The only difference between Nixon and Obama is the fact that the latter has the press on his side.He can do absolutely no wrong in their eyes.
The year 2012 saw the triumph of cold reality over pie-in-the-sky dreams.
Barack Obama in 2008 won an election on an upbeat message of change in the hope that the first black president would mark a redemptive moment in American history. Four years later, the fantasies are gone. In continuing dismal economic times, Obama ran for re-election neither on his first-term achievements -- Obamacare, bailouts, financial stimuli and Keynesian mega-deficits -- nor on more utopian promises.
Instead, Obama's campaign systematically reduced his rival, Wall Street financier Mitt Romney, to a conniving, felonious financial pirate who did dastardly things, from letting the...
I'm not sure what makes a burglary "second rate", but 5 guys breaking into -- twice -- the offices of the opposition party in order to steal a national election seems pretty "first rate" to me.
And Watergate was much more than a simple, single crime. It was a series of misadventures run directly out of the Nixon's office by Nixon's own people. Benghazi and "F&F", though monumental screw-ups both, were not initiated by, directed by, nor is there any indication that they were covered up by Obama. Moreover, though incompent, there's been no evidence presented that either involved criminal activity, whereas Watergate was a series of clearly illegal activities in which Nixon was personally involved, either before or after the fact
Nixon went down in large part because Mark Felts ("Deep Throat"), the second in command at the FBI, rolled over on him. And because the Senate conducted a very public investigation of the Watergate swamp.
There are plenty of people in DC who don't like Obama. If any of them had real dirt on him about Libya or F&F, it would come out. And the Republican-controlled HoR would be more than happy to burn BO in hearings -- if they could.
As far as direct Presidential criminal involvement, Watergate's in a class by itself.
As the guy at the top of the political food chain, Obama is responsible for all that happens in his government. But unless he gave specific instructions for Benghazi security staffing levels or for how to conduct the botched Arizona gun running sting, he is not "directly responsible". And if there is prosecutable criminal negligence in either case, it is not his. Unless, that is, some evidence I've not even heard hinted at comes to light. Do you have such evidence?
You can certainly blame him, but there's nothing with which to charge him.
Oh, I don't know.... how about FOX News?
Sean Hannity would wet himself if someone came to him with an Obama "smoking gun" expose. So would Trace Gallagher, Megyn Kelly, TH's own Michael Barone, Steve Doocy, Greta van Susteren, and a few others I can think of.
And if FOX broke such a story, the rest of the mainstream media would have to follow suit.
If FOX, in concert with a Republican HoR, couldn't make a strong enough case to impeach if handed smoking gun evidence, then the evidence just wasn't solid enough.
The major networks liked Bill Clinton, but they certainly didn't bury the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Juicy news trumps all other considerations in a for-profit news operation. It's all about the ratings ...
Even a smoking gun isn't enough if the offender is a liberal - the Lewinsky scandal proved that. Additionally, it is impossible to reasonably deny the fact that media bias has increased greatly since the time of the Clinton administration.
Lack of evidence does not equal exoneration. We may not put anyone of substance in jail, but we should be able to make judgements on the character and fitness of those involved
It was a second-rate burglary because they were caught in the act. Nixon's crime was covering up their crime. No different than what BO has done. He by claiming executive privilege on Holder's emails is covering it up. Ditto for the Benghazi coverup.
Maybe there's an F&F coverup and maybe not. Did Obama personally know there were agents in Arizona allowing straw man purchases? There's been no evidence presented to suggest that. And there probably won't be because that operation was unlikely to have been high-level enough to warrant direct White House involvement.
Nixon, on the other hand, was the target of testimony by many of the people, including John Dean, the White House Counsel, directly involved in both the initial unlawful actions and the subsequent coverup. Then there were the audio tapes of Nixon telling his operatives how to conduct and fund the coverup.
And if you wish to insult me, at least spell it right. "Dimwit" is one word.