don't trust anyone over 30" was just another sound byte so accurately describing how corrupt the US Government had become. Everyone did drugs because the government lied. Smoking a joint only proved again what liars our government was. This in a time when so many refused to believe government would lie.
BTW, these are all symptoms of Vietnam - a war conducted without a smoking gun and continued using lies. The Watergate burglars were created because of the Pentagon Papers - the first real facts we had that the American government was lying about Vietnam. The 'everyone hates me' attitude, the enemies list, and so many other gouges in the US Constitution finally came to a head with Watergate - where literally anyone who should be investigating or prosecuting crimes against the government were literally part of the conspiracy.
It may have been 1972. But is it part of the turmoil we call the 60s. Watergate only brought it all to a head.
I am pretty (intentionally) naive when it comes to politics, but this whole post feels very familiar to me...like deja vu, almost.
I am pretty (intentionally) naive when it comes to politics, but this whole post feels very familiar to me...like deja vu, almost.
You've pegged it..... only now there is no outrage from anywhere of consequence. They control the press...or enough of it to counter any they don't. :(
This is depressing. On to another thread with my drunk self.
You've pegged it..... only now there is no outrage from anywhere of consequence. They control the press...or enough of it to counter any they don't. :(
If middle class kids were being drafted for the shit you'd have outrage.
BINGHAMTON -- When Lester Goodwin of Binghamton spotted his daughter Carmen Renee Goodwin at Hancock International Airport in Syracuse on Wednesday afternoon, he hid behind the crowd, then grasped her in a surprise hug.
His "baby" was finally home after a tour of duty with the U.S. Air Force in Iraq.
"It was the happiest moment of my life," the 52-year-old father said Thursday.
And it was only the beginning of many happy moments for the 26-year-old Goodwin. After five months in Iraq, the Binghamton native could finally hold her son -- a smiling 2-year-old named Tygi.
Her time at an air base in Tallil was the longest time she had ever been away from her son.
"Being separated from him for months and months at a time was torture," she saidIf middle class kids were being drafted for the shit you'd have outrage.
BINGHAMTON
And it was only the beginning of many happy moments for the 26-year-old Goodwin. After five months in Iraq, the Binghamton native could finally hold her son -- a smiling 2-year-old named Tygi.
Her time at an air base in Tallil was the longest time she had ever been away from her son.
"Being separated from him for months and months at a time was torture," she said
Where's the outrage from the
Family Research Council that 1-year-olds are being separated from their mothers? Oh that's right, why would they want to criticize the President who wants to help them put gays back in the closet and nail the door shut?
Mommy signed up. She served. She has equality.
You want to set the women's movement back 50 years, you go right on ahead with that line of reasoning.
no woman has been forced or drafted into the military. each and everyone has signed up for the military and then volunteered for a combat position (if they are in one). if we didn't let them go, would you support a lawsuit against the government for sexual discrimination?
people who sign up for the military know there is a chance(or extreme likeliness) they will leave their families.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think delaying the deployment of the mother of a 1-year-old would be wrong.
rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women. if a woman in a specific billet doesn't deploy because of a child under a certain age, why should a man, who also has a child have to deploy? i'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but equality means equality - all the time, not just when it sounds good.
and as far as the recruiter goes? ya got me. you found a story on antiwar blog that talks about a recruiter who did not do a good job explaining the possibility for deployments. if i start a blog and give my testimony of the literally thousands of well done recruiting pitches i've heard over the last 14 years, would that sway anybody? or is it just easy to believe anything that points to an evil conspiracy to ensnare our children?
Rich - i know stupid stuff happens, there is no denying it, but what you are focusing on is not the normal day to day operation of the average military unit.
tw - as usual - thanks for your insight.
I love this about the cellar. I'm away for a couple of days and the Deep Throat thread has segued into women in the military. :thumb:
rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women. if a woman in a specific billet doesn't deploy because of a child under a certain age, why should a man, who also has a child have to deploy? i'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but equality means equality - all the time, not just when it sounds good.
Personally, I don't have an issue with that, as long as one parent is home. I didn't see a husband and father mentioned in that story. It looks like the grandparents had to take in the kid.
rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women.
Equal treatment: pregnancy means the soldier goes home - man or woman. Does not matter whether this is or is not possible. The laws must be written equally - or is the concept of equality a little more complex.
women have the right to a discharge when they have a child. part of your standard and very frequent review is a written plan of what will happen to your family in case of deployment. this includes detailed written instructions of who shall care for the child in your absence, who will pay your bills, etc.
to be clear, i don't like it either. i see this frequently first hand. 2 of my very close acquaintances just got back from Iraq, 1 of my best friends just got orders and will be in country on sept 4th. he will be leaving 2 young daughters and a stay at home mom.
not liking it doesn't stop it though. i just want you (and everyone here) to have a more clear understanding of how it really works. contrary to tw's delusions they aren't scouring the books looking for anyone they can send, they aren't punishing underperforming recruiters with combat tours, the Sith hasn't taken control quite yet.
be critical, but be accurate.
contrary to tw's delusions they aren't scouring the books looking for anyone they can send, they aren't punishing underperforming recruiters with combat tours ...
Nobody said anything about punishing. The military is so desperate for troops in Iraq that even recruiters are being sent in country - when the military desperately needs more recruiters. lookout123 has assumed facts that were not posted.
and tw has made statements that he expects us to accept as fact without any credible proof.
and tw has made statements that he expects us to accept as fact without any credible proof.
A man who supports a president that does not go after bin Laden? Maybe lookout123 will next report that bin Laden conspired with Saddam to attack the WTC? Why should I expect anything different from lookout123. Its called a political agenda.
Meanwhile the military is so strapped for troops that even recruiters are being reassigned to duty in the "Mission Accomplished" war. Lookout123 will deny this. After all, we are clearly winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. One need only reference proof provided by lookout123. Morality is us? Clearly the US also did not condone torture. Lookout123's favorite president said so. Credibility is ... who? Of course lookout123 will not agree. The proof is his political agenda - facts be damned.
TW, a less emotional but more relentless, Dave. :lol:
TW, a less emotional but more relentless, Dave. :lol:
To quote two retired Dubers ... "Dave... Dave.... Dave...........
Dave's not here."
Maybe lookout123 will next report that bin Laden conspired with Saddam to attack the WTC?
please go back through my previous 3000+ posts and pick out the one where i even HINTED that this might be true. you can't - because i've never believed or said that - but facts be damned when tw's got a lynching in mind.
military is so strapped for troops that even recruiters are being reassigned to duty in the "Mission Accomplished" war.
proof? source? halfassed biased blog? i don't know, because you keep saying it, without providing any source material. i am not aware of this happening. i am in very close contact with quite a few recruiters, and jacked up things like this usually burn their way through the grapevine pretty quickly. it may be true, but how would i know? am i just supposed to accept tw's fair and balanced statement as fact?
Lookout123's favorite president said so.
second verse, same as the first... remember all those posts of mine? did you see any in there to suggest that i revere him or believe he is the best possible choice? if you find that post, please quote it. the problem is that i've never thought or said that was true... but again, accuracy is overrated - tw is out to make a point and git 'im some o' them conservative scalps.
proof is his political agenda - facts be damned.
what the hell are you talking about? what political agenda am i pushing here? i think my posts here have been about getting the whole story when talking about the issues.
Clearly the US also did not condone torture.
actually, i'm pretty sure the US did, and that has proven to be fairly unpopular. so your point was???
see tw, part of the problem here is that you accept what you see on some websites and maybe hear through the grapevine as fact if it fits neatly into your preconceived framework for the world, while discarding the rest. sometimes the info you get is 100% accurate, sometimes it may be less so. but you come to a conclusion, make a statement, repeat the statement, berate anyone who questions the statement, ignore requests for sources for the statement, then make personal attacks upon the person who asked for the source.
over the last year, we have gone 'round and 'round more times than i can count, and more times than the rest of the cellarites wish to remember. why? i suppose it is because i am just dumb and immature enough to get baited into your pissing matches. any discussion with you brings me back to the same conclusion - the problem in america isn't that people are so different or that different ideas are a bad thing. it is just that some people refuse to even consider that their position or idea may be incorrect or less-than-perfect in some way. you are one of those people. you refuse to answer any questions posed of you, choosing instead to insult the person who questions you. are you afraid that looking deeper at your own ideas might make some cracks in your foundational ideas suddenly become visible to you? just consider it. i'm not telling you that you are wrong, only that you will have better, more fruitful discussions if you consider that you
might not always be right. you are guilty of the exact same mentality that the limbaugh/hannity clones hold - "if you aren't with me, then you are my enemy."
i have been wrong (more frequently than i even know), and i am aware of that. i try to keep that in mind in any discussion that i have. my perspective and forecast for the future may be incorrect - that is a large part of why i like the cellar so much. there are so many different perspectives to consider from a well informed, diverse group of people. i won't always change my mind, but every little bit of info has to go through the filter and help me organize my beliefs about _____subject. challenge is good.
because i don't know you IRL i don't know if this is really how you approach life, or if this is just your internet persona. as time goes on your facade of the unemotional, just the facts, warrior for justice erodes more and more. at this rate it won't be long before you can be summed up as a simple troll.
Personally, I don't have an issue with that, as long as one parent is home. I didn't see a husband and father mentioned in that story. It looks like the grandparents had to take in the kid.
Therein lies part of the problem ... you may have noted that the soldier has the same last name as her father, and the baby does not. One might speculate from the information in the article that her baby daddy is/was in Japan? But of course you can't cashier someone for fraternizing and getting knocked up, can you? Maybe dad was of her same rank?
unless it is officer/enlisted relationship it isn't fraternization. that is illegal.
enlisted/enlisted, officer/officer is acceptable as long as they aren't in the same chain of command.
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 warWhen 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.
That G. Gordon Liddy attracts anything but laughter and derision baffles me.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
well, there's a hell of a way to answer questions, i suppose. :crazy:
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".
yep, that is exactly what i said. way to summarize. don't know what the world would do without you,pal. :grouphug:
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.
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.
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. :notworthy
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 SantayanaIn all, we are setting ourselves up for a future Nixon II who will have more unchecked power than any president in the 20th century.
Future?? :eyebrow:
1) bruce - although i disagree with your conclusion that deepthroat is a hero, i appreciate your calm, rational post.
2) how many more ways can i say it? nixon is not a hero. he is not a good guy. he was crooked. he was evil and nasty. he was a used douche.
3) nixon being evil doesn't change my opinion of the methods that deepthroat chose to use. was there no politician, wannabe politician, other higher-up in any LE organization who was either A) honest, or B) personally motivated enough that deepthroat could have done the work in a more legitimate manner?
either way, folks, it doesn't really matter - it is just a matter of opinion. deepthroat did what he did, nixon fell, some lessons were learned until next time. politics has never and will never draw the best among us.
deepthroat did what he did, nixon fell, some lessons were learned until next time. politics has never and will never draw the best among us.
I don't know about that. People do learn. Germany learned it's lesson in blind obedience after Hitler fell. Someday we'll learn what to really look for in a leader when we experience one who turns out to be a disaster.
There are really good experienced politicians out there who could lead, if they thought that the American people were ready to listen and that they didn't have to sell their souls to major corporations to get there.
there may be some good leaders in politics, but i haven't seen one yet. i believe the best leaders are in corporate america and they wouldn't touch politics with anything but their checkbook. if i was a real leader, with vision, and the ability to reach the summit... i just don't see how making yourself a target of every scumsucking political hack, wannabe journalist, etc. is worthwhile.
there may be some good leaders in politics, but i haven't seen one yet.
One prerequisite for a minimally acceptable leader is one who actually reads his own memos.
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo,
The memo was only 13 pages. He could only read an executive summary? Ahh. But the memo that warned of upcoming 11 September attacks was about two pages. George Jr could not read that PDB either. Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill literally had to take George Jr through his memos, step by step, for two hours, because George Jr did not read. Where does inability to do reading (or not even knowing the countries on Israel’s borders) qualify one as a leader? I forgot. Cheney makes the presidential decisions. George Jr need not read. Being a front man is sufficient to be a leader.
was there no politician, wannabe politician, other higher-up in any LE organization who was either A) honest, or B) personally motivated enough that deepthroat could have done the work in a more legitimate manner?
NO.
In order to do anything you need the assistance of the Justice Department or the congress. Neither were available until public opinion forced them into action. That's how corrupted the Federal Government had become under Nixon and how complacent the majority of the public was.
Remember it wasn't just Deep Throat's information, it had to be correlated with others.
Nixon was chased out but the corruption lingers and sadly the complacency grows. :(
Remember it wasn't just Deep Throat's information, it had to be correlated with others.
xoxoxoBruce makes a powerful point here. Deep Throat did not leak information. He simply did what others in government routinely do. They don't go on record, but are provided a copy of the story before it is published. These senior government officials may be a Cabinet member, the Vice President, a Fed Chairman, etc. They too may not leak the secrets. But when confronted with a story about to be published, they will admit to, deny, or refuse comment.
Deep Throat did same. One massive difference. Deep Throat was saving the US Constitution and the American government from corruption at the highest levels of government. Therefore he had to do covertly what senior government officials do overtly. Corruption so widespread that Mark Felt had no superior he could go to. Everyone above him was part of the conspiracy - either actively of tacitly. Those who criticize Mark Felt conventiently forget that fact.
To disparage Deep Throat is to say corrupt officials are always right - equivalent to supreme monarchs. This is the reasoning Nixon tried to use before the US Supreme Court when he refused to release the Watergate Tapes. A ruling that made the court so nervous that they considered the possiblity of a coup. Those who disparage Mark Felt conveniently forgot such details.
To disparage Deep Throat is to say corrupt officials are always right - equivalent to supreme monarchs.
no it isn't. saying that Felt may not have been a saint with purely altruistic motives, doesn't equal to saying that those he opposed were flawless. that is too simplified - binary, if you will.
i believe that Felt was working towards a just and proper goal - the ouster of the dirty president and his minions. i believe that there may have been other ways of going about it without privately leaking to journalists through a secretive pseudonym, etc. in the end, we'll never really know for sure so anything we say is pure speculation.
Nixon did fall, so yay for America.
i believe that Felt was working towards a just and proper goal - the ouster of the dirty president and his minions. i believe that there may have been other ways of going about it without privately leaking to journalists through a secretive pseudonym, etc. in the end, we'll never really know for sure so anything we say is pure speculation.
First, I don't know that Felt was working for the ouster of a dirty president. But he was helping to expose widespread corruption at the highest levels of government. Back then, it was not clear how much Nixon was involved in Watergate and other plumber activities even to insiders such as John Dean. But they did know, beyond a doubt, that Nixon was fully involved in the coverup. Today, with the slow release of Nixon Watergate tapes, we know Nixon was fully involved in creating and directing the plumbers.
Second point: if Felt had other options, then clearly we are prosecuting intelligence operative in Abu Ghraid prision who ordered and condoned outright torture and murder. After all, those lowly enlisted men did not bring dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq. They did not suddenly decide to torture prisoners only after Gen Miller arrived to Gitmoize Abu Ghraid. Outright torture only existed in two wings of (Abu Ghraid) operated by unnamed intelligence officers. So why are we not prosecuting those who taught Gitmo tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan? Actions ordered at that highest levels of government. Clearly, whistle blowers still don't have enough protection. Blame the little people and the managers will not be prosecuted. (Enron, Arthur Andersen, Waste Management, Tyco, ...)
Often the only alternative for government officials is leaking. Too many Americans still openly adovocate prosecution of whistle blowers rather than the criminal. Back then, whistle blowers had no protection. None! If Felt really had other alternative, then those same alternatives would have American intelligence operatives from Abu Ghraid being prosecuted for torture and murder today.
Of course Lookout123 again speculates. He does not even say what options Mark Felt had. Clearly Mark Felt could have gone to his superiors - done everything right and legal - when all his superiors were part of the conspiracy. No wonder Lookout123 forgets to say what Mark Felt could have done. Lookout123 forgets to include that one tiny little detail. What could Mark Felt have done when even today whistle blowers cannot expose those who Gitmoized Abu Ghraid and Afghanistan prisons.
We still don't yet protect whistle blowers. Mark Felt, back when whistle blowers had no legal protection, did the only thing he could do. Because of Mark Felt, et al, then America created its first protections for whistle blowers. But Mark Felt, who Lookout123 says could have done something different, had no such laws to protect him. Just another detail that Lookout123 forgets to mention when he accused the most innocent man in Watergate of being immoral or unethical. That other little detail forgotten - what then was Mark Felt suppose to do. Pray to god for a solution? What was his only other choice in a country whose laws prosecuted whistle blowers?
tw, i get your point, and you may be right. in the end, it is ok if we disagree.
i do have to ask though (and i am being serious), do you drink before you post? quite often your coherency level plummets and i can't figure out the pattern.
Your obstinacy makes him twitch. :p
if at some point in the next 20 or so years, i can get tw to JUST ONCE admit that there is a slight chance there are equal but different points of view than his own - my life will be a success.
and i will personally fund UT's retirement as a thank you for allowing us the bandwidth to argue.
since i'm pretty sure part one won't happen - sorry UT, don't get excited.
;)
if at some point in the next 20 or so years, i can get tw to JUST ONCE admit that there is a slight chance there are equal but different points of view than his own - my life will be a success.
I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I have a very severe problem with opinions not based upon facts.
For example, a previous fact to keep women out of combat was only speculation; as also expressed in the movie "GI Jane". Where was the fact necessary to draw that conclusion? No such fact existed. But lookout123 already had an opinion. We are still waiting for him to state his facts on that issue. When confronted previously, lookout123 provided no facts.
In this thread, Lookout123 says Mark Felt should have acted differently. Name one thing he could have done. What could Felt do when all his superiors were actively or tacitly part of the conspiracy? I am again asking the same question of Lookout123 that he did not answer when he so criticized Mark Felt earlier. Lookout123 - for something like the third time: what should Mark Felt have done? Please feel free to provide some facts such as what he could have done AND why he could have done it.
One is suppose to first learn facts before having an opinion. Fine. If lookout123 has an opinion that Mark Felt had other options, then Lookout123 can also say what Mark Felt should have done. After all, lookout123 would never post without first obtaining facts. So clearly lookout123 also has facts as to what Mark Felt should have done. Lookout123 criticized Mark Felt. Then he also can tell us what Mark Felt could have done instead. So for the third plus time, what could Mark Felt have done instead of becoming Deep Throat?
Lookout123 has an opinion based in facts. Therefore we await the judge's decision of what Mark Felt should have done.
i do have to ask though (and i am being serious), do you drink before you post? quite often your coherency level plummets and i can't figure out the pattern.
A rather interesting question. Which are examples of up and down - so as to put them against dates, local, etc?
A rather interesting question. Which are examples of up and down - so as to put them against dates, local, etc?
i wonder if we'll ever see a crime : PWI (instead of dwi) , posting while intoxicated
:headshake
Around here it's more of a life skill.
i wonder if we'll ever see a crime : PWI (instead of dwi) , posting while intoxicated
It's called HWL - humor without a license. Better is to leave jokes only to professionals.
I agree, some of tw's posts are almost unreadable.
Second point: if Felt had other options, then clearly we are prosecuting intelligence operative in Abu Ghraid prision who ordered and condoned outright torture and murder.
I
thiiiink that
miiiiiiight have made some sense... maybe...?
tw, as I have said before, extreme left is no better than extreme right. There
are multiple ways to look at issues, and Rush Limbaugh isn't the only person who often ignores facts presented right to his face. Many times, TW came right out and said, plainly and honestly (well, seemed honest to me), that you were wrong about his thoughts and ideologies many times, but you kept right on saying the same things about him being Rush and Bush's puppet.
Anyway, about the actual topic of this thread? Deep Throat
is almost a god, for the exact reasons bruce described. I may not have grown up in that time period, but I've read my history books, and I know that what Nixon did is worse than what Bush has done in many ways. At least Bush honestly believes he's doing what's right...
And about the 18 1/2 minute gap... Has anyone ever heard Alice's Restaurant? Arlo has theorized that, well, there arent a whole lot of things exactly that length, and....
At least Bush honestly believes he's doing what's right...
In what world?
If that were true he would not lie about it.
Well, I believe that he's dumb enough to think hes really doing what's right. I could be wrong...
I think he's dumb enough to think people don't see what he is doing... but that is about it.
I think he's reached the point where he's just saying to himself "f*ck it, nothing's going to make it better, so I'll just stick to the old game plan"
I honestly don't think he makes decisions & I normally scoff at conspiracy theorists.
Oh he makes decisions all right, but the decisions are between 2 or three options that are carefully groomed and presented so he'll choose the ones his keepers want.
I seriously doubt, he knows the background or fully understands the consequences, of any decisions. :(
will president bush go down in history as considered by the historians to be worse than president nixon?
He had that wrapped-up in the first week of his first term.
will president bush go down in history as considered by the historians to be worse than president nixon?
Oh, yeah. Nixon opened relations with China, made Detente with the USSR. Bush took vacation for 9 months, and since 911 has been killing and destroying, eroding the rights of Americans, and making his cronies richer. Too bad neither of them got caught having their cock sucked in the oval office.
Oh, yeah. Nixon opened relations with China, made Detente with the USSR. Bush took vacation for 9 months, and since 911 has been killing and destroying, eroding the rights of Americans, and making his cronies richer. Too bad neither of them got caught having their cock sucked in the oval office.
..yet.;)
Oh he makes decisions all right, but the decisions are between 2 or three options that are carefully groomed and presented so he'll choose the ones his keepers want.
I seriously doubt, he knows the background or fully understands the consequences, of any decisions. :(
Emphasis mine.
From Bruce Almighty:
The newscaster is reading the script and the teleprompter, despite the obvious fact that it is utter crap.
EVAN
Ah, there we go. Sorry about that.
The Prime Minister of Sweden
visited Washington today as my
little tiny nipples moved to France-
Evan stops cold, staring at the teleprompter.
INT. TV STUDIO - CONTINUOUS
The Director in the booth reacts.
DIRECTOR
What did he just say? Check the
prompter.
The Console Operator checks the text being fed to Evan.
CONSOLE OPERATOR
It's fine.
DIRECTOR
Well, signal for him to keep going.
65.
-^ The Stage Manager motions to Evan, he reluctantly continues
/ reading.
INTERCUT TV STUDIO AND NEWSROOM MONITOR
EVAN
The White House reception committee
greeted the Prime Rib Roast
Minister and I do the cha cha like
a sissy girl...
(urged to keep going, so
continues slowly)
I lika do da cha cha...
In desperation, Evan shifts from the prompter to the paper
script on his desk.
EVAN
Sorry, we're having a few technical
difficulties, here...
(reading) *
In other n-n-n-n....n-n-n-n...
From the news yesterday:
“We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” Bush said.
Life imitating art.
If you're not mining the data, what the *fuck* are you doing with it? What do you call traffic analysis if it's not data mining?