Andrew Card confirms coverup

On meet the press, Andy Card confirmed that the Bush Administration will fight in court to defend the information that Cheney is hiding. These guys will wind up making Richard Nixon look honest.

I bet the list Cheney is protecting has only one name on it: Kenneth Ley.

I think Nixon was more or less honest enough for a President. OK, perhaps a little less:-)... but really not all that bad on the scale of honesty if we throw other world leaders into the mix.


If we have too honest a President, we may end up with have another Carter, and tough foreign negotiators, and hostage-takers, may walk all over us.


I'd rather have Nixon than Carter dealing with al Qaeda, and I'd rather have Bush than Gore for the same purpose, too.


A bit of internal dishonesty or corruption means little compared to getting nuked by a bunch of zealots.

Seems like you're equating honesty with incompetence and dishonesty with competence based on a few examples.


Nixon was more than just a "bit" dishonest or "corrupt." He was a pathological liar, a parnoid, anti-semitic, racist crook, a war criminal of the first order, certainly the most dangerous zealot of his time, the person most capable of nuking someone. He threatened to do so, made it part of his persona, "Mad" Nixon.


Certainly one can be tough and competent, as well as honest; and one can be weak and incompetent, and also dishonest. I don't think we have anything to fear from a president that is "too honest." What was Lincoln's nickname?

Nice to see that you don't believe in the Constitution of The United States. i always thought you were a fascist.

I will not say that I agree with "M", but it's nice to see a die-hard 'by-the-book' person like yourself. Man, I bet that you wish African Americans still only got 3/5 of a vote, don't you?


Speaking of which, what is it with women getting to vote thing? It wasn't in the original constitution, and it is so wonderful, that it certainly is faultless and should not be changed.


Now, even if I (or anybody) else says that they disagree with some aspect of the constitution, why does that make them a fascist? I musta missed that in civics.


By all means, Michael, attack people who have different views than you. Highjack airplanes, if necessary.


Worm

Andy: I'm not trying to say that the qualities are completely mutually exclusive. I'm just saying that it's very hard indeed to find a leader who is both effective and totally honest, especially since dealing with certain international forces may require some underhanded bargaining of sorts or dirty deeds at times.


Given a likely choice, I would opt for the effective leader who is a bit dishonest rather than the ineffective one who is totally honest, especially in today's dangerous world.


Yes, Abe Lincoln came to my mind too, but I don't think we're likely to find another Honest Abe anytime soon, even under a different moniker.

I'm just trying to be realistic in a dangerous and corrupt world. If you want to call that Fascist, be my guest, but I am not a Fascist. On the other hand, I could make a strong argument that terrorists are actually a type of Fascists.

Nixon may have been paranoid, but that doesn't mean the Red Communists weren't out to get the USA. If they had succeeded, Canada would have been a sitting duck and you would have grown up saluting statues of Lenin. Does that sound crazy? Only because the Red Communists failed.