Ranking the Presidents from top to buttom

[12th Doctor]

I'll do my top 20 because, after 20 who cares and also after about 20 the quality of the presidents drops off very suddenly.  Also, this is a list of who I think are the BEST presidents of all-time, not my favorites.

1) Abraham Lincoln
2) George Washington
3) Teddy Roosevelt
4) Ronald Reagan
5) Harry Truman
6) Thomas Jefferson (he was a good president, but pretty hypocritical)
7) James Madison
8] John Adams
9) Bob Dole (sigh, in a parallel universe)
9) (for real) Dwight Eisenhower
10) John F. Kennedy
11) James Monroe
12) Richard Nixon
13) Andrew Jackson
14) William McKinley
15) George Bush
16) Franklin Deleno Roosevelt ( Only reason he is on here AT ALL is because he kept the morale of the nation up during the Great Depression and WWII)
17) Willaim Howard Taft (as I have said before, the most under-rated president in history in my opinion)
18) Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society was a disaster in my opinion, but he did advance Civil Rights, I chastize him for Vietnam not because he kept it going, but because he didn't put enough foward to decisivly win the war from the outset, but at least he kept us there, unlike what a lot of Dems would have done at the time)
19) Calvin Coolidge (good lazze fare economic policy, but he should have done something to stop the farms from failing, I think if he had, it would have shallowed the Depression)
20) At this point, I don't think it matters anymore

Depending on how the second term of the Bush presidency goes, he could rank anywhere from 6-15 on my-list in the future.

[12th Doctor]

I'll do my top 20 because, after 20 who cares and also after about 20 the quality of the presidents drops off very suddenly.  Also, this is a list of who I think are the BEST presidents of all-time, not my favorites.

1) Abraham Lincoln
2) George Washington
3) Teddy Roosevelt
4) Ronald Reagan
5) Harry Truman
6) Thomas Jefferson (he was a good president, but pretty hypocritical)
7) James Madison
8] John Adams
9) Bob Dole (sigh, in a parallel universe)
9) (for real) Dwight Eisenhower
10) John F. Kennedy
11) James Monroe
12) Richard Nixon
13) Andrew Jackson
14) William McKinley
15) George Bush
16) Franklin Deleno Roosevelt ( Only reason he is on here AT ALL is because he kept the morale of the nation up during the Great Depression and WWII)
17) Willaim Howard Taft (as I have said before, the most under-rated president in history in my opinion)
18) Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society was a disaster in my opinion, but he did advance Civil Rights, I chastize him for Vietnam not because he kept it going, but because he didn't put enough foward to decisivly win the war from the outset, but at least he kept us there, unlike what a lot of Dems would have done at the time)
19) Calvin Coolidge (good lazze fare economic policy, but he should have done something to stop the farms from failing, I think if he had, it would have shallowed the Depression)
20) At this point, I don't think it matters anymore

Depending on how the second term of the Bush presidency goes, he could rank anywhere from 6-15 on my-list in the future.

How was it good by LBJ to keep you in Vietnam? It would have been better to pull out, than to suffer all the things you suffered by just being there for so long without achieving anything.

LBJ staying in Vietnam made it possible for Nixon to escalate the war and bring North Vietnam to the peace table.  If Nixon hadn't resigned, I don't think that the North would have attacked and over taken the South, because they would have been terrified of Nixon.  We won in Vietnam.  The North recongnized the independence of the South.  We lost the peace, that's all.  We lost South Vietnam because the nation was in turmiol from Watergate and the Communists took advantage of that to over run the South.  I do think that LBJ should have been more agressive in subduing the North, but, oh well.

[12th Doctor]

I'll do my top 20 because, after 20 who cares and also after about 20 the quality of the presidents drops off very suddenly.  Also, this is a list of who I think are the BEST presidents of all-time, not my favorites.

1) Abraham Lincoln
2) George Washington
3) Teddy Roosevelt
4) Ronald Reagan
5) Harry Truman
6) Thomas Jefferson (he was a good president, but pretty hypocritical)
7) James Madison
8] John Adams
9) Bob Dole (sigh, in a parallel universe)
9) (for real) Dwight Eisenhower
10) John F. Kennedy
11) James Monroe
12) Richard Nixon
13) Andrew Jackson
14) William McKinley
15) George Bush
16) Franklin Deleno Roosevelt ( Only reason he is on here AT ALL is because he kept the morale of the nation up during the Great Depression and WWII)
17) Willaim Howard Taft (as I have said before, the most under-rated president in history in my opinion)
18) Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society was a disaster in my opinion, but he did advance Civil Rights, I chastize him for Vietnam not because he kept it going, but because he didn't put enough foward to decisivly win the war from the outset, but at least he kept us there, unlike what a lot of Dems would have done at the time)
19) Calvin Coolidge (good lazze fare economic policy, but he should have done something to stop the farms from failing, I think if he had, it would have shallowed the Depression)
20) At this point, I don't think it matters anymore

Depending on how the second term of the Bush presidency goes, he could rank anywhere from 6-15 on my-list in the future.

How was it good by LBJ to keep you in Vietnam? It would have been better to pull out, than to suffer all the things you suffered by just being there for so long without achieving anything.

LBJ staying in Vietnam made it possible for Nixon to escalate the war and bring North Vietnam to the peace table.  If Nixon hadn't resigned, I don't think that the North would have attacked and over taken the South, because they would have been terrified of Nixon.  We won in Vietnam.  The North recongnized the independence of the South.  We lost the peace, that's all.  We lost South Vietnam because the nation was in turmiol from Watergate and the Communists took advantage of that to over run the South.  I do think that LBJ should have been more agressive in subduing the North, but, oh well.

I think the South was toast and never stood a chance. The only thing you might have achieved was literally bombing North Vietnam back to the stone age, wiping out the nation comletely. You could never have won it in any real sense of the word.

But the North acctually did give-up.  The War was over for two years or so before the North reinvaded the south with almost no opposition.  They did it because they new the US wouldn't stop them.  If Nixon had still been president, they wouldn't have dared.  

[12th Doctor]

I don't know where this fits, but I was looking at the lists and remembered an interesting fact.  James Madison is the only president in history to every acctually fulfil his capacity as Commander and Chief on the battle field.

[12th Doctor]

Personally, I don't like Grant (woah... corruption up the wazoo!), and Hoover (I think I heard a quote from his telling someone who was poor to eat the White House grass to get food... he seemed pretty insensitive to the working/unemployed man)if I'm wrong, correct me!)

What the HELL!!!!  Hoover never siad that.  That's liberal Bullsh*t propaganda.  Hoover was know for being one of the greatest humanitarians in history before he was president.  

[12th Doctor]

You know, I could have done what I almost felt like doing and flunk all of the Dem presidents, but since I, unlike most of you Dems, decided to approch this thing objectivly, I decided to put Dems on my list.  Kennedy is in my top 20.  So is LBJ.  So is FDR, inspite of my considerible dislike for his policies.  Truman is prominant on my list.  Yet you Dems put Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War and defeated the greatest threat ever to the freedom of mankind, and also, a HELL of a good guy at the bottom of your lists.  Can you make an unbiased judgement here?  I would even understand if you put Reagan at 15 or 20, but putting him at the very bottom near Andrew Johnson.  Why?  What are you trying to prove?

As for ncjake's comments:  I am a student of the Civil War.  I would match my knowledge of it up against anyone at anytime.  I am a fan of bothsides in the war.  I had relatives who fought for bothsides.  I can tell you that I don't view Lincoln as a Tyrant inspite of the fact that I like the Confederates and respect what they fought for.  I also don't view the South as a bunch of red-neck, ignorant oppressors who were fighting to keep slavery and couldn't wait to beat a negro, inspite of the fact that I like the north and respect what they fought for.  The southern cause to fight for states' rights and to preserve there way of life, (minus slavery, of course) was a noble one and deserves to be respected.  The northern cause of preserving the union and ending the 'peculiar institution' that was a sin of  ALL Americans (as Lincoln believed) was a noble one and deservse to be respected.  This task (the most difficult task asigned to any president in history) was assigned to Lincoln and he came through.  For that he is not only the greatest of all time, but the greatest president FOR all time.

[12th Doctor]

My ten favorite and least favorite. This probably contradicts older posts but oh well.

1. Ronald Reagan
2. George Washington
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. James Madison
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Jefferson Davis( I know)
7. George Bush
8. Andrew Johnson
9. George W. Bush
10. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Least Favorite:

1. John F. Kennedy (Cuban Killer)
2. Abraham Lincoln (Tyrant)
3. LBJ (socialist)
4. Andrew Jackson(Indian hater)
5. FDR (socialist)
6. Clinton (Felon)
7. Ulysses Grant (bribe taking South crusher)
8. Woodrow Wilson (uuggghh)
9.  Jimmy Carter (dimwit)
10. Did I mention JFK?

Real Accurate. You called Clinton a felon and Lincoln a tyrant. Bogus. Here are my worst picks:

1. Andrew Johnson (I have a friend named Andrew Johnson)
2. Franklin Pierce (A drunk anti-abolitionist from NH)
3. James Buchannan ( He couldn't keep anything under control)
4. Milard Filmore (Yet another lousy one term pre-civil war  president)
5. John Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts, first one-term president)
6. Warren Harding (That diamond scandal and the beginning of the roaring twenties)
7. Calvin Coolidge (Made reckless spending the Republican agenda)
8. George W. Bush (Must I explain? The weaknesses of Coolidge and Adams)
9. Ullyses S. Grant (A good general but a drunk president)
10. The presidents after Grant in the late 1800's (reckless  and unmemorable)

The main reason Adams signed the alien and sedition acts was that Jefferson and Burr were trying to sabatage his presidency from with-in.  Jefferson was acctually subverting Adam's forieng policy because he favored the French.

[12th Doctor]

For a belgian citizen:

1)Roosevelt (thanks!)
2)Lincoln (a republican! lol)
3)RFK (better than JFK)
4)JFK
5)Jefferson
6)Washington
7)Clinton (very funny!)
...

in last position:

30)Reagan (great communicator but nothing else...)
31)Nixon (Watergate...and a man who hadn't to be president)
32)Johnson: I don't know if he has killed Kennedy but viet nam is a good reason to hate this man...
33)Bush junior: no comment... I believe that it's a stupid guy (as his country? lol)  


And Hoover too but without Hoover, no Roosevelt thus thanks Hoover to have given 13 years of FDR!

Okay, well first of you insut us bycalling us stupid, then you say that RFK was a president?  Wait a second, who's stupid?

[12th Doctor]

You know, I could have done what I almost felt like doing and flunk all of the Dem presidents, but since I, unlike most of you Dems, decided to approch this thing objectivly, I decided to put Dems on my list.  Kennedy is in my top 20.  So is LBJ.  So is FDR, inspite of my considerible dislike for his policies.  Truman is prominant on my list.  Yet you Dems put Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War and defeated the greatest threat ever to the freedom of mankind, and also, a HELL of a good guy at the bottom of your lists.  Can you make an unbiased judgement here?  I would even understand if you put Reagan at 15 or 20, but putting him at the very bottom near Andrew Johnson.  Why?  What are you trying to prove?

As for ncjake's comments:  I am a student of the Civil War.  I would match my knowledge of it up against anyone at anytime.  I am a fan of bothsides in the war.  I had relatives who fought for bothsides.  I can tell you that I don't view Lincoln as a Tyrant inspite of the fact that I like the Confederates and respect what they fought for.  I also don't view the South as a bunch of red-neck, ignorant oppressors who were fighting to keep slavery and couldn't wait to beat a negro, inspite of the fact that I like the north and respect what they fought for.  The southern cause to fight for states' rights and to preserve there way of life, (minus slavery, of course) was a noble one and deserves to be respected.  The northern cause of preserving the union and ending the 'peculiar institution' that was a sin of  ALL Americans (as Lincoln believed) was a noble one and deservse to be respected.  This task (the most difficult task asigned to any president in history) was assigned to Lincoln and he came through.  For that he is not only the greatest of all time, but the greatest president FOR all time.

I haven't checked it thoruoughly, but please prove to me that Dems rank Republicans worse than Reps rank Democrats on this thread. I have not had that impression.

You know me Gustaf, that's not the point.  I don't care that Reps have ranked ALL Dems low on there lists.  That doesn't mean that the Dems should respond in kind.  I think that ALL fair-minded people should have both Dems and Reps somewhere in there top 20.  Which ones is left to debate.  I have chastized memebers of my own party in the past for saying negative things about guys like Truman.  I just think that if we are going to be intelletually honest, there shouldn't be a list with Clinton on the top and Reagan and W on the bottom, or a list Reagan and W at the very top and Truman, LBJ, Jackson and Kennedy at the bottom.

[12th Doctor]

 I had relatives who fought for bothsides.

They got to be really old...

LOL  You crack me up.  

[12th Doctor]

I had FDR at #1, Ike at #2, and Reagan at #8, for the guys in the 20th century. There were good Presidents this century from both parties.

You had him at #8 for this century BELOW Taft.  That's not very flatering.

[12th Doctor]

OK, those who would be in my top 10 list, in no particular order yet, would be the follwoing:

Reagan

Washington

FDR

Truman

Lincoln

Jefferson

Eisenhower

Well, those are all that qualify right now...to be continued, I guess...

That's 2 Dems and 2 Reps from te time when those labels are applicable.

You don't need 2 and 2.  I'm not asking for an affirmative action program here.  I just wanted some balance.  If this is how you feel then great, but don't just split it to get diversity.  That's not what I wanted.

[12th Doctor]

The average American is stupid. The educated American is well-studied.

WOW...  You are the poster-child for liberal elitisim.

PS  How can you really believe that?  I suppose that you don't consider yourself amoung the 'average' then?

[12th Doctor]

I'm not. I'm the 2 time state geography champ.

And that some how makes you better than everyone else?

[12th Doctor]

I am from an over educated family. And take school too seriously. I do have an intellectual supremacy complex inside of me.

Last summer I went to a boarding school for summer school. It was great fun! Anyways the American crowd was overwhelmingly from the Northeast, high-tech Texas, and California, with the exception of a large group of black students from Jackson Mississippi. Anyways, the over-educated, intellectual core of America is in the Northeast and the west coast. I think thats how I got into this mess.

On a different subject I will rank the top five presidents:

1. Lincoln (he took care of slavery, and the whining South)
2. TR (He taught the Republican Party many great things)
3. Washington (he gave us a strong start)
4. Truman (Cold War, end of World War II, and changed the tone on the issue of civil rights)
5. FDR (He's a tough one, he did a lot of things wrong, but what he did right was essential)

How well educated you are has nothing to do with how intellegent you are.  Einstien flunked out of school twice.  The average IQ of a person who goes to Harvard or Yale is really not that much higher than the IQ of the average college student.

For those of you who think Bush is stupid, he has an IQ of 129.  That's well above average intellegence, average being 100.  Which brings me to a point.  Many of you think that southerners are stupid because they talk a certain way, or act a certain way or aren't as well educated.  Well, IQ is the measure of intellegence, did you know that an IQ sampling from an Inuit fishing villiage in Canada or a tribal village in Africa is NO Different from a sampling taken in Boston, NYC or LA?

IQ data on Clinton doesn't exist, but it can be assumed that his IQ was closer to average than Bush's, because people with average IQ's teand to have better people skills.  In fact people who are judged to have excellent people skills often fall in the 110-120 range in IQ.

But does having a higher IQ make you superior to others?  Of course not because people of average IQ's RUN SOCIETY.  People of average IQ's control the world.  They are in every aspect of business and government.  You may even know some of these people, Zachman.

At any rate, it is rather arrogent for you to run around assumeing that you are better than others or somehow have earned the right to proclaim your superiority over a LARGE area of the population.  I don't go around bragging about it, anbd infact when people ask, I will never tell them, but I have an IQ of 145.  That 5 points above what MENSA considers genius.  I also have a learning disability that, amoung other things, makes spelling words I don't use reagularly difficult for me.  It isn't a major hinderence to my life, but it illustrates a principle: we are all mortal in some way.  I certainly don't go around pretending that I'm  better than others because I'm a genius.  I don't care.  Means nothing to me.  I don't go around thinking, 'Hmmm, I'm smarter than them', because that's just not me.  I don't have to feel superior to someone inorder to feel good about myself.

Truth is that we are all humans.  God made us who we are and he loves all of us equally.  He blessed everone with individual gifts and talents.  To write off 1/3+ of the population as being 'stupid' because they don't match-up to your standards, or don't believe the same things you do is an afront to God's creation and I think that everyone should find it personally offensive.  

[12th Doctor]

I don't care about IQ. Its really the conditions you are raised in that effect how your education will go. I am not talking about where people are bright and gifted . I do realize that my prejudices are prejudiced, and I am trying to understand exactly what is behind them by explaining them.

But you certainly care about education, as though it was the be all end all of everything.  You certainly seem to think that southerners (and probably indirectly, rural people in general) are intellectually inferior to yourself.  And you clearly stated.

Quote from: zachman on Today at 06:19:05pm
The average American is stupid.

I think that this is the root of the discussion.  You say you are bias, but seem to make no effort to change.  You simply go on with this pattern.  So what's the issue?  If you admit that your prejudices are wrong (which you haven't) then it is not that hard to change your thinking.  Seems to me that you have made no great effor to do so.

[12th Doctor]

I am from an over educated family. And take school too seriously. I do have an intellectual supremacy complex inside of me.

Last summer I went to a boarding school for summer school. It was great fun! Anyways the American crowd was overwhelmingly from the Northeast, high-tech Texas, and California, with the exception of a large group of black students from Jackson Mississippi. Anyways, the over-educated, intellectual core of America is in the Northeast and the west coast. I think thats how I got into this mess.

On a different subject I will rank the top five presidents:

1. Lincoln (he took care of slavery, and the whining South)
2. TR (He taught the Republican Party many great things)
3. Washington (he gave us a strong start)
4. Truman (Cold War, end of World War II, and changed the tone on the issue of civil rights)
5. FDR (He's a tough one, he did a lot of things wrong, but what he did right was essential)

How well educated you are has nothing to do with how intellegent you are.  Einstien flunked out of school twice.  The average IQ of a person who goes to Harvard or Yale is really not that much higher than the IQ of the average college student.

For those of you who think Bush is stupid, he has an IQ of 129.  That's well above average intellegence, average being 100.  Which brings me to a point.  Many of you think that southerners are stupid because they talk a certain way, or act a certain way or aren't as well educated.  Well, IQ is the measure of intellegence, did you know that an IQ sampling from an Inuit fishing villiage in Canada or a tribal village in Africa is NO Different from a sampling taken in Boston, NYC or LA?

IQ data on Clinton doesn't exist, but it can be assumed that his IQ was closer to average than Bush's, because people with average IQ's teand to have better people skills.  In fact people who are judged to have excellent people skills often fall in the 110-120 range in IQ.

But does having a higher IQ make you superior to others?  Of course not because people of average IQ's RUN SOCIETY.  People of average IQ's control the world.  They are in every aspect of business and government.  You may even know some of these people, Zachman.

At any rate, it is rather arrogent for you to run around assumeing that you are better than others or somehow have earned the right to proclaim your superiority over a LARGE area of the population.  I don't go around bragging about it, anbd infact when people ask, I will never tell them, but I have an IQ of 145.  That 5 points above what MENSA considers genius.  I also have a learning disability that, amoung other things, makes spelling words I don't use reagularly difficult for me.  It isn't a major hinderence to my life, but it illustrates a principle: we are all mortal in some way.  I certainly don't go around pretending that I'm  better than others because I'm a genius.  I don't care.  Means nothing to me.  I don't go around thinking, 'Hmmm, I'm smarter than them', because that's just not me.  I don't have to feel superior to someone inorder to feel good about myself.

Truth is that we are all humans.  God made us who we are and he loves all of us equally.  He blessed everone with individual gifts and talents.  To write off 1/3+ of the population as being 'stupid' because they don't match-up to your standards, or don't believe the same things you do is an afront to God's creation and I think that everyone should find it personally offensive.  

Bush has a 129 IQ? it's his first lie...I have lots of citations (if I find them, I would give them to you) where we can see the stupidity of the US president.

And I prefer Darwin.

First off, it's not a lie, those are the results that came-up when he took the test, although some believe that his estimated IQ is probably higher.

Secondly, it is widely know that Bush has suffered from a learning disability since he was very young.  His mother said on TV that she had to work hard to teach young George how to read and write properly.  So if you are going to bring out a bunch of examples about how he mistated this, or screwed-up that, I would ask you to note that, please not that it doesn't mean that he is stupid.  Having a learning disability does NOT make someone stupid and I think that it is tragic that many people who have them are lead to believe that they are.

[12th Doctor]

It's too bad Bush's policies make it more difficult for children with learning disabilities, isn't it?  Schools are so underfunded they have very little ability to help those most in need of additional help.  Not everyone has the ability to get the extra help Dubya got.  I do not believe Bush is stupid.  I believe he has little interest in learning a lot, however, which is quite different.  He's of above average intelligence, he's just not concerned about knowing a lot about a lot of things.  He relies on others to help him out in those areas.  That's actually not a bad quality; I just think it would be better if he knew a little more than he does know.  Carter probably should have let his advisors help him more than he did.  Clinton did a pretty good job of walking the line, in my opinion.

First off, when he was growing-up they had no way of classifying these things so he didn't get 'extra help' it was his mother who worked with him.  Second, according to his proposal during the election, more federal funding was intended for the schools, but that got cut out when Kennedy wrote the bill and it was voted on in congress.  That's a fact, you can look it up.  Third, there is a lot of waste in public education no matter what way you look at it and alot of money could be saved and put into helping the kids if we cracked down on it.

I aggree with pretty much everything else you said.  I'm glad that there is a Democrat out there who will agknowledge that Bush is not an idiot even if you disaggree with his policies.

[12th Doctor]

not all kids have parents truly capable of helping, particularly with something like a learning disability.  Most moms nowadays have to work to make ends meet.

That's true.  I aggree.  But the way you were making it sound was as though his parents hired a tutor for $500 a day or did something else only plausible for the super-rich.  I see now that that's not what you had intended.

[12th Doctor]

I will also add that 1) I don't have a lot of confidence in IQ tests, I've taken a few who all turned up pretty different results, 2) intelligence does not ensure good judgement, the number one quality ofa good leader and 3) I think the stuff about Einstein doing badly in school is a myth, even though I agree that good results in school are not necessarily correlated with intelligence.

1) Different tests measure different things.  I have also had this problem, but I'm going at least by MY MENSA scores and that is generally considered accurate.  Many IQ test have a problem in that they are created to measure the IQ of an average person.  So they can become inaccurate past the 120 range.  If the first test you took was geared toward an average test taker and the second was for a higher level test tkaer, you could end-up with very different result.

2) No argueement there.  That wasn't my point.

3) It's not a myth.  I did a bio on Einstien for a class once.  It's true.

[12th Doctor]

darn soulty, ya beat me, 137/8 but then again, I took the test at 15 and your iq doesn't settle down till you hit 16 lol, I thought Bush had never taken an iq test but they thought his iq was between 115 and 120. When did he take the test?

I regard some of the things Bush has done in his life as pretty stupid though, e.g. drunk driving.

137 good job!!  I think that on a bad day mine dips down to about 135 so the numbers aren't that important.  I don't have it handy, but I read an article by a psychologist who said that he had shown up in the 127-131 range.  Thus 129.  He may have just been estimating.

Even the most intellengent people make mistakes.

[12th Doctor]

1. The Mensa one only has geometric figures right? I hate geometry...

i used to be, but they have changed it since.

[12th Doctor]

No they have numbers problems, logic etc.  I should point out I made a mistake, my MENSA score was 135.  Still good.  MENSA does not test for language skills.  There are tests out there that do.  On one of those tests I scored 145.  I thinkthat there is an effort ot put word problems into the MENSA to make it more fair.

Also, so there is no confusion, i took the test from an official MENSA book and there was no official proctor present, so I never acctually got a MENSA certification.  It costs like $200 or something, so....

[12th Doctor]

No they have numbers problems, logic etc.  I should point out I made a mistake, my MENSA score was 135.  Still good.  MENSA does not test for language skills.  There are tests out there that do.  On one of those tests I scored 145.  I thinkthat there is an effort ot put word problems into the MENSA to make it more fair.

Also, so there is no confusion, i took the test from an official MENSA book and there was no official proctor present, so I never acctually got a MENSA certification.  It costs like $200 or something, so....

Ah, cheater! J/k...

The lagnauge skills would bias it a little towards non-Ebnglish speakers, supposig that we would be doing the American test, so I don't know if that would really help my cahnces...

well, it would be in the form of analogies.  "This is to this as that is to that"

[12th Doctor]

Alger Hiss was aslo indicted by the Soviet's files.  Nixon was right.