Nixon lied through his teeth just to get the public attention on something else. What he didn’t realize was that it was the beginning of his demise. Although many Americans didn’t care about the little scene in the ... ... middle of paper ... ...r’s mission, people got infuriated with the scandal, and he resigned to get away with his mistakes. He got impeached because he violated of constitutional oath, prevented, obstructed, and impeded administration of justice, and concealed those responsible of prison. He violated the constitutional oath because he did not serve his country the way he is supposed to.
So either we support their words and actions or we are vilified as unpatriotic.” Bush had a dictator attitude when it came to his reasoning for war. He felt he did not have to justify or answer to anyone’s questions for his reasons. Bush let Americans believe some of the conspiracy theories in order to shift the blame away from his administration. Instead of finding the most qualified skilled individual to lead the investigation on the 9/11 attacks, Bush appointed an individual who has been under fire with the government before. Henry Kissinger, a man whose been investigated for his secretive activities and tried for war crimes, was now called to investigate the biggest crime against America.
As soon as this happens, rumors and theories of conspiracy are developed and America’s society hears nothing but these malevolent accusations towards the presidency. Citizens therefore are left confounded and are tugged to one side of the story and then to the other until they are left with nothing else to believe. Certain questions are upheld, such as: “Why doesn’t the government just tell the whole truth to begin with; why is it that we cannot handle the truth?”. Censorship does not enable us to make smart decisions; on the other hand, it just allows us to make rash accusations such as: “If America has done nothing wrong then why censor the bad news out, are they really doing something wrong?” Hernandez 2 On the other hand, there might b reasons as to why the government censors most of its news. One of these reasons might be because of “national security”.
If the US goals in the conflict were purely humanitarian, then it would be a different story. Clearly, Saddam did not support human rights (he killed people instantly who merely questioned him) and the country was by no means democratic. Going again off of how Saddam operates, ... ... middle of paper ... ...tion not be fixable, the US would only have the options of appealing to the UN for help or withdrawing. While re-stabilization is going on, the political powers that be should be communicating and cooperating to eventually come to a consensus once the country is in a stable enough state. Perhaps a democracy is not the best type of government for a politically polarized nation and the US will have to live with that as long as the chosen government is legitimate.
Is this “the big lie [Obama's opponents] dare not to admit?” MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews asked last year. “They know full well he's an American. They're simply out to destroy him personally. Yes, assassinate him with their lies.” What this is trying to say is that clearly the president is a citizen but to some they just didn’t want to believe it. Also it depends on your point of view to agree if he was lying or not.
Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens. It is likely to consider Edward Snowden as a whistle blower because he wanted the people to decide what the government can or can not do.
Snowden, as reason for his security breach said “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” In this statement he refers to the immense secrets that the U.S. government is keeping from its people. So, the debate still goes on: Yes Edward Snowden broke the law, but was it for a good reason? Now, as to who the breach went to. At first he planned on telling the story to the New York Times, but in the end he decided not to because he found out that the New York Times had a great scoop in “the election year of 2004- that the Bush administration, post 9/11, allowed the NSA to snoop on U.S. citizens without warrants- but had sat on it for a year before publishing.” Snowden said that “this was the turning poin... ... middle of paper ... ...art a new life for himself in Russia. Now, the debate rages on: Is Edward Snowden an American hero or an American villain.
He then lied about this obstruction before the grand jury. The President still denies he broke the law. He knows, however, that as soon as he does admit this then it’s all over for him. Personally I think the President did break the law. But is it worth sacrificing the wellbeing of the nation over this?
Even when he was sent to Section K where envelopes were ... ... middle of paper ... ...ack to destroy Juan. Since he didn’t find the letter to be important, he acted carelessly and discarded it and was “one more victim of his devotion to his work” (Valenzuela 968). Although many people would not go as far as to essentially commit suicide through the government, Valenzuela is making the point that secrets are dangerous. At the same time, Valenzuela is showing the average person can always be corrupted and caught up in their government if said government is corrupt. The most innocent person will always be tainted and destroyed by an iniquitous government.
He states, “The major problem on the Watergate is simply to clean the thing up by having whoever was responsible admit what happened. Certainly I am satisfied that nobody in the White House had any knowledge or approved any such activity…” (Memoirs 646) The supporting argument is that Nixon made awful choices, but that should not change the people’s opinion of government. Nixon supporters were disgraced and his opponents just shook their heads. His supporters trusted him to do the right things, but in the end he just hurt them. While this was a mayor issue in history the American people should not look at this one bad apple.