CBS cancels The Reagans

Hundreds of agents, no criminal charges...

>Nice try but no cigar! You have to do a lot better than

>that!!

Just as well, we know where the cigars evidently had been! :+

Seriously though, all the BS partisan investigations of Clinton for stupid shit (until his last week anyway, he lost me there) and now these fucking hypocrites sit on their hands as the Whitehouse swirls in illegal and unconstitutional behavior. Hurray for McCain, the only one I wouldn't be tempted to spit on if I recognized him on the street!

And the "liberal" press was there for everything some moron lackey could slap -gate onto the end of, but Cheney's energy 'regulation' meetings, Halliburton’s no-compete bids, obstruction/editing of investigation into how much more could have been done to *prevent 9/11*, and outright lies for the purpose of taking the nation to war: ...crickets chirping...

RE: Hundreds of agents, no criminal charges...

Believe me when I say that I can understand your pain. However, in my view as one who had a great deal to do with security clearances and investigations for security clearances when I was in the service, to turn that kind of material over to non-employees, in particular to people who have had their license as private investigators yanked for unethical behavior, is not a small offense. You are in effect turning over to these people material that could lead to blackmail very easily. You are also turning over to these people material that could lead to very serious social problems such as the loss of reputation and also to very serious business problems such as letting business rivals into those personal matters that could lead to business failures. In the article cited by Woodlawn this was treated as a mistaken delivery. If the delivery is mistaken then the material should have been returned immediately and that would have been the end of it. The fact that the material was not returned and in fact for six months the White House stonewalled that it did not know where this material was until it showed up in Hillary's office is a subject for investigation. If you will look into Colbert's sentencing during the Nixon investigation, you will find that one of the biggies was that he had one set of papers. Hillary and Livingston had 900 and the papers were of all the main Republican leaders of the Congress and the heads of the government agencies during the Republican administration. That does not sound like a mistaken delivery at all. The papers should not have left the FBI in the first place.

The Anita Hill testimony is another matter that makes no sense at all. Here is a black woman graduate of Yale Law, a member of the Law Review staff which means that she had a pretty good academic record, in an era when Women's Lib is demanding support and when major law firms are falling all over themselves to hire women, particularly minority women. She goes to work for a man in the government. He gets promoted and she follows him to his next job and then to his next, all the time on a friendly basis. He is then named to a judgeship and she sends him a gift and a friendly note and asks his assistance in forwarding her career. He mentors her and acts as a reference to her for the next few years as her career builds. During this time she has been a guest in his home after he has remarried and is one friendly relations with his new wife, in fact is a correspondent with the man and his wife both. Then the man is nominated to the Supreme Court. Suddenly he has sexually harrassed her all the way back to the first time she worked for him and she talked to a friend about it. She is very distressed about the way he talked to her and the way he acted toward her. She does not see him as being fit for the court appointment. During her private testimony all this bad part is leaked to the press by the head of the committee which is conducting the investigation. It seems to be that the whole scenario is totally unbelievable. If she was so distressed in her first job with this man, with her credentials from Yale Law why in the world would she ever follow him to his other jobs and in particular if he is so reprehensible why would she take references from him and guidance in her career. The whole thing smells to high heaven. If he was as bad as she portrayed, she should have just written an article or had Gloria Steinem write an article about it and stop him in the beginning. After all one of his jobs was as head of the EEO and the women's movement would have moved heaven and earth to keep a sexual harrasser from that position.

With regard to the Travel Gate investigation, that is also a stinking mess. Supposedly moneys were missing from the books and people were complaining about the services this agency was providing. Since the purpose of the agency was to set up travel for the press following the president and all the press people said that the agency was doing a wonderful job, where were the complaints? When the books were investigated there was no problem there either. Yet the people from the agency were fired, their jobs handed to an agency headed by a relative of the president (and the press complained about the job they were doing at the time) and the head of the agency was brought up on charges which were found to be non-existent. He ended up with a smear on his reputation and huge legal bills which almost forced him into bankruptcy. It seems that this is not a minor thing either.

I personally think that the people running the investigation that led to impeachment went after the wrong charges. Their case was much stronger with the other charges than with the Lewinsky charges. After all, the judge in the case where the president testified found that he had perjured himself and the bar association of the state where he had been governor for over 10 years took away his license to practise law. My problems with the Lewinsky case was not the actual fact that the president got a BJ. It was that he got the BJ from a minor employee. If he had been in private industry and this had happened, NOW would have demanded that he step down and would have considered charging him with sexual harrassment.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>Your statement was that Reagan was guilty of smears. This

>website just states that his administration was guilty of

>smears

Oh? And what was Reagan doing while the people who worked for him were using smear tactics against his political enemies? Was he telling them to stop doing that on pain of being fired? Or was he sitting back and letting them do what they were doing and accepting the political benefit from it? I don't expect an honest answer to that question from someone like you. But I do expect that most people who read this will realize how hypocritical it is for the supporters of a president who had no problem smearing his political opponents to complain when others use the same tactics against him.

>but does not provide any at all.

The article describes the construction of a network of journalists and political operatives whose collective goal was to smear Reagan's critics. And now some of these very same people have the colossal nerve to complain about smears against Reagan! Nothing but a bunch of filthy hypocrites.

>Nice try but no cigar! You have to do a lot better than

>that!!

No, actually, I don't. You asked for documentation supporting my claim that the Reagan crowd used smear tactics to get and keep him in office and I provided it. Now you're trying to weasel out. What a surprise.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>No, actually, I don't. You asked for documentation supporting

>my claim that the Reagan crowd used smear tactics to get and

>keep him in office and I provided it. Now you're trying to

>weasel out. What a surprise.

I didn't think that there were still idiots left who thought that just because they can find a site on the Internet making some claim, then it's "proof" that the claim is true, and the posting of the Internet site constitutes "documentation." But apparently there are such iditos who remain.

Guess what! I found proof and documentation that Hillary arranged the murder of Vince Foster, and the conclusion that it was a "suicide" was the by-product of bribery, intimidation and threats from the Clintons and their allies!

What's my proof? Both a website AND A BOOK (!) claim it to be so, and both are filled with "documented, incontestable proof" of this murder. Here is it:

http://www.internetwks.com/foster/

I presume all of these morons who site any Internet site they dredge up as "proof" will, now that they've seen this, start picketing the U.S. Attorney's Office to arrest Hillary for the murder of Vince Foster.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

Anyone can say that a network was set up. They never said who was in the network and who was smeared. They just passed the innuendo that Reagan's staff set up a network to smear. That means absolutely nothing. Without names, dates, etc you have absolutely no proof of anything to back up your statements. As I said no cigar.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>>No, actually, I don't. You asked for documentation

>supporting

>>my claim that the Reagan crowd used smear tactics to get and

>>keep him in office and I provided it. Now you're trying to

>>weasel out. What a surprise.

>I didn't think that there were still idiots left who thought

>that just because they can find a site on the Internet making

>some claim, then it's "proof" that the claim is true, and the

>posting of the Internet site constitutes "documentation." But

>apparently there are such iditos who remain.

And you are obviously one of them. When we were arguing about the issue whether AIDS remains a "lethal" disease in the Lounge section, you posted an article taken from the Internet containing a few assertions that echoed some of the things you said, claiming it as "proof" of your position. Now you hurl insults at me for doing the exact same thing you did. No one here can be in any doubt of your dishonesty and hypocrisy.