Ran, not Van,
I humbly suggest that this is rationalization. "He was my man,
so what he did wasn't so bad."
Richard Nixon humbly resigned when he realized that he was going to
be thrown out of office and not before. He tried to use the FBI and
CIA to stay in office and lied to the entire nation. But that was
OK, cause he was conservative. And lying about a sexual escapade to a Grand
Jury? How about lying to the entire world and bombing a country we were
not at war with? Impeach Clinton for lying? Why didn't you
call for the impeachment of your conservative hero Ronnie for illegally
supporting the Contras in direct violation of the law, lying to Congress
and saying he didn't know a thing about it. Naw, these guys went over to
Iran and then down to Central America and gave these people all those guns
and never bothered to tell Ronnie. And George Sr. who swore he was
"out of the loop". Hell, he was only VP and the former director of the
CIA, why would anyone bother to tell him anything. One reason I can't
take the far right too seriously is that their moral compasses only point
in one direction. When you think that one side can do no wrong and
the other can do no right, you're not putting a lot of effort in it.
As much as I know I should not be writing these messages, it would just
drive me nuts to let some of the stuff you guys are posting go unanswered.
I'll quit if you will.
Ran Lydell wrote:
But there is an important difference. That is one of shame.
I saw Nixon's attitude when the full impact of his "cover up' actions was
exposed. He humbly spared tha country any farther agony, and resigned.