There's something very Nixonian about the idea of keeping an enemy's list.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Lists are anti-democratic, discriminatory, elitist, and sometimes the print is too small.
It was accountability that Nixon feared.
The president says, 'What difference does it make what you call the enemy?' Are you kidding me? As an intelligence officer, I would never get away with that. I could never say, 'Well, you know, boss, I don't label this enemy that we're facing.'
Nixon did have a secret plan, and I knew that it involved making threats of nuclear war to North Vietnam.
Meanwhile, my residence within the Federal lines, and my acquaintance with so many of the officers, the origin of which I have already mentioned, enabled me to gain much important information as to the position and designs of the enemy.
And then fourth, we have that essential group of people who track programs and budgets to ensure that they align with the needs of preparation and warning, counterintelligence and support to the operational war fighter.
I'm not a list person.
Ever since we've had electronic communications, and particularly during a time of war, presidents have authorized the electronic surveillance of the enemy.
Politically speaking, you don't necessarily give away information that allows your enemy to get an upper hand. But at the same time you don't keep reality from the population.
When the federal government gets around to cleaning up their lists, I am sure we'll take another look at the Lowey amendment. But until then, this effort will continue to have bipartisan opposition.
No opposing quotes found.