History Forum / General / General Topics / June 2008

In a recent debate on Scott McClellan's book between Pat Buchanan and
Lawrence Rosie O'Donnell,  the latter accused Buchanan of having
stayed silent during the Nixon years when all sorts of rules were
being violated. But, Lawrence is missing the point. Buchanan was
consistent in sticking with the President during and after Nixon's
time in office.   Loyalty is not the only nor the highest virtue, but
it is a virtue.  McClellan, on the other hand, stayed mum as press
secretary though shocked and appalled by what he saw, and then ratted
on the whole administration once out of office--especially in an
election year.   He was a coward while serving the President and a
turncoat once out of office. There is no honor in this whatsoever.  If
he really felt that strongly while serving in the White House, he
should have spoken up. If he stayed mum out of loyalty, he should have
remained loyal.  But,  he just comes across as a coward and a rat--
also a pig trying to cash in on a book deal.
McClellan and Buchanan aside, was the Nixon presidency the 'most
corrupt' in US history as O'Donnell claims? No, that would be the
Clinton presidency where Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted bribes from
the Red Chinese government. Imagine that, the president of America
taking cash from a communist-run nation that would come to rival the
United States in the 21st Century. Also, the Kennedy and Johnson
administration had their share of crooks, influence peddlers, and
thieves. They just received more cover because the liberal media loved
them much--at least until Vietnam War turned the media against
Johnson.

When it comes to vice-presidents, FDR had, by far, the worst--before
replacement by Truman.  Henry Wallace was not an official Soviet agent
but might as well have been.   He was an ardent communist sympathizer
and admirer of mass murderer Stalin.  Had FDR died prior to replacing
Wallace with Truman, US would have come under the control of a closet-
communist. JUST IMAGINE THAT!  FDR was a very sick man thru the 40s
and could have died at any moment, and the US could come under the
rule of an American Lenin.  Imagine Wallace the Soviet admirer working
with people like Alger Hiss who was indeed a Soviet spy. They would
have worked together to bring in more closet-communists. They would
have used legal and extra-legal means to consolidate more power to
undermine democratic processes so as hog all the power. They would
have done what Allende attemped and what Hugo Chavez is attempting
now. That would have been the REAL 'plot against America'--but Jewish
author Philip Roth would have believe that US was in greater danger of
falling into the hands of Nazis and their sympathizers.  Of course,
had the American President during the 30s and 40s been an ailing
Republican whose vice-president had been a Nazi-sympathizer, whose
Secretary of State had been a Nazi spy, and whose administration was
teeming with Nazi agents, THEN one could argue US came alarmingly
close to falling under fascist dictatorship. But, the opposite was
true. FDR was in power, Wallace-as-vice-president was a Soviet
sympathizer, Alger Hiss was a communist spy, and the government was
teeming with Soviet agents.  So, American history just barely dodged a
Red bullet.  What FDR did to Japanese-Americans might have happened to
many more Americans in a Gulag States of America.
Spiro Agnew was a crook and a bum but not an evil person.  He was a
bumbler, a Greek-American version of Lyndon Johnson who excelled at
under-the-table machinations and backhanded deals. But, Agnew was
still an American patriot.  Wallace was a worshipper of Stalin, and
under his Presidency American government would have been crawling with
Soviet agents and American communists, a good number of which had
already made significant inroads under FDR.

But, most ridiculous of all is the notion that Watergate represents
the GREATEST and MOST SHAMEFUL abuse of presidential power in US
history.   Yes, it was bad and those involved got their just desserts.
And perhaps it was necessary that Nixon too had to relinquish power.
But, it was essentially a case of boys-gone-wild than an attempt to
banish democracy and liberties from America--what would have happened
under Wallace.  Nixon hired the so-called Plumbers because the illegal
leaks had to plugged. He put them to work, and well, you know, 'boys
will be boys'. If a scoutmaster tells his scouts to go out and bring
back a perch, they'll bring back 10 perches and an alligatgor snapping
turtle. If he tells them to bring back a rabbit, they'll bring back a
deer. Nixon told them boys to use their tools to stop the leaks, and
they went and used the tools to unlock doors. They did bad stuff, and
it was nasty. They got their comeuppance. Did Nixon order the break-
in?  I'm 50/50 on this and perhaps we'll never know.  But, was
Watergate really the worst abuse of Presidential authority?

Let us suppose that Nixon did order or knew about the break-in. Would
it still have been worse than what Wilson or FDR did?  During WWI,
Wilson threw a lot of people in jail and suspended basic liberties.
FDR went even further and dispossessed/imprisoned over 150,000
Japanese-Americans.  You mean to tell me that the Watergate Break-in
was a greater breachment of Presidential powers than throwing anti-war
protesters in jail or confiscating the property and imprisoning an
entire population of American citizens based on ethnicity?
Now, all liberals will say that Nixon deserved to be impeached and
convicted for what he did. Do they feel the same way about Wilson and
FDR? Should Wilson have been impeached and convicted for his actions
during WWI? Should FDR have been impeached and convicted for what he
did to Japanese-Americans during WWII?  Sure, both Wilson and FDR did
what they did under the moral cover of war, but so did Nixon.  US was
in the middle of Vietnam War which was a part of the larger Cold War.
Also, Nixon faced far greater anti-war protests than Wilson and FDR
combined during WWI and WWII.  Yet, how many people did Nixon throw in
jail?  Sure, he compiled an 'enemy list' but Big Deal! Is that worse
than throwing war protesters in jail like Wilson had done?  At the
very least, Wilson locked people up based on their words and actions.
And, he didn't dispossess them nor target entire families. FDR
dispossessed and locked up over 150,000 Americans--man, woman,
grampies, and children--who didn't protest the war, didn't give
comfort to the enemy, didn't subvert the war effort.  They were
dispossessed and locked up simply because of their ethnicity out of
fear that Japanese-Americans would try to subvert the war effor. But,
in fact, far more Jewish Americans spied for the enemy--namely the
USSR--than Japanese-Americans ever did.

Of course, one could say that though Wilson and FDR did some terrible
things, we must balance their misdeeds with the good/great things they
did. Then, the same thing can be said of Nixon.  He tried to work with
liberals, tried to further social change, and tried to create a safer
world thru agreements with USSR and rapproachment with China.  Yet,
all of Nixon's achievements have been ignored or overshadowed by
WATERGATE, WATERGATE, WATERGATE.  But, as nasty and stupid as
Watergate was, can it compare with what Wilson or FDR did?   Suppose
FDR's underlings had broken in at a GOP headquarters while Nixon,
fearful of Asian and Jewish subversion during the Vietnam War, had
ordered the dispossession and imprisonment of all Asian- and Jewish-
Americans. Would historians--mostly liberal--say that FDR's cover-up
of his underlings' misdeed was a greater abuse of Presidential power
than Nixon's? Somehow, I don't think so.

American history is written by liberal and leftist historians, and the
political bias really shows.  Indeed, it reeks in every history book
and discussion. Not long ago, a discussion on Alger Hiss only invited
those who believed in his innocence. Because Nixon hated liberal
intellectuals, liberal intellectuals think even a relatively minor
misdeed by Nixon was much greater and graver sin than truly terrible
crimes of Wilson and FDR. Liberal historians accuse Nixon of being
petty, bitter, and vengeful, but liberal historians are no better.
Nixon has always been on THEIR Enemies List. Even Nixon's molehill of
misdeeds is somehow worse than Wilson or FDR's mountain of sins.

But, this is to be expected from a liberal(and Jewish)dominated media
and academia that still makes a far bigger deal of McCarthyism than
over FDR's suppression of anti-war voices and the imprisonment of
Japanese-Americans. Historians and journalists even collude by using
'internment' without quotes. Japanese-Americans were not 'interned'.
They were IMPRISONED. They were dispossessed and imprisoned in
concentration or prison camps. To be sure, they were not maltreated
like victims in the Soviet gulag or Nazi labor camps. Nor, were they
used for slave labor. But, it was imprisonment, not 'internment'.
Suppose a million Jewish-Americans were dispossessed and herded
together into a vast prison camp. Would liberal Jews call that
'internment' than 'imprisonment'?  Of course, the Japanese-Americans
were not kept in individual cells, but neither were POWs and those in
the gulag--or even in the Nazi death camps. But, a prison camp is a
prison camp. And, it's outrage that it's still referred to as an
'internment camp' or written in history books that Japanese-Americans
were 'interned'. They were robbed of all their savings and property
and imprisoned.

So, what was the greater crime of Presidential authority? Nixon's
Watergate scandal OR  Wilson's imprisoning of anti-war folks or FDR's
imprisonment of Japanese-Americans who committed no crime whatsoever?
What was a greater abuse of Presidential power? Using one's authority
to cover up a bumbled break-in by underlings or using one's authority
to lock up conscientious protestors or dispossess/imprison an entire
population which had been loyal?

To be sure, we can argue that both Wilson and FDR did it under the
cover of 'legality'. They got the Congress and the judiciary to go
along--and the populace supported or didn't much oppose those actions.
In contrast, Watergate, though small potatoes in comparison, was done
under the cover of darkness. FDR declared, "I'm gonna steal all the
cookies from Japanese-Americans" and had the whole nation go along
with his criminal attack on the constitution. So, he could say he was
no more guilty than Congress, the courts, and the American people.  In
contrast, it really seemed to the American public that Nixon got
caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Nixon got caught stealing a
single cookie, but it was manner than the nature of the crime that
really destroyed him. FDR was far more clever and devious in abusing
his presidential authority. He made it seem 'legal' and
'constitutional' with the collusion of other branches of government.

The way we remember history--which is to say what liberals and
leftists remember for us thru their control of the media and academia--
should prove once and for all the totally bogus nature of liberal
history. They are nothing but a bunch of partisan crooks.

Anyway, John McCain says Obama's presidency would be Jimmy Carter's
second term. That wouldn't be so bad. The real danger is Obama's may
well be the first term of Henry Wallace. Like Wallace, Obama is a
closet-radical with Marxist leanings and reveres people like Fidel
Castro.  Also, Obama has had close ties with far-left figures like
Bill Ayers and virulently anti-American figures like Khalidi.  And,
someone should draw a cartoon of the lapdog media around Obama. The
media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of American politics, are
wagging their tails and bowing down before Obama. Why? It's dominated
by liberals and leftists who want an American Castro in power.  Obama
has long mastered the art of passing as a 'non-threatening negro' in
white society. Now, he's trying to pass as a fellow American when he's
really an arrogant and bitter radical opportunist.