Colonel suspended for bad-mouthing Bush

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The library scenario I mentioned earlier.

That ended up with them not being able to investigate libraries according to you.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris peace talks between Johnson and the Vietnamese (North and South). Part of the reason behind the Watergate burglery was so that the Pres could find out how much the Democrats knew about this (and they did know, see Johnson's private comments).

So Nixon conspired to send in operatives to the democratic headquarters 4 years after their supposed sabotage of the Paris peace talks? It doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

As for Reagan and his staff, leaving aside the question of the October Surprise, the President and his staff were trading with the enemy of the United States in order to illegally raise money to use in a war that had been outlawed by Congress. I would even include Bush I in that, since it was people who directly reported to him who were in charge of the Nicaraguan end of that deal.

While I disagree with the Iran-contra affair, it hardly rises to the level of treason, nor was it illegal, nor was it ever proven that Reagen or Bush clearly knew about it (which was probably plausible deniability). The fall guy was Casey, and IMO he probably the driving force behind the operation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That ended up with them not being able to investigate libraries according to you.

It wasn't that they weren't able to investigate the libraries, it's that the libraries refused to cooperate. The FBI still tried to do something it supposedly wasn't able to do, which is investigate in a public place. . . . Although, given the Reagan Admins penchanet for disinformation, it might simply have been a planted story to keep Soviet spies out of our libraries.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Although, given the Reagan Admins penchanet for disinformation, it might simply have been a planted story to keep Soviet spies out of our libraries.

This is starting to me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So Nixon conspired to send in operatives to the democratic headquarters 4 years after their supposed sabotage of the Paris peace talks? It doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

Four years after the sabotaged round of the Paris peace talks was a new election. Nixon needed to know if the Democrats were going to come after him with this info.

While I disagree with the Iran-contra affair, it hardly rises to the level of treason, nor was it illegal, nor was it ever proven that Reagen or Bush clearly knew about it (which was probably plausible deniability). The fall guy was Casey, and IMO he probably the driving force behind the operation.

He gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, i.e., Iran. Furthermore, while not defined by the Constitution as treason, he tried to subvert our republic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is starting to me.

Sorry. Basically what I'm saying is, the story that the Feds were asking libraries to do this may not have actually been a true story, but rather a story planted by the FBI to scare Soviet spies, who were alleged to be using our libraries to read technical douments. By creating the impression that the FBI was looking into this, said Soviet spies might then be less likely to use the libraries.

Or it might have been disinfo for American consumption, to get us worried about those dastardly Soviets who are infiltrating our country.

Or the FBI might actually have tried to get the public librarians to keep track of Soviet nationals using our libraries.

If the first two are true, the the FBI may not have actually had the authority it claimed to have then and claims not to have had recently. If the later is true, then the FBI was doing what it says it wasn't allowed to do.

[DinoDoc]

MANILA, Philippines (CNN) -- The confidential documents tell of a chillingly familiar plan: Recruit Islamic extremists; send them to aviation schools in the United States to prepare to hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings such as the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

In 1995, how much weight would you have given a report such as this considering where it came from?

[SpencerH]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Four years after the sabotaged round of the Paris peace talks was a new election. Nixon needed to know if the Democrats were going to come after him with this info.

Johnson was an embittered broken man, his diaries are proof of nothing. If any evidence that Nixon had deliberately sabotaged the peace talks existed and the democrats had it, why would they wait 4 years to use it?

He gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, i.e., Iran. Furthermore, while not defined by the Constitution as treason, he tried to subvert our republic.

Except that theres no proof that he knew. Since the executive branch has the power to conduct foreign relations it could be argued that congress was trying to subvert the power of the executive by blocking funds.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In 1995, how much weight would you have given a report such as this considering where it came from?

A lot. Yousef was the man behind the first bombing of the WTC. He got caught trying to blow up four cross-Pacific airliners. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Clinton Admin took the danger seriously enough either, but then, very few us did. I certainly didn't. The Clinton Admin treated the Saudis with kids gloves, when they should have been pressing them hard. The Bush Admin, on the other hand, didn't investigate the Saudis at all. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If any evidence that Nixon had deliberately sabotaged the peace talks existed and the democrats had it, why would they wait 4 years to use it?

Because it would have reflected poorly on Johnson's ability to run the affairs of state, and thus made Humphry look bad. So they sat on it.

Except that theres no proof that he knew. Since the executive branch has the power to conduct foreign relations it could be argued that congress was trying to subvert the power of the executive by blocking funds.

Well, it's true there's no proof that he knew. And he was already losing his brain to Alzheimer's by that point. But I refuse to believe that he didn't know.

Congress holds the purse strings, and it is their prerogative whether or not to fund anything the US government does. The executive can ask for money to be appropriated, but it cannot demand it.