If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   So, it is looking more and more like Nixon really did sabotage the Vietnam war peace talks under Johnson, letting it drag on five more years, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Just to win the election   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 175
    More: Sick, Viet Cong, hilton hotel, South Vietnamese, peace talks, North Vietnam, national security adviser, Richard Nixon, Tet Offensive  
•       •       •

5318 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 09:27:25 AM
I just finished reading a pretty good biography of LBJ and came across this- first time I had ever heard of it. Evidently solving the Vietnam was was something LBJ desperately wanted on his way out of the White House. Crazy time.
 
2013-03-16 09:30:56 AM
I don't know which is worse - the fact that LBJ could have had Nixon indicted for treason but didn't, or the fact that he would have been portrayed as a traitor himself at the time for doing so.
 
2013-03-16 09:35:06 AM
John Kerry is probably ready to choke a biatch after RTFA. Private citizen he was meddling in peace talks at the time. I've heard from some Republicans he wasn't supposed to have done that at least a thousand times in late summer early fall of 2004.
 
2013-03-16 09:36:12 AM

X-boxershorts: MFAWG: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?

In public, for all eyes and ears, as a stated policy position, yes.

But, this is not at all what Nixon did.

In your own words, tell me what he did? Because that's all I see here.

Read the article. Listen to the white house tape recordings. Do not fear knowledge that might shake your perceptions.

Private citizen Nixon carried on secret talks with the South Vietnamese government that persuaded that government to withdraw from peace talks
with North Vietnam that were brokered by the US Government and was the official policy of the US Government. This is legally defined as treason.

And the evidence of this is public record now.

That fact that you can't discern this is not my problem.


"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

How do Nixon's actions fit this definition?

What he did was a sleazy Dick move, but it ain't treason.
 
2013-03-16 09:36:53 AM

Hillbilly Jim: John Kerry is probably ready to choke a biatch after RTFA. Private citizen he was meddling in peace talks at the time. I've heard from some Republicans he wasn't supposed to have done that at least a thousand times in late summer early fall of 2004.


I don't remember any peace talks in 2004
 
2013-03-16 09:39:02 AM

MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?

In public, for all eyes and ears, as a stated policy position, yes.

But, this is not at all what Nixon did.

In your own words, tell me what he did? Because that's all I see here.

In public in 1968, Nixon was saying he could not discuss his Vietnamese position in order to not disrupt the Peace talks.  Behind the scenes, he was sending secret envoys telling the Vietnamese not to attend the talks and wait to get a better deal.  You appear to be arguing just to argue.

Oh, FFS. Nixon's ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER was built on a hard line towards communist global expansion.


Which, again, does not matter.

If you try to join the al Qaeda, you are a traitor, even if the al Qaeda refuses to let you join because they think you are a spy.

If you send a secret envoy to participants in Peace talks set up and endorsed by the U.S. government, and tell them to pull out of the talks because you will give them a better deal if you are elected to office, you are a traitor, even if they do not pull out of the Peace talks or pull out of the Peace talks for some other reason.
 
2013-03-16 09:40:45 AM
Well, my take on this:  This is a glaring example of the resoult of looking only toward the destination instead of the journey. It is time for conservatives to start looking at trying to get things with honor.  Look at what cheating gets you?  The truth comes out, it allways does.  Now people like to say that both sides are bad. There are bad liberals.  We don't (as a whole) condone that.  Conservatives promote it!
 
2013-03-16 09:42:03 AM
I'm tempted to find an author I like, who wrote a (fiction) book that was premised under the assumption that Nixon did Watergate to distract from something else, and he wasn't really a crook.

...and laugh at him.
 
2013-03-16 09:42:53 AM

scanman61: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?

In public, for all eyes and ears, as a stated policy position, yes.

But, this is not at all what Nixon did.

In your own words, tell me what he did? Because that's all I see here.

Read the article. Listen to the white house tape recordings. Do not fear knowledge that might shake your perceptions.

Private citizen Nixon carried on secret talks with the South Vietnamese government that persuaded that government to withdraw from peace talks
with North Vietnam that were brokered by the US Government and was the official policy of the US Government. This is legally defined as treason.

And the evidence of this is public record now.

That fact that you can't discern this is not my problem.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

How do Nixon's actions fit this definition?

What he did was a sleazy Dick move, but it ain't treason.


Iva Toguri might disagree with you.

Tricky Dick undermined official US policy in time of war. I guess we could agree to disagree on this point.
 
2013-03-16 09:43:52 AM

Therion: Saint Reagan / Jimmy Carter / 52 American hostages / etc.


came here to say this.

i wonder how long it will be before history acknowledges that reagan arranged for the hostages to be kept longer just to help him win the election.

farking republicans...
 
2013-03-16 09:54:31 AM

RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?

In public, for all eyes and ears, as a stated policy position, yes.

But, this is not at all what Nixon did.

In your own words, tell me what he did? Because that's all I see here.

In public in 1968, Nixon was saying he could not discuss his Vietnamese position in order to not disrupt the Peace talks.  Behind the scenes, he was sending secret envoys telling the Vietnamese not to attend the talks and wait to get a better deal.  You appear to be arguing just to argue.

Oh, FFS. Nixon's ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER was built on a hard line towards communist global expansion.

Which, again, does not matter.

If you try to join the al Qaeda, you are a traitor, even if the al Qaeda refuses to let you join because they think you are a spy.

If you send a secret envoy to participants in Peace talks set up and endorsed by the U.S. government, and tell them to pull out of the talks because you will give them a better deal if you are elected to office, you are a traitor, even if they do not pull out of the Peace talks or pull out of the Peace talks for some other reason.


Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know. There wasn't a person alive in 1968 that thought Nixon was going to withdraw from Southeast Asia.
 
2013-03-16 09:57:06 AM

lucksi: Just imagine what we will learn when they finally release the JFK files. Can't be long now...

Maybe in 40 years we will also learn which corporation was behind 9/11


IIRC, they were going to seal some of the JFK stuff for 50 years, so yeah

/Nixon was the 'grassy knoll' shooter?
 
2013-03-16 10:09:52 AM

MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know.


She told them to withdraw from the Peace talks.  Peace talks endorsed and held by our government. At no time during the campaign, did Nixon tell the voting public that he was advising the South Vietnamese govt. to refuse to participate in the Peace talks and wait for him to make them a better deal.  Again, his actions were treason-ish, no matter what the Vietnamese did or did not know, or what actions they took.
 
2013-03-16 10:17:56 AM

X-boxershorts: Hillbilly Jim: John Kerry is probably ready to choke a biatch after RTFA. Private citizen he was meddling in peace talks at the time. I've heard from some Republicans he wasn't supposed to have done that at least a thousand times in late summer early fall of 2004.

I don't remember any peace talks in 2004


You don't remember Republicans biatching about Kerry being in Paris in 1968 during the fall of 2004?
 
2013-03-16 10:19:00 AM

MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know


Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.
 
2013-03-16 10:23:56 AM

Hillbilly Jim: X-boxershorts: Hillbilly Jim: John Kerry is probably ready to choke a biatch after RTFA. Private citizen he was meddling in peace talks at the time. I've heard from some Republicans he wasn't supposed to have done that at least a thousand times in late summer early fall of 2004.

I don't remember any peace talks in 2004

You don't remember Republicans biatching about Kerry being in Paris in 1968 during the fall of 2004?


No, I misread your post. I thought you were referencing peace talks that took place in 2004.

If Kerry went to Paris as a private citizen in 1968 to protest the Vietnam War, (which, as a private citizen, he's entitled to do such), that is far removed from Nixon undermining official US foreign policy through back channel government contacts.
 
2013-03-16 10:30:50 AM
Baroo
 
2013-03-16 10:31:06 AM
If Nixon did do that, it didn't help that LBJ restricted what we could and couldn't bomb north of the DMZ
 
2013-03-16 10:35:04 AM

RyogaM: MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know

Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.


Nixon's desire to continue the land war wasn't a secret. Try again.
 
2013-03-16 10:36:06 AM

X-boxershorts: Hillbilly Jim: X-boxershorts: Hillbilly Jim: John Kerry is probably ready to choke a biatch after RTFA. Private citizen he was meddling in peace talks at the time. I've heard from some Republicans he wasn't supposed to have done that at least a thousand times in late summer early fall of 2004.

I don't remember any peace talks in 2004

You don't remember Republicans biatching about Kerry being in Paris in 1968 during the fall of 2004?

No, I misread your post. I thought you were referencing peace talks that took place in 2004.

If Kerry went to Paris as a private citizen in 1968 to protest the Vietnam War, (which, as a private citizen, he's entitled to do such), that is far removed from Nixon undermining official US foreign policy through back channel government contacts.


Kerry met with North Vietnamese delegation at the 1970 peace talks. He was not an official. Republicans hammered Kerry for this over and over and over again.
 
2013-03-16 10:38:19 AM
Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.
 
2013-03-16 10:39:15 AM
The sick tag should be reserved for the dogs (they're not people, they're barely Americans) who would sink to any level to defend a man who willfully got thousands of Americans killed in order to get a job that he wanted.

In both instances, they are truly among the least of us.
 
2013-03-16 10:40:50 AM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


Why am I seeing a pattern here?
Is it a subconscious thing?


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-16 10:42:50 AM

MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know

Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.

Nixon's desire to continue the land war wasn't a secret. Try again.


...then why would he need a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese ambassador? That doesn't really fit with the narrative you'd like to push, so far as I can see. (But, if you've got a way to make it fit, go ahead...)

I would be curious about how the messages were delivered, too. Was there any hint towards a total lack of future support if the talks were allowed to continue? You know, a "we really need you to pull out...     and maybe we're not there in three months if you don't pull out..."

(I have no idea, mind you, I'm just curious.)
 
2013-03-16 10:44:24 AM
Yet again, Nixon checkered past dogs him.
 
2013-03-16 10:46:03 AM

lj1330: Well, my take on this:  This is a glaring example of the resoult of looking only toward the destination instead of the journey. It is time for conservatives to start looking at trying to get things with honor.  Look at what cheating gets you?  The truth comes out, it allways does.  Now people like to say that both sides are bad. There are bad liberals.  We don't (as a whole) condone that.  Conservatives promote it!


Having the truth come out doesn't seem to be having any ill effects on them. Nixon got to die of natural causes, carter pardoned him.... Ollie north became a politician.... Having the truth come.out is not a real consequence that has aneffect. There's no justice. A black kid sells a crack rock and gets jail for 10 years. Nixon is responsible for the deaths of at least 22,000 people, and got nothing. Having truth does not equal meaningful justice.
 
2013-03-16 10:48:17 AM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia.


It's mind-blowing how seemingly rational people fall for conspiracy theories
 
2013-03-16 10:56:30 AM
Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.
 
2013-03-16 10:57:55 AM

YoungLochinvar: MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know

Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.

Nixon's desire to continue the land war wasn't a secret. Try again.

...then why would he need a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese ambassador? That doesn't really fit with the narrative you'd like to push, so far as I can see. (But, if you've got a way to make it fit, go ahead...)

I would be curious about how the messages were delivered, too. Was there any hint towards a total lack of future support if the talks were allowed to continue? You know, a "we really need you to pull out...     and maybe we're not there in three months if you don't pull out..."

(I have no idea, mind you, I'm just curious.)


My point is that Nixon didn't need a back channel, which is why this story is sort of sleazy but doesn't really mean that much in the big picture.

Here was the reality at the time, and it was there for all to see:


Johnson had been trying to find a way out since 1966, which wasn't really known at the time. What was known that he refused to run for reelection in 1968 even though he was not disqualified from doing so.

Humphrey had been forced to adopt an antiwar platform by the left wing of the Democratic Party in 1968 to avoid a floor fight with McCarthy who had been running on it all along and now had all of RFK's delegates.

Nixon was a NOTORIOUS anti-Communist crusader. It was the biggest reason he was Eisenhower's veep, because Eisenhower was seen as somewhat 'Soft' on the subject.

I don't recall who the Dixiecrat candidate was (Wallace?), and it doesn't really matter

So out of the available options, the ONLY one that was going to allow the South Vietnamese to go to peace talks from a position of strength was Nixon.Everybody knew that if the US withdrew ground troops, the war was effectively over.

Like I said: This thing didn't happen in a vacuum.
 
2013-03-16 10:58:38 AM

earthworm2.0: lj1330: Well, my take on this:  This is a glaring example of the resoult of looking only toward the destination instead of the journey. It is time for conservatives to start looking at trying to get things with honor.  Look at what cheating gets you?  The truth comes out, it allways does.  Now people like to say that both sides are bad. There are bad liberals.  We don't (as a whole) condone that.  Conservatives promote it!

Having the truth come out doesn't seem to be having any ill effects on them. Nixon got to die of natural causes, carter pardoned him.... Ollie north became a politician.... Having the truth come.out is not a real consequence that has aneffect. There's no justice. A black kid sells a crack rock and gets jail for 10 years. Nixon is responsible for the deaths of at least 22,000 people, and got nothing. Having truth does not equal meaningful justice.


Actually, it was Ford that pardoned Nixon.
 
2013-03-16 11:03:28 AM
NIXON, YOU DOLT.


/do i have to do everything here?
 
2013-03-16 11:03:34 AM

Animatronik: This story is not new, it gets pulled out every 10 or 15 years. No doubt Nixon was an ass, but I doubt the talks in Nov. 1968 would have ended the war.


This.  A lot.

Anyone even mildly surprised by these revelations, doesn't know Dick.

Also, FTA - "Lyndon Johnson...felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency. "

That right there made me laugh.  Almost out loud.
 
2013-03-16 11:10:16 AM
No offense, but so what?  Is anyone going to do anything based on this?  Is this going to linger on major media outlets?  Are we even going to get so much as an apology for this?  No.

But if you like, turn on the news to see some of the players in the story 50 years from now.

/PS, Dick Cheney might have set some US policies based on his personal financial interests.  Won't be called treason until he decides to die.
 
2013-03-16 11:11:25 AM

Richard Saunders: Animatronik: This story is not new, it gets pulled out every 10 or 15 years. No doubt Nixon was an ass, but I doubt the talks in Nov. 1968 would have ended the war.

This.  A lot.

Anyone even mildly surprised by these revelations, doesn't know Dick.

Also, FTA - "Lyndon Johnson...felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency. "

That right there made me laugh.  Almost out loud.


I don't think anyone is surprised by this. What's news here is the evidence that actually supports the charges of criminal, treasonous activity.
Everyone who was aware at the time knew that Nixon was a backstabbing, paranoid, power hungry monster.

Now it's been factually documented.
 
2013-03-16 11:15:48 AM
Yeah Nixon was really soft on communism and weak on foreign policy.
 
2013-03-16 11:17:37 AM

FlashHarry: Therion: Saint Reagan / Jimmy Carter / 52 American hostages / etc.

came here to say this.

i wonder how long it will be before history acknowledges that reagan arranged for the hostages to be kept longer just to help him win the election.

farking republicans...


But that was OK because Benghazi.
 
2013-03-16 11:18:08 AM

RyogaM: Again, his actions were treason-ish, no matter what the Vietnamese did or did not know, or what actions they took.


Pedantically, since the South Vietnamese his minion was talking to were at least nominally allies of the US rather than enemies, it seems to fall short of treason... though pretty clearly running afoul of other US Laws.
 
2013-03-16 11:28:03 AM
The fact that Nixon became some sort of senior statesman after his resignation, rather than be forced to live out his days in obscure humiliation, is appalling. The man should have been publicly humiliated and spat upon whenever he appeared in public, not given a soapbox on the op-ed pages of America's most prestigious newspapers.
 
2013-03-16 11:37:12 AM

BMulligan: The fact that Nixon became some sort of senior statesman after his resignation, rather than be forced to live out his days in obscure humiliation, is appalling. The man should have been publicly humiliated and spat upon whenever he appeared in public, not given a soapbox on the op-ed pages of America's most prestigious newspapers.


On the other hand, the current crop of Republican ex-POTUSII make him look pretty damn good in comparison.
 
2013-03-16 11:41:23 AM

X-boxershorts: scanman61: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: X-boxershorts: MFAWG: So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?

In public, for all eyes and ears, as a stated policy position, yes.

But, this is not at all what Nixon did.

In your own words, tell me what he did? Because that's all I see here.

Read the article. Listen to the white house tape recordings. Do not fear knowledge that might shake your perceptions.

Private citizen Nixon carried on secret talks with the South Vietnamese government that persuaded that government to withdraw from peace talks
with North Vietnam that were brokered by the US Government and was the official policy of the US Government. This is legally defined as treason.

And the evidence of this is public record now.

That fact that you can't discern this is not my problem.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

How do Nixon's actions fit this definition?

What he did was a sleazy Dick move, but it ain't treason.

Iva Toguri might disagree with you.

Tricky Dick undermined official US policy in time of war. I guess we could agree to disagree on this point.


Iva Toguri (Tokyo Rose) was making propaganda broadcasts that actively supported the Japanese.

Just a slight difference between that and what Nixon did.
 
2013-03-16 11:42:00 AM
Hanoi Dick.
 
2013-03-16 11:44:16 AM

FlashHarry: i wonder how long it will be before history acknowledges that reagan arranged for the hostages to be kept longer just to help him win the election.

farking republicans...


It's OK for Republicans to commit treason.
 
2013-03-16 11:48:36 AM

lucksi: Just imagine what we will learn when they finally release the JFK files. Can't be long now...

Maybe in 40 years we will also learn which corporation was behind 9/11


Well, duh! Everybody knows it was the Rand Corporation, Tri-lateral commission and the reverse vampires
 
2013-03-16 11:51:32 AM

BMulligan: The fact that Nixon became some sort of senior statesman after his resignation, rather than be forced to live out his days in obscure humiliation, is appalling. The man should have been publicly humiliated and spat upon whenever he appeared in public, not given a soapbox on the op-ed pages of America's most prestigious newspapers.


m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
 
2013-03-16 11:53:13 AM

MFAWG: YoungLochinvar: MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know

Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.

Nixon's desire to continue the land war wasn't a secret. Try again.

...then why would he need a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese ambassador? That doesn't really fit with the narrative you'd like to push, so far as I can see. (But, if you've got a way to make it fit, go ahead...)

I would be curious about how the messages were delivered, too. Was there any hint towards a total lack of future support if the talks were allowed to continue? You know, a "we really need you to pull out...     and maybe we're not there in three months if you don't pull out..."

(I have no idea, mind you, I'm just curious.)

My point is that Nixon didn't need a back channel, which is why this story is sort of sleazy but doesn't really mean that much in the big picture.

Here was the reality at the time, and it was there for all to see:


Johnson had been trying to find a way out since 1966, which wasn't really known at the time. What was known that he refused to run for reelection in 1968 even though he was not disqualified from doing so.

Humphrey had been forced to adopt an antiwar platform by the left wing of the Democratic Party in 1968 to avoid a floor fight with McCarthy who had been running on it all along and now had all of RFK's delegates.

Nixon was a NOTORIOUS anti-Communist crusader. It was the biggest reason he was Eisenhower's veep, because Eisenhower was seen as somewhat 'Soft' on the subject.

I don't recall who the Dixiecrat candidate was (Wallace?), and it doesn't rea ...


I get your point that everybody knew that Nixon was going to continue the war. My question is, if he didn't need a back channel, why did he *have* one?
 
2013-03-16 12:02:30 PM

malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.


I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."
 
2013-03-16 12:04:27 PM

TheOther: malaktaus: Hasn't this been pretty well established for a long time? I seem to recall Hitchens discussing Kissinger's role in this travesty back in the mid '90s.

I thought Kissinger was involved in stalling the talks for the '72 election?

Humphrey's role in letting this slide in '68, instead of calling Nixon out is truly disgusting and exemplifies the Democratic Party from then right up to Obama's GOP dicksucking.  HST had it right: Hubert Humphrey was "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who ought to be put in a bottle and sent out with the Japanese tide."


RTFA: They didn't want to out Nixon at the time because it would expose the FBI for tapping the S. Vietnamese ambassador's phone.

Whether you believe that's the real reason or not is up to you.
 
2013-03-16 12:08:02 PM

YoungLochinvar: MFAWG: YoungLochinvar: MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: Mrs. Chennault wasn't telling the South Vietnamese anything they didn't already know

Also, for anyone keeping count, if you try to sell state secrets to some other government, say, an ally, like France, you are not a traitor if the government you are selling the state secrets already knows the state secrets you are offering and you are just telling them things they know already.  Also, because they're an ally, it's not like you are adhering to an enemy.

Nixon's desire to continue the land war wasn't a secret. Try again.

...then why would he need a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese ambassador? That doesn't really fit with the narrative you'd like to push, so far as I can see. (But, if you've got a way to make it fit, go ahead...)

I would be curious about how the messages were delivered, too. Was there any hint towards a total lack of future support if the talks were allowed to continue? You know, a "we really need you to pull out...     and maybe we're not there in three months if you don't pull out..."

(I have no idea, mind you, I'm just curious.)

My point is that Nixon didn't need a back channel, which is why this story is sort of sleazy but doesn't really mean that much in the big picture.

Here was the reality at the time, and it was there for all to see:


Johnson had been trying to find a way out since 1966, which wasn't really known at the time. What was known that he refused to run for reelection in 1968 even though he was not disqualified from doing so.

Humphrey had been forced to adopt an antiwar platform by the left wing of the Democratic Party in 1968 to avoid a floor fight with McCarthy who had been running on it all along and now had all of RFK's delegates.

Nixon was a NOTORIOUS anti-Communist crusader. It was the biggest reason he was Eisenhower's veep, because Eisenhower was seen as somewhat 'Soft' on the subject.

I don't recall who the Dixiecrat candidate was (Wallace?), and it doesn't rea ...

I get your point that everybody knew that Nixon was going to continue the war. My question is, if he didn't need a back channel, why did he *have* one?


I'm not really sure. To stress the fact that Humphrey was in no position to back off of his adoption of a peace platform earlier that summer. That may not have been clear to the South Vietnamese. It may not have been true, either. That would be classic Nixon.
 
2013-03-16 12:14:11 PM
Jesus, that isn't just evil, it's comic book super villain evil.Sabotaging peace talks, getting potentially millions of people killed to win an election?

Farking hell.
 
2013-03-16 12:22:55 PM

Slaxl: Well, I fear history is about to get a lot more harsh on Nixon.


Good.  He deserves it.  In fact, everyone associated with his administration should have been barred from government forever.  Just imagine how many problems that would have prevented.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report