From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 08:06:51 MST
Charles Hixson wrote:
"I would not characterise Nixon as a loon. Certainly Caligula was much
more insane. He did, however, betray his oath of office repeatedly. He
did suborn justice. He did attempt to destroy the evidence. I believe
that he did many more cimes, but those are matters of public record. So
he may not have been a literal loon. Perhaps. And he may have done
some good things. (OK. It's quite likely that he wasn't intending to
destroy the government, and he probably saw himself as the good guy, and
did what he thought a good guy would do.)"
He "might" not have been a literal loon? Mr. Hixson, you're too kind...:) I
think it fair to say, and quite obviously, that he believed when making
decisions, as I think is the case with most of our chief executives, he was
acting in the best interest of the people of the United States. But more to
the point, your characterization remains grossly unfair. "Certainly Caligula
was much more insane?" Come on. I don't know what you're basing your
psychoanalysis on, whether it be Anthony Summers, who when not writing about
President Nixon's "abuses" has written about how Anastasia survived the
Soviet coup, or Woodward and Bernstein's "Final Days" in which it has been
illustrated that they didn't even talk to some of their quoted sources (such
as Edward Cox), but let's get to the record here. You phrase your argument in
such a way that you seem to suggest that it is more likely that President
Nixon was at least partially insane than it is likely that he accomplished
anything of merit. "He may have done some good things", was your wording.
I think before fully elaborating on this topic it would be helpful to know
precisely where you stand on this issue. Do you suggest that somehow Nixon's
actions, whatever they may be, were somehow of such a unique nature that only
he deserved in the history of our republic to be removed from office and
perpetually villified? Do you even suggest that Nixon was somehow the only
one of his Presidential contemporaries to engage in any or all of the
activities you claim he was guilty of? Do you suggest that Nixon's role on
the periphery of a bungled break-in of a party headed toward a defeat of
historical proportions in that November's presidential elections were more
serious a threat to "The Constitution, our system of government, way of life"
or any other apocalyptic term you choose to use than say, Lincoln's
abolishment of the writ of Habeus Corpus or FDR interning thousands of
Japanese-Americans in concentration camps?
"But he clearly deserved to be not only impeached, but convicted and
sentenced to hard labor. At minimum. My personal feeling was that he
should have been "crucified in a public square" for betrayal of his
country."
Again, given your attitudes on President Nixon, as an example, I would ask
you to explain to me where precisely after two years of perpetual committee
leaks, unsubstantiated charges of all sorts, and flat out hostile press
coverage, where precisely do you think he would have received a fair trial in
this country?
"But he wasn't as bad as Bush, not even nearly."
I would ask that you elaborate further on this comment before I respond.
"We just had
higher standards then."
This, at best, is wishful thinking. At worst it is nothing short of fantasy.
If "we" had such high standards, then why weren't the "paragons of justice"
in the 93rd Congress and their predecessors interested in bringing Nixon's
predecessors to "justice" for at the very least the same charges which were
brought against Nixon?
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 08:14:26 MST